We're going to start the conversation by having the apple applicant come up and um to the front table here and walk us through your project.

Um specifically, we're looking for um attention to the modifications that you're requesting and explaining to us why, and also if we've had this is something we've seen already, um, highlighting what's different so that we know where we're looking this time.

Um following the applicant presentation, we will then give the commissioners a chance to ask questions.

Um at that point, we'll bring staff in and have them present their information on the case, and then we'll give the commission a chance to um ask applications of the of staff.

Um finally, we will allow the public to come up and make public comment.

Um and then if necessary, we'll do another round of questions or allow the applicant to respond um before we wrap up.

At public hunt.

Um at this point, I'm going to do a uh swearing in.

So anybody, everybody including the public who is planning on making um comments before the hearing tonight this afternoon needs to be sworn in.

And if you would stand and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the response is given and the statements made in the hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If so, answer I do.

All right, thank you.

Um before we proceed to the official agenda, I will just give um staff a chance to make any announcements that they might have.

Uh there are no current announcements on our schedule.

Okay, thank you.

Oops, let me speak in PC two four-928 PSU FSI.

Um preliminary plat and final site plan for brickworks lot one and PC two four-929.

PfcP preliminary forest conservation plan for brickworks lot one.

Good afternoon.

Uh Madam Chairman, members of Planning Commission, Mike Wiley with the Warmall Companies.

Here to present on behalf of Carroll Creek Gallery LLC, the gallery at Carroll Creek project.

With us is our project architect, Robert Sponceller, and his partner, Jennifer Chen.

The Galleria project.

Oh, I'm my apologies, brick brickworks.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Um's that.

That's better.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Um, I'll walk through the updated presentation that we've made based on conversations with uh planning staff uh and engineers from the uh city.

Uh the the updates that we've made relate to the plan overall and clarification on the modifications.

And please um don't hesitate to interrupt if something is not clear or needs more uh background information.

So we'll we're looking at the lot one portion of the overall master plan for brickworks.

This is the uh wormhold portion that involves approximately 91 townhomes at the northwest corner of the site.

This first slide is an aerial rendering uh highlighting one of our uh on-site parkland areas.

Uh we are providing very close to the 1.04 required acres on site, where 0.94 acres.

This is one of the three parkland area locations in this image.

This is the intersection of south and east streets that you're looking at, where we have townhomes that directly face this open space.

This requires one of the modifications technically, although we think it's a very appropriate way to plan a community like this because it puts townhomes facing open spaces and amenity areas, activating them and enhancing them.

Otherwise, this parkland will be surrounded by a street.

So it's integrating the parkland areas into the plan, which we do in the interior and on this major prominent corner.

In terms of the plan updates that we've made uh since last presentation, um, we've uh increased the amount of forest conservation area that we've put on site.

We've eliminated two townhomes that were in this area, we've relocated them into other portions of the plan and aggregated um uh the townhomes in groupings of of seven to eight townhomes in each element and eliminated another sort of orphaned pair of townhomes that we had at the southeast corner of the plan.

So we've cleaned up the plan, I think, quite a bit.

Uh the plan features three green central areas that are woven into the overall planning, um, two parkland areas and a forest conservation area, which has been expanded since our last presentation.

Um the two uh central green areas, one at the corner, one of the interior, both require the modification because the townhomes face those areas, their meuse conditions where you have pedestrian access to your main entry as opposed to the townhomes facing a street.

So technically that is a modification request, but we think it's an appropriate way to plan the community, having the green spaces integrated in with the housing, and pretty typical in townhouse developments uh overall.

Uh this is another image that highlights our entrances and our access, if you recall from the last presentation.

We have a number of uh pedestrian um entry points through the plan that connect to the interior street and through to South Street.

So these passageways are open and adjacent to our townhouse elements and directly front the streetscapes.

Uh these pathways will be utilizing brick pavers and concrete materials uh in keeping with the history and the legacy of the site, uh the brick manufacturing on the site over time historically.

As mentioned, all of our townhomes have parking in their structure, and they're accessed off of the um alleyways uh that run through the plan.

So all the parking is inside the buildings, underneath at the lowest level of the townhomes on the opposite side of the main entrances.

So there's a very clear front back delineation and an integration of all the parking needs.

There is some adjacent um on-street parking provided for guests and visitors as well on the main streets.

The materials that we're using are really channeling the legacy of brick, so brick patterning and brick textures will be utilized in terms of coursing, corbling, and expression on both the pathways and the buildings.

We think it's appropriate to embrace the brick as a primary material on the buildings as we develop the project.

Um we've been very careful to provide the building frontages uh on the streets and on the open spaces that we're providing with a rear facade that we brought to show you today as requested for the alley network that runs through things.

But the primary faces will all be brick masonry in in terms of our our material, our primary material articulation as appropriate uh for uh the development.

This image is looking at that main uh park area in the northwest corner from the street level.

Um we're providing a variety of colors of a very strong setback at the third to fourth floors to scale the buildings appropriately to the open space.

Uh and this also highlights the brick, the brick will turn the corners and and and line the passageways as well, so that primary material carries will be the dominant material palette that you'll see throughout the project, and we'll be varying the brick colors throughout to provide a scale and variety of textures uh throughout the plan.

This is another image that looks down um East Street and highlights one of the other uh technical modifications we need, which which has to do with the provision of a fence line along this um along this exposure.

Um East Street is quite a busy street, it's heavily trafficked, and so we think a fence that is sort of a delineation, not a barrier.

It's very porous, it's very open.

It'll be a steel, a painted steel fence between brick piers.

So there's a lot of transparency that will carry uh between the properties and the in the and the street, but we think it's important on a busy street like this to delineate the the more private areas of the of the townhome frontages from the public streets, uh given the arterial nature of uh E Street.

So this is a new image that we brought today relating to the to the rear facades, the alley facades, if you will, on the project.

We're using two different colors of uh two different pallets of materials for the for the back sides for the interior sides.

Uh we're showing here the um decks that are projecting into the rear yards.

This is another one of our modifications.

They're about a five-foot projection.

There's a separation between the decks.

This is something we talked about at our last presentation, so we thought we'd delineate this more carefully.

We have a planting strip in between the townhomes on this side.

Uh and we're providing um additional front yard open areas and uh an elevated terrace on the third level that I showed you in the first renderings for outdoor amenity space for the residents, in addition to the open parkland areas uh in the neighborhood.

Um we can get into more details on that if if desired.

Uh and then these are three the three typical right-aways that occur right-of-way sections that occur throughout the plan.

We have the uh East Street, the largest right away, which is East Street here on the top.

Our frontage is here on the right.

There's a public park across the street.

Uh we're providing the um sidewalk uh planting strips, sidewalk widths, and tree plantings in keeping with staff's request uh and traffic engineering requests for the delineation of those zones.

Uh then we have the um South Street right of way, which is on the other side of our site with a again a planting strip, street trees, and then our our sidewalk and property lines.

Uh and an in a typical interior street, this is our um interior connecting roadway, which has a narrower right-of-way, and planting strips and street trees on either side of it in the public right-of-way.

Um just to highlight some of the modifications that we're requesting that we talked about last time and in a little more detail on some of these.

I'll run through these very very quickly.

Um we're asking for a modification related to the rear yards, modifying from 20 feet to seven feet.

Um there's a large public alley right-of-way, which is 30 feet in addition to these rear yards.

The total building-to-building frontage is 44 feet if you add the right-of-way to these minimum rear yard uh provisions that we're asking for.

So it's still pretty ample and pretty wide.

And there's five feet of that public right-of-way, which is outside of the roadway.

So all taken all together, it's about 12 feet of rear space between the building and the roadway or the carriageway on the interior.

Um another setback relates to the interior uh side yard setbacks that we have in the plan.

So adjacent to all of the public passageways, we're we're asking to reduce the side yard lot setback from five feet to three feet.

We think this is appropriate and okay because we have these larger passageways that are outside of the private space for circulation.

Uh, so plenty of buffer and walking space in between the townhome units, even given the reduced five to three foot space uh foot reduction that we're requesting.

Um another modification uh relates to the um encroachments into the rear yard.

So um we're asking for uh 50 percent encroachment in our seven-foot rear yard, but for the five-foot decks that I mentioned.

Um that's a uh uh foot and a half beyond what what's otherwise required in the code.

Um so it's usually 50 percent, and we're going five feet into the seven feet, so that's a foot and a half more than would otherwise be required on the uh rear yard projections.

Um our conductivity ratio working with staff and with the planning folks, we've been able to get um a 1.75 versus 1.8 connectivity ratio that's 97% of the way there in terms of uh conductivity, and I think we have a we have agreement that this is appropriate from our um our our planning uh colleagues on the city side.

Uh and then lastly, um the the fence, we're only putting proposing a fence along the East Street, busier, more heavily trafficked frontage.

So in that rendering that I showed you, we're asking for that um very light fence treatment to delineate uh public from private along that that uh exposure because of the high traffic on that street and the arterial nature of that street.

The other frontages don't have that fence requirement.

So this modification only relates to the uh East Street side of the plan.

Uh so I'll just highlight that before we go to the next slides.

So in that, what I'm saying is that we actually have it along the park, the corner park, and along the East Street frontage, we're asking for that fence treatment to delineate, uh given the kind of boulevard nature of this East Street to delineate the uh public from the private there uh for the towns.

We think it's it's something you often see in in townhouse developments on busier streets, and we think it's a a light enough treatment that it'll be uh an appropriate finish for that frontage.

Um this is a slide which highlights the uh rear yard reductions and encroachments that we're asking for.

Um so this is the uh section through the typical alley.

We have 44 feet, even with the reduced yards from building to building.

This is more than we typically see in townhome developments.

Uh we have 12 feet to the alley um road curb, if you will, and seven feet of that is private rear yard space with a five foot inside the right-of-way between the building and the alley.

Um the encroachments that we're looking for are five feet versus three and a half feet into that reduced rear yard uh provision.

Our our front yards all comply with the uh range of depths allowed in the LMC.

And let's see, this was this is a slide that we put together just to give you some background and some uh context, if you will, on the interior setbacks.

So one of the benefits of reducing the rear yard is to give us more open space beyond the townhomes for the general uh plan areas.

So by reducing those rear yards, we're able to provide more A4 station area and on-site parkland areas.

In both cases, I think staff will agree we're very close to the targets and we're within the parameters that staff is recommending in terms of on-site and fee and loo contributions that will be needed for those areas, for both of those areas, parkland and afforestation.

Mike can go into further Mike Wiley.

Can go into further details on that if you're interested.

Um examples of other townhomes in terms of the type and the topology of the um townhome developments, and you can see that most of these are 25 to 30 feet building to building, and we're 44 feet building to building, even with our reduced uh rear yard setbacks.

Here's another example.

This is from Bethesda, where there's a 25-foot interior setback and a more ample uh main entry uh approach, and a Muse configuration, and some very you know um higher end uh townhome developments.

Just by way of context.

Uh this slide deals with the slide deals with the conductivity ratio that we've been working with staff to uh come to an agreement on.

Again, we're at 1.75 given this uh ref more refined road network, which clearly links uh through the project East Street to South Street and provides for a future um connection to be provided at Wisner to the best of our abilities, which is through easements all the way to our neighbor's property to uh allow for a future uh 90-degree intersection as uh desired uh in terms of planning.

So we're 1.75 versus our 1.8 or 97 percent of the way there, 90 per 7 percent and change to the to the 1.8 connectivity ratio.

Um this is another new slide, which just speaks to the treatment of the fences along the front yards on East Street only.

Um you can see them rendered here, they're very transparent.

There'll be um uh uh what we call iron mongerings or a very light steel painted steel treatment, very low fence, but it's really it's not a visual barrier, it's just a delineation of public versus private on a busy street front.

This is something you see in Capitol Hill and probably in parts of downtown Frederick as well, as just a way to delineate public from private when necessary.

Uh it doesn't occur on the interior of the site or on South Street, but just on East Street where things are a little busier.

Any questions so far?

No.

Okay.

I'll keep going.

Uh oh, that's it.

Thank you.

All right, great, thank you.

Um we'll start with a roll call for questions, and start with the Commissioner Valencia.

Okay.

Um I like the pretty pictures, so we'll start off there.

Thanks.

Um, let's see.

Uh when you were talking about the forestation expansion, like where you took some how much was gained.

So uh there are two metrics we need to satisfy for force uh conservation compliance on site.

There was a 1.7-acre total planting and and or fee and loo combination thereof.

There was a cap of no more than 50 percent of it could be paid fee and lieu.

So what we try to do uh based on what staff has suggested and will permit on other uh projects before us on the brickworks is try to maximize uh a dedicated forest conservation area on the property and then supplement it with um landscaping credits.

So we are overplanting the site beyond the requirements for landscaping, and so uh the area in the south uh east portion of the site here, just north of Lower Depot Road.

Uh that is a little less than four-tenths of an acre.

That would be a dedicated forest conservation planting area with trees, about 100 trees to the acre, two-inch caliper.

And then the balance of the forest conservation compliance will be a combination over over planting in the northwest corner and in the central core park areas, as well as additional street trees along Lower Depot Road.

