gaithersblog.net

Update: This week’s Gazette has an article on this topic by Patricia M. Murret, Farmhouse proposed for demo dates to 1877:

The farmhouse once belonged to Dr. Lee Davis Lodge, an internationally known lecturer, author and literary critic, said Judith Christensen, president of the Gaithersburg Historical Association.

The city hired Christensen in the 1990s to complete an inventory form on the farmhouse used by the Maryland Historical Trust to track historic properties, then lost the document, she said. They hired her to do another, which she provided to city officials before the April 6 public hearings, she said. City officials did not mention the farmhouse’s provenance at public hearings because the city’s zoning and concept plan processes are separate from the historic preservation processes, [Gaithersburg Planning and Code Enforcement Director Greg] Ossont said.

This Thursday evening, May 7, 2009, the Historic Preservation Advisory committee will be discussing the historic significance of three properties involved in the proposed redevelopment on S. Frederick Ave: 206 S. Frederick Avenue and 11 & 13 DeSellum Avenue. Demolition permits are being requested for the first two properties, while 13 DeSellum would be preserved under the proposal. In a 79-page PDF, the City has posted extensive background information on these three properties, and I’ve transcribed below some interesting portions of this document. At the end of this post I’ve also pasted in the HPAC agenda itself.

First, note that the background document lists the criteria the City uses to designate historic sites:

(b)	In considering historic resources for designation as historic districts and historic sites, the historic district commission shall apply the following criteria:
	(1)	Historical and cultural significance. The historic resource:
		a.	Has character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, county, state or nation;
		b.	Is the site of a significant historic event;
		c.	Is identified with a person or a group of persons who influenced society; or
		d.	Exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, political or historic heritage of the city and its communities.
	(2)	Architectural and design significance. The historic resource:
		a.	Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;
		b.	Represents the work of a master;
		c.	Possesses high artistic values;
		d.	Represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
		e.	Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city due to its singular physical characteristic or landscape; or
		f.	Embodies design, setting, materials, workmanship and ambience to the city’s sense of time, place and historic development.

Here is a picture of the Wilson house, taken from the background document:

The document goes on to give a fairly extensive histories of the properties. The following is taken from the history for 206 S. Frederick. Note that in the PDF provided by the City, this section is OCR’d from a bit-mapped scan of the original document, and as such I had to do a fair amount of clean-up to make it presentable here; thus there could be errors in the below and the reader should consult the original for an authoritative copy. Also, given the length and complexity of this section, I ommitted the extensive footnotes, which of course remain in the PDF.

The L. D. Lodge House was built during Gaithersburg’s most optimistic era of the 19th Century by a man who became nationally and internationally known for his culture and educational ability. He was a noted lecturer, author and critic, an educator and a college president. His 1891 book of history and criticism “A Study in Corneille” was reprinted in 1970 and is still in use. L. D. Lodge was eldest son of Rev James Llewellyn Lodge, a prominent Baptist minister who had a country home in Gaithersburg. The L. D. Lodge house was added to Gaithersburg’s handsome main street bordered by large stylish houses on generous parcels set back from the road with beautiful grass swards. Many anticipated Gaithersburg becoming a refuge from the City peopled by those who loved nature and civility L. D. Lodge built this house next to that of his father and mother for his bride in 1887.

HISTORY AND SUPPORT

John T. DeSellum and his unmarried sister, Sarah, children of James and Catherine Fulks DeSellum, inherited property in Logtown and other land from their parents, which they repatented as “Summit Hall” in 1859. John and Sarah DeSellum were grandchildren of Baltus and Elizabeth (Gloyd) Fulks, one of the first settlers of Logtown in the 1770s. John T. DeSellum was an educated man, a farmer, and a businessman.

In the 1880s, DeSellum informally subdivided his land along the west side of Frederick Avenue from the B&O Railroad to Summit Avenue into four-acre estates and sold several parcels to local businessman Philomen E. Smith and his wife. (See Maddox 1894 “Map of Gaithersburg” Attachment 8.5) In 1886, DeSellum sold Summit Hall Farm to his cousin Ignatius T. Fulks and his wife Elizabeth for $10,000. Fulks made his first land sale in the spring of 1887 when he sold one of the remaining four acre lots to Professor Lee Davis Lodge.

Lodge was Professor of French Language and Literature at the Columbian University (now George Washington) in Washington D.C.

L. D. Lodge married Lelia White on September 1, 1887, and probably built his new house immediately after the land purchase. The new house is favorably mentioned in the September 7, 1888 Montgomery County Sentinel newspaper. A letter entitled “Busy Gaithersburg” recounts the Town’s progress in the ten years since incorporation saying,

There are a number of handsome residences with large lawns in front, among them those of P. M. Smith, Jas. O, Trundle, Judge R. G. Dorsey, Dr. Etchison, Mr. Miller, Rev. Mr. Lodge, and many others. Mr. Hill, real estate agent, and Prof L. D. Lodge own pretty homes here.

Lee Davis Lodge was born November 24, 1856 in Montgomery County, the eldest son of the Rev. James L. Lodge and his wife Alice. James L. Lodge built his “country house” in 1883 on a four acre lot now known as 110 S. Frederick Avenue and owned by The Washington Diocese of the Catholic Church. It was named “Arnmore” after a book by Sir Walter Scott. A Baptist minister, Rev. James L. Lodge D.D. was highly respected for his abilities as a pastor and for his intelligence. He was a man of considerable presence in the community and had a direct influence on its social and intellectual life. He and his wife, the former Alice Warfield, were both born in Montgomery County, Maryland. He attended Columbia College (now George Washington University) in 1859-60.

