All right, it is six o'clock.

Then I will now call the meeting to order.

And welcome everybody to the what's today, September 8th, 2025 meeting of the Frederick City Planning Commission.

Um, before we start tonight's proceedings, I'm going to give us a background of the Planning Commission and the procedures that will follow this evening.

Um members of the Planning Commission are all residents of the city and are volunteers appointed by the mayor and the city council.

The commission is made up of five regular members and one alternate.

Its powers and duties are assigned by the charter of the city of Frederick and described in section 202 of the land management code.

All of tonight's cases have been appropriately advertised pursuant to section 301 of the land management code, and we will take the cases in the following format tonight.

We will first have an introduction of the case, followed by a presentation of the case and a rich initial recommendation by staff.

We will then give the commission a chance to ask questions of staff.

Following that, we will allow the applicant or the authorized agent to make their remarks regarding the case, followed by commission questions of the applicant.

After that, we will have public comment and if appropriate, the commission questioning of public comments.

Finally, we will give the applicant a chance to respond to public comment.

We'll then bring it back up here, um, open it up for commission discussion and questions and commission action.

So in support of the planning commission, staff members from cities planning, engineering, and legal departments are in attendance.

Um we'll be taking public comments.

Anyone who wants to um make comments tonight, please sign up with the sign-up sheet.

I will take people who have signed up first.

Just a reminder that members of the public will have three minutes to give their comments.

If you're representing a group, you can have 10 minutes to give your your comments.

The timing clock will show the amount of time that you have left, and in order to expedite our evening, I will definitely make everybody ask everybody to wrap their comments up to the end of three minutes.

So at this point, everybody who is planning on making a presentation before the the commission tonight um needs to stand and be sworn in.

Thank you very much.

Um that do we have announcements?

Yes, thank you.

Good evening.

Our next planning commission workshop will be held this coming Monday, September 15th at 2 p.m.

in this room.

Packet should be posted tomorrow on our website.

That will be followed by the citywide community outreach meeting at 6 p.m.

All right, that was fast, thank you.

All right, the next item on the agenda is the minutes, and we have um three meeting minutes to consider tonight.

We have the August 11th Planning Commission meeting minutes, the August 8th, 18th, 2025 Planning Commission workshop minutes, and the September 5th pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

I'll take a motion.

I move for approval of the August 11th, 2025 planning commission meeting minutes.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Llewell and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

That is unanimous.

I move for the approval of the August 18th, 2025 planning commission workshop minutes.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Finally.

I move for approval of the September 5th, 2025 pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Lewell and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is unanimous.

Thank you very much.

All right, we have no consent items.

We have um three continuances to consider tonight.

The first one is PC 24-10108 and X, the annexation of Sageway, Sageway property.

Yeah, they just need um a little bit more time to formulate those answers to staff that they were talking about the last time.

So just a little bit more time to get those.

And they want it this until the October meeting.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

We have any discussion or questions from the commission?

A motion.

I move for a motion for PC 24-1010 ANX annexation of SAGE to be continued to the October 13th, 2025 Planning Commission hearing.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Balencia, second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Our next item is PC 25-50 PSU FSI, the combined preliminary plan and final site plan for Highland Trail.

This continuance and the one that follows it kind of go together.

They're both for Highland Trail.

This was just a little bit more review time was needed to clear up a few items.

Okay.

Can we address both items in one motion, Scott?

Okay.

So this would be the preliminary plant, final site plan, and also the PC 25-56, PFCP, their preliminary forest conservation and forest conservation plan for Highland Trail.

And we can do a motion to include both items.

Okay, I move for approval of a continuance of PC 25-50 PSU FSI combined preliminary plat and final site plan of Highland Trail, as well as PC 25-56 PFCP preliminary forest conservation plan for Highland Trail through October 13th, 2025 planning commission hearing.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Muell and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

Which brings us to old business.

And the first item on the agenda for old business is PC 24-662 MU master plan for Frederick Health.

Good evening, everyone.

I'd like to go ahead and enter the staff report into the record.

So this is a continuance from the July hearing regarding the findings of adequacy for the seven intersections for Frederick Health Village.

And the staff report has the information outlined.

Some of the some of the or all of the updates that were that were presented.

And as a result of these, there were two additional provisions that were added to the road certificate on the provisional CIFR certificate.

One of those was that prior to the release of any building permits for the development on the applicant or developer will design and construct a hundred-foot extension to the existing left turn lane on northbound Minocase Boulevard to Mill Pond Road.

And then the second one is to modify the existing back-to-back left turn lanes on routes and way.

Since the July hearing, the applicant went back and re-evaluated these seven intersections.

And the results of the re-evaluation were summarized in the in the staff report as well as the attached letter, which was the updated analysis that included exhibits for the intersections and relevant information.

That includes Maryland Department of Highway needs inventory.

So based on this new information, the applicant has reduced the request of findings of road adequacy to four intersections.

Finding that three, two of them can be mitigated in one was found to actually be adequate.

So the first one is the Minocasy Boulevard at Mill Pond Road.

The intersection was found to minimally exceed the left turn storage lane.

So this is the one where the applicant is will remove a portion of the median in Minocasie Boulevard and extend the left turn lane by a hundred feet.

Therefore, there's no longer need for the finding of adequacy for that one.

For Minocase Boulevard at Shorebird Street where the Walmart entrance is the applicant is still requesting a finding of adequacy for this one, and it's based on the updated analysis.

There are two left turn lanes.

One has a storage length of 200 feet, and the other one has a storage length of 225 feet.

During the peak uh evening hours and Saturday peak hours, the storage is inadequate under existing conditions.

Maximum improvements currently exist at this location based on the back-to-back turn lanes into the Walmart shopping center into Maryland 26.

Therefore, that the applicant is still requesting a finding of adequacy for this intersection.

For Maryland 26 at Minocase Boulevard, the applicant is also still requesting a finding of adequacy for this one.

It's based on the updated analysis and the fact that maximum improvements have already been constructed at this intersection, and comprehensive plan road improvements are necessary in order to mitigate help mitigate this intersection.

Monocasey Boulevard at River Bend Way, same thing.

Maximum improvements have already been constructed, so the comp plan improvements will be needed to help mitigate that.

Maryland 26 at North Market.

This was reanalyzed and found to be adequate.

And under all scenarios analyzed, the highest percentile queue is 2100 feet and therefore was found acceptable.

So no mitigation is required for that intersection.

For Maryland 26 at Warmans Mill Road and Routes and Way, the applicant is again has identified improvements that can be made to bring about adequacy for this intersection.

And this is the one where they will restrict the two back or the back-to-back left lanes to provide a two-way left turn lane and additional cue storage.

The last one is Warmans Mill Mode Road at Mill Pond Road, and the applicant is still requesting a finding of adequacy for this one based on the fact that maximum improvements have already been constructed.

For each of the intersection movements, the applicant broke down for the information for the eastbound, northbound, and westbound lanes.

So that one the applicant is requesting a finding of adequacy for that one.

In addition to all of this information and the updated analysis, it is important to consider the broader, the broader picture for this area and the transportation network along with the present and future land use patterns for this area.

While the four intersections do have some operational inadequacies, after giving consideration to the impacts of the new development, there are multiple improvements that are contemplated by the comp plan, including the comp plan road that is to run through the development.

This also coincides with the 2040 roadway classification map that supports interparcel connectivity and it will help disperse traffic and improve operations.

Some of these are the construction of Grange Mill Road through the project from Mill Pond to Warman's Mill.

The developer will be doing that.

It's financially unconstrained.

So there's that intersection.

Also the right in and right out access along Maryland 26 for Grangemill Lane.

The section of Grange Mill south of Shorebird Street that will be constructed by the developer of the Lee property, which is the undeveloped land between Walmart and Market Square.

The intersection of Grange Mill with 26 will allow for right turns in by westbound traffic on 26, and it will allow vehicles also to turn right out of the site.

And it will allow vehicles also to turn right out of the site.

As well, these implement improvements, they um help implement transportation policies one, two, three, and nine of the 2020 companies.

It will redistribute traffic to a new network of streets to remove choke points and will improve peak hour travel times.

These um road plan or these road improvements in the comp plan along with other access and mitigation improvements proposed by the developer will help implement these policies and will help eliminate the traffic issues that currently exist there.

Um in addition to roadway improvements, there are also um alternate modes of transportation that will be supported such as sidewalks throughout the neighborhood.

Um there's the rails with trails path that will provide residents from the development, it'll provide them with access to goods and services to the west and beyond, and also um for the residents of the development.

Um there will be access to health care services and other um things like commercial services and things like that on the property.

Um it will be in close proximity, and employers of the future health care facilities will also be able to readily commute by walking or biking.

So those are other things coupled with the transportation or the roadway improvements that will help alleviate some of the traffic issues that we see.

Um so with that, um, I think Sherry and also had mentioned the other day about the um there's an improvement.

It's a traffic light, a traffic signal that's part of the CIP at Laurel Wade and Laurelwood Way in Minocase.

That was going to be that is going to be constructed.

Um developer is contributing to that, and then there's also the CIP for the East Street um rails with trails that will help as well.

So that's all I have, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

We will do a roll call for commission questions, starting with Commissioner Valencia.

Uh no, thank you right now.

Commissioner Wellan?

No, thank you.

Commissioner Menelis Yes.

Yes, I had a question for Charian.

Um I don't know where he is.

He's right there, it's right there.

Oh, okay.

Just wanted to go over uh the proposed road.

Um just wanted to know um where it would be, I guess where the cars would be going.

Like I know that they're creating a new road within the project, and I believe that it that it goes out to um Warman Mills Court.

Is that where it goes?

Different things.

So the symptoms of the access, there are these seven access points.

Is there any particular access point do you want to talk about trying to find um the actual language in the staff report, but I don't think I see it anymore.

Um you want to come back to that question if there are other questions at the same time.

Is it yeah, go ahead?

That was the only question.

Okay.

Um, so I do have a question on page 24 of the staff report in the box that says September hearing update.

Um it talks about um the project being constructed in three phases, and it gives a total number of units that's 1270.

And I was confused because I thought the maximum that was being considered was 750.

Top of page of page 24 in the September hearing update.

I don't see where it says 1270.

Well, it says phase one is 750 units, phase two is 70 units, phase three is another 450 units that adds up to 1270.

I believe those are part of the 750.

They can't part of the 750 because it's twice as much as the 750.

It might have been a typo on my on my part.

Because the the maximum is supposed to be 750.

Okay.

Yeah, I apologize.

It looks like the applicant will be able to address that, but this was a staff report.

I just wanted to make sure this was a staff report area.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's a typo.

Sorry about that.

That's okay.

Um did you find your question?

Commissioner?

Yes, I did.

Um I think it's um Grange Mill Lane.

Is that what I'm looking at?

Um I wanted to get a clear understanding of where the traffic would flow into.

So it says on 28, it says um Grange Mill Lane South off of Shorebird Street will be constructed by the developer of the lead property, which is the undeveloped land between Walmart and the Market Square shopping center.

You're asking where the branch mill lane is okay.

Um can you go back to the master plan?

Yeah, it says here it'll go through the project from Mill Pond Road.

So the Compline Road that is referenced here is this portion of the Compline Local Road between this is you can see the the outline of Mill Pond Road here.

So it will basically extend from uh Mill Pond Road through the property out to War Mills Mill Road and that Compland Road to the east of Mill Pond currently exists through Minoxy Center up to Shorebird Road, Shoreboard Road is right about here.

This is the existing Walmart, and the the um unbuilt or undeveloped lee properties just off just to the south southwest side of um the Walmart um Walmart site.

So the Complant calls for it to be extended all the way to 26.

The city and uh the group of um property owners here are working with uh MDOT State Harvard Administration to actually have um um access break on 26 so per the complan we can complete that extension between 26 and all the way to Borman's Mill Road.

So there will be a parallel facility to Monarchy Boulevard, and I think that's really where it will provide some relief to Minocase Boulevard, the 26 in Monokas intersection, uh help take some of the traffic out and dissipate to the spiral connecting street.

Um the other part of it, the uh the existing communities will connect to that comp plan road through internal network.

So uh that also give up other the neighbors neighboring done developments or subdivisions and opportunity to connect to the um the overall site.

Okay, thank you.

Um I was trying to pull it up.

Trying to make it bigger.

Jennifer, do you mind if you make this a little bit bigger?

It's hard to see not much.

Very good.

Okay, so right um where the blue is off to the right.

That is that Minocase Boulevard right there.

Yeah, so this is Minoch.

So this is to orient you, this is US 15 north-south.

Right.

This is the and then it's right about here.

And this is Minocase Boulevard coming through towards 26.

Okay, and then you said that that new road would be would parallel Monocase Boulevard.

Is that what you said?

Yeah, generally that's really the alignment of the Complan Road.

Um in terms of traffic, that is just a parallel facility for Minocase.

Okay.

Just like um the mill pond connection today.

So this is the mill pond connection that exists today.

Okay.

Is parallel to 26 and help relieve some of the traffic on a 26.

Okay.

And this road, so that yellow part is that um, what is that?

Is that where's the I believe the residue so this village residential mixed use the applicant is proposing?

Um and I think I'll let the applicant talk to in terms of phasing which goes first and what will be following in terms of different phasing they're talking about.

But that's the yellow is where they're proposing the residential mixed use.

Okay, and where from that new road would the traffic the traffic would be coming in from Monocosy Boulevard straight in to where that road is, is that what's just double checking?

I'm looking at how do you enter how do you get to that road?

Oh, this one's the new road, the new road.

Yeah, so the primary access through will s will be through um Mulpond Road.

So this is that outline of the Melpond Road that exists today.

So there is uh um roundabout here, the the the roundabout roundabout here at Grange Mill.

So there is that's where they will connect in to provide that connection through the site out to Warm and Small Road.

Um so that will be the primary connection into the site.

Of course, the site does have um connections out to monoclasey at these points.

Uh water side is here there you have a two-way stop intersection here, and uh the the provisional certificate talks about the applicant constructing a roundabout or a signal at that location.

This is um Quincy Way, that's another requirement in the provisional certificate to make either a roundabout or a traffic signal.

We are restrict limiting access here to a write in right out with the with additional traffic through here because uh that helps um the traffic flow on monocloncy itself.

So all of these are recommended within will be within the phase one of the initial development.

We want to see some of these improvements and all monoclysy boulevard um the access of range mill extension um and other local connections that uh would help that first phase one and the phasing is really critical.

The the provisional certificate talks about a building permit is when everything becomes due in terms of improvements.

Typically what an applicant will do is because of the phasing is involved, they go through a mitigation agreement to kind of so the delivery of those improvements can be tied more closely to the actual build out of the site.

So um that's something when we they come back uh we'll look at and say what are the priority improvements to be made or tied to phasing that makes sense in terms of the build out.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions for the staff before we continue?

I have a question for staff.

Oh, okay.

Just wanted to confirm.

Um so the conditional just double checking.

Um the conditional uses would also could also be secondary uses.

Correct?

Like if we approve, so there's mixes for mixed use conditional uses.

So there's like the senior living and retirement facility, uh, nursing home, and then the medical laboratory, and then the helicopter pad.

Um would the would any of those be considered secondary uses?

What do you mean?

What do we mean by secondary uses?

So there's primary uses and secondary uses.

And so so far with this phasing thing, I noticed that there's town, there's that same page number 24 where you talk about um the phasing.

There's one phase that has different units, and that's where what I'm trying to understand with the different units.

What would those be secondary uses or conditional uses?

Um well they're conditional uses, but like the helipad would be secondary or accessory to the hospital that's proposed, but a senior living facility.

You know, well, it's tied to the hospital, but it would be it's that would be a primary use.

Okay, but it's tied to the hospital.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Could we so within like uh the staff recommendations?

Which ones are tied to the hospital directly, like obviously the helipad and um which ones are not that are just like standalone, so that we are very clear on that.

It would be the housing ones, their standalone versus I don't understand what you're asking.

Which ones are tied to the hospital building and which ones are not?

Like what she just said, it's I just want to be clear which ones here in the recommendations.

I just want to be clear which ones here in the recommendations well the um like the senior the nursing home, um adult living facility that such, I mean it could um I mean, while it's part of a you know the the master plan for this project where they would be all medical related, you know, related to the hospital and such.

Um I mean they could stand alone on their own as well.

So um and that one the medical laboratory would more than likely be tied to the hospital.

Yeah, that would be um the heliport obviously would be too um senior living and retirement um that um could be it it would be tied to the hospital but also could stand on its own.

Okay, so go ahead.

Okay, so both the senior living and retirement facilities and the nursing home could be tied to the hospital but also standalone.

Correct.

Like if um if they were to move forward to develop the property, um you know, before the hospital got built, they could certainly build a senior living and retirement facility.

Okay, thank you.

I guess my question was more like is this the senior living attached to the hospital building?

Like, is it one big property attached or are those separate?

Because obviously the helipad would be on the hospital.

So these are separate.

This is gonna be perhaps the applicants can answer that question better than staff.

Okay.

Yeah, I would defer to them because I'm not that's fine, 100% sure.

Maybe maybe it's just time to bring it up.

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah, because I then we can do more of these questions.

Yeah, even the question you had, I was like, oh, I had the same question for the applicant applicant.

Good evening.

Um think you all know me, but for the record, Bruce Dean with the law.

Hold the microphone up a little bit more perfect.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um, Bruce Dean with the law firm of McCarthy Dean and Gratitor on behalf of the applicant, Frederick Health Village.

Uh, we do have uh our whole team with us tonight.

So I have uh Cheryl Chaffee and Don Schilling with Frederick Health Hospital, Gary Large with Eco Developers, who's the project manager, Chris Mariga with Harris Smirk Smerrigan Associates, who's the land planner and engineer, and Joe Caligaro with the traffic group, who is our traffic engineer and is gonna be he and Don are gonna be our primary speakers this evening, and I think that they'll be able to address most of the questions you had come up.

I do want to talk briefly though about the infamous top of page 24 that came up with several of your comments because I had the exact same question that you did, and it is not a typo.

What it is is it's reflective of the traffic study that was done by Mr.

Caligaro.

So when he initially was um brought on to do the traffic study, um he was given a very very broad scope to try to capture all the different things that might happen.

