Good evening.

Welcome to the excuse me.

August 28th, 2025, Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission hearing and workshop.

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

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

Department of the 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.

For introductions this evening, beginning on my left, the audience's right is the HPC administrative assistant, Tansi Creighton, and Commissioners Jonathan Levins.

I'm sorry, Commissioners Carroll Kelly.

Snuck in at the last minute.

Commissioner Jonathan Levins, Commissioner Eva Soller, Commissioner Paul Fitzgerald, myself, Commissioner Robert Van Rands, and then on my right, the audience's left, Commissioner Ann Hart and Commissioner Ed McMahon, and then Historic Preservation staff, manager for historic manager for historic preservation, Christina Martin Koskey, Historic Preservation Planners Sarah Hoffeditz and Daniel Lecky, who is celebrating his final evening with us this evening, and Assistant City Attorney Irissa Nann.

Everyone who wishes to speak on any cases this evening or otherwise be heard, please rise and be sworn in 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.

Thank you very much.

It is the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission to safeguard the historical and cultural heritage of the City of Frederick by preserving sites, structures, or districts that reflect elements of cultural, social, economic, political, archaeological, or architectural history to stabilize and improve property values of such sites, structures or districts, to foster civic beauty, to strengthen the local economy, and to promote the preservation and appreciation of such site structures and districts for the education and welfare of the residents of the City of Frederick.

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.

Being said, are there any commissioners with statements of eligibility?

All right, hearing none.

Do we have any announcements this evening?

I only have one announcement that is uh concerning HPC 25-207 and HPC 25209 at 358.

West Patrick Street.

Um that applicant failed to meet public notice requirements, and so no action will be taken at tonight's meeting.

They are um scheduled for the next meeting.

All right.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to announce I'll recuse myself from hearing HBC business item number two, case HPC R 25-56 tonight.

All right, thank you.

Moving on to approval of minutes, the minutes from the August 14th, 2025 hearing and workshop.

Commissioners, any concerns regarding these minutes, anything you'd like to see added or corrected.

Mr.

Chairman, I move to approve the hearing minutes and the workshop minutes for the August 14th, 2025 preservation commission.

I'll second.

All right, thank you very much.

Any further commentary?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, moving on to HPC business.

We'll give Commissioner Fitzgerald a moment to excuse himself.

All right.

The first item is HPCR-2556 slash HPC 21-179.

Request for extension at 155 West Patrick Street.

With just a little bit of background, I just want to note that per the land.

I just forgot an announcement.

So per the land management code, section um 423N, the historic preservation commission certificate is valid for three years.

A maximum uh six-month extension can be granted by the planning department, which was done in this case.

Further extensions may be granted by the historic preservation commission.

So that is where we're at now.

Uh they already received their first extension from staff, they need another one.

That can only come from the commission.

Is there is there uh I'm trying to think of how to how to parse this question.

Is there a compelling reason not to grant the extension?

Lily Management Co does not give um standards for consideration on these cases.

It's just more of an administrative function of the commission to offer an extension.

Um in this case, I do believe that uh COVID and some delayed sales were part of the um reason for the delay.

The project was reviewed and approved by the commission, and it seems like a reasonable request.

Okay, and that that tracks with my understanding, but I wanted to make sure that there wasn't something it wasn't something in the background that I was unaware of.

So thank you.

Appreciate okay.

I'm prepared to make a motion then.

I'm familiar with HPC 21-179 at 155 West Patrick Street, and I move that we approve the extension.

Second.

All right, anything further?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously with uh Commissioner Fitzgerald abstaining.

Do you think you can bring the um thank you?

Um, and I I must I made an error with my announcements.

There is one other announcement, and we'll conclude it at the end of HPC business if that is okay.

We do have um uh Gabrielle Collar, the director of planning here to give a welcome to our new commission members.

If it's okay, we'll do it at the end of do you we can do it now?

Let's do it now.

Sure.

Why don't I go ahead and do it now while we give uh Commissioner Fitzgerald a chance to get settled back in?

Good evening, everyone.

Uh Gabriel Collard, director of the planning department, and I'm just very happy to be here and thank you for having me this evening to welcome our two newest HPC members.

Um, it is a great honor to be able to come and welcome you and thank you for your your volunteerism and your commitment to our community.

Um, on behalf of the mayor's office, we have some wonderful certificates to share with you this evening, but also on behalf of the planning department.

It is um a tremendous commitment each and every one of you make to serve in this capacity as staff.

It is always a privilege to support and to know that we are making our contribution through you by providing the technical advice and background that we can to to help you with what are sometimes very often difficult decisions um and not always um easily easy to get to.

So for that, we very much thank you for your contributions and welcome you to this evening, Jonathan Lovins and Carol Kelly.

Um it is a wonderful addition to our HPC, which is full, which is amazing and wonderful, and we're very grateful for that.

So thank you all very much for being here.

And whoops, volunteering with that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you.

Moving on to um item number three, HPC 25-468 DR.

Request for demolition review 205 Lindbergh Avenue.

I'd like to enter the home memo into the record.