Lodge had several successful pastorates in New Jersey in the 1870s, and his son Lee Davis was well educated in urban schools. The family returned to Montgomery County about 1880 where, of the three churches bidding for his services, he chose North Church in Washington, D.C. He left North Church due to poor health and retired to his “country home.” Rev. Lodge purchased a four acre parcel of Summit Hall from Philomen E. Smith and his wife in 1883 and built a home in Gaithersburg.

His son, Lee Davis Lodge, was also educated at Columbian University, earning his M.A. in 1885 and his Ph.D. in 1892. He had a local literary reputation much earlier, publishing essays in the local newspaper. On February 24, 1882 the Montgomery County Sentinel newspaper alerted its readers, “another article of literary worth, written by Lee Davis Lodge, of this county will appear in our next issue. Mr Lodge certainly exhibits a very rare order of literary talent.” The paper also reported his success as an educator at Columbian University, serving in various educational positions from 1884 to 1899. The Sentinel also reported his marriage on September 1, 1887 to Leila White, the daughter of the Rev. S. R. White of Rockville. It can be assumed that the house at 206 S. Frederick was built as a wedding gift to the bride. In 1888, a year after his marriage and property purchase, Lee Davis Lodge sold the three rearacres of his four acre property at 206 S. Frederick Avenue to James L. Lodge. Leila White Lodge died on April 27, 1895 at the Lodge’s home in Washington D.C. The Lodges had two children. He married for the second time to Mary Louise McClammy of Wilmington N.C. in 1897. Her father, the latc Hon. Charles W. McClammy, was representative for North Carolina in the U.S. House of Representatives. Dr. Lodge left Columbian as a full Professor to take the Presidency of Limestone College in Gaffney S.C. in 1899. He established the Winnie Davis School of History as a department of Limestone College in 1900.

Despite the move to South Carolina L. D. Lodge kept his house in Gaithersburg. In 1916, the Town of Gaithersburg Assessment Book listed Dr. L.D. Lodge’s address as Limestone College, Gaffney S.C. He is taxed for the house and one acre ofland on Frederick Avenue.

In 1890 Rev. Lodge advertised his house “Arnmore” for sale.

For Sale- That lovely home, Arnmore, Gaithersburg, Md. Seven acres, very rich, elegant house, bath, outbuildings, all new. Every variety of fruit, price low. Cash no object. J. L. Lodge.

The reason for the sale advertisement is not disclosed, and thc four-acre Ammore house property was not sold. The rear three acres of the Lee Davis Lodge property that James Lodge purchased in 1888 were sold to Sylvester R.F. Sterick. Sterick was a real estate agent and an inventor of sorts. He built a house at 13 DeSellum Avenue in 1890 which is still called Sterick’s Cottage.

The J. L. Lodge family home, “Arnmore” was retained by the family until the death of Alice Lodge. It was sold by Lee Davis Lodge for the family in 1925 to the Washington Diocese of the Catholic Church. Lee Davis Lodge and his wife Mary Louise Lodge sold the S. Frederick Avenue house and lot to Myra E. Thompson on September 15, 1919.

Ms. Thompson also owned the Sterick Cottage at 13 DeSellum Avenue. Upon Myra Thompson’s death in 1943, Clara Thompson and others, heirs to the estate of Myra Thompson, sold 206 S. Frederick to Walter C. Offutt and Agnes G. Offutt, his wife in June 10, 1944. This sale was probably a method of clearing the title from unanticipated claimants. Walter and Agnes Offutt immediately sold the property to Walter A. and Borghild M. Dowd in November of 1944. The Dowds also did not hold it for long, selling it to Herman W. Wilson and Lillian M. Wilson on January of 1946. The Herman Wilsons conveyed the property to their son, Robert J. Wilson, President of J.&W. Enterprises Unincorporated, in 1969. Robert Wilson later had the land titled in his own name. The elder Wilsons later executed adeed to trustee William N. Dumpy for the purpose of reconvening to their son Robert J. Wilson” as a sole owner.

Dr. Herman Wilson was the first Administrator of Asbury Methodist Home, built in 1926. Herman Wilson first lived in quarters at the Asbury Methodist Home, and later in a house built by Walter Magruder for his family on the farm of his wife’s parents, John and Amanda Walker. The farm was then acquired by the Baltimore Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church to build a home for the aged, elderly, and orphans of the church. This became the present Asbury Methodist Village.

Dr. Robert J. Wilson built an office wing on the house which he used as his dental office for many years, while he lived with his family in the house. Later he moved his family to a new subdivision developed by Eugene B. Casey near Shady Grove Road, and the properties owned in the 200 block of South Frederick Avenue were used for commercial and rental units.