We also are providing street trees around this connection, uh, which was one of the things we talked about with staff in trying to satisfy the road connectivity ratio.

We actually also added a sidewalk here, but to make it look like a street and the rest of the community, we're gonna plant street trees there.

So the credits uh for the street trees, the uh overplanted park areas and the forest conservation gets us to an on-site planting of um on the wrong 1.54 acres against the 1.7 requirement.

So our minimum was 0.85 to be planted.

We're gonna provide 1.54 through the credits that staff will allow, as well as the dedicated forest planting area here.

And then the balance is 0.16 acres, would be paid at fee and lieu at 30 cents a square foot, which is about a $2,000 check will stroke to the city forest conservation fund.

So we're significantly less than the maximum we could pay in fee and lieu and significantly more than the minimum planting threshold they wanted us to achieve for forest conservation.

I was just wondering what it was before to today.

It's doubled.

That was it.

How much changed by moving the townhouses?

Obviously, double.

Like just roughly doubled it up.

In the total, it doubled.

I just didn't remember from the previous time.

That's all I think.

That's a better plan.

This is a better plan.

And then um see.

Um in the back part, uh in the rear where the parking is.

The rear facades?

Yeah, the rear.

Um was there always a planting strip in between the houses or is that new today?

There's always been a strip, and we've we're showing it as a planted strip.

So now it's gonna have landscaping.

Yeah, which we think is nice.

Yeah, I thought that was new.

Yeah.

And then um it is new.

So the the walkway um passageways.

Actually, it was it was on the side.

What I want to talk about is the side modifications.

Um you're saying that it's more it's expanded more where the walkways are, but we're saying that we could have a side yard and another property with a side yard and get about 10 feet between townhomes in a in a LMC compliant plan.

We're doing three feet, but we're adding passageways which are actually wider than the 10 feet.

So we're actually providing more connectivity than would be allowed under the LMC, even though we're technically reducing the side yard to three from five.

We're prov we're we're compensating for that by providing these additional passageways.

Unless you're living in the N-unit townhouse and then your space is all the way down the street where the walkways are.

That's that would be taken away from that homeowner having that regulation because you moved it down the street to where the walk, like the passageways are.

Uh I'm not sure I'm following.

So the the the side yard modification only relates to these townhomes that face the the openings between them, right?

That's the only place they occur.

Do you guys can you guys hear me okay?

Not really.

Okay.

So the the side yard modification only applies to the end units in a group of townhomes.

And we're providing separation distances between these groupings to compensate for the five to three foot reduction that we're doing, which is only two feet.

So we're providing more space through these passageways than we'd otherwise.

But it's street space, not grass.

Well, no, this is this is you mean for the townhome owner to use?

Is that what your question is about?

Well, yeah, I mean, because you're saying like you're you're reducing the side yard because you're providing more space, but is that street space or is it yard?

It's public space.

It's oh it's not street, it's it's uh pedestrian walking street.

Yeah, it's walking paths there's open space between the side yard yard line and then adjacent side yard line that's gonna be open space and the paths will be centered on that.

So we're like the regulation would have been for the homeowner, now it's getting shortened so that it could be public space.

Yes, common space.

Yeah, yes.

Instead of the homeowner.

Yes, that is that's paying for the end unit.

And it's even more so on some of the other end units where there isn't a path like down the southeast corner.

Uh uh the up here at the down.

Yeah, southeast and then northwest corners.

Uh there's no path up at the other spaces.

So there's just more open space beyond the side of the end unit lot line that's all gonna be public space.

It's kinda one way to think about it is pinching the side yards gives you through access in the plan overall.

Um and then with the fence that you're putting in the front, who maintains that?

The homeowner or the HOA or the builders.

Since it's gonna be continuous, we'll probably put it in the covenants where the HOA will maintain it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh I think I'm good for now.

Thanks.

All right, Commissioner Lellen.

Um so most of my questions are answered, but um in regards to the fences, is there an alternative that you have in mind if the fence are fences are not approved?

If we didn't get the fences approved, what would be the alternative?

Um heavier, it probably would have to have some type of hedge edges and landscape.

Okay, I still have that.

Yeah.

A landscape buffer instead of a architectural.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner?

Yes, thank you.

Um I guess I'll start with the side modification.

If we could bring that up again, please.

Sure.

Uh the plan, the overall plan or the chart.

The detail, maybe?

It's a good thing.

The walking, the walking path.

Maybe the part of the sketch.

Okay, yeah, right there.

Yeah.

So um, as you told my fellow commissioner, it's the end unit that has the actual um modification for the side, correct?

Right.

Their lots were proposing to do from a five-foot building to lot line, three feet.

So these in between spots right there, um, outside of the end unit spots, are like walking paths.

Yes.

Okay.

And how wide are they?

They vary.

Uh it's about 35 feet in this location between the buildings.

So um about 28 feet between those lot lines.

Okay, and then the other one further, I don't have a um uh a parking lot.

And it's probably about half that here, so 14 feet between the lot lines here, and then up on the north side of the page, we have probably eight feet between the lot lines to South Street.

We have about 20 feet here.

Uh, and then we have a lot of space adjacent to these two parkland areas on the western edge.

And the path itself will be six feet wide.

Minimum six feet.

Yeah.

So I'm specifically focusing on the E Street side side of the path.

Yes.

Okay.

So you have, I think you said 20 24.

What was it?

The width?

One was 24, one was well, so these vary.

Um this has a road uh right of way through it, so this is the widest, probably not what you're interested in.

The non-road passageways are I'll just read them 20, 40, mm, 50.

Okay.

And that's the actual road right there.

So what you say, like where cars go into now?

Is that what you're talking about?

Only that.

Only this one.

The other the other modifications we're talking about are only related to pedestrian through ways.

So thank you.

Um is there a can we go back to one of the other like the site plans?

I want to see that more closely to see where that road is.

Can we go back?

Yeah, thank you.

Can we go back to the um Jennifer will do that?

Can we go back to the uh yeah?

I'll let you do it.

Thanks, Jennifer.

Oh, you're going to the civil plan.

Okay, this is good.

Can you make it bigger, please?

It's kind of hard to see.

The enlargement is actually on sheet uh seven for that connection to uh East Street.

Yeah, I'm trying to make it large here because I want people to be able to follow the conversation.

Okay.

Thank you.

That looks much better.

So can you point out to me again with your pointer those same spots, point out the main road from this angle and the pedestrian paths in the same angle?

And I'm trying to see.

Sure.

I'm wondering if this is.

Any chance you can zoom in a little bit more?

These, you know, civilizing plans are notoriously difficult to hear.

Yeah, I was gonna say um no offense, Mike.

Jennifer, do you think that there's another one that's better than that?

But just the only roadway, right?

Is that the only one?

Okay, so these are pedestrian, pedestrian, and pedestrian.

Okay, so I just okay.

So where's the circle?

There's a circle here somewhere.

Circles up here.

It's further up.

Yeah, this is the this is the on-site northwest.

Yeah, I was talking about the the the road circle is what I'm talking about.

But anyway, so let me just pull up.

Can we move up a little move?

Is it down or up?

Move up a little bit.

Yeah, thank you.

So you're showing me that.

Can you point again the the road?

Right here.

Road is right here, and I'm assuming where that road is, there's going to be so that's cars coming out.

Both both in and out.

Okay.

Um, and then the others are okay.

So the road connections are these, there's three vehicular ways in.

One is from the adjacent parcel, one is from East Street, and one is from South Street.

The other connections that we give a lot of uh verbiage to are the pedestrian connections, which think we're which we think are just as important, and they're between the town homes, the groupings of townhomes.

There's many more of those than the road collections.

Here's my question.

Thank you.

So though I love the walkability of the plan, I really like that on the integrated paths where you could just walk through.

Yeah.

Here's my concern.

That road is a busy road.

And oops.

This one.

Well, the home street.

Yeah, we're just trying to get that out of the way.

But E Street is a busy street.

Right.

And what I'm noticing is you have these walking paths that lead to the road, right?

Yes.

And what I'm wondering is, you know how people are, they like to cross instead of going down the street to where the crosswalk is or to where the sign is.

And so to me, it's almost like a safety hazard.

It's almost like uh what I would call like, you know, something that's that's really suggestive.

Beneficial in terms of the integration, bringing the walking in, which is what we want people to walk and not drive, but then these paths that are between the town homes, I could see people crossing the street where there isn't a crosswalk.

And you know, that is a very busy road.

So that was my first point about safety.

Um so that was just something I wanted to point out.

I mean, it's nothing that we can really do, I guess, but that was something I just wanted to bring to your attention that though that there is walkability, which is great as an amenity and and part of what you know our values are you know as a city, right?

It also brings up another point with safety.

Right.

Um we we do have a crosswalk on East Street right here that is being relocated.

I think Mike's further south.

Right.

I'm so sorry, right?

You you were I'm sorry, your voice trailed off.

Go ahead.

There's a gonna be new crosswalk at the median break there at our new entrance on Delaney Street.

But in reference to your other concerns, the all of these pedestrian paths terminate at a T on the shared use path.

They don't terminate at the curb line.

So there's an eight-foot shared use path we're gonna be putting on, and then yeah.

Okay, you can't stop people from wanting to jaywalk where there's in the crosswalk.

But we are at this tug of war between the connectivity and safety, obviously, is tanner out.

Yep.

So this is something I wanted to point out.

Appreciate that comment.

Yeah.

Yes.

And then the second thing is I'm looking at the uh staff report, and I need for you to confirm.

How many townhomes on lot one are you proposing to build?

Because the numbers fluctuate in the documents.

All the documents is like different things.

It says here there are inconsistencies throughout the plan notes with the drawings on the numbers of units to be verified and corrected.

So I believe it's 91.

Is it 91?

It's 91.

Okay.

Um.

And then let me see what else.

I heard the gentleman speak to forest conservation and the numbers, and I feel like I'm lost.

Um and it maybe it's a question for staff.

Um because I'm looking at the staff report while you were talking about you know the forest conservation, street tree credits and all that.

And I just couldn't find those numbers in the staff report.

I looked at page five and page uh uh I don't know where I'm looking at.

Page five, page six, maybe.

I don't know.

But I just felt like I was lost.

I wasn't sure.

Um, you know, I heard the numbers that you provided, but I didn't see that in the staff report, or maybe I'm not looking in the right direction or in the it might even be in the report for the preliminary force conservation plan, which is a separate submission that's running simultaneous with this.

Oh, okay.

But I will tell you the numbers are gonna change until we come to concurrence with staff.

Point I was trying to illustrate is the total forest requirement for this lot is 1.7 acres through combination of planting, whether it's in a forest area or or landscape credits and a fee and lie.

And we can only provide a maximum of 50 percent of the forest by a fee and loo payment.

And so what we're doing through a combination of planting and credits is we're achieving all but 0.1 acres uh of the forest requirements, and the balance then is just a small fee and loo payment.

Okay.

So nowhere near the staff's logic of what they will count for forest planting and landscape credits.

We're using the report standards in the measurement of the So I just want to reconfirm what I think I hear you saying.

I think I heard you say that there may be some inconsistencies with these numbers between what you're talking about and what staff is providing until what?

Until I heard you say it, but I'm the next submission that comes in after this is going to clarify the numbers, because the last comments that we had for Pam were um before were after our last submission.

So we were just refining the the numbers.

Okay, so when you when you say last submission, you're referring to the next plan that you provide to staff for the next meeting that we have.

Is that what you're referring to?

I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Yes.

Okay.

So is should the numbers should be more aligned with each other once we see this again at the hearing?

Yes, including the unit count.

Thank you.

Um, so I have a couple questions too.

Um first is regarding the modification for the fronting on open space, just to clarify the ones that are on the corner.

Anything that isn't technically on a road is a modification.

Yes, which is no, I realize that.

But you said the ones on the corner were part of the modification, the ones on the and those have been approved by the master plan, so that's not part of our modification.

Okay.

So we're only looking at the ones that are interior to the new park.

I'm perhaps my I I apologize.

Yes.

That's what I thought.

Um I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Um just out of curiosity, are all 91 townhouses going to have this third level terrace?

Okay.

Um the road, so the feds, you're only planning on East Street, not the ones that front South Street?

No, just East Street.

Okay, why?

Just east.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Why?

Because East Street is busier.

Um, we could add them on both.

But um, maintain the continuity of the delineate without being a barrier without being a visual barrier.

It's a nice soft architectural delineation for my understanding is it's a busier frontage.

Yeah.

I wouldn't if suggest that you guys consider um if if you really want to do the fence, continue it all the way around on onto South Street as well, just to maintain that continuity.

Um we are wrapping it around the to the northwest corner.

So if you wanted to see something on East Street, we would be willing to do that.

One thing that's different, though, about the two main street frontages is the topography at East Street is more level with the floors than it is on South Street.

The South Street floors are gonna be four to five feet higher, but just because of the the grade change and they would need less of this physical barrier.

Because you're gonna have a natural barrier with the the earth and the steps up to those units where it's at East Street, it's almost right at the street level, which is why we didn't put fencing over there.

