Good evening.

Welcome to the City of Frederick Historic Preservation Commission hearing and workshop.

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

Anybody would wish to have a printed copy of tonight's agenda.

There's copies over on the side table by the door.

There's also a sign-up sheet, while not mandatory, it's helpful if we have your name just so we get it right for the record.

Um also some listening devices up at the end of the day as here.

If anybody has trouble hearing tonight, uh the devices can help with that.

Just uh see Jennifer at the end of the day as here.

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

The Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission uses guidelines adopted by the mayor and city council and secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation published by the U.S.

Department of the Interior and National Park Service.

And these guidelines are made a part of each and every case.

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

For introductions, I'm Commissioner Paul Fitzgerald serving here tonight with Commissioners Ann Hart, Eva Sower, Carol D.

Carroll Kelly, and Jerry DeYoung.

And filling in tonight is administratively Jennifer DeGree.

Thank you.

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

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

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

It is presumed that if the 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 I do have one statement?

I am familiar with HPC 25-238 at 111 East 7th Street, and also HPC 25-369, also at 111 East 7th Street.

Um, not this one.

And so there is no conflict of interest.

Stating there is no conflict of interest.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Individuals will be allotted three minutes to speak.

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

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

There is a timer uh up on the end of the day to keep track of the time.

Again, three minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for a recognized organization or or group.

So moving into the agenda, are there any uh announcements tonight?

Um announcements other than it is um having trouble hearing.

Nope, my apologies.

No announcements other than to remind the public that it is historic preservation tax credit season.

If you finished work on your property in the historic district uh last year, please consider applying to the city's 25% historic tax credit program.

Um you can please uh contact city staff if you have any questions, and we'll be glad to send you information on the application and review process.

Thank you.

I will add that the tax credit uh application for the city for any work done is uh pretty straightforward and well worth the effort.

Moving on to approval of the minutes.

I move that we approve the hearing and workshop minutes from January 8, 2026.

I second motion made and seconded to approve the hearing and workshop minutes for January 8th.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries what is it five five to zero.

Thank you.

First case under HPC business, HPC 26-3DR at 524 Wilson Place request for a demolition review.

Mr.

Masser.

Thank you.

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

A request for demolition review has been submitted per section 423A of the Lane Management Code per section 5-15B of sit of the city code for dwelling at 524 Wilson Place.

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

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

A property is eligible for designation for a historic preservation overlay if it is at least 50 years old, retains historic integrity, and meets at least one of the following criteria.

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

The dwelling at 524 Wilson Place was constructed circa 1940.

Deed records suggest that the home was built for Claude C and Rispa M.

Trout, who purchased the property in 1940.

The property remains under the ownership of the tra remained under the under ownership of the Trauts until 1972 when it was sold to the current and longest residence.

The property is located outside of the historic Frederick District, but the property does reside within the Villa Estates Survey District, which is listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties.

The Villa States subdivision was first platted in 1915, but the majority of the houses within the neighborhood were constructed after World War II.

Villa Estates was initially marketed as a rural retreat with small farms with space to have a large garden within proximity to the city to appeal to families, yet as time passed.

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

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

Therefore, 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.

Commissioners, any questions for staff.

Is anyone present here tonight wish to speak on this application?

All right, Commissioners, back up to us.

I would just add a fill with the report that the property is not holding any significance with an event or cultural group or any uh uh person of significant uh life associated with uh with it uh and lacks a high level of architectural significance.

Any other discussion all in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries five to zero.

Thanks.

No consent items are listed, and uh no continuances are listed.

We move on to cases to be heard.

First item on case that to be heard is HPC 25-238.

And uh the one eleven East 7th Street, Ms.

Hoffadette.

Thank you.

I landed the whole staff report into the record.

HPC 2523 application proposes for the complete demolition of a rear one-story garage and the demolition of a wooden staircase attached to the main historic building.

For property hitch history, the garage, the existing garage was in place by 1947, replacing an earlier accessory structure.

The garage appears to have been extended over its existence based on the photograph evidence showing several different materials, and the remaining gable wall on the interior.

The dwelling is first depicted on the 1904 Sandborne Fire Insurance map as a brick two-story construction with a one-story wood front porch and a two-story wood porch at the rear.

No significant changes appear on the property according to Sandborne mapping.

The main dwelling appears to have been repainted sometime between 2018 and present.

The non-historic rear wooden staircase does not appear on the property until around 2003 as seen in historic aerial.

The main dwelling at 111 East 7th Street is a contributing resource to the historic district according to the 2021 Historic Register Survey.

For staff commons, the commission's first review is limited to determining the contributing and non-contributing status of a resource in its entirety.

The applicant is proposing the full demolition of a rear one-story garage.

The structural engineers report details the decline of the garage, the uses of different siding and areas of where the garage has been extended.

While the garage was built within the period of significance, the building exhibits alternating material and several areas depicting past extensions, therefore diminishing the historic integrity of the overall building.

Staff recommends that the commission find the garage structure at 111 East 7th Street to be a non-contributing resource.

The applicant is also proposing partial demolition of the rear wood staircase that is associated with the residential building.

The residential building was first detailed on the 1904 Samborne Fire Insurance map, placing it in during the time and period of significance.

The building shares characteristics of Victorian era and colonial revival architecture, adding architectural value and further defining the historic district.

Staff finds the residential building at 111 East 7th Street to be a contributing resource, which is consistent with the 2021 National Register Survey.

Staff recommends the commission define the rear garage to be a non-contributing resource and the residential building to be a contributing resource.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioners.

If you want to come forward.

And I'm leaving, needs to swear you in, Ms.

Underwood.

Yes, I have.

Thank you.

You were sworn in?

I was I was sworn in.

Okay.

Just state your name, please.

Uh Jessica Underwood.

Any questions, comments, concerns on the report?

I just did want to add to the staff report and comments that the staircase was not built until 2020.

Just to clarify that we're only asking for demolition of the staircase with respect to the main building.

Which I believe is also included in this application or no.

That's understood.

That'll be further discussed at the next meeting that the impact of a non-historic porch to the overall building will probably not be very significant.

But this meeting is just the building as a whole.

Got it.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners?

All right.

So you want to have a seat momentarily?

Sorry, I shouldn't have to.

Anyone else wish to speak on this application?

All right, Commissioners, back with us.

Um speak on this particular application, sir.

Or were you sworn in at the beginning of the meeting?

I I was not here at the beginning of the meeting, but I'm a Quaker and we don't swear oaths.

We affirm that we will speak the truth.

And I do so.

Okay.

Would you state your name, please?

State your name.

My name is David Hunter.

I live at 109 East 7th Street.

Your comments on the application.

Um, I'm less concerned with the demolition of the stairs and the um garage than I am with the rest of the plan for um the property.

The plan is to add several single-room occupancy um a building with with um I think it was seven uh single room occupancy um units.

And um, I think that's not appropriate for the historic district, and I don't think it's appropriate for the density of the area.

We've been through a lot with that property over the years.

Um the neighborhood has been through a lot, and I think it's time to just leave it in its current condition I ask you you live close by or in neighbor.

I live next door, yeah.

Okay, could you just state the address for the record?

It's 109 East 7th Street.

Okay.

Thank you.

You can have a seat.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak on this application?

