For a moment.

We are waiting for one other commissioner to show up.

She's running a little bit late.

So we'll probably hold off for ten minutes or so.

And hopefully she'll arrive.

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

Today's date is January eighth, two thousand twenty-six.

And uh happy new year to everybody.

There's a coup print of copies of the agenda or the I don't know if there's still print printed copies over there by the side table if anybody wants to follow along with printed agenda.

We do have listening devices up here on the end of the day, so you see Tanzy.

All cases were duly advertised in the Frederick News Post in accordance with Section 301 of the Land Management Code.

For introductions tonight, I'm Commissioner Paul Fitzgerald serving here tonight along with Ann Hart, Commissioner Eva Sower, and Carol Kelly.

For staff, we have Division Manager of Historic Preservation Planning, Christina Martin Koskey, Historic Preservation Planners Sarah Hoffaditz and Josh Master.

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

If you would please stand as you are able.

Thank you.

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 approve 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, a commissioner may satisfy the attendance requirement by reviewing a record of that meeting.

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

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

All right.

Moving on with the agenda.

So I do want to acknowledge that initially when this agenda was published online.

Uh HPC 25300 was not, it was uh accidentally left off the kitchen agenda, but was later uh adjusted correctly.

Absolutely.

Um just noting that there was a initial error when the agenda was published, but it was uh soon corrected and posted online so that HPC 25300 was uh moved or correctly uh placed on the consent agenda.

Thank you.

And that case number refers to 30 East All Saint Street.

Yes.

Okay.

Any other announcements?

An introduction, maybe oh, thank you.

I do want to acknowledge that this is the first uh historic preservation commission with our new historic preservation planner.

Um Joshua, um thank you so much for um uh joining us today.

Joshua may sir.

All right, great.

Another staff member to harass.

So approval uh the minutes commissioners.

Any changes or corrections?

Um I move that we approve the hearing and workshop minutes for December 11th, 2025.

And I will second.

All right, motion made and seconded to approve the hearing minutes and uh workshop minutes from December 11th, 2025.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Commissioner Kelly.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Under HPC business, a review of the administrative approval report.

Yes, I want to enter the entire administrative approval report into the record and then acknowledge that 23 applications were reviewed and processed administratively by staff in the month of December.

Any questions uh for the staff on the administrative report, Commissioners.

Okay, thank you.

Now looking at the re-approval of our 2026 HPC schedule.

Yes, I just want to enter the uh revised 2026 HBC schedule uh into the record and ask that the commission uh review and approve the schedule, the one previously reviewed um in 2025 had um several errors and was a result of an administrative um mistake.

Um with that we uh respectfully ask that the commission um review and approve a new 2026 HBC schedule commissioners any questions concerns on the revised schedule for 2026 or a motion to approve I will move that we approve the updated um schedule for 2026.

I second motion made and seconded to approve the revised 2026 historic preservation commission schedule.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Next on HBC business uh demolition request review HPC 25-634 DR 198 Monroe Avenue.

Um Mr.

Masser Thank you.

Uh I'd like to submit the entire memo into the record.

Um a request for demolition review has been submitted per section 423A of the land management code and per section 515B of the city code for the remaining foundations of a barn and silo at 198 Monroe Avenue.

Planning staff has determined that the structures are in whole or in part 50 years old or older based on this evaluation.

The historic preservation commission is charged with determining if the property is potentially eligible for individual historic designation.

And the standards for designation are outlined in full in the memo.

The barn and silo at 198 Monroe Avenue were heavily damaged by fire on August 5th, 2017.

The two outbuildings are the only remaining structures of a farm complex that was demolished sometime after 1978.

From 1936 to 1964, the property was owned by Harry C.

and Helen M.

Dosh, the longest documented owners of the property.

During this period, Harry Dash emerged as a prominent livestock dealer in Frederick, establishing Dash's livestock market on this site and operating it until 1951.

The subject property is located outside of the Frederick Historic District and is not listed on Maryland's inventory of his historic properties.

Staff finds that while the remains of the outbuildings are associated with the life of a person of moderate significance in the history of the city, the buildings do not have a high degree of historic integrity.

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

And with that, I'll take any questions.

I would only I would only comment that the um the designated demolition site is on the um property currently uh considered for future development as a data center and uh is relevant to a totally different um non-historic consideration, but part of the same uh the land same land use.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Commissioners, I think the only comment that uh stands out to me is that it is not the entire barn, it is only the foundation that I would offer that it's not even the full silo.

Sorry, it sounds really loud up here.

I understand and I respect that.

Okay.

So my only comment was that the barn is not standing, it is only the foundation, and I would offer that even the silo is not intact.

So the criteria that we are required to use as defined here in this memorandum, there's not enough left of the building to structure to consider it for individual designation.

All right, with that comment.

At 198 Monroe Avenue.

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

I second all right.

Motion made and seconded to not make an application for HPO overlay.

Any further discussion?

I second the amendment of the motion.

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

Motion carries four to zero.

Do you need some time, Tancy?

You okay?

Right.

Next item on HPC business, HPC 25-635 DR for demolition review request for 1200 West Patrick Street.

And that's uh Ms.

Hoffad.

Thank you.

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

A request for demolition review has been submitted per section 423A of the land management code and per section five-15B of city code for a commercial building at 1200 West Patrick Street.

Planning staff has to determine 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.

Retains historic integrity and meets one of the following criteria listed in the memo.

Staff would like to note the property at one 1180 West Patrick Street is under a separate parcel and reviewed separately.

The gas pump canity canopy was constructed circa 1983.

This structure is considered less than 50 years in age and does not meet the initial demo review criteria.

The commission's review is limited to the 1965 commercial boating.

Newspaper records indicate that the voting was constructed by Sun Oil Company, later known as Sinoco, who purchased the property in 1965.

The building was to be a 48 by 32 foot block construction with concrete flooring and gravel roof.

Sunoko serves as the longest owner of the property.

The commercial building does not retain historic integrity, meaning does retain some historic integrity, maintaining elements of its original location, association, and setting.

However, it lacks workmanship feeling and design.

The building also does not demonstrate high levels of architectural significance.

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

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

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Okay.

At 1200 West Patrick Street, and I move that the commission does not pursue a designation for this property.

And I will second.

I second the motion.

Okay, motion made and seconded to not pursue a historic preservation overlay application on this property.

Any further discussion.

All in favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Motion carries forward to zero.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is for consent items.

I'll just read these off in case someone doesn't have a copy of the agenda.

Includes case HPC 25-300 at 30 East All Street.

And Ms.

Martin Kosky, if you just refresh our uh memory on consent items.

No general discussion if everybody approves it.

Right.

Uh so uh consent agenda items are projects that have been identified as being consistent with the uh design guidelines and uh does not necessarily require additional um uh comment or discussion in um our projects that are recommended for approval without conditions by the historic preservation planning staff at any time um either a member of the commission or a member of the public can pull a item from the consent agenda to be placed on the regular case, the regular agenda, the cases to be heard, um, which will be um presented in case number order.

So weren't anyone in attendance here tonight who would wish to see anyone or all these items removed from the consent agenda it is and if if it is the item that you wish to pull from the agenda, if you could please come to the microphone and state your intent.

If it is the item that you wish to pull from the agenda, if you could please come to the microphone and state your intent.

If you just state your name, please.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Yes.

Do you want to remove the I think there are several of us who have comments on this particular project?

Okay.

Now that you're at the mic, can you please tell us the case number and if you are wanting the case number to be withdrawn from the consent agenda?

HPC 25 300 East All Saints.

30 East All Saints.

30.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

That's good enough.

That's enough.

That'll do it.

I want to take some more.

So the remaining cases, HPC 25-379 and HPC 25-395 are still on the consent agenda unless there are other motions to remove an item.

The any other desire to remove any of the other cases from the consent items.

So the request has been made to uh remove HPC 25-300 30 East All Saint Street from the consent agenda.

It will be moved under cases to be heard in the corresponding numerical order, which I believe would be the second case under cases to be heard.

So Commissioners, it's with us.

Do any of the commissioners wish to see any of these items removed from the consent agenda or an approval for the consent items?

I'm prepared to make a motion that we approve the two items on the consent agenda, HPC 25-379, 7 West 3rd Street, and HPC 25 395 at 22 South Market Street.

I second.

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

All in favor, please any uh well in favor, please raise your hand.

And that motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Correct.

We'll move on to cases to be heard.

284.

Okay.

So the first item would be uh um HPC 25-284 at 437 North Market Street.

Uh Ms.

What is that?

Ms.

Markowski.

Thank you.

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

This application for partial demolition calls for the removal of a large sec of large sections of wall and roof structure, mainly located at the rear of the building to accommodate a third floor and rear addition.

The replacement plan is being reviewed under HPC 25-283.

I do want to note that per section 423E of the land management code requires that at the first hearing for a demolition application.

If the commission determines that a site or structure is not contributing, the commission can go ahead and take action on the demolition request at the same hearing.

However, if the commission determines that the site or structure is contributing, the commission may not vote on the demolition request until a subsequent hearing.

Approval for the demolition of a site or structure may be conditioned upon approval of a re an acceptable replacement plan.

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

And when a contributing resource is demolished, a vital and tangible link to the history's past is lost.

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

In addition to taking action on a demolition application, the commission considers two items, the degree of importance of the resource and the reposed the proposed replacement plan for the resource.

There are special considerations for contributing resources of unusual importance.

But in this case, a partial demolition, the commission will consider the impact of the demolition would have on the significance of the overall resource.

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

To quickly define, a contributing resource is a building structure, site, or object that helps define the district that adds historical architectural value.

And they're generally buildings, sites or structures or objects that were built within the historic district's period of significance, resources that are less than 50 years of age, but which are important for their association with a significant event person or architectural movement or of national relevance may be considered contributing.

A non-contributing resource, on the other hand, is a resource that does not help define the historic district, does not add historical architectural value in our generated resources that are less than 50 years of age.

Now, in this case, the property is documented on the 1887 sandboard maps.

It shows that the building at the corner of North Market Street and West Fifth Streets was used as a bakery.

And at that time, the site consisted of a main block that held held the bakery and the bake house and a rural L with a two-story porch that served as an attached dwelling.

In 1900, the local newspaper reported that the property was purchased by a Mr.

A.

Mir, who had plans to operate a first-class bakery.

In 1911, Mirror incorporated surrounding properties and greatly expanded the facility.

An article outlines the extensive improvements to the property with the erection of a new bake house, which will be equipped with all the modern equipment.

Steam and electric machinery will be installed.

The 1911 sandboard maps reflects the new design of the bakery, and much of its form remains intact today.

However, changes to the administration patterns can still be seen throughout the building.

The reposed replacement plan, according to the guidelines, state that the partial demolition of a contributing resource would not be approved if the demolition will so alter the overall building site or structure that it would no longer be considered contributing.

Again, the proposed replacement plan is addressed under HBC 25-283, and a preliminary assess uh assessment was provided in a previous staff report.

Staff finds that the building here at three at 437 North Market Street is a contributing resource to the historic district.

The building helps to find the district.

It adds historical and architectural value and was constructed during the district's period of significance.

The period of significance for above ground non-archaeological resources date from the mid-18th century to 50 years back from the current year.

It is a good representative example of a combined commercial and residential building, which was expanded in 1911 to accommodate a growing bakery operation.

Staff did not find any evidence to suggest the property embodies the highest level of architectural historical or archaeological significance and is not a resource of unusual importance.

Therefore, staff recommends that the commission find the building at 437 North Market Street to be contributing resource to the historic district.

And with that, I will take any questions.

And again, we're at this time only considering the contributing non-contributing element of the proposal.

Okay, Commissioners, any questions for staff.

Step forward.

Introduce yourself and your association with the project.

Any concerns, questions on the report for contributing status or non-contributing?

No, not at this time.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

Any uh questions for the applicant, Commissioners.

All right.

Have a seat.

Anyone else here wish to speak on this application?

Introduce yourself and your association with the project or my name is Louise Canelli, and I'm executive director of the Frederick Arts Council.

I'm here to make a statement about the historic significance of the building at 437 North Market Street, due to the fact that it houses some of the most important cultural assets in our city has.

It is home to many artist studios, including some of our most accomplished and prolific artists in the area, as well as Noma Gallery.

The Blue Elephant has been active as studio space, arts learning center and exhibition space for more than 22 years.

Some of the art faculty who have taught in the space include well-known Frederick artists such as Toby Mendez, Paul Wilson, Homer Yost, Harriet Weiss, Palma Brazetta, Mark Weinberg, Robert McMillan, Paul Tooley, Chris Madden, and Walt Bartman.

The building holds a living cultural infrastructure that has taken decades to build and cannot be easily replaced.

It is not just historic but forward-looking and contribute significantly to our community's economic engine.

For decades, it has functioned as a living center of artistic production and community exchange.

Historic preservation recognizes that significance lies in use as well as in architecture.

And once that continuity is broken through demolition, it cannot be restored.

I believe 437 North Market is a landmark of unusual importance.

Preserving and adaptively reusing these spaces would protect an irreplaceable cultural legacy while allowing development to move forward.

I'm hoping we can possibly take some sort of creative approach to at least commemorating the creative community that was sustained in the building.

Ideally, some portion of the studios and gallery would be preserved and would benefit from the AE district tax incentives.

We urge all decision makers to recognize the irreplaceable role this building has played and can continue to play and to pursue solutions that allow development to move forward without erasing the cultural life that makes this place matter.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm just, you know, we're iterate our focus here tonight is just whether it's a contributing resource or a non-contributing resource to the historic district.

The the development plans will be reviewed under future meetings.

Ms.

Norman?

Adrian Geering, I'm a current um artist at the Blue Elephant on this property.

I rent a studio space.

Thank you, Louise.

Um I have a question about a uh as it being a contributing resource.

Um basically what Louise said and the fact that the not just the historic architecture that it was designed for as a bakery, but as it has functioned, I think 25 plus years since Becky Griffin purchased the building, and um it became an art studio space as well as apartments for artists and created um a community of art which continues to flourish.

Um does that factor into the contributing status of the building.

I know it's only been 25 years, not 125 years, but that's what I'm asking about.

Does that factor into the contributing status?

Certainly any association with you know the history of the development of Frederick or uh significant persons in the development of Frederick as as well as the the architecture of the building itself and you know the age and any association it may have of cultural events or uh groups of people are all factors to consider.

So I just would like to ask some of the artists who are here tonight who are currently um have studio space to just stand.

Um so we're the current um legacy of artists in that building, and we um track our ancestors back to all those lovely people that Louise mentioned, and we see um the shoulders upon which we stand as part of the narrative and the story of Frederick and the opportunity to have a space that's both historic and currently functioning.

That we're not a museum, but that we're a current um group of artists.

We don't have the means to purchase the building for ourselves.

Um, but we've watched what's happened across the corner where the affiliated barbershop used to be, and they took down the walls and then began to discover uh that a small demolition uh became a complete uh take it all down to the floor and rebuild.

Um we know these buildings have a lot of history, there's a lot of unknowns once you start taking roofs off and backs of buildings off, and so we would like to continue to be part of a legacy, um, an artistic liticacy and part of the story of Frederick that goes that continues from the 1800s into today.

And so we would ask ask that it that aspect of the building's usage be part of its contributing um gift to Frederick and that we continue to be part of it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak on this application?

Please introduce yourself.

Of course, my name is Joan Jenkins.

I'm at 124 South Carroll Street, and I back all of these artists here.

And what I want to do is ask the applicant financially, is this demolition part of making you more money, or is it because the um the money that the tenants pay is a value to our community?

So what I'm asking you is um by demolition, and thank you, Christine, for very much for the information that and the history.

I had never heard that history before, and I really appreciated that.

So the value of the rent for what you're going to design there versus the the structure of the artist in our community.

Is that in play with this demolition?

That's all I have to say.

And I'm wearing the Starry Night dress that I designed.

It's a it's a starry night without a village because that's what Frederick's turning into.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak on this application?

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

Any comments or a motion?

I just like to thank everyone that showed up this evening and had something to say.

It's personal for me as well because I'm a neighbor.

So I appreciate uh your time and effort.

We'll do our best.

I would certainly concur with the report that this is a contributing resource.

I uh do not feel it meets the uniqueness or the standards for an unusual uh resource of unusual importance, but certainly the contributing factor is there.

Absolutely agree.

You know the comments, commissioners no, but I'm prepared to make a motion.

I am familiar with HPC 25-284 at 437 North Market Street.

And I move that we find it.

This property a contributing resource.

Yes.

Okay, motion made seconded to find the property 437 North Market Street to be a contributing resource to the historic district.

Any additional comments all in favor?

Go ahead.

I'll just reiterate that the building does help to find the district and that it adds historical and architectural value.

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

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

HBC 25-300 at 30 East of St.

Street.

Ms.

Markovski.

So I will go ahead and enter the consent agenda staff report that was published with this agenda, but I will also want to acknowledge that I will be referencing my earlier staff report from December 11th, just because it has some details that aren't included in the consent agenda report.

I do want to acknowledge that this project was previously approved under HPC 13 770, but that approval expired.

And since that time, the historic district design guidelines were revised, and the applicate the applicant had to come through the HBC process a second time to get the project reviewed again.

The project was reviewed at two workshops recently, once on October 9th, and a second time on December 11th.

The application concerns the level one review of 12 townhomes.

The proposed buildings will be organized into two groups, two groups of six units.

And which will have two and a half and three story tall buildings and feature private terraces at the rear of the property.

And then in the middle of the site is a parking area.

After the commission would approve any sort of level one certificate approval.

And then after site plan, they would have to come back to the HBC again for level two approval.

And the level two approval really gets into the very detailed of the materials and design.

Right now we're just looking at level one criteria, which is a little bit more broad in scope.

And I'll address those details a little bit more in the staff report.

Again, for the most part, this project really does match the proposal that was previously approved by the commission under HPC 1370.

So under level one review, the commission considers location, footprint, massing height, setback, scale, facade, form material materials, and plot plan.

