Good evening.

Well, and welcome to the City of Frederick Historic Preservation Commission hearing.

Today's date is October 23rd, 2025.

It may or may not be my birthday, and I may or may not be thirty-nine years old.

Before we get started, there's some printed agendas over on the table by the door if anyone wants to follow along with a copy of the agenda.

There's also a sign-up sheet there if you want to speak tonight.

If you're a member of the public, it helps to have your have your name there.

It's it's not a requirement.

And also uh sometimes it's hard to hear in certain certain spots in the uh room here.

We do have some listening devices.

If you have any trouble uh hearing any part of the uh the hearing tonight, you see Tansy Creighton at the end of the day here.

She can uh fix you up with some of that listening devices.

The technical qualifications of the commission and the 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 the Interior, National Park Service, and these guidelines are made a part of each and every case.

For introductions, my name is Paul Fitzdawell and serving here tonight along with Commissioners Eva Sower, Ed McMahon, Jonathan Levins, Carol Kelly, and Jerry DeYoung from the city staff.

Christina Martin Koske, historic preservation planner, Sarah Hoffedz, Assistant City Attorney Iris Arnon, and our intern serving with the planning department for a couple months is Andrew Depot.

And our administrative assistant is Tansi Creighton.

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

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

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

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

So we'll move forward with announcements from staff, if any.

We have new announcements today.

Moving on with the approval of the minutes.

Are there any changes to the minutes or a motion?

I move we approve the minutes from October 9, 2025.

Second the motion.

Okay, motion to approve the minutes from October the 9th, including the hearing and did we have workshop?

Yes, workshop.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And motion is unanimous.

Thank you.

Under HPC business, we have a review and approval of the schedule, HPC schedule for the upcoming year 2026.

Any comments from staff?

I I do have one comment.

So this 2026 schedule, I want to note that that first line.

Now this is a revision to the approved 2025 schedule, and that's on the bottom line of the 2025 schedule, which states that the deadline is December 24th for the January 8th public hearing.

We will um I want to acknowledge that this change is happening because we're trying to be consistent with applying the submission deadlines to always be the first and Thursday, first and third Thursday of the month.

And the the 2025 schedule is inconsistent with that.

So this just brings us back to our normal submission deadline.

And we would just request that the commission approve the 2026 schedule, and what we'll do is we'll take down that 2025 schedule and upload this on our website and just make sure that we're communicating clearly with any active applicants or any one that we're gearing up to to move forward with an application.

And with that, I'll I'll take any questions.

Commissioners, any questions regarding the schedule for next year.

Seeing none, I move we approve the 2026 Historic Preservation Commission schedule with the clarification that the uh deadline for the first January 8th hearing date.

The deadline for submiting an application is December the 18th of 2025.

Thank you.

Second okay, motion is to approve the 2026 schedule.

All any other questions, comments.

All in favor, raise your hand.

And motion carries that's six to zero.

One, two, three, four, five, six.

Next item under HPC business is request for demolition review.

Case HPC 25-529DR located at 321 Madison Street.

Ms.

Martin Koskey.

Thank you.

I want to enter the entire memo into the record.

Now this request for demolition review has been submitted per section 423A of the land management code for a garage at 321 Madison Street.

Planning staff has determined that the structure is in whole or in part 50 years of age or older.

And based on this assessment, the historic preservation commission is charged with determining if the property is potentially eligible for historic preservation designation.

The memo outlines in detail the designation criteria, which largely mirrors the National Register requirements.

In my memo, I provided uh an assessment of the building and the property's history.

The garage at 321 Madison Street was constructed between 1960 and 1973 and replaced a smaller wood frame structure.

The property, including the dwelling, is first documented on the 1947 Sandborne Fire Insurance map with the original garage.

The property is in the Frederick Historic District.

However, the concrete block garage is not associated with any significant event or cultural group, nor was any information found to indicate that it was associated with the lives of significant persons.

