OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Frederick, Maryland/Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

August Pre-Planning Planning Commission Meeting – August 22, 2023

Planning Commission — Tuesday, August 22, 2023
BodyFrederick, Maryland
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, August 22, 2023
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 56:43

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:53

So I think we have all the commissioners here that plan to be here.

0:57

So let's get started with our August pre-planning planning commission meeting.

1:07

All right.

1:08

Starting with A, this is a consent item, Riverside Corporate Park.

1:14

And this is Sherry's anything to say about this.

1:18

And can you tell us, Sherry, why this is a consent item?

1:24

There is there aren't any updates.

1:26

And oops, let me face this way so you can see me.

1:29

There aren't any updates.

1:30

And they've addressed all the comments.

1:33

There aren't any notes that needed need to be updated or anything.

1:36

So that's why it's on the consent agenda.

1:39

Okay.

1:40

And I just have a general question for Gabrielle.

1:44

Gabrielle, is it the case that any item that doesn't have any conditions gets on the consent agenda?

1:53

Or is it that it just so happens that items that I've seen on the consent agenda don't have conditions?

2:02

Sure.

2:02

Any item that doesn't have any conditions or modifications, um, with the exception that we usually put the forest conservation plans associated with the plan on the regular agenda.

2:11

And sometimes you'll see maybe if you had a case with just force uh fee in lieu of payment and there were no conditions of approval, um, that those may be on the regular agenda paired with their development application, their site plan or preliminary slide.

2:24

Yes, generally consent agenda is uh for reserved for items with no conditions, no modifications that require special action.

2:32

Okay.

2:33

Any questions, Ron?

2:35

No, thank you.

2:37

Okay.

2:38

Uh next item B is the Westridge shopping center.

2:42

And we're gonna take both of them together this first hearing because it's the first of two required hearings.

2:49

It's the zoning map amendment and the master plan.

2:53

And these are Gabrielle.

2:56

Yes, so we did um we did get the agenda updated um later this afternoon to include your legislative priorities letter.

3:03

Um, so online you'll now see that reflected in between consent and this item.

3:08

Um so if you if you have a um Barb has seen the letter, um Ron, if you're looking over it this weekend and have any thoughts, um, or you know, the goal I think for everyone would be to get that acted on at the meeting.

3:21

Um, so if we can have any updates, we can make any edits to it as long as we know what the edits are and are all comfortable with them.

3:28

Um, we don't have a problem changing that after the hearing and then just having Barb sign it.

3:33

So um that is uploaded on the website um and we send two copies of everything as well.

3:38

Very good thing.

3:40

So with the Westridge, um, as chair said, we are going to um have those presented as one conversation.

3:48

Uh this is the second of two hearings.

3:49

The applicant also did their presentation as one um set of um presentations, but it does require multiple motions.

3:58

You'll see in your staff report that you're making several motions uh related to modifications to standards of both the mixed-use zones, so section 417 as well as um standards uh the city street standards under section 611, which is for the street improvement requirements.

4:17

Then you also make actions or have to take actions on both the rezoning and the master plan in the rezoning.

4:25

We've gone ahead and outlined um the the findings that you have to make as well um as the recommendation itself.

4:33

Keep in mind for the zoning map amendment, you have to kind of make two sets of findings.

4:37

There are all those findings about how does this impact population growth, transportation plan improvements, all those good things.

4:44

There are seven of them, and then you have to uh make findings related to the master plan and the rezoning itself.

4:51

So uh that that will be one big big motion that somebody's got to make um related to the zoning map amendment, and then there's of course the um motion on the master plan itself.

5:02

Everything is in the form of a recommendation in the mayor and board of alderman.

5:06

So these will all get forwarded to them.

5:10

And there haven't been any changes since the last workshop.

5:12

The applicant didn't um oh, I apologize.

5:15

There's one one correction on my behalf.

5:17

The applicant did not submit anything new, but uh in the works or the staff report last month, I had um mischaracterized or mixed up my numbers with regards to the traffic impact study and the comparison of existing trips to proposed trips.

5:34

I and that's on page 15 of the staff report.

5:39

I had um characterized the difference in the trips as the trips being produced.

5:47

Um, and I believe I got them captured correctly on this.

