Good evening and welcome to the City of Frederick Historic Preservation Commission hearing and workshop.

Today's date is September 25th, 2025.

Before we get started, uh anybody in the audience that would like a print copy of the agenda, there's copies of the agenda over on the table by the by the door, as well as a sign-in sheet.

And uh occasionally some people, depending on where the sitting might have trouble hearing some of the precedings tonight.

If you ever, if you're in a position where you uh might not be able to hear properly the conversations, we do have listening devices up here uh at the end of the diasp.

You can see Tansy here.

She can get you a uh a wireless uh uh hearing device.

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

The Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission uses the guidelines adopted by the mayor and city council and 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 are duly advertised in the Frederick News Post in accordance with section 301 of the land management code.

For introductions tonight, I'm Paul Fitzgerald serving here with Commissioners Ann Hart, Ed McMahon, and Carol Kelly from the planning staff.

We have Division Manager of Historic Preservation Planning, Ms.

Christina Martinkowski, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Hoffadz, and Assistant City Attorney Iris Annan, along with our administrative assistant Tanzy Crate.

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

If you would please stand as you're able if you wish to speak or have a presentation.

Thank you.

The address is correctly noted on the agenda, but it was observed by the um applicant that online the link incorrectly lists the property at 164 North Market Street.

So I just want to note for the record that the request for extension is at 641 North Market Street, which is the 7th Street Fountain Park.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any announcements from us.

Moving on to approval of the minutes.

If you have a chance to review the minutes, any questions, revisions.

I move we uh approve the minutes as submitted.

September 11th, 2025 minutes.

I move we approve the minutes of September 11, 20, 25 minutes as submitted.

Thank you.

And I'll second.

All in favor of approval of the minutes, raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Uh, with the resignation resignation of Commissioner Van Rennes.

The position of chair is open, and uh as well as the vice chair.

Are there any nominations for chair?

Okay.

That's her I'd like to nominate Mr.

Paul Fitzgerald.

I second the nomination.

Any other nominations?

In favor of uh Commissioner Fitzgerald serving as chair, raise your hand.

Okay.

Motion or the vote is four to zero.

Nominate Ann Hart.

I second the nomination.

Okay.

Are there any other nominations for vice chair?

All in favor of Commissioner Hart is vice chair, please raise your hand.

Yeah.

And vote is four to zero.

Thank you very much.

Next item request for extension on HPC 22-134 at 641 North Market Street.

Um just for a little bit of background, I'll note that uh per the land management code, city staff uh can issue one six-month extension, which was granted for this project.

Uh but any subsequent requests for an extension must be reviewed by the commission.

There's no specific standards of consideration outlined in the land management code for extensions.

But it this is a standard administrative process.

Um in this case, uh the project at uh the 7th Street Fountain Park at 641 North Market Street is requesting a two-year extension.

Um there was um they're requesting this extension because of delays in the bidding bidding and construction process.

Um this is not unusual for large-scale public uh projects, and um would recommend that the commission uh support the request.

This is just with us, or is it for the public to it it is with you?

Uh and if you want to call for public comment, and I believe the applicant is here if you have any questions, but um I probably have you on one question if we may.

Um I just want to be clear, this is about the fountain itself and not good question.

We are expecting um an additional application regarding the fountain itself, but this is more for um changes to the design of the park itself.

If you you might recall there's very clear cavers and fencing and lighting and this is about the park itself, not the fountain itself.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you for that clarity.

Since there may be a question or two, I would ask if the applicant is available if you want to step forward to the podium.

Just make sure the microphone is turned on.

State your name and your affiliation.

See.

Hello.

My name is Leanne Cruz.

I'm the associate director with Downtown Frederick Partnership, which is the organization putting this application forward.

And the staff just briefly mentioned the delays and getting bids and uh on the project for the delay is any other thing you might want to add or no, the the delays is um what has you know delays in getting the bids is what has delayed the ability to start the project.

Um so this is a city-owned park, so the bidding process sits with the city, so it's a city bidding process.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

The bidding go out from the city or from the partnership.

So it's the city that's it's the city.

Okay, thank you.

Correct.

Yes, it's a city bidding process.

I think for myself, it not that it's necessary, but the two years is to allow some cushion.

It may be a year from now, but we're just currently our hope is that this goes much faster than two years, but two years since that is the maximum request.

Um figured it would be the safest option to make sure that we don't have to come back before the commission again.

Absolutely agree.

Thank you.

This is a project that's been a long time coming, and it's raising the money was part of the issue, and I want to congratulate the Dante Partnership for do successfully doing that.

Well, thank you so much.

Any further questions?

All right, if you want to have a seat momentarily, Commissioners will bring it back up to us.

Any questions or concerns about the extension request?

I personally I don't have any concerns.

I I think we just talked about it right.

This is an opportunity to just uh the only word that's coming to mind right now is cushion to just make sure that the um the bid process can be completed so the work can begin.

I'm familiar with HPC 22-134 at 641 North Market Street, and I move that we approve the extension two-year extension.

I second the motion.

Motion made and seconded to approve the extension for two years.

Any other discussion all in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Seeing no continuances or consent items and removal of case HBC 25-241.

We're moving on to the hearing of case HPC-25-280 at 219 East Church Street.

Ms.

Mark Koske.

Thank you.

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

The following rehabilitation work is being proposed to the front stoop.

Uh to remove and relay eight brick on the first step down from the landing to use a grinder and chisel to repoint the entire brick stoop and to reattach the existing rail, excuse me, existing railing to the ex um exterior wall.

The Frederick Town Historic District Design Guidelines establishes the following parameters for masonry repair.

When looking at reporting work, um just to define it, the reporting involved involves the removal of deteriorated and loose mortar from the uh from the joints of a masonry wall to replace it with new mortar if there is evidence of masonry deterioration, such as uh disintegrating mortar, cracks in the joints, loose brick, damp walls, or damaged plaster work, repointing may be necessary.

Damaged mortar should be only removed using hand tools, but on a case-by-case uh basis, the commission can use the uh use of power tools on horizontal joints.

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

The use of a line-based mortar is recommended for nearly all reporting projects and is definitely required for reporting historic brick.

The color of the new mortar shall match the existing mortar through the use of sand that matches the historic color or added tents.

Uh Portland cement, except where it's this demonstrated to be original or compatible with the masonry type.

Portland cement is generally not appropriate mortar for most reporting jobs in Frederick and will only be approved on a case-by-case basis.

Portland cement likely was not used for mortar mixes in Frederick until the late 19th century.

So moving on to staff comments.

And I did notice pretty significant cracking along the mortar joints and signs of previous repair work.

So it does make me think that a Portland cement was likely used for that repair project.

The mortar joints are relatively wide on this uh stoop, and staff finds that the use of power tools on the horizont horizontal joints only may be appropriate.

The type of mortar proposed is not identified in this application.

Now the guidelines support the use of Portland cement when it's original or compatible uh to the masonry type.

And for this 20th century stoop, staff finds that the Portland cement may be appropriate.

However, the breathability and flexibility provided by the line-based mortar may be advantageous.

Um I noticed that the structural support is uh like a and you might have observed that your own site visit was uh like a metal bar.

And I do wonder if if a little bit of uh more flexibility offered by the the line-based mortar might actually be helpful for the long-term longevity so they don't have to keep repairing the stoop over and over again.

Portland's a really tough, um not flexible mortar type, and that might actually be part of the problem.

Um staff recommends that the new mortar matches the existing in terms of color, texture, and tooling.

The reuse of the existing railing is consistent with the design guidelines.

So, with all this in mind, staff recommends that the commission approve the application with the following conditions that the use of power tools is limited to the horizontal joints only length, that the new mortar joint shall match the existing in terms of color and texture and tooling, and that a line-based or a portland-based cement or a mixture of the two may be used for the report the reporting of the stoop.

I am supporting the use of Portland-based cement if so desired by the applicant, because I do think that's probably what was used uh in the last repair, which was pretty significant, but would urging the applicant to consider either a mix or the line-based.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Christina, question about the Portland cement.

When you say it's not flexible, does that mean that uh it can crack during the changes in weather going from the summer to the winter that can't or with moisture, that sort of thing.

Exactly.

Line-based mortar is not as rigid as Portland cement.

It can be a little bit more bendy and more forgiving.

And with this stoop and just how it was constructed, I thought that maybe that might be a consideration.

Okay, thanks.

So my question, Christina, is really about um the brick itself.

We do not believe that this is historic fabric, correct?

Right.

I don't have a good construction date on this stoop.

As a best guess, I wonder if it had a metal uh stoop originally, and then during World War II, a lot of those metal stoops were removed for um metal salvage for the war effort.

So sometime after World War II is or around World War II is my best guess.

Uh it's first documented very clearly on a 2002 image, but that doesn't provide too much enlightening information.

I think in addition to that, then my question would be about the uh power tools.

We're not salvaging anything in this particular instance.