The garage lacks historic integrity, and staff finds that the building is not individually eligible for designation and recommends that the commission not pursue a designation application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Commissioners, any questions for staff on the demolition review.

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

Any discussion.

It's pretty straightforward.

I think the obvious thing is just lacks historic integrity.

Uh along with the you know no uh evidence of significant event or cultural group uh or information found that associated with the lives of significant persons.

Any other comments or motion um I am familiar with HPC 25-529 DR at 321 Madison Street, and I move that we do not pursue a designation application.

Okay, the motion is to not pursue historic designation for an HPO.

Any additional comments.

I'll just reiterate as we said that the um the subject application and the associated property is not part of any events or cultural groups that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of history or the heritage of the city.

It's not associated with any lives or persons significant to the history of the city.

Um it does not yield or is likely to yield information important in prehistory and does not exhibit significance in design or construction.

Thank you.

Any additional discussion.

All in favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Motion carries six to zero.

Thank you.

Next case is a request for demolition review HPC 25-533 DR, located at 203 Lindbergh Avenue.

And I believe that's Ms.

Hoffditz.

Thank you.

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

A request for demolition review has been submitted per section 423 at the land management code for a dwelling at 203 Lindenburg Avenue.

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

Based on this evaluation, the historic preservation commission is charged with determining if the property is potentially eligible for individual historic designation.

A property is eligible for designation for historic preservation overlay.

If it's at least 50 years, retains historic integrity and meets one of the following criteria listed in the memo.

The dwelling at 203 Lindenbury Avenue was constructed in circa 1944.

City Directory record suggests that the home was built for Harry J.

Lepsard, who purchased the property in 1944.

The property was then transferred to Robert E.

Clapton in 1951 and then to William Hahn in 1954.

The property remained under the ownership of William Hahn and his wife Reta Hahn until 1973.

The Hans were the longest residents of the property.

The property serves as a good representation of colonial revival architecture, maintaining elements of its original location, design, settings, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, but lacks a high level of architectural significance.

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

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

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any uh questions on the staff report.

Is there any member of the public here tonight wishes to speak on this case?

Okay, Commissioners back with us once again.

Any comments or a motion.

I uh am uh aware that this uh request for demolition uh is for a property which is uh immediately adjacent to a property which was recently approved for demolition um by this commission.

Uh I would like to see further discussion of that fact in full recognition on my part of the factors which influenced our approval of the earlier demolition request and which uh influenced my personal decision to vote no uh for the approval of this demolition request.

I will uh or I will let staff um uh chime in, but you know, essentially uh just reiterating what's in the uh the report itself.

Um the property is technically outside of the historic district, so uh that's really the basic reason that's before us is any demolition request has to come before us for review, and that review would include you know uh uh his historic background of the property, trying to determine if there's a significant architectural integrity, uh the work of a master or you know an outstanding design or a building that's associated with the history of Frederick, uh any significant persons or uh cultural uh events.

Uh so in essence it has uh a higher bar this than a property that's already in the historic district, and uh to put that designation on uh a property outside of the historic preservation overlays um would require you know I think a significant um uh hurdle to to kind of meet those requirements and um some of the buildings is in this neighborhood or you know uh stand out, and I think the collection of the buildings all together uh have some um uh preservation qualities.

But uh at this point, you know, we're really uh looking at this building individual uh individually, and if it has the uh the capacity to kind of stand out above and beyond any other um yeah, I just want to those uh factors in regard to the uh to the uh commission's uh uh mandate.

Uh nevertheless, because we are considering this property's request for demolition in this commission hearing by direction of the uh city of Frederick.

I would like to uh bring that to attention in the process.

I'm not uh minimizing the significance of the factors that we weigh in determining whether or not to approve demolition.

I'm fully aware of architectural significance, historic significance, and all other features that we uh consider when we are approving or disapproving uh an application of this sort.

