If anyone's interested in agenda, I believe there's some agendas over on the side table here.

If you want to follow along with the meeting order.

To get started, the technical qualifications of the commission and staff are on file with the city of Frederick and are made 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 Secretary of Interior Standards for 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, I'm Paul Fitzgerald serving as vice chair tonight, along with Commissioners Eva Saller, Ann Hart, Ed McMahon, Jonathan Levins, and Carol Kelly from the city.

We have Division Manager of Historic Preservation Planning, Christina Martin Koske, Historic Preservation Planners, Sarah Hoffidetz, and Assistant City Attorney Iris Arnon, along with administrative assistant, Tansi Creighton.

All applicants and authorized agents and members of the public who wish to speak tonight must be sworn in.

If you'd like, if you could please stand as you're able to be sworn in.

Anybody that wants to testify tonight.

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

It is the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission to safeguard the historical and cultural heritage of the city of Frederick by preserving site structures and districts that reflect elements of cultural, social, economic, political, archaeological, and 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 sites, structures, and districts for the education and welfare of the city residents of the city of Frederick.

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

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

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

Okay.

Yes, I do have several announcements.

One, I am there to report that um Rob Van Renz, who um who has served in our commission since 2020, um had to step down from his position for professional reasons.

I just want to know how much we greatly appreciate his dedication to the commission, and he will be um greatly missed.

Um in response to that, the historic preservation commission will hold a vote at our next meeting on September 25th.

Um that will do uh to fill Rob's former position as as chair.

Um we are expecting my third announcement is that we are expecting um uh our newest HPC Commission member to join us next month or next meeting as well on the 25th, uh Jerry DeYoung.

Um with that I think that's all my announcements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would just add, yes, I uh uh commend.

I think we all do uh Commissioner Van Ren's uh service and leadership on on this commission, and he is always uh adept at handling uh the the applicants and and the witnesses coming before this commission, and uh certainly wish him well.

Moving on to approval of the minutes.

Commissioners, any revisions, changes, or motions.

Yes, sir.

One um revision in this section citizen comment line nine starts in the state of Maryland, closes that those records should be reserved to be changed to those records should be preserved.

And with that, I will make a motion that we approve the minutes with that modification.

I second motion made and seconded to approve the minutes as amended.

All in favor, raise your hand.

And the motion carries what we got six to zero.

Thank you.

Moving on to HPC business, the administrative report.

Ms.

Markoski.

Excuse me, I would like to enter the entire administrative approval report into the record and note that 32 projects were reviewed and approved by staff last month.

Were you able to do all that without incurring any overtime?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Were you able to do all that without incurring any overtime?

No comment.

What is a blade sign?

It is a projecting sign, so one that extends from the building.

Exactly.

Next on the agenda under HPC business is case HPC 25-493 DR.

Ms.

Mark Kosky.

Thanks.

I I want to enter my entire memo into the record.

Now this request for demolition review was submitted perfor uh section 423 of the land management code for dwelling at 418 Schlai Avenue.

Uh when the application came in, we determined that the building is in whole or in part 50 years of age and um or older, and based on this evaluation, the Historic Preservation Commission is charged with determining if the property is potentially eligible for individual historic designation.

Um the criteria are outlined in the memo.

Um I'll note that the dwelling at 418 Schlai Avenue is part of the Rosedale subdivision.

This area was originally planted in 1937, but really very few homes were built initially, and the area was resubdivided in 1956.

The property is also uh part of the Rosedale Survey District, which is the area that was documented by the Maryland Historic Trust under F3-283.

The area was found to be not eligible for listing on the National Register by the Maryland Historic Trust, but the documentation does provide some good historical background.

Um the form notes that the vast majority of houses in the area dates between 1950, 1950s and 1970s, and were built in the clonary revival, minimal traditional arranged styles.

And really what we're finding is that the property here at 418 Schlei Avenue really fits into that historic context.

Um the streets in the Rosedale Avenue are uh Rosedale area w laid out on a grid that line up to the pre-existing roadways and the neighboring subdivision of Rosemont and Villa Villa Estates and maintains a connectivity to the surrounding areas.

When looking at the dwelling itself, it retains a good degree of historic integrity.

It maintains uh elements of its original location design setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, but lacks a high level of architectural or historical significance.

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

Therefore, staff finds that the building is not individually eligible for designation and recommends that the commission not pursue a designation application.

But with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for Ms.

Marnkowski.

Is there any member of the public here tonight that would wish to speak on behalf of this application for demolition?

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

It's uh relatively straightforward and uh again just to reiterate, you know, it does I believe lack a high level of architectural historic significance.

