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 November 2, 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; City Engineer, Steve Halpern; Attorney – Sue Cook; Interpreter – Leslie Bilchick I. Call to Order: Christopher Gill called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. John Rigg made a motion to approve the meeting agenda. Kate Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 5-0-0. II. Approval of Minutes: Kate Kennedy moved to adopt the minutes of October 5, 2017. Denise Mitchell seconded. The motion carried 5-0-0. III. Amendments to Agenda: There were no Amendments to the Agenda. IV. Public Remarks on Non-Agenda Items: There was no Public Remarks on Non- Agenda Items. V. CPV-2017-07 Variance to Repair and Resurface Two Driveways (continued from September 7, 2017) 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. This case is continued from the September 7, 2017 meeting to allow testimony from the City Engineer on the impact of street improvements on the property. The applicant is proposing to repair and resurface two driveways from asphalt to concrete. The City does not allow driveways to encroach in the front yard and there is a lot coverage requirement that you cannot exceed 30% of your lot. The request is for a variance of 310 square feet of parking area in the front yard and a variance up to 9% or 524 square feet from the maximum allowable lot coverage of 30%. There is no parking allowed in front of the applicant’s house or on the other side of the street. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2017 – Page 2 In 1998, the City of College Park was awarded a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to fully fund street improvements on 36th Avenue, including widening and installing curb and gutter. In regard to the subject property, the plans show the driveway on the north side is 10-feet by 50-feet and the driveway on the south side is 18-feet wide by 25-feet long. Two ten-foot wide curb- cuts were constructed in 2001. The driveway encroachment ordinance was not adopted until 2002. Staff recommends approval of a 2% lot coverage variance and a 125 square foot encroachment variance with the condition that the width of the southern driveway is reduced from 18 feet to 10 feet. Miriam Bader submitted the amended staff report, Exhibits 1-6 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. John Rigg asked if permits were obtained for the larger driveway? Miriam Bader stated that the County did not issue a permit for the driveway at that time. The driveway predated the curb-cut because it was existing. Christopher Gill asked if a property owner had a driveway, would they automatically get a curb cut? Steve Halpern stated that on this particular street, they were working with a 24-foot right-of-way and to maintain the existing parking situation. The City decided that each property would get 20-foot curb-cuts, which could be two 10-foot curb-cuts or one 20-foot. James McFadden asked if the applicant followed the City and County guidelines? Miriam Bader stated yes. The reason why it is before the APC is because the current standard had to be reviewed. There is no evidence of a violation. Ganayswaran Nathan, applicant, testified that there was no driveway or curb-cut when he purchased the property. He stated that he was told that if he installed asphalt he would not need a permit. He stated that he would be willing to reduce the depth of the driveway because he is just concerned about the width. A smaller width would not allow him the turning radius to move the car out. He stated that if the driveway is smaller, he would have to park on the grass, and then he would get a ticket. Kate Kennedy asked if he could talk about the depth? Ganayswaran Nathan stated that the normal driveway requirement is 17 feet. He just wants to park two cars side-by-side. Christopher Gill asked if resurfacing the driveway would require a permit? Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2017 – Page 3 Susan Cook stated, yes. Miriam Bader stated that it would be determined by the County if it is a repair or replacement. Christopher Gill asked how long is a standard one-car driveway? Susan Cook stated that a standard driveway is 10’ x 19’. John Rigg suggests capping the lot coverage variance at 5%, which would accommodate a 17’ x 18’ driveway. It would allow the applicant to adjust the size of the driveway and no more than 35% of the lot can be covered with a permeable surface. Nathan Ganayswaran asked what would be the total square footage? Miriam Bader stated that the total square footage would be 290 square feet. John Rigg stated that it would allow him to keep his 10 x 50 driveway and make the other driveway shorter. Christopher Gill asked if a variance would be required from the Mayor and Council if he maintained the 10-foot driveway opening? Steve Halpern stated no, the curb is not being changed. James McFadden asked when did driveway encroachment become a law? Miriam Bader stated that the law changed in 2002. 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 or situation in that the two asphalt driveways have existed since at least 2001 before the driveway encroachment amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 2002. Two ten-foot wide curb-cuts were installed by the City in 2001 to accommodate the existing driveways as part of a neighborhood street improvement project. 2. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will result in a peculiar and unusual practical difficulty to the applicant by requiring him to remove or substantially reduce two driveways that have existed for over 16 years and for which the City installed curb cuts. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2017 – Page 4 3. Granting the driveway variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the applicable County General Plan or County Master Plan if the lot coverage variance is reduced to from 9% to 5% or 290.2 square feet and the front yard encroachment does not exceed 310 square feet. John Rigg moved to approve a lot coverage variance of 5% and a 10-foot encroachment variance because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. Denise Mitchell seconded. Motion carried 5-0-0. VI. CPV-2017-08 Variance to Construct an Addition and Deck Applicant: Joaquin Torres (continued from October 5, 2017) Location: 5019 Nantucket Road Christopher Gill explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. This case was continued from the October 5, 2017 meeting to give the applicant time to work with staff to explore alternatives. The applicant came in and after working with staff the amount of the variance was reduced from 11.30% to 8%. The deck square footage that was erroneously included in the previous lot coverage total was removed from the revised calculations. A portion of the driveway is located behind the fence at the front building line and is not used for parking; it is considered a patio. There were no other practical ways to reduce lot coverage. An open (un-roofed), front porch was constructed with County and City building permits in 1984-1985. Un-roofed front porches do not count against lot coverage. However, the front porch was roofed after 1988 and now is applied towards lot coverage. A rear addition was constructed with County and City building permits in 1988-1989, after a 5% lot coverage variance was granted. A Stop Work Order was issued on August 18, 2017, since the addition was started without a County or City Building Permit. Staff recommends approval of an additional lot coverage variance of 3% from the previously approved 5%. Miriam Bader submitted the amended staff report, Exhibits 1-5 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. James McFadden asked if a permit was obtained for the current construction? Miriam Bader stated that the applicant did not get a permit, and a Stop Work Order was issued. Christopher Gill asked if the lot is a standard R-55 lot? Miriam Bader stated yes. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2017 – Page 5 Joaquin & Glenda Torres, applicants, testified through the interpreter, Leslie Belchick, that they would be satisfied and happy if the variance is approved. Glenda Torres stated that she would like to remind the commission that the previous variance was issued before they purchased the home. They had no idea a previous variance was approved. Christopher Gill asked the applicants what would be the impact of not having the addition? Glenda Torres stated that there is not enough space to accommodate all of their family at one time. They also do not have a formal dining room. Christopher Gill asked how large is the family? Joaquin Torres stated that they have three daughters and five grandchildren that come from out of town to visit. 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 or situation in that a lot coverage variance for this property was previously granted based on the shallowness of the lot. That finding was not appealed. Accordingly, that previous finding constrains this subsequent application and it is found that this criterion has been met due to the shallowness of the lot. 2. Denial of the variance will result in peculiar or unusual practical difficulties to, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner because a smaller addition (less than 12 feet by 16 feet) would not meet the needs of the applicant’s core family of five or extended family that includes three daughters and five grandchildren who come from out of town to visit. 3. The variance will not substantially impair the intent, purpose or integrity of any applicable County General Plan or County Master Plan because the proposed new addition falls within the building restriction lines, is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and would blend in with the house when viewed from the street. 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 5-0-0. VII. CPV-2017-11 Variance to Permit an Accessory Building within the Front Yard Applicant: Gabriel Merrill Location: 5011 Odessa Road 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 detached, open-walled, carport over the existing driveway. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2017 – Page 6 The applicant purchased the house in 2007. The property is 7,602 square-feet and is rectangular shape that measures 65 feet by 117 feet. The lot is improved with a split foyer, single-family frame house and a concrete driveway constrained by a 3-foot high retaining wall. There is a fence in the front yard, 3 sheds, and a chain-link perimeter fence along the rear yard. The property has sloping topography in the front and rear yards. The applicant has an electric car, which power station is mounted on the retaining wall. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow the erection of a 12- foot by 20-foot freestanding, open carport. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-8 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Gabriel Merrill, applicant, testified that without a carport, it would be a physical hardship for him to remove snow during inclement weather. John Rigg asked what would be the wear and tear on the power station during inclement weather? Gabriel Merrill stated that being exposed to cold weather will shorten the life of the component. It would be better to have it in a closed garage or carport. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1. The property has an exceptional topographic condition in that the rear yard has slopes that vary from 15-25% to in some places are greater than 25%. There is also an extraordinary condition as the existing retaining wall at the front building restriction line prevents the driveway from being extended into the rear yard. 2. Denial of the variance results in an unusual practical difficulty because there is no other feasible location for the driveway other than its current originally- sited location. The carport is necessary in order to adequately protect the applicant’s car and power source from inclement weather. 3. Granting the variances will not substantially impair the intent, purpose or integrity of any applicable County General Plan or County Master Plan since free-standing, detached, open carports located in the side yard are not uncommon to the neighborhood. Kate Kennedy moved to approve the variance because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. John Rigg seconded. Motion carried 5-0-0. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2017 – Page 7 VIII. CEO-2017-07 Variance from the City Fence Ordinance to Erect a 4-foot High Vinyl Picket Fence Applicant: Jose’ and Idalma Ramirez Location: 4809 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 construction of a 4.0-foot high, vinyl picket fence. City Fence Ordinance requires fences in the side or rear yard to be set back 25 feet when the side or rear lot line is a continuation of the front yard line of the adjacent lot. The applicant purchased the property in 2014. The property is a corner lot rectangular-shaped with street frontages on Lackawanna Street and 48th Place. The property contains 7,625 square feet and is improved with a 1.5-story, single-family frame house, a concrete driveway and shed. The applicants have three young children and own two large dogs which require protected outdoor space. The dogs are currently contained via an invisible fence. However, passers-by and service professionals are frequently concerned that the dogs are not restrained since they do not see a physical fence. In addition, the invisible fence does not protect the children nor prevent people from trespassing on the property. There is a stop sign on 48th Place at Lackawanna Street which may indicate a significant amount of traffic at the intersection. There is an existing 4-foot high chain-link fence along the non-street side yard on the neighbor’s property. Another neighbor has a 6-foot high wood stockade fence along part of the rear yard. Staff recommends approval to permit a 24-foot side yard fence setback variance. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-11 and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Miriam also submitted a letter from Marc Wolfe, 9611 48th Place, who supports the proposed fence installation. His letter was entered into the record as Exhibit 12. Idalma Ramirez, applicant, testified that they need the space for the dogs because they love to be outside. She would also feel safer when her children are outside if a fence was installed. She stated that a lot of people walk by and distract the dogs. Christopher Gill asked if the fence will come all the way to the curb? Miriam Bader stated no because that would encroach on the City’s right-of-way. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1. There is an extraordinary condition as the existing house is set back only18-feet from 48th Place. Without a fence setback variance, the fence would encroach into the rear yard, substantially diminishing the size and therefore use of the yard and creating an aesthetically awkward situation. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2017 – Page 8 2. Denial of the variance results in an unusual practical difficulty by creating a small rear yard that does not provide adequate protected outdoor space for the Applicants’ 3 small children and 2 dogs. 3. The proposed 4.0-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 will still be able to adequately access the property and passersby will feel more protected from the dogs. 6. The proposed wood picket fence incorporates openness and visibility. 7. The wood picket fence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Kate Kennedy moved to approve the variance because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above. Denise Mitchell seconded. Motion carried 5-0-0. X. Update on Development Activity Terry Schum reported on the following: Chick-fil-A- This is still an ongoing process. The developers met with the Veterans Memorial Committee, which is a City appointed committee, to get their support, but they did not get the Council’s permission to send a letter of support. Nothing official has been submitted. Quality Inn/Plato’s site – This is the redevelopment project for the Quality Inn and Plato’s site. The University of Maryland Foundation bought the property from the owner, and it has since been turned over to the Terrapin Development Company. On November 2, 2017, the Bozzuto team did a presentation for staff with 3D elevations. There are pictures of the elevations of the proposed site in the lower level conference room of the City Hall. The developers are asking for financial assistance from the County and the City. They have submitted their Subdivision and Detailed Site plans for concurrent review. There is a hearing tentatively scheduled for December 14 at the Planning Board. City Council will discuss this item after their worksession meeting on November 28th and it will be on their December 5th Council Agenda for approval. XI. Other Business: There was no Other Business. The Fence Ordinance will be on the Mayor and Council’s Tuesday worksession for discussion regarding proposed amendments. X. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Minutes prepared by Theresheia Williams