Is that true?

Right.

And you would want to be more particularly careful with the power tools on historic masonry, which is softer, and also in mortar joints where they are narrower.

In this case, I'm seeing the wider mortar joints and newer masonry, which makes me think it wouldn't be the worst thing to allow Portland cement, especially if I do believe it was probably used in the last repair.

Right.

So for those reasons, I'm comfortable with the power tools and the mortar joint or the the Portland, if that's how they want to move forward.

Thank you for that.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

Is the applicant or agent here if you want to step forward?

If you're present.

Sure.

Um, I'm Catherine Johnson Couch.

I'm the property owner of two nineteen East Church Street.

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

I don't well, I guess the only thing I will add is that um I was given a picture from like the 1950s, I believe, and our front porch was concrete at that time.

Or two, maybe.

Thank you.

At some point they added the brook, I'm not sure when.

Okay.

And I guess were you the owner back in 2014 when the first repairs are done?

Or you just subsequent owner.

Uh we own the property in 2019.

Step a little close to that.

Okay.

If you want to have a seat just momentarily.

Sure.

Thank you.

Right.

Yeah.

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

All right, Commissioner's back with us.

Any uh questions or comments?

I would say uh I think the Portland cement is appropriate in this case.

Uh I think it's probably more durable.

I guess my concern with the line-based mortar on a horizontal surface is it might uh erode away faster.

Um, although I think I did notice perhaps even in the the neighboring stoop looked like it may have had a uh a softer mortar anyway.

Um but in this case um uh I don't object to the uh the Portland cement being used or the power tools on the horizontal joints.

What is the uh what are the steps like on the adjoining house that's part of your same structure?

You you're you live in a duplex, and what is the what are the steps like on the other entrance?

Um they look just like ours.

They look like yours, okay.

They're brick as well.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-280 at 219 East Church Street.

And I move that we approve the application with the following conditions.

The power tools are limited to the horizontal joints, that the new mortar will match the existing in terms of color, texture, and tooling.

That line-based or Portland-based cement or a mixture of the two are used for the reporting of the stoop.

Second the motion.

Okay, motion made and seconded to approve the application with conditions.

Any further discussion.

All in favor of that or the motion, please raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Anybody here in the public that may wish to have a public comment on any topic before we conclude this portion.

Seeing none, we will adjourn the uh hearing portion of this case and we'll allow 625.

We'll reconvene at 635 in order to allow the staff to set up for our workshop.

Welcome back to the workshop portion of the tonight's meeting for the City for Historic Preservation Commission.

Today's date's September twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty-five.

This Martin or the applicants or agents step up to the front table.

Yes.

I don't believe you were sworn in.

You didn't we weren't here earlier to be sworn in.

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

So answer I do.

Make sure your microphone is on push a button or the just want to state your name.

Stacy Kaola.

All right, Ms.

Martin Koski.

Excellent.

Stacey, I believe there's a hard copy.

You might even have one in your folder of the application.

Would you is our screen not working?

I might come down and see if I can turn on the light and get that work.

Okay.

I think that might be good.

Right.

Let's see.

Where it's on.

There we go.

Okay.

Start with this one.

Yeah, that one might be good.

Thank you, Sony.

Okay.

All right.

Are we ready?

So I'll enter the entire staff report into the record.

Um this is a uh oh, it went black again.

It's on our screens though.

Can the commission see it on the screens?

Okay.

And hopefully we'll get it up and running for the public again, Ed.

We might need your help.

Thank you so much.

We'll get that fixed for the people in the audience.

Um so this is uh an application for signage at 216 East Patrick Street.

There are uh three cabinet awning signs being proposed, and that they're they're gonna be applied to that historic awning at the front entry, one on each side of the projecting awning, and then one cabinet sign mounted on the wall.

Now, the design guidelines state that uh sign is any device structure, painting, or visual image designed to be seen by the public for the purposes of advertising or identifying the business product or service.

Now the amount of signage is dictated by city code, but the guidelines also um provide uh the following uh design standards.

I will note that um panel signs are permitted, projecting or hanging signs, window signs, awning signs, freestanding signs, sidewalk signs, or entrance signs, building signs, and painted signs.

Uh there's um the the again the commission does uh must consider the size scale and design, but we we do mainly refer to city code about the amount of sign that signage that is allowed by city code.

I do want to note the types of signs that will not be approved, and specifically cabinet signs are identified as a type of sign that will not be approved by the the commission.

Also, there are standards in the guides guidelines to preserve um historic signs.

Historic signs must be identified, repaired, and preserved.

New signage should be installed in a way that does not damage historic signs, and in some cases the may the commission may approve uh covering historic sign in order to accommodate modern signage.

Um moving forward with staff comments.

I want to note that projecting signs in the historic district um cannot extend more than 30 inches into the public right away, and this is outlined in the land management code.

Now the drawings indicate that the projecting cabinet sign will be 24 inches wide, but the length of the mounts are not identified, so I'm not able to confirm how far the sign will actually project from the building.

So that's one area of uh of the application that we need clarity on.

We need to make sure and confirm that we're not extending more than 30 inches uh from the the building into the public right away.

So it is just there's an existing sign there now.

Um and it's just going, it's just going right there.

So this is specifically about the one attached to the wall, the brand new one, not not the awning signs.

Okay, the flag.

Okay.

So if you have the if you look at the product details, it tells you this the size of the width of the sign itself, but not the mounts.

And so for staff to make a full assessment, we need the full length or how much it's going to be projecting.

So that will include the the width of yeah, that that picture will be very helpful.

So tell it shows us the the 20 inches is going across and including the mount.

Is uh okay, the mounts in another picture show that it's gonna be significantly wider, but this picture.

Um let me see.

Yes, the uh your picture is a good bit darker than ours, but yes, it does look like it's more than an what's being shown on the drawing.

So my recommendation is just make sure that's really clear in the application, just so we're we're and I will say in my drawing is a little different than yours.

My drawing does not have that detail.

So I know that there was a lot of drawings back and forth between and the so what I have is lacks that detail.

Okay, this was the final um drawing that we got back from the sign makers.

Okay, so we'll add that to the application and make sure, but okay.

All right.

Sorry, I gotta get back to the staff report, which is buried here somewhere.

Okay.

Um so cabinet signs are uh internally eliminated, uh illuminated.

Um all signs being proposed are cabinet signs.

They are proposed to be hung from the awning and the front facades.

These type of signs are not supported by the guidelines and probably not going to be recommended by staff in this case.

Um I do think there should be some conversation between the applicant and the commission about the use of cabinet signs and um for the applicant to get some feedback from the commission if if this is uh a project where they think that they're gonna make uh an exception uh to the design standard and well it seems to me that the uh the fact that it's just going into the exact same spot that the FOE sign is in now.

Um that that would be appropriate.

Uh it's it's not oversized or by any means.

Um is this gonna be an Asian restaurant, I presume?

Uh it was the Eagles Club.

Uh what is it?

It was the Eagles Club, and then we're turning it into um like a finer dining restaurant on the first floor.

Asian restaurant, banyan trees.

Oh, yeah, but no, it's not Asian.

Oh, it's not Asian.

Okay, so let me ask you one thing that was a little unclear to me was the uh the sign will say banan on the front, but the side will have the picture of the tree.

Is that the correct but they'll and they would fit in the same shiz as where the FOE sign is now, right?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

I have here a picture, that's how it will be like wrapped, that's like all the sides.

Right.

If they go to the case, sorry.

So we're too far, I would like the Ms.

Markovsky to finish her staff report before we get into the okay, we'll go through the whole thing, but I do want clear conversation about cabinet signs.

If they're even going to be supported by this commission, otherwise we need to look at a different sign type.

Going back.

The neon sign on the awning is documented in the 1975 photograph and references the historic association the building has with the fraternal order of eagles.

The sign is at least 50 years of age and may be original to the building.

I believe we had previous conversations at workshop that the sign would be kept.

So um I think we need a little bit of clarification on on what's going to happen to the the historic sign.

Um signage must not be obscured or overwhelm architectural details, and the commission is charged with considering it its impact on the building, its placement and other um aesthetic character or factors.

Now pages five and six of the application show the visual impact the historic awning on the historic awning feature the proposed signs will be mounted to the existing awning and staff seeks more details on the physical impact on the historic feature encourages a sign that does not obscure the awning also on page seven the application shows that the wall mounted sign will be um mounted through the cast stone cornice and staff recommends avoiding the impact to character defining features just to bring it down a little bit um the proposed three sign three sided awning signs are 51.75 square feet of signage and the wall mounted sign is 36 square feet of signage uh which is a total of 87.75 for the land management code the maximum allowed for this property and the commission cannot supersede this is code 62 point five square feet so without question the amount of signage has to be reduced to 62.5 square feet or less the historic uh preservation commission cannot approve signage that exceeds the amount permitted by code the applicant will need to reduce the amount of signage before the commission will consider the request at a public hearing so with that I believe we're going to start conversation.