Uh there's been no indication that it the building holds any significance for an event or cultural group, nor association with any um the lives of any significant persons agreed.

With that, I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-493DR at 418 Schleigh Avenue.

And I move that we not pursue historic preservation overlay designation application.

Second motion is made and seconded to not uh move forward with an application.

Any further discussion okay.

All right, all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

The motion carries six to zero.

Thank you.

Next items case HPC 25-47 DR 1000 Rocky Springs Road.

Ms.

Hofdatz.

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

A request for demolition review has been submitted per section 423 of the land management code for a dwelling at 1000 Rocky Springs Road.

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 property is potentially eligible for individual historic designation.

A property is eligible for designation for a historic preservation overlay if it's at least 50 years, retains historic integrity, and meets one of the following criteria listed out in the memo.

The dwelling of Thousand Rocky Springs Road was constructed in circa 1970.

Deed records suggest that the dubel the building was constructed by Thomas and Jeannie Dean, who purchased the property in 1963 from Harry and SD Free.

The building remained under the ownership of the Dens until 2021 when the property was transferred to Frederick County by Jeanie Dean.

The Tom Thomas and Jeannie were the longest residents in the building.

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

Research has not indicated that the property holds significance for an event or culture group, nor was any information found to indicate that it is 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.

Any members of the public here tonight that wish to speak on this demolition application?

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

And I move that we do not pursue historic designation.

I second the motion.

Motion is made and seconded to not apply for an application on the subject property.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

Motion carries six to zero.

Thanks again.

Moving on to items under the consent agenda.

I forget uh Ms.

Martin Kosky if we if we uh ask the audience if they have any requests to pull this from the consent agenda or not, or it's just the commissioners.

Either the public or the commission can pull it from the consent agenda okay.

Uh that would wish to pull these items from the consent agenda and have them heard under the regular cases to be heard.

And commissioners, is there any desire to pull these items or is there a motion to approve the consent agenda I would make a motion that we approve the consent agenda for HPC 25207 and HPC 25209?

Second motion is made and seconded to approve the items listed under the consent items.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries 6 to 0.

Seeing no continuances listed tonight, we'll move on to the cases to be heard.

First item on the docket here is HPC-25-218, 226 West South Street.

And uh is there anyone here representing that application tonight?

Yes, but I I see them in the crowd, but I think they might have missed swearing and so that's something to be mindful of.

Okay, Ms.

Markovski, if you want to proceed.

I would love to.

My computer is about to sh shut down on me for an automatic reboot.

So I'm pulling up the paper copy.

Thanks for your patience.

So um the commission may recall that this uh project was reviewed at the August 28th workshop, and it was a I think a productive discussion.

I think the biggest change that I want to note is that the area of demolition has changed a little bit in response to the comments that the commission gave, especially in regarding to the amount of demolition proposed on the rear elevation of the um first story, so that that has been reduced to I believe 10 feet.

Um this drilling is uh a rare example of a colonial revival uh building with a Cape Cob form in the historic district.

Features a rectangular uh footprint and stands up about a story and a half tall.

It has a gabled roof and an integrated garage indicating the uh growing reliance of the automobile in the second quarter of the 20th century.

Um it helps the building helps to find the district and adds historical and architectural value and was built during the historic district's period of certificates.

At the previous hearing, um, I think it's August 28th.

I with the wrong date on the staff report, my apologies.

The commission found the drilling to be a contributing resource to the historic district.

This finding is consistent with the 2021 National Register uh nomination finding.

Uh partial demolition of a contributing resource would not be approved if demolition will so alter the overall building site or structure that is no longer considered contributing.

Um the proposed replacement plan, which is also a required consideration for this commission when reviewing demolition is outlined in HPC 2521, which calls uh for a rear addition.

After the uh workshop, the scoop of demolition work was again um minimized to the first story level, the original garage again will be maintained, and the building's original form and character defining features will be clearly distinguishable from the addition.

And therefore, staff finds that the uh proposed uh partial demolition plan will not alter the overall building to such a degree that it will make the resource non-contributing.

And with all this in mind, staff recommends the commission approve the application condition and upon approval of a replacement plan and the submission of the associated permits.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Commissioners, are there any questions regarding this demolition request for Ms.

Mornikoski?

Okay, is the applicant here tonight?

Want to step forward?

226 Yes, I missed that.

We're looking at the uh demolition only for under this application, and I believe I need to swear you in.

You haven't been sworn in, no.

Okay.

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.

I do.

Okay, if you want to state your name and address.

Sam Shadows.

Do you have any uh questions or comments uh regarding the staff report or the recommendation from the staff?

No.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions for the the applicant?

Okay, sir, if you just want to have a seat briefly.

Okay.

