Planning Commission Workshop - January 17, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Planning Commission Workshop - January 17, 2023
The Frederick Planning Commission held a workshop on January 17, 2023, at 2:00 PM at City Hall (101 North Court Street) to review six agenda items: four final site plans, one zoning map amendment, and one text amendment. The workshop was less formal than a public hearing, with applicants presenting modifications, commission questions, staff input, and public comment. No formal votes were taken; the items are expected to proceed to future public hearings.
Discussion Items
PC22-834FSI: Governor's Place Lot 4A – Final Site Plan
- Applicant Andrew Welker (Oshman Properties) presented a revised site plan to enlarge a stormwater management pond for efficiency, requiring removal of five non-specimen trees (hackberries and a pine) and relocation of trees. The plan also needs to add two trees to comply with Section 605. Staff (Pam Reppert) confirmed no modifications were requested, and technical comments can be addressed before resubmission. No public comment.
PC22-1096PSU/FSI: Renn Quarter Phase 3 – Combined Preliminary Plat and Final Site Plan
- Applicant Chris Mariga (Harris Smariga) and developer Karen McJunkin proposed adding 12 two-story, 24-foot-wide townhomes (with first-floor master bedroom) on end units, replacing previously approved 20-foot-wide three-story units. No changes to road network, parking, or lot count; open space was slightly reconfigured. Staff noted that design and elevation details will come later. No public comment.
PC22-1016FSI: Frederick Commerce Center Lot 1 – Final Site Plan
- Applicant Chris Mariga and Joe Whitebread (Tramel Crow) presented a revised speculative plan after a build-to-suit user withdrew. Modifications requested: counting trailer and loading spaces as parking (603 car spaces, 393 trailer spaces, 165 loading spaces) and reducing interior parking lot landscaping in truck courts from 10% to 6% (while providing 17% in employee parking areas). A condition requiring demolition of two residential lots on adjacent property (Tom's Farm) before site plan approval was discussed; applicant Bruce Dean argued the residential use has ceased and demolition should wait until the separate annexation application is resolved. Staff (Pam Reppert) maintained the demolition condition is tied to the annexation buffer requirement. No public comment.
PC22-836FSI: West Park Village Lot 4 (VFW) – Final Site Plan
- Applicant Chris Mariga and VFW representative Rick Stutt presented plans for a new one-story VFW building on a constrained lot (with floodplain, stream buffer, and rock outcropping). Modifications requested: front setback less than 35 feet, side setbacks less than 25 feet, lighting spillover across shared parking, and reduced buffering between lots. The building is oriented toward the parking lot rather than Alternate 40 (a highway ramp). Staff (Pam Reppert) emphasized the need for pedestrian connectivity and street orientation under MU standards. The applicant committed to enhanced landscaping and architectural design. No public comment.
PC22-1001ZMA: Zoning Map Amendment – 430 Pine Avenue (IST to M1)
- Applicant Bruce Dean and Kim Kreitz (Kreitz Properties) requested removal of the IST (Institutional) floating zone, reverting to underlying M1 (Light Industrial) zoning. The property, formerly a county maintenance site, will be used for auto storage and detailing. Discussion focused on future access via Fifth Street (currently being extended) and compatibility with nearby residential redevelopment. Staff (Gabrielle Collard) confirmed the three findings for reversion are met. This item requires two hearings. No public comment.