Nevertheless, I think that there are uh there is more at uh involved in this uh process of approving or disapproving demolitions of property, not in the historic district in the city of Frederick, and I feel I will uh maintain that uh concern about the uh additional complication to the uh issue uh by my no my vote, which will uh uh refuse to approve the demolition.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh this is not a request for a demolition of the entire property.

There's only a request for demolition of part of the garage roof in the back hallway in order to accommodate a second floor addition, which I think is very different from a complete demolition, which we was the real controversial issue in the past.

Uh I do think if it's a total demolition of a house that's like the one we saw before that was 87 years old, there needs to be public notice, uh, which there wasn't in that case, and we shouldn't allow developers, spec developers to get around our ordinance by finding out if they just tear off the stone, then they could uh tear down the entire building.

Uh so I think this is really a different case, and I think this is an appropriate recommendation of the staff, just like adding uh a new roof on the on the prior one on Madison Avenue was I'm also aware of that caveat.

Uh, nevertheless, in my uh intention to call further discussion to this matter, uh I will continue to uh uh stay with my uh uh no approval vote.

Ms.

Martin Kosky, would you like to answer anything?

Just some clarifying directions.

This commission is not being asked to approve or disapprove demolition.

This commission, because that's up to the building department.

This commission is only considering if the property or the building is eligible for historic preservation protections with the historic preservation overlay.

The amount that is being proposed for demolition is not a is not a significant factor because perhaps on the demolition review application, they show that they're only demolishing the porch.

Once they get that certificate to demolish without delay, they could tear down the whole building because the commission is not reviewing and approving the demolition.

They're reviewing its eligibility for historic preservation overlay designation.

So I just want to make that observation.

Thank you.

Once again, I understand the parameters and the uh the bureaucracy involved in this uh in this procedure.

Uh nevertheless, I remain committed to uh focusing attention on the uh decision, the political decision, uh you could say, by the city of Frederick to direct to the historic preservation commission all requests for demolition.

And we do consider those requests, and I would only uh encourage us to discuss that consideration more broadly than we have in the past.

Uh, this was first underscored to me by the public participation that uh was involved in the original uh request for demolition that caught my attention, the one for the neighboring property.

I'm aware that there is no historic district identification for this neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am aware of the public's concern for the maintenance of its neighborhoods.

I'm also aware of the to date failure of communities to express in any organized way that neighborhood concern, but it has caught my attention enough to make the points I'm making this evening, and I hope not incur the uh discomfort of my fellow commissioners.

Uh I do understand the issue fully, uh, but I will vote no.

I guess I would only suggest for your consideration, you know, certainly voting no is uh is uh uh your choice.

Um if there is enough um significance on this one single property out of you know the dozens of properties just in this neighborhood that makes this a special case uh rising to the level of putting a historic preservation overlay on just a single pri property.

Uh that's certainly your prerogative, but I would think um that would need to be considered in your evaluation overall.

I recognize that, and in fact, I've been fortunate to recognize that in the uh action that was taken regarding uh St.

Timothy's uh church.

So I know um I know the alternatives before us when we make decisions about the overlay.

Any additional discussion, commissioners entertain the motion, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-533 DR at 203 Lindbergh Avenue.

And while the property is 61 years old and it is an excellent example of colonial revival architecture, it does fail to meet any of the requirements for designation in his for a historic property overlay.

So at this time I move that we do not designate this historic property.

Okay, motion made to not seek historic designation on the subject property.

Any further discussion?

Yeah, I'm I'm gonna vote in favor of this motion because of the it's just an addition to the uh second floor, but I think Carol brings up a good point.

We have I think this is an issue that's got to come before the next council.

Uh there are alternatives to historic district overlays, which are of course, as we know, get into very fine grain detail, and there are other things like conservation districts, which should only deal with large uh with demolition, the character of new construction and other major changes, and I think that the new city council will probably be willing to take up that issue and talk about this.

Uh so but I don't think we need to designate this particular individual property.

I think the uh the one that was uh the other one was I thought a real clear case we shouldn't have uh we should have designated that be just because of the run around the ordinance, but uh this is not an example of that, and it's a uh I think it will be an attractive attractive addition to the House by uh adding on to the second floor.