I'll need to be sworn in.

We're not I will need to be sworn in.

Okay, thank you.

You saw me swear or affirm that the responses given and statements made in this hearing before this therapy preservation commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So answer how you do.

I do.

Um state your name, please.

My name is John Temple.

I live at uh I live on 7th Street.

Uh I'm also a neighbor.

Um I'll focus just on the demolition in this part of the application.

Um as you consider the demolition, I asked you to also consider um requiring the applicant to demolish other non-HPC approved improvements they've made to the property.

Uh there is an asphalt driveway that was installed in 2025.

Um both the applicants, um, the pictures provided in the applicant date from prior to April of 2024.

Um, and the they've gone in and what what traditionally was two you know concrete strips for um for their vehicles to get to the back at some point last year.

I think it was a summer, and I'm happy to take take my neighbors here who um may have a more refined date on that.

They went in and they put in a full asphalt driveway to the back without going through any proper procedures or approvals.

Uh we all know there's issues with driveways on 7th Street.

Um, and it's it's frustrating to see a developer who who has had a lot of success in the city um developing great properties, just completely disregard the process at this property.

Um you just have a responsibility to uphold that um and to make sh hold our hold the applicants responsible um to develop properly.

So I asked you to consider that as you're making your decisions here tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Let me just ask Ms.

Tafaditz or Ms.

Martin Koske.

I mean, uh if the driveway pavement material falls under air preview or uh under a uh planning review, but I understand changing the material should it have come before us?

Good question.

Um I think it's a a two-part answer.

One is regarding whether or not we consider the driveway as is demolition if it's being removed and doesn't meet this the definition of demolition.

It doesn't mean we don't review it.

It's going to be captured, and I think it is captured in the staff report some clarification on how much of the driveway is being removed.

Um in terms of whether or not the H the applicant received approval for the driveway.

Um Zara might have further details on that.

I do have a vague recollection of past HPC approvals uh reviewed and processed administratively regarding the garage, and I think the driveway, but that's going off my memory rather than records.

Uh Sarah, do you have any other details?

Pulling them right now.

He's pulling she's pulling those up.

Are you looking that up?

Ask if anybody else has comments.

Okay.

Were you sworn in previously?

Yes.

Okay, state your name, please.

Joanne Coates Hunter.

And I live at 109 East 7th Street, right next door.

Um I have no problem with the demolition of the garage.

I mean, it's I feel bad for her that she's at it, because it's it's falling apart.

You know, it's it's needs needs it's unsafe as far as I can tell.

Um, but I do take issue with the idea of putting a big addition on the back where there is basically gonna become like an apartment building.

Um and you know, getting in and out of that driveway is very challenging.

Um we have had multiple, you know, accidents on 7th Street.

Um, and there's the in the alley, like to go through, you have to go through to that back alley, and that back alley only has you know, it's a it's a one, you can only go in and out from one direction.

So it doesn't go through.

Um and when the last tenant was there with the big machines and all of the um dump trucks and trying to run a landscaping business out of the back.

Um, you know, there was a lot of you know, issue with that.

Um, and the people that lived on just the opposite side of the alley, you know, they put a big fence up so nobody can go through there.

So there were there were enough people around that area that were pretty upset with the way that the property was being used at that point.

Um my concern uh I I have a couple, but one of my concerns um is that I don't know what the plan is as far as making this uh you know a rooming house or I don't I don't know what uh but it just what I'm seeing more and more of in Frederick is you know just people just putting up Airbnbs.

Um I mean we already have like four over 400 Airbnbs in Frederick.

I it's insane.

Um and I don't see that as contributing to affordable housing necessarily, which is what we actually need in Frederick.

Um even for like you know middle class folks who are making a fairly good living can't afford to live in Frederick City right now.

Um and so traffic, um the the actual use, like how that is going to be used, um is it going to become an apartment building?

Is there gonna be parking?

Like I was trying to figure out how it would even work with parking, because right now even parking on our street is limited.

Um, folks kind of duke it out for places you know on trash night.

Um so I just want all of you to consider all of those pieces as you're trying to figure out whether an expansion can happen there.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I will state this uh application uh initially is for the denomination of the garage and uh whether the uh main house is a contributing resource, in which case no demolition would be allowed on that until an approved uh replacement plan has been reviewed by this commission.

Uh Sarah Ellen, if you have anything to add on the paving changing?

Right.

So back in July of 2024, the property did receive approval for an asphalt driveway.

No ministratively reviewed and approved.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak on this application?

All right, commissioners back with us.

Um I think I would would like to separate this out into two separate discussions or or motions one regarding the demolition of the garage, or if it's a non-contributing resource, in which case we could move on to vote for the demolition, or uh if it is a contributing resource and separately review the residential building as a contributing resource, and I would say yeah, I find the garage to to be a non-contributing resource.

Um I would find that the existing building would be a contributing resource.

Are you making a motion of that?

Or just a comment?

Not yet.

No.

Just comment.

Thank you.

I have one question for uh public comments this evening.

Any of you or all three of you, are any of you sharing this driveway?

Like, do you have to park there or do you have to go through there to get to your parking?

No.

All right, thank you.

Any other discussion, commissioners or motion.

Did you did you want us to do separate motions for the ground?

All right.

Um I'm familiar with HPC 25-238 and 11 East 7th Street, and I move that we find the rear garage to be a non-contributing resource.

I second the motion.

Motion made and seconded to find the garage to be a non-contributing resource.

Any further discussion?

I'll just say that the that non-contributing resources are buildings, structures, sites or objects that do not help define the historic district and do not add historical or architectural value to the district.

Any additional discussion.

All in favor of the motion to find the non-contributing resource for the garage, please raise your hand.

Motion carries five to zero.

I am familiar with HPC 25-238 at 111 East 7th Street, and I move that we find the residential building to be a contributing resource.

I second the motion.

Okay.

Motion made and seconded to find the main residential building a contributing resource.

Any discussion?

Thank you.

All in favor of the motion to find the building residential building contributing resource, please raise your hand.

Motion carries five to zero.

I would like to make a note that since you determined that the garage is a non-contributing resource, you can at this moment vote for the demolition if you'd like.

Conditioned upon the replacement plan and associated permits.

Thank you for letting us know we'll be more mindful.

So it would be you can vote for the demolition since you deem that the garage is a non-contributing resource upon the condition of the replacement plan and any associated permits.

Even though the garage is not directly linked to the proposed replacement plan.

You're correct.

Okay.

Thank you so much for giving me a heads up.

If you can't hear me, I want you to hear me.

So I I appreciate the the gentle kick.

You do not, you're not required by any means to approve the demolition with the requiring with the condition that there's a replacement plan in a permit.

It's a common condition.

We want to typically tie any demolitions to to to understanding what the proposal is with this non-contributing resource.

It's loss, even if if the replacement plan is just grass, you know, it's not going to be a loss to the to the district.

I would argue that since we've determined that it is a non-contributing resource, and considering the uh status of the structural report and the condition of the garage, um, I would support a motion to demolish the garage without or without any stipulations for a replacement.

And on that note, I am familiar with HPC 25-238, located at 111 East 7th Street.

I move to demolish the garage.

As it is a non-contributing resource.

Sorry.

I second, sorry.

I motion is made and seconded to for demolition of the garage.

