It's six o'clock, and I'm going to call the meeting to order and welcome everybody to the October 13th, 2025 meeting of the City of Fredericks Planning Commission.

Um, before we begin tonight's proceedings, I'm gonna give everybody we're gonna give a background of the planning commission and the procedures we'll be following this evening.

Members of the planning commission are all residents of the city and are volunteers appointed by the mayor and 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.

Um cases will be presented tonight in the following format.

We'll start with an introduction of the case, followed by the um presentation of the case and initial recommendation by staff.

Following that, we'll do a formal questioning of staff by the by the commission.

We'll then allow the applicant to come up and make their remarks regarding the case, followed by commission questioning of the applicant.

Um following that, we will have public comment, and um, if appropriate, we'll allow the commission to ask questions of the public comments.

Finally, we will allow the applicant to respond to any public comment.

Then the discussion comes up here for or the for discussion and questions among the commission and then um the commission action.

Um I see some new faces in the audience today.

Anyone who's here who wants to make public comments, would you please sign in at the sign in sheet over on the table on the side of the room?

And um just a reminder that members of the public have three minutes to give their comments.

Anybody representing a group will have 10 minutes to give their comments and we will have the timing clock going.

So at this point, everybody who is going to be making a presentation or comments before the commission tonight needs, including the public comment, needs to stand and be sworn in.

So if everybody would stand and raise your right hand.

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

If so, answer I do.

Thank you.

All right, before we do anything else, we're going to um welcome our new member.

He is our one of our permanent members, not the alternate.

This is uh Commissioner Zach Bologna.

Um, I'm gonna give Zach the opportunity to introduce himself and then Gabrielle has some remarks to make.

Great.

Uh great, yeah.

Uh, thank you so much.

Um it's my first meeting here as a member of the planning commission officially.

Um, I'm a resident of Frederick for the last five years.

I've been involved in the uh NAC committee and those types of neighborhood advisory and been volunteering here or there throughout the uh throughout the city and various different uh events and efforts since my time here.

Very excited to be part of this and looking forward to uh you know assisting with this at any future uh cases here result you know having to do with planning.

So um bear with me.

This is the first meeting.

I'm just getting up to speed and uh learning all the ropes here.

So I'll probably be a little bit quiet this time, but hoping that uh as I start to hear more cases and understand more about uh how things are typically done.

Um I'll be able to add a lot to this committee and uh do what I can.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're excited to have you.

Gabrielle.

Thank you.

And I just wanted to echo Joan's um appreciation and welcome on behalf of the mayor's office.

We do have a certificate of appointment and also appreciation uh for volunteering to serve in this capacity from our department's perspective.

Um it is it is an honor and a great privilege to be able to provide technical feedback uh to the planning commission, and it's a it's a responsibility that makes it all the more um meaningful when we have such great volunteers who participate their time and and share that with us.

So thank you.

We appreciate your stepping up and then stepping out with the planning commission.

Look forward to working with you.

And then we have announcements.

Is that gonna be yeah?

We have a couple of regular announcements.

Uh the planning commission workshop will be this coming Monday, that is October 20th at 2 p.m.

in this room.

Later that day, we will have the citywide community outreach meeting at 6 p.m.

Thank you.

All right, so our first agenda item is um approval of the minutes.

Are you eligible to vote on minutes?

Uh no, I I was able to review all of them.

So totally fine.

So there'll be three of us voting on minutes.

Um we have the September 8th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes, the September 15th Planning Commission workshop minutes, and the October 10th, 2025 pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

So I'll take a motion.

Okay, I move for the approval of the September 8th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

I second that.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

I move for approval of the September 15th, 2025 Planning Commission workshop minutes.

Second.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Lowell and a second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And move for the approval of the October 10th, 2025 pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

I second that.

No, that is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Lewellan.

All in favor.

Aye.

All right.

So we don't have any consent agenda items.

We have continuances.

We have actually two sets of continuances.

Um since we have been informed that um our AstraZeneca asked if they could have a continuance too.

So we'll we'll consider that one as well.

But the first we have is PC 25-50 PSU FSI, preliminary plat and final site plan for Highland Trail, and then PC 525-56 PFCP preliminary forest conservation plan for Highland Trail.

There you go.

This is just a 30-day continuance to the November hearing.

There were a couple of items that needed to be moved around, some stormwater issues.

Um we're working on that review currently.

Okay, thank you.

Um we can do both of these with one motion.

Okay.

I move for approval of the continuance of PC 25-50 PSU FSI combined preliminary preliminary plat and final site plan for Highland Trail, as well as PC 25-5-6 PFCP preliminary forest conservation plan for Highland Trail.

Second.

Um, did you say continue to November to continue till November 10th, 2025 planning commission hearing?

Okay.

Second.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Lewell and a second by Commissioner Balencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

You can vote on this one.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And then the next one is PC 25-193 FSI AstraZeneca perfusion edition.

Okay.

I move for continuing.

Let's have a staff explain what's going on.

Yeah, so uh this one they're gonna be um increasing the square footage by a little bit, which means we have to have another review cycle based on that and the timeline of our schedules, they will require a 60-day continuance to the December meeting.

And then what is the date of the December meeting?

That would be 128.

Thank you.

Right, any questions?

No.

Then I'll we can take a motion.

Okay.

