Good evening.

Welcome to the uh February 12th, 2026 hearing and workshop of the Frederick Historic Preservation Commission.

Before we get started, if anyone wants a printed copy of the agenda, there's copies over by the door on the table.

I believe there is also a sign-up sheet.

If you want to sign up to speak tonight, you you don't have to sign up sheet, but it helps to clarify uh your name, make sure we get it accurate in the record.

Also, if there's any um if anyone has any trouble uh hearing in certain parts of the uh the auditorium here, uh we do have listening devices up front here.

If you uh want to see Tansy if you need a listening device, she can get one for you to help you uh if you have trouble hearing.

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

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

Department of Interior, National Park Service, and these guidelines are made 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.

I'm Commissioner Paul Fitzgerald, proudly serving here tonight along with Commissioners Ann Hart, Ed McMahon, Carol Kelly, and Jerry DeYoung.

For the staff, we have Division Manager of Historic Preservation Planning, Christina Martinkowski, uh Preservation Planner Sarah Hoffedz, Assistant City Attorney Michael Fry, along with administrative assistant uh Tanzi Brockenberry.

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're able to solemnly swear and affirm that the response is given.

Statements made in this hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If so, answer I do.

Thank you.

It is the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission to safeguard 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.

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

Okay.

Moving on with the agenda.

Are there any any announcements tonight?

Just one.

A reminder to the public that April 1st is the deadline for historic preservation tax credits.

If you have any questions, uh please call the planning department for more information.

Commissioners, any changes or recommendations regarding the minutes for the workshop in the hearing.

I move that we accept the hearing and workshop minutes from January 2nd, 2026.

I second.

All right, motion is made and seconded to approve the workshop and hearing minutes for January 22nd, 2026.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

Approval of the minutes.

All right.

Motion carries five to uh zero.

Thank you.

Under HPC business, we have administrative approval report.

Yes, I want to enter the entire administrative approval report into the record and acknowledge that 14 projects were reviewed on the month of January by staff.

Any comments or questions for the staff, Commissioners?

All right.

Uh no consent items or continuances are listed.

We'll move on to cases to be heard.

Are you you still getting hooked up, Carol?

Are you having any issues?

Okay.

Okay.

First case and the cases to be heard.

HPC 25-210 at 216 Patrick Street.

And this is Ms.

Martin Koskey.

Thank you.

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

I want to also note that this project was reviewed at the September 25th, 2025.

Excuse me, the February 12th, 2000.

I'm going to say that one more time.

That I want to acknowledge that this project was reviewed previously at a workshop on September 25th, 2025.

And because of that, I will try to make my uh comments uh direct.

Um the following signs are proposed.

Uh gold letter sign mounted into the metal awning that is historic.

Um it's non-illuminated, there'll be one of those.

Um there will also be two aluminum logos mounted into the metal awning.

Again, they will be non-illuminated.

And then one projecting aluminum sign mounted into the wall, again, non-illuminating.

Um the staff report does address all the different uh sign types that can be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and the design standards.

I also want to acknowledge in the guidelines include standards for historic signs, which must be identified, repaired, and preserved.

New signage should be installed in a way that does not damage historic signage, and in some cases, the commission may approve covering historic sign in order to accommodate modern signage.

Um I reviewed the application, performed a staff uh visit, and have the following comments.

The banan awning sign will be installed into a rail system or a raceway to minimize the physical impact of the historic feature.

Uh the projecting wall sign will be mounted into the wall through the mortar joints to minimize damage to the historic brick work.

The application also calls for approximately 20 to in total 22 square footage of signage and per the land management code, the maximum amount of signage allowed for the property 62 and a half square feet.

So the proposal does not um uh uh exceed the the maximum amount and nor does the proposal obscure or overwhelm architectural details and is compatible with the architecture scale and design of the building.

As noted earlier, historic signs must be identified, repaired, and preserved.

The NEON sign on the awning that is currently there is documented in a 1975 file photograph and references the building's historic association with the fraternal order of eagles.

The sign is at least 50 years of age and is likely original to the building.

The applicant has coordinated with a representative from the fraternal order of eagles and has arranged to donate the feature.

And although the proposal would remove a historic feature, the sign will ultimately be preserved and housed in appropriate with the appropriate organization, potentially allowing it to be reused.

With all this information in mind, staff recommends approval of the application, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, Ms.

Martin Koske.

Although some of the the scope of work references signed to be illuminated from exterior lights.

Were there any lights proposed to be mounted or just the ambient street lighting?

Or no product literature was provided for the lighting so right now no lighting is incorporated in the application.

If you want to clarify with that with the applicant or make that clear in your approval I think that would be a good idea.

Okay.

Commissioners any other questions for staff on the report the applicant is already here if you want to introduce yourself, make the sure the microphone is on the red light is on and introduce yourself.

Hi my name is Stacey Kayola.

And this is Dan Kayla for the owners of the Banyan.

Do you have any comments, concerns about the staff report?

No.

No.

I guess to follow up on my question are you proposing any external lights for the signs?

Speaking of the microphone please there's a light on the outside of the building that was existing that will expose light onto the back of the sign.

We're not lighting the sign any longer because we changed the whole process.

So there's already a light that was on the building that will just shine that will be basically from the back that would shine down on the ground anyways we could angle it and just have it shine out onto it and that's the plan for the lighting.

Not a big just an outside basically light that was our is already there.

Any other questions for the applicant commissioners?

I think the application I mean the proposal does not obscure or overwhelm any of the architectural details in the building and is compatible with the architecture scale design of the building I'm excited that you just you're getting closer to opening I want to thank you personally for having an elevator that will get us all up to the higher floor upper to the roof et cetera.

But I think this is a a good addition I mean the sign is a uh going to be a good addition to a good project so thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I think my only comment has nothing to do with the sign but with the electrical poles that are on the side of the building is your intention to paint them or obscure them in some way.

The poles on the side of the building those like the gray electric poles conduit I I will be 100 percent honest if they're not already sprayed from when they sprayed the whole building on the side I don't even I haven't even paid attention.

I I can look at my phone I'm taking pictures every day but I I would imagine they already probably are because we sprayed the whole side of the building.

Thank you.

I hate to put my phone out in the middle of it I may just comment uh for what it's worth and take it or leave it.

I mean the the awning itself is you know all black I don't know if there might be an opportunity to incorporate some gold to match the signage just you know either trim around the frame or pinstripe or something but uh not to get too ornate that it comes a sign in and of itself but I just thought might be an opportunity to to add some gold onto that awning but even as being all black uh take no exceptions to what you are doing there.

Yeah for sure I was also thinking we could add like the street the the address like just the numbers across the front yeah in gold if you added a street address that would need to be reviewed by the staff they'll know what number or uh we'll need some street address either on the door or or somewhere if there's we'll post it somewhere else if there's something existing already or would you have to do that.

And anywhere it would be posted it would require approval it's usually staff level though.

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

All right, Commissioners, we'll bring it back to the uh S here.

Any additional comments.

I don't know.

Um, Mark Koski if if the lighting issue is satisfactory or if we should state something more specific about no exterior lighting on the signs.

If you if you want to clarify that no lighting was approved as part of this application, I think that would help clarify the record, but other than that, I think we're in good shape.

Any other comments, Commissioners?

Let me uh take a shot at this.

Uh I'm familiar with HBC 25-210 located at 216 East Patrick Street.

I move to approve the application with the condition that no uh external lights have been approved for this application other than what is currently existing on the building.

I second the applic the motion.

Any comments or motion made and seconded to approve the application with conditions?

Any other comments?

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

The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you.

Next item is HBC 25-238.

Thank you.

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

So this application has been reviewed in workshop several times.

Um at the January 22nd, 2026 hearing.

The Historic Preservation Commission approved the complete demolition of the one-story garage, which was identified as a non-contributing resource.

The commission is now charged with reviewing the partial demolition of the historic dwelling, which was identified as a contributing resource at the January 2022 2020.

January 22nd, 2026 uh hearing.

The proposed area of the demolition is limited to the modern wood staircase attached to the historic rear porch.

For staff comments, the commission is now tasked to review the proposed removal of the rear wooden staircase.

The staircase does not appear in the property until around 2003, as seen in Aerial GIS imaging.

Staff finds the removal of the rear and non-historic staircase will not impact the hit the building's historic integrity.

Staff recommends that the commission approve the removal of the non-historic wooden staircase contingent upon an HPC approved replacement plan and the issuance of required permits.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions for staff, Commissioners?

All right.

Would the applicant please come forward?

Make sure the microphone is on and introduce yourself.

Do you not move how do I doesn't have a button?

Is it on?

Is it on?

Good evening.

My apologies.

Jessica Underwood.

All right.

Any comments regarding the staff report?

Uh no, just thank you for all of your work on this project and um all of your attention to detail and especially um staff.

Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners?

Commissioners.

All right.

If you want to have a seat temporarily, any other person here tonight wish to speak on this application.

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

Again, pretty straightforward based on the approval of a replacement plan.

It would seem that the stairs are no longer necessary.

And demolition would not impact the contributing resource.

Mr.

Chairman, I am familiar with 11E7th Street, HPC 25238, and I move to approve the application for demolition of the stairs.

I second the motion.

Could you amend your uh app or motion commissioner to include the last line?

Just restate it.

Oh, state this okay.

Um I am restating my um approval of the application.

Approve the removal of the non-historic wooden staircase contingent upon HPC approved replacement plan and the issuance of required permits.

Thank you very much.

Motion seconded to approve the application with contingent to contingency for an approved replacement plan.

Any further discussion?

On further motion, please raise your hand.

Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you.

Next case, HPC 25-283-437 North Market Street.

And that's Ms.

Martinkowski.

Thank you.

I want to acknowledge that this project was previously reviewed on December 11th, 2025 and January 22nd, 2026 at a public workshop.

This application serves as the replacement plan for HPC 25284 and calls for a third floor and rear addition.

Modifications are also proposed to the north elevation along West Fifth Street.

Since this has been reviewed and discussed in uh fairly great detail, um I am going to skip over the sections uh outlining the standards outlined in the guidelines.

So I'm going to go to directly to CAF staff comments, and that's on page four of the staff report.

Reform is a character defining uh element that should be should not radically change in the scale of the proposed demolition is significantly is significant.

Approximately 50% of the historic roof structure on a case-by-case basis.

The commission may approve the removal of the roof on a character defining rear elevation to allow construction of an additional story.

The primary roof forms and ridge lines in this case are retained on all street facing uh facades.

And um while the rooftop addition is significantly set back with minimal visual impact from the public right away.

Also a rooftop deck is proposed for the front of the building, which will feature a metal railing.

The deck um has been set back from all soci on all facades and um suggest looking at HPC six and HPC 7 for further details.

Regarding the structural framing, this is uh located towards the rear of the property.

A new the new exposed exterior structure framing is anticipated to be painted uh tube steel columns and beams, but still requires further structural engineering to support the rear third floor addition and remaining historic exterior wall as shown on HPC 3.

Um I do think that we will need a final drawing once the details are confirmed by their engineer.

In terms of materials, the use of hardyboard planks and panels are proposed for the new addition.

An image of the panel system can be seen on 98 of the application.

For this rooftop addition, which will be set back from the facade, the cladding will be distinct from the historic structure.

EDPM roofing is proposed for the flat roof structure, while galvanized standing seam will be applied to sloped roofs.

Revised product literature for the decking material was submitted based on feedback from the past workshop and includes Timbertech PVC decking in a gray color with a brushed finish.

So it avoids that faux finish that is discouraged by the guidelines.

An aluminum railing is proposed for the rooftop deck and interior courtyard space.

Gelwin metal clad windows and doors are proposed and are appropriate for new additions.

So that's the addition.

Regarding the rehabilitation work, first let's address the north elevation.

And we're going to be traveling east to west.

Awning and door replacement.

The applicant calls for to install an awning over the easternmost entry.

A second wider awning is proposed elsewhere on the same wall, but no inconsistencies were identified in the guidelines.

The written scope of work does confirm the awning will be a shed style awning and will have a loose balance.

It will not have internal illumination.

A new full light door is proposed, but the existing door does not, and I want to note that the existing door does not appear to be historic.

Next, modify windows into doors.

Two six over six uh double hungwood windows on the north elevation are proposed to be uh turned into doors.

Generally, the commission's per the guidelines say altering character defining features are not supported by the guidelines, but the commission can support the proposal if it aids in the building's adaptive uh use and long-term preservations.

New doors will be installed.

I also want to note this is a a change from the last time we met.

One of the windows will be salvaged and reused in the front gable section of the site, an approach that was requested and supported by the guidelines.

The next is to infill a wall opening.

The door is proposed to be removed and the T11 replaced with traditional woodlap siding, and this section of the north wall has been modified, and the proposed alteration will not impact historic material.

The next is to modify two doors into a paired window.

Umorterations to finestration patterns may be appropriate for this adaptive reuse project.

The doors do not appear to be historic, and the proposed windows will be incorporated into the existing brick arch.

Uh potentially what it looks like to be reinstating the historic window pattern in this location.

Wood windows with two over two patterns are shown to be replicating the existing patterns.

The brick infill will be flush with the wall to create a consistent wall plane.