I'm sorry I'd like to start with I know what you're submitting here tonight is different than the application that we have that we reviewed and it appears to be the the taller sign you're reduced in size.

Is that the only change we're looking at?

Yes so um when we were originally working with the sign company they put together a proposal for us um and that was before we knew the um limitations and guidelines for Frederick City.

So then we went back to them with you know what we have to fall within the guidelines and so they reworked it to uh fit in with with what we were told the size has to be.

And is that what you're showing us there then yes that is the and it's within the 62 point five square feet I believe so yes okay and that is we don't have that as uh Mr.

Fitzgerald just noted we do do not have that for ourselves but that is what is being displayed now and if I may ask a question then particularly of staff because we did talk about this in the beginning that the uh paternal order of eagles neon would stay in place is that the intention of the of what's going to light this sign is that neon that will be behind it um in his scope of work they say that it is um let me just take a look at it real fast this looks like a revised scope of work is that correct that you're working from different it looks different than what we have it looks longer okay uh let's see yes it says that it'll be uh LED eliminated so I do not think that it'll be using the the current uh so the intention then is to take down the neon is that correct I think they are just building it so it'll it'll just go right on top I'm I it says that they might have to remove it says the demolition required is um minimal but a possible face removal of existing signs so the I can show we we know what that is yes we know we know what to do yeah I'd like to lead the discussion on the cabinet signs themselves which are generally internally lit it wouldn't make sense to have cabinet sign that wouldn't internally lit it's not recommended by the guidelines of course this building is a adaptive reuse it doesn't have the large storefronts or the awnings that some other restaurants downtown have but uh at the same time uh I'd like to discuss you know the appropriateness of a cabinet sign and not sure if there are any anywhere else that come to mind and uh I would tend to agree with the guidelines that it's not an appropriate at all and whether this is adapted reuse or not then if we I'm always fearful even though each case is different if we allow something here someone else is going to want to do it somewhere else.

And whether this is adapted reuse or not.

If we I'm always fearful, even though each case is different, if we allow something here, someone else is going to want to do it somewhere else.

So just we could talk about each sign separately or um or together is in terms of the cabinet signs themselves.

I don't feel it's really an appropriate in this instance to allow that.

Well, I think my additional concern is that there is a historic sign there.

And we have talked about it, and we've talked about the need to repair and preserve.

So I think it is we need to talk about the historic sign that's there, and if the intention is to take it down, we need to understand that fully.

Or if it's just to cover it up, then that in my mind's eye perhaps could be considered a means of preservation, trying to protect it and keep it safe.

Um and then of course, the cr the whole idea behind cabinet signs.

And maybe I'm looking to staff for this.

Um this particular makeup on that awning would not be a cabinet sign if it were not internally lit.

Is that true?

Well, the the cabinet sign has a certain framing.

It's a it's a plastic material, and then it has some thickness to it allow for the lighting.

So if you're not going to have it internally lit, then I would and plastic signing is is also not supported by the guidelines.

I would just think uh a metal or similar panel sign, um would probably be the best alternative.

Well, how would you like how would you like that?

Well, I don't I do have you might have to have uh lighting on either side of the entrance, and then what's also common for the the wall projecting wall sign, a lot of times you'll see in the downtown district that they'll put a light, and they have one specially made where they can even be attached to the sign, and they're very discrete, and they are kind of like a kind of they're very small and they're kind of on both sides of the sign pointing down.

I can see that for the wall sign, but the uh the awning sign, well, I have two thoughts.

One is is is there any way that the sign maker could uh just keep the the take the the uh FOE sign down and use it inside the building or or in other words preserve it somewhere.

Uh that'd be my first thought.

The second thought is uh the fact that it's using the existing awning, it seems like an appropriate use to have the sign fit right in that same spot, and I would not want a sign that didn't fit in that same spot.

And my question is how would you like that without looking at making like would you have to have something coming down or something like that?

Or how how I think that this this might look better than the the having some sort of external light to it I think that's the conversation, I mean, yeah.

Well that's my my my thought was that if you're if you're keeping the the existing awning that having a uh a sign face that fits into that existing space is is appropriate and and uh I I think probably would look better than any other solution.

One question kind of if it to kind of that point, if if if the commission is supporting maybe a cabinet sign on on the awning, and there still needs to be discussion.

But not on the wall.

Yeah, understood.

Um and there still needs to be discussion on what happens to that historic sign.

But if a cabinet sign is proposed, I think I'm also kind of curious of like how thick it is, how much it's gonna project because these cabinet signs, when I think of it, they're they're six inches thick typically, and that would really kind of be a good thing.

But it looks like you have space to in indent it there.

I I think we're looking for more information about that then, right?

It just once particularly once you I don't know what's behind the uh where the neon is.

I mean you couldn't could fit flush or you know, etc.

I I'm kind of curious on that as well.

It's my understanding that it will not it's not going to extend farther at all from what is existing right there.

It however in this picture I don't know if you can see, but there is a lip on it, so they might be it might be closer, have less of a an edge around the side, but it's not gonna be larger than what's there.

And to also for reusing the um the current neon, uh we could definitely do that.

So I think that that would be a great place that we could mount um and get the um the FOE and get the neon working up top there um as part of our decor.

So as we say that though neon signs are not approved.

They're not supported by the guidelines, but they have been approved by the commission on on a rare case by case basis.

I think a neon sign would be fantastic if you do that.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Well, it wouldn't be seen.

It would be more like in the dining area.

Like it would just be it wouldn't be seen by the roof in the in by the street.

Thank you.

Yes.

I would think it might be a more appropriate in interior to the your large hall down on the first floor where you have what 16, 18, 20 foot ceilings, and are more associated with the uh fraternal club.

It was inside the hall instead of on the roof, but uh I think I can show you a picture of how our interior is going to be decorated.

We have a uh digital rendering of it, and I'm not sure that's the I'm not so concerned about that.

Leave it where it is, if we declare it, you know, worthy of you know part of the building.

Um, I wouldn't classify this sign as a a landmark in the sense that you know the domino sugar sign in Baltimore would be a landmark, but uh there aren't any other or very few neon signs left in the historic district.

And even though this one is just letters and a couple of numbers, very simple.

Um it does it is associated with with this building, uh being the the original fraternal order of Eagles building, the sign kind of goes with the building, and in that sense, with it being a neon sign, which is a rare commodity in the historic district, I think it does add to the the character of the historic district overall.

And you know, I I guess maybe we should start there.

Is the sign worthy of preservation?

Is it worthy of keeping the awning and covering over or is it best to try to preserve it by dismantling it and uh installing it somewhere else?

I I have a question for staff.

Um is it uh possible to have two signs to have to um preserve the historic sign and advertise or present the modern adaptation of the of the site to the restaurant?

Personally, for my budget, it's not really would not really you know be conducive to have to restore and then put up an additional sign?

But in addition to that, let me just ask this question because I think it gets after that point.

Is there a way to keep the neon and allow it to be the lighting that you're looking for?

And perhaps we could deviate from the guidelines because we are trying to preserve and also give you a new sign.

So let me just ask that.

Can the neon be used as the lighting element that way it stays where it is and really gets after both points?

I I've I've done a little work with the neon over the years, and you know neon is uh cra is crafted.

I I don't think you could use it for that.

It would it would show through as those letters.

It would not uh you couldn't really use it to light up a sign that said bananas because you you'd end up seeing FOE, which would be confusing.

I I think that'd be the problem.

And I I also wonder, and I don't know if keeping the sign and up but allowing a cabinet sign in front of it, if that would force the cabinet sign to be projecting out that would even more.

I think that one of the things you need to find out is how far you know is the is the is the uh is the awning hollow behind that, or is it a structure behind that?

I mean, seems it seems to me that if you could have it flush, it would be just like what it is now, and it wouldn't be you know, and I would be comfortable with a cabinet sign in this one particular instance where it fits an existing historic awning.

Okay.

But not the wall sign.

Would that be conditioned upon the relocation and preservation of the historic sign?

Well, if they could save it, I think that'd be so and put it someplace.

Uh you're gonna have to take it out of there basically.

I don't think you you can keep it there and not have it projecting out.

Yeah, but then we're not preserving it.

If we're taking it down and putting it somewhere inside the building, we're not preserving.

Well, yeah, but if it goes inside where it's not protected, it would have to be it somewhere outside.

Essentially, as a commissioner Hart's point, you basically look at a uh cabinet sign with an open back, and I think it would be difficult to uh make it watertight and you know prevent you know birds from getting into the back of it and uh becoming a bird's nest, basically.

And even that lip around the top of the sign.

I mean, it's only about two inches, so a six-inch cabinet sign, you know, would project out regardless.

And I would give uh Commissioner Kelly an opportunity to speak later.

So there are all of the um measurements are listed within here of how long the cabinet is, and it it is it states that it is going into the existing sign.

