Good evening.

Welcome to the City of Frederick.

I don't know if that there's a lot of reverb there.

Yeah.

City of Frederick Historic Preservation Commission hearing and workshop.

Today's date is October 9th, 2025.

Before we get started, if anybody wants a copy of tonight's agenda, there's copies over on the side table by the door here.

And also, if anyone should happen to have uh issues with hearing, sometimes there's maybe some dead spots or some just can't hear too well.

Uh we can see Tansi here at the end of the dais here.

There are some listening devices that we can give to you to help uh if you haven't trouble hearing tonight's proceedings.

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

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

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

All cases were duly advertised in the Frederick News Post in accordance with Section 301 of the land management code.

For introductions tonight, my Commissioner Paul Fischer probably's proudly serving here tonight along with Commissioners Ann Hart, Jonathan Levins, and our newly appointed board member Jerry DeYoung.

From the city staff, we have Division Manager of Historic Preservation Planning, Christina Martin Koskey, Historic Preservation Planner, Sarah Hoffadz, and uh Assistant City Attorney Iris Arnon.

We also have with us uh an intern working with the planning department, Mr.

Andrew Depot.

Also administrative assistant Tansi Crate.

All applicants and other 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.

All right.

Do we have any announcements tonight?

Just one.

I just want to acknowledge uh this is Jerry DeYoung's first meeting tonight, and I believe our um uh director of planning is here, Gabrielle Collard to um present a acknowledgement of our appreciation.

Good evening, Gabrielle with the planning department.

I'm so happy to be here this evening to welcome our newest HPC member, Jerry DeYoung.

Thank you so much for being here and for volunteering in this very important capacity.

Uh this evening I do have a certificate of appreciation and want to present that to you on behalf of the mayor's office, and once again to share gratitude for the the meaningful contributions that all of our HPC members make on behalf of the planning department and staff who've been involved in this process for a long time.

Um, it is a really um a distinct honor and privilege to be able to support the HBC, the Planning Christian, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and all of the elected and appointed officials of the city in this capacity of providing technical and administrative assistance.

So, on behalf of our department and the mayor's office, welcome, congratulations, and thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Is that it for our announcements?

That is it for announcements.

Okay.

Moving on to approval of the minutes, commissioners any uh uh corrections or a motion.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm gonna move that we approve the both the hearing and workshop minutes from September 25th, 2025.

Now I'll second the uh all in favor of uh the motion to approve the mid minutes for the workshop and hearing for September 25th.

Raise your hand.

And the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Now on to the administrative report.

Yes, I want to enter the entire administrative approval report into the record and acknowledge that we um staff processed 23 applications administratively in the month of September.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now move on to the uh request for demolition review, HPC 25-511 DR.

And that's Ms.

Martin Koske.

Thank you.

A request for demolition review has been submitted for Section 423A, the land management code for a dwelling at 16 Klein Boulevard.

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

A property is eligible if it meets um if it's at least 50 years of age or older and retains historic integrity and meets at least one of the criteria outlined in the land management code.

The dwelling at 16 Klein Boulevard is part of the Westbrook subdivision.

It was platted in two parts.

The first in uh 1949 by Richard F.

Klein, and the second filed by Hamilton Holmes in the summer of 1957.

Um, in total, the plot is 45 and a half acres of land divided into 127 lots.

The neighborhood is comprised of detached single family dwellings, many of which were constructed in some variation of the ranch style between the night between 1950 and 1969.

Land records and aerial imaging suggests a 1960 construction date for the dwelling, and the area was documented by the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Forum and found not to be eligible for the National Register.

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

Research has not indicated that the building holds significance for an event or cultural group, nor was any information found to indicate that it was associated with lives of significant persons, and therefore staff recommends that the commission find that the building is not individually eligible for designation and that they do not pursue a designation application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for staff?

So anyone present that wishes to speak on this application tonight.

I'm here, but I don't need to speak.

Oh, okay.

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

Any comments, questions.

No questions.

And I think no comments.

I appreciate staff's um report.

And with that, I'm familiar with HPC 25-51 DR at 16 Klein Boulevard.

And given again staff's discovery or research.

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

I'll second that.

Okay, motion is made and seconded to not pursue an application for historic preservation overlay.

Um just add, you know, for the record, uh, along with the staff report that uh, you know, while this is a representative uh architecture of the time, it does feel like a high level of architectural or historic significance, and there's no evidence of significance for an event or a cultural group, nor an association with any uh persons associated of significant persons.

Commissioners okay.

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

And motion carries four to zero.

Moving on to the consent agenda.

Ms.

Hafidz.

Is there any comment or just review is to us it would be to you?

Yeah, okay.

I want to ask if there's anyone here tonight that would like to see this uh item, HBC 25-291 located at 104 West 4th Street, removed from the consent agenda and move to the regular cases to be heard.

Okay, commissioners.

Do we have a motion on the consent agenda?

I'll go ahead and move to approve the consent agenda uh including case HPC-25-291.

I'll second that all in favor, raise your hand.

Sir, I will abstain.

Motion carries three to zero with one abstention.

Uh Commissioner Hart.

Seeing the continuances on the agenda and move on to cases to be heard.

First case is HPC 25-21.

And Ms.

Havidet.

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

This application addresses corrective action to address work completed with our approval from the historic preservation commission.

Replacement of windows, front door, slash transom, railing and mailbox, removal of the storm door and shutters, installation of vents on west elevation and painting concrete front stoop.

This application was previously workshopped, so I will go ahead and move on to staff comments.

The applicant is proposing to rectify several areas of work that were completed without prior HPC approval.

The windows, the original windows to the property were one over one wooden double-hung windows as detailed in the window schedule, and nine window nine windows were replaced with vinyl one over one windows.

The applicant is proposing to replace all vinyl windows with gilled when double-hung non-clad wood windows.

Staff finds the replacement of all vinyl windows to be the most appropriate action, and the proposed product literature is consistent with the guidelines.

Shutters per the guidelines, vinyl shutters should not be installed as replaced as replacements and shutters should not be installed on the property if there are no historic documentation or evidence of its existence.

Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to remove the vinyl shutters on the property to be consistent with the guidelines and historic design of the building.

The front door was altered to a nine-pane solid wood door from its non-historic wooden door.

Per the guidelines, replacement doors must match the original door unless documentation for the original door is not available.

Then the door must be compatible with the period and style of the building.

The building sits among a row of comparable buildings with similar styles construction features.

The proposed door is constructed out of a wood material with nine panes of clear glass.

Surveying the neighborhood, front doors range from different pane and pain panel and pane arrangements with similar design to the proposed door.

Staff find the proposed nine-pane solid wood door is appropriate and it's consistent with the guidelines.

The historic design and material of the railing is unclear due to limited documentation and is not until the 2000 when metal railing is photographed on the property.

The applicant has altered the metal railing to pine wood porch railing.

Per the guidelines, replacement design should resemble historic porches that exist in the neighborhood in keeping with the style and period of the building.

Staff finds that the alteration to pine wood railing is consistent to the guidelines due to the resembles of the historic neighborhood in keeping with the style of the neighbor's porch railing system.

For painting masonry, concrete landing of the front porch was originally non-painted masonry area.

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

The front porch is constructed of concrete material and was not fully painted previously.

The applicant has made an effort to make the property be holistic with the surrounding neighboring properties, including the attached neighbor, which has a painted porch.

Staff find that the painting of the concrete porch to be sympathetic to the immediate area and does not physically impact historic masonry as the porch appears to have been modified in the later part of the 20th century.

Staff finds deviation may be appropriate in this case, as the painting of the non-original porch will not negatively impact the integrity of the streetscape or surrounding historic properties.

Nor is the alteration so significant that the building will be no longer be a contributing resource.

The following work is consistent with design guidelines, replacement of the mailbox, mailboxes may be a square with a black matte finish.

The replacement mailbox is consistent with the guidelines.

Replacement of the transom glass, which was previously plexiglass with a traditional clear glass, no change to the window frame.

The vents are located on the west elevation, and removal of the non-historic metal storm door at the front entry.

Staff recommends the commission to approve this application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions on the staff report?

Is the applicant or an agent for the application here tonight?

Step forward to the podium.

Introduce yourself, please.

Hi, I'm Rachel Motzka, the owner.

Did you have any questions or comments regarding the staff report?

Uh no, I think we talked it out in the workshop.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

No questions.

Perhaps just a comment.

I do appreciate your effort uh in aligning yourself and the property and trying to bring it back to some life.

So we do appreciate that.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

All right, if you want to have a seat momentarily.

Present here tonight that wishes to speak on this application.

All right, Commissioners back up with us.

Um, yeah, I appreciate the efforts to replace the windows back back to wood windows uh after our work shop uh at the last meeting or previously.

Um think you know, if this case had become before us in the regular order, we would not have approved uh the replacement of the windows uh pending you know they're uh in decent shape.

So um pleased to see that the applicant is uh willing to replace return all the windows to a wood window.

Any other comments, Commissioners?

I am prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-215 at 204 East Fifth Street, and I move that we approve the application.

I'll second that motion made and seconded to approve the application.

Any other comments all in favor of the motion, please raise your hands and motion carries four to zero.

Thanks.

Moving on to the next item of the agenda case HPC 25-241, located 106 3rd Street, and that's Ms.

Hoffinitz again.

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

This application is an amendment to HPC 2530 to include the following additional work.

Additional masonry repairs utilizing power tools for horizontal joints, converting east elevation window into door access for ADA lift and stairs, standing seam metal roof replacement with gutter replacement, scraping and repainting of wood windows and doors.

This application was previously workshopped, so I will move all along to staff comments.

The applicant is proposing to convert the east elevation four-pane window towards the rear of the building into an ADA accessible door with stairs and a lift.

The commission will have to determine if the installation of the stairs and lift and the conversion of the window into a doorway will significantly alter the historic fabric of the building.

Staff notes that the work is located towards the rear of the building and will have minimal visual impact from the public right-away.

Utilizing an existing wall, opening minimizes alterations to the wall while improving the accessibility.

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

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

The proposed stairs are to be constructed of steel with concrete footing.

From a site visit, the applicant indicated the steel will be painted to match the exterior of the building to minimize its appearance from the alleyway and neighboring properties.

The one east elevation four-pane one over one window is proposed to be converted into an entry.

The proposed door is to be constructed of wood.

The new proposed door will be a Bahogady raised panel six true divided light with tempered glass door.

The lintel above the remaining historic window will be salvaged in a new wood window lintel will be replaced, the one above the new ADA doorway.

The drawings do not indicate if the lintels will be separate as seen in the original window design.

The drawings will need to be updated to illustrate the separation between the lintels seen in the historic design.

Staff notes the steel internal lintel will be placed inside.

This item does not need to be reviewed by commission due to limited to exterior review only.

The existing paved sidewalk is proposed to be removed and replaced in kind with the expansion of the concrete to encompass the ADA uh lift and staircase and to the rear of the building.

The rear concrete sidewalk is a span from the ADA scare staircase and the rear door.

The sidewalk gate towards the front is supposed to be replaced.

However, no product image slash literature or sizing of the gate has been provided.

The rear door observed at staff site visit was a flush panel wooden door with areas of severe deterioration.

The applicant is proposing a four-panel wooden door.

Product literature for the door will need to be submitted for staff level review.

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

From staff site visit, the door appears to have some rot at the bottom.

The applicant is proposing to refer to a four-panel wooden door.

Product literature for the door will need to be submitted for staff for final review.

Lighting, the drawings indicate that new lighting is being proposed for above the ADA door.

No product literature has been provided for lighting fixtures.

Product literature will need to provided for staff level for review.