But what your your point about the neighborhood is a good one, and I appreciate you bringing that up.

Thank you.

Additional discussion.

All in favor of the motion to not seek a historic designation, please raise your hand.

All posed motion carries five to one with Commissioner Kelly opposed and looking at the uh items on the consent agenda.

There's three cases on the consent agenda.

I would ask any members of the public here tonight that would wish to see any one of these cases removed from the consent agenda and move to the regular cases to be heard.

Moving up to the commissioners, any commissioners wish to seek any one of these cases to be removed from the consent items and move to the regular cases to be heard.

If not, I want to entertain a motion.

Case HPC 25-304, and case HPC 25-309.

Second the motion.

Motion to approve the consent agenda.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries six to zero.

Thank you.

No continuances have been identified.

We'll move into cases to be heard.

And just in case uh let me state members of the public are invited to speak on any particular application listed on the cases to be heard on the agenda.

Individuals will be allowed a three minutes to speak.

If you are here representing an organ organization or community group, we ask that you please identify as such, and you may speak on behalf of the members of that group, and you will be allotted 10 minutes to speak.

We ask that if you identify with a particular group that you let the designated representatives speak for the entire group and not each member speak separately.

With that, our first case to be heard.

Where did that one come from?

All right, item number eight, case HPC 25-289 at 200 North Market Street.

And that is Ms.

Hoffedz.

All right.

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

This application can sell concerns installing a ribbed metal cricket between the shed roof and masonry wall.

For roofing, standing scene metal roofs should be replaced in kind unless evidence exists for an earlier roofing material.

And one keynote that I'd like to pull from the guidelines is ribbed or striated panels will not be approved.

For staff comments, the circa 1897 garage slash shed constructed of brick is located on the rear of the property and closely abuts the building at 5E 2nd Street.

Mason repairs were recently approved for the rear wall of the 5E 2nd Street for HPC 25267.

The applicant proceed proposes to temporary remove the metal roofing to access the rear wall on 5E 2nd Street.

Once reinstalled, a re a ribbed metal cricket will be constructed to assist with water mitigation in the long-term preservation of the rear masonry wall at 5 East 2nd Street.

Ribbed metal roofing is not supported by the guidelines.

However, staff notes that the proposed cricket is not visible from the public right away.

Um and that currently matches the rib metal roofing that's on the roof of the garage.

Given the location of the work and existing conditions, staff finds that the proposed work is an appropriate deviation from the guidelines.

Staff recommends that the commission approve this application, and with that I'll take any questions.

Any uh questions for the staff.

I would just add, Commissioners in our uh deliverable ratio here that as the uh report states, uh the ribbed metal roof is a would be a deviation from the guidelines.

Uh we can determine whether it is appropriate in this case.

Any other questions on the root staff report?

If the applicant is here, would you step forward and introduce yourself?

It should be red.

Sorry.

I don't know if I'm gonna be able to help you.

I don't see a button.

Okay, great.

All right, my name is Peter Bramman.

I'm the owner of the building.

Uh joining me is Logan Altricher, who's with durable construction, who's the contractor, and the tenant of the building, Chris Ferrari is here.

The executive director of the tenant is here as well, Chris Fair.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have any uh questions, comments on the staff report?

I don't know.

Peter question.

I I went by the building to uh today to spend some time.

This roof is on the back of the of the not 200 market, but on five east.

I mean on 52nd Street.

No, so there's a garage behind 52nd Street.

It's the roof on the garage.

Okay, because you can't see it at all unless I walked through the first.

Couldn't see it at all, so I think the shed was constructed so close to the back of 5E second that we can't get the brick replaced and the mortar replaced without taking the roof off and then replacing it.

The cricket is to keep the water from pouring back onto that back wall.

Got it, thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant.

All right, commissioners back up here with us.

Any comments or a motion?

