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 September 7, 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 Robert Ryan; Attorney – Suellen Ferguson and Sue Cook; Interpreter – Leslie Bilchick I. Call to Order: Christopher Gill called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes: James McFadden moved to adopt the minutes of August 3, 2017. John Rigg seconded. The motion carried 4-0-1, with Rose Green Colby abstaining. 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. CEO-2017-01 Variance from the City Fence Ordinance to Erect a Four-Foot High Wood Picket Fence in the Front, Side and Side Street Yard Applicant: Jose Ramirez Location: 4801 Erie Street Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to validate an existing 4-foot high, wood picket fence along the front and side property lines. The property contains 6,834 square feet and is improved with a 1.5-story, single-family brick house with a concrete driveway and perimeter fencing. The property is a square-shaped corner lot with street frontages on Erie Street and 48th Avenue. The house is oriented diagonally on the site, which creates a small back yard and large front and side yards. Front yard fences are a common feature in the neighborhood. The submitted site plan shows an existing chain-link fence encroaching on the Erie Street Right-of-Way. This must be removed as soon as possible since it is not a permitted encroachment. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 2 The front yard is used by the applicant and his family for recreation. The applicant has 4 young grandchildren who visit regularly and play in the front yard. The applicant feels the front yard fence is necessary to protect the children. Staff recommends approval to permit a front yard fence and a 24-foot setback variance with the following conditions: 1. Relocate the picket fence to reflect the submitted site plan with the fence located one foot behind the property line. 2. Relocate the fence to outside the sight triangle or reduce the height to no more than 3 feet high. Also, all vegetation within the sight triangle must be trimmed to a height below 3-feet. 3. Remove the chain link fence shown on the site plan that encroaches the City right-of-way. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-7, the PowerPoint presentation and Exhibit 8, the SDAT report into the record. James McFadden asked if the applicant was cited or was there a stop work order issued for the fence? Miriam Bader stated that he did not receive a stop work order, but was cited after the fence was installed. Jose Ramirez, applicant, testified through the interpreter, Leslie Bilchick, that he would like to thank the commission for hearing his case. He stated that the reason why he wants to install the fence is mostly to protect his grandchildren who visit weekly. Otherwise, he would not need to install a fence. John Rigg asked if there is a lot of traffic on Erie Street and 48th Avenue? Jose Ramirez stated that a lot of cars cut through Erie Street and 48th Avenue to avoid the traffic on Route 1. John Rigg asked what are the grandchildren’s ages? Jose Ramirez stated that his grandchildren ages are 1, 3, 5 and 8. John Rigg asked Mr. Ramirez if he agrees with staff recommendations that would require him to move the picket fence outside the site triangle and remove the chain link fence from the right-of-way? Jose Ramirez stated that he is in agreement with that. Christopher Gill asked if there was a citation issued by the City? Jose Ramirez stated that the City issued a citation when he applied for a permit, which resulted in him applying for the variance. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 3 John Rigg asked if the chain link fence on Erie Street is on the applicant’s property or the neighbor’s property? Miriam Bader stated that it could be a shared fence, but the site plan indicates that it is on Mr. Ramirez’s property. John Rigg asked if there was another fence where the replacement fence will be installed? Jose Ramirez stated that he purchased the property in 2003 and there were old posts there, so he assumed it was a fence there. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1. An extraordinary condition is the orientation of the house on the lot, resulting in an uncharacteristically small back yard and large front and side yards. 2. Denial of the variance results in an unusual practical difficulty by limiting the yard area that can be protected to create a functional yard for the Applicant’s grandchildren. 3. The 4-foot high wood picket fence is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. 4. The property is not located in a Historic District. 5. Emergency responders are still able to access the property due to location of gates and access from the driveway. The portion of the fence located in the sight triangle must be relocated to outside the triangle or the height of the fence must be reduced to no more than 3- feet tall. Also, there is vegetation within the sight triangle that must be trimmed to a height below 3-feet. 6. The fence incorporates openness and visibility. 7. The front-yard picket fence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood John Rigg moved to approve the variance because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above with the following conditions: 1. Relocate the picket fence to reflect the submitted site plan with the fence located one foot behind the property line. 2. Relocate the fence to outside the sight triangle or reduce the height to no more than 3 feet high. Also, all vegetation within the sight triangle must be trimmed to a height below 3-feet. Denise Mitchell seconded. Motion carried 5-0-0. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 4 VI. CEO-2017-05 Variance from the City Fence Ordinance to Erect a 3.5 Foot High Wood Picket Fence in the Front and Side Yard Applicant: Kelly Lee Location: 4901 Lackawanna Street Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the erection of a 3.5 foot high, wood picket fence along the front and side property lines. The property contains 9,150 square feet and is improved with a 2- story, single-family frame house with a concrete driveway, shed, and front porch. There is an existing 3.5 foot high wire fence, which will be removed if the picket fence is approved. The property is a rectangular-shaped corner lot with street frontages on Lackawanna Street and 49th Avenue. The location and orientation of the house creates a small back yard and large side and front yard. The area the applicant wants to enclose is roughly 1,440 square feet. Staff recommends approval to permit a front yard fence and a 22-foot setback variance. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-10 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Kelly Lee, applicant, testified that she is installing the fence because of her dog. She stated that the back yard, as the house is oriented, is not large enough for her dog to run around and get exercise. Christopher Gill asked what would be the impact if the variance was not granted? Kelly Lee stated that the impact would be great. She is a single person living in the house with the dog and she bought the house because of the dog so it would have enough room to run around and a safe place for the dog to exercise. The applicant submitted a photo of the type of fence proposed and a photo of her dog. They were entered into the record as Exhibits 11 and 12. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1. An extraordinary condition exists because the house is oriented to face the long side of the lot rather than the legal front (Lackawanna Street) resulting in a small back yard and large, side and front yards. 2. Denial of the variance results in an unusual practical difficulty because there is a very small backyard and no other location on site that can provide a functional and protected outdoor space. 3. The proposed 3.5-foot high wood picket fence is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 5 4. The property is not located in a Historic District. 5. Emergency responders will still be able to adequately access the property. 6. The fence incorporates openness and visibility. 7. The front-yard picket fence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood Denise Mitchell moved to approve the variance based on the staff report as amended and for the reasons stated above. Rose Greene Colby seconded. Motion carried 5-0-0. VII. CPV-2017-07 Variance to Repair and Resurface Two Driveways Applicant: Yubini David Munoz Agent for Nathan Ganayswaran Location: 8722 36th Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting two variances to repair and resurface two driveways from asphalt to concrete in the front yard. The property is improved with a 1,040 square foot, one-story frame house that was built in 1967, a shed, fence and two driveways fronting 36th Avenue. The property is rectangular with a width of 60 feet and a length of 96.73 feet for a total square footage of 5,804. According to aerial photographs, there was only one driveway, to the north side of the house as late as 1998. According to the City Engineer’s construction drawings to install a curb on 36th Avenue, the driveway on the south side existed in 2001. County and City permit records were checked and no permits were found. Also, the 36th Avenue street has a 25-foot Right-of-Way, which according to the City Engineer, is less than the minimum of 30 feet. Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-12 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Christopher Gill asked if there was a citation issued when the City Engineer identified this unauthorized driveway in 2001? Miriam Bader stated no, there was no citation issued. In 2001, curbs were installed on that street, and whatever was existing was not checked for permits. John Rigg asked if there was a curb there when the driveway was built? Miriam Bader stated no, it was a City created curb. James McFadden asked when did no parking in front of the house become effective? Terry Schum stated that it is fairly recent. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 6 Nathan Guanayswaran, applicant, testified that he purchased the house in 1991 when he moved to this country. At that time, there were no curbs on the entire street. In 1994, the City Council held a public meeting stating that they would be installing curb-cuts and homeowners can install 20 feet of parking space. The way his yard is constructed, he could not install a 20 foot driveway, so he installed two 10-foot driveways. He stated that he moved out of the house in 2001 because Prince George’s County eliminated their magnet program, and he wanted his children to be enrolled in a magnet school, so he moved to Montgomery County. He stated that all his children are grown now and he would like to move back into the house but would like to do some renovations first. He would be willing to reduce the 18-foot driveway. Christopher Gill asked when was the driveway on the left side built? Nathan Ganayswaran stated that when they put in the curb-cut, he resurfaced the driveway, because it was all dirt. Christopher Gill asked if a permit was obtained when he installed the driveway? Nathan Ganayswaran stated no, because the City said he could have a total of 20 feet for a driveway. He said no one told him he needed a permit. Suellen Ferguson asked how wide is the driveway on the left? Miriam Bader stated 18 feet wide. John Rigg asked if there is any record or time period of when the curbs were installed on 36th Avenue that would indicate what guidance, if any, was given to homeowners? Miriam Bader stated that the City Engineer indicated that he has construction drawings that show that the second driveway was installed in 2001. Terry Schum asked if the drawings that the City Engineer has from 2001 are for reconstruction or the initial construction of the curb? Miriam Bader stated that it was for the initial construction. Yubini Munoz, the applicant’s agent, testified that on the applicants block, there are two houses that have double driveways. He stated that he has a list of 15 homes with front driveways. He stated that the right-of-way is only 15 feet not 36 feet. John Rigg asked what is the property currently being used for? Nathan Ganayswaran stated that it is a rental property. Denise Mitchell moved to continue the hearing until the October 5, 2017 meeting to hear testimony from the City Engineer on the curb-cut issue. Rose Greene Colby seconded. Motion carried 3-2-0, with Christopher Gill and John Rigg voting nay. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 7 VIII. Notice of Condemnation Applicant: Anthony V. Collichio Location: 4800 Indian Lane Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Jeannie Ripley, Code Enforcement Supervisor, testified that on February 3, 2017, the City issued a Notice of Condemnation with respect to the subject property. The notice referenced that the structure had been condemned based on its general condition that the dwelling is unfit for human habitations due to water damage caused by its decayed and damaged roof. The applicant was notified that the structure could be demolished by the City or that the City could undertake abatement unless the entire structure was made sound by May 4, 2017. The applicant applied for a County permit on May 4, 2017 to replace the roof and interior renovations, which was issued by the County on August 22, 2017. On August 24, 2017, the applicant applied for a City permit, which indicated work described to replace roof and interior renovations. As of this date, no abatement has occurred and the structure remains unsound. Ms. Ripley stated that the house was built in 1953. The Department of Public Services have been maintaining and mowing the yard. There has been an issue with animals coming in through the holes in the roof. John Rigg asked if there is any evidence of when the owner lived in the house or when it was last occupied? Jeannie Ripley stated that it was rental from 2004 until 2010. John Rigg asked if there were any citations while it was a rental property? Jeannie Ripley stated no. Christopher Gill asked what would be the procedure if the APC approved the request? Suellen Ferguson stated that the owner would get notice of the APC decision and then the City would notify the owner that the house will be demolished. John Rigg moved to continue the hearing until the October 5, 2017 meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to have representation at the hearing and to submit plans and a time table for bringing his property into compliance. Denise Mitchell seconded. Motion carried 5-0-0. IX. CPV-2017-06 Variance for Lot Coverage to Approve an Existing Driveway (continued from August 3, 2017) Applicant: Robert Davis Location: 6905 Baltimore Avenue Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader stated that at the last APC meeting, August 3rd, the applicant requested a lot coverage variance of 8.22% or 1,178 square feet to validate a Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 8 driveway that was expanded without a building permit. Mr. Davis asked if it would be possible to continue his hearing until the September 7th meeting to give him the opportunity to explore options and possibly eliminate the need for the variance. Mr. Davis submitted a revised site plan but it does not totally eliminate the need for a variance. By eliminating the sidewalk from the calculation, the lot coverage reduced to 4.3%. By eliminating the cross-hatched area, another 477.24 square feet can be removed thereby reducing the lot coverage variance to less than 1% according to his calculations. If Mr. Davis maintains this driveway width, keeps the original driveway pad, and allows for back-up radius from the garage, staff believes no variance will be necessary. 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 1-3 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Robert Davis, applicant, testified that financial hardship is not an issue for him. He stated that the hardship would be the impact on his neighbors, who have nothing to do with student rentals or what he is doing on his property. The hardship of removing what the City requires will have an impact on the residents of a crowded street. Christopher Gill asked Mr. Davis what is the impact of the 300 square feet between what the city is asking and what he is requesting? Robert Davis stated that the additional 300 square feet does not allow a car that is coming up the driveway to get out. Christopher Gill asked how many vehicles park on the original driveway? Robert Davis stated one. Christopher Gill asked what is the impact of parking one vehicle instead of two? Robert Davis stated that it would put four cars on the street and would be an emotional burden on him. James McFadden asked how many tenants currently live at the property? Robert Davis stated that there are five tenants. Mr. Davis stated that he would like to request that the driveway stay at the 4.3%. He stated that there is only a small section that is encroaching on the City property. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2017 – Page 9 Christopher Gill asked Mr. Davis to address the statement in his letter stating that “no merchandise to be sold, nor equipment to be used off-site are housed at the premises.” Robert Davis stated that the County allows him to have two vehicles related to his business parked at the property. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1. The location of the garage, over 100-feet away from the curb-cut, is an extraordinary condition that necessitates the need for a long driveway. 2. Denial of the variance will not result in a hardship on the property owner because it appears that an adequate driveway and parking area can still be provided after removing some of the unpermitted expansion (1,178 square feet) to comply with lot coverage. The hardship of removing part of the expansion was self-created as the expansion occurred without obtaining permits. 3. The variance will substantially impair the intent, purpose and integrity of applicable plans because the excess lot coverage compromises green area that is part of the green network for the Anacostia Watershed identified in the 2017 Green Infrastructure Plan. John Rigg moved to deny the variance based on the testimony provided at the August 3 and September 7, 2017 meetings and supplemental material provided for the reasons stated above. James Mcfadden seconded. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Denise Mitchell abstaining. X. Maryland Open Meetings Act Training Requirements The State of Maryland has updated requirements with respect to the Open Meetings Act that pertain to City-appointed Boards and Committees. Each Board and Committee must designate at least one person to complete training on the Maryland Open Meetings Act. James McFadden volunteered to complete the training. It was unanimously accepted by the commission. XI. Update on Development Activity There was no Update on Development Activity. XII. Other Business: There was no Other Business. X. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Minutes prepared by Theresheia Williams