The exist going in the existing sign or the existing framing of the awning.

It is hang on one second, I just read it.

Um that it is so right in here that it's mounted to the existing structure.

And it gives all of the um and this way, sorry.

Focus for us.

I think the focus might be on the top.

Um the the white kind of bulbous feature.

Uh maybe uh on the bottom part rotates.

I think.

I think it's on top of that at the very top.

I'll try.

Okay.

Yeah, I think it's in the top.

You have to get my feet right.

See, most cabinet signs would have to stick out like that.

LED it won't have to stick out that far.

Yeah, I think it's a good thing.

Well, we'd stick out properly six of the lighting inside of it.

So that's some information about the sign, and then on here it says I will the existing cabinet size is um 18 by 72 by 8 inches in depth, and that the mounting, the cabinet size, including the mounting, would be 20 by 72 by 8.

So it's just has a two-inch difference on the one side, but it should still fit within what is existing there right now.

Existing there now minus the neon that's there.

Yes, there it says face mounted to the existing structure.

So this could be the existing structure plus eight inches all around the perimeter.

And I was just looking at the your elevation photograph here.

If you have eight inches to the width of that sign, it's gonna extend beyond the cast stone masters at the end.

Eight inches is not getting added.

I where are you seeing eight inches?

Almost all you only have four inches at the where that sign existing sign meets.

That was that one.

The cast stone pileaster at the doorway.

So it's gonna be at least four inches beyond this cast stone.

Where I'm sorry, I don't see where are you seeing that.

You have this photo?

No.

Not with not with me right now.

Uh you do.

Um your table is a printout of all the applications.

Thank you.

But I do want to uh clarify that in suggesting two signs, I am in my own mind referencing a an example, a historic preserver preservation example that I know of in which a community building identified as a retailer had a very prominent and much loved sign for many decades on its front.

And that sign stayed in place when another place was found, a more um predominant location, actually, for the modern sign to uh to introduce it to make it obvious that that's what the building had become.

But the uh the pre-existing sign, the historic sign, uh did not detract from that modern sign, and it was very much a still a part of the fabric of the facade.

Yep.

There is a group called the Society for Commercial Archaeology that has been landmarking neon signs all over the country.

Almost every neon sign that remains in the country is considered historic.

And in fact, in Las Vegas, they have a museum of neon signs because there's you know, people are love them so much.

I personally would have zero objection to putting a neon sign in that space.

Uh they're not as expensive as people would people think, and I think it would be become a landmark for the future, is what I would I believe in.

I think we need to be spending more time thinking about what we're building today that will be worth preserving in the future, and I think that people will think neon is way more worth preserving than plastic.

So that'd be my opinion on that.

One reason I remain attached to the idea of keeping the FOE sign um and where it is, is that it is definitely a part, I think, of the facade, the the historic building, um, the windows, the entranceway.

Um they they certainly have an architectural integrity that suggests that they were the uh the club room of the Eagles and the sign itself making that literally you know uh apparent um uh contributes, I think, to that uh integrity of the facade, the architectural integrity.

The building is uh remarkable in that way and uh I think there are options.

I mean, uh I could see laser cut individual laser cut letters mounted along that top edge of the sign and a laser cut bag and tree uh mounted on the top edge on the on the sides, and basically leaving everything else uh as it is.

Um, you're suggesting leaving the FOE sign there?

That's yeah, uh I think that just is completely confusing.

If I was a commercial building owner, I wouldn't want somebody somebody else's sign on my building.

Uh I I think that's a non-workable solution for most commercial building owners.

And and I think if you got a sign that fit into the same existing place you and and tried to and made an effort to preserve the old one and keep it somewhere in the city, I I think that's a good solution.

But having two signs on one building I I don't for two different things, I think makes no sense.

Well, in my defense, I am actually proposing two signs on one building on the facade, uh, emphasizing both the historic uh character of the building and its very real and very vital and very current use.

Uh I'll just offer that as a suggestion.

I mean, I would like to see the sign just remain as it is and have two other options face mounted on the on the building itself and just keep the sign.

I mean, what better when uh landmark to give directions and say you just turn west on Patrick Street and follow the neon sign?

That's a best direction, easiest directions you could have.

But we can go on and on here.

I think the ultimate question is do we keep the sign or not?

Uh I understand you know taking the neon out and putting something more uh to the current use of the building, although if the building used changes to a different owner, a different name, then that would have to be changed again.

And uh in essence, the guidelines don't support new uh neon signs.

We're basically uh it comes down to whether this is historic enough uh to warrant preservation, and is preservation mean keeping it in place, does it mean dismantling it and relocating it somewhere else, or is it you know not significant enough to warrant even that?

So let me just add one of the previous conversations we had.

We talked about perhaps taking it down and offering it uh to the Eagles who have moved down the street um quite a ways down the street, but it seems to me that that would be at least a preservation and allowing it not to confuse the situation.

I don't disagree that where it sits today, that neon sign is synonymous to that building, right?

We all know, right?

Just we don't even have to say what the address is, we simply know that's where we're going.

Well another option would be to give it to the historic Frederick Foundation and put it in their museum, it would be something like that.

Um just seems to me that you know that sign has not been lighted in years, and unlike other major large INION signs in other places, I I don't think people even are are even most people aren't even aware of it.

It's just that it's uh a sign that says FOE, and I I don't think there's a kind of attachment to that that you'd see in other places, and I I just don't see how you could anyway.

That's my opinion on it that you can't have uh if it if it was somehow separate from the building or something, and and uh you know I think you'd mess up the building by putting the sign somewhere else.

So I think it this that's the most appropriate person place for the sign, and that we've got to be thinking about the integrity of the architecture of the building as well.

So uh a thought um I I recall a phone conversation years ago when the fraternal order of or order of eagles left this building, and I think they would be interested in having the sign back if that is something that the commission thinks might be an appropriate solution to the its long-term preservation.

That might be an option.

And and if so, then maybe the replacement would be a neon sign.

The styling is beautiful, like I really like the styling of the sign.

Um but then if it kept that neon characteristic, that might be a compromise.

That's a great compromise.

Do you think you could maybe sh send the eagles a an email?

See if they're interested, get confirmation.

I I as a guess, I think that they probably still might be interested in that.

Right.

And it's part of their heritage.

So it's yeah, so then would that be dismantling the entire box and removing that, or are you talking about just the neon?

The neon part of it and then installing your sign.

Do you think your your your client would be interested in it would be accepting of a neon sign, same styling as what you're proposing, but just neon.

And that might be reminiscence of the the character that everybody's so accustomed to with this.

And it gives them that lighted sign that they were really looking for in that location.

Yeah.

And it would be eye-catching, like it would be really distinct.

Neon isn't often approved in the historic preservation commission by the commission in the historic district, but I think this would be a really reasonable deviation.

As a deviation, yes, exactly.

Particularly for the reuse as we're describing.

Um I agree.

Okay.

So maybe that's I can present it and yeah, and see what we can do.

Okay.

What about this?

Um I'll I'll send you a follow-up communication tomorrow.

Okay.

Giving you some guidance on what I would recommend on on how to move forward.

Um pulling up my schedule real quick.

So, Christina, you're proposing just somehow remove the recess portion there with a neon and keeping the rest of the warning.

Right.

And then would the commission be okay with a neon sign on all three sides as part of the compromise?

It's uh I'm seeing that there's some sort of neon there now on all three sides.

Correct?

Yes.

I'm not sure so sure I would support new neon.

Okay.

And then the wall sign, turn that into just a plain blade sign that's not internally lit and have the external lighting to enhance the visual at night.

And I think we have a plan for it.

I did notice that you you reduce the amount of signage.

Um may go back to the first picture you had there.

Um I see you reduce the the height of the sign.

Uh I guess my question is would it look better lowered kind of more in line with the window heads, the top of the sign in line with the window heads.

I know you probably have it raised up higher for visibility, but um what are you talking about this that yes or this sign?

Yeah, just dropping it down to have a foot or two, but low.

I'm guessing that if you're looking from the side though, they didn't want it to block to the tree sign the tree visual so that it doesn't hang below the existing sign.

But I see what you're saying when you're looking at it.

Looks like there's a little bit of room there though, to his point.

A foot maybe could come down.

Okay, yeah, so bring it down a foot so that it's 11 feet from the sidewalk.

Right now it's 12 feet off of the sidewalk.

Yeah, 11 or 10, but I mean it's just a personal thing, but I mean uh it would look proportional to have it a little bit lower, but or stand so high on the wall, but okay.

Yeah, I think also like the direction of the traffic is one way coming this way down the street.

So if it sits a little higher, then also like this sign doesn't block I don't know, it just creates a visual space.

I don't know, at the top of the window.

Yeah, but I mean the the signs shouldn't distract from you know the aesthetic of the building elements itself.

Uh you could argue it's not doing that is pretty straightforward, but um that was my only caution.