So when it this is not a typo, this is actually that the original TIA traffic assessment um did involve up to 1200 whatever residential units.

However, as Sherry said correctly, the what is in front of you this evening is 750 residential units, and I can't remember the exact number of square feet, but that is correct.

Um, two hundred and sixty thousand square feet of which several hundred thousand exist today in the former state farm building.

Um so I'm gonna turn it over now to Joe.

Um, but I before I do that, I I do want to try to answer some of the the questions that came up about whether these are standalone uses or are we this is not so first of all, this is not a site plan, it's a bubble plan.

So as far as building design, you know as much as we do.

We haven't designed the hospital, we've not said that we're building a hospital next year.

Um it will come as the project develops.

Um certainly the help stop was excuse me, was requested because that was in use that is incident to the hospital.

Same thing with the medical laboratory.

That can be a standalone, but frankly, inside each hospital there's gonna be a medical laboratory as well.

So it's gonna depend as we move forward with actual development plans, and you will see a site plan for all of these uses when we come back in front of you.

But for right now, what we are showing basically is the yellow bubble on that drawing is the primary residential area, and the white blue is the primary non-residential area.

So if it's a residential use, and we had this discussion, I think two months ago, what was residential and what was not.

Certainly senior living apartments would count as residential, whereas a nursing home would not, and we'd be more part of the hospital or an affiliate thereof.

So it really just depends what what the use is, whether it gets categorized as residential or non-residential.

But certainly anyone who has a residence, whether it's an apartment, a condominium, a townhouse, or or any other type of that is considered a residential use, and that would count towards the 750.

So with that, um I'm gonna turn it over to Mr.

Caligaro, and I think he can answer some of your traffic questions.

Thank you.

Hello everyone, Joe Colagaro with the traffic group.

Um could you please bring up the letter that I prepared?

My team prepared.

But while waiting for that to come up, uh Bruce touched upon greatly about the initial traffic impact study and the higher density we studied.

Um so once we looked at the traffic to be generated by this plan, uh we noticed that the trips were higher using the initial plan.

So we didn't change the numbers, we're adding in excess capacity because they said it's a bubble plan, things could change, we have a little bit of extra trips if needed if something were to change.

So that's one of the benefits of keeping the extra capacity in the study.

So I did want to go over just at a very high level the traffic study itself.

Um we do have there should be a letter dated, I believe August 10th.

August 18th.

It's at the bottom.

Uh keep going.

Sorry.

Oh, number 13.

Yeah, Jennifer, it's it's the yeah, that one.

Yeah.

Great, thank you.

Um, I just wanted to have that handy.

So a little bit about traffic impact studies.

Um we've been asked to analyze studies or intersections in three different ways.

The first one is capacity.

Uh, capacity is what the state uses to analyze intersections, and it it is utilized to determine the amount of volume or the amount of traffic that can be processed at an intersection according to the state highway administration.

So it looks at capacity and actually the numbers of vehicles that can go through based on the number of lanes, and it looks at the critical movements to determine uh levels of service.

So that's a one-hour analysis, one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening.

The second analysis we're asked to analyze is operations.

How does the intersection actually operate?

That's measured by delay.

How many seconds do I have to wait?

Um we're going down from an hour to a 15-minute time period.

So now we're looking at a smaller scale of time in each of the morning and evening, and we actually did Saturday peak hour analyses.

So, what is the 95th percentile queue?

That's looking at now a time period in the morning in the evening and on Saturday of one cycle length of a traffic signal operation.

So that's every every movement gets its green light.

You know, there's a starting point, there's an end point.

So one time that cycle occurs, there could be you know a time where one car may not be able to store into that into that storage lane.

And we have some instances there, um, which is why the failure occurred.

But when you're looking at it overall from an aspect of if this occurs one time in a 24-hour day, does it really fail?

Or you know, if we start looking at it one car, I look at it respectively as if if those numbers start to exceed, you know, five cars, six cars, seven cars in a queue, um, and then we start to look at the averages.

Does it happen more than one time?

Then we start looking at designing uh improvements for that intersection, or we or as we call it mitigation.

So those are the three keys for the traffic study.

Um, and uh very good job presenting the analyses and the mitigation.

So if we could come here, hopefully.

So here's where I want to describe the the overall the overall area and the improvements that are occurring.

I believe this graphic does a good job of showing where we are and where we're headed.

If we can make that a little bigger, that would be great.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

So even though it's hard to see, I'll describe.

So the dark boxes, those are the improvements that uh Frederick Health is proposing to do or is required to do as part of the traffic impact study and part of their access points.

Uh so at the northern location, um, a traffic signal or a roundabout, the middle location, the traffic signal or a roundabout.

Um the southern location is a right in right out, and then we have additional, you know, the additional connecting points as Cherry and described earlier.

Um this one through the the Complan Road connects to the roundabout.

Um so that's already the roundabout is the traffic control in that area, and then to the north, they're going to construct a new rail crossing as required, and that'll help assist with traffic operations in that location.

Um they'll also going to be building this part of the yellow comprehensive plan road, uh, which is a huge addition to to the area, and that helps fit one of the pieces of the puzzles together to make sure that all the roads are connected in a way.

Um if we could come bring this down a little bit, I don't know if I can to see the bottom portions thereof.

Um the two pieces in orange.

This is the location of the future interchange, and then here would be the potential future location of the right in right out with the road that would come northbound or north and southbound.

This would connect through the entire development, and that provides relief internally and provides relief for actually both actually more for 26 in Minocase, but it does provide overall um traffic operations to make it better for the entire area.

Oops, is that me?

Let me get stuck a little bit.

So here I want to go through each area quickly and what we're doing and why and why it failed.

Um so here is the one improvement that we are proposing.

This is the northbound left turn lane into Mill Pond Road, and you can see the area in blue and in yellow where we're proposing the widening and increasing this lane from uh increasing the lane by a hundred feet.

Um, this doesn't occur from us the the excessive uh the the need for the additional uh length until phase three.

So this fails under background or technically fails under background conditions, which is the development without us by two cars, and again, when I say two cars, it's two cars in that worst one cycle length.

Um that creates a nice improvement for this area.

Can I move this up at all?

Right.

So here are the three intersections where we're asking relief.

Uh it's it's hard to see here, but uh the first one is the intersection of Minocase at Walmart, and that's here.

And of course, we have a picture that shows no vehicles stored waiting to come in.

Um the intersection of 26 in Monocasee and the intersection of of uh Minoquasy and River Bendway.

These intersections are very close together, they operate together.

Um we actually did the design for this traffic signal uh when Walmart came forward.

Um it does provide a lot of additional capacity.

Um it is still underneath the the maximum capacity is sixteen hundred per the state highway administration, and even under total traffic conditions, we're still under that, but we don't meet the acceptable levels of service.

It's an E versus going over 1600 would be an F.

So an E is the technical failure, but with all the additional uh improvements that were made here, um this used to be over 22, 2300.

So there have been significant improvements made.

This is also a uh a study build-out of about 20 years, so we're looking deep into the future.

But this has been proposed in the comp plan for an interchange, and that's what that's the really the next step to construct an interchange here, which will also help operations here and here.

Um and additionally, we talked about the right in right out.

Um there's also this connection here that's already been designed into uh Walmart with uh the pad sites, and this connection here will help significantly 26 in Routson's way.

This this again, we do not have any impact to this left turn whatsoever.

It's over by one car length in the evening peak hour under existing, and it stays under existing background and total traffic conditions, but we can restrict this area to create a two-way left turn lane, and by doing so, we would pass the test, it creates that additional capacity, and also creates additional capacity for the southbound left turn lane if that was ever needed.

Lastly, is 26 in Mill Pond.

Um the the first condition here was the right turn lane, it's leaving the shopping center.

This is private property.

Um, even though all the cars cannot get into the right turn lane, they queue in the through lane.

I'm sorry, just did you say 26 in Mill Pond?

No, I'm sorry, it's it's uh Mormon's Mill.

Okay, thank you.

My fault, my apologies.

So this is the shopping center where Wegman's is located.

So the the queuing here again, it does extend just past the the right turn lane, but they can store in the through lane.

Um it doesn't create an overall um unsafe condition here in the northbound direction.

Again, it's the queue that's going into the shopping center, um, and it's back to back with this left with double left turn lane going to 26.

So therefore, there's really um no additional room to create uh space for the left turns, and lastly, you can see here this actually shows the condition that we're talking about.

Well, the queuing does extend past, but it doesn't extend past Osprey Way.

So you can see here that the cars are leaving a gap.

So if cars did want to come in, they can turn in with that gap.

If not, they can still come up to Osprey Way.

Uh again, 95th percentile queues that extend just past that location.

Um then lastly, is that all these improvements that the developer is proposing is around $8 million.

And again, with the improvements, they're they're completing portions of the overall road network that need to occur.

So previously, under Market Square, they built Mill Pond Road from here to this area in here, and then when Wormold came in with their development, they were able to they were able to construct the traffic signal at Mill Pond and Minoquasy and build the final connection.

So that that's how this is going to take place, where everyone is doing their pieces of the puzzle to get to the larger piece of the overall network.

Can we just stop at this point and ask traffic questions before we go on to the rest of the presentation?

Please.

Okay.

So was this testing done when you said the peak hours?

It's done for one hour for one peak hour.

So correct.

So what we do is we collect data from seven to nine in the morning, four to six in the evening, and eleven to one on a Saturday.

So we collect data for two hours, and we do that in 15 minute intervals, and we look at the worst four, 15 minute minute intervals together as an hour.

So we are looking at the worst hour within that two hour period.

So the seven to nine and the four to six, those were done on weekdays.

This wasn't all just done on a Saturday.

Correct.

Okay.

Weekdays when schools were in session.

That's another requirement.

Okay.

That's because at first I only heard the Saturday.

And I was like, did we not do this during rush hour?

So absolutely.

That's why I was like, okay.

Um and then actually that answered my other question too.

So I'll stop there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Willen.

Um, so that answered my question about the the study, and and I wanted to also point out I really think that the photos helped me to understand it quite a bit more, so thank you for that.

But no other questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, I was just curious about the road that would be built.

Um what phase of the project would that happen in?

Um for this portion?

Yes.

Oh, I've got to look backwards.

You know when that's to be constructed?

The company road part is like in phase two with the hospital.

Yeah.

Well, I guess at this time it's unsure, but um, as the development were to proceed under different, you know, under different phasing schedule, it would probably be constructed in a way that makes the most sense with the development to it.

Sorry, that road will be constructed during phase one, first phase.

Okay.

Um, so just so that one will be done in phase one.

Um so I'm just curious with the other roads that you're mitigating.

Um what's the I guess what I'm trying to understand is the phasing with those.

Like, are these all these other roads in which you would be mitigating?

Are they all at phase one, phase two, phase three, in addition to this particular road that's being built?

I'm just trying to get in my mind the sequence, like phase one of this project, what is happening with the roads, phase two, what is happening, the roads, phase three, what is happening with the roads, and how they impact um the surrounding area.

So yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Hello, Gary Large with Eco Developers.

Uh the the full disclosure, the actual connection of each improvement to the phases, we haven't pinned it down, but we are going to connect those improvements or tie them to the development densities that basically the traffic study says warrants those improvements.

The main comp road that we're talking about needs to be phase one because we're really not allowed to subdivide and create the residential property until we have a city road that abuts that property.

So that definitely would have to be phase one.

As we keep in mind, we're looking down the road here 20, 30, 40 years.

So as we develop the non-residential portions, the blue portions is when we would look at doing the some of the roundabouts and signal work on on uh monoclassi boulevard.

Um I think the other connections to our southwest would also be part of phase one because those are integral to the spine road and the and the develop the ability to develop the residential property.

I guess so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then so my question very much from a non-engineering perspective, but as a user of the road, I drive every day through River Bend through the intersection of 26 through the Monopoly, I mean through the Walmart, and it's terrible now.

I sit for two or three lights, and this is not during peak hours, through two or three changes of riverbend way before you get through, then because there's so much traffic, the lights aren't synced, so then I usually sit through two sections, two changes of 26.

Sometimes that works so that I can go from there straight through the Walmart light without having to stop.

But and but the other thing that is that seems like it's really really bad is that because everybody gets so frustrated that they have to sit there for so long, then traffic is going through the red lights.

And so when you're oh my god, city needs to put it needs to put traffic cameras, I mean red light there.

So you you know, if you're going straight, you know, probably 10 seconds into the green light, traffic is still, they're just like so fed up with sitting in that queue that they're going through anyway, and they don't care that the light is red.

So from an engineering perspective, how much worse is this going to make that?

And why does it not translate to, oh, this is a minimal problem, it's just a queue.

How does that translate to what everybody's experience is going to be?

No, that that's a very good question.

Um again, we do traffic counts.

We collect all the data.

Now I I can't tell you that on the day we collected the counts, but we have video of every count we take.

So uh anyone can watch that video, I'm more than happy to turn over all the video.

Um again, there could be certain days that are worse than others.

But again, our our goal as conducting the traffic study is to look at the at an average day.

Uh we don't collect multiple days, we go out, we collect all one day.

We put um we use video cameras at all locations, typically one time.

Okay.

Now they're I mean it it's hard to I mean, I'm providing you the answers that are found in my report.

And I understand that there's times where it may be better, there's times where it may be worse.

I mean, but from a practical perspective, when your report what when what your report is saying, what how is that going to translate to a user's experience to everybody who already lives there?

How much worse are they going to notice the traffic being?

Yeah, I just want to jump in and answer because that I know it's not just their issue, but it's an issue that City has recognized that there is that operational constraint today along Minoclasy.

So one of the things that we are doing as part of uh the CIP project that was described previously is that city is working on to design and install a signal at Lauren Woodway and Minoclasy.

So as part of that's just gonna make things worse.

No, no, but I'm trying to say is that we are looking at the corridor to see um how best to uh improve the coordination between the signal.

It's a little challenging here because the Maryland 26 uh intersection is a state intersection, and they operate in a totally different controller.

And what we are trying to do with the capital project is to make sure that uh these signals can be coordinated throughout the corridor.

So I mean I I'm I'm from a city standpoint.

I kind of recognize the fact that there is an operational talent, which we see every day.

We just made some tweaks to Ruhrbend and Monocasey, and if you go through every day and can let me know, things have improved.

So we just made some tweaks there, but the point I want to make is that we will as part of the Capra program uh project, we will be looking at the coordination along the corridor.

Okay, but that still didn't answer my fundamental question, which is from an every from an ordinary person's perspective, how much worse are these intersections going to feel?

I mean, clearly by the technical the engineering algorithms, they fail because of one car extra long and a queue lane.

But how much worse is it gonna feel to the people driving through it?

Yeah, and I think we just went through one of the aspects of what what it takes to kind of mitigate, which is the um the the um the ultimate improvement to have uh interchange at the location, which has been recognized by the city for some time.

It's been in our comp plan.

Uh it's been uh in our priority list of projects to the state, and it's in the hybrid needs inventory.

Um the critical aspect of it in my in my thought as an you know, trying to relate it to the public and how you what you see operationally, in my opinion, having that connection from 26 and completing that comp plan road, the grain small road connection between 26 and uh Warness Mill Road will help move sufficient traffic out from to from Minocase and helps provide some relief.

And I think I've quoted this before uh because one of the things as soon as we finished completed the connection of Mill Pond Road between Minocase and Ormonds Mobile.

Uh trips from 26 that we could see.

So those are kind of the impactful changes that you will see from a uh traffic operation standpoint.

So the connections and the network uh is critical to provide that relief, which isn't there today.

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't know if Joe wants to add something more too.

I mean, the one thing I do want to add is there's an ongoing project right now, and it's going to begin construction soon.

And and that's Route 15.

So Route 15 is going to get an additional lane in each direction.

That and again, if you if you look here, that's another parallel road, right?

To monocracy boulevard.

So that's going to pull traffic away from Monocasy Boulevard.

Right, right.

It's adding a it's adding 33% more capacity to Route 15, which is going to pull traffic away from Minocracy Boulevard.

Right.

You know, because what's happening today is is just people probably feel that using monocloncy boulevard is a little bit better than using 15 based on the time of day, you know.

I use ways when I get here.

I'm sure a lot of other people do as well, and it's the path of least resistance.

So again, the network is changing, the network is improving, you know, um, and that's where it's going to get better.

Okay.

And then I've got one more question about the the two roundabouts or lights on Minocase.

Um, again, from a user perspective, I like roundabouts.

You don't have to stop.

You can just keep going and you don't get backed up and the lights don't get uncoordinated.

From an engineering perspective, is there a per a preference over roundabouts versus lights?

Traffic lights?

I mean, where the operations work well, then I definitely prefer roundabouts.

They're safer, they're safer, they offer uh less delay.

So, yes, that would be a good preference.

Right, thank you.

And then I know there's some other questions that came up here.

Oh, okay.

No, I yeah, I know.

Okay.

Um I remember in like a previous time that we were here, we were talking about in the residential space that with the with the roads not being adequate, then um there was not enough space for an ambulance to go to the residential space.

Has is that one of the roads that is getting fixed here or is not?

Can you talk close to the mic?

I'm having a hard time.

I said there was there was a time that we're here previously that we talked about in the residential area that ambulances wouldn't be able to fit through because the roads were inadequate.

So is that mitigated or is that one of the roads that's not mitigated for an ambulance to fit through?

From a width perspective?

I would I believe all the roads will be designed, you know, in accordance with standards that'll allow that to occur.

It was a problem before it was brought up before, so that's why I'm asking now again that there was not enough space for an ambulance to fit through before.

We did we did bring this up like a few months ago.

I have you remember because I asked it.

Good evening, Chris Smariga here, Smariga.

That came up with the cricket stadium and the existing drive that they were gonna use.

They talked about ambulances coming in and out, and the neighbors had measured the width of a lot of people.

I don't think it was on that one at all.

Because I think we were talking about the road failures here, and I asked about enough width for an ambulance specifically, because of a hospital being right there, and I remember we said in that hearing or whatever meeting we were in, was that you know, to be that close to a hospital and an ambulance still can't get to you to get you to the hospital that you're close to would be a problem.

So it was definitely on this.

Yeah, and all the roads are gonna be built to city and state standards and widths, so that there's nothing unusual here or a reduction in the road widths that we're looking for that you wouldn't be able to have an ambulance pass through.