General comments.

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

Replacement of existing standing steam metal roof in time and replacement of rotten wooden trim.

Masonry pairs that utilize line-based mortar.

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

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

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

Staff recommends the commission approve this application with the following conditions.

That the new tempered glass must be clear without color.

That updated drawing show the historic separation between lintels to be submitted for staff level review and approval.

That product literature drawing or photograph with dimensions of proposed gate is submitted for staff level review and approval.

That product literature for a new door on the east and rear elevation is submitted for staff level review and approval.

And the product literature is submitted for proposed light fixture for staff level review and approval.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Okay, Commissioners, any questions on the staff report.

I guess just to clarify the proposed new opening and new door.

Correct.

Reuse in the window that was there before.

Okay.

I would state that this uh project has been previously workshot, so even though it's pretty extensive, we have uh reviewed it before, but Ms.

Diang, push your button on there.

Sorry, since I'm new that I have it.

This is my first.

Was um did they look at putting the lift inside at all?

I believe, and they may be able to speak more on this, but there's like constraints on the interior in terms of like a hallway, I think.

Um, but there's some some dimension constraints that they have on the interior of the church.

Yeah, I don't believe even the front entry uh has a a couple of steps there, so there's no easily accessible point existing on the building.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

The applicant would want to step forward and uh introduce yourself.

Yes, I'm Carol Pinnocks.

I'm the project manager for the church and I'm David Nail.

I'm the architect working on the design of this project.

Questions or comments on the staff report or no?

No, we don't.

Uh we have made uh submissions of the request that light uh the door pan uh east doors and uh the kitchen, the side uh east side door and the door uh on the e-grass.

And the light above the e-grass since uh before I think it was yesterday I made those submissions.

And uh let me see.

Was it oh the lift?

Uh yeah, they were abudding.

Now the design is I think is how many inches in between well we were holding the we were gonna retain the one existing window.

We were gonna retain the the south window and replace the window on the north side with the door and put the window in the door as opposed to making a custom door.

In order to hold the left and right flanking window jams, we were gonna diminish the pier between the windows.

But in order to do that, in order to maintain bearing for the two lintels, it means the two lentils were back to back.

They yes, one is existing and one is new, but they are back to back.

I mean it's only a six and a half inch wide, six and three-quarter inch wide pier between the two openings, the existing and the new opening.

So forgive my ignorance, but that six and three-quarter inches you're going to leave open.

You're gonna leave it as brick.

Yes.

Okay.

That's what we're trying to understand.

Is that and we need to see that on the drawing that that that small distance is going to be designated as a separation of those two lentils.

Okay.

And I would like to know any new submission that is to reflect the conditions from the the approval here tonight that needs to be submitted as a minor modification.

And I can send you a link to that so you can send upload that documentation, we get that all squared away.

Very good.

On that note, I guess my comment is more from a uh not so much structural, but just from a study that I mean it wouldn't look more natural if that wood lentil was bearing a little bit on the brick, even if it's you know not really a structural element versus stopping at the window jabs.

Well, yeah, is the way to have the the wood lentil even partially just bear on the brick just enough to give it that well the traditional look.

The current drawing that you have in front of you shows the existing lintel and the new lintel both having equal bearing and it puts them back to back.

Yeah.

I mean, there's there's essentially, you know, whether it's continuous or it's two separate pieces, there's gonna be a continuous steel lintel behind it that is in fact holding it all up.

Another option that I've explored with just ink on paper, is to the existing window opening on the north side, as opposed to biting into the space between the two windows is to move the whole doorway the other way and leave that pier between the two windows, leave it, I think it's 18 inches wide.

Then there'll be a huge gap between the two lintels, but we just have to take all the brick out on the north side of that door opening.

And I've I've also explored the inside because of where it sets the door, the the interior door between the sanctuary and that back hall, we've got to move it to the to the far side of its 18-inch thick wall and do some minor revisions inside.

But what it would do, it would leave this the the brick between the two existing windows would that we would leave that brick alone to do uh you do have room from the interior and from your accessibility to move that door north on the east side.

I did I did the my concern was because there's a chimney mass in that corner right inside.

I wanted to make sure we weren't gonna interfere with having to take out even more work.

Well, I think I would uh almost prefer that approach uh and keep that existing brick between the openings.

Uh commissioners, any comments?

I mean if you've I mean I literally have just sketches on paper.

I haven't put it in the computer yet, but I can show you my intention if you would like to see what that would look like right now.

I mean, I can but I haven't submitted I haven't submitted that to the whole committee.

I'm sure you put some effort into it, but I don't need to say it unless commissioners want to see what the look just so that space that brick in between the openings stays the same, you're just shifting it north.

Yeah.

And as we say that, just for my ignorance, and I'm looking on page 20.

Right, that's the picture that I'm looking at.

I want to be clear that that brick that I see represented there between the window and the door is gonna go all the way up to the lintel.

So now I will see that brick all the way up.

And this door is gonna slide to the right of what's on this picture.

Yes.

Okay.

Then I think I'm good with that.

Okay.

And thanks for the mahogany doors.

You're doing it the right way.

You got a I know you got a good company there to do it the right way, so any other comments, questions for the applicant.

All right, gentlemen, just want to have a seat temporarily.

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

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

Any uh additional discussion.

Just again uh comment to the applicant.

I appreciate the effort.

There's a lot of work on into this building, and I greatly value um that effort and dedication.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, certainly I would add to that, you know.

It's always uh somewhat of a challenge creating new openings and existing uh facades of historic buildings.

But in this case, I think it's uh acceptable and appropriate, certainly uh providing accessibility to uh these historic buildings not only help them remain viable uh and keeps their uh their purpose intact, uh but also provides uh the needed accessibility.

So and you know, being located towards the rear of the property is an added benefit that's you know uh very uh appropriately cited and um and and worthy of uh of the application.

Any other comments, commissioners I would uh note on any motions, you know.

Uh I see in the staff recommendation too about the having separation between the lentils.

Uh I'm not exactly sure how to word that, maybe just add a condition that the door is being moved uh northward enough to keep that existing um brick divide or between the openings or or something similar, but I don't want to put it words in anybody's mouth.

I was gonna say I think I'll give it a go.

Oh if you want to.

All right, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm familiar with the property at 106 East Third Street, and I'm familiar with HPC 25-241, and I recommend that we approve this with the following conditions.

The new tempered glass must be clear without color, that updated drawing showing the historic separation between the lentils be submitted for staff level review and approval showing the change discussed this evening, moving the door north enough to keep the existing brick pier in place.

That work?

All right.

That product literature drawing or photograph of the dimension of proposed gate is submitted for staff level review and approval.

That product literature for the new door on the east and rear elevation is submitted for staff level review and approval, and the product literature is submitted for the proposed light fixture for staff level review and approval.

And I will second all right.

Motion made and seconded to approve the application with conditions.

Any other comments.

All in favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

All right, next case is HPC 25-267 at 5 East Second Street.

Ms.

Hoffident.

Thank you.

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

This application as the this application concerns the proposal to utilize power tools for masonry work on the rear elevation.

For masonry, um if brick is to be removed so repairs can be made, it must be done carefully to in order to prevent breakage.

Cleaning mortar for bricks to be reused must be done to prevent gouging and breakage for repointing.

For staff comments, this application is limited to masonry work on the rear elevation of 5E 2nd Street.

The roar the roof work is for the circa 1897 garage slash shed, which is associated with another property and is being reviewed separately.

This application is proposing to deconstruct and rebuild a portion of the failing masonry wall on the rear elevation.

Staff notes that the prop the property has access limitations to the rear wall due to the property line abutting the building.

The application does not detail if any replacement brick will be needed.

If replacement brick is needed, it must follow the HBC guidelines of matching the material size, color, texture, and finish to the historic brick.

There are several methods of mortar brick removal.

Hand chisel, uh chisel hammer, centered cutting, and arbitect oscillating tool.

The applicant confirmed that power tools are the proposed method.

However, it's unclear if the applicant will be utilizing some or all methods listed.

Hand tools is the preferred and most appropriate method.

However, power tools may be approved on a case-by-case basis for horizontal joints, specifically in cases where the horizontal joints are wide.

Staff finds that power tools may be appropriate given the difficult location and the wide mortar joints for rehabilitation of the rear wall.

Staff recommends the commission to approve the application with the condition.

If replacement brick is needed, it must match the historic brick, material size, color, texture, and finish.

Power tools may be utilized on horizontal joints only.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

This is what we would want to use.

Typically, whenever it goes through inspections, if the brick does not appear to be matching the historic in the surrounding area or from the historic photographs, then they would be called out and have to re redo the work.

Okay.

So is that is it possible to require that as a condition to avoid redoing work or is that unnecessary?

I haven't had any conditions like that.

I don't know if you appreciate that.

See, there you go.

If if it's um a highly visible location, the commission will sometimes want to see that product literature or have staff review product literature to make sure, or a photograph to just make sure it's consistent.

I believe this work is on the rear.

Um, and I think as long as it's noted as part of you can include it as a link, which is as of the condition that the brick shall match the color, the the size, the texture.

Um that should be sufficient.

Perfect.

Understood.

Thank you.

Any other questions on the staff report, Commissioners?

All right, if the applicant would step forward.

And please introduce the question.

I'm here Brehm.

I own 5E 2nd Street.

Joining me is Logan Altricher from Durable Construction, who's the contractor.

Okay.

Questions, comments on the staff report.

I do not, Logan.

If a brick review is wanted, we're happy to submit product literature or samples.

Okay.

Any questions or comments for the applicants?

Commissioners.

Mine is purely out of curiosity.

I'm just trying to figure out how you're getting back there to get that work done.

I mean, is someone going to be hanging, you know, by their feet, or how is this going to occur?

So it makes it kind of hard since the reviews are in two separate kind of schedules, the second review, which kind of pertains to the garage.

We'll address more of how we're getting to it.

We're talking about roof access from the garage and potential kind of teardown rebuild from that side so that we can access this area where the water intrusion is eroded the wall of 5nd street.

That makes sense now.

That's what I was missing.

I was just seeing some kind of Spider-Man, you know, dangling kind of and so that's part of why we've proposed using all these different methods because we don't know what we're gonna get into once we get there.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

All right, gentlemen, uh have a seat.

Uh any other members of the public here tonight wish to speak on this application.

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

Um the issue of power tools, you know, always comes up and it's a great benefit when used properly and uh on horizontal joint uh several different tools that can be useful and aid in the process and uh my um I don't have issue with that.

I mean, particularly when there's a qualified mason, you know, doing doing the work.

It was a do-it-yourself project, you know, it might be a more of a concern, but I think if uh you know a qualified mason is is doing the work, they've they have the experience and the knowledge to you know to not mess it up.

So any other comments.

I think again, I just appreciate the the level of effort.

It looks like there's um some substantial damage there.

So I really appreciate the effort of solving that before the whole building is destroyed.

Anybody who's doing the motion this time.

Hang on a second, where'd it go?

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

I'm familiar with the property at 5E 2nd Street, and I'm familiar with HPC 25-267.

I recommend that we approve this with the following conditions.

If replacement brick is needed, it must match the historic brick material size, color, texture, and finish, and power tools may be utilized on horizontal joints, horizontal joints only a second the motion.

Motion is made and seconded to approve the application with conditions.

Any other comments?

All in favor raise your hand.

And motion carries six or four to zero.

Thank you.

Next case, HPC 25-282 at 20 South Carol Street.

Ms.

Martin Koski.

Thank you.

I want to enter the entire report into the record.

I also want to acknowledge that this project was uh reviewed extensively at workshop at the September 25th meeting.