A request for demolition review has been submitted per Section 423A of the land management code for a dwelling at 205 Lindenburg Avenue.

Planning staff has determined that the structure is in whole or in part 50 years or older based on this evaluation.

The historic preservation commission is charged with determining if the structure 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, retains historic integrity and meets one of the following criteria listed in the memo.

The dwelling at 205 Lindenburg Avenue was constructed circa 1938.

City Directory records suggest that the building was constructed by Edward C.

Schenck, who was who was granted the property in 1937 by John W.

Grove and Elise I Grove.

The building was transferred to Charles H.

Buller, Jr.

and Celia M V.

Bowler in 1970.

The property remained in their ownership until 2023, when the property was transferred to their daughter, Elizabeth C.

Cowperthwaite.

Charles and Cecilia were the longest residents in the building.

The structure retains a good degree of historic integrity, maintaining elements of the original location, design, setting materials, workmanship feeling, and association, but lacks a high level of architectural significance to warrant individual distinction.

Research has not indicated that the property holds significance for an event or culture group, nor was any information found to indicate that it's associated with the lives of significant persons.

Staff finds that the property is not individually eligible for designation and recommends that the commission not pursue a designation application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Commissioners, any questions regarding the application?

And I would like to note that there was public comment that was submitted to the commission members this past Monday, and I believe that the property is owner, the property owner is here to speak on behalf of their project.

All right.

I'm I'm the property owner.

All right, would you like to come forward and speak?

Hi.

Um my name is Elizabeth Cowperthwaite.

I am the property owner.

I was saying I'm hearing impaired, so I'm having a really difficult time hearing any of this tonight.

Um what we're requesting is to there's a side porch on the house now, and we want to enclose that and just make it a two-level addition.

We're not going beyond the original footprint of the porch, and we're doing everything that we can to make it look like it was always there.

Uh the contractor is uh saving the bricks and reusing them for the base of the addition.

And um it's actually a great expense to do that because I want it to, I wanted to look like it was always there.

It just needs to be a little bit larger for us.

Um do you have any questions for me about it?

I know there's a medical law about another house in the neighborhood.

Okay, perhaps not a question but a comment.

Uh, I appreciate your sensitivity and your drive to reuse the material.

So thank you for that.

Okay.

Am I done?

Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant.

Please go ahead and be seated.

Thank you.

And I I I I do want to note that we do have devices to assist with hearing if you would like it.

Tansi on the side can assist anybody who needs a hearing advice assistance.

I know this room can be tricky with the sound.

It looks like our tech is coming.

Testing 123, can you hear this better?

Okay, good.

All right, commissioners.

Any further questions for staff regarding the application?

Remember that this is strictly determining whether this is whether the residence has a contributing resource.

So we're not really evaluating the project itself.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-468-DR at 205 Lindbergh Avenue, and I move that we not pursue a designation for historic preservation overlay.

Any further commentary?

I'll just make a note that because the property does not meet any of the criteria to make it eligible for designation.

Um that's why I voted the way that I did.

All right.

Anything else?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, that's unanimous in favor of not making an application for the designation as a contributing resource.

Moving on to uh the consent agenda.

So first two items are no action.

That leaves us with uh HBC 25-220.

Yes, that is correct.

Um Commissioners, any concerns regarding that particular item?

Are there any members of the public here who wish to see this item removed from the consent agenda or otherwise addressed?

All right, hearing none.

Can I get a motion to pass the consent agenda?

Mr.

Chairman, I move to approve the items on the consent agenda, including only case HBC 25-220 located at 40 South Carroll Street.

I will second.

Any further discussion.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And then moving on, do we have any continuances this evening?

No, you do not.

And let's move on to this evening's cases, starting with HPC 25-69, uh 11 South Carroll Street.

Ms.

Hoffaditz.

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

This application concerns the proposal to replace the roof system, gable siding, and to reinstate two dormers that were damaged by a fire in the main roof build main front building only.

No work is being done on the rear section of the building.

This project was previously workshopped, so I'm gonna go ahead and move on to staff comments.

This application was previously reviewed and discussed at the June 12th workshop.

After reviewing the application materials with updates and consulting the guidelines, staff offers the following comments.

Staff finds overall the material and replacement of the standing scene metal roof with a galvanide color, gray color, the ground profile gutters, wood scallop trim, and the vent to be appropriate and consistent with the guidelines.

Great color, the ground profile gutters, wood scallop trim, and the vent to be appropriate and consistent with the guidelines.

For roof features, the turbines and the secondary chimney were lost or damaged by the fire.

These features are proposed not to be reinstated to the property.

Well, the guidelines state these features should be retained.

Staffide the priority of the roof replacement takes precedence, and those features do not need to be reinstated at this time.

For windows, the proposed windows are and in C Anderson E series, wood frame, full divided light fixture for panes and mutton details with aluminum cladding.

Per the guidelines, replacement of wood windows must all be wood without cladding.

The applicant needs to provide product literature for a wood window without cladding.

Street-facing windows should feature true divided lights, while secondary windows and on the dormers may be simulated divided lights with a space bar.