Is the end of the member in attendance here tonight that wishes to speak on this case?

All right, Commissioners, it's back with us.

Again, that this was reviewed at a previous uh workshop, and I do appreciate the applicant's effort to uh reduce the amount of demolition involved on the rear wall.

Uh I think it uh and and the subsequent uh deck converting it into more of a covered balcony.

I think it's uh a good compromise here.

Any other comments?

No, but I agree with you completely.

I think that um the workshop did prove beneficial, and I do appreciate uh the applicant's reasonability to make the smaller demolition and to adjust the porch or garage over the garage.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm familiar with the property at 226 West South Street, and I'm also familiar with HPC 25-218.

And I move that we approve the application.

Commissioner Davins, would you uh mind uh uh adding the additional uh replacement plan approval and the permanent for that for the uh I move uh should I start over?

Sure.

Okay, great.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm familiar with the property at 226 West South Street, and I'm familiar with HBC-25-218, and I move that we approve the application condition on the approval of a replacement plan and the submission of the associated permits.

And I will second okay, motion made and seconded to approve the application with conditions.

Any further discussion.

Okay, all in favor of the application, please raise your hand or motion.

Motion carries six to zero.

Thanks.

Oh there's still one more case for you.

You're so close, don't leave yet.

Yes, and that is case HPC 25-219, also located at 226 West South Street regarding the uh addition.

And Ms.

Martin Koski.

Thank you.

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

Um again, this was workshopped August 14th.

Um the application is proposing um proposing a rear addition.

It was uh previously proposed uh for a second story uh deck feature to be uh incorporated in the the design, but that was amended into a Porsche feature.

I think um that was previously bought up in an earlier comments.

Um just as a reminder, this application serves as the replacement plan for HPC 25218.

The City of Frederick provides um the pr uh the following parameters for new additions.

One to preserve historic integrity to the extent possible to consider the effect on the historic wall openings to consider the location to be in a discrete uh uh area of the site, the general design, also details of the the woods, the the doors and windows and general uh materials being used.

And after a careful review and after um a thorough workshop discussion, staff has the following comments.

Significant demolition is proposed for the roof and walls, but the guidelines do discourage this approach when constructing an addition.

But at the August 14th workshop, it was discussed that the redoor most likely a later addition, and no major concerns were raised about its uh removal.

The amount of demolition proposed on the first three level was minimized.

The property is a unique example of a Cape Cop forum in the historic district with an original integrated garage.

The garage will be maintained and the roof line, but the roof line altered.

The relocation of the proposed edition is supported by the guidelines.

The rear deck proposed uh was amended to be a roofed porch feature, which is which is more sympathetic to the historic building and consistent with the guidelines.

The proposed addition is slightly re-recessed on the west side elevation.

Um this little um kind of relief does leave a trace of the original roof form and the building form.

Uh product literature and details were submitted, and staff observed no inconsistencies with the uh design guidelines for new additions.

The proposed use of fiber X windows for which is a composite material is appropriate for new additions, but just not supported by the guidelines for replacement of historic windows.

Architectural drawings indicate that the basement windows are proposed to be removed, and this is on that historic part of the building.

However, staff did receive written confirmation via email that this request will be removed from the application.

I do expect the applicant to come back when they're more prepared when they have photographs and documentation about the condition of the existing windows, which really aren't documented quite yet to come back at a different time for those.

Um but that that element is um has been removed from the proposal.

Otherwise, staff recommends that the commission approve the application with the understanding that replacement windows on the historic structures have been removed from the scope of work.

Um with that, I'll take any questions.

Commissioners, any questions for staff?

All right, Mr.

Shrews, if you want to come back to the podium.

Or Mr.

Ellison Warner, the other we'll have to swear you in, Bill, if you want to speak.

Okay.

Uh do you solve my swear or affirm that the responses given and statements made in this hearing before they start preservation commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as soon answer I do.

I do.

If both of you would introduce yourself for the record.

Uh 226 with Salapitz meet.

Bill Ellison with CAD works design.

All right, any uh questions, comments on the staff report or in general?

I think we're in agreement.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

I just want to say I appreciate the uh change from the deck to the porch feature.

I think that's a big good improvement.

Appreciate your you're doing that.

I think it looks good.

I appreciate your clouding the changes on the plan, so they are readily identifiable.

Thank you.

Uh gentlemen want to have a seat for a moment.

So any member with public attending tonight that wishes to speak on this application.

All right.

Commissioners, this back to us.

Any comments?

Concerns again.

We reviewed it pretty thoroughly at uh workshop.

Uh appreciate appreciate the changes the application has made to reduce the amount of opening in the rear brick wall and the uh adjustments converting the the deck to more of a covered porch.