And because it was reviewed at previously, I am going to just briefly go over the project work and then just move directly into staff comments.

So the applicant is seeking approval for the following work, and this is an amendment application to a previously approved uh site plan as part of their level two plan.

Um that includes a site retaining wall and storm water management facility, a retaining wall, a fence at a historic barn area of the fence at the east-west property line, and utilities including a junction box and transformer with landing.

Moving directly to staff comments.

Um area one was amended to reflect to the removal of the transformer as discussed at the workshop.

Product literature was submitted as requested for the railing in area two.

The applicant incorporated the requested notes concerning the historic barn, foundation, and retaining wall in a detailed drawing on A6.

Staff seeks these clarifications on the overall site plan, which are still missing.

And on the overall site plan, area three does not incorporate the historic barn.

However, the structure was not part of the original two approval and incorporating the historic structure and the area into the hotel site is a significant significant alteration that needs to be clearly acknowledged.

There's no changes into area four.

Um on A7.

Two transformers have been located towards the front of the property close to Patrick Street.

The parking area has been uh removed and replaced with sod and landscaping, and although additional landscaping was added to the northern property line along pasture street, no screening was incorporated along the drive to obscure the view of the transformers and junction compartment.

Staff recommends that these features have some sort of screening screening to the west along the drive.

The changes document on A7 should be reflected in area five on the overall site plan.

With all of this in mind, staff rec recommends approval of the revised two site plan and associated updates with the following condition.

That clarifying notes addressing the historic barn, the foundation and retaining wall shown on A6 is incorporated into the overall site plan, that the revised site plan should be uh should expand to area three to acknowledge the incorporation of the barn into the site.

This document shall be submitted to staff for final review and approval.

Also that the clear that clarifying notes addressing the transformer and landscaping on A7 are incorporated into the overall site plan and area five.

Also that additional screening is incorporated into area five immediately west of the transformers and junction box along the drive.

The site plan should be updated to reflect the screening technique along with any related product literature.

All updated documentation should be submitted to staff for final review and approval.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

I would just ask Miss Martin Koski with regard to I guess better delineating the barn.

Just for illustration purposes, and there's a lot of lines and shading in the sketch as it is now.

And maybe the applicant can give some suggestions on how better to uh delineate that structure.

But that's that's your main focus is better delineate that barn there, just so everybody knows it's there's something there, and it's not just uh kind of a faded background or overlay.

Understood.

When I am looking at the site plan and I am comparing it to other structures, I do see your comments.

Um, and uh I do want to see I think it's it's area three expanded to just clear clearly acknowledge the incorporation of that that frame barn.

Okay, and um if you have any direct knowledge on this may again review it with the applicant um on the existing building 206 or the banan restaurant is currently under renovations.

Uh, an electrical box mounted on the wall there with three very tall masks going up for overhead.

Do you know is that power or I don't know if you know if that power is coming in to serve the site or if the power for the hotel and the trolley building are being coming in from the street underground?

Separate from 206, I guess.

Is 206 connected power wise or is it an independent?

And are you talking about the two boxes in area five, one serving the old trolley building and one serving the hotel?

Well, more concerned about the the box that's on the 206 East Patrick.

And there's three three large service masks going up, extending above the roof line.

I don't know if that's just for that building or if that service and I'll ask the applicant for if they have additional clarification.

But is that on A2 Picture C on A2?

Is that what you're referring to?

I think it's the one on page 15.

I'm looking on page 11.

Yeah, I mean it's partially hidden by the uh the sign there.

But I'll I'll ask about it with the applicant.

Just trying to determine if the power is coming in from the street overhead serving you know 206 plus the hotel plus the trolley building, or if the hotel and the trolley building have their own independent, and if they're I would presume if that's the case that power is coming under ground to those transformers.

Any other questions for the staff report, commissioners?

The applicant is present.

I'm gonna come forward to the podium and introduce yourself and your association on the project.

Uh Kevin Roycroft, I'm the architect um with Flat Plus Architecture.

I guess before we get into any specifics, do you have any general comments on the staff report or other additional additions?

Um I just wanted to talk about the um the screening of the transformer.

I think uh our preference would not would be to not screen it and kind of rely on the landscaping greenery.

Um we did shift it down.

You can see that on A7 and and added a tree and uh an additional landscaping.

The um the front of the transformer is pretty close to the ro to the drive.

So if we did add a fence, it would be just about right on the curb line.

So it would kind of create a barrier, but um I'm we're welcome to discuss that see your opinion there.

So could I just ask this though uh am I understanding that you want to use the landscaping as screening?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Well, uh w we'd like to grow up the landscaping in the front more, so it's a little taller.

Um and also what we talked about the workshop is once you as soon as you get past the sidewalk, you get to a six percent slope.

So the the transformers are actually sitting progressively lower as it goes down the driveway.

Right.

More landscaping, more um what do I want to say, taller, more obvious landscaping being used to detract from it or to screen.

Yeah, that that would be the intention.

We can't really put too much in front of it just because of it.

They need to access the power company needs to access the front.

So yeah, that was my comment.

I mean, you're gonna need access uh presume on that driveway side.

Um if you know well, uh you need at least three feet if if not more, and seem to be barely three or four feet remaining there.

So I would think any kind of screen or a wall or even a removable fence or guardrail would be uh I mean that probably would be the only thing with something that could be removed to access those transformers.

If anything was there, I mean I think it's it's very tight.

Um I do appreciate the the moving them a little bit further south, and I think yeah, you can tell the the grade drop there would be beneficial as well as the additional landscaping uh towards the street and incorporating uh an extra tree there for some height and screening.

Uh I think is beneficial.

Um of course the bollards there for protection, you pardon me.

Uh I think you know sometimes the more you you try to hide something, the more you call attention to it.

So I think uh and in some respects uh raising the question about the box and the electrical service on the adjacent uh building at 206.

Are you guys connected with that in any way as far as electrical service to this property?

Uh no, so that's we're not associated with that project.

I I can't say for sure, but we believe that 216 is being fed by the pole, so that's coming from the pole and that goes down the side of the building to those boxes.

And I believe that's probably remaining on their property.

The two transformers are servicing, one is servicing the hotel and one is servicing the trolley building.

And those are coming off the pole.

They come down the pole at Owen Patrick, go underground to that junction box and then to the transformers.

So all of that is underground.

Yeah, my correction, I was referring to 206.

It does 216 East East Patrick Street there.

And um the first, I guess the junction compartment.

Uh I mean, do you know how big that is or how much access do you need for that?

It's 30 inches.

It's 30 inches tall, and I think it's it's about 36 inches wide.

Um so all of those you need 10 feet in um Potomac Edison needs 10 feet of clearance in front.

So part of that is the drive aisle.

And like you said, the transformers are about four and a half feet back from the curb.

And then they're also set back from 216.

There's a distance we have to set back from that building as well.

Right, right.

And I guess from my perspective, you know, the 216 with their large box there and the three masts going up extending well beyond the roof line.

Uh I don't know if they'll paint those conduits or not to match the brick.

Uh that's you know, not uh a matter for tonight, but that's more obtrusive to me than these transformers would be.

And the parking spaces, the asphalt and the cars and the limited landscaping that would have been provided with the parking would be more objectionable to me than you know, these smaller transformers that have been shifted to the extent that you can and some additional landscaping.

And uh, I think overall, you know, the space between 216 and the hotel in the rear and and the trolley building to to the west, you know, right now, or at least formerly it was all just parking space, and now you're creating more of a uh a green space in between this void along the street.

Uh and plus, you know, just the access that's required for these transformers.

I I don't find it so objectionable.

Maybe not ideal, but I think you've done, you know, other than you know, moving them somewhere else on site, and this is a very tight site.

I can appreciate that.

Uh uh, I think you've done a pretty good job in that respect.

I don't know, Commissioner, do you have any other thoughts on that?

Perhaps not on that same topic.

I mean, I do appreciate your comment that adding landscaping is the intention to the lack of a better word, screen or distract from what may be visible.

Because I think the transformers will still be visible if you're walking towards East Street, but again, it's on foot, and I know most people don't pay a whole lot of attention on foot.

I think I want to go back though to one of the comments from staff because I think I've got myself confused.

Clarifying notes addressing the historic barn.

And I'm working from memory here.

Uh I just don't feel like the barn was part of this.

I felt like it was a separate entity.

Is that correct?

It was, but now it's gonna be incorporated into the plan, and that's why it needs to be kind of highlighted a little bit more that it's part of this site.

Okay, because I did not understand that.

So then I'm with you a hundred percent.

It the drawing does not read as if that is part of this effort.

Yeah, I my read of that is we're we're gonna increase the red line just to go around the barn on the site plan, right?

That's and then that there's a couple added notes that's on A6, I believe, onto the plan.

Right.

Well, yeah, and we're gonna make sure that bowler, the civil engineer, when they resubmit for the permit, they're gonna their site plan will have notes and and better show the barn as part of the it was a little ambiguous on their drawings.

That what you're seeing is really the civil engineers' drawings, so they're gonna update those in that resubmission.

Okay.

And the the line around the barn, noting its footprint will be a little bit more pronounced.

Yes, we've we've relayed that to them.

Okay, thank you.

I I will I don't know if that's clearly articulated in the staff recommendation, so that might be added language.

Any other comments for the applicant, commissioners.

Anything regarding the the other areas one, two, and four comfortable with re reviewed previously.

Mr.

Roycroft, you want to have a seat.

Anybody else in attendance tonight would wish to speak on this application?

Okay, commissioners, it's uh back with us.

I think again, just to restate my position, um regarding area five and the transformers.

We we didn't discuss so much area six, which is a plaza outdoor dining and additional landscaping, uh shifting that uh area one uh retaining wall and stormwater management fund allowed for some additional landscaping uh to the north of of that structure and uh eliminating the parking that was previously on along this area in area five adjacent to the building with uh probably minimal to no landscaping.

And again, I think the the junction box and the three mast on that two sixteen extend far above the roof uh is a lot more objectionable than these transformers would be, and I think the applicant has made a good effort to uh move the transformers a little bit further south, uh add some additional landscaping and including a tree on the uh the Patrick Street along the sidewalk and um of course access.

I think access is paramount that would something we have to consider as well.

And anything we could could do to you know to enhance the the barn to make it more uh more obviously uh part of this uh the work that's going on here would be beneficial.

Any other comments, questions?

I don't disagree about the unattractiveness of 216, but I don't think it affects this application in any way.

So I really don't want to focus on that.

I mean I think that's um a conversation with that applicant.

I agree again agree that uh I think the landscaping is a plus, and I think it can be considered um screening if you will in its own right.

And any time we're adding landscaping is in my mind a plus.

And then we've addressed the comment um about area five, and and thank you for that clarity because I didn't realize the barn had been added to this particular application.

So I think with what we've discussed in workshop and what we have here this evening that I'm comfortable with the application.

And just the overall feel, uh if you will, of this void along the street, uh being more you know, pedestrian um patio terraces, more landscaping, less parking, uh I think enhances that area between the buildings.

Any other comments back to the staff recommendations, you know, the one clarifying notes uh better delineating the the barn as well as you know uh possible uh better screening of the uh transformers.

I think it would be difficult to put sufficient screening there and still make the transformers accessible, which is paramount.

And I think the efforts to uh to move the transformers south uh at a little bit lower elevation and increase the landscaping along the street, as well as some of these other changes or I guess make that point moot for me, but that's may or may not be others concerned.

All right.

Mr.

Chairman, I am familiar with the property at 20 South Carroll Street, HPC 25-282.

And I recommend we approve this application with the following conditions.

Clarifying notes addressing the historic barn foundation and retaining walls shown on A6 are incorporated to the overall site plan.

