Good evening.

Welcome to the uh November 13th, 2025 hearing and workshop for the City of Frederick Historic Preservation Commission.

We get started, uh, I believe there's some uh agendas, writ paper agendas over on the side table here.

If anybody's interested in in following along with the paper agenda, got quite a full agenda tonight.

Also, if anyone has any issues with hearing in certain parts of the auditorium, we do have some listening devices available at the side desk up here.

We can come forward at any time and speak to Tansi, and we can get you uh a listening device if if warranted.

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 of part of each and every case.

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

In order to be eligible to vote on an application, the 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 a commissioner is absent from any such meeting, or commissioner may satisfy the attendance requirement by reviewing a record of that meeting.

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

Can you hear all right, Carol?

Good.

Moving forward with the agenda, are there any announcements from staff tonight?

Yes, there are two announcements, one from me.

Um first, I'm pleased to announce that Jerry DeYoung was appointed a full member of the Historic Preservation Commission.

Um, Ms.

DeYoung was initially appointed.

The only available position at that time was an alternate.

So we are very honored to have Jerry as a full voting member, and very much look forward to working together in the future.

Thank you.

I would also like to make an announcement for HPC 25320 under the consent agenda.

Umdated or corrected aerial photographs were provided for the commission.

Um accidental mixture of the two solar panel applications were happening.

So there's updated photographs for you for your records.

I'm sorry, could you please repeat that?

I didn't hear you.

Sorry.

Um HPC 25320 under the consent agenda.

Corrected aerial photographs were provided for staff and the commission members for your review.

Thanks, ma'am.

Okay, moving on to approval of the minutes.

Commissioners, any changes?

Our motion.

Move approval of the minutes.

Oh, second.

Motion made to approve the minutes of the October 23rd hearing.

All in favor, raise your hand.

And Carol, are you approving the minutes?

Motion carries uh three, six, seven.

Is that right?

To one to zero.

Also would like to take the moment to welcome Commissioner McMahon here tonight as well for a full and vigorous board.

Staff.

So before staff presents, I have a couple of questions, if I may, please.

Items 19 and 20 under the approval section.

The last two in that section.

Uh 19.

I'm trying to decide is it are we adding this wall sign or deleting this wall sign?

I'm sorry, could you please this is under the minor modification or um the amendment the regular administrative approval could you give me a case number?

Uh case number.

19, the 19th one.

So it's two up from the last one in that area.

HP 25-341.

Got it.

At 127 West Patrick Street, yes, ma'am.

A 24 by 27 wall sign to the front uh by the front door and a 21 by 24 hanging sign on an existing bracket.

The um wall sign was um is it a replacement to a another wall sign that was the exact size?

And the hanging sign um is a new sign on an existing bracket.

Okay, so the first area would be replace a 2427 and then add a 21 by 24 hanging sign.

Is that correct?

Yes, both signs were approved.

Okay.

I just didn't know if we were adding or deleting what we were doing with the signs.

I wasn't clear.

Okay.

And the last one in that section, replace in kind rotted out window.

I know this is an odd question, but are we replacing with another rotted out window?

This is at 111 record street.

Yes, ma'am.

I did not review this one, but I'm assuming um the the language here is replacing place in kind rotted out window with a historic duplicate.

So the duplicate I would assume would not be rotted out.

Okay.

Replicate the materials on um design of the original.

Okay, and then before you're ready to present um the report, the last item under the minor modifications.

Just looking for clarification on the very last item.

HPC 21-762.

Is that indeed 2021?

It is.

This is an old case.

This is um a a large development.

Uh the Schlei House is the a historic house on uh fronting the street.

Uh they had to meet code requirements and add two lights to two existing door openings to meet the current code requirements for a multifamily residential building.

I just didn't remember doing an extension, so that was why my question.

All right, I appreciate those clarifications.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh, they did not require an extension because they had an active permit.

So they might have had a permit extension, but that wouldn't have come through us.

All right, thank you.

Do you have any further description on the report, Christina?

Uh my only thank you.

Uh my only other comment is that I want to enter the entire administrative approval report into the record and acknowledge that 28 projects were reviewed and processed by staff administratively last month.

I realize it's a personnel matter, but hopefully you're getting some extra help, sir.

That would be my Christmas present.

All right, moving on to the case for a demolition review, HPC 25-574 DR located at 300 Scotty's bus lane.

Ms.

Martin Koske.

Thank you.

I want to enter the entire memo into the record.

Um when this out this uh demolition request was submitted per Section 423A of the land management code for commercial building at 300 B Scotty Scotty's bus lane.

Planning staff has determined that the structure is in whole or in part 50 years of age or older, and because of this evaluation, the historic preservation commission is charged with determining if the properties eligible for individual historic designation.

Now the standards for designation are outlined in full detail in the memo.

Um the property at 300 B Scotty's Lane was constructed in 1964 by the Auscherman construction company for the Nolan Company, who served as a wholesaler and retailer of plumbing, heating, and electrical supplies.

At that time, the structure cost about uh $95,000 to build.

Its original design included a ramp and platform for trucks, which appears to be intact.

The subject property is located outside the Frederick Historic District and is not listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties.

Staff did not locate any historic photographs of the facades, but aerial imaging and site observations suggest that the building retains a good level of historic integrity and has a moderate level of historical and architectural interest.

Staff did not find documentation to indicate that the property is strongly associated with an important event or cultural group or that it's associated with a significant person or exhibits significance in design or construction to warrant individual eligible uh warrant individual designation.

And therefore, staff finds the building um not a good candidate for a historic preservation overlay, and that that and that the commission should not pursue a designation application.

But with that, I'll take any questions.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, I went over there today.

That's the site of the new youth centers going in there, and it was a little unclear.

Are we are they clearing the site and building an entirely new building or are they adaptively reusing the existing building?

To be honest, I don't know if I can really speak to that.

Because I I've heard two different possibilities.

One that they might only be demolishing a small portion of the building, and others where they might be removing the whole structure.

I don't know if there's a set plan, but I think whether they have set plan or not, and I just don't know if they just need it to just process it.

That that's correct.

But I just couldn't tell what exactly they were planning on doing.

I know that there's there are plans for exactly what you stated with um to serve the use, but the youth, but I I don't know if it's complete or partial demolition at this point.

Thank you.

So I have a related question during my site visit, and of course, according to the documentation, we're referencing 300B.

But if you look at the building from Scotty Vus Lane.

A and B are there.

And this package implies that it's the entire building, which would lend me to believe that it's both A and B.

So I don't know if we need to have that here or not.

Um it seems to be confusing whether it's going to be A and B, or if the alpha characters are neither here nor there, and it's just all the entirety of 300 Scotty's bus lane.

You know, I think that that's uh a good observation, and one I remember looking up before, and I it's it's been a hot minute, so and let me if you don't mind, let me just pull that up again.

Sure.

And I might not have internet access.

Do you have a I hate to there we go?

This one will do.

So yes, there is uh two lots.

The one uh lot identified as 300A Scotty bus lane does not have the structure on it.

There are there is structures, but it's not attached to um the the subject building.

Okay, so looking at page 41 in this package, you can see the addresses are 300A and 300B.

And they look like they're all in that same building.

Um again, I'm not trying to belabor it.

I was just confused.

So it might be better illustrated on page 21.

I'm not sure if if it is clear.

So I and I I hate to make statements without looking in greater detail, but my understanding of the site is that it was originally one lot and broken up, and typically you can't do that if it's the same building going across the property line.

So the the property, the lot that we're looking at B is the entirety of the building.

Any structures that are on lot A are excluded from our review right now.

If the property owner wants to come in and submit a separate demolition review for that site, they certainly can, but that's not under review tonight.

Okay, I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Oops.

Commissioners, any other questions for staff.

All right, commissioners back with us.

Any comments, I guess I would suggest any uh motion clarify unit 300B.

Disturbing distinguishing uh separate from 300A.

If you look at page 50, 300B is primary, 300A is an asphalt parking lot with a small building on it.

It's not part of the structure.

That may be according to the plot, but according to the address.

The building is marked 300A and 300B.

Uh yeah, I understand your your perspective now.

A lot of it is not uncommon for address numbers and actual legal addresses on SDET to not be the same.

It should be different from the plot that we are looking at.

It is yeah, it they are two separate properties.

And even though the addressing on the buildings may be representing it as one site or one property that's combined, we we will always base it on uh the the state's tax records and our and our GIS systems.

I appreciate that clarification.

Thank you.

And thank you.

Any other comments?

I'm prepared to make a motion.

Sarah, I'm familiar with HPC 25-574 DR at 300 B, Scotty's bus lane.

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

I'll second that just for the record, could you expand on post on the rationale?

Reasons doesn't meet the criteria for that very reason.

It does not meet the criteria and is not individually eligible for designation as defined by the staff memorandum.

Okay, motion made and seconded to not pursue HP overlay.

Any other further discussion?

All in favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Thanks.

Huff did.

I like to enter home to the record.

A request for demolition review has been submitted per section 423 of the land management code for the storage building at 1003 West Patrick Street number 13.

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.

The property at 1003 West Patrick Street was first developed in 1973.

Deed information, historic aerial images and existing plat plans demonstrate the site was first subdivided into 1969 with unimproved, was unimproved in 1970 and was first platted in 1972.

All evidence supporting the 1970 data construction found in tax measures being accurate.

Aerial images from the 1980s compared with more recent aerials, show the building was altered with the current false decorative gable facade added between 1988 and 2003.

Recent street view images show the brick veneer seen in 2015 was removed, and the building was recently resided with the current smooth troiled concrete masonry appearance.

The longest owner of the property was the NORO Frederick SQ Holdings B V, who purchased the property in 1999, 95.

Staff finds this highly altered 1970 strip mall along Frederick's Golden Mile Commercial Core does not meet any of the above significance criteria and does not have a high degree of historic integrity.

Therefore, staff does not recommend the commission make an application to apply a historic preservation overlay.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Okay, Commissioners, any questions for staff?

Yes, please.

The demolition review is for the storage building only it would be technically for the whole number 13 unit, 100 3 West Patrick Street number 13.

But from their scope, it looks like it's only for what they're stating is the storage unit.

Okay.

If it's just a storage unit, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Any members of the public who wish to speak on this demolition review?

All right, Commissioners back with us.

Do we have a motion?

I move that in the matter of HBC 2540 at uh DR-1003 at number 13 West Patrick Street.

That we do not uh designate it as an individual, we do not recognize it as eligible for individual historic designation.

So just for clarity, that's HPC 25-405.

Correct.

I'll second okay.

Motion made and seconded to not pursue historic preservation overlay.

Any further discussion?

All in favor, please raise your hand.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

Moving on to consent items.

We have three items on the the consent agenda.

I don't know if there's a report on this, Ms.

Martin Kosky, or if we just uh open it for discussion.

One moment.

Okay.

So the individual consent agenda reports are in the packet.

Um but the commission uh as chair you can ask to just review them all at once for one vote without discussion, unless somebody requests to I'm sorry, somebody unless somebody requests to to remove an item.

Any members of the public here tonight who wish to see one or each of these three items removed from the consent agenda and move to the regular hearing.

All right, commissioners back with us.

Are there anyone the commissioners who wish to review any one of these items separately?

If I would not, I'll take a motion to approve the consent items.

Yes, sir.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

And I move that we approve the consent agenda, which includes HPC 25-336, HPC 25327, HPC 2532.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, motion made and then seconded to approve the consent agenda items.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Ms.

Kelly.

Carol, you back in.

The motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

All right, next item on the agenda is continuance from the last hearing, HBC 25-314, corner three, East 7th Street.

Ms.

Martin Koskey.

Yes, I want to enter in the entire staff report into the record, but before we move on, I would like confirmation that the applicant is here.

Okay, thank you.

Seeing so we'll move forward.

The applicant is proposing to install a keypad and dead bolt on the front entry door and install one camera at the rear of the property.

The guidelines state that various modern locking mechanisms are available and may be appropriate.

The guidelines state that keypads will only be uh permitted on rear or secondary elevations or on accessory structures like garages.

In terms of smart locks, uh these are features that are designed to perform locking and unlocking functions with a mobile device or FOB.

And they and these may be appropriate for a front entry if it features a discrete design that blends into the historic character of the door.

Although these locking mechanisms may light up temporarily when in use, new smart locks shall not feature a continuous glow or keypad.

The guidelines also address miscellaneous features, uh miscellaneous features include a wide variety of things, mailboxes and uh house numbers and uh light lightning rods and weather vanes, but also include security devices.

The guidelines say that such features must be approved by the commission, and these items um uh are generally approved under the administrative approval process um but are not eligible in this case because of its uh grouping with the uh the proposed locking mechanism.

Um approval is not required for certain elements, including um hose bibs, installation of new miscellaneous features shall be done in a way that minimizes damage to historic materials and should be reversible whenever uh possible.

Um features that are important to safety, such as house numbers and fire uh and fire department connections must be placed as required by regulations.

However, the regulations generally represent some latitude allowing the commission uh to select locations that would be less damaging.

Um after reviewing the application and doing a site visit, I uh um have the following comments.

Uh keypads are only permitted on rear or secondary elevations are not appropriate for street facing front entries.

The commission shall consider the placement and potential damage to historic fabric when reviewing proposed miscellaneous features such as cameras.

A single camera is proposed for the rear elevation, neither first floor entry.

This location may be appropriate, but the camera should be installed into the mortar joints rather than damage historic brickwork.

Um I do believe that the keypad feature has already been installed into the door.

The commission may have observed this um during their site visits.

Staff recommends that the commission approve the installation of one camera on the masonry wall near the rear first story entry with the condition that it's installed into the mortar joint rather than damage the historic brickwork.

And staff recommends that the commission deny the proposed keypad deadbolt on the dead bolt uh set at the front entry as keypads are only permitted on rear or secondary elevations.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Yeah, Ms.

Martin Koske, I would note we I've had a previous discussion with you, provide evidence that these elements uh certainly the keypad and appears the camera have previously been installed.

And although not relevant to this case here tonight, there has been previous citations, including a court order on this property for other violations previously without getting into details.

I without serving on code enforcement, I can definitely say that there uh had certainly been previous code enforcement infractions on this property.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

The applicant please come forward and introduce yourself and your relation to this project.

Before you do that, uh have you been sworn in?

No.

Let me swear you in briefly.

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

So answer I do.

Introduce yourself.

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

No questions.

Okay.

Just for clarification, when was the keypad installed?

I think the keypad was in when the application was submitted.

And the rear camera, is it installed also?

Okay.

Any other questions, Commissioners, for the applicant?

My question would be about the camera.

Then is it been installed where it is in the mortar and not in the brick work?

It's actually not on the brick.

It's it's on the um the ceiling area.

So it's not it doesn't touch the brick at all.

Thank you.

Question Is this a owner-occupied property or is this an Airbnb?

It's a rental.

A rental property.

Okay.

But not daily rental.

It's is it daily rental or is it long-term rental?

Long-term rental.

Okay, thank you.

It's currently vacant, but the questions, Commissioners?

May I make one brief note?

Um, so this application involves two items.

And if the commission finds that they support one item, but not support another item.

I would just ask that those are two separate motions, not combined.

Okay.

All right, Ms.

Mary Digga, if you want to have a seat temporarily.

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

Um as I noted, these elements have already been installed, and you know why I think the uh the keypad is uh as discreet as you can make it.

Uh in my opinion with some of the past infractions, I uh in favor of the staff recommendations on on both items to approve the camera, but uh not approve the keypad.

If um if the keypad was approved, it would have to be a deviation.

So I just wanted to note that as well.

So we may want two separate motions anyway, one if it approved as a deviation or denied, but I guess it could be uh one motion with a with a condition.

Any other comments commissioners or a motion?

Matter of HPC 25314 at 103 East 7th Street.

Uh I move that we approve uh the installation of one camera at the rear of the property.

I'll second that motion.

All right, motion made and seconded to approve the installation of the camera at the rear of the of the property.

Any further discussion?

May I have a point of clarification?

I believe that the the camera was placed in a slightly different location than initially um believed.

Do we want to add language that it's it's okay to be in on um let me articulate this better, that the camera be installed in the ceiling of the porch, the rear porch?

Didn't didn't the applicant tell it was already installed.

Yeah, of course you said it was.

We hope that that's true, right?

Um, but maybe it is installed into the masonry.

If we don't articulate where the commission is confirming where it can go, then the inspector will not know this conversation and will not be aware of any limitations that the commission won might want to pose on the location of where the the features located.

I'll change my motion then uh on uh HPC uh 25314 at 103 East 7th Street that we approve the installation of a camera at the rear of the property so long as it is installed either on the uh uh masonary joint or in the ceiling uh of the porch so that it doesn't damage the historic brick work.

I will second that.

Is that sufficient?

Christina?

Thank you.

I I appreciate the the clarification.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh any additional comments, discussion, commissioners.

On favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

Any action regarding the keypad I will move.

I'm familiar with uh HPC 25-314 located at 107 East 7th Street.

I move East.

Yeah, 103 East 7th Street.

I move to deny the proposed keypad deadbolt set at the front entry.

As keypads are only permitted on rear or secondary elevations.

Second motion made and seconded to deny the keypad on the front entry.

Any further discussion, Commissioners.

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

And that motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, HPC 25 dash 321 located at 228 East Sixth Street.

And that's commit or Ms.

Hoffed.

Thank you.

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

This application concerns the proposal to replace the tongue and groove wood deck boards, treads and risers from the front porch, install tongue and groove timber tech port collection decking.

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

Acceptable wood, any species of untreated non-composite wood can't be used for wood elements in the historic district.

For porches, porches of historic floors of historic porches and balconies must be tongue and groove wood that matches the dimensions of the historic fabric, unless evidence of other historic materials is present.

For new constructions, other materials may be considered 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 stucco panels, external insulating finishing systems, and materials with fake textures will not be approved.

For staff comments, the applicant proposes to replace wooden wooden decking tread and risers of the front porch with TimberTech advanced decking by ASEC porch collection.