I mean is okay.

I can't hear so I want to touch briefly on scheduling and make sure that and we'll talk more, but just to kind of get a rough idea of uh of what a good plan is.

I reach out to you tomorrow, give you some quick notes how I would recommend that you'd move forward.

Um the resubmission deadline that I think is most um reason reasonable and and probably um was realistic is October 13th.

Okay.

And that would set you up for the October 23rd hearing with the understanding that you know your team would be exploring a neon sign.

Like that you're changing the the type of signs in both locations.

Is that a realistic deadline for your team?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Let's move forward with that plan for now.

Okay, with the understanding that I'll send you some more details tomorrow.

Yes.

Okay, and it'll be through open gov if that uh it'll be through or this the permitting system open gov.

Okay.

Um so you'll get email notifications when I send you a message.

Okay, perfect.

A couple of things.

Uh if you did contact the the Eagles Club, they weren't interested in the the expense to have to to move it or you or if you offered to have it moved for them, is it something that you would consider just taking that neon portion out and putting it somewhere in the building?

Um yeah, yes.

Would we be able to put the cabinet sign in?

And I guess my only other thought is if that recess portion is removed instead of putting knee on, it might be I feel look better to not have a face mounted internally lit cabinet sign, but use put a metal in that place and then have it back lit from within the ONA itself, but versus trying to do something at a neon.

Sorry, can you s can you say it again?

I I didn't I didn't follow you.

So basically if you're removing that recessed portion where the neon is and just put you know a piece of metal with you know the vinyl plexiglass or whatever the letters are made out of, but then have that back lit from you know it's basically a cabinet sign, but it's set flush to the where this rare neon is instead of projecting out from it.

So it might be an option to consider if you didn't want to go with the the neon route.

So you go follow up, Ms.

Martin Koski?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you so much for your time coming tonight.

Thank you.

And the conversation, I appreciate it.

Okay, the next item on the workshop agenda, HPC 25-215 at 204 East Fifth Street.

If the applicants want to make their way forward to the front table.

I'll do a little bit of a brief introduction while they get settled.

Uh so this application.

You were sworn in, I believe they were both sworn like when we introduced them.

Oh you guys were sworn in earlier at the beginning of the meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Do you just want to give a brief introduction as to who you are in appropriation to the application?

My name is uh Zach Clopper, owner.

And Rachel Motka.

And Rachel Moxka, the other owner.

All right.

So this application addresses correcting the following work completed without HPC approval, the replacement of windows, front door and transom railing, mailbox shutters, removal of the storm door, installation of vents on the west elevation, and painting concrete front stoop.

The building is a contributing resource to the historic district as recorded in the 2021 national register.

This application concerns rectifying work that has been completed on the property without prior HBC approval.

Um the applicant has confirmed with me that they do not have the remains of the any of the historic doors or windows.

Um let's do a little bit digging into the windows first.

Um the previous windows on the property were a double-hung one over one window units with storm windows.

All the windows on the property have been replaced with one over one vinyl windows.

The applicant will need to provide labeled photographs of all the windows on the property that were changed to vinyl.

The number, the location, condition, and proposed work for the windows need to be documented as well.

Um the applicant is requesting to replace the windows with a pellet lifestyle series wood double hung windows.

This project is an aluminum clad.

Um per the guidelines, replacement windows for wood windows must all be wood without cladding.

Staff recommends a true wood window that is not clad in metal or vinyl.

Uh the applicant is requesting to only change the front elevation windows.

Vinyl windows are not appropriate to the historic district.

All recently replaced windows should be switched out for a non-clad window.

Would you like to discuss anything on the window so far?

So we did find uh at Home Depot, they do offer a could you uh move the microphone a little bit closer?

Sorry.

Um they do offer this uh non-clad window with all the descriptions here, but right here at the bottom it does show that it's non-clad.

Um we can get all this emailed over to you.

Uh we just got it actually today.

Confirmation.

That from Anderson.

I I'm sorry, I can't see the is that from Anderson.

Is um J or Gelder?

Gelden.

Yeah, okay.

That was the only window that we were able to find.

Most uh window manufacturers around here do not do solid wood anymore.

Oh, I know Jill Wind makes a good good solid wood.

Thank you.

So if I may ask staff a question, do we know if the windows that were taken out and and maybe it is the applicant were vinyl or they were wood?

They were wood, but there were a lot of like missing, and it was just a storm window in some of them, and then some were just uh very damaged.

Okay, thank you.

Again, you're proposing just to replace the windows on the street front?

Yes, only in when they try to keep the other I mean we would want to to identify exactly which windows were replaced and allow us to uh determine you know whether replace the ones on the front or replace all of them that were previously there.

I mean, we would want to to identify exactly which windows were replaced and allow us to uh determine, you know, whether replace the ones on the front or replace all of them that were previously there.

So uh if we could, we would like to just replace the front uh three windows, two upstairs, one on the first floor.

Um we did replace the side window or like the side windows on the house, but if um we are able to just replace the front ones with the wood any other questions uh regarding the windows, commissioners or sofit it's I'm off.

If um would you be open to replacing all the windows back to the wood?

I mean it sounds like we don't have much of a choice if that's the so I understand okay again we didn't know that it was in the historic district, so we certainly would not have done it immediately, like without approval.

Um but obviously like due to budget reasons we would totally prefer to do just the front, but I understand if that's not feasible.

On the commissioners, if you have any thoughts on replacing them all with wood or allowing certain ones to remain, uh hesitate to try to make that determination here without further further consideration.

And uh on the off chance that the applicant may decide to put all wood windows back in anyway.

So any other discussion on replacing all versus some of course we'd prefer them all to be wood, right?

Because that's what the historic building had originally.

Um I don't know if I have a certainly the street front to in my mind's eye is an absolute necessity.

But if some of the windows were already replaced and were vinyl, or some of them were completely missing, and you have documentation of that, then that certainly could support us in in perhaps slight deviation.

I guess I've looked through my old photos and I have you can they're taken from the street and you can see like a lot of the glass is missing, but from the street angle you can't tell that really like the windows that is just the storm windows remaining.

Um I know at least when we closed on the house, the first time we walked in, literally there was nothing in one bedroom, like it was just the outdoor right there.

So um I know there were I know that one, but I don't have documentation of that or the other uh perhaps a condition of others.

The the listing photos might still be available and they might have it was a off-market uh the person just wanted to move.

Got it.

Um all right.

And they had been there for so long and done like so much weird kind of half projects themselves that that was kind of what we walked into.

I believe it was in the family for 60 years, I was told.

So I think it just kind of got handed down.

Gotcha.

Did you uh look up the 2021 National Register photos and get any clues on the condition of the side windows?

I couldn't see the sign windows from the photographs.

Did you look at adjacent property addresses?

And that kind of gives you sometimes an angled view.

They're pretty close, and the windows that I'm from my remembering from the packet are set back.

You don't see any immediate windows on the side because it's down that little trot alleyway.

Um so clarification on whether what the conditions of the windows based off that 2021 is not it's a little difficult to determine the So you can make the determination whether you want to try to keep the other windows vinyl or if you make an option to replace them, but then if you decide to keep them, then we'll discuss that the next hearing whether we feel it's appropriate or not.

So I think that the big thing is just making sure you get that documentation of all the windows.

Um because I don't know if all the windows on the is there any windows on the rear or um there's one um in the kitchen, I believe, and one in the bathroom.

Uh the upstairs bedroom has an exterior door that yeah, so not a window.

Okay, okay.

So just making sure in your resubmission, having the clear documentation of each window and then determine what work is going to be done at that window, such as the wood replacement or trying to go for that vinyl key keep replacement.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, can we just propose to replace them all just to like not have to wait till next month or do we have to uh so we still don't have the documentation, I guess.

So we would have to get that to you.

Well, since there's a lot of things in the application.

Um even if you were to propose replacing it back with wood, there's other things in the application that will still trigger you to go to hearings, you will still have to attend or hopefully attend the next hearing, which is October 23rd.

Um even if you repose all placements, which you know is preferred, um, it would still put you on the next hearing because of certain things that were done with the property, okay.

All right.

Moving on to shutters.

So the non-historic shutters were replaced with in-kind vinyl shutters.

The applicant is requesting to keep the paneled vinyl shutters on the property.

The applicant has provided an alternative for wood and Louviard shutters.

If the commission determines that the vinyl shutters are not appropriate.

Per the guidelines, shutters that are vinyl may be removed and replaced with wood shutters if documentary or physical evidence shows that shutters exist on the property.

The installation of shutters in locations where they did not exist historically would not be approved at sat staff site visit.

There was no clear physical evidence of the shutter hardware on the window frames.

Um in a 1975 file photograph shutters were not shutters were not present on the property or adjacent buildings.

It is not until the 2004 file photographs are shutters present on the property.