The scope of work addresses details, but product ledger was not provided for wood non-clad windows according to the scope of work.

Muttons are to be simulated divided light windows with a flux with fixed muttons and a dark non-metallic spacer bar.

We just need the product literature to show that.

On this detail in the guidelines generally encourage recessed brick.

Next, new window and door opening.

Next, to modify the first story level.

The first story level of the side gable section of the site is of modern construction with non-historic brick and doors that are not sympathetic to the historic character, the second story.

Removing that brick and reinstating historically appropriate siding, and a door partially restores the historic integrity of this section of the building and will match the upper siding on the on the building.

Addressing materials.

And I'm not exactly sure where the side light is being proposed, but it was called out in the product literature.

Finally, asphalt shingles are proposed from certain teed, which will be colored matched to the existing, so no concerns there.

South elevation.

The proposed changes are addressed east to west.

Again, to modify two existing window openings into one large large opening on the first story to infill one window on the second story, and to alter uh the fenestration in an area already heavily altered.

Staff appreciates the effort uh to adaptively reuse the historic wall.

I know there's a a great deal of effort going into saving this part of the structure and to find a uh and find that the minor changes are appropriate for this area.

With all this in mind, staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions.

That the door opening being infilled on the north elevation is infilled with recessed brick.

That product literature is provided for the two over two not clad windows used to really rehabilitate the north side of the historic building.

Product literature should match the scope of work so that the muttons feature simulated divided light windows with fixed muttons and a dark non-metallic color spacer bar.

The final drawings are expected of the exposed exterior structural framing to support the rear third floor addition and remaining historic exterior wall are submitted for final review and approval, and that a door schedule is provided to illustrate where the various door styles will be applied.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any uh questions for staff, commissioners.

All right, would the applicant or agent please step forward?

Introduce yourself, please.

Good evening, Ben Bates with Bates Architects.

Mayor Kalajan, a managing member of uh Steam Baker, Steam Bakery and uh one on the one of the owners.

I don't think he's been sworn in yet.

Oh, sorry.

All right, any uh comments on the staff report?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm?

That's responses given and statements made in this hearing before the historic preservation commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Sorry, that's where I do.

I do.

Thank you.

All right.

Any comments regarding the staff report.

Oh, yeah.

Um again, we've been working on this for a long time.

We appreciate everyone's input.

I think as always it makes for a better project when we have lots of eyes on it.

Um so I appreciate the time and commitment everyone's put into this.

Um we agree with the staff report.

You know, a few of those items that are conditioned certainly were typos or errors that were can be easily fixed.

The uh recess brick infill, certainly that's the attention.

Um the wood window uh product data.

Um the steel shop drawings, obviously we're waiting on to getting to that level.

Um so again, thank you all.

Really appreciate it.

Uh again, I would reiterate that.

I will enterly to thank the staff.

Christina we really worked hard with it.

You know, we it was a rough start on the first uh first design we did.

And also I want to thank the commissioners.

You know, I think your input was very relevant.

To be kind of with you, my only concern today is hope with all the changes we did structurally, especially that it's still financial financially a viable project.

But we'll know that soon now that we have the plan.

But that's today that's my only concern.

Thank you.

Um are there any uh staff raised commit or question about side lights?

Are there any side lights proposed on any of the doors anywhere?

Or is that just uh included but not being used?

I'm sorry, say that one more time.

Are there any side lights proposed for doors that need to be identified?

I think we had looked at them at the rear in the new edition portion on the back.

I think they may have gotten taken out at one point.

Um, but I didn't I would like to potentially get a side light approved if we want to go that route, or can we?

Is that possible?

It needs to be on the drawing for it to be approved.

Right.

I guess I'm thinking that that's probably where they were being applied, because I didn't see anywhere on the north elevation that it made sense.

So as long as it's uh noted on the drawings and we have product we have product literature, but to note uh on the drawings and that's door schedule that I'm asking.

Yeah.

That'd be great.

Okay, no problem.

We will provide that in the door schedule if that's the intention.

Okay.

Thanks.

They aren't clearly identified.

I looked at the plans.

I seem to think where they might be located.

But I guess on the main upper roof, you're showing four condensing units there, is that right?

Yeah, we're talking about.

Yeah, the center portion you're talking about.

Or you're talking about the front portion there that's behind that um that's one of the changes that was made.

Yeah, correct.

That was one of the changes that we made.

We we took away the railing there where they'd be more visible, and we believe uh we are able to get them back on the back side of that roof line, given the different floor to floor heights.

Maybe just clearly identify them, you know, call them out.

Yeah.

And I think uh and the other units are basically on the south side.

It's on the plan.

Correct.

One more back here.

Yep.

Yeah, on HBC 13, you're right.

They're not labeled as the HVAC units, but they're shown on the roof plan there, uh, on both the front portion on the easternmost stair tower and then on the back stair tower to either side.

Um then there are also some on the ground for the lower level units.

Yeah.

So maybe just call those out so you know maybe uh the inspector comes through and has any questions, they're clearly identified and readily they haven't shifted anywhere without uh an approval.

Any questions for the applicant commissioners?

Not a question, but perhaps just a comment.

Pages 14 and 15 are blank.

Are they left blank and intentionally or are we missing something?

They're not.

That was a question.

You said pages 14 and 15?

Yes, sir.

They're not blank on the PDF that I was printed out today.

Do you find that you're what's that's what I'm asking?

Are we missing something?

We are here.

Yeah.

This is the same PDF I submit it.

Huh.

I don't know.

When I was reviewing the application, I can't say that I noticed a blank page.

So you want to present it to them?

Yeah, I'm not sure.

The accent metrics on the back side, they're just blank.

So may just be in the numbering system or shows two pages instead of one.

It could be spacing as well.

I mean, if it's a drawing and there's one or two spaces below it, it's going to produce a blank page.

Well, I I mean they're 11 by 17s and it looks like everybody's printed on eight and a half by eleven.

That possibly could be an issue as well.

And it's right by the drawings.

That's I will say they they are almost identical to the previous package.

I mean we can present it to you.

Yeah.

My only concern is that they are blank pages.

And if they are intentionally blank, then I'm good.

They're not intentionally blank.

They are the uh revised elevations.

They include the information that's included on uh HBC one and three uh as well, um, just in elevation format.

Um, but we are happy to resend them individually so that they're on the record.

I think totally blank.

It's got to be a printing thing then.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Go ahead.

I have a comment prior to my uh willingness and decision to approve this application.

Um I would like to call attention to pages which are quite legible and visible, um, pages 24 and 25 in your packet and express my concern as a preservation commissioner that what you are showing in these depictions, and I I thank you for doing so, is that this entire project is in fact by my interpretation going beyond adaptive reuse.

I think that this project has in effect taken this structure, it has adopted this structure for your use.

That I am uncomfortable and that you are putting a third floor on this structure, and that I believe it is visible from enough areas in the immediate surrounding area of the building, and that it does state that the building is no longer the same structure that it was as a historic building.

And that is certainly true uh from the image on page 24, where it is obvious that the building has been heightened by a floor.

The rear view, which was something of a surprise to me because I looked at it more closely in this examination on page 25, makes it aware that you have, and I say this genuinely and sincerely, you have effectively converted the rear side and the Fifth Street side of this structure to very useful purpose for human habitation.

But you have gone from my interpretation beyond what I consider the adaptive reuse of a historic structure, and you are expanding the use of that structure in a way that will be conducive to what you and I'm sure many others would consider a worthy human community habitation endeavor.

I am not commenting on that for good or bad.

I simply want to stress that in the in the milieu in which we operate of historic preservation, you are again by my interpretation moving beyond structure.

You are using that structure to enhance modern life, I'm sure many people would say, and modern design and modern comfort.

But it is no longer an old commercial industrial pre-industrial building.

That is not necessarily a negative aspect historically of what we're dealing with.

Um bakery people would be pleased to know that this is where they have gone to with that structure.

But page 35, 25 certainly shows me that we're no longer with dealing with a historic structure.

Thank you.

I do have one update when looking at what the applicant submitted.

It's the same as what's posted online.

It is when you print out the images that you get the blank pages.

So there's no inconsistencies other than weird printing.

So we didn't do it on purpose.

Thank you, Christina.

Mr.

McMahon?

Yeah, I would just like to comment with all due respect to Commissioner Kelly's point of view on this.

I think this is a good adaptive reuse project.

I think these applicants have been over backwards to bring us many iterations over an extended period of time to give us a project that is consistent with the guidelines and sympathetic to the existing building and sympathetic to the existing streetscape.

And I think this is the kind of project we do need to approve.

Having said that, I I recognize the concerns that were expressed at the January 22nd meeting about need for artist space of the community, but that's a bigger issue that the City Council needs to address, I think, independently of this building.

But I I've looked at hundreds of adaptive reuse projects.

This is totally consistent with the ones that I've seen before.

And I just commend the applicants for trying so hard to meet all the differing demands of so many.

We've had different many different commissioners over the time that have looked at this project, and I think you've really come up with a design that is as good as you're going to is good as you possibly could.

So I appreciate that and do think that it's uh worth approving.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

So I'd also like to make a similar comment.

I absolutely agree with Commissioner McMahon.

I think I commented earlier that I am a neighbor, so not right on that street, but close by and walk by frequently.

And I think restoring the uh Fifth Street side of the building is truly an advantage.

Not to mention often we are walking through alleyways, right?

And I believe what you are doing in the rear, although not the official streetscape, will improve what's back there and what we're seeing.

So it will be a living space, but it also will improve the entire area.

That is my opinion.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any additional comments for the applicant.

All right.

If you want to have a seat momentarily.

Any member of the public here tonight wishes to speak on this application.

All right.

Commissioners is back with us.

I think the only thing I would like to add is that it is difficult, right?

As we look at this and we're trying to decide.

But I think a lot of effort was given.

I think the restoration of the portions that are going to be salvaged.

Certainly are worth acknowledging, and I think the streetscape, both on Market Street and on Fifth Street, will win from the from the efforts that were put into this.

I think also, as we previously discussed, I mean, I think uh the code would allow for you know uh taller or more complete build out of the upper level.

That certainly might not have been approved uh by this commission.

But I think the applicant has made a considerable effort to uh to offset the addition, um setting it back from uh the Fifth Street elevation, and uh making the best use uh for them to see a return and uh to move forward with uh I would still consider it an adaptive reuse and uh regardless.

Uh improvements will be made to the building, and that's that's a plus, I think uh overall in lieu of you know uh leaving in in the condition it is.

I think the addition as design uh uh complements the kind of industrial nature of the building, even though it's no longer industrial, but uh the design overall, I think kind of gives that uh uh that sequence of you know being added added on to over over the number of years.

Um I guess my only uh real comment uh if we move forward with a motion would be to add in that the locations of the uh exterior HVAC units be identified clearly on the plans as a condition for any approval.

But any other comments, Commissioners.

No.

But I'm prepared to make a motion.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm familiar with HPC 25-2837 North Market Street.

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

That the door opening being in filled on the north elevation is infilled with recessed brick.

The product literature is provided for the two over two wood knot clad windows used for the rehabilitation on the north side of the historic building.

That product literature should match the scope of the work so that the mutton features simulated divided light windows with fixed muttons and a dark non-metallic color spacer bar.

The final drawings of the exposed exterior structural framing to support the rear third floor addition and remaining historic exterior wall are submitted for final review and approval.

That a door schedule is provided to illustrate where the various door styles will be applied, and that the HVAC units will be defined on the drawings.

I second the motion.

All right, motion B and seconded uh for approval of the application with conditions.

Any further discussion.

All right.

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

And the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Next case, HPC 25-369 East 7th Street.

And that's Ms.

Huffeditz.

Thank you.

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

This application has been extensively workshopped previously.

Um this application serves as the replacement plan for HPC 253 or 283 and calls for a two-story addition to the rear of the main building.

Uh updated documentation, addresses finestration, roof form, window openings, and parking area.

I'm gonna move on to staff comments.

This has been pretty extensively workshopped before.

The applicant has updated their proposal for the rear edition based on the commissions and staff commentary from last workshop.

The scale of the addition is still large, especially with the inclusion of the hyphen connecting to the original building to propose expansion.

However, as discussed at previous workshop, the applicant incorporated architectural detailing such as additional windows, traditional porch materials, and an amended roof form to the to make the addition more sympathetic to the original dwelling.

The addition now exhibits gable roofs with asphalt shingles.

The side elevation provides the best of the staped stepped gables, which does add character to the building and assists with the scale of the addition.

On the west side elevation, the there are additional window openings towards the rear.

It's unclear what material trim material is bordering the windows on all elevation.

Staff appreciates the inclusion of additional windows as they provide more frustration to the building.

On the north rear elevation, there are no window openings or door openings.

There are two exterior lights located on this elevation.

However, staff recommends including additional fenstration or features.

The street elevation of the addition now incorporates a one-over one window above the entry doorway.

The door has been altered to a two-panel half-light wooden door.

Door hardware project literature provided details of a nickel finish.

However, drawings indicate a black finish.

Either matte black or nickel finish are acceptable finishes.

The port features relatively the same with updated notes regarding the material roof being white TPO in the railing would match historic railing detailed in the guidelines.