I'll move that in the matter of HPC 25289 and at 200 North Market Street that we approve the installation of a rib metal cricket between the shed roof and the masonry wall as recommended by the staff.

I second okay.

A motion to approve the application.

Um stated that you know the rib roof is a deviation from the guidelines, but I think it's appropriate in this case since it's uh similar to the the existing roof and and well hidden uh from public uh public way and uh the integrity of the streetscape and surrounding historic properties and its setting will not be compromised.

Any additional discussion all in favor of the motion to approve, raise your hand carries six to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next case is HPC 25-312.

Okay, it's six sixty-four east South Street, Ms.

Hofnitz.

Thank you.

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

This application concerns the proposal to replace the German lap wood siding on the rear addition with borrow, true exterior, cove Dutch lapse siding.

The Frederick Town Historic Discript Design Guidelines establish the following standards for review for siding, all character-defining wood features must be identified, repaired, and preserved.

Such elements like that or siding.

All wood elements shall be repaired.

The commission will only approve of selective replacement of severely deteriorated pieces.

Acceptable wood, any pieces of untreated non-composite wood can be used for wood elements in the historic district.

Siding trim historic siding includes German lap siding, tongue and groove, colonial siding, and board and patent vertical siding.

Um the use of materials is one of one method to appreciate new construction from existing additions in the historic district.

The materials outlined in chapter 4 are suggested for use in new constructions and are generally considered to be compatible throughout the historic districts.

Any other materials may be considered a compatible and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated based on their contribution to the integrity of the overall design, although vinyl, stuckle panels, external installation, and finishing systems with fate fake textures will not be approved.

Additions to historic buildings must incorporate materials that are compatible with the age and style of the historic building.

The traditional materials listed in chapter 4 should be used in constructions of additions on a case-by-case basis.

The commission may approve materials acceptable for new constructions as discussed in chapter 10.

For staff comments, the property at 64 East South Street is first recorded on the 1897 97 Historic Samborne Fire Insurance map as a brick two-story twin dwelling.

In 1922, a wooden side porch and rear wood frame addition appears at the rear of the building.

In 1947, a one-story accessory building is present on the property.

Staff is unable to confirm the construction date of the attached rear two storage two-story wood structure, but the structure does not appear to be present in the 1981 area historic area.

The proposed work is limited to the non-historic addition.

Additions must incorporate materials that are compatible with the age and style of the building.

The proposed material is a polyameric fly ash product.

The cove Dutch profile will have a smooth finish.

The commission may approve on a case-by-case basis non-traditional materials on non-historic additions.

The smooth finish and traditional profile is supported by the guidelines.

Staff recommends the commission to approve this application, and with that I'll take any questions.

Got approval for it.

And it's just because I can't think of any application where it was requested before.

I I don't know if it's been like refused by the commission.

But that project never got level two approval and never got constructed.

So it was just a conversation during that level one review.

They brought the product in, shared it with the commission.

Um like a physical copy of it.

And it and for my recollection, it can be milled like wood, uh, can and and can have a smooth finish and then really have a very traditional profile and appearance.

The date of construction on this particular building again couldn't confirm it.

Uh I didn't walk up and touch it or see it and enter the property, but uh we're we're pretty confident that it is a new structure, that's not built over or rebuilt from a previous structure.

Correct.

Any other questions for staff, commissioners?

And introduce yourself, your name.

And you were sworn in at the beginning of the meeting.

Yes, I was here.

And uh do you have any questions or comments on the sure if I could?

Um I have some pictures here.

Can I walk them, give them to you?

Okay.

So yes, yes.

Thank you.

Within the first picture, you'll see the original house.

Um then you're gonna see a really small section that has um like a slate siding on it.

That is actually a uh pantry and a um uh washroom where for washing clothes.

The next section, which again has slate on it, is a dining room, and then the the third section is the section I'm talking about.

So so far this year, um, we've put a new roof on the whole property.

You can see the pictures there.

Uh we painted the whole property except for the part in question right now.

