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

While I’m writing about the Planning Commission, I want to correct an oversight on my part and call attention to the previous meeting, where they spent close to two hours discussing design guidelines for Olde Towne. Anyone who has an interest in the redevelopment or preservation of Olde Towne would do well to take the time to watch the video of the discussion which took place on January 21. This was the initial discussion of this document; there will be future rounds of discussion, including giving the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) a chance to weigh in. I expect that citizen input is welcome throughout this process.

Following is the introduction to the background materials document from that meeting:

STAFF COMMENTS

BACKGROUND:

Staff is bringing forward to the Planning Commission draft Olde Towne Design Guidelines as a discussion item. There currently exists a collection of design guidelines for Olde Towne. (Reference exhibit 2) However, those guidelines were developed in conjunction with the 1995 Downtown Plan for the City of Gaithersburg, revised January 8, 1996. (Reference exhibit 4) Since that 1996 plan, the City identified Olde Towne as a special study area for the 2003 Land Use Master Plan.

The Gaithersburg Olde Towne District Master Plan, MP-1-05, was approved by Mayor and City Council resolution R-64-05 on July 18, 2005. (Reference exhibit 1) The future Olde Towne envisioned in MP-1-05 would require new, expanded design guidelines, rather than the antiquated guidelines currently adopted and not developed for this plan. Included in said resolution was the following:

“Following the adoption of the Gaithersburg Olde Towne District Master Plan the City should begin formulating a collection of design guidelines for the five Planning Sectors. Concept plan proposals should go before the Planning Commission for courtesy review and comment. The Planning Commission will utilize the established design guidelines in their review of these concept plans.”

The draft Olde Towne Design Guidelines has incorporated those elements still applicable from the current adopted set. (Reference exhibit 3) The draft Design Guidelines: includes guidelines not currently addressed such as hardscape elements and lighting; better reflects the current state of development design techniques; and expands upon guidelines such as signage to address and clarify deficiencies found in the current adopted set.

Staff is aware that Olde Towne is a diverse area with distinct traits for each sector. The development of these guidelines is often broad based to address universal conditions found within all the sectors. Project specific details, such as landscaping, will be dealt with at the site plan stage. Staff has included language in the draft guidelines allowing the Planning Commission to waive specific requirements if a proposed site plan element better furthers the intent and vision of the Olde Towne Master Plan. (Reference exhibit 5)

CONCLUSION:

Staff is seeking from the Planning Commission guidance and recommendations on the various design elements addressed to create a user-friendly, comprehensive illustrative document to guide Olde Towne development over the coming years. Eventually, staff will seek a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Mayor & City Council approving adoption of the guidelines by resolution.

Back to this week’s meeting, from the City’s website:

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 2/4/2009

Posted 1/29/2009

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA [subject to change]
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

January 21, 2009, Planning Commission Meeting
Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT

AFP-09-001 — Cedar Court Apartments
CBD Zone
108 Olde Towne Avenue
1st Floor Conversion to Residential Use
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW

Background Material (pdf format 4.5M)

AFP-08-036 – Sam’s Club
C-2 Zone
610 North Frederick Avenue

Parking Lot/Storm Water Management Revisions
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 4M)

AFP-09-003 – Girard Business Center

CBD Zone
200/220 Girard Street
Reuse from Office to Religious Facility
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

Strategic Plan Update
Background Material (pdf format)

ADJOURNMENT

Update: According to the Gazette, the fire has been ruled arson.

Patricia M. Murret writes in the Gazette, Three-alarm fire at vacant Gaithersburg buildings slated for demolition:

About 100 firefighters were called to a three-alarm blaze Wednesday afternoon that within minutes consumed three stories of a vacant apartment building in Olde Towne Gaithersburg, according to county fire and rescue officials.

The Diamond Court buildings, along with the adjacent Deer Park and Ty-Gwinn apartments were vacated this winter to make way for the Archstone-Smith redevelopment project, said Olde Towne lawyer Jim Clifford, who is involved with the redevelopment project. The property is still in the process of being sold and the final settlement is scheduled for May 29.