The decking will be tongue and groove.

All wood components must be either painted or stained with a solid opaque stain.

Overall, the proposed materials, including siding, roofing, lighting, gutters, doors, et cetera, are consistent with the guidelines for new additions.

For landscaping, the applicant is proposing to include landscaping along the driveway with four box boxwood bushes.

At previous workshop, there was some discussion about potential payer pathway from the rear parking area to the entry door.

Nothing is noted in the plans or scope of work for a pathway to the rear parking area.

Staff would have been interested in seeing some proposal for a pathway with lighting.

Six additional off-street parking spots are proposed to be installed at the rear of the property.

It's noted that the this won't significantly affect the green space of the area.

It's unclear of what material the parking area is to be.

Any questions for staff, Commissioners?

Yes, please.

So in the beginning of the report, we talk about the archaeological assessment and that the applicant has received no further action.

Do I understand that to mean it's complete?

Correct.

I just wanted to be sure of that.

And then on page five, under the landscape and parking, the statement in the report states six additional.

Do we know how many in total that means?

So there is a front driveway.

I don't know how many fit that front driveway.

So that's in addition to that front driveway.

Okay.

You know how many people live in the existing house?

That would probably be better question for the applicant.

Okay.

All right.

In addition to the off-street parking, the additional off-street spots.

Um it is noted that this won't significant significantly affect the green space.

Has that been calculated?

We've done the calculation on that.

Let me find the page.

So on page 17, I know it's kind of small in the packet.

There is a calculation above.

The uh the main dwelling.

I know it's kind of hard to read.

I'm having a little difficult time.

Yeah, I had to pull out a magnifying bar to look at these literally.

Uh so I'm having a difficult time.

I just wanted to be sure that we have indeed completed a calculation.

It's not simply just a statement.

Yes, there is there has been a calculation for the the green space.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff.

All right.

Would the applicant or agent please step forward?

Good evening, Jessica Hunterwood.

Comments?

Anything to add regarding the staff report?

I again just want to thank uh both the commissioners and Sarah for all of your uh work on this.

I know it has not been easy, and um it has not been a standard project by any means.

Um the answer to the uh commissioner's question was there's a unit downstairs and a unit upstairs, so there's a family living upstairs and um uh a tenant on the first floor currently.

Well total.

Uh the downstairs has one person and the upstairs has an adult and two or three kids.

Three people upstairs, and how many bedrooms in the front house?

One bedroom.

I'm sorry?

One bedroom.

One in each unit?

The downstairs has um the existing house has one bedroom, and then the upstairs unit has three bedrooms.

So four bedrooms in the front house and four people living in there currently.

That's two adults and two kids, correct.

Thank you.

And just to clarify on the green space, um, so the building code actually has a more stringent requirement than HPC.

I think I believe HPC requires 30 percent green space, and building code, uh, we have to be 50 percent uh pervious.

So we actually have close to 50 percent green space on this project.

Okay.

That's what I could not read.

And can you tell me then the additional parking spaces, how many total parking spaces the property will have?

Eight total parking spaces.

So um the front driveway can stack two and then six in the back.

Forgive me, but if you are stacking two, are you going to be able to drive beyond them to get to the six?

No.

It'll just they'll have to stack and then back out.

And how will the parking spaces for the six?

They can get around the two stacked ones?

Access through the alley.

Yes, there's alley access to the back.

And um there we did provide a site plan for your reference, so you'll see that they back out onto asphalt, and actually the material is asphalt for that, and we will clarify that in the scope.

So you'll see that they back out onto asphalt and then they can pull forward into the driveway.

Excuse me, pull forward into the alley.

There's an alley.

Or reversed into the alley.

Uh correct, if they wanted to do that.

Okay.

I just wanted to be clear about that.

And and how many persons are supposed to be?

We've got eight parking places and 14 people to live there.

Um well, there's seven bedrooms in the new edition.

Um the end use is unclear at this point.

So it could be seven people living in the back edition.

That's that seven addition to the four that are currently there now.

Correct.

So twelve total, but two of those are children.

Correct.

Okay.

I have a question for staff.

Um who determines that those uh numbers?

Is it uh planning uh department?

So it is um it is part of the land management code that defines the parking requirements and I don't know if a site plan is required for this project, but it will be either the a combination of the planning department and the engineering department who will be looking at to make sure those standards are met.

Thank you.

So as a just curiosity.

Yeah, and just um to to buttress that, we do recognize this as an unusual concept, and you know it's being built uh directly in response to the need for more affordable housing downtown.

So while I understand it, it seems a little preposterous to have that many people here.

Um it's being built to meet that demand.

Uh Jessica, I have two other questions.

One, will there be a resident manager or a house supervisor for the for the SRO?

So the SRO amendment is currently going through right now, the city.

Um it's unclear whether they're going to require that for SROs.

Um recommendation is not to require a manager because many SRO tenants do not need a manager.

They're working force tenants, teachers, construction workers, um, the trades, health care.

So requiring a services manager sort of implies that all the tenants need services.

But that being said, if it is an end user that requires services, um that will definitely be addressed, of course.

Second question is could could one of these one-bedroom apartments have a couple living in it?

So again, the SRO ordinance amendment is currently going through the City Council, and that's one of the things they are considering is whether SRO should allow one person in a unit or two people in a unit.

Many jurisdictions allow two people in a unit, but Frederick is undecided.

Right now, in our SRO portfolio, we just allow one person.

So that's under the rules of your management.

Correct.

But theoretically, you could have 14 people in the seven bedrooms?

Theoretically you could, yes.

Okay.

Also I'm interested.

I looked up the statistics on SROs before the meeting tonight.

And according to uh our friends on AI, uh 25 to 40 percent of SRO residents have chronic substance abuse issues, 20 to 30 percent have mental health conditions, and 40 to 50 percent have criminal records.

So what kind of screening will you do to ensure that we don't have a have problems on the street?

So just to clarify this, um, the this project is being submitted as an addition as a large apartment.

It's not being submitted specifically for an SRO.

So, for example, hood students may rent this space and just lease it.

Um we do have examples in our in our portfolio of larger apartments where larger families, uh multi-generational, um friends, you know, rent relo rent larger spaces.

So that's the first thing, just to be clear.

This is not being submitted as an SRO project at this point, it's being submitted as a large apartment.

Umly, I can only speak from um our anecdotal experience, which is 10 years of 30 SRO spaces.

Um as I mentioned, we have a case study, and I'm happy to forward it, but it you know says that most SRO, it's 50, 50 men and women, it's all ages pretty equally.

Um they have jobs, they are teachers and dental hygienists, electricians, apprentices.

So one of the things we are trying to do is eliminate the stigma associated with SROs.

It's not just for homeless people.

Um it provides an extraordinary extraordinarily um successful budgeting tool where people pay $1,000 a month for utilities, internet, furnishings, instead of renting an apartment for $1,600 a month and having to pay $500 in electric furnishings, et cetera.

So would you require a security deposit from your tenants?

If I may, we are definitely crossing the bounds of things that we don't review.

There is a text minute process.

I know these are legitimate.

Well public concerns.

I don't know why we don't table this application until after the city decides on what to do about SROs.

We can that would be my recommendation.

And I agree with the staff.

If we are going beyond the uh boundaries of historic preservation, um your issues are certainly uh significant and significant to uh what you are doing with this building, but it does not relate to what we are doing with this building.

Thank you.

If I could just provide one more comment, is that this was reviewed by zoning?

Um initially the concept was revived by reviewed by zoning, and again, it is acceptable to the city in the form of a large apartment.

So that's how it's being submitted to the you know, the building as to the building department when we get to that stage, and that is how it is being submitted to you, and that use is currently permitted in the city.

100 percent correct.

This was definitely reviewed before we accepted the historic preservation commission application to make sure that we could accept it and process it based on the design review process of the Commission.

In light of all the comments and questions previous, I mean I do have uh a serious conflict with how this is being described as an addition to a two-family dwelling unit.

Uh you have up 14 or more non-related adults potentially living here.

This is a multifamily residence, and in my view, uh would be viewed entirely differently.

Um we're sitting here not really knowing if it meets uh the parameters of the land management code.

If you want me to look at this purely as addition, uh you know, I have grave concerns about the size of it.

And I know you uh stated that you know it needs to be a certain size in order for you to make the numbers work.

Um my knowledge that in addition to a residential use uh can follow under the residential code versus in a multifamily use that would follow under a more stringent or uh higher level uh commercial code.

And you know, it's hard to want to just base it on the the addition, I think we can you know discuss that, but I think there's larger um issues here that you know that to me did fit into the context of the neighborhood.

I understand, uh Commissioner Fitzgerald, but with all due respect, you just heard staff say that zoning has agreed that this is a permitted use in the city and that that was already achieved prior to your review of it.

So your comment that you doubt the veracity of that or that you question that it is permitted is confusing to me because I am representing to you and staff has also represented to you that this use is permitted in the city as presented to you.

It is also true.

And with all due respect, if it's not, then it won't get approved by zoning and building after your review of it.

And that is also respectfully outside of your purview, respectfully.

And it is also true that in the approval of historic preservation applications in many places, the size of the addition to the historic property has been sufficient to accommodate the living, the comfortable living of two people.

And that has been permitted and approved.

So it is, I feel beyond the scope of consideration for this commission to determine whether two or twenty five people should live in this addition.

When our jurisdiction to decide whether the addition is too big in size, scale, or relationship to the historic building.

And I would contend that this is an example of the another example of the White House ballroom.

It's too big, it's oversized, it's out of scale, it's a bad neighbor, it will potentially lower the value of the surrounding properties because parking issues, and it's inconsistent with the guidelines, but first and foremost, I think that a seven-bedroom addition to a four-bedroom single-family house is just too large, and I would encourage you to downsize the addition for our to get our approval.

Okay.

Well, thank you for raising that point.

But I would direct you to Section 9 of the historic preservation guidelines where it says additions shall generally not be higher, longer, or wider than the existing building.

So we are 100 percent in compliance with the HPC guidelines on this project.

We have made significant modifications based on the three previous workshops, um, as you can see in the new drawings, including adding a pitched roof, adding additional windows, adding a half-light door.

We've um we have changed the massing in response to the Commission's comments significantly.

Um I do respect your personal opinion that it is too large, we are in compliance with the guidelines, so I believe it would be absolutely incorrect to deny the case.

I would counter that the diamonds also on that position.

I would say that the guidelines call for us to not compromise the historical architectural integrity of the existing buildings, the settings, the streetscapes in the neighborhood.

And I would say that a seven-bedroom addition to a single-family house with four bedrooms does indeed compromise the existing building, the setting, the streetscape, and the neighborhood.

And that's consistent with the guidelines.

And I would add part of our review uh the Secretary of Interior standards or part of our guidelines and Secretary Interior Standards with relation to additions, uh, state that the addition should be subordinate uh to the main to the main building.

And uh we're basically doubling the size of the the uh existing building.

Uh and you know, if you go by that view, uh this addition is not subordinate to the main uh the main building.

Now I think the size is uh uh inappropriate, but we can move forward to that in our discussion.

Uh are there any other direct questions for the applicant?

Or if you want to add any uh additional comments regarding the size I know uh to be honest, I'm a bit surprised because I I uh from the comments from our last workshop, it sounded um the the messaging from the commission was very different, um, especially Commissioner Fitzgerald.

So I'm a little taken aback on this new position.

Um, this this addition is not visible from the straight.

It sits completely behind the house.

It abuts a non-historic alley surrounded by non-historic structures.

Um I believe that we provided you can see three feet of it standing across the street from one position.

And as I've seen from sitting here for you know three weeks, seven hours each time.

You have made numerous exceptions for different variances where additions were higher, longer or wider than the existing structure, which is not the case here.

So I would just comment.

I believe at our first workshop, uh the question of the use of the building being a two-family residential use.

We're adding uh doubling the size, and it's still a two-family residential unit.

That doesn't square in my head.

It seems to be more of a multifamily.

That being said, at our second workshop, we discussed about moving, or even at the first workshop discussed about moving uh the addition closer to the East property line to get it even more behind the uh the building and less visible from the street.

And you came back with uh comments that uh you needed a 10-foot side yard setback.

Now again, not to get in the code, I don't know anywhere in the code other than perhaps a multifamily use where you might, or commercial use where you might be required a 10-foot side yard setback.

Certainly not on a two-family residential dwelling in it.

Okay, we can argue that we don't need to argue.

We should absolutely not argue that because we have um Sarah emailed Christina to confirm that, and she can confirm that that is accurate.

What is that correct?

10-foot resident.

It's actually an eight-foot it's actually an eight-foot setback, and that was confirmed by planning.

Okay.

Um and I would just note also, continuing with the fact that you know you're basing a denial on the fact that it's multifamily is legal error, because that is outside of this Commission's purview.

Zoning is outside this commission's purview.

And as a former HPC Commissioner myself, for multiple years, I would note that it does not say that anywhere in the guidelines.

No, it doesn't.

And I think it's a uh little bit getting the cart before the horse, but uh all that considered, we will look at it as an addition.

We're gonna look at uh the use.

But you know, I would just say that if it it sounds like that this is very negative feedback tonight, which uh differs from the last workshop significantly.