Okay.

I mean, this was the before.

All right.

Um my next question would be um so with not all the roads getting improved, how does that impact the ones that are?

So even though you can mitigate some of them, how you know the ones that still don't have a solution or can't have a solution, like how does that impact, even though like some are improved and some aren't?

Well, again, we we did an analysis build out of you know 20 years.

And at year 20, the majority of the network works.

And there's improvements that are needed beyond what any developer could do where it needs the state highway administration to come in.

It's their road.

Um it calls for an interchange for a reason, and that is what is needed to to assist with this location.

Now we'll work with the city.

Um the the traffic group has been working with the city to try to help proceed with the right in right out as part of the comp plain road.

Um so we've been working with the state highway administration on that.

I've had discussions with the state highway administration.

Um so we're working with them to help that portion, which will definitely help that intersection.

Um but again, it it does it it is going to need that deeper into the future.

Now, what what's 20 years gonna hold?

I mean, that's that's a big question as to what's gonna happen.

Um with vehicles and traffic, uh, but one good thing about this this type of development, it's mixed use.

So you're gonna have a lot of residential um working and living and playing in the same location and shopping.

So this triangle, this triangle um from 15 and monarchy down to 26 in Monaco City, and then 26 to 15, that's where you want your traffic, and that's what's in the plans for for the future here.

Um this is the area where unfortunately you're going to have additional traffic because this is where you want your traffic.

And it's built next to 26, which which I believe is six lanes.

It's built next to Route 50 or US 15, which is going to be six lanes.

It has two interchanges and the third to come in.

So this is where you want your density.

And a lot of other jurisdictions in the state of Maryland, they accept higher uh ceilings because it's where they want their density.

Um it's it and it's a little different here per code.

But again, this is where you want your density.

Um again, with the mixed use factors with a lot of residential here and a lot of commercial plus a lot of office in the hospital.

You're gonna see a lot of trips that don't need to go in and out of the network.

They're gonna stay within this area, and with the all the internal access connections, that's gonna help.

And when we do our study as well, we take all that into consideration.

So when we do our trip generation, there's something that's called internal trip capture.

So as you could go from home to work.

So those are trips that get removed from the outside model because they stay in the inside model.

I hope that makes sense.

I'm not getting overly technical.

Um, but there are trips that will be staying in the triangle for the majority of the time.

Okay.

I'll leave it there.

Um, so with the widening of 15, is there a time frame on that?

Do we know what's the time frame, Charian as it relates to this project?

For 15?

Yeah.

No, um, actually, in uh the design is starting, the 100% design will start um already started.

We've been working through the design process.

The project is fully funded through design and construction, and the 100% design will start immediately.

The construction start is 2028, uh, early 2028 or late 2027 is when they anticipate uh the construction to do.

And there's no funding for that yet.

Yes, it's 100% funded, the design and construction.

So it'd be 2028 is what you the start of construction.

The start of construction.

Yes.

And I'm I'm not quite sure how long the construction would be.

I think uh will be over a period of time.

But it's uh the widening is to the inside rather than to the outside, so it's a little bit from a construction standpoint.

It live I believe there will be some um noise wall uh abatement, uh, but other than that, uh it's because the widening is happening to the I think the mostly it's a bridge reconstruction, is probably where it might take some time.

Any conversation around like um transit?

Yes, and I know transit wait in um in terms of uh happy to provide additional services when as these different phases happen.

And I think I mentioned when I did a presentation of the overall the the there is a park and right lot right at the interchange and with an opportunity to provide a rail transit service from that park and lot more regionally, but at least it's a walkable distance from the hospital or the site that if that's where there is a consolidated transit center.

Um I know the county is working, like if you're on River Lake Drive, they just built a transfer facility for transit where the users could transfer from one bus to another, there could be another opportunity here to maybe catch MTA bus or uh have some regional transportation options from here.

Okay, so those are commuter bus you're referring to.

Is that what the MTA bus that what is that the commuter bus?

Yeah, it's MT as a commuter bus.

Um what I'm trying to say is that here is an opportunity if there are there is trips here people want to take from, or this could become an endpoint.

The other, of course, is the E Street Racer Trail.

Someone could um right from here to the downtown transit center if they need to be.

So we do have all those modes and options built over the next few years.

Uh the race of trails under design right now.

Um that's another project that will advance in the the near future.

Okay, thank you.

Are we good on traffic?

All right, part two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Don Shelling with Frederick Health, Vice President of Business Development.

Please bring the microphone up so you're closer to it.

Better?

Better, thank you.

Okay.

Um I just wanted to go through the perspective of Frederick Health with the property and just kind of ground everybody.

I know we're not your typical developer, and we're from the technical standpoint, we are the developer of this property.

So we bought the property in 2019, November, um, and started to do a lot of preliminary planning on what we might do with this property.

We had no designated use when we first acquired it.

And then about March of 2020, this thing developed called COVID, and we found lots of uses to use the property for for two years.

But also took two years of distraction for us not really focusing on what we may be able to do with this property long term.

So we reconvened and had a lot of planning sessions about what we think health care needs of the future would be for the county and the city.

As you know, 7th Street is landlocked.

That was one of our driving reasons to acquire this property.

Also, a lot of hospital-based services continue to move to ambitious setting.

Think about ambulatory surgery centers over the last 15, a number of those have developed inside of Frederick.

Um we also have a greater over 65 population growing in Frederick County in Frederick City, and we know that's going to have additional needs for our community, whether that be through direct services for patient care, or whether it be for ancillary services like adult care centers, uh, advanced nursing homes, those types of processes.

So when we laid out and thought about facility structures, because that's all this map is, right?

There's no specific, like we are going to put this designated service in this spot.

We looked at what the square footage of facilities we may need on this property and reserving the right as well to have a hospital relocation if someday in the future that was necessary.

So the planning goes around this of ambulatory surgery centers, it goes around medical office building space, much of which may be needed for enabling moves to keep acute care expanding at Frederick Health.

What I mean by that is we've acquired uh properties across the street.

We currently use those facilities for certain uses.

In order to use that ground for additional expansion for 7th Street to keep acute care going on that that site as long as we can, we may need to move those facilities.

They'll have to go someplace.

The plan would be to build a medical office building to accommodate those services on this property.

So it gets back to the original concept here of what we tested for.

So we had to lay out criteria, and as you saw in the report, we looked at what the maximum residential housing could be under the zoning requirement, and how much of our thought process around health needs could be accommodated if we went to full 1200 units.

And we could accommodate everything, including most things, including replacement hospital on the remainder of site there'd be commercial.

And they asked us to look at what are the situations we would have, the scenarios.

So one of those scenarios was maximum residential, smaller commercial space.

We took back as a recommendation to the management group to our board that that's not what we wanted this to look like in the future.

We wanted a campus that looked and feel welcoming, right?

To have lots of walkways and various buildings that were connected to sidewalks and some green space scattered throughout the property.

We didn't want a parcel full of commercial space, tall buildings, a lot of parking decks.

That wasn't our goal in this process.

It was to keep a community level point of destination for health care.

So we moved that back to the 750, which was the next threshold.

And it was also what fit in that little dog leg property back in the back of the easiest piece of parcel that would be designated for residential, and left us a pallet of the blue in the front to plan these services as they develop over the future time.

So I think we've done a great job of looking at the property, thinking about the future, doing it in a way that would be welcoming to the community, creating a point of destination.

And in the same process, putting seven some million dollars towards future road improvements.

This process has been 18 months.

The concern is it stops all those things I talked about.

Without a master plan approval, we can't think, or what if?

Because we can't do it.

We've had people we've talked to.

We can't move any further in discussions about things they may be willing to build out there that are associated with health care, delivering quality care for our community.

This plan even jeopardizes our current thinking about the existing building.

Great for the community, great for health care.

But if we don't know if we can do anything else out there, I don't know if we're going to spend the 85 million dollars on the first flares.

So I want you to consider that as part of your decision making.

I know you have an obligation, but I think on behalf of the developers' perspective, we've addressed everything, and I can understand the concerns.

I live right there in the middle of that community.

So I understand what people are saying, but from an applicant standpoint, we've done what we can do.

The comprehensive plan tells what has to get done.

So I think it's an obligation of everybody working together to get the comprehensive plan done.

So I take any questions you may have of me, but uh that's a point I wanted to bring home tonight.

All right, thank you.

Um Commissioner Balenci, any questions.

We can.

Commissioner Llewellyn.

No questions.

Commissioner Nellis.

So I have a couple questions.

Um, first of all, you said that you had your you did the analysis looking at the maximum number of residential units that were permitted under the MU district.

Did you look at the impact of the minimum number of units under that are allowed under and what impact that would be on traffic?

I mean, if you cut back on the number of units, is it going to make the traffic study come different?

So I want to I don't want to speak too technical, but I'll give you the layman's verb and what Joe told us is that they re-ran it at a high level, and it was actually a little less traffic pattern under the way we proposed it, but not enough that we wanted to go back and rerun a full report.

Okay.

Hi, for the record, Joe Coladero again.

Um so the answer is the same intersections where we need waivers, we're still gonna need waivers.

Okay.

There's no change.

Okay.

And then my other question is um how to say this.

Um everybody is talking about how this is going to be wonderful, that people are going to live there and work there, and they're not going to drive because they're going to be living there.

Um, but I'm suspecting that most of the people who work for your hospital won't be able to afford to live there.

Um so I I would feel more comfortable if and if you guys were to commit to actually building some workforce affordable housing in there so that we know that at least some of the people who work in the hospital might be able to afford to live there.

And I'm not saying that we wouldn't look at that.

We actually talked about that, right?

For our own workforce, right?

We've got the same issues everybody else does.

We need lots of nursing staff and and support structure for the healthcare system.

So we've talked about that, but we are not to that level of designating a certain parcel of that.

If it's a point of consideration for approval, then we might need to take that back.

But um we have considered that.

I mean, I think the other thing about this is this is this project, the blue area is you know, there may be something out there in three years, but it won't be a hospital, right?

And that's of the extra eight hundred and some thousand square feet of additional commercial space over the building that's there, that's 600,000 of it.

So this is a 20-year, 30-year project in the blue area, right?

The yellow area, uh, we don't have a timeline for, but it's you know, somewhere in the three to five year range.

And so um it's a long-term project for those counts that come out that Joe's talking about.

It just seems to me if I have to make a decision on adequacy of traffic, um, and we're throwing in this nebulous assumption that people are going to live there and work there and not drive.

I'd like to at least know that there is the possibility that some people who work there are going to be able to live there.

So we have people that work in the buildings there today that walk there from Warman's Mill.

So we have already caught some walking people to the pipe parcel.

Commissioner Bonteen, did you have another question?

Um one last time.

I know we've been through it a lot.

What is the exact number of dwelling units total?

Is that number what?

Okay.

Because I just keep rereading what it says in the September update, and okay.

I mean, I just I want to be sure again, every time I go back and read it, I'm like, wait a second, am I reading this wrong differently every time?

Um and then I guess it's more of a comment than a question, but you know, I don't think anyone's opposed to a hospital or the fact that we need more hospitals or you know, we're just growing like that.

I it's it's just very difficult driving through there, a lived experience that most of us go through all the time daily, and it's already impactful and difficult and delayed and backed up, and we know that it's not they're not passing the test.

The road the infrastructure is just not there.

Then there's some that there's nothing that can be done.

That is I just want you guys to understand that that is the biggest consideration, not the fact that you know hospitals are not needed or wanted, it's strictly infrastructure.

This is very difficult.

And a lot of what you guys have said, it's like, yes, that's true, but it's also hypothetical of timelines and when will that improve when it's already difficult daily now?

Like that's that's the hardest part about the phasing with it, and already difficult traffic scenario that we live every day.

So it's not really much of a question, but you know, that's I just had to get that out.

Well, and I could appreciate that view, but uh you know, as like I said earlier from our viewpoint the solution is outlined by the city.

So the issue is this group or whoever needs to be working with the city to get the comprehensive plan executed need to get executed.

And that's not that shouldn't be falling back as a liability to me as an applicant.

I find that kind of reverse logic.

So thanks.

Any other questions?

Can we go on to public comment?

All right.

Um Jennifer, can you give me the sign-up sheet?

Just out of curious idea, how many of you are here for public comment on this issue?

Okay.

Two.

All right.

Um then it looks like you're the first one on the on the what's so come on up.

It looks like you're gonna also speak on Rencord, but evening, Adam Apostoli, uh, one of uh three NAC 12 coordinators living in Ren Quarter.

I wasn't originally going to speak on this issue, I was gonna speak on the next issue, and I still plan to.

But uh Commissioner Strelson, you drew my attention to something in particular with building.

A lot of developments in this city do not build moderately priced dwelling units, they go fee in lieu.

So I would like to see more MPDUs actually built and no more fee and lieu.

Because I agree, affordability is an issue in this city, and particularly if uh it's being presented that people are going to be living where they're working, if they can't afford to do that, that's a non-starter.

So I'd like to see more MPDUs.

And in this case, I'd like to see this project as MPDU so that uh we actually have these units for people to actually afford to live.

That's what I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And are you John?

Come on up.

Good evening, thank you.

My name is John Cassane.

I live in Worman Mill.

We live in Frederick for about going on 30 years since the Army dropped us off here.

Um I like the idea of a health complex.

My wife and I spent our you need to talk to the microphone.

So it's my wife and I spent our life in army medicine, so uh, but uh I also have uh heard the phrase we don't want to be Montgomery County over and over again.

So my primary concerns um are that number one, I've everything you said, Ms.

Drosson about the experience of 26 and Shorebrew Drive in Walmart and Mill Pond, Mill Pond's not as bad as the other two in urban are all true.

And I can't tell you how many times I have been stuck at that light, counting how many cycles I have to wait.

I've never run the light.

That's good.

I try not to too.

I've never run it.

Every now and then it's like, oh damn, there's a lot of things.

Come down to two.

The biggest one is there are a lot of appreciated improvements that are part of this project.

Most of them are needed today with the traffic that we we have today, especially the right in, right out, to try to take some relief off of that chore bird Walmart.

But the biggest one is that intersection of 26, which it needs an it needs an interchange, it needs something more than what is likely to be built anytime soon.

And I guess the question would be if you can't do that, then I hear the the uh the idea that a lot of people are going to stay here and live.

We do that today, with the exception of healthcare, where we have to come out.

I go to Wegmans and to Mark Market Square frequently.

I also use Monoxy Boulevard as an alternative 15 because I don't trust 15.

So I'll go to 50, I'll go Pinocchio down to get to the Costco end or down to the Fifth Street access to if I want to go to anywhere on Marcus Street.

So I I already do that today to avoid 15.

But if you build a hospital someday, where are those employees?

They're gonna if they can't live here, they're gonna drive in and they'll be shift workers, so it'll be all three, all three cycles.

And so does the traffic study include an estimate of how many commuters are going to have to come into this complex to work.

Um and the last is that I get maybe I've touched on it, is that that a lot of what the the major changes that would be needed to really provide um relief are dependent upon the state who has already said no at least once.

I'd like to see that change, particularly for the right in right out and what might be done to the um 26 interchange.

I think I've hopefully made my point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who'd like to comment on this case?

My name is Hannah Nickerson.

I live at 415 Sherman Avenue.

Um I just wanted to get up here and say uh I think it's kind of hypocritical to judge this much needed health care project against traffic standards when other projects um like the brickworks didn't have to do a traffic study because of its you know closest to urban density.

And I think uh part of the reason this area, which everybody agrees is very difficult to drive around.

It's actually rage-inducing trying to sit through these intersections.

Uh, I think it's just a great lesson for the community at large that you know that area was basically an empty field, and it was developed in a very car-centric way.

And we see brickworks coming in, not great improvements on frankly the this infrastructure that we've been prioritizing over the past 15-ish years.

And you know, you can't even from Warman's Mill, you can't cross to Wegmans, or you can't cross the other way to go get dumplings or whatever without literally risking your life, and it's such a shame that we don't view areas like these as potentially future dense urban areas, and we're not prioritizing.

I don't see pedestrian boulevards, I don't see I know there's talk of the let's move plan with bike lanes and such, but that hasn't been prior, that hasn't been passed and adopted yet.

And in spite of not having form-based code either, even though that's not really applicable to this area, I just think it really speaks to the discernment that this commission needs to have that, even though there is the code and the bare minimums are being met, um, it really takes strong vision from this team, which I know you guys have.

And I don't know, I just feel like I wish there was ways that we could.

There's definitely lessons learned here from not this development per se, but precipitating out from past decisions that were made now affecting our critical right to have access to health care and good good jobs and things like that.

So just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment on this case?

All right, would you like to respond?

Thank you.

Um again, Bruce Dean for the applicant.

Um those are some really good points that were made.

Um I don't think anyone up here can change this neighborhood at this stage.

Um, but I did want to point out that the property is zoned mixed use, and so it has to be a combination of some form of residential and non-residential.

Um because it's zoned mixed use, we have to have a master plan approved by the planning commission in one way, shape, or form, or we are sort of stuck where we are in terms of the ability to do any really additional new development on that site.

So I would just implore the planning commission that if this plan is for any reason unacceptable, if what Mr.

Schilling described the process we've been through to try to make it as a big an asset to the community and to this neighborhood as humanly possible.

If if you feel like we haven't gone far enough, I I would just beg you not to deny this case, but to give us the chance to try to respond.

But we do believe we have um made every effort to address the issues that were within our control.

Um several of the improvements that Cherion and Mr.

Caligara mentioned are necessary today.

These are failing intersections with or without this hospital.

Um I think the numbers have been thrown around the seven or eight million dollars that we will be spending on these traffic improvements.

Um that's seven million dollars that won't get spent if this project is denied or stalled.

So we we are trying to be part good part of the community, we're trying to address the the concerns and comments.

Um I just again, if for any reason the planning commission feels like we haven't gone far enough, you know, let me know.

Um I do want to address the MPDU question really quickly, though.

That is something that the hospital would be willing to explore, but right now the city of Frederick doesn't even really have an MPDU program per se.

If someone said that they were gonna build 200 MPDU townhouses on the site, the city has no ability to address that.

Um that's one of the reasons why what MPDUs are built in the city are all multifamily LI-Tech projects like the one you're gonna hear from later this this evening because those don't require city oversight.