Again, I just reiterate for the record it is a non-contributing resource.

And I think the structural report outlines the deficiencies and uh the different materials that have been uh added to the garage and the garage extensions over time.

Um think a demolition is warranted, and a replacement plan or uh based on a replacement plan is not necessary.

Any additional discussion all in favor of the motion, please raise your hands.

Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you.

I would add briefly that you know the since the main building is uh has been determined and contributing resource, any alterations or additions proposed will be reviewed, and and the stairs will be uh reviewed under that plan.

All right, moving on, HPC 25-2844 37 North Market Street.

And that's Ms.

Martin Kosky.

Yes, thank you.

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

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

The replacement plan is being reviewed under HPC 24-283.

I want to also acknowledge that this project was previously reviewed at the December 11th, 2025 workshop.

And also at the January 8th, 2026 hearing for initial review.

Per Section 423E of the land management code, it states that at the first hearing for demolition, the commission determines whether or not the site or structure is either non-contributing or contributing based on the criteria in the commission's guidelines.

If the commission determines the site or structure is non-contributing, the commission may go ahead and take action on the demolition request at the same hearing, similar to what we experienced in the last case.

If the commission determines that a 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 an acceptable replacement plan.

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

When a contributing resource is demolished, a vital and tangible link to the city's past is lost.

This loss disrupts the streetscape and decreases the historical and architectural integrity of the entire district.

And these guidelines that the commission uses are intended to discourage demolition.

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

Demolition will be considered only when all feasible alternatives to demolition have been considered, but want too clearly note that this is an application for partial demolition.

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

The commission considers two primary factors.

And there are special special excuse me, special considerations for contributing resources that are really of unusual value, of unusual importance.

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

Now what do we know about this property?

The 1887 sandbore map documents that the building located at the corner of North Market Street and West Fifth Streets was used as a bakery.

At that time, the site consisted of a main block that housed the bakery and bake house and a rear L with a two-story porch that served as an attached dwelling.

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

A.

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

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

A newspaper article outlines the extensive improvements to the property, which will be equipped with all the modern equipment.

Steam and electric machinery will be installed.

The 1911 sandboard maps reflect the new design of Muir's Bakery.

Much of its form remains intact today.

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

The building helps to find the district.

If demolition alters the overall building site, structure, or object, to the extent that it will no longer be a contributing resource.

And the reproofs replacement plan is addressed under HPC 25-283.

And a preliminary assessment is provided in an associated staff report, which will be discussed at workshop tonight.

After reviewing the application carefully, performing a site visit, and participating in uh previous workshops, staff provides the following comments.

The exterior walls proposed for for demolition date from around 1911 to 1922, and they're located at the rear of the building.

Now some areas, such as the rear section of the western part of the bill the property, they have been greatly altered, and they really offer very little historic integrity.

The roof form is an important character defining feature of a building, and it really should not be radically changed.

The scale of the proposed demolition is significant.

Approximately 50% of the historic roof structure.

However, the proposed areas of roof demolition have limited visibility from the public right away.

Further, the proposed replacement plan has the proposed addition set back from the street-facing facades.

The plan also includes rehabilitating some historic elements on street-facing elevations.

However, details need to be further reviewed by the commission, and therefore staff recommends that any demolition approved by this uh commission tonight be conditioned upon a final HPC approval of the replacement plan and associated and the issuance of uh associated permits.

And with all this in mind, staff recommends the commission approve the application, conditioned upon HPC approval of a replacement plan and issuance of the associated permits, and I will be happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, any questions for staff?

All right, so the applicant is here, wanted to please step forward.

I was okay.

Yeah, Ben Bates with Bates Architects.

All right.

Any comments, questions on the staff report?

No, I just want to say thank you for the staff and the committee.

We put a lot of time into this to get to this point, um, and that we agree with the staff report.

I think that's all we have to add.

I think you got to gist of some of my concerns at the workshop, and I guess regarding the demolition that I guess I'm concerned about how much demolition might occur on that existing roof over the main street front portion of the building, or you're proposing a rooftop deck.

I mean, you know, you'll be able to just sit the deck on top of it.

Is there a punching through of some sports, or is there going to be more extensive demolition?

And should it be shown on the plan?

But yeah, the intention is to punch through small.

The intention is to punch through with small supports to carry that and elevate it off the existing roof deck.

We're happy to show that as part of the replacement package as well.

Um, if it's minor enough that we need to show it there.

Any questions?

Commissioners for the applicant.

I have a question about the roof that will be removed to facilitate the heightening of the building.

That removal, that area of removal.

Whatever changes are made to the building.

In other words, if you were not to elevate the height of the building with a higher roof.

Yeah, so um in previous um hearings and workshops, uh, we discussed the reason for the removal of that front portion is to minimize the impact of the addition on the streetscape in terms of the floor-to-floor heights on the inside, there's a lot of extra space there.

So by removing that portion of roof, we can actually keep the building lower and less visible from the historic fabric.

But if you were restrained from increasing the height of the building in any area of the roof, would that mean that the removal of the roof, the demolition of the roof in that area would not be necessary?

The removal of the roof in that location is necessary for the addition.

Whatever the height of the completed addition and change.

Correct.

To add the third floor, we've minimize the height of the addition by removing that portion of the roof.

So again, contingent on the replacement package, part of the intent is to minimize the impact on the historic fabric.

So we have taken that portion of roof out where we've set back the addition in order to keep that height down.

Otherwise, it would be an it would be several feet higher.

And if it is not allowed to be any feet higher.

You mean if we're not allowed to add a third floor?

That's what you're asking.

Well, that may be the the essential question, which I thank you for helping me phrase um in order to add the third floor, whatever height it is requires the removal, the demolition of the roof.

It's kind of a roundabout question, and I'll answer it this way again.

The uh my client has chosen not to.

In this case, we're minimizing the height of the addition as much as we can.

If the commission were to approve of allowing us to be taller, could we leave a portion of that roof?

That's yet to be determined.

But again, it through the commission and through the workshops that we've had, the intent is minimize the impact of this addition, and in turn that half side of the front roof that is not visible from anywhere on the streetscape, needs to be removed to minimize impact on the fabric, which I think is the intention of this this addition.

My um viewing and opinion of the change in the height of the building, is that it is in fact or would be in fact visible from the street.

Not at the street level, not in the middle of Market Street, but the increased height will be visible from the other side of Market Street, looking from the northeast at the building.

The other side of Market Street?

Yes.

So I am I am asking these questions because I feel a need for caution about raising the height of the roof.

However, I at this point would like clarification from the staff so that I am not arguing an unrealistic position.

When you said that the city zoning permits you to build a taller shape.

Not as high as you want.

There is a number to it.

Put me on the spot here.

I don't know the exact number off the top of my head.

So I'm asking the staff if they know.

Correct.

So different.

Different um.

We'll just do a quick woman.

There is within the historic district, all sorts of different zonings for residential business, and they all have little variations of height or other site restrictions, depending on that based zoning.

No matter what zoning you are in, and no matter how high you can go up.

If you're on the historic preservation overlay, like this property is, you have to go through the historic preservation commission review first.

And we have stricter requirements that supersedes what the base zoning is.

So this commission can find, well, maybe this story, this building by the base zoning can go up to four stories.

