Good evening.

Welcome to the August 14th, 2025 Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission workshop or hearing and workshop.

The technical qualifications of the Commission and staff are on file with the City of Frederick and are made a part of each and every case before the Commission.

The Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission uses the guidelines adopted by the mayor and city council and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, published by the U.S.

Department of Interior, National Park Service, and these guidelines are made a part of each and every case.

All cases were duly advertised in the Frederick News Post in accordance with Section 301 of the Land Management Code.

Introductions this evening on my left, the audience's right, starting with uh the HPC administrative assistant, Tansi Creighton, and we have Commissioners, Carol Kelly, uh, Commissioner Jonathan Levin Levens.

Making sure.

Thank you.

Commissioner Eva Seller, Commissioner Paul Fitzgerald, myself, Commissioner Robert Van Renz, Commissioner Ann Hart, and Commissioner Paul Fitzgerald.

And moving on to city staff, we have Manager of Historic Preservation, Christina Martin Koskey, Historic Preservation Planners, Sarah Hoffeditz, and Daniel.

I'm sorry, I'm having a senior moment here.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And uh Assistant City Attorney Iris Anon.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and statements made in this hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If so, answer I do.

Thank you very much.

And please be seated.

In order to be eligible to vote on an application, a commissioner must have made the required site visit and attended any and all meetings at which such an application was discussed.

In the event that a commissioner is absent from any such meeting, the commissioner may satisfy the attendance requirement by reviewing the record of that meeting.

It is presumed if a commissioner makes no statement at this time that they have done so and are prepared to vote on the agenda this evening.

That being said, are there any commissioners with statements of eligibility?

All right, seeing none.

Moving on, do we have any announcements this evening?

Yes, I I only have one.

Um I just want to wish a warm welcome welcome to Carol Kelly and Jonathan Levins.

Uh, this is their first uh meeting as Historic Preservation Commission members.

So uh thank you so much for uh your contributions to the city it is um appreciated.

And I also have an announcement um HPC 25-69.

No action is going to be taking place tonight due to failure of public notice requirements.

It was 25-69.

Correct.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Moving on to approval of minutes.

Approval of the July 24th, 2025 hearing and workshop minutes.

Commissioners, any additions or any concerns regarding those minutes.

So I'm prepared to make a motion and I move that we approve both the workshop and hearing minutes from the July 24, 2025 meeting.

Second the motion.

All right, thank you.

Moving on to HPC business.

Uh sorry, on Google.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

Can I get a motion to motion on the minutes, please?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

It's been a very Monday kind of Thursday.

All right.

And that passes unanimously.

So moving on to HPC Business.

Uh administrative approval report.

Thank you.

I'd like to enter the entire administrative approval report into the record and just note that 25 projects were reviewed and approved by city staff last month.

All right.

And then moving on to HPC 25-385 DR request for demolition 301 Grove Boulevard.

Ms.

Martin Koskey.

Thank you.

I want to enter the entire memo and backup into the record.

I also want to acknowledge that uh today our office received two public comments.

I want to make note that both uh comments were afforded to the commission via email and a hard copy was provided to them at tonight's meeting.

A request for demolition review was submitted per Section 423a of the land management code for dwelling for a dwelling at 301 Grove Boulevard.

Planning staff has determined that the structure is in whole or in part 50 years of age or order, and based on this evaluation, the historic preservation commission is charged with determining if the property is potentially eligible for individual historic designation.

A property is eligible for designation for a historic preservation overlay if it is at least 50 years of age, if it retains historic integrity, and meets one of the uh criteria outlined in the land management code.

Um which is summarized in the memo in detail.

So the dwelling at 301 Grove Boulevard is located outside um the downtown historic preservation overlay zone.

However, it is identified as a contributing resource to the 2021 National Register update for the Frederick Historic District, F 339.

The site is part of the John W.

Grove subdivision, which is platted in 1937.

Mr.

Grove was a dairy farmer and active in public affairs.

Early advertisements for the Grove subdivision boosted that it was the most desirable and restricted section in the city.

By 1940, lots 46 and 47 were purchased by Thomas S.

Michael, a prominent local businessman, who turned the two building lots into a single property in 1956, 301 Grove Boulevard was sold to Dr.

Rex Martin and his wife, Ann Martin, who retained ownership until 2022.

Preliminary research suggests that the developer and early owners were prominent citizens and may have made significant contributions to the history or heritage of the city.

The quality of the original design and material exemplifies.

On August 1st, 2024, staff drafted an amendment in response to a demolition review application for the property, HBC 24-657, and recommended that the Commission make an application to designate the property.

So that a full evaluation could be made.

However, since that time, uh the property owner has removed character finding stone facade, which significantly damages the historic integrity of the structure and thus hampering its ability to be eligible for designation.

And therefore, staff recommends that the commission not make an application for designation.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

So I think my question is about the material.

Okay.

I will also just make an announcement.

If anybody needs hearing assisting devices, we do have them.

And hopefully our A B department will be able to assist with any microphone issues.

Thank you.

So the portion of the material that has been removed.

Which is not all the material.

Do I understand it?

There's a percentage of the material that now puts it in this category that it's not eligible.

So when applying the National Register, Secretary of Interior Standards for eligibility, there are seven criteria for historic integrity.

When we are reviewing a property on an individual basis, it needs to hold a relatively high level of historic integrity.

There is not a specific percentage called out in the interpretation of it, but I have never witnessed or observed any nationally registered designation, which are regulations mimic, um, where it has been so altered with the removal of the building's veneer to be still eligible or designated.

So while I agree that the material has been removed, I would offer that in my mind's eye, it is not so altered.

That material could be replaced.

It could be the commission is charged with reviewing at its at its current understood.

And I just walked there, so I I mean it still has its architectural configuration.

Okay, thank you.

My question is uh since we uh since we recognized a year ago that the commission should designate the property for a full-scale evaluation.

Why wasn't that done in the past year?

Because the demolition review was removed.

So it was not an active application.

What so they weren't applying anymore, but then they go ahead and tear off the front of the facade to get around the ordinance.

Is that what we've seen happen?

It is frustrating, but we are processing the application that something very similar happened at 27 Franklin Street.

This is not the first time that this has happened.

Yes.

So an applicant can come in, apply for demolition, be denied, then just try to destroy the integrity of the house and come back with a new application saying uh that now I think I should be allowed to damage to demolish the house because I've damaged the house.

The house is not in in is in structurally fine conditioned.

I don't understand this at all.

And it seems to me that this is exactly why the city needs to have a conservation district in areas outside of the historic district.

We would only deal with demolition, new construction, and major alterations, none of the small stuff we deal with in the historic district.

This is a run end run around our ordinance in an effort to avoid avoid the law.

And I am just completely appalled by this application.

So let me just one clarifying motion.

We did not get the opportunity to even complete the original application.

It was pulled.

Correct.

I don't know if you can comment on.

And that's how they're how we stand now.

So there was no code violation in doing this action.

And in your report, you recognize or suggest removal of the stone in facts its historic integrity and hampers its ability for to be eligible for a designation, but is there anything that would preclude us from putting that designation on here tonight if we can make the case for the land management code you know for uh ex uh uh exemplary craftsmanship master crafter or I I think that you um are hitting the nail on the head when when we're discussing historic integrity and um in terms of materials and craftsmanship, it has been significantly damaged with the removal of the veneer.

I think the craftsmanship is still there in terms of received a letter this evening from uh Mr.

Uh Gerald Kinney.

I think it adequately demonstrates that the house has still got significant architectural character.

Uh it is exemplary of the kind of stone architecture which is was uh uh native to this this county for so many years, and that just by taking off a portion of the stone facade, I went over to the to look at the house.

There's still a lot of stone on the house.

All of the other features of the house are still intact.

Uh I can't understand why just tearing off a portion of the stone facade would qualify as destroying all the the character defining features of the house.

In addition to that, under the historic preservation thing, is the house associated with events and cultural groups that have made significant contributions to the history of the city, the answer to that is yes.

Is it associated with the lives of Pearson significant of the history of the city?

Yes.

Does it yield or may likely yield information important to the history?

Yes.

And I believe it also exemplifies excellence in design or construction.

And so I once again I repeat that I'm not very pleased with this uh application and think this should have been denied outright.

This is the process right now, right?

It's it's not you're not denying or approving the demolition.

You're determining if it is eligible for historic presentation.

I think it's eligible, clearly.

So if I may, and going back to staff report, second sentence, or I'm sorry, first paragraph, second page.

The preliminary research.

So if we believe that this is available for an HPO, historic preservation overlay, that research then could be taken further.

Would I understand that correctly?

Yes.

And I will say, based on my previous staff report from a year ago, I I do think that the significance could be there.

What I have concerns with now is that the historic integrity has been compromised.

You need to have all three 50 years of age, historic significance, and historic integrity.

It meets two of the three requirements, but it needs to meet all three.

Then there's no percentages defined in the regulations or in the standards.

I would offer that the architectural value is still there.

I guess I would only add, I mean, there's there's enough stonework left, and I probably have a photo from earlier showing the existing building.

So I mean there's probably evidence of what was there.

Now can you replicate it exactly?

Maybe not, but my first meeting, and and I apologize if I have to appeal both to fellow commissioners and the staff for direction and how to proceed.

Um I have a question for the staff at this point, um, which may be simply a factual procedural question that reflects my lack of familiarity with the uh with the procedure.

But is there any place in the demolition process?

Aspects of which are new to me as the staff knows, um, although I've had prior commission experience for a public hearing.

So what I will say is before a demolition permit can be issued, a demolition review application has been submitted, as was done here in this case.

When an application for demolition review is submitted, staff's first step is one to make sure the application is complete.

It's complete.

The next step is to determine its age.

Is it over 50 years of age?

If it's under 50 years of age, staff can go ahead and process that certificate to demolish without delay because it's not eligible for further review.

In this case, it was uh easily determined, its construction date certainly meets that standard of being over 50 years of age and thus forwarded to the commission for review at a public hearing.

That's where we are at now.

The commission at this point is charged not with reviewing the demolition specifically, but whether the building in its current state applying only exterior parts of the building is eligible for individual designation, applying the Secretary of Interior standards for eligibility, which includes its age, 50 years of older, its significance, which it may have, and then its historic integrity, which I think is the debate.

Thank you.

Um if the commission chooses to make a designation application, um, it would be most likely at the next meeting on August 28th, that staff will have to present their findings.

That will include additional research, but ultimately the integrity assessment is probably not going to, it will be more in-depth, but it's probably not going to change.

Um then if the commission at that point will be making an assessment on whether to not move forward or to recommend designation.

And if it does recommend designation, then it moves forward through the whole designation process, which includes the planning commission and city council.

Is there any current open demolition application on this property?

Just the one that's before you.

Does the is there an application for review for demolition?

Currently open.

What is before you right now is the current demolition review application.

For the entire structure.

Whatever the owner chooses to.

There is a secondary structure on the site, but that is not part of the demolition review application.

I don't want to beg any more time, but you may want to respond to it or not.

I know we have some preliminary discussions about expanding to Mr.

McMahon's point on a neighborhood conservation district.

Right.

And I think what we are learning that demolition review, which was uh began in in 2014, which was a big triumph to get this policy enacted into an ordinance uh that we have some protection and a public process to debate what buildings go down and what what's protected.

Um that was a that was a huge triumph.

But what we are learning it is not a it's not the silver bullet.

It's not going to protect every case.

We definitely have lost significant historic buildings along the way.

So I think there needs to be another tool in our toolbox, and this is something that we incorporated into our 2020 comprehensive plan.

It's the the goal of creating these conservation districts.

Conservation districts are not historic districts.

They're and I hate to use this term, but the simplest way to kind of describe what a conservation district is a historic, a late version of historic preservation districts.

It doesn't have the same level of architectural design review typically.

There's a lot of variety of how uh a conservation district is applied.

But what it could do is de-cinvice desyncise a developer or property owner's desire to demolish a historic significant building to build a much larger building that's out of character with the neighborhood.

Um right now, for the most part, the city is using Euclidean zoning.

So uh properties all throughout the city are zoned, maybe R6 or eight, you know, certain level of building, uh building density, but if a neighborhood that's existing and has some age to it has a sea of one-story building, by code you could demolish it and build a six-story building in some locations, and that's totally out of character with the neighborhood.

And so what the conservation district would do would prevent that sort of development without creating a very detailed architectural design review that we have here.

Christina, with all due respect, I'd like to ask you this question.

If the stone on the facade had not been removed, would you say that this house would have been eligible for individual designation?

I've already said that I thought it was uh at least worthy of a designation application to explore it.

Okay, well then what about the the issue of how the law is being evaded that Section 423 the law is simply being evaded by a by a facile act of vandalism removing architectural features and to conclude otherwise would render Section 423 useless and toothless.

Uh and uh I I think that Mr.

Kinney makes a very good point.

He says it is well settled principle of Maryland law that a legislative enactment should not be interpreted in a way that renders it ineffective or meaningless.

And I think we would be rewarding the applicant here for very bad uh behavior, certainly an act of vandalism against the property, simply to avoid the the application of this statute.

Having said that, however, I I think this House has got many features still intact that qualify would qualify for designation with or without the stone that has been removed.

But I would not certainly reward someone for an act of vandalism to get around uh a duly constituted law.

There's a conversation to be had there.

I mean, there's definitely discussions that have been had of um different things we can do to add a little bit more teeth to this demolition review process, but we're working with the regulations we have now.

I wouldn't say that the demolition review is is toothless.

Um we've protected a a fair number of historic buildings using the demolition review ordinance, even cases where um the property owner went ahead without with demolition without permits.

And you know, it the historic integrity is by its nature debatable, right?

So I want to go back to the uh memorandum in front of us, right?

That we are charged with determining if the property is potentially eligible for individual historic designation.

And I would further offer, since we never finished the first time it was submitted to us.

That it's on us now to request a historic preservation overlay so that the further research can be done.

Something may turn up that would assist.

And I have to agree with Commissioner McMahon that all the architectural elements of this building have not been lost.

But that's not this that's not the standard, but that's no specific percentage if it's more than 30 percent or more to 75.

There's nothing written.

This is a case by case.

And the building is still stunning, still standing, it still has its quality.

It's missing some stones.

So, and I'll just clarify my my assessment of of the seven requirements for historic integrity workmanship feeling and association has been the ones that have been most significant significantly damaged.

That that's your assessment, and you're you're not the one that's gonna be voting on this.

Correct.

I think we have the determination whether we agree with that assessment or not.

That's what we're absolutely, there's no confusion on that.

Any further commentary?

Is there anything in the comprehensive plan about extending the historic preservation district?

There is.

Um the according to the the comprehensive, I'm sorry, the 2020 comprehensive plan, the goal is to expand the historic preservation overlay to match the National Register district.

Um that process has to wait until we get that 2021 National Register Survey approved by the National Park Service, and then we have some firm boundaries to work off of to move forward with such a proposal.