This property was recently constructed between 2020 and 2022 and is considered a non-contributing resource to the historic district.

The property exhibits several non-traditional materials such as composite siding, aluminum clad windows, which are supported by the design guidelines for new construction.

Traditional materials are encouraged.

However, the commission may approve alternative materials for new constructions on a case-by-case basis.

Staff notes that the commission has been supportive of the use of TimberTech decking products for new or newer constructions when the product can replicate its traditional tongue and groove profile and can avoid a fake a fake wood texture.

Staff notes that the proposed TimberTech product has a fake wood texture, but other options may be available without the faux wooden grain.

Staff recommends the commission approve the proposal to replace existing tongue and groove wood deck boards, train treads and risers on front porch with a timber tech or other compatible composite product with the following conditions.

That the product features a traditional tongue and groove profile and avoids a faux wooden grain fee finish.

And that revised product literature is submitted for staff review and approval before the issuance of a permit.

And with that, we'll take any questions.

Yes.

Sorry, as you call out mahogany, but not a wood-painted surface.

Well, yeah, traditionally, if it's wood, it would need to be painted.

Okay.

So for clarity, though, this TimberTec is not a wood product.

But it can come.

With a painted appearance, is what I'm looking for.

Correct.

So it should not just exhibit a faux texture or like a wood grain finish that we're seeing on the current product that's being proposed.

But if it's like a if they the commission determines that if they want a more historic material, such as a traditional wood, tongue and groove profile, um, either way that product that and finish needs to be painted.

And looking at the product register online, it does have the cathedral grain, but it also has the wire brush finish, which is the finish I think we've approved in the past, just a clean wire brush for texture only, but not uh an appearance of the faux wood.

Correct.

And it would seem to me also with this product that when you cut the ends, they would be exposed, they should either be painted unless there's a picture frame around the perimeter of the of the porch.

So questions for staff, commissioners.

Okay, if the applicant is here, if they would step forward to the microphone.

If we introduce yourself, sir.

My name is Tim Morris.

And I did bring a sample of it doesn't have a faux wood grain.

This is the brush that you just said would be acceptable.

And the ends because of how it will be replaced, purchasing 16-foot boards.

Each end that the end that is exposed to the street will have the factory finished end as opposed to something that's been cut that would need to be painted.

Thank you for that.

Sure.

And I realize this is a newer construction and newer construction.

We have approved uh different materials, but uh was there any consideration just using a traditional mahogany flooring there?

So we've replaced some of the pine boards already that have rotted, and if you're looking at the pictures, the especially the steps that are exposed, uh they rotted and I've used you know bare good paint and uh it continues to chip, and that product is uh last longer than than me.

And the risers would be solid white, a smooth finish.

Out of the same material or just the same material.

Thanks, sir.

Any other questions?

Commissioners for the applicant.

Should have asked, were you sworn in at the beginning of the year?

I was.

Okay, thank you.

A lot of people here.

Any other questions for the applicant, Commissioners?

All right, Mr.

Morris, you want to have the seat just uh temporarily.

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

All right, Commissioner is back with us.

Any comments.

I would just add that I would like for any motion to include the option for mahogany if it should be an option to be included.

To be out painted also, but including the wire brushed or uh wire brushed finished.

So I'm sorry, we're adding mahogany because the applicant is intending to possibly use mahogany.

No, just for my uh personal preference.

I stand corrected.

And to give options.

I would note in looking at this product, it appears to be uh an inch thick, which more traditional porch flooring is more like three-quarter inch thick.

Which is probably not a big deal again on a newer home.

Uh question whether it might fit under some of the trim that's already installed on the porch, but that can be handled.

Um I am familiar with HPC 25-321 at 228 East 6th Street.

I move that we approve the proposal to replace existing tongue and groove wood deck boards, treads, and risers on the front porch with a timber tech or other comparable composite product, or natural wood product, or specifically mahogany.

Or other or other painted wood product with the following conditions that the product feature a traditional tongue and groove profile and avoids a faux wood grain finish, um, but allows for a wire brushed finish, and that revised product literature is submitted to staff for review and approval before the issuance of a permit.

And I will second the other thing.

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

Any further discussion?

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

Motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The uh next case is HBC 25-330, located at 165 West All Saint Street, Miss Hoftets.

Thank you.

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

This application proposes to replace 63 feet of existing fence with a new solid board six foot tall fencing and three gates of the 63 feet of fencing, 40 feet is proposed to be beauty side facing towards the inner yard.

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

Required orientation of fences in general, all fences must be installed with the beauty or finished side facing outward, meaning the structural components of fencing must face the yard being fenced.

For staff comments, the applicant is proposing to place 68 feet of their existing fence and replaced with a solid board six-foot tall wood fencing with three gates.

The applicant is proposing to have the beauty side facing towards the inner yard for 40 feet per the guidelines.

The proposed orientation of the fence must be beauty side facing outward with structural components facing towards the inner yard.

The most appropriate appropriate action is to have the beauty font side facing outwards.

There are several approaches, a double-sided fence having solid boards attached to either either side of the fence framing to create a finished appearance on both sides.

A picture frame fence where boards are connected using rails on the top and bottom to create some the same finish appearance on both sides.

The scope of work notes three gates.

However, the height is not clearly stated.

Staff finds no inconsistencies with the proposed height or material proposed for the fence when referencing the guidelines.

Staff recommends the commission approve a six-foot-tall solid board fence with the condition that the beauty side faces out with an updated scope submitted to staff for final review and approval.

The height of the gate must match the height of the fence.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for staff commissioners?

Yeah, a couple of questions.

Uh first of all, there's only a very small distance between the houses there.

Is this fence being proposed to replace the existing chain link fence that's there?

I believe the chain link fence is a part of someone else's property.

It they just it just a buttons.

It would be inside of the chain link fence.

I believe so, but I believe the applicant may be able to answer that a little bit better than I can.

Yeah.

And the other question I had is you can't really see the fence at all from the street.

What difference does it make about the beauty side versus the other side if you can't see it?

So that that's just the standard that we typically have for the historic district.

Most of our fences have that Phoji side facing outward, or they have that sort of alternative double-sided or the picture frame fence so that we all we stay consistent with what the guidelines are stating.

Right.

And just to follow up on that, staff cannot give deviations.

So definitely not what?

Staff can't give deviations, right?

So if it doesn't follow the guidelines, we can't process it.

And it comes to you.

So you may have that discussion.

It's not very visible.

Maybe we can deviate, but we can't do that.

That's why it's up to the commission to make this call on this one.

Any other questions for the staff?

Is the applicant here tonight?

Step forward.

Introduce yourself, please.

Or one or both of you.

He's my contractor.

Were you sworn in?

Okay, thanks.

Go ahead.

I'm Ellen Martin.

And contractor, if you or if you want to speak, you can do any questions, comments on the staff report.

Any of the recommendations.

Well, in regard in regards to the chain link fence, that is the neighbor's fence.

Um and it's right there.

Um you wouldn't see.

You don't see the that line of fencing.

So the beauty side out would be the gate that's it faces the alley and everywhere else except for along the chain link fence.

So it's I don't know if you all did a site visit, but you can't really see that very well against the chain link.

So that's why I'm asking for that.

But the current fence that's there now in the photographs, that which we can't see from the street.

The beauty side is out.

It's facing the neighbor's yard.

Correct.

It is facing the neighbor's yard right now.

Correct.

Yes.

And you're asking for a deviation to change that with the new fence.

Correct.

The existing fence that is up now is pre-made panels.

It is pre-made panels.

Uh where you're going to stick build everything.

So in order to stick build, I need to get on that side.

If I stick build it, I need to take down the chain link fence in order to stick build that.

So we're only asking for 40 feet.

I've done a lot of fences on all St.

Street there or across the street there.

And actually the neighbor is a friend of hers.

So I she ended up contacting me.

So when we do this, we set the post and everything.

It's called a face nail.

So we set the post and then nail the two by fours directly to the post and then put the one with sixes on there.

But with that chain link fence on the opposite side, I can't get my nail guns in there.

I can't.

I cannot cut my two by fours when we go to install this fence.

I cannot do that with that chain link fence error.

It's so close.

You don't really have the room.

It shouldn't seem to be zero room.

Um you can't build that panel like the one that's not.

No, you can't because the panels that are up there now, they're they're premium sections.

So if if we were to build it because there's a grade, when there's it's it's called a face nail, you you nail the two by fours directly to the post.

So there's no way to take that panel off and turn it around.

It's it's it's not feasible in order to do that with that chain link fence there.

Like I said, the only way to do with the beauty out is to take the chain link fence down, build the fence, have to put it back up, but again, you're gonna have to get permission from I think that's a rental property.

Have not seen anybody there when you just said this is her neighbor, her friend.

No.

But the chain link fence is a rental property.

My friend is my the uh the other side.

So it's going to match what my other I'm attached on one side.

So one sixty three West All Saints Street is attached to me, and it would be the same fence that matches that.

That's what we're asking for.

On the other side, one sixty-seven and one sixty-nine is one apartment building or two houses connected, five units in there, and it's with a chain length fence all around, which I didn't know what's historic, but um so that's the the line that we would be going with Ms.

Martin certainly having two fences there are kind of superfluous, but I presume you just don't want to look at your neighbor's chain look fence or or could you just remove the fence and not replace it with anything?

Or you want to hide the chain link?

I do not like the chain link fence, and I and tenants come and go.

I don't know who they are.

Um it turns over pretty frequently with the five units, so yeah, I like to have my privacy.

Gardening gates are proposing three gates.

I guess one in the very rear, one where the wood fence meets the back corner of the house, and then one at the front.

Yes.

One at the front is a white picket fence where you replacing that in kind, or similar to what the fence uh the other gates.

That is a uh from from what it looks like as an existing stockade fence.

So a stockade is a pre-mate section again, made into a fence with or made into a gate.

What you do is you cut that down.

Um I don't plan on doing that stick build on my gates, all my gates are out of cedar.

So we're going to make that gate out of cedar, it's gonna be an oval top, six foot tall.

Um the gate when you go back through the alley to go back into the back, that's a small, like one and a half and not like two foot gate, and the back uh the gate in the back is gonna be four foot tall or four foot wide, six foot tall with an oval top as well.

How tall is the intermediate gate?

Oh six foot tall.

Thank you.

So the street front gate will be a solid board on both sides.

Solid board, solid board, oval top.

Like see that picture.

Or left natural, the cedar.

Um the cedar, you can you definitely want to the cedars kind of already dried out.

Uh the treated, you you definitely want to if you if you stain it later or seal it later, just you know, wait six months a year, depending on how much sun it gets and everything, but you can stain it or seal it however you want.

Or what are you proposing?

And I guess Christina, is there or Sarah?

Is there a restriction on fencing?

So there's staining.

So not like the porch uh where the portrait's required.

Um fences are not required to be painted just or stained in a peak stain.

I don't know if you uh stated in the application one way or the other, but stain would be fine in this case for fencing and the gates.

Uh or painted.

That's your option.

But any other questions for the applicant, commissioners.

Okay, I I think I do have one question before you sit down.

I'm looking on page eight of the application, the drawing.

At the house to the left where it says existing fence.

That's a chain link fence there now.

That is not there isn't a wooden fence there.

The the opposite if you're looking, if you're in the back of Diggs Alley there to the left is a six-foot-tall solid board fence.

To the right of her property is the chain link fence from the back.

To the left if I'm looking at her property.

So the left if you're looking from all Saint Street to the left of her property is the chain link fence to the right of her property is the six-foot tall.

And you're going to add wood fence there as well, or no?

Uh we're gonna I'm gonna put a post there and connect, it's gonna match, it's gonna be existing, or it's gonna match the existing fence that is there.

There isn't a wooden fence there.

There's a chain link fence there.

If you're looking at the house, could you come closer to the microphone?

Just make sure we can't.

You're looking at the house from all Saint Street.

Yep.

To the left is chain link.

Yes.

Down the sideline is going to be of that chain link.

Of the chain link is going to be wood.

And the back line is going to be wood.

So all along the the west side and the north side.

Correct.

And nothing on the east side.

No change.

No, that's existing.

Yeah.

So what I'm asking is.

I did that back in, I think 2020.

What I'm asking is from that chain link up front where you're going to put the six-foot-tall fence.

Okay.

All the way to the back of the goes all the way back.

Okay, I understand.

Right.

So from the back of her house.

From the back of her house is a small gate like this big.

So it's going to start from the back corner of her house with the gate right there to the back corner.

So it's not going to be the chain link fence.

There's going to be a gate there, but there is not going to be additional wood fencing at that chain link.

From the sidewalk from here.

That's what I'm asking.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

And then from the back of her house to the back corner is going to be six-foot-tall solid board.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, if you want to seat temporarily.

And uh the member of the public here tonight who wish to speak on this case.

I guess considering the circumstances with the two fences there side by side.

And the gates uh matching the fencing height as described are acceptable, in my opinion.

Certainly along the rear or the north side, the beauty side should be facing outward.

Any other comments?

Motion?

I just want to add that I I think in this particular case, the point about the grade and having to use this specific type of fencing and building it this way because of the grade is important because they can't use the pre-made panels easily.

Can I make a motion?

Let me just maybe make one qualifications.

I was just debating your wood versus pressure treated, we should probably add something non-pressure treated wood fence.

So is that um for fencing not pressure treated is acceptable unless it's uh street facing even though the applicant isn't necessarily proposing that, even though the previous motion I didn't know.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I am familiar with HPC 25-330 at 165 West All Saint Street.

And I move that we approve the application for a six-foot solid board fence with the condition.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That we approve the application as submitted.

I'll second that.

Do you guys want to make just this the slight clarification about the gate height since it wasn't especially illustrated in the site planning and the scope of work for the height of the gate must match the height of the fence?

I'll amend my motion that the height of the gate must match the height of the fence.

All three gates.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Motion made and seconded to uh approve the application with conditions, including the height of the gates matching the height of the fence.

Any further discussion.

I'll just note that this is a deviation from the guidelines.

Um that since this deviation does not impact the historic integrity of the property or the street.

Um, yeah, thank you.

Any other discussion all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

And motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

Next case, HPC 25-331, 115 East Fifth Street.

Ms.

Hofditz.

Thank you.

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

This application concerns a proposal for the partial demolition of the one-story rear L.

The plans call for the removal of 90 square feet of the rear gable wall and 164 square feet of the roof.

The replacement plan is being reviewed under HPC 2532 and is a two-story addition that envelopes the rear elevation and much of the roof of the rear L.

The guidelines state that every reasonable effort must be made to retain and preserve historic fabric in the historic district.

When a contributing historic resource is demolish, a vital and tangible link to the city's past is loss.

This loss disrupts the historic street shapes and decreases the historical and architectural integrity of the entire district.

These guidelines are intended to discourage demolition.

Therefore, they force the commission to review process that is deliberate and thorough.

Demolition will be considered only when all feasible alternatives to demolition have been considered.

A decision requir regarding demolition must be based on the complete application, including historical information about the resource and the replacement plan, if applicable.

In taking action on a demolition application, the commission considers the following the degree of importance of the resource, the proposed replacement plan for the resource.

The commission must identify if the building's structure site or object in its entirety is a contributing or non-contributing resource to the historic district.

Additionally, there are special considerations for contributing resources of the hist uh of unusual importance.

In the case of partial demolition, the commission will consider the impact of demolition will have would have on the significance of the overall resource.

Partial demolition of a contributing resource will not be approved if demolition will so alter for a building site structure or object such that the building site structure or object will no longer be contributing.

When the commission makes a decision regarding construction and reconstruction, alteration, moving, or demolition, it must consider the historical, archaeological, and architectural value of the resource, including its integrity.

Resources in the historic edition are either contributing or non-contributing.

Contributing resources are the following: building structure sites or objects that help define the district that add historical architectural value, and generally those building structure sites or objects that are built during the historic district's period of significance.

Non-contributing resources are those building structured sites or objects that do not help define the historic district and do not add historical or architectural value to the historic district.

Generally resources that are less than 50 years old or non-contributing.

For the property history and degree of importance.

By 1922, a second one-story rear addition was added.

Then by 1930, several detached accessory buildings were constructed.

Presently the building is comprised of the original main block and the rear L constructed between 1853 and 1858 and a non-historic deck.

The dwelling serves as representative representative example or vernacular British folk log dwelling, which was a common housing type in the mid-Atlantic region.

Few examples of log dwellings survive in the historic district.

Dwellings of this type are limited in footprint, typically a single room deep to accommodate general slash combined use of space.

During the mid to late 19th century, it was common for these simple buildings to expand to create more specialized uses such as a kitchen area.

The expansion of this dwelling allowed for a greater living space without significantly impacting the main dwelling.

In the case of partial demolition, the commission will consider the impact of the demolition would have on significance of the overall resource.

However, at the first meeting, the commission's review is limited to determine the contributing slash non-contributing status of the resource in its entirety.

Staff recommends the commission find the residential building at 115 East Fifth Street to be a contributing resource.

This property serves as a good representation of traditional log dwelling with a rear L.

This finding is consistent with the 2021 National Register nomination.

Staff recommends the Commission find this resource to be a contributing resource to the historic district.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Sorry, any comments, questions regarding the contributing status?

Uh no, we're concur with the staff's report.

We believe the House is a contributing resource.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant.

All right.

Any other members of the public here tonight wish to speak on this application considering a contributing resource to the historic Frederick Frederick Town Historic District.

All right, Commissioners is back with us.

Again, I'll just reiterate our purpose here on this application solely is to determine whether it's a contributing or non-contributing resource to the historic district.

Is there any discussion?

Yeah, I would just say this is a beautiful and significant historic property in the but it's also a tiny property, which we'll get to in the next uh when at the workshop.

But uh it certainly qualifies, I think, as a contributing uh resource and uh but if I wasn't the owner, it would also be hard to live in a tiny space like that.

So I could understand their their wanting it in addition.

Any other discussion or a motion, commissioners?

Uh I'll go ahead and make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-331 at 115 East Fifth Street, and I find I recommend that no hang on.

I move, thank you.

I think there's a word for it.