5:50

Uh, the bottom line is the project was still found to be exempt from APFO testing because we do that comparison of uh existing trips that could be generated by the site versus what's proposed.

6:03

Um, so it still remains exempt under the provision for the 50 fewer new peak hour trips that's in the code.

6:11

So that that section is updated in the staff report.

6:15

So I misspoke and I probably misremembered.

6:20

Um this has this is the second hearing we've had on this.

6:25

So um I guess I was not here for the workshop, uh obviously that happened in May.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████50%
Planning Commission Training███████████████17%
Parks and Recreation████████9%
Transportation Safety█████6%
Land Use Planning█████6%
Public Engagement█████5%
Homelessness███3%
Senior Living██2%
Transportation Infrastructure██2%
Summary of Proceedings

August Pre-Planning Planning Commission Meeting – August 22, 2023

The Frederick Planning Commission held a pre-planning meeting on August 22, 2023, to discuss several agenda items including consent items, zoning map amendments, master plans, subdivisions, and modifications. The meeting featured detailed staff presentations and commissioner deliberations, but no formal votes were taken; actions were deferred to a subsequent meeting on August 28.

Consent Calendar

  • Riverside Corporate Park: Proposed as a consent item because there were no updates and all comments had been addressed, with no conditions or modifications required. The commission approved without objection.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No oral public testimony was given during the meeting. Written comments were received for the Brickworks project from the Downtown Frederick Partnership (approximately 7.5 pages) and East Frederick Rising (11 pages). Additional public comments submitted by email (from Jennifer) were noted and would be forwarded to commissioners before the next meeting.

Discussion Items

Legislative Priorities Letter

  • The agenda was updated to include a draft legislative priorities letter. Commissioners were asked to review and provide feedback; edits could be made after the hearing, with final signature by Barb.

Westridge Shopping Center – Zoning Map Amendment & Master Plan (Second Hearing)

  • Staff (Gabrielle) presented the combined second hearing for the zoning map amendment and master plan. A correction was noted on page 15 of the staff report regarding trip generation numbers in the traffic impact study; the project remained exempt from APFO testing. Modifications included a sidewalk design (one side built now, the other side deferred until future redevelopment) and an increase in sidewalk width to eight feet. The applicant did not submit new materials. The commission discussed the linkage between the zoning map amendment and master plan findings. No changes from the previous workshop.

East Church Street – Subdivision

  • Staff (Monica) described a simple subdivision of one double lot into two lots, consistent in size with neighboring lots. A right-of-way agreement for steps had been signed. Commissioner Joan questioned why it required commission approval; staff explained that all residential subdivisions require commission findings that the resubdivision is characteristic of the surrounding community. No issues were raised.

East Frederick – Modifications & Deferral Request

  • Staff (Gabrielle) reported substantial revisions since the workshop. The applicant reduced landscaping modifications to two items: street trees and lot frontage along a private drive (Storage Way). A new request was a deferral of frontage improvements along Monocacy Boulevard, citing an upcoming CIP for lane widening; the commission would need to find it not reasonable or practical to construct improvements now, then the Mayor and Board would negotiate a deferral or fee-in-lieu. Parking modification: the applicant proposed 57 spaces (minimum 156, maximum 233) and provided traffic data from ITE and two comparable sites to justify the reduction. Lighting spillover issues had been resolved. Forest conservation: a fee-in-lieu of $18,164 was proposed due to prior site grading. A PDF conversion error caused some text to appear as gibberish; staff would correct the online version.

Hamilton Place – Consolidation Plat & Final Site Plan

  • Staff (Sharon) clarified the consolidation plat (named Hamilton Place) and final site plan (Hamilton Avenue). The modifications rationale was better enunciated. The consolidation combined three lots into one; the applicant addressed all APFO issues and no changes were needed. The final site plan was straightforward. Commissioners had no questions.

Zoning Map Amendment – 100 East All Saint Street (First Hearing)

  • Staff (Sherry) presented this as the first of two required hearings; no recommendation was made at this time. No updates or questions.