There's no way that's going to show up in time for this.

Okay, I just want to be clear.

Okay.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

All right.

Before you do anything else.

Do we want to open up to public comment?

Uh I don't know if that's been done yet.

It hasn't, and we don't normally do that for demolition review, but I think in this case it might be worthwhile.

So are there any members of the public here this evening who wish to speak regarding this case?

Please come up, introduce yourself.

If you haven't been sworn in yet, let me know, and we'll we'll swear you in real quick.

Thank you so much.

It's a pleasure to be here before the um members of the commission.

I'm Gwen Kinsey.

I submitted to provide your address too, please.

Pardon?

Uh 210 Road Boulevard, located diagonally across Road Boulevard from the subject property.

Um I submitted lengthy written comments that uh Commissioner McMahon has already quoted from.

Um I will uh I'll adopt them here and we'll try to recite everything that I said.

Uh I would make a few points that I would like to um they don't necessarily be have to be decided here because this case is gonna be revisited in later this month.

But um I would like to encourage the staff.

I I would like to um suggest that staff has a lot of tools in their toolkit that they can apply now.

There's there's no need to wait for further um action from the Department of the Interior, from City City government.

Um there's tools that exist right here and right now.

And one of those is the existing law.

Um when an applicant submits an application for demolition uh pursuant to Section 423, withdraws it, uh, then because it appears an unfavorable result is going to happen, then uh intentionally engages in an act of descriptive destruction that's intended to remove the significant historical elements, and then reapplies for uh the same demolition application.

That's a clear, it's already been noted.

I don't need to re-emphasize it.

That's a clear evasion of the existing law.

And under those circumstances, um it's incorrect to submit that we're limited, our hands are tied to looking at the house as it exists right now.

When you have that kind of evasion, uh it's appropriate in order to give the law effect and not render render it completely ineffective.

The effective assessment should be to look at the house at the date of the initial uh demolition request.

That's the that's the appropriate date.

There's nothing that says that we have to look at it at this moment when it's already when the when the when the uh demolition it really was partial demolition has already occurred.

So what we could say is this was phase one of demolition project that's already underway.

Now, when a property owner does that, um they can say, well, that's unfair to me.

I've acted in reliance on what the law was.

An owner who proceeds to makes a demolition application and then withdraws it, knowing that you're probably gonna lose.

Um he's assuming the risk that uh his act of um removing historic elements might fail.

And I would submit that the effect the appropriate date to assess when the property uh what whether the property qualifies for a nomination is back at the time of the original application.

Now uh I would see I would urge the staff to review their procedures because I think it could affect many other properties.

Um consult with legal counsel because I think interpreting in a statute in a way that renders it largely ineffective, it's not an appropriate construction of the statute.

So um also I I stated that that is the end of your time.

Uh public comment is limited to three minutes.

So um I would also suggest that the interior of the house remains relevant.

Um but it's not relevant to the scope of our deliberations.

Okay, I thank you very much.

Uh thank you so much.

All right, is there anyone else that who wishes to speak regarding this application?

And I were you sworn in earlier.

What?

Were you sworn in earlier?

I could sworn in, yeah.

Okay, I just wanted to double check.

I submitted some written comments to staff uh a couple hours ago, so maybe she forwarded those to you in the email.

I don't know.

It's only one page.

I'm not a really good public speaker, so bear with me.

I live at 610 Rosevont Avenue.

I'm Eric Jenkins.

I've been there for 25 years.

I'm just a couple steps away from the house.

I'm on at the corner of Lindbergh and Rosevine Avenue.

And um I went over there, I guess in June.

You know, I walk, I walk over there out with a dog, and I went over there, and I said, What the hell's 12 of them?

They were taking the uh stone facade off.

I talked to the contractor, and he said uh they're gonna take all the stone facade off.

They have these huge containers, metal containers there, putting stones in there.

I said, What are you guys doing?

They're gonna take all the stone off, and then we're gonna put siding on, then we're gonna apply for demolition permit.

That's what the contractor told me.

Back in about June 5th or so, around the 7th, June 7th this year.

So I contacted the city and contacted uh I think it was the deputy director of uh public works.

I think his name was Scott.

He got back to me and said, kind of like you know, not a whole lot he could do at that time, and they proceeded with the removing the facade.

Uh I think it's pretty much all gone, but maybe some left on the side of the roof still there.

So they did that, and then uh let's see, what else want to tell you?

seventh this year so I contacted the city and contacted uh I think it was the deputy director of uh public works I think his name was Scott he got back to me and said kind of like you know not a whole lot he could do at that time and they proceeded with the removing the facade uh I think it's pretty much all gone but maybe some left on the side the roof still there so they did that and then uh let's see what else want to tell you yeah they've basically removed the uh integrity historic integrity of the house I mean it's gone but this is a good case study for you guys and I like the idea of a conservation district maybe look into that a little more and uh I recommend in my written written statement say maybe modify this current ordinance and put in there you cannot remove more than 25% of the facade unless you go to public hearing maybe add that and amend the current ordinance okay that's my main point I mean if you get on the city of fall church for I'm from my brother's from it's it's amazing what they've done down there with structures.

I mean they really just demolish a lot of structures and rebuild them there's a couple other things administrative things I wanted to mention I don't want to have a minute there's there's no public hearing sign on that property whatsoever I have 35 years experience in planning and there's no public sign I wasn't notified about the public hearing tonight I just someone you I think you sent me a message and I guess maybe set these the joint property others got notified but well I'm only like five houses away so you might want to look into that there was no signpost and maybe consider it enlarging the historic terrorist I know this is a big it's a big step for you to do that but maybe bring it out like to upper college terrace area that I thought we talked about before and take a look at that I know that's a big big proceed probably being a lot of a lot of uh disagreement with that one but you know upper college terrace college uh rock roll terrace area maybe bring the storage out there at some point for future generations that's all out of time all right thank you so anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this application all right hearing no one else commissioners it's back with us any further commentary before we start a motion uh yes sir uh in general I think I'll hold my those and concur with the staff report that the historic integrity has been removed and damaged by this property uh I think it's would be hard to make a case a legal case against the property owner vandalizing his own property um would certainly support you know any endeavors to expand the historic district and or uh uh neighborhood conservation districts but I guess I you know this you know this example of the stonework that's been removed you know uh above and beyond you know possessing a high artistic value or superior craftsmanship those are kind of subjective uh definitions and you could you could almost argue that on almost any property so I'm I'm leaning more towards the staff recommendation and I have to say I disagree um I think the stone veneer is only one portion of the architectural makeup of the building and I understand that we although it was suggested here this evening that we should take it back to the original application and we cannot do that it is the moment of where it is in time and it is my belief that we're responsible for ensuring that we've left no stone unturned I I would like to expand on my relative uh lack of familiarity with demolition as a process involved in historic preservation um and just say in a somewhat naive way that of a newcomer that demolition is in the context of historic preservation in the ordinance the local ordinance the Frederick government ordinance the conducts historic preservation I I will be simplistic in my um description of it for from my own perspective um if the city has included observation of pending demolitions outside of the historic preservation district

If the city has included observation of pending demolitions outside of a historic preservation district, it has a reason for doing so, I would assume.

I won't go so far as to categorize that reason as objective.

But it seems to me that the matter of demolition is in the air, so to speak, in Frederick, at least on one or more of those levels.

The Historic Preservation Commission, I do know operates to a considerable extent in this room and in this town under the auspices of the city of Frederick.

And so I am now looking at the matter of demolition, not necessarily as a tool in a toolbox as the staff was referring to.

But certainly a feature that I have to take into account conceptually and eventually and tonight operationally as a matter of uh policy and procedure.

And that inclines me to agree with my fellow commissioner that I don't think we should approve this demolition at this point.

All right.

Anything else?

Well, I think we belabored it a lot, but what this is not the first time that we've had this situation where a property outside of the historic preservation district is being proposed to be demolished or altered in a way that would compromise its historic integrity.

And unfortunately, we're limited by the individual designation criteria and the standard that it has to have historic integrity, and it we have to judge it on its current status and it's what's standing right now.

And as disappointing as this situation is I do think that the Historic Preservation Commission lacks teeth, as has been pointed out in regards to this process specifically, and that moves should be made to ensure that the public has a better, that there's a better process for dealing with these situations.

But given the current standards and the current criteria, I don't think that we can make the case that this building meets the definition of having historic integrity any longer.

If we were to just come across it in its current state, I wouldn't say, oh, there's look at that historic building.

I would just ignore it.

So I'm gonna have to agree that I don't think that it meets the requirements, and that we shouldn't make an application for designation.

I would like to point out that there's the letter of the law, and there's the spirit of the law.

This application clearly violates the spirit of the law while our uh staff and the motion is trying to hold the the uh the the motion to approve that the the staff recommendation is saying we have to stick to the letter of the law, but we can't stick to the spirit of the law.

The spirit of the law is that we should try to be saving the the history of this city and that the memory of the city and the significant places in this city.

This was a house that was designed by a historically important person.

It's eighty-five years old.

It's exemplary of some of the finest buildings ever built in the city.

I think this is just uh I think we can deny this application, and I think we can ask that this property be evaluated for a designation as we have designated other properties outside of the historic district as worthy of saving.

You cannot do both of those things at the same time.

This application currently is solely to consider a historic preservation overlay.

It will not deny or accept a demolition application.

That's not what we're doing right now.

I think we should then say that it's subject to an overlay.

That would be my motion, but there's one on the table already.

There is not currently a motion on the table, but I want to clarify that like we're only doing one thing right now.

Okay, well.

So we can't we we cannot say yes or no to the demolition right now.

All right, well then I would make a motion.

It's I will make a motion in the matter of HPC 25.

Let me finish.

We need to be very clear for legal purposes what it is that we are doing, and that is why I am clarifying for the record.

For the recordation, I am making a motion to in the matter of HPC 2538 DR that we should uh designate it uh as eligible for the historic for an historic overlay.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

All right.

We have three in favor and four not.

Motion does not carry.

The commissioners voting in favor were um uh Commissioner Levins, Commissioner Hart, and Commissioner McMahon.

Um actually do we need a motion the other way, or if the motion doesn't mean you could you could do that.

The motion to designate for overlayed in pass, so I mean that it's no overlay.

But you can make a motion not to designate us well.

That should also work.

All right.

But the the case is still before us.

Yes, you can make a motion not to designate if that's um if that's a motion on the table.

We already voted on that motion.

Right.

And it did not pass.

All right, yes.

So then there is no request for historic preservation overlay because it did not pass.

Correct.

So in my mind's eye, there is no need for an additional motion.

Correct.

All right, thank you.

Moving on to uh HPC 25-406 DR request for demolition review 20 Minocase Boulevard.

Yes, I would like to add the entire memorandum into the record.

Uh, this is a similar request for demolition review for a motel property at 20 Minocase Boulevard that was built as the I-70 motor in circa 1975, um, corresponding with the expansion of the interstate highway system in around Frederick.

More recently, it has operated under the Travel Lodge and Super 8 motel brands.

Staff have discerned that this ubiquitous mid-1970s roadside motel affronting I-70 does not meet any of the above significance criteria, and therefore does not recommend designation for historic preservation overlay.

Commissioners, any questions regarding the staff report.

All right.

I think this one is a little easier.

I think so.

Since there probably won't be any conversation about this one, it seems quite clear.

And I'm prepared to make a motion unless you want any comment.

The only comment I can think of is that I had not realized that it had gone from being a travel lodge to a super eight until this came up.

So it that's how completely anonymous it is.

I'd just like to offer that circa 1975 is not that long ago.

It's like 20 years.

It just snuck in there.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-406DR at 20 Minocasi Boulevard.

And I move that we not request designation for a historic preservation overlay.

I'll second that motion.

All right.

Any further discussion?

Just for the record, Mr.

Chairman, just uh property doesn't exempt any uh associations with any events or cultural groups, or apparently the associated withvises of any significant persons.

Uh yields no uh important information on history, nor exhibits any significance in design or construction.

Thank you for that.

All right, anything else.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

The motion to not begin an application.

Request designation application.

Thank you.

All right, moving along.

Uh any items for the consent agenda this evening.

No.

All right, and do we have any continuances?

Not tonight.

All right.

Moving on to cases to be heard.

Um since uh number five, 25-69.

There's no action tonight.

We'll move on to number six, HPC 25-201.

38 East 2nd Street.

Uh Mr.

Lecky.

Yes, I would like to add the entire staff report into the record.

The applicant is proposing to restore their marble front stoop, including cleaning the stone, reporting mortar joints, and a Dutchman repair of broken stone.

The proposal also includes the addition of an iron handrail for safety.

The dwelling at 38 East 2nd Street is a three-story three-bay, fully detached brick town home with Italian Renaissance revival details, including a white marble stoop with carved cheek walls.

The footprint of this dwelling appears on the 1887 sandboard map, the earliest map to document the neighborhood in detail.

It's considered a contributing structure in the 2021 update to the Frederick National Register of Historic District.

According to the applicant, at some point prior to their purchase of the property in 2021, the marble on the right side of the stoop's first step was damaged.

Inappriate uh repairs were completed, bypass owner that are now causing accelerated deterioration uh of the stone.

To preserve and restore the stoop, the applicant has retained a mason to perform the work, who's proposed the following scope of work.

Cleaning the marble uh using cathedral stone products light duty cleaner, repointing the mortar joints using cathedral stone products, uh M10 pointing mortar, and Dutchman repair on the bottom step and re-anchoring to old Dutchman on the staircase to keep the marble from moving and recracking in the future using Cathedral Stone Products M120 marble repair mortar.

The applicant would like to add it uh additionally add an iron railing to the right side of the stairs with the railing attached into the brick brick masonry joints and in the non-historic sidewalk pavers for uh added safety and slick conditions.

The applicant has provided photos of a similar styled railing for our consideration.

The design line guidelines encourage the preservation of existing stoops, uh all existing porches and door stoops and their character defining elements must be retained and preserved whenever possible, and such elements include uh floors, cheek walls, and stairs.

Regarding the cleaning of historic masonry features, the design guidelines state masonry shall only be cleaned to arrest deterioration or to remove severe soiling.

If the commission finds that masonry cleaning is important appropriate, the gentlest methods possible must be used.

The approved method for cleaning masonry is a low pressure water using standard city water pressure without augmentation using the lowest pressure possible between uh the commission may approve water washing using the lowest pressure possible between 100 and 300 PSI at the nozzle with the nozzle no closer than eight inches.

Uh uh from sorry, I lost my uh lost my place.

Um clip this upside down.

Eight inches from the surface being clean.

Uh abrasive cleaning techniques such as sandblasting or strong chemical solutions are not appropriate and will not be approved.

Regarding the repointing of historic masonry features, the design guidelines state repointing involves the removal of deteriorated and loose mortar from the joints of the masonry wall and replacing it with new mortar.