There were no injuries. Following are a few pictures from the scene, taken and provided by Gaithersblog reader Clark W. Day:

Wednesday night, the Planning Commission is going to review the final site plan for the Archstone project on East Diamond Ave. Included in the background documents are a ton of details, including a few more artist’s renderings, some of which I’ve pasted in below. If you’re excited about this development, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to go to the Planning Commission Meeting in City hall (Council Chambers, 7:30pm) to express your support.

Also, there’s great news regarding the proposed Enterprise Zone designation for the Olde Towne Central Business District. This effort has just made it through the latest and one of the biggest hurdles — support from the County Council. Word is that the Council voted 7-0 to support Gaithersburg’s application. This allows this application to be forwarded to the State, which will have the final say. This Enterprise Zone designation will make it easier for developers to proceed with redevelopment efforts like the one you see below; it provides for some amount of tax relief and impact fee waivers for businesses that improve their properties and/or bring in new jobs to the area. There can be at most one new Enterprise Zone in each County each year, and there was some concern that the County may want to support a renewal application for Wheaton rather than the new application for Gaithersburg. However, the Council’s unanimous support today puts that question to rest. Thank you, County Council members!

Elevation as seen from Diamond Ave; click for larger image

Building as seen from above

Center courtyard

Swimming pool in east courtyard

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 3/19/2008
Posted 3/10/2008

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA*

Wednesday, March 19, 2008
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

March 5, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting

Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT

AFP-08-007 — Frick Residence - Lakelands

MXD Zone
840 Lake Varuna Mews
2nd-Floor Addition Above Garage
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

SITE PLAN

SP-08-0001 – Archstone at Olde Towne Gaithersburg
CBD Zone
320-408 East Diamond Avenue
Redevelopment of 7 Parcels and Public Alley

PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material I (pdf format 6.5M)
Background Material II (pdf format 9.5M)
Background Material - III Exhibit 20 (pdf format 6.6M)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

I’ve obtained some new artist’s renderings of what Archstone-Smith has in mind for the block of E Diamond Ave east of Summit. It’s good to see that this project continues to move forward. Together with the proposed redevelopment of the Fishman Building (just across the street from the Archstone-Smith project) and the Wye site, as well as the redevelopment of the Chris’ Steakhouse property that is now underway, it is an exciting time for Oldetowne. The Archstone project is on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting a week from tomorrow; the background materials for that session have not yet been posted.

From the City’s website:

Monday, January 28, 2008
Aggravated Assault

On 1/28/08 at 5:08 P.M. there was a stabbing in the 300 block of E. Diamond Ave. The victim was stabbed by his roommate who was arrested on the scene.

The 300 block is just east of Summit Ave, near Gaithersburg Elementary & Middle Schools, and where some apartment complexes are slated to be torn down to make way for new, 300-400 unit apartment building.

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 10/3/2007
Posted 9/25/2007

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA [Subject to Change]
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

September 19, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting
Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT

SP-05-0007 –   Washingtonian North
MXD Zone
10000 Washingtonian Boulevard
Infrastructure Plan
EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
and

SP-05-0008 — Washingtonian North Office Building 3
MXD Zone
10000 Washingtonian Boulevard
220,116-Sq. Ft. Office, Garage and
Lot 4 Improvements
EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
Background Material (pdf format)

AFP-07-032 — Watkins Mill Town Center
MXD Zone
Metropolitan Grove Road
Elevation Revisions
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

AB-57 – Application to abandon 6,509 square feet of existing land area adjacent to Parcel P-936, east of North Summit Avenue; 3,851 square feet of land area abutting the southern boundary of Gaithersburg Elementary School; and 7,044 square feet of land previously dedicated for a 25-foot public alley adjacent to Lot 1, East Diamond Avenue, in the City of Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, Maryland
Background Material (pdf format)