The commission can find that a two-story addition on top of an existing two-story building or three-story building is excessive and doesn't fit into the character of the neighborhood.

We have those kind of reviews and conversations all the time, and in fact, with this project, we've had even before this came to the commission, very painful conversations of the design coming back to me, and I go, that's too high, it's too much, it's too aggressive, I don't think this is going to get approved, and going back and forth, back and forth before there was a plan where we were like, I think this is something that you can take to the commission and have a really good meaty conversation.

Now I appreciate the the comments and concerns about height and scale and visual impact.

And we did have a workshop on that, those specific act um aspects.

I I think on the 8th.

It might have been to in December.

Um the 11th, I believe.

Is it December?

Yeah, for uh 283.

Yes.

Yeah.

Those details are still up for conversation.

We have another workshop tonight and conversation.

The staff report really addresses three visions to the application, so we're kind of getting into the starting to really talk about materials and design aspects.

But the scale and height of the building is still something that can be talked about.

One of the safeguards that we can put in place, and what's recommended in my staff recommendations, is that we just don't approve this demolition application as proposed.

It's conditioned upon approval of the HPC replacement plan.

So if the commission really at the end of the day thinks this is too tall for this building, for the site, for the neighborhood, then they have to come they might have to come back in with a different demolition plan and and rework it still.

So that's why that condition is really important, because it's really tying it to an approved HPC replacement plan.

Thank you.

That's clarifying for me.

Um possibly unfortunately, for the course of the longer course of this discussion, I am not familiar with what has transpired previously, but I am familiar with a pattern in historic preservation in another location where periodic and incremental and persistent elevating of heights of historic buildings within a district as threatened the overall character of the district.

And so although this may appear to be a maybe an arbitrary perspective on my point regarding any increase in the height of that building, it is not directed specifically at the building, although obviously it is, but in broader terms, I'm concerned that you will not set a precedent possibly, but you will be contributing to a precedent.

And what I dread as a preservationist is that we will maintain a street of historic facades, but we will not have a street of historic buildings.

But we will not have a street of historic buildings.

That can be avoided with complete adaptive adaptive use of the interior of buildings.

I have I am fully appreciative of that possibility and have witnessed it.

However, when the issue becomes one of height, it's much more difficult to convince the eye that they are looking at a historic building.

Yeah, no, I appreciate your comments.

I think you know we are here to talk about the demolition portion, and I'm excited to talk about this with you further at the workshop later tonight.

Um I will add that if you are familiar with the that area, that a lot of the surrounding uh structures are taller.

In fact, the front of this building is three stories already.

Um, so I think we should take that in consideration that we are not putting a massive addition that does not fit into the scale as you were suggesting, that we actually do believe it fits in with the scale.

So we can have that conversation more in the in the workshop for 283.

I think we just are here to say we know we agree with the staff's report, and we thank everybody for the time they put into looking at the demolition and the conversations we've had about trying to limit that demolition and specifically along those two street facing facades, which I think we can all agree has been very minimal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, thank you, Mr.

Bates.

Temporarily.

I would reiterate again.

Individual members would have three minutes for comments.

So if you want to introduce yourself and are you speaking individually or as part of a group?

My name is Louise Kennelly, and I'm the executive director of the Frederick Arts Council, so I represent a group.

Give her uh 10 minutes, Jennifer.

I respectfully respectfully request that the proposed demolition of the building located at 437 North Market Street be paused to allow for further review of its current and potential value to the local arts community.

Perhaps it can be rolled over into the workshop portion of the meeting tonight rather than voted on tonight.

At present, the building serves as an important and affordable space for artists and creative practitioners.

Such spaces are increasingly rare, yet they play a vital role in sustaining cultural vitality, supporting working artists and contributing to the economic and social fabric of the surrounding neighborhood.

The loss of the site without adequate exploration of alternatives would represent not only the removal of a structure but the displacement of an active creative ecosystem.

A brief delay in the demolition process would allow stakeholders, including artists, community members, preservation advocates, and city officials to assess feasible options.

Um options that would align with broader community goals related to cultural preservation, economic diversity, and thoughtful urban development.

I'm requesting a measured and transparent process that recognizes the public value generated by artists' use of this building.

Slowing the demolition timeline would demonstrate that the city's commitment to inclusive planning and to sustaining the creative communities that help define our city's character.

We believe the location is of unusual importance given the history and the living legacy of the artists in the space.

There are numerous newspaper articles and photographs documenting this very significant space that should be taken into consideration when making decisions about the future of the site.

We hope that this document documentation makes it into the report and the record.

So far, we've heard a lot about the bakery, but I haven't seen in the staff reports information about the living legacy and the long history of the artists inside.

But this leg legacy is not included yet in any of the reports to date.

We'd like to acknowledge the property owners for working with the artists to date, even adding new artist leases and very reasonable terms, and we appreciate the very collaborative spirit that they have demonstrated thus far, and we hope that we can continue the conversation.

Just this afternoon, my hair collision of Steam Bakery met with us and took us on a walkthrough of the space to identify together some of the richness of the building.

We request that the city consider providing some support for any aspect of this development project that can preserve its creative legacy, perhaps through some portion of a percent for our program.

If this location were the birthplace of George Washington, for example, we would acknowledge and we would preserve the importance of the site regardless of its physical architectural significance.

Similarly, we feel strongly about the historical importance of this site and its impact, preserving some of the artistic community there would have uh a tremendous positive impact on Frederick's progress.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Kennelly.

Anyone else wish to speak on this application?

Good evening.

Uh my name is Maher Kilajan.

I did swear.

So just want to response uh respond to Mrs.

Cannelli's um presentation.

If I may ask uh Mr.

Collagen.

Yes.

If you want to wait till the end and we respond uh all of them at once versus individually.

I'd rather do it now, it's quick.

Uh more or less.

So um the only thing I want to confirm that we I've been working with them, and uh by by the way, when we took over the building back in uh 2022, half of the uh tenants that uh are there today were not.

So we uh we brought more tenants at low prices uh with the understanding made it very clear to them one on one that this is temporary, it's going to take 18 months or two years, it's taking much longer.

And uh that sooner or later we're going to you know you have to have to vacate.

So um I don't believe that the request is sustainable because the way the building has needs major repair.

We walked through today on our shoulder some places, the walls that some walls falling apart, electrical cables all over.

So I don't understand how we can, you know.

I'm basically I'm against postponing this decision today for demolition.

We've been working with the staff back from August, you know, on trying to get that.

So I think the discussion should be done for the workshop to answer some of your concern and your concern also uh Commissioner Fitzgerald about the um the roof and the uh the terrace and all those things.

So at this change, I believe we should continue and get uh get uh vote on the demolition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Maybe else was to speak on the application.

Anybody commissioners will bring it back up to us for discussion.

Can I ask a question for staff real quick?

What is the commission's responsibility to any sort of living history?

Um the guidelines don't really address that aspect generally.

It's you know, we consider over the age of 50 years to be a historic structure as per the um standards of the interior.

So I'm not most of what we deal with here is the physical aspects and the architectural relevance rather than sort of recent history.

Correct.

What the commission is charged with is determining significance and then an architectural design review process.

Um reviewing at the historical and architectural significance.

Again, the commission at their initial meeting was really discussing the contributing, non-contributing, or potential of unusual importance status of the building within the period of significance for the historic district, and the period of significance with the historic districts really starts for above ground resources buildings.