Repointing shall only be done where deteriorated and loose mortar has been removed and should only be removed using hand tools.

On a case-by-case basis, the commission may approve the use of some power tools on horizontal joints.

Mortar used in rehabilitation shall be appropriate in composition based on the type of masonry and uh match the historic masonry mortar in color, texture, and tooling.

The use of lime-based mortar is recommended for nearly all repointing projects and is required for repointing historic brick.

And uh it concerning Portland cement, it is generally not uh an appropriate mortar for moist most repointing jobs in Frederick.

Uh lastly, regarding uh additions to existing porches, this this being about the railing, uh features such as turnposts, brackets uh must not be added unless documentary or physical evidence proves they existed historically.

Now to summarize.

Um while there's potential for damage to the stoop if uh the methodology proposed by the applicant is performed carelessly, taken together the design guidelines to provide some allowances and specific tolerances with some conditions for this type of work.

Light pressure washing from uh 100 to 300 psi, preferably first performed in a test patch on a non-decorative and discrete location using the lowest effective pressure, as is required by product specification for the masonry cleaner, conforming with the Secretary of the Interior standards and preservation brief one, is per therefore permissible with commission approval.

Additionally, the use of power tools to make relief cuts in damaged stone to perform Dutchman repairs and remove strongly bonded inappropriate materials from poorly performed past repairs is similarly permissible with commission approval.

Uming that once the joints are cut cleanly for patching and repointing, only hand tools should be used for all additional repair and repointing work.

Lastly, the addition of a new railing for safety is a practical measure and can be appropriate so long as it blends into the street escape, complements the architecture of the building, and does not create a false sense of historical uh development.

The proposed railing provided by the applicant in staff's opinion does so.

Therefore, staff recommends the porch restoration and handrail instrument installation project at 38 East Second Street as proposed with the following conditions that a test patch measuring no more than two by two feet is completed using uh the light duty cleaner from cathedral stone products and is uh completed and submitted to staff for final review before a permit can be issued.

The applicant may use up to 300 psi at the nozzle with the nozzle no closer than eight inches from the surface for the test patch before and after photographs shall be submitted for staff review.

That the use of power tools be limited to the area required for the Dutchman repair, and that a lime-based mortar using the lowest possible tensile strength is used for repointing and replicating historic joint profiles using hand tools only.

And with that I'll take any questions.

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions regarding the staff report?

Just one quick clarification.

Is the proposal to put the railing on top of the volutes or to remove those?

Like the little scrolls that are on the side of the steps.

Uh let me take a look.

And uh the applicant may be able to speak to this uh better than better than I can if they want to come up.

I do I I do think we have a drilling that helps illustrate.

Yeah, there is uh the applicant submitted a drawing.

Right.

The drawing is about the handrail, but not where it's being placed, so I have to agree with the question.

It's just not very clear from the sketch, so I was yeah, wondering.

I do I do believe the the applicant has more information if you if yeah.

All right.

Uh is the applicant here this evening.

Please come forward, introduce yourselves.

Uh good evening.

Mark Bandini and a bandini where the whole thing is.

You could please make sure you speak into the microphone.

Mark and Anna Bandini homeowners.

Thank you.

There is this additional picture with the two little red dots showing that it will go in the brick in the ground and in the brick mortar joints in in the hook.

So that's part of your packet.

Yeah, got it.

I my question was uh part of the the part of the existing stone.

See the little the scrolly bit on the side, you're just leaving that and putting the railing over it.

Yep, yeah, we're not removing the thing that written it just didn't look like it was included.

So it's pretty critical.

Sorry, sorry, my technical skills are a little bit.

So but let me go back now.

Are we saying that the handrail is going to go into that scrolly bit?

It's going in, it's going there's the scrolly thing wraps around, and in between there, there's the brick, and it's going down into the brick.

Got it.

Yeah.

All right.

So not exactly as the example picture that was provided.

Right.

Got it.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Not into the marble.

Great technical question.

If I or I guess did you have any questions or concerns about the staff report or for that's my question?

We think everything is very good, and we have a great contractor that we spend quite a bit of time trying to get to, so we're we're pretty excited about it, as you know that's deteriorating.

So the only thing that we would ask is if we could get approval if that's agreed without the contingency of the cleaning.

We're very much interested in keeping our contractor and getting this done before the winter before another season of deterioration happens.

And then secondly, we have every intention of using the cleaner that is a gold standard for restorative cleanup on marble and the low pressure, so I think it'd be repetitive to do the extra step.

But the approval of the test patch would be a staff level approval.

It would wouldn't have to come back before the commission.

So staff could take a look at it and say looks good, and that wouldn't impose a significant delay.

It wouldn't be like coming back before us where you'd have to schedule it.

So they could start the project, do the test cleaning patch on the first day, we send the picture.

Yeah, that that was my intention.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Everything else is good.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant?

I do have one issue, and it may seem minor, but I think it's an important one.

Sure.

I have an issue with anchoring the post into the brick sidewall.

These brick pavers are generally just set on a thin layer of sand, maybe a thin layer of concrete underneath of it.

Uh so I think eventually it would wiggle loose and not only damage the post and the sidewalk, but also where it attaches to the brick.

And I did walk or cruise up the street and notice typically all railings are anchored into the stoop or the step of the stoop.

I mean, would you have any issues with anchoring this post into the marble step and not into the brick pavers, which I think are not going to be uh I think that's a good point, and we don't have a problem with it going into the marble, but we also were wondering or thinking that perhaps under the paver since it is right next to the marble might be part of like a foundation under there, so it might get us more solid anchor than than you suspect, but we'd have to see that once we have approval but certainly the iron railing could be designed to land into the marble equally as simple.

If you're okay with that, I we were trying to keep the integrity of the step as number one.

Which is entirely admirable, but it as you say it's kind of a question of what's there under the pavers.

There may be a fairly solid foundation six inches out, or there may not be.

So and I I would also offer that if you're doing this repair and it appears to be a really good repair.

Right?

Yeah, so I think that would um that would alleviate bigger concerns.

Once that repair is in there, uh that stability would be there.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, please be seated.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak regarding this application?

All right.

Seeing none, commissioners, it's back with us.

I generally uh would concur with the staff report.

I would just add to condition that the railing post be installed in the marble step and not on the brick paver sidewalk.

Any other discussion.

Mr.

Chairman, not familiar with HBC 25-201 located at 38 East 2nd Street.

I move to approve the application with for the portraiture and handrail installation with the following conditions that the test patch measuring no more than two feet by two feet is completed using light duty cleaner from cathedral stone products.

The applicant may use up to 300 PSI at the nozzle with the nozzle no closer than eight inches from the surface for the test patch before and after photographs shall be submitted to staff.

Second, the use of power tools be limited to the area required for the Dutchman repair.

Third, the line-based mortar using the lowest possible tensile strength is used for repointing and replicating the historic joint profiles using hand tools only, and four that the railing post be installed and the marble step and not the brick paver sidewalk.

All question would wouldn't uh putting the uh railing into the marble require the use of power tools in order to get the metal down in there.

I would say generally yes.

So does that increase the rip the risk of damage to the marble?

You'd have to use a diamond tip drill, you know, water or something to keep it cool, go slow.

I mean, it can be done.

There's certainly marble steps with railings in them.

But yeah, that would almost uh preclude the use of at least a power drill.

And I don't know uh mine or not, uh I mean could amend the motion for the power tools be limited to area required for the Dutchman repair and installation of railing post.

I'm not sure if it's necessary or wouldn't make just one add it.

Better safe than sorry.

You can do it by hand, but it's very time consuming.

I'll second.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Moving on to uh HPC 25-202, 35 East Sixth Street.

Mr.

Lecky.

Yes, I would like to add the entire staff report into the record.

This application concerns the in-kind replacement of an existing 1980s deck in the rear of the property using similar pressure treated materials.

The railing will not be replaced.

The minimal traditional Cape Cod dwelling at 35 East 6th Street was built circa 1955.

It's identified as a non-contributing research in the 2021 National Register update.

Regarding decks, the Fredericktown Historic District Design Guidelines provides the following standards for review.

A deck is a raised platform built of wood.

Deck railings typically differ from traditional porch railings and often include face-nailed vertical picket uh pickets.

Decks became popular in the mid-20th century and are associated with American suburbs.

Decks are not appropriate in the historic district, which is urban character and will not be approved.

Other similar landscape features, such as patios are considered appropriate.

Use of pressure treated wood regarding the use of pressure treated wood.

Pressure treated southern yellow pine is generally of poor quality, has a high moisture content, tends to warp.

In the historic district, visible pressure treated wood can only be used where the wood is in direct contact with the ground, such as posts, lattice, and some structural and trim elements.

It can be used for structural elements that are concealed.

Fences and gates can be built of pressure-treated lumber except when street uh facing.

And finishing and maintaining wood elements, uh, no matter the type of wood used, it must be painted or stained with a solid or opaque stain to ensure its longevity and attain the appropriate appearance for the historic district.

The proposed deck roughly matches the dimensions and location of the previous structure.

However, the new design would eliminate the railing feature, making the deck less visible from the public right away.

The deck will be made of pressure treated wood, a product that is only supported where wood makes direct contact with the ground, such as posts.

All wood shall be painted or stained with a solid or opaque stain to ensure longevity and to attain the appropriate appearance for the historic district.

Um staff feels the commission should discuss if the site's non-contributing status and the deck's uh more discrete design are factors in deviating from the design guidelines.

Um but ultimately staff recommends the commission deny the application approval in this case cannot be recommended by staff as decks and pressure treated materials are not supported by the design guidelines.

The commission will need to determine if the site's non-contributing status and the deck's discrete design are significant factors in deviating from the design guidelines.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

I do have a question, sir.

So in your opening statement, the application concerns in-kind replacement of the existing deck.

But when I walked to the property, it appears, and even in these photos, it appears that this is an addition to the deck and not replacement of the deck.

Can you verify that for me?

Um no, the the it is it is uh basically a replacement of the same footprint um from what I could tell um looking at the historic aerials and um going on site.

Uh I I walked the site with the applicant.

Um the the footprint is is just about exactly the same.

It kind of has the deck itself kind of has a funny footprint that I I understand why you would uh maybe uh b believe that it had been um added on to.

I believe there used to be a large tree there, which is why I I couldn't see it until 2003, and the deck like literally jogs around where there used to be a tree.

Um so that's that's my understanding.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff regarding the staff report?

Just a quick question also regarding the in-kind replacement.

Is it my understanding and maybe it's not correct that in-kind replacement is allowed?

Or is that incorrect?

My understanding is it is it is not allowed.

The intention of the design guidelines after um you know speaking with with Christina about this, is that um as as decks in the historic district deteriorate uh typically um you know the the intention is that they would would not be replaced in the in this case um this was a code compliance issue.

So the the applicant was unaware and had had started to be rebuilt the deck um himself.

Is that specific to decks?

Um Christina, can you speak to that that further the intention behind that?

Excellent question, by the way.

Um so a general uh uh tenement of historic preservation is to retain historic material and when it's deteriorated beyond repair to replace it in kind.

However, there are features and elements that are um uh not considered to be um uh part of the period of significance of the historic district and actually degrade the his historic integrity that might include vinyl products like vinyl side um and then um decks.

Ultimately decks are not supported by the guidelines.

Um and I think Dan correctly said it when they are deteriorated beyond replay, we we want them to be not replaced or replaced with a feature that is consistent with the guidelines.

In this case, a patio could easily go in the exact same location that does meet our guidelines and would serve a very similar purpose.

I have a question about the um the buildings that are on the side of the um of the house in question.

Uh the row of buildings that are what would on what would be the right side of the building if you're looking at it.

I'm not sure of the name of that street or alley that runs in front of them.

It's North Maxwell Avenue.

And and have there been determinations of contributing or non-contributing regarding those uh uh interestingly, I recently had a case up there, and uh many of those uh buildings along North North Maxwell are uh similarly considered non-contributing to the historic district.

Um that uh many of them have been resided with vinyl materials and you know had window replacements and things over time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions for staff?

All right, will the applicant please come forward?

Yes.

Yeah, I built that deck 40 years ago.

And I used press treated wood.

Would you before you begin, would you please introduce yourself and uh give your address for the record?

At 356.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I uh I just press treated wood, had rillings on it.

Painting gray and everything, it's only like six inches off the ground.

But all the flooring is rotten and the real one's rotten, not until the royal is rotten too.

But that's all I'm doing.

I'm not changing anything, I just replacing rotten wood.

I don't know what else to say, you know.

So I'm curious because that was my question originally.

It looks like it's an addition to the deck, but you're suggesting that you're just replacing what was there.

So I'm not adding up.

I'm just replacing rotten wood.

So with that, if it were approved, your further project would be to take that replacement all the way up to the back door.

Yes.

That's a whole that's the whole deck right there.

Okay, not just this piece that we're seeing now, but for the entire thing.

Right.

Okay.

I just wanted to be clear about that.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So if it was unclear from the staff report, the the deck was the floorboards of the deck were completely removed.

And maybe this is why it looks like an addition.

And the applicant uh Mr.

Drish started rebuilding it from the back forward.

So it it's the same structural footprint.

Mr.

Drish, uh did you or would you consider removing the deck and replacing uh with a patio?

You I believe even a concrete patio would be sufficient or a paver patio.

Have you considered that or would you consider that?

Well if I have to, I will, but I mean our bag worn due to deck means obvious like I say I started half of it, I done paid for the wood, and most of the joys ain't bad, just a few joys on here, but it's just the flooring and the ruling was but I don't know what in I mean if I can get by with doing the deck, you know, the pressure to wood and replacing like I would, I would like to, but if it all is up to you, I guess.

And as the staff report says you do not plan to put the railing back.

You plan to leave it flat like this.

Well, I was going to, but if you do it, look better if we're only knowing the bottom half to.

Let's put that away.

Have you considered extending the fence forward to the uh uh to the toward the front of the building?

The fence that's on the uh right side of the No, I'm not doing anything to the fence.

It is a high fence as you know, the existing area.

The existing fence is quite high and uh obscures a view of the deck from the uh street to the extent that it blocks the view, but it doesn't block it all the way from the street or the street that runs in front, 6th Street.

I can't quite hear you.

I'm wondering if you've considered extending the tall fence that surrounds the uh the backyard.

Oh, so that it comes forward.

Around the whole thing.

And goes around the whole backyard.

Yeah, I well, I can.

And my thought in that is that it would eliminate from view the yard and the deck.

Okay.

So extend the wood fence all the way around it, then it's you're not considering taking that fence down, right?

It's a fixture of property.

No.

Well, it is it does a great deal to uh seclude to obscure the the backyard and the deck.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

Hearing none, please be seated.

Are there any members of the public here this evening who wish to speak regarding this application?

All right, hearing none, commissioners.

Comments or discussion.

So I think the biggest concern for what we're after this evening is just as the staff report suggests is this would be a deviation, right?

