October 21, 1999

MEMORANDUM

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Planning Staff

SUBJECT: Final Record Plat Application PLT98-0150 and PLT98-0154
Dr. John Law, Applicant

The above referenced Final Record Plat applications were previously considered by the Commission and denied.  The Commission actions were appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County which remanded the proposed subdivision to the Commission for further consideration and findings.

The two applications are identical and involve a proposed two-lot subdivision at 100 South Van Buren Street.  The subject property is located within the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District and is currently improved with the historic Prettyman House.  The proposed subdivision would create a larger lot in excess of 18,000 square feet fronting West Jefferson Street and a smaller approximately 9,000 square foot lot fronting South Van Buren Street.  The larger lot would include the Prettyman House and existing in-ground pool, and carport; the smaller, vacant lot would be available for development.

Only four members of the commission were present when application PLT98-0150 was considered on October 21, 1998.  That application was denied when a motion for approval failed on a 2-2 vote.  Subsequently application PLT98-0154 was filed by the applicant in an attempt to persuade the Commission that Section 25-749 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which became an issue in the first application, did not apply to his proposed subdivision.  That second application was denied when the Commission determined that the applicant did not provide new information or prove that erroneous information had been considered during the previous proceedings.  That denial was also appealed to the Circuit Court and consolidated with the earlier appeal.

The interpretation and application of Section 25-749 (b) of the City of Rockville Zoning and Planning Ordinance was a central issue in Applicant’s appeal.  That section reads as follows:

In his appeal, the Applicant contended that Section 25-749 (b) of the City of Rockville Zoning and Planning Ordinance did not apply to his application because it was not a resubdivision but rather a first time subdivision.  In an Opinion and Order, Judge Mason found that the Commission had correctly determined that the application involved a re-subdivision to which Section 25-749 (b) could apply.  However, the Court could not find that the Commission had made any determination as to whether strict adherence to that section “was feasible in this case given the unique historic significance of the structures situated on Dr. Law’s lot.”  The Court, therefore, reversed the decision of the Commission and remanded the application to the Commission to address the “feasibility” standard of Section 25-749 (b).

As directed by the Court, the Commission’s task now is to make specific findings as to whether Applicant’s subdivision proposal maintains to the extent feasible, the average area and frontage of existing lots within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed subdivision.

Staff concurs with Judge Mason’s observation that the language of Section 25-749 (b) “clearly vests the Commission with some discretion.”  Indeed, when the Commission considered Text Amendment (T-110-90) creating Section 25-749 (b) it requested that the City attorney include “appropriate language to allow the Commission some discretion in the application of this section.”  Staff has determined that discretion and flexibility is required in applying the minimum area requirements of Section 25-749 (b) to the subject application in light of the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The earlier staff reports (copies attached) calculated the estimated average area and frontage of existing lots within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision (the “neighborhood”).  As noted in those reports, the proposed larger lot exceeds the average area and frontage, while the smaller lot equals the average frontage but is smaller than the average lot area.  Staff further noted that the subject neighborhood is eclectic with no uniformity in lot sizes and includes both small and large lots.  The Introduction to the adopted “Neighborhood Plan for the West End” similarly observes that “the result of the patchwork development pattern and variety of architectural styles is a unique neighborhood, recalling both the small town of the past and the growing city of today.”  Therefore, the average lot size of approximately 14,000 square feet is a somewhat artificial number that reflects neither the diversity of lot sizes nor the unique character of the neighborhood.

Although the Applicant’s existing lot is large enough to divide into two equal lots that would come close to meeting the average lot size in a 500 foot area, such a subdivision would negatively impact the historic Prettyman house and its surroundings.  Such an even division of the subject property would not only require the removal of an in-ground pool and carport that are more than 50 years old, it would likely result in a significant reduction, if not destruction, of the garden setting and open space that frames the Prettyman house and provides and maintains a necessary buffer between the historic house and other structures and enhances the streetscape along South Van Buren Street.   In addition, the creation of a lot on South Van Buren Street that approximates 14,000 square feet will invite, for economic reasons, the construction of a larger home than could be constructed on the proposed 9,000 square foot lot, which would further threaten the historic charm and character of the Prettyman house and surrounds.

Applicant’s proposed subdivision, however, does not have these negative impacts on the existing historic house or the Historic District. (See the attached recommendation of the Historic District Commission)  The proposed smaller lot fronting South Van Buren Street would maintain an appropriate landscaped buffer between the Prettyman House and any new development on the lot.  The lot’s smaller size would also restrict the size of any house that could be built there.  Moreover, since the proposed smaller lot is equal in size to many lots in the area, it would be consistent with, and not adversely affect, the eclectic character of the neighborhood.  Therefore, Staff does not believe that enlarging the lot fronting South Van Buren Street to more closely approximating the “average” lot size within a 500 foot area materially benefits or protects the neighborhood so as to warrant or justify the resulting negative impact on the Prettyman house and the Historic District. Staff concludes that the strict application of the area requirements of Section 25-749 (b) is not feasible in light of the probable adverse impacts on the historic structure and surrounding area that would result from such strict application. 

Staff has consistently supported this application and continues to do so for the reasons set forth herein and in its prior reports to the Commission.  Staff, therefore, recommends that, for the reasons stated above and identified in the prior staff reports, the Commission find that the application maintains, to the extent feasible the average area and frontage of existing lots within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed subdivision and satisfies all of the developments standards and subdivision regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.

Attachments