Any moderately priced dwelling unit that would be built and sold to a homeowner would require effectively a change to the city administration.

And I'm not saying that's not a valuable goal for the city to have, um, but I think it's a little bit beyond what we can address this evening in terms of the planning commission and this applicant.

But we are, you know, and we can like I said we're happy to look at it, but it it would it would be in the form of some form of LITEC project at this point.

Um and I don't actually see that there has been a dearth of LITEC projects in Frederick City.

In fact, there's been significant number of them.

Um the one that that's gonna be before you later this evening on Warmansville Court apartments, if you remember, um they committed at the time of rezoning that project to building the pedestrian overpass basically to just south of this project.

So you're gonna have 350 affordable units that could actually walk to this to work at this place.

So I think it's great.

I think um when I first got to Frederick 40 years ago, this was all fields.

Uh I remember when State Farm was built.

Um it quickly became a very, very popular part of Frederick, um, much to the detriment in some instances of the Golden Mile, which I think saw a lot of businesses go from the Golden Mile to up here because this is where the people were, this is where the action was.

Um that's not why the hospital wants to be here.

The hospital wants to be here because it's a great central location, it is right off the interstate, notwithstanding the fact that several people in this room tonight said that they avoid 15, which I totally get.

Um, if you are have a pregnant wife and you need to get to the hospital right away, you're gonna go on the freeway, probably.

So I think it is a very good thing that that 15 is getting widened.

Um, and that that location, that access of Minoxy Boulevard in US 15 was a prime reason why the state farm building was built there, and it was a prime reason why the hospital purchased this property.

So, with all that, um we do ask for your support this evening.

It's been a long road getting here, and uh again, if there's more we need to do, please let us know.

But we think we've gone, we've done a great job here.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, it comes up here.

Um we have a total of my less count six actions, five actions, seven actions.

But the one we need to discuss first is the road adequacy.

So I I'll just say it.

I respect them enough.

I will not approve that road adequacy that I think I think for me it's based on the maybe the number of residential units that that could change it to where it those numbers will come up better that would help pass or something.

But the traffic engineer said that no matter what somewhat number are, but it was still just it wasn't without residential.

Like I guess my question would be overall is there because it's gone so far now.

Like, is there a way to do the hospital part and the residential separately?

Like, there's not, so no.

I don't, I mean, it's it's the roads have failed.

They're still failed.

There's multiple roads that are failed.

That's the infrastructure is not there and it can't be fixed.

That's what's been said over and over again.

As much as I think there's a big need for the hospital, it can be fixed, not all of them.

The comprehensive, I mean, those two comprehensive plan roads, if the city would change the policy.

I mean, right now the city has the policy of waiting until the people who own the land decide to develop it and then making that that landowner build the roads.

If the city would change their policy and create a policy that lets them go in and build the roads, they could fix it as soon as they could get the money to build the roads.

Right.

So infrastructure first before the development.

That makes sense.

It is not on this applicant.

No, I don't know.

But it is it is a city issue.

I mean, if the city really wants development up there, and it makes sense, there is something that could be done soon.

So another thoughts?

And I was thinking about this project.

I thought about it takes a village, and it really does because it's more than just the applicant, it's everybody has their part to play.

Um, and like the applicant said it's not their fault, but we're also not responsible for the conditions that aren't now.

Like you mean, you want four people up here to put a band-aid on something, you know, and that's just not how it works in real life.

And so what I will say is I have gone from a no to a maybe, but that maybe is dependent on what you can put forth to us if you want to, in terms of the phasing.

Like I would like to see, like we talked about it here, but I'm more of a visual person, and I'd like to see a more thought-out strategic plan that shows you know, phasing one, you know, these units, how what roads are going to be built, the new one that's going to be built, or what the mini mitigation is for the roads, phase two, what that would look like, phase three.

What I mean, I don't so I'm hearing so what you're saying is you want to see the site plan.

I don't know if it's a site plan, but I mean, but but I need a conceptual, I can't just be like, okay, phase one, we're gonna build a road, and I'd say I mean I need to see more, and I'm not seeing that.

And I can't make that decision.

So right now I'm on the fence, and so I need to see more and and and know that there's a well-thought out plan for that.

Want to call it a site plan, go ahead.

But I call it, you know, trying to get from point A to point B in terms of a decision.

Um, and I can't speak for the other commissioners, but I would like to see something like that to help me make a better decision and seeing what the vision is when we're talking about what this would look like and how traffic would be impacted.

Commissioner Manales, may I add just as a point of clarification?

Um so the APFO certificate establishes the required mitigation that is being provided that the applicant has to meet, and that does establish time frames for when certain mitigation has to be in place.

Looking over it, it looks like the contributions and some of the constructed improvements that need to be made to mitigate the the other sections road intersections where mitigation can be provided, are all prior to building permit issuance in the draft certificate.

So before they would get a building permit, everything that's in the provisional certificate that you should have received a signed copy of tonight has to be in place.

Okay, I still can't visualize what they're talking about.

I hear what you're saying, and I and I'm not disagreeing.

Um I'm just saying that I can't visualize what it is that I that they're talking about when we talk about phase one, having this road build, having this and this.

I mean, it's just conversation.

I mean, I'm just telling you where I am.

You don't have to, you know, but you know, for me, you know, I I couldn't vote on it tonight.

So I'm just telling you where I am, which isn't from a no to a maybe.

It's uh Commissioner Lin.

Yeah, I'm I'm looking at it, and you know, we we're damned if we do, damned if we don't here, right?

We make a decision and say, oh, go for it.

Everyone's gonna say we don't have the infrastructure.

And I don't know how many times I hear that day in and day out.

We don't have the infrastructure to develop anything in the in the city right now.

Um, and this is a big one.

This is failing, still failing four big intersections, and I know my car's been hit three times within a five-minute period out here, so I'm probably not the right person to ask about traffic in that area.

That's all I'm kind of at a maybe to, but I honestly don't know what would switch me over from a maybe to a yes.

And again, I don't necessarily think it's anything that the applicant can do unless you can put pressure on the city to build Warman's Mill Road and to finish the I mean finish the Grange Grange Mill Road through, I mean, I know that the state is in charge of the right in, right out, but if you could build that road from you know, from the Walmart up, and then people could go through there and then up Warman's Mill to Minocase, it would be a lot better.

And I know it's on the sometime plan sometime in the future.

Right, but I don't think we can wait for some time.

Uh if I had a great answer, I'd have given it to you earlier.

I know, and if I um you know, we can only control at the hospital what we can control, obviously, and I know you all recognize that.

Um, you know, in talking to Chris about phasing, um, you know, we we really don't know right now.

I mean, this isn't a site plan, so we don't know what the first use is gonna be and which part of the property.

I mean, we we could come up with something we could also promise you that with that first site plan, we will come in with a phasing plan, but I don't know if that's enough to to move any needles.

We could certainly go back and have Mr.

Large try to come up with a construction schedule.

I I I think I can tell you with with a hundred percent certainty that what Gabrielle said is just said right now is true, which is the the off-site improvements that are listed in the APFO certificate have to be made prior to getting building permit.

And as Mr.

Large indicated, the comp plan road that um connects to Mill Pond is part of phase one.

We have to build that before we know pull a building permit for any of the residential as well.

So those we know are all phase one.

But until until that range of mill road can connect to Walmart, and then from Warman's Mill can connect out to Monocasee.

It's not make much difference.

Well, that yes and no, that road does connect to Warman's Mill Road, and it does connect to Mill Pond, both of which, as Cherrian said, are effectively parallel roads to 26 and 15.

So they're they're taking traffic off of 26 and 15 today.

I'm so sorry, but as a sense of collaboration, I appreciate the comments.

What is the biggest concern on those phases?

Is it the residential piece?

The commercial is gonna phase itself, right?

I mean, the kind of things I talked about, health care needs.

I mean, we have no immediate target outside of working on the existing building.

We just need to know that if opportunities arise, we can come back through the property channels and get building permits to look at other health care needs that would go on the blue spot.

Um the other infrastructures we actually had out there that we put into the APO testing, like restaurants, we did a hundred key hotel.

Why do we do those?

Because the ultimate vision is if you have a hospital there, loved ones come in, they have a place to stay, they can go to the hospital.

Wouldn't that be a great avenue to have out there?

So they're there around the theme of what eventually may get built.

Back to your is there a specific is it the residential piece that is the real might switch people from a maybe to I would say I would say that I would need to see that piece, the residential piece, or wherever we're I wish I had a um uh um pointer, a pointer.

But um the residential piece, yes.

I just need to know with regards to the phasing, you know, what is being mitigated when and when is that road being built when you're talking about phase one and how that would impact um the existing traffic and um and in terms of when that also that 15 um um widening of of the of the road project is also gonna happen kind of like around the same time.

So it's just really more like you know, okay, phase one, you know, um this is what we're working on, the 750, I think, units.

Um this road is being built across that goes from here to here.

We're also working on some mitigation around the surrounding roads.

These are the roads that we'll be focusing on at this phasing plan or piece or area for now that of course may change, but I just need to see something.

I mean, that shows that there's some thoughtfulness, you know.

I understand that there's an APFO, that there's been you know, all that has been done, but I still feel like I need to see it, you know, how that's gonna be laid out.

And I understand that we have the certificates and so forth, but I understand that so that was her, but you're saying maybe is there something in particular we would come back?

Is is your concern the residential uh amount of traffic added to the I think it's mostly the amount of traffic added by the residential.

I I mean you said that it doesn't matter.

I would be interested in in seeing you know whatever the minimum number of units that you need to put in for that to meet the 15, you know what impact that had on traffic.

Um I would personally like to see a condition that that the Waterside and the Quincy be roundabouts and not roundabouts or traffic lights.

Um we don't have a preference there.

Um and I would like to see some MPBUs.

Is there anything else that's and and or some senior housing?

I mean, I know that in the in the traffic analysis, senior housing doesn't necessarily isn't assessed differently, but we need senior housing, and you kind of know that I mean there's less traffic associated with senior housing than multifamily housing.

I don't just work collaborating with the team.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out what we're gonna focus on.

That would give you some sense of maybe it's going to help.

I'm gonna try to see if help the discussion a little bit kind of uh uh to to help you give you some additional information.

Um in terms of phasing, certainly as Gabrielle said, the provisional certificate, all of those improvements are other contributions are due on day one, the when they apply for building permit.

What the mitigation the per the code they can apply for a mitigation agreement that way they can phase it to a phasing element they bring to the development.

Um but I'm trying to put my own perspective on it, and I think would this is something that uh when you look at the traffic study that we uh make an assessment to say, of course, that Grange Mill or the Compland Road is important for any the phase one.

Anything you build, that road is critical.

And certainly if you know uh from an operational standpoint, monocloncy improvements are necessary either in phase one or in before phase two begin.

And um city from a perspective of how we look at these intersections, we will be rolling it out a roundabout first policy.

We want to look at roundabouts as a as an intersection improvement first.

So that's something that uh from a city engineering stand um department standpoint, our preference is to have uh look at a roundabout first.

So that's something that we're gonna look at.

So from a phasing standpoint, range small road connections important.

We ideally would like to see improvements along monocracy in phase one, um, but not uh at least by the beginning of phase two.

Phase three is sort of much more long term.

I think I want to see more of these improvements done early rather than later.

So at least looking at the traffic study, we want to see as much improvements done within the first two phases before they go into phase three.

And I think if someone asked the question of how the um age restricted perform in terms of trip generation, it's actually a very low trip generator because they're not driving as much.

Yeah, and it's ancillary to the supporting services.

So if there's supporting services around there, uh then it's trip generation goes much lower.

Yeah.

One of the aspects of having residential um is residential complements the commercial retail and uh office type users, so which means that if you live somewhere you get to work uh the office right there, you don't have to drive 10 miles somewhere else to where the office may be um located.

So the mix use do benefit from uh what I think Joe kind of mentioned is the internal trip catcher because it helps reduce a single if it's hundred homes somewhere with nothing else that hundred homes generate X number of trips.

But when you mix it with other uses, um it gets to reduce the trips, overall trips generated by a mixed-use development.

Um the point I wanted to make is of the fact I know we're stuck in that um the exemption or finding of adequacy for the four locations that we talked about.

And three of them are along monoclon, which is the wallmother entrance, the 26 and intersection and rural bandway.

These are tied to really a capital improvement project, much above and beyond what the city can afford to pay for it.

This is that's why it's in the uh it ultimately needs to be funded through a capital um uh consolidated transportation program that's run by state because this project will cost runs into millions of dollars, maybe somewhere upwards of 50 to 100 million dollars.

There's no way as the city could fund this project.

So I'm just wanted to put that reality that it's not a it's not a problem that the city by itself can't solve, but we want to put it into focus that up uh up the chain to the state to kind of help resolve this.

And I think the key is more, but in when you look at it, it's much more manageable aspect is getting an access break on 26.

I think we've been working with the state highway the last three years to get that.

It's a process to for the state to permit that access break.

Uh first of all, they need to make we need to present the city or the group of developers, whoever is pursuing that access break, need to prove to state that granting an access break on 26 is of a regional benefit.

And that's really where they're making that assessment that hey um 26 and monocloncy interchange funding could be years away.

Is there a more regional benefit to having that access break granted to the city at this point?

So that's a decision that we're from the city we're pursuing with the state, and it needs a board of public works approval.

So there is a process that we follow to get to that.

But we are earnestly working to that.

So I just want to make sure that the 26 discussions not easy to say, oh, we're gonna hold it to until you an interchange this bill, but that's probably a very high task.

Um when you look at the practicality of that improvement.

So I just want to I'm more than happy to answer any other questions, help you through some of the discussion that I know that some of the important struggles that you um getting to discussion point.

And other thing, one other last thing.

I think there was a question about changing the density mix or something like that.

But the traffic study is very clear that these intersections, these three intersections along twenty monoxy are already failing.

And uh, you know, even if you don't do anything, no approvals mean that it's still continue to uh fail.

Uh again, the failure for other than those three intersections.

It's not a capacity issue or a delay issue.

What we talked about was the the queuing was an issue for these locations.

So the sum of the cycles the 95th percentile queue exceeding.

Um hopefully that was helpful kind of uh in your decision making process.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Um I do have a question for you though.

Okay.

Don't run away.

Sure.

Um so question about 26.

You talked about needing um a justification for from the state or to the state in order to have that work being done.

And I'm like, where's the city with that?

Has the city submitted anything, done anything with that?

Where is it?

So the the state has a process in which these projects it's statewide gets into the consolidated transportation program.

The first step is being in the hybrid needs inventory.

So uh I believe last within the last five years is when we made this intersection, made it into the hybrid needs inventory.

I think the the estimate it's in there is hundred, 120 million dollars.

Um, but from advancing from the hybrid needs inventory to in inclusion in the CTP, uh we request that as part of our uh priority letter that annually goes to state highway, uh MDOT.

Um, and that's something that and they have a scoring system in which they pick and fund projects throughout the state.

So I mean if so when they score and if it doesn't meet certain criteria, these projects doesn't advance to their funding mechanism.

So it's a basically so this would be down at the bottom, close to the bottom of the list.

For for MDOT state highway administration.

Okay.

I mean I'm just telling you what the reality is sometimes.

That's fine, yeah.

I want to hear that.

We want to look at other alternatives.

That's 26 break is certainly something much more achievable than um funding and then the change of this location.

Yeah, and to your comment about you know the reduction of units would not really change anything, but having senior housing or a nursing home where there's less trips would help traffic.

Again, I would go back and say the 26, the the three intersections where we're talking about are constrained today, and even adding a very minimal number of trips mean that you're adding to the constraint.

Um so I mean I so I mean I think from uh end of the day from a determination, your your your results are not going to change because you're already starting from uh um a point of um uh level of subs E or close to F.

Um, so we're not meeting the standards that we looking at.

Okay.

So I mean that's just the reality of it.

Thank you.

So um well, I'm not gonna be voting um yes.

So um I already I already made my my position call.

So um based on the comments we've received tonight, I think we're gonna do what I implied we were gonna do, which is ask for another continuance.

I don't know if we'll be able to come up with enough to flip the maybe to a yes, but that is certainly our goal.

Um I think preferably 60 days would give us enough time um to put together.

Um you know, we we will we can definitely commit to some of these things, but I want to put it together and put it in writing so that you have it all.

Um, and then you can make it an informed decision.

I the the back and forth is wonderful.

I'm gonna have to go back and watch the tape because I haven't been writing it down.

Um but you know, we've gotten a lot of information from you.

I think we've given a lot of information to you.

Um Chairon has been absolutely invaluable working with Joe.

So you know, I can tell you that at the end of the day, what Sharion was just saying in a much less blunt way than I am, is you're still gonna have to grant the waivers, the findings of adequacy because they fail now.

There's a way to get this project approved.

There's gonna have to be votes up at your on your behalf to do that.

But um we can certainly do whatever what we can to try to answer some of these and and put together a program that hopefully will at least be enough to move the needle.

So we would ask for that.

We do appreciate the work that you've done so far.

Hopefully we didn't hopefully that came across.

Probably didn't come across, but but we do appropriate appreciate the work that you've done so far to address our questions.

So thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

So do I have a motion for continuance?

I move for a motion for PC 24-662 MU, Frederick Health Village Master Plan uh to be continued to What's the date of the November meeting?

November November um, I believe it'll be the 11th that the 10th is Veterans Day.

Oh, okay, okay.

So November 11th, 2025.

Oh, let me double check.

Oh, wait, wait, this is a Tuesday.

We're closed on the 11th.

Oh, you close on the 10th then.

The 10th is 100.

Are you closed on the 10th?

I'm sorry.

Okay, the 10th.

Okay, so November 10th, 2025.

I second that.

So that is a motion by Commissioner.

Um Valencia is second by Commissioner Well and all in favor.

I that's unanimous.

Thank you.

Okay.

We need a five-minute break.

All ready?

We ready.

All right.

One down.

I know, I'm sorry.

Um, our next our next case is PC 25-55 ZTA, a text amendment for section 417 MU district phasing.

Thank you very much.

Um, so this is a continuation of the discussion on this text amendment.

Uh proposed to change the phasing requirements of section 417 of the LMC, which have to do with mixed-use development.

This request was discussed at our hearing in June and then again in August and continued to this evening.