But if that's preference of the planning commission, we're open to it.

Um the houses that front on East Street, um, especially for the ones that are in the interior of each each stick.

Um are you gonna have a little walkway inside of the fence, or are there gonna be entrances for each townhouse into each following?

Well, each each unit will have its own stoop and lead walk out to the shared.

Well, they each you want to have a break in the fence so that they can.

Oh, yeah.

So basically, you're not providing a continuous fence.

You're providing a fence broken up by the same.

I think we have a rendering of that.

I was looking for it.

I was just trying to imagine somebody in one of those middle units trying to walk across their neighbors' yards to get into their front.

We haven't decided if we're going to gate the uh the lead walk entry points, but yes, the idea is they would be able to walk out onto the public sidewalk.

All right.

Um my next question for you all has to do with the um parkland aspect of the requirement.

Um the requirement is 1.04 acres.

I thought I heard you.

0.94.

1.04?

It's 1.04, and we are at 0.94 currently.

So within 10 percent.

So the numbers in the table in the staff report only show that it shows 0.4 acres of private park and so it's not explaining where the other point there's a discrepancy.

So can you show me where all of the total park lands?

Yeah, again, this her calculations predated the revisions that will come in post this workshop.

So he was talking about four-five years.

The uh park up at the northwest corner is 0.27 acres.

The central park is 0.31 acres.

The park down there in the south uh east corner that we're also gonna provide for forest conservation is 0.37.

So those areas total 0.94 acres.

And so the required park land at 500 per unit of 1.04 leaves us a deficit of 0.1 acres to be paid via fee in lieu.

Thank you.

I have one more question, too.

Let me make sure that I've gotten to all mine and then we'll open it up to the floor.

Um I think the rest of mine were for staff.

Okay.

Go ahead.

We'll open it up.

Um I'm not seeing it in here, um, but with the shared use pathways, can we go back to the um like where we see all the pedestrian walks and everything?

Do you want the civil plan?

Uh the one that's colorful.

I like the colorful ones.

Okay, how about this one?

Um that has like more of like the keys to it and all that.

Tell me when you're at the plan you want to see.

Um there's one with like a bunch of dashes.

I mean, it's fine.

I guess I'll just ask my question regardless.

Um wasn't there something about putting the shared use pathways that there was an issue under power lines that had to get approval and for like the outparcils?

A and what happened to the other.

That was a comment from staff about providing a shared use path under the adjoining Potomac Edison ride-of-way.

That's off of our property.

And I believe the master developer Greensburg Gibbons is come and discuss that with you all.

I didn't hear that last part, sorry.

I'm sorry, what was that?

I couldn't hear your last part.

Didn't hear the results?

Greensburg Gibbons has had discussions in the past, I'm not sure with planning commission, but definitely with staff about that.

It's on their property, it's not on the slot one.

And uh I can tell you historically dealing with the power companies, that's yeah, is really difficult being able to get them to allow you to do anything.

We do have the road connection we're having to deal with.

And um the developer, the master developer said they would rather you address that through discussions with them because that's not part of the property that they've contracted with us to develop.

And I think you know frankly the the developer is probably very averse to doing that.

So can you show us what that's part of a north south connectivity though between our land bay and the land bay right next to this on Greensburg Gibbons plan.

So I'm not sure what adding one more path in there is going to do that the current design between this slot and lots four and five isn't providing.

Can you show us with the pointer like where that would have affected if it was approved or not right new there.

I'm not sure how wide it is Mike but I think it's in this right here.

I know it's like on the outs about uh probably at least 50 feet wide activity okay all right thank you maybe staff can speak more to that when we get when it's their turn and also to the discrepancies with the numbers with the with the you know um this chart right here on page five as well as what um um the parkland for his conservation um so the fencing just two quick questions um one how tall is a fence and but two I heard you mention that there was a community that had a similar fence to it in downtown Frederick is that what I heard you say I've seen it in can you hear me okay I've seen it in downtown Frederick.

And I'm asking that question because you know so we can kind of gauge for ourselves what that would look like.

So I'm just wanted to know where in front downtown Frederick have you seen that.

Can we so it is downtown it's in the historic district and can I follow up with you?

Sure feel free.

I just would like to all over other projects in the area we can we we did add a few from Capitol Hill in Washington if those are relevant that's an historic capital also.

But we'll send other examples.

Again it's not a visual barrier it's a delineation it's not meant to be a privacy fence.

You know I understand it's just that you know I'm a visual person.

Yeah so I need to see what you're talking about because you're asking for modification.

Right, right.

So you know I can't modify I can't you know approve a request at least for me that I can't see and I don't know what it looks like.

You know and maybe we've been requesting so just having some kind of idea of what that could look like and how tall it would be we're thinking 32 to 34 inches so low lower than the table.

Okay.

You know low it's decorative basically visually and supported with plantings and other things and it's actually considered kind of a nice thing.

It's a it's an embellishment to the frontage there.

So I I did work on a project in the city about three years ago called Waverly View that has front yard fences in it.

So if you go up off of Shookstown Road some of those units have fences in the front yard and we did get a modification for that.

Right but that's not like downtown right okay thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions one thing I want to preface and and let the applicant know and we do have a comment letters for both these uh the forest plan and the site plan we want to make sure when it comes in next time that you do address everything and send us uh response letters for those um many of those things we have carried over to have satisfied this next submission um and that is some cleanup of the notes as you said with uh the amount of uh number of units and other things um we do want them to clean up their modification letter and and addressing the sections that they need to for you and justification for all these um modifications that you're looking at um especially with the new ones it's as going forward um the setbacks um I think they've uh uh visually have demonstrated to you uh their uh the view of the setbacks and what's required or what's what needed for them um we're not gonna make any uh recommendation at this time for you or anything like that that if we support or not support with ever but they have demonstrated that their alley is there that is our standard and so forth so um we're gonna buy that one with their justification letter to come forward um also to uh we've discussed that their modification for those open spaces for those new townhomes facing on the central park so that'll come forward for you also and then um the connectivity um that has um uh almost reached our 1.8 um I would say that staff would support that in working with them and trying to get our our connectivity through the development and um into the streets to across South Street and everything they've worked uh with cheering with that and I think that's uh a good um uh good meeting of the minds of trying to get as close as they could with this and and still have the project connecting where we need it to and with the restriction on East Street

Um I would say that staff would support that in working with them and trying to get air air connectivity through the development and um into the streets to across South Street and everything.

They've worked uh with Cheering with that, and I think that's a a good meeting of the mines of trying to get as close as they could with this and still have the project connecting where we need it to, and with the restriction on East Street because that is an arterial that we did not want all the entrances coming off there.

So okay, um parkland for 91 units.

I still get a calculation of 1.04 is required.

And um it might be the way we're measuring it or whatever, but the only two park lands that you really do have at this pri at this point is for Central Park and the one on the corner.

The forest conservation that you have there is satisfying your forest conservation and planted as forest conservation.

You would have to get back to parks and rec for them to accept that as a parkland.

Um that was not in any of their approvals or anything like that, and then and planting in the forest forest conservation and a parkland requires their recommendation, and then it'll go forward to the city council for acceptance as that.

So I've put together this table, and what the table is trying to show you is what was approved by parks and rec with with the limitations of maybe where they would come in with fee in lieu of what they would come in as dedicated parkland and what they would come in as private parkland as a required.

They still have 1.60 in the overall development that could be private, although they still have two more lots, lots two and three, that's going to come forward.

Um, and with parkland as they required to meet the 14.46, they would have 6.84 acres yet to be provided for the somewhere along the administration would have to uh approve more fee in lieu of down the road.

So just letting you know where you are there.

Um you're gonna need to come back and and provide us with what the parkland you're gonna be providing and what how it's going to be proposed.

Uh connectivity we did that, okay, as addressing the um outlots for under the PE easement.

This is something, and I believe probably Plan Commission has heard many of the residents um get up and speak to the fact that they wanted this path to be usable for public interest if PE would approve it.

Um, and we've been trying to get either GE G or as this applicant because they are actually improving going across that those out parcels for their connection.

We felt that this is the time to ask for this, and um, for someone to reach out to PE and get a definite answer of improvement under there or not, and also to um having GE, if you're saying GE is telling you they're going to be the ones to do this, we want some commitment to them of that's their responsibility and not yours.

At this time, we have discussed it at staff level that uh they have an improvement plan coming through, overall improvement plan because GE is doing the improvement for the collector road going through, you know, from East Street and everything, that their improvement plan could include improved this improvement on those improvement plans if they are willing to do this for us.

Um, or we were saying it is the responsibility of this lot since they are improving coming through those out parcels for connection.

So we want some kind of decision, we would like to have some kind of decision on that and moving forward.

I think the residents need an answer to that because if it gets too far down the road and no one's taking responsibility for it just hangs out there, and so anyway.

Um they are some landscaping uh modification.

I have pointed out in the workshop summary that they will need for street trees, and also to um with those street trees and the forest conservation, that is when we will get their hard fast numbers of what they're really providing for you.

Um I did not have any plan to really re uh to look at this time for the forest conservation to make sure that all the calculations were correct in here.

So that will come back in and have like we say we will try to uh confirm all those numbers when it comes forward in the next round.

And the fence, as they they, I think they have said 32 inch in your in your uh visual, but also too.

Um we do like to see them below three feet if they are in the front yards.

The modification for the for the planning commission.

The his in my opinion, the history behind the front yard fences is the fact that for police security, it is safer to have open yards for visual for the police.

You don't want tall fences, you don't want even if there are policy is fences, no fences in the front yard.

The uh storic district does have historic uh front yard fences throughout here and there, and they make decisions on their themselves, the historic district does.

And then of course you look at front yard fences for other reasons.

We have had Waverly as Mike has brought forward, and also um East Church came forward through you, much like the fence that they're asking for aligning this arterial because they were both collectors or arterials and those might those approvals too.

But as for going through the whole street system and stuff, I don't know if that's um really something that's desirable or if if you want it to see, but the reasons why they are approaching it in their respect in this plan is because it it it aligns with the whole premise of safety along East Street.

Um but else do I have their stormwater is still pending for approval through engineering, and their APFO certificates are still pending through engineering.

Those um those approvals will need to be satisfied before they would come to your hearing.

Um I think that's it.

Um I think I've got everything covered.

They covered a lot.

Oh, one other thing.

I know they've shown you a lot of their visual for the um the the uh brickwork and everything for their elevations and stuff.

The elevations will come back to you separately.

Um they've not been submitted uh really formally for review and the elements, so we will have those on the under a separate review.

All right.

Thank you.

Um we'll do a roll call first.

Uh, Commissioner Valencia.

No, but that was very helpful.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lowell.

No questions, thank you.

Commissionellis.

Um, thank you, Pam, for um letting us know um about um why there's some discrepancies with the numbers, so that I appreciate that explanation.

I also appreciate you telling us that um they if they made some of these changes, I guess I might I took notes real fast um to the parkland and forest conservation and have to go back to the if they if if they wanted to count that forest conservation area as parkland, they would have to go back to the parks and rec.

Okay.

Um they couldn't just we couldn't.

So, how does that impact us when we're doing this?

We we couldn't go through, we couldn't do the forest conservation piece of this then.

Right?

Well, forest conservation has to come through with the site plan.

So um I'm just trying to understand the process or like the sequence of actions or events.

I'm just trying to understand if they would want to do that, they would have to get approval.

How does that impact us?

Like does the approval happen after it comes through us, or does it need to happen before?

Parks and rec should have their recommendation to you before it goes to the hearing.

That's what I was trying to figure out.

Okay.

May I get clarification on that, Pam?

We're not proposing public park land with this project, it's private.

We haven't gone to parks and rec to ask for them to take over maintenance of any of our park land.

The only public park land is what's being provided by the developer on the west side of East Street.

Right, but you're saying I'm getting confused now because I thought I heard you.

So you're telling me that you you are stating that your forest conservation area is a private park land.

That's right.

I don't know if I would uh under the LMC, I don't think we have down forest conservation as part of a parkland as such.

Um parklands I'd have to look at that.

When it was public park land.

I've I understand.

I don't understand when parkland can include forest conservation area.

But if it doesn't take that off and do it as a fee in lieu.

Then we'll have to get some determination on that, Mike, because the thing is when you go forward with uh dedication of parkland for forest conservation like that, it's already gone through the parks and rec at that time anyway.

Or it's gone through annexation or something.

I just want to clarify that.

Okay, so it's it's private, yes.

But I'm saying private, and I'm saying that private needs to match um the park um list of parks of what we would look at tot lots, linear uh linear walkways and squares and things like that as usable activity, um, parks.

Um forest conservation, though we do take it into our park lands and times for environmental reasons and such, we don't expect um a true forest to be an active park for residents.

That's just my thought on it and the reason why it's formed that way.

But so there's probably gonna be more internal discussion at a later time with you guys and them, right?

Okay.

So I want to move on because there seems to be a lot of um, you know, I don't want to use the word confusion, but um seems to be some unfinished business.

So I think I'll just move on from that.

