Advisory Planning Commission

CITY OF COLLEGE PARK ADVISORY ADVISORY PLANNINGPLANNING COMMISSIONCOMMISSION 4500 KNOX ROAD COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20740 TELEPHONE: (240) 487-3538  FACSIMILE: (301) 887-0558 ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Approved Minutes of Meeting August 3, 2017 – 7:30 P.M. City Hall – Council Chambers Members Present Absent Lawrence Bleau x James McFadden x Rose Greene Colby x Christopher Gill, Chair x Kate Kennedy, Vice Chair x John Rigg x Denise Mitchell x Also Present: Planning Staff – Terry Schum, Miriam Bader and Theresheia Williams; Public Services Staff – Jeannie Ripley and Keelah Allen-Smith; Attorney – Suellen Ferguson I. Call to Order: Christopher Gill called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes: Kate Kennedy moved to adopt the minutes of July 6, 2017. Denise Mitchell seconded. The motion carried 4-0-0. III. Amendments to Agenda: There were no amendments to the agenda. IV. Public Remarks on Non-Agenda Items: There were no Public Remarks on Non- Agenda Items. V. CPV-2017-05 Variance for setbacks to Expand an Existing Detached Garage Applicant: Andrea Worthington-Garcia Location: 7000 Dartmouth Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to reconstruct and expand an existing, one-car, detached garage. The property is a corner lot with an area of 7,500 square feet and improved with a 1.5-story, brick house, and a detached garage. The subject house, detached garage and driveway were constructed in 1937, predating the adoption of the County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to expand the garage without encroaching any closer to the property lines. The property is served by a one-car curb-cut and driveway. The garage will be widened from 11.4 feet to 14.4 feet wide and remain a one-car garage. The existing, original garage is deteriorating, has termite damage and soil erosion which is creating an ever deepening gap between the foundation and the adjacent ground. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 2 Staff recommends approval of the requested 8-foot rear lot-line setback variance and the 1-foot side lot-line setback variance for the proposed detached garage. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-9 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Andrea Garcia, applicant, testified that if the variance is not granted, she will not be able to obtain permits to build the garage. She stated that she is planning to keep part of the current structure and use the same roof line. Regina Sakaria, 7002 Dartmouth Avenue, testified that she and her husband are the owners of this rental property. They have owned the property for 16 years. She stated that she is concerned about the storm water drainage from the applicant’s property once the garage is completed. Suellen Ferguson stated that by law storm water cannot be directed to another property and that any concerns should be discussed between the two owners. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1) The property has an extraordinary condition because the existing driveway and garage were constructed in 1937 and placed too close to the property lines to conform to current Zoning Regulations. The location of the existing curb-cut and driveway limits the applicant’s ability to relocate the detached garage. 2) The strict application of the County Zoning Ordinance will result in an undue hardship upon the property owner because the existing garage is deteriorated and unstable and is no longer safe to use and will be reconstructed in the same location. 3) Granting the setback variances will validate an existing condition and will not substantially impair the intent, purpose or integrity of any applicable County General Plan or County Master Plan as the reconstructed garage will match the architecture of the neighborhood. Denise Mitchell moved to approve the variance because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. Kate Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. VI. CEO-2017-03 Variance from the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance to Erect a 6-foot Fence Applicant: Noe and Annas Aparicio Location: 4700 Mangum Road Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicants are proposing to extend their 6-foot high, wood, board-on-board fence in order to protect the items inside their carport and their 3 young children. The property is a rectangular, corner lot with street frontages on Mangum Road and 47th Place. The property is 6,914 square feet and is improved with a 1-story, single-family brick and frame house with Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 3 a shed in the rear yard and a concrete driveway off of Mangum Road that accesses an attached carport. People frequently trespass the property to short-cut the corner. There is a sidewalk on the property’s side of Mangum Road and 47th Place but not on the opposite side. A car once hit the applicants’ house on the side where they want to erect the fence. The house faces Mangum Road, which according to the City fence ordinance, is the apparent front yard. According to the County fence ordinance, there are two front yards along the streets. The rear yard is enclosed by an existing fence that is 6-foot high board-on-board and chain-link. Staff recommends approval for a fence variance of 2-feet from the maximum height of 4-feet for a front and side yard fence. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-7 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Christopher Gill asked if the extension will create a visibility concern at the corner of Mangum Road and 47th Place? Miriam Bader stated that it is a 25-foot site visibility triangular, which was calculated. Noe Aparicio, applicant, testified that he would like to install the fence for privacy and protection for his children. He stated that in January of this year, someone vandalized and robbed his house and on June 27th a car ran into his house and damaged trees and his boat was destroyed. He stated that he parks his truck in front of his house because he fears that someone will run into it again. The applicant submitted photos of the damage to his home. They were entered into the record as Exhibit 8. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1) The property is located near Baltimore Avenue and Edgewood Road which has a lot of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The property has been vandalized several times and a car has struck the house. 2) Denial of the variance will result in an exceptional or undue hardship to the applicant by not allowing a fence that will help to protect their children and property. 3) Granting the variance will not impair the intent, purpose or integrity of the Fence Ordinance as the fence will not impact the functional front yard of the property along Mangum Road. 4) The property is not located in an historic district. 5) The proposed fence section will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or comfort. 6) The fence for which the variance is requested is opaque but is a continuation of a fence of the same material and is not chain link. 7) The proposed construction, including setbacks, is characteristic of and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood including the fence of the adjoining property. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 4 Kate Kennedy moved to approve the variance because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. James McFadden seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. CEO-2017-04 Variance from the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance to Erect a 6-foot Fence Applicant: Nigel Key & Eve Muller Location: 4710 College Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to erect a 6 foot high, wood, stockade fence along the western property line for a length of 64-feet. The property is a rectangular, corner, through lot with street frontages on College Avenue, Dartmouth Avenue and Howard Lane. The property contains 23,125 square feet and is improved with a 3-story, single-family frame house with a shed in the rear yard and a gravel driveway which accesses off College Avenue. There are existing fences that enclose the rear and rear side yards which are mostly hidden from view by extensive, mature vegetation. The fences range in height from 3-feet to 6-feet and consist of wood picket, wood stockade and wire. The house, known as the Cory House, was built in 1882, and is in the Old Town Historic District. According to the City fence ordinance, College Avenue is defined as the apparent front yard. The property owner has a large-breed dog who becomes aggravated by pedestrians who walk along Howard Lane. The fence will help obscure the dog’s view of the pedestrians. Staff recommends approval for a fence variance of 2-feet from the maximum height of 4-feet for front yard fence. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-9 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. James McFadden asked if the 64-foot variance was for the side yard only, not Howard Lane? Miriam Bader stated yes. Nigel Key, applicant, testified that they have lived in the house for 17 years. When they moved in the whole back area was a big field that was quiet. He stated that they are surrounded by college students and rental housing. Quality of life for their back yard has been negatively impacted with the recent construction of Howard Lane. He stated that he has a lot of screening on Howard and Dartmouth, but on College Avenue he planted some bushes, but it will be years before they fill in. There are no speed bumps and cars speed down the road. He hopes the proposed fence will help alleviate some of the noise. Kay Dunn, 4607 Harvard Road, testified that she owns the property next door, and she can see his difficulty. It is a difficult living situation because he is surrounded by college students. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 5 Christopher Gill asked if shrubbery acting as a fence needed a variance? Suellen Ferguson stated that the County is only referring to one section, and the shrubbery has been there for a long time, no validation is needed. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1) An extraordinary condition was created with the recent construction of Howard Lane. This new street fronts the applicant’s functional back yard negatively impacting the yard’s privacy and quiet. 2) Denial of the variance will result in undue hardship upon the owner by denying the type of privacy and quiet commonly enjoyed by other owners without three legal front yards. 3) Granting the variance will not impair the intent, purpose or integrity of the Fence Ordinance as the functional front yard of the property will remain open. 4) The property is located in the Old Town College Park Historic District and granting the variance is conditioned on obtaining a Historic Area Work Permit to ensure compliance with the historic district guidelines. 5) The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or comfort. 