The revised site plan should expand area three to acknowledge the incorporation of the barn into the site.

The document needs to be submitted to staff for final review and approval.

Also that clarifying notes addressing the transformers and landscaping on A7 are incorporated to the overall sand plate site plan in area five.

Also the additional screening, i.e., landscaping is incorporated into area five immediately to the west of the transformer and junction box along the drive.

The site plan should be updated to reflect the screening technique along with any related product literature.

All updated documentation should be submitted to staff for final review and approval.

Did and this is a question for clarity.

Did you want more pronounced footprint of the barn?

Yes, and the additional condition of a more pronounced footprint of the barn on the drawings.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And I will second okay.

Motion made and seconded to approve the application with conditions.

I have to say uh I totally disagree with the uh the requirement to add additional uh screening on the west side transformers.

There's just not enough room there to adequately landscape or put a screen on uh along the driveway.

And I think there's a sufficient landscaping in this area, area five and throughout the central area.

Uh and the movement of the transformers down the slope a little bit and additional landscaping along the street.

Uh you know, I think is about the best we can do, and I'm not sure unless commissioners have any ideal solutions of how to better screen this.

Uh I think it's uh a little bit of a uh an onus on on the applicant to try to come up with something satisfactory that is not also just as objectionable.

So let me just be clear.

Because I asked this question in the beginning that the added landscape would serve as the screening.

So I don't know that we're looking for any other screening material.

We were looking to agree to this additional landscaping to serve as screening.

That was my intent.

I can restate the entire thing if we if if that would make it clearer and easier for everybody.

And that's what I was doing.

Yeah, I'm I I agree with both of you.

And let me see if I understand what's going on.

Okay.

Okay.

Is the motion to incorporate additional landscaping on the west side to address staff comments?

Or is the statement that what they already added is sufficient?

I understood the applicant to say that they have added more.

And whether that was in a document you have or do not have, I don't know.

But I I I believe we can have the applicant come up to clarify.

They added landscaping since workshop.

Yes, that's what I understand.

Yeah, that was that's what I understood as well.

And then uh when I am looking at that plan, it looks like it to be more to the front, and it looks lovely.

So I want to acknowledge that.

But there wasn't any on the west.

And so my comment was just to address perhaps landscaping a little bit more on the west along the drive.

And or additional screening.

Or other sort of screening.

It could be potted plants if if we're looking for movability.

Yes.

Well, you might need to.

If it's not red, you might have to push a button.

The button.

Where's the button?

Oh, it's one.

Okay.

Um I'm sorry, I uh I might have uh been confusing.

I I we added the additional landscape, like Christina said, on the north side.

And so what I was alluding to that we would grow that taller there.

Like I have a like a taller sort of planting there.

Um Potomac Edison, you know, you're not allowed to you can't plant anything within the front access portion of the transformer, you know, because if they have to come out for emergency, they're gonna just rip it all out.

So they have to keep the 10-foot clear without any landscaping.

It's a power thing.

So I was talking about the the landscaping along Patrick being a little taller, so that that helps the mask that that area.

And I appreciate that clarity.

And I think my misunderstanding then for staff is that I thought that's the area we were speaking of, and I would just have to say that if Potomac Edison has said no go.

This is new information for me.

Okay.

Yeah, that's okay.

The typical that's the uh the power company requirements of of offsets around probably a sore subject, but I can't believe in 2025 that they're not bearing in these transformers.

I I'm still flabbergasted by that.

I I have no power over that or control, but for the record, that's insane.

I we tried.

We tried very hard, but the Potomac Edison does not do it.

Yes, crazy.

We tried.

All right.

So in order we need to come up with some wording to because I I and exactly I I agree with you, Paul, and I in it.

That's why my intent was to I was trying to state what the applicant had stated based on our conversation.

So let me figure this out.

Okay.

Well, let me just add uh long distance knowledge of Robert's rules.

I don't know that we can amend the application to remove that section if that is your intent.

Since it would kind of be um non-germane to the original motion.

We would be in effect be changing the motion.

So let me withdraw my motion.

I think the Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, I withdraw my motion.

Your withdrawal is second.

I will withdraw my second.

Okay.

Well, okay, yeah.

Go ahead and make a motion.

All right, Mr.

Chairman.

I move.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm familiar with the property at 20 South Carroll Street, HBC 25-282, and I move that we approve that we approve this application with the following conditions.

That clarifying notes addressing the historic barn foundation and retaining wall shown on A6 are incorporated into the overall site plan.

The revised site plan should expand Area 3 to acknowledge the incorporation of the barn into the site.

Also, I would like to uh I move that as a condition, sorry.

Condition that the barn footprint be more pronounced in the drawings.

This document shall be submitted to staff for final review and approval.

I'll second that motion.

Commissioners, any additional comments or on the motion.

Oh one last comment.

Could we would you consider adding a condition that the clarifying notes addressing the transformers and landscaping on A7 are incorporated into the overall slate plan, meaning the ones that are in the application, but on a supplemental document?

Not on the slate planning itself.

Yeah, yes, I would consider that.

Let me just clarify.

Talk about clarifying notes.

If you look at A7, yeah.

You can see the uh transition of the landscape plan, right?

Between the the second middle drawing and the third drawing to the right.

I would just would like that third drawing and that landscape plan that's shown there to be incorporated into the slate plan.

So you say you're saying the area five enlarged on page A7.

The 929 2025, correct?

The third one.

Okay.

Yes.

Do I need to start over?

Can I add this condition?

If that's okay with you.

Condition?

Yeah.

With one further condition added to my motion, Mr.

Chairman, that the proposed site plan 929-2025, Area 5 enlarged on page A7 be incorporated into the site plan.

And do you second the revision?

I second the revision.

All right.

Motion is made and seconded to approve the application with conditions.

Any further discussion?

All in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, gentlemen, for bearing with us.

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

This application concerns replacing the existing slate roof on the main building with asphalt shingles.

Slate roofs often can be repaired, and this treatment should be pursued using a slate that matches the existing whenever possible before total replacement is considered.

Slate roofs that are beyond repair can be replaced in kind, or the commission may consider the use of a synthetic slate on a case-by-case basis.

When deteriorated damage or missing materials of a historic building require repair placement, it is almost always best practice to use historic materials.

If the commission determines the use of substitute materials is appropriate, there may their use may be limited to upper stories or portions of a structure not readily visible from a public right-of-year.

The use of synthetic slate material may be appropriate with certain conditions.

For staff comments, this application concerns the proposed replacement of slate tiles capping the primary roof structure, including the side walls of two roof dormers with a cedared highland asphalt shingle with a slate profile.

The roof currently exhibits slate with a common box pattern with no unique design or lettering.

The design guidelines state that if a slate roof is beyond repair and needs to be replaced, then it must be replaced in kind.

Staff finds an ink kind replacement of the slate roof is the most appropriate approach and is consistent with the design guidelines.

On a case-by-case basis, the commission may approve a synthetic slate roof material.

Staff is supportive of a synthetic slate roof material if the replacement matches the size, color, texture, finish, shape, and pattern of the current tiles.

Since the existing color and patterning are relatively standard, a matching synthetic slate product is likely available.

The scope of work also calls for optional chimney caps, but no lit product literature was provided.

If the applicant wishes to move forward with this work, a minor modification form will with product literature will be required.

Staff recommends that the commission approve replacing the existing slate tile roof with the condition that a slate tile or a synthetic slate roof material is used.

The new tiles must match the historic roof tiles in terms of size, color, texture, finish, and shape.

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

The reposed installation of chimney caps requires a minor modification form with product literature to be reviewed by staff before issuance of a permit.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Or is there slate on the entire roof?

But we can better determine from the applicant, but I guess if we're uh shingles on the rear.

Yeah.

So I mean, uh if we're saying we need to either retain or replace with new or slate.

Or a synthetic slate.

It would be for we would be looking for the whole roof front and back or just on the part that they're replacing.

Part of the replacement is the slate.

And maybe get clarification.

Uh well, it would seem if we approve the synthetic or uh shingles.

Uh, that's the entire roof would be in incorporated.

Any other questions on staff report, Commissioners?

All right.

If the applicant would come forward.

And I just want to double check if you guys were sworn in whenever I think you stepped out for a moment.

We were you can step forward to the microphone and just uh let me swear you in quickly.

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

So answer I do.

I do.

I do.

Make sure microphones on just to introduce yourself and your association on the application.

PJ with PJ's roofing.

Do you want to introduce yourself?

Mary K.

Crumb owner.

So just to clarify the front of the roof, I know it was in question.

The front of the roof currently is slate.

The rear of the roof is an asphalt three-tab shingle.

And you're proposing to replace the entire roof with the certainty highland slate shingle.

Okay.

This is a tile look shingle.

Is that what I understand?

Yes, it has a slate look.

It's an asphalt shingle with a slate look.

Thank you.

I would regret there aren't any photographs of the existing close-up condition of the existing roof.

From my limited vantage point, uh looks in pretty good condition, but uh do you have any other things?

I have some pictures here if you would like.

Yeah, in the conditions of the existing roof.

Are the uh slate tiles repairable as they stand?

I couldn't hear you.

That are the tiles repairable as they stand?

It's really beyond repair.

All of it.

The entire roof is being a good idea.

The slate on the front is beyond repair.

The shingles on the back are at the end of their life.

And there's a metal roof on the back, but that we're not doing anything to.

That's still in good condition.

And I would like and I would like to make a a comment that the use would be appropriate for the back, just not the front.

The shingles are applied to the back as well.

So your recommendation is uh real slate or a synthetic slate on the front, and the um composite materials or the asphalt slate on the rear.

Correct.

The the guidelines uh as part of the 2019 update does allow asphalt to be to be replaced with asphalt.

And if there's documentation that was just submitted to show that it is emptied asphalt, I think that's a fine proposal.

And so um maybe the conversation could just shift more to what the what the plan should be for the front.

Um the guidelines do say slate should be replaced with slate.

Um so slate's always a great option, always consistent with the guidelines.

Um the other option is a faux slate, and in this case, because it's the hole of the the front, and what's there now is not as particularly unique pattern.

I think it would be easy to replicate that with the faux slate, that that might be another option.

Do you have any comments about you know mixing real slate on the front and the you know the shingle asphalt shingles at the back or a faux slate on the entire roof, or you really want the asphalt on the whole roof?

So the whole project was sort of uh came upon abruptly.

There it was a commercial building, they're switching it to a residential uh insurance policy.

Uh insurance wants them to change the roof.

They're have other costs to turning the property into a residential property as well, so that's a lot of our issue.

Um and wanting the approval for the asphalt shingles because we all know it's quite a bit cheaper uh than the uh traditional slate and the synthetic slate as well.

Insurance company doesn't like real slate.

The insurance companies don't like many roofs on the unless they're pretty more pretty new anymore.

Yeah.

And unfortunately, this commission can't take cost in consideration.

Um, but there is a tax credit program both with the city and uh the state and the county that can really help alleviate a good chunk of the cost of this roof project, no matter what what's approved and it would be eligible.

So keep that those in mind.

So cost isn't a doubling the cost is not a concern or an issue.

No, the commission must base their review on the the design guidelines.

And what about the fact that that's the fourth floor, the fourth level, that you can't really see it from the street at all?

They're they're gonna base it on off of the guidelines, but do encourage you to to uh review the tax credits, which can cover up to 70 percent.

Is there any chance you can just do the dormers with the slate that's visible or that doesn't matter?

That was one of my first thoughts, but I would offer to you that you might be able to tell the difference.

I will have to say that these shingled tiles, what whatever we're calling them, they do not appear real.