So if it looks like the Commission is going to deny this project, I would suggest a continuance and we can go back to workshop on it.

It is not entirely a negative pushback.

I would just note we have spent thousands of dollars making architectural changes based on this commission's recommendation over the last three workshops to get in compliance, or I should rather I should say rather to appease your perspective on what would make this compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

And I I believe we have done everything you have asked.

Any other uh questions for the applicant and commissioners?

I think for the applicant, my comment being is that certainly I do recognize and appreciate that you have made the changes that we suggested through numerous workshops.

I would also note to your point in the guidelines, it meets the letter of the law.

With my magnifying glass today.

I realize that the height is 29.2 feet as opposed to the front of the building at 32.2 feet.

Correct.

And I think we have talked about this in the past of the 53 feet one inch on the original building and 53 feet.

So it is the letter of the law understood.

It would also offer to you, as I had originally, that the streetscape is not only when you're in a vehicle, but when you are on foot.

And I would also offer on foot that I can see this large addition walking down the street.

Okay.

So it's not just in front of the building.

That said, again, I acknowledge the effort that you've given, the modifications that you've made.

I'm certainly here looking at A21 on page 19, upper left-hand corner.

If I'm standing directly in front of the building, it looks like it's going to fit.

It's not going to detract from the streets game.

I'm not sure exactly what it's going to look like on foot.

That I would offer to the rest of my comrades here on the dais that it does meet the letter of the law.

It is incredibly large.

It's not quite as institutional as it began.

So again, I will acknowledge and commend you for your efforts.

Thank you, Commissioner Hart.

Any other comments or questions for the applicant?

I just fill in F seat momentarily.

I just want to make sure, because you did mention, did you want to continue this application, or do you want to move forward with a vote?

If the Commission feels that we need to make further revisions and they will not approve the project unless those revisions are made, I would ask for a continuance.

If the Commission feels that we are in a vote and nothing is going to change your view, I'm fine to move forward.

I would just ask that you recognize that your decision does hinge on these guidelines.

And it is legal error to input your personal opinion into what you think this project should look like.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

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

Good evening.

Were you sworn in at the beginning?

I'm sorry.

Were you sworn in previously for the record?

Let me swear you in, if I may.

Do you I think the second public comment also needs to be sworn in?

Do you just want to take care of both at the same time?

Yeah.

Anyone who wishes to speak that hasn't been sworn in, if you want to.

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

So answer I do.

I do.

Good evening.

I'm Ann Ryan.

I'm with the Frederick Housing Solutions Task Force.

And this is a little outside of scope, so forgive me.

But we are so committed to figuring out how to respond to those neighbors of ours in Frederick who make under $25,000 a year and have nowhere to live.

That the affordability issue in Frederick is in a crisis mode, and what are we going to do about it?

And I know that this isn't the right place to bring it up, except for that there are tools that other communities have used that are managed very well and are part of the solution.

And single room occupancy units are really part of the solution in that whole range of what could happen that would allow rents to be within reach, single room occupancy, co-living, shared housing.

That's a huge part of what could work for those who have been left out.

So I just wanted to add that to kind of the backdrop of the discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you want to come forward, sir.

And please state your name.

Good evening, Commissioner.

Is Brian Weinstein?

I have a little bit to say, but I guess it depends upon if this matter is going to be continued or not.

Is that something that has to be determined afterwards up in my understanding is that it's once it's gone forward with the hearing that it's either accept or deny as the only two options.

Before there is that the applicant always has an opportunity to continue the application that can be a good question.

Which Ms.

Underwood did not take.

Which Ms.

Underwood did not take.

Not yet.

But we're still taking public home.

Just to understand a little bit of procedure.

Okay.

I want to add a little bit to what my neighbors have previously added.

I live at uh 113 East 7th Street.

I'm a resident directly next to where this project would be.

The Historic Preservation Commission consistently upholds its duty to the city and its property owners by maintaining clear guidelines.

While it is widely recognized that the city needs affordable housing, integrating it seamlessly into the historic fabric of downtown Frederick requires thorough consideration of all aspects of a project.

Our neighborhood appeals to the Commissioners to continue to enforce the guidelines in ways that we will outline here.

So neighbors view the proposed 2600 square foot addition at 111 East 7th Street in Frederick as inadequately planned, far too large in scale, and incompatible in detail with both the existing building as well as the rest of the neighborhood.

Using language directly from the guidelines to evaluate this project reveals many inconsistencies with the planned development that cannot be reconciled.

I'm going to quote a little bit of the guidelines and address each one.

Additions shall be limited in size, scale, and relationship to the historic building.

Additions cannot be higher, longer, or wider than the existing building.

As far as I'm I understand, the breezeway that's been added on the eight-foot bump makes the addition longer than the existing building.

So therefore that is strictly obviously prohibited.

It also plans could have changed that they changed a number of times to this, and it's very difficult to follow from a public perspective.

So please, if I'm mistaken, some of this you can you can obviously address it, but just wanted to state what I've been able to see since.

The addition still also projects from the house on the west side, which would be visible from the public way, which one of historically contributing property is also strictly prohibited by guidelines.

The rear, the rear block of the historic structure is much smaller and is overshadowed by the new addition in both height and width, and should be adjusted to a smaller scale to be approved.

This has been extensionated when the gable has now been added to the roof.

It's even worse now that it's changed from a flat to a gable.

Again, the planned addition is longer than the existing building, but the main concern is just the scale and size in total.

Additions may not destroy damage or conceal historic fabric that is considered essential to the character-defining nature of the building.

The suggested exterior design is a box.

It leaves much to be desired when connected to the existing historic structure.

Adding windows from the previous plan will not maintain the original integrity of the historic property to the surrounding community.

Without question, the exterior design of the project damages the character of the building.

It also needs to be developed to resemble the comp the and complement the current appearance, which is, as everybody knows, from the Victorian era.

Sir, if I may underrupt, I'm sorry.

We usually allow three minutes for public comment if you have something to summarize, to wrap up or anything new, if you could wrap it up.

I was trying to not talk so fast that the three minutes would surpass.

Can I can I ask the Commission to allow me to add extra time to finish what I have prepared?

Yes, briefly.

Thanks.

All right.

Well, I will get to what I believe is the roof form of the additions must be compatible with the existing roof.

The gabled roof now that's that's been scoped under application puts the height of the structure nearly eight feet taller than the historic rear block of the existing building.

The height was raised in previous staff reports at a previous workshop and the issue with the flat roof, and now on top has a has a 712 gabled roof as suggested.

Historically, this has been this has been prohibited.

On my own house, it was prohibited when I wanted to do an accessory dwelling unit on the back of the building.

Guidelines of limited scale and size are not care are not cared for in this application, and it cannot be accepted as is.

Green space, again, is an afterthought.

The guidelines are clear that it must be submitted with an application, a greenscape plan.

A landscaping plan of four boxwood bushes up front does not does not cover what needs to be covered.

The existing impervious service calculation also does not correctly capture the proposed development.

It leaves off it leaves off some calculations that put it well over the 50% marking.

Basically, in summary.

Again and again, the application does not conform.

The use for this project is affordable housing, maybe worthwhile.

We hold that that this is inadequately planned development, also fails to conform to several guidelines.

During the workshops, the developer claim the numbers do not work for the project if she invests more into the character and visual appeal of project.

The developer has claimed she needs to make the addition of size and layout that is strictly prohibited by the guidelines to accommodate seven bedrooms that are needed to, as she quoted, break even.

At workshop the developers suggested that the commission this project was subsidized by the county, which the county has since denied.

We, the community members, appeal to the Historic Preservation Commission to continue to uphold their duty to the city by enforcing the guidelines, even when the project seems to promote popular and the undeniable needed notion of affordable housing.

Even if the proposed mission of the project supports the popular idea, the commission should not advocate its responsibility and require the adherence to standards maintained by the historic district.

Community members are not concerned with the developers' bottom line, but with the continued character of the neighborhood.

Community members are not concerned to miss underwood numbers work, but the project would be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and with the historic district as a whole.

We suggest that she either scale down her plan and conform to the guidelines or develop the project outside of the historic district.

To that end, we request that the respect commissioners of this board uphold the preservation guidelines and deny the proposed project.

Great.

Thank you, sir.

Any other members of the public here tonight wish to speak.

Were you sworn in previously, sir?

Yes, sir.

Can you introduce yourself, please?

Yeah, hi.

My name is Sam Hunter.

Uh I'm a resident at 1097th Street.

Uh, I've lived there over 25 years.

Uh I've seen a lot of things change uh on that that block, particularly in that time.

Uh a lot for the good, some not so great, but you know, that's that's how it works in the city, you know, as we see development.

Um I think that the you know my neighbor before me voiced quite a few concerns that we have as residents, longtime residents of the community.

Some that your commission is already voiced.

Um, you know, I'm not going to get into the strict requirements of what's needed for the site plan to be acceptable.

Um I think that what's glaring is that in no way is this project going to match the current architectural standard or cultural standard, aesthetic standard, streetscape standards, whatever you have.

It does not check those boxes.

It might check those boxes by feet, it might check those boxes by percentage points, but it it absolutely does not add value to the neighborhood.

It in fact strips value from the neighborhood.

And while I a thousand percent support uh affordable housing, I mean I I have family in the city limits that are in affordable housing programs now.

I absolutely identify the importance and the necessity that we need to continue providing those options.

Um I can tell you that SROs, particularly when left without a property management company, as I work for a very large private community uh myself.

Um, I've never seen a multi-resident unit like this go well without a property management committee ever.

Um I can tell you again, SRO concerns are valid and their importance is also valid.

But something else that needs to be considered uh is the history with this property specifically.

Uh this property specifically has been condemned previously multiple times because there were drug users in affordable, quote unquote affordable housing.

That affordable housing was also condemned because there was no plumbing.

So while I I understand that the current property owner has made significant improvements to the existing property, and I'm grateful for that as a neighbor that I get to see the improvements next door.

Um but something like this in no way will will match anything of of value in our community.

Um it's glaring, and I appreciate your point uh, you know, to the streetscape because it's not just cars driving by.

And mind you, while 8th Street is not something that you guys look at uh in this commission, the project will be visible from a car on 8th Street because there's an alleyway directly behind the property parcel.

So you will be able to see it from a car.

You will be able to see it on foot walking by.

It's it's a you know a glaring uh thing that sticks out.

It's not just a a small structure that you you wouldn't see if you're not paying attention.

You can't miss it with the current design.

It's uh, you know, it's it's something that you can't miss when you walk by when you drive by.

Uh and another thing, I myself am a certified Chesapeake Bay landscape professional.

Four box woods for a structure of this square footage.

That's the best landscaping we can do.

I mean, aesthetics alone, this doesn't even come close.

So I urge you all, as a commission, if you vote on this to uphold the values that we of residents of decades have been maintaining ourselves.

And I urge you to vote against this if you vote against it today, because in no way does it add value to the community.

I fully support affordable housing.

I fully understand directly within my own family the value and the importance of it in the community.

In this specific downtown community.

But this project is not the answer.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Honor.

Let me just ask if there's any other member of the public who wants to speak on this application.

All right.

Ms.

Underwood, if you want to address any of the comments previously made.

I believe all of um the comments have been addressed in previous workshops, but I did just want to read um one comment into the record um that you should have received via email from um Vincent Rogers.

Uh okay.

This is addressed to your staff and HPC Commissioners.

I am writing to express my support for the proposed 11 E7th Street project, which is being advanced in response to growing need for attainable and affordable housing in the City of Frederick.

Access to housing that aligns with residents' incomes is fundament fundamental to economic stability, workforce participation, and overall community well-being.

When individuals are unable to secure housing that fits their financial circumstances, the impacts extend far beyond shelter, affecting employment retention, financial security, and quality of life.

The proposed model at 11 East 7th Street offers a practical and responsible housing option for individuals who work in and contribute to Frederick, but are increasingly priced out of traditional rental housing.

We fully support this project as it proceeds through through as it proceeds through the Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, review process, and other required approvals.

We believe it represents a thoughtful and appropriate addition to the area while addressing a critical housing need.

We are confident that this investment will contribute positively to Frederick's housing ecosystem by increasing density in appropriate locations, making efficient use of existing infrastructure, and supporting a diverse and resilient workforce.

We respectfully encourage HPC to support the 111 E7th project as a meaningful step towards addressing Frederick's affordable housing challenges and promoting long-term community stability, and that is from Vincent Rogers from who is director of housing in Frederick County.

Thank you.

Thank you for uh adding that letter to the record.

Were there any other comments you wanted to address uh pre from the previous statements?

As I mentioned, this has been workshopped three times for hours uh at this point, um hours and hours.

And uh I I disagree with the assertion that the this addition is visible prominently from the road.

Um you have before you the elevation showing how it's going to look.

Um and it's visible from uh across the street in a three to five span area.

Um we have made extensive changes to make it compatible with the neighborhood buildings, including pitching the roof, um, articulating the front entrance, adding many windows, um changing the locations of lights, um, all at the Commissioner's directions.

Um again, we are completely 100 percent in compliance um technically with the HPC guidelines, and this project is being developed directly in response to Frederick's critical housing needs in response to the mayor and in response to Frederick County's um request for developers and builders to build more affordable housing.