I think it's very appropriate for the addition.

And with that, I am prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-219 at 226 West South Street.

And I move that we approve the application with the understanding that the replacement windows on the historic structure have been removed from the scope of work.

I second it.

Okay, motion made and seconded to approve the application with some additional information on windows.

Any further discussion.

All in favor of the application, please raise your hand.

And motion carries six to zero.

Thank you, Mr.

Shrews.

You can you can welcome to stay.

Next agenda item, HPC 25-231 at 35 East All Saint Street.

And that is my softenance.

Um before I enter the staff report into the record, I just want to confirm that the applicant is here for this or representative.

Okay.

Right.

All right, I'd like to enter my whole staff report into the record.

This application concerns the proposal to replace five paired windows that currently feature a one over one design on a non-contributing resource constructed in 2007.

The proposed windows are a composite material from the Anderson 400 series with a white exterior.

For new construction, wood windows are generally appropriate for most residential buildings, but non-wood windows that have a quality of material detail and construction, which is commensurated with the typical found in the historic district district may be approved.

Metal windows and storefront windows are appropriate on non-residential buildings.

For staff comments, this application concerns the proposal to replace five window units at unit 104 with Andes and Series 400 windows made with fibrics, a composite material made of wood fibers and polymer.

The site of 35 East All Saints was constructed in 2007 as a non-contributing resource to the historic district.

The commission has supported this type of comp compos composite product for the new construction and additions.

Staff finds the proposed window replacement and Anderson product to be appropriate due to the building being a non-historic, non-contributing resource to the historic district.

No historic materials will be lost.

Staff identifies no inconsistency with the guidelines with the understanding that the new units will be replaced, will replicate the original design.

Staff recommends the commission approve this application with the condition that the windows are a one over one double hung units that match the original design.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for staff, Commissioners?

If I had any question, it's about curiosity.

Do you know which one which unit we approved in 25?

I feel like it was 104, but it couldn't be.

I I I feel like uh no, it was like 103 or 106.

Okay.

I'm remembering I know it was a different unit though.

Okay, fair enough.

Thank you.

I just want to point out that this reinforces what we talk about all the time in repairing historic windows versus replacing.

Here's a building from 2007 that's getting new windows.

Or unit is getting new windows.

And then they'll replace them again in 17 or 15 years.

So this does reinforce the fact that historic windows will last a lot longer when taken care of and replaced or repaired.

Absolutely agree.

I believe you were sworn in there.

No.

Okay.

Let me swear you in.

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, sir.

If you want to state your name and address, please.

Uh Ernest will have 10505A, New Windsor Road.

And are you the contractor replacing the windows?

I work for the company.

Yeah, okay.

Do you have any questions regarding the staff report?

No.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant.

Okay.

Just want to have a seat briefly.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public here tonight wishes to speak on this application?

Okay, Commissioners, it's back up here.

Any uh comments.

We have uh approved replacement windows on on this structure before.

And it it is uh under 50 years old, right?

Yeah, so it's it's a newer, it's a newer building uh requiring replacement windows.

Right.

And the fact that there's no historic materials that would be lost, but I would also say the fact that the last two that we have, although we're not trying to set precedence, um, there would be some uniformity uh in the fact that these are the same windows again.

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

I'm familiar with HPC 25-231 at 35 East All Saint Street, Unit 104.

And I move that we approve the application with the condition that the windows be one over one double hung that match the original design.

Second motion made and seconded to approve the application with conditions.

Any further comments.

And motion carries six to zero.

Thank you.

Uh although there is a if anybody has any public comments that wish to come forward to speak before we end this portion of the hearing, please come forward.

You were I don't know if you stood up to be sworn in.

Let me I was not sworn in.

Okay, let me swear you in.

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

If so, answer I do.

Yes.

I do.

If you want to approach the microphone a little closer and state your name and address.

Hi, my name is Shar Hudson.

My address is 26 West uh sorry, 26 South Jefferson Street.

Um I just had some questions about the 358 West Patrick.

I know that there was uh a hearing before this, um maybe about a month ago, and it's just down the street from my house and also down the street from my business.

And I wanted to know uh what exactly is happening with this property.

What I can offer is between this meeting ending and the workshop beginning.

Maybe you I can sit down.

I can show you the application.

I'll give you a copy of the application.

You can take it home and take a look at it.

But it is um a re-addition and rehab work, but I'll show you the details, and I think that'll make you feel comfortable understanding what's going on.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, certainly, Ms.

Martin Koske give you all the particulars it had been approved by this commission, then the time lapsed had to come back for reapproval.

So that basically put it on the consent agenda uh for approval here tonight.