I mean, as soon as you look at the picture, you can tell immediately that they're shingle and almost like a stamped um product.

Okay, I understand.

Can I ask a question?

Go ahead.

What um to the the contractor?

I mean, there are a lot of the tiles looked in pretty good condition.

Some of the you know peak tiles or you know, challenged.

It looks like maybe they've been reused a little bit, but really are they in pretty good shape?

The slate?

I mean, some of the slate, yeah, on the roof is in decent shape, but a lot of it's in disrepair and um but quite a bit could be reused with the slate that's on there.

Yeah, I mean you could salvage some of them, absolutely.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Have to say the photos though, do it appears that a majority of them could be salvaged, and then if you can't repair the ones that are there, they could be replaced with other slate tiles.

I have a concern about the insurance company at this point, but you know, hopefully they just need to know that I have to have an inspection, it all has to be not leaking, you know, and all that, make sure that I'm pretty sure they're gonna be able to do that.

I mean, I'm hoping we can hear you, but whatever product is going to be installed can be guaranteed that there wouldn't be leaks, is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So if you were trying to reuse some or most of what was there.

We're gonna start spending more money than it would then it we're gonna spend more money than it would to buy all new slate and put a new slate roof on by then.

I was gonna say you'd probably want to take it all off and then reuse which could, but you're saying that's then it looks like patchwork, you know, you're better off redoing it all if we're gonna do that.

Well, I mean, even though it's a uh a tall high roof, it is on a very prominent building, uh existing material fabric and contributes to all the the historic fabric of the building and the area.

Um it was on the rear of the building, it might have a little bit more leniency, but uh that's a difficult one or something that's on a property.

If it turns out on the removal of the slate that there's not enough to save, would you consider the synthetic slate option?

That is an option.

Well, yeah, I mean, I guess if you're looking at replacing option either the whole roof with uh genuine slate or you know a potential there would be uh probably a deviation to uh go for a synthetic slate since we can see that there already is slate there.

That's what we're looking and expecting is the slate to be replaced or repaired.

It it sounds like the you know the price is a challenge, but grants are available, and so if the the grants help, you know, offset some of the cost of the slate with the um synthetic tile, would you be you know you'd be uh the cost is is the bottom line?

Yeah, they're gonna touch with the HPT.

Yeah, they have their own process that I'm learning about, right?

They might not even accept whatever we've you all decide tonight.

So it's remains to be seen.

How much can be recaptured at a later date?

And so then can you explain a little bit about the insurance?

Why the insurance company would not accept the insurance?

Insurance won't if the if the roof is any part of the roof is less than 20 years old, they they won't consider you.

If it's more than 20 years old there.

For clarification, they will accept the slate roof.

It's not the if it's c if you put a new slate roof on it.

Oh yes, if it's a new slate roof, absolutely.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

But if I'm correct though, the one of the recommendations on your report was that synthetic slate would be acceptable.

Yes.

Right.

And that's up to the commission on that case by case basis.

Well that's the shingles and PJ, if you replaced genuine slate, uh synthetic slate or asphalt shingles.

You come in with a new underlayment and uh the entire new roof system.

Yes, sir.

Even with the general slate.

With any kind of roof we would put on, we would get the uh drip edges underlayments, the whole system would be completely new.

It's compromised the integrity.

It's not holding.

So there could be more there when you get into it, I guess.

I don't think I understood the last comment because I think what you just said, sir, is that you would be replacing all of that.

The underlayment, you would be ensuring that it's sealed and safe and not gonna leak.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you.

And the neighbor's roof is conjoined on the at the roof line, and they have the slate or some other material in the adjacent neighbor.

Yeah, with the neighbors, I think that's what you're referring to, what we've done in the past in that case, and you guys have approved that.

I'm gonna make a little example where we divide the two roofs with the piece of flashing.

So we have the neighbor's house, our house, and we have a piece of flashing that goes under each roof and stands up in the middle to divide uh both properties.

We've done that before multiple times downtown.

And the front of the neighboring roof is also slate.

Do we understand?

Uh yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Would your preference be for a faux slate over a true slate?

It all comes down to price, so it would be the faux slate if the uh shingle we proposed is not accepted.

Okay.

Comments about the faux slate for consideration.

Um when we looked at this building, it did look like it was a pretty standard slate roof in terms of its color and size.

There's no specific patterning.

And I think because of that, I think it's going to be fairly easy to replicate either with a true slate or with a faux slate product.

I think we have approved something similar before.

Yeah, I I think your question was we have approved faux slate before.

We have uh things that have popped up in conversation with past applications, is concerns if if the faux slate is um is right up against true slate, like on dormers.

Um that has been a consideration.

Um the patterning has been also a point of conversation of how well it could actually replicate the patterning.

Um I hope that is is helpful in your decision making process.

So if they're doing the whole, I mean the heat restart over.

He's putting flashing between the two.

So if there is a real slate roof on one side, that would eliminate the issue there.

And if he's doing the whole roof in faux slate, it wouldn't be a pattern or a color mismatch.

They might between the two buildings there would, but not on the proposed project here.

In the the and I'm sorry to keep talking.

So this building is attached to a building that has true slate, is that yes, it's a shared shared roof line.

Yeah.

So in the path.

Oh, I apologize.

Go ahead.

That was me.

I'm sorry.

I was trying to just note that it's only the front of even the neighboring building.

Or the neighboring half of the building that is slate.

Thank you.

And I'm just gonna say for myself, I personally do not like food.

I just don't that's just me.

It feels plastic.

That's just the same.

I've been in here multiple times before and you've said the same thing.

I still feel the same way.

That has not changed.

I completely remember we've dealt with this, and in the past also we've uh uh about matching the neighbor's pattern.

Exactly.

Uh we've had this conversation in here multiple times with Christina and then Lisa in the past as well, uh, where we just match the exposure so it lines up with the neighboring roof, so it sort of blends in a little bit.

Yeah, I just again I the last time we talked about it, it was a small area, so we kind of gave in because it was just such a small area.

And I don't disagree with you, ma'am, that it's so high up.

I walk past this property almost every day.

So I'm usually not seeing it at that height.

Got that.

However, I have to say that the faux slate is better than this slate shingle stuff.

That to me is just not even close.

It's it's not even a a close comparison.

So for what it's worth, that's my thought.

What's the roof material on the dormer?

The dorm or roof?

Slate.

And the side walls.

Yes, sir.

And I guess you'd want to replace at least the roof portion is the sidewalls.

We're gonna be replacing all of it to flash in the dormer properly.

Okay.

Sorry for the delay.

This is I mean given it some careful thought.

I mean, no problem I would agree with Commissioner Hart, I would be more amenable to a synthetic slate versus the asphalt shingles.

They even though it's they try to mimic slate, they're they're just flat in appearance.

And perhaps because of the height of the roof, uh and you know uh a flashing dividing the the neighbor's roof.

Uh I don't think you really even see the the gable portion of the roof as far as the slate is concerned, but um if you did do a synthetic slate, would you still do the shingles on the rear or yes, yes, we would want to do shingles on the rear.

You could go with just a more regular shingle there.

If you're not if we're doing two different materials.

Yeah, I mean, chances are then we would just do the normal architectural shingle in the back.

Yeah, the drumers are probably the only thing you can see at a distance.

I mean, if you're walking down court street at a distance, you can see them barely, but it'd be a minimal to the amenable to the uh synthetic slate in this situation, absolutely.

Any other questions for the applicant, commissioners?

Are you guys familiar with the tax credit process?

She's already looked into that.

Okay.

Yep, and in the process of that.

Okay.

Great.

Christina, would that tax credit apply even if they're changing the material from real slate to a synthetic?

If they're replacing a roof.

If the commission approves it, it's eligible for the tax credit program and in terms of rehabilitation work.

Now, if it was a an HVAC unit, yes, that requires HPC approval and wouldn't necessarily count for the tax credit.

But this roof project, even if there was a deviation or you know, a case-by-case basis as outlined in this case, if the commission approves it, it's eligible.

For us and for the county, I can speak to both.

That includes the credit from the county as well.

Correct.

So ours is 25%.

It caps at 7500 though per year, and um the county is also 25%, but no cap.

Yeah, so it's uh very simple process and very beneficial.

It helps a lot.

So any other question for that?

Okay.

Do you guys want to have a seat momentarily?

Does anybody else wish to speak on this application?

All right, commissioners, that's back with us.

Um, good thorough discussion.

Um I think you know appreciate the additional evidence photographs submitted and put in part of the record, I'm presume it's going to be.

Uh if not, so ordered.

And uh, there is I think sufficient deterioration on the existing slate roof.

Uh and I think you know, because of one the height of the roof, uh, and we have approved the synthetic slate before.

Um I'd be amenable to use it in this case on the uh street or western portion of the roof, including the dormer, and you know, go in with a a more architectural style shingle on the back to replace the existing asphalt shingles there.

So if you're going to be proposing an alteration to the condition for like architectural shingles on the rear, just make sure you note that whenever you make your call.

With product literature for staff.

So let me just ask us with that comment.

Um perhaps we could widen it.

Now let me just stay up that.

All right, I'm gonna be okay.

Thank you.

Right.

So like after this hearing, whenever most likely you can probably like combine the two when you come for the staff level review for the slate and that architectural shingles, if that's what the commission is proposing, um, you can come along with the product ledger for the chimney caps.

Oh, I think it wasn't that again.

Mr.

Chairman, I am familiar with the property at 114 North Court Street, HPC 25-293.

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

Okay, hang on, where'd it go?

Uh the condition of replacing the existing slate roof tile with the with a slate tile or a synthetic slate.

Let me start over again.

All right, with the following conditions.

For the front of the roof, we approve replacing the existing slate tile roof with the condition that either a slate tile or a synthetic slate tile is used.

Those new tiles must match the historic roof tiles in terms of size, color, texture, finish, and shape.

The rear elevation of the property can use architectural shingles.

Both the front and the rear, slate tile, synthetic slate, tile, or arc and architectural shingles.

And rear asphalt shingle roof with conditions.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thanks.

Okay, it's uh seven fifty seven.

We'll reconvene for the workshop at eight tenure.

Since I can't reach one, um applicants for the first workshop.

Preservation commission workshop.

Item number ten on the agenda, case HPC twenty five dash one twenty-four will not be heard tonight.

So if the applicants for the next case, number eleven, HPC twenty five dash two eighty one, one thirty eight one forty west four street.

If you want to approach the uh front table here.

Yeah, either one.

And you're sworn in at the Okay, let me uh sore you in for the record.

You solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given the statements made in this hearing before the historic preservation commission would be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So answer I do.

I do.

Oh, okay.

I just real close.

I think you need to push the button.

Oh yeah.

Yeah, I just saw it.

Your affiliation on the application.

Yeah.

Hello, Frank is my name.

I don't think it's no, I think it should be red at the bottom, right down to the bottom.

Okay.

There we are.

My horse's sexy voice.

Valerie Frank, representative for the owner, Virilyn Morris, the property owner.

Right, Mr.

Huff Dits, if you want to start.

Okay.

Putting the whole staff uh workshop into the record.

This applicant is proposing to replace five double-hung windows with gelled win or a last pine windows.

Um every effort must be made to retain and preserve historic materials.

Non-original materials that the commission believes have a crude significance must be retained and preserved if possible.

If replacement is necessary, new materials must be compatible in design.

Quality, material, size, texture, details, and color.

Um staff for staff comments.

The applicant is proposing to replace five units with double hung six over six pane glass.

And one over one double hung with tempered glass wooden windows.

The applicant is requesting replacement of windows due to building code.