6) The proposed fence will not be constructed of chain link and incorporates as much openness and visibility as is practicable to achieve its intended purpose of privacy, quiet and shielding the view of the Applicant’s dog. 7) The proposed 6-foot high, stockade fence is not inconsistent with rear yard fences in the surrounding neighborhood. James McFadden moved to approve the variance because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. Kate Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. 17-1917 & 17-1918 Extermination Infestation in Backyard Applicant: Kathleen J. Maher Location: 6921 Carleton Terrace Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. CEO Keelah Allen-Smith summarized the staff report. On July 7, 2017, while investigating a complaint regarding a rodent infestation, CEO Allen-Smith observed rodents sitting under the bird feeder in the rear yard of the appellant’s property. There was also a lot of overgrowth in the rear yard. CEO Allen-Smith issued a notice of violation to the appellant for infestation and overgrowth, with a re- inspection date for July 20, 2017. To date, nothing has been done. She stated that the appellant has not exterminated, cut back or removed any of the overgrowth. The neighboring property at 6923 Carleton Terrace was also sited for infestation and overgrowth, and they have complied with both notices. The appellant submitted a letter of appeal on July 13, 2017 and indicated her intent to appear at the August 3 meeting. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 6 Constance McKoy, 6919 Carleton Terrace, testified that she has lived at her property for 24 years. She stated that the appellant feeds the animals, which makes the problem worst. She can see the rats running across her yard and to another area that is unkept looking for food. She has removed the large plants in her yard where rodents hide and installed black boxes. She stated that the appellant has not taken any steps to alleviate the problem. Christopher Gill asked if the appellant’s property is a rental? Keelah Allen-Smith stated no. Karen Needles, 6904 Carleton Terrace, testified that she lives across the street from the appellant and she has also been clearing out any plants where the rodents can hide. Kate Kennedy asked how would the appellant comply with the violation and how is it determined which property needs to be exterminated? Keelah Allen-Smith stated that she could have a company come out and exterminate and provide proof that something has been done. She stated that at the appellants house, she witnessed the actual rodent and saw the holes, but on other properties, she didn’t see any. Christopher Gill asked CEO Allen-Smith if she could elaborate on the process she went through to determine if there was an infestation. Keelah Allen-Smith stated that she looked in the back yard to see if there are any rodents or burrows where they live. She saw two burrows under the bird feeder in the appellant’s yard and issued the violation. Denise Mitchell asked if pictures were taken? Keelah Allen-Smith stated she took some pictures, but since she was not allowed on the property, she was unable to get good pictures because her camera would not zoom in that far. Kate Kennedy moved to deny the appeal issued by the Department of Public Services and sustain the Notice of Violation. James McFadden seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. CPV-2017-06 Variance for Lot Coverage to Approve an Existing Driveway Applicant: Robert Davis Location: 6905 Baltimore Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance for lot coverage of 8.22% or 1,178 square feet to validate the expansion of a driveway and parking area. The property is square in shape for a total square Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 7 footage of 14,333 square feet. The property is a corner lot fronting on Baltimore Avenue and Carleton Terrace. The subject house was constructed in 1940 predating the adoption of the County Zoning Ordinance. The neighborhood, Calvert Hills, is designated as a Historic District in the National Registry. The property is improved with a two-story, single-family brick house with basement, and an attached two car garage with a patio above the garage and a 3,183.59 square- foot driveway and concrete parking area. Based on aerial photographs, it appears that the existing garage was converted from a home-office space sometime after 2011. There is no permit for this conversion. The site plan shows a long and wide driveway and parking area expansion that extends from Carleton Terrace to an attached garage located to the rear of the property. The driveway and parking area expansion were constructed without a permit sometime between 2009 and 2014. The applicant bought the property in 1997. The applicant states the property is used for a home office and that he resides in the residence. The applicant’s business, Green Coast Services, uses the address 6901 Carleton Terrace but this is not a legal address. Tax assessment records indicate this is not the principal residence of the applicant. Miriam Bader stated that Mr. Davis went to Prince George’s County for a Use and Occupancy permit for his home occupation, but was denied because he was over lot coverage. They informed him that he would have to obtain a variance from the City before he would be approved for the County permit. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage variance of 8.22% or 1,178 square feet from the maximum allowable lot coverage of 30% or 4,300 square feet. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-6 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. James McFadden asked staff to explain the Green Infrastructure relevance to this case. Miriam Bader stated that she searched the property under PGAtlas and one of the layers was for Green Infrastructure, which is an environmental layer. The green infrastructure is not typical in most neighborhoods. Terry Schum stated that there is no requirement for a homeowner to comply with maintaining that green infrastructure. It shows the green infrastructure in the County and the importance of maintaining a continuous network of green in certain areas. This is not part of the City’s Code or what an individual homeowner is expected to comply with. It is usually looked at when development or redevelopment occurs. Denise Mitchell asked if there have been any citations for the garage? Jeannie Ripley, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated that there were no violations issued for the garage. She stated that Public Services researched several aerial photographs from 1993 until 2014 and it showed that the increase in concrete for the driveway was gradual; it wasn’t done all as one project. Jeannine Ripley submitted the aerial photographs into the record. They were entered as Exhibit 16. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 8 Robert Davis, applicant, testified that he and his parents had businesses in College Park for years. From 1997 – 2012, the City of College Park issued him permits for 5 tenants to park at the property. He lives on the upper floor; the tenants live on the ground floor. Mr. Davis stated that the driveway was expanded in four different segments and the contractor did not obtain permits for any of the projects. Between 1940 when the house was built and when he purchased it in 1997, one of the previous owners sealed up the garage with brick and installed a window. When he purchased the property the whole lower level was an office, not a garage. He stated that he spent $30,000 to extend the driveway to help with parking for the neighbors. Mr. Davis stated that the concrete under the overgrowth of the driveway was recycled and made into a retaining wall at the back, which is designed to take all the water that runs down that hill and filter it into sand and the drain. His business, Green Coast Services, manages 20 houses in the City of College Park. He stated that whenever he receives a violation notice for any of his properties, he has bought them into compliance. Renee Domogauer, 6922 Carleton Terrace, testified that she lives diagonally across the street from Mr. Davis and has been there for 35 years. She has no problem with the expanded driveway and hope that the variance will be granted. She stated that their street is extremely, small, narrow and very crowded. There is no entrance for emergency vehicles and parking is on one side. There is a lot of student housing, which takes up a lot of on-street parking. Mr. Davis’ driveway has allowed 6 cars to be removed off the street. Kate Kenndy asked if she has witnessed storm water running down the street when it rains? Renee Domogauer stated that her driveway slopes down, so she does not see the water running downwards. Constance McKoy, 6919 Carleton Terrace, testified that she lives at the top of the hill, so the water runs down the street towards Route 1. There are a lot of trees and greenery in the neighborhood. She stated that she has no problem with Mr. Davis property. Suellen Ferguson asked Mr. Davis who are the owners of the 6 vehicles on his property? Mr. Davis stated that 5 belong to the tenants at 6901 Carleton Terrace and 2 vehicles belong to him. He stated that Prince George’s County Code allows you to have 2 vehicles associated with a home office on the premises. Suellen Ferguson stated that for a home occupation, only 3 tenants are allowed when the owner is living there. Howard Leather, 6915 Carleton Terrace, testified that the Green Infrastructure should not be considered when making a decision on this variance. He stated that the criteria for undue hardship for the street and the neighbors should be considered. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2017 – Page 9 Karen Needles, 6904 Carleton Terrace, testified that most of the houses on Carleton Terrace were built in the 1940’s. The driveways are too small and it is impossible to expand. They don’t have any way to protect their vehicles. She stated that Mr. Davis is a great neighbor to have. During the inclement weather, he plows the whole street. Christopher Gill asked what would be the hardship if he had to remove 11 square feet of the driveway in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance? Robert Davis stated that besides the cost of the impact, it would put vehicles back on the street. He stated that the purpose of the driveway was to benefit his neighbors. Kate Kennedy asked Mr. Davis if he would consider removing some of the driveway so that there can be less concrete? Robert Davis stated that he is willing to work with the commission and his architect to find out what works for everyone. Mr. Davis entered a packet of photos into the record. They were entered as Exhibit 17. Denise Mitchell moved to postpone the variance until the next APC meeting to give the applicant time to work with staff to come up with a plan that would not require a variance. Kate Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0. X. Update on Development Activity Terry Schum reported on the following: College Park Metro – The Gilbane Development Company has filed a Preliminary Plan of Subdivision application for the metro surface parking lot. They are scheduled before the Planning Board in early October. Shortly after, there should be a Detailed Site Plan, which will be reviewed as Expedited Transit Oriented Development. XI. Other Business: There was no Other Business. X. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Minutes prepared by Theresheia Williams