T-381 – Application to amend Chapter 24 of the City Code (City Zoning Ordinance), Article III, § 24-160G.5, entitled, “Waiver of Development Standards,” so as to amend the waiver standards so that the City Council may, by resolution, waive the building and structure height requirements in the Corridor Development Zone (CD Zone) as follows: For a commercial district to allow a height not to exceed five (5) stories, or sixty (60) feet
Background Material (pdf format)

T-382 – Application to amend Chapter 24 of the City Code (City Zoning Ordinance), Article III, entitled “Regulations Applicable to Particular Zones,” Division 15, entitled, “I-3, Industrial and Office Park,” §24-143, entitled, “Uses Permitted by Right,” to add new §§ 24-143(12) and 24-143(13), so as to allow Full Service and Limited Service Hotels as Permitted Uses in the I-3 Zone if certain conditions are met
Background Material (pdf format)

Z-306 – Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
Application to amend an existing sketch plan for approximately 10.49 acres of property on the HSUS property. The site is located east of I-270, south of the Professional Drive and north of future Watkins Mill Road extended. The application proposes up to 300,000 square feet of office development in structures between 6 and 12 stories, up to 250 and 300 residential units in structures between 6 and 12 stories, and structured parking
Background Material (pdf format)

SITE PLANS

SP-07-0012 – Fairfield West Deer Park – Phase One
CD Zone
2 West Deer park Road
Demolition of Existing Complex and
Construction of 315 Multifamily Units,

Amenities, Structured Parking
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 12M)

SDP-07-002 – Washingtonian South Seven
MXD Zone

9711 Washingtonian Boulevard
Addition of 50,000 Square Feet
SDP AMENDMENT REVIEW
and
SP-07-0009 – Washingtonian South Seven
MXD Zone

9711 Washingtonian Boulevard
Two 8-Story Office Buildings and 5-Level Garage
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 5.6M)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

This is, to my knowlege, the largest City-sponsored annual event of the year; last year’s attendance was estimated at 30,000 people. Text from the City’s press release, the pictures are from my post on last year’s event:

“Celebrate Gaithersburg in Olde Towne,” Gaithersburg’s popular street festival, is back for its 26th year. A several block area around the intersection of Summit and Diamond Avenues will be closed to traffic as the entire community comes out for a day of music, food, arts, crafts, amusements, and much more. It all happens on Sunday, September 16 from Noon to 5 p.m.

Local restaurants will be on hand to offer delectable samples from their menus in this year’s “Taste” of Gaithersburg. Enjoy a wide range of culinary delights ranging from Southern fried chicken to African stews. Special tickets, priced at $1.25 each, must be purchased to buy “Taste” items. No item will sell for more than three tickets. Other favorites, including funnel cakes and ice cream, will be available throughout the festival. “Taste” tickets are not valid at these vendors. Advance “Taste” tickets sales are going on now at the Activity Center at Bohrer Park. Visit the festival website at www.gaithersburgmd.gov/celebrate for details.

Five stages of live entertainment showcase a wide range of musical styles, headlined by Sister Hazel. Pat McGee and Friends kick off the entertainment on Stage I, the City Hall Concert Pavilion, at 1 p.m., followed by platinum and gold album recording artists Sister Hazel, taking the stage at 2:45 p.m.

On Stage II in Olde Towne Park near the train station, enjoy the classic sounds of the Olney Big Band from Noon until 2 p.m. Then kick up your heels to the Americana, roots rock sounds of Ruthie & the Wranglers from 3 to 5 p.m. Stage II is sponsored by Sandy Spring Bank.

Stage III at Diamond and Park Avenues will feature the Latin rhythms of Sol y Rumba, Sin Fronteras and Mystic Warriors throughout the day. A variety of community performances, including dance and choral music, can be found on Stage IV on East Diamond Avenue. Stage IV is sponsored by Sport & Health.