So Ms.

Martin Koski will be glad to speak with you afterwards.

Anyone else who wishes to speak public comments?

Okay, it's uh now 640.

We'll uh move on to the portion of the the workshop hearing, and we'll set up for that and we'll reconvene at 650.

This portion of the hearing is closed.

I like to see the questions.

Okay, welcome back to the September 11th, 2025.

Hearing Historic Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission workshop.

And uh before we get started.

I know a couple of you were sworn in or a couple weren't were not sworn in.

Let me swear you in if you want to participate.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that 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?

Have you just start at the end and just introduce yourself and perhaps your association with the application or project?

I'm uh Joan Luzenski, project manager with Fitzgerald's heavy timber construction.

I'm I'm Carol Pennox.

I'm the project manager for Quinn Chapel AME church restoration project.

Good evening.

I'm David Nail.

I'm David Nell, architect with the Child Heavy Timbers.

The project coordinator for the Queen Chapter African Methodist Coach Church project.

Restauration project.

Okay.

So this application is an amendment to HPC 25-30.

And it's to include the following additional work to the property.

Um, for the record, the recent the original approval was for that tower, that bell tower to do some masonry work and for a copper roof.

Um the additional work includes additional masonry repairs utilizing power tools for the horizontal joints, converting east elevation window into a door access for an ADA lift and stairs, the standing seam roof replacement and gutter replacement, and scraping and repainting of the wooden doors and windows.

Moving on to some staff comments.

Staff conducted a site visit to the property and notes that several of the items of the scope of work call for rehabilitation.

However, it was discussed that some of these items will be just be in-kind replacements.

So the scope of work will just need to be a little bit adjusted to clearly reflect what's rehabilitation and what's just a replacement in kind.

Staff will also like to note that this is towards the rear of the property, down a little bit of an alleyway or um side walkway, and that it will be colored matched to the building according to the plans.

An updated plans have been submitted to staff and to the commission.

You should have an additional plans document um in your packet.

So per the guidelines, ADA compliance must be met in a manner that does not do the minimal amount of damage to the historic building.

The commission may permit converting a window into wood doorway on a case-by-case basis.

I believe painted, uh, to be matched the exterior of the building to minimize its appearance from the alleyway in neighboring properties.

The commission in the past has approved railing with steel with steel rails and a simple design matte black finish in past applications.

It is unclear from the photographs of the windows that are going to be converted, converted into a doorway are stained glass or clear glass due to that film that's sort of over top of it.

So the applicant will need to notify or update the plans.

Just notifying if it's a stained glass window or not.

The one east elevation for pane one over one window is proposed to be converted into a wooden doorway.

The proposed door is to be constructed of wood and its design is a little unclear.

The drawings indicate that the four-pane windows will be salvaged and potentially reused for the door.

The applicant will need to clarify that on the details of the door design and no product clear for the hardware have been submitted.

So why don't we dig in a little deep about the ADA ramp and lift?

Um kind of discuss the conversion of the doorway or the window into a doorway.

Um do you have anything you want to speak on about the conversion of the window?

Yes.

Um the reason we're doing this is there's a very narrow hallway or walkway in the rear of the building, and if we had a fire or anything in the building, it would be a catastrophe.

So we wanted to, while we're doing this project, we want to uh the best we can get a a type of fire escape or a way out of the building to the rear of the of the building uh as part of this project.

Now uh you had asked me a question about the conversion of the window uh and the door.

So why don't you speak to that?

Um when we were asked to take the window out and put a doorway in.

Obviously, the doorway needs to be wider than the two windows, but I'd like to keep the configuration of the the four over four windows in place.

So I propose that the door, the existing window jam become the door jam.

And we place the window, we're literally salvaging the existing window and hanging it in the door.

Okay.

That's what I thought you were trying to indicate, but I was just a little um confused.

Maybe like updating noting that in the scope of work or on the drawings or both, just that you're going to be.

We are because we are we are proposing to do a new doorway, and current code requires that the glass in that doorway to be tempered glass.

We are gonna have to replace the existing the existing windows or clear glass.

We're gonna replace the clear glass with three-sixty inch tempered glass, single pane in the original wood sash.

Now, because it's a double home window, I mean we're gonna have to we're gonna have to slide the sashes and put them in alignment and do a drip edge between the upper and the lower sash, but we want to keep the same profile of the window.

You know, so that's why the window is not centered in the door, it's over tight to the jam because you know we're gonna have to do a new, we're gonna have to do a steel frame door.

So it is a metal.

That was my next question.

Is it is this a metal door?

The actual panel under the door and the panel adjacent to the is the is the door the metal door, is that just a flush panel with this wood insert door?