Um the second piece is I also want to tell um staff thank you so much for keeping that path along that utility line in the forefront, and I understand that you know you're saying that someone has to get answers from GE about you know, and I'm trying to figure out who's that someone and when is that gonna happen?

Well, I would say it was Jay Diamond.

Um, but the thing is I think um there has there has to be someone to take responsibility for that path and for answering to well, it can be constructed, can it not be constructed in order to not drop the ball for the residents and knowing a path could be connected through there?

Okay, so I thank you.

Um in my head, I'm thinking action item, who's doing that?

Like or or it's up to the the property owner.

I'm just trying to understand like is this going to happen by the time we come and see this again next month?

I am addressing this to these applicants that they should be working with GE to get us an answer for that.

Okay, and these applicants are saying that they're not the property owner, correct?

So this is where I'm like ding ding ding.

Who is it?

Like who's doing this?

When this obligation is put on us and we don't own the property, and I can tell you Greensburg Gibbons is to date not agreed that they're willing to do this.

And it's it could hamstring our approval, and I'm not sure how you come to consensus other than getting in a meeting with with the master developer.

Okay.

And so then I'm back to the city staff.

I'm going it's like I'm doing ping pong, I guess like a tennis match back and forth.

But now back to you guys.

So my question is they have an improvement plan that's coming before you, right?

Where you're hoping that they'll somehow sweeten the pot and add this piece to it, maybe.

So I guess my question is um what's the plan?

I mean, not that you have to tell me now, but I'm just hoping that someone will advocate for that.

If it's not them because they're not the property owner, I mean, I don't know how I'm not trying to defend them or anything, but I'm just trying to understand how they would take the onus on that, because it's not their property.

But I do understand that you did say that piece of the that land would be connected to their path.

Well, no, they've got to take the road connection to um the local road to connect.

Okay.

So I guess I'm just hoping.

I'll end my comment with just saying I'm hoping that somebody will advocate for the city residents, and that if this improvement plan comes before city staff, that somehow we can work something out to get um a response from GE and hopefully get a determination on whether a path can be built there and then built.

Okay.

Um and also too, they um have to other lots also that's uh pending.

Um I think adjacent also um to go forward.

But we will try to get some kind of solution to that.

Thank you.

Um when is this improvement plan discussion with them gonna happen?

Like when is that supposed to be going on?

That's all um, you know, improvement plans go to the engineering department, and so that's all staff level and everything, and they go through multiple reviews for most part and cleaning up their plans too.

Um so we would have to talk with the engineering department and see if they want to uh approach that with them or um if it's already been approached with them, I don't think.

I think we had talked internally to staff to see which way could it be handled through is the easiest way to be handled.

Um I would say probably the easiest way would be to see if we could just clean it up, take the the initiative, reach out to PE, see if it can be done, and have it put on improvement plans that's now pending going through the this process, and so we'd have to see what they uh what they agree to do or not degree, you know.

Well, I appreciate your transparency in your comments, and I'll be back with this question again.

The next time you guys see us about this uh next month.

Thank you.

So which lot do those out parcels actually belong to they are just common area.

Ah so this whole site has been divided up into lots, and we have these two little pieces that don't have parcels that don't belong to any lots.

No.

Okay.

Interesting.

So my main questions have to do with the connectivity ratio, and I'm pretty sure we're gonna need Charian to answer those.

Um, but I don't understand.

Well, one thing it would be nice if somebody walked us through how you calculate the connectivity ratios, because I don't feel like I can review whether or not that's appropriate when I don't understand how it was done.

Um second, it looks the same to me.

So I don't understand how it went from 1.33 to 1.8 or 1.75.

Yeah, I I mean I I will let Pam do the connectivity because I don't do the connectivity ratio.

Oh, you don't?

Oh, okay.

I thought it was I thought it was engineering.

Can you get to the screen?

1.8 is the requirement.

I know that.

The original application was 1.3 because of what we were counting for the links and nodes, and when we met with Cherry and worked that out, don't count this link, don't count that node.

We moved a street.

That's what I want to understand.

So we we we added that.

That's exactly what I want to understand.

No, it's okay.

I can't see it.

So I I don't want to speak to the links and nodes, but what I can talk to the what we changed in terms of the road network.

Okay, but I do want somebody to explain the links and the nodes.

Um the nodes are more the intersections of your your streets, the intersections and then and the um links are you know the street the streets that the distances between the nodes.

So you would divide, and I keep she keeps uh dividing one to the other to get your your calculation.

Okay, so circles are the same thing.

There's a key to understanding it if I if I could if I could help as the architect.

The lines between them are the nodes, or excuse me.

The lines are the links, the dots are the nodes.

Okay, so then basic question: why is there's a dot on the curve, but that I mean it that doesn't look like it's actually an intersection.

Why is that counted?

And the same down here at the southeast corner, there's a dot that seems to just end.

So why is that counted and how is that included in the measurements?

I believe if we look at the land management code um example, they have some of these um areas where you make turns that can count as links.

Um and the node is at the ending point as that one one is there.

But um that's the best I can tell you as how we've uh used them um according to our figure in the LMC.

Okay, well let me just say that make sure that you explain it to us before the hearing, because I can't make a decision on this modification until I understand it.

Chairman.

Chair Woman Straws.

And that's why we can count that mid-block node.

All right.

But I mean, if we don't get any if I personally don't get any more information than this, I won't be able to to make a decision on a modification.

So incidentally, another anomaly with the links and nodes.

We can count the link, but we can't count the node at the existing street connection.

It's but we can when it's internal to the project.

Okay.

And then Sharine, you were gonna explain how the road layout is different.

Sure.

Um so one of the things that uh the one of the items that we really wanted to the applicant to go back and take a look at was the connectivity to um South Street eventually.

So that was one uh big recommendation that we were making, then the applicant was able to provide an easement uh for a future connection to Griffith property, and also dedicate um or put in an easement uh an area at the corner there so that we can in fact do a 90-degree um connection into Griffith property.

So the whole idea in this area was to set something up and the details are in this inset here uh so that that road connection can be made as a public street.

Um so that was one.

And if you recall there was some offset that there was a couple of extras or one or two extra streets here.

We cleaned that up by moving some of the units and making the sticks a little better, bigger, and was able to have a much more of a true connection out here as a public street.

So we could in fact have that public street connection between Listener and uh E Street.

Okay.

That's simple, but really it took some time to kind of make the large three arrangement, and the the last piece was that moving this to a lot so it could also work.

Um a lot of cleanup to make this happen, and this is something we could support.

Okay.

And then my last connection, I mean last question is why can't this street just follow the property line and connect to Wisner right now?

Why does it have to go into the Griffith Road property?

So right here.

Um certainly there is that offset.

That's something that we struggled with.

So this is Wisner and where that street connection would wouldn't work.

But why can't it?

Why can't it just kind of wind instead of stopping there?

Why can't it just kind of wind to the right a little bit and go along go along that corner and connect to Wisner?

Oh, you you mean just follow this and can kind of meet here.

Yes.

I don't know if you recall the conversation we had at master plan, this was exactly.

It's been a while.

Yeah.

So it was really that discussion.

We kind of dropped that idea of connect making that connection at the time of master land with master plan because of that uh offset with Wisner, because actually angled a little bit this way, and have another angle street would not be ideal for um Why not from a traffic operation standpoint?

It won't be uh ideally you want to get that 90 degree as much as possible.

And also we need there was a need to serve Griffith property at some point.

So we figured that if it whenever that comes in, we'll put can make that connection, and there is an opportunity at that point to make that connection because Griffith will have to serve whether whether it's a public or private street, at least coming in here, and we can make that connection at that corner.

Would which would be one of plan for that future when Griffith property come in?

And I think we hit all those goals with with the revisions they made.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions for staff?

Um at this point, do we have any public comment on this case?

No, seeing none.

Is there anything else?

I just have one question clarifying the upcoming dates.

We talked at the last workshop because we had to go to a second one about possibly being heard at the September hearing, and when the letter came back to us, looks like you're trying to cue us up for October instead.

I just wanted to get some clarity on that.

Yes, we have you scheduled for that because we need a re uh resubmission.

We have a short time period with holiday, and also to um our agenda is uh pretty well uh packed now, and not sure we'll be able to hear through all the rest of those cases that night.

Um so we're reconsidering uh what the agenda will actually be for September with the cases already planned.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Anything else?

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, our next next case is PC 25-161 FSI final state plan for Frederick Research Park.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is John Mazellan with Fox and Associates, uh, the engineer of record for the project.

Um the applicant unfortunately couldn't be with us today.

The rescheduling of this meeting created a conflict for them, otherwise they would be here to attend.

Um so this is the last remaining lot on TJ Court.

It's a small one-acre lot, fairly shallow.

We are trying to make to make the most of it, which is the reason why we have a couple of uh uh landscape modifications.

Um but this is a 97 9,734 square foot one story medical office building, principally um an oral surgery uh center.

Um with uh parking, of course, in circulation.

With uh parking, of course, in circulation.

Um it's gonna be a beautiful building, and we're trying to celebrate a little bit with the landscaping, plus meet the code and pack in the storm water management trash, and the uh generator.

Um but other than that, it's fairly straightforward.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Can you just walk us through the modifications that you're asking for and and the reasoning behind them?

Okay, sure.

Thank you.

So the first modification is for loading.

Um I think the code calls for a large space.

Their deliveries are usually a small van, uh, just a drop and go type of thing.

Um with the spatial requirements that we have, that space wouldn't be used anyway.

So it's like a UPS truck or something like that that stops by.

Um the landscape modifications, we have a modification along the north and east side for the uh screening against the adjacent properties.

To the north, we have the landscape or the stormwater management facility where we can't have any trees.

Oh, can you use a pointer?

And make that a little bigger, Jennifer, if we can, so that he could we can see as he is talking in a lot of modifications, we can look at what he's talking about because I'm lost right now.

Okay.

So we have the first landscape modification is for screening along the north side and the east side, the north side.

We have a linear stormwater management facility, and this is the embankment, and we cannot have any trees or woody vegetation within 15 feet of the toe of the embankment.

Along the east side, there are existing utilities, I think gas and storm drain, which leaves us a very narrow window for landscaping, but we can do some shrubs and um lower landscaping other than trees.

Trees need to be 10 feet from the utilities.

So that's the cause of that modification.

And then the second landscape modification is along the frontage.

Again, there are existing underground utilities that are coursing through.

You can see a little bit right there.

Um we have to uh we fit in street trees where we could, um, where it doesn't create a conflict, but again, maintaining a 10-foot separation doesn't give us much room.

So we're augmenting that with more ornamental type landscaping, um lower level landscaping um to add some color and some uh shrubbery to that um to that area in lieu of the trees.

Okay, thank you.

Um we'll do a roll call for questions.

We'll start with Commissioner Llewellyn.

I have no questions at this time.

It's a very small site, but I appreciate you pointing out where everything is there.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

No real questions, just one confirm.

So there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine modifications.

Um is a load and duck, one is the buffer and screen, and then there's like a landscaping requirement below.

Oh, are these just requirements but not a modification?

Yes.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand what this is.

Are you talking about the table?

Yeah, the table.

Oh, and that's three modifications.

Yeah, and the in the table you'll see that um only those that are a modification.

It has been listed, see modification number three, see modification number two.

Okay.

Yeah, and everything else either complies or they are going above that compliance.

Okay, okay.

So I see on this um one, two, three, that third um the third uh row, um, I see C modification too.

That's what you're referring to.

Okay.

So that's where you would see that's some that's a modification.

Thank you.

Yeah, I see that now.

Oh, I see all of them now.

Thank you.

They were hiding in plain sight.

Thank you.

There is some debate on how to do these tables to give you guys because we want to show you that the landscaping is there, that everything else is compliant, or when they're above and beyond, uh, maybe we'll add some highlights.

Thank you.

Yeah, sure.

Um regarding the east side of the property, what is adjacent to that that that needs to be screened that we're screening from?

Is there a building?

The existing under underground utilities here.

Mm-hmm.

And then what's the building?

What's the what's the property owner?

What's the building on the other side of that?

This building, it's a it's another medical office building.

This whole court is virtually the same use.

Okay.

So it's a campus-like setting.

So it's essentially the same kind of okay.

Um and then just regarding the loading zone.

I mean, if if at some point this building is going to have a different use in the future, do we need to worry about about the need for a loading zone in the future?

Well, I think if it becomes a change of use and they have to come back for site plan, that's an opportunity to request that, but this particular use that doesn't need that large loading space.

Um and again, it would be adding more impervious area that to the site that wouldn't be used.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for yeah, I just want to add a couple of things.

So regarding the large loading space and and the change of use potentially down the road.

So this is a complex that has uh like the whole court has medical uses on it, and when you build a medical building, normally there are different attachments in each room that are hard to turn into anything else.

So normally medical leaves and a new kind of medical comes in, maybe maybe it's not dental later on, maybe it's dialysis, right?

Um so we do and I do believe that the the medical will stay.

Um as far as the buffers, so um if you're looking at it on your right hand side, it's just because it's abutting that district, it's a level one screen, it's not a huge thing.

Um and in the rear, it's similar.

