Advisory Planning Commission

CITY OF COLLEGE PARK PLANNING ADVISORY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION 4500 KNOX ROAD COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20740 TELEPHONE: (240) 487-3538 ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Approved Minutes of Meeting August 1, 2019 – 7:30 P.M. City Hall – Council Chambers Members Present Absent Lawrence Bleau, Chair x Santosh Chelliah x Ben Flamm x Christopher Gill x James McFadden x Stephanie Stullich, Vice Chair x Llatetra Brown Esters x Also Present: Planning Staff – Terry Schum, Miriam Bader and Theresheia Williams; Attorney – Susan Cook; I. Call to Order and Approval of the Agenda: Lawrence Bleau called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Commissioners voted 6-0-0 to approve the agenda as published. II. Approval of Minutes: James McFadden moved to adopt the minutes of July 11, 2019. Santosh Chelliah seconded. 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. CEO-2019-01 Variance from the City Fence Ordinance to erect a 6-foot high, board-on-board fence Applicant: Andrew E. Schenning Location: 4801 Lackawanna Street Lawrence Bleau explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City Fence Ordinance to erect a 6-foot high, board-on-board fence in the front yard of a corner lot. The house was constructed in 1940. The property is a rectangular-shaped corner lot with street frontages on Lackawanna Street and 48th Avenue. The property contains 7,625 square feet and is improved with a 1.5-story, single-family frame house with a detached carport and concrete driveway. There is an existing 6-foot high wooden privacy fence along part of the side and rear property lines and a chain-link fence along part of the side yard. The applicant will remove the chain-link fence if this variance is granted. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2019 – Page 2 The applicant wants to install a fence of consistent height through-out his back yard. He is permitted to erect a 6-foot high fence to enclose his back yard except for a 16-foot by 48-foot section that fronts along 48th Avenue. To meet the Ordinance requirements, this section of the fence would need to be reduced to 3- feet in height. Staff recommends approval of a 3-foot fence height variance for a 16-foot by 48- foot section of fencing. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-10, and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. Llatetra Brown Esters asked what is meant by the term “backyard functioning as a front yard?” Miriam Bader stated that the fence ordinance states that “anything that has frontage on a street is considered a front yard.” Terry Schum stated that if this was not a corner lot, it would be defined differently. Typically, the short side of a property is considered the front even if the front door is on the long side of the property. James McFadden asked if there was any input from the neighbors? Miriam Bader stated, no, but when she went by the neighborhood, she could see similar fencing in rear yards, but not front yards. Lawrence Bleau asked if other houses in the neighborhood have fences other than chain link? Miriam Bader stated yes. Andrew Schenning, applicant, testified that the proposed fence will match the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He stated that the layout of his yard is similar to his neighbor's. He also stated that the neighbor across the street from him has a wooden fence on his property. He stated that if the variance is granted, he will remove the chain-link fence. James McFadden asked if any trees will have to be removed to install the fence? Andrew Schenning stated no. Lawrence Bleau asked if the variance were not granted, how would he proceed? Andrew Schenning stated that he wants to get a dog, so that is part of the reason for the enclosed yard. He stated that it would be difficult to enclose the back yard in a way that would look nice and give the dog enough room to run around. A smaller fence would look weird and he would lose some usable width of the lot. He stated that it would not match what is existing in the neighborhood. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2019 – Page 3 Llatetra Brown Esters asked if he would consider changing the type of fence to a different type? Andrew Schenning stated yes, it will be an open board-on-board. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the departure can be granted and determined that: 1) There is an extraordinary situation in that the location of the carport and driveway in the rear yard (accessible from 48th Avenue), in combination with the corner lot restrictions, significantly reduces the options available to the property owner and the size and functionality of the backyard. 2) Denial will result in an unusual practical difficulty by significantly reducing the size and functionality of the back yard. 3) The proposed 6-foot high board-on-board fence is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will not impair the intent, purpose or integrity of the Fence Ordinance because the proposed fence extends for just one-third of the street frontage along 48th Avenue, is not near the corner, and is similar in style to other fences on the block. 4) The Historic District regulations are not applicable. 