Now I move for the continuance of PC 25193 FSI AstraZeneca perfusion edition to the December 8th hearing 2025.

I second that.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Valencia, a second by Commissioner Llewellyn.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That is unanimous.

All right, which brings us to the remaining two items on the agenda.

Hopefully, this will be a fast meeting.

Um, the next item on our agenda is PC 24-934 FSI final site plan for galleria at Carroll Creek.

Okay, I will enter the staff report and into record.

Um the applicants request an approval of a final slide site plan to construct a 61,200 square foot seven-story building for 210 multifamily units and a 4,000 square foot of non-residential with underground structured parking.

The property is zoned at downtown commercial residential DB, and within the Carroll Creek overlay and the historic preservation overlay.

The HPC approval procedures require that a new construction be evaluated in two stages.

Level one review, which focuses on setback, height, scale, form, and general building materials.

The HBC approved the level one application on July 26, 2024.

Level two, which focuses on more of refined details such as landscaping, lighting, building articulation, etc.

That the application will be processed after the final site plan is approved.

For the 1.741 acres at 75 units per acre, the site is permitted 128 units.

However, with the Carroll Creek overlay based on providing structured parking, the site is permitted increased density to 256 units.

The applicant is proposing only 210 units.

The D B zone is required to contribute a thousand um dollars per unit for the purpose of funding parkland improvements in the downtown area in lieu of dedication.

The applicant will pay 210,000 dollars towards parkland improvements.

The parks and recreation commission supported recommendation to allow two separate areas of seven six hundred and seventy-three square feet and one thousand two hundred and seventy-two square feet of the Carroll Creek Park, linear park to be seamlessly used by the Caleria as part of their outdoor dining.

The city council will ultimately need to be need to approve a parkland use agreement prior to issuance of a building permit.

The site has two access points, one off of East All Saint Street for vehicle entrance to the parking garage, and the second one from the public access easement off South Carroll Street between the city parking deck and the west side of the building to enter into the parking garage.

There are two pedestrian entrances for South from South East Street and to the building and multiple entrances from the Carroll Creek Linear Park and to the non-residential side of the building facing the creek.

The parking is in compliance in compliance between the minimum and maximum range with providing 251 spaces.

Most of the landscaping requirements are not applicable except for the street trees that they are in compliance planting 11.

The project will be paying $5,096 and 52 cents the fee in lieu of forest.

The project has issued final APFO, was issued final APFO certificates for water and sewer.

The project falls in a mobility fee district and has been calculated to pay $81,084.70 cents.

The applicant has indicated they will pay a school mitigation fee for overcapacity, but below 100% of state uh rated capacity for the elementary and high schools.

The applicant will enter to an MPDU payment agreement.

Action one the request approval of the final site plan PC 24-934 FSI for 61,200 square foot seven-story building for 210 multifamily units and a 4,000 square foot of non-residential with underground structured parking.

The staff findings, the final site plan part of the plan complies with all the applicable criteria of the articles 4, 6, 7, and 8, and 12 of the LMC, and is consistent with the approved master plan and the 2020 comprehensive plan, and there are adequate facilities and services to accommodate the impacts of the development.

Staff recommends approval of the final site plan PC 24934 FSI with the following conditions to be met.

Complete DMPDU agreement note 19 with dates and recording references.

Complete APFO note 5 with certificate issuance dates and for the certificate for of the roads indicate that the mobility fee will be paid prior to the issuance of permit.

Correct note 15 to clarify no phasing to be constructed in single uh to be constructed in a single phase.

Delete note 21, complete note 16 with stormwater approval date.

Correct note uh table number seven, permitted density two fifty-six and provided density two ten for eighty-two bonus units.

Number seven, add note to plan that the five thousand and ninety-six dollars and fifty-two cents filial new vape for a station amount will be paid prior to improvement plan approvals and or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first.

Number eight, edit parking note number 11 to state that the two for 210 units, the applicant will pay 210,000 dollars towards uh parkland improvements in addition to the park facilities development impact fee at the time of the first building permit for all residential development.

The owner and developer will enter into a parkland use agreement with the city to outline the boundaries and respective responsibilities for both the city and galleria prior to the first building permit on sheets 11 15 through 17 number of the parking spaces for verification and number 10.

This um uh uh condition has been slightly changed from the staff report to read correct parking table number eight in compliance with the LMC and that is the staff report.

Thank you.

We'll do a roll call for questions from staff starting with Commissioner Valencio.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wellan.

No, thank you.

Commissioner Buono?

No.

And I have just one question, but it's actually for the applicant, so great.

Thank you.

No applicant.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

Uh welcome uh Mr.

Wano to your first meeting.

Hopefully, be the first of many.

Um my name is Mike Wiley.

I'm the president with Piedmont Design Group, uh representing the applicant Carroll Creek Galleria LLC.

With me tonight is the owner and applicant Ed Warmold to my left.

We also have our architectural staff, Robert Sponseller with Sponseller Design Group.

His uh contemporary, where are you, Jennifer?

Jennifer Chen.

We have our uh land use council uh with uh Curdy Dean and Gratitude or Lisa Gradator and Rachel Rittler, our landscape architect with Parker Rodriguez.

Uh so I wanted to thank uh staff uh for a thorough report, and we did have a short uh meeting this afternoon to discuss the uh last condition uh that Pam mentioned.