However, interior alterations can often be accommodated without removing exterior historic materials, and staff encourages the applicant to seek alternative approaches.

Staff is unable to make a full assessment of the application due to missing required documentation.

Updated documentation will need to be provided to staff for a full evaluation.

That kind of will need to provide information to the commission that replacing windows is the only available option.

Would you like to discuss a little further on if you can?

Yes, I will try.

Sorry, it's been a long day like this.

So what we found was the R last, I guess they call it a patented wood product protecting against rot termites and water saturation.

It is real pine material.

It's also a pocket unit, pocket.

Can you hear me say pocket?

Pocket unit, so that we can maintain all the exterior, uh, the lintel, the sills on the outside, there's wood trim on the outside, even though it's a brick building.

All that can stay, and we just remove the um, I believe it's done with a tool uh from the inside.

There's the quarter round.

I mean, there's ugly old um storms on the outside of all of these windows.

Um we don't even they can go back up if you need me to.

Um but we can remove the um, I'm gonna call it a quarter round that trims the frame of the window, take that out, and then put these pocket units in.

The um unit will be painted white just like all the other windows.

It will have timbered glass, STL, uh same size.

I did confirm the same size grids, and that's on the updated version that uh you have.

Um your your mine in my file does not have the the uh mullions shown, but yours does, and I can't remember if it was five eights or I confirmed it though.

Do you have it in front of you, Sarah?

I do.

I think there is an additional full packet on the table.

Is that right, Tanzy?

Oh everything I gave you is here.

You should be.

Wow.

Oh there should be multiple cases there.

This is mine.

No, it's not.

One on the back was mine, I think.

I saw a picture of her house.

Oh, there it is.

Right.

I guess all I was getting to see my voice is coming back a little bit.

Um the mullions will match in width.

I don't know what other option she has.

Um we have to meet the wet location requirement for tempered glass.

The only other thing I can think of is these films, but they they don't last, and if there are any improper cleaning used by a housekeeper or something, they're destroyed quite quickly.

So may I ask a question?

When you say wet location.

Bathrooms, laundry rooms.

There are four windows in the bathroom.

She's converting a bedroom to a real nice primary suite bath, so it's pretty large.

So there's one, two, three, four windows in that space, and one window in the laundry room.

So the code describes a wet location as proximity to a tub, shower, whirlpool, spa.

The IRS doesn't specify bathroom.

You don't need a tempered glass in a laundry room, or next to a sink or even a toilet room.

The 2021 IRC code calls all bathroom windows, all wet room, wet rooms.

Are you are are you disagreeing?

Because I'll be happy to go back to the city.

I disagree.

And well, uh I think I reviewed the 21 code, although presently the city is still under the 2015 code until January.

Yeah, I thought it was this past January.

Everyone had to be on 2021.

Well, okay.

So I would be the homeowner would be delightful.

It says uh a tub, shower, spa, whirlpool.

And if that was the case, I would say, you know, I'll close off some of these rooms to separate out some of these the shower.

Um thus, I think there's alternatives.

Uh I know some uh locations they would allow you to put a rail across at say 36 inches, but it doesn't say that specifically for a wet location.

Uh another alternative might be to or I would prefer to do anything on the interior versus replacing the the windows.

She didn't want to replace them either, but my understanding is an interior shutter that's fixed permanently in place, or uh in my mind, the only real concern might be window A near the the shower.

Um I mean you could alternate the shower, maybe turn it nine degrees if you're more than sixty inches away from the window, then it doesn't have to be tempered.

So my concern would be and we can review the the code or if you get a this is a workshop, right?

In front of the building department specifically.

I'll scriple back.

I'm telling you I've been required to put tempered glass in any window in a bathroom.

I know it used to be within close proximity of a tub or shower, but so I I did discuss with someone from the building code department, and they said there was no code that required the replacement of a window.

Um so that there's there are alternatives that you may want to reach out and see what they may re we don't have any windows near a tub or a shower.

They're not within 60 inches, so um I may be different county.

I've been this would be great news.

I can't believe I sat here two hours to hear that.

Yeah, we don't need to replace them.

The only reason we were replacing them was for the tempered glass.

Oh, yeah, and in general, you know, if it's existing, you they can't we can't require you automatically to replace it.

Now they may require you to do some alternate protections in certain areas.

Again, I would question only that one window, but uh I would have to review the code further, but that's kind of outside of our purview.

I mean you haven't applied for a permit or received any.

We have our permit, and we have tempered glazing on those windows.

Um I'm not really sure where this disconnect has come from.

I'm uh the designer and I work with the builders, and they're telling me the inspectors are requiring tempered glass in all the bathrooms.

And it's not this is not new.

But I just did a quick AI search, and you're right.

2021 says still the 60 uh distance, 60 inch distances, which is very old information.

I don't know where this is coming from unless it's amended code in other counties.

We may have put tempered on our building permit in response to another area jurisdiction.

So I'll just circle back as Sarah's checked.

I I would have loved to have known that.

But you received a building permit from the city of Fritz.

No white area.

Comment on there, I put on there.

I put the book I put it on there.

Okay.

So if it's wrong, we'll circle.

It's based on the 2015 IB IRC.

To my knowledge.

That's what it looks like, and we're looking at the ins like we're not seeing any comments from the inspector or the building department saying to change or well, there's no one gonna be unhappy with this.

Um and I'm just sorry I wasted everybody's time.

I'm gonna um have Sarah follow up with you to give you Jim's contact information in the building department so you can talk to him directly.

Sure.

And I think that might and the before we withdraw or do anything with your application, have that conversation with him just so you feel comfortable with.

Yeah, I mean, I again my only thought uh as an architect is that window A might be a problem, but uh technically if it's existing, they can't really require them, although you are kind of reconfiguring that space, but I think there would be alternatives if it if the inspector comes out and says you need to do something with that window.

Uh yeah, it may not be something that the plan reviewer necessarily looking at, although they should in this case.

And you know, if the inspector flags it, you can say, well, could I put a railing across?

Could I put an interior shutter, the permanently fixed uh some other alternative?

Uh I know uh I will give uh review the 2021 code myself, but well, I just did my quick AI search while I was sitting here and it says 60 inches, so I don't know where that's come from.

I'm stymied, but I'm also I'm on the end of uh hearing the contractors.

You know, you know those windows all have to be tempered now.

I mean, over and over and over again, so I don't know what's going on.

I know.

I'm gonna get to the bottom of it.

I know Frederick County has adopted the 2021 code.

Uh and I just recently got a permit and confirmed on that one that the city is still using 2015.

And they told me until January, this coming January.

But I thought it had to happen this year, 2025, that everyone was compliant.

But if you've already gotten a permit and they haven't flagged anything, I mean uh well.

No, the problem is I wrote tempered so that they didn't flag something.

I was preempt and wrong, apparently.

But the only notation I see is within the window space just T M T E M P.

That's temp period or do you have a window schedule as part of the permit?

Do you have a window schedule that calls that out or TEMP could mean temporary?

So we just funny, funny.

Anyway.

Thank you.

But this was just a workshop, right?

So not yeah, yeah.

Not official advice, but I would just wait for the inspector to if he flags it, then you might have to come back.

Oh, you're funny.

Is that what you would do?

That's good.

I don't see a a need to replace these windows.

No, they're existing and they can't really she didn't want to replace them.

It's a lot of money to replace them with tempered windows.

Who wants to do that if you don't have to?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um Sarah or Christina, is there you're gonna follow up with the building department and you want her to follow up.

I'll leave you a message with Jim's contact information so you can have that conversation with him.

Um I'm so sorry.

And I'll just say, yeah, we weren't flagged on this permit review.

So I just I think that's my only comment that I don't know if anybody looked at these windows as part of the your permit application.

I don't know if anybody looked at those windows, so I think having a conversation with Jim would be a good agree it'd be good for us too for a future reference because uh I'm sure there's a lot of issues uh throughout the city and people renovating bathrooms, so yeah.

It'd be good for us too for future reference because uh I'm sure there's a lot of issues uh throughout the city and people renovating bathrooms, so if that's the case, but I would I would want to know myself if there's nothing further, staff I don't have anything.

All right, thanks for coming in as not a waste of time, we just want to get it right.

So no, that's fine.

Thank you so much.

Sarah, are you gonna eat tell me or being done?

Thank you, Lance.

Ready for the next case?

All right, next case is HBC25-300 at 30 East Hall Strain Saint Street.

Applicants want to come forward and don't recall if you guys were sworn in at the beginning of the meeting.

Okay.

Both of you?

I'm sorry.

Okay, thanks.

Good evening.

I'm Clark Wagner with Pleasants Development.

And I'm here with Janelle Horst with MSB architects.

All right, Ms.

Martoski.

Okay, so um for the record, I just want to um add this entire staff report and to the record.

Now, this application concerns level one review of twelve town homes.

Uh the proposed buildings will be organized into two groups, each six units.

Um there'll be two and a half stories to uh three stories tall and feature private terraces at the rear of the property.

Uh the site also provides a parking area, and of course, because of the the um the train, there's gonna be a significant retaining wall towards the rear.

Um this is the first step of a careful and thorough process, right?

So after um with the goal of of getting level one approval, the applicant will need to move forward with site plan approval and then come back to level two for those more detailed um uh considerations.

Um section 603 of the land management code uh addresses archaeological protection um prior to filing the application for approval for work involving uh subsurface disturbance within the city of Frederick, the applicant shall consult the planning department to obtain an assessment of archaeological uh potential for the property.

Um I would go ahead and just get this application in immediately for that archaeological review.

There's no fee, but it gets you the information that you need as soon as possible so you can plan ahead because this needs to be done and complete before you get site plan approval.

So my recommendation is always submit that in really quick because it can only be informative.

Um this project uh matches a proposal that was approved under HPC 1370.

Now that approval, of course, has since expired, but I also want to note that the historic district design guidelines were also revised in 2019.

Um I think that the plan is still really consistent with the guidelines, and my notes are pretty minimal in terms of changing it.

But let's go over the the project.

Um before we move forward, did you kind of want to talk a little bit more about the project at all, or did you want me to just dive into the the staff report?

Um yeah, we I think we're just here to answer any questions.

Um we can it is a very unique site.

I I brought the site plan.

If you want us to kind of run through that, be happy to do that.

Um it's uh we you know it was 10 years ago when we got this originally approved, and we had trouble getting we had to get some off-site easements, had trouble getting those from the property owners.

The property owners have now changed the property ownerships behind us have now changed hands, and we've we're working with the new property owners, so we don't believe that's gonna be a problem.

And um otherwise, you know, the only thing that's changed with the project is we're all 10 years older.

That's about it.

Thanks for the reminder.

So just as a quick recap, this level one review, what it's gonna cover is location, footprint, massing height, setback scale, facade forms, materials, and plot plans.

And in terms of materials, I do want to just add a point of clarification.

We do need to know the general materials that are going to be used for the site.

But the actual product litter, and I'm so sorry, thank you.

Um, in terms of materials, the commission will needs to walk away with a good understanding of what this building is going to be constructed out of.

But it's not going to be until that level two application where we're looking at specific product literature.

What type of windows are you proposing?

Are they going to have muttons?

What type of muttons?

What's the the door patterning going to be?

What you know, it's very what color is the brick.

Is there going to be any, you know, what what pattern is the brick going to be?

Those kind of details we'll we'll deal with level two.

Right now, very broad strokes with with materials.

But first, I don't want to jump ahead too much.

Ruin all the fun.

Uh, we're going to talk about location, plot plan, and footprint.

Now, the big thing when looking at infill development, we want to be, it doesn't have to match the historic character in terms of it has to be little replicas, but we want it to be sense sensitive in terms of where the buildings are located, and that it's it's being respectful to the pattern that's already been established.