Um we patched that section about seven years ago and had it painted.

And I'm assuming the pictures are in the report that I sent in.

Uh it's just fallen apart.

Um, and what I'm trying to do is to avoid using wood again and then have me do this seven years down the road.

Uh, I think um the last picture that I just handed in, uh it has 1997 uh in our brick in there, so we're we're assuming that's when it was built, but also when we moved in the homeowner before us left the plans there, and they were dated 1996.

So we're assuming it was built in 97.

I don't have this plans.

The homeowner asked if they could have them back.

The prior homeowner we gave them to them.

So we're pretty confident it was built around 1997.

And again, what we're trying to avoid is doing wood again, and then seven years later having to do it again.

It's I I'm shocked how deteriorated uh the wood has gone over the last seven years.

Well, as a I'll say uh uh highly commend the product.

Uh I think as far as superior over the hardy plank siding, which we have approved on uh uh new construction and um uh uh recent additions.

Uh it does give you a nice cove profile of the traditional wood siding.

Uh it cuts easily, it doesn't produce the dust at a cement board like the Hardy plank does.

Uh it's lot lighter, cuts easily, holds paint well.

You don't necessarily have to finish the ends that are cut.

Yeah.

Within the pictures, you'll see when the roof was going on, there's a section on the section we're discussing where there's no siding because it's so deteriorated it just fell.

So that we actually took this piece up and slid it in there, and it's like a perfect match.

There's not an eighth inch or quarter inch or no there's no distance.

This right here is the same um size and everything of what we put on or what's on the house right now.

I think the pictures do show uh good evidence of the deteriorated siding, unfortunately, but uh you know we felt properly uh priming really all six sides and having a newer construction to likely have uh uh an air drainage barrier behind the siding to help get air behind the sidings.

Um about the windows, were you doing anything with the windows or just the siding?

Because we've done a roof this year and painted the whole house.

We're going to do the siding and then stop, and then next year we plan to um replace all the windows.

Commissioners any additional questions for the applicant just to comment, Marcus is a beautiful property, extremely well cared for.

Thank you so much.

I think your request is a uh for a non-historic edition is extremely reasonable and uh uh uh commend you on the care you've taken of this property.

I would ask how you found the uh Boral True Exterior siding.

I'm sorry.

How did you find this product?

Uh the contractor that uh built our garage out back.

Um he actually recommended it because the garage was built in 2018 and we're having the same issue.

So that originally I said we need to fix the siding on both of them, and he said, Well, why don't we do something like this instead of the wood?

Um I'm gonna be back next year probably for the garage, trying to do the same thing to change it to this.

And that was built in 2018 and it's fallen apart already.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

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

Ask if the any other members of the public who wish to speak on this case come forward.

Seeing none commissioners that's uh back with us.

Um again, I would say I am familiar personally with with the product, have used it on a couple of occasions, including an approval in the historic district a few years ago.

Uh to me, I I think it's a superior product to the Hardy cement board product that we've traditionally approved on new construction and recent additions.

And uh even though it's a little bit more expensive than the Hardy Plank uh, you know, I think it's uh uh an easier product to work with and it gives you that that look and feel of a traditional Dutch co wood siding.

I think is impro uh appropriate in this case for a residing.

Any other comments with that?

I am familiar with HPC 25-312 located at 64 East South Street.

I move to approve the application.

I second closer.

I'm sorry.

I second okay, motion made and seconded to approve the application.

Um again, I just add you know, this is uh non-traditional material, but uh it's been used on a non-historic edition.

And uh again, I would say with the smooth finish and traditional profile.

It's a it's a good uh substitute for the original wood siding.

Any other comments?

Discussion.

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

All posed?

Sorry, I'm not sure.

In favor?

Okay, thank you.

Uh motion carries six to zero.

Thanks.

Approval.

Thanks for taking the effort and spending the money for to use a good quality product.

So good success.

I'll stop by and take a look at it.