I move that we do find this property as a contributing resource to the historic district.

I second that a motion.

Thank you.

Okay, motion made and seconded to approve the resource as a contributing resource to the Fredericktown Historic District.

Any additional discussion?

All in favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

Next application is the applicant or agent present.

For uh 20 or yeah, 229 East Third Street.

Okay.

We'll go to uh Ms.

Martin Koske first.

One moment I have to pull up a digital copy.

Thanks for your patience.

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

This application concerns demolition of a one-story non-historic sunroom located at the rear of the property and a second story porch.

The proposed replacement plan is addressed under HPC 25-334, which calls for two-story addition with a porch.

Just as a reminder, per section 423, rather, of the land management code.

It requires that at the first hearing for a demolition application, the commission first determine whether a site or structure is either non-contributing or contributing based on the criteria of the commission's guidelines.

And again, if the commission determines that a site or structure is contributing, no further action can be taking place at this hearing.

A second uh hearing would be required.

Um I will also note that this project, both the proposed demolition and addition are um rather excuse me, just the addition will be reviewed at the workshop tonight.

For the guidelines, every reasonable effort must be made to be uh retain and preserve historic fabric in the historic district, and any decision regarding demolition must be based on a complete application, including historical information about the resource and the replacement plan if applicable.

And taking action on a demolition application, the commission really requires uh has two primary considerations.

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

The commission again must identify if the building structure, site, or object in its entirety, is a contributing or not contributing resource to the historic district.

And additionally, there are also special considerations for contributing resource resources of unusual importance.

In the case of partial demolition, the commission will consider the impact the demolition would have on the significance of the overall building.

As a quick recap, contributing resources uh are building structures, sites, or objects that help define the historic district that add historical or architectural value, or are um or are buildings that are constructed um within the historic district's period of significance.

Resources that are less than 50 years of age uh are generally not considered to be uh contributing resources.

The commission may find a contributing I'll just move forward.

Excuse me.

Um moving forward to the property history and assessment of the degree of importance.

This dwelling at 229 East Third Street appears to be represented on the 1853 Pitar map with a simple square plan.

On the 1873 Titus map, the building is also depicted, but this time with the rear L.

It's been extended by the 19th century sandborne maps, or early rather early 20th century sandboard maps indicate that um that the building originally was one story.

Oh, excuse me.

I'm gonna start that sentence back again.

Uh going back to the 19th century sandboard maps uh indicates that the building was originally one story tall, but by 1911, the second story was added, and a porch was incorporated into the rear L.

The one-story sunroom at the rear of the building appears to be of modern construction and is first clearly detected on the 2003 aerial photograph.

Although the dwelling has evolved over time, the building does help define the historic district and adds historical historical and architectural value and was built during the historic district's period of significance.

And this finding is consistent with the 2021 National Register nomination.

And because of this, staff recommends the commission find the structure to be a contributing resource with further conversation to be had at tonight's workshop.

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

Any questions for our staff?

Would the applicant please come forward and introduce yourself?

And introduce yourself, please.

My name is Barbara Wyatt, and I'm representing the owner who asked me to step up here for her.

Ms.

Wyatt, were you sworn in earlier?

No, I was not.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

In that case, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses giving and 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.

Okay.

Any questions, comments regarding the contributing versus non-contributing status of this property?

No, it's absolutely contributing.

I agree with the staff.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicants, agents, commissioners?

All right, if one has a seat temporarily.

Again, Commissioner is uh back with us.

Any discussion or a motion?

I would just say this is another beautiful and historically significant property that has evolved over time, and the owner is seeking to evolve it once again.

Uh but I think it certainly contribute is a contributing resource in the district, and it's a just a fine uh property.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-333 at 229 East Third Street.

Yeah, I lost my page.

And I move that we find this structure a contributing resource.

I second that motion.

We both second that a motion.

Okay, motion bays and seconded to find the property a contributing resource to the Frederick Town Historic District.

Any uh further discussion.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, HPC 25-335, located at 223 West South Street.

And that's Miss Hofditz.

Thank you.

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

This application concerns the proposal to replace the corrugated metal roofing and gutter system and replace the freeze soft and fascia board with a smooth hardy trim on rear detached garage.

The Frederick Town Historic District Design Guides establish the following standards.

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

Wood siding and trim shall be retained.

Siding and trim and walls to be rehabilitated must be wood.

For roofing, corrugated metal is appropriate for some industrial or small-scale buildings such as garages and sheds.

For staff comments, the rear detached garage structure is first documented on the 1947 Samborne Fire Insurance map and replaces an earlier wood frame structure.

Per the guidelines, wooden trim features must be retained and preserved.

The current material of the sofa fascia and freeze deteriorated or missing.

Staff finds no inconsistencies with the proposed corrugated roof and gutter replacement, which is allowed on small scale buildings.

The guidelines, if replacement of trim becomes necessary, the new trim must match the historic in terms of materials, size, profile, texture, and application as closely as possible.

Staff finds the most appropriate material will be a non-pressure treated wood that is painted.

Plywood can be used for the soffit if the edges are not visible.

The commission may consider if deviation from the guidelines is appropriate.

The proposed cement board trim and soffit will not feature a fit fake texture, has a similar appearance to wood, and the work is located on the secondary resource at the rear of the property.

The commission can deviate from the guidelines if they find the proposed products are an acceptable alternative.

Further, the work must not comprise the integrity of the streetscape or surrounding historic properties.

Nor can the contributing resource or its setting be so altered that it would no longer be contributing.

Staff recommends the commission approve the application with the condition that a non-pressure treated wood that is painted be used for the trim and soffit.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Yes, but I'm Rebecca Becky Sibelars.

Trevor Burrus Thomas.

And any uh questions or comments on the staff report?

Just a couple.

Um as you saw when you were there, probably this week, uh, a piece of it has the plywood has fallen off from one of our windstorms this summer.

Um and you could see where there's a significant gap between where the brick wall stops and the new wood frame of the roof.

Is we kind of have to patch that.

So we're trying to make kind of a crappy situation better.

Um we know that the plywood is pretty inappropriate for what's there.

It's not a historic material, a wood never been used there.

Um so we're just trying to sort of upgrade what we have, what we're working with from this probably 1980s rehab that we're now suffering, the consequences of any thing you want to add?

Yeah, and one of the challenges is the width of the material.

Um fascia side, for example, of the east elevation.

Um, some of that material is like 14 inches wide.

So in a traditional wood, that's very challenging to get uh material that wide that's stable.

Um so that's kind of why we landed more towards the hardy board, the composite the hardy panel does make a wider product that would fill that gap on the Yeah.

So we it's uh kind of a mishmash of a bunch of hardy products.

Um, but hardy panel comes in four feet wide that we'd rip down to to accommodate that size.

And then there's kind of an extra freeze element at the top just to make it a little bit more decorative.

And I guess it was add instead of one flat panel.

You could build up the trim, you know, add to it just to cover that if you know if the hardy panel was acceptable.

I do have, I guess, a question about the jams on the uh garage door side.

I know the the cementitious products can delaminate if we're not finished properly and being that close to the ground or close proximity or even touching the ground.

I'm might be a little concerned about how durable uh c meetitia's project might be versus a we're not going to be touching the jams on the either side of the garage door.

Those will remain in place.

I believe the yeah, those are probably pressure treated.

Those were there when we bought the house.

Um we'll just paint those to the match the soffit and the freeze elements.

I would encourage uh as much discussion of Hardy as possible this evening as a member of relatively new member of the commission who is unfamiliar with this product.

So I encourage my fellow commissioners to um to address this uh material just uh question for clarification.

Can I back up?

I guess I know you so maybe I know you should yes, I know you, so I might have the mic.

Oh I'm sorry, I know Rebecca, so maybe I won't vote on this, but a question.

Um it looks like there's missing brick, or the brick has been damaged at the top of the Yeah, we're so we bought this property in 2011, and what's there now was there.

Um we're not really sure what the modifications were before, but the roof structure is a modern two by four, two by six nihes mash.

So either it was damaged prior and they did what they could.

We're not really sure, but um, yes, there's some bricks kind of missing it's stepped.

You can see in the mid the east elevation drawing, there's like dash lines up.

That's kind of the step profile that we're dealing with.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thanks.

One reason I was interested in discussion of this uh this wall is because of the brick appearance that it does represent, that it does present as a historical uh feature.

And as somebody who is not technically uh qualified to uh um evaluate it, uh I encourage the discussion that you have introduced.

Do you want my comments on or do you want to uh any anyone's comments?

Okay.

Um well, I mean, we are both preservation professionals.

Um I'm a preservation architect and Trevor's a preservation carpenter, and we love the historic district, and we've thought about this for 14 years and how we're gonna do this, and this is kind of the best solution that we could come up with without using some sort of dimensional lumber that would probably move over time.

So we felt that the cement board would be the most appropriate once painted, it's really pretty hidden, and it is uh a secondary structure, so that's what we were leaning towards.

And I respect the extent to which you have to uh come up with creative solutions to uh um modern problems in terms of rehabilitation.

Thank you.

So I want to just step back for a minute because I I think I misunderstood the document is they're not page numbers, but I'm just gonna try this.

This is the particular picture that I'm looking at.

And I think the question was asked a moment ago about the brick.

Yeah, is the intention to refill the missing brick before putting this on?

No, there's no intention of putting brick there.

We would add wood blocking in order to support the back of the Hardy board.

And is there a reason why we're not trying to preserve and fill the brick in?

Go ahead.

And I think to be clear, that brick isn't missing, right?

You can see it because the piece of the trim is blown off, but that brick steps.

Right, because that's how you get the pitch of the roof.

So when they constructed it, they snapped the brick down, and then it got covered with a trim, and that allows the ceiling joists to lay on top, and that creates the pitch of the roof.

So once the trim goes back up, like that's all hidden.

That's hidden behind the trim.

I understand that, but I would disagree that any brick is missing because it appears to me that there's at least two or three bricks missing.

Okay.

That's where, yeah, that's where the the purlins that the rafters sit on the purlins and the purlins are notched into the brick walls.

They come through.

The intention is still not to restore this appropriately by refilling with the brick.

We do not intend to put any brick in, no.

And can you address that further?

What is your rationale?

Uh I mean, if we could, I guess.

We we could we um we truly felt that the the wood block, because it can't be seen.

The wood blocking would be the easiest thing to attach the the new trim to.

If we put additional masonry back there, it would just be a different fast sending system, which would be more difficult.

But it's also not a restoration then at that point.

It's just trying to cover the situation but not restore the proper the secondary building.

Yeah, if that piece hadn't blown off, it would be sort of just replacement in kind.

You wouldn't even know that that stepped brick was back there.

And do do you as um professionals um uh recommend that approaches?

I don't see anything wrong with what we're recommending in my professional opinion, no and in terms of uh uh merging what is being done by your approach and our goal to establish to maintain the historic integrity.

Where are we?

I I believe we are maintaining the historic integrity.

Um the brick wall is remaining, and we're just replacing the trim.

If the piece hadn't blown off, you wouldn't have known it was there.

Um and we're trying to meet every intention of the guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards to essentially replace a kind, albeit the material is slightly different.

But once it's painted, you will not know.

Thank you.

Maybe the picture isn't that clear.

So it looks like one of the roof rafters is just sitting on the brick right there where that's so it is sitting there.

It's it's so it's intentional, it doesn't need to be restored.

The notch is intentional.

So there's no restoration that's when you get there's no restoration required because if you were to remove the rest of the trim, there's bricks cut out where the rafters are for the roof are sitting directly on brick.

So it's not a restoration, it's not missing is what we're getting at.

Okay.

Right.

So that's what that's what I just can't quite tell, but rather than worry about replacing a brick that was never there.

Right.

It's just it's already, you know.

I I would just comment that this is a garage in an alleyway not visible from the public right-of-way, and that you know, as a commission, we we need to be a little more flexible in the root in the in situations like this.

Uh because this is not something that the public is ever going to see, and whether it's a hardy board or a piece of real wood, no one is really gonna see that.

Uh so I just think that I would argue in favor of flexibility in applications like this.

But I would reiterate my insertion into this discussion, which is that this is relevant to how we move forward in terms of preservation.

That that what our technicians are presenting to us this evening is very relevant to decisions that we make as non-technical commissioners.

And I I personally am uh impressed by the extent to which what you are presenting tonight um uh uh elucidates that uh decision making process.

I don't know if you're familiar with a borough true exterior siding product, polyash siding.

It's uh we just recently uh approved it on another project.

Uh I think it's a superior product to the C Metition's board, although we've had plenty of cases where the sea matitious hardy panel has been approved.

Um reason I like the borrow is you don't have to treat the ends of it once you cut it.

Uh it's a lot lighter, it cuts like wood, but just something to consider, but I don't in this case I don't have a particular exception, being again a secondary structure or garage on an alleyway of using the uh the hardy panel.

And uh, you know, in terms of the overall construction, I mean we're really not our purview to force you to correct something that may or may not be uh insufficient or unsubstantial in its current present condition, and certainly putting any brick in there to kind of match the slope.

Uh you couldn't fill the whole gap in anyway, or uh just that little portion, I don't think is uh concerning, particularly since it wasn't seen before, and the only reason we're seeing it now is because the siding blew off so um my thought was any consideration might be towards the borough product, but I don't have any real exceptions, and you guys voting qualified to make sure that the hardy uh panel is put in properly as as recommended by the uh manufacturer.

So any other discussion questions for the applicant.

Just noting that according to the guidelines, this would be a deviation.

Since since we are having a bit of a discussion about the role of the HPC, I I think it's important to note that a lot of these repair um projects that are just repairing trim, even despite what the guidelines say, um, even park service projects will use hardy board products or some of the cementitious siding or the borough product on you know on national landmarks, partly because of the maintenance issues and partly because of um cost issues and but mostly because of maintenance issues.

And I think that it's important for us as a commission to consider the use of alternate materials, um, especially given that a lot of the technology for these products has improved over the years, um, especially for things like decks or trim work that need to be replaced often.

Um this is one of those cases where I think it makes sense to deviate.

Any questions regarding the corrugated metal roofing?

Commissioners for the applicant.

I unfortunately remain a little confused about how I will vote.

I couldn't hear that, I'm sorry.

I'm just commenting that despite the discussion, which I appreciate, I remain confused about the issue.

And that's probably too personal um rep you know representation.

Um I respect what the chairman has said in terms of recognizing the advancements that are made and other commission members in terms of technology.

And I would assume that the people presenting your case are certainly aware of those advances.

So if I may add this, so the deviations of the guidelines, it very clearly says in the staff report for contributing resources, so long as it isn't going to compromise the integrity of the streetscape, which we can tell in this situation the building isn't the rear of the property.

It's not going to compromise the integrity of surrounding properties, and that's true in this case.

And it's also not going to so alter the contributing resource that it would no longer be a contributing resource.

So I think in that light, the criteria is met for supporting a deviation.

All right.

Do you have any final comments?

Thank you for your consideration.

I just want to have a seat temporarily.

Commissioners, it's back with us, and we've already had a very thorough discussion.

Any other discussion or actions.

Can I make a motion?

I'm familiar with HPC 25-335 at 223 West South Street, and I move that we approve the application as submitted.

I'll second that motion is made and second to approve the application as submitted for discussion.

You're um saying only using a wood product.

Not a seatitis hardy plank.

Yeah, they said against the staff recommendation.

Yes.

Right.

So could you clarify the use of the deviation product?

Sure.

Um I'm sorry, just a minute.

The proposal is to use uh hardy cementitious product with a smooth finish.

Um and uh replace the corrugated metal roof and gutters.

Um I'm sorry, why are why are we define I mean they they have a pretty clear scope of work, right?

Do you are we clarifying or are we just clarifying that we're just clear?

Just clarifying that the hardy trim is acceptable that more than just saying approve the application as submitted.

Okay.

Okay, let me start over.

Um I move that we approve the application to replace the corrugated metal roofing and gutter system and to replace the freeze soffit and fascia board with a smooth hardy trim on the rear detached garage.

I'll second that.

Okay, motion made and second to replace the uh corrugated middle siding and gutter system and using uh the hardy C Metitious siding.

Any further discussion?

I'll just note again that since this is a deviation from the guidelines, um, the integrity of the streetscape will not be compromised, nor will the integrity of any surrounding historic properties be compromised, and the contributing resource and its setting will not be so altered that it will no longer be contributing.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any other further discussion?

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

All against the I will abstain because I'm familiar with the applicant.

Okay.

So the motion carries uh six approval and one abstention, Commissioner DeYoung.

Okay, before we close out this uh public hearing portion of the hearing tonight.

Are there any uh members of the public here tonight who wish to have citizens comment on uh anything that fancies you make sure the microphone is on and introduce yourself?

How are you doing?

Um I've been here the whole time and I was here for items number five and seven on the docket.

I never heard those come up.

I just want to make sure that if there's anything I need to do, I'd like to address it.

No, they were uh approved as under the consent items.

Okay.

So there wasn't any formal review.

We just approved them automatically to the guidelines.

Yeah.

You probably will uh be hearing from staff as a follow-up from that.

Yeah.

All right.

If there's no uh public comment, we will uh adjourn momentarily and then move into our our workshop session.

I will uh uh advise now and and again when we start the workshop.

Anybody we do have a pretty full agenda under the workshop.

Sometimes they can be short, sometimes they can be pretty extended.

Uh the city has adopted a resolution that no meeting can go beyond 11 p.m.

So I'm confident we'll be done well ahead of time for that.

But sometimes these uh workshop sessions can be very extended.

So we will keep track as we go along through the workshop of the time and try to assess how we're going proceeding, and if we may not be able to get to all the uh workshop agenda, you know, we may the the applicant may wish to move it on to the to the next uh the next hearing date.

So it is we will adjourn temporarily to set up for our workshop agenda and um we'll reconvene at uh 8.05.

I think we're ready.

Check, check.

Okay.

Welcome back to the workshop portion of uh tonight's hearing for the historic preservation commission of City of Frederick.

Again, today's date is November the thirteenth.