This site's kind of unique because um there's residential development further down the street, um, and it's it's starting to turn a little bit of uh uh more historic commercial industrial.

Um, but there has been a significant infill project.

Um the the all I'm sorry, the the Maxwell condominiums, which is just across the street, just that in a little ways.

And so that also kind of plays a big part in what this feeling is that we are uh working with, but also evolving with with this development.

Um so we were looking at how the buildings are set on the site.

Um the impact of this the green space, we don't want it all to go away.

We want there's we want to have some green space.

Um parking is always a big issue in downtown, it's not necessarily required, but it is incorporated into this this plan.

Um, and I recall from when this project went through level one approval previously.

Um the initial plan didn't have a like a little garden wall to visually protect or separate that parking from the the walkway, and you'll see that it does.

So there's yes, so there is parking, it'll be visible, but they did try to minimize the visual impact, and why also keeping like a oh I don't know what term to use.

Um a solid wall, a solid front facing wall of of uh building construction um that separates the parking from from the walkieway.

So my comments officially.

Um so the plot plan uh shows the location of buildings and features.

Uh the comments below are very preliminary, and it's in and I had to do some guesswork because the um the site the plot plan wasn't included in the application material.

I know you have it.

It just needs to be added to that to the packet, and I think you bringing it today, especially in the big forum is really helpful for conversation.

So I appreciate that, and and we should probably show it um here in a moment.

Um my best guess is that this is gonna be exactly like the original level one approval.

I'm not I'm not getting any indication that there's changes going on.

Um the construction of new buildings appears to follow the established setback on the street and responds to the predominant pattern of spacing between buildings, the buildings front the sidewalk and are clustered into to two smaller groups similar to the residual excuse me, the residential development located to the west.

It's believed that the two rows of uh buildings features uh simple rectangular plans.

That's gonna be confirmed when we look at that site plan or the plot plan rather.

Um the parking area is screened by that brick wall as previously mentioned.

Um the site features a rocky terrain and a steep increase in grade.

So there is a large retaining wall, it's located at the rear of the property.

You really see it behind that parking area.

Um the expansiveness of the brick, and this is um a result of that original level one review.

It's broken up because when we originally saw this plan, gosh, it was just it's just a massive brick wall.

And so uh we broke it up by incorporating a series of blind windows, and some architectural element, it creates a human scale, and it does break up the massiveness of that feature.

Um I believe for my recollection there's other smaller retaining walls behind the buildings just to accommodate the the change in grade.

Would you mind sharing the the site plan and then having some conversation and questions with the commission?

I'm not sure what the best way to do that is if I can just you want to just bring it up.

Okay, yeah.

Or if you want to just take it off the board and fold it and put it under the projector, but we go.

So there's two different buildings, one on each side of the parking area in the middle.

Um they're three-story buildings.

Um the the back, the first floor of each building uh would act as a retaining wall because the grade is higher to the rear.

And then when you get into the backyards, you would walk out of the second floor into the backyards.

Right.

And and there's a little, if you look over here, there's a little drawing of the what the backyards would look like because there's a two-tiered wall system behind the backyards that would get you up to the grade at the very back.

So it's it is is a big grade change from the back to all Saints Street.

And then the little garden walls that she was talking about.

Uh I'm not sure I can see them in the street.

Yeah.

Up on the street, though, there's little garden walls that sort of screen the parking areas.

They're they're kind of hard to see.

Oh, right.

Here those are screening.

Oh, yeah, I'm totally backwards.

Yeah, so this is the back.

Sorry about that.

What and how high is this wall supporting porch?

Oh, sorry.

Sorry.

There we are.

Sorry.

Um, is this a retaining wall supporting the porches?

It's all sidewalk through sidewalk.

And stoops.

Raised tubes.

So you can see you can see we we have to pick up the drainage uh from the property to the rear and convey it into the storm drain system.

So that's another one of the uh reasons we needed to get an easement from the rear property.

And since our the two-tiered wall in the back is really right on the line there, we have to get some easements uh for that as well.

And it would be correct to say all those retaining walls are smaller walls, they're all on the back.

There's nothing in the front.

And those are pretty low-level walls, two, three feet approximately.

Do you have a approximate height?

Yeah, they're in the five to ten foot range.

Oh, really?

Okay.

Okay.

And where is the greenery?

Is this going to be taking up that whole um green spot right now?

Yeah, there's some green area in the back.

And and that's the primarily the green area.

Okay.

And those smaller retaining walls, are they also going to be platinum brick?

Uh similar to the property.

There'll be they'll be keystone style walls, so they'll they'll be brick color, but they'll be pre-cast keystone segmental walls, they call them.

Okay.

So I think go ahead.

My question has to do with the terrain.

And as we look at it right now, there are trees and huge rocks.

Right.

Am I understanding that we're taking all that rock out?

We are, yes.

Okay.

He's used to that.

Yeah.

We have we have a lot of equipment.

Okay.

And this uh parking area, not only convenient for off-street parking, but you have infrastructure going under there, which you couldn't build over anyway.

Presumably, or unless you went around the ends, correct.

Yep.

That I mean the parking lot looks kind of tight.

It is, yes, and that's you know.

There's not much we can do about that.

It's just going to be one of the uh things that goes with owning a home there.

So is it one per home or less?

I think we have not sure actually.

There should be two, three, four.

Yes, there's there's a total of twelve spaces, so it is one per house.

Okay, thank you.

So generally speaking, of course, this is workshop, then they'll come in for a level one review, architectural and everything, and then they'll have to go to the planning commission for us overall site plan.

So the parking is not so much our purview other than screening and landscaping uh materials or how it m may impact those things.

There will be a a couple stage process, and one of them being a planning commission that will verify all those things.

Any other questions on the site plan, Commissioners?

Christina.

No, I think I'm okay.

Or this green space in the back of the buildings kind of stops here.

And this is routine wall, and then it comes in.

Yes, it's kind of hard to see, but the the wall system go returns to the corner of each building.

So that's where the green space ends.

Not at the end of that interior unit on each building.

And um just for clarification, uh this is gonna feel pretty uh cavernous as you're driving by.

It's gonna be quite tall, isn't it?

Um it it looks like the facade is pretty flat from unit to unit.

I mean it's all on one elevation.

They're not stepped.

Do they undulate at all?

The the front facade, so do they go in and out at all?

Uh even five foot at this time.

Okay.

Yeah, I think most of the the way we've broken up the front facade has been at the roof, where some of them are at three stories, some of the roofs are at two.

Yeah.

And there's quite a bit of difference in the uh roof treatments.

Um which was uh part of the uh rigorous discussion we had with the HPC previously was on that uh issue.

Yeah, it just seems like it's gonna be a mess of brick, but there you go.

That's okay.

Would your comment then be a slightly staggered even by a foot would probably kind of help break that up?

Just to have a little bit of relief on the road.

Okay.

I'm not so sure.

I mean, you're you're breaking it up with materials and differentiation in the f facade and the window pattern.

Um I mean uh offsets would would be fine.

I'm not sure if it's necessary, and then you know, all the stoops are gonna be a little bit different.

Um from what I've seen so far, I think the variation in the roof and the uh and the windows, you you can take this with you if you want.

I'll take home.

So I don't know if that may be something you want to re-review further.

I guess uh we can take it a little bit closer.

Well let's let's stick with the massing and the and the uh the location.

We'll kind of get to the facades a little bit later.

All right.

In general, I think the the location plot plan and footprint it are pretty good.

Um but yeah, when we get to the facades, I think that we can have some more conversation on that.

Um if we're comfortable, would move forward to height, sc massing and scale.

Um so the massing of new buildings should relate to the massing of buildings in the vicinity um of the proposed new construction, and similar to the height, the height of of a building um that's being proposed should really respond um to the existing environment.

Um deemed appropriate.

Um really apply, so I'm not gonna um a quick note on mechanical equipment.

I don't know if your your plan I I I don't know if I observed it.

Um addresses the uh mechanical equipment.

Um just a quick note of mechanical equipment is housed on the roof.

We just want to make sure that's not going to be visible from any angle from the public right away.

Um we're also going to be just looking at the uh proportionate size of the building in relationship to the surrounding buildings.

Um my comments uh when reviewing the application in relationship to the to the rest of the environment.

The massing height and scale of the proposed townhouse houses are consistent with the surrounding buildings and reflect the human scale that characterizes the entire historic district.

The buildings range from two and a half to three stories in height, which is in keeping with nearby buildings that range from two to three and a half stories tall.

At workshop, the applicant should be prepared to provide information on the existing conditions of the site and how the topography and ended or influenced the overall design.

I will just make one comment that's not specific to the guidelines or even our review.

I I just know that from our the 2013-2014 review of this.

The mechanics of re removing all that and the impact to their properties.

So my recommendation is just coordinating and communicating with the property owners, because I I just know that's going to be a concern, and sometimes being up front and community uh to you to your neighbors is is helpful as you move forward.

Absolutely, and we feel the same way.

I I've already talked to the property owners to the rear in the last few weeks.

Um haven't touched space with the ones on either side, but we'll certainly be willing to do that as soon as possible.

Thank you.

I think I appreciate that comment.

Um Commission, any immediate feedback about the massing height or scale.

I think it all looks apropos.

And certainly in um coordination with the surrounding buildings.

Is the commission comfortable with moving forward with the facade forms and materials?

I don't want to rush anybody with their thoughts.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um next section is facade form materials.

Um, so the composition of the facade should respond to and reference historic patterns and and the rhythm on the block in order to enhance the compatibility with the existing streetscape.

The building's form refers to the scale mass and general shape of new construction and the wall placement and the roof form and its shape and the buildings uh defined their overall form.

And this initial review form is carefully scrutinized for insurance that the new construction is compatible with the pre-uh prevalent forms and massing.

In terms of materials, the use of materials is one method to differ differentiate new construction from existing and old in the historic district.

The materials outlined in chapter four, uh, which is for rehab work for the historic districts.

These are the traditional materials, those are always going to be encouraged.

Um, but on a case-by-case basis, um, the commission can also um consider um uh non-traditional materials, but it would be um based on their um contribution to the integrity of the overall design.

There's certain materials, like specifically stucco vinyl, uh panels and um uh eFus um and fake textures would not be approved.

When would wood windows are always appropriate for um even for for new construction uh metal and um uh there's that newer pro newish product, uh like a fiber party plank or well I'm thinking of windows, so it's a fiber X material, it's uh like um Yeah, fibrics, yeah, that um um the commission has approved for for new construction, um, but avoid that vinyl siding vinyl windows uh for doors, um especially ones that that front the the um the street and they're so highly visible.

I would encourage just traditional wood doors are such a character-defining feature of of any new building or historic building.

So let's go over my comments in the staff report.

Um the composition of the facade references the historic patterns that we see all throughout the historic districts.

So the walls feature a traditional stacked finestration pattern is exactly what I I want to see in the historic district.

Uh windows hold a variation of two over two and six over six sashes.

The horizontal railings on the front stoop are kind of interesting and unique, um, but they really respond to the industrial character of the immediate surroundings.

Um it reminds me of of a the um newer stoops that were put in on um White Hills Row.

If I think Anna Paul, you were here for that.

Um on Water Street.

There was a row of like six or eight pretty rough townhomes, and they added some really industrial type stoops, and it really worked well there.

I think it's gonna work well here too.

Um the materials and specific product details again will be reviewed in more detail in level two.

Um the use of traditional brick and stone finishes will be appropriate.

Um but with veneers, we just want to make sure that's it's a a good uh thickness and quality and color, and and that's just not a very thin and fake.

