Frederick Planning Commission Meeting - June 13, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Frederick Planning Commission Meeting - June 13, 2023
The Frederick Planning Commission met on June 13, 2023, to discuss consent agenda items, continuances for two projects, and a request for a three-year extension of final site plans for the Ren Quarter multifamily component. Key topics included easement issues with Fort Dietrich and Washington Gas, sewer rerouting, and the timing of intersection improvements tied to unit triggers.
Consent Calendar
- West Park Village VFW architectural review: The applicant revised elevations to recess the entryway by two feet to comply with design standards. Placed on consent agenda and approved.
- Rencord architectural review: Not placed on consent due to minor cleanup needed on elevations (duplicate lettering/numbering). Conditioned on staff review of those tweaks.
Discussion Items
- Madison on North Market continuance: The applicant encountered a sewer easement issue with Fort Dietrich, which prohibits any construction within the easement. The applicant is redesigning the sewer route southward toward the Coke plant, requiring a pump station. The APFO certificate for sewer may need reissuance. Staff recommended continuance to allow the redesign and ensure no domino effects on parking or landscaping.
- U-Haul site plan and forest plan continuance: The applicant was previously continued for landscape revisions. Washington Gas now requires an easement relocation that impacts proposed landscaping. Staff advised waiting until the exact easement location is finalized so landscaping plans can be accurately revised. Continuance granted.
- Ren Quarter site plan extension: The applicant requested a three-year extension for final site plans for multifamily components. Discussion focused on impacts on APFO certificates, intersection improvement triggers (Monocacy and East Street), and the potential for a roundabout instead of a signal. Commissioners asked whether denying the extension would force faster construction of multifamily housing and how other approved projects affect cumulative impacts. Staff will provide unit trigger numbers and intersection improvement details by the next meeting (Monday).
Key Outcomes
- Consent agenda items for West Park Village VFW and Rencord architectural review approved (Rencord with conditions).
- Continuances granted for Madison on North Market and U-Haul.
- Ren Quarter extension vote deferred pending additional information on unit triggers and intersection improvements.
Meeting Transcript
Take it away, Gabrielle. All right. Let me we don't we don't need a quorum, right? So nope. No, absolutely not. Yeah. So let's see, where we are in the world. So we do have the one consent agenda item and you got the new link um in the PDF. That was for the West Park Village VFW architecturals, which we reviewed at workshop last month. Architectural review. Okay. Exactly. That's all that is. Yeah. Not that's all that is, but um, that was the architectural review. Um at the workshop, um the applicant raised the fact that she didn't feel that they complied with the full element for entryways and windows because their um front uh entrance actually popped out of the front instead of being a recessed entry, like the element requires. Uh, and that's an intended to create, you know, if you pictured like a streetscape like North Market Street, right? To create that variability in the street wall. Um so a little different in this context, but they actually did revise their elevations to recess the entryway by two feet. So now it's recessed two feet and then into a vestibule. So they revised it to comply with the um the elevation, the the standard. Um it doesn't probably make a huge dramatic difference um in the appearance of the building, but um that did get revised. So because of that, we put it on the consent agenda. Um, and we don't have any other comments or questions um on our end. So why is the Rencord architectural review not on the consent agenda? So they had they have some a little bit of cleanup to do on their elevations themselves. They have some lettering and numbering duplication. So because we had that one condition that we wanted them to tweak those, you guys have to take a vote on it. Gotcha. Okay. Ron, do you have any questions? No questions from me. Thank you. All right. How am I doing with my practice? That was very good. Nice to the next we have um two, well, actually, four continuances, but two unfortunately. So the Madison on North Market project, um, unfortunately, they have a large water and sewer easement that goes through their property. It is their property, but there is a large um easement, and maybe it's just sewer. Um, that is actually a Fort Dietrich facility. There's a line coming through there that belongs to Fort Dietrich. As they continue to divide design their project, um, the um Fort actually approached them and said, No way, can you do anything within this easement area that might adversely impact our sewer line, even though it belongs to the property. Um, so it, you know, usually an easement is granting you rights, but doesn't I I haven't seen personally the easement, but usually an easement um, if you're smart, you don't grant an easement that would take away a lot of your own rights, um, especially to such a large swath of land. Um, but apparently this easement um the the fort feels gives them very much um control over that area uh and they don't want anything potentially impacting that. Um the applicant was proposing to cross that easement area. So uh the applicant has chosen to redesign a little bit uh instead of uh taking on the legal question of whether they have the right to use the easement. I think that um that litigation or conversation would be much more um probably much more expensive and much more protracted um than just kind of rerouting their their sewer uh to go actually now it's gonna head southbound towards the Coke plant. Uh they might have to install a um like some sort of small pump because it won't have gravity flow, so they'll have to install a pump on the site, pump that south towards the Coke property, at which point it would go into some sort of transition main and then uh get into our city's gravity sewer. So there would be some public or some private infrastructure involved. With that being said, um, unfortunately, what that had the adverse impact of doing is messing up some of the assumptions that their APFO certificate for sewer was based on.
openpublica.com