Because a deck is not supported, and the pressure treated material is not supported.

So I mean, I certainly appreciate the concept of a adding to the fence, but I don't know that that's going to help us in the decision we have this evening.

So it's a non-contributing resource on a block full of non-contributing resources, and I don't see that the deck significantly degrades a neighborhood that's already full of things like vinyl siding and modern windows and doors.

I mean, it would be one thing if this was like on church street where it was a neighborhood that was subst had a high degree of of integrity.

I mean, taken the historic district as a whole, that might be a supportable argument, but if you went twenty five yards in any direction from this deck, it I don't think it makes a significant difference.

So with that and again reading the staff report, the discrete design, meaning that the hand railing was not coming back, so it was not going to appear like a full deck, right?

It would be just almost like a wooden patio.

Right.

The railing really contributes to that deck appearance.

Completely agreed there.

In regard to the extension of the fence, um, I simply uh would comment that the uh the facade, the root the remainder of the house uh appears to me to be uh very well um maintained as a possibly contributing uh uh building.

But I uh I recognize that the is not what is the case in the back.

Certainly I think um with that thought in mind, the streetscape being the most important um while Maxwell is there, the house is fronting on 6th Street, so I think I'm I'm leaning towards a deviation in this case as well, but I I don't like the justification that the because the neighborhood is not as historic as church stream, um it it should we should allow more deviations because I think that it is part of the historic district, and the argument could be made that if each application within this neighborhood were to follow the guidelines, then the integrity of the entire neighborhood could be improved.

Um so I I don't want to say that the justification for deviating is is because there's vinyl siding on some of the neighbors.

Um I think that maybe in this case, because this specific house is non-contributing and it is a replacement of something that was already there and needs to be repaired.

I think that the integrity of the streetscape won't be compromised or the integrity of the surrounding properties or the resource itself.

But um I just want to make that point.

Agreed.

I would just like to note for the record uh contrast between this case and the Grove Avenue case that really highlight the limitations of the historic preservation guidelines and the need for an update of those.

This is a uh an in-kind replacement and a non-contributing resource with discrete design is not visible from 6th Street, and the staff recommended denial because they're they say that because that's what the guidelines say.

But on the other hand, we we allowed the demolition essentially tonight of a huge historic house in one of the city's most important neighborhoods.

Uh and it just shows you the limitations of the current guidelines and the difficulty of expanding the historic district if you're if uh if you're gonna have all of these kind of things coming before it all the time, which is why taking a adding additional tool to the toolkit with something like a conservation district makes all the sense in the world.

So that's just my comment on this.

It's just points out that in many ways the good our guidelines simply don't see the forest for the trees.

I would just uh concur with previous comments and again re or add along with Commissioners Hart that no not installing the railing, I think uh helps the overall appearance to to diminish uh the scale or the appearance of this being more like a deck, and uh I would support the deviation.

Any further comments?

Can I get a motion?

Knock yourself out Mr.

Chairman.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-202 located at 35 East Sixth Street.

I move to approve the application for a replacement deck in kind and note that it is a deviation from the guidelines.

Second the motion.

All right, thank you.

Any further discussion?

Just that we said replacement in kind, the deck, and the original deck had railings.

So this replacement is going to have railings, unless we clarify that would amend the well, I would amend the motion that railings not be reconstructed.

And the application does specify that the railings are not going to be reconstructed.

Okay, please.

Fair enough.

All right.

Anything else?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh moving on to HBC 25-203.

66 East South Street.

Ms.

Haviditz.

I'd like to enter the whole staff report into the record.

This application proposes replacing the wooden garage door with a Raynor AP 200 and Aspen Contempora flush white steel door.

Many garages contribute to the historic baby of the historic district and have retained their character over time.

Garages began to be built in the historic district in the 19s and the 1920s for residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

Earlier garages were typically one vehicle and were of a wood frame construction.

Later garages may have been constructed of a concrete block.

A small number of garages were stucco.

Brick or clad in metal.

Typical alterations for garages.

The most common alterations for historic garages include the replacement of garage doors, the replacement of roofs, and the addition of new siding.

Alterations that will be approved, the installation of new wooden doors, including those with electronic opening devices may be approved to replace deteriorating original doors or later replacement doors.

Wood replacement doors must match the original wooden doors, or in if the appearance of the original door is unknown, they must be in keeping with the period of the structure.

Alterations that will not be approved, the installation of vinyl and metal garage doors that imitate wood paneling will not be approved.

For staff comments, the rear garage was constructed sometime between 1947 and 1958, according to the Sanborne fire insurance maps and aerial photography.

Staff notes that the garage fronts the alley.

Most common type of alterations to garages are the doors, and per the guidelines, an ink kind replacement of an existing wooden garage door is the most appropriate.

The commission has been supportive of metal replacement doors when the current door is middle, as long as the door does not mimic a wood paneling design.

The applicant's product is the aspen AP 200 and contemporary door, which is a metal door that features modern contemporary horizontal windows.

The product proposes to have flush panels and a little uh update to the application over a phone call.

It was determined that the windows will not be instated in the final product.

Um the existing garage door is a wooden colonial style and does not exhibit any windows.

Per the guidelines, the replacement must replicate the historic design.

The applicant provides an example of a garage door at 116 Clark Place, which is of a recent construction reviewed under HPC 21548 and is not replicating an original or historic feature.

Staff recommends the commission approve an ink-kind replacement of a wooden garage door that matches its historic design.

Product literature shall be submitted to staff for final review and approval.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for staff regarding staff report?

All right, hearing none.

Uh is the applicant here this evening.

Yes, I am.

I ask some hand Alex might be helpful for discussion.

Do you have any questions or concerns regarding the staff report?

Yes, I do.

Well, I did clarify that there are no windows proposed.

Um the the requirement um, much like Mr.

McMahon said on the last application, the requirement that uh in-kind replacement uh be in the guidelines, I think is ridiculous.

Um I uh went ahead and um consulted at least half a dozen garage door companies who tell me that a comparable wood replacement door would range from $5,700 to $11,519.

Uh a wood door would be about 2,500.

I'm sorry, the the metal door I'm proposing would be about $2,500.

It would look identical to the doors on the property behind uh uh 116 Clark Place.

I um included in the handout pictures of the property um uh from the from the side of the uh rear.

Okay, so you start with a large water tower at Carroll Street, and the first garage is mine, as you can see in the picture.

Adjacent to it is um a brand new structure that the owner of the uh part of the it's an 1890s duplex.

Um the owner's property in back is brand new within the last 10 years.

Um my garage, according to staff report, was a post-World War II construction.

So it's sometime what did they say, between 1947 and 1954 or something.

So we're talking 60 years or so after the original structure was built.

This is not an historic garage.

And if you stand in the garage driveway and look uh towards what you see, it's a parking lot for the school for the deaf.

It's clearly not historical.

Um it's yeah, it's just a parking lot.

And the visibility of that garage door is pretty limited.

It's only the people that use that parking lot and the people who park along the alley who live there.

Um the other point I want to make is if you if you continue down uh the down uh Hessian alley where the garage is located, you can see on the edge of the photo there, there's our two stamped metal garage doors on a non uh historic garage that must have been constructed around the same time post-World War II.

And if you go two doors down from there, there's another two-bay garage with stamped metal doors.

So my putting in a smooth metal door is not going to violate the appearance of that alley, which is really not visible to the public.

I mean, it's not like it faces South Street where the front of my property is, and and so I I'm asking respectfully that in this case I'd be allowed to um I'd be given a deviation from the historic guidelines and be allowed to replace um the wooden door with a much less expensive metal door.

Um I'll leave it at that.

I don't I don't think I need to belabor this.

I mean, is it really worth an extra three thousand dollars to put a wood door on that alley?

And I say no.

It's gonna be a hardship.

I'm a 76-year-old retiree on a fixed income, and um I'm asking for your consideration.

Sir, I have a question about the door.

Do you know if that door that's there now is original to that building?

Uh one one of the guys who gave me a bid said he did not believe it was.

He he said it goes, he thought it was from around 1970 something.

It it didn't look original to me.

So okay, thank you.

No, and the springs failed and the doors cracked, it can't be used, and and I've been without access to that from that alley for a while now, and uh I would like to resolve this.

You mentioned the cost of the what's wrong with the door narrow now, other than a paint job, can't the springs be replaced in the No, it's a crack.

The door is wrecked.

The guy cannot replace it.

I mean, just leave it as is and paint it.

Isn't it functional?

It's not put new springs on it.

It is not functional.

It's broken.

It has to be replaced.

Well, then I mean the guidelines are fairly straightforward about replacement in kind.

And not any, you know, uh metal products.

I I hear you if it's I'm asking for an exception because in this case, as Mr.

McMahon argued for the last property, the the guidelines are perhaps a little too rigid for this application.

I I do not see how it would have changed the appearance of that alley one bit.

And it is an alley uh I mean one factor here is unlike the previous uh application, this is a contributing resource.

So how is it a contributing resource, sir?

Would you please explain it?

You look at the entire property.

The property was built in 1890.

It's a brick space.

It's a contributing resource.

Very important asset to the historic district.

Correct.

Everything on the property.

I don't disagree, but the garage is uh post-World War II's cinder block structure.

How is that historic?

Well, it's more than 50 years of age, so it does fall within that criteria.

Right.

So it does fall within that criteria, but truly cinder block uh do appreciate that consideration.

Commissioners, any further questions for the applicant.

All right, please be seated.

Thank you for your consideration.

Are there any members of the public here this evening who wish to speak regarding this application?

All right, hearing none, it's back with us.

I'm sympathetic to this idea that the garage is on an alley.

Um it's I don't think that the garage door is really contributing to the historic integrity of the property, despite its age.

Um and I just want to point out that the guidelines allow for metal garage doors.

They just say that the gar the metal should not be imitating wood paneling.

So I want to make that agreed.

Uh would it apply to a residential application or not?

I mean, we we've definitely had some cases where the garage doors that were previously already metal, like we've had firehouses that had metal garage doors that we replaced it in kind that came to the commission.

I haven't come across a metal garage door for residential use as of yet.

I don't know if Christina has in her case cases at all.

Um but that definitely was something I was key and hauling when I was writing the report was the the idea that it's a wooden door, but it's going to be flush, not mimicking the the wood paneling.

But I feel I'm you know bound to the guidelines to a degree.

Yeah, but if memory serves me, we have had residential properties as well.

And I believe also with the firehouse we replaced wood for metal.

So um I think it is property by property without setting precedent.

Right.

It is uh, and certainly this isn't the streetscape.

It's not the garage is not original to the building uh to the property in total.

So I too am sympathetic with the applicant's uh request for deviation if that's what we're considering it.

Any further discussion, commentary I say if we reflect on the fact that it is a rehabilitation.

I respect what the other commissioners are saying and hearing what you're saying.

Um, in rehabilitations, it's my understanding that something dating to the period that the garage was built and placed on the property is relevant to the uh historic nature of the property and therefore the preservation.

So we do have the ability to deviate, and that's the portion where we're discussing that now.

It is not affecting the streetscape, which is our one of our major concerns when deviating.

So yeah, I d I don't I don't see where this one would be that difficult for the deviation and to support it.

I am familiar with HPC 25-203 at 66 East South Street, and I move that we approve the application as submitted.

Despite it being a deviation to the guidelines.

And I will second.

All right.

Any further discussion?

I will note that because this specific property and this specific um application proposal uh does not affect the integrity of the streetscape or the integrity of any surrounding historic properties or the design integrity of the resource itself.

Um that's why we're supporting the application, or why I am concurrent.

I would just add that the applicant did state that they would not put windows in the door.

All right.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to HPC 25-209.

Uh return to demolition day.

It's 358 West Patrick Street.

Ms.

Martin Koskey.

Thank you.

I'd like to enter the entire staff report into the record.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the roof structure can be in a post-1960 concrete block addition located at the rear of the building.

The proposed demolition is being requested to accommodate a rear edition being reviewed under HPC 25207.

As a as a bit of background, I want to be clear that this application and the reposed replacement plan was previously approved by this commission.

The approval uh was um from application submitted in in 2020 and 2021 and has since expired.

So the applicant is coming in with the same proposal asking for reapproval of those items.

Um now according to Section 423E of the land management code, the demolition process uh within the historic preservation overlays it a two-step process.

And at this first meeting, the commission is going to be charged with reviewing the significance of the building.

Is it a contributing resource or is it a non-contributing resource?

If it is a contributing resource, no further action can take place at tonight's meeting and it will be reviewed at the next available hearing, which will be August 28th.

So a decision um regarding demolition must be based on a complete application, including historical information about the resource and the replacement plan if applicable.

Now in taking action on a demolition application, the commission must consider the following.

One, the degree of importance of the resource, and two, the proposed replacement plan.

Moving forward to the property history, according to SANBR MAP research, the main commercial building was constructed between 1922 and 1930.

The building was modified sometime after 1960 with a one-story rear addition constructed of CMU.

Other notable alterations occurred at the rear of the building, including adding a roofed uh porch on the top of the one-story brick portion of the building.

Uh this structure has historical and architectural value is a good example of a commercial building from around 1925.

The building helps define the district at its historical and architectural value and was built during the historic district's period of significance.

This finding is consistent with the 2021 National Register nomination.

Um, and based on the this uh staff recommends the commission find the structure to be a contributing resource.

I will add if if the commission agrees with this assessment, the plan is that the demolition application and the replacement plan would be on the next agenda.

You'll have full access to all the documentation.

But since we know it's complete, we know it was previously approved.

I am planning to put it on the consent agenda.

The commission always has the ability and the right to pull it off for further discussion on the hearing if needed.

So I do remember this property.

Um I'm gonna ask if you will refresh my memory.

Didn't we already do this?

We already decided that this was a contributing resource.

It is, but because it's a new because that approval and that determination has expired, we have to do it again by code.

We have to do it again.

Thank you.

No, it's a legitimate question.

And certainly it's hopefully illuminating to anyone following along who wasn't sure why we're doing this again.

Yeah.

Otherwise, it would have been nice to put this just on the consent agenda vote on this.

Yet tonight.

Fair enough.

Commissioners, any other questions regarding the staff report.

All right.

Is the applicant here this evening?

Yeah, I'm a name Ji Shouchi.

And uh Christina fall for this uh dominion application.

Do you have any questions regarding the staff report or anything you'd like to add?

Oh no, no question.

All right.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant.

All right.

Seeing none, please go ahead and be seated.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public here this evening who wish to speak regarding this application?

All right, hearing none.

It's with us.

Remember that this application is solely to determine the signific whether or not it's a historical contributing resource.

So I think this one's pretty straightforward.

I think for technical purposes.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess what it'll be, but go ahead.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-209 at 358 West Patrick Street.

And I move that we find the structure a contributing resource.

I'll second that.

All right, thank you.

Any further discussion?

All right.

Or go ahead.

Go ahead.