And so uh we are fine with the uh comments and uh status in the staff report.

We are fine with all the recommendations uh for the conditions of approval therein with a staff report.

Uh we'd ask respectfully for your approval, and we're here to answer any questions we you may have.

I will say if you wanted to see the presentations, it's exactly the same that was presented at the last two workshops.

So an event that you would like us to run through with it, Spon Cell or Design Group is here to do so, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Um, does any of the commission want to see the presentation?

No, all right.

Then we'll do a uh commissioner or a roll call for commissioner questions, starting with Commissioner Valencia Well, I guess either one could answer this, but for the number 10th uh recommendation for the correct parking table number eight.

Well what was supposed to be corrected there.

Uh it just was a matter of how we calculate the minimum versus maximum parking requirements, and the only adjustment would show um slightly more uh required, but overall we have a surplus of parking, so it's just a math calculation description.

What would the calculation be?

So just for the record, we did calculate it both ways, and they do meet the min and max both ways.

There was a discrepancy, there's an ordinance that allows you to get a bonus for density, and how that is calculated was a sticking point.

But we think we've got it.

So what's the number?

Um required was 315.

And half of that is at 158.

And then the maximum permitted is two and a half per unit, which takes you to 525.

So we're providing uh minimum 185 against the criteria of 158, and but a total of 616 spaces.

So there's gonna be 600 spaces?

So the the total provided is still 251 against the range of 185 minimum, 616 maximum.

So if you were to look at uh page five parking table, if you just strike the density bonus and then the density row, we change at the multifamily required of 210 units, which is a hundred and one and a half spaces per unit minimum, which equates to 315.

Uh, and then half of that is 158.

The maximum required is two and a half per unit, which is 525.

So then the last row, 251 is still provided in the design.

We'd have 185 minimum required at the 50 percent, and um the maximum permitted would be 616.

Okay, so we're we're inside the ranges.

Thank you.

We did do a chart if it would be helpful to see them side by side.

I wasn't sure this would come up, don't we have to have copies?

Um I'm a numbers person.

Thank you, Lisa.

Yeah, oh that thanks.

That that's very helpful because we just wrote that uh commissioner Wellin.

Any questions?

No, those are the very same questions I had to understand and get a walkthrough of this table because it didn't make sense yesterday or this afternoon, but thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

Um, so my only question is also about the parking, but I was just curious how you're gonna manage the parking.

Um, I mean, is it are you gonna have shared parking between residential and retail, or is there gonna be parking set aside just for the retail?

Um, there's obviously because of the downtown parking rules, there's not a parking space for every resident.

So, you know, how are you going to allocate those, make sure that that people are following following your parking rules?

Sure.

Well, I'll I'll give you a general guideline, but uh, I think Ed Warmold would probably be best to explain that.

But first and foremost, the spaces will be reserved for the residents through uh parking passes that they can purchase as part of the rental agreements, and then there will be surplus spaces that they could either rent and/or the retail uses can utilize that.

Any surplus would be done through a rental purchase.

But right now, the idea is it would be parking exclusively for the project.

So are the how are you going to manage keeping people parking for the retail out of the residential spots?

I know people who live over in the um the creekside building, and it seems to be a frequent problem that residences, I mean the residents drive in, they have numbered spots, but somebody's in their spot, especially in you know evenings when there's a lot going on downtown.

So Ed Warmall will address this.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you.

It's Edward Maldon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

Um we haven't totally figured it out, but what I'm anticipating is that there will be a gate gated access, and there would be a card reader, you know, that people would use as they come in.

And if uh we we may make spaces available, you know, to folks outside of the building, you know, and they would then have to rent rent a space and have access in through the the card reader system as well.

So um it won't be free access, you know, to anyone.

Okay, thank you.

Great, thank you very much.

Are there any other questions for the applicant before we move on?

All right.

Um I think we're good on questions.

Um, so at this point, I will see if there's any public comment on this case.

Um Jennifer, can you get me the hand on thank you?

So just a reminder, give us your name and address.

My name is Jill Pitts Simmons.

I live at 332 East Third Street, so directly impacted by this building.

The seven-story building.

Um, so I'm gonna read for most of us just so I can get through it.

Um Frederick's skyline is iconic, it's clustered historic spires and graduated roof lines.

Give us a city with character that's both hip and historic.

Make sure you're reading into the microphone though.

Okay, fair enough.

That's better.

The proposed seven-story galleria at Carroll Creek threatens to flatten this hierarchy.

Though the shorter than the tileless spires, it's massive footprint and strategic location as the eastern gateway would make it visually dominant, overshadowing the clustered spires.

If approved as currently rendered, it would put Frederick's most recognizable visible identity at risk.

So right there's our clustered spires.

If you remember a couple years ago, we decided to redo that icon, and there was public outcry around changing it back and deleting that whole escapade that we went through with the city.

So there was widespread opposition, and ultimately that was scrapped.

There's project risk diminishing the unique charm that makes Frederick both historic and vibrant.

In addition, and my concern in that area is that you have other projects ongoing.

So you have the Rails Museum, you have the Marriott Hotel, and other projects I'm probably not even aware of.

So that impacts my whole parking impact.

Right now on my street, we do not have any ticketed any meters, anything like that.

We have people walking to the MARC train on a daily basis from our street, you have Pisteros.