The drawings do not clearly illustrate the total number of proposed windows for the dormers.

Staff reach out to the applicant to confirm the total number of windows, and they confirm six windows would be installed for the dormers.

Drawings will need to clearly indicate the total number of windows being proposed for the dormers.

This can be achieved by having elevation drawings of the dormers.

For dormer and siding, the roofing material appears to be the same standing seam metal roofing as the main structure.

However, it's not clearly detailed in on the drawings or scope of work.

The applicant will need to make a note regarding the roof and materials of the dormers on the drawings.

The proposed siding for the dormers are to be beaded vertical wood siding.

This is a siding represented on both gables and dormers.

The street-facing gable is not being proposed to be replaced, but it will be repaired where needed.

While wood siding is appropriate and consistent with the guidelines, product image or literature won't need to be provided for for the proposed beaded vertical siding.

Staff recommends the commission to approve the application with the following conditions for staff level review.

That product literature be submitted for staff for final review and approval for wood windows that are not clad.

Street-facing windows shall feature true divided lights, while secondary elevations and dormers may be s simulated to violates with a spacer bar.

That an image or product literature be submitted for staff for the vertical bead wood siding.

The drawings are in that drawings are submitted that clearly illustrate the total number of proposed windows and roofing material for the dormers for final review and approval from staff and that I take any questions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions for staff regarding the staff report.

All right.

Is the applicant here this evening?

Could you uh turn the microphone on and state your name, please?

And uh were you sworn in at the beginning of the hearing?

I wasn't.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

So we need to have her sworn in then.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the state responses given and statements made in this hearing before the historic preservation commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Excuse me.

Nothing but the truth.

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Thank you.

All right, and please state your name for the Jessica Walter.

All right.

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

I don't think so.

We can have custom um wood windows made, which I think was um uh one of the comments in here that we could have those like custom made.

I can get you the information on them, but they're the only ones there isn't like a wood window on the market brand-wise that doesn't have some sort of cladding over top of it for us to use.

So we're just gonna have them made specifically that also have the single pane glass and also have the simulated dividing light, all of the things all in one.

So we were just gonna have them made.

All right.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

Or is a question in the report on the roofing material?

Could you clarify is that standing seam metal or some other type?

Yeah, it's in the um it's in the the write-up of the scope of work that it's a 21 wide 281 inch wide galvaloon panel standing seam metal roof with a roll bridge.

And the siding on the west gable street or the east cable, I'm sorry.

Uh wood.

And seems to indicate the dormers and the west gable end will be wood siding.

Correct.

We're gonna use the beaded um wood siding on all of the areas to make them so that they're all the same.

Okay, thank you.

Any further questions?

I have a question, and it's purely a technical question for my own curiosity.

Okay.

The vertical bead siding, is that a tongue and groove siding or is it just uh just a lap siding?

It's a lap siding.

Okay.

I like I said, purely for my own satisfaction because I don't have a way of getting up there to look at the existing pieces.

I just was like I need to know.

Right, no worries.

Thank you.

All right, I see no other questions, so 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, commissioners is back with us.

So I feel like we're at the final stages because we've worked shopped this a number of times now, I feel, and um I appreciate the modifications and where we are.

So we've come a long way, and I look forward to it.

Unless anyone else has anything, I'm prepared to make a motion.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

I am familiar with HPC 25-69 at 11 South Carroll Street.

And I move that we approve the application with the following conditions for staff level review.

That product literature be submitted to staff for final review and approval for wood windows that are not clad.

Street-facing windows shall feature true divided lights, while secondary elevations and dormers may have simulated divided lights with a spacer bar.

That an image or product literature be submitted to staff for the vertical bead wood siding, and that the drawings are submitted that clearly illustrate the total number of proposed windows and roofing material for the dormers for final review and approval from staff.

Second.

I second the motion.

All right.

Anything further.

Hearing nothing.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Moving on to HPC 25-160, 401 North Market Street.

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

This application serves as a replacement plan for HPC 25182 and concerns raising the height of the rear one-story brick garage slash warehouse and expanding its footprint.

This application was also workshop previously.

So I'll move on to staff comments.

The proposal includes a request for a front edition, side edition, and raised roof line alternations that are not typically supported by the guidelines.

Given that this portion of the building was previously approved for demolition, the commission should discuss what level leniency, if any, should be granted to significantly alter the structure.

And the applicant is proposing to set back the facade wall of the proposed edition by 12 inches from the historic structure.

The guidelines state the addition should be deferentiated from historical structures by offsetting the new addition from the original structure.

Steph finds the setback meets this objective.

The applicant provided updated drawings that show both 2D and 3D scales between the project area and the existing structure.

Product literature for the garage doors have been updated to a coal pay.

Commercial aluminum full view doors.

The applicant states that the upper panels will be aluminum full light full view with the lower panels a solid aluminum.

However, there's no clear image of how many panels are full view versus full aluminum.

The drawings indicate five rows of individual panels, but the scope of work details three glass aluminum overhead doors.