5) A board-on-board fence (or similar design) will incorporate openness as much as is practical for a fence that is designed to restrain a large dog. In addition, the proposed fence is designed to be set back 9 feet from the property line and to be located behind several large trees. In addition, it only extends for approximately one-third of the length of the street frontage, which significantly increases the openness of the appearance of the fence. Stephanie Stullich moved to recommend approval of variance CEO-2019-01 based on the criteria outlined in the discussion with the condition that the board-on-board fence or other design incorporates openness as much as practical. Santosh Chelliah seconded. Motion carried 5-1-0, with Lawrence Bleau voting Nay. VI. CPV-2019-07 Side yard setback variance to reconstruct a deck Applicant: Dennis and Meena Bipat Location: 8906 35th Avenue Lawrence Bleau explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance to reconstruct a deck. The subject house was constructed in 1969. The property is rectangular with an area of 4,043.04 square feet and is improved with a 1-story brick and frame house, a side yard deck and a 4-foot high chain-link perimeter fence. The applicant states that the deck has been there for more than 20 Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2019 – Page 4 years. The applicant contacted the County and was told that she did not need a permit to repair the deck. Based on this information, the applicant constructed a replacement deck. The City issued a Stop Work Order requiring a permit. The house has an elevated side door that is accessed via steps near the deck. The house is set 7.3-feet from the southern side yard and 16.2-feet from the northern side yard. The replacement deck is of the same dimensions as the previous deck using the same foundation and post holes. There is no City or County permit for the original deck in the records. The applicant submitted letters from adjoining property owners expressing no objections with the reconstructed deck. Staff recommends the side yard setback variance of 7’6” be approved with the condition that the deck not be roofed nor enclosed unless another variance is granted for such a request. Miriam Bader submitted the staff report, Exhibits 1-6, and the PowerPoint presentation into the record. She also submitted Exhibit 11, photos showing the original deck. Lawrence Bleau asked if there was any correspondence from adjoining property owners? Miriam Bader stated, yes there were letters from adjoining property owners expressing no objections to the reconstructed deck. Meena Bipat stated that the deck was a part of the house when she purchased it in 1991. She contacted the County and was told that she did not need a permit to replace the deck. She stated that she loves her deck and uses the side yard to cookout, garden and entertain neighbors. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 1) There is an exceptional condition in that the property is unusually narrow. In addition, the house is not centered on the lot resulting in a southern side yard of only 7 feet, 6 inches. The southern side yard has the only elevated side door entrance that would allow direct access from the house to the deck. 2) The strict application of the County Zoning Ordinance will result in a peculiar and unusual practical difficulty for the Applicant by preventing reconstruction of a deteriorated deck and not allowing direct access to the deck from the house through the elevated side door entrance and steps. It would also require the applicant to remove a deck that the County initially represented did not require a permit. 3) Replacing a worn, 20-year old deck enhances the aesthetics of the neighborhood and does not substantially impair the intent, purpose or integrity of any applicable County General Plan or County Master Plan. There will continue to be enough separation between the deck and the adjoining house since the adjoining house is setback approximately 20-feet from its side property line. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2019 – Page 5 Lawrence Bleau moved to recommend approval of variance CPV-2019-07 because the request meets the criteria for granting the variance for the reasons stated above, with the condition that the deck not be roofed nor enclosed unless another variance is granted. Santosh Chillah seconded. Motion carried 6-0-0. VII. Review of Decision of the Circuit Court in the Appeal of CPV-2018-10 (Howard Lane) Terry Schum reported on the following: Terry Schum stated that in the Circuit Court hearing on July 18, 2019, the judge denied the decision and remanded the case back to Mayor and Council. At the August 7th council meeting the City Council will go into executive session to discuss the case with the City Attorney. The City Council have until August 18th to appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. The applicant, Robert Kidwell, would like for the City Council to appeal the case. James McFadden moved to have staff convey to the City Council that the APC supports appealing the Memorandum Opinion and Order. He indicated that there are significant flaws present in the Opinion and Order and that there is no record of input from the Prince George’s County Historic Preservation Committee. A decision like this will impair the ability to develop properties in historic areas. Stephanie Stullich Seconded. Motion carried 6-0-0. VIII. Update on Development Activity Terry Schum reported on the following: City Hall Project – City Council will be discussing the design development drawings on September 17th. The design process is coming to a close. Grey Star - This property is located at the 7400 block of Rt. 1. Staff met with developers on August 1st to discuss the proposed student housing project. The preliminary Plan of Subdivision was accepted for 350 units, 1,000 beds of housing and 20,000 sf of retail. Staff has some issues regarding circulation, traffic impact, right-of-way, and dedication. County Council Legislation- On July 16th the County Council approved the legislation to initiate the Comprehensive Rezoning based on the four years of work on the Zoning Rewrite. In the next couple of months, this item will be included on APC’s agenda for discussion to talk about some of the changes to the residential zoning that would directly impact some of the cases that are rbought before the APC. IX. Other Business: There was no Other Business. XI. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Minutes prepared by Theresheia Williams