And I I believe that the shutters also you're your concern with the shutters about removing them completely is that there's like a hole in black behind it.

That's correct.

Our I mean current concern now is could you bend the mic a little bit?

Um, our concern now is just that the shutters have been there.

I think it was even documented since the 2004 photos.

So in 20 years, I assume there's been some fading and holes and things.

Um we are happy to explore with our contractor, I guess, further to see if he can try to like patch it as well as he can.

We're just trying really hard not to have to like reside any of the house.

Um if it means we have to take them off.

That's why we proposed the wood shutters.

I didn't know if that would have been an easier solution or not.

So um kind of other either way.

They just aesthetically look wrong.

You can just drive by and they don't they don't feel right.

So I mean uh I would support if they were well at some point if they weren't there and you're a lot most of your neighbors don't have them.

And with the extra white trim and without the original hardware, I mean I would all almost support just removing them entirely.

Uh of course the fact that you would have holes in the siding that would have to be uh patched somehow.

I don't know if that's e easier or difficult or a long-term uh problem or not, but I just feel the shutters that are there are just the wrong s size, height and and width wise, then just don't look appropriate.

Of course, putting on if you remove the shutters and want to put something back, then I would say you would need to go a wood shutters with the proper hardware to make it look more authentic versus putting uh a vinyl or a composite shutter just screwed into the vinyl again.

Okay.

If we were to take the shutters off and we had to fix the siding, do we need any sort of special approval just to swap out a piece of siding for the same exact siding?

That would fall under the minor rehab list based on my understanding of the scale of the repair is quite small.

Um no approval needed.

I think our contractor has said he m they might still carry it.

Um so if we can figure that out, that would be our ideal route.

Yeah, I mean yeah.

Perhaps replacing a a couple pieces of siding that have screw holes in them.

Well, would be cheaper than putting on new wood shutters, but uh that would be something to have to you'd have to determine.

But does Sarah talk to you about the tax credit program?

Something that you should totally keep in mind as you're moving forward with this is a 25% tax credit from the city for rehabilitation work and another um 25% from the county.

So hopefully those type of funds will be helpful.

All right.

Any other questions regarding the shutters, Commissioners?

No questions.

I do concur with you.

I I think taking them down would look better, particularly that your neighbor doesn't have them look uniform.

So for in your application, just maybe updating the scope of work clearly illustrating that you're just gonna be removing the shutters, or whatever you feel comfortable with.

Um then we also talked about the minor rehabilitation lists you have that certain percentage you can remove of siding and replacing kind.

So that is an option.

You don't have to include that since it's on a minor rehabilitation list, but if you want to, that's completely fine as well.

All right, moving on to doors.

The front entry door has been replaced and the storm door has been removed.

The new entry door is a solid wood with six clear glass panes.

The previous entry door on the property was seen in a 2004 historic photograph, and it was a non-historic pattern glass wooden door.

It's unclear what the original design of the historic door may have been.

The applicant is proposing to replace the new door with a three-panel wood door.

Per the guidelines, if the original door does not exist, then the new door must match to the period and style of the building.

The most common doors are s seen are four to six panel wooden doors.

Staff will note that the doors within the immediate area have similar styling or paneling and a variety of pane configurations.

So, how does commission feel about what is currently placed as the doorway and then what they're actively proposing?

The several panel wooden door.

So my question is what's in there now.

Is that just been recently installed?

Yes, we just had purchased a solid door when the other one got thrown away.

Um, but it has the more modern glass panes.

Right.

So now we were just kind of trying to figure out what we should put there instead.

Um we did come up with kind of just brainstorming.

Um the original back door is still on the house, and I don't know if it would be possible to put that on the front.

Um, but I I don't know if that's the right style either.

Is it it looks thinner?

I think it's not.

Is it the same size?

I'm pretty sure.

Um it was just an option.

I don't know that we could try, but when looking at like the streetscape, I have seen similar front doors like that um with the storm door covering it up.

Um so I that is a potential option, however the commission may feel.

So let me just say this.

I have a similar downtown property as well.

And in my mind's eye, that's a safety concern.

Half glass on that front door to me is just not a wise move.

On a back door, it's a little different because you usually have a fence and other barriers, but I would not put that much glass on the front door.

It's just my opinion.

What's your thoughts on the current door?

Personally, I thought it was there originally because I thought that was what was behind the storm door, and I think I wouldn't leave it.

Um this is a or I'm sorry.

I would just say that you're much more likely to get broken into at the back door than the front door.

Uh disagree.

So uh most robberies are in the back.

The back of the house.

Uh just so you know.

This floor like that.

The door that's there now is wood, solid wood.

The one that we purchased is wood with glass panes, though.

This one existing is wood.

Oh, that the one that we see in the photo.

The one.

You're talking about the front door.

Yes, ma'am.

The front door is wood.

Yes.

That's all yeah, I can pull up a picture if you're we have a picture in the packet.

We're just trying to understand that.

Yeah, so the one that you have there, I believe it's six panes, six separate panes.

That is a new uh solid.

Yes.

And that's what's there now.

And you want to replace that for what reason for the safe safety issues or is it?

We want to keep that door, but I mean if it only if it's a few.

I don't have a problem with that door at all.

Yeah.

We tried to keep like the historic.

I would I don't it certainly looked better than what was there before.

And I would be only knew, you know, Sarah and I looked at adjacent doors, and they're they're all kind of like not so dissimilar to what you and installed.

Yeah, I was just gonna say there's a very eclectic mix of door styles all along that street.

So I particularly have a problem other than a potential safety concern about leaving the door as it is.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think the smaller panes are less of a safety concern than that one whole paint.

That was my concern.

Any other questions regarding the uh door?

Is the uh were you proposing putting a storm door back in or just yeah?

You know the questions on the doors, Commissioners?

All right.

Moving on to railing.

Uh the previous front porch railing was a black metal railing with wooden decorative posts.

The applicant replaced the railing with a pine wood railing to match the neighboring property.

Per the guidelines, porch replacement should be based on documentary or physical evidence.

If it is not, it is known that a porch or stoop existed, but if documentary or physical evidence is not available, the replacement design should resemble historic porches that exist in the neighborhood and that are keeping with the style and period of the building.

For masonry features, the most appropriate railing material would be metal railing.

It's unclear in the 1975 photograph if the property had metal railings or railings at all on the front porch.

The neighboring property in the 1970 photograph had a wood porch railing, which is sympathetic to the original uh wood porch design and detailing.

However, the subject property has replaced the concrete porch.

Masonry porchers often feature metal railings.

The commission should provide a comment if a wood or metal railing should be used in this circumstance.

I think again, I think this replacement lines up pretty pretty well with the neighboring property.

So I don't know that the metal railing I think this looks better than the middle railing, in my opinion.

I agree.

And I think with the the uh turn post with the more ornate uh wood post that the wood railing is more appropriate.

What's gonna happen with that middle post the middle post?

Um we got the violation and everything in the middle of kind of the work when we found out.

So we're gonna cut that down to level it all out and have it be.

Have the railing as well be like flush with that middle part.

Yeah, I think that's a good thing.

Well it might be nice to leave it just a little bit proud above the railing and maybe put the chamfered angled chamfered uh edge around the top of it just to give it a little bit of character, but not just a flat topic.

All right.

Okay.

So one of the final big sections is the painting of the masonry.

Um the concrete landing on the front porch was originally a non-painted masonry area.

The applicant has painted the concrete using bare premium texture low lustered enamel porch and patio anti-slip floor paint.

Whew, that's a mouthful.

Um per the guidelines, painting historic masonry structures or sections that are not currently painted will not be approved unless it's determined that the paint will help stabilize deterioration.

It's unclear from the application if the painting of the porch was for aesthetic purposes or structural concerns.

Would you like to discuss a little bit on that?

Like the thought process behind painting the front porch.

Yeah, so the front of the porch um was, I guess, already painted before that you can see in the pictures.

Um like not fully painted, but it was green on near the steps.

So it looks like they had it painted at one point in time.

Um so that was just on the the front face of it.

Um and then the top of it, it was uh stained up.

Uh so we just painted not knowing that that was not allowed.

I thought it looked like there was like a bucket of green paint, if anything, like dumped down the side.

Um not even I don't know if it was like intentionally painted, but it was unintentional paint, I think.

But you can see it in some of the like street photos, either like that Google map photos or whatever.

It's just kind of weirdly green right there.

Um, and then the rest was not like uncovered.

Okay.

So repainting what was already painted and just smoothing that out and cleaning it up.

Is that what we're saying?

So from my understanding is that you're not sure if it was intentionally painted and it was by accident uh prior to you.

Um that the the purpose of it was it for more structure, or are you just falling through with more aesthetic?

I'd say more aesthetic, more aesthetic.

That was just stained up and you can see still like our contractor had tried to power wash um like gently everything, and it didn't really work, and there's kind of streaking.

So then he painted it, but I again didn't realize that wasn't allowed until after.