The applicant will need to provide clear drawings or proposed images of the garage door.

The product ledger provided may not be compatible to the second empire architecture found at this property.

However, at workshop, the commission discussed and were in favor of aluminum garage doors in reference to mimicking fire hall garage doors.

West elevation near the rear of the building.

The applic applicant requests to construct a brick addition on the west side elevation.

This addition is is to allow rear entry access to the gravel parking lot and has limited impact on the building and streetscape.

Rehabilitation.

Resubmission documentation details the height of the building is now proposed to be 14 from the existing nine feet height.

The scope of work calls for repointing, but no details are provided.

Drawing should clearly identify the location of work.

The applicant the application should detail methods and materials so the staff can confirm consistency with the design guidelines.

Product literature has been provided for redefining thermal entrances.

Metal insulated doors.

Metal doors are being proposed as the facade and rear elevation.

Per the guidelines, metal doors may be used for utilitarian entrances for commercial uses, often located at the rear of the building.

Non-traditional materials may also be used on new additions on a case-by-case basis.

Staff find the following work and material consistent with the guidelines, the installation of the TPO roofing, wall material, and repainting the structure.

Staff recommends the commission approves the application with the conditions for staff level approval.

Updated product literature to provide to show the exact design and number of panes on the garage door.

Drawings indicating where repointing work will take place, hand tools and line-based mortar will be utilized.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

And were you sworn in earlier?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

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

Nothing to add.

All right.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

I mean, I think this was workshop pretty thoroughly already.

So that's a real concern, but are you proposing a solid panel versus and a transparent panel or glass panels on the garage doors?

I think the intention was like bottom two panels would be solid, so you didn't see through, and then the upper ones would be the glass.

Are you intending to paint all of the brick?

Yes.

All right.

Anything further.

Please go ahead and be seated.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Hearing none, commissioners.

Any discussion.

I think the one comment in the staff report that stands out for me is just that we had previously approved demolition, so I feel like these modifications after we work through them to some extent quite extensively through workshop, really is a more modest approach.

So I'm I'm I'm leaning towards this is the uh for approval for this.

I would add also there's a staff comment on you know the uh this addition uh beyond the rear of the property uh uh although it is on long street front, and um it is a smaller scale addition and per what was originally proposed, I think is uh you know secondary to the to the main structure uh on uh Market Street and does not really um propose uh an outskilled in terms of mass or height uh in relation to the the existing structures I I have a question for my fellow commissioners, which is um the result of my lack of familiarity with the building as a whole, um as you all have heard me say previously, my lack of familiarity with some of our um procedures regarding demolition am I correct that the part of the building we are considering this evening is facing on Fourth Street?

Yes.

Correct.

So my question is uh and I think I understand that now that part of the building is under the um operational result of a demolition approval.

But my theoretical question, and this is why I share it only with the commissioners, is what would be the circumstances?

Do we even consider addressing the circumstances if the demolition had not been uh approved, and the building that we are considering is facing an a street which is also part of the historic district and subject its properties, the properties on that street are subject to the requirements that we place on certainly um contributing buildings regarding changes.

I'm sorry about the the vagueness of that question, but I please at least indicate to me if you understand where I'm coming from with it.

I think I understand the question that if we had originally not approved the demolition and this package that's being presented to us in this moment, would we consider approving it in that stance, giving the criteria as you suggest, the guidelines to fine, and it is facing a streetscape.

So I do understand the question.

I can appreciate the current uh status of the application and and the uh what we are considering, certainly.

Understood, and I will tell you that while I pulled that statement out of staff report in my mind's eye, the work we've done in workshop, I feel like we've done it twice in workshop.

Um I believe the package that's presented now is worthy of approval even with the deviations that we're approving.

So even without a demolition, I think the guidelines afford us deviation, and I know for myself personally, I feel confident in that relying on that perspective.

I understand.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

If nobody else has any other comments.

I am familiar with 401 North Market Street.

I'm sorry, I'm familiar with HPC 25-160 at 401 North Market Street.

And I move that we approve the application with the conditions that the updated product literature is provided to show the exact design and number of panes on the garage door, and that the drawings indicate where rig pointing work will take place with hand tools and a line-based mortar.

All right.

Any further discussion.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Moving on to HBC 25-212, 500 North Market Street.

Ms.

Martin Koskey.

Thank you.

I want to enter the entire staff report into the record.

I also want to acknowledge that this project was uh previously reviewed at the August 14th hearing and workshop, and because of this, I will uh try to keep my comments uh brief.

This application concerns demolition of walls facing North Market and East Fifth Street and expanding the area where the roof structure was previously approved to be removed and replaced.

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

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

HPC 25 to 11 serves as the replacement plan and cost for rebuilding the walls and roof structure in kind and incorporating a traditional storefront design based off of physical evidence and nearby architecture.

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 the demolition application, the commission must consider the following.

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

Partial demolition of a contributing resource will not be approved of the demolition will soon alter the overall building site structure object such that the building site structure object would no longer be contributing.

Staff has performed a site visit, observed the conditions of the walls, and have evaluated that the structural engineers report and found that the compromise section of the buildings are beyond repair.

