OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop – February 21, 2023

Planning Commission — Tuesday, February 21, 2023
BodyFrederick, Maryland
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, February 21, 2023
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
4:21

Afternoon.

4:22

It is two o'clock.

4:23

We are going to get started with our workshop or February for the um City of Frederick Planning Commission.

4:31

We do have quite a robust agenda.

4:34

And our meeting is scheduled to be over at five.

4:36

We know that there's something here in the same room at six.

5:03

The applicants do not have to sign up.

5:06

And anybody that does, we will call you first on that agenda item.

5:12

And let's see, with us today, we have members of the city's planning commission, members of the city legal department, the engineering department, and Mark Ocampo.

5:28

He can, when he talks, he can give you his title, but he is also with the city of Frederick.

5:34

So we appreciate everyone from the city being with us today.

5:39

So with that, all of you, including the people from the city who will be testifying today, if you would stand and raise your right hand.

5:49

Okay.

5:50

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given in statements made in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth if so say I do.

6:01

Okay.

6:02

So for any of you who are new to the process here, um, we um invite the applicants up at the beginning of the workshop, and we actually start with them.

6:13

And we would appreciate if you could walk us through your application.

6:18

Now, obviously, it doesn't have to be page by page by page, but more than just say, hey, I know you guys read it if you have any questions.

6:25

So if you if you could give us the high points, that would be appreciated, and that would also be appreciated by the folks who are actually watching this.

6:36

Um after that, we'll have questions and answers, uh answers.

6:40

We'll have questions and comments from the commissioners.

6:43

We'll do one round of a roll call, and from there, if there's more questions and comments, um, we'll take them as they come.

6:54

Following that, we'll go to staff and we'll see what else that the staff would like to add to that.

7:01

More questions and comments.

7:02

We will take public comment and again we'll just make sure that we have exhausted the conversation and we feel like that the commissioners have a good handle on the item.

7:14

So, with that, let's get right to the agenda.

7:19

And the first one is the 2024 through 2029 capital improvements program.

7:28

And actually, the applicant for this is the city.

7:32

So thank you.

7:34

Uh Gabrielle Collard with the planning department.

7:37

Um, I'll kind of kick it off, um, but I do have to admit I'm not the uh expert in a lot of the subject matter we'll talk about today.

7:43

Um, luckily we do have Zach Kirshner here, our director of public works, um, as well as Chiran to be able to weigh in on some of the items that are in the CIP.

7:51

But this is something we do annually.

7:52

Uh, the planning commission is charged both in our city charter as well as under the state regulations to review the CIP and to offer recommendations to the Board of Aldermen in for their consideration in adopting the budget every year.

8:05

Uh keep in mind that while the CIP does um capture five years of time, uh improvements are only budgeted for the year, the upcoming year.

8:13

So they're only budgeted one year at time, um not for the whole five-year period.

8:20

We will have this scheduled for our hearing next month, um, presuming that we we have a good conversation and we have all the information we need, uh, and the planning commission at that point will make their recommendations.

8:30

So this is just an introduction to the items that we've prepared for you today and oversight, and we'll have more time to talk about it next month.

8:37

This year we did something a little different, and I would like to thank Commissioner Manales.

8:41

Um, she provided a great format to help us organize our thoughts in terms of the matrix that we're looking at.

8:47

We've included the projects that the planning commission included in past previous recommendations to the Board of Alderman as well as added some additional uh projects.

8:56

Keep in mind we do have, I believe it's two items in the matrix that are actually not CIPs, they are recommendations that we made in the past years for projects that should become CIPs.

9:07

So that is also something that the planning commission should consider in making the recommendation for this year, whether we want to continue to recommend those projects, or if there are additional areas where we see that CIPs should be created, that is a good way to start the conversation.

9:23

So looking at our matrix, uh, we we do have, like I said, the the previous projects that you've recommended.

9:31

In addition, we've added new projects related to several different of the funds.

9:36

Um in your packet, we included the project descriptions for each individual CIP, not the entirety of all of last year's CIPs.