Before we get started with the workshop, I just want to reminder again, we have uh several items on the workshop agenda, and sometimes they can be pretty straightforward, but sometimes they can be uh pretty involved.

Uh, just to reiterate for everybody who's attending here tonight, and uh for the workshop.

Uh the city has a resolution that reads in part uh that the need to complete as much public business as possible in an evening meeting must be balanced with fairness to the applicant staff and members of the public who should be provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard at reasonable times.

And in that regard, all the resolution states all public meetings of the city of Frederick, including its officials, agencies, and departments must conclude no later than eleven PM.

So again, as we go through tonight's workshop proceedings, we'll kind of keep track of how well we're doing.

If the applicants would come forward to the seats in front.

For replacing of windows, if the commission determines a replacement window is necessary due to severe deterioration, the new window must duplicate the material design dimensions, configurations, hardware of the window to be replaced.

For materials for siding, unless otherwise stated in the guidelines, certain materials including were not levitude falling, are not appropriate, would not be approved for rehabilitation for the historic district unless they can be determined to be original to the building, composite decking or and accessories.

So the applicant is seeking post-work approval for work done on the rear portion of 137 North Market Street.

The property was first recorded on the 1887 Sand Warren Fire Insurance Map as a brick construction with a second-story wooden porch.

Would the applicant like to discuss a little bit on the project and the scope of work a little bit?

Sure.

So due to the fire, we have about 40 plus windows.

Microphone on, sir.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, so we have about like 40 plus windows and 10 doors.

And due to the fire, you know, most of them were affected, but we tried to save most of them, except I believe six or eight windows.

They were non-repairable.

So we ended up replacing them.

And uh uh and they are like uh um new construction single-hung, you know, double pane glass and argon gas insulated windows.

And we did try to get similar kind of windows for those six or seven windows I'm talking about, but due to the you know, challenging part was getting the raw materials last year, and they were saying it's gonna be like 10 to 12 weeks till we get any, you know, those specific windows.

So we we ended up you know replacing them with these windows.

So you mentioned 40 windows and doors, but you already replaced six.

Six about six, I would six or seven, yes.

But the rest were that's we were repaired them and we you know we took care of them, like they were repairable, we fixed them, so we we preserved them.

And uh maybe we talk about the doors at the same time or or separately, but I'm sorry.

Did you replace any doors or just no, we did not.

We we saved them as well.

We repaired them and we saved the doors so we're just talking about six or eight windows that were replaced with a vinyl window.

That's right.

Um I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Uh this is kind of just a free flow uh informal discussion back and forth.

As I said, we we did try to replace them with the original windows due to the you know supply you know shortage, and uh we had boarded them up.

You can see it on uh you know exhibit 23.

And we had break-ins almost every day.

Uh a lot of illegal activities going on.

Uh we have a restaurant which was operational, and they were complaining because people would just break in every other day, and we had police complaints made.

So in that case, we thought let's just put some windows we you know, as long as we can secure the building.

And we matched the color, of course.

The map the color is exactly the same.

We didn't change the color.

Of course, I'm sorry.

Of course, as you're aware by now, vinyl is kind of the bane of uh what we review here.

Um the vinyl windows are have been installed, you know, uh serving their purpose.

Perhaps we could argue now you have time to order the right windows.

Um that there, I mean, there's tax credits with the City of Frederick and the Frederick County as well that are pretty supple process that you know you you could apply for a tax credit to replace these windows with uh a wood appropriate wood product.

Um with that I'll open it to the other commissioners if you have any questions uh for the applicant or issues concerning right now.

Let's just talk about the windows.

So the guidelines require wood windows.

Um is there any contemplation or discussion the commission needs to deviate from that standard for this case?

I think my question though is I'm confused with some of the pictures because if I look at page 23.

It appears that the windows were wood windows originally with a storm over them, a metal storm window over them.

Right.

However, on page 17, it says old, implying that the windows were the old windows that are being replaced were also vinyl.

So do we know if the windows were wooden?

I'm not able to confirm what the original windows were, and given that they're boarded up.

I would agree with you based off that photograph.

I do get the sneaking submission that they were originally wood.

It's not clear from the photographs either which the windows are replaced.

And so that is something that the applicant will need to address is the clearer photographs and clear documentation of what areas were replaced and what was kept as per prior to the fire.

But I do from that photograph that page 29 photograph that you mentioned 23.

I do feel that those are wood windows.

Sir, then I will pose the question to you.

That these windows were replaced due to fire.

Correct.

And page 23 of the application.

That to me does not look like because of fire, but it does look like the windows were wood with a metal aluminum, if you will, storm window over them.

Okay.

I mean when the fire happened, that's when the firemen they tried to break in, and you know, however, they could gain access, you know, they were doing their job.

So this is what and I'm not even sure if the previous windows were wood or vinyl, to be honest with you.

I don't even know.

The other windows other than the six or seven, they are all vinyl windows now?

I can check, I'm not sure.

I don't know.

The rest of the 30, whatever two windows, I'm not sure.

I can I can check if they are vinyl or wood.

It's important to understand, yeah.

Thank you.

I think definitely the street facing are wood, if I can see it just by vis like you know, but this is in the rear of the building, and I believe they are vinyl.

And looking at this picture of that old window, I think I I gave it to you, Sarah, and it looks like that is vinyl, and and we ended up replacing similar on the other side, and this is all in the rear side of the building.

So the wood windows on the front of the building were not affected by the fire.

Uh they were, but we we we like due to like like smoke and stuff, but we were able to clean it up, you know, repair it and you know preserve it.

They were affected also, but we didn't replace those.

Understood.

Okay.

So the wood windows along the front of the building, while damaged, you were able to repair them, clean them, put them back in place.

Yes.

Along the side of the building.

They could have been metal or aluminum vinyl or they could have been wood.

You're not clear.

Not clear.

But all of them on the side have been replaced with vinyl.

Not all.

Okay.

Just the six or seven, and the rest are still intact.

And that's what we are I'm looking at the pictures, looks like they are also vinyl.

I if I'm doing at the old one, which I have marked here, that is also vinyl.

Correct.

Yes.

So for my fellow commissioners, I think what I'm understanding, the wood windows on the front of the building are still there and have been saved.

All the windows on the side of the building, some were saved, some were replaced, but they are all vinyl.

Are sure they're vinyl?

I think that needs to be determined.

Does does that even matter?

I'm i I think any replacement, the guidelines state that it shouldn't be wood, right?

Correct.

Or clad metal clad if in certain circumstances.

No.

No.

Always would.

Always would.

Okay.

I think in essence, Mr.

Sarkdev, that's the same thing.

If all the other windows, whether they're wood or vinyl, they're in place, you restore them, you're not replacing them, they can stay as they are.

These six rate windows, we would like to have them to be wood, not an aluminum clad wood product, but uh uh a wood product, not uh not vinyl.

So as we're suggesting I'm suggesting commissioners can chime in to replace at least those six or eight windows that were replaced with vinyl.

And the staff is asking to clearly identify which windows were replaced.

And even in relation to the other windows that were just repaired and stayed in place.

So we're uh other commissioners can chime in, but yeah, I would think those six or eight windows that were replaced with vinyl need to be exchanged out for a more appropriate window.

And again, uh the tax credit would help to cover some of that cost.

Certainly having come before this commission, you know, right after the fire, of course, uh after the fire.

We're concerned about security and insurance and getting the the repairs done as quickly as possible.

I understand that.

Um now that the that's been done, yeah.

The vinyl windows are technically inappropriate.

And other commissioners have any other comments.

Just for Sarah, just clarification and the um under your comments.

Um you mentioned that the building or the the sandborn fire insurance map mentions brick construction.

So is that what we're looking at where the vinyl now is, is that just a wood porch and the rest of the building is brick, or which part of the building is brick that you were mentioning.

So currently the front of the build oh, that's really loud.

Currently the front of the building is brick.

However, I do have a slight sneaky suspicion that the rear of the property was also a brick construction and it was resurfaced with potentially this vinyl, or maybe later on a wood, but right now it's a currently vinyl on the back, but I think it may have been brick.

Okay.

Thank you.

You know, there's an old saying about it's easier to ask for uh forgiveness than it is for permission, but I think the real issue for the commission is that you didn't apply for a permit.

Uh you went ahead and did the work without applying permanent.

I'll just tell you a little apocryphal story.

About 15 years ago in downtown Silver Spring, a developer got permission to build a four-story building on Wayne Avenue.

Uh, and then he built a five-story building.

Uh, and the Montgomery County Planning Commission made them tear off the top built top floor of that building after he had done it without any permits.

Uh and that that's probably the worst we could do here.

But I would just encourage you in the future when you're going to do any work on your building to come to the whether it's the planning commission or the store preservation before you do the work because it doesn't really make it the commission happy when we have people come in after they've done the work and present us with a fail accompli.

Uh so I would just caution you for the future to uh be a little more cautious about uh getting a permit.

Sure.

Definitely I would keep that in mind for future.

I mean, if this time if I could get forgiveness, as you know, you mentioned I I didn't it was just like something I was just trying to secure the building, and that was my main goal.

And I try to match the color exactly what it is right now and be taught it was vinyl, so we put the similar kind of windows.

So my question so far is So this is a workshop and we don't have a complete written scope of work.

It's six or seven windows.

We're not sure if it was vinyl sighting.

Is there going to be another workshop with an actual scope of work clarification what exactly has been replaced, what exactly is the materials that were used.

It's hard to work for me personally, it's hard to workshop future changes based on ideas without actual information.

It's not on you guys.

I mean, it's it's how this goes.

I get it.

Great.

Uh definitely we can move this forward on if it's the commission's request to move this on to an additional workshop.

We can definitely second workshop this.

That would be at the December 11th hearing.

Um and then the applicant can take that extra couple weeks that we have to between the periods to resubmit a more fuller application of what we would be looking at.

Because it seems to me based on your guys' comments, you're missing a com the information you need anyway.

Commissioners correct me if I'm out of if I'm wrong.

Somebody with a little bit more experience because I'm still learning, but we're lacking information.

Correct.

Or you guys are lacking information to provide us with information is probably the best way to place that.

Okay, just checking.

But I think part of our goal here tonight is as much as possible, give the applicant the guidance he needs to potentially be able to come back before a hearing at the next hearing date and not have to go through another workshop.

And this I think is small enough and hopefully straightforward enough that we should be able to give that.

That's why I think you know, if you could identify which windows replaced, do a just a floor plan sketch.

If they are on the same level or if they are multiple levels, third floor, second floor, just do a little uh sketch on paper, uh identifying the windows on that floor, which ones were remaining, which ones were replaced, uh verify if they're existing ones are wood construction, uh, and then if you're well, I think we're suggesting replace the vinyl windows, submit some information on which windows you're going to be a wood window product uh to the staff for them to review to make sure it's an appropriate style of window that you can put back in there.

Okay.

So regarding the windows, identify which ones uh and you know uh what you hope to replace them with.

And certainly staff can follow up with any questions you may have.

Uh any other particular concerns, just on the windows, kind of go through order here.

I do have a question for the commission for the windows as in the term.

So currently what you have is what a six over six window and currently on the front of the property, it's just a one over one uh window.

Is do you know that was the original design of the window, the six over six, or was it a one over one?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that again?

I get uh which windows are we talking, the street facing ones or so on the front of the property you currently have about ten windows.

The design of the windows, so that you have a a clear one over one window.

Right.

Um six over six for what I'm seeing, six panes.

Is that do you know if that's the original design or were they one over one on the back as well?

I'm trying to understand.

So page 17, if I may, Sarah, looks like the old windows.

If that indeed is the old windows, they it's hard to tell, but it looks like they may be one over one as well.

Okay, well, there looks like a grid pattern there, but it almost looks like on page 17, they almost look like one over sixes because the lower windows raised.

You can almost see the the moutons in there.

Well, the suggestion would be to match the windows that were saved on this side of the building.

Correct.

So if they're 101, 6 over 6, match the same style and just clarify that, verify that.

And if they are uh have muttons in them, they need to be uh either a true divided mutton or assimilated divided, not not something that's in between the panes of the glass or something that's just snapped in.

They need to be a true divided light, or a true simulated divided light, if we accept an insulated window.

So the best approach would be just match what's was salvaged, saved on the other units on this side of the building.

Okay.

Unless they all happen to be different.

Some buildings have many different window types and on the same elevation.

So you want to talk about the siding, Sarah?

Yeah.

So the siding has been replaced with vinyl siding.

Um again, I'm not entirely sure the full scope if it was all levels.

So I think there's what two levels of what appears to be siding on there on that that one elevation, or if it was the back that got any replacement siding at all.

So just making sure that your scope of work clearly illustrates it's either one elevation or there was some work done on the back or the rear, very rear of the property.

Um that way it's clear to us the extent of the work.

So basically it's I think it's about six thousand square feet of siding, and we ended up replacing maybe 1500 on this side of the building on the side of the building.

We never touched the back because it was good, it was intact.

We were able to just clean up and save it, and we matched uh exactly the same color on the other side, which is about 1,500 square feet.

Now, do you know what the underneath of it looks like?

Is it just brick?

Um I don't think it was, I think it was wood.

I don't know.

I'm not sure.

I saw them the I'm not a construction guy, but I think when they were putting the paper and it was wood on the maybe they had to install a wood in in order to put the paper and then the siding.

Is it wood like page 23 again?

Is it that wood?

Depressed wood.

Yes.

Right.

Which was the underlayment for the vinyl siding that was already there.

Although the sandborne maps do indicate uh a brick on that rear portion, at least for a majority of it.

Um, that's a question for us to consider even if there was vinyl there before, should it have been replaced with vinyl or some other product?

Right, because as he's describing, though, they only replace only replaced a portion because some of it was repairable.

That's right.

So the commission does have the ability to remove inappropriate materials such as vinyl.

Um to repair the underlying surfaces.

Um so if they feel that it would be more appropriate to remove the vinyl and replace with something that would be a little bit more appropriate for the location, that would be something that maybe we can discuss a little further.

So here's my concern with that is that we would be asking to remove that which was replaced.

But the rest of the rest of the building is still has vinyl and had vinyl.

Yes.

So this was a repair, if you will, in kind.

Okay.

That's how I'm seeing it.

I would see it as a replacement with a you say it's an in-kind product, but again, vinyl is not appropriate.

Understanding that, but that's what was there before.

I guess again, sir, I guess clarifying the scope of what was there before, what was damaged and replaced, or if you went in and just replaced everything because you had insurance money to replace everything.

No, we did not.

We just replaced the identify which areas may have been vinyl siding.

Uh if you want to go back with vinyl siding, that's a question we would have to debate at a hearing uh or another workshop.

I I do certainly ideally we would like to see the vinyl being replaced with something else, but and or even and or even having the the brick exposed if there is brick behind there, but I do believe the other portion is vinyl, and uh the other side of the building.

We just replaced a portion like this wall of the of the building.

But the rest of the uh we didn't touch it, and that's still I believe it's vinyl.

Yeah, so if you kinda kind of do again do a sketch and say, well, only this much was replaced, and everything else with vinyl stayed in place.

Okay, then it might be an easier discussion.

But if you're saying, well, we replaced you know this whole floor with a new vinyl, even though the other floors have vinyl on it, yeah.

Uh it's probably a question of magnitude, how much was replaced versus how much you know was there to begin with.

So again, just kind of clarify the scope, the overall scope of the siding and the windows and anything else we did decide tonight, just uh to give a better idea of the magnitude of what was replaced and uh maybe help us better determine if it's a small amount and maybe uh more forgivable.

If it's a larger amount, you know, we may want to say, you know, sure replace it with something more appropriate.

So I mean I would say it's like less than one-fourth of the entire amount, like if it's like the building is about six or seven thousand square feet of vinyl, we only replaced about 1,500.

That's what I was saying.

Commissioners, any other comments regarding siding more specifically, most specifically.

Any comments about perhaps trying to see if there's any brick behind the I I certainly think that the uh issue of whether there is brick there or not is relevant.

Um I'm aware of the extent to which circumstances, particularly those falling out of the COVID crisis, um, and determined your action regarding the property.

And I hope that my fellow commissioners, I certainly do respect that that impulse, that initiative on your part.

But at this point we are discussing how much of the original fabric.

Sure.

We are faced with or could be faced with.

Okay.

If we really discuss the issue of how much vinyl is or isn't on this building.

And we appreciate that discussion.

Okay.

And I would suggest that would also apply to our next topic is on the soffit material.

Is that vinyl also that you put there?

That's right.

And appears at least on one photograph that is at least on the two levels.

Two levels, that's correct.

So again, clarify, you know, what was replaced or if it was damaged or if it was just replaced out of trying to match everything else that was done.

Again, just kind of was it whole new vinyl on two levels or one level or half of one level.

So comment looking at this photograph on page 20.

I mean, it seems like this is a more contemporary balcony structure, or maybe, or maybe it replaced some wooden balcony structure from before.

Well, I don't know if they're wood or steel post, but it appears at least the first floor level balcony is steel construction, and perhaps a metal deck and even with a concrete on the walkway on the balcony there or I'm sorry.

Is is the balconies concrete with uh steel underframe?

Yes, it's concrete and metal framing, yes.

So whether that was added at some point or replaced the wooden balcony uh I mean since I have the building.

It's not really yeah.

It doesn't really match the historic aesthetic of the district.

So that's kind of uh I don't know if it's one thing in your favor that you know the how much how much historic do we need to go back with the rest of the materials if the balcony is kind of more of a contemporary structure, but uh maybe you could just clarify that.

You know, the balcony and the and the railing is all appears to be a steel guardrail uh post and the concrete walking surface or essentially existing but not really historic as far as our guidelines are go, but we're we're we're we can't go make you address those.

Uh they're they're existing, but anything that was replaced is kind of our focus.

Yeah.

So it sounds like we need a couple updated documentation along with windows, um, giving me good product literature of wooden windows, um, either that one over one or six over six style.

Um make sure that they're true divided light for the if you do the six over six, um, updating a good scope of work, detailing the extent of work, what happened on each level, um, detailing the soffits, and I believe that's new lighting uh as well.