The replacement plan calls for building the walls and restructuring kind and incorporating a traditional storefront design based off physical evidence and nearby architecture, a proposal that is consistent with the design guidelines by replicating the character defining features and retaining the character of the neighborhood.

With all this in mind, staff recommends the commission allow for the demolition outlined in the taxed application condition upon the approval of a replacement plan and submission of the associated permits.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions regarding staff report.

Would the applicant please come forward?

Hi, I'm David Lopez for Two Point Studio Architect on the job.

Good evening.

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

I don't.

I think we've talked about it.

Quite a bit.

So commissioners, any questions for the applicant regarding the uh demolition application?

Probably not question but comment.

Um again, I think I mentioned this before.

I do appreciate your sensitivity and dedication to only demolishing that which you absolutely have to.

So thank you.

Yes.

As you pointed out, we discussed this quite thoroughly at workshop, and you were very helpful and forthcoming with the amount of documentation you provided.

So go ahead and be seated for the moment.

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

All right.

Hearing none, commissioners.

Any discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

I'm familiar with the property uh 500 north market.

And that's HPC 25-212.

And I move that we approve.

There you go.

We approve this for demolition.

Um and I'm were there any conditions with that?

On this one.

Yes.

So would you yeah, would you be willing to make it?

Conditional upon the approvement or replacement plan.

My apologies.

I missed that.

No, it's okay.

Okay.

Do I need to say the whole thing over again?

Please just so it's got solid for the record.

So I recommend we approve this for demolition outlined in the attached application.

Condition upon the approval of a replacement plan and submission of the associated permits.

Thank you.

I second that fine motion.

All right.

Any further discussion.

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

All right.

And that passes unanimously.

Moving on to HPC 25-21.

500 North Market Street amendment.

That would be the replacement plan.

Thank you.

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

And just like the last application, I want to acknowledge that this project was previously workshopped at the August 14th meeting.

Because of that, I will keep my comments brief just with the project description and then with staff comments limited to the changes.

So this application serves as a replacement plan for HPC 25212 and calls for the rebuilding of the walls and roof structure in kind and incorporating a traditional storefront design based off of physical evidence and nearby architecture.

The plan calls for replacing the existing facade features, roofline, and cornices portions of the north wall facing uh 504 North Market Street, West Wall fronting North Market Street, and South Wall fronting Fifth Street will be impacted.

Again, moving directly to staff comments where there is changes from the last discussion.

Shown on uh drawing G008 will have recessed areas of brick replicating the current design.

I want to note that additional information was added to show that the wood lintels will be replicated.

Also on drawing G008 was updated with additional uh notes addressing materials.

The applicant is proposing to reuse existing vinyl windows.

Now, if those units cannot be reviewed, reviewed reused or um and replacements are needed.

HPCA is approval is needed for the replacement units.

New windows will need to be consistent with the design guidelines, which do not support the use of vinyl windows.

Um hardy plank siding is proposed.

Semanticious siding is not supported by the guidelines, but as the commission found its use appropriate under the initial pro approval, staff supports its use for this location as well.

Like the originally approved use, the siding should have a smooth finish.

New documentation was submitted to better illustrate uh the cornice and paneling details.

Cornices shall be made of non-pressure treated wood that is painted or stained with an opaque finish.

Moving on to updates with the windows.

Drawings have been updated to show that the window will be topped with um uh with not with the arched feature, but with uh a traditional lintel.

Um I apologize for the error in my staff report.

And this was of course in response to um comments um from the August 14th, 2025 workshop.

All sills and lintels shall be made of wood.

Wood elements are comprised of non-pressure treated wood that is painted or stained with an opaque finish.

The applicants were in regards to the storefront.

The applicants are proposing to replicate the existing cornice on the storefront and upper roof line.

Detailed photo documentation and replacement details were provided.

So thank you for that effort.

I know that was a lot of work and but well executed, so thank you.

With all this in mind, staff recommends that the commission approve the application with the following conditions.

That if any of the windows that are being shown to be reused are later found to require replacements, then the HPC approval is needed for those replacement units.

Otherwise, the application as shown is fine.

That all sills, lintels, and cornices are made of wood, that all wood elements are comprised of non-pressure treated wood that is painted or stained with an opaque finish.

That cement board siding on the north side and rear of the building will feature a smooth finish.

That the previous conditions outlined in the original approval remain unchanged, and that includes that the reconstructed wall in the northeast rear corner of the building is clad with horizontal wood siding or cement board siding with a smooth finish, that the proposed repoing work will use hand tools only, and that a line-based mortar is used that matches the color, texture, and tooling of the adjacent mortar.

And that all stucco repair shall be done so that the finish final finish the final finish matches the adjacent areas.

The applicant previously obtained staff uh level approval for product literature for roofing material, cement board siding, which is smooth finish, a flatboard metal door and commercial signage.

The location of the gas meter was also approved, and I just want to confirm that all those previous approvals are still valid.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

So I do have one question when we talk about the pointing matching in color, because I believe we agreed that it was going to all be painted.

