Frederick Planning Commission Workshop - July 21, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Frederick Planning Commission Workshop - July 21, 2025
The Frederick Planning Commission held a workshop on July 21, 2025, beginning at 2:00 PM. The agenda was reordered by motion to prioritize the Rules of Procedure discussion and the Lumen Fiber Hut site plan, followed by the remaining items. Seven agenda items were discussed, including development proposals and procedural updates. No formal votes were taken; the workshop served as a forum for discussion and direction for future submissions.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Hannah Nickerson (415 Sherman Avenue, also representing East Frederick Rising) spoke on Brickworks Lot 1. She expressed support for compact urban design and green space but raised concerns about pedestrian connectivity, the need for a street tree buffer, and the lack of a Wisner Avenue connection. She urged the connectivity ratio to meet the 1.8 minimum.
- Vanessa Moreno (346 Madison Street, also representing East Frederick Rising) echoed concerns about connectivity, stating that the plan does not meet the intent of the approved master plan and fails to provide a grid system. She argued that the Wisner Street extension should be constructed as part of the initial phase, not delayed, and that poor connectivity undermines walkability and the potential for a Transit-Oriented Development designation.
Discussion Items
- Rules of Procedure (Item 8, moved to Item 1): Commissioner Menelas initiated a review of the rules of procedure, citing the upcoming recruitment of new commissioners. Discussion focused on attendance requirements (currently 50% of meetings in a 12-month period per city code), the role of alternate members, agenda order, and the prohibition on independent research of pending matters (Section 10.1). Commissioners expressed interest in adding more specific attendance language, clarifying the alternate's importance, and allowing limited independent research. Staff (Gabrielle Collard, Scott Waxter) noted that attendance rules are set by city code and cannot be changed by the commission alone. The commission agreed to develop draft language and revisit at a future workshop.
- Lumen Fiber Hut – PC25-160FSI (Item 4, moved to Item 2): The applicant presented a plan to add two fiber huts (one single-wide, one double-wide) at 315 Ballenger Center Drive. The huts are unmanned, with motion-sensor lighting and security fencing. No modifications were requested. Commissioners had no questions. Staff noted that an archaeological assessment letter of no further action is needed before the public hearing. The item will proceed to a public hearing.
- Brickworks Lot 1 – PC24-928PSU/FSI and PC24-929PFCP (Item 1): The applicant presented modifications to the preliminary plan, including changes to open space, forest conservation area, site circulation (improving connectivity ratio from 1.33 to 1.75), and architectural details. Four modifications were requested: reduction of rear setback from 20 feet to 7 feet, increased encroachment of decks into the rear yard (from 3.5 feet to 5 feet), reduction of side yards from 5 feet to 3 feet, and reduction of the setback between decks and property line from 5 feet to 1 foot 9 inches. Commissioners raised concerns about the lack of private backyards, the proximity of decks, standalone units, and the connectivity ratio not meeting the 1.8 target. Staff (Pam Reppert) noted that the plan had not been fully reviewed and that the applicant's statements about forest conservation and connectivity needed verification. The public comment speakers urged better connectivity. The applicant argued the plan is master plan compliant and modifications are minor. No decision was made; the item will return for further review.
- Summervale Architectural – PC16-434-01MU (Item 2): The applicant requested approval of seven additional single-family detached styles and one additional townhouse style for the Summervale development. A modification was sought for a few windows that are 1:1 ratio (instead of the required 1:1.5) on some front and side elevations, citing bathroom privacy. Commissioners noted that renderings were difficult to follow and requested a clear table showing how each style meets the six architectural elements. Staff confirmed that the applicant needs to address red-lined items and provide better documentation. The item will return for a future workshop.
- Sycamore Springs Architectural – PC22-514-05PND (Item 3): The applicant presented architectural plans for seven single-family homes and two townhomes. Modifications were requested for a few 1:1 ratio windows on side elevations (powder rooms) and for some windows on an elevation that do not meet the 1:1.5 ratio. The applicant also agreed to correct siding profiles (from Dutch lap to ship lap) and provide clearer exhibits. Commissioners praised the presentation format and had no substantive questions. Staff (Sherry Kelly) indicated the submission was thorough and the issues were minor. The item will proceed to a public hearing.
- Bloomfield Water Tower – PC25-79PSU/FSI (Item 6): The applicant presented a combined preliminary plat and final site plan for a 1-million-gallon water tower to support the Bloomfield community and expand city water service. A modification was requested for an 8-foot fence with barbed wire, as required by the city’s Department of Public Works. Commissioners asked about safety near a future school site and the capacity of the tower. Staff noted that the water tower is part of the regional high-zone water infrastructure and will provide redundancy. The item will proceed to a public hearing.
- Galleria at Carroll Creek – PC24-934FSI (Item 7): The applicant presented a final site plan for a mixed-use development with 210 residential units, 4,000 square feet of retail, and three levels of above-grade parking. The design features three courtyards, artful stormwater management, and a public plaza connecting to the Carroll Creek Linear Park. Commissioners discussed parking management, loading zones, and the number of retail spaces. Staff noted that the plan complies with parking requirements and that a $235,000 parkland improvement fee will be required, subject to unit count verification. The Historic Preservation Commission previously approved the architecture. The item will proceed to a public hearing.