I would need product literature for the lighting for that.

Um I will then also need photographs of each window or like a floor plan marking and numbering each window that was replaced with this vinyl, and that you're going to be replacing again with this wooden product.

Um it doesn't sound it sounds like the vinyl is still up for discussion, the vinyl sighting and I believe the vinyl soffits.

Um that would be something we will can potentially address in with the commission if the commission wants to do a second workshop if they feel more comfortable with the second workshop, or we could go ahead and move forward to another hearing.

So I think the only other additional thing is for the applicant, if you have any photos before the fire, right, that you can show us what it looked like before the fire, that would be incredibly helpful.

Sure.

Okay.

I can look into that, yeah.

Thank you.

I think that um those photos would be relevant to a further discussion about the extent to which we'd continue to discuss the vinyl siding.

Okay.

Uh just and a point of clarification on page 17.

Um I mean, it would be great to know where on the building this is, have a map.

And is this post-fire or before the fire?

Um the the picture you mean or uh page 17.

This is post-fire.

Post-fire.

Yes.

17 is post-fire, because it says old.

I mean the picture is post-fire, but yes, the I'm I'm sorry, I misunderstood, but yes, it is the old uh, I mean the siding is old and the window is old.

So page 17 is pre-fire.

Pre-fire, yes.

My bad.

I I thought she was asking for the picture.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's B fire.

Thank you.

Sorry, but again, just kind of clarify the scope, uh, how much was existing, how much was replaced, and if the existing was vinyl and identify it as vinyl and uh what the replacement was to match it, just so we can get a clear idea of the of the scope.

And uh you may be able to Sarah can give more information on our next hearing date.

There is a deadline to resubmit anything if you want to go to a hearing or if you want to come back for another workshop if you if you have the time or interest.

But Sarah can give you a uh comment on the next deadline for our next hearing.

Yeah, so the next hearing is December the 11th, and you would need to resubmit new documentation to me by 11 a.m.

on December 1st.

Come?

And I'll send you up a follow-up email or through open gov, you'll get an email from OpenGov saying leave me leaving a comment to you with the same dates and times.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any final comments, Commissioners?

If you had any uh closing comments or no, that's yeah, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And certainly again the staff is available to answer any questions.

I'm sure you've perhaps already been working with them.

So we'll do that.

I would just end my comments by saying you would have saved yourself a lot of time and trouble if you got in a permit in the first place.

And you wouldn't have to go through all these.

But thank you again.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, that one only took 30 minutes.

So that's your time limit on this one, right?

Commissioners?

Next application uh for workshop is HPC 25-329.

Uh level one amendment at 1730 North Market Street.

Uh and that is Ms.

Martin Koske.

Excellent.

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

I believe Mr.

Kemus just put up the is that I believe that's the old site plan.

Okay, thank you.

Um this project, this level one application has gone through us a couple times.

And um, this is it.

This is gonna be the last one.

I I'm feeling positive.

Um so this is an amendment to that previous level one approval.

A lot of this has already been reviewed and approved, but there has been some adjustments to the last one.

And what I think we might do before we kind of dig into the meat of it, you have the site plan up.

I'm going to call out um the buildings and how they changed, and if you yep, could you uh kind of point them out to help the commission uh in our discussion?

So originally that there was a uh two-story multi-family building.

And um right, right on Market Street.

That what that two-story multifamily building um remains the remains intact, but um there are some design elements that have changed.

Um there's also a uh originally three four-story multifamily buildings along the side, and that has been changed to two four-story multifamily buildings.

Um there were six two and a half story townhomes, the type C and now there are eight of those.

There were 11 three and a half story town homes type D.

And now there are 16.

And you'll see that has replaced the um earlier multifamily four-story building here in the back.

Um and previously there were 20 three and a half story townhomes type F there behind the historic building.

They're behind the historic building.

And now there are 33 of those.

But we'll take the section by section and then go over to the staff comments and then hopefully generate some conversation that way.

Christina?

Yes, sir.

I don't know if again in the interest of time, but since we have essentially four new commissioners, and I don't know how much they may have been able to, you know, go back and review past proceedings, but I don't know if Mr.

Kemmy would maybe want to take just the three minutes, just kind of a broad overview of the original campus and the adapter reuse of the existing buildings.

Maybe not so much getting into the new work, but just kind of uh uh background and I want to very shortly, as briefly as possible.

Just you may recognize we have several new commission members here from what we've reviewed previously on this project.

Yeah, I think I can quickly run through the previous approval here and just talk about what's changed and what the intent was.

I'll say just in general, a lot of these changes they came as a result of planning's approval uh plannings review of our first site plan.

Um the townhouses were more of a market driven change.

We're still hitting full density on the site, so still meeting the intent of the master plan.

Um but the original site here uh which we purchased from the Oddfellows a few years back now, um, which were the original owners, it would be these three historic structures.

As you're going down Market Street, you see these in various levels of um could use some improvement right now.

Uh the the rest of this is currently all R16 zoned.

It has been since before a historic overlay was placed on the site.

So it uh you know we're looking to develop this property within its natural density.

Um as we're saying, everything you see here has already been through a level one approval process.

This is just amending these in what I think are some good ways.

Uh you're getting less uh paved surfaces, more green area in general, we're moving buildings further out of the historic view shed, which was um the main driver for placing historic overlay on the site, was that we would be able to anything that was really uh built on site in general is under the purview of the HPC, but in particular, maintaining that view shed uh into these three structures back here.

Um and then just a real quick uh as we were talking about with what's changed, you know, that this parking goes away, uh there these um townhouses, uh there was an addition to those.

This uh there was a pickleball court there that has been removed over here.

So this was also driven by the critical root zone of these trees, which we were within what the guidelines state, but it was requested that we get out of them, we moved out of them.

Uh over on building A, similar situation, we were encroaching into about 10 percent of the critical route zone.

Uh it was requested that we don't do that, we moved out of it.

Um down here, this was previously uh uh road, it's now green space, and then down here, these townhouses were removed, this building was removed, and then we've reorganized, we took away the parking for this building and reorganized these townhomes for a more planned out um layout, which is what we have currently here.

Oddly enough, it was about the only comment we had from the public on the previous approval was uh from these folks who didn't want to have multi-building, multi-family buildings directly next to their properties.

So I think it suits them well, suits the property well.

Like I said, in this configuration, we still hit the natural density of the project, and I think in a way that doesn't feel overly dense.

So what we're reviewing again here today is the changes here, not just the overall uh plan, which was previously approved, and I think that's uh a pretty good summary of uh how we got where we are today.

Just briefly, the uh uses for the existing buildings you proposed.

Uh the existing buildings uh well, they were built as uh you know convalescent homes, one one being an orphanage, one being an age restricted house, or not age restricted, but you know, more of a retirement home, the center being an administrative building.

Um it's all zoned R 16.

We had previously contemplated some more commercial uses, uh which was uh not encouraged by planning, so all uses are residential uses at this time.

Uh Christina, I'll defer back to you.

I did a good job of summarizing everything, but if you want to go through the process of the changes again one by one.

Excellent.

And just as a um thank you for that excellent uh summary.

Um just as a quick recap, um, during this level one review, the commission considers location footprint, massing, height, setback, scale, facade, reform, materials, and plot plan using the criteria outlined in the guidelines.

Um for our conversation, we're gonna break these up in smaller chunks, and the first is the plot plan, location, setback, and footprints.

So although the um building types have been amended, the patterning of the buildings locations and their setbacks and the footprints has largely remained in keeping with the the previous approved plan.

A parking area and tennis courts uh located on the southeast corner of the lot.

I think Mr.

Kimus showed that earlier.

Can you highlight that area again?

Uh southeast would be a good one.

Uh the I'm sorry, the the tennis Oh yes, that that was up here, which was right on Market Street, and that's been taken away.

Um so that is an additional green space.

And if if you recall, um a big part of our discussion um during previous iterations of this level one review was keeping the park-like setting and the green space to the extent possible.

So I I think that's a a nice modest um um preservation of green space um in a very forward-facing location.

Um I did have a question about townhomes type C in that general area.

It it looks like there's no parking there for them at all.

Yes.

So uh the plan is that those could be direct pull-ins off of the multifamily property that's next door, which wouldn't really work for anybody else, but we happen to own that.

So uh so that's the plan over there, and then we do have excess parking over there as well.

Um there it it could end up just being surface park townhouses, but we're trying to kind of nail down the design on those.

Excellent.

I'm I knew you didn't forget.

I just was I appreciate the explanation because that's the thing.

It makes them a lot more marketable for sure.

All right.

Um the walkways um, or a little bit less uh curved maybe a little less curvilinear and um than the previous renditions.

I did notice a new brick walkway appears uh to lead uh from the rear elevation of the primary historic building.

Right there.

Excellent.

Um and then just noting that um incorporating trees into this design is incorporated.

I I appreciate the extra green space.

I but when comparing the plans, I did notice that there this plan seemed to have considerably less trees.

And and that was somewhat for clarity as we were re-re uh moving things around.

Um but we we can add them back in.

That that's not an issue.

Really, it'll be defined further by on the site planning side in either event.

Perfect.

And then that's fine.

I'll take you at at that.

We we talked more about the landscape design and and level two, but just wanted to at least put that on the record that that's something that um I definitely would like to to see.

Um I also knew that the children toddler playground, a pergola, and a uh paved deck appear to have been removed.

Was that also just for clarity?

It was, yeah.

They are modified but still there.

Okay.

It doesn't show up so well here, but uh so that the pergola was removed, but that both the tot lot and the uh playground are still there.

Okay.

Um but they don't show up on this.

So we can make that more clear that they're still there.

Thank you.

Um other than that, that's that's all my comments that's specific to the plot plan, location, setback, and footprint.

I find when you look at the plan, there's a lot of visual compatibility between the previously approved plan and the current plan.

But we're here to get the commission's feedback.

I have uh a comment about uh buildings one and two.

Um they're they're quite large.

Um you had just mentioned that parking might be available at a different or an adjacent property.

Did you just mention that for the condominium?

So that may work for the townhouses.

Uh it it's right here that the additional parking is available.

Got it.

Okay.

But there's uh those buildings one and two do have parking under on the ground floor level and a garage still.

They do still have ground floor uh garages, which minimizes what you would have outside.

Um so you have that tuck under parking there.

Uh so could you reduce that parking lot a little bit?

There's a lot of parking right behind the that historic structure.

And so it it in this process, we actually deleted this entire parking lot and all of this parking back here with with these multifamily buildings.

So I mean, we're we're at about the minimum of parking that we can have with these buildings at this time.

There is also a distance requirement.

I don't know exactly what that is of how far your parking can be from your building.

Um so I don't know what the another question about the parking behind uh in the original approved plan, you had one row of parking in front of what was then called building C and B.

Uh and and had two rows behind there, which in uh which in the proposed plan now are uh buildings one and two.

Why did you switch to two in front and only one in the back and is is as opposed to one in the front and two in the back.

It seems like it would be more attractive to have less parking in front opposite the green space than have the parking behind the building where people wouldn't see it.

So it it's actually the same parking section in the front.

It's just we we changed the striping on those.

Uh it was previously uh a row shown as a row of parallel, now it's shown as a row ahead in.

Uh the reason that we have it on the back is so that we can by being able to have the pull-in parking into the buildings.

You can put the building right on the parking lot, which allows us to bring it back further from the historic view shed.

Oddly enough, if if you have parking there, then you not only need to have the parking spot, but you also have to have a walkway between the parking spot and the building.

I know it sounds odd, but it's just how it works.

Um so by having the part the garage doors of these buildings, and I could show you that an elevation of the talking about the multifamily buildings.

Yep, but by having the garage doors of the multifamily buildings open directly into the parking lot, right?

We can actually move the the multifamily building back further from the view shed.

Let's see if I have one here.

I'm looking for the back side of it.

I see what you're saying.

Okay.

So this isn't the best view of it, but those are all garage doors along this building.

So you can pull directly into those.

I was gonna say too, a benefit of that is it puts kind of the back of house to the neighboring property there, which allows us to screen that and it puts the front door towards the historic property.

So you're presenting that front door to the front of the project rather than having it the reverse with the garages facing the historic property.

I think overall it's uh good improvement.

I like kind of the additional walks around the the perimeter.

I don't know if that was a planning comment or not, but uh I think eliminating that one large multifamily unit building in placing with townhouses uh is a great improvement on not only scale, but I think kind of you know restricts maybe your neighbors from trying to make a shortcut through this property to to get out they'd have to drive through this kind of more restricted area.

And I think that little what you call it a park pocket park kind of along that axis of that transverse drive is a good improvement, a good focal point between those two multifamily buildings.

So I I think overall it's a good improvement.

Thank you.

Yeah, we we think it worked out nice.

And I mean just looking at from that 30,000 foot view, it it looks a lot greener.

Um so you know we trust that it's it'll really feel that way when you're down at ground level.

Couldn't I I mean it's gonna be such a huge wall of building.

Um is there any way to step those buildings so they're not exactly in line with each other?

Not really with the space that we have to use.

Or with the um requirements that you are following.

Level can I I mean it's gonna be such a huge wall of building um is there any way to step those buildings so they're not exactly in line with each other not really with the space that we have to use or with the um requirements that you are following I understand that what you are doing is also regulated by your planning restrictions yes I think there's there's a lot of parties um involved so you know with with with the approvals that come from historic it's like but make sure you check with planning with the approvals that come with planning it's well make sure you check with historic so we don't mean to take more time of of either party than we need to but um that's the process and and those iterations we think often yield improvements and I think that's the case in this one I'll just quickly note that footprint wise they have made an effort to break up those big buildings break up the facade so it's not really it's not really gonna read like a big wall especially if um there's some more trees added and once the landscaping is developed fully but the way that the facade is stepping in and out it's it's a good way to mitigate that concern but as a commissioner on the historic preservation commission I would like to comment on the fact that the the character of the high rise buildings is certainly consistent with a level of height that is uniform and evaluable can be evaluated in that impact.

Certainly that that's been a big part of the process and it will we'll have lots to talk about in the uh level two review um on those but you know it's it's a balancing act of being deferential to the existing structures while also not trying to copy them so you know I think we have a our work cut out out for us on that side as well on the level two review are we comfortable with moving forward with massing height scale form facade and materials okay so um Mr.

Kemus could you on the plan show us again uh building A sure that's the front one that's along market street on the previous plan that building is identified as building three yes there are noticeable changes in finestration patterns and detailing but I didn't necessarily see any concerns with that um a more detailed review will be had during the level two um but for this level one application I had no further comments okay I think it might be helpful if we just take this building by building instead of ping ponging back and forth um could you zoom in on that a little bit more perhaps turn the book a little so we can see them straight up I think there's a button I can do that with which one is it maybe no just yes no come on all right very good thank you so yeah that the main difference is uh here kind of grew from this being a fully residential building some of these are artifacts from when we had considered it as more of a commercial building so it had the larger windows and kind of um that's really what the main thing was was the larger windows and didn't repeat quite as much there's a little bit more repetition shown now and then it's it's all more of a a residential window set so um yeah I I think that they still uh are very similar to one another the other thing that you'll see throughout at least the residential buildings is you know that these are based on real designs that CZD at Frederick had done for the buildings so there are some revisions to that also that um what we have now is you know uh vetted fully buildable uh facade so it's probably closer to what that final could be uh but by all means still plenty of room for revisions as needed what um on these the the design of your large buildings will in any of the buildings what are you pulling in from the historic setting into these buildings I mean is there a nod to the historic buildings and what what sure so so yeah in the uh the existing historic site you know you you have um you know you have the brick you have the slate roofs you have the the white the standard white trend that you see in the neocolonial uh you know archetype of uh with the existing structures out there um those are a little flatter and more massive and angular than what these buildings are with the intent of those staying the like the large angular masses on site these are not these are more broken up facades so that they're not competing with one another and you really know which one is which kind of you don't see it as much on this building but on the

So yeah, in the uh the existing historic site, you know, you have um, you know, you have the brick, you have the slate roofs, you have the the white the standard white trend that you see in the neocolonial uh, you know, archetype of uh with the existing structures out there.

Um those are a little flatter and more massive and angular than what these buildings are, with the intent of those staying the like the large angular masses on site.

These are not these are more broken up facades so that they're not competing with one another, and you really know which one is which.

Um kind of you don't see it as much on this building, but on the larger buildings, it was made so that that fourth story is more of a mansard step back, so it it presents like a shorter three-story building uh to again be more deferential to the existing structures.

Um so that those are the um the ones that we're kind of carrying over, and then you know you see some grays in the buildings that we we're proposing.

Uh it kind of plays off the slate, but it's as a uh used as a facade material.

Um so that's where where you're seeing that being repeated.

But then some of these horizontal bandings, the trim out of windows and um, you know, kind of more massive.

We don't have you know, you know, direct copied columns or anything like that on our buildings, but just things that kind of allude to those details.

And then previously from the pictures, so I appreciate that.

And in previous conversations, we talked about some detailing on the windows and doors.

We've saw a lot of um craftsman style doors and the penetration, and we were kind of leaning them more towards the um colonial revival style to kind of the six over six windows to kind of better replicate or be inspired by the existing environment.

And I think there was an uh an agreement that that would be really more reviewed.

Those kind of smaller details would be more reviewed during the level two, but uh um notice was given about that that's gonna be require more conversation.

Thank you.

Um if we're comfortable, uh we can look at building B on the original plan or the previous plan that um that was identified as building two.

Again, staff has no specific comment on the the color scheme uh during this level one review process.

Um architectural changes were observed, but no specific concerns identified.

I don't know if this is appropriate to level one and that's where we are, but um the buildings as they now are proposed are residentially intense.

Um the facades are busy.

Uh they are not uh in any way classical as the as the original buildings were.

They have a lot of windows and a lot of bays.

Um and a lot of inhabitation.

And that is a divergence from the um historical precedent that is there on the property.

But that is already established, I assume.

I would say we have come a long way.