If I may ask a question, though, did we not comment earlier that this SRO is not yet in place?

We do not have anything for the city that is in place in this moment.

Is that true?

Again, it this project was reviewed by zoning before it was submitted to you.

It is not an SRO, it's c it's considered a large apartment.

So it could be used by hood students.

It could be used by senior citizens.

It could be used by a large family.

But ma'am, that you have said repetitively that it's SRO, right?

That that's the intention.

I um I respectfully disagree.

I was responding to Commissioner McMugan's um SRO question.

And SRO is currently going through the city right now.

Correct.

At this moment, this is a large apartment that's being submitted as affordable housing options in the city.

Submitted as a large apartment only to be changed later after all the approvals are taken.

Is that my understanding?

Only to be changed later.

You mean in use or intent.

Yes.

The intent is simple, to create affordable housing.

So whether that's senior citizens who all lease it together, whether that's hood students, whether that's teachers, whether it's a large apartment or SRO, it's the same use.

I'm not seeing the distinction you're making.

Maybe I'm maybe I'm missing it.

Please clarify for me.

Apparently I misunderstanding.

But uh I again I just wanted to the last statement that you read from Frederick County supporting it, but the City of Frederick does not have this legislation in place yet.

I just want to be clear.

Correct, but just before this meeting, they had a hearing on uh a workshop on SRO, and both the City uh division, umart and Jody from Housing of the City of Frederick commented on the record that they fully support SRO as an affordable housing office.

I think even some city residents have made this comment that we all understand that affordable housing, SRO is a new term that we call.

I mean, in the old days it was called a boarding house.

So yes, we all understand it, and we do all understand that we need it.

So again, I was just trying to be clear.

And I think I understand.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

If you want to have a momentarily, I'll just ask you if anyone here else here tonight who wants to speak on this uh application.

All right, Commissioners, we'll move it up to us.

Um I think I would like to start with staff.

All of you.

I would like to start with staff.

Um I feel we're at a conundrum.

Um we're being asked to look at this as an addition to a two-family dwelling unit.

Period.

We're not asked to take into any other considerations or evidence or comments that we've heard tonight or previously at workshop.

And I guess I'm struggling with uh if we're the intent is to view this uh exactly as an addition to a two-family dwelling unit with uh doubling the size, and it's still a two-family dwelling unit.

Uh apparently the use isn't changing.

Apparently we don't have any comment on that.

Uh I know we don't have any comment on it.

And I can't help but feel we're getting the cart before the horse here uh without the city.

I guess well, maybe it doesn't matter whether it's a SRO designation or multifamily or uh two-family dwelling unit with up to 14 non-related adults living in it.

So I guess I'm trying to define whether we need to strictly look at it as an addition, uh or if there may be some room to consider uh continuing this case until we get some more information, although I'm not sure that uh may or may not help us in our consideration.

And without the commission knowing we review applications all the time where the use is not really may evolve or may change, but are reviewed under the permitting and under um uh uh the planning review process.

So how we review this is not whether this is uh uh one family or multiple people living in it.

Not a factor as part of the review.

The only thing the commission is charged with reviewing is this as a proposed addition.

And I just want to very briefly recap what the standards are that the Commission is required to consider.

And these are the parameters for the review.

The impact the addition has on the historic integrity of the historic building and the effect on historic walls and openings.

The design, the scale and massing, the impact on its setting and green space, materials, doors and windows, and then their sizing and location and roof form.

And that's how staff wrote their staff report.

Was really solely based on the guidelines.

And scale is probably the biggest worry and pulling of debate.

And I think that's probably what the conversation should be focused on is those issues.

And the guidelines are up for interpretation and debate, and that's what we're having now.

I just want to make sure it's really narrowed into the Commission's area preview.

But I'm happy to take any questions.

I guess I'm questioning whether it would behoove us to continue this case.

So I mean it's just I'm struggling with it.

I think there's been improvements made, but if I'm looking at it strictly as an addition, I think the size and the uh the context with the neighborhood is uh incompatible.

I would just like to comment to draw a comparison between my earlier reference with the previous case to the scale of difference that is being made at 437 Market Street overall, as the result of the long history of the development of that project.

I personally consider the scale large.

The change in that area that that building area, however, you define the original building or the addition is large.

And we have approved that at various stages prior to my familiarity with it.

So for me, the comparison between that approval and the approval in question now about a pretty big addition on the back of a single family dwelling, which I am very familiar with from previous historic preservation work is large for my understanding for my consideration.

And I offer that simply as an observation, not as a determination.

But I do encourage us to do what we can, or what the chairman or what the staff feels we can do to uh what revaluate this conundrum in terms of our own mission, our own entity.

And if the chairman knows any way that we can, or the staff knows any way that we can hold off on moving forward with this vote, uh I would uh certainly support that.

Thank you.

I would comment, I think the the major difference between this uh uh site and the previous one you mentioned uh 437 North Market Street is one of basically context.

437 North Market is a uh more tightly um uh urban, if you will, environment uh located along the market street uh with uh multiple story, three-story buildings and larger, or this uh project is located in uh neighborhood of mostly, if not all and two-family dwelling units.

So I think the context uh has a bearing on what we're discussing.

Well, I don't disagree, but I think that your comments reflect the uh intricacy, the complications and the uh uh the the history of what historic preservation is all about and uh true that the uh market street setting is urban, but it's certainly moving into an urban habitation for individual families at this point.

How is the living situation in 437 in terms of basic human living different from the living situation that is being proposed at 111th?

People are going to live in those places.

That's not our consideration.

I am very much aware of that.

So let me just say this, because the comments do come out of the guideline that size, scale, and proportion massing, the integrity of the property, right?

Which includes the streetscape and the neighborhood.

So I think that's a difference as well.

I think we've had tremendous improvement.

I think we've made a lot of progress.

I think there was community comment this evening about the landscaping.

Right?

These are all things that are still not fully developed or defined.

I have uh a comment in it, and it may be outside of our purview.

Uh we have been reviewing several large complexes, condominiums, et cetera.

Uh you know, are the is affordable housing being considered within some of those complexes?

Or is it only in neighborhoods?

That would be my question.

Or is it only in I didn't hear your or is it only in the neighborhoods?

I mean, we're we've uh reviewed several large condominium complexes.

Is affordable housing a part of those developments?

And you know, why not?

And I can't speak for staff.

I can simply tell you from my experience, this is my first time hearing anything about affordable housing, so for what that's worth.

But again, we can reference this back to our own our own situation as a staff would emphasize.

We don't really have to weigh the issue of affordable housing or million-dollar townhouses.

It's the structure we are dealing with.

The structure, the streetscape, the landscape, the neighborhood, these things are important.

So I absolutely agree with you, but these other topics are related.

The setting, the feel, all of that affects what we're doing.

I would assert that not necessarily in our public role.

It's in the guidelines.

I don't know, Commissioners, if is there a consensus to move forward with your viewing this project as an addition to a two-family dwelling unit or continuing the case in light of you know, I don't know of any additional information that might help us make our decision one way or the other.

I just want to offer this that for myself, whether the city approves an SRO or not.

That is not in my mind's eye going to affect my decision on this particular property.

I would just say I'm I have I'm sorry I wasn't at the last workshop on this project, but uh I just could never approve this project as currently submitted.

It is, as I said before, it is a bad neighbor because it compromises the historical and architectural integrity of the existing neighborhood, the streetscape, the setting, et cetera, is simply too big, it's out of scale, and it will negatively affect surrounding properties.

So as currently submitted, if it came back with a smaller addition, I would certainly consider that the use is not what I'm focusing on.

I'm focusing on the scale of this project, and it's out of scale with everything else in that neighborhood.

I just could not vote for it as submitted.

Ms.

Hafadith or Ms.

Martin Koske, uh, if this application were denied, uh, how long would it be before the applicant could come back with a new project or uh revisions?

Or I guess re retool the application or a new application.

I should know this.

I I think it's six months, it might be a year.

Give me one moment to confirm.

Okay.

This is uh I'm pulling this from um section 3.5 of the Historic Preservation Commission's rules of procedures resubmissions.

An applicant may not submit an application that is deemed by staff to be the same or substantially similar to a denied application within one year of the Commission's decision to deny.

So that seems to suggest if they wanted to come back with a similar application, it would take at least a year before they could.

Thank you.

Any other sense, Commissioners about you know moving forward with the application as presented?

I'm addressing this to staff again, in particular the legal staff.

Um have we reached a point in this discussion where it is obvious to knowledgeable observers that there is a infusion of what's the word?

Um our authority, our provenance uh as a commission.

Do we need a definition of our role as humble as that sounds and as embarrassing as it is to say it?

Well, I think I'm sorry, I think the chair and the uh the vice chair are right on the money.

That your role tonight is to look at the four corners of the application, apply the commission's rules.

Uh the question of SRO, I think is far from being settled.

I know there's a county or city uh councilman there tonight, and whether you would agree or not, that's probably a long way from being a settled issue.

I think it's uh there's a legislat there's an ordinance that has to be uh amended.

I think there is zoning considerations, so I think there's a long way to go.

But tonight I think your role is to look at the four corners of that application and apply the Commission standards.

Uh and you know you use your uh your uh professional judgment and render a decision.

Well, if if that's the case, unless the applicant is willing to cons to uh accept a continuance, I am ready to make a motion that we reject the application as submitted.

Yes, we would ask for a continuance, please.

So with that request, then we are that's where we stand that we will continue.

Um the Commission will still need to vote to um to make that continuance, but that is uh generally accepted.

Well, I will uh second the uh the motion uh for sake of discussion.

Um I'm not sure our continuance will get us any further in the review of this application.

And I think we're if we're sticking as uh attorney Fry eloquently stated the four corners of this application.

Um I if I may you know we are not here on behalf of myself as a developer and a builder at my company.

We are here on behalf and with the support of the Frederick community in the U.S.

But my point is if you could allow us some time to go back to the Frederick Partners and see what we can do as far as funding gaps.

Um, you know, perhaps they would grant some additional funding to make this addition smaller that might meet the requirements of the council.

Um, one of the things the guidelines contemplates is not reading the black and white of the guidelines, but looking at the contextual value of the projects and how they fit into the societal need.

Um I was trying to find that in the guidelines, and I couldn't, but I can provide it next time.

And so I would just ask, again, you know, there is a societal need.

We have shown you that Frederick County from the highest level supports this project.

Um the housing affordable housing commission supports this project.

We have sent you multiple letters from other individuals in the community that they support this project.

And so I I think it is unnecessarily harsh to deny this when there is such a great need, um, as Ann Ryan attested to.

Um let us see if we can rework it with our partners and perhaps you know make this project a reality.

But um, thank you, Ms.

Underwood.

I would state there is a motion on the floor.

Discussion is to the Commissioners here.

Uh no further discussion from the public.

I uh appreciate your uh additional thoughts.

I I think you know the uh the parameters have been set.

Uh we went through numerous workshops.

Uh discussion of the size of this uh uh addition has been thoroughly discussed.

So I would uh leave it here to us commissioners.

Um with all due respect, I'm not sure if all the commissioners are.

But I believe if you had not attended the prior workshops, these commissioners cannot vote on this hearing.

So that's not true.

If they've reviewed the prior workshops uh on video.

I understand.

Commissioner McMahon, I'm sorry, I don't know how to pronounce your name, just said he didn't listen to the last workshop.

Yeah, uh I would have told you it was too big if I had been here.

He wasn't here, he wasn't here physically, but uh he didn't say that he didn't listen to the tape video tape of the Okay, I'm sorry, I must have misheard him.

So let me just back up if I may, sir.

Well, there's a motion on the floor.

I don't think there is a motion on the floor.

That's why you said Commissioner McMahon and I second it, yes.

I am sorry?

Yes, I second it.

Who who made it?

Commissioner McMahon.

That we were voting on a continuance right now, and he did not continuance wasn't on the floor.

I'm sorry.

That's what I looked at staff.

The applicant said a continuance.

I looked to staff, staff said yes, that's correct, and then you said I'm seconding.

And Commissioner McMahon made a motion and I second it.

Okay.

I would just like to ask for clarity from counsel because I'm not able to appeal this with all of these inconsistencies on the record.

So I'm not even sure where we are.

I stated there is a motion on the floor from Mr.

Commissioner McMahon to deny the application.

And a second from Commissioner Fitzgerald.

There is a motion on the floor for discussion.

I stand corrected because that's not what I understood.

And I, as an observer, the transactions and the exchanges that have been made do understand that the applicant came forward and requested a continuance and was responded to by the staff.

Where that fits legally in this Roberts Rules of Order process, I would like to have defined.

Exactly.

I don't you cannot overrule my objection for a continuance and make a separate motion if I am asking for a continuance.

I would believe the option for a continuance lies with the Commission.

Mr.

Fry.

I believe that is correct, sir.

I understand, but that needs to be voted on first before you vote to reject my project.

There is no motion for continuance now.

Prior to Mr.

Commissioner McMahon's motion.

One minute.

This motion is perhaps defeated.

Perhaps we could move for another state.

Or another motion for approval.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Ms.

Martin Kowski provide me with some language from the rules.