I'm gonna focus primarily on the updated information in my presentation this evening, but do you want to give a quick recap because I think it sets the stage for those updates.

Section 417D establishes a phasing um program for how a mixed-use project is constructed.

And this is distinct from the requirements for land within an MU project to be broken down into residential, non-residential, and parks and open space.

So it's important distinction that this requirement strictly applies to how a project is going to be constructed, not the ultimate design of that project.

Section 417 require 17D requires that building permits for no more than 75% of the residential units be issued until at least 25% of the non-residential floor area is constructed.

And conversely, that building permits for no more than 75% of the non-residential area be issued until Platts, the record PLATS are uh recorded for at least 25% of the units.

Um and if it's a multifamily project, that 25% minimum is measured by approval of a final site plan.

The applicant is proposing to change these standards to and allow an applicant to propose a phasing schedule that's unique to their project and its composition, uh, as well as to allow changes to the phasing schedule to be approved administratively through the planning department, provided that one, it does not affect a term a determination of adequacy under the adequate public facilities ordinance, and two that it's justified by planning market or other legitimate concerns of the applicant.

As we've discussed with text amendments in the past, when the commission's considering an amendment, in your recommendation, you should evaluate the extent to which the change is consistent with our existing codes and to which it implements the policies of the comprehensive plan.

In this report, we've elaborated on the commission's role and the options in making your recommendation.

And those options are to recommend approval, recommend denial, or recommend approval with modifications.

The commission isn't otherwise given the authority to propose text amendments under our land management code.

But instead, the council has legislated the intent to have the commission weigh in on the applications to change the code, relying on its expertise in the comp plan in the land management code.

Consistent with this intent is the use of the word modification.

The commission isn't being asked to produce an alternative text amendment that is substantially different from what's proposed by an applicant, but instead is being asked to weigh in on whether the changes do exactly what the criteria are, whether they are consistent with our code or whether they support the policies of the comprehensive plan.

There's really no clear bright line or number of words we can say you can change or not change.

It's gonna be different for every application.

It's gonna be based on the proposal in front of you.

If the commission fundamentally does not agree with the substance of a proposed text amendment, the recommendation should be for denial.

If the condition commission agrees with the language and its intent, then obviously for approval.

And if the commission agrees fundamentally with the concept that the applicants propose but has recommendations for how it could better implement the comp plan or make it more consistent with our code, that would be an appropriate recommendation for approval with modifications.

From a very practical perspective in terms of your deliberations, if the commission is inclined to recommend approval with modifications, I would recommend that the motion state conceptually what those modifications would be as opposed to articulating specific language, much like the commission does in the case of a recommendation of the council on an annexation or in a master plan that ultimately goes to the council.

There's nothing that prevents the commission from reading specific language for modification, but it may be challenging to reach an agreement on specific wording.

Everybody writes things a little bit differently, when it's really the intent of the modification that's most meaningful to the council in your deliberations.

So just as a matter of practice, I think being able to recommend modifications, approval with modifications that are conceptual is likely going to be most effective.

If the commission finds that the proposed language is inconsistent with the code and does not implement the comp plan, and there are no alterations that the commission would make to that language to make it so, uh the commission could recommend denial, and it's always an option in your denial letter to raise a flag.

And the commission has before say, you know, this issue was brought to us.

We think it's an issue that needs further exploration, but this wasn't it.

And that's something that you can share with the council.

Another update in the report this evening that we provided is with regards to the background projects that we we shared for other MU projects.

The intent of providing those was to demonstrate the diversity of projects that we've seen approved with the mixed use standards.

They vary in the amount of residential, non-residential land use areas, the location, the overall size and scale.

So some of the projects even relied on existing non-residential uses to meet the minimum requirements for an MU project.

And some had those standards further modified to be reduced from what is otherwise required in the code.

So they clearly reflect a diverse collection of what has been approved under the mixed use standards.

This helps to demonstrate that a one-size-fits all phasing schedule for MU projects might not be the best fit for a variety of projects, and why a more individualized approach as proposed by the applicant would be advantageous.

It is important to note that many of these projects, though, have not even even begun construction, so we don't want this table to be construed as demonstrating all of the projects that have complied with this phasing requirement.

A number of them, Summers Farm, Highland Trail, Brickworks, Madison on North Market, Westridge, and the Warman's Mill Core Departments haven't even begun to pull permits, so we can't definitively say that this phasing requirement is effective.

Of the projects that have started construction, five of them relied on existing non-residential uses.

So the phasing requirements really weren't even a factor because they already had that non-residential constructed.

So I think it's important to recognize that we don't really have a complete demonstrated inventory of the efficacy of this phasing requirement because of that diversity.

Lastly, we provided additional information related to the commercial market that was requested.

With this regard, I would just reiterate though, while the impetus of a text amendment brought forward by an applicant from the public is always going to, there's always going to be a driving force behind it.

Each project, no one's no one's doing it for the fun of it, bringing in a text amendment just saying I think we should do this.

Um people are paying an application fee and work to produce a text amendment because there's generally a need.

That impetus should serve as inspiration for us to think larger though.

Um, that is one of the potential scenarios that may have triggered someone to say, I think we should change this.

But our goal is to think as broadly as possible.

We obviously can't think of every possible situation that might occur in the universe.

We've tried, um, but it but that's not successful.

But I think having those sample of mixed-use projects gives us a good head start at looking at what the different composition is and how those phasing requirements may play out.

One of the projects in the table is the Madison on North Market Street Project, which is basically a two-building mixed-use project.

There'll be a multifamily building and then a building that has a non-residential component that is not commercial.

Um, it's not a typical retail, you know, shop um restaurant type of use.

It's actually a head start program.

So I think that really demonstrates that there are a ton of other factors when we get into a program like that that could influence the ability to construct and at what timing if they're funded through federal funding or nonprofit funding, um, those things could influence the pace at which the projects constructed.

So while in this case, the applicant has discussed a lot with you the reasons they brought this forward text amendment forward.

The commission should be mindful that there are a lot of other potential scenarios and think about this text amendment in in that context, um, that it might not always be an application because of a retail slump, um, that it could be based on based on a number of factors that flexibility might be needed to bring about a successful mixed-use project.

With that, uh, that is all we wanted to hit on this evening, and just bring up our recommendation on the staff report.

So there's only one action that the commission has to make, and that is that recommendation to the council.

And in this case, there we go.

Um, in staff's technical review of the proposal, we have found it consistent with the decision-making responsibilities assigned to the reviewing authority in the code for master plans, and specifically in the application of mixed-use standards, and also that the amendments broadly support the archer overarching goal of the goals of the 2020 plan, which are to facilitate mixed-use development patterns and specifically implements land use policies one and seven cited in the staff report.

And with those findings, we recommend a positive recommendation to the council for the draft text amendments as indicated in the staff report and presented by the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

We'll do a roll call for questions for staff.

Commissioner Balencia.

No, thank you.

Commissioner Wellan.

No, thank you.

Commissioner Manellus.

Um, thank you.

Just more of a statement.

When we're talking about so there are two things happening here.

One is looking at this text amendment from uh citywide perspective.

And yes, the applicant did put forth this um application.

You know, obviously, with the understanding that though it's a citywide, broader implications that they would also benefit from it.

And so when I look at at least from the broader perspective of the city specifically, not necessarily the applicant, I think it's important to get a better understanding of the landscape to see what's happening here specifically around you know, the commercial market, you know, economic drivers to kind of make that decision about whether or not this type of general phasing would be appropriate for the city.

So it's only for the city is what the coastal report was for, and not for the applicant.

Thank you.

Um so I just have one question.

Um, the document that you pulled together about the current mixed-use projects.

Um, I appreciate the effort that went into that.

For me, that didn't answer the question I had, which is I wanted to know how many mixed-use projects in the city, other than the one that's prompted this text amendment, have had not been able to proceed with the phasing requirement as it is.

Oops.

Um, so as I said, um many of them have not even started pulling permits, so we need to exclude from that because we don't know.

Um, Warman's Mill Court, Westridge, Madison on North Market Brickworks.

Moving down that list, Wayside uh was approved under the small lot standards, so they didn't have to provide a non-residential component.

So they were kind of exempt, right?

Okay.

Um that's under construction currently.

Highland Trail has not started construction.

Spring Bank is completed.

Uh, their non-residential component was an existing historic building, and the amount of non-residential required for that development was overall reduced substantially.

Uh so that did not suffer from any implications of it, uh, but primarily because it was an existing existing use there.

East church residences also relied upon an existing non-residential building.

Which one?

East Church residences, the one off um church street headed out of town next to the um the multifamily project that's um new.

Um that also had an existing non-residential building that was providing for its entire requirement for the non-residential.

So, once again, it was already built, they could move forward with permits without any implications.

Summers Farm has not started construction, so too soon to tell.

Ren Farm, we've talked about Bower Socks fell into the same situation as Spring Bank, where they used an existing historic structure.

It was reduced below the requirement, and um, so they they didn't have to construct a non-residential component, so it was no no burden to them.

Uh the bottling plant also found fell under that same situation, existing non-residential that met all their needs, so they only they could move forward completely with their residential.

Minocase Center uh is constructing and has not run into this hurdle yet.

They had several mixed-use buildings that met their percentage.

West Park Village.

Uh it was a combination of existing buildings to meet the non-residential and new construction.

You may have uh recalled reviewing the VFW um new construction, the new building.

Um, but that was in part also constructed market square.

That was a a full, a full-on mixed-use project.

Uh, that was the uh request that previously tweaked the ordinance to allow the non-residential to continue to move forward before they got stopped with the residential.

And then 820 Moter Avenue, that's the Sharps mixed-use building.

Uh, they constructed their non-residential component as part of um integrated mixed-use building.

So it was pulled on all in on one, you know, one development application.

Um, so you know, I think I think it's a it's a hard specific question to ask because there are most of the situations either haven't started being constructed, relied on existing, so didn't have the burden of trying to construct a new component, they they had the benefit of what was there.

Um so I would say two projects maybe purely met the standards after amending the code to allow Market Square to move forward.

And so that was resolved by changing the percentage of of non-residential to residential, not changing anything to do with the phasing.

The um market square project?

No, that was a change, it was a subtle change to the phasing requirement, not their overall land use allocation.

They were getting hung up, um, I believe because they weren't ready to to record enough of the residential lots, so they they had to tweak the word about um I think the language and I can be 100% for you, but I think the language required the building permits for the residential lots to be issued.

They changed it to recording the plates to give them more time to allow the non-residential to keep moving.

Okay, thank you.

Um you have another question for staff before we go on?

Go ahead.

Yes.

Yes, so thank you, Gabriel.

So you said two projects met the standard, correct?

Is that correct?

Uh I would I think it's a fair conclusion to say two of the projects that have been constructed have and how many didn't did not meet this?

I guess so the ones that did not meet the standards because they're not completed.

Is that what like so right?

We have a combination of five or six of them that haven't even started construction, so we don't know if they're going to be able to successfully phase in the way they're supposed to.

Um hopefully they're thinking about it.

So we don't we don't even know if they'll work in those cases.

In the other cases, the majority of them, you already had your non-residential comportion constructed, so they could move right into residential permitting, and voila, they had 100% of their non-residential constructed because it was already there.

So I don't think that's a fair, it's kind of you know, it's a it's not an anomaly because we've had multiple of them, but it's not um I don't think it was anticipated with the intent of that code that you would be relying on existing components.

So, how many of those non-residential that was already constructed?

How many of how how many are those?

Like so two met two projects sort of met the standard, and how many um already had non-residential, I guess, structures that they didn't have to do much with how many is that in this in this matrix, I guess, or so we had so there are six projects that haven't started, so we exclude them.

Right.

Out of the remaining ten, excluding Ren quarter, eight of them have been nearly completed, and five of those already had non-residential.

Okay, so five, so let me just repeat this.

Two projects met the standard, and five um kind of sort of met the standard because they already had non-residential existing structures.

Right.

And so that's seven, you know.

And then eight would have been the REN quarter.

But they're not done yet.

So it wouldn't be applicable, right?

Right.

Okay.

So that's seven.

So what I'm trying to understand is so the numbers.

So what I'm trying to understand is so the numbers, five non-residential that five projects already had non-residential structures, and then two projects that met the standards.

So that's a total of seven.

And then the wayside project, which is in the table as well, but that was subject to the small lot standards, which doesn't require a non-residential component.

Right.

So does it apply?

So the it kind of gets thrown out.

Right.

So it's all residential.

Right.

So that's seven then total, correct?

Five non-residential structures that were already in existence, and then two that met the standard.

The five that met the standard, I guess, was because they already had non-residential.

So that's like a total of seven, correct?

Correct.

We had two projects that I would say successfully have been implementing the standard.

Correct.

Right.

And then the five, I would so would you not say those met the standard as well because they already had existing structures?

I mean, maybe that wouldn't really apply.

I think it's it's not a good test for if these phasing requirements are effective.

Okay.

So then we'll keep it at two.

Okay.

So here's my question.

You know, it's two projects that met the standard.

Um so what projects didn't that were completed that did not meet the standard?

And I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm assuming if a project didn't meet the standard, they would have to come for what I would call a variance, but that would not be possible because there's no way for them to really come back to the city through an admin process because either they meet it or they don't.

And if they don't, there's delays, uh, monetary loss, etc.

So basically, so two met the standard, there were really none that did not meet the standard.

Ren quarter that's here today.

Yeah, but they're not the asking.

I guess, yeah, I'm asking for the ones that have been completed.

So we only we only have two that were really fully subject to the requirements.

We've had seven approved that, but they relied five relied on existing structures.

Right.

Right.

So I I don't think that's a fair I agree.

I can't you can't really apply that standard the same way.

So there are no projects, there are no projects sitting out there on hold because of this, except ren quarter.

Okay.

And so that is my point, I think.

I guess for me, when I'm thinking about a phasing plan for the city, I'm thinking to myself, there's a uh uh what you call it, a trend analysis of a growing number of projects that are happening that that this is happening with throughout the years, a five-year span or four-year span or three-year span where there's ten projects that are going through this same issue, or you know, in this one year, not you know, there are ten projects that you know were unable to meet the requirements.

And so for me, when I thinking of when I'm thinking about phasing for the city, I'm more in my head looking at okay, so this is a citywide issue, or it will be a citywide issue because the numbers are growing as the years progress.

So I think I think um I use the the Madison non-North Market project as an example.

We don't know what the projects that haven't gotten so far, right?

Like you have projects that big big developments, the brickworks, um, the Westridge project, uh Summers, Highland Trail, and then Madison on North Market and the Worm and Smoke Court.

So we don't we don't know if they'll be able to meet this.

So I think evaluating those projects and thinking about the type of construction project they are, for example, the Madison on North Market, if there were to be funding obstacles that prevented them from constructing that one non-residential building for four for uh head start, they would not be able to pull any permits effectively.

So thinking about what does happen to these projects if they can't meet those standards, and is there a desire for flexibility so that we see projects continue to successfully be able to build?

I think the the underarch overarching goal of development regulations is to see development happen, right?

It it the intent is to see projects successfully come online once they're approved.

We want them done safely and adequately and all of those good things, but we want the development project to proceed.

So we it's not a good growth policy to have restrictions that stop development projects without flexibility, I think is um I think is is the bottom line.

So the extent to whether these five or six other projects that are piping through the queue right now, whether they have problems and whether they will be able to ask for flexibility is kind of what you're deciding now.

Yeah, and I would say, but it's not also a good growth policy to make decisions based on hypotheticals because there's a possibility like you said that they may or may not meet the requirements.

And so for me, I'm thinking to myself, when we're talking about future indicators, we're talking about what the existing economic landscape is and what what would those would those may help predict future trends?

And I just don't see just for me, I'm just talking for myself.

I just don't see how this would be uh a citywide um a good for the city.

I think that um when you mentioned, you know, um about some of our recommendations and what we are thinking about.

I think um, you know what?

I'll save the rest of those comments for later.

I there's more to say, but I'll wait to hear the applicant's perspective.

But I appreciate you giving us the matrix chart with the information on it, and I appreciate you going through with us on it and also providing us with a September update.

Thank you.

So do we have any other questions for staff before we move on?

Yeah, I have one question.

Okay.

Um so I had a question.

So if I am looking at what we're to decide on tonight, the one word that stuck out to me is a phasing modification shall be justified by planning, market, or other legitimate concerns of the applicant.

How would we determine if the concerns of the applicant are legitimate?

I think that that's going to the applicants proposed that that decision would be allocated to to assigned to the planning department.

So there's some subjectivity here if someone comes in and says we can't pull these permits because the supply chain is broken and we're not getting residential windows out of where they're ever they come from, but we have a building permit that's getting ready to be pulled for the commercial component that we don't want to stop.

Is that a legitimate concern?

I guess it will ultimately rest with with the department.

Um, unless the planning commission, its recommendation or the council finds that that is not an authority they feel com comfortable delegating um to an administrative decision, in which case it could be a uh planning commission um or otherwise decision.

And then it would, but it would be the same kind of conversation.

What would what would this body decide is the legitimate reason?

Um I think it's it's creating uh setting a stage that there may be other considerations that come up that haven't been thought of.

Um, and then whatever whoever the reviewing authority is, whether it's administrative, the commission or the council would review that and and make that decision.

Okay, because you know the applicant, you know, they know their market, they they understand what they're trying to develop, but I just have a hard time understanding how we determine legitimacy, whether it be someone who maybe has done that work in the in their past life or four people sitting here today.

Um so it was just a question I have, but I I don't like the word perhaps.

That's all okay, thank you.

So does the applicant have presentation.

Good evening.

Uh Brian Morris with the Met and Company is representative of Ren Farm LLC.

So I just want to thank Debrielle and Christina for their diligence and working with us through this process and um you know putting together the staff report and your diligence as well.

Uh so we do appreciate it, and then as well as the the community, just the input that they've provided.

Um so I mean, we do, you know, we've talked a lot with staff over you know the last few weeks, and um, you know, we agree with the staff report, the recommendations and their analysis.

Um, and so you know, we would like to see a positive recommendation, but again, we just really appreciate um everything that you guys have you know put forth and you know helped us through this process.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Applicant?

Okay.

Hello.

Okay.

I'm just gonna ask if you would be open to any of these changes, just kind of like a yes or no, and that way we can save time.