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Historic Preservation Committee Meeting, 5/7/2009

Posted 4/30/2009

CITY OF GAITHERSBURG
31 South Summit Avenue

Telephone: 301-258-6330

AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Activity Center at Bohrer Park

MAY IS NATIONAL PRESERVATION MONTH
“THIS PLACE MATTERS”

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

II. PUBLIC HEARING

HAWP 111

Applicant: Ali Tahriri Adabi
100 Central Avenue
Renovation/Addition
Background Material (pdf format)

III. RECOMMENDATION TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

• Historic Significance - 206 S. Frederick Avenue (demolition request)
• Historic Significance - 11 DeSellum Avenue (demolition request)
• Historic Significance - 13 DeSellum Avenue (designation request)
  Background Material (pdf format)

IV. TAX CREDIT APPLICATIONS

TCE-61 - TCE - 67
Background Material (pdf format)

V. UPDATES

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Note that one of the more controversial items in Wednesday’s Planning Commission agenda is the application for the redevelopment of the Wilson properties, at the intersection of DeSellum Ave & MD 355, across the street from St. Martin’s Catholic Church. This is a fairly complex, multi-phase proposal, which among other things calls for the demolition of one of the oldest homes in Gaithersburg: 206 S. Frederick Ave, which was built in 1887 for one of Gaithersburg’s more famous early residents, Dr. Lee Davis Lodge. I’ll post more about this later in the week, but for the moment you can read a history of the property in the background document for the HPAC meeting this coming Thursday.

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 5/6/2009

Posted 4/24/2009

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA [subject to change]
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

April 15, 2009, Planning Commission Meeting
Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT ITEMS

SP-08-002 – Crown Property Neighborhood 2
MXD Zone
9800 Fields Road
Mixed Residential Development
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL
Background Material (pdf format)

SP-08-0003 —  Jacob’s Addition
CBD Zone
420-422 East Diamond Avenue
Subdivision of Property to Relocate
Existing Building at 320 East Diamond Avenue
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL
TBA - Background Material (pdf format)

SP-07-0020 – Quince Orchard Park - The Vistas
MXD Zone
Orchard Ridge Road and Winter Walk Drive
83 Single-Family, Townhouse, Two/Two Condominium Units
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL

Background Material (pdf format)

RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Z-309 – Jody Kline, Esq., Miller, Miller and Canby, for Keystone Real Estate Ivestments
Application to rezone 3.6859 acres of land from the R-20 (Medium Density Residential) Zone to the CD (Corridor Development) Zone in accordance with § 24-196 (Map Amendments) and § 24-160G.6 (Procedure for Application and Approval) of the City Code.  The property is located at 12-16 South Frederick Avenue, includes Parcels N323 & N271, and is commonly known as Executive Gardens Apartments.

and

SDP-08-005 — Application for approval of a schematic development plan for the redevelopment of 3.6859 acres of land located at 12-16 South Frederick Avenue, including Parcels N323 & N271, commonly known as Executive Gardens Apartments. The plan proposes a 263-unit multiple-family building with structured parking.
Background Material (pdf format - 33M)

Z-311 — Jody Kline, Esq., Miller, Miller and Canby, for Dr. Robert J. Wilson
Application to rezone 1.2 acres of land from the R-90 (Medium Density Residential) Zone to the CD (Corridor Development) Zone in accordance with § 24-160G.6.(a) (Procedure for Application and Approval) of the City Code.  The properties are located at or near 11 and 13 DeSellum Avenue, (Parcels 387, 388 & 442).

and

CSP-09-001 – Application for approval of a concept site plan for the redevelopment of 2.71 acres of land, currently known as Parcels 368, 387, 388, 390, and 442 located at the intersection of Md. Rte. 355 and DeSellum Avenue in the City of Gaithersburg. The proposed plan includes the construction of a two-story office building and the conversion of two buildings from residential to office uses.

Background Material (pdf format - 24M)

SITE PLAN

AFP-09-010 — Girard Business Center
CBD Zone

640 East Diamond Avenue
Parking Chart Revisions and Waiver Request
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

AFP-09-009 —  Intercell USA Pilot Plant Upgrade

E-1 Zone
20 Firstfield Road
Expansion of Utility Enclosure & Parking Revision
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
TBA - Background Material (pdf format)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

Long-time Gaithersblog readers will be familiar with the efforts by Mr. Hamza Halici, owner of the Hair Bar on MD 355, to demolish the historic building where he has operated his hair salon since 1978. About a year ago, the Montgomery County Circuit Court rejected his appeal of the HDC’s denial of his demolition permit request.

Following his loss in Circuit Court, Mr. Halici took his case forward to the Court of Special Appeals. This past Friday, the Court filed its opinion in this case, rejecting all of Mr. Halici’s arguments, and charging him with the costs associated with the appeal. Quoting the opinion [note that all quotes from the opinion are transcribed from a PDF and thus errors could have been made; consult the original for the definitive text]:

Halici presents four questions for review in this Court, which we have consolidated and rephrased as follows:

I. Was the HDC unlawfully constituted under Md. Code (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.) section 8.03 of Article 66B when it denied the permit application, and, if so, does that render invalid the HDC’s decision to deny the permit application?