It would appear that the Commission shall must rule on the request for continuance before moving on to, I think, onto the perhaps dispositive motion that you would be considering.

So I think you have to take up the request for the continuance first.

In that case, I would withdraw my motion and we could vote on the continuance.

I do not immediately withdraw on a second.

I would just question should not the motion come from the commission.

Whether the applicant, you know, is previously stated or not.

The discussion back to the dias here for Commission review and the public comment was over now.

I understand if the applicant wants to continue it.

I guess I am concerned about the order.

The rule it is I wouldn't say it's ambiguous, but it's not terribly clear.

Just says that you know, on the motion for continuance, the Commission shall make a decision on the on the request.

It doesn't mention a motion or a second, but it uh implies that there is got to be a discussion and a decision.

And while I respect that and appreciate that, let me just say this, from my mind's eye, as we sat here.

Mr.

McMahon made a motion.

Mr.

Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and then the applicant said, I want a continuance.

So is that in order when Commissioner Fitzgerald is saying it was not open to public.

It was not open to the applicant.

It was here at the dias and had a motion made and seconded.

It's a great rules, uh Roberts rules question.

I don't know the answer.

However, I will note that the motion was withdrawn.

The motion.

Well, yes.

And and the rule doesn't specify, you know, uh any kind of uh timing.

Yes.

Or timing.

Um I think the intent of the rule is that you should consider the continuance before you may uh make a perhaps dispositive decision where the applicant would be foreclosed from any further action.

Well, the the request for continuance came after the motion, so that's I'm sorry?

The request for the continuance came after the motion in the second.

Well, I understand that, but I don't know that that sequence necessarily forecloses your consideration of that request.

You know, had had the board uh you invited her to offer whether she wanted a continuance or not.

You allowed her to come up and ask for a continuance.

I don't I don't recall the invitation, and ma'am, I don't mean any disrespect, but in that moment it was not an invitation.

There was a motion and a second, and then the idea for continuance came about.

Okay.

And I don't know to your point, sir.

The timing and the periodicity.

If the applicant had said before you vote, I would like to request a continuance.

I think it would have been different.

I believe that's what happened.

For the sake of moving forward, I will withdraw my second to the previous motion and open the floor up for uh possible continuance.

I presume it doesn't necessarily have to be the next hearing date, uh, Ms.

Martin Koski.

It could be would you establish the next continuous?

Uh although I think a continuance should have a definite date.

Correct.

And I do have a thought before I give an answer.

I would expect or or ponder that the applicant may have substantial revisions that need to be made and probably would not be able to make it to the next hearing by the Monday deadline.

So with that in mind, I believe the first meeting in March would probably be the best date to continue the application to, I believe that it is the 12th, but let me double check the schedule.

It is the 12th.

Yes, Trump.

Okay.

So I would recommend continuing it to the March uh to March twelfth.

I would just point out that the decision to grant or deny a continuance is within the discretion of the board.

And I would expect that you would want to hear uh some reasons, some reasonable reasons for the for the uh continuance.

Now I understand it's for to perhaps submit a different application, but I don't know that that's on the record.

I'm not sure what the intent of the continuance is.

I would put it on the record that we the uh that the sense of the commission is this project is too large as submitted.

It's uh uh it has will have a negative impact on the streetscape and the neighborhood, and it uh needs to be resubmitted, it's gonna be scaled down.

And it was my understanding from the applicant that they would take the time with the continuance to address other partners for money or opportunities to perhaps scale down the project.

That's what I understood the applicant to say.

I have a different take on the um the decision to or the uh action to request a continuance uh certainly in my perception it grew out of a uh discussion revealing the need for the Commission to uh consider this issue beyond the elements that were introduced in tonight's discussion, which are out of our purview, and the continuance will give the Commission a time to understand those the parameters within which we operate in regard to this particular application.

I would have to say I disagree.

I I I absolutely disagree.

I think we fully understand what is expected of us, and I understand the continuance is because the applicant requested it.

That's how I understand it.

I agree.

All right.

Regarding case HPC 25-369, I move for a continuance of the case to the March 12th 2026 hearing.

Second.

Any additional discussion, Commissioners?

All right.

Motion made and seconded to continue this case.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Motion carries 5 to 0.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Under what?

Thanks.

Next case, HPC-26-5 at 22 East Third Street.

222 East Third Street.

Ms.

Hoffedetz.

I just want to confirm that my applicants here.

He may be hidden behind the podium for me, so I would like to enter the whole staff report into the record.

This application is an amendment to HPC 25319 to change the sanding seam roof color to bronze.

Per the guidelines for standing seam metal roofing, factory finishes must reflect traditional hues, which is galvanized green and red.

The applicant received on October 8th, 2025 approval to replace their existing standing seam metal roofing kind, with the finished color being four screen.

The applicant is seeking approval to change the color of their standing seam from four screen to medium bronze.

Per the HPC guidelines, the only appropriate finishes for standing seam metal roofs are hues of red, green, and galvanized.

Currently the property exhibits a galvanized colored roof.

The color will be visible from the street view.

The most appropriate color would be red, green, or galvanized.

Staff notes that the commission has reviewed and approved alternative colors such as black in past application.

Staff has provided deviation guidelines for the commission to reference if they find deviation is appropriate.

Staff recommends that the Commission deny the application because bronze colored roofs are not supported by the guidelines.

The applicant still retains the ability to modify their original approval of metal roofing with red, green, or galvanized colors, which is supported by the guidelines.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Do we have a spectrum of what we perceive as hues of green?

Not illustrated in the guidelines.

Okay.

I just wanted to be clear about that.

Thank you.

Yes.

And I can ask the uh applicant, but any indication on why the request for a change.

I believe it was more for just personal.

Um but the applicant may have a better uh reasoning as to why they are choosing to have this medium bronze proposed.

All right.

Any other questions for staff?

No.

All right.

Would the applicant step forward to the podium?

I believe you were sworn in previously at the beginning of the I.

I was not.

I didn't realize that I would be speaking tonight.

Uh okay.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the response is given and statements made in this hearing for the historic preservation commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if so answer I do.

I do.

If you want to just state your name and your association with the project.

Uh Thomas Tate, I'm a homeowner at 222 East Third Street Third Street.

Do you have any comments on the staff report other than that the recommend a denial?

Uh no, no comment.

You accept the denial or do you have a rationale for why you want to change the color or uh uh the the reason for changing is correct um what Sarah said.

Um I do have a question though.

If black has been previously approved, would would that be something that I realize I can't do it now, but if I were to submit another amendment, would black be more likely to be approved?

It's still a deviation.

There's some precedent for it.

I would ask uh Ms.

Hoffedz about precedents or for black roofs, I believe there are some around there generally painted, not pre-finished, I would believe.

I I do there's been previous approval for back roofs, but I do not know if they were pre just painted roofs or if there are finishes for the the panels.

I have a little bit more background.

Um black painted roofs are fairly common.

And during the 2019 revisions to the guidelines, one of the topics that the commission discussed was expanding the colorless, because in fact black roofs are fairly common and and in downtown for metal roofing and asphalt shingles.

The Commission stuck with the original language and didn't add that language in.

But a request for metal ruse for that deviation has come up a handful of times.

And I I believe every single time it did get approval, just because it is a an appropriate and common color in the historic district.

It does require commission review.

Staff never approves it, but it when it does come to the commission, it generally has gotten support, but yes, you are correct.

It is a a deviation.

So I mean if your consideration is for a black roof, that's something we could consider.

We doesn't necessarily mean we would approve it.

Uh a four-screen roof is a nice pretty roof, but uh.

And I would ask, I mean, would that be your request?

Uh a black roof over a medium bronze roof if if we uh I would have to speak with my wife first about that.

Okay.

I I will say one thing which may be helpful.

You have the original approval.

Yes, and it and it will st it's a standalone document.

Okay.

You can amend it for black and have that minor modification approval.

Or green or red.

Or green and red.

But he he he has a I don't know what the original approved color was.

Green?

Green.

Okay.

So you have approval for a green roof.

If you want, you may be able to get approval for a black roof.

And then when you go to get your building or zoning permit, you can choose.

So let me just ask this because I now I've gotten confused.

Red, green, or galvanized is the only thing the guidelines call out.

So changing it to black is no different than changing it to medium bronze.

Yes.

I don't know if there I can if I can think of any other bronze roofs in Frederick.

And I think that's the only that's the only separation.

And I'm not trying to take the stage.

I really am not.

But if I'm gonna look at these angler, which I think they are experts in roof color, and I fold the page.

Medium bronze is a green hue.

If you would ask me.

I know you're not asking me personally, but I'm just gonna say it is a green hue.

I would say uh you know, photocopies of color samples are notoriously inaccurate without seeing the physical color samples.

It would be hard to make a definitive uh distinction.

Um yeah, you could argue there's not much difference, or you could argue there's a great amount of difference, but I think the uh photocopied uh color chart does not uh accurately depict the true colors.

I don't disagree with you, but I would say black is desperately different.

It's not even in the hue.

So aesthetically you don't like the galvanized, is that what it is?

Which is what is currently on the roof?

Um I don't mind it so much.

Someone else lives in the house as well, though.

Tell us what your wife wants.

It does look good, the galvanized.

You're not painting.

It needs to be replaced.

Yeah.

If it's worth anything from an ecological perspective, I understand galvanized or white are the two better options for heating and cooling.

Yeah, that's good to know.

Thanks.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant?

If you want to have a seat momentarily.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioners is back with us.

I guess I would say initially uh do you have uh an issue with you know changing the color to a medium broads.

Uh I don't necessarily have a issue with uh deviation to uh I'm looking at a matte black here uh versus you know other variations of a pitch black or charcoal gray, but um I wouldn't necessarily uh have a problem with uh allowing that deviation and allowing the applicant to confirm uh either staying with the existing color or change into one of the approved guide colors in the guideline or going with uh a black color.

Not that I'm gonna hold this thing up, but I would have to say I disagree on black.

I will say that I think we should stick within the guidelines.

Sorry to your wife, but anyway.

I'm sorry, sir.

I believe you stated the the issue of a potentially black roof came from.

Staff.

You didn't say you wanted a black roof.

Or you your wife wanted or I thought maybe I would bring back another option for, but it you know, there's no there's no need to draw this out if black is contentious.

I was just kind of feeling feeling things out.

Yeah.

That means I have a question for the staff.

So if uh we deny the request for bronze, um does the applicant have recourse to um acquiring a black roof?

So the you have options, right?

If if if you're interested in the black roof, you're here.

You can just ask for it verbally, and we can add conditions and less paperwork, you'll be we we'll get you set up to uh get your final HPC approval and move forward with permitting.

Um if this is denied, you still have your original approval, which you can move forward.

Or if you're like me and you hee and haw about color options and you want to change your color yet again, I believe you right.

So you have those options in front of you.

Okay.

He still has approval for the the green roof.

Yes.

Okay.

Or it could come back with staff approval if you want a red roof or a galvanized roof or a moment.

If it is a denied application, we've just read that it's one year before he can come back to ask for a black roof.

It's a denied application.

Because he had an approval for the denied application to change the color.

Well, that's why my recommendation is if you want a black roof, now's the time to ask.

Okay.

Is that right, sir?

Okay.

Can he do a continuance?

But I have a feeling that the board might be tiring of continuances at this point in time.

I am familiar with HPC 26-5 located at 22 East Third Street.

I move to uh modify the application to one, except the existing approved color for a screen.

Two to uh allow uh changing color to one of the guidelines approved colors of galvanized uh red, or uh support a deviation for a black roof uh to be submitted to staff for approval at the owner's option.

Second the motion.

Motion made and seconded for modifying the application for keeping it as is, going to red or galvanized, or an option for a black roof for a staff approval.

Any further discussion.

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

And the motion carries five to zero.

Good luck.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Well, is there anybody here wishes to uh make a citizen comment before we close the hearing portion?

Seeing none, we'll close the hearing portion of the uh hearing tonight and set up for a workshop.

Uh it's 834.

We'll allow uh we'll reconvene at 845.

All right.

We are back with the workshop portion of the historic preservation commission on uh February twelfth, two thousand twenty-six.

Mr.

Hemley, if you want to come at the front table.

You were sworn in previously.

So answer I do.

Um, the agent for the owner of the property, Tom Trot.

Okay.

Turn it over to Miss Hoffman.

Thank you.

So first we're going to go over location and set back and plot.

The proposed two and a half story building is set back along South Carroll Street by approximately three feet from front lot line.

It's a pros location setback and plot plan is similar to neighboring properties.

The detached garage is set at the rear of the property, but the setbacks are not clearly noted.

Few garages are constructed in the sound surrounding area.

So you will see non-historic garages on the other side of the road.

I forget what alleys back there.

The proposed dwelling is approximately 66 feet deep and 20 feet wide, including a front porch featured on the east elevation, and deck features on the west elevation.

The form and footprint of the proposed dwelling does not appear to be dissimilar to neighboring properties.

The proposed detached garage is approximately 20 deep and 20 wide.

The rendering of the front elevation of the dwelling appears to be taller than the neighboring property, which impacts the massing and scale, which is slightly larger than the nearby historic resources.