Well, I will just clarify that that was a condition previously applied from the last application.

It's just kind of clarifying for the record that those conditions carry on.

Yes, it will be painted if it ever the if the plan changes or if the paint comes off, then you have matching mortar.

If you want to change that condition, you this is the time to do it, but that's my recommendation.

Okay.

I just was a bit confused.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions regarding the staff report?

All right.

Uh will the applicant please come forward again.

Hi, David Lopez, once again with two point studio, the architect for the project.

All right.

And any questions or concerns regarding the staff report this time?

No.

All right.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

All right.

Like the demolition plan.

This was pretty thoroughly worked over and uh in workshop.

So we appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Go ahead and be seated.

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

All right, hearing none.

Commissioners, it's back with us.

Any comments.

Mr.

I'm familiar with the property at 500 North Market Street.

And where'd it go?

HPC 25-211.

I recommend that we approve the application with the following conditions.

That if any of the windows that are being shown to be re reused are later found to require replacements, the HPC approval is needed for the replacement units.

That all sills, lintels, and cornices are made of wood, that all wooden elements are compromised of non-pressure treated wood that is painted or stained with an opaque finish.

That cement board siding on the north side and rear of the building will feature a smooth finish.

That previous conditions outlined in the original approval remain unchanged, including that reconstructed wall on the northeast rear corner of the building is clad with horizontal wood siding or cement board siding with a smooth finish.

That proposed repointing work uses hand tools only, and the line-based mortar be used that matches the color, texture, and tooling of an adjacent mortar of adjacent mortar joints.

That all stucco repairs be done so that the final finish matches the adjacent area.

Second the motion.

Any further discussion.

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

Carol.

All right.

That is unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to HPC 25-234.

108 West 4th Street.

Ms.

Hoffeditz.

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

This application concerns this proposal to remove and re and not re-instate wooden shutters.

The Fredericktown Historic District Design Guidelines establish the following standards for review.

Shutters.

Historic character finding shutters in associated hardware must be retained, repaired, and preserved.

Deteriorated historic shutters must be repaired by the selective replacement of deteriorated pieces instead of replace.

Shutters that are vinyl or metal can be removed and be replaced with wood shutters if documentary or physical evidence suggests that they were once existed on the building.

Removal of shutters shall not be permitted to be removed without prior approval.

For replacement, if replacement becomes necessary, replacement shutters must match the historic in terms of size, scale, detail, thickness, and hardware.

Mid a rails must be incorporated in new shutters if physical or dis physical or documentary evidence shows that they were present.

Replacement shutters must be functional.

For materials, shutters must be wood, however, if document or physical evidence proves that the shutters were fabricated from another material existed historically.

Shutters must be attached with historically appropriate hardware, including operable hinges.

Shutters must match the existing openings and cover the opening when closed.

For staff comments, this application proposed to remove the second story wooden shutters from the front facade and does not intend to reinstate them.

The property currently exhibits wooden shutters on the upper second story windows and none on the first floor.

In the 1976 historic photograph, the property shows shutters on both upper and lower story windows.

Photographic evidence suggests that the wood the lower shutters were removed sometime before 2009.

The design guidelines state that shutters are a character dividing features of the historic building.

Per the guidelines, shutters must be repaired and retained.

If replacement becomes necessary, the replacement shutters must match the historic in terms of size, scale, detail, thickness, and hardware.

Staff recommends that the commission approve the rehabilitation of the shutters with the scope of work submitted to staff for review.

If it is documented and determined that the shutters are beyond repair, then the applicant shall submit for replacement shutters that match the historic feature in terms of size, scale, detail, thickness, and harbor.

And that I would take any questions.

Commissioners, any questions regarding the staff report?

All right.

Evening, Jesse Starr.

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

There are presently no shutters on multiple other buildings on the block uh directly across, directly adjacent, probably half that block is missing its shutters.

I don't know if uh relative to the historic nature of those buildings, but it doesn't appear to be out of character with what the neighborhood is now.

So the present shutters in place are decomposed, falling apart.

Um so I'm really just trying to avoid this problem occurring again.

All right, thank you.

Um before you sit down, commissioners, any questions for the applicant.

Would you consider replacement shutters in kind if we consider that tonight as an option?

My concern is for the overall maintenance.

It's uh a painted wood product is going to require some consistent upkeep, and since it is a uh it is presently an apartment building, that won't be performed.

But you know, if you are lucky you're up there a couple of times a year, maybe.

So my concern is that it's I'll just end up in the same situation in two, three, four years from now, and that wood starts to rot, and then now it becomes a more consistent maintenance problem.

All right.

Any other questions or comments for the for the applicant?

Sorry, can I offer one other?

Uh um there is a deteriorated corbel on the upper right, which I'm proposing to just repair, like get it back to its original uh characteristic state, um, and then repaint the the trim work so that it's clean and presentable so that as far as the um alterations I won't be altering it, just filling in where it is starting to decompose because you've you have a comparable problem there, or I have a comparable problem there.

All right, commissioners, anything else for the applicant.