And we'll take this into smaller bytes.

We'll first talk about location, plot plan, and footprint.

New construction should be cited so that it follows the established setback on the street in response to the predominant pattern of space in between buildings.

Should identify the location of existing and proposed buildings and structures and site features and driveways and walkways and other features on the site.

Based off the uh information and the application, um staff provides the following comments addressing location, plot plan, and footprint.

The expansiveness of the brick wall is now broken up by incorporating planning plantings into the design.

This is a small edit from the previous uh approval, which had a series of blind windows to help break up the massiveness of the wall.

Um the plot plan does show the location of buildings and um the um there were minor adjustments and in the retaining wall in terms of um materials, but those will be further addressed during the level two review.

Um the next section is addressing massing height and scale.

Now the massing of a building is the enclosed volume that constitutes a building's exterior form.

And in the historic district, the dominant mass of um the of a building generally fronts the street uh with subordinate forms unless they're massing at the rear of the block.

Um new construction, this pattern may be reversed uh to permit the correct construction of new buildings that are taller than the typical historic buildings at the streetscape while minimizing the impact.

Um the height of the building is the virtual distance measured in feet from the elevation of the front of the curb to the highest point.

Um of the building.

The commission may require street views and renderings to evaluate the proposals.

Um the scale of the building refers to the proportion of the size in relationship to the surrounding buildings and the proportion and size of building components to decorative elements in relationship to each other.

And new buildings should have a scale that's consistent with the surrounding buildings and reflect the human scale that characterizes the entire historic district.

Um my staff comments addressing massing height and scale.

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

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

Um the next section, facade forum and materials.

Um the facade is the uh the composition of the um the front of the building, and it should really respond and reference the historic patterns and rhythm on the block in order to emphasize compatibility to the existing streetscape.

The building reform refers to the scale, massing and general shape of new construction.

Um at this initial revore uh review form is carefully scrutinized uh for ensurance that new construction is compatible with the prevalent forms and massing.

Materials will be reviewed more carefully under uh level two, but we are um looking for uh a general understanding of of proposed materials on the building.

Staff comments on these sections.

Um the composition of the facade certainly references the historic patterns on the block, the walls feature traditional stack administration patterns where uh window openings and door openings are um uh equally spaced and arranged.

Window openings hold two over two and six over six over uh sashes, which is very typical in the historic districts.

Uh materials and specific product details again will be reviewed under level two, but the use of traditional bricks, stone, um, and composite siding um can be appropriate.

Um, but the quality and thickness and the color of the veneers will be more heavily scrutinized under level two.

Um the project is very consistent with the previous approvals, consistent with um the guidelines, and so staff recommends approval of the application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Okay, commissioners.

Any questions on the staff report?

Any questions he was asking?

Just for the commissioners for now.

Thank you.

All right, uh did I ask if the applicant or agent is present tonight if they want to step forward.

Introduce yourself and your association with the project.

Good evening.

I'm Clark Wagner with Pleasants Development here with Janelle Horst with MSB architects.

Uh the only thing I would add is that the December workshop, you guys basically asked for three things.

Uh one was that we plant some kind of greenery to mask the large wall in the back of the parking lot, which we showed on the plan, so we're we're definitely gonna do that.

We're not sure about the details like what kind of planting and all of that, but uh that will be a component of the overall design.

Uh second thing was um that you wanted a brick pier and metal fencing to uh up at the front of the buildings to mass the parking lot.

Uh and I actually drove around downtown and looked at several examples of that.

So we we have added that to the design.

You might have noticed that on the plans.

The third was um I don't remember the units, but we added some trim vertical trim boards to break up the units in the back.

And those of you that were here for that workshop might remember that comment.

So we we have added that as well.

So those are the th the three things that came out of uh the December workshop.

Other than that, we're happy to answer any questions.

Uh certainly note those additions.

Um I would just say overall, I think it's a very well laid out design and and presentation.

I do appreciate the comparison of the two-line dimensional elevations right next to the uh renderings helps to see it better close up when on a eight and a half by eleven report.

And I would note that you did show the uh trash containers and recycling bins, at least a location for them.

I don't know if they'll always be put back there, but uh appreciate you showing those on the plan.

Any other questions or comments, Commissioner Sturst, the applicant?

No, I absolutely concur.

So thank you for your efforts.

It definitely shows um significantly um it is noticeably a monumental project to integrate the architectural character, historical connection into a modern facility.

It's it's very impressive.

Um Frederick is uh is uh accommodated and fortunate any other comments, commissioners all right.

So I have seat temporarily anyone else member of the public here tonight who wishes to speak on this application.

Please introduce yourself once again.

Yes, my name is Joan Jenkins, and I think the thing that was missing is the date and timeline of this application's permits.

So I talked to uh somebody at the city in plan development, and they said this project started in 2004.

And I do remember being in this meeting and having uh the person say that they were not interested in developing that place, that plot right away because they didn't know how the area was going to develop with the condos on Carroll Creek and things like that.

And then the comment after two years is the the amount of time that it gets through um its time period, and so they said that they would have to reapply, re-reestate.

So then after that, they sold this property three times.

They sold it to paying construction, blue water, um blue water development, and now it's at all saints uh canon hill.

So what I'm asking you, I looked online for Maryland selling properties with outstanding uh permits, and you can sell a commercial property with outstanding permits, but you have to reinstate the permit under the name of the developer that bought it next.

And what I'm asking you, Christine, or city lawyers, did they constantly take the original the original permit, and when they sold it to the LLCs, they would have had to reinstate it to the next person because they had to do due diligence and represent everything that was outstanding on that plot.

Okay.

So what I can say is that um it wasn't 2004, it was 2014.

Um that a applicant came in for level one approval.

They got that approval, but that doesn't mean that they can get a permit.

They are nowhere close to getting a permit yet.

They still needed to go get um site plan approval and then come back to us for level two approval.

That never took place, so they were never able or eligible to get a permit for any new construction.

Now, since that time, that 2014 HPC level one permit, or it's not a permit, it's approval.

It expired.

It's right, it's no longer valid.

And so that's what this application is.

It's a brand new application.

Now I did reference, yes, it was previously approved, but I also acknowledge in the staff report that it was approved under a previous set of guidelines.

And so we worked chopped it two times to just make sure that we were flushing out all the details and making sure it's consistent with our current standards.

And so um I I don't know who you talked to with planning staff, but I it sounds like they were giving you some good information that they basically.

They did give me good information.

They did say it was 2004.

Oh, okay.

You know, that it sounds like a small uh issue there, but um this is the process that you the applicant would have to go through to get that level one approval is basically start from scratch, and that's what they did.

Now the plan is very much similar to that previous you know proposed.

Remember that but it's not automatic.

With free workshop and still here, and we're still discussing it tonight to get that level one.

They'll still need to do all their site plan reviews and level two reviews.

So but they did have to start again.

The reason that we were trying to find out the whole line of events is because we're worried about our properties.

I personally found a sinkhole between Sarygmas property and Cannon Hill, which they just filled.

And so we're worried because the landslide crossed across the street on South Carroll Street, and my basement is in 124 South Carroll Street, has the effect of the landslide in the back section where the boiler room was.

And so what we're worried about is if that cave, that sinkhole just developed, and the water that drives off comes off the upper properties of the other Cannon Hill is actually going underground and spurting out through parts of the rock.

And we've had visual um, we've tried to get somebody to help us take care of this.

They have redone the brick right out in front of South Carroll and the corner of All Saint Street at least six times.

They're constantly out there restoring, and we're just worried about the foundation and the umce you cut into the rock, we need a geodological survey.

The history from there was from the Civil War, the uh the Hessian barracks, the um World War II, the German soldiers worked out of Cannon Hill and my property, and they were signed out like library cards to get the hay in because all the men had gone to war.

So there are things up on that lot.

There was a chicken shed, there was fried chicken, there was things that people have told me, the black church and the um the slave graveyard that they removed from that area.

So, what we're trying to do is just preserve or find what else can be in that property.

I feel like the rock is important to us, it's a million-year-old artifact, and once the rock is gone, no one will ever be able to share with it.

It's hard, it's a hard decision.

I understand that they did a good job.

I went and visited them today this morning in Hagerstown, and they were very friendly and heard my point of view and the concerns.

I have invited them into my home and into the basement so they can actually see the rock, and how are they going to remove it?

Is it a blasting permit?

They're the foundations are too sensitive around this area, and I just want to make sure that it's not a project that gets started and cannot be finished.

Okay, thank you.

I do have a letter from Ruth, but I can come up later.

Is that okay?

Uh to Ms.

Nicholson to submit written comment.

Is that yes?

We can accept that, right?

She called earlier.

She cannot, she's homebound.

Sorry.

That's all I gotta say.

I don't know what else to say.

We're just gonna for our homes.

Sufficient.

There is a time limit.

We can run our time for usually three minutes, I believe, for speakers.

Uh so for anyone else who wants to speak on this application could come forward.

In Chair.

Umis was just saying that this should be read into the record.

Um would you be interested in reading this into the record?

Okay.

You know, she's 89 years old, she's a little spicy.

So it doesn't mean that's what I think is she's a wonderful person, and she she actually served on this board for many years, and we have a lot of respect for our people that have had wisdom and gone through this.

And I would sponsor her name, stay.

Her name is Ruth Nicholson, Nichols, sorry, Nichols.

And she worked all night on this.

This was an elemental contribution to the historic integrity and study of the city's history.

Our past links us to the present, and therefore we should be good stewards, making sure we value and preserve it.

It is a prudent a commissioners like the HPC to be committed to preservation, always over demolition.

Should a panel member be untrue to this philosophy, you should never have a seat in the HPC.

This project does not comply with the streetscape of the old established neighborhood and should not meet approval.

Pardon me for my strong opinion, but I repeat each of you must have an appreciation for the very high historical nature of the city's architectural diversity and passion for the preservations and always to be dedicated to old Frederick Future.

If you do not, you should never have sat as a member of the HPC.

I expect to learn a no vote in the loss of the rock application, Ruth Nicholas.

Nichols.

Thank you very much for letting me read that.

Thank you.

Oh, here you go.

Okay.

Anyone else speaking on this application?

Hi.

Hi, my name is Martha Huff.

And I live in the neighborhood.

And prior to living at 124, I lived at 11.

And there's an ongoing storm waste problem without the removal of this huge rock.

Speak to the microphone, please.

For the record.

Well, um the rock is at the bottom of the slope.

We have problems already in the middle from just a parking lot development that sloped the wrong way.

We approached the city about it in 2020.

Nothing was done about it.

These are the results of not knowing anything about it.

This falls into speak at the microphone.

A handy capped spot on the Smariga property, actually.

It's a parking spot right there.

And that has not been dealt with in six years.

We submitted the fact that it was running down the street, running right down past the current police station.

And that's the tip of the iceberg if this rock goes away.

I really believe that.

Geographic, no, geologic survey definitely needs to be thorough before anything else happens.

And the rock itself is quite beautiful.

And it's been used many times.

The buildings on that second.

Thank you.

That's just one rock from that bedrock of nice rock that's over a million years old.

And I think there needs to be considerable creativity involved if that rock is to go.

Not just creativity, but engineering expertise before we have a massive problem.

On down the road.

At 2014, I don't know how that's going to affect the parking area, resounding with the sounds from the sky stage, or perhaps you're going to get rid of it.

I don't know.

But there's lots of issues surrounding the area besides the beauty and the possibility that we could leave a spot in the landscape.

The walk by instead of paving in to the developers every time.

And we do.

The people in the neighborhood exist.

The people that go to the sky stage exists.

There is a major thing.

I don't think it needs to continue to level two.

That's tough if I may.

Could you maybe give some clarification on where this photograph was taken that looks like a couple of things?

Where that is or back in the parking lot between the hands.

And this pro and this property, not on this property, but in between the street.

And it appears to be surface water runoff.

I'm sorry.

Right behind and sloping down and sloping towards Carroll Street.

Thank you.

Apologize for my lack of familiarity in detail with the specifics of individual blocks in this town.

It's by the bridge.

I have only lived here for two and a half years.

Welcome.

So would you uh define for me more precisely?

And again, I apologize.

Define where this rock is.

It's it runs through 30 to 72, the building lots.

It's right there.

On what street?

I mean, uh, yes.

East All Saints.

On what?

East All Saints is where the rock is that they're planning on leveling.

It's on what street?

All Saints.

All Saints.

And it is You haven't seen the two cross streets, which are All Saints and Carroll, South Carolina.

It's right by the police station.

And staff, what project?

Uh, we're on 253.

That's the 12th townhouses that they're proposing leveling the rock.

So I can say when looking at historic sandboard maps that there were never any buildings on this site.

There's a large rock.

Um there's a picture is nearby the site, but not on the site, is my understanding.

My confusion comes not only from my um uh lack of familiarity with the landscape in detail of downtown Frederick, but what project we are talking about right now?

The twelve.

The twelfth townhouses.

Thirty East.

You just complimented, and I said it was and why is level one under discussion staff at this point in our we don't think it should go further.

Comment on this particular and you have directed ma'am, your comments to the Historic Preservation Commission because you are concerned about the historical, the geographical integrity of the geological of this the fact that uh the people I've spoken to about it just this past week say, oh my god, we thought that site was safe.

And as a as a natural being, as a newcomer to Frederick, I'm familiar with your concern personally, not as a member of the historic preservation commission because our assignment as commissioners is actually a fairly relatively narrow one.

Well, in terms of preserving the rest of the neighborhood, it that particular thank you for your comments.

We shouldn't be having a conversation back before between the commissioners and speakers, but I would ask a question at the off.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak on this application?

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Please introduce yourself.

Uh my name is Deborah Spry.

I own the property at 11 South Carroll Street, which abuts this rock.

It's it's not rocky terrain as was mentioned in the uh site plan description.

It is a huge two-story, very hard rock.

So how that rock is going to disappear so that the the um townhouses can be built, I don't understand.

It's this is not rocky terrain.

This is a two-story mammoth rock.

And it will have to be either blasted, or I don't know how you were get rid of it.

Uh, I'm not a I'm not a geologist, but it it's not like you can come in with bulldozers and take it away.

It's not going to go that way.

It's solid, heavy, rock.

And it will take before we waste time on the design of the project.

Maybe we ought to go back to this site plan and does it make sense to try to make something out of this inappropriate place for townhouses.

Townhouses are nice.

I'm not objecting to the design and all of that, but just to try to put it there is crazy because that whole area is limestone.

It's rife with sinkholes and such.

Without a geological survey of what is going to happen when you remove that part of the earth.

It's not dirt on the top.

It's part of the outcropping.

You can't just take it away and be done with it.

It's going to be a massive project with dump trucks, bulldozers, all those on the streets and roads.

This is huge.

How are you going to make it like go away?

You'll have to haul it away.

So that's what I have to say is maybe maybe go back and look at the site and think about it with our knowledge now of water flow, uh the propensity for maybe the downtown to flood, all the other buildings that we've been building, the runoff.

I just don't think it's a good idea for our streets to have the dump trucks and bulldozers and dust.

So that's my statement.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Bray.

Anybody else wish to speak on this application?

Mr.

Wagner, if you would want to come back up and address any of the issues here on any possible water issues of the runoff, but any underground water issues that may be uh addressed.

I'm not sure about the church if there was any association with a church on this property, but uh maybe give a little bit of overview of how the rock would be removed and any uh steps to well obviously the the several times we've been here before we acknowledge that the rock is a challenge and and we've known that for many years.

We did an extensive um study of it with our geotech engineer at Hilliscarnes, so we have a very good understanding of the extent of the rock.

It is not uniform across the site at all.

It's more on the surface on the east and west ends and uh very deep in the middle, which is where um our parking lot is proposed.

So um it it it will be um removed without blasting.

We feel confident we can do that with machines, and it will be hauled away.

I mean, that's the only other way to do it.

Uh so we do acknowledge that's a challenge, and we're we're prepared to meet the challenge.

Now, with respect to stormwater management, when we got the site plan approved 10 years ago, uh we dealt with that issue as well.

And uh what we have on the plan now, and as we did then, is a storm drain inlet on the property behind us.

So we would be working with that property owner to obtain an easement to allow us to put an inlet to capture storm water on the property behind us because that property doesn't have any stormwater management whatsoever that I know of.

And so we we we're cognizant of the runoff issues, and we hope uh at least that's all we can do is put is put an inlet on their property and tie it into our storm drain system to pick up that runoff.

Now, I I can't tell you that's gonna solve the overall problem, but that's all we can do uh on our project and um are these townhouses designed for the first level to be all level, or will there be a step up uh to account for some of the rock?

Yeah, that I mean to to allow for the removal of less rock, we're we're we are stepping the site from the first floor to the second floor in the back.

So uh that is in a way of dealing with not having to take everything out.

So the backyards will be a whole level above the street, the backyards behind the houses.

And if somebody I know you you're uh representing Pleasant Development, who has a long history of developing projects.

Um if you want to speak on your uh development expertise, just for the record.

Uh that's true.

We we're a regional developer.

We have uh many projects in the greater uh region from uh several counties in Maryland into Virginia, and our construction company, which is separate company but owned by Mr.

Pleasants as well, um, has a broad reach as well throughout the region uh doing uh heavy construction of all sites of all types, and so uh we have a pretty big footprint in this area.

So this isn't your first project.

No.

Okay.

Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant.

No, I don't.

I think I would not continue to participate in a discussion with you regarding matters of your proposal and development as a historic preservation commissioner.

Thank you.

Okay, if you want to have a seat.

anybody else has any considerations on this project they'd like to represent Commissioners?

We will bring it back to us.

So I think one comment that I'd like to make, particularly for um citizen comment this evening.

We have all made site visits.

We are very aware of where this property is and the large stone.

So I just want everyone to feel comfortable that we're not looking at this blindly or as if it we understood it to be just a pile of gravel.

We don't we understand exactly where it is and the work that will have to be done.

I would also like to add that we're here representing historic preservation, not geological, not rainwater containment.