Just so you are aware, and um we'll bring this up at the main meeting.

Because they are they have the stormwater facilities up on the north side, and because they have the utilities buried in the ground, we're actually getting more space than the buffer requires.

Um so even though we can't they can't do the plantings, they are providing extra space away from those property lines.

Nothing else, Dan.

All right, great.

Um any other questions for staff?

Okay, great.

Um, do we have any public comment on this issue?

Nope, seeing none.

Great.

Anything else?

Okay, that concludes the discussion of this case.

Thank you.

And uh glasses are required.

Our next case is PC 25-193 FSI final site plan for AstraZeneca Profusion Edition.

Good afternoon.

Um Jennifer, can you pull up the yep?

First drawings.

Okay.

So I'm Kyle Hughes with MHG.

I'm representing the civil engineer.

With me here is Aaron Pratt.

Yes, I'm with DPR construction, and then behind us we have Mason Goodwin, who is uh working the AstraZeneca project manager.

Um so we're here presenting on the final site plan for the AstraZeneca perfusion edition.

It's a um where's the pointer?

Oh, yeah.

Behind your light.

Okay.

It's a uh 7,020 square foot addition.

Um and here you can see it, it's it's right in the middle of this um industrial uh this medical facility with um in between two existing medical facilities with AstraZeneca.

Um the site is a 27-acre um property, and the addition is gonna go you know, right in the middle, so that there's not gonna be any uh setback um conflicts, um, or there shouldn't be any community impacts as well.

Um a perfusion addition um is I think I'll let Aaron kind of explain what that is.

Um basically it's a it'll be an added manufacturing facility to the south end of the existing B636, and it will have uh a cell culture and a media prep lab with some bioreactors and some fancy equipment.

Um that just says a faster process uh depending on the product to get faster to get out to the public faster um to cure whatever the product may be.

Uh there's you know it's um still kind of obviously being designed, but it's um basically helping cancer product get out faster to the public without going into too much detail.

Okay, it's and the the addition doesn't have any new water or sewer uses.

Um we're not expecting for it to cause any additional hirings at the site.

Um for parking.

Um it it adds some extra parking, but there's an it there's um the site currently only requires or with the addition, we only are required to have 455 spaces, and the site already has 681.

Um there's there's 10 loading spaces and that are required, and we're providing 10 already in existing conditions.

Um landscape requirements have been met through previous final site plans.

Um and the new addition does not trigger any additional landscaping.

We have reviewed the zoning code um and the the landscaping on site.

And um we've we've uh determined that there's four extra plantings that we need to do to replace um four trees that have died.

Force conservation requirements in sections 721 have been satisfied with the combined forest stand delineation and preliminary force conservation plan case number um PC 14 526 FSCB that was approved on October 16, 2015.

Um and right now we have adequate public facility documents um under review for roads, waters um and sewer the stormwater plans are already approved.

Um can you go to the next drawing that just shows yeah?

So this is kind of like a zoomed up version of the drawing, just showing uh what it looks like.

Um it's pretty much you know, a box of for the addition that I'm circling here.

Um and then the project involves a variety of utilities that we're um relocating to provide room for that addition.

Um with that with that said, um, unless Aaron has anything added, I'll just uh open the floor to questions.

No, it's basically just a two-story labs on the the ground floor mezzanine mechanical on the second floor.

It will be um under the it the existing building is two stories, it will be under the height of the existing building.

Um it's just basically an extension of the growing and they need more space for their scientists, so um it's not adding any employees, just adding more space to do their work.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll do a roll call for questions.

Commissioner Manellas.

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Balencia.

Um, no questions, just a comment.

Like I think were there any elevations that showed it was two stories or my missing that because there was what this looks like.

It's like I don't know if it's the big rectangle or just the little rectangle inside it that's like yeah, we submitted it.

I think they were in a separate file.

Um they were presented on when we were here June 23rd.

It is basically matching the building.

It's a butler building with the cream uh metal panels, uh, kind of like a modular build.

Um pictures help.

Yeah, there should be like that.

Is I don't know what I'm looking at right there.

Like it's just kind of difficult.

Because I understand you have the two like like this is the conjoining piece, right?

To the two that are already existing, and this is just being put in the middle of them and they're conjoining.

Mason was actually involved with, and then there's a connector that connects the two buildings.

This will be on the south end of one of the buildings.

Oh, so it's not connecting the two.

It's not attached to the two, just connecting like uh an addition to the back end of the one.

Oh, okay.

That's because that's what I'm trying to say.

I'm like, I'm just not seeing this.

I mean, this it's fine.

If you go to the picture, if you have elevations.

To provide at the hearing, that would be helpful.

Okay, yeah, okay, yeah, better be clearer.

I have a new computer, but I don't think that helps.

We don't require elevations for additions like this.

It's always nice to get them for like the multifamily things, but that that's why it's not in the packet, is because we have nothing to review there.

Right.

But this is just unclear, just as a comment.

Okay.

Yep.

Thanks.

Definitely include that.

It also is facing the drive where there's three generators and a diesel tank that is utilized by AstraZeneca.

So it's kind of like the industrial area where it's not near a parking lot.

It's kind of the back.

But I don't see any of that in this picture.

Like I don't know, like it's just not clear, and it's so tiny.

Could you go to the next site plan?

Like that's I would like to see everything that you're telling me about.

Like this.

It is.

Do you have the pointer?

Yeah.

There you go.

So this right here.

These three right here are the generators existing, and this is the diesel tank.

So the end of the building is right here.

This is a connector that goes to that other building that's down here.

So this shaded trapezoid.

Um would be the new building, and there's existing gate right here.

Um at the kind of at the back end.

But we we will we have yeah, we do we did provide um elevations prior, but we can include them in and if and we could do some color renderings if you like.

Just simple okay.

We'll do.

Commissioner Willen?

Um, I don't have any questions, but I agree.

It you know, if you can simplify it for us, okay.

Um these are hard to follow, and understand um that would be helpful for us.

I know exactly where it is, but um to understand and I appreciate you letting us know that it's not in between the two, because when I read it, that's what I would had in my head as well.

Yeah, we we'll do even a color block per building simple A B C here We Are kind of thing.

Perfect.

Some elevation drawings, yeah.

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure that's and I don't have any questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um Christina or Sherry, whoever um I don't have anything additional um to say.

He um Kyle pretty much went through everything that's in the staff report.

Um the only thing that's really outstanding other than some technical comments are the APFO.

Um which they'll be issued prior to public hearing.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Nope.

Anything else?

The public hearing is scheduled for October.

Is that correct?

Um we're not in charge of it.

Okay, all right.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Oh, wait a minute, before you get up, I have to ask if there's any public comment.

No.

Okay.

Now we're good.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So that leaves us a little bit of time to discuss the draft of the rules of procedure.

Well, actually, we have a lot of time.

We only have 13 minutes until my parking expires.

So it's a little so a little different.

I know.

No, me too.

We can't.

There's a maximum of two hours.

So at that point, it's just a point.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Good afternoon.

Thank you so much.

Um, so we sent over the draft marked up version and a draft clean version.

I believe you have paper copies in front of you as well.

Yeah, I figured that's the same.

My goal was to walk through um, I'm gonna be working off with the marked up version because it's easier for me to um help point out um substantive changes that we've made.

Um these have been reviewed both internally by our staff as well as our legal department.

Um we have not been able to share the the final revision back with um staff in our legal department and we intend to do that afterwards and to gather some additional information on some of the the discussions we've had.

So um we'll we will provide that to you once it's available.

So starting on page one under section one, um you'll see consistently throughout the document.

We have um steered away consistent in other rules of procedures for other boards and commissions from terms um such as chairman or vice chairman, um turning towards chairperson or vice chairperson.

So you'll see that um consistent throughout the document.

There's not much procedurally changed in 1.1 or 1.2 beyond those um those terms in 1.3.

We've incorporated in the new section of the city code uh to talk about the um council's ability to designate an alternate member to sit on the commission.

I should have prefaced uh section one by we're changing it instead of officers of the commission, the commission and commission liaisons just to differentiate now between the role of the liaison, not really as a member of the commission any longer.

Is there anything the original?

Is there anything uh so we're adding 1.3 to you have a question?

I was just wondering, do we have like an original copy that we can do a side by side because original copy of the rules um they are available online?

I can send you the link of them.

Um we did not print a paper copy.

I don't know what was changed here beside it being sure.

Thank you.

Sure.

So in the document, um, I should have also prefaced the text that you see in brackets is text that's being removed, and the text that's bolded and underlined is new text.

So the original version is in within the markup, but it it is um difficult to to read um continuously.

So section 1.3, we've added uh the council's ability to designate an alternate in accordance with the city code.

We've also expanded on um the kind of the roles and responsibilities of the alternate, saying it it is subject to uh section two, which is our conduct of members, and we'll get to that in a second, and uh that that that role participates in discussions on items at meetings, inclusive of public hearings workshops and pre-planning commission meetings, um, but clarifying that the uh alternate only votes under certain circumstances.

Similarly, we've added section 1.4, which uh just refers back to the city code once again and the ability to appoint a liaison and once again ensuring that they are also subject to the conduct of the commission members.

Section two is conduct of commission members.

This was I apologize to cut you off.

I just are we allowed to ask you questions as you go or do we wait for you to finish?

No, that's fine.

However, you want to do this, go ahead.

Okay.

I'm just looking at the original document, the actual current rules of procedure approved February 10, 2025.

And I just want to make sure I understand.

So you added the 1.3, you added the 1.4 to this section.

Those are like new sections that are highlighted and whatever.

Um, and um okay.

Um I just wanted to understand that okay, and you're pointing out okay.

So the language looks the same to me.

Um I guess you move something around because it looks like you have in accordance to dash four six um city code um oh, this is the same exact clean version and marked up version.

Okay, thank you.

If you you got it, confusing I believe.

No, no, one point three and one point four are brand new.

Right, right.

So those those are all added text.

Are we supposed to have a liaison here?

Well, there has been one appointed.

Yeah, we it's McShane.

Well, it is that he's been appointed.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so we've moved um section six in the existing rules is conduct of commission members.

We've moved that.

So when you scroll down into the marked up version, you'll see that text being completely deleted and being moved into section two.

Uh we thought this was appropriate to kind of talk about the commission at the onset.

If you're reading this like a story, we we've established who our commission members are, and now we're establishing um what kind of conduct should control.

So we wanted to kind of bump that up in prominence in the rules of procedure.

Uh we've copied most of that over from what's in section six.

So it's marked up as uh underline and bold in your marked up version because it's being relocated, but much of it is consistent with what's already there.

So we had we had talked about at the last discussion making a um stricter than 50% of the meetings requirements.

So that is in the city code, and that's additional information.

I can ask the city attorney to speak to.

That was a change that the city council made um in their changes to the the charter and the city code last November.

Right.

So that would have to be amended in the city code, um, which uh is not the planning commission's purview necessarily.

Uh changes to the city code are are of the council.

Um so for the time being, we've carried that over.

This is what it says in the city code currently, that 50%, and then um any meetings uh I'm sorry, more than 50% in any consecutive 12-month period, and then um it you're considered resigned.

So that's additional information.

I don't know the mechanism that the the city attorney would advise you to pursue if you wanted the city council to change that, um, but that the city council has of late amended their the code to say that.

Um we did uh add on to that provision that the planning department shall maintain a record of each meeting and the commission uh members present for inspection by the commission, the council or any member of the public on request.

That's also something that we regularly indicate on all of our minutes.

So we just included that in there.

That is not a change to anything we currently do, um, but just to be sure that people understand that that is part of our regular practice.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so with the wording on the 2.5, um where it says that they they would be considered to have resigned and may be removed, should could that be changed to shall be?

Because if we're at 50% not showing up, can they just be removed and put shall be instead of maybe?

So the I believe the city council or the city code provisions allow someone to essentially petition the council not to be removed.

So there is kind of an appeal process under the city code, and that's why it would say maybe because the council may elect not to remove them.

I believe if you were if you had if you had missed more than 50% of the meetings, you are considered resigned.

However, you would have an opportunity to appeal that.

Um so it does not well could it be they shall be removed, but can appeal with the council?

I don't think if there's an appeal, we would want it to say shall because it would be subject to the council's ultimate discretion.

Okay.

Um so I guess back to that 2.5.

So you're saying that because this is like a city council umage um approved and discussed and approved last year, I think you said can't remember, um, that we have to keep it at 50%.

But could we petition the council to say specific for the commission, seeing the importance of this particular body?

Um, can the language be modified?

And that that is what I was saying.

I would want to consult back with our legal department about the mechanism for doing so because it is not in our rules of procedure, it's actually in the city code, which um so I can find that additional information for you.

Okay, so the next time we discuss this, we'll hear from you about um what they're saying, but city legal department is saying about what the process be.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And I think it'd be safe to say if they say it's okay to go through that process, then you just say then that we want to go through that process instead of wasting another meeting to be like, oh, this is what happened.

Do you want to?

Yes, we want to.

So I think we can just say that now.

I would agree with that.

Okay.