At workshop, the app can should clarify the height difference.

Although the proposed building raises a two and a half story from the front, it's a four-story in the rear.

Ron, would you like to discuss a little bit about that front rendering?

I don't know if it's just the rendering make me think it's taller or if it's actually taller than the surrounding.

Well, it's it's the same height as the two we just built, the duplex we just built.

It's probably a little higher than the adjoining property to the left.

So it would be higher than that.

But it should be it's really the exactly the same height as the duplex rebuilt at 252.

So let me ask this question if I may.

Because it's listed on this document as two forty-eight.

248 is a standing building and not the vacant lot.

So I'm really having a hard time following right now.

I'm assuming they'll give us uh a address of 248A, but they haven't assigned us an address yet.

In Because there's two so there's two forty-eight, the lot, and two fifty.

So I'm right.

So I just want to be clear.

We are talking about the vacant lot, and that's not we're not talking about taking down the half of 248.

Not at all.

Correct.

Okay.

Do you know off the top of your head how tall the new structures are?

I think I looked it up, but I don't remember off the top of my head.

I don't remember off the top of my head.

You know, I I think the rendering is a little off too because it's it's showing it's taller than the ones we built, and it's the basically the same.

Same height house as one side of that duplex.

Okay.

In recent mission documentation, either you know providing the scale drawing showing a little bit more precisely on the rendering or providing the heights, and it might be even beneficial to provide the heights of the newer constructions if possible.

Sarah, question on that.

All the houses don't have to be the same exact height on the street, right?

No, my concern is the historic property.

So if you're facing the front elevation, the can my concern is the property to the left, which is the historic structure.

The property to the right, I believe it was built in 2005.

And so my concern is that it's kind of overshadowing the historic property to the left, but I'm not quite sure.

Lots of streets in the in the historic district, their houses, some taller, some shorter, some taller, you know.

Right.

I th I think that actually adds to the interest and rhythm of the street in some ways.

And just because it's next to the others, uh, I don't think it's a big issue.

I just that's my thought on that.

Right.

And like in the commission can determine if the height, you know, is appropriate for the street.

But I heard what you're saying.

Right.

I'll get dimensions on that height on the further.

Um I think I really want to discuss, though, the my final comment in the footprint massing is the the front elevation shows basically a two and a half story, but the rear shows a four story.

I would like the commission's thoughts and concerns on that.

Okay.

So I guess so.

It basically has to the front of the house.

I guess it would be I don't know how you describe it, because the front of the house, uh you know you have the slope of the roof.

It's banked.

So the It's banked into the hill, right?

Right, yeah.

So the living space doesn't go out to the front except for the dormer, and then it's held back.

Then you have a room and a bathroom, and then the deck.

If that makes sense.

Oh, I did find the height here.

I think it's 3411.

And if you need to, there is that projector if you want to project what you have on screen if that's beneficial to you.

There it goes.

There it is.

All right, how do I do this?

Look at that.

So it's 34 foot eleven to that peak.

Sorry, say that again.

34 foot eleven from the grade to the peak.

Okay.

I would guess the house to the next, it's probably eight, nine.

So it would be eight, so two-foot foundation, ten, eleven, nineteen, probably another five.

So it's probably it probably is a fair amount taller than the existing historic house next to it.

How does the commission feel about the presence of what looks like four floors on the rear?

No concerns?

I don't think it bothers me, but sir, I think you just said, as we're looking at what you have on the screen.

I think you just said to Sarah that this is going to be substantially taller at the 34 feet 11 inches than the one 248.

The one 248.

And I could actually, for the hearing, I'll I'll find out what the exact height of that adjoining property is for you.

And that property is adjoining?

Well, it's 248.

It's not uh Right.

It's not uh physically touching.

It's probably um she's got some distance to the lot line.

I would say it's 10 feet to the lot line as a guesstimate from her house too.

And then we're holding ourselves off the lot line.

So you got 13 feet between them.

Okay.

And two separate properties.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

We don't even own the other ones.

That's somebody else, yeah.

So Sarah, then going back.

I'm confused because you're saying it's well, sixty-six feet deep.

I guess I'm at a loss to your question, Sarah.

It's it's still going to be two and a half stories up front.

At the end of the drops, right?

Right.

So this is the with some slight modifications like adding the front porch and changing the dormer.

This is the same unit as one of the units on the duplex we just built.

We just made some visual changes to it.

I mean, I think it it it's gonna be it's gonna look huge, especially with this blank wall and no windows adjacent to I guess it's 248.

Um it does.

The reason we did that is because if you're three feet or less from the property line, it's got to be fire rating.

And so to get the driveway on the right hand side, you had to hold it right at that three foot.

So at that, we can't put windows in it because it's got to be fire rated by code.

Yeah.

I anyway, I think it's gonna look quite towering adjacent to the next house.

I mean, we could probably get a foot out of it and move it over and add some windows if that you know would help.

I'd have to double check the lot width and you know, making sure you can get a vehicle down beside it's very key, I think.

Is this a single family home?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

And I'm I know I'm not an architect, and that's quite clear.

But is the land drops back?

Yes, ma'am.

It drops off pretty good on that lot.

I don't know if you've been back.

Yeah.

Uh I have.

I've been all around it.

Um as the land drops back like that, though, are we gonna really notice it as four stories?

Only in the back.

In the back you would if but even then the properties behind it on I forget what the next street are.

Winchester.

I think they're gonna kind of screen it.

There's lots of woods back there.

There's trees back there.

Yeah, there's garages back there.

Yeah.

I I for one like the way you you change the facade from the other two.

I mean, to have more variation on the street.

I think it's that's good.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the height in the front or the rear.

I mean, considering the the slope of the lot.

Uh this is just kind of the way it is.

As far as getting some windows on, I guess the north side.

I understand being that close to the lot line that you are limited to what you can do unless you shift it further off the lot line and then as you say that's gonna squeeze uh the driveway.

Um street parking is very key downtown.

It isn't so especially the last couple weeks.

And I guess uh looking at uh uh proposed site plan page 16.

The the exterior wall of the house is about eleven feet off of the property line set back.

Yeah, so that's I mean 10-foot driveway, that's pretty in essence eleven feet back from the front wall of the neighbor's house, 248.

Yes.

So I think that helps at least to me helps a little bit of not having windows there in that facade on the north side.

Um if you consider compensation, maybe adding a little bit more dental molding along the eve line, but uh appears to be uh space pretty wide.

Traditional dental molding might only be 12 or 16 inches uh in between.

Maybe dressing up the front facade would help compensate for that.

But I I think the front of the house being set back uh eleven feet or so from the neighbor's front wall uh helps to mitigate not having windows on that side.

Yes.

And I think shifting it over would uh uh impact the the driveway perhaps too much, but I don't know if there's any um trim work you might add there to try to dress up that north facade, although sometimes when you try to do that it looks more tacky than just leaving it in plane.

So let me ask this.

And I don't know because I don't know what regulation is, but how about at the height?

Could there be a small round window or a couple of small attic like windows?

Those are always interesting to look at.

I can check on that on check with the uh um building department.

Yeah, maybe some clear story windows in those rooms so they're a little higher up on the building.

I'm gonna move on since we started talking a little bit about uh openings and target articulation.

The front elevation of the dwelling is three bays wide with stacked fenestration, which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

The front porch is sympathetic to surrounding properties, however, it lacks any railing features seen on like the historic dwellings to the north.

Um a shed roof capping the porch would be more sympathetic to the Jason properties.

Is that something that you would consider?

Sure, I that's not a problem.

Okay.

I mean, we could put railings on the front porch if you guys prefer that.

It would be very interesting.

Although I'm not sure it's uh so necessary since the grade is so high there there I don't think they would be required by code and sometimes well.

I don't know if it's one of those things that you like Well, why did they put a railing there when they didn't need one?

But if you do add a railing, could it be wood to go with because I believe it's it's a mahogany tongue and groove on the decking, is that correct?

Where is it concrete?

Yeah, we could do wood railing in front.

I think we requested the metal railing and back like we had done before.

Yeah, I think you said something about like dura deck, not der um railing for the decks.

Right.

I wasn't clear if that was also in the front.

Okay.

And Sarah, do you think a shed roof on the porch look more appropriate than the the hipped porch roof?

Yeah, you see those throughout um that street there, more of a shed roof capping the porch rather than the hip.

I don't remember if your newer constructions are those.

Did you have a front porch for those?

No, I don't believe so.

No, we just had a stoop for the other ones.

Okay.

So the south side elevation features very small window openings.

Um the detached garage is proposed to have a multi-bay garage door per the guidelines.

Multi-bay garages must be built with one door per vehicle unless sliding wooden doors are used.

Um I believe we're missing that product literature for the doors, so it's unclear.

Um how to make an evaluation on the garage doors.

So we should we need to split up the garage doors.

Yeah, tradition.

Traditionally you see like garage doors, one door per vehicle.

Umless per the guidelines sliding wooden doors are used.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Yeah.

Let me say on the on the garage doors.

Can you use a steel or composite door, or do you have to use wood?

Or is it suggested for newer constructions?

They have in the past review though, that that would be up to the purview of the commission and depending on the product literature.

Okay.

So on the garage door, there's no other openings other than on the left side of the garage, there's one entryway with the drawings exhibiting a half-light door.

Um does the commission have any requests for additional fenestration?

It's more of a simple garage rather than anything else.

I'm sorry, I don't know that I understood your question.

Try again.

Uh fenestration or or or um any openings, like such a window opening is on the garage.

It's a simple design.

I think they're fun.

I mean they add they add a little bit of punch if you have a couple of windows, but um you've got a man door and you've got the door for the garage or for the vehicles.

So I'm guessing that's all it's really required.

There you go.

See now a little extra light while they're in there and a little visual interest while we're walking by the Would you be restricted by the same requirement on the fire rating openings or uh not for the garage?

So let's move on to materials.

So staff is unable to make a full evaluation of materials due to inconsistent and missing documentation between the scope of work drawings and product literature.

Drawings call out unrelated product details.

The applicant will need to carefully correct the application for clarity.

Um the following notes are only preliminary.

Um the scope of work calls out the use of ASIC trim, which is inconsistent with the drawings.

I believe the drawings state that it's all supposed to be hardy trim.

Um the proposed material for the doors and the product literature are conflicting.

Um staff encourages the front door to be a wood construction, fiberglass doors with a smooth finish may be appropriate on secondary elevations.

No product information was included for the transom above the front door.

Drawings call out lighting, but none are depicted in the drawings.

Um and I believe we confirmed the material of the front porch post.

I believe.

Those are supposed to be wood.

I guess we'll do them wood if we're gonna do a wood railing.

We'll go ahead and do them wood.

Um drawings call out unrelated product details.

Drawings call out metal railings, but this is not reflected in the drawings.

Um metal railings are typically associated with masonry porches or stoops.

Fiber X windows with true divided lights are called out in the application, but staff is unsure if this product is available with this feature.

A cut sheet with the mutton detail is requested.

And staff finds no inconsistency with the following proposed products, the hardy board siding and trim with a smooth finish, half-round gutters, and the asphalt shingles.

Would you be using hardy trim everywhere around the soffit and eaves versus an AZ composite?

Yeah, that's what we did on the other houses.

The doors are sorry, uh Sarah.

I guess I don't know if I was unclear as far as the fabric windows if they have a true simulated divider light mutton or not.

Yeah, they do.

So it's not a grill.

Right, yeah.

Okay.

So I I I think the application is calling out like a true divided light.

I don't think they have a true divided light.

I think they have a simulated divided light with a spacer bar, which is perfectly fine according to the guidelines, but is I don't believe it's a true divided light.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

So it's actually still one piece of glass, but they have the You got it.

It's still one pane of glass.

The doors proposed for the property, specifically the front door and I think the garage door are proposed to be a half-light door.

Um but only product literature for an over raised panel for light was provided.

Is that four light only reflected on the front?

Um or is that going to be seen elsewhere?

Uh just on the front.

Just on the front, okay.

Any additional comments for materials.

I think the front porch is concrete.

It's probably okay for new construction, but you know, just clarify that.

Yeah, we'll put a note on it.

So is the mahogany proposed, is that just for the decks?

The deck, yes.

Okay.

I thought it was for the porch in the front.

So if it's a masonary construction porch on the front, a metal railing, if you do a railing, would be the most appropriate rather than the wood.

He's got wood posts though.

Wood posts.

I don't know what to tell them.

I'm okay with either Yeah.

I am looking at the side side elevation, so it is a little confusing, and there's notes about the decking material being mahogany tongue and grooved.

And I didn't think that was for the rear deck.

Is it for so I assumed it was for the front porch?

But showing the front porch concrete, I believe.

Is there a preference?

Although the grade is going to be low, so we almost have to probably almost have to do it.

Okay.

I would keep it the way you have it then.

So if that change is made, then it's not wood posts anymore, and it's not wood railing.

It's now a metal railing.

Yeah, we'll st we're we're obviously not going to copy really what defines the historic district on our front porch.

The front porch is usually a masonry stoop with metal railings, or it's a wood porch with wood posted and wood railings.

Right.

So we're looking at this.

Can you pull that drawing up just a little higher?

Yeah.