That is out of our purview.

So I appreciate the comments, but they are also out of our area of expertise.

Ms.

Martin Koski, uh an archaeological review is generally required on a development project.

I mean, more than just uh you know uh the rock formation was geology, but are there any concerns that you know of or have already been studied as far as former associations with you know a church or any other buildings that might have been on this site?

Uh a few comments.

Um unfortunately I can't get access to a permitting database, and all I have is my recollection.

I I'm pretty sure they've already completed the archaeological review, but I I I don't have the paperwork in front of me to call out the information.

Um there according to my research, there's never been any buildings on the site.

I am familiar with the church that has been referenced several times.

That was actually across the street.

Um around the the mid-um 20th century, that church was demolished to make way for in the cemetery, and all the bodies were removed.

Um to make way for a bus station, which was later converted into Maxbow condominiums.

Um, but that's across the street, not on the site.

To the best of my knowledge, and the best of the historic mapping evidence, there was never any buildings on this site.

With that, let me just ask this question because I know there's a plaque on Carroll Creek.

Is that plaque recognizing that church?

I don't know.

Okay.

It recognizes a church, and I'm not sure if it's that one.

I will say that we are currently researching that church because of its association with um enslaved people in Frederick and um there will be a marker on Carroll Creek that is proposed within the two years acknowledging its its history and significance.

I just would like to comment that despite the fact that the HPC doesn't is not involved in matters of um site water management.

Um I think that it is appropriate for property owners of adjoining parcels to bring attention during the public process to the fact that their buildings may be affected by construction in the historic district.

It is a valid concern to wonder about blasting, especially if your property has a stacked stone foundation or brick that was manufactured in the early 1800s.

Let me just add thank you for that.

I I certainly she articulated it better than I did.

I was not trying to minimize anyone's comments.

But that it's still outside of our purview, but certainly having an opportunity to be heard, I respect that.

Second third those comments, this uh application will be heading towards a planning commission if we approve the level one uh approval.

Uh I would state this is new construction, so it has a little bit more leeway than uh an existing structure.

And uh I think from the staff report and the um uh the application presented, you know, it meets all of our guidelines in terms of mass, height, scale, the facade, the materials, the openings of the the doors and the windows.

Uh it is not inappropriate for this area of the city.

I think it's uh height wise and mass-wise uh very appropriate, and certainly the owner has recognized and stated uh the difficulty of the site and certain their responsibility as the owner uh to take all those factors into consideration uh in the development and the planning commission will raise some of those issues, and the city will certainly review every aspect of this project in terms of you know stormwater management, uh how it impacts the adjacent properties, making sure all the easements are in place if there is a off-site uh uh drainage required uh to have no issues with all of the all that being properly um attained.

And certainly the uh applicants' experience uh is also a factor and certainly have done their research uh with the geotechnical reports and all the design, making sure that the project is appropriate and when we get to the construction, if we get to that point, uh certainly all those issues will either be resolved or uh accounted for commissioners additional comments.

Can I make a motion?

I am familiar with HPC 25-300 at 30 East All Saints, and I move that we approve the application.

I second motion made and seconded to approve the application.

Any additional comments all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

Next uh application HPC 25-329 at 1730 North Market Street.

Ms.

Martin Koske.

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

This application concerns level one review of the property historically known as the Maryland State Oddfellows Home, an individually designated historic preservation overlay.

This project may sound familiar.

I I believe I'm not sure how many amendments have come through, but there's been multiple.

Um and so I just want to outline briefly the changes that are being reviewed.

I also wanted to acknowledge that this project was discussed at a public workshop on November 13th.

As I stated, this application concerns an amendment to a level one approval that was initially issued under HPC 24-477.

Oh, excuse me, uh, was previously issued under HPC 24-477, but was previously approved under HPC 23-242.

The previous scheme included one two-story multifamily building, three four-story multifamily buildings, six two and a half story townhomes type C, 11 3 and a half story townhomes type D, and 203.

The new proposed schemes include one two-story multifamily buildings, two four-story multi-family buildings identified as building one and two, eight two and a half story townhomes type C, 16 three and a half story townhomes type four, and 33 three and a half story townhomes, which is identified as type F.

Um, since this was this was previously workshop and and it's very um much in keeping with with previous designs.

I am going to go directly uh to staff comments again um when reviewing uh plot plan location setback and footprints.

Um although the building types have been amend amended, the pattern of the building location setbacks and footprints have remained in keeping with the previously approved plan.

The parking area and tennis courts on the southeast corner of the lot near Market Street have been removed and revised into green space.

Walkways are a mix of curvilinear design and straight passages.

A new brick walkway appears to lead to the rear elevation of the primary historic building.

Um the applicant did uh respond to staff and commission comments to incorporate additional trees into the the design, but again, this will be discussed more in level two.

Uh the children toddler playground pools, paved deck and second lounge, and shaded seating are all detailed in the landscape plan around historic buildings.

Addressing massing height, scale, form, facade, and materials.

Um the building types uh and labels have evolved.

Um there have um for buildings um identified as A and three, there are noticeable changes in the finestration patterns and detailing, but no concerns were identified.

Um again, more detailed review would take place during level two review for uh buildings identified as either B or two.

Staff has a uh really has no comment on the color scheme changes, um architectural changes were observed, but no specific concerns identified for building C or one.

Staff has no comment on the color scheme during this level one review, and again architectural changes were observed, but no specific concerns identified.

And for townhomes C D and F, the scope of work states no facade changes to these structures.

Um based on all the documentation provided by the applicant, staff recommends the commission approve this level one application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Okay, commissioners, any questions for staff.

The applicant here tonight wants to step forward introduce yourself and your association of the project.

Good evening, commissioners.

Um, my name is Ryan LeVay, and I'm here on behalf of the project 1730 North Market Street, historically known as the Maryland State Oddfellows Home, and I represent the owner.

Have any questions, uh comments regarding the staff report?

No, sir.

Commissioners, any questions for the advocate.

I would say certainly we've been here many times before, numerous uh workshops.

Uh I think the uh changes that have been made or only improved, continue to improve the project overall.

Uh see no real issues of concern.

Commissioners any other comments or questions for the applicant.

I appreciate the change log on the drawing, so I thank you for minimizing it and um highlighting it.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, if you want to have seat temporarily, um the public here tonight wishes to speak on this application.

Step forward and introduce yourself, please.

Hello, my name is Jacob Finkelsein.

I am a president that backs up to this new proposed community.

I just wanted to take the time to thank the Duffy group, Duffy companies for continually to improve the design that's proposed.

That's it.

Thank you.

Anybody else wants to speak on this application?

All right, Commissioners or bring it back up to us.

I just reiterate this.

I mean, has been extensively workshopped and changes over the extended period.

Uh it's uh certainly a an important site.

I think the applicant has taken uh enormous measures to preserve the openness of the site and the main campus as well as the existing buildings and uh adapting them for newer uses.

And the new buildings have been um and the site plan has been modified and I think improved uh to a point where I'm completely satisfied with this level one revision.

I absolutely agree, and I have to admit that this was one of the first properties that I looked at when I became a commissioner.

So it's been well over four years in the making, so it's not anything that was rushed.

And I do appreciate the um the given take the exchange that we've had over those four years.

Any other comments, commissioners?

I'll take a turn.

I'm from mayor of HPC 25-329, located at 1730 North Market Street.

And I move to approve the amended level one application.

I second the motion.

All right, motion and made and seconded to approve the amended level one application.

Any additional comments I guess again uh Mr.

Martin Koski, this will go back to the planning commission, which has already been there before, and then come back to us again for level two review.

Correct.

They need site plan approval, then come back for level two review with the HPC.

Any other comments, Commissioners?

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

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

As we're handing these next two items separately, um who's in charge of that?

Ms.

Hoffaditz.

Correct.

So yeah, they would need to be reviewed separately.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So next item is for uh partial demolition, case HPC 25-331 located at 115 East Fifth Street.

Ms.

Hafaditz.

Thank you.

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

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

The plans call for the removal of 90 square feet of the rear gable wall and 100 and square feet of the roof.

The replacement plan is being removed, being reviewed under HPC 25332 and is a two-story addition that envelopes the rear L in much of the roof of the rear L.

This app this application has been reviewed several times in workshops, so I'm going to move forward to staff comments.

On December 11, 2025 at workshop, the commission discussed the reduction of the rear historic addition wall demolition, limiting it to the existing doorway and the wall left of the door from the original proposal of the full rear wall.

With limiting the demolition to the existing doorway opening and reduce the scale of the wall staff finds of the removal of the 45 square foot of the rear wall may be appropriate.

The commission is required to consider the impact on the historic roof form.

On a case-by-case basis, the commission may approve the removal of the roof on the character defining rear elevation to allow construction of an additional story.

It is noted that approximately 86 square feet of the roof will return with the propo proposed replacement plan to match historic pitch and form of the historic edition.

Staff finds the approach sympathetic to the guidelines.

The rear non-historic dormers proposed to remove two non-historic windows and wall construction for the proposed hallway addition.

At previous workshops, the commission expressed support for the removal of the non-historic windows and portions of the dormer wall.

Staff finds the removal of the historic windows, non-historic windows, and portion of the dorm room may be appropriate.

Staff recommends that the commission approve the demolition of approximately 45 square feet of the rear historic edition.

And the partial demolition of the non-historic dormer.

The proposed rear roll demolition is limited to the existing doorway and section of the wall to left of the doorway, therefore retaining the historic window and remaining wall.

The proposed replacement plan for the historic addition roof is to match the historic pitch, is sympathetic to the guidelines.

This demolition shall be conditioned upon the HPC approval or for replacement plan and issuance of associated building permits.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for staff commissioners?

Would applicate please come forward and introduce yourself and your association with the application?

Brian Bradfield, I'm the project designer representing the applicants.

Any comments, questions regarding the staff report regarding the demolition?

As noted by staff, we've reviewed this uh the last two workshops.

Uh I think we've evolved the design based on your feedback, and I know the applicants are very excited about it and are looking forward to moving forward.

Um at this point, if there's any other questions, concerns, I'd be glad to entertain those and try to answer them.

All right, Commissioners.

Any questions for the applicant?

Job well done.

You can have seat for temporarily.

Anybody else wish to speak on this partial demolition request?

Seeing none, Commissioners come back up to the day as here.

I think again my comment of the give and take and the exchange has been incredibly helpful, so I do appreciate that.

Um, and I just want to highlight the notes from the staff report.

That the original part of this building could be as old as 1841.

I mean, this is an incredible property.

So anyway, I just want to comment on that and um the level of effort you've given us commissioners.

Any other comments or motion?

And I move that we approve the application contingent upon the approval of a replacement plan and issuance of associated building permits.

And I will second the motion made and seconded to approve partial demolition with the contingency of approved replacement plan.

Any additional comments I would just say certainly it's it's altering uh a roof, uh a major element of uh any construction.

Uh I think this portion of the building has been altered uh other times and um in part to um make the the property and and the house uh more livable to today's same standards um I think the demolition is um warranted any other comments, commissioners all right.

All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand motion carries forward to zero.

Thank you.

Next case is HPC 25-332 again at 115 East Fifth Street in the South Titts.

Thank you.

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

HPC 25332 serves as the replacement plan and calls for a two-story addition attached to the rear one-story edition.

Um this was previously workshop several times.

I'm gonna move on to my staff comments.

Um the commission is tasked to review the replacement plan with the understanding that additions may not compromise the historical and architectural integrity of the existing building, the setting, the streetscape, and the neighborhood.

Staff notes that no major updates were made to the resubmission documentation.

The height of the proposed edition remains unchanged from the last workshop, with the peak residing just above the historic roof line per last workshop.

The commission acknowledged the reduction from the initial submittal and did not express concerns.

The width of the proposed edition has remained unchanged from the initial submission per the guidelines, and addition should not be higher, longer, or wider than the historic structure.

The addition is significantly wider than the historic block and is not supported by the guidelines.

Overall, the proposed materials, including siding, roofing, lighting, gutters, doors, etc.

are consistent with consistent with the guidelines for new additions.

For the historic L door and stoop proposal per the discussion at previous workshop, the commission did find the alteration of the historic window into a doorway utilizing the pre-existing door on site to be appropriate.

Staffy no inconsistencies with the proposed material such as roofing, swoop ceiling, bead board, and post.

For rehabilitation per discuss at the previous workshop, the replacement of the deck board should be an in-kind replacement or placed with masonry pavers.

The applicant is proposing an in-kind replacement.

Staff I know in consistency with the rehabilitation work for the main block and historic edition roof as discussed at previous workshop.

The most appropriate color for standing scene metal roofing would be a hue of red, green, or galvanized.

However, the commission did not oppose the proposed white color.

For overall comment, the applicant is requesting deviation from the guidelines in reference to the width of the building spanning seven feet out from the historic structure.

Per the guidelines, the addition must not be wider than the historic structure.

While the addition is wider than historic building, the applicant has listened to commission comments and adjusted several areas to help mitigate the overall scale.

The commission during workshops did not seem highly opposed to the wide span of the procedure.

The applicant has adjusted the height of the building to where some almost hidden behind the main historic block, assisting with the reduction of scale.

The applicant has also proposed an alternative siding material for the addition from what is seen on the current structure to show separation between the historic and new addition.

Staff recommends that the commission approve the two-story addition due to the applicant's effort to minimize scale and impact of the historic structure and differentiate the addition with the use of sympathetic materials.

The proposal is approved with the condition that HVAC product literature is provided for staff for final review and approval prior to any issue permits are issued.

With that, I'll take any questions.

So my first question has to do with the height.

Because I thought at the last workshop we talked about the height being reduced, and I thought your last comment was that it had been reduced.

That's my understanding.

But you started off saying that the it had been unchanged.

Yes, so from the previous workshops, it has it didn't fluctuate.

Obviously, it fluctuated from the first workshop, but from the second to now, it hasn't fluctuated anything.

But it's I appreciate the reduction from the original submittal to the last workshop.

Okay.

I just had gotten confused.

I'm like, wait a minute, I thought we did this already.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff, commissioners.

All right.

The applicant must step forward again, reintroduce yourself, please.

Brian Bradfield representing the applicant.

Again, any questions regarding the staff report.

Uh no questions.

Basically, we uh agree with everything the staff has summarized concerning the project.

Uh as previously stated, we've been in the workshop twice.

Uh to clarify, I think what staff was stating and what has occurred is the original design at first workshop.

Uh the ridge was approximately 20 inches higher than the uh historic home.

Uh at second workshop, we were able to get it down to it's six inches above.

Uh and it's the two ridges, as we stated, the two ridges do not intersect.

They're approximately 20 feet apart, and I think the consensus at that workshop was that six inches would not be a noticeable description.

Uh regarding the offset of seven feet to the east, excuse me, to the west.

Uh we had a thorough discussion of that.

We realize we're asking for a deviation from the guidelines.

Uh, just to summarize, we think this deviation is appropriate on this particular project and in this particular property.

Uh our reasons are the addition is approximately 30 feet uh back from the front facade of the house, so it's significantly back from the street.

Uh there is 30 feet of owned property uh by the applicant uh to the uh to the west, so a seven-foot encroachment into the 30 feet would not uh impose any hardships on the adjoining property and still leave an abundance of green space on that side.

And then lastly, and probably the most critical reason is is if any addition were placed directly behind the historic house, which is only 20 feet in width, it would essentially re uh eliminate all of the existing green space and outdoor living space for the property owner behind their house as well as encroach into the property to the east, which is a zero lot line.

It's literally three feet away from the existing uh house in question.

So we think for these three reasons, uh the requested deviation from the guidelines should be approved.

Otherwise, uh again, be glad to answer any questions.

Maybe you could expound a little bit uh for the record on uh the operation of the roof on the existing addition.

Uh what prompted that.

And I believe there is a minor deviation on the color of the metal roof.

The guidelines prefer red, green, or galvanized, and you're proposing an alternate for that, maybe.

Briefly comment on those two items.

Uh if I'm understanding your question, uh we are requesting removal of the roof on the existing L, the one-story roof to allow for a connecting hallway from the existing historic house to the new addition.

I think we're requesting the demolition because of the need to allow for practical construction.

But we're basically building back approximately 50 to 60 percent of the roof back to its original form.

Um the uh other deviations we talked about were the ridge height, as I previously stated, uh you know, we've reduced it as much as we feel practical without compromising interior spaces, so we're within six inches of the uh height of the historic house.

Um and then of course the summary of the offset.

So did I hit them all or is there something else I need to clarify?

Roof color.

All the roof color?

Yeah.

Roof color.

Uh this to the best of our knowledge, uh the the f the people have been living here for quite a while, and it's uh they've talked to previous owners, and this has always been the color scheme of the house.

Uh it is currently a painted metal roof.

Uh it's in very bad shape.

So they once with this addition, they want to go ahead and replace the entire roof, but they'd like to do it with a pre-finished standing sea metal roof, and the color they selected is basically the color the roof has been in its known history as far as the owners are con you know have record of and that's why we asked for that deviation.

All right, commissioners any other questions for the applicant.

All right.

Do you want to have seat temporary?

Is any member of the public here tonight wish to speak on this application?

All right, Commissioners again back with us.

I just have a couple of comments about the deviations.

Um as far as the ridgeline being higher, um, since it is so far back, um, and it's only a little bit, um, I don't think that you're gonna perceive that from the street.

So I'm and it doesn't compromise the the front historic elevation of the property.

So I'm comfortable with that deviation.

Um I think of the roof color is a little bit strange, but I do respect the history of the property, so I'm I'm not gonna quibble about that one.

Um and then as far as the addition being larger than the existing property, which is I think the biggest deviation from the guidelines, um, the pattern it does match the pattern of development on the street and fits the scale of the property specifically.

Um I don't know if you if they ran any lot occupancy calculations, but it doesn't seem excessive.

Um and it it matches the the scale of the other buildings.

In fact, even with the addition, it's smaller than a lot of its neighbors.

Um so I think in this particular instance, um I'm comfortable with uh the slight deviation.