So um, would you be open to I'll just read all of them to you maintaining the percentages as is in the original wording, and to create a clause to modify on a case-by-case basis, and then also to maintain the existing authority bodies for modification processes like planning commission for MU1s and city council for MU2s for the development.

So would that be a conversation you'd be willing to entertain?

It's yes or no, and that's fine, we could save time.

I think the language as it is now addresses the first part of your concerns.

So I guess overall the answer would be no.

Okay, thanks.

That's all I need.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No.

All right.

We will open the floor for public comment.

Um I've got some names on here.

I will go through those first.

Anyone else who wants to comment after that, you can come up.

Um just rem reiterate.

You're, of course, can say anything you want, but in order in the interest of time, if your comments have to do with not specifically Rencord, but this application this to the whole city, we would love to hear that.

So am I turned on?

You are that's the wrong question, isn't it?

I apologize.

But I have other names on the list first.

My name is Sharon Kemper Cerez.

And just as a matter of housekeeping, I I have not been sworn in.

Um that's I don't know, there are probably other people who haven't been sworn in.

Um technically, I should go through the names that have been signed up first before I get to you.

I have I am signed up.

Yes.

Is there another sheet that is not?

No, you have.

You're just not the first one on the side.

That's okay.

Has anybody else been um needs to be sworn in?

If everybody who needs to be sworn in would stand, let me get back to the property I'll come back later.

No, you're okay.

I think Adam is okay with you going, isn't he?

He is.

Um, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given in the statements made in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Thank you.

All right.

Another little housekeeping thing is um, just so the public knows, uh, they may recognize me.

Uh I'm actually on your the letterhead still is being staff.

And I'm no longer staff, so uh that's why I feel like I can actually come here and testify.

Um I'm here uh in with regard to rank order and the text and the uh the amendments, I do have a comment.

Um phasing is really tricky.

Um and you can make or break a lot of things in a community by improper phasing or improper agreements.

I noticed that a lot of the um jurisdictions in the table that were mentioned in in Montgomery County, um, indicate somehow that there's more loosey-goosey phasing allowed.

I can tell you I've sat personally in rooms where um the the uh develop development applicant and heads of DHCA, Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, myself included, and uh Housing and Opportunities Commission set down and and they and really worked on a phasing agreement related to the uh when when residential and commercial would go in, especially if it was related to any kind of affordable housing, any kind at all.

So it's true that there is flexibility.

However, those those phasing agreements were contractual and recorded and and approved by by the council and uh HOC commission and also the uh planning commission.

So it it wasn't it wasn't um they were approved and recommended um and and really strongly reviewed.

And the development applicant was held you know feet to the fire on that.

When I looked at the phasing uh suggestions, I could almost live uh and recommend to you the the number one the master plan for the mixed use project must propose a general facing plan, etc.

I would urge you not to put to agree to having the department have the uh decision making they could have recommendation to you, but I would I would urge you to do that.

I would further encourage you to think about having a if you're gonna go this route to have a commercial economist uh as a consultant, that would be the next step.

And that's something that's absolutely critical and is used by other jurisdictions who have this kind of flexibility.

If somebody's gonna come to you making the argument that that it's uh trying to make a legitimate argument to uh Ms.

Wellens point, they they will use um economic tools, reports and analyses that are not you you can't expect the planning commissions to to know off the off the bat, and you do need a professional consultant.

It's been my experience as someone who did work on staff here and in other jurisdictions.

That's typically the kind of of uh person or or or expertise you would hire on a consulting basis, and I have done that myself.

I at park and planning.

I did hire a third-party economic commercial commercial economist on some of these tough negotiations.

These can make or break um the success of a development.

know off the off the bat and you do need a professional consultant it's been my experience as someone who did work on staff here and in other jurisdictions that's typically the kind of of uh person or or or expertise you would hire on a consulting basis and I have done that myself I at park and planning I did hire a third party economic commercial commercial economist on some of these tough negotiations these can make or break um the success of a development we we live they mentioned uh Montgomery County Clarksburg's a case in point without the commercial element uh in a residential mixed use uh development you it can fail it can be in litation for decades and can really cause a whole lot of problems for residents who came on with a promise that there would be something a grocery store a daycare center yeah reston on the other hand is one that did that from the beginning Lake Ann had a supermarket a daycare center and schools from the get go so thank you thank you thank you um Adam Adam Avastoli NAC 12 coordinate one of three NAC 12 coordinators and resident in Ren Quarter so from one mixed use project to a text amendment affecting all mixed use projects uh there are 58 pages of public comment to this packet which is a significant amount of public comment many people have spoken at meetings leading up to this one and many of those people are from Ren Quarter and East Frederick.

These are people who live in or near the first project which could be affected by this LMC text amendment.

Many have written eloquently and ask some probing questions as others have identified phasing is extremely important to a mixed use development as we have heard from the discussion of the Frederick Health issue that relates to traffic this relates to something else but phasing is extremely important.

This phasing must be presented to discussed here and recommendations made by the planning commission.

When issues are brought to the planning commission the public have visibility on changes which will affect them and an opportunity to pass comment the planning commission and not the planning department should be established as a decision making authority here.

So I really do urge you to deny this application as it is worded and to ensure that the planning commission and not the planning department consider phasing changes and I I do recognize your your comments as well about the requirement for uh an economics consultant I think that would be wise these developers know what they're doing and you guys do too but phasing is complex and uh and we need visibility and we need good good advice to help us make the best choices uh for Frederick moving forward and I feel that I'm confident leaving that in the hands of the planning commission.

So I want to see them coming in with phasing here at the planning commission where we can all see here and comment on with the required public notice as is detailed in staff's report.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Mary Ellen Mitchell okay then that's all the names that I have signed up anybody else come on up I'm Rob Thompson and live at 806 Bond Street I'm um member of the Ren Quarter community and I I'm here most importantly tonight as a um city resident um it's really important that I encourage you to deny the language that's been presented here yet again it continues to eliminate recourse for residents like myself to to address significant phasing changes and those things that are trying to be introduced into master plan documents.

These changes and the flexibility that we've been hearing about tonight are really not at all in question.

Of course changes are going to happen of course they need to be addressed that isn't in doubt at all my strong feeling though is that such substantive changes especially like ones that are going on in the Ren Quarter development shouldn't be left to the discretion of the department staff it's something that should be allowed to come back to the planning commission so that persons like myself can stand before you say what's going on explain why we feel that it needs to be different than than what's being presented by the applicant and then you all get the opportunity to make a decision so the my neighbors and I had had not truly perfectly acceptable proof that um that the Matt and organization is going to come through with the commercial the the commercial space that's been promised to us but we have had meetings with them and we are willing to work with them and to be able to uh support them we're hoping for more communication to to come up with an incredible outcome and they're promising this and and we really I have some confidence that that they are going to come through for us with some more time but at the same time that that we're hopeful for this I really can allow for this language change to the

But we have had meetings with them, and we are willing to work with them and to be able to uh support them.

We're hoping for more communication to come up with an incredible outcome.

They're promising this, and and we really I have some confidence that they are going to come through for us with some more time.

But at the same time that that we're hopeful for this, I really can allow for this language change to the land management code to go forward as it's stated without objecting to it.

Because I'm really convinced that this will prevent future communities from our it from from throughout our city on new developments that are taking place from having this necessary opportunity to give input as these changes get proposed.

So I am really hoping that um that developers as well as residents are able to in the future put forth their their thoughts and ideas to the planning commission for further consideration.

And lastly, there's just one question that's really kind of been bugging me, and that's why the developers is continuing to suggest and and in this case almost insist with the exact same language coming after yet another month for them to come back and and uh ask for the staff to be able to bypass this very important decision for the planning commission.

And I I'm just not exactly sure why that's happening, but I'd really like for them to think about that as well.

Thank you.

My name is Hannah Nickerson.

I live at 415 Sherman Avenue.

I'm definitely not an expert in this field, but I want to offer my two cents as well.

Uh number one, I don't support the right of developers to make and set their own rules.

However, I don't really support a one-size-fits-all mandate either.

Uh, and that gets to the crux of this text proposal.

Um we don't want to have something that's quote too prescriptive, but at the same time, uh, we do need mechanisms to you know set a line in the sand and hold accountability to that standard.

Um I think if this were to pass, it could potentially set a dangerous precedent around other things that are in the land management code, and just you know, developers can change it when things don't work out or something without uh you know, kind of usurping the planning commissioning to do that, and and also the right of the public to comment and provide debate on it.

Um so I think we all agree that some mechanism for flexibility is needed.

I don't think that this proposal as written, uh it may be a step in the right direction with the second part of it, but presented as a whole.

I think the developer is just shooting for the moon, and I don't think that uh the planning commission should bend over backwards to try and push this through.

I think it should be the onus should be on the developer to come back with edits after listening to all the comment, which generally seems very aligned from the public.

Uh so yeah, I just encourage the planning commission to deny this uh proposal, and I hope that the authority to uh make changes to general or standard phasing uh the that power will remains with the planning commission and the public debate aspects of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment in this case?

No, all right.

The applicant want to make any response to the public so um I would just like to say that the way it is written the way the code is now, there is a public process um with the public notices that would go through.

And um, you know, I think just talking with staff and collaborating a little more, you know, that if this gets a you know approved as is, this isn't the final stop of it.

This it still would have to go through an approval process where with staff the with a public notice to be able to kind of present a case to adjust the phasing schedule.

So it isn't it's not the end all be all.

There would still be another another step to the process.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that comes up here.

Comment discussion?

I don't need a discussion, and I'm ready to make a motion.

All right.

No discussion.

Or do you want to?

No, I'm I'm saying I don't need a discussion.

So our options are approve this without or recommend, so we're not we're not making a decision.

Recommend to the city council for approval as is recommend for approval with modifications or deny.

Okay.

So okay, no discussion.

Um just for me that you know, uh, you know, this is a missed opportunity for us to really try to get something that could really be.

Um having some flexibility.

Um, when we're talking about phasing, you know, for development, this is like serious.

This is about the city's future, and this is about people's lives.

Like this is not a simple, easy um pie in the sky picking daisies type of situation.

I mean, there are people in Clarksburg that I know of that have homes that sit across an open field where commercial should have been and still not there.

And you know, not saying that that would happen with Ren Quarter, but I'm not really focusing on Ren Quarter, I'm focusing on the city and the broad implications of the text amendment, and that's where my mind is.

And for me, I have an issue with not having enough information, and when I say information, I mean data, data, however you want to call it, numerical information that speak to an issue that is occurring in the city that requires a solution.

I didn't hear that today.

Um, number two, um, we're talking about economic factors, indicators for future, you know, um this is serious.

You need somebody who's an expert that can speak to those issues.

Um, and so for me, if I don't know what everyone else is going to vote for, but they should definitely be a recommendation to the city council that speaks to they need to get an economic consultant, they need to maybe do a study, get it outsourced to find out, you know, what is best for the city.

You know, that's where my head is.

And two, it needs to come back to us.

There needs to be transparency, needs to be people who are allowed to talk about their concerns.

There are people who've bought homes, you know, throughout this city, there are people who are going to be buying homes, they need to have a voice, they need to be able to speak, they should not be marginalized.

And I understand that, you know, um, going through the admin process that they would be you know, notifications and so forth, but people really need to be able to speak, and that is not you know what I feel would happen with this text environment.

So, you know, unless someone can provide us with you know data, economic information and all kinds of you know, things that are required for us to really make an informed decision, put do a presentation to us about that information in order for us to find this favorable.

If we don't have that, I can I can't I can't vote for this.

Thank you.

So, my thoughts, I mean, basically so far from what I've seen and from the economic data that we've seen about the city, I don't think that the 7525 phasing schedule has really significantly caused problems citywide yet.

Um regarding, I just like so many people in the in the public have said, and the city is said, I mean, we definitely see a need for some flexibility.

I mean, there are things that go wrong, there are things that change, and there is a need for some flexibility.

Um so when I find myself looking at the language that's been presented by the applicant, I want to rewrite it.

And I can't rewrite it.

People who are affected by this should have the opportunity to come and stand before a board and hear it.

So those are those are my thoughts.

Well, question, can we make that kind of recommendation?

Because I thought one of our only options is to approve with the recommendation.

My feeling is that we should deny this.

Oh, yeah.

And in our letter to the city council explaining why we're denying it, those are the things that we should explain.

Okay.

I think that's great.

Because I would love to be more clear on all the reasonings that we're all sharing, the public is sharing.

I really don't want to just send we send a recommendation of denial, period.

No, and they don't know why.

Because there's a lot more to it.

And like you guys said there's big missed opportunities on how we could have collaborated and came up with something.

Like even I feel like there's too much vague wording for one.

Yeah.

And for me, I'm just like, well, how does this process work?

How do you have that accountability?

These the way of even going about this, if it were voted on and approved later, that's not in place.

That's not developed yet.

That's not there.

It doesn't exist.

So even if you know it went through today and was just like, okay, this is how we do things now, there's no system in place.

There's no forms to fill out, there's no guidelines, there's absolutely nothing.

This would just be written into land code.

So for me, that's why I'm not okay with it with just all the vagueness.

I really really wanted to at least compromise on saying this could be on a case-by-case basis.

No.

Because I feel like that would have helped everyone in the city, where it's like you could present that case by case.

Just come back and talk to us.

I mean, we don't bite, but it's just like present it and you know, take it case by case because every single area in the city is different.

Yeah, and so yeah.

That would have been open to the I would have been completely open to that.

And I mean, I did ask, are we open to that?

So the case by case I think was a huge miss that could have helped with the solution here.

Um, but Elaine, do you have any?

Yeah, they don't have a well let's do let's she hasn't.

Oh, go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna add, I think you know, every case is going to be unique.

Yeah, but when I'm hearing loud and clear and the and the fact that we're missing an opportunity for residents to be able to speak their mind in front of an open forum in the public.

People who aren't here are at home watching this or they watch it after the fact, and if we don't have that opportunity for the public, then who are we really representing?

Um so I I'm in agreement with um denying it and coming up with how we came to that decision so that council is aware.

So can we share them do the motion in the vote and then have a discussion about how to move forward with the letter to the council?

Yeah, but does that have questions for Gabrielle on that?

Yes.

Okay.

I would like to make a motion to send a recommendation to the city council for denial of the proposed text amendment pertaining to Article 4, Section 417, mixed use districts, MU1 and MU2, subsection D phasing, finding what was already read into record by staff.

I second that.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

There were no staff findings against the text amendment because we were recommending that you're supposed to be thinking about is um one is this consistent with the terms of the code already?

So is it working upon the existing framework?

Um, and two, does it implement the call policies of the comprehensive plan?

So you want to make findings as to why it doesn't do one or both of those things.

How would you like me to say that?

This this is we find it say that it's that we disagree with the different things.

Recommend disapproval, not just say that it's that the change the change language is inconsistent with the with the staff findings.

The change to staff.

So we're not saying that's inconsistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan and inconsistent with um the um it's inconsistent.

Okay, it's inconsistent with the land management code and the 2020 comprehensive plan.

And then I second that all in favor?

Aye, aye.

That's unanimous.

Um, so typically when we send a letter to the city council, the staff writes it based on they go back and listen to our discussion, watch the tape, put together a discussion of, I mean, put together a letter that sort of encapsulates everything that they've heard.

They send it to me, I review it.

If it doesn't, if it doesn't need um changes, then I sign it and it goes to the city council.

I would at the very least like to like to propose that this one you put together a draft and we discuss it at the workshop.

If does that make sense?

Is that okay with you guys?

Yes, because I would like to see it.

I would like to see it as well.

Yeah, um, is there anything specific that you want to advise to give them now while they're drafting that letter?

Right, yeah, I think one of the things should be that they need to look at the data.

They need to look at the numerical, you know, um, get a better understanding of what's happening in the city as it relates to um development, mixture development, so getting data numbers around that, but two um possibly having an economic consultant, getting a better understanding of what the economic drivers are in the city, and that could um um predict future, you know, um behavior issues, concerns.

I mean, something like that to those.

So having an economic consultant, um, getting data that helps to drive decisions.

So those are the two things for me.

Um, and you know, ensuring that it comes back to us as well.

And that's critical.

I have a few.

I I would still like to see that it's on a case by case basis that comes back to either planning commission if it's um if it's uh M U1 and you know, follow the same procedure or city council if it's MU2.

That I think that would be important.

See that needs some discussion.

I don't think it ever needs to go back to the city council.

Oh, okay.

Well, that it comes back.

I I would be fine if it comes through planning commission.

I just think that the opportunity for public comment, I mean it could be in both places, yes.

Yes, but it I really feel like we can take the time to dig deep here.

Yeah, and we don't mind doing so.

Do you have what you need for a draft?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

All right.

Onward, and if we are going to lose Commissioner Manellas, you guys okay?

Uh all right.

Our next case is PC 25-79 PSU slash FSI preliminary plat and final site plan for the Bloomfield Water Tower.

Sorry.

Okay, I'll enter this staff report into record.

Um, this applicant's requesting approval of a combined preliminary plat and final site plan for the city water tower located within the Bloomfield Development.

The applicant is also requesting a modification to section 821 of land management code uh entitled fences, walls, and hedges.

And 15 acres for land that would uh otherwise be used for usable or developable area.

A school site has also been contemplated as part of those 15 acres of developable.

Um per the approved master plan open space number four containing the 30 acres, which will be dedicated to the city.

The water tower is uh plan to be sub outlaw of 3.27 acres is uh to be subdivided from the 15-acre parkland and maintained by the city.

A water tower will not exceed 100 feet tall.

Um they are proposing the nine and a half foot tall security fencing proposed surrounding the tank area.

Um the uh water capacity was required for the water tower was required for the capacity of the number of units and location of the development.

Uh the Bloomfield Road is um the access is off of Bloomfield Road, which is a local road, and also a private drive into the outlet.

There are three parking spaces uh for the tower for city maintenance purposes.

As for landscaping for this project, um it is required 57 trees.

They are providing 62 trees to be planted as uh surrounding the uh tower.

There is no screening uh requirement.

However, they are proposing the planting of the trees as stated, and also a modification to add bob wire to the fencing that surrounds the site.

The applicant has addressed the justification.

And the main uh reason is for security for air and safety of the water tower.