II. Was there substantial evidence in the agency record to support the HDC’s denial of the permit application?

For the following reasons, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Regarding the first question, the Court ruled that a major point of Mr. Halici’s argument — that the Council Member Sesma was not qualified to serve on the HDC — was not properly before the Court to review, in large part because Mr. Halici did not raise this objection when the HDC was ruling on his application. There is much technical discussion of this and related issues for which I’ll refer the reader to the opinion itself. Regarding the second question, I’ll quote from the opinion:

(a)

To support its argument that the HDC applied a “heightened and erroneous legal standard” in denying HAWP-37E, Halici cites Belvoir Farms Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 259 (1999). In that case, the Court of Appeals distinguished between “unnecessary, unreasonable, unwarranted, or similarly-worded hardship standards,” in the context of a zoning variance application in which the applicant must prove a “denial of beneficial or reasonable use,” and a challenge to the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance, in which the applicant must prove a denial of “ ‘all economically beneficial or productive use of land.’ ” (Emphasis added). Id. at 281-82 (quoting Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992)). Halici maintains that the HDC applied the latter standard, requiring it to prove that it was denied all economically beneficial use of the Property instead of merely being denied reasonable use of the Property.

The record does not support Halici’s position. Halici points only to one instance in the HDC’s consideration of HAWP-37E that, in its view, shows that the HDC applied an erroneous standard. In the HDC resolution denying the permit, the three members voting for denial found that “there was no evidence to indicate that this [P]roperty was different from other historic resources for which reasonable uses have been found.”⁷ It is clear from the context of this finding that the HDC members reasoned that Halici’s failure to differentiate the Talbott House from similar historic structures that they had seen renovated and profitably utilized was some evidence that retention of the Talbott House was not the cause of Halici’s alleged financial hardship. Moreover, there are numerous instances in the record when committee members questioned Halici on its efforts to find a “reasonable use” for the Property while retaining the Talbott House. There is no indication that the HDC applied a heightened standard as Halici currently contends.

(b)

Halici’s argument that the HDC’s decision is not based on substantial record evidence and therefore is analogous to the agency decision vacated by this Court in Broadview Apartments, supra, is equally without merit. The applicant in Broadview sought a permit to demolish a vacant home that previously had been designated as an historic landmark. At the time, the Baltimore City Code required the applicant to prove a “substantial hardship” in order to obtain the permit. 49 Md. App. at 541. The applicant presented numerous witnesses — including an administrator for Baltimore City’s Department of Housing and Community Development at the time the application was submitted — who testified that the house would need extensive, costly renovations to be commercially viable and that the rent collected from any commercial activity after renovations would not support the debt incurred from renovation. In other words, the property would operate at a net loss each year no matter what action was taken by the owner. The only evidence contradicting the applicant’s claim was a series of letters that did not take into account the cost of renovations and yet conclusorily stated that restoration of the house was economically feasible. We held that, under the circumstances, the historic district commission’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 545-46. Unlike the applicant in Broadview, Halici was operating a profitable business at the Property. Halici’s annual net income in 2004 and 2005 was approximately $16,500, most of which came from operating The Hair Bar Salon. Further, before Halici lost its tenant for the 307 North Frederick Avenue portion of the Property, in 2004, it had collected an additional sum of approximately $16,000 annually. Halici presented no evidence that it had actively marketed the 307 North Frederick Avenue portion of the Property since 2003, beyond placing a sign somewhere on the Property stating that the lot was for rent. The record is clear that the HDC relied on the evidence showing Halici’s profitability in rendering its decision.

Further, the HDC found that much of Halici’s financial information showing that the Property was not sufficiently profitable “as is” was dated, incomplete, and therefore lacking in probative value. The only income statement disclosed by Halici was for the year ending December 31, 2000. While Mr. Halici’s personal tax returns may not have been relevant to the inquiry, it was reasonable for the HDC to have requested more detailed income statements from Halici as they related to the entity’s ownership and operation of The Hair Bar Salon, and thus to the reasonable commercial use of the Property. Specifically, the HDC wanted to ensure that Halici was operating The Hair Bar Salon in a responsible manner and paying Mr. Halici a reasonable salary. This information went to the heart of whether retaining the Talbott House on the Property was working an actual and substantial financial hardship on Halici. Its failure to disclose this information supports the HDC’s finding that Halici failed to prove that retention of the Talbott House as working a substantial financial hardship on it.

Further, the HDC members voting against the application were not convinced that Halici adequately had explored other reasonable, economically feasible uses for the Property. To be sure, Halici presented evidence that any renovations for use as a retail or restaurant space would be expensive and might not be recouped by a subsequent commercial venture. Yet, the report from the City Manager’s office stated that the Talbott House could continue to be used for The Hair Bar Salon or as professional office space, with few renovations. Additionally, certain members of the HDC observed that, in their experience, the owners of historic properties in a similar condition to that of Halici’s Property had found reasonable, economic uses, and there was no evidence presented that the Property was unique in this regard. Finally, the HDC noted that Halici’s failure under the previous demolition permit to sell the Property or complete the demolition in three years was further evidence that it was not the retention of the Talbott House itself that was a financial hardship on Halici.

Halici presented significant evidence that it was receiving less than a 10% return on its overall investment in the Property and that the Property was worth less with the Talbott House erect. However, as discussed supra, we do not weigh the evidence presented to the HDC or make judgments of credibility. The HDC was presented with substantial evidence supporting its finding that Halici failed to prove that preservation of the Talbott House was a substantial financial hardship.