I think my only comment about size and the other neighbors is about the age of the building, right?

There's probably not a lot of other neighbors that can go back to the 1850s.

So the properties were much larger as time went on.

Um I don't know that it matters, but from the package that we're looking at, page 15 to me is the uh the drawing that gives me the most peace.

Um certainly as a walker, and everyone here knows I am.

Um that which we can see on 17 feels busy and large.

It's it's just the mass of the addition.

But when I'm truly looking at the streetscape on uh page 15, um it feels human scale.

And certainly that six inches when you're standing on the street and that 30 feet back, it's it's probably not going to be noticeable.

So I agree with that deviation.

And I also agree with the roof is already that color.

So I won't quibble either.

I do not agree with the um deviation from the width of the addition for the width of the of the addition, and we'll vote no.

Um I feel that that uh that uh in additional seven feet uh in construction contributes to the diminishment of the uh original building, which is of considerable significance historically and architecturally as a building in the historic district.

Mr.

Bradfield, excuse me if you want uh was a question on the condensing unit, HVAC mechanical unit is that intended to be included and installed with this construction or question about a future install.

The addition will require a a separate HVAC unit.

Uh I believe staff requested, I want to say in the original staff report uh uh proposed locations for HV outside HVAC equipment.

Uh since that time in the last workshop, I consulted with the contractor, and we agreed that the outside HVAC unit could be located basically inside where we've located it, uh which we thought was the most uh inconspicuous location for it.

Uh it would only be visible from the uh the owner themselves.

Uh it could be probably visible from the uh neighbor to the east, but anywhere, but we wanted to keep it off of the west facing elevation, which is the side open to the street.

Uh, as far as the specs on the exact equipment, uh I'll be glad to share that with staff uh once we get that from the contractor.

But we wanted to at least get the location on for this approval uh because it's always important where these outside uh equipment units go.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that uh clarification.

Um regarding the deviation on on the width, um I think the the lot is is wide enough to to handle that.

Uh it's a minimal, I mean, well, we could say it's minimal, not seven and a half feet, but I don't think it has a great impact due to the overall lot width.

Uh its dimension set back from the street, roughly 30 feet.

It's being screened uh if the existing landscaping or at least much of it remains, it'll be screened from the street even further.

And uh at the risk of you know losing uh a nice tree and uh existing uh kind of private rear courtyard area.

Uh I think the the additional width uh particularly due to the increased width of this uh lot.

It's a little atypical for this area.

I would support the extra width of the addition.

And for one time and one time only, I would accept the variation in the color of the roof.

Uh mainly because that's the existing painted color, it would look similar.

Any other comments, commissioners, or a motion?

I think I would just like to speak first before uh before I make a motion um to Commissioner Kelly's comment.

I mean, truly through the guidelines and normally we wouldn't want to accept such a deviation, but I do believe as Commissioner Fitzgerald said that seven feet, seven and a half feet is probably not gonna represent itself overwhelmingly.

Now I may be proved wrong thereafter, but um yeah, I I think in this case the deviation will be acceptable.

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

I'm familiar with HPC 25-332 at 115 East Fifth Street.

Make sure I get this right here.

Sorry about that.

I move that we approve the two-story addition.

I'm trying to get through all the verbiage because I know there's something else.

Uh we did talk about the HVAC product literature being provided to staff for review and approval.

And with any permits being issued.

I think I got that right.

I'll second the motion.

Motion made to approve the addition.

It's condition of HVAC product literature and approval.

Any permits are issued.

Additional comments, Commissioners.

Discussion.

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

All opposed.

All right, the motion carries three to one.

Commissioner Kelly opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item, case HBC 25-344, 641 North Market Street.

Ms.

Martin Koske.

Thank you.

I want to enter in the entire stack report into the record.

This project was previously reviewed at the December 11th workshop.

It calls for the restoration and enhancement of a historic fountain at 641 North Market Street, more commonly known as the 7th Street Fountain Park.

Plans include adding a fourth tier of the fountain designed to complement the existing historic form and proportions.

The gargoy the gargoyle element will be replaced in kind in addition to the replacement of other damaged or coded metal sections.

The non-historic brick around the basin basin will be removed or replaced with the stone veneer.

Submersible lighting will be installed in the basement, but the overflow feature will be removed and replaced with pavers.

Restoration efforts in the metal to the metal include sandblasting and coating with a three-part system, a zinc, epoxy primer, and a finished coat.

The Fredericktown Historic District Design Guidelines provide the following parameters, parameters of review for review for metal features.

Of course, all care defining metal components shall be identified, repaired, and preserved.

Replacement of metal features is appropriate only if the original fabric is damaged beyond repair.

The replacement fabric must conform to the original material, and on a case-by-case basis, the commission may approve a non-metallic material for repairs or replacement if the material is a good facility set vacsimile and can form a seamless interface with the historic material.

In regards to cleaning, some metal should be cleaned occasionally to remove potentially corrosive substances.

And all metal should be cleaned prior to repainting using water with pressure not to exceed a garden hose without art of without artificial pressure and mile detergent.

Power washing and sandblasting will not be approved to clean metal or remove old paint, corrosion or rust.

However, the guidelines also reference preservation brief 27, which addresses the maintenance and repair of architectural cast iron and includes some useful information for the rehabilitation of metal that creates a more nuanced understanding of restoration efforts.

Low pressure grit blasting, commonly called called abrasive cleaning or sandblasting, is often the most effective approach to removing excessive paint buildup or substantial corrosion.

Grit blasting is fast, thorough, and economic, and it allows for the iron to be cleaned in place.

Should not be used on iron because the potential for electronic uh reactions.

Some sharpness in the aggregate is beneficial, and that it gives the metal surface a tooth that will result in a better paint adherence adhesion.

The use of very sharp or hard aggregate or excessive high pressure, which is a hundred over a hundred uh pounds per square inch is unnecessary and should be avoided.

Um, high performance coatings such as zinc-rich primers containing zinc dust and modern epoxy coatings can be used on cast iron.

It provides a long-lasting protection, and these coatings typically require a really high clean surface and special application conditions, which can be difficult to achieve in the field.

The guidelines also provide um considerations for uh lighting, um, specifically lighting quality and intensity.

Light fixtures with a permanent bulb must have much have a must have a color temperature of uh 4500 calvin or less, so it does not project cool blue tones.

And the commission recommends uh the same for fixtures with replacement bulbs.

Replacement bulbs should be sized uh appropriately for the fixture.

So after reviewing the application, having a workshop, these are my um my comments.

The applicant is proposing the use of sandblasting to meet the to meet a defined degree of cleaning prior to protective coating of the cast iron.

Sandblasting is an abrasive cleaning method and is not supported by the guidelines.

Preservation Brief 27 provides a more nuanced approach depending on the feature and the protective coating and the condition of the underlying material.

And many of these techniques are potentially dangerous and should be carried out only by experienced and qualified workers.

The applicant provided supporting documentation on the qualification and methodologies used by Robinson Iron.

Staff finds that the condition of the fountain, the qualifications of the consultant, and the standards outlined in preservation 27 are important factors that indicate the proposed work is appropriate.

Test panels are still strongly recommended.

Agargoil and other missing elements will be replaced in kind.

An approach recommended by the design guidelines and the preservation brief.

A standard grade of gray cast iron will be used.

There is a historic photograph that was provided in the application that shows that the fountain previously had a fourth tier, and um a feature that is proposed, and this feature is proposed to be recast and installed.

The non-historic brick around the bracin, uh excuse me, basin will be removed and replaced with a stone veneer.

Now HPC 22-134 um addresses the paving of the new park design, but not the replacement of the non-historic brick at the basin.

Um product literature for the stone veneer is needed.

Submersible lighting will be installed in the lowest basin to enhance the visual impact of the fountain in the evening hours.

And the number of lights is not known.

Product literature is needed.

It is recommended that the lighting color has that 40 uh 500 Kelvin or less so that it does not project the cool blue tones that are discouraged by the guidelines.

Uh based on all the information in the application, uh staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

That a tall that a small test area is completed on the iron with the use of sandblasting to ensure the methodology is both effective and safe on the historic fountain.

A photograph shall be submitted uh to staff for uh final review and approval.

That product literature is provided uh to staff for review and approval addressing the stone veneer around the base of the fountain that product ledgers provided for staff level review and approval addressing the submersible lighting, which should have a color temperature of 4,500 Kelvin or less, so that does not project cool blue tones, and that all conditions are met before the issuance of a permit.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

You you recommend a uh a test panel for the sandblasting.

Uh and I recollect the company performing the restoration work is a couple of states away.

So a photograph is sufficient versus you know physical examination or a physical sample.

Yes, I will not be able to make it there because I believe it is out of state.

Um so a photograph um would be sufficient, I think, for for that.

It's not in our budget, but I'll I'll speak to our manager about that one.

Yeah, I just wanted clarifying a photograph is sufficient.

Yes.

Any other questions for staff report commissioners?

All right, if the applicant or agent would step forward and introduce yourself and your association with the project application.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Um, Stephen Martin with Hassan Global.

I'm the representative uh and the applicant.

Any questions, concerns, comments regarding the staff report?

No, just comments.

Um, I can easily upload the specs for the stone.

Um the city has this uh selected one uh also with the the lighting and uh and we are definitely doing a mock-up as well, so easy to provide pictures.

And it is being done in Alabama on, or maybe a little bit more.

Yeah.

And concerning the nature of the restoration work and your your company being out of state, maybe you could just comment briefly on uh your company and you know the work you do and qualifications, I guess.

Um the company I work for is Hassan Global.

We're a general contractor, we do work all over the world.

Um the I think more important contractor here is our trade partner, Robinson Iron, who is located in Alabama.

They have it's a family-owned business that's been in business for I think it's 86 years.

They've done over 85 uh founds similar to this that have all been listed on their website.

Uh they've been they've been done all over the world for various government agencies, private clients, uh they're well versed in this.

And I sub I submitted all this supporting documentation as well to the portal.

Always nice to get on the verbal record.

Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant?

All right, if you want to have a seat temporarily, yes.

Anyone else here tonight wish to speak on this application?

All right, Commissioners back with us again.

Any comments or a motion?

I think my comment um not only to clean it and and repair it, but adding the pieces back that were missing, it just feels like uh a plus to me.

Actually, I I didn't see any photographs of the fourth tier.

Was that it was oh okay, gotcha.

Thank you.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

Oh, forgot.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-344 at 641 North Market Street, known as 7th Street Fountain Park.

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

That a small test area is completed for the iron sandblasting to ensure the methodology is effective, and that can be submitted photographically electronically.

The product literature is provided for staff review level review and approval for addressing the stone veneer around the base of the fountain.

The product literature is provided for staff level review and approval addressing the submersible lighting, and that it would have a color temperature 4500 K or less, and that all conditions are met before issuance of a permit.

I second all right.

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

Any additional discussion.

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

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you.

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

The applicant seeks postwork approval to replace the historic front porch railing with a different design.

The project town historic design district design guidelines establish the following standards for review.

For railings, all existing porches, doors, stoops, and their character defining elements must be retained and preserved whenever possible.

Such elements, including columns, railings, roof shapes, posts, latches, floors, ceilings, cheek walls, and stairs.

For porch replacement, porch replacement should be based on documentary or physical evidence.

If it is known that a porch or stoop exists, but if documentary or physical evidence is not available, the replacement design should resemble historic porches that exist in the neighborhood.

In the historic district, visible pressure-treated woods can only be used where wood is in direct contact with the ground, such as posts and some structural and trim elements.

For staff comments, this application concerns a proposal for post-work installation of a railing system that does that does not replicate the historic railing and utilizes pressure treated wood.

No documentation was provided to indicate that the historic railings, which appears to be original to the front porch, was beyond repair.

It is not based on documentary or physical evidence as required by the design guidelines.

The historic railings has been removed from the property.

However, the railing is documented in a 1976 historic photograph and in recent images showing its removal provided by code enforcement.

A non-pressure treated wood is required.

Staff recommends the commission approve the replacement of the railing, which has been removed from the property with the following conditions for staff level review and approval prior to any permits being issued.

Updated scope of work and drawings are provided showing that the railing will replicate the historic design.

Correct.

Yeah.

And I appreciate your recommendation that the railing will replicate the historic design.

It appears the top rail and the bottom rail are extra wide, extra thick than a more typical railing system and the guidelines, including you know the picket design appear to be a little bit heavier overall than you know, just our more traditional picket picket design.

So I would like to see this original railing replicated as close as possible.

So any other questions for staff, commissioners.

Hello, I'm James Craddy.

I work for uh Shepherd Pratt's facility engineering department.

I'm here representing them.

Any questions, concerns, or comments regarding the staff report?

No, no, I was just hoping uh, you know, I we had an inexperienced technician out there who made a judgment call, uh not knowing the guidelines of HPC.

And uh by the time it crossed my desk, I seen it, reviewed it, and was hoping that maybe because it it matched um most of the neighbors between Bench Street and Market Street that maybe we'd have some leniency there.

Maybe been nicer for your neighbors and more match your railing.

From the demolition photo here, I mean it seems to be in pretty good condition.

I don't see any much rev evidence of rot or deterioration other than you know, multiple years of coats of paint.

And I think that's about what's holding it together.

And certainly would take an effort to remove that or repaint it.

Or but uh certainly it appears to have been a fine railing design.

Um I don't know if you take any steps or any inquiries to see about replacing this in kind.

I mean we did, yeah.

We we reached out um to a few vendors.

Um we did get a quote for about 11,000 um that they could get pretty close.

So that was about the best we could find.

Okay.

And I have that here if you'd like to review that oh no Christina if this would qualify for tax credit or if it's kind of a post-work approval that wasn't originally approved.

No, okay.

We probably we would offer a tax, we would offer a tax credit uh for this because they are getting approval before installing the new railing to meet our standards that we would we would offer that.

So I want to advise take advantage of the tax credit value for the city to help offset some of that cost.

It's uh that's worth the effort.

Uh pretty straightforward.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant, Commissioners?

All right, you want to have seek temporarily.

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

All right, seeing none, Commissioner is bringing back to the dais here.

Comments or a motion.

I am familiar with HBC twenty-five-three eighty six.

Okay, at two thirty-five West South Street.

I move to approve the replacement of the railing with the following conditions for staff level review and approval prior to any permits being issued.

One updated scope of work and drawings provided showing that the railing will replicate the historic design.

And two, nine-pressure treated wood is used for the railing.

And it is either painted or stained with a solid opaque finish.

And I will second.

Any further discussion.

All in favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Motion carries four to zero.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes the public hearing portion of our agenda before we move to the workshop.

Uh, if there's any additional citizen comments, anyone wants to comment in general.

Let me step forward.

Seeing none, we'll close this portion of the hearing.

It's uh eight thirty-three.

Um we'll reconvene for the workshop at eight forty-five.

Thank you.

Temporarily adjourned.

Um I would like to if the applicant would like to introduce themselves and maybe give a little brief introduction to the project, that'd be great.

You guys don't have microphones.

Great.

Uh my name is Forrest Popkin.

I'm a principal with Bates Architects.

You can introduce yourself.

I'm Jessica Bowers.

I'm one of the Doesn't work.

Here you go.

No, no.

Make sure the red light is on.

Just push the button once.

Oh, no, no holding the button.

Is this better?

Great.

Uh I'm Jessica Bowers.

I'm one of the architectural associates with Bates Architects.

And um, so we are working with the city of Frederick with the 100 South Market Street property, which of course is in the historic Pino Railroad building.

Um currently it's uh housing the community table, health clinic, and permanent supportive housing program for the city.

And uh the basically the program is in three different pillars.

We have like I mentioned the permittive supportive housing, the community table, which has of course the dining facility that has a supportive kitchen to it, and then the health clinic which is serving um that population.

And the project, of course, um, given that it has those three different uses and it hasn't been renovated, the building really in a meaningful way uh over about thirty years, is to um address several items across the property.

So the report touches on um the ADA issue, which for a building of this age, it's not a surprise that it has any issues like that.

Um but when we talk through the workshop, we can give you some evidence as to um just how uncompliant it is, uh so that's a big part of it at the main front facade.

And then on the east side of the property we have um an attempt to get ADA compliance to the permanent permanent supportive housing on the second level without having to use an elevator on the interior because there is a gentle slope enough to be able to create an exterior improvement to get that to occur and also beautify that side.

And then um the courtyard portion, which is between both the sm support of housing and the clinic and making that a place of gathering, a place where people actually want to be.

Um that was big part of the prompt from the city.

Um so those three chunks, I think, kind of sum it up.

Let me pause for a few seconds uh were you both sworn in earlier.

I believe you were here, Jessica.

Uh I was I was not.

Okay.

So answer I do.

I do.

Okay, thank you.

Sarah?

Okay.

We won't make you repeat all that.

Uh so yeah, there's a couple of several items that are being proposed with this application so that which includes call includes installing an ADA ramping, walkways and railing, tree removal, converting windows into doorways and storefronts, replacing and relocating HVAC units and screening for those HVAC units, removing window exhaust vent and replacing the window.

Um replacing non-historic windows, installation of an outdoor patio area with a pergola and lighting, um, installation of awning and lighting, installing railing with lighting, um, and an installation of a new metal window.

The former B and O railroad station at 100 South Market Street was constructed in 19 or in 1854, serving as serving as one of the city's main transportation networks.

The Italian eight primary building is situated on the corner of East All Saints and South Market Streets.

The property also encompasses two brick townhomes, 102 and 104 South Market Street.

In the late 1980s, a bricks two-story edition was constructed on the rear and attached to 100 South Market Street.

Currently, the property houses houses the city's house and human services.

Starting off, we're going to talk about the ADA.

Uh the property currently provides ADA accessibility towards the rear on the East All Saints elevation.

The applicant is proposing to sell a concrete ramp clad with brick graded towards the door closest to the corner of Market and All Saints streets, making the ramp level with the doorway, then additional ADA walkways on the rear of the building in the an area that currently is landscape.