And uh the applicants intent not to again try to replicate exactly the existing buildings would you know probably you know be a much more massive scale looking uh project.

So you know, the effort was to try to replicate some of the materials and forms and you know break up the building more so it wasn't in competition with the existing building.

So we have uh kind of discussed that uh in the past.

Certainly uh, I wasn't here, but I'm here now.

Yeah.

And I'm looking for all right.

Um moving on to building C, previously identified as building one.

Um staff has no comment on the color scheme during this level one review, architectural changes were observed, but no specific concerns identified.

Yeah, and it just has a note that it's really the same building more or less aside from uh a terrace on this building that doesn't exist on this building.

Yeah, I think that's the biggest difference.

Moving forward with town homes C, D, and F.

The scope of work states that no facade change were no facade changes to townhomes C, D, and F.

Yep, yeah, it's it's really just we're trying to express the where sticks have changed to different numbers, how the um color seams might uh alter there so you don't end up with a bunch of things next to each other that look identical.

Excellent.

Yes, uh staff was seeking some review and comment from the commission regarding style F, which was elongated to accommodate extra units.

So this change should be noted in the change log.

But um I I didn't see any concerns, but um wanted to bring that up.

Okay.

So um moving on to general comments.

This report did not change uh address any of the change log items addressing uh engineering and planning department comment comments.

Some details such as uh potential streetscape amenities such as benches for um I think there's a bus station in in here um will really be reviewed during the level two application.

Um the naming standards for the proposed building types have changed since the previous level one approval, which did make making the comparative analysis pretty pretty cumbersome.

And we'll we'll revert that for the um submission for approval.

I appreciate that.

Um the scope of work um calls out uh buildings by numbers while drawings are by letter, and that that's really I don't know if I necessarily need all the buildings reverted back to the level uh the previous level one because that you know has already kind of been figured out and hatched out.

But what is is really important is that um that the naming standards are consistent within that this application.

So sometimes they're referenced that with numerals and sometimes with letters and um just want to clean that up.

Yep, we'll get that cleaned up.

Um the scope of work calls out oh I'm gonna not repeat that one.

Um comparative drawings showing the previous approval and proposed changes were provided, but I did pull those together and and put it in the packet for the commission to review.

So I hope that was helpful.

Other than that, um more comments from staff.

Any from the commission I just have one question.

Sure.

Uh if theoretically, if the city of Frederick did not have minimum parking standards, would you have the exact same number of parking spaces for the multifamily units, or would you have fewer?

Uh I'll say because we're an owner as well as a builder, we would have just as many, if not more.

Uh you know, what what we find is that uh you know Frederick and points west are largely still commuter um communities, and you end up just overloaded in parking, and just for example, you know, at East of Market Apartments, which is just up the street from these, so I think we're parked at a 1-6 there.

Um and we are packed to the gills with uh cars.

So uh in the future, do I hope that self-driving and other solutions uh are created that don't make that a requirement?

Absolutely.

Um but in just operations as we see it right now, um, we're just seeing it still being a need.

Okay, appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Sure.

So I believe we're we're looking forward to getting this on the December 11th meeting.

There's not a lot of changes needed, but just want to recap that the resubmission deadline is December 1st at 11 o'clock.

Um immediate questions.

Nope.

Uh all this is in uh process already, so we hope to have it together for next week.

Great.

Sounds great.

Okay.

All right, thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, gentlemen.

So who's next?

Are we both these together?

Uh Sarah, demolition and the new construction or separately.

We are going to review the demolition first, and then we'll we'll go into the the replacement plan after we have further thorough just discussion about the demolition.

All right, so the next case is HPC 25-331 for partial dilemma demolition located at 115 East Fifth Street.

And gentlemen, want to make sure your microphones are on and introduce yourself.

Yes, I'm Brian Bradfield.

I'll be speaking for the applicant.

Also with the applicant.

That was terrible.

Hey.

Ms.

Hoffnit, you want to take it away?

Just double checking.

Bill, did you get sworn in as well?

No.

Let me swear you in.

Sorry.

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

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Wonderful.

Okay.

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

So we're gonna go over the demolition first.

Um the 115 East Fifth Street is comprised of a one-story and a half one and a half story vernacular dwelling with a one-story rear L.

This application concerns a proposal for the partial demolition of the one-story rear L.

The plans call for a removal of 90 square feet of the rear gable wall and a hundred and square 164 square feet of the roof.

So we did discuss this at hearing.

The dwelling serves as a representative example of a vernacular British folk log dwelling, which was a common housing type in the Mid Atlantic region.

A few examples of these log dwellings survive in the historic district.

Um at today's hearing, staff recommended that the commission find the property at 115 East Fifth Street to be a contributing resource.

The applicant is proposing a high level of demolition on the rear historic addition.

This will significantly impact the building's historic integrity in areas of design, material, workmanship, and feeling.

Partial demolition of a contributing resource will not be approved if demolition alters the overall building to the extent that it would no longer be a contributing resource.

For time's sakes, we're going to move on to some staff comments.

This rear project is proposing to expand the living space of the dwelling by partially demolishing the rear L addition.

The guidelines state demolition is to scourge and that the addition should be accessed through existing doors or by modifying a window.

New additions will be undertaken in such a small manner if remove in the future.

Staff seeks discussion regarding the high level of demolition and the feasible alternative to minimize the impact to the historic structure.

Would like the applicant like to Lou but introduce the demolition aspect of the project right now.

We can discuss it, but I think it will blend into the rest of it.

But we will just we can start there.

Assuming everybody has seen our uh package and is somewhat familiar with this site.

Uh our clients, Jim and Patrice, uh presented us with a challenge to allow this home for them to live in it and age in place.

Uh as was stated during the hearing portion, this is a definite contributing resource to the historic district.

Uh as staff describes in their uh reports.

Uh it's a very traditional one room depth house.

Uh it's also situated on a very, in my opinion, unique lot situation in the city of Frederick, in that their property has 60 foot of frontage.

Uh however, their home is placed literally within three feet of the of the neighboring structure to the east, uh, and is only 28 feet uh in width.

So that literally means they have 29 feet of frontage uh the full depth of their property, which if we're uh following the guidelines of additions may not extend beyond the fronts of houses and so forth.

Uh then we have 30 feet of property that could never be built on.

Um as we looked at the property with them, given these factors.

We had to first decide where we felt the most appropriate place was to connect to the historic structure.

One of the first in most cases would be out the back, but with the L shape that basically gave us about 14 feet of the rear of the building to do some kind of a two-story connection to create the spaces they wanted.

We felt this was not a good solution given the fact that the neighboring property is a zero lot line.

There is it sits right on the property line.

But we are trying to salvage and keep construction and addition away from the other one.

So we felt like maybe a more appropriate place to connect would be at the L.

And the owners and us as designers agreed, it is also a contribute a contributing resource.

So our thought was instead of doing maybe what the guidelines say is a potential, which is totally removing the roof and adding a second story and connecting there.

What we are proposing is essentially a bridge, if you would, from the back of the original house across the roof of the L shape to get to the new addition.

To do that, uh we know practicality as far as construction, we have to basically remove the roof, but our proposed drawings are putting as much of the roof form back as was as is there now.

The rear wall, 12 foot in width, yes, we could probably preserve some of that, and if that's uh the commission's uh general feelings, we would certainly do that.

Uh but we also realize practicality connecting uh that there will be some demolition of that wall.

But overall, by using this solution, we literally are not touching the original house at all, except at the one window in the photograph up there on the right-hand side uh with a small roof cripple connecting across to the existing shed roof of the Cape.

Um that was the premise, and I'll stop there as far as our design approach, but that was the logic behind the request for the demolitions that we've presented.

And this is where you're supposed to let me have it.

First up.

Well, I have no inhibitions about letting you have it based on my lack of technical understanding.

You're gonna obscure the L.

Is that what you're doing?

Pardon?

Are you going by this design to not destroy the L.

Not change the L, but you are going to well again the L we feel is we are we are salvaging the foundation.

We are salvaging the east and west walls intact.

Uh we are our addition is being constructed to the rear of the L.

So again, per the guidelines, if the new construction was totally removed, the L could be put exactly back as it is today before the addition.

So uh obscure, uh I think it's a minimal impact on as minimal impact on the overall contributing structure as possible.

If we were to put the addition to the rear there of the original house, that would be certainly preserving more of the L, but you know obscuring the original structure.

If we put an addition without changing the L to the back of it, then we lose physical interior connection between the second story of the original house and the second story of the new addition.

So given the choices, we chose this one to meet the spirit of the guidelines.

I understand your effort.

Nevertheless, you have a museum piece confronting you.

A historical architectural museum piece.

So eventually they want to have a bedroom on the ground floor, uh, which is part of the spirit of the addition.

And uh any of them.

And uh it's also something they can pass on to their children in airs because uh it's going from a one-bathroom, one bedroom house to hopefully a three-bedroom, three-bath house uh with a ground floor bedroom to allow them to stay there for the remaining years.

So we think it's an evolution that respects what's there now, but allows it to allow them to be there in the future.

Very well spoken.

That uh treacherous stair could be remodeled for safety and code compliance.

Wouldn't need our purview to do that.

The addition has a uh second stairway uh for its itself.

So I guess the question is this connection at the second floor level, removing the roof of this L, you know seems to be uh very convenient.

But is it uh is it really necessary if you could remodel the front stair and you got a stair in the back uh other than convenience?

Uh it would take some major surgery to rebuild a current code compliance stair in the original house.

And frankly, the owners would love to keep the original house both exterior and interior the way it is.

Uh so again, that was another challenge was to get a code compliance stair in the addition and have it connect to the original house with minimal impact.

So uh one of the reasons we're here is to make sure we hear from you as to the various things that are critical and to allow us the opportunity to explain why certain things are the way they are, which may not be obvious from just looking at our package.

So, yeah, certainly the the stair could be argued as uh an issue, although it is quaint and certainly fits with the house.

Um but weighing that against the proposition of you know the more uh prominent uh demolition of an existing structure.

Uh what we're arguing for or about so uh uh you know ideally I wish uh uh construction methods allowed surgery where we just lasered through that roof because we're only we we need to remove the whole roof in order to rebuild our little connecting hallway, but then we're putting basically two-thirds of the roof back the way it is.

So we've already looked uh in response to staff's comments in anticipation of this, you know, the rear wall, yeah.

I think it has much more potential to be we could preserve it more.

I guess we were erring on the side of uh uh caution as far as construction goes, but I think we could work on saving the rear gable wall more.

But uh the roof structure.

We did play around with one idea also out of uh respect for the staff's report, potentially shifting the concept of the connecting hallway bridge further to the east.

In other words, pulling it more inward so that more of the shed roof was visible from the west side, which is a high visibility side because of the width of the lot.

So we we wanted to hear first tonight if the whole concept of building this connecting bridge corridor was potentially feasible before going through that effort.

But that we we did certainly have some other ideas come about, but obviously we don't if if the whole concept is not uh acceptable to the commission, then there's really no use to try and refine it.

So if I may ask a question, you're trying to build a connection between this lovely little small house and what appears to be a second house, right?

Because it's going to be too much.

The foot the footprint is the same size, yeah.

Right.

Uh it's a second house.

Uh the second story is not.

So, you know, unfortunately, you know, fortunately or unfortunately, you know, to get a bedroom, a stair, a little bit larger living area, and keep the footprint of the L unchanged.

We were pretty tight on what our space is allowed.

Also trying, which we haven't got to yet, trying to minimize how much we projected further to the uh to the w uh west beyond the front corner of the house.

So basically our width of our addition is only 18 feet, which means it's going to get deeper in order to get those spaces in.

Deeper to the back of the property.

Pardon?

Deeper to the back of the property.

Right, which is not that noticeable from the front.

I mean less noticeable.

So if you're looking for the uh trying to make an entrance into this second structure, can you not just go through the end of the L?

Can you not just use the L as opposed to the second story starting there but starting in the new building?

Uh again, there's a second story in the original house.

There's a one-story L, and then we have a second story in the addition.

To connect the second stories, you have to connect somewhere.

Uh I think our in discussion with our clients, I think having two portions of second floor that weren't connected is probably not what they would move forward with.

Because in some of the photos or drawings, it it really looks like the addition is going to be much larger than the original structure.

And then we're going to see that at every angle that this small it is a tiny house.

I understand that, but that's what its intention was.

That's its historic value.

Um I just don't know that we wouldn't lose everything by making this large addition.

The addition just feels like it's going to consume this small structure.

I think your elevations are doing you a little bit of a disservice here because if you look at the the proposed site plan and you look at you compare what their proposed addition is to the existing house next door, it's not actually that large.

The house, the existing house is tiny, and this looks like it's a proportionate in in plan, I think it's actually a very clever solution to tie it into the existing property.

Um I think it works very well.

It's not overwhelming to the size of the property as a whole.

It it seems it seems reasonable.

But I think part of the problem is the elevations because they're it it just looks a little, it looks like it's kind of overtaking the existing structure, and I think part of that is just the orthogonal the orthogonal nature of the elevations, because the roof line looks huge, but it's not actually gonna look like that.

Um maybe uh seeing I I don't know if you if this is modeled, maybe seeing a 3D view would help the commission understand of the structure as a whole a little bit.

Um and I don't want to move away from massing if we're still discussing that, but I think that talking about maybe the way that the new proposed elevations fit in with the existing structure is something we should we should discuss because I think maybe that needs a little bit more work, but I understand that you were focusing more on solving the pan the plan problem first.

So right at the this moment we're not discussing the addition right now, we're just solely just focusing on the demolition.

Just the demolition.

Um personally I think that taking off the roof of the L is, as was already mentioned, a considerate way to approach putting an addition on this property, and I don't think that taking it off is going to destroy its historic integrity.

Um if this was kind of like one of those other cases where if this roof was damaged somehow in a fire or something, I don't think we would say it was no longer a contributing resource.

So I think this is an appropriate demolition for this case.

I would only call to the Commission's attention our renewed interest in the question of demolition in general.

And although I agree with my fellow, could you speak up a little bit?

I can't hear you.

I'm just calling attention to our interest as a commission in considering demolition in general, uh in uh as it impacts specific decisions regarding demolition.

I agree with my fellow commissioner Eva that there may be a uh uh difference involved in what we're deciding right now between demolition and addition.

Well, I I would just say to that that you have many, many very small houses in the historic district, and you can't have any kind of addition at all without some demolition.

Uh and what we want, we want people to live in the historic district, and how you know people today want more space than they had when they built these houses.

So I think we're gonna continue to have people pushing for additions, which is going to require some demolition.

And I think this is I would agree with Eva that this is a sensitive report uh approach.

They've actually sort of bent over backwards to try to keep as much as the existing fabric as you can.

But we can't I don't think as a commission, we want to be in a position of of saying you can't have any additions to how historic houses that uh that we have because any addition is gonna require some demolition, uh some partial demolition of existing properties.

And I recognize that, and I'm only uh focusing on demolition as the first step in this process, but it is the first step to the ballooning that can happen on the back side of significant historic structures who face that face the street side.

And when this process is initiated and I for whatever personal reason I do that, I interpret as happening when a demolition occurs.

What will what will follow can be a very large scale expansion of the property that originally we approached as a small historic significant historic structure.

And I I only offer that as convert, you know, discussion material for discussion.

Not I'm not addressing this house in those comments.

I would just add uh I think your consideration to maybe moving that second story connection further to the east, maybe allowing a little bit more roof exposure on the west side instead of four feet and four feet, maybe moving it uh further to the east.

I think has some merit.

We agree as far as helping preserve even more of the L, especially from the uh view side.

The only issue the only issue, and I'll point that out because we'll be back here, is by shifting it to the east, it kind of then hits between the two windows that you see on the second story of the back.

Uh so instead of using purely just one of the windows, uh it's we'll probably use the second one in from the right.

And it's very tight to preserve the one on the left as is.

We may have to make the opening a little bit smaller or do something.

It just doesn't hit it exactly where we'd like it to hit.

Um, but again, we could if the trade-off is preserving more of the shed roof on the west side, which I think would help it, uh, then that's something we will certainly be glad to investigate and hopefully bring back to you.

So with that thought, if I may ask, if you're talking about those two center windows, are you only talking about the fabric in that area or that whole wall all the way to the ground?

No, just just the window openings on that second story shed portion.

And that to me feels more sensitive.

And it feels, and of course, I do appreciate um Commissioner Sower's comment, because the drawings really do make it look like it's just in huge, it's just taking over this entire building.

So that feels more sensitive to me.

And I think that's worth considering.

That dorm is a non-historic addition, right?

The shed portion of the original house, it was built, we believe, in the 90s or something.

So it it's definitely not original.

Yeah, uh that makes me not care too much about this windows.

After hearing the earlier discussion, I think the two long longer of the windows in there are actually vinyl.

I think there's pieces there that aren't even appropriate.

So that was that was my question.

Of those windows, are they original?

That whole shed was built the the second story of that.

Second floor elevation.

Yeah, second floor only was built, we believe 90 mid 98.

Uh uh the construction, I mean they put nice wood siding, they matched all the house, but the windows are vinyl.

Um, but it's certainly not original to the original original house.

I wonder if there might have been two dormers there, similar to what's on the front, and then someone came along and then just connected them and put a roof over the whole thing.

So it might be more appropriate to make a connection through that those more contemporary later windows than just a suggestion.

No, actually we thought about dormers also.

Um again reading guidelines and you know dormers uh facing the front and dormers on high visibility sides, new dormers are discouraged, especially over historic fabric.

So we tried to shy away from the dormer concept a little bit, but it's certainly up for consideration.

All I say is yeah, uh uh I concur that I believe that shed dormer on the existing building, or at least the infill in between what may have been two original dormers, certainly modified.

Yeah.

Uh you know, not at least a portion of it, not original to the the house.

Uh so uh I guess I'm saying I wouldn't uh uh be more amenable to a connection point there than perhaps on the center portion of the the L through that you know that uh western most windows.

But anyway, uh only to say that you know the the shed dormer on the existing house, you know, probably has is not an original, at least maybe parts of it, but certainly all the parts have been probably greatly modified, even if it was two dormers there originally.