Just to add again for the record, the building does help to find the district.

Does add historical and architectural value and it was built during the uh period of historic significance?

All right.

Anything else?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, that passes unanimously.

Finding of the building to be contributing resource.

Moving on to HPC 25-212.

500 North Market Street.

Ms.

Martin Koskey.

And I believe this will be the same question.

All right, give me one moment.

Okay.

So again, I want to enter the entire staff report into the record.

This application concerns the demolition of walls facing North Market Street and East Fifth Street.

And expanding the area where the roof structure was previously approved to be removed and replaced.

The replacement received previous approval under HPC 24800 to remove and rebuild the roof structure and a portion of the frame wall in the northeast rear corner of the building.

The proposed demolition is being requested based on conditions discovered during interior renovation.

Roughly in kind and incorporating a traditional uh storefront design based off of physical evidence and nearby architecture.

Again, the decision regarding demolition must be based on a complete application, including historical information about the resource and the replacement plan if applicable.

And taking action on a demolition application, the commission considers the following.

Of course, the degree of importance of the resource and the proposed replacement plan for the resource.

At a May 2025 site visit, staff was requested to review the site conditions at 500 North Market Street.

Upon entering the structure, staff observed uh plaster and drywall removed from the interior walls to reveal the building is of hand-hewn log construction, clad in brick veneer on the exterior.

The masonry facade, obscure uh wall openings on of the interior log structure.

Two of the four log walls have been previously removed, leaving only the west and south walls from the street covered in brick.

Sanborne fire insurance maps document the uh evolution of the building as early as 1887, but earlier maps unfortunately lack the same level of detail, but based on the building's form and materials and these um historic mapping.

Um, we do believe that it's the same structure depicted on the 1853 uh 3 Pitar map and the 1941 Pure map.

Deeds records uh show the property was owned by Joshua and Mary Dill in the mid-19th century, and census records suggest that the building may have been used as either a feed store or a couponage.

Um it is difficult without further study to determine a precise date of construction, however, the 2021 Frederick National Register Historic Update provides additional historic context.

First generation construction in Frederick from 1745 to 1790 is generally thought to have been primarily of modest smaller scale vernacular buildings.

Architectural historian Paula Reed and others have put forth that the law of construction was likely the dominant structural system because it was readily accessible, inexpensive, and did not necessarily require a great deal of skilled labor, and certainly this is consistent with uh first generation construction throughout much of the American colonies.

As described by architectural historian Paula Reed, law construction in Frederick was historically covered with siding, such as beaded uh weather board, plain weather boards, and you know of uniform width on the front elevation and random width on side and rear elevations, or stucco uh score to resemble Ashlar Masonry.

In some cases, the log structure may have been left exposed and treated with whitewash.

Later, 19th century exterior cladding, including brick veneer and milled weather board, such as German lab siding, uh, could be applied because log construction rarely remained exposed.

It is difficult to determine how prevalent it is in Frederick.

And furthermore, the use of law construction continued into the 19th century.

So examples that do remain extend uh may not be the first generation buildings.

According to Diane Shaw, Welsh's thesis, city building in Frederick, Maryland, 1810 to 1860.

There were about 122 log houses in Frederick, which is roughly uh 28, 29 percent of the building's um building stock in 1825 and about 99 buildings in 1835, suggesting a decline in its use that may reflect the ready availability of other building materials by that time.

The eighteen thirty-five tax assessment record showed that while log buildings are present in most streets in Frederick, they comprise over 30 percent of the total number on South, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and east streets.

This log brick and frame structure is a good example of local vernacular architecture, and staff recommends the commission find it to be a contributing resource to the historic district.

The building helps to find the district, adds historical and architectural value, and was built during the historic district's period of significance.

This finding is consistent with the 2021 National Register nomination, and therefore staff recommends the commission find the resource to be a contributing resource.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions regarding the staff report.

Not sure I understand one thing.

They were operating under a a uh a former demolition permit for a partial demolition permit.

Did we not uh say this was a contributing resource at that time?

And if so, why not?

Excuse me.

Uh they did not get a HPC demolition permit because everything was replacement in kind, and it was small sections of walls, it was the roof structure.

So we were um the applicant was able to go through the HBC application review process without so many demolition applications.

All considered rehabilitation work.

Yes.

So essentially what they're asking for here is total demolition of the building.

They want to make it go away entirely and start over from scratch.

So that requires a new evaluation of its of its uh significance it is significant portions of the building that are being removed, and and that's why you know it's it has a demolition application now, and why we're going through this determination process.

And we will be discussing this at workshop to better um uh uh articulate and define what's being removed and what's staying, because there are portions of the building staying, and there are portions of the building that have already been approved to be removed and replaced in kind.

So it's it's an unusual application.

I've never seen it.

No, it is, it is a situation.

It looks like most of that rem, most of the removal under the initial permit has taken place.

What I can tell from the street, there are things that are not obvious unless I went into the building, which appears to be a very bad idea right now.

I I went in there once.

I I don't want to do it again.

I read the engineering report.

I would be very nervous about it.

So for this evening, yes.

At least in this moment.

Contributing, non-contributing.

That's what's before us.

Yes, ma'am.

And and the reason is a massively expanded request for demolition.

And some additional information has been exposed.

Indeed.

One point for clarification.

Clearly the historical integrity of the building as it stands at the moment has been significantly affected by the work done under the first permit.

Are we to not consider that as having detracted from the integrity of the structure for the purposes of determining significance?

Excellent question, Robert.

Right, and I think that is the question.

And I'm I'm asking because it essentially came up earlier tonight, and we don't really have a good answer for that yet.

And I I'm not expecting us to have one now.

It's more making sure that we're laying all our cards on the table every time.

Yeah.

So I I will say that my findings and recommendations are in part large part uh based on the fact that this is basically an amendment application, and we have treated this build in building as a contributing resource during that application process.

And it the most logical, and people may disagree or disagree.

Um with this property.

I mean, I'm I'm inclined to agree entirely with that chain of thought, but again, sort of expanding for the purposes of the record and for anyone who is trying to follow along and is feeling this like this is very convoluted, which would include me, because this is not a this is this is not a straightforward question in this case.

Like we've already have already permitted uh breach of that integrity to the structure while we considered it to be contributing resource.

I feel like we should in good faith continue to consider that a contributing resource because that work was done with the intention of restoring the building to its original, to something approaching its original state.

Yes.

And I I do think that the applicant had full intention to move forward with their HPC approach.

Oh, but yeah, I'm I mean I'm assuming I'm assuming good faith on the app part of the applicant.

Uh please don't please don't take that to mean that I I'm not assuming that at all.

I'm I'm like I'm I am fully supportive of the stated goals here.

I just like I I feel like that bears mentioning for for the public record.

And I just want to be clear some of the information we've discovered now, because of what's been exposed, and I'm meaning that the logs that are exposed.

And in your staff report, we feel like it's the same structure.

We're taking it back now to 1841, which is some 50, 60 years earlier than we even thought.

Right.

The rarity of this type of construction in Frederick, again, I think it's acknowledged in the National Register Foreman in my staff report.

We can't clearly define because it's hidden.

Um but it's a fascinating piece piece of our architectural legacy.

And we'll talk about more of at workshop about its condition.

Can we also quickly point out that this is a bit of a different situation than the one earlier tonight because this building is within the district?

So it's not quite the same standards that we have to meet.

Oh, absolutely, yeah.

I appreciate that comment because we've had that before, and I really value um your effort to bring us back to that, right?

There's a distinct difference between that which is in the historic district and that which is outside of.

So thank you for that.

All right.

Do we have any other questions for staff regarding the staff report?

All right, hearing none.

Is the applicant here this evening?

I'm uh David Lopez, principal architect of two point studio, the architect involves.

I'll be representing the architecture firm.

I have not been sworn in.

All right, just a second.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the response is given and statements made in this hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Thank you very much.

Do you have any questions for staff regarding the staff report or anything you'd like to add?

Just maybe a clarification that the reason the demo did proceed under the first permitted scope of work was we were under the impression after the site visit from Historic Commission and the building department that also showed up at that meeting that upon receiving the letter from the structural engineer that mentioned that these new walls were unstable and the structure was unsound, that we would get a fast pace approval to demo those walls that were considered structurally unsound.

With that in mind, we proceeded with the demo plans because we thought within a week or two days or three days, we would be allowed to remove the additional fabric.

It was not our intention to open the building up and allow weather to further deteriorate the conditions while we waited for this meeting.

We we just were under the impression that we weren't going to have to do this process again.

So that hopefully explains why we went through with some of the permitted um demolition.

All right.

Thank you.

Appreciate that clarification.

And one other clarification, just if I could.

The structural report does recommend complete raising and demolition of the building.

Um the design team, the architects, have decided to try and keep uh whatever we can, which is two of the double white brick masonry walls at the two corners on the northwest and southeast corner of the building.

So we are um trying to do what we can to preserve the structure, um, whatever we can do.

So just want the commission to keep that in mind.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioners, regarding regarding the contributing question of the contributing resource.

Do you have any questions for the applicant?

All right.

Go ahead and sit back down for the moment and there are any members of the public here this evening who wish to speak regarding this application.

All right.

Hearing none, it's back with us.

Well, it's a bit complex.

I would have to say it's also pretty straightforward as far as being a contributing resource.

It seems pretty clear to me that it falls within the criteria.

So we uh the criteria for this one are whether the building structure, site, or objects helps to define the district, which it does.

Um it's on a prominent street, it's one of the oldest buildings.

Um whether it adds historical or architectural value, which we extensively discuss that it does, um, and that it was built during the historic districts period of significance, um, and we've just established it was one of the rarest extent examples of the log house.

Um, I think we meet all the requirements for contributing.

I said that without a mic, but absolutely agree.

All right, anything further.

Uh I'm familiar with HPC 25-212 at 500 North Market Street.

And I move that we find the structure to be a contributing resource.

And I will second.

All right.

Any further discussion on the motion.

Hearing none, all in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to HPC 25-218, 226.

Uh Ms.

Martin Koskey.

One lemon.

Okay.

I would like to enter the entire staff report into the record.

The applicants proposing to demolish the following elements of the dwelling at 226 West South Street, including dormer roof.

Rear porch and portion of the garage roof.

Again, a decision regarding demolition must be based on a complete application, including historical information about the resource and the replacement plan if applicable, and taking action on a demolition application, the commission must consider the degree of importance and uh the proposed um replacement plan for the resource.

And I am noticing that I I failed to mention that the replacement plan is being covered under HPC 25-219 for a breeure edition, which will be discussed tonight at workshop.

So date records show that in 1936, Grace Gladys Bourne purchased the unimproved property at 226 West South Street from Georgia Mary Jane Strandsburger.

Um Grace Bourne is the oldest daughter of Ulysses Grantborn, uh the Frederick's first African American doctor, very prominent citizen on um on South Street.

In 1941, Grace, who was now married to Samuel Thornton, sold the property to her brother, Ulysses Grant Bourne Jr.

In 1946, City Directory showed that Ulysses Bourne Jr.

and his wife Marie lived at the property.

His father, I'm sorry, her father, Elizabeth Sr.

lived at 235 West South Street with his long established medical office located at 30 West All Saint Street, where his son also worked.

In 2018, the Historic Preservation Commission gave approval to remove a non-historic side porch and a small roof structure.

On March 11, 2021, the HPC also approved a level one approval for the construction of seven townhomes on the property.

When this approval expired, the commission reapproved the same design on February 13, 2025, under HPC 25-5.

The project recently received final site plan approval on April 8th, 2024.

The dwelling is a rare example of a colonial revival architecture with the Cape Cobb Forum in the Frederick Town Historic Districts and features a simple rectangular form and stands a story and a half tall with a gabled roof and an integrated garage indicating the growing reliance on the automobile in the second quarter of the 20th century.

The building helps to find the district, adds historical architectural value, and was built during the historic district's period of significance.

This finding is consistent with the 2021 National Register nomination, and staff recommends that the Commission find the dwelling to be a contributing resource.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Question Christina regarded the approval on February 13, 2025.

Was this approval to build seven townhouses and keep the existing structure?

Is that what it was?

Correct.

Um specifically, the application was for the seven townhomes.

Right.

But it but that design included retaining this.

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand.

Did or did not include?

So the plan with the proposal, which the HPC application, uh the HPC approved, was the townhomes.

But the overall design included retaining this structure in the center.

Would they have to move the structure in order to say put built seven houses there?

No, sir.

They wouldn't.

Okay.

Thanks.

All right.

Commissioners, any other questions regarding the staff report I think my only question is about the dormer roof.

Do we know if that's original to the building?

I believe it is.

And that one was thought to perhaps be an addition.

But this one seems to be more integrated into the overall design material.

Thank you.

Anything else?

All right, is the applicant here this evening?

Good evening, Sam Sharuth.

The owner of two twenty-seek with South.

All right.

Do you have any questions for staff regarding the staff report or anything you'd like to add?

No.

All right.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant regarding regarding just this part of the application.

All right.

Please go ahead and be seated again.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public here this evening who wish to speak regarding this this application?

All right.

Hearing none, it's with us.

So I have to say I think this one is pretty clear as well.

It certainly meets the criteria as was read in the previous.

It defines or helps define the district.

Certainly adds historical and architectural value.

And it was built during the historic period of significance, so I think it really meets the criteria of contributing.

Not because really it was from the period of significance or because of any architectural value.

I would say it's both.

It is we don't have too many actual colonial revival buildings in the historic district.

And so this is one example.

And then this is the only one I can think of, and where in the whole district that's contributing and has an integrated garage as part of the original design.

And that's kind of interesting, and it kind of tells the story of the evolution of downtown and you know, building design in general as as the um during the twentieth century.

We do have dozens of colonial revival houses outside of the historic district.

And maybe we should be thinking at some point of extending our conservation district to include some of those houses as too.

As you know, it's in our work plan, so that goes.

So with that, I believe I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-218 at 226 West South Street.

And I move.

Sorry, if I lost my place.

Second the motion.

All right.

Any further commentary?

Hearing none.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

That ends the hearing portion of this evening.

Before we take a break, is there anyone here this evening who'd like to speak generally on any of the pre any of the proceedings so far?

All right.

Hearing none, it is now 828, and we will reconvene at 840.

I guess I know we're going to be late.

Welcome to the Went Thursday, August 14th, Twenty Twenty Five, Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission Workshop.

Let's do that.

And could we have the applicant come up and introduce themselves?

Okay.

Once again, I'm David Lopez, principal architect at Two Point Studio, the architect for uh the renovations at five hundred North Market Street.

Um designer at Two Point Studio.

All right, thank you.

So I'm going to make my initial comments brief as possible.

This we we took this uh we reviewed uh the demolition uh uh hearing tonight, found out that it was a contributing building.

We discussed um um the architecture and the the building methodology and potential construction uh date that we we can't narrow it down nail it down specifically off of the research we've done so far, but it does look like it could be a quite an early structure for for downtown Frederick, um maybe even 18th century.