Talking more on the north elevation.

I believe at our site visit, we did talk about those limitations, and I I think that's really important that the commission understand those right now.

If you want to go forth with that.

So how do I turn this on?

Do I press the question?

Well, you're putting that together, if I may ask staff, um 102 and 104 South Market.

Do we have the years of those properties?

They are relatively the same year as the station.

Yes.

1854.

Is that my understanding?

Thank you.

So I'll give Jessica the credit that she pulled together a uh what we call low-tech slideshow to kind of indicate right now the experience of somebody in a wheelchair who is going to try to access the clinic.

And I'll let her talk through as I maneuver the uh slide journal.

All right.

So as you can see, this is the primary front entry to kind of the intake area to the clinic.

Um this is along the front facade of the building.

This is as you turn the corner kind of between where the BO rail station is and the food pantry.

So this is actually going towards the permanent supportive housing entry, and it's sort of an alley that goes past this trash enclosure, which you see on the left of the image.

So once you get back there, you find a door which you can see some papers posted to kind of underneath the top of this awning.

So that's where you would actually enter the building.

Uh through that door, which we're now looking at from the opposite side, you enter the kitchen as part of the community table.

Um, and this is sort of their back of house where they have their walk-in coolers, their sinks, their dishwasher.

Um, you see a lot of that.

You then go through a storage room which has a ramp, past some shelving, some IT equipment, things like this.

Um of that storage that you see.

And then after you get through that storage area, you go into an office.

So this is the other side of the door we were looking at from the ramp.

Um, and this is looking back into that office.

Um now you're starting to actually reach the clinic.

You go past some more storage.

You go past some stairs that go up to the second level admin offices.

And I want to note that this part of the hallway between the wall that you see on the left and the stairs that you have on the right, is technically too narrow to be an accessible path.

Um and it's at this time that you finally reach the clinic, which you can see through the door opening on the left.

So we painstakingly show you those photos to show you that this is not really befitting of a main entry uh for somebody who's trying to get health services.

So let me just ask this.

I apparently got lost.

The the photo we're looking at here is option one to get into the health clinic.

Yeah, so we're the other option is going through Correct.

That's where I want to be clear.

It's either this or go through the obstacle course.

Right.

So right now, presently what we just presented is how they're doing it, right?

So you actually can see a gentleman in the back that's in a wheelchair, I believe, waiting to get into the clinic through the kitchen and go through the storage room.

And so of course, you know, the city prioritized that's part of the RFP that we responded to is to make it an accessible entrance.

In the original solicitation for a response, there was ideation that maybe on Market Street we'd have the ability to put a ramp.

After looking at it, there's electrical equipment, it's already a pinch point.

We don't really think there's a way to aesthetically make that pleasing.

And then once you get into that door, you have to go up yet another landing.

So it kind of is a moot point.

So our proposal in the in the package.

And just using the natural terrain that's already sloping back towards market along All Saints, and just kind of keep a little bit of a level, and that way it feels like a landing as opposed to this grand obtrusive ramp.

And that's the proposal that we're putting in front of you today.

And staff can concur from a site visit that the North Market or the South Market Street potential of an ADA is does not seem very viable because of the stoop that's already or from ports that's already out there.

It's quite high.

It would be like a roller coaster going up with a wheelchair.

So this is staff finds this is probably the most viable location for an ADA ramp to be located at.

Additionally, there's also more space here to allow for wheelchairs or the um scooters or mobile unit gadgetries.

Um I absolutely agree.

I think Market Street is far too pedestrian-heavy to accommodate even if it weren't for the height.

So the railing proposed, it looks like there's going to be railing proposed on close to the north market, just a small section of railing.

Staff only recommends that you provide like a profile image of that so that we have that product detail.

Um the commission will need to discuss if they think that this will alter the historic fabric of the building where this is located.

I do know that you're going to be removing, I believe it's what two vents and then reinstalling them.

I believe.

Yeah, there appears to be two um crawl space level vents that are close to the grade, and you'll see that they're represented.

There's actually just one that's going to be removed.

Yeah.

And then has in order to let airflow continue to go through, we're gonna move a grate to be on the front of that.

Uh so the applicant is also proposing Black Pouart um to be installed on the ramp edge.

Um the applicant will need to discuss what this is type why railing isn't being proposed for this section to help counter back the the railing edge so that it's not a tripping hazard.

So just to make sure we're commenting on the what can you repeat that?

I just want to make sure I'm following, sorry.

You're good.

Um the the All Saints side, the the small railing edge you have, or the railing edge, the small uh ramp edge, you have black pure stinctions.

I can't pronounce that right now.

Umstead of railing.

Right.

Okay.

So we we do have on the section that's above that that was clouded.

We showed that there's a little bit of a lip.

So if someone's in a wheelchair by code, you're required to not have a fall hazard.

So there's a little bit of what we call like a toe kick that comes up in which those stanchions, um, those but ballards that are holding the which we thought was aesthetically appropriate given its history, sort of um a rope or something that was more flowing, didn't look obtrusive with guards, right?

Typically we're used to the the picketed guards that are you know painted powder coated, and so our approach was if we could, which we can given that the height isn't that high, um, not have to have the guards, just have these rails shown as uh a way of delineating and then meeting the code for the um the wheelchair fall protection by putting that lip if that answers your question.

Yeah, you refer to this as a platform.

Certainly doesn't look to be a ramp.

So I mean it's basically level there.

So I would concur that you know simpler is better.

Um just having a small curb there, and I don't mind the rope railing between the stanchions.

Seems to be, you know, basically a platform as you describe it, not so much a ramp.

I just have a question, and maybe it's only in the drawing.

Are those removable, those posts?

Are they removable or they're there's they're permanent?

I mean, I think the intention for the city with the project manager that we've working with is that we want to keep them permanent to allow there to be a you know a visual barrier so people know and don't accidentally fall.

Okay.

Yeah, I it it just looks to me almost as if and I don't know if you've ever been to a military installation, they have the bollards and they can be removed.

That's what it looked like to me.

So that may not be the case.

It's just how it was showing up in my mind.

Staff's final comment on on this elevation, at least, is um that you're they're replacing the currently black metal benches there.

They're just replacing them, I'm assuming with new metal benches with similar design.

Um product literature was provided for that.

Uh yes.

So um with the help of the civil engineer, we kind of just identified what apparently there is no city standard bench, but this looked like it was in line with what you see around the city, and also in the photo that we had already shared, there is one such bench in the back um towards the the dining area.

So we're just trying to match that black painted metal.

All right.

For the east rear elevation.

So the proposal calls for a partial removal of the trash enclosure to allow the ADA rampslash walkway to be constructed.

Staff finds no concern for the partial removal of the non-historic uh garbage uh enclosure in anticipation of the ADA rampslash walkway.

Um the a new garbage enclosure is proposed next to the ramp, but it's unclear what materials propose or the design of the enclosure.

The applicant would just need to clarify this detail.

Um the applicant has submitted an archaeological review, and no concerns were discovered during the evaluation of Arch 25-19.

A no further action letter was issued.

Um staff notes that the scope of work does not detail the removal of trees.

However, the plans detail at least three trees are proposed to be removed.

It's also unclear if the proposals to remove three or four trees based on the plans.

The applicant would need to clarify this detail in the resubmission documentation.

Per the guidelines trees um with a DPH of 10 uh or above may be removed with the anticipation of a project such as a patio area or ADA ramps.

Um three concrete sitting retaining walls are proposed to be installed along the path.

Hinckley wall scones are proposed to be installed along the the walls.

Staff find the installation of the proposed ADA ramp walkway is consistent with the guidelines, and that no no historic fabric will be removed.

I think the most interesting feature though that you're proposing that I want to really highlight is the railing featuring.

Um the railing that's proposed features an LED lighting.

Um it's a proposed, I believe, just for the entrance section of this rear ADA.

Um the guidelines do not provide clear guidance on lighting for railings, so the commission will need to discuss the proposal for the LED lights for rails.

Um just standard permanent light fixtures must have the color temperature of 4,500 K or less to not project cool or blue tones.

Um and I believe you right here highlight that it's only just for the front half, as I I asked for clarification.

Um correct.

So what you see on the image now is showing where we have a slope that is going to require a handrail.

The attempt in the design, because it looks kind of serpentine and random, probably to a layperson, is to keep the slope following the natural hills topography and keep it at about 5%, which by code is not going to require handrails.

Um I can editorialize, we didn't want it to look like Hershey Park, right?

Like we are going up this sidewalk, and you can't really use the space because there's a bunch of guards everywhere, right?

So we wanted to keep the path somewhat unobtrusive.

Um so in order to get to that height to be able to do that, that first portion that is highlighted here will have to have the handrails.

And in lieu of trying to modify that existing retaining wall made out of brick that's adjacent, we felt it was probably more or sorry, less obtrusive to do it via the handrail itself.

I would concur it's a nice uh integrated lighting design that uh is unobtrusive.

Wouldn't have to put any additional pole lights or add in additional lights to the building.

So I think it's a attractive option.

And the garage slash garbage enclosure.

You provide more detail on that.

Yeah, for our submission that we'll give for uh the approval in two weeks, we will have a little bit more information on that.

But right now it's made out of wood.

Um, we could kind of just match what's there, of course, and do a uh it's pretty much a semi-opaque stain, I'd say.

Um, and that would be the path of least resistance.

Um I do have to just kind of concur uh confer with the city that that's what they'd want to do versus something more resilient.

Any concerns about the handrail design with the integrated lighting.

And I would just like to confirm that the temperature that's 4,500 K lesson.

Yeah, so I'm looking at the one cut we have, and I I wish I could just answer that question right this second, and I don't have that in front of me.

I would like to think as somebody who also hates uh anything over 4,000 Kelvin myself that if it were up to me, it would be less anyway.

So I'll make sure that we put that information.

I mean gotcha.

Uh Jessica's telling me, whispering in my ear, uh, that we we're pretty certain it does, that we can get one that's lower.

Awesome.

Yeah, so just making sure that's noted somewhere.

Uh moving on to windows.

The late 1980s building currently exhibits metal one over one metal uh windows.

The applicant is proposing an in-kind replacement.

Um the applicant is proposing to replace the current one one over one metal windows with a fixed metal picture window per the guidelines.

If the commission finds the replacement is appropriate, then metal windows must be replaced with metal windows.

The applicant is proposing to install a new opening on the south elevation of the 1980s building to install an additional metal window per the guidelines.

The building should retain the number pattern and placement of the openings.

New window and door piercings may be permitted on a case-by-k basis, and generally only to access or accommodate an addition.

So it's not really clear um of the purpose for this uh new additional opening that you have proposed for the south elevation.

So the elevation, so if we're talking about the the newer building, or are we talking about the the one that houses the clinic?

Can you pull up the so on HPC 6.1 the permanent support supportive housing elevation?

Um a new window is what you're saying.

Yes, yes.

So for that.

Yes.

Great, great question.

So the the purpose of this is that um the main charge of the assignment in this part of the building was to add units that are going to have powder rooms in them, and as such, we had to completely reconfigure the interior, and anywhere that has a living space has to have a window.

And um, it was by miraculous reshuffling.

This is the only window we really have to add.

It is going to have the same exact style and dimensions of the ones that are already there.

And it's just required to have that as part of that layout.

The applicant is proposing to remove the exhaust vent from the window located on the east elevation of the historic building.

With the removal of the exhausts, the applicant is requesting to infill the window with brick.

Per the guidelines, infilling historic openings will not generally be approved.

The commission will need to determine if it's appropriate to infill the window with brick rather than it return to a historic window.

Staff notes if there's no elevation drawings indicating the work proposed on the window, updating drawings and scope of work indicating the work proposed for the historic opening will need to be submitted.

Yeah.

So just kind of explain the context of this on the um overhead, you can see we have a classic hood vent that is discharging right into the main entrance for the housing.

As part of the improvements for the community table, um, if anyone's ever volunteered at the community table, you'll know that it's kind of an unusual setup where you go into the office to sign in to get to the scullery or anything in the region cooler or anything like that.

You have to go past the cooking line, and then behind the cooking lines where the salad prep and everything is happening.

And so it creates a pinch point.

And so the main thing they wanted to do is create the hot prep and the cooking area to be mirrored.

So that is sort of the impetus of why we're even talking about these windows is that we're pretty much taking the hood from the one window opening and placing it on the other.

Now we don't want to have to have that hood, so we're endeavoring to put ducted work into the area where we're putting all of the HVAC units, and therefore you won't see this obtrusive um piece of ventilation equipment.

Um we want to take the window that's currently where the hood's gonna go and relocate it to be in the other opening.

That's what we're proposing.

But um, in lieu of putting another window right where a vent's gonna, or sorry, where a hot cooking hood is gonna go that's basically just gonna be covered up on the inside.

Um we just feel for the resiliency of the opening and not having issues with the glass cracking and stuff like that, that we'd like to propose that we infill it.

Um we're open to a dialogue if you think it would be better to not brick it in and do another material, but we we feel it's probably best to keep it as something opaque.

I know MHT is not HPC, but they have also reviewed this and and they seemed okay with that proposal.

So it's good for me.

And this is new drawings right here that you have.

So I'll just need to see those.

Yeah, any anything that was clouded, like we'll make sure that you yeah.

We tried to track the changes so you can see.

Thank you.

Um in the inner courtyard west elevation, the applicant is proposing to cover one window into a doorway.

Staff notes that this is the only historic window being proposed to be converted into um into a doorway.

Uh the commission has approved of windows being converted in doorways when reviewing app addition application.

The commission will have to discuss if they find the conversion appropriate.

So this part of the program again is a clinic, and we're again just like every other part of the building, reconfiguring it to be optimized and and give it a refresh.

And one of the things for both life safety and general um integration with the rest of the building was to try to promote access to this courtyard.

At present, there is a door on the side in the same building that is not accessible to the people in the health clinic because the health clinic is sort of carved out of uh an old apartment unit that was only able to egress really from um market streets.

So our proposal was if you look at the elevation to take the one door opening which is wide enough to become a door, create a door with a slight um, you know, covering over it so people aren't getting wet when they are trying to get back in.

And the idea is that they're going to be able to interface with people who are either in the housing as staff or residents there, but also be able to enjoy the trellis and other things we're proposing in that in that area.

I have no issues with the conversion.

I think the only comment I have is you suggested, or perhaps I misheard you, you will be making it a bit wider than what is there now as a window.

Is that what you just said?

No, sorry for any misunderstanding that it is wide enough that I we do not have to widen it.

It it will be the same width.

We're taking out the cripple studs and what's below it.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Uh the applicant is proposing to remove on the 1980s non-historic building a window in portions of a brick wall to construct a window storefront.

Um it's unclear of the square footage of material that will be demolished if it's above a hundred square feet, a separate demolition application will need to be submitted.

Um per the guidelines, buildings that I have that were not originally constructed for commercial use should not be added on to buildings that have been assumed for a commercial function.

The applicant will need to clarify on the proposal of a storefront.

Um, and staff does note that the proposed location for this storefront is on the inner courtyard on the east elevation.

So similar to the design thinking of the clinic, having access to the courtyard, the primary reason why we're doing this is because right now to use the courtyard, effectively you got to go through a fire stair.

Every time I've ever visited to do measurements with Jessica or anything like that, I always have to have someone with me that goes, Oh, don't open that.

It might be triggering the alarm.

So it's it's the most uninviting courtyard situation just based on access and egress at the moment.

So the the intention is to allow people to have a connection on the inside of the housing where if you look at the current plan, they try to promote people to come together by having a television and uh nice comfortable chairs.

We're trying to take that function, move it slightly closer to this area of the building, and let a lot of natural light come in and get a view to some greenscape and a place they can sit outside.

So it's a huge part of the design thinking as to the square footage of the deletion of brick.

It will be 75 square feet.

Um we'll make sure that it is noted properly on the submission you'll be approving.

Um if there's any other questions, we'd be more than glad to answer.

So that existing door to the left of the storefront, that's a stairwell.

Is it an existing one?

It's a brick one.

Uh sorry, it's a metal door.

Is it in leads from a stairwell, you say?

Or correct.

Okay.

Might just make a note of that.

Uh yeah.

This is having two entrances right side by side.

Uh certainly understand and agree with your conclusion to make it a little bit more inviting entry there instead of going through the stairwell.

Right, and it that storefront, it's gonna be what I'm looking at.

The door will be a glass door to the left, and then the two windows.

That is correct.

Okay.

And just out of curiosity, are you proposing any signage for this storefront?

Uh no, I don't think we were really intending to do any signage on this.

So this is gonna be again for people people are gonna be coming from the inside back outside and then go back in.

So I don't believe it would be necessary.

And just to add a lot of these elements are again on the interior courtyard, so it's not on a primary elevation, so it's uh beyond secondary elevation.

Moving on to the landscape patio area.

Um the applicant is proposing a timber deck timber tech deck patio area located in the inner courtyard to provide seating and patio areas.

Per the guidelines, decks are not appropriate, would not be improved, would not be approved in the historic district.

The most appropriate course would be a patio area with masonry pavers.

So the design thinking here is we're creating all this access to this courtyard.

And we want to be able to create with you know a limited budget, a sense of place that is accessible and somewhat varied from the aesthetic of just concrete everywhere.

Um right now there's a fair amount of concrete sidewalk, there's a concrete pad that has a stormwater access panel uh manhole in it.

So our thinking was we can make it feel a little bit more uh residential for the people who are at the permitive supporters of housing side um without you know compromising generally um the resiliency of the product.

So that's why we're thinking if we just kind of through an elevated decking, uh decking in name only, it's not a deck, it's pretty much a platform that's raised.

That would be a location that's you know, somebody's in the trellis area in the middle of the courtyard, they feel like they have their own kind of nested space somewhere else on the other side.

They're surrounded by somewhat of a different materiality.

So that was sort of the the impetus of the design thinking there.

So when you say raised, can you tell me is it six inches?

Is it three feet?

It's approximately a foot and a half.