Key Outcomes
- Rules of Procedure: Staff will prepare draft language incorporating commissioner feedback on attendance, alternate roles, agenda order, and independent research. The draft will be discussed at a future workshop.
- Lumen Fiber Hut, Sycamore Springs, Bloomfield Water Tower, and Galleria at Carroll Creek: All four items received sufficient discussion and will move forward to public hearings, with minor clarifications needed from applicants.
- Brickworks Lot 1 and Summervale: Both items require additional work. The Brickworks lot 1 plan will be resubmitted and reviewed again at a workshop. Summervale will provide a clearer table of architectural elements and address red-lined items before returning.
- No formal votes were taken on any agenda item.
Meeting Transcript
21st um 2025 workshop for the City of Planning City of Frederick Planning Commission. Before we begin today's proceedings, I'm going to give an overview of the process we'll follow today. So each item on the agenda, we will start the conversation with the applicant, have them come up to the front table and walk us through the project. And just a reminder for those of you who haven't been before us before. We need you to do more than just say, okay, you've seen the report. Can you answer questions? We really want you to walk it through, walk us through it and give us especially focus in on the modifications that you're asking for and why. Oh, brain. So at this point, we've got um city and planning staff, engineering, legal, um, and anybody who might be here for to make public comments. Anyone who's making um comments before the commission today needs to be sworn in. And so at this point, I will do a mass swearing in. If everybody who wants to speak will stand and raise your right hand. 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. Thank you very much. All right. So we have actually um have a request to rearrange the agenda a little bit, so I need a formal motion. Okay. Um I move to have the items on the agenda for the workshop for July 21st, 2025. Um to reorder the um items to move number eight rules of procedure to number one, and then have uh the project um number four on the final site plan PC 25-6160 FSI Lumen Fiber Hut Um 315 Bellinger Center Drive to be moved to number two, and then follow the rest of the order of the agenda. All right, we will second. The motion by Commissioner Junelis, a second by Commissioner Valencia, all in favor. Aye. Aye. All right. So that being said, we will start off by our discussion of the rules procedure. And since um Commissioner Manellus is the one who originated this request, I'll let you give an overview. Sure. Um, in light of the current recruitment for the two new positions on the planning commission, um, as well as some new requests that um we're considering this um presents an opportune opportune time to review the rules of procedure to ensure that the language regarding roles and responsibilities is clearly defined and well articulated. Um this review may also help identify areas where clarification is needed or where new language could be introduced to enhance better understanding and support to foster effective commission operations. And so um I had provided uh three documents. Um I believe the first one was uh Excel spreadsheet, and that was internal to the planning commission commissioners, um, and it was more of a tool to guide uh the review of the rules of procedure and optional, just a way to kind of organize our thoughts, which page number certain things are so we could speak to it. Uh the second document was um uh likened to an SOP, um just a document that was really drafted based on the one pager that um Commissioner Stroston had developed, and is just more of a my vision was more of a supplement to the rules of procedure, more of a checklist, a guide, uh quick tips and and you know, checkpoints in case you know a commissioner had questions and needed to know how to proceed rather than go through you know a 10-page document, they could just use that as a guide to know what to do next if they have, for example, in a conflict of interest or something else that might need attention. Um, and I think the third one was um a suggested document related to um um explaining or highlighting um expectations as it relates to um attendance, um meeting conduct um and um so forth, and um that would have required um some initialing and signature line um for you know the position, and so those were the three things um that I have submitted um for further discussion now. All right, do you um either of you have com questions or before we jump into discussion? No. I can't hear you no questions, uh-huh. Okay, Siri has a question. Um so I did have a question for you. At one point we had regarding attendance. Um we had originally had um some specific recommendations on quantifying attendance and and how many meeting meetings could be missed, and then when we redid the rules of procedure, we just referenced the state document. Um but then my understanding was that we had thought that maybe that wasn't sufficient, and we were just maybe gonna discuss adding more specifics about attendance again. So if any you know if you want to address that, and um then the other thing when I went back and read over the rules of procedure that I wanted to talk about was um the order of the agenda, and um so basically the way that the agenda is outlined in the um rules of procedure, it essentially puts what tends to be most of our heavy hitters at the back or at the bottom of the agenda, which then ends up making it be later in the evening. Um would love to have a discussion about reordering the agendas so that we you know get to master plans and annexations earlier in the evening, and you know, things like fence modifications later in the evening, when you know, so we can focusing in on the on the big important issues while we're all still you know awake. Yeah, so so those are my initial questions and thoughts. So go ahead. Um I was actually gonna ask for clarification on uh section 4.8 where there's wording in here that says a member present but not voting in an audible manner shall have his vote counted as affirmative unless he or she specifically signifies his or her absentee. So that one I just wanted to know how that worked of not voting audibly, but then it's counted as a yes. So like, or it's counted as an affirmative. Just why would we not be voting? So my interpretation of reading that is if you are planning on abstaining from a vote, you should say so, not just not vote.
openpublica.com