Um the proposed demolition is being requested based on conditions that they discovered uh during the renovation process.

Uh the intent was to just rehabilitate the structure and re and adaptively reuse it for I believe a um a restaurant.

I'm not going to go over um all the standards again for demolition, but we'll briefly just touch upon my my staff comments, and then I want the um if the applicant is is okay with this plan for them to go over um share a plan drawing, perhaps, and go over what was previously approved for replacement, what is now being considered for demolition and replacement, and what's being retained.

Um I will say that the previously areas uh previously approved for for reconstruction have remained unchanged.

Um the recommendation of the structure engineer is complete demolition.

Um in my staff report, I do ask that the applicant explain why they're going with the the partial demolition approach.

They did touch upon this a little bit at the hearing.

Um and I'll just say that it was a really interesting experience to go inside this building.

Um it was a little scary, but also um fascinating.

Um I observed that the exterior brick veneer that um that clad that uh it clads the log construction.

I couldn't make a like a full assessment, but I did observe um would that there was a lack of a robust anchoring system between the brick and the log layers.

But I did think I I saw how the builders um kind of tuft the brick in log construction is kind of a log, and then you have uh chinking material, log, chinking material, log, chinking material.

And in sections, it looked like the chinking material was removed, and when the brick was constructed, they put a um I want to call it soldier, but I know that's not right.

They they put the a layer of brick down sideways so it could be anchored into between the logs into the chinking area, and that's how the the brick at uh veneer is anchored into the um the log.

Certainly not up to to modern standards most likely most likely, but um that's what I observed.

And then I'll just note that the structural engineer report did does provide more details, which I believe the applicant is is ready to explain.

Could we go over uh if you don't mind if I do see the projector?

Perfect, and you'll see on the top there's um a zooming and um at the top of I think it's on the top.

That you can zoom out if need to.

On the overhead piece.

Yes, yes, yes, sir.

How about it?

There you go.

Thank you.

I'll have for the clarity.

Um Justin will I dictate what we've had previously proved um approved on the previous permit.

And then the bubbled um things in the drawing here, so what we're asking for now.

So originally um a wall on the east side of the building that faces the property at um, I think it's number five.

Um on east fifth.

Oh, one fifth, I'm sorry, twelve, I think.

That was uh substandard wood frame construction, not historic with vinyl sided, um, and it had slipped off the foundation.

We sort of showed evidence of that as a result.

The engineer wanted to remove that wall, put in a solid foundation, and then reframe it out of uh contemporary wood construction.

Um that was the only wall we were planning on removing uh initially.

Um in addition to that, we had uh a couple roofs we were going to demolish the pitched roof at the corner.

Um that was all deemed structurally unsound, and then a small portion of the flat roof in the rear of the building was going to be reframed um to meet current um engineering requirements.

And then the white portion here was a portion of roof that we were going to try and maintain and just reinforce with some new wood framing members uh sistered to the existing joists.

Uh obviously we went through uh preliminary demolition, took off a lot of interior surfaces, discovered uh an ancient building inside the structure that was not visible before that had the hewn long log structure.

Um per the engineering report, you can see a lot of those logs are in bad shape.

Um a lot of the brick uh although supported through the teaming um toothing um process that Christina mentioned, um it's not very sound in a lot of areas.

There's a four-inch to five-inch um bow in the brick facade that is being supported by the wood logs, the wood logs themselves aren't structurally sound, so you have unsound brick being supported by unsound wood.

Um, and that has led us to our current plan, which is uh to keep basically the two double white masonry corners of the building.

Those two corners um are sound double wife brick construction, and we feel that we can do uh keep those um components um you know those existing exterior walls and simply put some furring on the inside to help shore them up a little bit.

Um the remaining walls uh for the exterior structure all have been deemed unsound by the engineer um and based on the construction, the way the steel beams were put in um without uh column supports.

I should mention the one steel column steel beam is not supported on the end.

Um it's basically just resting on the hewn logs that themselves are failing.

Um that's actually right here.

Yeah, right here, right here.

Yeah.

Um the other steel beam, we thought there was a post next to the front entry door, and we discovered there is no post.

So that beam is actually spanning 26 feet from the two-story uh in this direction.

From this two-story um from the corner to the double white masonry wall uh um to the north facing Market Street.

That 26 uh foot steel beam is under engineered um and um my engineers suggesting that it come out.

Um beyond that, um, the rest of the structure that we found on the interior um is in similar conditions.

Um we thought there was more steel posts and steel beams supporting the second floor, um, but we discovered that uh it was kind of makeshift wood beams that themselves are not in good condition.

Um the building basically has at least four, probably five errors of construction, and not all of those errors of construction were done with proper engineering and proper construction methods.

So uh we're sort of dealing with those failures uh now.

Um so that's the new scope for the walls.

Um for the roofs, we actually want to add uh the only roof that we were going to try and salvage because um it also has been discovered that it's double framed.

There's actually a roof framed over roof uh and the uh an under the lower roof uh is under engineered.

The upper roof is basically sleepers to build the slope that's currently there.

So we want to clean all that out now and and sort of reframe it to match the existing pitch.

So those are the new demo scope items.

Are we open for questions?

Oh, yeah.

I'm always the first one with the question.

That's okay.

And I do appreciate your level of effort.

I just want to say thank you very much.

Um my first question is if you have to remove anything, is there an and apparently you do?

Is there intention to reuse anything in any sort of way?

I'm not saying that it would be structural, but perhaps decoratively or interpretively, so one would know.

Is there any intention for that?

Yeah, um there is.

We we still plan on keeping all of the windows, the wood historic wood windows.

We've actually removed them.

Um they're at uh uh restoration specialists, so we're actually having those work on currently.

Um, and we will replace those into the uh new walls that we frame up if if approved.

Um beyond that, because of the structural qualities, um we don't see anything else that could be salvaged.

We've had discussions about salvaging the brick, but it's contemporary brick, it's not historic.

Um and you can see that from the back side, it's painted over.

So it was more interested in the logs personally.

That's just the logs, yeah.

So uh we can't use them in any structural capacity.

Okay.

Um and there's appears to be uh I would say 70 to 80 percent of them are um you know, signs of either termite damage or some other sort of you know water damage, rotting, uh that kind of thing.

Um we don't have too many that we can actually functionally use for any other purposes.

So um we could reach out to somebody who is willing to harvest them and perhaps reuse them um for a similar same purpose, another structure or something like that, and they are welcome to take the ones that we feel could be saved, but um we don't have any plans to reuse those in our current structure.

Thank you.

I just want to echo uh Ann's comments about thank you.

Uh this is an important building at a critical location in downtown, and it's uh gonna be important to the revitalization of North Market Street.

And uh one thing I might suggest is to think about whether the owners suggested them perhaps that they use some of the pictures of the before and afts as interpretive features in the building in the restaurant when it gets gets going.

I think people would be very interested to see what this what you discovered when you were in there that this was a log structure initially, et cetera.

Yeah, we've done that.

Um our firm specializes in a lot of historic rehabilitations um and have done uh so for for properties that are um on the Maryland State Register, uh, much less um Frederick.

Um and often we find ways to put signage or something up that sort of speaks a little bit to that history.

Uh I think uh we will explore some of that with um the remodel.

I was thinking tables, countertop, um, you know, something frames, something.

Yeah, yeah.

We'll try that's a good brownie points for the trying.

I mean, we are trying our best to salvage what we can.

Um it's I'm sure you guys hear this a lot.

Uh we do, I think 90% of our work right now is building restorations.

Um we constantly go into um row homes or other buildings and structures where just bad contractors did bad work.

Um and it it sort of falls on our shoulders to fix it.

Um it's always a heavy lift.

Um it's always unexpected costs, um, cost burdens on the owners.

Um in this case we have owners that I think really want to invest in this community.

Um, so they're willing to sort of do what they can to see this project through and get it open and have the building look basically like it it looks right now, as close as we can get to it with the new construction.

So do we want to talk a little bit about the proposed new construction or um stick to the demolition?

Is the commission comfortable with this the demolition and ready to talk more about the replacement plan?

Yeah, I mean I think that it's pretty obvious that right now it looks like if you breathe on it, it might fall down.

So I think that it makes sense.

I don't I wouldn't want to hold it up.

All right.

I'm not I'm not seeing any outrage from the the commission, so let's move forward.

Okay.

When the two by twelves went up on the exterior walls to hold them in place, that was a clue that there was a major problem.

A major unanticipated problem.

Like oh no, you took the roof off and the walls want to go sideways.

That's never good.

Right.

Okay.

So in terms of the replacement plan, we do have um a lot of a lot of things going on.

And I broke up these staff report into sections.

So I think that is how we should approach the conversation just to make sure we have capture everything.

I'm going to go ahead and enter the entire staff report into the record.

Um I'm not going to go over all the language from the guidelines, but I'll just go directly into staff comments.

And um we'll get feedback from the applicant in more details.

Um start conversation from there.

All right.

First, let's talk about the walls and cornice.

The applicant plans to face the new walls facing North Market and Fifth Street and brick.

Stretcher bond brick is shown on the drawings, which the applicant will confirm at workshop.

Product literature is needed for the brick.

The applicant is proposing to paint that brick.

The guidelines allow this approach for non-historic brick.

So I'm not expressing like specific concerns of inconsistency with the guidelines.

But we'll just note that painting brick does become a maintenance issue.

And just want to throw that out there.

Um the south elevation, which fronts 5th Street.

Um, it's documented in drawing G008.

Um I I love that the applicant um is is really taking inspiration from the original structure and um is proposing to recess areas of the brick replicating the current design.

Lintels are shown, but the material is not identified.

Um so I'm asking for clarification on on what siding is proposed.

And then on drawing A502, it provides a basic design of the new cornices intended to match historic appearances.

However, these details um uh might not necessarily be a great match to the historic design and and I want to make sure that non-pressure treated wood that um is used and that it's painted or stained with an opaque finish.

So first let's talk about the brick.

I'm assuming based off the drawings that you're proposing just a stretcher bond brick for the facade.

And you will paint it.

That is the plan.

That is the plan.

Could you provide uh for the next submission that product literature or an image of that brick that you're looking for?

The commission can give feedback, but maybe something a little rusticated.

Do you have an image or do you already have that ready to share?

Uh uh we don't, but I was gonna show that the visible brick from the interior of the building that's not painted on the inside, obviously.

And you might need a focus.

We'll find a brick that more or less matches uh that in color and size.

Thank you.

Patches in color, but you just asked about painting it.

So rather I didn't match.

Well, it's just in case somebody wants to fair enough.

Yeah, in the future.

Fair enough.

I don't know if the commission needs to be very harshly judging the brick, but um I I have to call it the guidelines, or I wouldn't be doing just a lot of the things.

Yeah, I I think a molded brick would look better than the machine cut brick.

So that's would blend in well.

Painted or not.

Okay.

Yeah, I always feel like the texture is more important than uh could we take a look at the south elevation fronting fifth street.

I believe it's shown on G008.

And this also holds true on the the Fifth Street on the Market Street elevation.

So one thing is is is the recessed brick that's being shown to replicate the um the finestration pattern.

That's fifth street.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

I thought you said market street.

Oh it the some of these comments are gonna um also apply to to market street.

I just want to make sure that the drawings are uh updated where there's actual windows specifically where we're gonna have a uh a wood non-pressure treated sill, and that's documented on the the drawings.

Is that we'll we'll sort of identify what that is and match the existing okay perfectly it might be on the market street elevation where I noticed the the sills didn't seem yeah didn't seem as well articulated as the fifth street elevation.

They they kind of aren't articulated in the building it's it's kind of like just a two by flat for the sill right now.

Um if you recall um from the previous time we were here, somebody uh laminated those windows with storm windows from the exterior.

Um and so you're seeing all the metal frames from the storm windows.

Um so we haven't really um explored what we're going to do for the sills, but we'll try and match that look.

Um and if it's wood, we'll match it as wood.

That would be my recommendation.

I do think that's probably I I when I was looking at the older 1970 photographer, and I'll get into this in the next section when we talk about windows specifically.

There's something funky going on with these these windows.

And when I was comparing the windows with neighboring windows and trying to kind of see what if I could figure out what was going on, there was a a place across on on the other opposite side of North Market Street.

I was like, oh, I think that's what's going on.

Um which had the um wood sills and wood lintels, um, and that might be an inspiration to kind of fit back to probably what was there.

Um can we look at the north elevation, drawing A502?

And I think my big note is if we could just get some clarification materials and and um get a few more notes on that drawing to show the materials.

I guess I was really curious about the it's siding in that area, and if you were gonna use proposing wood or a cementitious siding, I think I think it was hardy.

The smooth finish hardy that you got approved on the one on the for the section for the rear elevation.

Yeah, that's this.

We had uh uh after uh at the first commission hearing in front of you all um decided that that one wall we were replacing, it was okay to put uh composite siding on it.

Semanticus, right?

Composite, I think.

Or no, maybe it was cementitious.

I'll have to go back.

I believe it was with a smooth finish, because I'm pretty sure we talked about a barbecue that was there and it was hot.

Yes.

So um that's basically what we're gonna do is just wrap that.

But um where the signal is currently vinyl, we're going to replace it with vinyl siding on the portion of wall that's facing north.

Um that's in between the two properties there that face market.

It's like I know I'm confusing everyone, but um there's uh it will change from that new cementitious siding to um kind of the vinyl siding.

I didn't want to suggest that I change it all to the cementitious siding, although that would be my preference.

But um I wanted to keep uh uh you know, our goal is to keep the structure looking exactly as it does.

I thought we were getting rid of the vinyl siding.

I thought that's why we agreed to the cementitious siding for the new wall, but the existing wall was going to keep the old siding because we weren't remembering.

Because it wasn't coming down.

Correct.

But now that it's coming down.

I mean, how do we feel about that?

If the wall's coming down anyway, could it not all be cementitious siding?

I prefer it.

Yeah, if the wall is coming down, we'd rather not see new vinyl siding go up.

Okay.

Symmetricious siding would definitely be our preference there.

Great.

Okay.

Let's make that change.

Okay.

So no product literature is is needed for that because this is a minimum application.

They have that product already approved as part of that application.

So if you could just add the notes to the drawings, that would be probably we'll do that.

Before we move on, I just want to make sure.

Oh.

The corners trim?

I'll wait.

I'm gonna wait.

I'll wait on the trim.

Um any questions about the the wall for right now?

Any other okay.

Windows.

Um out of site visit staff was able to examine the wood um, the second story windows closely.

And um right now the windows have a one over one design.

But when you're up close to them, you can actually see the muttons that were previously there.

It did have a six over six design.

This is something that we've seen before, right?

It um it's it's a it's a cheap way to fix a window.

Um is it correct to assume that you're just repairing these to the be the one over one?

Um there's some single pane glass, so we'll be putting insulated glass in.