And do you intend to have railing around it in some sort?

Correct.

There'll be railings.

Well to get on the to get up the ramp portion of it.

So on the screen right here, this area to get up to the decking.

This location here is nested on pretty much three sides.

You have an existing stair condition, which I don't know if we have photos of or not, but um locations actually.

So we basically have this area that is just a a dead area with a trash can in it.

And the proposal is if you look at this small photograph here, the decking goes up against that raised concrete stair that's gonna be existing to remain.

It goes up to the neighboring wall that's not on our property, and then we go to the building adjacent, and we're gonna be relocating those HVAC units.

So it's pretty much not going to be this thing that has a lot of height that's gonna have a lot of rails on it, it's nested in to the back of that courtyard.

Almost like a platform.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And the clarification on the proposed railing, it it's noted on 5.1 as describing the railing as wood.

Um, but I thought that the LED metal railing was being proposed for that as well.

I it would be a conversation with this you know, the commissioners about the acceptability of the entire concept.

But I mean, I was thinking that if it's a timber tech kind of product, wood railings for that would probably be appropriate versus the more robust ramp that's in the front.

And there's no visual connection between the two whatsoever because it's like uh Mr.

Fitzgerald said it's beyond secondary.

I mean, you really have to loop way in to see it.

But um, we are open to suggestions if there is a railing that would be more appropriate.

I I think the fact that it's it's not even facing the streetscape, it's only for the folks that are there.

Yeah.

And it feels to me like it's a platform to your point, a sense of space somewhere to go and sit, perhaps read, get away a little bit.

I don't know that I don't know that it matters if it's metal or wood.

I'm kind of unmoved either way.

I'm also not really opposed to the the deck, I suppose, even though it's a deviation from the guidelines just because it's a very unique condition inside of the courtyard and it's not visible, and it I think the wood probably softens the aesthetic of the space rather than like a paved patio, which would be the same.

I think it I think it's actually nice.

I don't have an opinion on the railing either.

I think like a I'm sure any of the timber tech cable rails or anything are fine.

Were you proposing Timbertech railing or wood?

I'm sorry.

Were you proposing Timbertech railing or wood?

I thought I heard wood.

Yeah.

We're gonna propose whatever we feel is acceptable.

Um it seems to me uh you know, I'm I do like to try to be consistent.

If it's not in opposition to the HPC, we would like to maybe endeavor to do the lighted rails, because I think that would be a safety thing to be able to help illuminate that.

Um but yeah, I mean it's to be completely honest, we didn't have a strong opinion on that what one way or the other.

But we'll make sure after this conversation to update it accordingly for the submission in two days.

Well, you might not lighted, but maybe lights on the post or I mean I wouldn't be opposed to either one uh or the material, whatever.

I mean, I think it's just uh a nice improvement to an amended or make an amenity space out of nothing, really.

Uh and it's you know concealed almost uh totally enclosed courtyard.

So I think yeah, the temper tech material, the railing design lighting is pretty much open as far as I'm concerned.

Great, thank you.

There's there's color temperature on the back of your spec sheet, by the way, for the railroad.

There was there, and it says less than you have an option.

There's options.

There's all sorts of options, yeah.

We'll make sure to circle one of them for this huffinets.

And if the tenants are able to see this, I would think sensitivity to that lighting, right?

Because the last thing last thing we want is a bunch of lighting and coming in the windows.

Absolutely.

I uh totally agree with you that we'd wait make sure that the the way the light is thrown on these is deliberately down.

Um they're they're mounted on the bottom of the rails.

Um and so it's really intended to just be spotlighting in a linear fashion to show the edge conditions.

Perfect.

Yeah.

The proposed garden structure, the perila is a 10 by 12 garden structure for the inner courtyard.

Staff doesn't find any inconsistency with the proposed pergolo when consulting the guidelines.

Um additional lighting is being proposed as Hardy Island directional well lights for the rear courtyard area on and as well as the East Elevation 8A ramp.

The proposed lights appear to be anchored into the ground and not the building.

Um guidelines don't provide much guidance on patio slash walkway lighting.

Um other than that, it's it's in regards to new construction that it must be of a simple design.

Um the total number of well lights is noted as to be determined.

The applicant will just need to clarify how many are being proposed to be installed.

We'll make sure to quantify them in the final submission.

The applicant is proposing to install two metal canopies with recessed lighting.

One will be located over the proposed storefront on the non-historic 1980s building.

The other is located over the proposed door on the historic 1854 building.

While metal canopies may be approved for commercial and industrial or service purposes buildings, awnings that feature internal lighting will not be approved.

Um staff doesn't find any consistency with the proposed metal canopy for the 1980s building.

However, the commission will need to discuss the proposed recessed lighting.

And I I miss this in my cap staff comments.

What's the um would the applicant be open to a canvas canopy or um aware over the historic doorway on the historic portion of the building?

Umbrage from inclement weather, and um a lot of times for code reasons, when you have an egress door, you you should illuminate it.

Um there's a lot of untasteful ways to illuminate those.

Uh they're pretty much wall packs that are.

I mean, and you already know that, that it can be pretty obtrusive.

Um if we did a different type of awning, I just have to figure out if it would be a sconce or some other type of lighting that we'd have to put on there, and then it wouldn't be consistent with what's across the way in that same courtyard.

So the the main reason for this proposal was that it looked like it was moderate enough that somebody looking at it would know it was not part of the original building, but it also echoed what was happening on the PSH, the permanent supportive housing side.

Um I don't think we're acting as agent for the city or Frederick who you know, in this agency, I don't think they'd be opposed to doing an awning one if that's what was required.

With this being the historic part of the building, I just want to make sure that we are sensitive to whatever features being added here.

What I like about like awning that's uh of cloth, I would think would have one less physical impact on the historic wall.

Um would create a more traditional entry where you still have the opportunity to provide lighting with the sconce.

So I I would encourage exploration of that I think that's a fair point.

And the way that the um prefab canopies are so rigid um and the courtyard space is so small, it might just be interesting to explore a different option and see um you might find that it actually really limits the courtyard having two canopies jutting into it like that.

So if the drawing we're looking at right now, and I'm not looking at my package, I'm looking at what's being presented.

Right.

That's in the courtyard.

And that's part of one of the 1854 buildings.

Is that what I'm understanding?

Correct.

That is that building the same age because the thing that's interesting about this building from my perspective is that this clinic portion is entering a different building from the B and O railroad building.

I'm just I I'm not 100% sure about that, but I'm pretty sure it is a distinct building because when you're inside and you go through to the clinic, it's a pretty it's like a triple white wall opening and it has some partial sprinkler coverage and things like that.

So it doesn't appear to be the same vintage okay.

I I again it's still in the courtyard and it's still something we're not seeing.

Right.

Number one.

And then number two, I think I'm trying to understand staff's concerns.

It's not like there weren't metal awnings, even historically, right?

Over theaters and hotel doorways and things like that.

At a certain point, maybe not to this building, its age, but um certainly early 20th century.

Say again, I would say by early 20th century.

I feel like the late 19th century, too.

I think I don't know that for a fact.

And I am certainly we're not trying to present a false sense of history, right?

That is not our goal here.

And if it's not going to destroy the integrity of the building, it can't it could be removed at a later date, right?

Absolutely.

It's specifically for the the storefront, since we're a little iffy on the older section of the building.

So guidelines say that you know recess lighting or internal lighting will not be approved.

Maybe have a little bit of a conversation from the commission of what they feel about the recess lighting for the proposed storefront.

I think uh as we've already said, since it's in the courtyard and it's not on the street and it's not visible and it makes sense from a pragmatic perspective.

If if they propose the canopies, I don't have a problem with the recessed lights.

I concur.

I mean it's a more modern storefront entryway with a metal canopy.

I think the recessed lighting would be appropriate.

Uh on the other door, you know, I could go either way, I do like the the metal canopy, although we do have a different style of door there, more of a full view, uh French style door, different from the storefront, or would it be would it be aluminum or would it be a wood?

Yeah, we're thinking that would be an that would be an aluminum storefront door as well in that new.

Yeah, in a single door as well.

That's kind of like the aesthetic between this.

I think he's talking about on the old building.

Correct.

That's going to be an a glass.

It's not it's not, it's currently not an existing door.

Right.

So in in lieu of trying to, again, it's always the sensitivity with the HVC when I present these things.

I don't necessarily want to present a wood door that gives the illusion that the door was always there.

Um, but again, that's not a hill that I would die on by any stance.

I mean, if we want it to be, I think we do want it to have visual connectivity.

And if that meant that it was a wood door with a half light, that would possibly be, you know, fine.

I think the more light the better, because we're pretty much getting rid of a window and putting a door in.

I guess in that light, it kind of changes the perspective a little bit.

Uh so the door and the storefront would be similar, you know, what alumnum, similar color.

Uh I don't know if you would offer you know a full light door to kind of match the storefront match that door instead of a more thinner profile.

Yeah.

Or are you looking at an all glass door?

It would it would be like you just said it was a thinner profile with a full light of glass.

It wouldn't be by any stretch of full glass door.

It would be a full light in a storefront style door.

So uh I don't know, I guess I would like to see the the store, the single storefront door and similar pattern profile to the you know the the store front with the two with the door and the two side panels, or maybe it's only one side panel.

In that case, I think the the metal canopy uh would be appropriate in both cases.

So I guess that goes back to the question is an aluminum storefront door, single door appropriate on that older section uh with the metal canopy or a wood door with a more traditional fabric canopy.

So you're kind of changing two different styles of entry points there.

Precisely.

So I we will gladly take direction from the HVC.

We want to make sure from a high level that whatever we submit is is going to be something that uh we're fairly confident could be approved due to timeline concerns.

So if we felt from this meeting that it had to be a wood and uh a cloth awning, then we would make that revision.

Um where I'm sitting, I'm not entirely clear how the HPC feels about it.

So I would just say as Commissioner Fitzgerald has pointed that out.

Uh it seems to me that when we're back there, we'd want some uniformity, right?

Visual uniformity.

And I hear what staff was saying.

I respect that.

But once we've changed the window to a door, we've changed the window to a door.

What the door is, whether it's glass and aluminum or wood is irrelevant.

We can still put back the window, right?

We could do that.

And I think the awning uh again, if it's metal or canvas, it can come off of the old building either way.

But visually, this courtyard is practically inaccessible to anyone other than the people who are using it.

Um it's visible to almost really nobody else but the people who are using it, the only people who could see into the courtyard that are not able to use those two doors have a third door that they're able to use the courtyard because they are also residents via the permit of support of housing program for the city.

So it's not this project, but they are gaining access to that same courtyard.

So I just wanted to just highlight the point that the eyes on this is really these these rooms here and this neighboring property with the party wall, it's a blank wall.

There's no windows into it either.

So it's really only visible by those parties.

And as as as staff would like to just note, a wood door would probably be the most appropriate when referencing the guidelines.

Um same thing with uh a canvas canopy um rather than the metal.

Um but if the commission feels that that's a deviation.

Then they are able to deviate.

I respect that, and thank you.

I think this picture is incredibly telling, right?

I really think this is incredibly telling.

Because once the historic fabric has been removed.

In my opinion, particularly where what you can see here, the type of door we put in is it can be replaced.

Just to provide you some extra clarity.

Um I also don't see a problem with doing the storefront on both of those elevations of the courtyard, um, since it's secluded and no one's gonna see it.

I think what's confusing right now is that graphically you have two kind of different door styles going on on across from each other in the courtyard.

Like you have the the three, the side with the three glass panels that has like the thin rails and kind of like the full door, and then on the other side opposite with the small canopy, you have like the just the thicker frame.

Um so it just isn't clear what's going on.

But I think it makes sense to have those speak to each other and be the same thing.

Uh thank you for that.

That's what we're coalescing on.

Thank you for that feedback.

We'll make sure to update it.

We really should have a style and rail with a full light of glass.

That's really the way it should be drawn, and we'll edit it for the for the application.

While you're looking at that one, let me just ask about the lighting in that, because we're talking about putting recessed lighting in that um canopy, whatever we're calling that.

I'm concerned about particularly the window directly next to it.

Is that lighting going to affect that window and is that someone's apartment?

It's uh great concern.

Um what I probably would probably could do is put as much as it might look odd, we could probably do an offset one light that would only really be there for that one door, um, because the other one doesn't really frankly need it because it's just windows.

So we'll we'll look at that.

In general, I'm supportive of both openings being an aluminum storefront.

I'm supportive of the metal canopies and in this instance for this interior courtyard, and I would support the uh recessed lighting, even the the two lights in this larger storefront.

I don't think it's going to impact that adjacent window as far as extraneous light coming in.

Uh that's what shades and curtains are for.

But I think getting a nice lighted entryway would be nice there.

So I'm supportive of the loom storefront with the metal canopy and the recessed lighting, but let me just say when you have to have your shades closed all the time because lights are on all the time, it it it can be annoying.

Would lights be on a timer or photo cell or do you know at this point?

Yeah, I mean I think again, I'll defer to talking to the electrical engineer about that, but I I do believe, again, the the intention is if somebody were to need to go outside at 4 a.m.

that there is an illuminated entrance, right?

So we'll we'll be sensitive to that.

We'll look into it.

That room is a kitchen.

I'm sorry, if it's a kitchen and not a bedroom, then it may not matter.

Beyond the storefront, it's uh an area to hang out in than the kitchen, but that one window adjacent that is a that is for a unit.

Yeah.

Okay.

The applicant is proposing to remove and replace or relocate several HVAC units in the inner courtyard and rooftop units.

Staff doesn't find any concerns with the replacement of the existing and relocating HVAC units or for the proposed Louvre.

Um the applicant will just need to confirm the overall height of the proposed screening for the HVAC units.

Um then it looks like on HPC 5.0, it's noted that in the new plan um that HVAC units on the DAC slash patio area are to have gates.

I'm assuming it's the same material as the proposed screening.

Just some clarification on that.

That's correct.

Yep.

Okay.

The applicant will need to clarify how many events are to be installed.

HPC 6.1 details two different areas of new penetrations, um, and then product literature for those proposed proposed vents will need to be submitted for review.

General comments I have is HPC 6.2 existing condition photograph appears to be a south elevation.

While the drawing is the west elevation, this item will just need to be corrected.

Staff doesn't find any issue with the proposed materials of the metal door, metal windows and benches.

The following work falls under the minor rehabilitation list and does not need HBC reproval, scraping and removing paint and repainting wood features, and washing with standard pressure and using mild detergent for masonry features.

I have none unless you you guys have uh got all your answers.

No, I I think we have good direction.

Appreciate it if there's no other comments.

Thank you for your time tonight.

All right, next case is HPC 25-378 at 20 South Keep.

Okay.

And just want to introduce yourselves again.

Kevin Roycroft, uh, the architect for the project.

Uh Gary Fennel with Pull Montal Hospitality, the developer.

Hey, Ms.

Martin Koske.

Um, I'll enter the entire staff report into the record.

Um this application calls for a series of garden walls comprised of self-est shown from the Byrley Tannery building and retention wall to be incorporated into the terrace um along Carroll Creek Park and as part of the downtown Frederick Hotel and Conference Center.

I'll um just briefly kind of go over the the main points of the MOA agreement that's kind of triggering this application, but then if it's if you're comfortable with it, I'm gonna let hand the reins back to you so you can kind of outline the the scope of the project and the materials.

So the memorandum of agreement among the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, the Maryland Historic Trust and the City of Frederick regarding the downtown Frederick Hotel and Conference Center states that during the demolition, the development team shall salvage the stone of the existing stone retaining wall and the tannery building for incorporation into the public space, uh the terrace along Carroll Creek as feasible.

Addition as part of the public interpretation program the MOA requires that the development team to create a permanent interpretive signage or wayfair uh wayside exhibit in key public locations along Carroll Creek Park that discuss Frederick's industrial heritage including the tannery the tanning industry the signage or way side exhibit will complement the existing the SINCI stuff marker that is currently located on the park at the Byerley Tannery site.

The application only addresses architectural salvage plans and does not include any information on the interpretive signs or wayfair exit um exhibits highlighting the site's industrial heritage that might be an old carryover from the initial staff report because it's my understanding not that the the skip of work doesn't really address the the signage but it does sound like when you're looking at some of the drawings in the product literature that a marker is proposed as part of this project is that right yes yes we're we're proposing the actual signage our historic consultant will be doing the actual layout and content of what's gonna be on that and that I guess they'll submit that separately or I'm not yeah I don't know what the process is for that but that will be coming from them.

So and it's noted in the staff report so the HPC does not actually have the authority to review the the content of the marker we we look at its location its materiality how it's placed its visual impact on the surrounding environment but we don't actually review and approve the text so you could potentially as long as we have um specific product literature picked out you can certainly get that approved and and pretty much be set you might want to check with um the Maryland Historic Trust if if they want to review the language I don't know if they would or not but um we we certainly won't yeah yeah we'll I guess we'll consult with Goodwin and associates and see what was done for other projects to get an idea where to even start and what the next step should be.

Okay.

I mean I'm I'm happy to look to look at it in a non-regulatory way if if if that is at all helpful but it as part of the HBC review it's not needed.

Okay that's good enough thank you did you want to just dive into to kind of explain the the scope of the project a little bit more and then we can talk a little bit about um the guidelines and then any comments I might have sure so this this image is of the existing site a while back obviously and so the the two areas of stone are the this there was this retaining wall here that runs north south and bifurcates what you know was the news post building over here and then the tannery site which is about eight feet eight nine feet lower um down here so part of it is to to reuse that stone there and then we have also salvaged stone from the tannery the the only existing stone that that remained from the tannery was the front a little bit of of the two sides and the front which is about 25 feet wide so as we um we studied you know kind of ways to to um incorporate the stone into our garden areas um we looked at various um iterations um we've at one point I think we had talked to the commission I don't know if any of you were on it at that point but we talked about a Gabian wall but potentially or um you know it was mixed reviews so we we decided we wanted to kind of take the wall and kind of have it rebuilt in a similar manner and it and use it in a similar manner as well and display it along the creek so the retaining wall itself acts as a retaining wall in a way so if we look at this plan I'll quickly explain what we're looking at here.