Brickworks – Conditional Use & Modifications

  • Staff (Pam) reviewed the extensive application for senior living conditional use and multiple modifications for townhomes (rear/front-loaded, zero-lot-line, reduced rear setback, parking pad, driveway impervious coverage), multifamily (open space frontage, rear setback, parking prohibition), and non-residential (open space, front setback, parking orientation). The applicant also requested a modification to remove sidewalks on a public street adjacent to industrial uses. Four pocket parks (0.25 acres each) were proposed toward the parkland dedication. The Parks Commission recommended approximately 8 acres of parkland, including a linear park on the west side; the Parks Director indicated the linear park would have benches and paths. The commission discussed the illustrative nature of the preliminary site plan and the need to ensure access points on the master plan. The East-West road and north-south road were shown as access points. The applicant intends to pay MPDU fees. APFO approvals were still pending. Commissioners raised concerns about the hodgepodge of industrial uses and the difficulty of connecting to downtown. Staff noted that industrial owners have expressed no desire to move, but the plan includes provisions for future connections. No formal action was taken.

Key Outcomes

  • No votes or final decisions were made on any regular agenda items. The consent calendar was approved as routine.
  • All other items were discussed in preparation for the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, August 28, 2023, where formal motions and recommendations are expected.
  • Staff will correct the PDF issue for the East Frederick report and compile additional public comments for commissioners before the next meeting.
  • The legislative priorities letter will be finalized after commissioner input.

Meeting Transcript

So I think we have all the commissioners here that plan to be here. So let's get started with our August pre-planning planning commission meeting. All right. Starting with A, this is a consent item, Riverside Corporate Park. And this is Sherry's anything to say about this. And can you tell us, Sherry, why this is a consent item? There is there aren't any updates. And oops, let me face this way so you can see me. There aren't any updates. And they've addressed all the comments. There aren't any notes that needed need to be updated or anything. So that's why it's on the consent agenda. Okay. And I just have a general question for Gabrielle. Gabrielle, is it the case that any item that doesn't have any conditions gets on the consent agenda? Or is it that it just so happens that items that I've seen on the consent agenda don't have conditions? Sure. Any item that doesn't have any conditions or modifications, um, with the exception that we usually put the forest conservation plans associated with the plan on the regular agenda. And sometimes you'll see maybe if you had a case with just force uh fee in lieu of payment and there were no conditions of approval, um, that those may be on the regular agenda paired with their development application, their site plan or preliminary slide. Yes, generally consent agenda is uh for reserved for items with no conditions, no modifications that require special action. Okay. Any questions, Ron? No, thank you. Okay. Uh next item B is the Westridge shopping center. And we're gonna take both of them together this first hearing because it's the first of two required hearings. It's the zoning map amendment and the master plan. And these are Gabrielle. Yes, so we did um we did get the agenda updated um later this afternoon to include your legislative priorities letter. Um, so online you'll now see that reflected in between consent and this item. Um so if you if you have a um Barb has seen the letter, um Ron, if you're looking over it this weekend and have any thoughts, um, or you know, the goal I think for everyone would be to get that acted on at the meeting. Um, so if we can have any updates, we can make any edits to it as long as we know what the edits are and are all comfortable with them. Um, we don't have a problem changing that after the hearing and then just having Barb sign it. So um that is uploaded on the website um and we send two copies of everything as well. Very good thing. So with the Westridge, um, as chair said, we are going to um have those presented as one conversation. Uh this is the second of two hearings. The applicant also did their presentation as one um set of um presentations, but it does require multiple motions. You'll see in your staff report that you're making several motions uh related to modifications to standards of both the mixed-use zones, so section 417 as well as um standards uh the city street standards under section 611, which is for the street improvement requirements. Then you also make actions or have to take actions on both the rezoning and the master plan in the rezoning. We've gone ahead and outlined um the the findings that you have to make as well um as the recommendation itself. Keep in mind for the zoning map amendment, you have to kind of make two sets of findings. There are all those findings about how does this impact population growth, transportation plan improvements, all those good things. There are seven of them, and then you have to uh make findings related to the master plan and the rezoning itself. So uh that that will be one big big motion that somebody's got to make um related to the zoning map amendment, and then there's of course the um motion on the master plan itself. Everything is in the form of a recommendation in the mayor and board of alderman. So these will all get forwarded to them. And there haven't been any changes since the last workshop. The applicant didn't um oh, I apologize. There's one one correction on my behalf.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com