Um it's gonna be all the windows.

It wouldn't look yeah, the wood will it'll be one over one, uh, except for the two windows in the double wife brick wall that faces Fifth Avenue that is being that is not being torn down.

Those two windows, I think are six over six over six, six over six, and we're gonna restore them to six over six windows.

Great.

Yeah.

Um these windows here.

Those two.

I I guess one kind of question and concern about the that plan is about the framing.

Like I feel like the sashes, that makes sense, right?

What's the plan?

Are you able to salvage the the actual window frame?

Some of them like uh those for two six over six windows in particular, um, some of the the divides are completely shot.

So we'll have to you know get a restoration specialist, which we are um to fabricate uh matching um um you know divides, and then that will be what's put onto the window.

Um the I think what we're gonna do is keep them single pane and and then put storm glass now on the inside.

I think that's what we had approved last time.

If I say things that don't sound familiar, but it's because we have multiple projects and I'm confusing them.

But I I believe what we did is we decided to remove the storm glass from the exterior on the one over ones, and that we would keep them single pane, but put um storm glass on the inside.

So that way uh you don't have to see those metal frames on the outside.

You would get back to the one over one wood window, it would be single pane though.

And for the uh one over ones on fifth street and north market.

The is my understanding that those frames are also gonna be replicated in wood.

Well, not replicated, we're actually taking the frames out, they're at the restoration specials now.

So we're we're keeping the existing windows.

Okay.

Could you just maybe add just a few notes to clock to from that up?

But I think that's a lovely comments or questions about that plan.

I guess one other thing maybe to mention on the windows is on North Market Street.

Go up on the elevation.

Um the the storefront in the middle there between the two doors, uh, we have shown that sill height to be changed from what's existing.

And that uh I believe is the only change we're showing in kind of the design of the facade.

And we're doing that because I believe through our discussions with Christina that matches um the 1974 photo that you said.

It it doesn't match the photo.

The the photo kind of shows this.

Oh but if you if you touch that material, right?

It's not I don't think it's metal.

Like I think it's like uh plastic.

Yeah, it's it might be plastic or carbon material some sort.

I don't think it's historic.

And um, I mean if you if if you just visually remove that, I think you got what the storefront was.

If it was just glass all the way down, I think that's um just as you're showing here.

And then the wood trim at the base will be matched with what's there.

Um, but we are getting rid of that sort of little area of plastic, whatever it is.

Siding.

But those will be four separate windows, is that what I'm understanding, as opposed to one full window?

Yeah, we're gonna look at um how the window is made currently.

Like these are basically uh stopped-in glass or the corner and for that um window that's in the picture that goes across.

Um we do want those particular pieces of glass to be insulated, unlike upstairs.

We're not gonna do storm glass.

Um so we are gonna get insulated units, and then we'll stop them in to have a similar look to the frame detail.

So again, what we'll probably wind up with is stopped in glass.

In that case, it will probably be four pieces of insulated glass units that are stopped in and caulked and sealed.

But they won't be um like mirrored or tinted, or they're just gonna be clear glass.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

We do have the logo.

We do have the logo going on the corner though.

Yeah, like there's the affiliated logo now.

And that's already been approved.

But that's already just sort of making sure people are aware of that.

Um the drawings show at the uh the second story windows, they're being topped with this I'm assuming wooden arched feature, replicating what's there now.

And that's not a historic feature that I I don't I don't like that feature, and I would like something more traditional and more probably authentic to downtown Frederick and historically what this probably building probably had.

Um that's what's on the side on Fifth Street.

Looks like original.

Not according to the 1970 photos.

Yeah, it's the same on both sides.

Um it may not be historic feature, but it's what's there.

And so you have a strong preference for that arched.

Well, for the just the ease of of this process, because we recognize that this is an incredibly difficult scope of work to understand uh the simplest thing I can say is we're trying to make it look exactly like what it looks like now.

So that's the easiest path forward.

If you want us to do something different for those lentils, uh we'll consider it.

Yeah, they're not historic, they're they're newer, and that's not what that building had.

I would definitely want a more traditional design.

Um, I would concur.

I mean, it looks like there's arched lintels are just applied probably over the original, just flat.

Yeah.

Uh lentil, I think that would a flat lintel typical would be more appropriate.

Such a rebuilding the wall anyway.

Yeah.

Show the um six over six windows.

Is that true for over the door as well?

The door on that.

The door um this upper yeah, the door has that one's actually recessed.

Uh it's hard to describe or no, it's actually uh proud of the brick.

So it probably also is app applied.

But what we're planning on doing with that one, um you guys may remember we're gonna lower that sill of that door, so we're gonna have a piece of transom above the top of the door.

Um that was previous approved.

Um we're not removing that portion of the exterior wall.

So conceivably that lintel will remain.

So you'll have one in that shape and all the others on the front different.

I mean, is there any can you make it?

Or more traditional.

Understood, but they'll be different.

Could it be the I I guess I could express that like we can go down a rabbit hole here very quickly with those kind of revisions and scope creep leading us to start to change and manipulate the two walls that we are salvaging.

I I think that's one of the reasons we just kind of want to replicate what's there.

But again, I I I I uh we're at your mercy.

We would love to just work with you on it, and if you have some ideas of of maybe a historic lintel that you would like to see, we'll we'll look at what we can do.

This one.

This is right across the street.

I don't really kind of necessarily need to replicate the bowl bullseye design, like just the straightwood.

Okay.

Is that also what was in the 1974 print or no?

No.

It was it was something in the middle.

Okay.

But it it did suggest, because it must like in some in one area, it looked like there was a gap.

Is the 1974 not the postage stamp size picture in the packet from which it's impossible to derive any useful detail.

Yeah.

What?

Exactly.

Didn't realize it popped up like that.

I mean I did at home when I was looking at the packet online, was able to blow it up a fair amount, but you lose a substantial amount of uh of fidelity in the image that way.

Um give me a second.

So in that image, it appears to be like a restaurant or a uh lunch counter or something like that.

Yeah, I have the computer's thinking if they if it wants to show it to me.

So I don't think what we're seeing is historic either.

Historic either, but it is straight.

Yeah.

I think what we can do to appease this is we have the bricked in openings on the first floor.

Straight or at least are straight lentils.

We can just revise the elevations photo.

Yeah, and show the photo so that all of the lentils match those.

Excellent.

Okay.

Not a problem.

I I think these are all excellent comments.

And um but my biggest concern is that a strong wind or a speeding truck going down that street could make this all discussion completely moot because that building is so tenuous in the way it stands.

And so uh I'd like to just ask, and I'm not sure if this question should go to Justin or to Christina.

When can we get this back before the commission to give it a final approval?

The goal is the next meeting.

Next meeting.

We've talked to the building department once we get our um approval letter from HPC if it's granted.

Uh we'll be submitting that immediately to the building department who has promised us a very quick turnaround on a um uh amendment to our permit.

At that point, the walls will come down.

So that would be hopefully first week of September.

Okay.

The applicant's proposing to replicate the uh uh existing cornice.

Um I do believe that they have some new information to share with us for workshop tonight that better helps illustrate that plan.

Yeah, so as we were uh I was mentioning that Christina during the break, um we haven't truly measured all of these trims profiles um because we're a little nervous to put a ladder up against the building.

Um but saying that just from visual inspection, we've selected some trims that we feel are fairly close to accurate on what the historic trims are.

Um so we'll submit this drawing as a document on what we plan to do, but obviously if we um get this take these walls down and pull pieces of trim off, and our profiles do not match, we'll try and find something that does that seems like a reasonable approach.

I wouldn't want to put a ladder up against those walls right now either.

Our contractors here.

I I don't blame him.

Do you park your work vehicles next to those walls?

What's that?

Do you park your work vehicles next to those walls?

I wanted to park near them.

I put my ladder up against it.

So always part uh just ready to jump off of TV.

So I think really the rest of my comments on the storefront was just trying to get those those details.

I think you're I think that your approach is really good here with how you documenting it, so I I I appreciate that effort.

Roof.

The applicants previously, the this was during that that initial application, um, expressed some interest in modifying the roof line at the rear slope.

And I think it was just so you could get run water off that roof quicker.

And really I you could do that.

I just didn't see it in the application.

And so I just wanted to check in on that detail.

Um we'll make sure that that shows up.

But currently that rear flat portion of roof is actually two separate roofs um built at different times, and they slope in different directions.

And the one in the northeast corner of the building slopes to the north, and so there's a gutter there.

Um that total area is against the property line.

So right now, in order for us to take the rain that sheds off that roof to the public right away.

Um you can see in the one image there's uh kind of a maze of downspouts in the little courtyard between those two buildings to to sort of take build water from our building and uh the building to the north to a downspout that's on the face of our building.

So we were um hoping to not do that again.

Um and that's why we're sort of requesting to sort of take the pitch of that northeast corner roof and just join it up with the pitch on the southeast corner so that we could get everything to come to a gutter at the front of the building.

And would you think that this is something that could be visible from the public right away?

I do not think it will be visible in the slightest.

Okay.

Any concerns from the commission with this approach?

If you could just clarify that either uh in the scope of work and the drawing, something that makes it easy.

Absolutely.

I noticed no lighting was proposed.

It doesn't necessarily need to be at this point, but keep in mind we review lighting, and if you add it.

I don't think we were planning on doing anything.

There's adequate street lighting there.

Okay.

Um and I don't think there's any exterior lights on the building now.

So fair enough.

Um then right now you have HPC approval for a gas meter.

Yeah.

On the south elevation.

I believe that you went to Washington Gas came out.

Yes.

W what were the results of that site visit?

This is Andre Stone, he's our contractor with uh Pondosa projects.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, we had a meeting with Washgas on Tuesday, and um urban forestry was there as well.

And historic preservation was there, and the decision was to pull it off of the gas main in Fifth Street, and then run it directly between the two trees on the south side, and then kind of angle it back over and place the meter itself, like behind a fence, just uh right there.

Yeah.

So that would actually not be in the public right away.

Is that where you're already got approval for?

That is what we put on the one elevation that was approved.

Perfect.

Yeah.

Okay.

They fought us a little.

They wanted to put it on fifth.

What's this?

The the the utility company wanted us to put it on fifth.

Um there is a small section of property there.

It's about two feet.

Um that that rear wall is away from the property line.

Um, but to access the gas meter would technically mean having to access the neighboring property's yard because they fenced it off and have claimed that as part of their property, even though the property line is there.

So um they're in agreement.

We talk to the neighbor, we feel like everybody's on board to put the meter there.

Um, and hopefully um it'll be I'm sure it'll be readable through the fence or whatever they have to do.

Okay.

So no changes to what's already been approved.

No changes.

Okay.

I guess this is the point at the meeting where we just make sure that we have any, you know, if there's any questions from the HBC that we get that addressed.

If there's any questions from the applicant that we get that addressed.

And what are the next steps, Christine?

Is this coming back to us, or is it moving forward with two?

Yeah, similarly.

Yeah.

Uh we are the expediting bit.

We are planning to get this reviewed at the August 20th.

And really, it's mainly maybe some product information on that brick.

The trim details, which you've already compiled.

The lintels.

And then a couple notes, quite a little revision or two regarding the lintels.

A couple notes on the materials and scope of work for the window rehab.

The 18th.

Okay.

Feeling good?

Yep.

All right.

Then we look forward to seeing you on the 28th, where we're going to uh be reviewing both the amendment application and the demolition.

But I think we're on a good track.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Next up we have HPC 25218 and 25-219.

226 West South Street.

The uh demolition request for partial demolition and the replacement plan.

So Ms.

Martin Koske.

Excellent.

Um I'll let the applicants sit down and introduce themselves before I get started.

And I don't know if your mic is on.

You might have to hit the the button at the news.

And I'm Bill Ellison with CAPWORKS residential design.

Excellent.

So we reviewed the demolition application that hearing.

So I am just going to go directly into into staff comments unless there's any particular point of the conversation that the commission needs to have.

In addition.

Instead, you're supposed to use an existing doorway or modify a window into a door.

So you can get access to the addition.

The garage will be maintained, but the roof line altered.

The rear location of the proposed edition is supported by the guidelines.

But this feature is not supported by the guidelines and is not recommended for this historic resource.

A porch feature would be more consistent with the design standards.

Details on the materials and porch features are needed for review, including the railing and decking and traditional porch railing profile is encouraged as outlined in appendix four of the guidelines.

Okay, sure.

So essentially to build uh an addition off the back of the building, we were gonna try to continue the theme of a shed roof across the back.

Uh but in order to get the extra depth, we wanted to come up higher onto the roof and get a little more ceiling height on the second floor.

So we're basically talking about removing the uh the roof of the existing shed dormer, uh maintaining about two-thirds of the existing rear wall, uh, but this section over the garage, we would like to remove that dormer in its entirety again so that we can expand the second floor uh space.

Uh on the first floor, we'd like to expand the living space uh and make it an more open uh living family room.

So we're asking to put a 20-foot wide opening at the bottom to facilitate a larger space down there.

Um so I think it was a Christine's advice rather than taking the whole dormer off that if we could keep some of the structure of the existing dormer and poke holes through to our new second floor, that that would show some sympathy to the existing building.

Um if we look at this, you know, so you can see in this view, this is sort of the profile of the existing dormer, and what we're hoping to do is this is kind of looking from the other side, but here you can see the the profile of the existing dormer, and we want to continue the spirit of a shed roof and do a pretty simple rectangular addition on the back.

In that lower drawing, though, the intention is not to remove the dormer that's there.

Is that correct?

You're building over it?

We we are talking about removing the roof of the dormer, but leaving the wall of the dormer, the exterior wall.

So leaving the exterior walls, I should say.

Okay.

Wouldn't be out of the question to completely encapsulate that dormer, but Sam was hoping to get some more ceiling height in there while we're covering it all up.

On the lower level, or you're proposing with about a 20-foot opening.

Is there any serious objections to just punching through where those existing windows are versus tearing out the 20-foot of wall?

Of course it's possible, but the desire is to have uh basically to expand that into a kitchen area that's very open into a family area, a more modern layout.

But it wouldn't be out of the question, but uh Sam would like it as open as we can have it.

We generally have this discussion when we're talking about contributing resources, and you know, in some cases the downtown townhouses are only 15 feet wide or so, and you know, we've allowed wider openings there.

This it seems like plenty of room to put the addition and do almost anything you want to do, but uh does it justify creating such a large opening?

But this a general question, but yeah, I think it's fair to say we could make it work with smaller opening or multiple openings.

Um the idea was to kind of do the kitchen across the back and then the family room inside, so having some visual connectivity and flow.

But you know, that could be a six-foot-wide opening technically.

I have not looked closely at these plans, and I am not um schooled in doing that as well as others here on the commission.

Um can you tell me in square feet terms what the addition um will uh create?

Yeah, so the first floor is 15 by 32, so it's about 450 square feet on each floor.

On the first floor.