So 2.6 um is believe not in this current section of the conduct um, but is in the meeting section.

But we thought it important to move into conduct just to clearly state that members shall familiarize themselves with the project and properties under consideration for all meetings, including visiting the sites where applicable and reviewing all agendas, staff reports, and supporting documents provided prior to the uh applicable meeting.

So that concept is in the rules of procedure, but being relocated to conduct.

2.7 and 2.8 are discussion about ex parte communication have not been changed.

2.9 uh just reiterating that the liaison and the alternate are subject to the rules of conduct.

Moving into section three, uh, well, it was section two, it's becoming section three.

Um we've clarified uh just some language basically.

Um it's just rewording about uh when our meetings are held and the ability to schedule um meetings if if holidays or such exist.

Uh 3.2 uh 2.2 is being just relocated.

That's about inclement weather.

3.2 uh once again is um this is regarding workshop.

Uh this is once again just kind of stating we have the workshops when they'll be, unless we have to have another date.

We do take public comment.

Uh the presiding officer may establish reasonable time limits and registration requirements for speakers at public meetings.

Um in this section, we've also um uh reinforced what the workshop is, and the purpose of that is to allow the commission to review new development and proposals and items that will come forward for our subsequent uh public hearing.

3.3 is establishing what our pre-planning commission meeting is.

Uh the biggest substantive change here is that we have kind of stated what the purpose is of that meeting is.

I think sometimes that's kind of a question mark in people's minds.

What are we doing at this pre-planning commission meeting?

And it's for the department staff to brief the commission on updates to projects on the hearing agenda that have happened since the workshops were held.

So we've talked about adding to the pre-planning meeting the opportunity for the commission to just bring up and discuss questions of interest.

So can we make sure that that gets included in here?

So that is actually later.

Our recommendation would be that that's part of the workshop.

So there's a new paragraph added.

And we'll talk about in a second, share some of the background why why workshop is probably a more appropriate opportunity to be transparent and make sure the public is aware of discussion items that might be talked about by the commission.

Are there pre-planning meeting minutes also like open to the public, they can watch it?

Correct.

However, we don't publish a separate agenda for the pre-planning commission meeting like we do for the workshop.

It's essentially our hearing agenda.

If there are special there shouldn't be discussions about projects not on any agenda at any meeting, right?

But I have another question.

That wouldn't be appropriate because those kind of conversations should happen at the workshop for the item or at the public hearing if we've missed it.

So we should only be discussing at each of the meetings really the items on that agenda.

Now, if there are topical discussions we want to have, we want to talk about what does it take to get an APFO traffic study approved?

If that's just a you know inquiring minds want to know type of question, that would be an item that I think is more appropriate to place on your workshop agendas.

That way we can publicize and make sure we're making the public aware that this is a topic that we'll be spending some some discussion on.

Um I think that that's a much more transparent way for the public to understand what the commission's talking about, especially if any of those conversations turned into evolved into um any sort of you know request to the council to amend a section of the code.

I think that it's it's important um that that be a topic that we advertise publicly and so we've included that in a later section in the draft.

Um we could talk about that.

So I yeah, go ahead.

Okay, so I do have a comment about that.

Um though I understand exactly what you're saying, and it makes sense.

I um I I feel like I have an issue with it, it's neither here or there, but I mean I I just want to say that workshop is pretty robust and busy.

And if I would like to get training on the difference between forest conservation, um street credits, you know, um private versus public land and whatever else, you know, in that body where we're talking about you know, forest conservation and so forth, um we don't have time for that.

Like we don't you have a robust agenda as it is, and I'm assuming it will continue to be so, and so now we start to pick and choose what's gonna fall on the wayside and what's not, and I don't think that we should fall on the wayside for sure.

Um so I think that that's a problem because I feel like the uh pre-meeting provides more a relaxed environment, and you get through the things and you still have time to do things, and so I I guess we we're not allowed, I guess.

There's something in the rules that say that we can't have uh a pre-meeting agenda that will include that information.

Sure, thank you, and I appreciate that.

And I think that the Friday pre-planning commission meetings are intended to be a debriefing, and and that's historically what they have served as.

Um, just to recap the the items coming up for the hearing, we do have time constraints at that meeting as well, and and want to make sure that we're um answering any last minute questions uh for the hearing, because what that's what we're kind of front and center most most interested in preparing for.

Um, so I would not want to also see us um not spend the time at that making sure we're prepared for the Monday hearing.

Uh and we do have time constraints there as well, right?

Uh so I I understand the timing issue very much.

Um, the other discussions that I think we've had and we can continue to have is you know, scheduling if it if it's a concerted training and we have too much on our agenda um scheduling meetings, uh Christina and I've talked about opportunities to be creative and maybe you know film some training modules we can share with you.

Um obviously you lose the interactive component of it, um, but it is an opportunity to share some basic information.

So And you can have a QA session after for that video in terms of at workshop.

Like I have a video, but then you know, hey, haven't seen the video, what are your thoughts?

What are your questions?

You know, and then people can we can respond to those questions.

But anyway, can we reach some kind of a compromise where we include like the last 15 minutes or 15 minutes at the pre-hearing for kind of the spontaneous questions, and then if they turn into something that needs a more in-depth discussion, then we can schedule it for a workshop?

I think you know it makes me I think it's a conversation we need to have to flush out a little bit because spontaneous comments questions should not uh cannot be about projects.

Um and we're not talking about projects.

So it's unnapped.

We're talking about sure explain to me links and notes.

You know?

So that but that would be a discussion for the workshop, right?

That would have been a perfect.

Not about this project's links and notes tell me about how links what links are notes are and how they how you could how you do the math to come up with the connectivity ratio.

That's not project related at all.

You know, but I think when we're having those conversations in the context, I would encourage when you say, Oh, I you're talking about a concept I'm not familiar with.

I don't want you not understanding those conversations specific to the project, right?

So that's when we do need to stop and say, you're talking about a concept that I don't understand philosophically.

Before you should make a decision on that project, you should understand exactly what that means.

So that's why those questions are really important to be asked in the moment when we're on a project.

If there's a follow-up that, you know, hey, we talked about APFL, and generally I would like to understand more about a different aspect of it.

But to separate a discussion like that from the project that it pertains to may mean that you're not asking the questions at the workshop that you need to make the decisions you want to, and that's what we want you to make ask those questions, right?

If if you want to discuss how do you calculate notes, what does that mean?

What are the benefits of it?

You're making you're being asked to make the decision on a specific project, so that conversation is really pertaining to the that project itself.

Otherwise, if you don't have a firm understanding it, are you making an equated decision about it?

And so I think they they are very hard to separate.

And I I I absolutely think there should be time, but I think it needs to be publicized and transparent.

I don't think it's appropriate for the planning commission to be having topical conversations that aren't listed on an agenda beforehand.

If we're gonna talk about APFO, we should put it on the agenda and say general discussion about APFO traffic impact studies so people are aware and can come in and listen or watch it.

And so and and we also need time.

You know, our our staff is amazingly educated in all aspects of life at the city of Frederick.

However, we're not the technical experts in traffic.

Excuse me.

And I said, I think you keep saying time a lot, but the time restraints everywhere.

We have not gotten training.

Correct.

And so when it comes down to Fridays for the debriefing for the pre-hearing meeting, we're doing those in 15 minutes.

Why can that not be training time?

Because we're not my understanding since I've been on here was not to ask questions and reserve it for the hearing.

It was here's an overview.

I mean, to be honest with you, I could have read the agenda and known the overview.

I'm already reading the staff reports, I'm already looking at an agenda.

So that 15 minutes, like what we could utilize that time better, and then to say that there's time constraints.

Well, how much time do you guys have on the Friday that we're already committed to getting on the Zoom?

Because I would say one of the best times that we had on there was when Sharon was here and she went through a whole thing about easements.

That was like one of the best trainings ever.

And it's like we had time then, so why do we have 15 minutes one day, but we don't have an hour the rest of the time?

Like, what's the time constraint?

Because we have time constraints on workshops and we have time restraints on hearings.

So when do we get training?

Everything keeps saying time, even though we do have time on Fridays.

And I'll add that um I know that Pam did say when I had emailed you and her about the distinction between parked land and forest conservation and landscaping and street trees and so forth, that she already had something.

Um she just needed to run it through you or whatever.

So I just feel like there's some things available.

I'm just not understanding what it feels like to me, and I hear what you're saying, and I understand your role and Christina's role and what our role is.

Um, but what I what I it feels like we're being taken for a very long ride, a long trip and journey that has no destination.

It's it's almost like things are being kicked down the can down the road, and we are the stepchildren that are to do what we're told, and nothing else matters, and I that's a problem.

I I don't think we're gonna be able to solve it right now, but that is what I feel.

Um, I'll speak for myself that we are not important, our needs are not important, we are not seen and heard, and what's important is the developers, the people who submit things, city staff, but us, you know, that's just not we submitted this and it almost got booted to next month.

I mean, that's why it doesn't feel like a priority.

We asked for training months ago, and I'm sure even longer than I've been on here.

So, where's the training?

And it's like we want to make this public, we're being recorded right now.

This is this is the problem.

We've been asking for training, and even doing this discussion right now, there's still no time for training.

But how are we supposed to proceed?

That's why this is so important, and it feels like a low priority.

Even 15-20 minutes during the pre-planning to cover a topic each of those Fridays would be would be very, very helpful.

I'm spending a lot of time with the land management code open.

I have to have two computers to look here, look there.

I've got the papers in front of me as well.

But I Googled to figure out the ratio for the street connectivity, and then I was trying to figure out the math, and then I got a whiteboard out.

I'm like, this is crazy.

Someone should be able to tell me this in 15 minutes, and I'm smart, I'll get it.

But without having that information, it's it's hard.

And I would all I would say is I would very much encourage you.

If we're talking about a project where there are concepts you don't understand or or we haven't clear clearly conveyed, that is the time.

Do not hold those things for training.

I don't think we have a problem asking questions as they come up and when they happen, but we still need training before we get up here to know how things are supposed to proceed.

Correct, but I'm hearing a mix of a couple things that there are concepts that maybe the commission's not fully comfortable with that we're discussing in the moment, and I I want to ensure that we're discussing those related to projects when we're we're talking about them, um, that we shouldn't delay things for our training if you don't understand a concept of that issue.

I think we're all doing that.

We don't have that we're all doing that now.

I think what I'm hearing, because I mean Joan did that today, so I know that we're and in the past it's happened before.

So I I don't think any of us have an issue saying I don't understand something, including me.

Okay.

Um I think what we're saying is that from a broader concept, it's better to have training on something, whether it's APFO, forest conservation plan, um, on a broader scale, not talking about a specific project, just making sure we understand.

Like, for example, obviously I asked a question for brickworks that was a specific project, and I was like, I don't understand why the numbers are off.

You're spewing numbers, but the numbers on the staff report is different.

Why is there a discrepancy?

So I'm able to ask questions in real time.

But what I'm also talking about is having a broader training and conversation around the distinction and the nuances between forest conservation, landscaping, tree credits, private land versus public land, like all of that.

That's different.

Correct.

And I I think having concerted trainings on topics is different if I'm understanding correctly than the ability to have a 15-minute QA about things.

And so, in in my mind, I'm looking and we're thinking we have project topics that we need to discuss during the projects themselves.

We have training, concerted, but we're gonna sit down and talk about rules of procedures, which I think should be very much designated, and then this third bucket of kind of question and answer sessions.

Um, and what I want to make sure is that the commission is very transparent when we're having question and answer sessions, that those are published on an agenda, that the public is aware of those, and that staff has time and resources to pull together responses to those questions.

So it would require, and we'll talk about it in the section.

And if you want to, you know, talk about moving that to the pre-planning commission, that that would be an option.

But having a 15-day ahead of time providing so that's why we need topics for training because the buckets you just said was like, oh, if we want to do a QA, that's kind of like, oh, well, today we want to talk about annexation or forest conservation.

Well, how about all those topics are on a calendar schedule?

So we know what can be put on an agenda for the pre briefing, pre-hearing meeting, and we're like, this week we're doing annexation training.

This week we're doing forest conservation.

It shouldn't be up to us to ask the questions we don't know.

Yeah, like we don't know.

I like that a lot what to ask you because we don't know what we don't know.

And that's why we're asking.

And I want to add to I want to add to what she's saying.

I think from a planning perspective, I think that's great because for example, if you're gonna talk about annexation and we have a workshop that's coming up that's heavy, let's just say annexation is a big animal as an example.

Well, we know well, annexation may not, though we have it on the calendar to discuss, we may want to move that particular topic to next month's workshop because it's lighter, and then this month's workshop switch it out for I don't know, um fee and loop or something like that.

Right.

So that's like more of an easier digest digestible topic to address.

But if you don't know, I think she said made an excellent point.

Having that calendar with different topics and moving them around if we have to because of the of the of the load of the meeting.

Either way, we just need it scheduled because right now we have no training, right?

It's not scheduled.

It's not on any agenda to like beg for it.

So are you interested in having a training and a random question and answer section?

We can ask questions during a training.

So you don't have two separate things.

We need it on the calendar.