Well, we end up doing a custom custom wood custom metal frame and then setting wood panels within that metal frame.

Um to clarify my question.

Is the door element not the window just a plain flush metal, or is there like a uh pressed metal molding detail?

Is it just flat or uh that I guess I'm just trying to understand the metal element?

Is it just a plain metal door?

It'd be a flat a flat panel.

Thank you.

I mean, it's it's you know, it it'll basically have the same look as a rail and style wood frame door.

With you know, with but we won't we'll do a floating wood panel under the window, and then we'll do a vertical wood panel.

Because you know, we still have to do a lock set in this door as well.

I guess my uh my major and probably only concern about the project in general is the design of this door.

I mean, just been a uh this effort to make it accessible and it's really not our purview, but I would question whether this door meets ADA guidelines and turns of the flat bottom rail.

Uh you mentioned the tempered glass.

Um I guess I'm just I mean, you could probably design it to meet the standards, I guess.

Well, I uh resolve was you know making sure this door meets the ADA guidelines.

Uh even though that's kind of beyond our purview.

I would I wouldn't mind just seeing a regular door here, just making it what it is.

It's a doorway.

Yeah, I don't think you have to try to make it look or salvage the window or make it look like there's a window there when it's really just a uh a service doorway.

I don't know if uh commissioners have any particular thoughts on on the design or detailing of the door versus just you know putting in a standard panel door, something that maybe uh matches or replicates other doors in the building or the or the main entry doors, I believe, are a three-panel door, something a little bit more unique, but um I guess uh something more just in line with a regular doorway versus trying to you know fabricate something to make it look like the window was still there.

Any comments, Commissioners?

Um I agree.

It you're trying to make something functional.

Make it functional.

I I agree with his assessment on that, which probably makes easier for you guys in theory.

I mean, I I I this is fantastic.

I'm actually gonna steal this sometime in the future, I'm sure.

Right.

Yeah.

Um but it seems like honestly, you're trying to make a a fire exit, a handicap, exit, an ADA, I can't say handicap, I apologize.

An 88 compliant exit.

I mean, though those are that's all a requirement, plus it's on the back side of the east elevation anyway.

So maybe you can save a lot of time and heartache and just put something that would be much more functional.

Which I realize I think you were trying to meet some of the the HBC requirements in doing this, but I concur with that.

That was the thought to try to make it black it was.

But I'm like I said, sometimes I personally think that sometimes function does have to beat form, and this might be one of those cases where I personally would I I would support a functional door and eliminate the cheetah flips to try to fix that, you know.

I don't know if everyone agrees with me.

But I would presume you would need a closer on this door.

Mr.

Nail, I presume you'd need a closer on this door, and I don't know if you would need a panic bar or not, but it'd probably at least require a closer.

Is would you be able to incorporate that in this or would you consider the suggestion just to make it a more standard traditional door?

You know, just put a dumb box, you know, that the firefighters.

So I have to say I I really appreciate the effort, and I like the design, but I also have to agree that I think it complicates things.

I don't know that it needs to be that complicated when we know what we're trying to do here is accommodate an ADA exit for fire, right?

Okay, yes.

So I personally would probably save the window just in case you need it, but I don't know that I'd use it in the door.

Okay.

I think you should uh take our uh compliments uh seriously because uh it seems to me that you have uh uh tried literally to uh follow one of our guidelines, which is to minimize uh you know, like quantitatively the uh change, the historic change to the to the exterior wall.

And if there is a design and you've made an effort to uh find one that does that, wonderful.

So thank you for your uh for your creativity.

Thank you.

I like design.

Weren't expecting that, were you?

And ultimately the decision is yours.

If you choose this over something more traditional, that's fine.

Uh you know, I don't think it's uh uh uh a negative or or uh positive as far as approval of the overall project, but uh just a suggestion and uh some of observations.

Any other questions on this particular doorway and design?

So we talked about the other thing.

We're not having any issues with the conversion of the window into a doorway.

Sounds like we're pretty on board with that.

Um how we feel about the railing.

Um I do believe you said that you was gonna be colored matched to the building, so that'll be like a red color.

Or are you going with a more traditional matte black for the finish of the railing that you are proposing?

Myself, I I would prefer it all to be one color.

You know, uh if it's gonna be uh a reddish brick brick color, um I think a black would attract more heat or whatever, and but I would prefer it to be one color, a reddish brick color.

I'm not opposed to that.

Uh I think a matte black to your point would get hot, hot error, but I also think it might stand out if someone's trying to exit in a hurry or or need to know that the railing is there.

But I'm not opposed to the brick collar either.

Okay.

