OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop: Brickworks, Research Park, AstraZeneca, and Rules of Procedure – August 18, 2025

Planning Commission — Monday, August 18, 2025
BodyFrederick, Maryland
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, August 18, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:34:59

Transcript — Verbatim
0:58

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.

1:05

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.

1:21

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

1:27

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.

1:41

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

1:46

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

1:56

At public hunt.

2:00

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

2:03

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

2:11

And if you would stand and raise your right hand.

2:16

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?

2:24

If so, answer I do.

2:26

All right, thank you.

2:27

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

2:37

Uh there are no current announcements on our schedule.

2:41

Okay, thank you.

2:48

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

2:54

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

3:01

PfcP preliminary forest conservation plan for brickworks lot one.

3:10

Good afternoon.

3:11

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

3:16

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

3:22

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

3:27

The Galleria project.

3:29

Oh, I'm my apologies, brick brickworks.

3:33

Oh, okay.

3:33

Thank you.

3:52

Good afternoon.

3:53

Can everyone hear me okay?

3:55

Um's that.

3:57

That's better.

3:58

Thank you.

3:59

Good afternoon.

4:00

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.

4:09

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

4:16

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

4:23

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

4:28

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

4:35

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

4:43

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

4:50

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

4:54

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

5:02

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.

5:16

Otherwise, this parkland will be surrounded by a street.

5:20

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

5:30

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.

5:41

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.

6:01

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

6:04

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.

6:17

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.

6:33

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.

6:47

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

6:54

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

7:03

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

7:10

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.

7:20

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.

7:32

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

7:41

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

7:46

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

7:54

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.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural██████████████████████████26%
Engineering And Infrastructure████████████████16%
Planning Commission Training████████████████16%
Mixed Use Development███████████11%
Public Engagement█████████9%
Forest Conservation██████6%
Zoning And Land Use██████6%
Public Safety██████6%
Parks and Recreation██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop - August 18, 2025

The Frederick Planning Commission held a workshop on August 18, 2025, at 2:00 PM in City Hall to review three development proposals and a draft of the commission's Rules of Procedure. The meeting was a workshop format; no formal votes were taken. The proposals discussed were: Brickworks Lot 1 (combined preliminary plat, final site plan, and forest conservation plan), Frederick Research Park Lot 8-E (final site plan), and AstraZeneca Perfusion Addition (final site plan). The workshop also included a detailed discussion on proposed updates to the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure, particularly regarding training and commissioner conduct.

Brickworks Lot 1 – Preliminary Plat, Final Site Plan, and Forest Conservation Plan (PC24-928PSU/FSI, PC24-929PFCP)

  • Applicant Presentation (Mike Wiley, Warmall Companies): Presented plans for 91 townhomes on the northwest corner of the Brickworks master plan. Key modifications requested: reduction of rear yard setback from 20 feet to 7 feet (with a 30-foot alley providing 44 feet building-to-building); reduction of side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet on end units adjacent to pedestrian passageways; 50% rear yard encroachment for decks (5 feet into 7-foot yard); a 32–34 inch decorative fence along East Street only (not South Street); and a connectivity ratio of 1.75 versus the required 1.8. The applicant stated that forest conservation planting would be doubled from the previous submission, reaching 1.54 acres on site, with a small fee-in-lieu payment. Parkland provided is 0.94 acres against a requirement of 1.04 acres.
  • Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Valencia asked about the increase in forest conservation area (doubled). Commissioner Menelas raised safety concerns about pedestrian paths crossing busy East Street without crosswalks. Commissioner Ellis noted discrepancies in unit count and parkland calculations between the applicant's presentation and the staff report; the applicant acknowledged numbers would be refined in the next submission. Commissioner Strawson inquired about the connectivity ratio calculation, requesting a clearer explanation of links and nodes for future hearings.
  • Staff Comments (Pam Reppert): Noted that the applicant must address all comment letters, clean up notes (including unit count), and provide a justification letter for modifications. The connectivity ratio of 1.75 is acceptable. The fence should be below 3 feet; staff referenced previous approvals for front-yard fences on arterial streets. The forest conservation area cannot be counted as parkland unless approved by Parks and Recreation; this requires separate discussion. Staff also emphasized the need for a shared-use path under the Potomac Edison right-of-way, urging the applicant or master developer (Greensburg Gibbons) to obtain a commitment from the utility. Stormwater and APFO certificates are pending.
  • Outcome: Continued; the applicant will resubmit with corrections and clarifications. The case is expected to be scheduled for an October public hearing.