So the retaining wall itself acts as a retaining wall in a way.

So if we look at this plan, I'll quickly explain what we're looking at here.

So this is our our terrace space.

We have these three stormwater management facilities.

And so the stone wall we're we're proposing runs along the back side.

There's a little bit of landscape in front.

So you get this, it's you know, about a hundred feet of walkway, and you see all that stone.

And so what you saw in this package, we um kind of carved out the center, a little bit of symmetry here to to uh install the tannery stone in the center.

The tannery stone is larger, different texture than the uh the retaining wall itself.

So we also made it taller.

We made that portion five feet tall, and the uh the retaining wall portion is four feet uh tall.

And so that dimension is slightly lower than the walkway.

I can show you the section.

So being that these are stormwater management facilities, the actual the height of the soil has to be lower for the hundred year flood, right?

So that that dimension of wall is is four feet high, but it's you know 18 inches down below the um, it's like a foot below the actual walkway.

You see, and then there's kind of a low wall at the front, and then the dashed line there, that's where the um the tannery stone is taller, and it it's uh more profound, it it displays itself in the center um portion of the wall, and that's where we we proposed the the marker storyboard in the center that would kind of give the story, like Christina said about the site, the tannery industry, um, the walls, the site, you know, and um let's see what else we want to explain that the the stone looks the same, it's just the way it renders.

Right, and the package you have the stone, it looks like it's the same.

It was just you know, it's it was rendered incorrectly, right?

Like I said, the tannery stone will be larger.

Um then I would like to add so since we've submitted this, um we kind of had what we feel like was an epiphany and a better design.

Like I said, we we started with this.

Well, this wasn't the first iteration, but this was placing it in the center of the planters, which we thought was nice for symmetry.

Um looking at it, what we've done is actually um I think this will be easier to see in this.

So this image here we go.

So this red dashed box up here is actually the footprint of where the tannery was, right?

And so that's that 25 feet of stone there, and what we really liked about this was it's really on access with the bridge as you come across.

Um, although you know, it was hard to see the tannery.

There's a lot of trees here, it's also you know, eight to ten feet lower.

Um but what we did, what we're proposing now is to essentially we're bringing where the tannery wall was, and we're bringing it straight forward, and we're doing that 25 feet of tannery stone right there, and doing the story board there, so that's actually closer, you know, at this intersection, which is a really nice.

Every time I come to the site, I always walk across that bridge.

This is the bridge, this is the current stinky stuff sign right here, and then the proposed um story board, kind of almost right across from it, and then this 25 feet of stone here, which you can see has been updated.

You can see it's a little larger.

And this is also a larger width than what we were showing originally.

And we didn't have a chance to update the rendering.

Um but essentially I lost my focus.

There we go.

Yeah, there we go.

So you can kind of see to the right here, just past the stinky stuff sign.

That's the bridge walkway coming across, and you kind of almost come right on access, and then you have your storyboard and that kind of five foot high portion of stone, and then beyond that, and then the other two planters would be the four foot of the uh the retaining wall stone, the rest of the way.

And then the lower walls of the planner are the natural stone, um, which is used along the creek Tipler and the in the ashler um pattern.

This um I I believe the width was approximately 25 feet.

Yes.

Replicating the theory.

Replicating the the remaining original stone portion of the tannery.

That would have been a stone foundation.

I'm sorry, Christina.

That would have been a stone foundation.

I'm sorry.

Yes, that would have been a stone foundation.

So yes, this the foundation, and there was about uh I'd say like six feet of the wall or six, maybe eight feet of the wall was um was stone, and that was the only remaining portions of stone.

The rest was kind of cobbled together, CMU brick um block around the rest of the building.

Uh my question is about the stone and this section.

Am I understanding that this section and like the other portion?

I guess I I might have a couple questions.

Okay.

Is the the plan that I that we that I reviewed and wrote a staff report for was for a hundred feet?

Is it still gonna be a hundred feet?

And then this is kind of anchoring the the left-hand side, the um correct.

Yeah, so if we look at the two next to each other, the this was what was submitted, so still those three planners.

All of this planner was was the retaining wall, all of that was retaining, and then on both sides, and now you know it's now it's you know, and this is also the tannery, and then all the rest of it is still retaining wall.

Okay, and am I understanding that this slightly larger section is also gonna be the larger stone from the tannery point, too.

So it's actually you're pulling it from the right building, replicating the kind of like the width and general form of that.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

So it's another close actual slide.

And the metal railing is behind or is the metal railing, I think it's a it's behind, not on top of the yes, correct.

The the metal railing is behind, and that's a you know, a I don't know if I'm gonna get in.

Actually, I think the other one was a little bit of the uh this one's a little larger.

This is kind of the this is a the precedent.

It's it's a very similar rail.

It's it's very um, it's a clean minimalist rail.

Um very simple pickets.

The picket and the the rail and the picket in the bottom, they're all the same dimension.

It's a a one and a half inch deep um metal stock, and then and those will all be black.

Beyond the wall, I just have another question.

Do the do the buildings themselves uh and as they are positioned have any relevance to the historic appearance of the tannery?

Uh is there some order to the placement of the white buildings with the with the red trim behind the railing.

half inch deep um metal stock and then and those will all be black um beyond the wall i just have another question do do the do the buildings themselves uh and as they are positioned have any relevance to the historic appearance of the tannery uh is there some order to the placement of the the white buildings with the with the the red trim behind the railing I'm sorry I'm hard having a hard time here well I'm looking at the picture um the view looking west of view looking east and I'm looking at the buildings themselves that are in the picture oh not the railing but behind the railing and and not those not the the stone the stone uh footing that we're talking about this evening but I'm just curious about the the buildings themselves the building the new building the new building yes right oh yes so the relation to the the pre-existing tannery structure oh so the I mean maybe I'm reading something into it that isn't in the design and and so I'm uh I would withdraw my question but I'm curious about so this is you can kind of see this is the the red lot the red box is the tannery footprint so let me ask this Commissioner Kelly uh is it page 10 that you're looking at?

I'm looking at page uh 10 yes page 10 the the you know the uh of the pictures or pictures oh the rendering the rendering right so I think the question is are these buildings white to help depict and also are they is there some connection to the them to the tannery structure itself um so there's no connection itself to the tannery but they are um a white stone so it it does you know hark back to the the tannery it it it's a smooth um air's craft panel um a 12 by 24 panels stone and I think what prompted me to wonder about them is that they seem to have a relation symmetrically I don't see that accurately to the the three segments of the of the wall in the railing you know there is a there it there is a maybe it's more than three but what I'm looking at in the drawing is is three and and the buildings are placed behind those yes um yeah the the buildings there's actually um two volumes we'll call it two kind of um so this this stair right here is kind of the central spine so that there's a smaller ballroom to the right and that's one white building form and then it kind of is broken with this glass volume and then there's a larger volume that also has a glass in the center um that relates themselves to the the planters and and I don't mean to be extrapolating something into what isn't there in the design of the structures the new structures but are they are they in any way representing the existing the pre-existing tannery no they're not I think when we were I discussed this several months ago we were had discussions about a Gabian wall or other art piece that may give something more distinctive as far as representing the history of the tannery um reviewing your uh application here you know I see the stone in in the wall uh the three bioretention stormwater facilities the storyboard and the the higher portion where the tannery stone is I almost look at it as all as one not just the sum of parts but kind of as a garden uh don't want to call it memorial garden but all kind of being important for the overall uh aesthetic and and kind of uh commer commemorating the the the tannery and and the industry um I guess one thought I had was you know could this tannery stone wall was there any thought of putting artwork on it or could there be a potential for putting something on it I guess make it a little bit more distinctive I I do like that it's uh pretty wide longer 25 feet is what you're suggesting and um at first I thought you know having something on the axis with that walkway bridge coming up would be nice and although I think having it centered with was also nice but I don't know how many people are walking past that so I think this location on the axis with that crossing is a good location um I guess I was just you know considering if we're if this tannery wall could be something more than just stone or if if that's

So I think this location on the access with that crossing is a good location.

I guess I was just you know kind of considering if a if this tannery wall could be something more than just stone or if if that's sufficient since it is a a bigger piece of of this uh overall background and I think there was uh concern about the plantings themselves kind of concealing the stone uh it's not so evident in this but maybe a factor to consider in the plantings of uh around this you know portion of of the wall I guess I was trying to kind of maybe theoretically aesthetically trying to imagine the the three elements as you know a garden that includes the plants includes the stone includes the storyboard uh all as kind of the call it a Byerly tannery gardens or something but um I don't know if there's anything to you could put on that wall to I guess make it more of a symbolic either uh indirectly or directly related to the tannery other than just the storyboard in front of uh the tannery stone but how about some lighting would lighting make a difference?

I sorry I forgot to mention there's lighting okay because I was saying lighting would make a difference so it would offer uh I just as you're pulling that up let me just say this because as um Commissioner Pitchell was speaking these rainwater catchment whatever these are the whole idea for the tannery to be where it was was to be near the canal because they needed the water.

So I don't know how much planting but maybe to accentuate that whole concept that the water was the one of the reasons they were there right they needed the water for that purpose.

So I'm all about plants the more plants we put in the happier I am but just a thought and then the lighting of course well you you know uh the landscape designers and architects we love to render very lush plantings and they don't always end up they're not gonna look like that day one anyhow and we can always we can always control those but um so the lighting there's there is a light it's hard to see in this section it essentially runs at the bottom of the wall so it's a a a night uh an up light sort of looks like this that's down in the in the topsoil right and it's just a a um it just grazes the wall at night so like it'll be really wonderful like walking along that that's part at night it'll the texture of the stone that light going up the stone will be we're really excited about that.

I I'm sorry I forgot to mention thank you.

I think that's incredibly helpful.

I like the titling of the tannery garden there's something about that that sounds um kind of part of you know thinking about that I mean I wasn't born in Frederick so I would never be considered a true Frederictonian uh although I think the population is changing enough that the old guard Frederictonians are kind of outnumbered even though I've been here for 40 years but certainly a lot of people you know debated and fought to keep this tannery and it is you know I think critically important not only the development of Frederick and even though it's a a very mundane building I think it is important to try to uh you know uh memorialize is not the word I really want but uh the effect of the the building and the industry I know of another tannery spot along the creek uh and uh just to recognize that entire uh uh history there and you know even though it's a really still the mundane building that brick chimney with the kind of the tapered slope of the brick I think is a iconic element I don't know if there's a way to incorporate something that with in the either on the stone or on the storyboard but um uh I'm just kind of thinking about you know the uh what more might we be able to do I understand you you probably have met the intent of the memorandum of agreement by reusing the stone and providing an interpretive exhibit um I was just kind of looking at the overall effect of this more as as a garden and then

I don't know if there's a way to incorporate something that with in the either on the uh stone or on the storyboard, but um uh I'm just kind of thinking about you know the uh what more might we be able to do?

I understand you you probably have met the intent of the memorandum of agreement by reusing the stone and providing an interpretive exhibit.

Um I was just kind of looking at the overall effect of this more of as a garden, and then I guess the question of maintenance, you know, is the the city maintaining this, is the hotel property owner maintaining this.

I say that as a caution that you know if this becomes unmaintained or some of the plants get removed or die off and nobody replaces them, does it become more of a dead space?

Not not really uh uh not really that attractive.

I think it's very attractive as design and all the plants are very attractive.

Um an agreement that this has to be maintained, but uh in a certain fashion.

But so just some random thoughts.

I realize you you you probably met the intent of the memorandum here.

Uh is there something more we can do?

Is there something more that has been considered?

Um if we have our venue in the background, right?

And um I guess what I'm gonna say is that uh for our venue to be successful, we have to maintain that uh that landscaping from the creek all the way up to the to the hotel.

And then obviously, you know, that that will be um well i i I promise you that will be well maintained.

It's the photo backdrop for you know a lot of important events, so it's not gonna it's not gonna stand well that it's not well maintained.

And I thought uh commissioner Hart's uh comment uh uh this was a uh a stretch, but you know, the tanneries there, it relied on the creek, it's probably polluting the creek, but now with the bioretention facility, it's there to kind of clean up the water, any pollution or or runoff that may be created by this development.

So in a in a sense it's kind of you know aiding improving you know the environment, whereas the tannery, I don't want to denigrate the tannery at all, but uh you know it was a polluting factor as well as a lot of other industries along the creek.

But that's kind of a stretch to make that connection, but uh I guess just general overall, and I appreciate your comments that you're gonna maintain this uh uh uh to be an attractive garden.

But uh some of what the chairman is saying is uh resonating with me, although we may not be on the same wavelength because I'm focused on the buildings, um and you have indicated that there's no design statement being made by those buildings that references the tannery, uh, but I'm just you know, in a kind of art critic speculating mode, um, wondering if that would hold out in terms of what the designer, the architect, the person who designed those buildings had in his or her mind.

But was the tannery a taller building?

Was it a massive building?

I don't know the image of it historically, again, because of my lack of familiarity.

Yeah.

It was a two-story.

Which one of these was it?

You know, it it had it changed many times over time.

Burned down a couple times.

Burned down a few times.

Um for example, in in this image, uh what I was saying was you know, like this here was was the extent of the stone that was still remaining from the original, and then it it turned the corner 25 feet along the creek, and then this same dimension kind of back.

And then you can't see the tree, yeah, the trees and the way.

But um everything else had kind of been, you know, there was CMU and brick was the rest that was built over time.

And well, and I'm obviously speaking more vaguely in terms of image rather than material.

Works from me so far.

Yeah.

I like the shifted wall too.

I think that's nice to put it on access with the bridge and move it over from the center, that would I think that's a good move.

Thank you.

I guess to try to move this lower.

Anyone else have a objections really on the overall design?

Um think it should be more, think it's adequate.

I guess it meets the intent of the memorandum, Christina.

Uh as far as reusing the salvaged stone and uh making an interpretive exhibit.

So were any of the bricks salvaged?

The bricks.

No, the brick was not salvaged.

None of it.

No.

No, none of the brick.

I guess asking for more is impossible because they weren't salvaged.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, the size of the storyboard, is it set or will it be kind of dependent on the graphics reporting?

I originally drew uh a single pedestal, but I feel like um that's not going to be large enough.

That only is like a 24 by 18 or something.

So I think it's gonna it'll probably be a double pedestal.

It that comes down to how much information is gonna go on.

So it's the this is the um the model, the paneer that I I kind of condensed in the um product spec for you, Christina.

Um the double pedestal.

And then that can be 36 inches, or I think they even had a version that was three pedestals.

But I yeah, I mean, this is yeah, there's a picture of a a three-pedestal one, but again, that'll come down to yeah, I think that one's too big.

So I mean I think the double.

Will it be lit as well?

Is it gonna have lighting?

Um I'm just thinking if you're walking along in the evening, are you gonna be able to read it?

I think we'd have to look at it.

Yeah.

Park lighting.

Right?

They're yeah, we'd have to look to see where the the park lighting ends up across the path.

Yeah, yeah, we'd have to have to pretty well the it's on the original pathway, right?

So it that's pretty well illuminated all the way up and down, but I don't know that there's actually lighting pointed right onto the I think it's lit well enough to walk.

Right.

Right, but not too much.

I get what you're saying.

Right.

And uh this is an odd stretch, but let me try it.

Because I think I had this idea years ago when when this whole conversation was coming about.

Inside the hotel.

And I don't know what's going to be in there or in the lobby.

I'm thinking a small gift shop or something like that.

Could there be a leather shop in there?

I'm just thinking.

Oh, so we do have a market.

And could there be leather in there?

There could be.

We've talked about having local craftsmen, you know, having a section with local crafts and things like that.

So, you know, obviously that we're still in the branding process, but that we've absolutely been talking about that.

And we also in the interior, we have a uh section in the corridor that's laid out for um display of artifacts that we're finding.

That's part of the MOA as well.

So we have a a placeholder space really large.

And you know, as soon as they're done the archaeology, we'll be able to again good when we'll be able to pick the items and we'll we're gonna have to.

Is there any leather found?

I don't I don't know.

Okay.

We were on the site yesterday.

I she asked if any leather was found.

Yes, lots of leather had been found.

Not to have a lot of things.

I'm hearing yes.

An old shoe.

Oh, leather was found?

Uh yeah, lots of leather has been found.

I went down a couple weeks ago to uh the Mac lab, the Maryland Archaeology Lab and saw an old shoe from an enslaved worker there.

Oh nice.

We've been we've been doing some fun.

Yeah, but they have even recently with this new archaeology study found a lot of leather.

I saw some images.

Oh, that's good stuff, yeah.

No, it's exciting.

That was from the original.

Oh, from the original.

Yeah, yeah.

Right.

From this area here, where will the market be?

Where will any of the things we were just talking about?

The display of artifacts found, where will it be anywhere here in this building or is it around front?

It's it's around the front.

It's in the entry court, off the entry court.

So, then maybe on the sign we could say something to, although that's quite a sales pitch, isn't it?

Just a thought.

Yeah, you never know.

And I just want to be mindful of the time.

I want to make sure we accommodate all of our applicants tonight.

Any other feedback from the commission?

I believe the applicant is looking probably to go to a hearing, and the resubmission deadline is next Monday if you're able to make it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I would love to see something uh art applied to that wall, but I think having the larger stone, having a longer length, makes it a little bit more distinctive and stand out.

Uh so I think you can get that association with the uh former tannery along with the uh interpretive sign.

Um is there a stone lintel?

Was there a giant stone lintel at this site?

Above the, yeah, on the tannery, one of the doorways.

Uh I thought I this is from a long time ago.

Uh quite a large stone.

I don't think so.

Yeah, the stone where it turned, it there was no doorways.

It might have been wood that was painted.

It it in this was quite a long time ago.

So okay.

All right.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Commissioners.

You good?

All right.

Thanks for your patience, gentlemen.

It's been a long road.