Please be seated.

Thank you.

I would like to know if that additional rehabilitation work is being proposed to add in this application that will need to be added, or in a separate application.

Um I'm going to correct that.

That's why the work that you just spoke about, my understanding was that there was one coral bull that's deteriorated and just needs to be either replaced and replaced in kind or repaired, and then painting, that falls under the minor rehab list.

New HPC approval is needed for those items, but they do qualify for our tax credit program.

So my recommendation is take before and after photographs and keep records of uh the money spent because there are tax credits that can help assist with that.

Thank you.

I was going to swing it over to you for exactly that should be also.

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

All right.

Hearing none, commissioners.

Comments, discussion.

I think comment from you and not necessarily a question for staff, but perhaps a comment.

Because there is photographic evidence that these shutters have been there since at least 1976.

That's the reason we're leaning on the guidelines suggesting they have to be repaired or replaced in kind.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Correct.

So, like if there was historical documentation that the the property didn't have shutters prior, then this would be a different conversation.

Okay.

So I think for the applicant, other places on that street perhaps don't have that photographic evidence showing that the shutters were indeed there.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, I mean, I think the guidelines are pretty clear and uh certainly shutters are a character defined and feature uh on the historic buildings in the historic district, particularly on the street fronts.

If it was a uh rear elevation, it might be uh something else for consideration, but uh being on the street front, being the character-defined elements.

And you know, I think you can get good quality wood shutters made either from cedar or or mahogany.

Uh a good paint job will last for a number of years.

I don't uh buy the uh the the annual maintenance uh argument that they can last for several years with minimal maintenance, and uh it appears the existing shutters have not been uh had any maintenance in a number of years, and in fact, you can see the uh unpainted brick behind them, and they appear to be just kind of uh not sure how they're secured, either screwed or glued on to the face of the building, but if the shutters are replaced, they should have appropriate hardware, including a dog veg to hold them open and not secured by any other type of fasteners.

So I would support uh the staff's recommendation.

I think the only alternative without that is to uh vote to deny the application.

I agree with Commissioner Fitzgerald and concur with the staff report.

You can see the hinges.

It may not be fair.

It may be obvious to uh certainly obvious to the fellow my fellow commissioners, and it may be obvious to um members in the community that I am fairly new to Frederick.

Um I just want to comment that when I uh did a site visit to this property.

Um I was impressed by its historical character, and I was also impressed by the overall historic character of the street and the block that it is in.

Um there is uh wonderful consistency in that block to the effort of Frederick to present a very wonderful historic image for its citizens and its visitors, and I would venture to say that uh this property is an integral part of that public presentation from which I was grateful and enjoyed looking at it as a relative newcomer.

Thank you.

Any further discussion Mr.

Chairman, I am familiar with case HPC 25-234 located at 108 West 4th Street.

I move to modify the application to approve the rehabilitation of the shutters with a scope of work submitted to staff for review.

If it's documented and determined that the shutters are beyond repair, then the applicant shall submit for replacement shutters that match the historic feature in terms of size, scale, detail, thickness, and hardware.

All right.

Any additional discussion?

And may I just confirm what was the motion okay?

I think it was an a moon uh an I think it was uh to modify which I I would you mind repeating that I'm so sorry.

Yeah, I I move to modify the application to approve the rehabilitable rehabilitation of the shutters with the scope of work submitted for staff for review.

If it is documented and determined that shutters are beyond repair, then the applicant shall submit for replacement shutters that match the historic feature in terms of size, scale, detail, thickness, and hardware.

I think that's okay.

You can approve with modifications.

I think that's just one way to do it.

Thank you.

And we have a second.

I second it.

Yep.

So any further discussion.

All right.

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

And that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Moving on to HPC 25-237-210 East Fifth Street.

Mr.

Lucky.

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

The applicant is proposing to install roof-mounted solar panels on the flat roof of the twin dwelling at 210 East Fifth Street.

The associated electrical service equipment will be installed on the east or side elevation of the dwelling facing into the alley between dwellings.

The footprint of the vernacular dwelling at 210 East Fifth Street is first shown on San Morgan Fire Insurance Maps documenting downtown Frederick in 1897.

It's considered a contributing resource in the 2021 National Register of Historic Places update.

The guidelines state energy conserving features such as solar panels will be approved if they do not obscure damage or cause the removal of historic features or materials.

On existing buildings, solar panels may be approved if they're not visible from the street, do not extend higher than the existing building, and if they do not destroy or damage historic material.

Staff finds that the proposed work will not obscure damage or cause removal of historic features or materials.

The proposal is consistent with the design guides for solar installation.

Staff recommends approval of the proposal as presented in the application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner has any questions for staff regarding the report.

All right, hearing none.

Will the applicant please come forward?

Hello there.

My name is Henry Lapari, and I'm the owner at 210 East Fifth Street.

Um so like Daniel said, um I'm trying to install install um some solar panels for my house.

All right.

And were you sworn in earlier?

I didn't see if you were.

I was sworn in earlier.

All right, thank you.

Um I had a question question for Daniel.