9:44

If you pull the whole document off the city's website under the budget page, you will see that the different projects are broken up into different funds that they come out of.

9:52

So that's what I'm referencing on.

9:53

I guess it's page two when we start to talk about the stormwater fund, the sewer facilities fund, etc.

10:00

They're they're lumped together under those uh areas.

10:02

So in the Stormwater Fund, we've included projects for the North Market Street flood improvements, Moder Avenue flood improvements, and downtown flood improvements.

10:10

Next to those on page two, you'll see the project references, uh the project number reference, as well as the Carroll Creek flood control project.

10:19

Under sewer, we've included the Watermaster Plan under our roads facilities.

10:24

We've included Monacasy Boulevard Storage Way to South Street.

10:28

And then lastly, there were questions about uh two additional projects or initiatives.

10:34

Um one was in a previous CIP was the City Hall Roof Replacement, which we can actually cross off the list and say it's been completed and we have a new roof, and that is no longer a project on the CIP.

10:44

And then the other question is asked about the downtown streetscape study, which actually does is not a CIP project.

10:51

Uh that was a joint uh effort between the city and the downtown Frederick Partnership.

10:55

Uh and we're that that is expected to move along, but that was presented to the Board of Alderman um back in 2021.

11:02

If I can ask you a question on the where are you still going through the matrix because I'm just doing a brief overview of the workshop summary itself.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Capital Improvements Programming███████████████15%
Transportation and Traffic██████████████14%
Parks and Recreation████████8%
Zoning And Land Use████████8%
Urban Design███████7%
Architectural Design██████6%
Floodplain Management██████6%
Urban Design Compliance██████6%
Procedural█████5%
Summary of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop – February 21, 2023

The Frederick Planning Commission held a workshop on February 21, 2023, from 2:00 PM to approximately 5:46 PM. The agenda included the 2024–2029 Capital Improvements Program (CIP), five site plan and architectural review items, and a text amendment for the Carroll Creek Overlay. No votes were taken; all items were continued to future hearings for further discussion and public testimony.

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Discussion

  • Staff presented the draft 2024–2029 CIP, emphasizing that funding is only budgeted one year at a time. A matrix of projects was provided, including stormwater, sewer, and road improvements.
  • Commissioner Menales asked about the Monocacy Boulevard/MD 26 interchange (0% complete, unknown timeline), noting it remains a highway needs inventory project. Staff (Chiran) stated it is in a holding pattern pending feasibility studies.
  • Commissioner Menales questioned the East Street improvements, which are delayed pending form‑based code adoption (expected fall 2023). Staff agreed it was appropriate to pause design.
  • Commissioner Beattie raised concerns about the lack of mechanism to reassess traffic assumptions on projects like Hughes Ford and Monocacy, where approved developments are increasing congestion. Staff acknowledged the challenge and suggested future mitigation agreements could front‑load improvements.
  • Chair Strawson proposed continuing the CIP discussion at the March hearing, with commissioners to draft formal recommendations for a priorities letter. Potential additions included downtown streetscape and infrastructure “buckets.”
  • Public comment: None.

Kellerton Land Bay B (PC13-195-10PND) – Architectural Review

  • Applicant (Keystone Custom Homes) sought approval for a new home model (Savannah) with five elevations, and additional elevations for two existing models. All met five of six design guidelines; a variance was requested for a small square accent window (2 ft × 2 ft) that does not meet the 1.5:1 height‑to‑width ratio.
  • Commissioners discussed the balance between preventing a “cookie‑cutter” look and enforcing prescriptive ratios. Staff noted the design standards have not been updated since 2005.
  • No public comment. Commission moved to next item.

Towns at Walnut Ridge (PC17-993-04PND) – Architectural Review

  • Applicant (Cavalier Development) presented two townhome models (Ridgely and Matthews) with all six design elements met except for garage units lacking a direct sidewalk to the street.
  • Commissioner Menales asked about parking for non‑garage units; applicant identified parking bays in front of units.
  • No public comment. Commission accepted the plan.