All right, next case on the agenda HPC 25-314, located at 103 East 7th Street.

And that is Ms.

Martin Kosky.

Before we move forward, can we confirm the applicant is in attendance?

Is anybody here for the application HPC 25-314 at 103 East 7th Street?

So without seeing anybody, my recommendation is that uh we hold action on this item.

We'll move it at the end of the agenda.

If the applicant arrives, we can process it then.

And if they don't arrive, we'll we'll have some communication with them after the fact to make sure we get them uh here for the next meeting.

Okay, commissioners, is there a motion to revise the agenda to move this case to the last item on the agenda?

I'll second, I'll second that.

I have to motion first.

I move that we move this case to the last item on the agenda.

Do they miss something?

And now I have a motion or sorry.

No.

Are we done with this application moving it?

Take a vote on it.

Okay.

Do that, and then I have something I'm so eager.

No.

All in favor of uh the motion to move to agenda item, please raise your hand.

And the motion carries six to zero.

Sorry for my impatience.

Um I just have just one brief general announcement.

Um I just want to make a quick note, because I don't want to waste anybody's time.

I think that there are um I just want to note uh the consent agenda items, uh 314 West Patrick Street, 43 East Patrick Street, and 104 Clark Street.

Your application was approved under the consent agenda.

You're welcome to stay, but your projects have been reviewed and approved, and you may go home.

That's it.

I don't know if you may have heard heard it.

The uh if there's anyone here regarding the uh consent agenda items 314 West Patrick Street, 43 East Patrick Street, and 104 Clark Place.

Okay.

Those those items, those uh applications were approved on those consent items earlier in the agenda.

Uh you're certainly welcome to stay.

It's a relatively short meeting, but uh you don't have to stay.

Those cases have already been reviewed and approved.

And with that, we'll move to the next item on the cases to be heard.

HPC 25-315 located at 42 East South Street.

And is that Ms.

Hoffad's all right?

Thank you.

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

This application concerns a proposal to replace the TPO roofing system and install one dome hatch skylight.

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

EPDM, TPO, and rubber roofing systems can be used on flat and nearly flat routes.

Skylights may be appropriate and um however skylights and light tunnels cannot be added to front elevation.

They should have minimum visual impact from the public right away.

Inappropriate installations are for bubble or dome skylights will not be approved.

For staff comments, this application concerns a proposal to the in-kind replacement of TPO roofing system and the installation of one dome hatch skylight.

The proposed location of the skylight is appropriate, but the domed form is not supported by the design guidelines.

Skylight should have a minimum visual impact.

Staff recommends that the commission approve the application with the condition that product literature for a low profile non-domed skylight is submitted to staff for review and approval before obtaining a permit.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Refresh my memory.

We don't typically uh go for deviation.

Now if you want to deviate for the the dome, that would be a deviation from the guidelines, but skylights are typically if they're on a rear elevation or side elevation, they're typically approved.

Um it's just in this instance it is a domed skylight.

Sarah's a hundred percent right.

I think part of the conversation and we'll hear from the applicant tonight is how I think the evolution of skylights has has evolved over time.

I don't think that this domed light, although it is a domed light in the end of guidelines, they don't have a domed skylight.

It really is not the typical traditional domed skylight that I have in mind where it's big and bumpy.

It's actually a quite a low profile.

I think as staff, we were just a little uncomfortable.

Going ahead and approving uh a dome skylight, so we can have that conversation, but just wanted to make that that quick note.

Commissioners, any other questions for staff on the report.

There's a picture on page 11 of two different skylights and uh one one that says flat roof skylights, that's crossed out.

Is that what we're talking about?

So we're talking about the one that is circled.

That's the one that they're proposing currently, which under which does have it labeled as a domed unit underneath that same unit.

Would you be able would you be able to see this from the street?

I don't believe so.

That might be something better for the applicant to answer.

Um it's just that it's a labeled as a domed labeled as a dome skylight, that which is something very clearly illustrated in the how tall the dome is.

It looks pretty short.