We need to know what's happening.

We need to know it's coming up.

You want to put it on an agenda, that could be our compromise.

You guys can pick the topic.

We just want the information.

We want to learn.

That's it.

So that's why I was thinking the Fridays would be better for that.

You can say this Friday is annexation.

This Friday is forest conservation.

And if you want to take 15, 30 minutes on it based on your time constraints for your job, that's totally fine with us.

We're just looking for the information.

So is it accurate that we're not interested in a question and answer?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this.

Yeah, we I was yeah, I wanted to clarify that piece because I have a training background.

So just to clarify.

Training is training, okay?

So if you're giving us a video, you know, like a clip, video clip, and we're watching this video, the expectation is that we will still meet training.

It will still be a conversation at workshop.

I did watch this video.

I don't understand what you're talking about, Gabrielle, when you speak about or Christina when you speak about this aspect of annexations.

I need further clarification.

So all I'm saying is that when she talks about training and she mentions 15, 20 minutes, I mean, I don't expect you guys to do a video for the whole entire year.

Like, you know, I mean I would prefer not to watch a video every single month, 12 videos.

I wouldn't want to put you guys through that.

I was literally, we're on there on Fridays, they're 15 minutes long, and we're done.

I feel I'm not I'm not gonna say it's a waste of time, but we have to reserve our questions for Monday anyway.

We ask our questions in workshop, that should be a training.

We could simply write in that Friday is a training.

So I've a I love the idea of the schedule and scheduling, you know, and having them and knowing what's coming up.

Um if you're concerned about you know the public being aware of what we're doing.

Can you add something to the meeting agenda that says in their play planning meeting on the Friday before this hearing, the planning commission will be having a discussion of X?

Correct, it would have to be incorporated into an agenda that was published online to be transparent about the discussion.

Okay, that's great.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, when you all talk, I have such a hard time hearing you.

Um if you could just talk one at a time, that would be helpful for me.

Thank you.

So yeah, so but so but would that meet the requirements if you put it in, you know, the packet that goes online and you know the the agenda that goes online that's distributed publicly that just adds the sentence about what we're doing at the previous year.

It would be a separate agenda we would create, but yes, there can be an administrative mechanism to achieve that.

Does that meet the public notification?

I think it's uh yes, I think it's important.

I don't think, as I said, I don't think the planning commission should be talking about things without making sure the public is aware of those things.

I think that's a very important component.

I think we're on the same page with that, but back to I just want to close this loop with Natasha just said about the schedule.

So will there be a schedule created that has various topics?

I I think go ahead.

Yeah.

So I just wanted to bring up something I keep hearing.

You guys keep saying 15 minutes.

So I have eight years of education over a decade of experience.

There is no way I can put all of it into like 15 minutes.

So sometimes these might be half an hour and you might not get all of it.

That's just so you're aware.

That's that's fine.

You can break it down into little chunks.

I was like, I think because we kept saying there was a time constraint.

Right.

And so if you guys know that you have an hour to allocate, and we knew that Friday was gonna be from three to four instead of three to three seventeen, you know.

Yeah, that would be great.

I mean we're there.

When we say we want to know everything there is to know about forest conservation and parkland and this and that, that doesn't mean you have to tell us all of it at once.

Yeah, correct.

This is a part one, part two.

I want your partitions.

I I just want your expectations to know that it will probably be longer than 15 minutes.

Well, please, actually.

Yeah, how about we say not shorter than 15 minutes and not longer than an hour, so that we respect everyone's time.

Realize that we're not expecting you all to go out and dig up all kinds of information that you don't actually know.

No, I mean, this is the stuff that should be in your heads that should just be that but I don't think that's a fair statement to make.

Um we do have a responsibility to be accurate with the public and with the commission, we have um resources we need to pull from other departments sometimes.

Um, everything that we bring to you on a monthly basis, does the culmination of a lot of different people inputting on these things.

We are the spokespeople and the planning department is the project manager for a lot of these things.

But we we work as a collaborative project manager with a lot of different departments.

So it's important for us to make sure that we are preparing thoughtful materials and not just randomly talking about annexation.

If if you want to have a cup of coffee with me and we want to talk about annexation, I we can I can, you know, individually we can do that one-on-one.

But um, you know, the materials we publish have to be thoughtful and prepared.

Maybe we can mix up the speakers on Fridays so that we get different perspectives and different information and different training from different people.

I would love that.

I think like if it's so many people and collaborative of what's, you know, being prepared in the staff reports.

I think it would be great to hear from all because you know it's always gonna click differently when you hear it from somebody else versus the same person all the time.

Like that's why you have different like you know, trainers and stuff like that.

So I mean, if and then that doesn't put it all on one person in your department.

You can kind of delegate it, spread it out, and you know, hey, your months in two months, like get your training together, like whatever topic.

Sure, and that that's a bigger question about interdepartmental resources and and how those are allocated.

So um, I know I think we we've talked in the past about you know, Chirian is here with us every month and and shares perspective, but we have a lot of different other professional experts, but that um would require much more of a concerted effort than I think we would be able to accommodate in the 15-minute Friday afternoon sessions.

I think you know, if there's a training that we need to have on a affordable housing, um, that is a much more um that that needs to be separate than a meeting.

It could be in a workshop.

Right, yeah, but the good thing is they're all on the Zoom on Fridays.

So it's like if that's their one, that could be their training.

Right.

But I would recommend maybe um I think I think I hear um on pre-planning commission meetings.

There's an interest to set up a schedule with topics.

I don't know how much of that really needs to be incorporated, the the detail on the topics in our rules of procedures.

Um let me let me show you where we're getting to in the workshop section where the concept about the 15-minute QA is was incorporated, and um we can we can address that there.

Um, and but I just want to be timely.

We have another meeting this evening.

That's right.

So moving into, let's see, um, 3.5 was just uh clarifications on holding special meetings.

We 2.6 um gets back to the attendance and um shifting that around.

Um order of business, we capture in another subsection, so we're deleting that and just consolidating information.

Uh 3.6, all meetings have to be held in accordance with the Maryland Open Publix Meetings Act, of course.

Uh 3.7.

Uh we have a kind of antiquated statement that the minutes that we prepare will be available during business hours.

Um you can come in and look at them, but we're gonna probably just hand you a laptop and show you because those are all published online.

Uh 3.8 is consistent.

Um public hearings is now becoming section four of the rules.

Uh there are no substantive comments or changes um to that subsection reordering.

Section one, four point, I'm sorry, four point one now becomes voting.

Once again, that is um pretty much consistent with what we have.

We did some rewording in 4.13 uh to reference the ethics ordinance um and having any personal biases or appearance of improprietary.

Um recusal, just three 4.14 um and 4.15 are essentially clarifications moving into bringing person uh matters before the commission.

Once again, we've revised chairman to chair person, corrected references to uh sections of the code, or I'm sorry, sections of the rules in 4.22.

Um when you get down to 4.25, here's we just where we added the language about how we set up the order of the business for public hearings.

It's done in coordination with planning division staff in uh consultation with the presiding officer.

Um stating that the standard order is as follows, but can be amended as we've done by an affirmative uh vote of the commission present.

And then at the end, we've just um deleted the reference to saying that the uh agenda set between the chairman and the planning division staff because we've already captured that.

Section six now is deleted because that was conduct of members and new.

I'm sorry, I may have missed.

Nope, we're good.

Section four.

So we go directly into section five, which is final disposition of matters.

Once again, no substantive changes there.

Um as in reconsideration, just uh references that are being corrected.

Section seven is then where we've added the concept of the workshops um and saying you know how we prepare the agenda in consultation with the chairperson, um, so we'll share those.

Uh and then uh any commission member requesting uh discussion on an informational item not related to a specific development application uh would be scheduled for a workshop.

To do so, the commission member has to contact the planning division staff and chairman at least 15 days ahead of time, um, and that it would be scheduled for a workshop date based on availability on upcoming agendas and the time necessary for staff to prepare and coordinate uh responses to that information.

I don't know if that's a provision you want to maintain in the um rules, uh that if there were a topic outside of now, if we come up with a formulated schedule of, you know, we're gonna talk annexations, we can go alphabetically annexations, you know, down to forced conservation and zoning map amendments.

If that's your your concept for a Friday pre-planning condition discussion, you may still want to have the option at a workshop to discuss something.

Um, but that would need to um be a planned concerted effort to do so and should be um should be scheduled on a as a as available time frame.

Yeah, I like that idea.

I think um how about you know we can we're coming up with we should have the line on the agenda saying this is what's gonna happen at the pre-planning training, but then when we have the workshops, we should just have on the agenda maybe just a standing thing that says 15 minute that one could be a 15-minute QA, and then we can just run down roll call, like you know.

Do you have a question?

Do you have a question?

But that's what she was saying is that the workshop has to be but it would be on the agenda.

Just but the topic has to be.

Oh, the topic has to be there.

Yeah, I I would I would very much discourage the commission from then let's just keep it on Fridays and having kind of random question and answers that aren't publicized.

Fridays are fine because I think once we get through the regular agenda, we're ready to go.

Yeah.

But it doesn't hurt to keep the option open in the in the rules.

Correct.

If we ever want to have a question, well, if there was a substantive topic that came up and and Elaine said, gosh, I really would like to have a you know workshop discussion on this item.

This would provide a framework.

Right.

Okay.

Are you done, Gabrielle?

Are you done?

Um the last thing I just wanted to point out that we did talk with the legal department um about, and they're gonna provide some additional information.

Uh you know, one of the conversations we had was about the commission making uh researching and making um researching matters of fact and and why that is in proper for the planning commission to do.

Um we'll get some additional information from the legal department supporting that um our position on that, uh, and there may be other changes to section 10.

I'm sorry, 9.1 that we want to make in in addition to that.

But I think that's uh um, I think that's an important thing we want to make sure that we reinforce that the roles of the planning commission versus the department versus you know the applicants in terms of who is is bringing the information, who is the decision making body, and how those roles are separate.

Um, so we'll add some additional information to that next time we discuss.

Okay, so no language was put in that section, is what I'm noticing.

It remained the same except for the site visit.

Correct.

We've changed field trips to site visits.

Okay.

And so I'm trying to understand.

So what is the legal department going to be doing with this section?

Because I'm here, I'm still see take no part and staff routine, and we just regulate and so you guys don't do certain things.

So we should be able to do some of those things.

I'm sorry, remove things.

You guys don't do certain things as part of your daily routine.

So we should be able to do certain things.

And then if we're asking for information that we don't receive, that's also a problem.

Now I would love to take five minutes right now to talk about an issue that happened the last time, or is this not appropriate?

I just want to know.

To correct, I would not, I would refrain from discussing any specific project.

Um we will my intent is to make sure we have some some legal opinion about why this provision in the in the rules of procedure is important and why it's important that the information that comes before the commission is relevant to the jurisdictional authority of the commission and the tasks at hand.

And so we'll we'll provide that.

I understand that is a point of contention.

Okay.

Um, but I I do think it's important for them to weigh in from a legal perspective.

I hear you, and I've got some things to say off camera about to you specifically, but I would recommend anything we talk about as a group, we we don't talk about off-camera because um then I'll bring it up now.

Correct.

Okay.

So here's some issues that I have right now with this language, because there are some things, like in this language, it talks and you routinely talk about things out of scope.

So you want to, it's almost like you want to box us in and tell us, you know, it's out of scope, but then an applicant could bring up some of this out of scope and you don't have an issue with it.

So and so I what I also want to add, I'm sorry, because I have a lot to say on this topic, but my issue too, and I'm really frustrated, is like when we ask for something to be provided to all members, it's not provided, or it's like what is out of scope, so they don't need it.

Well, they may not need it, but if it's a request, it's a request, and you can say it's out of scope.

I just have an issue with sitting here hearing an applicant talk about something that I was told was out of scope, only to find out that they're talking about it for 20, 30 minutes.

And then not only that, you know, the very report that someone may have requested is not provided.

And what do I see?

An applicant showing a slide that speaks to a report that had been requested, or at least data.

They didn't send the whole at least data around that.

So I think that we definitely look need to look at 9.1, because I have a funny feeling that this is going to be the battle on the hill, because I feel like this is going to be a major issue.

Um, because the applicant can say and do whatever they want, whether it's out of scope, whatever it is, and we just have to just drink the Kool-Aid, is how I'm seeing this.

And that's a problem.

I would implore you to be mindful of the fact that applicants, the public, a lot of people are going to come in and say a lot of things to you.

The legislature, this council, previous counsels, all the counsels before, have decided what the scope is of the planning commission through the authority of the code.

So the regulations that you have in front of you.

So someone can come in and say whatever they like.

And it's our job, your job, to decipher through all of that information about what is relevant to your jurisdiction and your charge on the planning commission.

So yes, people will come and say many, many things, bring up facts that are irrelevant, things that things that we've had it happen before in previous long-decided cases, environmental contamination, that is not within the planning commission's scope as decided by our legislature.

And until our legislature changes that, until we as a people come together and revise our legislation to say, you know what, this shouldn't be the planning commission's job.

It is not the planning commission's job to decide outside of that because we've expressly not.