There's also a hint that we're going to do bike lanes on East Street.

So that will also impact any parking on that street.

Also, along with the East Street parking or East Street Park, you're now going to eliminate parking for that.

The overflow of visitors, you not having a managed parking situation.

People do have visitors on a normal basis.

I do not want to have parking meters.

I do not want that for our community or our street.

Um, I do think that the seven flights or seven stories hundred percent impacts our view of the city.

Um every day driving in, I see the clustered spires.

This gets rid of that immediately.

I feel like the design is too contemporary.

I think there are things that we could be doing.

I think there's so many different architectural treatments.

I live in the historic district.

This is also in the historic district.

I don't see anything that is significant or that would be relevant a hundred years from now that we would want to retain.

So I'm very disappointed in this design, knowing that has not taken any of those features into account.

I would love to see our historic skyline protected.

So again, parking is a big concern for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I just want to state for the record that all the issues related to the massing, the size, the location, the architecture, the design are all under the purview of the historical preservation committee.

So just if those are you know the gist of your comments, just make sure that you come back for the level two review and give your comments then.

Yes.

Yep.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Public comments for this?

Good evening.

Bob Ruby, East Second Street, Frederick.

I want to talk about the transportation mobility district fee that you all have negotiated some time back for this project.

It's not coming through.

Okay.

The fee that was negotiated, if I'm not mistaken, was some years back and probably preceded the higher density zoning for this particular property.

And the question should be asked as to whether it is adequate for the current density of the project versus the original density of the project.

And if you're getting a sizable amount of money right now, what $80,000?

That money needs to be applied for the transportation study that is not being performed by the contractor by this ordinance.

And uh, but because this is a congested area anyway, the city should look into what should be happening there to ameliate uh transportation issues for this project in conjunction with the hotel conference center is in the near vicinity.

Uh it also indicated that the voluntary cleanup program has been entered into by the contractor or with the developer.

Uh, but it doesn't give the status.

It says that it will be dealt with, or the contamination issues will be developed with during groundbreaking.

But has the developer received a no further requirements determination by MDE yet?

What is the status?

We should find out what the status is of that agreement before going too far into this process.

And any other comments I have will come later, but those are the two primary ones.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um the person behind you was okay.

Welcome to the planning commission, Mr.

Bono.

Um I think this project is gonna totally transform this space in most ways for the better.

I think it's gonna add some much needed third place making, there's a restaurant, it's gonna be uh a nice hub of activity.

I do think there are some concerns though regarding the calculation of the school impact fee, and I don't know how retroactive that is.

Um, it's just my own ignorance of you know, there's a lot of development happening, and it's getting close to that 100 per 20% capacity.

That's a concern.

Um, and also regarding the transportation, looking at the truck maps, it seems really like an interesting choice to route them down South Carroll Street, uh, and right in front of the Dela Plane to get into the loading dock there.

I think honestly, that's one of the worst design parts of the whole design, and it's that's having tractor trailers.

Um it's a current pedestrian highway right now, and it's only going to be especially with the hotel across the street, and even there having their trucks come around.

I don't know, it just seems like poor design.

Um, so any uh staff recommendations relating to those, we support those.

Um, also just some other considerations is I've said this before with Rickworks across the street.

It's not just the lot design itself, but we really asked the developer to consider um all the East Street renovations and interconnectivity between the lots.

We really need your help with developing that pedestrian infrastructure and making it nice, not the bare minimum.

Uh and then also lastly, I would wonder if the developer could comment if they are planning on electrifying this building.

Uh, there are building energy performance standards set by the state of Maryland related to the greenhouse gas reduction fund and climate pollution reduction.

Um so I know we typically don't talk about utilities, but that one's always.

I wonder if this project falls under those requirements.

And I think that's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Roberta Huber and I live at Maxwell Square.

Um, the galleria looks like an interesting project, but I feel that um our city typically gives away too much to the developers.

So seven-story building, 210 units, one, two, and three bedroom rentals.

And it's if you just divide it out by the two thousand two hundred twenty thousand square feet per the site plan, that's around a thousand square feet a unit of residential.

There's no amenities.

I didn't see a rooftop pool, a gym, or um any kind of uh meeting space in the building, and maybe there's more things.

Parkland dedication is 235,000.

It seems like a lot of money, but you can't touch an acre of ground in the downtown for that price.

Um, and I don't know if Bob had mentioned it that MDE agreement is from 2005.

I apologize if I'm repeating it, and it just seems to me it's too old.

Have they have they reconnected with MDE to see what's new 20 years later?

Um moderate income housing.

I think it said there's 29 units.

Um it says $2 a square foot.

Did you I noticed the staff report said 62,500 um square feet, but the site plan said the 220,000.

So if it's 2,000 a square foot, is that a current number, or is that an older number when this thing first came around?

Um and is it using the 220,000 square feet, or is it using 62,500?

Um parking.

I looked at those calculations.

I'm an accountant, and I think they're kind of crazy.

And I just I go for common sense, and I don't know that you can look at it that way.

But let's face it, people there's one, two, and three bedroom units.

Most of the people that are gonna live there, if they're working, they're not working in the city.

They're working somewhere else, and there's not adequate transportation here.

So they're gonna have to have a car.

And if it's two, if it's two adults in the household, they're gonna have to have two cars.