Frederick Research Park Lot 8-E – Final Site Plan (PC25-161FSI)

  • Applicant Presentation (John Mazellan, Fox & Associates): Proposed a 9,734-square-foot one-story medical office building (oral surgery center) on a one-acre lot. Three modifications requested: elimination of a large loading space (deliveries are small vans); reduction of landscape screening along the north side due to an adjacent stormwater facility and along the east side due to existing utilities; and reduced street tree planting along the frontage due to underground utility conflicts, to be supplemented with ornamental landscaping. The site is within a campus of similar medical uses.
  • Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Ellis confirmed the three modifications and asked about future use changes; the applicant noted that a change of use would require a new site plan. Commissioner Valencia requested elevation drawings for clarity at the hearing.
  • Staff Comments: Staff confirmed the modifications are appropriate. APFO certificates are pending and will be issued before the public hearing.
  • Outcome: To proceed to a public hearing after APFO approval.

AstraZeneca Perfusion Addition – Final Site Plan (PC25-193FSI)

  • Applicant Presentation (Kyle Hughes, MHG; Aaron Pratt, DPR Construction): Proposed a 7,020-square-foot addition to an existing manufacturing building (Building 636) for cell culture and media prep. The addition does not add new water/sewer use, employees, or parking demand (existing parking: 681 spaces, required: 455). All landscaping requirements are met from previous approvals; four dead trees will be replaced. Forest conservation was satisfied under a 2015 plan. The addition is located in an industrial area of the site, not connecting two buildings as some may have inferred.
  • Commissioner Questions: Commissioners Valencia and Llewellyn requested elevation drawings and a clearer site plan to show the addition's location relative to existing buildings and generators.
  • Staff Comments: APFO documents are under review and will be issued prior to the public hearing. No other issues.
  • Outcome: To proceed to a public hearing (likely October) after APFO approval and with additional visual materials.

Rules of Procedure – Draft Review

  • Presentation (Gabrielle Collard, Deputy Director for Planning): Staff presented a marked-up draft of the Rules of Procedure with substantive changes: updating terminology to chairperson/vice chairperson; adding sections for an alternate member (Section 1.3) and a council liaison (Section 1.4); moving the Conduct of Members section to Section 2 (including a provision from city code that members missing more than 50% of meetings in 12 consecutive months are considered resigned and may be removed); and clarifying the purpose of workshops (review of new proposals) and pre-planning commission meetings (briefing on hearing agenda items). A new subsection allows commissioners to request informational items unrelated to specific applications, which must be placed on a workshop agenda with 15 days' notice.
  • Commissioner Discussion: Extensive debate centered on the need for training on technical topics (e.g., connectivity ratio, forest conservation credits, parkland requirements). Commissioners expressed frustration that training has been repeatedly requested but not provided. They suggested using the Friday pre-planning meetings for scheduled training sessions (e.g., 15–30 minutes) on published topics, with agendas made public. Staff emphasized the importance of transparency and noted that substantive topics should be on workshop agendas, but a compromise was discussed: a schedule of training topics could be set, with topics announced in advance. Commissioners also raised concerns about receiving requested data from staff and about perceived inconsistencies in the scope of information provided. A disagreement emerged regarding whether commissioners may conduct independent research; staff and legal will provide further guidance. The liaison role was also discussed as a potential conduit to the City Council for code change recommendations.
  • Outcome: The draft will be revised with additional input from the legal department, particularly on Section 9.1 (role of the commission). The revised draft will be brought back for further discussion. Commissioners agreed to compile a list of recommended code changes to present to the new City Council.

Key Outcomes

  • No formal votes were taken on any agenda item; all actions were directional.
  • Brickworks Lot 1: Applicant to resubmit with corrections and justifications; case expected to go to public hearing in October.
  • Frederick Research Park Lot 8-E and AstraZeneca Perfusion Addition: To proceed to public hearings pending APFO approvals.
  • Rules of Procedure: Further revisions will be made, including legal department input on commissioner conduct and independent research. A future workshop will continue the discussion.
  • Staff committed to developing a training schedule for commissioners on planning-related topics, with topics to be published on meeting agendas.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com