But looking at those two center windows, if I may, do you know how much footage we're talking about for demolition, if that were the consideration, as opposed to what you're presenting now, is it less square footage?

Um I mean we basically have proposed removing the current framing of the shed of the L roof, but we're putting it back in the same form and shape.

If we built if we shifted it over, I think we'd probably it just out of practicality, I think we'd still be re needing to remove most of that roof to reframe it structurally.

But once we were done, it would basically have as much of the same shape as possible.

So as far as the rear wall, I already, yeah, I think wherever we put the connecting corridor, we could salvage more of that rear wall.

Again, I was trying to go on the side of what happens in the field versus anything.

But uh yeah, I mean that I think I think we're certainly not going to need any more demolition and probably can say salvage more of the rear wall and show more of the roof of the shed, even if it's new construction.

Excellent, thank you.

And just as a footnote, even though nobody has asked about it, that chimney there has been capped off and sealed, but we are keeping it as is.

So uh it was one of my element does stay.

Thank you.

Then um in my uh you know perspective that detracts from your argument makes it the L of itself more significantly.

Which it probably is still there.

But that's an aside moving to long, we had some good discussion on this potential hallway in the removal of the roof, but we didn't really discuss too much on the demolition of the rear wall of that L.

Um But I think the plan is to try to keep it to try to keep it as much as possible.

We're gonna keep as yeah, I mean we can keep more of it.

Again, uh just wanted to caution a little bit to uh construction practicality, but I think we can preserve more of it.

Um it's only I mean it's a 12-foot wide wall with two openings in it now.

So trying to just use the opening?

Like can you just use the door?

The two.

Uh I think the interior, we're just trying to get it a little more open, is what we're trying to do.

But I know there's just a lot of changes and a lot of big changes to this building, and it would be nice if we could just use that door and save that wall.

Um exactly, making it obvious what the original building was.

We can certainly take that back to the drawing board.

All right.

So we discussed the demolition.

We're gonna move on to the addition.

I'm gonna go to staff comments.

Um the commission is tasked to review the replacement plan with the understanding that additions may not compromise the historical or architectural integrity of the existing building, the setting, the streetscape, and the neighborhood.

This application is proposing a high level of alterations to the rear elevation of the historic main dwelling and addition.

So for the proposed edition, the property features a one and a half story building with a traditional British folk form that was common in the 18th and first part of the 19th century.

Per the guidelines, addition shall be limited in size, scale relationship to the historic building.

The proposed additions ridgeline is taller than the peak of the original roof line.

The addition is also significantly wider than the original building, protruding about seven to seven feet six inches, I believe is what the drawings stated from the side of the historic structure.

The property is positioned next to an open lot, uh, making the proposed addition highly visible from the public right away.

Um the historic one-story L appears to be very overwhelmed and almost concealed by the new addition, and is difficult to separate the historic addition from the new.

The height and the width of the proposed edition will need to be adjusted to a smaller scale.

This approach can minimize the impact of the historic L.

And per the guidelines, the addition should not be wider or taller than the main block of the dwelling.

So let's why don't we discuss a little bit of size and scale of the proposed addition?

Uh again, uh our goal was to preserve as much of the interior uh outdoor living space and landscaping, both out of respect to our this home as well as the neighboring home.

We knew the allowing the addition to grow beyond the front left corner or front west corner of the original house was not supported by the guidelines.

But we felt that because of its as you termed it in your staff report, an open lot.

No, it's not an open lot, it's part of this lot.

It's all open.

So again, we have 60 foot of frontage with the house basically wedged into the front right corner.

So we by starting the our addition to the rear of the L, we are 30 feet back from the front of the house.

And we took the liberty to try and shift our addition, which is only 20 or excuse me, 18 feet left to right, uh somewhat beyond the front corner in order to try to find a balance between not making it come so far over that it didn't look like an addition, but also preserving some of the uh interior outdoor living space.

Certainly we can maybe adjust that dimension, but if we literally hold to the front corner of the existing house, then that means you literally are building an addition that uh uh is gonna be basically taking out the green space that's mostly there.

Uh we tried to break that elevation up by doing some staggering of the pieces.

Uh one of the elements we haven't talked about yet that uh staff indicated was the side porch that we added.

Uh that was to again provide a little bit of relief along that high visibility elevation, and it also provides a better access, uh ground floor access uh from the driveway that exists there.

So certainly we can go back uh and design a little bit, but I think we would like to hear from the commission if given the lot circumstances, if some kind of a deviation to allow us to encroach beyond that front corner would be acceptable.

So that uh we certainly played with uh, you know, we had one design that was like six or seven or excuse me, about eight feet.

We had another one that was two feet, but this one we felt was the best compromise.

Um if I may ask this question.

Yes.

What I think I'm hearing you say is that the property, if I'm looking at the house to the left of the driveway, is part of this property.

This if you've been at the if you've been at the site, their property, their property extends to within about a foot of where that garden is.

Okay.

So then the outdoor space that we're looking at here can be moved over to that side.

Mm-hmm.

And this addition could tuck in behind the original structure and not have to set out seven or eight feet.

Right?

You just you're having to move now the landscaping and the yard design to that large open piece, yes, to the other side of that.

Exactly.

So now that becomes the yard and living space.

Yeah, it would be visible from the streets, but yes.

Uh it would also encroach closer to several those two trees, though.

The one unfortunately has already been determined.

Um it's outdoor space, right?

It's it's going to be landscaping at the end of the day.

What it would do would be to encroach into the outdoor space more than what we've done.

Yeah, we've already encroached some, but yes.

It is possible to do that, yes.

But that would that would be different to kind of the pattern of development of houses in Frederick because usually the courtyard is in between the houses so that there's light for both.

But I understand that.

But they can typical.

I agree, but they are already, I mean, where they cite their addition, I think makes sense more where they've got it than trying to push up against the neighboring property.

I think it sticks out far too wide from the original structure and causes calls attention to the addition that it's larger, wider, taller.

I think there is some existing landscaping, very mature landscaping along the west side of the main house.

Hopefully, most of that could remain or at least be replaced.

And I think, you know, being less than eight foot extension 30 feet back from the front of the house or the sidewalk, this is a very modest addition to a very modest house.

And I wouldn't if I was the owner, I wouldn't want to give up my driveway access to this nice large lot.

Say give up the driveway.

Well it's it's only it's less than eight foot projection and it's 30 feet back from the guidelines say that it should not be larger, taller, wider, making it look like an albatross well it's a very modest house to begin with.

And I will say there is a second phrase to that quote in the guidelines that say but the commission has the ability to evaluate on the case by case basis and may make deviations based on site conditions, which is what we're stating and footprint it's about the same size as their neighbor's house as far as the height we agree in our two-dimensional drawings the r the peak of our addition is higher than the original house I think we can work on that and get that down.

The placement is we feel the best solution given all the circumstances out and see if you're in agreement or not in agreement or if there's some compromise in between there I'm gonna throw something out here.

Don't shoot me but could you make the addition that crossover could you make that glass glass panels because then you would have light going over to the the neighbors and then I think it would reduce the impact to the small house.

You wouldn't have the giant the the structure connecting that way which is I think it would just happen we could certainly explore with them adding more glass that's that's certainly not an issue.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah so we keep talking about the the size of the so the addition is 672 square feet on the first floor which is smaller than the existing house's first floor and the addition to the second floor is three hundred and thirty square feet which is again smaller than the second floor.

So according to your square footage that means the requirements of being smaller correct that is correct.

Okay.

I think it's visual not square foot yeah I I agree but I think I think the uh a CNM model would help alleviate some Eva had said that earlier I think there would be some alleviation of the way the drawing looks if there was a model available I don't mean a real model I mean a digital model just in case certainly this was our solution working with the owners uh we knew this would be a challenge and we came here with uh more than a willingness to modify and uh uh continue to refine the design uh but we needed some guidance and feedback as to kind of where was where we had those areas and where there simply wasn't any room for compromise.

And I know it it sounds like that I'm not trying to be reasonable that's not the case.

I understand I'm looking for sensitivity to this darling little structure that has such historic value.

We don't have many of these and that was noted so being sensitive to it is my desire.

And that is exactly what I would hope from this commission and I guess uh looking at our addition and as Commissioner Sandler pointed out maybe our drawings don't do it justice.

But what we were doing was trying to provide the owners the spaces they wanted and literally our we're not hard I mean our our goal was not to touch the original house which is not including the L.

I understand that's contributing as well but the original house as you see it we barely touch and that was our objective.

So unfortunately we had to add space and because of wanting to age in place we certainly have to add most of the space on the ground floor as a footprint.

So just from a kind of a since we've been discussing a lot of theory this evening, I think that a lot of these projects uh involve people who want to stay downtown, respect the historic district and want to continue living here.

And we have to be frank about the fact that a lot of these spaces just are not suited to modern living anymore.

This this house is very tiny, and it's would be very difficult to just handle life in that situation.

And I think that um it's and my house is also tiny, so I know not throwing any shade here.

And um I I think we spend a lot of time, you know, uh we get a lot of commercial projects that come through here and a lot of other um other developers who come and and are not willing to spend the money or the time or to try to be sensitive to to what's existing.

And I understand the idea of preserving as much as we can, and obviously that's why I'm devoting this much time to this.

But I I don't think that we need to be so rigid about someone trying to make a better life in downtown Frederick with what they have.

And this is a large property with a tiny house.

I think the sighting is respectful, and uh as the as the architects made the point, if somebody wanted to come in the future and just rip off the addition and rebuild the little L, I they could do it.

So I I don't know.

That's my two cents about this issue.

I respect the situation that the uh owners are in regarding this property.

And as my colleague says, there's a lot of theory going on tonight.

And I would say, I mean, I think this is part of what's happened in Frederick historically, is people build small houses and they add on.

That's just that's how you keep living in the city.

So but all of the factors are relevant.

Your your desires and the reality of the historic character.

The unchanged historic character of this structure, and its place in the in the broader perspective of historic preservation.

And that's enough theory for me for tonight.

Thank you for your commitment to wrestling with all of this.

So I do want to keep us moving because we are getting pretty late.

Um we did stop discuss a little bit about the rear L roof in the part of the demolition, and I think we touched potentially of a potential solution by shifting it.

Um so I'm gonna move on to my next couple of staff comments.

So the addition roof is proposed to be covered with a metal standing seam roof.

The proposed color is a stone white, but the guidelines require red, green or galvanized.

Is there an issue with converting it to a red-green or a hue of red, green or galvanized color?

Uh again, the guidelines state it should be of a traditional hue, and then in parentheses it says red green or galvanized.

Uh to the best of our knowledge, the color scheme that exists on the roof has been there a long time.

And it's the owner's desire to try and select a metal roof that will last a long time and match and go with the current color scheme.

So that's why they selected the stone.

Uh stone white white stone, whatever it is.

And and I will note they're also you're also proposing replacing the roof on the main structure as well.

The contractor has inspected the roof and to try and patch it together and because right now the even the roof on the L is not actually an acceptable standing seat metal roof.

So uh we're yes, we're replacing the entire roof structure as the uh roofing material.

And we're asking for a deviation on the color.

And I think deviation of color is probably the easiest decision.

Is that mean that's a yes, Ann?

That would be a yes from me.

I the color is perfect.

Uh Sarah, if you want, I kind of got a list of your concerns.

I could just go down and kind of respond to them if that would save some time.

Uh that will work.

Um, because like I think my next step is like windows and then going to that historic L stoop and HVAC concerns.

Focusing just on the addition for right now, not the rehabilitation on the main roof.

You understand?

You lost me.

I'm sorry.

Um so the next step I was going to talk about was the proposed windows, which is the Anderson CRE fibrics.

Oh, okay.

You guys have already in the past have discussed for new constructions those windows and have already approved of those.

Um I talked we to discussed about the Western dormer, the non-historic dormer, about converting one of them into a doorway.

The commission has the ability to approve that on a case-by-case basis.

Um, product-wise, what you're proposing, I see that they were pretty much consistent with the guidelines.

Um what I would really like to discuss is this historic L and the proposed door and stoop that you're going to be proposing.

Let's go on to that.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh the I guess there's two two issues there.

One is converting the one window to a covered porch outside entry acceptable.

And then second, what if it is acceptable, what are the materials that should be used?

Uh we've had that discussion internally.

We are more than willing to compromise to go to more traditional wood materials.

Uh the roof would be the same standing seam metal roof.

Uh the porch post, we've I think we've already specified would be painted wood.

Uh the porch ceiling could be a tongue and groove or a wood bead board that would be painted.

Uh so if the commission finds the side porch acceptable, we can certainly work on more traditional materials for that portion.

And I think you stated it a little bit earlier that the reason for the porch, because that was my confusion was what was the reason for the porch.

It was to help break up.

It was two reasons.

One, it was to help add some elements to that side elevation because obviously by where we put the addition in the depth, it's it's actually longer out that side than the current front.

So it was to add a little more interest and elements to that high visibility side, and then second, it provides the practical access from the driveway to the first floor of the house.

Commission, do we see concerns with this conversion of a window?

Can you point to the window?

Sure.

It's that one.

Thank you.

Again, I think that's lots of concern for me.

Um it seems reasonable to take a window and make it into a door.

We've we've considered that a number of times.

So no alarming red bells right now from the commission.

Um moving on to the rehabilitation.

We did discuss the roof.

What you're proposing a replacement in kind to the roof for the main dwelling and the historic L.

Perfect.

Um I just noted the stone white, which sounds like the commission's seems to be uh able to deviate for you for that.

The decking in the back is probably the biggest concern.

Um it's unclear if is that a true wood material or is it already a composite material?

Um no, it's it is a pressure treated substructure with wood planking that's been I think it's paint.

No, it's stained on top.

And with any wood that close to exposed to the outside and close to the ground, it's rotting.

Um so if they keep the wood deck, uh they would like to replace it with composite, so it would last longer.

Um we don't know uh we believe the wood deck was installed at the same time in the 90s uh when the uh shed dormer was added to the main house.

Um I think one of my inquiries to you was we we weren't sure when the historic district got moved to incorporate this portion of Fifth Street.

We uh the owners that were thinking that maybe they weren't even in the historic district at the time this deck was added.

Not that that may influence the anything here, but that's the reason we're asking for it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Right.

So for general guidance decks are not appropriate in the historic district, a more appropriate material and proposal is making a patio area with a more masonry stone or brick sort of material.

Um so if a replacement is being proposed, the most appropriate material will be a masonry material.

Um then I see you provided some photographs per my requests.

So whenever you do the resubmission to just submit those photographs.

Yeah, I think depending on what comes out of this overall discussion, one one of the considerations they are considering is to literally just remove the wood portion and hardscape that area.

But figure out the basement area.

Yeah, there's there's a couple of there's a basement access and some other things that come into play with that.

But if the wood deck is the deal breaker for this commission, we can certainly work on that.

And I think you also had a question about the HVAC equipment placement.

Yes, I did.

Yes.

So I it's a big proposal for an addition.

I didn't see anything regarding HRAC.

We we until the design is finalized, we're not we don't really have a good location.

Obviously, we would not put it on the high visibility area.

It would probably be further to the back or even to the inside where the outdoor living space is.

But we'll work that out once we kind of have the footprint in the design.

All right.

Does the no going back to the deck, does the commission have concerns about the proposed replacement with the knowledge of the guidelines, not approving decks in the historic district?

So I'm just gonna say this because this is my thought about it.

I think we had one similar to this, and I think because it has no railing, it's a little hard to consider it a deck.

It's almost like a wooden patio in my mind.

A boardwalk.

Yeah, it's a boardwalk.

I mean, to me, a deck has a railing and it has a very specific form and behavior.

This is just a wooden patio sort of thing to me.

But I'm not speaking on behalf of everyone else.

I'm just saying I'm not worried about this.

I'll agree with you on that one, definitely.

Now, what about the proposal of so it you said this is already like a pressure treated wood?

A more appropriate material if it's going to be proposed as a deck is a non-pressure treated wood.

Not a non-composite wood.

Would a non-composite wood or composite wood?

What are the views from the commission on that regarding the product literature they're proposing for it?

Well, let me clarify.

I the the pressure treated is the structure under it that's actually touching the ground.

We're not looking, assuming if they replace or remove certain planks, certain decking to repair it, if it's in sound shape, they would just keep it as is.

Okay.

Uh the only portions were there's enough of the deck boards themselves that need replaced that they were looking to replace it with a composite material that would last longer.

Um, but trading off what that cost would be versus just removing the deck entirely and replacing it with hardscape may be a consideration.

But for now, we'd wanted to get the commission's feeling on at least replacing it the deck with composite decking, leaving the substructure as is.

When we say composite decking, are we talking about the porch like decking that we spoke of earlier this evening?

Tongue and groove look.

Uh no, I think on this one it would be similar product, but the porch decking is actually tongue and groove.

It creates a solid surface.

This actually is gapped so that water and everything can drain out of it.

So it would be have the same brushed um surface.

It doesn't have the faux grain wood grain, it just has that brush surface, but it wouldn't be tongue and groove, it would just be gapped uh eighth inch.

So thank you.

And would you be keeping the footprint the same or would you be enlarging it a little bit?

To accommodate the addition.

Uh we wouldn't be enlarging it if anything, but could be would depending on where the addition ends up, it actually might get a little smaller.

But we certainly more outdoor spacing landscaping they'll be doing because we're gonna actually be losing a fair amount of flagstone pavers, and they're they will be using them elsewhere to expand that.

But the deck would stay as is or smaller.

I'm not in total agreement off the color of the roof, but I'm not gonna sit there and argue about it tonight.

Anything else, sir?

Um other than some scheduling.

So our next hearing will be December the 11th.

You would need to resubmit to us by 11 a.m.

on December the first, which gives you a little bit more plenty of time.

We're we're gonna need to discuss that.

I my guess my guess right now is we'll probably be back for that meeting, but we're might want to do a one more workshop before going to hearing.

But we'll discuss that internally internally, and I'll let you know.

Okay, that works, yeah.

