Frederick Planning Commission Workshop Summary – March 18, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Frederick Planning Commission Workshop – March 18, 2024
The City of Frederick Planning Commission held a workshop on March 18, 2024, at 2:00 PM in City Hall. The workshop covered six items: architectural review for Belle Air Farm, a final plat for Sycamore Springs (Addition to Barrick), a final site plan and forest conservation plan for 57 Thomas Johnson Drive Apartments (7615 Hayward Road), a final site plan for Rose Hill Carriage House, a final site plan and forest conservation plan for Patrick East Self Storage, and a presentation on a forthcoming text amendment to Section 721 (Forest Conservation). No formal votes were taken; the workshop was devoted to discussion by commissioners, staff, and applicants. No members of the public offered testimony.
Belle Air Farm – Architectural Review (PC14-640-06PND)
- Applicant (Ryan Homes, represented by project representative) presented four new townhome floor plans (Myers, Bainbridge, Saxton, Taylor) with interchangeable front elevations, designed to accommodate 2×6 exterior walls for improved energy efficiency in anticipation of a 2024 code update.
- New features: stone veneer that varies in height (from bottom of second‑floor windows to third‑floor windows) and accent board‑and‑batten siding on front facades. Rear elevations include recessed outdoor living areas (decks) with side walls for privacy.
- Commissioner Strawson clarified that the strip elevations approved in this package are fixed; homebuyers cannot choose different levels of stone or siding. Staff noted that the units are being reduced in width from 22 feet to 20 feet (previously approved wider units are already built). No public comment. Discussion concluded without need for additional action.
Sycamore Springs – Final Plat, Addition to Barrick (PC23-1044FSU)
- Applicant (Jonathan Pembroke, Alshman Properties; Chris Mariga, Harris Smariga & Associates) presented a resubdivision of an existing estate lot within the Sycamore Springs project. The lot currently has a panhandle access to Rocky Springs Road; the plan reconfigures the parcel to eliminate the panhandle once Shenandoah Drive is built, relocating the driveway to that new street.
- The reconfiguration gives the city more room for MS4‑related stream mitigation and A‑4 station plantings within an adjacent park. Commissioner Strawson asked why the change is needed; the applicant explained it allows integration of the panhandle into future park and HOA‑open‑space plats, reducing administrative steps. Staff noted the subdivision is a residential resubdivision requiring planning commission approval, but the land swap is largely form over substance; the key is to time the park dedication correctly. No public comment. Discussion closed with staff and applicant agreeing to coordinate the procedural sequence.
7615 Hayward Road (57 Thomas Johnson Drive Apartments) – Final Site Plan & Forest Conservation Plan (PC23-1417FSI, PC23-1418FSCB)
- Attorney Bruce Dean (McCurdy & Dean) introduced the project: three four‑story buildings with 112 multifamily units on about 5.5 acres in the PB (Professional Business) zoning district. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) unanimously approved a conditional use in December 2023. Dean emphasized that multifamily housing is permitted in PB if certain conditions are met (continuous pedestrian infrastructure, active/passive amenities, harmony with comprehensive plan).
- Applicant Andrew Welker (Oshman Properties) detailed the site design: three buildings (each ~49,512 sq. ft., footprint ~13,127 sq. ft.) arranged around a motor court. All main entrances face inward. Pedestrian connections: a tree‑lined pathway linking the existing sidewalk from Frederick Mutual Insurance building through the site, and a connection to Amber Drive. Two amenity spaces: a passive pocket park along the pathway and an active multi‑use sport court set away from adjacent townhomes to reduce noise.
- One modification sought: a lighting modification to allow a 0.2 foot‑candle spillage over property lines (city code requires 0.0). Applicant argued the 0.2 spill is into public rights‑of‑way or shared drives, not onto residential neighbors; they also noted that landscaping (six‑foot hedges, trees) is not accounted for in the lighting model. Staff commented that the modification is still under review.
- Public comments: received, but no one spoke at the workshop. Applicant addressed concerns: forest conservation fee‑in‑lieu (only about 4,855 sq. ft. of afforestation required after street‑tree credits, which is below a viable forest threshold; the site will actually plant 145 trees vs. required 82); park fee‑in‑lieu (considered infill, with access to Amber Meadows park and school fields); pedestrian safety (sidewalks exist along Amber Drive and a cut‑through to Monocacy Middle/Elementary School).
- Height of buildings: 54 feet (below 65‑foot maximum). Commissioner Strawson noted the site is higher than adjacent townhomes; applicant acknowledged but said existing white pines and a new Level 2 buffer (evergreen hedgerow) will help mitigate. Commissioner Beattie asked about MPDUs; applicant explained they will pay the fee in lieu, targeting renters at 80–120% AMI (attainable but not affordable housing).
- Staff noted the access issue: code requires a second access to a public street or an easement through adjacent property. Currently the site has one access to Hayward Road; a shared drive to the Frederick Mutual building exists but is not secured by easement. Staff said the applicant may need either an easement or a modification. Commissioner Strawson clarified that the existing drive off Thomas Johnson Drive is not part of this site.
- No vote taken; workshop discussion concluded with applicant and staff to continue working on the access and lighting issues.