Uh to carry my uh point a little farther in terms of you following the guidelines uh or interpreting them literally, uh the um the brick color is an integrating factor to the historical appearance of the uh of the exterior wall.

And so I again I think it was a a sort of maybe instinctive creative uh response on your part to what you visualize as remaining as historic as possible.

Thank you.

And yeah, traditionally, I mean railing railings are uh mostly black, but they're also a little bit more simple.

Here you have a little bit more ornate railing design.

So I don't think a color uh I think a color is is fine there.

Um we don't traditionally get into colors anyway, it's just a matter of you know, trying to be more traditional or or or not one other little small note that I had was the the new wood lintel is be to pro is proposed to be installed over both the remaining window and the new doorway.

Um staff encourages that you just reuse the existing lintels and just keeping the the remaining windows separate so you can have that distinct separation between the old and the new.

That's you're talking above the doorway, just like it is above the window.

Correct.

Yeah, so it looks like on your plans you have one universal lentel above it, both the windows, or both the window and the door.

So you as you see it now where they're both separate, that's what we want to see.

Is it keeping that separation?

Um that way it can be better illustrated that there was a window there, it's just been converted into a doorway.

Um and but it's still separate from that original window that you have to the left.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

Okay.

I would just comment maybe Mr.

Lubacinski might uh have I don't think this I'm not sure the wood lentil span in this distance would be structural, or are you proposing a structural angle to support the brick and this lintel is more decorative, or I know I know you do have a post there.

Would that post break up the span enough to be able to use a wood lintel there, or would the lintel need to be deeper, thicker than what's shown on the design?

Just a structural question about if that lentil could is big enough to be structural or not.

Since we're taking out all the brick between the two existing window openings, we were gonna replace that with a piece of a wood lintel.

I mean a wood post.

So that one long span, that one long spanning lintel is essentially two lintels, but I wanted to maintain the same head height across both openings, like there now.

But if we go to a standard 306 ADA accessible door, that's gonna drop the head of that door significantly on the one side and you wind up with an offset.

So I'm not sure if if you break it up how that would look, you'd end up with maybe two inches of gap, two or four inches gap in between the door lintel and the lintel over the window.

Um I guess I'm not so concerned about just having a continuous lintel across the opening is even though it's a wider opening, it's kind of more traditional to have the lintels span the entire opening, essentially, even though there's a post in the middle, but any thoughts, commissioners on two lentils kind of matching what's there versus the design.

Essentially, even though there's a post in the middle, but any thoughts, commissioners on two lentils kind of matching what's there versus the design.

Okay.

Two lentils.

What about will it affect a support?

Will it uh affect the support of the brick above?

I like the idea of two lentils myself.

So what are you?

I think what I'm hearing is that the uh the commission would prefer to see two lentils representing two separate openings and that could be done on the outside, but because the door opening will be so close to the window opening, there should be a continuous lentil on the inside that wouldn't be seen.

And if it's interior work, we don't review interior work, so that that's also you know you don't have to necessarily put that in your as long as you remove it and just show that the representation bless you.

The representation of the two lenses on the outside.

Um you don't have to know that you're gonna do interior work since we don't we're not privy to that.

It sounds like we can make it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any further questions from the commission?

Do we move on?

All right.

I don't have a question about the structure at all, but uh and I'm not sure how you're funding all of this, but you should know if you didn't already, that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has a number of programs to help restoration of African American churches and structures of uh important to the African American community.

So if you haven't touched with base with them already, you probably should uh this particular project is funded by the preserving black churches.

Uh African America excuse me, uh National Historic Trust.

We also have a uh uh grant from the Maryland Historic Trust to co cover this.

Good to hear that.

Thank you.

Yes.

And we're going in for additional funding to make sure we have enough to do the entire project.

So moving on.

So for paving, staff notes that the existing sidewalk towards the rear of the yard is to be expanded to encompass the new ADA ramp and stairs.

The applicant will just need to make sure that the scope of work is updated to reflect that work.

I see it noted on the design or the drawings, but just make sure it's noted in your scope of work as well.

For the doors staff site visit, there was uh discussion of replacing the rear wooden back door.

However, the work is not illustrated on the drawings.

Um the drawings will just need to be updated to clearly indicate that what type of work will be taking place on the rear wooden back door.

Um I know we sat there and looked at it and looked really in disrepair.

So just noting whether that's going to be a rehabilitation of the door or a replacement.

If it's a replacement, then you need to make sure you just note what the design or the uh of the door that you're gonna be replacing with.

The um replacement in kind would be ideal um for that door.

Uh I believe it's just one flush panel back there.

It is.

And uh if when we look at it and if if it's uh we'll probably just replace it in kind.

Okay.