PC22-1004ZTA: Text Amendment – Article 4, Section 417 (Mixed Use Districts)
- Applicant Bruce Dean, Lisa Graditor, Josh Neiman (MCB), and Chris Mariga proposed a text amendment to Section 417 to allow modification authority for redevelopment projects in MU1 and MU2 zones. The amendment would prevent non-conformity designations when phasing redevelopment (e.g., retaining existing shopping center buildings while adding new residential). Key components: broadening modification authority with criteria (consistency with comprehensive plan, compensating design features), revising the definition of redevelopment, and setting a higher street connectivity ratio (1.8) while making it modifiable. Staff (Gabrielle Collard) supported the amendment as a tool to implement the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and provide discretion to the Planning Commission. Public comment: Kevin Sellner (Citizens for Responsible Growth) expressed support for the Westridge project but urged caution about unintended consequences of a citywide amendment, noting that the comprehensive plan can be interpreted broadly. No vote was taken.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Kevin Sellner (East Fifth Street, representing Citizens for Responsible Growth) spoke on the text amendment (PC22-1004ZTA). He commended the Westridge project but cautioned that the broad modification authority could lead to inconsistent decisions and that the comprehensive plan contains contradictory statements that could be selectively cited. He urged the commission to consider the future implications carefully.
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes or decisions were made on any agenda item. The workshop served as a discussion forum for applicants, staff, and the commission. All items are expected to return for public hearings or further workshops. The text amendment (PC22-1004ZTA) and zoning map amendment (PC22-1001ZMA) will require additional hearings. The final site plans will be resubmitted with revisions based on staff and commission feedback.
Meeting Transcript
Planning Commission workshop is now called to order. I would like to welcome. Oops, where did I put my glasses? This will not work if I don't have there they are. I'd like to welcome everybody to the January 17th, 2023 workshop for the Planning Commission. We are gonna do things a little bit differently. The workshop is a little less formal, so the order of go is a little differently than different than usual. Um today we will start by having each applicant come up and present their um their item, in particular focusing in on um the modifications that you're gonna be asking for and explaining explaining those to us. Um after the applicant presentation, we will the commission will take the opportunity to ask questions at the applicant, then we will turn it over to the city staff, hear their thoughts. Um the commission will ask questions at the city at that point. We will open it up for public comment. Um we have members of um city planning and engineering staff present today, and at this point, um, anybody who wishes to make a statement before the commission um should stand and take the oath of office. Oath, not oath of office, you know what I mean. One of those days already. Um do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and the statements made um in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If so, answer I do. All right, very good. Um Gabrielle, do you have any announcements before we get started? Uh and only one. Um tonight is our um citywide community planning department outreach meeting um that is held at 6 p.m. in this room. Uh, it's also televised on channel 99 and streamed through the web, although there is no interactive um component for folks watching at home. So if you have questions or comments that you want to ask any of the applicants or staff about the projects on the agenda for tonight, you do have to be here in person, um, but that is at 6 p.m. All right, thank you very much. All right, our first item on the agenda today is PC 22 834 FSI final site plan for governor's place lot 4A. Good afternoon. Hello. Uh my name's Andrew Welker with Oshman Properties. Um, the revised site plan that we have in front of you today is revised because we had previously submitted and it approved a very similar looking site plan to this one. Um this particular site is part of a subdivision that was completed within the last few years. Um so we broke up what was once one parcel into now three parcels with an out lot. Um as we moved or progressed our design on lot 4B, which is not tied to this application or the site plan. Um we revisited stormwater management, we revisited some of the interface between that parcel and the improvements there and this parcel. So we're catching up and going back and revising this site plan to conform. Um the major difference is that the stormwater management pond at the very south end of the plan was enlarged to be more efficient and also handle some of the stormwater runoff for the future development sites, and as a result, we had to eliminate and relocate some trees on the site. So those are the the major issues. There were some major and some technical concerns that are pointed out. Um after reviewing those, I don't think there's anything that we find problematic or that we would need a modification for uh in between now and the resubmission deadline. We'll address those with staff if we have any questions, but I think we can generally conform to all of those comments. Great, thank you. Questions from the commission? No questions from the commission. Um just to confirm the five trees that are gonna be removed, they're not actually being removed from the site, they're not specimen trees, correct? They are not specimen trees, but they do exist. Oh, okay. Yeah, I believe they're hackberries, and I think there's a pine. Okay. So we had we had attempted to avoid eliminating those trees. Now there's still a very uh considerable buffer to the south of that. So what's not shown on the plan are all the existing trees in that buffer that we're not touching.
openpublica.com