Rose Hill Carriage House – Final Site Plan (PC23-313FSI)
- Applicant Eric Auzer (Triad Engineering) presented a new carriage house at Rose Hill Community Park. The old carriage house will be retained and converted to a pavilion. The new building will include two restrooms, a storage area, and a presentation room. Stormwater will be managed via two rain gardens. New sidewalks and utility connections will be added. Some brick‑paver overflow parking area will be removed to accommodate the improvements.
- Commissioner Strawson noted that the rear wall of the building appears to exceed 20 feet without windows, which may require a modification (the code restricts solid walls over 20 feet). Staff said the issue will be addressed with the architect; if a window cannot be added, a modification will be needed.
- Staff added that they are awaiting archaeological comments and APFO exemptions. No public comment. Discussion closed.
Patrick East Self Storage – Final Site Plan & Forest Conservation Plan (PC23-807FSI, PC23-808FSCB)
- Applicant Luke Zower (Harris Smariga & Associates) presented a 1.2‑acre leased area behind the McDonald’s on Patrick East, the last undeveloped parcel in the Patrick East Business Center. Six storage buildings in two phases, accessed via a gated private drive from Gateway East. The site is in a quarry zone of influence (no known sinkholes).
- Modification requested: reduce parking from the code‑required 22 spaces to 7 spaces, because storage facilities have very low traffic (people load/unload and leave). Applicant argued the reduction keeps the site compact and minimizes impervious surface. Commissioner Strawson asked for data; applicant cited experience with other city storage projects and the nature of the use.
- Forest conservation: the requirement is under 10,000 sq. ft., and applicant proposes a fee‑in‑lieu because street‑tree credits are not applicable (access via private drive).
- Staff noted they are still finalizing stormwater design with the city engineer (Rick Alby) but confirmed issues are minor. Fencing: eight‑foot black chain‑link with vinyl slats; no barbed wire. Commissioner Strawson asked about fence requirements; staff said there are none beyond security. No public comment. Discussion concluded.
Text Amendment – Section 721 Forest Conservation (PC24-224ZTA)
- Staff (Pam Reppert) gave a presentation on the current forest conservation ordinance and the upcoming text amendment, which is driven primarily by two new Maryland Senate Bills. The amendment will be presented at the next workshop for discussion and potential action. Staff reviewed the forest conservation process: thresholds, exemptions, mitigation priorities (on‑site, off‑site, landscape credits, fee‑in‑lieu), and the various plan types (forest stand delineation, preliminary plan, final plan).
- Commissioner Strawson asked if the amendment addresses only state law changes or also operational improvements; staff confirmed it will include both. Commissioner Strawson requested that future presentation also highlight what works and doesn’t work in the current process. No public comment. Workshop ended.
Meeting Transcript
This is um March. It is March 18th. Well, it is two o'clock. So good afternoon and welcome to the March workshop for the City of Frederick Planning Commission. So the way our workshop works, it's more casual in our hearing. We invite the applicants up to the table here. And we start off with the applicants presenting their presentation, their application to us. So we ask you not just to sit there and ask if you have any questions, but to uh take us through your item. We'll ask you questions, we'll make comments, we'll go back and forth. When that uh conversation has in some ways exhausted itself, we'll go to the staff. The staff will have a further comments, we'll have questions and comments there. And then we will ask if there's any public comment. If there is public comment, we'll certainly come back to the applicant. So uh without further ado, um, all the applicants and staff and anyone here for public comment that is going to testify today before the planning commission, if you would stand and raise your right hand. Do you saw solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and the 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. Uh first item on our docket is PC one four-six four oh zero six. PND. It's the architectural review for Bel Air Farm. How's everybody doing? Good. The glasses are Commissioner B your glasses are lacking. Everyone else has pretty intense closer glasses. Oh, I think that would be the women and the men. Yes. So if you could introduce yourself and tell us where you're from. So it adds a little bit of variation across them. There are four proposed units, the Myers, Bainbridge, Saxton and Taylor. All four floor plans have interchangeable front elevations to be approved in this package. And they're pretty consistent with the current architecture in terms of the floor plans and size. The reason for this submission for new architecture is for a two by six exterior wall to be updated with new code that should be adopted later this year. So it allows for more insulation, a better energy efficient home. There are two products, the Saxton and Taylor that have outdoor living incorporated into the footprint of the home. That is new, but it's something that we think works really well in Bel Air with a walking pass and its proximity to Baker Park. But yeah, if you have any questions. So all the architecture here is in line with what's previous previously approved. If you look at the front of this strip elevation, the stone veneer varies from to the bottom of the second floor windows up to the third floor windows. So that varying height is something that was missed in the first section, and it looks a little uniform, so this adds a little more variation. The other thing that we're adding and including is accented uh board and batten siding veneer. So instead of horizontal lap siding throughout the whole entire project, we have on the front facades a board and batten or vertical siding that's interchanged with horizontal. So again, adds a little more variation to the front facades. Um these are all accessible front entry homes with canopies and then rear load and take all garages uh consistent with this phase of Bel Air. Okay. Um could you show us the outdoor spaces? Sir, if you scroll down to the rear elevations, I think it's probably closer to page 13 or 14 house right there. Yep. And if you zoom in on the right rear elevation, I don't know if you're able to something that just some product feedback we've had with these rear load townhomes. There's not a lot of privacy. You have people that want decks over top of their driveways, but they're stacked side by side with neighbors.
openpublica.com