So I just looking at it, uh, one space, one parking space for one bedroom, two spaces for two bedrooms or or three bedrooms.

So if it were that would be a hundred five spaces for one bedroom, and the two and three bedrooms would be another two ten, which would be three hundred and fifteen residential spaces, but then you have to subtract out the uh spaces for the retail and the restaurant, which look painfully low.

And uh so out of so 315, but it's 224 that they're gonna have.

Seems to me that it's painfully low, and they're going to be parking issues.

Let's see anything else.

Uh your time is up, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I think I'm done anyway.

Any other public comments in this case?

Um, were you you weren't sworn in?

Uh with anybody else not sworn in, and I'll do another swearing in.

Yeah.

Um if you raise your right hand, 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.

Okay.

Um members of the planning commission.

I'm a downtown Frederick resident, and I'm here to urge you to approve this uh site plan that is before you tonight.

Umtown Fredericks Mark Station opened almost quarter century ago.

But since then, there's been almost no new housing constructed in its vicinity, which in my opinion represents a huge missed opportunity for our community.

In fact, as the city's own 2020 comprehensive plan observed, ridership on Mark's Brunswick line, which serves the city, has remained essentially flat since 2000 since 2010.

Likely due to the lack of supportive density around downtown Frederick station.

The comp plan also states that decisions made by the city can help ensure healthy use of transit and integrate it into the fabric of the city's transportation network by, among other things, and I quote, encouraging transit supportive land uses.

In addition to Mark, the transit center immediately adjacent to the Galleria site also serves as the hub of the county's transit bus system, whose ridership has steadily increased over the past five years.

This past fiscal year, its connector and shuttle routes served almost 900,000 riders.

That's more than double the ridership in 2021.

And of course, the Galleria site is on the eastern edge of Frederick's walkable downtown, meaning that residents of the proposed 210 apartments will be able to patronize downtown shops and restaurants, work in its offices, and enjoy its nightlife and recreational opportunities without needing to set foot in a car at all.

In short, there's literally no place within the city that residential density makes more sense than the site that's before you for approval this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right, at this point, if the applicant would like to respond to any of the comments you heard.

Again, Mike Wiley with Piedmont Design Group representing the applicant uh public.

We appreciate your comments and uh hopefully I can address all of them.

It was a little bit difficult to hear uh because of the A V in here, so I'll do my best.

Uh the first uh testimony regarding the project blocking the spires, the land management code specifically dictates a maximum height limitation when you're in and out of the historic district.

So we happen to be within the Carroll Creek Overlay District, which has one limiting factor, and then the historic uh district overlay has another limiting factor, and in both cases, we were um at the maximum permitted limit of the height that's allowed under those two standards, and I think that was evident and proven by the fact that we do have our level one historic preservation commission approval, showing that we weren't um going to create a nuisance by blocking the view of the spires.

We all believe it is important, and as such, we have complied fully with that portion of the code.

Also, relative to the Historic Preservation Commission, you know, the building massing uh footprint and style was also approved by level one and the comment that it was too contemporary.

Uh I would have to disagree as the uh did the historic preservation commission actually thinking it was more of a nod to Frederick's history based on the type of architecture that we are proposing.

Now, I don't know if if the uh person providing the testimony had seen all four um sides of the building, but there is variation as you go around, not only in the building modulation but the materials, and we did comply with the level one requirements.

I too encourage you to show up at the level two HPC meeting uh to voice any concerns that you might have as we get into the details of the building materials.

Um as far as uh the comment of concern with parking, as Ed stated, we haven't figured out exactly yet how we handle the shared use with the retail component, but it will be managed because we have to have some type of gate control for the residents to have first uh right of those parking spaces, so it's not just gonna be an open uh system.

Uh the second uh testimony, there was a comment, I believe, about the mobility fee, and uh city engineer Cherry and Apen did specifically based our contribution to satisfy the APFO concerns based on 210 units, and that is listed in his issuance of the certificate.

And so as such, based on the 210 residential units, we'll be paying an estimate of 65,000 and some change for the residential plus uh a fee of 395 per square foot of retail.

It's another almost 16,000.

So we're 81,000 and some change uh for the mobility fee in order to comply with that provision of the APFO.

Comment regarding our um MDE oversight.

Yes, the the site did have some contaminated soils.

We did submit and had approved of uh voluntary cleanup program planned by MDE.

Although it's 2005, we will be resubmitting it now that we can move finally into construction.

And the bottom line is the site conditions have not changed that uh led to the findings under that report.

And to mitigate the contaminated soils, we have a combination of excavation for footings and capping uh through the hardscape materials like uh concrete, the building footprints, the drive aisles, uh any of the other areas that would remain green if they're not within a say a concrete planner box, we do have to overdig and remove that soil.

So there really hasn't been any change, even though the original approval was granted in 2005, we're still gonna have mitigation in place and oversight by MDE to be able to do the site development.

The next uh set of uh comments um there was a comment regarding the school impact fee, and again, in accordance with the APFO, um we did do the project on the basis of a seven-year test, and so we will have to pay uh the school mitigation fees in time in place at time of building permit submission.

Uh the comment regarding the truck movements for the loading docks and the fact that it might be conflicting with the pedestrians and cars that will be visiting the Dela Plain.