Um it dates from the mid-18th century when the city of Frederick was founded to 50 years back from the current year.

Those are the city's parameters of review.

And so the significance and current use of the building in more recent years is really beyond the scope of this commission.

Thank you.

It can I'm sorry.

If we say approve, go forward with uh this package demolition based on um additional planning, that means there will be demolition.

We're just going to be talking about the scale in the workshop, is that correct?

So what's being identified in this demolition application is very specific to the areas of demolition and then the what we refer to as the replacement plan, the proposed addition and rehab to the site.

I hope that helps.

Okay.

Not that I'm trying to clarify or put words in your mouth.

I I just think for the other commissioners, if we refer to page, I believe it's 21 HPC-1.

The highlighted areas in red are those areas that are considered for the partial demolition.

Certainly I I understand and respect that there are things on this drawing that say it's only going to be this, but we also understand once you start demolishing.

You don't know what you're up against.

We'll have to take those things one step at a time.

I'd also like to just note that the commission is supposed to consider the impact of the demolition on the significance of the overall resource.

So if we allow this demolition to continue, does this suddenly change the significance of the resource?

And I would argue that it does not, that it's not really visible from the street, um, that the roof is not obviously historical or contributing to the significance of the resource.

Um it's a membrane roof that uh the back courtyard um additions were added onto the structure later and were subsidiary spaces.

Um I I don't think that the demolition is going to change the contributing nature of the building to the historic district.

I would agree.

I would just offer that some of the roof structure is perhaps um part of the older portion of the building, although not the original.

We can tell by the drawings that staff has put together that this has been a a number of buildings, a number of open spaces put together, recreated, reinvented, re-understood.

So I also agree that again I don't think it's going to affect the streetscape or make this particular building no longer a contributing resource.

Indeed, it is a valuable asset for the community to the to have the arts center there.

It is an important contribution.

Um but certainly the owner has certain rights.

Rights basically to do what they want or feel they need to do with the building to gain a return on their investment as long as they follow the ordinances and laws of the jurisdiction.

And adaptive reuse of the building can you know contribute mightily to the to the revitalization and the uh of the area and you know be great if there was a opportunity for the arts community to still remain as a part of uh the renovations.

Um certainly the building has been altered many many times over the course of its lifetime, and uh even though the proposed uh addition uh could be potentially larger than what the demolition uh request is for uh tonight.

Uh I think you know that it's apparent that the the owner and the architect as well as the planning staff, historic preservation staff has been in discussions to to work to put together a package that minimizes the uh uh the impact of the addition that's proposed, and it's uh certainly probably less than what they may have qualified for, but would have certainly faced uh further or more restrictive scrutiny from this commission.

So I think the proposed uh demolition is sufficient and um uh you know for what the owner is is attempting to do and uh minimizes the impact on the proposed plan for uh for the renovations and additions.

Any further comments I will say I'm familiar with HPC 25-284 located at 437 North Market Street.

I move to approve the application for demolition condition upon HPC approval of a replacement plan and issuance of associated permits.

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

Uh any further discussion.

I'll make another note that the um despite the fact that the roof form is an important character defining feature, and the application proposes to demolish about 50 percent in this particular case, the roof is not visible from the street and does not its removal or the portion that is being removed does not um change the architectural significance of the resource.

I would concur and you know just add, you know, I think the adaptive reuse of uh of this building, uh, and certainly the uh the review further review of any uh replacement plan or for the addition or renovation will be uh duly scrutinized by this commission and and the public that's concerned.

Uh and while it'd be nice for the uh the the arts to have some uh remaining impact uh presence at this site.

Uh I think just the the nature of you know property values in the city has been increasing and everybody wants to build and develop downtown, and that just you know makes some of these questions even more difficult.

But again, you know, the owner has made the investment and is looking to uh make a return on that investment as well as I feel uh you know be a good neighbor and contribute to the community through this uh adapted reuse project.

Any further discussion all in favor of the motion for the dumb motion, please raise your hand.

The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you.

Next item is HBC 25-346, 100th South Market Street.

That's Ms.

Hoffetz.

Thank you.

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

This application concerns the proposal for the following items.

Installing ADA ramping, walkways and railing, tree removal, converting windows into doorways and storefronts, replacing and relocating HVAC units, screening for HVAC, removing window exhaust vent and replacing window, um, replacing non-historic windows, installation of an outdoor patio area with a pergola and lighting, installation of awning with lighting, installing railing with with lighting, and install a new metal window.

This application was previously workshopped.

Um, so I'm gonna move on to staff comments.

Um for ADA, the applicant is proposing to install a concrete ramp cloud with brick graded towards the door closest to the corner of Market and All Saint Street, making the ramp level with the doorway, additional ADA walkways are proposed on the rear of the building in the area that's currently landscaping.

On the north elevation, staff finds no inconsistency with the proposed ADA ramp, benches, black prurate extinctions when referencing the guidelines.

Staff notes that the updated images of railing was provided to show the profile for the proposed metal railing.

The provided images appear to mimic the historic metal post of the walkway roof.

Staff finds the proposed railing to be appropriate and sympathetic to the surrounding historic design of the building.

For the east elevation, the traction closures proposed to be partially demolished and a new enclosure is proposed to be installed.

Staff know no issues with the partial demolition of the enclosure.

The current material of the closure is of a wood material.

The applicant is proposing to install a new enclosure with a four-foot metal louvere screen, similar to the screening material proposed for the HVAC unit.

The most appropriate material would be an ink kind replacement of a non-pressure treated wood material.

Updated lighting schedule has been provided to include the qual the quantity of the lights and the light temperature.

Staff does not find an issue with the proposed well lights and wall scones.

At previous workshop discussed uh the commission discussed the proposed railing lights, and they did not express concern with the lighting feature and expressed deviation.

The most appropriate railing would be a simple mirror simple metal railing with no integrated lighting feature.

Staff finds the installation of proposed ADA walkway slash ramp is consistent with the guidelines and that it's that no historic fabric will be removed.

For windows, the late 1980s building currently exhibits metal one over one windows.

The applicant is proposing an in-kind replacement per the guidelines.

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

Staff find the replacement of the non-historic metal windows to be appropriate.

The applicant is proposing to create a new opening on the south elevation for a metal window.

Per the guidelines, the building should retain the number pattern and placement of openings.

New windows and door piercings must be permitted on a case-by-case basis and generally only to access or accommodate an addition.

As discussed the previous workshop, the commission did not express concern with the installation of the new wood new window opening on the non-historic 1980s edition.

In the inner courtyard, west elevation, the applicant is proposing to convert one window into a doorway.

Staff find this is the only historic window being proposed to be converted into a doorway.

Um as discussed in previous workshop, the commission must did not express concern with this alteration.

On the east elevation, an exhaust vent currently infills one of the historic windows.

The applicant is proposing to relocate the exhaust vent and switch the existing wood window closest to All Saints Street to where the exhaust vent preexisted.

Then the window closest to All Saint Street is proposed to be infilled with brick.

The commission staff do not express concerns with this alteration given that the window one of the windows is already previously infilled.

The brick will need to be recessed.

For storefront, the applicant is proposing to stall a window storefront on the 1980s non-historic edition.

