Frederick Planning Commission Meeting on Brickworks Master Plan - October 17, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Brickworks Mixed-Use Master Plan Public Hearing (PC22-1160MU) - October 17, 2023
The Frederick Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 2023, at 6:00 PM to consider the Brickworks master plan for a mixed-use development on 64.61 acres. The applicant requested approval of a master plan with up to 1,260 residential units (60–80% of the site), 15–30% non-residential uses, and at least 12% parks and open space. The commission also considered ten separate modifications to the Land Management Code (LMC) and two conditional uses. Following public testimony and deliberation, the commission voted 3–2 to approve the master plan with two additional conditions.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Richard Kaplowitz (Frederick Progressives) – Supported environmental remediation but opposed the 10 modifications, citing lack of connectivity, insufficient emergency access, inadequate affordable housing, and poor integration with downtown character. He criticized the proposed park location and traffic impacts.
- Alan Feinberg – Argued the design was suburban and inappropriate for Frederick’s gateway, noting that the project was slipping ahead of the pending form-based code. He urged more community engagement and a stronger planning department.
- Felicia Langell – Requested that demolition and tree removal be timed to avoid nesting and denning seasons, with coordination with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
- Roberta Huber (Maxwell Square) – Urged that a park be located within the development (not just across E Street) for children’s safety; recommended a wall of native pine trees instead of a four-foot block wall; and asked that brick be required for all buildings to transition from the historic district.
- Tom Seams – Expressed concern that E Street functions as a throughway rather than a lively urban street, limiting connectivity and making the park inaccessible. He noted no parking near the proposed park.
- Hannah Nickerson – Advocated for sustainable development: density balanced with green space, full electrification, bike lanes, and integration of solar panels and EV charging. She criticized the minimum parking requirements.
- Linda Lipscomb – Proposed that the city buy the site and use phyto-remediation; suggested a school complex, design contests, and a sculptural pedestrian bridge over E Street to connect to Harmon Park.
- Steve Jakubic (Citizens for Responsible Growth) – Condemned the lack of firm commitments on schools, MPDUs, and parkland. He argued the grocery store would not serve downtown residents and that the parkland proposal was unsafe. He urged the commission to deny or heavily condition approval.
- Kara Norman (Downtown Frederick Partnership) – Supported the Water Street connection (modification 6) and a future connection to Wisner Street. Recommended a 10-foot sidewalk on the west side of E Street adjacent to the proposed park, and supported a pedestrian crossing similar to that at Carroll Creek.
- Bob Roby – Questioned the utility of the west-side park and suggested moving parkland interior to the development. Raised concerns about cap integrity during construction and criticized the lack of yards for 1,260 homes.
- Holly Nelson (Frederick County Public Schools) – Stated that the development would cause overcrowding at Spring Ridge Elementary, Gov. Thomas Johnson Middle, and High School. She urged that a school site be conditioned in the approval, noting that FCPS does not support waiver of impact fees.
- Alex Massey – Described the project as suburban and non-compliant with the upcoming form-based code; asked who it would serve.
- Heather Goddard (East Frederick Rising) – Detailed the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on June 13, 2023, arguing that the vote on the park location was not a formal approval and that the proposed west-side park is inaccessible, dangerous, and redundant with Carroll Creek Linear Park. She urged rejection of modifications for the commercial center and required a three-acre park on the east side.
- Other speakers included citizens concerned about sinkholes, traffic impacts on downtown, stormwater management, wildlife, and the loss of potential school/community facilities.
Discussion Items
The commission discussed the ten modification requests and the overall master plan. Key points:
- Modifications 1–2 (conditional uses) – Approved unanimously.
- Modification 3 (townhouse lots fronting open space/private streets) – Approved 4–1 (Commissioner Strawson opposed) after limiting the open-space frontage to the corner of East and South Streets.
- Modifications 4 and 5 (setbacks along Monocacy Boulevard and interior side yard) – Approved 4–1 (Strawson opposed on #5).
- Modifications 6 and 7 (access management) – Approved unanimously.
- Modification 8 (parking between building and street) – Approved 3–2 (Commissioners Strawson and McShane opposed; Strawson argued it contradicts LMC Section 417 and comprehensive plan).
- Modification 9 (building orientation, pedestrian entrances, and parking percentage) – Denied 3–2 (Commissioners Nicholas and Strawson moved to deny; Beattie, Manales, and McShane opposed). Commissioners found the request contrary to LMC Section 417 and the comprehensive plan’s community character policies.
- Modification 10 (street details) – Approved unanimously after removing ST 9.0 (which eliminated bike lanes) at the request of Commissioners Strawson and Manales.
- Master Plan (Action 11) – Approved 3–2 with the seven staff-recommended conditions plus two additional conditions: (1) a contiguous three-acre parkland dedication within the development on the east side of East Street, and (2) that the environmental mitigation plan be completed and certificates of completion for a given section issued prior to building permits for that section. Commissioners McShane and Strawson opposed, citing inconsistency with the LMC and comprehensive plan.
Key Outcomes
- Approved: Conditional uses for senior living and nursing care (unanimous).
- Approved as modified: Townhouse frontage on open space/private streets (4–1), interior setback on the private street (4–1), access management modifications (unanimous), parking screening (3–2), and street details without bike lanes (unanimous).