I would move forward to say that the applicant has the option to construct the tower to proceed with development, and the applicant has chosen to construct the border to start work as soon as possible for an operational water tower.

Action one, a modification to section 821 of the land management code entitled fences, walls, and hedges to add bob wire to the nine and a half foot fence.

The modification is not contrary to the purpose intent of the code.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan water resources policy two to provide an adequate and safe drinking water supply to serve the existing and future residents of the city.

The compensating feature to meet the overall requirement is the overplanting of the trees and adjacent afforestation around the location of the tower.

The fence is not within the site triangle and set back approximately 200 feet from the right-of-way.

Design and scale of the fence is consistent with the public utilities for a water tower that require enhanced security to safeguard from potential vandalism.

The proposed fence does not adversely impact the use and enjoyment of other properties in immediate vicinity, and staff staff recommends approval as requested.

And approve um action two is re approval of the final site plan PC 25-79 PSU FSI for the Bloomfields Water Tower.

The final site plan part of the plan complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 4, 6, 7, and 8, and 12 of the land management code.

Is consistent with the approved master plan and will be adequately served by public facilities.

The preliminary part of the plan complies with Article 5 of the land management code, sections 507, the 2020 comprehensive 10, and all the applicable zoning regulations of Article 4 and the design development standards of Articles 6 and 7 and applicable sections of Article 8, the supplemental use regulations.

Staff recommends approval of the following conditions to be met.

Correct typo of FFCP phase one case number.

And that is the staff report.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for staff?

I don't either.

This is uh oh, I'm Phil Wagner with Rogers Consulting.

I've got um Paul Coleman with the Natelli Communities here with me, and Craig Walls Leyman with Rogers Consulting.

And this water tower is uh on the northern end of the city limits at the edge of the Bloomfields project.

It um it is a city um water tower, so it will help you know bolster the over overall city uh water system.

Um it is made it is being designed above capacity, it's a million-gallon tank.

Um, so it will serve the community that it's gonna be at in addition to um improving the the city's water system.

Um it's located in the on the same parcel that was shown on the 2018 master plan, which was um approved in 2020.

Um we've been working with uh with DPW to you know work through what they wanted to see in the design and working with uh with planning as well, and we think what what we have is uh is gonna satisfy the uh city's needs for this water tower, and um and that fence that we mentioned was something that we coordinated with DPW, so that has the um uh uh the barbed wire on top um you know for that direction.

So happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you.

We have any questions for the applicant?

We do not do we have any public comment on this case.

We do not comes back up here.

Do we need any discussion or comments?

Right.

We have two actions.

Um the first action is a modification to section 821 of the land management code for the fences, walls, and hedges to add um barbed wire to a nine and a half foot fence.

I move from motion to approve the modification to section eight two one of the land management code entitled fence, walls and hedges to add barbed wire to a nine and a half foot fence.

Finding what's written in the staff report one through six.

I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Willow, and all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

That is unanimous.

Then action two is approval of the site plan.

Okay, I file a motion for approval of the final site plan PC 25-79 PSU FSI for Bloomfield's water tower.

Finding uh the staff recommendation or findings that were already read into record along with the typo.

Second.

That's a motion by oh, do we have a second?

I didn't have a second.

Motion by Commissioner Will and second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

That is unanimous.

We're done.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next case is PC 25-161 FSI final site plan for Frederick Research Park lot 8E.

This is a final site plan for a 9,734 square foot dental office with outpatient surgery located at 83 Thomas Johnson Court within the Frederick Research Park.

The applicant is requesting three modifications, including the elimination of a loading space and a reduction in trees from the buffering requirements on the north, east, and south sides of the site.

The property is in the manufacturing office zoning district and partially within the highway noise impact overlay, with all adjacent properties under the same zoning and overlay designations.

This is the last remaining undeveloped property within the research park.

The district requires the building to be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the neighboring buildings.

The applicant has provided elevation showing they comply with the requirements and are compatible with the other surrounding medical offices.

The parking falls within the minimum and maximum range allowed, and they comply with the bicycle parking standards.

For modification one, this is to section 607, table 607-4, minimum off-street loading spaces.

The land management code requires an office with between 5,000 square feet and 100,000 square feet to have one large loading space.

The applicant is requesting a modification to eliminate this requirement due to the nature of a medical office not receiving large deliveries, but instead smaller van deliveries.

The modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code as medical offices do not generally have large delivery drop-offs requiring the large loading spaces, which would create a vacant impervious area not desirable to the site design nor function.

The provision of additional spaces provided by the applicant still within the maximum limit, allows small delivery vans a place to park while not impeding customer parking spaces and qualifies as a compensating feature.

The modification is consistent with comprehensive plan environment comprehensive plan environmental sustainability policy one, which promotes reducing the amount of impervious cover.

Moving to the next two modifications regarding landscaping.

A landscaping table was provided in the report to show that in some cases the applicant is exceeding their required landscaping, and those that fall short and require a modification.

Modification request number two to section 605E, Table 605-3, buffering and screening lot line.

The LMC requires a level one lot line screening between the property and adjacent uh MO zone properties, so the same district.

The modification is being requested to reduce the number of trees on the north and east side.

The north side has a stormwater facility that cannot have woody vegetation within 15 feet of the embankment.

The requirement is 14 trees.

The applicant is proposing six.

On the east side of the site, there's an existing underground utilities, storm drain easements, and proposed storm drain, which makes the area ill-fitted for trees and roots.

The requirement is eight trees.

The applicant is proposing two and a hedge with 12 shrubs.

Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment that the stormwater facility and storm drain easement with the proposed storm drain are impediments to planting the number of required trees.

The north side of the site, the provision of six trees and stormwater facility acting as an open space buffer meets the intent of the code.

The two trees and hedge on the east side also meet the intent of the code as a qualifying compensating feature.

While the applicant is requesting an overall reduction of 14 buffer trees, they have compensated by providing 13 on lot trees over the requirement.

Staff agrees the modification is consistent with comprehensive plan land use policy number one to encourage development and redevelopment to be compatible with the character of existing or plan developments.

The adjacent properties are already developed with office and medical facilities, so they are not different land uses.

This leads to the final modification request to section 605E, Table 605-3, buffering and screening parking lot.

The LMC requires a level two screening for parking lots with 10 or more parking spaces within this district.

The modification is being requested to reduce the number of trees on the south side of the site.

The applicant's explanation for the request is due to the underground electric sewer and water utilities along the site's southern side, which faces the street and does not have adequate space for trees.

A total of seven trees and hedges are required.

The applicant is requesting to provide three trees, a hedge, and decorative plantings.

Staff agrees this is not contrary to the intent of the code, and that decorative plannings qualify as a compensating feature.

As stated, it also is consistent with the comprehensive plan land use policy one.

The stormwater has been approved, and adequate public facilities, including waterline and sewer line were approved with roads being exempt as there's not a high impact.

The archaeological assessment found that the area had little potential for significant resources.

So tonight the planning commission has four actions.

Action one, two, and three regarding the modifications with staff finding that none are not contrary to the purpose of the code.

Staff finds that all are consistent with the comprehensive plan, and staff finds that each has been provided a compensating feature.

Staff recommends approval for modification one, modification two, and modification three, leading to action four, the overall approval of final site plan for advanced implants periodonics in Frederick Research Park.

Staff staff uh staff finds that it complies with all applicable criteria and there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.

We recommend approval of the final site plan with three minor technical conditions, and that is the staff report.

Thank you.

Do we have questions or comments for staff?

I do not either.

Thank you very much.

Do we have the applicant?

Hi, good evening.

For the record, my name is John Mazellan.

With me tonight is Wyatt Toe, Dr.

Wyatt Toe, the owner.

Um we want to thank staff for working with us through this project to maximize the site and finalize this last lot in the in this campus like setting with what we think is going to be a state of the art medical facility that's going to be a very pleasing architectural building as well.

Um we've read the staff report.

We concur and we're here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Do we have questions for the applicant?

I do not either.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any public comment on this case?

No.

All right, then it comes back up here.

Do we need discussion or questions?

I don't.

All right, we have four actions.

Um action one is uh regarding the loading, the modification regarding the loading space.

All right.

I move for approval of a modification to the requirements of section 607, table 607-4, minimum off-street park off-street loading spaces to eliminate the requirement for a loading space.

Finding what staff already read into a report one through three.

I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, uh second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Modification or action number two is a modification for the buffer on the lot line.

I move to approve modification to the requirement of section 605E, table 6053, buffer and screening lot line to reduce the number of required trees along the north and east sides of the site, with the findings already read into record by staff.

Second.

That's a motion by Commissioner Lewell and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Action three is um modification of landscaping requirements around the parking lot.

I move for the approval of a modification to the requirements of section 605E, table 6053, buffer and screening parking lot to reduce the number of required trees along the south side of the site.

Finding what staff already read into record one through three.

I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Lowell, and all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And finally, the action four is the approval of the site plan.

I move for approval of the final site plan PC 25-161 FSI for advanced implants and periodontics in Frederick Research Park.

Um, finding that the request complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the land management code, and that there are adequate public facilities to serve the site with recommendations and conditions already read by staff.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Lewell and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And that concludes that case.

Thank you very much.

And that brings us to PC 24-1008 FSI final site plan for Warman's Mill Court Apartments.

Okay, I will enter this staff report into record.

The applicants request a final site plan approval for a 5,000 square foot of non-residential space and 306 multifamily units.

The applicant is also requesting modifications to Section 605 of the land management code and titled landscaping standards and section 607 for parking and loading standards.

As a mixed use, as part of the mixed use master plan, the project received a reduction of the non-residential land area to 4.4% minimum land area and a maximum of 94% for the residential with a minimum of 8.7% for the parks and open space.

The applicant is proposing the 5,000 square foot non-residential building D anticipated for small business and non-profit businesses.

The applicant will be revising the plan to expand the non-residential building to comply with the 5,445 square foot minimum to comply with the point 25 floor area ratio requirement of the project.

The applicant will also submit a final plat to subdivide the non-residential land area for of the point or of the half acre for the uh non-resid from the residential prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

The site plan has proposed for three four-story multifamily buildings, building C at 60 Warman's Mill Court, and on the east side of the rails with trails path, buildings A and B on either side of the stream, on the west side of the rails with trails path.

The property is partially within the highway noise overlay overlay zone, and the applicants submitted their study, their noise study on March 24, 2025.

Buildings A and B will need interior acoustical materials and upgraded windows and balcony doors for compliance and within the study stated that the building C has no noise impact and mitigation and no mitigation required.

The project is subject to performance standards.

They will be complying with all the performance standards with the revision of the floor area ratio to be in compliance for the non-residential component design standards.

The applicant will be submitting under separate application for planning commission approval of the design, the building urban design standards prior to issuance of the first building permit.

For parks and open space on February 13, the parks and commission voted for a positive recommendation recommendation to the planning commission for the fee in lieu of parks.43 acres.

The applicant will pay need to pay fee in lieu of the remaining 2.87 acres to satisfy their total requirement of park land of 3.51 acres.

The fee is based on a fair market value of the appraised land and must be approved by the city council.

For parking and loading, uh Home Lane will be approved improved to two 10-foot wide travel lanes and the eight-foot wide travel trail on one side as an emergency vehicular access, and Warman's Mill Court will improve with the median to separate inbound and outbound traffic.

The two access points will require two crossings of the rails with trails path and will require the Maryland Transit Administration approval.

The project provides an overall total of 473 parking spaces for the residential units, which provides 14 spaces in access for the non-residential building.

After subdivision of non-residential lot, there may be a need for off-site parking easement agreement between the residential and non-residential lots to access the parking for non-residential building.

This is depending on where they draw the line for the non residential lot.

Modification one for exhibit of lighting plan.

The there should be 0.0 foot candles and no spilled over to adjacent properties.

They will need a modification.

They will need they are asking for a modification for that due to the Home Lane adjacent tube and Panomics substation and this industrial zone to the north.

As for landscaping, they are asking for a second modification.

The applicants requesting a modification to eliminate the buffer requirements along Hum Lane lot line.

This is due to the restriction, the constrained width of the Home Lane, and finding that there is no impact to the PE substation and the industrial north industrial lot.

The buffers eliminated the adjacent stormwater facility.

Does not change the intent of the code to provide visual barrier to incompatible land uses, and there's finding of no impact to that area.

The compensating features, stormwater facility to the south, the plans exceeding the overall number of trees on the site.

They are looking for a modification of a number four modification to reduce the street trees provided to three on Warmans Mill Court and not to provide street trees for the North Market entrance at Home Lane.

The modification is not contrary to the code and still maintains safe access for pedestrians and vehicles that is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Policy two for community character and urban design, support creative site planning and architectural in order to establish a built in neighborhood and maintain enhances neighborhood character.

The compensating features to consider a provision for Hum Lane as a shared use path and a shared monument and entrance off Warman's Mill Court as better design.

As for APFO, they were tested for the schools and the project failed the testing of the high school level.

The applicant has elected to pay the mitigation fee.

Since the applicant intends to develop the project under the state low-income housing tax credit program, the fees will be zero at the time of building permit for the roads.

The final certificate of adequacy for roads indicating that the roads intersections that the project will impact are all adequate.

This was based on the council finding that the while the intersections of Maryland 26 and Minoxy Boulevard and Maryland 26 and Mormon's Mill Road Rotzons Way are inadequate.

There are constraints that prevent adequacy from being achieved, and the water and sewer line capacity indicates that all impacted infrastructure is adequate.

As for stormwater, the city engineer issued a letter of August 29, 25 with conditions that the Maryland Department of Environment fine approval for the configuration of the floodplain setback and prior to mass grading and or improvement plan approvals.

Will be provided on site through the low-income housing tax credit program.

Action one, the modification is Section 607 E requiring 0.0 foot candles on property lines for no spillover to adjacent properties.

The modification is not contrary to the purpose intent of the code, which is to prevent adverse impacts on adjoining properties, as the areas where there is light spillover along Hum Lane and the shared entrance with the adjacent property and enhanced safety for vehicles and pedestrians and the spillover onto Roadsall Manor property is mitigated by the heavily wooded area.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, community character and urban design policy two as compensating features, reducing the number of light fixtures, and still provide safety for Home Lane and Rails with Trails.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action two, the modification of section 605, Table 6053, eliminating level one along along Home Lane, Roadshill Manor and Rails with Trails Lines.

The modifications not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, which is to buffer potentially incompatible land uses as Hum Lane is planned for an emergency access road only.

Rose Hill has an existing forest adjacent to the subject property that buffers both properties and screening and will be incorporated with the design of rails with trails path.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan community character and urban design policy two.

Improvement to home lane and installation of contribution to the rails of trails serve as a compensating features for the site.

And staff recommends approval as requested.

Action three, the modification is 605 table 6053, limiting level two buffer around the southeast parking parking area adjacent to Brookfield Court, Brookfield Court.

The modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, which is to screen adjacent uses from parking areas as the adjacent use is an existing stormwater facility that is vegetated and planting are restricted by overhead power lines.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, community character and urban design policy two, and is compensating feature of the projects exceeding the required number of trees on site.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action four, a modification to six section 605E to reduce the required street trees on Warman's Mill Court and North Market Street to provide three and zero respectively.

The modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code to provide trees along the streets as much as possible with structural restrictions.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, community character and urban design policy two.

The applicant is proposing the home lane emergency drive design and shared drive from Warmings Mill Court, better accessibility for pedestrians and vehicles as compensating features.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action five, approval of the final site plan, PC 24-1008 FSI for the warmth mill apartments.

The plan complies with all applicable criteria for Articles 4, 6, 7, 8, and 12 of the land management code and conforms with the master plan.

The public facilities and services are adequate to accommodate the impacts of the development.

The project provides for incorporation of moderately twice priced dwelling units in accordance with section 309 of the LMC.

Staff recommends approval of PC 24-100 FSI with the following conditions to be met.

Obtain unconditional approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan PC 24-1009 PFCP.

Note 23 edit statement that the MTA must approve the two road crossings over the MTA right away to the west of the site, west of the development.

Verify the appropriate tree plannings under and were near the electrical wires along the Rose Hill Manor property line.

Address engineering comments attached to the report.

Note six correct the note and add their non-residential parking required as minimum and maximum and proposed.

Add statement that an off-site access easement agreement, if applicable, shall be recorded prior to final plat recordation for the non-residential lot.

Note nine.

Add the statement that the forest main will be privately maintained.

Add statement that the county must approve change of W5 and S5 classifications prior to plat recordation.

Note 11, add the statement that the stormwater development report is conditionally approved pending MDE approval of the floodplain.

Note 24, add the statement that a subdivision plat must be recorded to subdivide the minimum half acre but non-residential land area prior to issuance of the first building permit.

Note 3.

Delete the second sentence that is unrelated to the plan as shown.

Correct the amount of private parks to 0.64 acres for the new remainder of 2.87 acres for fee in lieu of.

Note 13.

Verify and correct the proposed average daily trips number.

Note 17, delete to be determined by the preliminary plat signage is.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions or comments for staff?

Commissioner Willen?

Yeah.

So just I just want to verify.

So page 8 under parking, loading and access management.

It says two access points are proposed.

I understand that, but an access point one where people can walk in because I know Home Lane is only for emergency and pedestrian connection.

So is that truly a second access point?

It is an emergency action.

It is an emergency access point.

And it is going to be used for pedestrians as like a shared use path would be.

Okay.

So that would count as two access points.

Okay.

And then my other question is page nine, where about the lighting, it it states that there should be very little impact, but then it says when we're that's a home lane.

And then Road Hill Manor, it says no detrimental impact.

Can you explain the differences there just for my understanding?

Hold on for a minute.

So it's the second paragraph.

No detrimental impact.

No, because the impact is there, but because they have that heavily wooded forest conservation behind them, it probably should say no impact at all, really.

Okay, so very little impact and no detrimental impact.

Do they mean the same thing?

I was trying to understand as I read through it.

Okay, that's all I had.

Thank you.

I don't have any staff questions for staff either.

Good evening again, Bruce Dean.

Um, behalf of the applicant standard communities.

Also with me tonight are Judd Olim with Standard and Chris Murray with Harris Mergen Associates.

Um I'm gonna be really brief because Judd and Chris are doing most of the talking.