Given the limited visibility of the proposed storefront and the age of the building, staff find the installation of a storefront may be appropriate.

The applicant is proposing to the installation of a storefront door on the historic town halls.

The proposed doors to be aluminum metal with glass to replicate the new storefront across the courtyard.

The commission was also supportive of a wooden half-light door as an alternative.

For landscape and patio area, the applicant is proposing to install a deck like feature in the inner courtyard that will feature metal railing with integrated lighting.

The proposed metal or proposed material for the deck will be timber tech decking.

Timber tech decking must either have a smooth or wire brush finish.

The most material would be a masonry paver.

However, the commission was open to a wood material.

For the awning, the inner courtyard two windows are proposed to be alterned altered into a storeway slash door front with metal awnings that feature integrated lighting.

The metal awnings proposed for the 1980s edition may be appropriate due to the age of the building, its current use, and location being hidden from general public view.

The commission did not express concern over this proposed awning.

Staff acknowledged that while the second awning location is hidden from general public view, it is still being mounted on a historic section of the building.

The most appropriate awning would be a canvas material with a loose balance with no integrated lighting.

The applicant is proposing to remove and replace or locate several HVAC units in the inner courtyard and rooftop units.

Staff does not find any concerns with the replacing of this if existing and relocating HVAC units.

Screening for the HVAC units is proposed to be a metal loure.

Screening is an city coding guidelines, fences and screening fences must not exceed over six feet in height unless permitted by city code.

The applicant is proposing to different vent installations on the south elevation of the 1980s building.

Staff finds no inconsistencies with the proposed literature for the vents.

However, the finished color should correspond with the wall or trim color.

For staff recommend recommendations, staff recommend recommends the commission approve the application with the following conditions.

That the brick is recessed on the window being in Vill closest to All Saint Street, that the fence screening of the HVAC units is limited to six feet in height, that the vents finished color corresponds with wall or trim color.

That the following conditions are submitted to staff for final review in prior to any permits or issue.

That updated product literature and drawings detail a simple metal railing with no integrated lighting feature.

That updated scope of work for the trash enclosure detailing a wooden material.

That updated product literature for a wooden door and can and canvas awning for the historic building.

And that the updated scope of work and product literature detail for the either masonry pavers or wooden material for the courtyard deck feature.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

So my first question is reference the third sub-bullet in the last bullet.

Reference the updated product literature for a wooden door and canvas awning.

I thought we had agreed during the workshop that the deviation to utilize a metal door and metal awning to match the opposite side of the building or this courtyard area was what we were focusing on for the application.

Right.

So the commission has the right to deviate from the guidelines if they see fit in that circumstances for staff comments and recommendation.

In the guidelines, it's clearly that on historic buildings, it would be more sympathetic and more consistent if a wooden door or a canvas awning was being proposed rather than a metal door and a metal awning with integrated lighting.

But if I'm looking at this documentation, that's not what's being proposed.

It's being proposed that it's a metal door and a metal awning that matches the other side.

Right.

And so for staff recommendation, we want to be consistent with the guidelines unless the commission deems a deviation is appropriate.

It would be a wooden door or a canvas awning with a loose balance and no integrated lighting.

Okay.

So that recommendation or that request is only if we agree not to rely on a deviation.

Correct.

Thank you.

Well, those same lies must however that's on those sub bullets.

Uh your recommendation is for a simple metal railing with no integrated lighting.

Uh trash enclosure out of wood versus not metal.

The uh pre-mutioned wood door and canvas awning and uh wood wood materials or masonry pairers in lieu of the raised deck.

I would add there's uh appears to be some missing information from this application that was presented in the uh workshop.

Uh I guess namely the the aluminum storefront product literature, uh metal windows, uh the can metal canopy was included previously, but not also be submitted with this or so since it was submitted in a re earlier resubmission.

This is just resubmission documentation in this one.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff commissioners?

All right, is the applicant president tonight to speak on this?

Come forward.

Were you sworn in previously?

I was not.

Oh, okay.

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

So answer I do.

I do.

If you want to state your name and your association with the project, Forrest Popkin, partner with Bates Architects.

Any questions, comments regarding the staff report?

I appreciate um the time two weeks ago to go through the project's um, you know, vast scope in different areas, uh read through all of the staff comments, appreciated all the time that Sarah's uh allowed us to kind of talk through a lot of these items.

And I'll just kind of build off of what Commissioner Hart was saying is that there are a few bullet points here.

So on the staff recommendations, you have the four bullet points, the four bullet points after the fourth bullet point, right?

Um, are pretty much we understand to be deviations.

Um it is our stance that um they're consistent with what is also referenced in the staff report as being within the the confines of a allowable deviation, and they were discussed in our prior workshop, and that's why we applied with that package, right?

We had lighted railings, we did the aluminum storefront with a um more modern canopy on the historic building.

We um have a trash enclosure, which upon rereading the minutes, we will um submit that there might not have been necessarily commissional support of that, but the last one about the decking material in the back, I believe we had talked about that pretty extensively, and so I would just um say that the on behalf of the city um who is the client of this job, we'd like to um try to get those deviations uh as part of this approval.

And I'm not going back to the minutes, but if I'm relying on at least on my own memory, that I feel like the trash enclosure, we didn't have an actual decision.

It was we could use metal, we could use wood, so I don't think we discussed any deviation with that.

I think at the time you didn't have um a proposal of what you were gonna use for it.

So this was a new proposal.

So just for clarity, am I to understand then you have selected the metal and that's what you prefer?

Yeah, we're trying to make it consistent throughout the project, the same sort of um shilling material that would have been on the HVAC units and you know the other bullet points about the height and everything would be consistent with those staff recommendations.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any one of those items deviation items give you heartburn if it wasn't approved as a deviation as you propose.

So we'll start at the top.

The metal railing with the lighting was suggested as a way of simplifying a potential more invasive strategy of adding more lighting into retaining wall that's already there.

Um this is of course referring to the north side of the property to get us to the second floor of the permit of supportive housing property.

Our thought originally with the lighted railing was that it was a more elegant way.

It was going to be sort of shielded.

We didn't believe it would be really in view.

Um would it give us heartburn?

No, but I'd like to tell the commission that we'd have to figure out how else we're gonna light that ramp.

And that would be sort of one of the conditions of that, right?

That we know that that's technically something we'd have to work with staff to figure out the the other better way that we think is less invasive.

And I I would submit that I think this is probably the the better strategy is to put the light in the new railing and get the um pathway limited there.

Um I think the wood door and canvas awning, um, again, with consistency of the improvements in the courtyard.

Um we would like to try to get everything to match, and I believe that was a lot of what we talked about at our workshop.

And then, of course, the decking material we have talked about how this is really not visible, even though we're using the term deck, it's really not a deck, it's a port of a platform to give a sense of space that is different.

Um more of a homely feel for these people who are in the primitive supportive housing, a nice place to be.

Um there are plenty of masonry pavers and concrete paths elsewhere, and we thought that this would be a way to make it a little more homelier.

The trash enclosure, if you made us, you know, if you did dictated that that had to remain wood, I would say that's probably one that we would be less pushing back on.

Thank you for those comments.

Any other questions for the applicant, Commissioners?

All right, Mr.

Popkin, want to have seat temporarily?

Thank you very much.

All right.

