Planning Commission Workshop - November 18, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Planning Commission Workshop - November 18, 2024
The Frederick Planning Commission held a workshop on November 18, 2024, to discuss two agenda items: a fence height modification request at 91-92 Blueridge Court and a final site plan for a storage building at Stulz Air Technology Systems. Commissioners heard presentations from applicants and staff, asked clarifying questions, and provided feedback. No votes were taken.
Item 1: Fence Modification (PC24-655PCM) – 91-92 Blueridge Court
Applicant Danielle Reap (Claggett Management, representing the Mountaingate Homeowners Association) requested permission to increase fence height from the standard 6 feet to 8.5 feet for several panels between two townhomes. The goal was to deter foot traffic and illegal dumping from a neighboring apartment complex (The Grove) into the HOA’s common area. Keisha Wilburn, a board member and resident, noted the area is unlit and unsafe, with rodent issues from trash.
The proposed fence would tie into an existing 6-foot fence atop a 30-inch retaining wall at 92 Blueridge Court, then taper down to 6 feet. Commissioners asked about materials (proposed board-on-board wood), the connection to an existing chain-link fence, and why a fence at the top of the path was not chosen (to still allow maintenance access). Commissioner Valencia suggested considering alternative materials like brick or cinder block for durability. Chair Strawson noted the planning sign had already been destroyed, indicating potential vandalism. Commissioner Menelas asked about precedent, as 8.5-foot fences are not allowed in residential districts except between industrial uses. Staff noted a prior modification for a higher fence in a non-industrial context may exist and offered to check.
Commissioner Beattie requested a clearer drawing with a directional key for the full hearing. The public had no comment. The workshop concluded with the commission seeking more visual renderings of the tapered fence and considering whether the proposal meets modification criteria.
Item 2: Final Site Plan (PC24-757FSI) – Stulz Air Technology Systems, LLC
Applicant Mike Battern (Fox & Associates) presented a proposal to construct a 7,400-square-foot, three-sided metal pole building between two existing buildings at 1560 and 1572 Tilco Drive. The building would replace a current tent structure and be used for storing manufacturing components. No additional employees or water/sewer demand are anticipated. The building height is 40 feet, matching or slightly less than existing buildings.
Commissioner Beattie asked about building visibility from the street (yes) and its dimensions (5 feet from each existing building, with an open north end for forklift access). Staff noted all review comments have been addressed or are in process, including an archaeological assessment (applied for) and APFO requirements. The FAA issued a determination of no hazard; Maryland Aviation Administration notification is pending. Stormwater management and landscaping have been approved.
No public comment was offered. The workshop concluded with staff expecting all conditions to be satisfied before the scheduled hearing.
Key Outcomes
- Fence Modification: Commissioners requested additional visual materials (renderings, directional key) for the full hearing. Staff will research prior fence modifications for precedent guidance. The applicant was encouraged to explore alternative fence materials.
- Stulz Site Plan: All agency comments are being addressed; archaeological assessment and APFO compliance are pending but expected to be resolved before the hearing. No additional traffic or utility impacts are anticipated.
Meeting Transcript
All right, it's two o'clock. The meeting is called to order. And I that sounds extra loud today. I'd like to welcome everybody to the November 18th, um, 2024 Planning Commission workshop. Before we get started, I'm going to give us everybody an overview of the process that we're going to follow today because the workshop process is a little bit different than what we use for the hearing. Um, for both items on our agenda, we're going to start by having the applicant come up and present your application to us. Um, if you're new at this, then we want to ask you to make sure to you know give us a full walk through of the project, specifically any modifications that you're asking for, um, rather than just saying, okay, do you have any questions? Um, we're gonna hear hear exactly what you have to say. Um, following the applicant presentation, then the commission will ask any questions that we have, followed by we'll have the staff chime in and you know, bring up anything that from their perspective that needs to be brought up. Um, following that, we'll have questions of the staff, and we might, if we need to have some back and forth between the applicant, the commission, and the staff just to make sure that we have all of the questions resolved before we finish the workshop. Um there will be the opportunity for the public um to ask or to present public comment if needed. Um let's see. So at this point, anybody who's planning on making a presentation or giving us um a presentation or staff and needs to uh stand up, and we'll swear everybody in if you raise your right hand, if you do you solemnly swear or affirm that the response is given and the statements made in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If so, answer I do. Great, thank you very much. Right. Our first item on the agenda is PC 24-655 PCM, a fence modification for 91 to 92 Blue Ridge Court. Um you're gonna have to push the button. Hi, my name is Danielle Reap with Claggett Management. I'm the managing agent for the Mountain Gate Homeowners Association, and to my left is a board of directors, Keisha Wilburn, who also resides at the property. Thank you. Would you like a second microphone? Okay. It's all yours. All right, so we have a fence modification application asking for permission to increase the height of the fence from the typical six foot to an eight and a half foot just for the first few panels. So the location is between the townhomes located at 91 and 92 Blue Ridge Court, and it's in our HOA, and it the proposal is to tie in to the uh neighboring unit's end of their lot, their end of their fence, which sits on a retaining wall. And um, the problem that we're trying to resolve is a couple issues. Um, number one is the foot traffic, um, walking through trespassing, foot traffic. It is not an intended area to be used for pedestrian traffic. We'd prefer people to use the um City of Frederick um sidewalk up at the main street, um, but also mostly is the illegal dumping that's happening back there in that area in the common areas. Uh there seems to be a lot of foot traffic going back and forth between the neighboring um communities, Mountain Gate HOA to the apartments next door known as the Grove. And um we would like to help minimize the foot traffic, stop the foot traffic. Uh that's not the intended place for people to be walking. Um it is created a dirt path. Uh there is no sidewalk, so it that's not the intended purpose, and um help minimize the the legal bulk dumping that's happening back there is creating the hoa um hundreds of dollars to remove those bulk items. So we would like to clean that area up back there and remove all of the bulk items and try to help minimize. Um and the reason why we would like to ask for the modification for a taller fence is to tie in to the neighboring fence to cut off that um foot traffic. If we started at a lower um height at the six foot, there would be um quite a height difference in between the the two fences, and we're concerned that people may be able to still either jump the fence of the new fence that we would be putting up because of the height difference. Um we're concerned that people will continue to throw bulk items over the six-foot fence. Uh so we are to um start at the taller and taper down to your um more widely accepted six foot uh after the first few sections. So it will look better, but it will also serve more of a beneficial purpose and helping to keep people from throwing items over or jumping over the fence. Okay, thank you. Um before we turn to questions, could you just kind of walk us through the the photo exhibits that you that you included in the packet? The first page is an aerial view with a red circle over. Okay, let me skip ahead to that one. So we've got okay, yeah. Um so that's just showing the outline of the the property lines. Um the red is the 92 Blue Ridge Courts current fence, and uh the back of their property line uh is where we would tie in the blue, would be our proposed fence location, and it would go over on our property line over and tie into the existing chain link fence that surrounds the stormwater pond. The next picture shows a view of um the current dirt footpath. Uh you can see some of the the bulk items down at the end.
openpublica.com