(c)

Finally, we see no merit in Halici’s argument that the HDC’s denial of HAWP-37E was an “impermissible change of mind” from its approval of HAWP-37C. We observed recently that, under Maryland law, “‘[a]n agency . . . not otherwise constrained, may reconsider an action previously taken and come to a different conclusion upon a showing that the original action was the product of fraud, surprise, mistake, or inadvertence, or that some new or different factual situation exists that justifies the different conclusion.’” Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 173 Md. App. 349, 361 (2007) (quoting Calvert County Planning Comm’n v. Howlin Realty Mgmt., Inc., 364 Md. 301, 325 (2001)). It follows, then, that “an agency may not reconsider and reverse a decision based on a ‘mere change of mind.’” Cinque, supra, 173 Md. App. at 361 (quoting Howlin Realty Mgmt., 364 Md. at 325).

We note first that the HDC did not reverse itself in denying HAWP-37E, as discussed in Cinque and Howlin Realty. HAWP-37E was a separate and distinct application from HAWP-37C. Certainly, there were many similarities between the two, but the HDC’s denial of HAWP-37E was not a reversal. In any event, there was sufficient evidence of changes in facts and circumstances between the time of the approval of HAWP-37C and the denial of HAWP-37E, as discussed previously, including Halici’s failure to provide more detailed income statements from the Property for years 2001-2005 and to sell the Property or demolish the Talbott House for three years, for three members of the HDC to conclude that the presence of the Talbott House on the Property was not working a financial hardship on Halici.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLANT.

⁷Halici also points to a statement by a member of the HPAC in that body’s consideration of HAWP-37C. As this statement was related to HAWP-37C in 1999, it is of little value in assessing the standard applied by the HDC on a different application in 2006.

Of special note in the following is the item listed as “Redevelopment of 2-12 East Diamond Avenue”. This would include both the brick building now known as Roy’s Place and the strip shopping center known as the Galanis Center. This would represent yet another major change in Olde Towne.

Agenda - Historic Preservation Committee Meeting, 11/1/2007
Posted 10/26/2007

CITY OF GAITHERSBURG
31 South Summit Avenue
Telephone: 301-258-6330

AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:30 p.m.

The Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
will conduct a site visit at 112 Meem Avenue
at 6:30 p.m., prior to the meeting.

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 16, 2007 - deferred
Minutes of September 18, 2007

II. PUBLIC HEARING

HAWP-29F
Applicant: Beverly Stalker
11 Brookes Avenue
Tree Removal
Background Material

III. RECOMMENDATION TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

Plaque for Artifacts under Covenant (Kentlands)
Applicant: Gil Price
801 Inspiration Lane

IV. DISCUSSION

Redevelopment of 2-12 East Diamond Avenue

V. UPDATES

1. December Meeting
2. Crown Farm Site Visit 
3. MAHDC Training - February 20, 2008
4. City Elections on November 6, 2007

VI. ADJOURNMENT

From the City’s website. Note that the bit about the field trip to several E. Diamond properties and the demolition requests are related to the proposed Archstone development project, which is likely to have a tremendous — and in my mind positive — impact on Olde Towne.

Agenda - Historic Preservation Committee Meeting, 9/18/2007
Posted 9/12/2007

CITY OF GAITHERSBURG
31 South Summit Avenue
Telephone: 301-258-6330

AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Site Visit at 320 & 402 East Diamond Avenue -6:30 p.m.

The committee will meet at the site at 6:30 p.m. to tour the buildings and properties.  This is in conjunction with a request to demolish the structures at 320, 324, 328, 330, 402, and 408 East Diamond Avenue.

Following the site visit, the Committee will resume the meeting at the City Hall Council Chambers

I. RECOMMENDATION TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

Historic Significance of 320, 402, and 408 East Diamond Avenue Demolition Requests

II. PUBLIC HEARING

HAWP-78F
Applicants: Warren & Elizabeth Johnson,

Mary K. Pedigo & Daniel Washburn
102 & 104 Chestnut Street
Tree Removal
Background Material

III. ADJOURNMENT

From the City’s website:

Notice - Historic Preservation Hearing HAWP-78F, 9/18/2007
Posted 9/12/2007

CITY OF GAITHERSBURG
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

The City of Gaithersburg Historic Preservation Advisory Committee will conduct a public hearing at the time and place noted below.

Meeting: Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
Application Type:  Historic Area Work Permit Request
File Number: HAWP-78F
Location: 102/104 - Chestnut Street Lot 16 and 17 of Meem’s Addition to Gaithersburg

Applicant: Warren and Elizabeth Johnson & Mary K. Pedigo and Daniel Washburn
Development: Chestnut/Meem Historic District
Day/ Date/Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Place: GAITHERSBURG CITY HALL

IMPORTANT

The application requests a certificate of approval from the City’s Historic District Commission for tree removal at 102 and 104 Chestnut Street. §24-228 of the City Code (Zoning Ordinance) requires a historic area work permit for altering exterior features of a historic resource. The subject properties, located on Lots 16 and 17 of Meem’s Addition to Gaithersburg, are contributing resources in the Chestnut/Meem Historic District.Contact the Planning and Code Administration City Planner (listed below) at 301-258-6330 if you should have any questions and/or to learn more about this process and your ability to offer testimony and input.