Artisans, importers and entertainers from around the globe will share their wares and talents in the City World Market, located in the parking lot adjacent to City Hall. A unique element of the World Market is an education initiative, supported by Gaithersburg’s Economic Development office. Qualifying artisans received free business development training over the summer, including information on registering a business, where and how to obtain loans, product pricing, marketing, and more. Sponsored in part by the Celebrate Gaithersburg in Olde Towne Montgomery College Hispanic Business & Training Institute and the Mid-Atlantic Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the award-winning City World Market is also home to Stage V, featuring African dance, Argentine Tango, Middle Eastern belly dance, and much more.

Youngsters are in for a special treat with interactive theatre, games, demonstrations and amusements. Little ones will enjoy wandering through Bubble Island, or trying their skills on the Forest Oak Boy Scouts rope bridge. Creativity comes alive at the Middle Earth Studios, with costumed story telling and creative dramatics. Explore the natural world in the Discovery Creek Rolling Rainforest. Have your picture taken with Smokey the Bear at the Firehouse Museum, be in your own safety video with KinderVision, and visit Operation Lifesaver at the Community Museum to learn about safe railroad crossing.

Two children’s activity areas will feature circus clowns, balloon artists, jugglers and interactive entertainment. Located in the parking lot adjacent to Wells/Robertson House near City Hall and on Summit Avenue near Bank of America, the activity areas are sponsored in part by Six Flags America and Washington Parent Magazine. There will be other amusements such as moon bounces, a climbing wall and slides throughout the festival.

The City of Gaithersburg will recognize its newest citizens during a naturalization ceremony conducted at noon at the City Hall Concert Pavilion. Immediately following the swearing in, the Mayor and City Council will present awards for the Distinguished Citizen, Outstanding Organization, and Friend of Gaithersburg.

Free shuttle service is available to and from satellite parking at Lakeforest Shopping Center. A bike valet parking service will be available behind the Victor Litz Music Center off of Summit Avenue. Free parking is also available at the public garage on the corner of South Summit and Olde Towne Avenues. Additional parking is available at the Activity Center at Bohrer Park, less than a quarter mile from the festival area. Please note that no alcohol, skateboards, rollerblades, bicycles, or pets are allowed at the event.

Celebrate Gaithersburg in Olde Towne is sponsored in part by MIX 107.3 FM, Washington’s CW Television and Kaiser Permanente of the Mid-Atlantic Area. For a complete festival schedule visit the City’s website at www.gaithersburgmd.gov/celebrate or call 301-258-6350.

Update 4: WTOP says:

Someone saw something and then said something, that’s what happened in Old Town Gaithersburg Thursday afternoon.

A section was blocked to traffic, parts of an office building were evacuated and MARC rail service on the Brunswick line was disrupted all because someone parked their car.

And WJZ (Baltimore Channel 13) says:

The officer believed there was a propane odor coming from the car, but fire department spokesman Pete Piringer says the odor was coming from trash in a nearby pickup truck.

As a precaution, police, fire department personnel and the bomb squad were requested to the scene. A bomb sniffing dog sniffed the car and did not react, so police conducted steps to rule it out as a potential threat.

At 2:00pm, Alert Gaithersburg sent out the following:

S. Summit Ave. closed between Hutton St. & E. Dimaond Ave. Olde Towne Ave. closed from Fulks Corner to S. Summit Ave. because of a suspicious vehicle.

It took a while for stories to show up in the news, but now Fox 5 and NBC 4 are reporting that a suspicious vehicle, plastered with anti-war stickers and emanating a odor of propane was found in the parking garage; the initial report came in about 1:00 pm, and the MARC train service is at the moment shut down. I’m expecting some photographs from a Gaithersblog reader, I’ll post them when they’re available.

Update 1: WJZ (Baltimore Channel 13) has a story and a helicopter video up; the narrator manages to get multiple things wrong — as far as I know the apartment building next to the Garage is not a “Senior Assisted Living Facility” (I assume someone told the reporter it was near Asbury and they got confused) — so take it for what it’s worth.

Update 3: The incident appears to have been cleared; I just got notices from MARC that the railroad was re-opened, and about a minute later from Alert Gaithersburg that the streets were re-opened.

Update 2: Pictures.

Photos courtesy Clark W Day Photo-Graphics.

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