So you do have to be in, and I understand it's a very challenging position to be in because people are going to say things to you and be like, well, what about this?

And you're gonna have to go what about it?

It's not it's not my it's not my purview, and I and that is what I want to make sure we support you in being conf confident when that someone brings up.

We've had people bring up, you know, wildlife relocation.

We don't have that.

And you I understand emotionally, it's it's hard not to respond.

I understand that you want to make sure that people understand that you're making thoughtful decisions and not dismissing them, but it is not our role to provide that information.

I think we're just a little beyond that.

I think it's more so that the applicant can say whatever to us as fact, which obviously it would be to their narrative, which is fine.

That's fine, that's public.

I understand what you're saying there.

But when we also have staff reports and we're just like, where's the data?

Where's the facts to this?

And we request additional information, because I thought we're supposed to be up here trying to make an educated decision, and so then when we ask for additional data and have questions, it's not being provided.

I think that's the biggest thing.

I would definitely please that provide me.

Yeah, please, and then we don't have to, you don't have to provide now.

You can send an email.

If there are specific examples uh where we've been non-responsive to information that is required of you that you do need, please send those to me in an email.

Um however you best feel fit individually to share that information with me.

We ask them at the hearing, and then we still don't get it, and then we're just like, oh, we still don't have this information, but now it's time to vote.

Well then is that okay?

And not only that, it's so interesting because it's like when we're kind of like contemplating what to do because we don't have the information that we need, and in some cases we may not even know what information we need to really get into it.

It's we're being told by legal, like, you know, I know that this is a tough decision, but you just can't vote no.

And it's like, well, then you just can't, you can't just expect people to just follow your lead with your staff report when we may want something that's more objective, you know, because what it looks like to me is, you know, the applicant says this, the staff supports it, and that's it.

It's like there are times where we need data or we need information that is more neutral for us to make a decision, especially if somebody is coming and saying, Oh, the market is doing this, and this is why we're here, or somebody else is saying we have a systemic issue across the city, you know, where all these people are being impacted, and I'm like, where's the data?

Like, where's the you know?

And so I feel like part of that is that the city should know, like you should know that you know someone is saying that there's a systemic issue.

It's not just oh, they're bringing this forward and it meets the LMC, oh, it meets a comprehensive plan.

Yes, it does, but where's the actual analysis?

Where's the data?

If somebody is going to say all planners have this issue, well, where's the data?

Are you gonna give show me quantitative data that says here are these 10 planners that have these issues?

I'm not seeing that from you guys.

That's not what I'm saying.

And so I would definitely please please I encourage you if there are specific, you know, things and and I'm happy to respond that data you've requested is not, you know, if you've asked about um, you know, something that that is not data we have or um is not within the scope, those are things that I I will continue to.

Is it outside of the scope to ask other departments in the city that it is in their scope to provide data?

Um if it's relevant to the planning commission's task, right if if you ask the arborist for you know information on something that's not part of So are we allowed to ask them, or you have to ask them.

Oh, we do.

Okay, yeah, and then they don't give you the information and they feel it's out of scope.

But that's the thing.

So if they give you that information, then you would pass it along to all of us.

So we can um what we normally do is that we can ask any department that is normally within the review scope for information.

If they are not somebody that we normally a department normally don't route to, then we feel uncomfortable getting information from them.

Um we as planners try to be as unbiased as possible.

The reason we stick to the code and the comp plan so much is to make sure that we are following that.

Um outside information that may not be for every case or every same situation of a case becomes a problem because we do have to be ethical and fair.

So when we ask for something from one, we need to ensure that we are asking it of others.

So when we say we can't give you something, it's because it wouldn't be fair to put that on that applicant when somebody in the same situation did not have that against them.

Even when the applicant is saying, so yes, so the public, so the public, the applicants are the public.

You as planning commissions are held to a higher position, meaning that you know, I wouldn't want you to come in and start telling me a bunch of opinions that you saw on like social media or something like that.

If an applicant comes in and does that, they're perfectly within their right to do it, and it's perfectly within your right to believe that that is not applicable information to say that it's not convincing that it's not something, but you don't have to slug out every data set with an applicant.

But but back to what you just said about like, well, it's not fair because we're asking for it for one applicant, but may not have asked for it 15 years ago to another applicant.

Well, we're different people, we could have different questions today.

Yeah, something could have sparked in the presentation they gave.

So, how is that even realistic?

Well, one, it's brand new, it's not within our purview because it's not something like if you're asking for things that our office doesn't generate or that any of those reviewing departments don't have access to.

But I'm going back to you said that it was something that wasn't asked of another applicant before.

Correct.

But it's different people.

But it's different.

And it's ridiculous.

Let me just address the slugging out of data.

Okay.

So, yeah, there's gonna be some slugging out of data because sometimes you feel duped, you know, you feel like somebody played a little game with you behind the scenes, and you get in here and you hear somebody talking about you know, something that you know you had a conversation with somebody else about, and all of a sudden that very thing that they told you was out of scope, it's apparently not out of scope for the applicant, and then you're sitting here looking at data that you know is just not correct.

That is not making me happy.

And and it is it is your job, and though the planning commission is is a judge, right?

So you you you're presented with facts.

But we're not always gonna know.

That might not be our our expert area in our daily life to know the difference of what is well, that's what so we provide the technical analysis of the requirements against the code, which is our provide the facts to us if we ask.

Well, that's what so we provide the technical analysis of the requirements against the code, which is our provide the facts to us.

If we actually and if there are facts relative to the code, then yes, we provide them.

And if and that's why I'm I'm concerned if you feel that there are facts that are relevant to the code that have not been provided in the past.

I would absolutely, you know, you say we get to an agenda hearing and we have to make a decision and you don't feel like you have the facts.

You should never make a decision if you don't feel like you have the facts, but they have to be the facts applicable to the case and to the code.

And you can always continue.

If you if we get to something and you're like, I don't have enough facts to justify this modification, then you should say, time out, this is a continuance.

If you say I don't have enough facts about something that's outside of the code requirements, which we've provided in our technical analysis, then that is something.

Are we just gonna continue that case forever?

Well, I think I think you need to to or we're supposed to vote on information to you, and you're concerned that this may be relevant.

I think that's a great time to say, Gabrielle, how does this how does the fact that they said this relate to the code?

And and let us talk through that with you and say, well, that that actually environmental contamination is not something we regulate, so that's not relevant to the code.

Ask that question.

That's a perfect way to make sure the public knows that you're mindful and aware and hearing it.

It it is a constraint.

You you can't a lot of our job is to make sure that the decisions the planning commission makes are are sustainable if appealed, right?

We want to make sure that we're making sound decisions rooted in the regulatory framework of our code.

I understand there's frustration when people feel like there isn't enough stuff in the code.

We want to change the regulations.

That's that's fine.

That's frustrating when we feel like we don't have enough edge like information to make an educated decision.

But I think that's where I would ask for for some examples to help us understand where you know our our staff reports are are very lengthy, um, they're very in-depth, they're very in detail.

We we go through the analysis of the sections that apply and what your decision making criteria are.

If there are certain facts in there you don't have, it's important for you to specifically say, well, you know, you say there's a compensating feature, but I don't understand where the shrub row is really going and why isn't there you know offense there too?

Um those that's that's information you have to ask.

Um but I I think we don't have a problem asking questions, we have a problem getting answers.

This conversation is getting nowhere, and I feel like there's a trust issue right now, at least for me, um, based on what happened the last time.

Um but um you know we're not gonna agree on this on this language for sure.

That's gonna be going on and on and on and on and on about that.

Because um, maybe if that last thing hadn't happened, maybe I'd be in a different place.

But I will honestly say I don't believe we get all the facts, and when I use about facts, I mean neutral facts that are not like you know, in support of an agenda per se.

Like the non-profit.

The planning department does not have an agenda.

I think it's very I think it I I have to I have to make sure that I make this very clear.

The planning department does not have an agenda.

We have a regular, especially not in this role, right?

We in the planning department we do a lot of things, right?

We do the comprehensive plan, we do policy setting.

In most of what we deal with here in applying regulations, there is no agenda but to apply the regulations accurately and correctly.

I that is very discouraging to smile and smirk at that.

That is what we do, and that is what we have done for many, many years.

And if you don't feel like there are facts, then you need to ask us what those specific facts are.

But I think it's also important that the commission's mindful of their role in applying the regulatory framework and make sound decisions that could hold up in a court if appealed.

If the planning commission is making findings to justify a denial and approval that are not rooted in your legislated authority, it will be overturned.

And that that's that's not what we want to do here.

And I would encourage you to separate out frustrations you may have with sections you don't feel are in the code.

Well, I wish we had regulations on environmental contamination.

I wish we had regulations on this or that.

That that I understand that very much.

Um and that that's a decision for the city council, that's a decision for the legislature.

But the and we've asked how to change it numerous times.

How do we change those things when they come up?

And still we never receive guidance on it.

We have sent letters.

Maybe that could be a training.

We have sent letters from the planning commission.

I've drafted them myself, encouraging the council to look at affordable housing, I think was a letter we had sent.

So if the commission has to be.

So the planning commission does not.

The city right.

That's not a good idea.

That's not but we're like, how do we bring it to their attention when we saw it here?

In the past, we have discussed items that the planning commission has wanted to say, hey, city council, we really implore you to do this.

The planning commission's discussed those at a workshop at a public hearing.

We've drafted letters and we've sent those to the city council.

Can we see those letters?

Correct.

I've signed them.

Oh yeah, I've never seen that.

But for me, the question is not it's it's a two-point thing.

Okay, well, there's been stuff that's come up since I've been on here that I would have liked to see it go.

So that's what I'm saying.

I've asked specifically.

I specifically have asked numerous times.

How do we get it to the council?

That is the process.

And that has not happened since I've been on here.

I I would encourage if there's a topic, I've asked it at least.

And that's a that is something we've done in the past.

If there's a topic the planning commission says, you know what, as a group, we really want to send a letter advocating for the council to take up, you know, rodent removal.

I don't know, whatever it is, then the planning commission should have a discussion on that publicly.

We'd put it on the agenda, we draft a letter, get a motion.

I asked that like 10 times.

Actually, I mean, it's not worth arguing this at this time, but I would suggest that since we are going to very shortly have a brand new council, we should be framing, we should be putting a list of things together that we think are important regular relative to the last code and have that letter ready to go up to the city council.

A great idea very soon after they sit for the first time.

We've also done it at the time of CIP, there's been a separate letter, not part of the capital improvement.

Isn't there a path for um the liaison who I know who he is, but he's never been here to understand what we're going through, hear these issues, correct?

And communicate them to council.

Here we are, and there's no one here representing them, so and it's not for it, you know.

Your role is you're passing it on to them, but why aren't they here at this table with us to have this conversation?

And that is also the liaison concept is different now than the regular commission member appointed or assigned from the city council.

It's a different role.

So I agree with you very much so that that is also a uh um intermediary.

Yeah, it's a missed opportunity for council to be.

So I would I mean I would suggest to all of us to start putting together lists of things that you want to recommend as far as land management code changes.

Great idea.

Staff the same thing, and that that should be one of our agenda, I mean agenda items early after the election.

Sure.

And to my fellow commissioners, maybe also having some research done on other commissions in terms of information, independent research and stuff like that, because this is outrageous.

Unless there were one unallow.

Yeah, I I think that there needs to be some kind of like what are other municipalities doing, like, because this issue is not gonna go away.

I think I think it's a proper uh conversation really for our legal department.

I mean, I think that it that that becomes a matter of once again ensuring the decisions that the planning commission makes are solid.

Um so I think it's really a legal question about the jeopardy it puts the city in for the commission members to be introducing independent findings.

Could I also do one more suggestion that I think we need is um the same way we have the written document of like what to read off of like well, say she's not here, like if we had something about like annexation or forest funding, like the the the way the proper procedure is supposed to go for that so that we can like reference it.

Like prime example, yeah, like text amendment, like I'd you know, not to be specific, but I know there's times where I was able to submit wording, and then now there's times I wasn't.

That's confusion.

Oh, that was just because the applicant was willing to work with you.

But even also I was allowed to before, and then not even also saying we can't talk to the applicant, that was very confusing too when in the past we have.

It's like we've done things certain ways, and then now we're not doing them.

It's not it's not consistent.

So I would like to know when that happens, what is the proper procedure that we are allowed to do?

Because how are we doing it one way, you know, you know, just different days?

We're working on clarifying that, but since the planning commission meeting, um Gabriella's been back for a couple of hours, I think.

Um so I haven't been able to discuss all of that with her to come up with those, but that is I I have it.

Okay, yes, yeah.

I mean, just a suggestion if we just had that outline.

I mean, you know, it's neither here nor there, it happened and we can move forward from it, but I just think that that would be helpful to everyone in general to have it in our little folder back here.

So that's all.

Yeah, and you did good at the meeting, so yeah, like a like an FAQ.

Right?

But you guys need an FAQ.

You did good.

Yeah, that's better resources for us to reference when we're doing our are we good to adjourn?

I think so.

All right, well, uh oh yep, good.