Edge Express Car Wash (PC22-921FSI / PC22-923PFCP) – Final Site Plan & Forest Conservation

  • Applicant (B&R Design Group) proposed a 17‑vehicle queue car wash on a wooded lot on West Patrick Street. Modifications requested for entrance spacing (200‑foot requirement not met) and minor light spillage from vacuum booms.
  • Commissioners raised concerns about queue bail‑out options in case of breakdowns, floodplain encroachment, and the lack of on‑site staff (though applicant later clarified 4–5 staff will be present during operating hours (8 AM–8 PM)).
  • Staff requested the applicant provide detailed entrance spacing and bail‑out analysis before the hearing.
  • Public comment: None.

Belle Air Farm (PC22-1102FSI) – Revised Final Site Plan

  • Applicant (Ryan Homes) requested revisions to allow homebuyers to choose between no garage, one‑car, or two‑car garage options for approximately 70 townhome units in Phase 4. This would reduce parking supply per unit from 4 spaces (tandem) to 2 (side‑by‑side pad).
  • Staff confirmed the revised plan still meets the minimum two‑space requirement per unit. The architectural design of new units will require future review.
  • Public comment: None.

Renn Quarter Parkland (PC21-508FSI) – Revised Final Site Plan

  • Applicant (Harris Smariga & Associates) relocated a 5K trail out of the floodplain to the base of a berm, removed paved areas from floodplain per MDE requirements, and reduced parking to 38 spaces.
  • Alderman McShane expressed concern that the park (78 acres, mostly floodplain) might become a “passive” space with limited active use. Staff noted the plan achieves stream restoration, forest conservation, and connectivity goals.
  • Commissioner Beattie questioned the ability to host timed 5K races with only 38 parking spots; applicant clarified overflow parking could use adjacent streets and the development.
  • Public comment: None.

Bojangles (PC22-1006FSI / PC22-1009FSCB) – Final Site Plan & Forest Conservation

  • Applicant (Integritas, LLC) proposed a 3,100 sq ft fast‑food restaurant with 34 parking spaces (down from 63 existing) on the former Ruby Tuesday site within the Golden Mile Marketplace shopping center. A modification was requested to allow 13 spaces over the shopping center maximum, citing brand studies requiring 40 spaces.
  • Staff supported the reduction in impervious surface and increased landscaping. Adequate Public Facilities (APFO) analysis used incremental square footage method, showing fewer than 50 peak‑hour trips.
  • Commissioners questioned the parking justification, but generally approved the balance between reduced paving and on‑site amenities.
  • Public comment: None.

Summervale (PC22-835PSU/FSI) – Combined Preliminary Plat & Final Site Plan

  • Applicant (Rogers Consulting / D.R. Horton) presented a 296‑unit mixed‑use development on annexed land (2009). Key elements: extension of Butterfly Lane, a major public greenway park, and modifications for street trees outside right‑of‑way and driveway spacing on Mount Phillip Road.
  • Commissioner Strawson requested details on electric vehicle charging pre‑wiring and solar readiness. Applicant agreed to address at hearing.
  • Commissioners discussed the annexation condition prohibiting direct driveways onto Mount Phillip Road; applicant argued that proposed shared drives serve as safer alternatives.
  • Staff noted the architectural elevations will be reviewed at the hearing.
  • Public comment: None.

Carroll Creek Overlay Text Amendment (PC22-370ZTA)

  • Mark DeCampo (Director of Strategic Planning) provided a historical overview of the overlay, explaining its origins in ensuring compatibility with the historic district and its form‑based design principles. He noted that the current density cap (60 units/acre) was a political compromise to avoid competition with downtown.
  • The applicant team (Oshman Properties) presented a visual demonstration comparing development scenarios under current vs. proposed rules, arguing that removing the density cap (to a maximum of 150 units/acre) would allow more affordable unit sizes (800 sq ft) and structured parking, while form regulations would self‑limit height and mass.
  • Public comment was deferred; two members of the public were present but did not speak due to time constraints. The item will be the first on the next workshop agenda.