On the 450 on the first floor, and then another 450 on the second floor.

Thank you.

Uh and then we are adding a little bit behind the garage as well.

But that's maybe a hundred or less.

And the town homes, uh are you involved in that part of the uh Yes.

So Sam purchased that property since that approval happened.

Is there a square footage for for them, each one or all of them?

Well, eighteen, eighteen hundred square feet.

Eighteen hundred per unit.

Yeah.

About eighteen hundred.

Eighteen hundred.

Each yes.

Thank you.

I'm just it it's curiosity really.

I'm not um I'm not bringing you a professional perspective.

I I I just wanted the information.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna go back to the previous question uh about the opening.

So I think I what I heard, and I that's what I want to be clear about, is that you've agreed that it could be smaller and would then take the window on the and I'm looking at page 16.

I don't know if that helps you all or not.

Uh photograph.

Taking the larger of the windows and moving between that and maybe the electrical box.

Is that true?

Is that what we're so well?

We we haven't fully developed the interior yet.

Um Sam has some sketches that he some inspiration sketches.

He wanted it as open as possible, but it clearly if if it makes or breaks the project, uh your suggestion that we not widen widen it beyond the existing window widths.

Well, I think we all are thinking that I don't want to speak for everyone else, but the more opening historic material we can save, the better off, right?

I understand.

Yeah, so what's she said?

This is the two existing windows.

In a perfect world, the that would be the only openings from preservation perspective.

If you were waiting on me, no, I'm good.

Thank you.

Any other comments about the demolition plan?

The the rear wall or the roof structure.

The rear wall or the roof structure, roof structure.

We're reasonably certain that the rear dormer is historic and not uh not a later edition I'm not seeing anything on the sandboard maps that would indicate one way or the other.

So I I can't say for certain.

I do wonder if the applicant or the um Bill, if you have been up there and and look to see if there's any signs of one way or the other.

Right now, uh my assumption that it it is original, but it's not based on much.

Um I don't have much documentation to kind of support that position.

For certain there's a good chance of this.

Okay.

But the the it looks like the whole roof structure was redone, right?

Because you're yeah, I mean it look it looks like the roof was raised and repitched at one point.

Which is what makes me wonder if the dormers are if all the dormers are not original to the structure.

No, and I realize that like the sandboard maps would be totally unhelpful because all they do is show a footprint.

Right, because you can see on the side elevation that the brick is different in the at the top of the roof.

That's what I thought about the garage.

I don't think the garage was original either, but that's I think all of that back there was an addition.

That's what it looks like.

I am looking through our 2018 application for demolition to see if I see any other clues that I can like this picture here.

You can see that the brick is different.

Yeah, I mean there's a change in the there's a change in the color of the brick and in the way that it's pointed.

Where is this at?

It's page 17.

Um but what part of the building?

Uh the uh so now that used to be inside the building.

Yeah.

And those are two new windows that were approved at the time.

Those are two new wood windows, and that was the connection to the appendage that was that mode.

Yeah.

I'm sorry, it's a re-rebuilding.

That was an addition as well.

Right.

It was a later addition.

There was an additional.

It wasn't part of the.

Yeah, I think that's one of the reasoning's be so.

Right.

Right.

I think that was an addition as well.

I remember when that was on there, so yeah.

But I guess what I'm confused about is that the the color and texture of the brick on the front facade and on the west facade is the same up until that one point where you can see the shape of like a almost like a lower roof.

That was an addition.

I think I get that, but then the the color of the brick at the top should still be the same as the front, right?

Like the the color of the brick shouldn't necessarily have to be.

I hear what you're saying because it wasn't covered or protected, it should be the same as the front.

I just uh I don't know.

I don't I don't know that it really matters, but it just looks like the roof pitch has changed since the oh oh I no that I do think that's because of the that matches the gable of the di with the porch that used to be there.

Are you talking about the the difference in the brick on that side elevation?

I I think that's so you're saying that the roof line was always the same, it wasn't different.

At that at that location, I think what we're seeing is the ghost of the previous porch.

No, but what she's saying is that the front brick matches that which was inside the porch, but does not match what's been exposed.

I I I know what you mean with like the ghost thing, like there was a structure there before, but then the the the color of the brick from the front shouldn't be the same as on the side.

It should be a different weathering pattern.

So it just l I may be just derailing this.

I don't know that that this is really an important aspect of this discussion, but just it looks like it was changed.

I don't know if I can explain the the pattern other than it it just does seem to be following what what where that roof line was, but I I do see your point.

I I do think some masonry repairs have also taken place on the elevation.

Oh Bill, I find it hard to believe.

Was a portion of this wall rebuilt historic district?

This yes.

There was a wider opening in there.

Yeah.

I think that's what it's the doorway that goes into the porch.

So yes, you can see that at the at that front window.

There was a French door there, I think.

Yeah, that would make sense.

Easy enough to see where the original lintel and opening for that were, because there's a very clear ghost of that lindle above the above the six.

But I think above the window closest to the front of the house.

But I think the original question w were really about the f the wood frame dormers, right?

And the back on the back the front.

Well, I mean, yes.

Specifically about the back, but it could also apply to the front.

Yeah.

The front ones at least feel original to the house, whereas the the back one just doesn't feel like it's appropriate to this style of architecture.

It feels like an afterthought.

Like like after it was built, somebody said, Oh man, we gotta find a place to stick the kids.

I want to check one other site.

Right.

Just confirming, I was just double checking to see if we had any older photos, and we do not.

So it it the we just don't have good photographs of this building historically.

And we can't hear you, Christina.

I'm sorry.

No, no, no.

I will be more clear.

We don't have 1970 photographs like we do of many of the the buildings downtown.

Do you think the odd form of this rear rear portion of the building, which may read as altered may make the proposed level of demolition appropriate?

I'm not going to speak for everyone else, but I'm gonna say for the upper floor, yes.

But the lower floor, I think that brick wall is part of the original wall.

And I think 20 feet is just a lot.

Yeah.

It's just a lot.

Yeah, I'm I'm inclined to feel the same way.

I don't have a problem with substantially altering that door, that that rear dormer with eliminating big sections of that sided wall back there.

And that that doesn't bother me, but I want to I think that I think that preserving the the historic brick structure, I think is uh is more of an imperative.

I I hope I'm not mudding the water.

But I'm gonna just wonder if we could swap in terms of the demolition.

Would the commission be okay?

Right now the plan is to utilize the openings on the dormer.

Open that up.

Well, yeah, I was just gonna ask that as if if the dormers are that important, it would be a lot easier if we just took the whole dormer off.

Right.

But keep more the brick.

Yes.

Okay.

I'd be good with that.

I mean, I'm partly I'm inclined that way because if a future owner wanted to take it back to original, replacing that dormer is a lot easier than replacing the brick.

I mean, as it's just a it's it's a framed dormer that's gonna be less less work overall, less alteration to bring that back.

Okay.

I think Sand's asking me here is can we widen those openings on the first floor to any degree?

Like maybe one of them widen to uh well you'll need you'll need to do you'll have to make one or two of those into a a door, but your question is can you also widen it?

The qu so looking at the rear elevation, first floor, that brick section where there's windows.

One or two of those will obviously need to be changed to a door to provide access.

But um the applicant's asking, not only can you can they turn it into a door, can they widen it as well?

I think widen it to some degree.

Yeah, six foot, eight foot.

I mean, but not twenty feet.

Right.

I think that's what and I'm not speaking for everyone, but it's the 20 feet.

I think 10 is even excessive, but yes, to your point, a window and it's and some a window and some to expand it.

Any other comments or feedback on that expansion?

And we do about 10 feet instead of 20 feet.

Probably okay with 10, but I'm certainly not the only voice here.

Um, I think 10 feet would be livable.

I would encourage at least a bit of that corner to be maintained.

Yeah, what's the distance between the two windows?

Do you I mean approximately, I figure you probably don't have that.

How would we feel about giving up the distance between the windows?

Well, that's almost all of it though.

Yeah, it is.

It really is.

So I was thinking the small window working towards either the door or towards the um electric meter.

But I mean towards the door.

That's probably lesser fabric.

And I mean the small window towards the door, I I would be okay with two.

I'm thinking about how to provide the the biggest opening while losing the least fabric.

Yes, agreed.

I don't know.

Everybody else down there is so quiet.

We're not hearing you guys, and we don't mean we certainly don't mean to take over the wording.

Oh, fair enough.

My other comrades here, they're like, God, if she'd just be quiet, then we'd get a word in.

Yeah, I mean, I'll almost concur with uh Christina's remark if keep more of that, I guess the southwest corner wall.

Uh I'm not so concerned about the location or where the opening falls, but if you're gonna make a bigger opening, it'd be nice to save a bigger portion of that corner, but so that would be about 10 feet.

Yeah.

I mean, I think that's uh from my point of view, that's a manageable compromise.

We're only really significantly impacting a single opening then.

Okay.

Can we talk about the deck?

Oh, I mean, we can talk about it, but we're not going to approve it.

Could it could it could it be turned more into a porch feature?

Either a porch or a patio.

Well, it's second story, right?

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

Then it would be a balcony.

You're talking about it'll be a rooftop deck.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

I'm thinking deck like we were talking about before.

And like we're not we're not gonna go down that road again tonight.

Um could you yeah, so um could you move the drawing up a little bit so we can better see it?

And and this actually, I think the side elevation of that is actually more telling.

Uh-huh.

Because of its depth.

I don't know.

That seems pretty clear to me, although I saw it as a porch and not a deck.

I think the side elevation will help illustrate it a little bit more.

It would my recommendation is to put a roof on it and bring it back a little bit.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the idea that we we wanted to bring the second floor out to here, but so you're suggesting maybe pull this back.

Because the right now this is all in front of the garage door and kind of open, but we could bring it back to here.

Would it want to be a little bit more?

Could you extend could you extend that roof over to cover that?

Make a covered porch, basically.

Uh shallow covered porch, similar to the that would be a lot more in keeping with the structures that we see in the historic district.

But this architecture is not like the others that we're trying to replicate for a porch, right?

Oh, covered porch.

I mean, it's uh it is and it isn't.

There are certainly elements of it that are familiar.

They're just combined in a different way.

How deep is that, Bill?

For what your original, how deep is that space there?

Oh, right.

The the depth was eleven feet.

It's coming out eleven feet.

Yeah, so we could pull it back to five or six.

I mean I I think with uh the guidelines actually give a depth that's appropriate.

It might be I'm not gonna say until I look it up.

I would be more amenable to something like that, a shorter, you know.

Covered balcony covered porch.

Yeah, I mean I I feel like that's a sort of natural extension of the shed roof, and also it it feels it just feels more at home in the historic district.

Okay with the French door I don't see any problem with that.

Okay.

So decks project further from buildings than the four or five feet that traditional Freck port porches project.

And you're proposing with this drawing it would be around.

We can make it six, that would be nice.

Yeah.

That's comfortable still.

Yeah, I think six within the sort of scale of the building is it's slightly outside the guidelines, but it's still sort of capturing the sense of it.

Once the townhouses are in place, it's not going to be that it's really going to be out of view.

Any other design concerns?

I mean that that stoop is concrete on the back rear entrance.

Yeah, that would be concrete.

Okay.

Um you feel comfortable moving forward with a a couple tweaks.

Do you have any questions from the commission?

Do we feel like forward moving?

Yeah, do you feel comfortable moving forward with with Mickey?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that'd be a problem.

Okay.

Um that 18th deadline for resubmission.

That's a lot because you have product literature to pull together, revised drawings, scopeable work.

We we sort of have a ongoing uh list of product materials on like the Anderson 100 windows and kind of repeating a lot of the things that we know have been approved in the past.

So that wouldn't be that hard for pulled together.

Okay.

So a couple tweaks to the the drawings, pull that product literature together.

A lot of it it sounds like you already have on hand.

Yeah.

Um your goals to submit.

Oh, let's talk about that.

And uh we're gonna we're gonna preserve all the existing windows or you know, refurbish, but uh we were kind of hoping to go with the Anderson 100 series on the addition.

Oh, wait, do I get shown them as one over one windows, not real pattern?

I mean, it's your budget.

I'm sorry, could you say that again?

I'm I'm not go ahead.

Well, so in the past we've had uh success in getting for additions, uh getting uh Anderson 100 series windows approved, which are a fiberglass window, they're not a wood window, but they're also not a vinyl window.

And we've uh gotten approval to use those on several projects over the years.

It's true.

For new for new for new construction and additions.

So would the commission be comfortable for the addition to had the fiberglass w one over one design?

Is that where you might switch good do one over one?

Yeah, one over one because we it's okay.

It's new construction in the back.

You just look traumatized by the um I don't know.

I'm just I think I got tired.

Uh yeah.

I think that's what's it.

Sounds good.

Um I did I just want to make sure the the um I think you mentioned hardy for the siding.

Smooth finishing.

You'll provide color information.

Let's know what color you would you want.

And um, but you're not touching that front dormer.

Correct.

All right.

Yeah, the idea is to leave the front and the sides pretty much where they are, but I guess at some point of discussion about you want to remove that paint from the side the west.

Yeah, the that yellow paint.

Yes.

Yes.

And this is me not having the level one approval.

Will that be exposed?

Yes.

Okay.

So just let me ask this.

The garage is staying, yes?

Or it's going to be built out further.

Garage is staying, yeah.

Just as it is.

And what's the material that's on that?

That is a wood clapboard siding.

I believe.

So wood siding?

Yeah.

So that is a detail we hadn't really talked about yet.

But I guess can we have this picture?

So what would you think about leaving this siding alone, but removing this siding?

And then, you know, again, the the addition feature would all be the synthetic new material.

But we would leave this as it is.

If you could leave that, I think that'd be great.

I'm sorry, Paul.

Is that wood?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, 90% sure that's wood clapboard side.

I agree then.

All right.

Okay.

Just make those notes clear in the drawings.

On the back elevation.

What's that garage area?

Because it it does look like what you're going to have is wood siding then on that little section.

Well, so I think that I would consider this part of like the uh sugar here.

I mean, visually, obviously, I think this should so I guess what I'm saying is that this area here and this side of the addition beyond would be the new material, but the original siding and that very ending.

And then that original siding would wrap around to the port to the rear part of the garage.

That section where you're at right there, yeah.

What's the plan there?

Well, I would think we'd want to I don't know, what do you think?

We would leave that part.

I would vote yes, but that's my vote.

I mean, I would leave there's what's a what's around the garage door, I would leave whatever's there.

Yeah, that's I think that would make sense.

Okay.

Because that wood siding would wrap around it.

It would I think it will work.

Okay.

All right, then I can think we have a game plan.

Updated drawings.

It's a low pitch rub.

I was thinking like doing ice shield and shingles on top of it.

Right?

Or do you want to do that?

Shingles.

Shingles.

Okay.

Unless slope prevents that.

It's I don't think it would.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

And we are adjourned.

Thank you.