Back when we had our original approval on this project in 2005, we worked with the city traffic engineer and again with Cherion to designate the preferred movement through the site.

And that access point is a one-way off of South Carroll, and so there isn't any intention to ever make it two-way.

So the only the only way then, frankly, to get into the loading dock on the west side of our proposed building, also for trash service, is to come in at that entrance.

Otherwise, I guess they could you know sneak in at uh other hours and off of East All Saint Street against the flow of traffic and turn right into our loading dock.

But that was the primary designated route, and as such, we had to look at the geometry of the turning movements to make sure the city vehicles, as well as emergency vehicles, could make those turns, assuming it was a one-way circulation.

And uh we basically laid it out in accordance with direction from the city traffic engineer.

Uh another comment regarding how this project can have connectivity to the E Street project and how it would also benefit from what's going on at the brickworks project.

So uh most of the walkways um are in place.

We are gonna do slight modifications around the edges of the building as we put in the footprint, but we're gonna restore in kind or better what's out there with the hardscape.

We also gonna be adding more landscaping to make the uh street frontage uh have a little bit higher appeal because right now it's just a vacant site, obviously, and so we're hoping to uh make make it uh a little more aesthetically pleasing through the addition of new materials as well as the landscaping.

And one of the tenets of the project is that it is trying to be pedestrian-centric, which is why we didn't go to the maximum number of parking on site, because the idea is being next to the creek and across the street from the mark station and on the major new gateway into the city that we want to encourage pedestrian uh foot traffic, not only within the project but also into the downtown area.

I can't speak for if the renters will be using it as a bedroom community, so to speak, and working out of town, but the idea is we've done everything we could do to encourage it to be a pedestrian-friendly project where people will live and work uh within the city and other locations close by where they can utilize the public transportation system, which is very robust at this location.

As far as the building power, yes, we'll have electric.

We are also investigating any gas services for heating and cooking.

We would definitely want to do that.

And there is availability of gas downtown, so we'll have a combination of both.

And we typically always start with energy star or better with our appliance offerings.

And as we develop the building designs over the next several months, we're going to have an eye to looking towards sustainability by using those higher quality types of energy reducing appliances and environmental conditioning systems.

One of the things I wanted to point out, although, yes, we did take a density bonus, we are below well below the cap that we could take, frankly, it's a matter of also providing adequate parking, and we didn't want to have to overbuild the site with a parking structure that's frankly hidden inside the building, but it would also be far more costly to go uh vertically underground.

So we wanted to keep the parking carefully bounced with the number of units, uh, but also not uh overdue because we wanted to have the mixture of units that worked well within the massing of the building.

And yes, we do have an offering for primarily two and three bedroom units, and because of that, and um because we want to make it pedestrian-centric, we're really can't dictate, but we also would uh discourage that every unit is going to be asking for two or three parking spaces.

We'll figure out how to parse out the reserve spaces based on first come, first serve and the residents.

But again, we're not gonna encourage that everybody use this uh to encourage uh use of the automobile as the primary mode to get around town because it is at a mobility hub.

I briefly mentioned about the MDE uh voluntary cleanup plan.

We'll we will revisit that with MDE and get it ready for permit prior to starting land development work.

There was a comment about it seemed like the forest conservation fee was minimal.

That's frankly just based on how much forest conservation requirement the 1.8 acres of the site requires times 30 cents a square foot, and rather than try to plant a forest on site, which would frankly be nearly impossible because of the site layout, it's easier just to and better to uh provide a fee and loot to the city based on their scale, and that's how that fee was derived.

It wasn't something negotiated, it's just a straight calculation of the requirement times 30 cents per square foot to comply with the forest conservation ordinance.

Then regarding about the parking, I know we touched on it that we we're required to provide a minimum and maximum range, and we're in between the two, and we have a surplus of parking for the residential units at the base uh calculation.

And so uh depending on how you look at there is a surplus of parking, and we are um planning to manage it with the residents to have first come first served.

Uh as far as how we deduct the used units to make them available for the retail spaces, still still we have to work that out.

But the idea is we're trying to make it convenient for the residents and the patrons of the restaurant that they can utilize the parking on site.

And um, the last person, we appreciate your input, and we couldn't agree more with the statements that the site is ripe and ready because there haven't been any new residential projects.

And I will also state for the record if you look inside the comprehensive plan, this is certainly a key location for residential units, especially at a higher density, because there's some meaning and mention in the city's comprehensive plan about a density enhancement zone, and we're right in the middle of it.

Uh and while we would be limited by the height uh and the size, we feel like we've right sized the project with the right number of units and not tried to push the envelope on the maximum amount of density we could provide, but it is a right-sized and dense project for its location, and we believe we've complied with all the requirements of land management code and done the site justice.

So we ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yes, yes, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Um, so I have a quick question again about the parking.

So um when I looked at this and I saw one car for four people at a restaurant, I thought, hmm, when I go to a restaurant, if I'm meeting people, typically they're not we're not uh picking each other up, although I have one friend that we do that with.

Um so that could be an issue.

So I didn't know where that if that was a standard calculation that is used in the city, or is that your calculation?

That is out of the land management code.

The presumption is one parking spot per typical four-seat table.

We've actually talked to um commercial brokerages uh restaurants, and they said that's right on the money for what they typically see for their parking needs.