All right.

Thank you.

If you um get a chance, it would be good to um try to visit the site.

Uh it's all exposed right now.

You can see the foundation from many different archaeological features.

Um the vats.

Let's see all of their taking in the vats right now.

Where the buildings were, the original original building foot uh base is there or the foundation is there.

So the cart pattern.

I would recommend you try to get by if you can and take a look.

Like in the next five days, ten days, two days.

We can't get our archaeological team off the site fast enough, but they're they'll still be there.

So I I I'd say probably for the next at least 10 days.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

At least thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Have a great night.

Ms.

Underwood, come on down.

I mean, you weren't here earlier to swear you in.

Okay.

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

So answer I do.

I do.

Uh my name is Jessica Underwood.

Did you move the microphone closer if it's on?

Red light.

It's just red.

Okay, there we go.

All right.

Um, so this application, both the demolition and the addition were reviewed in a previous workshop.

So I'm gonna go sort of my quick updates and to staff comments.

Um archaeologist has been submitted under Arch 25-24.

The applicant will need to have a no-further action needed letter for for the property prior to permit approval is given.

Starting off with the demolition updates, the application, the applicant is proposing to demolish the rear detached garage and the rear wooden staircase that is attached to the main historic dwelling.

The applicant has provided a structural engineer's report for the detached garage.

Um it is noted from the report that the garage retains no structural integrity.

Staff notes that the garage does exhibit several different materials for its construction, has several areas of decay.

Um staff also notes that the garage does appear to have been extended at some point.

Um and updated photographs were provided showing each elevation of the garage.

Like the commission did like to discuss on the demolition proposed for the garage rear staircase.

Maybe just to address first, if that's possible.

Commissioner Saylor and I are actually neighbors, so I think it's appropriate in this instance for her to recuse herself if the commission has any thoughts on that's fine.

Not on this property, but elsewhere.

I don't have a problem with her involvement as long as she I mean doesn't have a financial link to this project in particular, but we'll have you follow up with the or legal department after the meeting, just a touch base just to make sure that um but I don't think there is a an issue for you to participate during workshop, even if she recuses herself.

Okay.

If that's okay.

So I thought I uh I do think it is appropriate for her to be involved in the in the workshop here for the final hearing.

I guess we can consult with the uh uh assistant attorney.

Yeah.

I I do uh being a neighbor by itself is not necessarily a yeah, it excludes her from reviewing her um reviewing a proposal.

So we did make updates, or I guess this is the demo only we're talking about.

Um so with respect to demolition, I don't think really anything has changed since the last workshop.

We do have the structural letter that says um we cannot repair it.

Um I think the commission was pretty much didn't have any other comments with respect to demo, unless I'm mistaken.

We do appreciate the inclusion of the structural report.

Uh it helps just to make it a little bit easier to uh demolish and a removal of the stairs if it's not required for any egress or entrance.

I don't have an issue with that.

And they're not historic as well.

So and we did provide the additional um elevations that were requested.

Any other concerns on regarding demolitions?

All right, moving to the addition, staff comments.

The existing building exhibits Victorian and colonial revival architectural design feeling.

Um per the guidelines, addition should be compatible to the historic building in terms of material features and motifs.

Um the addition has been reduced by one foot for the length and by two feet for the height.

The proposed edition is still noted at 2,592 square feet, which is incorrect due to the scale change.

The applicant would need to update the square footage of the proposed edition.

Um the updated drawings show the height of the addition is either in line or below the historic block.

Um the applicant would just need to clarify and confirm if it is higher or lower than the historic rear block.

The length of the proposed edition is almost the same length as the historic building.

Per the guidelines, the length of the building shall not be longer than the historic building.

The commission will need to discuss the reduction of the addition.

Um the proposed addition is significantly wider than the historic rear L block.

Um is unclear how wide the addition is when referencing the overall structure.

Staff notes that the west elevation of the historic dwelling is flush, and it will appear that the proposition will be wider than the historic dwelling.

Um the applicant will need to provide the measurement of how much the proposed edition steps out from the historic building.

Uh the historic real block is much smaller in scale and is overshadowed by the new addition.

The height and width of the proposed edition will need to be adjusted to a smaller scale.

This approach will minimize the impact of the historic rear block.

You want to discuss a little bit on the scaling of the addition?

I just uh I wanted to clarify um a few things.

Um we uh and maybe we're looking at different numbers, but um the addition is smaller, both width-wise and lengthwise than the original structure.

Is that what the report was saying?

So I understand that the it is very small.

It's off so I guess you're saying because it's offset you're saying it's wider?

Since it's offset it appears that the the addition is wider than the historic building.

Okay.

Um yes but yes I see what you're saying.

But um technically it is not wider.

I'm I think the architect offset it just because of the um entrance and the egress um the porch you'll see the entrance on that side and also the the building envelope that the building is sitting on like the zero lot line on that side um and the um the driveway also sits on that side so but it is it's offset but it's not wider I think that's an important distinction.

Is there rationale for the 10 foot setbacks on either side?

Is that required or it is yeah and it's sitting on a a zero it's sitting at a zero microphones are could pull a microphone closer or part of the issue is the 10 foot setback you know why is it so much on the side yard can you just shift the addition over to be square behind the building but if there's a reason for it I think it was the entrance to the addition the architect wanted to put um it it just worked out better as far as the floor plan.

There's a basement entrance you see right behind the existing building that those two rectangles that's a bit that goes in down into the basement we're building it around that sort of entrance.

Yeah that's why we couldn't move it over and that's why the impetus for offsetting it.

Well for me I mean the overall size is an issue but I think if it was shifted over to be completely behind the building and shifted more to the north like 10 feet or so you have a hyphen in between the existing building and the addition it's either one store or it's a different design or different material just to give a separation between the new and the old instead of having the building right up against the rear of the existing building but pushing it back maybe 10 feet and creating a little hyphen a link between there that allows you to kind of visually separate the new from the old and then push the building over so that it's not sticking out on the side and I know that's a so when you say creating a bridge and moving it 10 feet north you mean an actual space or just dropping the build dropping the roof because they do have to be connected yeah moving it physically to the north with making a connection there but it doesn't have to necessarily be two stories or it doesn't have to be same material but just kind of more visually separate the new from the old either you know creating a more what would you do with a basement entrance right there just enclose it or I think that could stay there.

You could still have the same I mean instead of a door and a stair and then a little vestibule I mean that that all gets pushed back ten feet and then you just basically have whatever the that length is there an eight foot wide little hallway there connecting so the so the addition is you know back beyond the milk doors the basement entry and then just shift it over to be flush with that west elevation we can look at doing that.

I think to help compensate for the overall size which I think is still an issue but uh you know normally you you an addition would be smaller in scale than the main the main building I kind of understand what you want to do with the housing affordable housing element but I think that kind of offset the overall size if you could push it back and push it over to be flush with the the west wall of the existing building and create more of a separation not an open separation it could still be leaked with a structure visually separate it maybe the structure would be narrower right it could still be two stories but it would be narrower and just bringing the two buildings together and just to make sure I'm understanding so you're thinking of sort of um a one story hallway I think it could be two stories but it would just be narrower instead of being that full 24 feet perhaps it's only 18 feet or 20 feet.

And just to make sure I'm understanding, so you're thinking of sort of um a one-story hallway.

I think it could be two stories, but it would just be narrower instead of being that full 24 feet.

Oh, I see.

Perhaps it's only 18 feet or 20 feet.

You should see what we're saying.

The um just in that area, and then it can expand back out.

Correct.

Like a hyphen.

It'd be nice if it was a one-story, you could keep that second story window on the existing, but uh I'm thinking more just creating a visual separation there.

It's it's gonna be linked and enclosed, but instead of having that two-story box right up next to the rear.

Um I would add, you know, I don't know if that gets you too close to the east property line for having all those windows.

Uh if maybe the bedrooms need to flip to the west side if if the openings along the too close to a property line.

Yeah.

Might be a concern, but so you might flip the floor plan, but I guess my main consideration is due to the size of the addition to kind of uh minimize that would be to shift it in line with the existing building, and then to kind of push it back further and create a visual separation.

You could be change of materials or a change in the uh structure height or adding more.

Yeah, probably change the materials from the new addition, or it could be I don't know.

Painted a different color, or it could be brick or it could be glass or something just to kind of we're trying to visually announce the difference, right, between the old structure and giving its due respect and then adding the addition.

Okay.

I like that idea.

So we could make those adjustments.

We did adjust the windows uh based on HBC feedback last week, so now they're five racks.

We adjusted the siding, it's hardy.

Um the parapet was taken off as we discussed off the roof line.

I I want to acknowledge I saw improvement, and I want to thank you for that.

My pleasure.

Could that roof line match the existing roof line on that rear L as far as slope?

Right now that we still got a shallow slope.

I'm not sure it's gonna make a big difference, but if that new roof could kind of match the slope of the rear L.

We can look at the slope, but the existing is sloping backwards, this one's sloping to the side.

So does that change your comment at all?

Or you say sloping backwards, slipping from the street towards the rear?

The existing side to side.

The existing um back roof on seventh, I believe slopes back.

Are you talking about the front?

Could we look at A2.1?

I think that might be a good drawing to look at.

And an eight A point one is already on the screen if you just want to flip the page on the it does.

This does look like it's sloping east.

Yeah, the addition sloping the same direction, same slope.

It might be higher to get your roof structure and your ceiling heights.

But again, that would be offset by making that separation a little bit more.

I'm just kind of saying match that roof slope on the new addition where you remove the parapet, but it looks like the slope on the roof was still shallow again.

Not a big concern, but uh guess I'm just considering why not match the slope.

But that makes sense.

And I believe the intent is those two windows, those are gonna be altered to provide access.

Yeah, yes.

The bottom one, that's where the bottom window is going to become the door.

And the second one.

I'm sorry, the second story one.

Second story.

It looks like it's going to um be proposed to be f in filled guidelines say that it should be kept in place.

But it can't be covered by a wall.

Yeah, but if we were to do sort of the one-story bridge and then go into a two-story structure, then we could just keep that window as is.

That'd be nice.

That works, yeah.

Yeah.

And if I could um I don't know why, it's just standing out to me.

Page 15, and I don't know if you're using the same, but I'm looking at the front elevation, and it looks like brick, brick that's not painted.

So I'm guessing that means you plan to take the paint off of the building that's there.

Or is it just because the drawing needed to show brick?

That's a good question.

Um, you know, we've done extensive applications on this building, and it's never come up that it's painted brick.

And this is the rear L that we're talking about.

No, I'm talking about the front elevation.

Give me a second.

Oops.

I just don't know the origin of that paint.

It it definitely was not me.

Um during my ownership period.

Well, it's definitely brick on that front.

It's definitely brick on the front.

So it was just painted.

I just don't know when that was painted.

Yeah.

So I mean the intention though is to leave it painted or to remove the paint.

No, leave it painted.

They don't.

Okay.

So then the drawing on 15 where it says front elevation, that implies to me that it's red brick or unpainted brick.

That that's what was standing out to me, actually, both the front and the side elevation.

Okay, I'll make sure that's corrected.

So the the length of the new addition is only an inch shorter than the existing building?

Correct.

And then the width is a foot shorter.

Correct.

So we are technically in compliance with the guidelines, although I do recognize that the scale does look um large, but I would also note that this is a 250-foot depth lot.

So even with the addition, um the buildings don't even meet 50, don't even go 50% back on the lot.

But I don't think it's relationship to the property.

It's a relationship to the buildings themselves.

It's just a note that this is a bigger lot.

It is a it is a big lot.

Um I think for me, I would like a little bit conversation of I think it just needs a little bit of something, a little bit of character, something that's inspired by the original house that's somehow reflected here.

When you look at the original house, um you see you see brick, you see shingles, um, you see some projections, you see some wood elements.

I I feel that there's things that you can be inspired by and incorporate them in very subtle ways that helps compliment.

Compliment is a good word, uh, to be very sympathetic to to to bring a little bit more sympathy.

Um I think that might help ease like the scale of it to kind of just make it feel more comfortable in its um environment.

And and if that idea is combined with what was referenced earlier, um that there would be some sort of division, more of a division between the two units.

Um it might provide the incentive or the design uh uh image to to diversify the the new the addition more so on those lines.

The problem is that we saw an example of this evening in the presentation about the uh uh the property of 100 market um which you know just rode like topsy, but um and it now has to be resolved in terms of the uh uh movement it within the interior uh and that that is you know what was being worked on this evening very elaborately and necessarily, but with with planning at this point and and designing at this point to take into account that there could be two different functions or uh related but not the same function between the front and the back of the building um that could be designed into the uh into this addition at this point rather than having to be corrected in the future given whatever the uh use of the building becomes okay.

Your comment is received, thank you.

Um with respect to Christine.

I you know uh I'm just not a fan of building modern buildings and then trying to slap like historical elements on them, and like the the combination is always turns out less than ideal.

I hear you.

I think you can still have any suggestions something modern.

I want a bay window on the side.

I um I don't think that you need to make this catchy or or or replica, but I think that like dental molding.

No, no, I'm not even saying that.

I'm saying so in the front, for example you have that um I I think it's it's a wall dormor or something in the front where it's where there's uh shingles I think you could incorporate some shingles rather than just vertical or um horizontal board places.

I think there's a way that you can be inspired by something historic, but make it fit your modern aesthetic.

I do know in our conversation we mentioned about a second story porch also to help alleviate that with inspiration from the second story porch that you have on the side already.

The second story porch, some inspiration from that, as adding in an additional second-story porch somewhere now with this hallway one-story thing that might do away with that idea now, but it is called out in the guide guidelines.

Like you're sp you're supposed to take the environment that you're in and be inspired from it.

And it and you're heading in the right direction.

I just feel it's just a little just needs a little bit more.

I agree.

We'll see what we can do.

I mean, just even uh just looking at the elevation here.

Uh uh can't find the uh uh photographs, but I mean the existing building appears to have a two over two window pattern.

I mean, I don't know if it would help just putting uh grills in the uh windows on the addition or six over six or something, just make it a little bit more distinguishable, more traditional, but that may be getting away from your aesthetic, but um it's not my assessment.

Maybe make the windows different.

They're they're a major element.

Um, two over two in the back with one over one I correct that um with this addition with the earlier conversation, this front facing wall with the door might disappear.

Okay.

If you have a door somewhere, I'm assuming you probably will somewhere on this edition.

This is so almost I hate to use the word bleep, but I just it's so there's so nothing there.

There's no embellishment at all.

Give me some you know presence with that entry somewhere, wherever it wherever it lands.

It feels very institutional.

Right?

It feels like an institution.

Yeah, and I I agree with all of your comments.

It's just that this is sort of the tension with affordable housing and building it.

And if it doesn't risk if it's not subsidized, you know, the numbers don't really work with all the embellishments.

So we're trying, and we will try to see what we can come up with that might be more satisfactory for you.

I think making that separation and moving it back so that it's behind the building is a huge step forward, right?

It's going to be less distracting from the streetscape.

Um and its overall size, right?

Because it just will not feel like it's trying to take over.

So I think you're definitely in this right direction.

Running uh a little short on time here, but definitely want to make sure you have ample time and even if we run over five minutes or so.

But uh just uh a couple of things.

Uh I think you had some heat pump uh condensing units in here, but you might want to show those on your plan where you plan to locate those uh just for a reference.

I'm sorry, plants you said on the plans, or if you had a site planning.

What's missing?

I didn't hear the first part.

The heat pumps, mechanical each other.

Oh yeah, we did add those, we did add those on this version.

Um you can see them on the right side.

On page A12.

Where the sort of behind where the stairs were demolished up against the house.

Okay.

Okay.

Um looking at page 51.

Are these lights too coach light?

Two coach like I know guidelines recommend against a coach light.

I don't think they're called out as coach lights in the how they're described.

I I do recall looking at that and going, hmm.

I think it I think they're okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then generally, I mean any siding we want a smooth finish, not a uh textured faux with finish.

We should have that on there.

It's confusing.

I'll be honest, because it some places it said smooth.

But then you hide it highlight that cedar mill fill finish.

Oh, we do.

Okay.

And I think it was just got it.

Thank you.

So I'm just gonna ask there's a page in here, page 32 and 33 that's talking about vinyl siding.

I think I think it it just needs cleaned up a little bit because I think when we're looking at it, we're like, I think she means this, but it says this here and then.

We're not using vinyl siding.

Correct, no, it's hardy.

I I do think on the plans it does label vinyl somewhere, just making sure that's cleaned up.

Um neither does the scope of work or drawings show uh the impact on to the site, nor do they provide plans for parking areas.

Um I do know now with this potential shifting that gro that driveway will potentially still be retained.

But do you have intentions for parking areas?

The lot actually backs up to an alley, so the tenants drive behind the alley and park at the very end of the lot.

Um I didn't realize that was included in the scope of this, but I can definitely provide an indication of that on a site plan for you, along with that green space calculation.

I would add and I noticed I did walk back there.

Not only your lot, but your neighbor's lots have some nice mature tall trees is kind of uh you know uh kind of appealing for the backyards there.

And I think shifting that over would you know potentially save potentially one tree on the uh west property line or a couple trees that uh you know not in danger trying to to lose those.

I think all those trees back there make a nice uh area for everybody's backyards, but for Sarah if we uh anything we didn't cover or you want to cover.

We kind of skipped around, but you're good.

I I think we covered majority of the items, just really cleaning up the application and then obviously that that big change with the shift and then the the design and motifs of the building.

Um the resubmission deadline is this coming Monday by 11 a.m.

almost at PM a.m.

Do you think that's eligible?

Does the commission feel okay?

Do we think we need to take this to another workshop given that's big change in the addition?

It's a big change.

That is a big change.

If I could suggest that it if we could go to hearing and if there's if the commission doesn't like it and wants more discussion, we could always do a continuance.

Would that be a possibility?

I mean we won't be able to make an assessment till we see the application because we can't put it on if it's not technically complete.

We can take a look, and if it looks absolutely fantastic.