Key Outcomes

  • All agenda items were continued to future hearings; no votes were taken.
  • The CIP discussion will continue at the March hearing, with commissioners to submit written recommendations for a priorities letter.
  • The Carroll Creek overlay text amendment will be the first item on the next workshop, and applicant materials will be posted at least one week in advance.
  • Staff directed applicants for the car wash and Summervale to provide additional analysis (e.g., queue bail‑out, high‑visibility treatments) before their hearings.

Meeting Transcript

Afternoon. It is two o'clock. We are going to get started with our workshop or February for the um City of Frederick Planning Commission. We do have quite a robust agenda. And our meeting is scheduled to be over at five. We know that there's something here in the same room at six. The applicants do not have to sign up. And anybody that does, we will call you first on that agenda item. And let's see, with us today, we have members of the city's planning commission, members of the city legal department, the engineering department, and Mark Ocampo. He can, when he talks, he can give you his title, but he is also with the city of Frederick. So we appreciate everyone from the city being with us today. So with that, all of you, including the people from the city who will be testifying today, if you would stand and raise your right hand. Okay. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given in statements made in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth if so say I do. Okay. So for any of you who are new to the process here, um, we um invite the applicants up at the beginning of the workshop, and we actually start with them. And we would appreciate if you could walk us through your application. Now, obviously, it doesn't have to be page by page by page, but more than just say, hey, I know you guys read it if you have any questions. So if you if you could give us the high points, that would be appreciated, and that would also be appreciated by the folks who are actually watching this. Um after that, we'll have questions and answers, uh answers. We'll have questions and comments from the commissioners. We'll do one round of a roll call, and from there, if there's more questions and comments, um, we'll take them as they come. Following that, we'll go to staff and we'll see what else that the staff would like to add to that. More questions and comments. We will take public comment and again we'll just make sure that we have exhausted the conversation and we feel like that the commissioners have a good handle on the item. So, with that, let's get right to the agenda. And the first one is the 2024 through 2029 capital improvements program. And actually, the applicant for this is the city. So thank you. Uh Gabrielle Collard with the planning department. Um, I'll kind of kick it off, um, but I do have to admit I'm not the uh expert in a lot of the subject matter we'll talk about today. Um, luckily we do have Zach Kirshner here, our director of public works, um, as well as Chiran to be able to weigh in on some of the items that are in the CIP. But this is something we do annually. Uh, the planning commission is charged both in our city charter as well as under the state regulations to review the CIP and to offer recommendations to the Board of Aldermen in for their consideration in adopting the budget every year. Uh keep in mind that while the CIP does um capture five years of time, uh improvements are only budgeted for the year, the upcoming year. So they're only budgeted one year at time, um not for the whole five-year period. We will have this scheduled for our hearing next month, um, presuming that we we have a good conversation and we have all the information we need, uh, and the planning commission at that point will make their recommendations. So this is just an introduction to the items that we've prepared for you today and oversight, and we'll have more time to talk about it next month. This year we did something a little different, and I would like to thank Commissioner Manales. Um, she provided a great format to help us organize our thoughts in terms of the matrix that we're looking at. We've included the projects that the planning commission included in past previous recommendations to the Board of Alderman as well as added some additional uh projects. Keep in mind we do have, I believe it's two items in the matrix that are actually not CIPs, they are recommendations that we made in the past years for projects that should become CIPs. So that is also something that the planning commission should consider in making the recommendation for this year, whether we want to continue to recommend those projects, or if there are additional areas where we see that CIPs should be created, that is a good way to start the conversation. So looking at our matrix, uh, we we do have, like I said, the the previous projects that you've recommended. In addition, we've added new projects related to several different of the funds. Um in your packet, we included the project descriptions for each individual CIP, not the entirety of all of last year's CIPs. If you pull the whole document off the city's website under the budget page, you will see that the different projects are broken up into different funds that they come out of. So that's what I'm referencing on. I guess it's page two when we start to talk about the stormwater fund, the sewer facilities fund, etc. They're they're lumped together under those uh areas.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com