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

Okay.

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

So answer I do.

Absolutely.

All right.

On two.

Introduce yourself again, please.

I'm sorry.

Introduce yourself again, please.

My name is Joan Jenkins.

I'm at 124 South Carroll Street.

Tuesday, we were here for the NAC meeting to discuss new development in our area, and it was an outreach program.

And this is the first time hearing it.

They told us to drive around the city to find out where the HPC signs were so that we could find out what was coming up and and coming to the table.

So my question is the sign that we saw was on All Saints Street on the soup kitchen, which is the old BO railroad um building.

So are you talking about the soup kitchen building, or are you talking about the building next to it?

I I don't know.

I'm just trying to figure out is this one of those uh situations where there's no pre-conversation and that building has been sold, and it's and if I may, let me just it's both, right?

So it's the building facing All Saints, but it's also the two buildings on Market Street, 102 and 104.

And what we're really talking about more than those as the external is the courtyard in behind.

That's where most of this work is taking place.

But it is all three of them.

It's just the the leading property is 100.

100.

So is that I thought that was a city building.

Is that not?

It is.

That's exactly right.

Okay, so you're restoring and upgrading.

We're not, but yeah.

We're reviewing the restoration and the request to make those modifications.

Yes.

So the soup kitchen will be there and the programs are still coming out of it.

Yeah, I just wanted to make that perfectly clear because I didn't hear anything Tuesday.

So that's the comment I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else else wish to speak on this application?

All right, Commissioners back with us.

Any discussion.

Well, we discussed a lot of this in the workshop, but as far as the deviations go, um, I'm still in support of the wooden material for the courtyard.

Um for the all the reasons that we listed about it being uh softer, um nicer alternative to more pavers.

Um I'm also in support of the deviation for the metal um awning rather than the canvas awning for consistency in that courtyard and for lighting of that entrance.

Um I don't have a problem with the metal trash enclosure.

And I think that the including the lights on the railing for the stairs seems fine.

I want to be clear that the wooden like deck decking feature is a timber tech, not a true wood.

So that's what they're proposing is a timber tech decking.

It's not detailed of whether it's a smooth finish or a wire brush finish.

So if you do go with the deviation, just noting a smooth or wire brush finish.

So I have to say I agree.

I think we talked about all of this during the workshop, and I think the deviations are in order.

Um just seems to me to be the easier.

And while it is a deviation, once they're removed, they can be removed and the lights can be removed, and then you know, 10-15 years down the road, something else could be put in if that be the case.

But I'm supportive to all four or five of those deviations.

I would uh concur uh regarding the integrated lighting on the railing, uh certainly less invasive versus putting in some light bowlers or uh pole lights to light that sloped uh ramp area.

And uh regarding the trash enclosure, in this case, I would be amenable to a metal enclosure.

Uh this is more of an institutional facility, and certainly that trash enclosure is going to be used on a on a daily basis, if not multiple times a day.

It's not something that you would have at your residence that you might only access once a week, but I think due to the uh uh the nature of the facility and and the the use of this particular element, uh a metal close enclosure would be more durable and appropriate.

I'd like to take one step back though, if I may, for staff.

As we make those conditions uh on a motion, you would still be looking for product literature, even with the deviations.

Am I to understand that correctly?

So if you since they already provide product literature for the metal railing and integrated lighting, um the awning and the metal door.

Um you don't need to update the scope of work for the wooden material into the metal material since it's already in the application.

Um the only thing that you would need to maybe make a uh when you make your recommendation or your vote is product literature for the TimberTec just showing that it's gonna be a smooth or wired brush finish.

Okay, thank you.

Any additional discussion, Commissioners?

No, but I'm prepared to make a motion.

I'm familiar with HPC 25-346 at 100 South Market Street.

And I move that we approve the application with the following conditions that the brick is recessed on the window being infilled closest to All Saint Street, that the fence screening for the HVAC units is limited to six feet in height.

The vent finish finish color corresponds to the wall and or trim color.

And that product literature detailing the timber tech material be either smooth or brush finish.

Can I just note that it noting that it's submitted for staff for final review before it any permits are?

Submitted for staff for final review.

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

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

I would just add uh or ask uh Ms.

Halfaditz.

We didn't specifically mention the the trash enclosure.

You wouldn't want more details on that.

Since that will you're not you're accepting as it is presented in the application, the metal.

I don't need any additional information on that.

Okay.

Any further discussion, Commissioners?

Since some of these are deviations from the guidelines, I'll just note that none of these deviations impact the integrity of the landscape or the surrounding historic properties, and that the contributing resource uh will not be so altered that it will no longer be contributing.

Thank you for that important and relevant comments.

Any further discussion.

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

Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you.

And that's Ms.

Martinkowski.

Thank you.

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

Uh this project was previously reviewed at the January 8th workshop.

This is a correction from the um notation on the report itself, which um mistakenly notes the 25th.

Um this application calls for a series of garden walls comprised of salvaged stone from the Byerley Tannery building and retained and retaining wall to be incorporated into the terrace along Carroll Creek Park as part of the downtown Frederick Hotel and Conference Center.

A double pedestal story board marker is also proposed for historic interpretation efforts.

Additionally, it's um excuse me, um, a memorum, a memorandum of agreement among the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, the Maryland Historic Trust, and the City of Frederick regarding the downtown Project Hotel and Conference Center states that during demolition, the development team shall salvage the stone and the existing uh stone retaining wall and tannery building for incorporation into the public space of the terrace along Carroll Creek as feasible.

Additionally, as part of the public interpretation program, the MOA requires the development team to create a permanent interpretive uh signage or way side exhibit to key public locations along Carroll Creek that discuss Frederick's industrial heritage, including the tanning industry.

This signage and more wayfare exhibit will complement the existing stinky stuff marker that is currently located on the park at the Byerley Tannery site.

Now this application only addresses the architectural salvage plan and was recently updated to also include the interpretive signs and wayfare marker.

The Frederick Town Historic District design guidelines does not specifically address architectural salvage, but the reuse of building materials is a mediation uh mitigation strategy when a historic resource is being removed.

And in this case, that's the Byerley Tannery building in the associated retaining wall.

The following language from the guidelines should be considered.

One, the Frederick Town Historic District includes historical landscapes that are essential parts of the district's heritage, and that reflects the evolution of the historic district for over 250 years.

The application was revised and discussed as a last workshop.

The western side of the terrace will be comprised of stone removed from the Byerley Tannery and relayed to reflect the original footprint of the structure along the creek.

This section of the wall will be approximately five feet in height and 25 feet long.

Um size than the smaller stone from the retaining wall.

So there will be a significant visual impact.

The proposed design incorporates the salvage retaining wall along the rear of the site with a uh with a length of about a hundred feet along the wall of uh along Carroll Creek and the height of about four feet, so a little bit shorter.

The stone walls are proposed to be uplit by uh at night by a linear in-ground fixture that runs the full length of the walls.

Staff appreciates the revisions to the application and bringing uh a meaningful um design and interpretive efforts to the architectural salvage plan.

Um with all this in mind, staff recommends approval of the application.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioners.

All right, does the applicant present step forward?

You were sworn in previously, I believe.

Yes, I was good evening, Kevin Roycroft with Philat Plus Architecture.

Any comments uh on the staff report?