I don't think it's realistic, just well, I can only tell you what our commercial brokerage that does restaurant leases all the time.

They said that is typical, which you should plan for to provide.

But I I respect your opinion.

You think it's it's not enough.

All right, I I disagree, but thank you.

Questions.

Um, I just had one quick question.

Um, you said you're gonna resubmit um or just touch base back with MDE regarding updating the voluntary or the um the remediation plan.

Yes, ma'am.

Um will you will they be requiring you to have a public hearing regarding that before?

No, uh we were required to file uh for the voluntary uh cleanup program before we took title of the project, which matter of fact, we purchased from the city around 2005, and so the there were advertisements and vetting of the review of the plan before if they're gonna open it up for public comment, it'd probably be like most uh permits that run through MDE where they would probably take public comment.

But again, I need to uh reach out to them to see because there hasn't been any site changes and whether or not they will want to reopen the record for that.

But the the fact is uh the mitigation strategy has not changed, and so the outcome will be the same once we build the project as we've presented here tonight.

The mitigation by def default will be taken care of either through removal of any soils where there will be green areas or covering the soils with concrete and brick uh to uh MDE characterizes a capping to avoid uh intrusion into the contaminated soils.

Okay, thank you.

Ed wanted to make a comment on that too, please.

Hi, Ed Wormall.

I just wanted to address the parking concern.

We met with uh uh the uh public works department, Steve Johnson who's heads up the parking in the city, and also with Richard Griffin.

And um they were very they were can trying to convince us that um the parking garages are are underutilized in the evenings, and that there's plenty of places for within the garage next door that was actually built to be a companion with this building originally, and um so there is you know there's 375 spaces or more in that adjacent parking garage, and um so they said in the evenings, you know, not during business hours, but in the evenings, there's just tons of space in there that's underutilized.

So it's just another factor to consider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep, go ahead.

Um, when it comes to the commercial parking and thinking that there's four people in one car, and that's a standard.

I used to own a commercial bakery like restaurant, and I never saw four people come out of one car.

So I don't I like unless there was like actual like statistics provided for that, maybe we could try to take that in a little better, but just in my own experience because that was the industry I was in.

I that's just unbelievable to me.

But I do understand when they're trying to say, like, you know, maybe there's less cars in the parking garage in the evenings and things like that, that does make sense.

But there also have been times that I've been downtown in the parking garage where you could go all the way to the top and you're grid locked and you have to come back out, and you still can't find parking, like you pretty much miss your entire dinner and have to go home.

So I I really that's lived experience, not just statistics or you know, those kind of numbers thrown around sometimes when you've actually experienced the living here.

So I think the parking is going to be a major concern.

One thing I would like to uh point out if there is a concern there, the the restaurant load, whether or not you agree with the one per four seats has a higher parking requirement.

So if we build the entire 4,000 square feet out at restaurants, we have more parking than what we would need for it to be exclusively retail.

So we're comfortable in that we we have satisfied the parking because if it's strictly retail as staff point on the report, you need 13 there, but we have 40 required if it's restaurant.

So you know, we have surplus parking on the site that can accommodate either use or even a mixture of the two.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I have a question about that.

Sorry.

Sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, I just want to say one comment on this.

I live in the downtown area, so sorry.

Yeah, I want to uh kind of mirror what you all are saying, and maybe that respond to y'all about the you know idea that one car is four people.

I walk downtown, I go to restaurants, and I have that counts as zero cars, and it'll be me and my partner, and we'll go down.

So that counteracts someone who's two people going in one car.

So you can't just imagine it as one person or one car with four people.

It could be half of the people, especially in a larger development like this.

They could be walking downstairs, so that counts as zero cars for one or two people.

So in urban style development like this, it's not quite the same as a suburban restaurant where you have a big parking lot surrounding like an out Applebees or an out, you know, an outback or something like that.

So just to provide a different perspective to some of the members of the commission.

I appreciate the commissioner's comment on that.

Thank you.

The commission used to recognize is that they completely meet all of the requirements of the land management code for parking.

So you may have disagreements with how the city calculates things, but that's that's not that's not up for discussion here tonight.

So any other comments?

Questions?

No, okay.

One action.

I don't like the having to turn these off and on all the time.

I forget where I am.

Um, and the one action is uh approval of the final site plan for the galleria project.

And if we have no more discussion, then I look for a motion.

Okay, I move for approval of the final site plan PC 24934 FSI for a 61,200 square foot seven-story building for 210 multifamily units and a 4,000 square foot of non-residential with underground structured parking.

Uh finding what as the staff did that the final site plan, part of the plan complies with all the applicable criteria of articles four, six, seven, eight, and twelve of the land management code, and is consistent with the approved master plan, the 2020 comp plan, and there are adequate facilities and services to accommodate the impacts of the development.

Uh finding uh as staff did as previously read into record with the recommendations that were read in the case.

With recommendations one through ten as read into record.

Second.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Our next thank you.

Our next case is PC 24-1010 annexation and Sageway.

Okay, I'll turn the staff report into record.

The afternoon is requesting a recommendation to the city council for annexation of pro approximately 24.98 acres identified as a Sageway property.

The happiness requesting that that upon an annexation of property be zoned R16 high density residential.

A petition for annexation was submitted on December 16th, 2024, and the Anne Station is comprised of two parcels.