Yeah, it looked a little worse for wear whenever I was out there.

Okay.

Um the front doors would be appear to be missing from the drawings.

A 100, a 200.

The drawings will need to be updated to clearly show the front doors and what work is to be done on them.

The east I take responsibility for that.

It's a computer glitch.

I mean, there's literally there's no work to be done to those doors except for repainting.

But they just didn't show up in the drawing set because I had the wrong button placed.

I love technology.

I love it.

All right.

The east elevation existing door is to be proposed to be replaced with a four-panel wooden door.

The current current door is a non-historic wooden door with a diamond window.

Um from staff site visit the window, the door went appears to be have some rot at the bottom.

Staff find the replacement to be more consistent with the guidelines.

The applicant will need to know in the scope of work that the door is being replaced rather than rehabilitated.

Um that can be updated both on the drawings and on the scope of work, just to make sure it's clear that they're both being replaced.

All right.

Some general comments.

Staff find the following work to be appropriate and consistent with the guidelines.

Replacement of the existing standing scene metal roof in kind and replacement of the rotten wooden trim.

And I believe that's going to be a galvanized finish color on the roof.

At staff site visit, it was discussed at the replacement not rehabilitation of the gutter system.

Staff find an in-kind replacement for the round profile gutter system to be appropriate.

The applicant will need to update the scope of work to clearly state that the gutter system is to be replaced rather than rehabilitated.

Masonry repairs that utilize line-based mortar.

Power tools may be used on horizontal joints and approved by the commission on a case-by-case basis.

Staff will know that the applicant has received previous approval for the commission from the commission for masonry work on the bell tower to use a grinder tool on the horizontal joints.

Rehabilitation on the Rose North Gable window and some work that falls on the minor rehabilitation list, which is scraping and repainting of wooden doors.

Does the commission have any questions regarding general comments from staff?

I really appreciate this set of drawings.

It was so easy to follow.

Five-year-old could have done it.

So thank you all for that effort.

I greatly appreciate the document.

Thank you.

Completely agree.

Thank you.

All right.

So it looks like we just have a couple minor changes to be done to the drawings and the scope of work.

Um mainly with the ADA lift and stairwell in the doorway.

Um you have to submit those updated drawings and scope of work to the open gov portal.

Um I know there's been some issues with the file size, so we'll we'll run into that problem when we get there.

Um resubmission for the next hearing is uh next Monday, so this coming Monday at 11 a.m.

for the September 25th hearing.

Um if you have any issues thinking that you're not not going to be able to make that deadline, just feel free to reach out and then we can figure something else out.

Um if not then I look forward to the rest of your application.

Okay.

You have any additional questions or comments for us or for staff?

Commissioners anyway, questions, comments.

We're good to go on the on the sidewalk, right?

Uh as far as we wanted to uh do a new sidewalk all the way from the city sidewalk through the walkway all the way to the um to the lift and the staircase because there are cracks and in uh warped in uh pieces of concrete.

So that's the reason we wanted to do that.

So you know it'd be a smooth uh transit over that uh walking way.

Like a safety feature.

A safety feature.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

There's no real issues with that that I perceive.

I think the city does have some standards on the mix of the concrete color and and and such, but even though this is not a public sidewalk, I'm not sure that those standards would be required for sidewalks on the property itself.

I don't remember the exact mix.

I can uh I'll absolutely pull that up for you and provide that detail for you.

Um but the I don't see foresee any issues, just making sure that it's clearly illustrated that you're not only because I thought you were just expanding it rather than at uh replacing it from the side city sidewalk.

So making sure that you note that you're going to be not only expanding the concrete paved area, but also that you're gonna be uh replacing the existing sidewalk as well to help um issues with cracking.

Well, you we we're not gonna replace the sidewalk.

There's a walkway between the two buildings.

Right.

And that's what we want to replace.

Okay.

So if it's not in the public right away, uh I think you can use any kind of concrete mix or pavers or whatever you may wish to do there, but thank you.

Any other questions?

No.

Okay, we good.

Thank you very much.

Uh we appreciate the time to review our project.

And I wanted to thank Sarah.

She's been excellent in interfacing with us to provide the guidance uh necessary to bring us to this point.

We've got it out with Christmas.

And uh certainly uh historic buildings downtown more accessible is an important feature.

Uh I think that allows some leeway for you know, uh adjustments to the fabric of the building as far as removing windows and portions of all to make the buildings viable for the use they're intended to and for your membership as well as you know, I think for the city to for the church to remain viable and remain downtown and be an active part of the community.

So I appreciate your efforts to to address the accessibility issue, and uh I think it's a fine project.

So thank you.

With that, this uh workshop is concluded.