Um no, we just concur with the staff report and thank staff and the commission for the input in the last workshop and through the process.

Just a trivial note on the lighting.

I know sometimes put in some specialized lighting for uh designs in different buildings, and sometimes I see they never get used or turned on.

Uh certainly this lighting uh updating here would be I think an important feature.

Uh I don't know you can't make any guarantees that it will be turned on uh you know every day or on a timer or or photo cell, but uh I guess it's more of a comment than anything that you can directly respond to, but I don't know if you know if it's the lighting is tied to a photo cell or timer to to be on and not rely on some person to flip a switch or not.

I assume we would probably have it on a timer or some sort of solar relay.

Because you know, as we talked about at the workshop, this is the the front of the whole uh ballroom and activating the whole length of the park.

So we we want that on.

We don't want it to not be on on certain nights.

So it's a we we think it's an integral part of the the whole ambiance of the wall.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant, commissioners?

I have a question.

Thanks.

Just the uh purpose of the lighting.

Is it for safety?

Is it aesthetic?

What is the purpose of the lighting?

It's aesthetic to uh create a soft glow and really um bring out the texture of the stone wall.

It's just a visual feature along the park.

I always wonder about lighting.

I mean, it and there's a ton of light in the city, but you know, it shining upward night sky stuff.

Um I don't know, I guess you're just aiming it at the wall essentially, so it's not shining everywhere else.

Yeah, correct.

It's it's all kind of a washes up the wall.

It's not like a floodlight or anything like that.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions.

All right.

All right, Commissioners.

It's back with us.

I can make a motion if nobody has any other comments.

Um I'm familiar with HPC 25-378 uh 20 South Carroll Street, and I move that we approve the application.

I second all right.

Motion made and seconded to approve the application.

Any further discussion.

I would just like to state um I am supportive of this application tonight as it meets the requirements of the memorandum of under of agreement, and the designers have made a commendable effort.

I am disappointed that the cosigners to the agreement settled for something less than what could have been.

The importance of the barley tannery and the tanning industry to the early development of the city in the county cannot be adequately expressed in some salvage stone and interpretive signage.

500 feet from this site, we're erecting a bronze statue to a man that was instrumental to the revile revitalization of the downtown area.

I regret that the demolition of the tannery as humble of a building as it was will not be remembered in the same light or as grand a fashion.

Any further discussion.

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

Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Just for information, uh, what's the timeline on the construction of the hotel completion date, roughly, maybe now that you got all your approvals, I presume it's a 22-month uh process.

So uh starting to the next one.

All right, thank you very much.

Next case, HPC 25-399 at 226 East Strict 6th Street.

Mr.

Master.

Thank you.

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

This application concerns the installation of a retractable awning on the rear facade of the property.

The Frederick Town Historic Design Guidelines provide parameters for awnings, which are outlined in full in the staff report regarding their relationship to openings.

Awnings must correspond with existing openings regarding attachment.

All hardware must be approved by the commission, and awnings must be attached directly to the building rather than supported by columns or poles inserted into the sidewalk.

Finally, for residential buildings, the awning color should correspond with other colors on the building with final approval granted by the commission on a case-by-case basis.

And with that in mind, staff provides the following comments.

Staff finds that the building associated with the project is a non-contributing resource to the historic district due to its recent construction and 2021.

The proposed awning will likely be only partially visible from the rear alley.

The framework of the awning will be constructed of high quality aluminum and attached through the white hardy plank cement fiber siding into the home's framing when extended.

The proposed fabric is a canvas-like woven acrylic in a muted gray striped pattern that corresponds with other colors on the building.

The awning will slope away from the building featuring open sides and include a straight phalance that hangs freely.

The material color and design are consistent with the design guidelines.

As previously stated, the design standards require that awnings correspond with existing openings.

However, this standard is not being met with this proposed design.

And I'd like to point out a slight error on this last comment.

Um it should read staff finds that a deviation allowing an awning that spans the rear facade may be appropriate for non-contributing resource because the integrity of the streetscape, the integrity of any surrounding historic properties, and the design integrity of the resource itself will not be compromised.

And with all that in mind, staff recommends approval of the application.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any uh questions for staff, Commissioners.

I do have one, and I'm sure it's it's irrelevant for this particular building, but I think I've asked this before in the guidelines on page 74, starting on 73.

We're talking about awnings.

Relationship to owning awning openings, excuse me.

Awnings must correspond with existing openings.

Correspond in my mind's eye does not say must be individually related to each door and each window.

So expanding two windows and a door, as long as it's corresponding to existing openings, would be appropriate in my mind's eye.

Again, this is not a historic property, but I'm looking for clarification on the guidelines.

But guidelines are up for interpretation on an individual letterable, so um do the do with that as you may.

I did the retractable awning and it it did have a loose balance, and there was um a detail of the color fabrics watch.

There was no structure because of its retractable nature.

Um other questions for staff.

All right, go ahead.

Let's get the applicant up first.

Uh really prepared overly prepared.

Is the applicant here tonight?

Introduce yourself for the record.

I'm Jan Walters.

And do you have any comments regarding the staff report?

No, I don't.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners?

Yes.

It's out of curiosity more than anything, so you don't have to answer it.

I'm looking at page nine or page two.

I'm not sure.

It says figure two project area on back facade of house.

I don't know if this helps or not.

Yep.

Just out of my curiosity.

I'm trying to figure out where this awning is going to be.

Is it going to be above all of the protrusion such as the ductwork and all of that, or is it going to be below them?

Just below those.

Just below them.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

If you want to have a seat momentarily, and I ask if there's any members of the public who wish to speak on this application.

I am finally prepared to make a motion, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm familiar with the property at 226 East Sixth Street, and I am familiar with HPC 2539.

I find that the project is compatible with the character of the district and is consistent with the Fredericktown historic district design guidelines with respect to the installation of a retractable awning on the rear facade of the home at 226 East Sixth Street.

I move to approve the application.

I will second.

Any further discussion.

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

Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you very much.

Public cases.

If there's anybody here tonight wish to make a comment before we adjourn for a workshop, if you want to come forward.

Seeing none, we will temporarily uh momentarily read uh a short break to set up for our workshop.

Uh we'll reconvene that 815.

Check.

Check.

Okay.

Welcome back to the City of Frederick's Historic Preservation Plan of the Commission hearing and workshop.

This is the workshop agenda portion of the uh hearing meeting.

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

Uh item on the workshop agenda.

HPC twenty five dash two eighty-three renovation and or rehab and addition for four thirty-seven North Market Street.

The applicant wants to come forward and take a seat and introduce yourselves, please.

Make sure your microphones are on the good evening.

Um this new revision of the application is really focusing on um uh the materials and the rehabilitation.

Um so that's what the focus of my staff report was on.

But before we do that, um the design of the proposed edition remains largely unchanged, but um this is the point where we can further discuss that.

Um the only difference I noticed in the revised application is the rooftop edition capping the westernmost part of the building unit.

And if we could use the um projector, and if you could show one of your aerial images uh that show the the addition, actually that's perfect.

Um if you could go to the westernmost unit all the way over to the right, and I'm looking at the revised roof plan on that.

If we recall, um if you go down right there, um the roof slope initially was going to continue to go up, and our request was if we could just keep that ridgeline to kind of better preserve.