Also, I know our neighboring property um to the right, they have a concrete porch as well that is painted.

That's why we also did not know at the time.

We were trying to match both sides, but it didn't really work out.

So the neighbor to the left is also painted though, right?

So left the one that's attached to you is painted.

That one is a wood porch though, to the left of us, the one to the right of us that is detached.

Um we have that little walkway.

That's a concrete porch that is painted.

I hear what you're saying.

But they're both painted on both sides of us.

I think the the concern here is that in the guidelines it does describe that if it were already painted, then we can but I understand what your rationale was on both sides.

So thank you.

I I would quote the Beatles and just say let it be.

Yeah, I'm not opposed to what's there.

I don't know if you had any additional mistofidits.

I just have some final comments, and that's about it.

Um sounds like we're a little bit we're okay with the painting of the masonry porch.

Um for fall just small comments.

These are the following areas that are within the guidelines.

Um so the replacement of the mailbox, mailboxes may be a square with a black matte finish.

The replacement of the mailbox is consistent with the guidelines.

Um the replacement of the transform window, which was previously plexi glass, with a traditional glass, no change with the wood frame that falls within the guidelines.

Um installation of the vents.

The vents are located on the west elevation.

However, the vents will need to be colored matched to the trim or wall color of the building.

And then the removal of the non-historic metal storm door at the front entry.

Does the commission have any final comments before are you I don't see a storm door?

So the storm door was removed.

Is that your comment here?

Correct.

It was removed.

Um and you don't have intentions of replacing it as well.

Right.

But it was also non-historic.

So okay.

Okay.

Next steps.

So uh the resubmission deadline, the tight deadline.

Um it's next Monday at 11 a.m.

Um that is to be on an October 9th hearing.

If you feel like that's a little too much, it's pushing some things, then the next deadline will be, I believe October 13th at 11 a.m.

Um that will place you on the October 23rd hearing.

Um resubmit through open gov.

Um if you have any questions, please feel reach out.

I'll leave you a note tomorrow about some of the things that we discussed tonight.

Um and then if you have any questions, you know, feel free to reach out.

All right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Next item on the workshop agenda, HPC 25-2820 South Carroll Street.

If the applicants agents want to step forward.

I believe one of you were sworn in.

You weren't sworn in earlier, was that right?

I wasn't.

Yes.

Let me swear you're in quickly.

Okay.

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

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Okay.

If you both would like to introduce yourselves, yes.

Kevin Roadcroft with Philat Plus Architecture.

Gary Funnel with uh Plumon Hospitality.

All right, Ms.

Martin Koskey.

Thank you.

I'll enter the entire staff report and notes into the record.

Um the table should be a copy, a hard copy version of my notes, which is a comparison between the original site approval and and the proposed.

Would you mind getting that out and and sharing it on the screen?

We'll just take it section by section.

Okay.

I have here.

So actually, I don't know if that's the first page.

I think I think that's the first page.

I think we're good.

Okay.

So this applicant is seeking approval for the following work.

And they're identified as is um five different areas.

The first is um, and all these are amendments to the previous uh level two approval um for the hotel project.

The first is the site retaining mall and the storm water management facility, and that is shown on drawing A3 and A4 of the application.

And um on the screen is the comparison drawings uh plans uh between the original HPC level two approval and the proposed modifications.

Um just so we're not jumping back and forth.

Is everybody comfortable if we just address this area fully with uh the applicant's proposal and staff comments?

So the applicant notes in their their paperwork that when this project was submitted for level two approval, a concrete retaining wall was shown between the garage entry drive and the hotel drive along east on the east side of 200 East Patrick.

Now, as the civil design progressed, the area now includes a storm water water management facility to meet site requirements, as well as a portion of retaining wall.

The wall steps down as the grade slopes towards the garage to lessen the visual impact.

Um at the upper sidewalk, west and north edges is a 42-inch high black aluminum railing.

The wall cladding is a um an um a thin masonry with a pre-cast wall cap.

A lime stone finish color is selected to match the masonry used around the hotel, including the ballroom facade.

The building transformer is located at the garage level and hidden from public view.

And my um my comments in the staff report was this area identified as area one also removes parking that was previously approved.

But parking's not an issue at the site, it's been relo reallocated elsewhere, so there's no technical concerns.

I just wanted to note that for the record.

Um also just that there that staff has not identified any concerns with the proposed changes in this area.

There is a transformer in the southern portion of this area, um, but it would not be highly visible because of the grade changes, and that can also be um I mean it's it's shown on this plan, but it's it's also illustrated on drawing A3 provided by the applicant.

Um the fencing that's being proposed is a pretty classic traditional black metal fence.

Um product literature was provided in the application and the wall material, I believe I think you mentioned in the staff reports the same veneer that was approved already for the building.

So I I would like to add um so we've been working with Potomac Edison with the the utilities on the site, and so just in the last week um we found out that this location for the transformer, they didn't like it.

They they have concerns about being able to service it and getting their their equipment in there.

The slope coming down is about a nine percent slope.

So we have we've made a modification we'd like to show you.

Um so this is uh a side by side of the original and um the new proposed, which is um we've moved the transformer, which we'll show you in the um area five with the other transformers.

Um so what we did here was we were we got rid of the transformer here, so we were able to shift the whole bioretention facility south, and then create another kind of landscape um buffer to that, you know, because I think that's nicer.

The stormwater management is it, you know, it's it's a pit really, right?

So this is we feel this is really much nicer at the entrance.

So um this is the slight update there.

And the the stone, the wall is the same material, nothing's changed, just shifted down.

And would you be able to provide an updated version of A3 to kind of better okay?

Thank you.

Yeah, and I I've started to update it with your notes, so each sheet will have the existing and then the uh thank you the update.

My clarification is uh this thin limestone uh veneer is just on the west face and on the north face.

Yes, the east and the south, and just painted concrete.

Yes, yeah.

So it could it runs up and then it's the front when you come in, and then this as it goes down is concrete, which will match the concrete at the Eagles retaining wall on the other side of the driveway.

Okay.

Any other comments, Commissioners on this?

Area one.

Area one.

All right, I'm gonna go uh move forward with area two.

Would you mind sharing that little section for us?

Thank you.

Very helpful.

Okay.

So 216 East Patrick Street is currently um under construction, including a rear addition to the existing building on this.

Is the building we were just talking about earlier tonight?

Um, and they received HPC approval of the west and south retaining wall at the rear of the property.

Um this proposal includes an additional 40 feet that could extending that retaining wall and a railing adjacent to uh the garage service entry drive to be added during the construction of the hotel plan.

This wall and railing extension is proposed to match the HPC approval uh approved portion of the concrete wall and railing.

Um in terms of the staff comments, and I just noted that in area two, it did look like the plan includes extending the uh uh extend the previously approved fence on the adjacent property.

The plan is to match the fence type.

However, I think I added a note that product literature is needed to be incorporated in the I think that's an old note.

I think I you included product literature, I believe, right?

I I did not.

I had not gotten their HBC submission at that point, but I had it.

That's what it is, yeah.

Yeah, so I I have their their railing now, so I can include it.

Add that in the package.

Yep.

Perfect.

And then I the area behind the retaining wall, is that part that shaded area?

Is that part of your plan?

And is that a grassy area right there?

Yeah.

Yes, that's to be sold.

Okay.

Yeah.

And could you just show with your your finger the area of the the extension of the wall?

Yes, so the eagles stops about right here in the center of in the center of the angle.

So that that portion coming around is what will be added to the wall as the re-grading to get down to our project happens.

And you can I'm not hearing any just again.

I guess the parking has been otherwise uh provided for.

That's yes.

You're eliminating parking there too.

Yeah.

And that's a good point.

So I will note that no changes were identified to the site plan between area two and five, but appears that there are that parking spaces were eliminated.

If you could maybe just make that another area or extend the area two to kind of encompass the changes to the parking, just so it's it's noted and approved without confusion.

Does that make sense?

I also I um extended area five to care cover the whole parking.

So just that works perfect.

Yeah.

No concerns.

Okay.

Moving right along the area three.

Thank you.

Um so area three, retaining wall and fence at uh the historic barn.

So per HPC 2513, a small concrete retaining wall is to be constructed to facilitate the changing grade between the garage level one, which is the loading area, and the building stair egress in neighboring property.

A six foot high fence is proposed to separate the hotel landing and the adjacent property.

The French is proposed to be a black aluminum with straight vertical pickets.

Um staff identified no concerns with the proposed fence in area three.

Uh I don't have any concerns with the six foot tall fence.

Okay.

All right.

And uh Christina, uh it's metal fence and generally uh I guess uh generally allowed anywhere or mostly for commercial applications or versus a wood fence.

You know, good question.

I don't think that the guidelines distinguish at what property types a particular fence style is appropriate versus not appropriate.

Um true, thank you.