I just wanted to bring up that um the plan that you see in front of you tonight is not exactly this concept plan that was reviewed by the planning commission a little over a year ago when this property was rezoned, but it's awfully close.

So um that was a very heavily, as you can remember, we had a lot of meetings, a lot of discussions.

It was at the then board of Alderman for at least two hearings.

Um but what was approved is effectively what is in front of you tonight.

Um and we tried very, very hard uh working with staff.

Uh Pam did a great job, her staff reports are really thorough.

Um, but we really did work very hard to try to keep to that vision that we showed the community uh in 2024.

And so with that, I'm gonna get turn it over to Judd, who's got a visual presentation to walk you through the project.

Okay, thank you.

Uh hear me?

Okay.

Uh good evening, Judd alum with Standard Communities.

Um again, I'll try to keep this brief.

Uh appreciate uh everybody's time.

Um I think there's a presentation.

Do you know if you know if the presentation was uh presentation?

Sorry, if one of the the presentation should have been loaded as one of the last attachments.

This probably says it's don't think the uh presentation was attached to the packet.

It was not attached to the packet.

No.

I'm sorry, uh, thought that was attached to the packet.

I'm s what?

I can't hear you over here.

I can send a link too if that's easier.

Are there some things that you can be telling us while she's looking?

Um a lot of it was visual, but uh we wanted to just recap.

Um I can describe them.

Well it was Chris gonna walk us through the various modifications.

Why don't we switch?

Sure.

Okay.

Let Chris do that while they're looking.

They were part of the Chris Marica with Harris Murray.

The mods were part of that package too, but um it helps with the site plan up, maybe, and I could walk you through where they were where they are.

I think we have or do you have them?

Yeah.

Yeah, your pretty little pictures.

Okay.

I have to say we really I really appreciated your lovely modification pictures.

Okay.

We'll start with modification number.

My modification one in the slide, which maybe you'll see in a minute, is the uh street lighting modification, site lighting.

Um the the standard is zero foot candles at the property lines.

There's a couple places where we're over, and Pam mentioned some of these in the staff report, but the one of note in particular is Hum Lane, which is only 31 feet wide.

Um, very narrow, and so you put some poles in there and there's a little bit of spillage, but as Pam mentioned, the neighbors are either industrial properties or the uh the substation to the south.

Um so it's minimal minimal impact on those those properties.

Um the rails to trails, which bisects the site north-south through the middle of the site.

Um to illuminate some of our street light or site lighting.

There's a little bit of spill over onto that, yeah.

What page are you on?

Yeah.

Well it's probably not the same pages.

Oh, that's not what ours looks like.

It's the one for street lighting.

I have this.

I don't have anything about street lighting, I have about trees.

Yeah.

I have like modification 1A.

I get I'll be back on track with that.

Which one are you on?

I'm doing this street lighting.

It's modification lane.

It might be the last one.

It's listed as three.

Three, three.

Yep.

I don't have it.

We don't we don't have that in ours.

Yes, we do.

It looks like this.

It's not printed.

This oh, this picture right here.

Yes.

The overall site picture.

Oh is that on the very last so Hum Lane was which is the long pan handle on the east side of the property.

That's that's one of the areas where light spilled over.

The rails to trails that run through the site, which will be illuminated as well with lighting.

We have some spillover, which will just add to the lighting that's gonna occur there anyway.

Uh we have some to the northeast.

We have a shared access easement with our neighbor and our industrial neighbor to the north, so there's some spill over there.

And as Pam mentioned, there's a little bit on the uh uh Rose Hill side of the project, but they have we have some lower screening that's not really accounted for in this model, which we've talked about before.

They had they had they they then have woods, fully wooded area directly adjacent to that.

So it'll it'll be contained up on the site.

Um and as the compensating feature, we do, you know, we don't need as many poles in this type of scenario, so there will be shields on the lights, but the energy consumption goes down because you don't have you know double the amount of poles.

Um what I have is modification number two.

It's this Hum Lane buffer, it's for level one planting.

So I think you've got that one.

So basically the re the the request was would be to eliminate any any planting along Hum Lane again.

There's two two issues.

Number one with the 20-foot travel lane and eight-foot shared use path.

There's really not much room to provide the level one buffer.

Not to mention Hum Lane is bisected.

It's one eight.

Kind of crisscrosses all over with uh with power lines and easements.

So there's really nowhere to plant.

We are picking up planting though on the rest of the site as a compensating feature.

So overall in the project where there's 168 trees required, we're gonna provide 179.

And then our parking lot landscaping instead of 10%, we have another percent.

We have 11% of parking lot landscaping as a compensating feature.

Uh the next modification is for level two parking lot screening.

Those are for the spaces that are adjacent to the existing stormwater facility up near Wormansmill Court.

Um that area is also bisected by utility lines again, the cross over the site.

Um so you the the screening that will occur naturally though between the the plantings within the uh uh stormwater management facility and then to the south there's some forestation our neighbor does buffer our our parking from the neighbor.

So it's still being achieved with what's been provided.

But again, we are providing excess uh trees on site as well as the parking lot landscaping.

Do you have this graphic?

Because this is actually kind of interesting.

This is again level two parking lot.

This shows the swale.

Is that this?

Yeah, uh next one.

Probably the next one.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah, that one.

So this again is a level two parking lot screening requirement that would be basically between our our parking spaces and the shared use path.

The reason we can't provide trees in this one instance where these parking spaces are, is we're we're designing an emergency swale to run up and around the or will be under actually, but up and around the shared use path area.

What that does is if you remember going back to the rezoning, there's a lot of floodplain we're dealing with on the site, and there's one culvert that takes water basically from the west side to the east side of the trail.

What this will do is provide a release area also in addition to the culvert.

So what that does is it actually lowers the floodplain on properties back upstream west of us.

So it's there's a big benefit to provide that, and it gets the water through there quicker, which is what we're hope to do.

And then the last modification relates to the street trees.

The requirement was for four street trees or Warman's Mill Court, uh, one on Market Street.

We provided three on Warmans Mill Court, basically where we could outside of the easements, either for shared use with our neighbors' driveway or utilities in that area.

And then Hum Lane again, because of the narrow width of Home Lane, and then the uh the requirements for the 28 feet of paving, there's really nowhere else to put a street tree down there.

But again, we're providing more overall on the project as a compensating feature.

Jud, do you want to go back to the beginning?

Um Chris Chris uh took the words right out of my mouth.

I was gonna cover all of that.

Um in summary, I think uh what we wanted to convey was this project is a win-win-win.

So it's uh 100% affordable at 60% AMI, workforce affordable.

I know this was a topic of discussion earlier tonight.

Uh 306 units uh right uh outside of downtown Frederick, uh walkable to nearby neighborhood amenities, uh, including one, two, and three bedroom units, including nearly 20% three bedroom units, so family-sized units.

Um it utilizes a long undeveloped, challenging and filled site right in the path of growth.

Uh, and now's the time to preserve that for affordable housing.

Um it's uh we're we're contributing as part of our rezoning um uh 1.2 million dollar profit where the construction of the rails to trails section that will pass over Route 26 and connect to um with the what the um shopping center to our north.

And uh on site, we're providing the commercial structure that Pam mentioned the 5,000 square feet that would provide um opportunities for either local uh business owners or nonprofit groups in a generation space.

Uh and lastly, as Chris mentioned, improves the floodplain.

So not only are these um uh infrastructure uh developments that we're putting in the project um beneficial to the community, but they're they're actually improving the floodplain uh for both upstream and downstream neighbors.

Um we were before you before in in uh June, just 15 months ago.

Um we as Bruce mentioned, the site plan hasn't really changed significantly.

Um we came before you and explained kind of what we needed to hit this level of intensity and uh with what we thought were relatively modest requests, and uh I think we've uh worked with staff uh with Pam and Gabrielle to achieve that.

So we really appreciate their efforts on that front.

Um, and we received a unanimous five of approval on our previous visits, and we're before you in May for a planning commission um work session, and I think it received favor feedback.

Um site providing walking trails, uh rails the trails accessed immediately within the community and um the top lot and dog park for uh the community uh for the for the neighborhood as well.

Um I I think that's really the the bulk of it.

The rest of it was really just visual orientation to highlight some of those, but um I think you're you're familiar enough with the project, so thank you.

All right.

Did you find it, Jennifer?

Okay.

Well, at this point, let's just go ahead with questions if there are any questions.

Commissioner Well, go ahead.

I don't have any questions.

Oh, okay.

Commissioner Melantic.

Um, just two comments.

Uh I always get excited when you say there's extra trees, so thank you.

I like the pretty pictures, and uh when I figure out how to say swale in everyday life.

I didn't is it always like that?

I don't know, that was an interesting word.

I did have to Google the definition, um, just so you know, but um now I'm like, how can I use this?

Um it really doesn't fit for anything but here, but um thanks for putting that in here.

Thanks.

All right.

I didn't have any specific questions either.

So let's see if there's any public comment.

Come on down.

My name is Hannah Nickerson.

I live at 415 Sherman Avenue.

Uh, and I'm also a member of East Frederick Rising.

Right next to the highway with noise and air pollution, right on the hundred-year floodplain, right next to the industrial property and the substation.

Must be an affordable housing project.

That being said, we absolutely love and really need affordable housing.

We also really appreciate the applicant's contributions towards the pedestrian access and engaging the community, including East Frederick Rising, um, on this project.

My main questions for the applicant would be around the floodplain.

Is there opportunity to incorporate potentially more bioretention for stormwater treatment?

And you know, with the climate crisis worsening by the year.

Could that 100-year floodplain turn like what if there was a once in 500 year flood?

Um, as we're seeing increasingly more of in the county, uh, and we'll continue to do so.

So, how might that impact the floodwater or the stormwater management plan?

Um we talked about the widening of 15 earlier.

I don't know exactly where I've heard it's all up and down.

I don't know.

Is that gonna impact this project at all?

Um my other question was around the forest plan, so I'll save that one.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Um any response?

There's one of you.

Was there oh, is there another public comment?

Yes.

Oh, come on up.

Thank you.

I didn't notice.

Thank you, Mary Ellen Mitchell, um, resident of the city of Frederick, but for this purpose, um, also CEO of Housing Frederick.

You have a letter there in your packet from me.

I just wanted to again uh say that we are in favor of this.

We are at a housing crisis.

Um our governor spoke to that this week, and that uh we encourage you to approve everything so this project can move forward.

Um the uh city and county housing study is coming out in December, which will back up the numbers and um I think the ability to add 300 units of affordable housing to the city of Frederick is a big win for everyone.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

No.

Okay.

No, sorry.

Chris Mariga again.

Um so we have been working with engineering staff on the stormwater management concept and development plan, received approvals for those.

We do show some bioretention down within the floodplain area.

It would be just outside of the floodplain, but down in the environmental area.

Um actually engineering wants us to look to move some of those back if we can up into the parking lot.

So we're gonna try to do that and balance it.

I mean, we're we're kind of providing the minimum amounts anyway, so we would look to supplement that uh in other places on the site.

So we are doing that as part of the final improvement plan.

And as I mentioned with the floodplain study, the engineer that did the analysis has created this new swale um to divert water around the culvert.

So I think it's it would it would serve that purpose as well if there's a bigger storm, it would be another outlet instead of just the one culvert that exists today.

So as Judd mentions as well, we are improving the floodplain situation there.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, back up to us.

Do we need any discussion?

Comment?

All right, we have four actions.

Um action one is uh modification for the light spillover.

I move for the approval of a modification to section 607d, requiring 0.0 foot candles at property lines for no spillover to adjacent properties, finding what has already been into read into record by staff one through three.

I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

All in favor.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Action two is a modification um regarding level one screening.

I move to approve a modification to section 605, table 605-3, eliminating level one along Hum Lane, Rose Hill Manor, and Rails with Trails Lot Lines.

Um finding uh staff findings read into records one through three.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Lewell and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Action three is the modification to level two buffers.

I move for approval of a modification to section 605, Table 6053, eliminating level two around the southeast parking area adjacent to Brookfield Court.

Finding what staff has already read into record one through three.

I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, second by Commissioner Lewellan.

All in favor.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Action four is a modification regarding street trees.

I move for uh approval of a modification to section 605 F to reduce the required street trees on Warman's Mill Court and North Market Street to providing three and zero respectively.

Um with the findings one through three read into record by staff.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Lewellan and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And finally, action five is the approval of the site plan.

And move for the approval of the final site plan PC 24-1008 FSI for the Warman's Mills Apartments.

Finding was staff already read into record one through three.

Um approval.

Oh, I don't see enough.

Uh okay, with the conditions of one through 13, also in the staff report.

I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia.

Second by Commissioner Lewellan.

All in favor.

Aye.

That is unanimous.

All right.

We are up to our last case of the evening.

That is PC 24-1009 PFCP, preliminary forest conservation plan for Warman's Mill Court.

And I'll enter this staff and uh staff report into record.

The applicants request an approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan for the warmth mill court apartments.

Any applicants also request no modifications to Section 721 management code in title forest conservation.

They're proposing to mitigate the balance of 2.73 acres in fee in lieu of the amount of 35,795 and 10 cents.

The applicant has addressed the criteria priority criteria of that be met before fee in lieu of.

Finding that the project would be in viable if they were to plant more on site.

The engineer has issued a letter dated August 29th, 2025, granting approval of the following conditions to be met to the approval of the final stormwater management and mass grading and or approval plan to place uh storm water management facilities outside of the flood protection setback areas such as parking islands and other green spaces to the maximum extent practical.

Receive authorization from the MDE for the alteration of the existing floodplain and non-tallowed wetlands, and obtain any necessary permits from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers for filling and alteration of the existing waterway and non-title wetlands.

The applicant, as I said, has addressed the options, including off-site forestation, and has not been able to uh obtain any off-site easement areas and um and has stated they will um try to find the off-site areas in the future if possible.

The applicant is requesting the modification to section 721 to remove specimen trees one through seven and nine and ten and the specimen tree eight will be saved along the borders of the adjacent property with the criteria that um the uh special conditions of procurement property which would cause unwarranted hardship and how enforcement of this section would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed and verifying the granting of the modification will not confer on the applicant any special privilege if verify that and verified the modification request is not based on conditions of circumstances which result in the actions of the applicant, and that the quest does not arise from a condition relating to the land uh building use permitted non-conforming neighboring property, and that it does not have any adversity effect on the water quality.

Uh the option is not responsible for time lapse prior to the development that created the forest conservation on site, and the development is responsible for storm water management plan and removal of the trees will not impact the uh stormwater design.

Action one approval of the forest conservation modifications section 721 B3 to remove the nine specimen trees.

Enforcement of the ordinance regulation will result in hardship to develop and still maintain as much as possible the protection of overall sensitive areas.

Enforcement of the regulations will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others of other MU zone properties in the city to develop dense development compact urban form.

Granting of the modifications not conferred special privilege to the applicant in order to develop the land.

Modification is not based on conditions or circumstances as a result of the applicant.

And not as condition of neighboring property, and the modification will not adversely affect border quality, recognizing that the stormwater management is required with the development of the site, and staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

Action two, the approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan, PC 24-1009 PFCP for the Warman's Mill Apartments.

The plan complies with the criteria outlined in section 721 of the LMC, which includes compliance with all applicable criteria in the State Forest Conservation Act.

Staff recommends approval of PC 24-1009 PFCP with the following conditions to be met.

General note number three at archaeological assessment case number and approval date and general note number three at master plan and conditional approval date.

And that is the staff report.

Thank you.

Do we have questions for staff?

No, no questions for staff.

Chris Smariga with Harris Morga.

As you probably recall from the rezoning, there's a lot of competing interests with this project, and we mentioned specifically back then the forest conservation, knowing that with stormwater requirements, the flood plan we were dealing with, the need for affordable housing, the access points where we're very limited to get not just to the site, but then across the site and the flood plan and the bridge.

That we would we'd have some challenges here.

Um but we did strike a balance uh with staff working through the requirements.

There are some uh there is modification for some specimen tree removals.

Um nine of the ten are fair or poor condition.

Only one was in decent condition, but it's right on Home Lane where we're putting the shared use path in.

So we really have no choice but to take that one out.

Um otherwise, we are uh retaining what forests we can on site.

We are doing some wetland plannings, and then we have credits uh for street trees, and then a little and some fee and lows.

So we think we've achieved a good balance.

Uh be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

No, we're good.

Do we have public comment?

Hannah Nickerson, Chairman Avenue.

I know it's late.

Um, I'm gonna be annoying and just make my comments.

Uh I find it crazy how so every single development who has off-site uh reforestation requirements can't find properties when the city has a goal to have 50 percent tree canopy cover.

It just seems like there could be a lot better synergy between the city and developers on that one topic.

Uh, and then my other question was specifically around the specimen tree number one, the native Shag Bark Hickory.

Um, so you answered that by the shared use path, but it just that is the one in good condition, and it just seems a shame like that that one has to go in particular, but it was answered.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Do you have any response?

I will say that I did see where two developers were talking the other day about sharing some off-site forestation on a potential site.

So it is it's taking some annexations to kind of come in with some larger opportunities for retention or planning, but it is it's starting to happen.

So hopefully we'll see more.

Okay.

So just a quick question for that.

The shag bark, is it literally in the shared use path where it has to come down, or is it just that the shared use path is gonna impact its critical root zone?

It's it's this one right here.

Right where the shared use path comes through.

So it may this it's definitely more than 30 percent of the root zone.

I mean, it's probably sitting right on the edge of that property line, but we can try to keep it, but we still need the modification for it.

We still need the modified correct, yes.

Yes.

I mean if it can be kept, yeah.

That'd be great.

He doesn't want to cut it down.

He doesn't have to.

So thank you.

Okay.

Um, anything else from all right?

Well, then we have two actions.

Um, the first action is um approval of the modification to remove specimen trees.

Okay.

I move for approval of the forest modification to section seven twenty-one B three to remove nine specimen trees with the six findings read into record by staff.

Second.

So that's a motion by Commissioner Llewellyn a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And then action two is the uh approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan.

I move for the approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan PC two four-1009 PFCP for the Warman's Mill Apartments finding everything is in compliance with the recommendations one through two.

I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

All in favor?

Aye.

That is unanimous.

And that concludes our evening.

Thank you very much.

Adjourned.