- Denied: Building orientation modification that would have allowed buildings to face inward and exceed 20-foot setback from public streets (3–2).
- Master Plan Approved (3–2) with seven staff conditions (including MPDU payment agreement, removal of references to educational facilities, and correction of street details) and two new conditions: three-acre internal parkland and phased environmental cleanup certification prior to building permits.
- Next Steps: The applicant must obtain approval of a preliminary plat or site plan within two years; the master plan has a 17-year buildout horizon. All subsequent site plans will be subject to then-current regulations.
Meeting Transcript
Second of two required public hearings for the master plans for brickworks. This will be our one and only agenda item tonight. PC two-one six oh. With the commissioners tonight are Gabriel Collard and other members from the city's planning department, Charian Eaton from the engineering department, and Scott Waxter from the city's legal department. At this time, we will conduct a swearing-in of the staff, the applicant, and anyone who is here to make public comment. If you would all stand and raise your right hand. So what you are hearing are all the conversations. Any the only things that take place in email are process when the meeting is being held, who is coming, etc. So given that this is the second hearing, I imagine that the questions will be less uh technical, and hopefully we will arrive more quick more quickly at the public hearing part of the meeting. So the process will go as this. First is the introduction of the case, and I just hit that. Second will be the presentation of the case and the recommendation by staff. And we have asked staff to not have to go through everything that they went through the last hearing, but really focus on what the updates are. Third is the commission questioning of staff, presentation by the applicant, the applicant, the commission questioning of the applicant. Public comment. Then we'll ask the applicant if they have any comments after the public comment, and then we will bring it up here for a discussion. So that is the process. Let's get started, and we will turn this over to staff. Thank you. I'll enter a staff report into record. Um the applicant is requesting approval of a master plan for the development of a mixed use project on 64.61 acres. That is between 15 percent and 30 percent non-residential, 60 to 80 percent residential, and at least 12 percent comprise the parks and open space. The applicant is also requesting modifications to section 417 of the land management code, mixed use districts, uh, the MU1 and MU2, Section 601 for access management, and the standard city details for construction in accordance with Section 611 street improvement standards. Uh the applicant with this application has requested that the planning commission uh consider uh approval for two conditional uses and our uh use matrix, the senior living and retirement facilities, and the nursing home and the domiciliary care adult living facilities are conditional uses that are permitted within the MU zone. Uh, these conditional uses are viewed as encouraging a compatible mixture of units in the residential land use uh land area for this development. Under the urban design elements, um, as noted before, they are um the buildings and the residential and a non-residential are to comply with the Class A urban design elements, and under the non-residential elements, they must meet seven of the elements. They, as proposed, um, are going to adhere to the building structure and alignment, building modulation, ground floor design, active uses, mechanical equipment, and the amenities. For the number seven, they are requesting that the planning commission consider uh plazas and outdoor seating as they have described. Uh, the planning commission can grant this modification this modification upon review of their graphic and written testimony in keeping with the character of the overall design of the project. The townhouse lot details. The applicant has removed three of the residential townhouse lot details, one of the rear loaded um uh details and two of the front loaded details by eliminating the front loaded details in this plan. We find that it's more consistent with the intent of the MU zone requirements. They've eliminated three modifications with this associated with this, uh, section 803G for the 30 percent driveway cap, um, the reduced setbacks for the uh details that have been removed and plus the uh detail that still remains for the residential units uh uh labeled TH-1A complies with the 20 percent uh 20 percent uh 20-foot rear setback. Section 417 C6 removes parking between principal building and the street, and since the front loaded units have been removed, that's no longer needed. Um, one modification that is still being requested for the lot detail that they that remains is to front on open space and private streets, and this is to establish viewsheds and access to open spaces and recreational areas and to access and the and these units will be accessed to the from the rear from alleys. Uh the multifamily lot detail. Um the applicant has removed modifications for parking between principal building and the street, and read and uh uh they have removed the sh reduced setbacks, they have reduced the fronting on open spaces, the multifamily lot now complies with the MU setback requirements and building will be funded on public streets, and no modifications are being requested for this lot detail. Non-residential lot detail requesting modification to accommodate a maximum front setback of 65 feet from the Noxie Boulevard and a side setback of 45 feet of interior lot line. The modification for parking in front and side yards between the building and street, which is viewed by Minox from Minoxie Boulevard, and the parking for the non-residential component that will be between the multifamily and a street that's between a lot new comp plan road. Let me state that once again. And the parking for the non-residential component that will be between the multifamily and the street on the new comp with the new comp plan road. Modification orientation to allow for 10% parking between the building and street. No public entrances along the public streets. Instead, these entrances will be facing the interior of the commercial area. And distance between the buildings and the public street will exceed 20 feet, with the maximum requested as 65 feet from Minoxy Boulevard. The noted compensating features are the as offered is the four-sided architecture, the four-foot-tall screen wall along Benoxie Boulevard, and the private drives to be designed designed as public streets. Under parks, the applicant had did provide a conceptual active park rendering for the west side of the Southeast Street. As noted, this is some of the park area that they have been requesting noted in their land code as their park. Based on the size of community and no community pool, the potential park impact fees equal 1,093,680. Access management, the two modifications for access separation distances are still being requested.
openpublica.com