Um so we do see metal fencing both residential and commercial, but at six foot top tall metal fencing like this, it seems to be more commercial um styling.

Area four uh fence at the east-west property line.

And again, this can be also shown on um sheet A6.

Um again, a six-foot high fence is proposed on the east-west property line to prevent public access to the linear park.

Um from the PyBa alley, the fence is proposed to be black aluminum with straight vertical pickets.

I don't know if I even wrote a comment about it.

I don't think I had one.

Any concerns?

All right.

So the existing uh site electric electrical must be relocated to service the hotel project as as well as for 200 East Patrick Street.

The proposed electric uh junction box and transformer are located set back from the new entry drive from East Patrick Street, landing will be planted to shield view from utilities.

And you know, landscaping has been approved to as uh an appropriate method to to hide utilities, and this is not a highly forward-facing position of the site.

Um this is an updated plan I just received from Civil right before I came.

So this this kind of shows the um before with the parking and um what's proposed now is is a low planting, it's about a 30, 36 inch high at the front.

Um and then the first box is a three-phase um junction box, which is I think about three foot tall.

The good thing is when you when you come into the driveway, it starts sloping down about almost about six percent.

So these transformers as you go down are getting lower and lower.

And then there's a strip of uh there's a seven-foot sidewalk between the eagles and the property, and then planting along there.

There's an ornamental tree and some more plantings behind that.

Towards the west of the transfer transformers, on the left-hand side on the the image, is there any sort of screening by the transformers there?

Um there is not in this plan.

And is it is it but there's a grade change?

Is that what you're yes?

The the grade is is going down.

So you will get a view somewhat from this direction.

I have a an image I can show you.

Where are they?

So this is a view looking looking east.

Um so you can you can see the the top of the transformers from this direction.

When you're looking when you're kind of across the street, you don't really perceive them as the grade is dropping down and the landscape in the front blocks them.

And as you're approaching patch or driving along again, you don't really see them with the landscape there.

And and then this is uh an aerial view, just kind of to show you how that is stacking there.

I don't love that you can see them so well as you you drive in.

Um we had a similar issue at the visitation hotel.

It was just there was no other place to put some of their utilities other than quite at front of the building.

Um and landscaping didn't work in that particular area, and and at least maybe if you could add some the metal fencing in that area, maybe reduce it to four feet in height to make it more pedestrian rather than um security.

I would be interested in hearing some some comment if if if if something is needed there.

I think something is needed there, so I agree with you.

And I would offer to your point is that you're traveling in vehicle in the opposite direction where you're not going to see it.

However, if you're on foot, you are gonna see it.

And it's gonna be very obvious.

So and I'm not even sure if the metal fencing because at visitation, we did a wood going horizontally.

So I I mean I'm not opposed to either, but something to kind of break that up a little bit seems appropriate.

Could you do uh some sort of a metal trellis trellis that would you could grow on there to block the view of it?

I think that yeah, there's a number of options.

Uh I do appreciate the enhanced uh landscaping versus what was proposed uh you know I guess I thought in addition or addition to the screen is would you be proposing any type of bollards there for security?

They seem kind of vulnerable there along the driveway, but that you would probably want to install some bollards along that drive aisle or no or some other means of protection.

Yeah, the bollards would probably plan brick wall or something, but uh I mean now you're talking about expense, but um I'm not so concerned about the being exposed on the driveway side, even though it is towards the front of the property or the street front of the property, but I think the enhanced landscaping helps a lot.

And it's just so tight, I'm not sure how much you can do there effectively, but maybe it's just some nicer bollards, maybe enhanced bollards or something that's just a piece of pipe, metal pipe, but so I think that's something to chew on.

Um I don't know if we necessarily need to come to a solution tonight, but something something I think that is is worth consideration.

Okay.

Um could we take a quick look at that historic barn feature on the site plan?

And I actually have a couple questions that that I do have a comment that I I do want to make sure that the historic barn really just needs to be clearly identified on the on the plan.

It's footprint and associated notes are not um as prominent as other structures on the site.

It's it's written in a lighter ink.

Um I know that there are some concerns with with that building, but on the site plan it it needs to be clearly called out.

And my my secondary kind of associated question with that is could you provide me some clarification on where the property line is along that barn because it almost looks like it's not on the property.

Right, I agree.

Um the civil drawing, they're gonna update that when they resubmit this.

I think that was part of my problem with understanding what's going on over there.

Yeah, uh what they had done was they had done the limited of uh uh disturbance just inside of the where the the footing would go or the the underpin would go.

Um but and I think they've moved it since then out past the um the the proper or to the property line.

So the property line is actually the back of the barn.

That is where the property line is, and that is it is showing it's just they should also shade the barn and and clearly say existing barn to remain.

We'll make sure they do that when they resubmit the site plan.

That's it.

I think that area was probably of just not very clear.

Yeah, I agree.

Um that sounds good.

Totally got you.

And then my other last thing is just to if you could clear also just add some clarifying notes, delineating the foundation walls of the historic barn from the adjacent retaining walls, because they are two distinct features.

And other than that, I that's my yeah.

I I have a question, just as an informational question, because I wasn't on the uh preservation commission when the uh other earlier approvals.

The concrete block addition and this and the wood frame edition, is that part of the restaurant, or what is what is that exactly?

Could you I might need you to point it out on the site plan?

Huh?

Could you point it out?

Are we in the barn area?

On the pictures that you have, it's the back of the FOE building.

What is what is that?

The stairway level for the if you get up to the roof deck, or what is all that?

It's an so there is an approved edition.

Yeah, well for what?

Um I don't know if it's an extension of their kitchen and stair and getting up to the roof deck.

Right.

There was an elevator in there to go to the roof deck.

I mean, all of that was there.

Okay, so that relate that's not part of the hospital uh the hotel that's that's not our goes with the FOE building.

That was the earlier signs.

Okay, well, I I just didn't know.

No, no, no.

It's it's it's hard to follow the property lines in I I get a so a couple up there's a couple updates you already have.

Uh there's a couple updates that we've requested, and then uh of course the transformer thing at the front of the property.

If you could kind of make that a little bit more discreet, I think that that would go a long way.

I it does look like it it's tight.

Is that a concern?

Is it I mean where are your thoughts about screening up there?

Do you just need more time to think about it?

One more first option.

Yeah, the it it was difficult.

It is kind of the only place to be able to put it.

I mean I don't know if we maybe if we added you know a few more rows, maybe push them further into the site a little bit.

Okay that would also have offer more of a buffer, right?

Because the the slope is going down and it would kind of lessen that view.

Um I think uh as you're walking the other way, the um we have a lot of landscape um in the front there too.

So the so when you're you're coming, you know, this direction here you know this this is really gonna this whole edging here will really be a visual buffer as well.

You know, once you get to the driveway, sure, you're gonna be able to see it, you're gonna look down and see it.

But it's just uh what's that?

Yeah.

No, I know that's the same.

Maybe the signs will be so beautiful.

The signs will be so beautiful on the banyard that perhaps we won't even notice.

I'm sorry.

I was just being sarcastic.

So maybe the signs will be so beautiful on the banyard that we won't even notice.

We'll be looking up.

So my as a best guess.

Um I'm assuming that your your team is ready to to try to make that Monday, eleven A.M.

deadline, or do you need more time, or where are you standing on your scheduling, just so you can't do that?

That's the goal.

Monday is the goal.

All right.

Do you feel like you have a clear vision of what's needed to get get this over the finish line?

Can I just clarify one thing?

I I just wanted to make sure you didn't miss that.

That I I didn't show the um the front terrace.

And I think you didn't catch that as well.

I looked back at the old site plan, and they just kind of had it very generic as a landscape area, this whole entire thing next to the trolley building.

At the entrance.

Yeah, I wanted to talk to you briefly after if possible.

Sounds good.

Yep.

But that's um that's all I have.

I think I think it covers all of the areas.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

I think this was very helpful.

So thank you so much.

Uh look forward to getting that update on Monday with the goal of just getting on the next meeting, getting this processed once and for all for the HPC and um move forward.

Now, I think there are some minor things associated with the Maryland Historic Trust Section 106.

Um mandarant uh memorandum agreements that still need to be addressed.

Um but I think your priority immediate priorities is my understanding is to get the site plan pushing forward, but I guess we'll we'll get that at some point.

Yeah, that's the goal to architect.

Update the site plan as as quickly as possible and get that back in.

Okay.

And we are planning on starting the um archaeological phase three, uh, probably in the next three to four weeks.

So if you find any treasures.

I'm sorry.

Let me know if you find any treasures.

Oh yeah.

I've already seen it all the way down to the pits once, so I won't get excited until I see the pits again.

Uh yeah, yeah.

I would love to see that.

Oh my gosh, I would love to see plenty of pictures.

I w well uh we're we're interpreting the trip.

Those pits.

Um thank you so much.

This is very interesting.

Looks good.

Appreciate all your efforts.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Without objection, we are adjourned.