CITY OF GAITHERSBURG
Jacqueline Marsh, Planner
Planning and Code Administration

Public hearings before the Historic District Commission are relatively rare. For those who don’t know, there are two levels of historic preservation review in Gaithersburg. The formal, quasi-judicial review is done by the Historic District Commission, which, although nominally a distinct body, has never been constituted by a membership distinct from the Mayor and Council, even though the HDC terms are out of sync with those of the Mayor and Council. HDC meetings are held during Mayor and Council meetings; the Mayor and Council adjourns, the HDC convenes, does their business, adjourns, and then the Mayor and Council re-convenes. No one ever has to leave their chair. However, many of the technical issues that must be considered in preservation review are comparable in complexity to those considered by the Planning Commission, and to hash out these details the Mayor and Council appoints members to a standing Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, or HPAC. The HPAC typically meets once per month, although it sometimes holds additional meetings for various reasons. In all (or perhaps virtually all) cases the HPAC’s considerations of these applications are conducted as public hearings. As I said, the work done by the HPAC is similar to that done by the Planning Commission, and it is not unusual for HPAC members to be nominated to the Planning Commission — for example, John Schlichting (now on the Council), John Bauer and Lloyd Kaufman all served on HPAC before they were on the Planning Commission.

Although the HPAC reviews applications, they do not have the power to make a final decision — that’s left up to the HDC. Instead, the HPAC makes recommendations to the HDC, and the HDC makes their own decision — which in most cases simply agrees with the HPAC’s recommendation. If there is no controversy and the HDC intends to simply accept the HPAC’s recommendation, this is typically done without a public hearing. However, if an applicant or other party doesn’t particularly like what the HPAC recommended, they can go to the HDC and raise a fuss. The HDC, being constituted by members of an elected body, can sometimes appear to be more sensitive to the political aspects of a case than is the HPAC, which is typically more focused on the technical.

112 Meem Avenue

In the case of the public hearing scheduled for next Monday, the HPAC unanimously recommended denial of an application. Aware that the applicant was unhappy with this decision — and presented with several signatures of neighbors who said they liked the work the applicant had done on the house — when this issue came before the them for policy discussion last month, the HDC decided to defer the decision and call for a public hearing.

The history of the case before them next Monday is basically as follows. I’ve gathered this information from the background materials provided to the HDC at their meeting on August 20 (this background document is 53 pages long and includes photographs of the property as well as the complete transcript of the HPAC meeting recommending denial):

• In 2005, the applicant applied for a permit to build an addition on his house. Because the house is in a historic district — even though it wasn’t considered a “contributing resource” — the application had to first be considered by the HPAC.
• The HPAC recommended approval of the application, with the single condition “That a vertical siding pattern on the front gable be used to match the side gables.”
• The Planning Commission then considered the application, and they also gave their approval, also including a condition about the siding requirement, and adding their own standard condition on obtaining a Historic Area Work Permit (HAWP) from the HDC. It actually is not typical that an HAWP application would go before the Planning Commission. This one did for reasons having nothing to do with historic preservation. The applicant wanted to build the addition on a footprint that would not be allowed under the standard zoning rules for his lot. Quoting the transcript of the August’s HPAC meeting,
  

  The reason this went to the Planning Commission at that time was the plan was calling for a rear addition and a front addition. The rear addition, this being R-90, it was no concern about that. But the front addition was intruding into the front yard setback. So it went to the Planning Commission and they thought it was a good use of the TND option, the Traditional Neighborhood Development option and reviewed the elevations and the site plan and granted approval.

  The minutes of the relevant Planning Commission hearing are included below.

• The HDC granted approval of the HAWP, preserving the condition on the siding.
• The applicant worked on the addition for close to two years, and in doing so departed from the approved plans — including using brick, rather than a “veritical siding pattern” in the gable.
• Following the expiration of the building permits, the City’s code enforcement office produced a report identifying a number of deficiencies, including the departure from approved plans, possibly non-code-compliant framing, and the use of part of the new space without inspection approvals. I’ve extracted this report from the PDF, attempted to clean up the OCR’d text, and included it below.
• The applicant applied for retroactive approval of the changes to the plan. This application was considered by the HPAC on August 2, 2007. The HPAC unanimously recommended denial.
• The application was forwarded to the HDC.

In my mind, this should be a simple, open-and-shut case of denial. The applicant went through a very detailed process, asking for and obtaining specific exceptions to the normal rules. He then proceeded to ignore much of what had been agreed to, including specific conditions set forth in the approval and possibly even the building code. While the building code issues are not at question in this part of the process, the condition on materials very much is. If the HDC approves this application, what does this say to future applicants about how seriously the City takes these processes?

I will add that the HDC would seem to be in something of an odd position here, what with being asked to approve a permit for work which may not meet code. According to the discussion contained in in the transcript of the HPAC meeting, as there are code-compliance issues and deviations from plans that had been approved by the Planning Commission, both the Code Enforcement staff and the Planning Commission would still have some say in this if the HDC grants approval here. As I understand the discussion, if the HPAC had recommended approval of the application, then the application would have gone back to the Planning Commission before being reviewed by the HDC. The Planning Commission, if the the code issues could be worked out and they were of a mind to approve the application, would typically include — as they had before — a condition that the applicant obtain a Historic Area Work Permit from the HDC. So it is almost as if the application is going through the process backwards. But while it may be an odd position politically, in fact the code and zoning issues aren’t really at question here, and the HDC could grant the HWAP purely on the basis of their understanding of the preservation guidelines, and count on the code-enforcement and Planning Commission processes to run their course. I just don’t know why they would want to do this.

