Advisory Planning Commission

CITY OF COLLEGE PARK ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION 8400 BALTIMORE AVENUE, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20740 TELEPHONE: (240) 487-3538 ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Approved Minutes of Meeting November 4, 2021 (Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, this was a Virtual Meeting) Members Present Absent Stephanie Stullich, Chair x Santosh Chelliah, Vice-Chair x Daejauna Donahue x Vernae Martin x Kiersten Johnson x Malaika Nji-Kerber x Also Present: Planning Staff – Terry Schum, Miriam Bader and Theresheia Williams; Attorney - Susan Cook I. Call to Order and Amendments to Agenda: Stephanie Stullich called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. There were no Amendments to the Agenda. II. Approval of the Agenda: Vernae Martin moved to approve the agenda as published. Santosh Chelliah seconded. Motion carried 6-0-0. III. Approval of Minutes: Kiersten Johnson moved to adopt the minutes of October 7, 2021, after amending the minutes to include the comment about using brick pavers instead of asphalt because they are more attractive. Malaika Nji-Kerber seconded. Motion carried 6-0-0. IV. Public Remarks on Non-Agenda Items: There were no Public Remarks on Non- Agenda Items. V. CEO-2021-02 Variances to construct a 6-foot-high stockade fence in the front yard Applicant: Beatriz Gamez Location: 5002 Indian Lane Stephanie Stullich explained the hearing procedures and placed witnesses under oath. Miriam Bader summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to validate a 6-foot-high stockade fence in the front yard. The property is located on the north side of Indian Lane east of Rhode Island Avenue. The property is quadrangle shape with an area of 6,369 square feet and is improved with a 1.5 story single-family house, a shed and a patio. The applicant started to install a 6-foot-high, solid, stockade fence running 25-feet along Indian Lane and the entire eastern side property line. The stated reason for the fence is for security and to protect two large dogs. The applicant received a permit from the County to install a more extensive 6-foot fence on August 9, 2021. Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2021 – Page 2 This permit was issued in error. A Stop-Work Order and Notice of Violation from the City was posted on September 21, 2021, for failure to obtain a City Permit. Staff recommends that the height and material variances be denied as the criteria for meeting these variances have not been met. Kiersten Johnson asked if the fence located in front of the house was reduced to 3-feet could the fence behind the property line and around the remaining of the house remain 6 feet? Miriam Bader stated that any fence behind the property line can be 6 feet and from the property line to the street line must be 3 feet. Santosh Chelliah asked what are the consequences if the variance was denied? Miriam Bader stated that the applicant would have to remove the portion of the fence located in front of the property line. Terry Schum, Planning Director, stated that there are two alternatives. The fence that is in violation in the front yard could be removed in its entirety or it could be installed as a 3-foot-high open and visible fence. Beatriz Gamez, applicant, testified that when she gave her plans to the contractor, he stated that other homes in the neighborhood had fences installed in front of the house, so it should not be an issue. She stated that they have no problem lowering the fence in the front yard to 3 feet. She is concerned about her safety and protecting her two large dogs. She also didn’t want her dogs to attack anyone else walking by her house. Mr. Gamez testified that someone broke into his truck and stole his tools. They called the police, but they never came. They installed security cameras around the house and decided to also install the fence to help deter thieves. Stephanie Stullich asked the applicant if the 6-foot fence at the front property line and around the yard would be enough to keep the dogs secure and safe? Beatriz Gamez stated yes, that would be enough to protect her family and the dogs. Malaika Nji-Kerber asked if there is a bus stop area near her house? Beatriz Gamez stated yes, there is a bus stop in front of her house, and the children are always trying to open her car door. They have set off fireworks that made her car alarm go off. Judy Campbell testified that she is the homeowner of 5006 Indian Lane, which is right next door to the applicant’s house. She stated that she appreciates that the applicants have offered to lower the fence so that it will be easier and safer to get in and out of her driveway. She would also like to know if the 6-foot fence in the side yard is allowed? Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2021 – Page 3 Miriam Bader stated that according to the fence ordinance, the applicants are allowed have a six-foot fence up to the front property line. Commissioners reviewed the criteria that need to be met before the variance can be granted and determined that: 2.1 The requirement that a specific parcel of land have exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape, exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition has not been met. There is nothing unusual about the size or shape of this parcel that would prevent the construction of a backyard fence that would be capable of restraining large dogs. This criterion requires a finding to be specific to a particular parcel of land. Thus the “extraordinary situation” cannot derive from a mistake by another entity, resulting in a permit issued in error. 2.2 The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Code will not result in a peculiar and unusual practical difficulty or undue hardship to the owner. The Applicant states in her application that she is requesting the 6-foot stockade fence for privacy, safety, and security and to protect her two large dogs from other hostile dogs. However, the rear yard is available to be enclosed for the Applicant’s two dogs without a variance. Extending the fence to the front yard exceeds the minimum necessary to resolve the claimed hardship. There was no other safety or security issue designated by the Applicant that would be resolved by a fence of this height in the front yard. 2.3 Granting this variance will adversely impact the intent, purpose, and integrity of the applicable county general plan or county master plan and the City’s Fence Ordinance. The Fence Ordinance and County plans were enacted to preserve and protect the character of residential neighborhoods, to support open front yards in these areas, and to increase safety by allowing access to emergency personnel. 2.4 The property is not located in the regulated Old Town College Park Historic District. 2.5 The front yard fence, a 6-foot high, solid, wooden, stockade fence, does not incorporate openness or visibility. Kiersten Johnson moved to recommend denial of variance CEO-2021-02 based on staff recommendation and the criteria outlined in the discussion. Malaika Nji-Kerber seconded. Motion carried 6-0-0. VI. Variance Training Overview by Susan Cook, Attorney Susan Cook, Attorney, gave a presentation and discussed with staff and commissioners the different types of variance applications that come before the commission and how they should be addressed legally. The following topics were addressed: Advisory Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2021 – Page 4 • City Code Section 190-4 Criteria for granting variances. • City Code Section 15-24 – Conflict of Interest • College Park Ethics Code, Chapter 38 • Appearances while in session and in the community This is just part 1 of more training to come. Susan encouraged commissioners to contact her any time they may have questions. VII. Update on Development Activity Terry Schum reported on the following: City Hall opening – The new City Hall will be open to the public on Monday, December 6. Staff will be moving in the first week of December. The University of Maryland staff will occupy the third and fourth floors of the building and will move in late December. On December 14th, there will be a Ribbon Cutting of the new City Hall and Dedication Ceremony, which will take place outside in the plaza at 5:00 pm. Downtown construction – The property at Knox Road and Lehigh Road held a groundbreaking and razing of existing 1-story retail properties. The proposal is for a new student housing project with retail by Greystar Development. Under Contract – The following two properties are under contract but have no formal applications associated with them. If they proceed, they may come before the APC to make a presentation, and residents and Civic Associations will be invited. • Rt 1 and Edgewood Road – This site has been vacant for a long time and has had other contracts, but nothing moved forward. It is located on the north side of Edgewood Road and south of the beltway. It is under contract for use as law offices for the contract purchaser. It was approved over 10 years ago as a small two-story office building. There is a long list of prohibited uses on the site, which is one of the reasons, nothing has been built there. • Rt 1 and Quebec Street – This is a very small property, about a quarter acre, located on the north side of the Best Western. It is currently being used as a staging area for State Highway Administration equipment. The proposal is for graduate student housing. They are in the discussion phase; no application has been filed. VIII. Other Business: There was no new business. XI. Adjourn: There being no further business, Santosh Chelliah moved to adjourn. Daejauna Donahue seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Minutes prepared by Theresheia Williams