That that's the question where that might be better answered by the the applicant.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right, the applicant would come to the podium, introduce yourself, please.

PJ Nicholson from PJ's roofing.

To answer your question, it's a um low slope, pretty much flat roof.

You won't be able to see the skylight from the front.

You won't be able to see it from the ground anywhere.

Um it's not the traditional dome skylight like we're all used to seeing that sits up off the curb about that much.

It'll sit up off the curb about that much, so I would consider it a low profile.

Of course, it's lighter and cheaper, but was there any consideration for using a glass?

I think just lighter and easier to open.

Because it's a roof access skylight too, so you can open it pretty much all the way to get out onto the roof.

Easier to open.

Although you might argue the two-story building is not difficult to access from the exterior.

I guess I wonder.

I guess I wonder how many how many times the owner would have contractor or the owner might be accessing the roof from the inside of the I didn't ask.

They said they wanted one, and we're trying to accommodate their request.

And we didn't think there would be an issue being you can't see it from the ground from anywhere.

Any other questions, Commissioners for the applicant?

Question.

I guess what is the weight difference and how you know more difficult would it be to open a flat one?

I apologize.

I couldn't hear you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I should speak up.

You know, how much heavier is the flat skylight versus the slightly domed version.

That's a good question.

And pounds, I'm not sure.

I just know the glass is quite a bit heavier.

To open up manually.

But an exact weight, I'm not sure.

I would say it's probably 20 pounds more, roughly, 20 to 25 pounds.

Is there a cost factor?

It's very similar in price.

Okay.

Thank you.

It looks like it would a glass, flat glass would be a triple pane unit.

And certainly this size, it would be considerably, I would think, heavier.

Um I think would or should be consideration in installation to make sure it's the structure is adequate, and it may require just using a little bit smaller skylight, but I don't believe the glass flat glass ones are designed to open up fully to provide access merely for venting.

If you wanted access to the roof, the domes skylight would be the only real option.

Agreed.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

All right, if you want to have seats.

And ask if there's any other member of the public who wishes to speak on this case, come forward.

I guess it initially for me, I was you know opposed to the dome skylight specifically because it's uh spelled out in the guidelines that it would not be approved.

I understand the shapes are kind of you know uh low profile uh not really being seen from the street.

But I do think there are options for for a glass uh skylight, it just probably would not be able to provide the desired access to the roof that the applicant is seeking.

And again, I think weight would be a consideration that might be you need uh something a little bit smaller, but any other comments uh I think my reading of the guidelines is that because they call out specifically front elevations where skylights are not appropriate, um they mostly deal with pitched roofs where you can actually see the skylight from the street.

I think since this is a flat roof, no one's ever going to see it.

Um it makes sense that it's a little bit domed, it's not a big bubble, it's just a low profile shape to shed water, and it accomplishes the design goals.

Um I'm willing to overlook the dome on this one.

My suggestion would be when we up next time we update the guidelines, we talk about low profile skylights and and make it clear that we're talking about domes, we're talking about the the old-fashioned, you know, look like you're on a spacecraft kind of thing.

Can I make a motion?

Um I'm familiar with HPC 25-315 at 42 East South Street, and I move that we approve the application as submitted.

Any additional discussion?

All in favor, raise your hand.

And motion carries six to zero.

Thank you.

Um and I believe the next meeting is on November thirteenth.

Uh Mr.

Commissioner, I'm familiar with HPC twenty-five-three one four at one oh three East Seventh Street, and I move that we can continue continue that case until the November thirteenth, twenty twenty five meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission.

I second the motion.

Any discussion.

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

Motion carries six to zero.

Thank you.

Is anybody present that we wish to speak before the commission here tonight for citizen comments?

Nothing.

Nothing.

I think I had a comment.

Yeah, I just want to wish uh Commissioner Fischer a very happy birthday.

I wish I could share your enthusiasm.

After a point, they just don't matter anymore.

And with that case, without objection, we are adjourned.