Introduction to the background materials provided to the HDC:

This application proposes a retroactive amendment to HAWP-95 approved by the Historic District Commission on June 6, 2005, for a rear and front addition HAWP-95 was processed as site plan SP-05-0003 receiving approval from the Planning Commission on May 18, 2005. The property at 112 Meem Avenue is a non-contributing resource in the Chestnu/Meem Historic District.

The applicant has proceeded with work on the existing house which does not conform to the approved plans. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a retroactive amendment to the approved plans to permit the completion of the work as currently constructed. The modifications requested include changes to the proposed windows, roof style, and materials.

At their meeting of August 2, 2007, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) held a public hearing on this request. The HPAC voted unanimously to recommend denial of HAWP-95A (retroactive amendment to HAWP 95) finding the completed “as-built” work a significant deviation from the approved plan resulting in a lack of compatibility with the original structure. See transcript Exhibit 24 and the draft minutes (Exhibit 32).

The HPAC recommends the HDC make the following motion: Deny HAWP 95A Retroactive Amendment to HAWP 95 finding, based on the record before HPAC and for the reasons articulated by HPAC, that the significant as built changes to the roof design, windows, and materials, are in violation of the historic area work permit approval and have resulted in a lack of compatibility with the original house. A denial will require a written notification by the HOC of the reasons for the denial (Sec. 24-228.1(e)(2).

Since the close of HPAC’s record Exhibits 25-31, correspondence from the applicant’s neighbors, were submitted which support the built design Per Section 24-228.1(c) the HOC may render its decision based on HPAC s recommendations or in its discretion, hold its own public hearing.

Report of the code enforcement office, from the background materials:

To:	Pat Patula
From:	Greg Dennison
Date:	July 26 2007
Subject:	112 Meem Avenue Permit number PI-B050862

Currently the building and electrical permits for 112 Meem Avenue have expired. Upon a verbal request from the homeowner/permittee to extend his permit a progress inspection was performed, the following items have been noted;

1- The rear addition has been completed and is currently occupied without any framing, electrical or plumbing inspections or approvals.

2- The exterior of the front addition is 90 percent complete, the interior of the front addition is incomplete and the new framing is not in accordance with the approved plans.

3- The front and side elevations do not match the approved plans.

4- The roof lines, windows and exterior materials do not match the approved plans.

Note: The windows, as placed on the front may need to be removed or blocked due to the roof not being framed in accordance with the approved plans. Revised plans have not been submitted. The large half oval window may interfere with the location of a ridge beam or may be blocked entirely if ceiling joists are installed.

6- Also note there have been several complaints about the construction debris at the site.

At this time the homeowner has been asked by this office to have the electrical system inspected and certified by a licensed master electrician to determine the safety of the dwelling electrical components as installed. Some, if not all, of the interior finishes, will be required to be removed to determine code compliance and the structural integrity of the framing.

Permits and Inspections will determine what steps to take next following the report from the master electrician and the outcome of the changes to the elevations.

cc:	Greg Fulmer
	file

Minutes from the May 18, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting:

SP-05-0003 — 112 Meem Avenue - Kahn Residence
R-90 Zone
201.6-Sq.Ft. Front Addition and
380.72-Sq.Ft. Rear Addition
CONCEPT/FINAL PLAN REVIEW

Planner Patula located the property and introduced this application for front and rear additions to the existing house, proposed under the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) option. She explained that this proposal is before the Commission because the sunroom encroaches 3three feet into the front setback. She noted this house is a noncontributing resource in the Chestnut/Meem Historic District and a legally nonconforming structure.

Applicant Irfan Kahn, 112 Meem Avenue, presented the plan and indicated the front addition would enclose an existing concrete patio area that measures 9’x16’, and he is proposing to extend it to 12 feet. The proposed addition in the rear would be 20’ x 16’. He pointed out that other homes in the neighborhood have reduced yard setbacks. He also presented and discussed the proposed elevations, noting the existing entrance would be extended four feet to align with the proposed addition.

There was no public testimony.

Ms. Patula voiced staff’s recommendation for approval with conditions that she listed, and noted the plan is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance §§ 24-170, 24-171, and 24-11 through 24-21.1.

Commissioners Hopkins and Levy voiced their support of this proposal’s use of the TND option noting it will be an improvement to the streetscape.

Commissioner Levy moved, seconded by Commissioner Winborne, to grant SP-05-0003 - Kahn Residence at 12 Meem Avenue, CONCEPT/FINAL PLAN APPROVAL, with the following conditions:

1. Planning Commission grants the TND Option for this in-fill development finding it meets the requirements of § 24-22.3 because:
   1. The project will not negatively impact the existing neighborhood.
   2. The density is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
   3. The lot size does not change and is at least 75 percent of the average lot size of the existing block.
   4. The building is set back from a public street more than the required minimum of 10 feet.
   5. There is adequate access for public safety and utility availability.
   6. The green space remains compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Applicant is to acquire a historic area work permit from the Historic District Commission; and
3. Applicant is to use a vertical siding pattern on the front gable to match the side gables.