We we would like to see a nice good true looking brick and um uh stone work.

I think that's gonna be a big point of conversation during that level two review.

Um the use of asphalt shingles and standing sea metal roofing are appropriate for infill.

Uh the use of aluminum uh aluminum cloud windows have been supported in the past for new construction and are and are consistent with the guidelines and their use for this industrial slash residential neighborhood is appropriate.

Product literature and of course mutton details and finishes will be evaluated in more detail in level two.

Again, I I think I mentioned this earlier.

The use of a traditional wood door is really recommended, especially at the that front um entry.

Aluminum doors just lack the the level the same level of detailing and character and incorporating the traditional wood door, or at least a solid core door with a wood veneer is highly that's um in a highly visible and character defining location will really positively enhance the overall character of the design.

The use of modern low maintenance materials for the cornice might really be appropriate in this case.

Um because one of its height and its overall visibility, um also maintenance.

Um is called out in the drawings, but again, specific product manufacturers will not be improved until level two.

Um so I don't want to get distracted by that detail.

My recommendation is to update the drawings and just uh put a a more general product identifier um for that that detail.

The use of uh composite siding is called out in the scope of work.

Um but a hardy board is is a cementitious product.

So um I just want to call that out and and and ask for that that quick edit clarification.

Um my recommendation is just to go with that cement board product with a smooth finish.

That's been generally supported by the commission for new windfill.

Um stone veneer is called out as the primary wall material on unit seven west elevation, but the drawing indicates brick.

Just a quick edit to make sure we're all communicating.

Um rear elevations are clad in siding.

Now, even in cases where the siding and front elevations are brick, um typically the changes in materials can be seen on different building blocks, um, but not so much when it when it's the same building block.

The commission was okay with this during the the initial level one review, but this was a comment during my first staff report's gonna be the same comment here.

Um the commission should consider if the siding is appropriate on the rear elevation and the level of visibility is a consideration.

That was the point of conversation uh during that initial level one review.

Everybody, I think the commission was really like well, nobody's nobody's gonna see it, and so that they were kind of very forgiving of that detail on on this particular um infill project.

And so just wanted to bring that to the commission's attention and just make sure that they to get your your findings on that.

And that's it.

I would just state on the facade.

I'd backtrack a little bit and can uh concur with Commissioner De Young that you know some offsets on the facades, not necessarily each unit, but I could see uh you know the four units on the eastern end.

Uh if I can get back to where it is uh the four units on the eastern end, you've kind of recessed a little bit from the two units before you get to the middle parking area, and then there's three western units if the brick units were you know, or if the center unit with the siding was slightly recessed and the brick units more prominent, you know uh you know I think would be a good improvement instead of having all those units.

I don't think each unit needs to be offset from the other, but it seems like you got some some nice blocks of units there that combination of units that you know could justify an offset, you know, along the along the street there.

Okay, I I think we'll be happy to take a look at that and yeah, I was initially concerned about you know that big wide band at the cornice on the eastern units.

Uh but then you know I noticed on the across the street at the Maxwell condos, they have something similar size, and maybe it was just a color thing that appeared more white or bold.

But uh I don't know if there was any pond approved on the earlier submission or maybe have an issue using a five pond in this case.

I couldn't really tell what the material oil was on the on the cornice of the Maxwell condos, but did look like it had seams at every four or five feet.

So uh but it didn't look like a it didn't look like a five pond, but uh it didn't look like an aluminum cladding either.

So uh I don't know if that's something we would approve on new construction or has it been approved anywhere Christina.

I can't say for sure for certain it's it's certainly not a a a common product.

My understanding is it can be milled like woodwork.

Is that correct?

Do you know?

But again, five, you know, we don't need to necessarily approve five pond right now.

My recommendation is just a more generic um, yeah, and you know the the cement board, the cement tissues board.

I don't know if you're familiar with um uh a borough true exterior.

It's a polyass material that you know is very durable, easy to to cut and uh very lightweight compared to the uh you know the cement board.

I I have used it on a project in the historic district that's been uh uh a year uh ages ago, but uh there is a precedent for using it's a little bit more expensive, but I think is uh for in my mind, a superior product over the the cement board, which of course everybody uses and we have approved on on other cases with new construction.

So I guess on the you know the facade uh uh I'm not averse to aluminum clad wood windows for for the windows.

Um I don't recall how the firex has a nice true simulated divided light or it has a nice simulated divided lights in terms of having that spacer bar in between what I don't love is the actual like mill work where the the muttons join the outer sash.

It it don't sometimes they don't actually meet, sometimes they kind of uh so there's in terms of that dealing detailing, I think that's my only concern with with that product, but what I do like is the the mutton details in terms of having that simulated divided light with with the spacer bar in between it does offer that option.

I do concur with uh a wood door on the street facade would uh look better on adversity uh a fiberglass door and or the siding proposed on the rear elevations, but uh other commissioners may have comments uh question on um page 13 uh where we're looking at the facade and then the this back wall here is that like a brick wall with wind fake windows in it or what what is that?

Yeah, that would that would be a poured in place wall with a brick facade to create those those window panels.

Is that did we require that?

Or I was just wondering if we could do something green, make have more of a green wall because we're taking away so much green.

No, I I think that's an interesting comment.

Um what I recall from the previous level one review was that it was just uh a blank brick wall, and then some comments from the commission and and and staff was to kind of break it up with having these uh blind window recesses, and I think the railing was added, but I think that might be a code requirement or safety issue.

I'm not 100% sure.

Is that right?

Okay.

Um I don't believe that there was a conversation about adding some kind of greenery element.

There might be some sort of change into the code, and this is not my department, so like I'm not gonna like say this is how it is.

But I think there's like a one or two percent of the cost of the project has to go to like an art feature to this.

This is what I was gonna ask.

Could it be artwork as well as a green wall?

Well, we'll kind of to that point.

I I think the the green wall has been incorporated as part of that art feature that's required.

Didn't we do that?

Um Market Street.

Black Hall, Black on South Market.

Yeah, yep.

I think that would be better than the make believe windows.

Okay, yeah.

I mean, uh would be a nice idea.

I'm not so sure it needs to be the entire length of the wall.

It could break it up uh part green, part brick.

I I don't mind the uh the fake windows, but it is a long expanse uh of brick, and certainly appreciate the efforts to try to break it up the the height and massing of that wall.

So you know something like a a screen wall of some vegetative uh growth in it, but um might be a haven for the starlings in the fall to roost, but that might be a concern, but uh bad the starlings are in downtown anymore.

I don't know if there's room but to have uh a line of shrubbery on the bottom, and then maybe something that kind of goes over the top.

I don't know if you have space for it because I know it's really tight here, but you know, it's a workshop you talk I'd like to go back and talk about the windows if we could for just a moment.

Um and this is just a thought, right?

I'm just throwing it out as a thought, and I'm looking at I don't know what page number.

There's no page number on this now.

Oh no.

Oh yes, here it here they are on the side.

Page 25 and page 27.

My thought is starting on page 27 in that first large building where those windows would all be metal, right?

Having that very industrial look as a similar historic building uh around the block from it.

So I think that one were we're all metal windows, and then to that whole concept of making each building try to have a little bit of differentiation without step back.

Now we've gone into some wood windows on the other side, uh, page 25, where those fronts look more like historic downtown.

Yeah.

I like that because I think the goal is to make it not look like one conglomeration of a structure.

And uh uh just a general thought, you know, oftentimes the the ground floor windows are a little bit taller than the upper story windows.

I I see on units five and six.

It shows that uh unit three and four, they seem to be similar height, maybe yeah, e crest egress requirements, but uh I don't know if they're an option to make the lower floor windows a little bit taller or second one floor windows shorter, but just uh just an uh observation.

I'd also say on page 25 as we're looking at them, and and maybe it's only because of the drawing, um the stoops look like they're metal railing, and if maybe those were wooden there on those buildings, again it's giving that a little bit of differentiation of what I'm looking at, a little change of view as I'm walking along.

So I to follow up with that comment, which I th I think is thoughtful.

Um if on the wood framed units that we would have the the wood stoops with wood railings, and then the masonry buildings with masonry stoops and metal railings.

Okay.

And for me, uh I'm kind of ambivalent on that, but uh I don't mind all the stoops being the same, but you have plenty of other stuff going on, but it's a good thought.

I'm not trying to defend my thought or my comment, but when we talk about human scale, it's not when I'm in a car, right?

It's when I'm on foot and I'm walking.

The world is different when I'm on foot.

So that that was really what I was after there.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other thoughts about just going with siding on the rear elevations?

And or fiberglass doors there, uh I think it's you know, pretty well not facing a public way.

Uh I don't mind the all siding or change in the door material there.

Odd, I have to agree.

Uh uh it's gonna take a lot for someone to be able to see that, right?

Uh, other than the folks up above that might be looking over and going, wow.

Yeah, I'm not sure it makes a difference, but the buildings behind us that would be looking at these elevations or commercial and industrial use.

I would be partons there as well.

I thought there were going to be apartments on that property.

Well, I I know the property behind it uh I think it it's it could be redeveloped at some point, so fair enough.

Um just curiously, do you have uh a concept in my mind's eye, even if I said three stories in this building?

What am I gonna see if I'm up above?

Am I gonna see just the rooftop?

Am I gonna see into the bedroom window?

What am I seeing when I'm on the upper property at this point?

Well, we we may end up be uh putting a privacy fence at the top of the back wall.

Uh so uh if if you're on the other side of that privacy fence, you're probably just gonna be seeing the the our roofs for the most part.

And is that privacy fence now gonna take away fresh air and sunshine?

Uh I don't think I don't think too much.

It's gonna be set back from the yards quite a ways.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And just a more uh particular note.

Looking at page 25 unit five and six, I guess the west side of unit five.

When you get above the roof line of unit four on that west gable, you know, clarify whether that's gonna be brick or siding or thank you.

That's a good comment.

And I think you know, from the rear on some of the rear elevations, uh some of the some of those unseen areas.

Uh it just helps to know what's going in there as well.

I would say that would be true over at Unit 12 on page 27 as well, right?

Or unit seven on page twenty-seven.

Yeah.

Oh, I guess if I move to page thirty, I look like unit seven and unit twelve look like brick at the end.

So I think you're looking for one more drawing, uh a couple more drawings just to capture that detail.

Confirm the materiality.

Okay.

And I know this is an odd question, but let me just ask this in that parking area where there's only twelve spots.

You're either parking there or on the street.

Am I walking down the front of All Saints, or am I walking past everyone's back door to get to my unit?

Or do I have both options?

You'd be walking down all saints.

Okay, so the only way to, if I'm in unit twelve and I've parked in the parking lot, I'm gonna have to walk down all saints.

Correct.

To get to my front door.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I think it's a better option than the back.

I mean, I live downtown and I have to walk out in the front of all my neighbors as well, so no worries, but I am not walking through their backyard.

Okay.

Any other comments or should we move on to scheduling?

All right.

Um the I I don't think you're gonna have everything ready for October thirteenth on Monday at eleven.

So the next submission deadline is October 27th at 11 o'clock.

Now, if you make that deadline, you would go to the November 13th meeting.

The next deadline option is December 1st at 11 o'clock.

And if you make that deadline, we would be setting you up for the December 11th hearing.

Thank you.

All right.

Let me know if you have any questions or what need to, you know, follow-up communications after this workshop.

But I think I'm just gonna be looking out for my inbox and the open gov for any updates on either of those two deadlines.

Okay, okay.

Thank you so much for your time and thank you.

Great, thanks a lot.

Appreciate your comments.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Challenging, but uh nice infill project as well.

So without objection, we are adjourned.