Um, did they send you the 15 panel or or the 19 panel design?

Let me check.

I didn't realize there were um two different designs.

It says 19 roof mounted solar panels uh in the scope of work.

Okay, yeah, that's the one.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, for sure.

Because the incentives are gonna run out.

Yeah, I gotta get those by the end of the year for sure.

All right, commissioners.

Any questions for the applicant regarding the um regarding the application?

All right, hearing none, please 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.

Uh it's back with us.

Any commentary?

As a general rule, we don't object to things like photal vote photovoltaic projects if they don't interfere with the streetscape and so forth.

So Mr.

Commissioner.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm familiar with the property at 210 East Fifth Street for HPC-25-237.

And I move that we approve this revoke approve this proposal as presented in the application I second it.

Our motion.

Any further discussion.

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

And that passes unanimously.

Um before we adjourn, uh is there anyone who wishes to speak regarding any of the proceedings here this evening?

Citizen Comment.

Now's your chance.

Please introduce yourself and give your address.

What was that, sir?

Please introduce yourself and give your address, please.

Okay, so my name is Levi Trumble, and I reside in the city of Frederick, Maryland.

And um, good evening, Historic Commission.

I thought the city council meeting was actually tonight, uh, but unfortunately, this is what happens when you take the word of 80s sitcom legend Alf.

But in any event, the Historic Preservation Commission is actually the perfect venue to discuss the matters that I am going to be discussing tonight.

I believe deeply in the historic preservation of records in the city of Frederick, Maryland.

Records are what tell the history and the story of any jurisdiction.

I am concerned that Michael Fry in the city attorney's office is not concerned with the historical preservation of city records.

Here's a quick story.

I filed a records request for a simple four-page historical document back in February.

I did not hear back as it relates to that request for many months.

I contacted the city legal office, and Mike Frye sent me a letter talking about how he was going to possibly destroy these historical public records.

In my opinion, that should concern deeply this esteemed historical board.

I always thought that destroying records was a misdemeanor in the state of Maryland, and I told Michael Frye, along with other people who hopped into that same Maryland public information request to use a word that you guys might appreciate, preserve those records.

Finally, after months of going back and forth, Michael Fry finally released that simple historical document over to me.

I thought it was over and it should have been over.

Um, but however, Michael Fry turned around and filed a request to mediate with the ombudman with the attorney's general's office.

There was nothing to mediate because the records production for the historical document had already been produced at that point.

So there was nothing to mediate.

When Michael Fry learned that, he turned around and filed a complaint with the Attorney General's public information compliance board, and that is currently pending as of this moment.

The bottom line is it seems like attorney Mike Fry is upset that he was not allowed to destroy historical records, and this should concern everyone, this board, the city council, and members of the public.

So I am asking the City of Frederick, Maryland, this historical preservation commission, to stop Mike Fry from destroying any city public records in the future if he ever feels like that's the direction he wants to take it.

And I'm gonna wrap up here right now.

Um but the bottom line is we need to release the Epstein files, and we need to also release Levi Trumbull's public information requests when he files them.

So and Justin Holters, too.

So thank you guys very much.

This was a perfect venue to share this message.

And uh thanks for thanks to Alf for being here tonight.

What a what a wonderful situation.

It's a shame that they probably won't do a wide shot and they won't see the 80s sitcom legend Alf here tonight.

But uh rest assured he is here tonight.

So thank you guys very much.

Have a wonderful evening, and it's been a pleasure.

He'll be on camera, rest assured.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And with that, we're adjourned.

Oh, sir, one more comment.

Oh.

My name's Sam Rosenblum.

Sir, you you weren't sworn in, so just a moment.

What?

You you weren't sworn in earlier.

So just a moment.

Okay, yeah.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given that 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.

Okay.

My name's Sam Rosenblum, I live in Frederick.

Um Jewish Americans have made tremendous contributions to American culture, jurisprudence, science, artist, artistic, intellectual, and political life.

A Jew, yes, a Jew funded the American Revolution.

A Jew was awarded the first American Nobel Prize in Science while working at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

And it was Jewish money from the Weinberg Foundation that preserved the Tivoli Theater, a major Frederick landmark.

What is Frederick doing to preserve Jewish heritage?

In this current environment of anti Semitism and anti Zionism and Jew hatred, on behalf of the Jews of Frederick, I'd like to say a special prayer.

May the Holy One, blessed be He, guard and rescue Israeli soldiers from all trouble and distress and from all affliction and illness, and send blessings and success in all the work of their hands.

May He crush those who hate us and crown Israel's defense forces with the crown of salvation and with the wreath of victory.

And through them, let the biblical verse be fulfilled, for it is the Lord your God that walks with you to save you, to fight for you against your enemies.

Watch over Israel.

God spread your shelter of peace upon the land and over all our brothers and sisters who live there.

Shine your light upon Israel's leaders, officers, and advisors, help them to overcome all divisiveness and to act with clarity and determination.

We stand united in hope and in strength, praying for peace, security, and the resilience of the Israeli people.

And let us say, Amen.