Vote: 5-0

Update: [8/9/07] The planning commission last night was generally supportive of the redevelopment of the 201 E Diamond Ave property, somewhat split on the height issue, and more or less speaking as one in their dislike of the architecture and what it would do to the streetscape. Several members of the public spoke, again generally supportive of redeveloping the property but having varying levels of concern about the building’s size and appearance as shown in the concept plan. Other issues that were raised include the width of the front sidewalk, the lack of sidewalk on the west (alley) side, and the question of parking and space for such things as dumpsters. It was explained that CBD zoning allowed for buildings up to four stories (including any sub-surface stories, if which this building would have one) by right — and thus they could build up to three stories above ground without a waiver. Waivers are allowed up to nine stories in this zone, but Mr. Ossont mentioned that such tall buildings were intended for the wye site. The developer was encouraged to continue on with this project but also advised to put a little more thought into the facade.

This Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting has several major items on the agenda, including final site plan reviews of Neighborhood 3, Phase I of Aventiene (Crown Farm), and a new 43-unit neighborhood of villas at Asbury (the latter will be located near the corner of N Summit/Goshen Rd and Odendhal, on land recently used for garden plots). But the item I find most concerning is a new proposal — up for concept plan review — to replace the Chris’ Steakhouse building with a new four-story office strucuture, as shown above. Chris’ has been closed for some time; the building was constructed around 1924 and used as a restaurant since the 1930’s. The restaurant had operated as Chris’ since 1964. Now, I’m not going to say that I think the building should be preserved. It is much altered from it’s original design, and I don’t think it is particularly attractive or useful as it stands. The opportunities for adaptive reuse in this core business district are limited. From a preservation standpoint, I think there are other properties on that block which are much more valuable, and thus this property would be a good candidate for redevelopment. The property was reviewed by HPAC last week, and they voted unanimously to not recommend it for historic designation. Following are a couple of pictures of the streetscape containing the building in question:

As you can see, this is not a street presently containing tall buildings. While I think that taller buildings will eventually come to, and will be welcome on this block, I think that this new building is just too far out of scale with what’s there now; this is too big a step, too soon. It also, from the initial concept drawings, is entirely out of character from an architectural standpoint. Below is the only drawing provided in the background materials of the east side of the building, facing the present Guatemalteca bakery (the image didn’t reduce all that well, sorry). The diagonally-shaded portion at the bottom is the profile that the bakery will make against the side of this building, so you can see how much out of scale it will be. It is also apparent, from the lack of any features on this side, that the architects are expecting that the bakery building will be similarly torn down and replaced with a high-rise.

I think that this building is just too generic, too insensitive to context, and perhaps even a bit ugly. I hope that the Planning Commission will turn a jaundiced eye toward this project.

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 8/8/2007
Posted 7/30/2007

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA [subject to change]
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

July 25, Planning Commission Meeting
TBA - Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT

AFP-07-021 –   Stefanou Property
R-90 Zone
20 Maryland Avenue
New Garage (Demolition of Existing)
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 2.5M)

 AFP-07-027 – Lee Property
MXD Zone
656 Bright Meadow Mews
Addition of Storage Room Under Existing Sunroom
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

SITE PLANS

AFP-07-025 – Gaithersburg North Research
MXD Zone
200 Professional Drive
Modifications to Parking

AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 3M)

SP-07-0007 – Bank Street
C-2 Zone
1 Bank Street/Quince Orchard Road

One-Story Bank
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 3.7M)

SP-07-0004 – Aventiene
MXD Zone

Neighborhood 3, Phase I
FINAL SITE PLAN
Background Material (pdf format - 12.5M)

SP-07-0001 – Asbury Methodist Village

R-90 Zone
201 Russell Avenue
43 Single-Family Homes
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 5.4M)

CSP-07-002 – 201 East Diamond Avenue
CBD Zone
(Formerly Chris Steakhouse)
Four-Story Office Building
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW

Background Material (pdf format - 5.2M)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

The City has added the following item to the agenda for tonight’s meeting of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee:

IV. Courtesy Review

414 E. Diamond Avenue
Applicant: Identity, Inc.
1,270 square foot building

This item appears to be the same as the item that was on the Planning Commission Agenda on July 11. Full background materials are available from that meeting. My understanding was that the Planning Commission made HPAC review a condition of approval; it is unclear why this would have been added at the last minute like this..

Agenda - Historic Preservation Committee Meeting, 8/2/2007
Posted 7/27/2007

CITY OF GAITHERSBURG
31 South Summit Avenue
Telephone: 301-258-6330

AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:30 p.m.

The HPAC will conduct a site visit at

201 East Diamond Avenue, on
Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. .

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

II. PUBLIC HEARINGS

HAWP-104 Applicant: Peter Geiling, for City of Gaithersburg
7 South Summit Avenue
B&O Railroad Station
Rolling Stock Park

HAWP-92C Applicant: Michael Stumborg

15 Walker Avenue
Removal of Rear Solarium/Replace with Enclosed Porch

HAWP-109 Applicant: Neang Lin, for Hak Srun Lin
24 Chestnut Street
Expansion of Concrete Driveway

HAWP-95B Applicant: Irfan Khan
(Retroactive) 112 Meem Avenue
An Amendment to HAWP-95
Change of Materials/Window Style/Roof

III. RECOMMENDATION to Historic District Commission

Historic Significance of 201 East Diamond Avenue
A demolition request has been filed by Charles Blessing, for the Inter-Continental Group

IV. UPDATES

1. Meeting Dates
2. Status of Various Projects