But most likely we'll be back in December.

Okay.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And I guess Ms.

Wyatt, Cos and I sent all the time.

Would you want to get started or I'm hoping we can finish within the 40 minutes?

If we talk a little bit less about theory and more about this, we can do it in 15, I bet.

Less is more.

The address is wrong on this one.

You guys have 115 East Fifth Street for HPC 25-34, and it should be 229 East 30 Street.

You're copying me.

I only know that because I spent the last three hours.

I thought I just didn't get the right one.

Yeah, I kept thinking I was mixing my paperwork up.

It's okay, great.

Thank you.

All right.

So this application.

Oh, I'm sorry, if we can.

I think I jumped ahead.

I didn't let you introduce the question.

Uh yeah, thank you.

Uh last case here tonight is HPC 25-334 in addition for 20 229 East Third Street.

Ms.

Martin Kuskey.

Excellent.

Would you like to introduce yourself?

Barbara, would you like to introduce yourself again?

Yeah, there.

Um I'm Barbara Wyatt representing the owner.

So this application serves as the replacement plan for HPC 25-333 and calls for a two-story addition to replace a non-historic sunroom.

For the sake of time.

And I know Barbara is very familiar.

Um, I'm going to just go directly into to staff comments.

Additions for the guidelines may not compromise historical architectural integrity of the existing building, the setting, the streetscape, or the neighborhood.

The following changes should be considered.

The one-story sunroom is not historic.

And I'm I have no concerns with the with its removal, and I believe it's actually causing a great deal of damage to the historic building with water infiltration issues.

The second story porch is a historic element of the building.

It is first documented on the 1911 sandborne fire insurance map.

It was likely a two-story porch that was altered to make way for the current and modern sunroom.

The entire second story porch, including the restructure, would be removed.

A similar feature is being incorporated into the new addition.

Other than the removal of the non-historic sunroom, the exterior walls appear to remain intact.

Staff observed that a second story window will be altered into a door to provide access to the addition.

A list of proposed changes to the building, including alterations to the windows should be clearly marked on drawings and noted in the scope of work.

The addition will be constructed at the rear of the building on top of the existing foundation of the sunroom, an approach that is supported by the guidelines.

Addition should not be higher or longer or wider than the existing building, and staff identified no inconsistencies with the standard.

The roof form, the proposed edition is compatible to the existing roof.

The loss of the existing porch is unfortunate.

The porch roof appears to be slightly lower than the proposed addition.

And so my question is does the structure need to be completely removed to make way for the addition?

Could it potentially be tucked away into the proposed addition?

Do you know if if that's possible or if that's something that really only the uh the architect might know?

I don't quite understand the question.

Do you are you proposing to change to um to retain the connection, the existing roof line on the porch and have it ex and have that more or less project out over the um the second story?

So I think what I'm wondering is if that existing roof porch structure without changing the design of the addition at all.

Sure, can be kept because it it looks like it could just be tucked in to the new addition without bothering the lower level at all or so it could be completely removed and just the addition put on.

But I'm just wondering if that structure could just be tucked away.

So with this goal of if this addition ever leaves, that structure is still there.

It's not the most concerning item, but um it's a question.

Yeah, well, and and honestly, Clyde Berger is the one to answer that.

And Clyde did look in the attic over the projecting um L.

Yeah.

And um, and I know that he was very cognizant of of how it was, how that addition that second story was put on in what the early 1900s, and I think he um struggled a bit to get the right roof, and I thought he came up with a good solution.

Um, and I think height issues may have compelled him to do the the roof the way that he did.

Um, however, your point's well taken, but I'm sorry I cannot really answer that.

Having seen the uh the area over that bedroom projecting out, Clyde might be able to um tell you more about what he saw up there and how that influenced his design of the roof.

A few, maybe a few comments that he could write up in the any revisions, if you could just provide some comment on that in his revised.

Say that, sir.

I'm sorry, I I know there's a bit of an echo.

Uh, if if Clyde could just provide a few notes or comments in the revision, I think that might be absolutely good to know.

Right.

Hey, Christina, I think on A301.

Isn't that what those sections are showing?

Is that what you're talking about?

Let me look.

Because it looks like they're proposing to retain the overhang and just build over it.

Ooh.

Give me one minute.

I have to open that up.

Yeah, page page 16.

Could you give me the name of the drawing?

Mine Uh, the name is building sections.

A 301.

Got it.

You're I think you're right.

I think that is look at you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for catching that.

Good one.

All right.

I withdraw my question and concern.

Okay.

So may I say a few words about this addition?

Yeah.

Um, it's a relative palace compared to the previous one.

This is 1100 square feet, but it's still a pretty tight little house.

And uh the owner wanted a little bit of, you know, some extra room on the back.

However, um, she this house is uh for a side elevation is amazingly prominent on third street.

The um the first floor on the east side of this house will be visible to no one except someone coming in the gate because of the cemetery wall that is I think it's nearly eight feet tall that completely conceals that so what's over that is is very prominent, and as you're heading west on Third Street, you see the inset porch on this on Miss Scarvolone's house on the other side of the street.

There's there's a very similar porch that's recessed that's also a historic porch, and it's uh I think one of Frederick's loveliest streetscapes from the side vantage.

So um Miss Scarvolone wanted to keep that porch, thus you see that that inset porch.

However, it's uh it's um it does create upstairs, a very narrow uh kind of telescopic room, which works.

It she will use it as like a sitting room um uh kind of study, and so at the end of that you'll see um a little L.

You see that?

So that's on the other side of that inset porch.

Now, one change that she would like to make is to instead of having, as you're looking at that, instead of having that two over two window, she would like to have something like this, a small stained glass window.

It's just kind of a decorative piece that would um, if you see the back of this house is flooded with light with the number of windows that are there, so it's well lit up there.

This then, she has a little kind of desk study alcove.

She probably have bookshelves underneath this window that would be poised over it.

Do I need to show you uh here if you need to do that?

Could you show that elevation again?

Let me put the plan up.

So this is hold on, let me get the elevation.

All right, this window.

This window would be here.

So this would be um, it would be positioned differently because it would be uh farther down towards that end wall.

It would be the um, you know, the small window there.

And besides that, there's there's these elevations are accurate to what the the owner wants.

Um there are some product changes.

So for example, she does not um want the doors that are shown in this drawing.

Instead, she would like something more like this.

Clyde, by the way, is is aware of these things.

He's out of town or he would be here.

Um she's she's more keen on having a fiberglass door, eliminating the need for a storm door, and she also wants it to serve more as a window.

So um she wants something like this, probably more of a two over two, uh a four-pane or a six-pane, not a nine-pane.

And then the same door would be used as a French door on the back going out to her garden.

So um this house is replete with fantastic views.

So the porch is overlooking, it's it's looking east towards the fairgrounds, uh, and you know, the whole east side of the city.

Um looking north out of that, the big banks of windows, both upper and lower story, looks out into a very private garden thanks to that stone wall and some uh uh you know, six-foot fencing that she's installed.

So it's extremely private back there.

But uh the new the views to her neighbors in the cemetery are very charming too.

So that's the goal of this edition.

The uh you see that the siding would match the existing, the roof would be standing seam to match the existing, the windows would be wood.

The um right now she's looking at a um what are you looking at, Susan?

Pella.

True uh no.

Oh the uh traditional the appella windows and uh as I said the doors would all be essentially the same door, but that would be in in fiberglass uh wanting to eliminate the um uh you know the need for a storm door, although none of these doors would be very visible.

The um the one, as I said, no one's gonna see unless they go into Susan's gate.

Uh the two on the back, likewise, they're only visible in the back yard, and that the one um upstairs on the east side is sheltered by that porch.

So um few would detect that this was a fiberglass door.

So um did my staff report project product literature is needed for windows, doors, and decking material.

I did take a quick look at the proposed products for the windows and doors right before this meeting.

And they were cons they're consistent with the guidelines.

We do need the mutton profiles though to confirm that they're either true divided lights or simulated divided lights, but um as long as you submit the documentation you showed me, they're consistent with the guidelines, and as long as the commission doesn't have any concerns with the styling of the door, the product is fine.

It doesn't have a fit finish.

Some fiberglass doors do, this one does not.

Um I've so far no concerns with the proposed materials.

Is the decking material on the porch wood?

I that is the owner's preference, but I just I just caught that in this uh that in these plans it's it's um it's actually a material I'm not familiar with.

If you see that on page, um unless he was talking about something that was under decking, but maybe um let's see, where is that it's on that specification page.

Yeah.

I think it's the Duradeck.

It's on uh page 17.

Yeah, I I'm the owner um would prefer.

I mean, that's that's something I think we would like to work out with you, Christina.

What's recommended and uh acceptable the door deck is a membrane that is going to go under the decking material because there's a first-story living space.

So that's my That's your speculation.

I don't think that would be a finish uh surface, so I yeah.

I mean, the owner would want a wood deck.

Yeah, okay.

I think that would be lovely.

I would clarify that.

I think the door deck is uh a finished walkable surface.

It's called needs to be protected from the first floor, but it's called out as a membrane though, and that made me think that it was going to go underneath the decking.

I don't have product literature, so yeah, it says it's rated for slip resistance.

I think it's a combination.

I don't I'm not familiar with it either, but from being able to read this little tiny print.

Looks like it might be a combination membrane and walking surface.

So clarification.

We're confused.

If you if you could clarify, we will we will get absolute clarification on that, but um uh what the the owner wants is to have a wood floor on that on that uh porch.

So I with with your the wood siding and the traditional wood railing, I just think that would marry very well together, all those nice traditional materials.

Thank you.

There is one other change I would like to point out to you from the drawing.

So right um in the north elevation, which is the back of the house overlooking her garden, this window.

This window would actually be a um a picture window that's approximately four feet wide, and on either side there would be probably a single-hung sash.

Like this, not not divided panes, because it would be narrow.

It's only about 20 inches wide.

So curiously though, as you described that on the second floor, then what happens to the two windows on the first floor?

Are they gonna be two over two, or are they gonna be single pane?

Good question.

She I'm just I'm trying to to um think about the conversations we had with Clyde about that.

I think that um I mean I well, what do you think?

I mean, I think you know, two over two.

Um it it works with the um so you picture the here.

You picture these as this is going to be a very plain and open kind of window because there's going to be no panes whatsoever here.

And also the picture, the proportion of the picture window to the two windows flanking it is pict picture window is a bit wider and those uh single hung sash are a bit narrower.

So this is going to read as um you know quite a glazed opening there.

Below um the so if you picture this room from the interior, there are two windows.

So if you look at that side elevation, and by the way, um he's left the shutters off uh off of these drawings.

These would have these windows would all have shutter and shutters that are in keeping with the existing windows.

So we'll make sure that uh is shown in the drawings and that specification gets given to you.

But I think from the inside, then you have this.

This will be a dining room.

There will be two over two windows on one wall and two over windows on the other one.

So I think it really enhances the interior space and doesn't certainly detract from the that north elevation.

I was just curious if you were trying to make some uniformity along that back wall.

So yes.

Understood.

So the the north wall is also a nod to the standard that you should not be replicating something that looks historic.

So the um really the east elevation is in absolute keeping with the um with other similar porches in the historic district, except those that have been infilled on the bottom level.

Um the north the north wall with those very modern windows, letting a lot of light into those two spaces are are not going to fool anyone that this is a historic wing of the house.

Maybe if we could go back a couple steps, and we're running short on time, so I think we need to kind of uh step through the process.

I mean uh well, I think the addition is compatible with the existing, and I understand the desire to match the existing footprint of the sun room.

Um I do feel it's maybe a little not subordinate to the main house.

I wish the addition was may inset and within that L a little bit more and not exactly matching the uh uh the footprint of the existing uh sunroom.

But that's something to quibble about.

Uh just wish it was a little bit more subordinate to the main house, but that's uh and uh certainly lament the loss of the existing second floor porch, even though if the roof uh may remain.

Uh and while the the new porch is uh uh I think very aesthetic uh uh it kind of gives a false sense of history, I think, by showing the new porch and basically uh uh covering over the original two-story ports.

Uh I don't know if there's a way to and uh not suggesting this, but if there was a way to reduce the width of the addition and maybe just have a little bit of exposed uh porch there, kind of on the north side where the door is, just to kind of give uh uh a nod or reflection to the original porch that was there.

But uh and I'll take the other commissioners' comments, but I lament losing that porch.

Uh the addition seems a little bit large compared to the overall house.

I wish it was a little bit more subordinate, although I don't think it's uh a major factor.

I think overall the design is compatible with the house.

And even I think matching the materials is appropriate.

Uh sometimes we're willing to see different differentiation in the materials, but I think on smaller scale residential projects, it's almost sometimes better to match, at least in this case, subsiding.

Um can I give you a with only 50 minutes maybe get some other commissioners' comments uh on that those topics, the just the size and scale of the addition and the removal of the existing porch.

So you had commented earlier by adding this faux porch or replacement porch, that it was making this interior room very narrow.

So could could you consider just not putting the porch on at all?

I don't think the owner would agree to that.

Um the porch that she has now is three feet wide, uh, which is a is very cramped.

So this new one is four feet wide, so that at least a couple of people can sit out there and see the fireworks over the fairgrounds.

I mean, it's it's not just a decorative piece.

She intends to use this porch.

And the three-foot wide one can really barely fit chairs on it and with human bodies in them.

So um so that's that the really the only thing that's seems to be usable about that sunroom is the concrete slab it's built on.

And so that was more or less um defining the size.

I hear what you're saying, Paul, though, about having it.

I think it's it's recessed maybe eight inches or something.

Um that was my only question.

Thank you.

I had uh one question about the windows.

The house is very symmetrical overall with the windows.

And that um the top three windows at the top really kind of is jarring and throws that off with that larger window in the middle, and the and to me it it I mean, that's common in ranch houses, a lot more modern.

I I mean I think it might be better to have three windows of the same size across there.

Just to thought, I mean to have to have them matching the uh the lower windows.

Yeah, just be more because the whole house is very symmetrical, and then that one is just like it's so different than the rest.

Anyway, thanks.

I would agree.

We appreciate that.

Okay.

Uh I I'm leaving it to my esteemed colleagues who are architects and have uh more uh experience than I do in these matters.

But I just want to say overall, I think this is a very thoughtful and creative addition that uh respects and even enhances the existing house.

And I want to compliment you uh bringing this in.

I actually love the the new porch.

Uh it's more functional than the old porch.

And and I think that including it in it is just a stroke of genius.

So I would uh just compliment you on a very thoughtful addition, not not comp not commenting any of the specifics that others have brought up, however.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other comments on the design or materials?

Then I think at this point we're really just cleaning up the drawings a little bit, providing some product literature.

I understand that there are going to be shutters on this to make sure we have some product literature on that and that they're shown on the elevations.

May I ask one question though?

Yeah.

Um so Mr.

Young's comment about the windows.

Is that um I didn't get any feedback from anybody else if that's something we we don't just do that based on her comment?

We haven't talked to the owner about what she prefers, but we don't want to bring in something to the next um, you know, if we're lucky enough to get to go to a hearing before another workshop.

Um is there is could we get just a little tiny bit more feedback on what others uh think about that window situation?

I did agree with the idea of the two over twos.

I think the bay window and all that glass seems quite jarring.

So I did agree.

Okay, we thought we'd get a hard time on it looking too historic.

I would almost submit something opposite.

I don't mind the second story window configuration.

Maybe the first story window you have you know one double hung that's a line with you know the left side of the upper story, and maybe a single door that fits under the right hand side, and maybe eliminate that center window, but uh I think as long as you justify what you want, uh uh on an uh a new addition.

Um I don't think we have much purview to to deny it one way or the other unless it's an appropriate in a somehow inappropriate window, but yeah, I don't have a problem with the windows because it's on the back elevation.

So you can't see it from the street, so it and also it's a modern addition to a historic house that's preserving the historic house as much as possible.

But you still have someone that's going to live there that wants to use it.

So I understand exactly if I was building my house and not add an addition to it, I might follow something that was more historic.

But I I you know I do understand what's being said.

I just don't have a problem with it.

I mean the other thing that that upper space is potentially fairly dark.

So that was another that was another reason for lots of window, and also she has a gorgeous, you know, as I said, this private backyard with an eight-foot stone wall on one side that is a artistic piece itself.

So you also had to uh sit through our theoretical discussion about a much older uh issue, the L in the uh previous um uh building that we discussed here tonight.

So you are you are building a new a new addition.

That is not very, very old.

I think also ideally we want to see some information on light fixtures, Christina.

And if you're adding to the HVC AC system, you know, proposing where to put condensing units or a mini-split system, however, you may be air conditioning heating this edition.

Oh, okay.

And light fixtures.

Okay.

And I I think uh so they right now are if you look at the elevation.

Um here I'll show you.

So this is the kitchen, which is actually set back four feet from the new edition, and all of the the uh heating stuff is here.

And that is why on this elevation, you see no there's no fenestration over there because it would be overlooking her uh heating and air conditioning units.

Does that make sense?

Um that's where it currently is right now, right?

Pardon me?

The air conditioning unit is sitting there currently.

Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So no change to that.

Yeah, no change, no.

Let's get close.

To wrap it up, we've covered a lot of things, but I wanted to ask the commissioners and staff if there's anything we may be missing or comments you haven't.

Any additional comments?

Any other issues we need to address they're telling us something.

Yeah, there we go.

Uh no, um additional comments or or concerns.

I looked out the staff report, and I think we we covered all the major points.

Um, but yeah, if you if you're playing exterior lighting, make sure that those are shown on the drawings and that we have product literature for that.

But took that note, and certainly you know the staff is always available, but uh scheduling for next hearing or with a couple uh tweaks to the drawings, some product literature, I do think this is ready to go to hearing.

Submission deadline is December 1st at 11 o'clock, and as long as we have that, I think we're good to go.

Okay.

That'd be great.

Any file final comments, Ms.

Wyatt?

Yeah.

Okay.

Since this is not very visible, if if you I'm sure the owner would let you come out and see her backyard where this is going.

Without objection, we are adjourned.