So if that's concrete, and you're gonna have I don't know if I I'm gonna encourage metal post necessarily.

But if it was brick to me, though they look like they might be brick posts.

No, they're they're not brick.

I don't think you put a speck on them, and they uh I would imagine they were probably some sort of composite, but we can do them in wood if that's well, I would say if you're doing concrete decking, either wood or maybe composite post, but just leave off the railing.

No railing.

I guess I would be concerned about you know being so close to grade there, getting the framing in for you know uh to sport a wood deck or a composite deck on the front porch might be kind of tight, but without having it setting at or near grade.

Agreed.

I guess uh I'm not concerned so concerned about the concrete porch uh and you know deleting the railing entirely, but uh would defer to staff about how uh particularly with new construction if if if if we I would assume there's other instances of concrete stoops or porches, but maybe stoops, not porches.

So there are a couple uh especially on six and seventh street where the original wood porch has been replaced with the uh concrete.

And then in those cases you get the metal filigree, which has a time and place, but I don't know if that's necessarily what you're you're seeking for just by the aesthetic of the building or really what's what I would recommend.

I would keep the concrete because I think you must need it with the I think yeah, just simple posts wood or composite, but forgo the railing and just keep with a simple design and maybe consider instead of a hipped roof, a shed roof just to fit into the neighboring properties just a little bit more you shown, just cleared up notes.

So I think for materials, just getting clarification to make everything look a little bit more consistent across the board with the drawings, scope of work, so on and so forth, and providing that additional product literature.

Okay.

Um to lighting, landscape, and driveway.

Uh the product literature for light scones will need to clarify the height of the fixture per the guidelines.

Light fixtures should generally be between 12 to 16 uh inches in height, unless it's determined by the commission to allow for a larger fixture due to the scale of the building.

The location and the quantity of lights on the dwelling is unknown or unclear.

The applicant would need to clarify locations and the quantity of light scones for the dwelling.

Um the garage appears to reflect two light scones flanking the garage door.

It's unclear if the drawings are depicting an alternative lay, or if these will match the proposed scones.

So are they per matching what you're proposing in the product closure?

Yeah.

Usually, you know, we'll put a bigger one on the front, similar but smaller one on the back and probably the garage too.

Okay.

So I would just need the the sizes to confirm.

Uh the proposal will significantly impact the green space.

However, it's unclear if the total area of green space will remain.

No landscaping details were included.

The proposed asphalt driveway is to be accessible from South Carroll Street.

There's no rear alley for access.

Um per the guidelines, driveways shall not run from the street into the lot unless it is a common historic site feature in the neighborhood.

Staff note, so there are several examples of front street driveway access along South Carroll Street, and two recent new constructions along the street do not reflect uh any screening.

Uh the commission will need to discuss whether screening for the driveway is needed.

There is a curb cut that is existing that was installed probably around the early 2000s.

I don't see any previous permit discovered for it.

Um along with the Commission's discussion for screening, the Commission will need to determine and inquire about that turnaround option that was noted on one of the site plans uh for the expansion of the driveway.

Just for information.

What was the how did it uh develop on that block that um that these um uh uh uh side drives were became more common?

Um I mean if the guidelines said no, you know, no driveways, um and and we're uh evaluating this application on the basis of historically existing um driveways.

I'm just wondering in what time frame or you know can you give me any background on that on that history for that block?

I mean uh I I and uh and you can uh you know it equate me further because the original guideline derived from the uh assessment that as a historic neighborhood there was no need for parking driveways, excess driveways.

I mean what what era are we uh representing in this you know, in this modern addition to the um to the block.

I I don't know if I picked up your question completely, but I I think I got enough to get us started on a conversation.

Well, it is vague, you uh but I can go wander on and make it clearer.

So I think uh um our our guidelines currently say it's not a hard maratorium against driveways.

Um you need engineering, of course, because you can't put a driveway anywhere, it has to be safe.

And then um there's certain design considerations for new driveways in the historic district.

This area was uh developed a little bit later than the rest of the historic district.

This was previously the Winchester brickyard, uh Mr.

Winchester's who who lived on Sixth Street, some of you may know the house.

Um this was his brickyard, and when he died around 1900, this was divided up and and broken into lots, and that's why you have Winchester Street behind this property is because of the Winchester brickyard.

Um it's a a little different.

We don't have the alley access like we do have in uh much of the historic district.

There is a curb cut there.

We don't have any records of any permits for it though.

Um but it's allowed in new construction as long as it is not overly obtrusive to the um design.

I think you touched face with me before you even submitted application many months ago, and then I I didn't think it was problematic at that point because the Kercut no, I was just looking at the image, the Kercut was already there.

I didn't think it would be problematic to keep it.

That was there.

Yeah.

And by the way, we found where they were dumping all their brick back in the days under the duplex.

We have an eight-foot sub foundation.

We had to give down further.

Well, I don't want to.

I don't I mean, I'm not it's not an issue other than the literal reading of the no driveways in the guidelines.

I think I don't have a problem with the driveway.

I think it's appropriate in this case.

Certainly for modern uh amenities convenience.

Um far as screening, I believe there was a chain link fence across the front.

Does that go to the chain side as well?

Down the side, we would tear all that out.

And would you replace it with any fencing?

I don't think we are going to on this one.

But that would be on down the road, probably where we decide that.

Separate application, I might get that.

I guess where I was going with my question, um take time to reflect on it for myself.

Um if this block is later in period than a block around the corner from where we're sitting right now.

Um over time that will become relevant to the preservation process.

But land, maybe someone has a garden there now, were requesting permission to put a driveway on the side of their house, especially after the snowfall.

Um how would we approach that?

And and again, this is just purely speculative because we would be evaluating something that uh would be historically a hundred years earlier or more than what we're looking at on Carroll Street right now.

I think the the primary difference and what a really important difference is is how the commission reviews um new construction with a greater degree of flexibility than one would have with a contributing resource and alterations to the site.

Um so I think there's a a good deal more flexibility that the Commission can give to an applicant where there's no historic resource on the site is proposing a new construction, a non-contributing building.

We're we're not impacting a historic resource immediately on the site.

You have to consider the streetscape, of course, but um this is not a very tightly bound historic context.

If you look at the street, it's right.

And I don't want to make a devil's advocate of myself, but particularly because we have a builder, you know, who has this ability to put that access, that asphalt driveway there.

Um what is now non-contributing will 50 years from now be contributing.

Um let me just add this, because there's a house at the very end at the corner of Carroll and Winchester.

It's a very old house, 1900s, and it has a garage on the property, and it has a driveway.

So it's not like there aren't properties on this street.

Right.

Not to say all of downtown, but on this particular street.

Driveways are not abnormal or something unique.

The uh picture on the back of the packet shows uh a driveway right next to the phone.

That's what they were just talking about, that that curb was put there.

But we don't know exactly when, but further down the street, there's an historic home.

I remember speaking about the garage that's down there.

But actually, you are right, the adjoining property.

Yeah, has a driveway right next to it.

That's a newer build, though.

Right, but so is this.

Right.

Yeah, absolutely.

Anyway.

And then the one that you constructed a couple a year or two ago, that has a driveway too.

So this is so you are the builder of the future contributing uh buildings.

Take back.

I've built a number of houses in the historic district over the years.

Yeah, this is this is not Ron's first rodeo.

So based on this photo on the back page of I mean, is there room between your driveway and the uh neighbors to the south driveway to put some landscaping in between there, or is that on the property?

Yeah, it might be that owner.

I got to know the owner somewhat, and they're pretty much they that's a rental.

So they're like whatever you want to do, it's fine with them.

Yeah, so maybe uh some additional landscape screening between the two driveways would at least uh soften the edge.

I want to inquire a little bit about this turnaround.

So it's turnaround with a question mark.

Is that something that you're anticipating on proposing, or are you sort of he in the hall in the idea of the Trevor Burrus, Jr.

I think we probably would propose it, it's just gonna make it easy, you know, when you're pulling out or into the garage.

Yeah.

It could be a challenge to have to back down that far back to the street.

So with that said, I personally don't think I'm opposed to that turnaround, but the green space.

You know, if it's going to be black top as opposed to there's these I'm gonna tell you they're plastic.

I'm not sure for sure what they're made of, but they recess down into the land and grass can continue to grow.

So it's a green driveway.

So maybe that would be an option.

I think it might be a consideration for that turnaround, just not to have that all asphalt, but I think for the main driveway, um, unless you need more uh green space or impermeable space.

Um I can tell you scraping our driveway from snow.

It's nice to have asphalt.

Yeah, maybe that turnaround could be some type of impermeable uh you know, grass containing um element.

Be honest with you, I'm not even sure it's grass.

It's um it's a low-growing almost a clover like normally, but I think that's up to the homeowner.

So moving on.

Um looks like you're proposing a small patio area on the rear.

Um I'm not quite sure the material of it from the patterning.

It looks like it's supposed to be brick.

Um I want to confirm how far it extends up.

Does it extend up and goes beyond the front facade?

Or is it just for that rear patio area?

Just for the rear patio where the wall cat is, basically under the deck.

Under the deck.

And that's supposed to be like a brick or I don't know what they were proposing.

Okay.

Just making a note.

Yeah.

Moving on to decks.

So the applicant is proposing to construct two rear decks in the dwelling, one on the top floor, one on the first floor.

Per the guidelines, decks are not appropriate in the historic district.

However, staff notes that the applicant received previous approval for a deck on a new duplex construction along South Carroll Street.

The commission will need to discuss the deck features.

So it's a wooden deck with metal railing.

Is that what you're proposing?

Yeah.

Would you be opposed if depending on the commission's conversation about decks?

I might hear decks all over the historic district.

We have argued about the materials of those decks and whether they were replaced.

I would not have a problem with having a deck on the back of a new house with other decks on that same street.

Maybe composite.

Oh that's not downtown, though.

It's not the best view in the world, but that's not downtown, though.

Well, that's not on Carroll Street, right?

Yeah, that's the one on Carroll Street.

Well, you didn't get approval for that.

It was on my original drawings.

No, you came in for some minor mods and I mean it's uh we looked at the paperwork recently.

Um I'm just surprised to see they're there.

I they were installed, but they you and then like for final inspection and stuff.

Okay.

The wood seems more appropriate.

It would look better, I think.

Right.

Staff didn't yeah.

Yeah.

Can you do a composite?

The wood look composite or not.

As long as it didn't have a the wood grain and I mean I don't have a big deal with wood.

It just rots a daggone fast these days.

What's the product that we um there's some composites that don't have that faux wood grain?

Right.

You you don't want the wood grain, is right.

Right.

They some of them have like this like more gentle brushed finish, wired brush.

I'm trying to remember that one new property that we had.

And they had the front porch replaced, but I can't remember the product name.

Was it AZEC Vintage Collection?

Well, TimberTech makes the product with the nice.

Quite right.

So yeah, I think if you went with a composite flooring, I think a composite railing would be appropriate.

Um something more traditional in design, but it's well you can investigate on if temperate makes a railing or exact mix of railing that looks you know pretty um solid.

It doesn't show all the connectors.

All the fasteners connectors are hidden recessed in the railing system itself.

So it makes them just a nice clean look.

So while I understand we're talking about the decks themselves.

We've not talked about that third or fourth floor, whatever this is in the back, and what that railing is supposed to be.

Is that more like a porch?

Like who showed that rear elevation on the and I think we need to clarify also is that flooring also going to be that wood or is that gonna be concrete up there?

No, that is uh um dura deck, they call it sort of almost has a concrete look to it, but roofing material is also the walking.

It's a roofing material that you walk on, is what it is.

Just do that on third street.

You got it.

Yep.

And I th I think uh a composite deck and uh railing on the lower level uh is fine.

I think the Dura deck with a matching similar composite rail would be fine for the third floor deck, in my view.

I'll have to check what's compatible with that Dura deck, because I I know they have certain qualifications for like the railing that goes on it.

Uh I w from a recent application they were applying a wood railing, traditional wood railing on that door deck.

So I I'm hoping you'll find a something that works with a a composite.

Are you going to have a small roof or anything over that back door?

No.

The homeowners will be back asking for an awning.

Just saying.

Any further commentary on the proposed decks?

Sounds some alteration of material and the updated of product literature would just need to be submitted.

Um final comment, general comment.

I don't see any HVAC units being proposed.

Are you anticipating that with this application?

If so, any location.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So in resubmission documentation, just notify the location where they're going to be going.

Um and then the product literature for those units.

And then I guess generally the the miscellaneous things like address numbers are they mounted on the wall on a plaque or above the door.

Uh if you have a a ring doorbell system, we have some parameters on.

Are you proposing anything like a ring doorbell or on the front door or I didn't.

We didn't do it on the last one, so how about a gutter system?

I think that round gutters.

Somehow I thought your reply was brown.

I was like Did you ask call?

Half brown.

Any additional comments for the good of the order?

Comments, questions.

All right.

So it sounds like just updating product literature, the drawings, scope of work, make everything's consistent.

Um we do have a very, very tight turnaround.

Our deadline for resubmission for the February 26th hearing is tomorrow by 11 a.m.

I don't think I'll get that in.

Understandable.

Um so do you have the schedule up?

March March second.

Second.

Second.

Okay.