The application for annexations processed through the planning commission as the recommended body to the city council for approval requiring only one public hearing.

The section uh 322 of the land management requires that an annexation plan be adopted by resolution of the Senate Council and must be a consistent with municipal growth element of the comprehensive plan.

Sections 322 of the land management code also establishes the option for an annexation agreement separate from the annexation resolution in which the terms and conditions upon which annexation is to occur.

The annexation plan must evaluate all the annexed land will be served by public facilities, and how annexation relates to the goals of the comprehensive plan.

The applicant is requesting the R 16 zone with result of 384 units, but has assumed the maximum development yield of 350 multifamily residential units for the property, exclusive of moderate price dwelling units and existing residences on site.

The applicant has provided the outline of extension services and public facilities to the city of Frederick and fiscal analysis per section 1104.

There are no planned services for water and sewer for this tier two growth growth area property.

However, the applicant proposes connecting to the water and sewer lines serving the Summerville subdivision.

Only the high school exceeds testing capacity but falls below 100%, 120% state rated capacity.

Therefore, they are allowed to pay school mitigation fee.

Property fronts on alternate US 40 with one direct access and borders I-70 denied access.

There are multiple planned roadway improvements in the vicinity of the property.

Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to construct the road connection to Somerville as a term of annexation.

If and if a connection is determined and feasible, the annexation agreement recommended to require that applicant acquire a second access point on alternate 40 or monument and entrance on alternate 40 to safely and adequately manage traffic to and from the site.

In addition, staff is recommending that the applicant be required to provide a pedestrian trail bridge connection to Summerville in the event of a road connection infeasible.

Staff is recommending that the required infrastructure improvement contribution described in paragraph 4 of the annexation agreement be set at 8,000 per unit, $8,000 per unit, excluding moderate price dwelling units consistent with the condition for recent Wenpetty, Kristoff, and the High Glen Great Southern annexations.

The per unit regional infrastructure improvement contribution should be subject to annual consumer price index escalation upon approval of the annexation until the first building permit.

The applicant must provide a right-of-way and frontage improvements along alternative 40 as required by MDOT and SHA.

Staff recommends an additional $750 per unit towards the design and construction of pedestrian bridge along the south side of Route 40 between Grove Hill Road and Waverly Drive, consistent with the recommended for the High Glen and Great Southern annexation as contribution towards the North Branch Trail.

Annexation plan is estimated to be between 3,392,375 and 3,490 and 3,0375 of revenue.

Consistent with the housing element policies 1 and 5 and municipal policy municipal growth policy 2 of the comprehensive plan.

Staff is recommending that as a term of annexation agreement that developer be required to provide the full parkland dedication on site estimated at eight acres.

There are essentially environmentally sensitive land areas on this property.

The staff is recommending the following to be included as terms of the annexation agreement that a hundred-foot stream setback buffer from the bank will be adhered to, and that all required forest conservation include any mitigation required from the construction of the road from Somerville will be met on-site in accordance with priorities for retention and afforestation established in section 721 of the LMC.

The fire and police services responded with no concerns.

Action one, a recommendation to the City Council for annexation of stageway property with the zoning of R 16 high density residential.

The findings, the property is part of the tier two growth area and therefore is consistent with the plans for the present and future development of the city, supported by municipal growth element.

Policy two to manage annexations in a manner to provide the necessary dwelling units and non-residential structures to supply the demand of the future population and employment projection.

The annexation will further goals and objectives of comprehensive plan in addition to the municipal growth element, including transportation policy 10, support enhanced regional public transportation options, housing policy one, promote opportunities for a variety of housing types for the current and future city residents of all the income levels.

Housing policy two promote the development of housing with costs that reflect the range of incomes generated within the city.

The property is located near existing and planned public facilities for the city and water, water and sewer through the recommended financial contributions and improvements under the annexation agreement and those that will be required through its subsequent stages of the development process, including APFO, impact fees, etc.

The annexation will not have adverse financial impacts on the city.

Recommendation, the staff supports a recommendation for approval of the annexation with R 16 zoning based on the following recommendations for inclusion in the annexation agreement.

The paragraph 4 be revised to expressly state that the owner will provide right away and frontage improvements along alternative US 40 as required by MDOT and SHA and any costs for such off-site public improvements required by MDOT and SHA will not be credited towards the regional infrastructure improvement contributions, and that the $8,000 for the regional and infrastructure improvements contribution will be increased annually to reflect the consumer price index beginning at the adoption date of the annexation resolution until the first building permit is issued.

That the contribution towards the design and construction of the pedestrian bridge along the south side of Route 40 between Grove Hill Road and Waverly, referenced in paragraph 4 be $750 per unit and not deducted from the RIIC, and that the payment be made at the time of building permit for each unit types under paragraph six that the app be required to contribute to construction of a water storage tank.

And paragraph nine is amended to indicate that the entire parkland dedication requirement for the future development will be met on site.

Require road connection to be made to Somerville unless demonstrated to the director of the public uh department of public works that it is infeasible if the road connection is deemed infeasible that there must be a second access or monumented access entrance from Alternator US 40, in addition to a pedestrian bridge connection to Somerville, and add a pair of two of the agreement indicating that the requirements of 720 section 720 of the LMC for all disturbance associated with the development, including any off-site disturbance associated with the construction of the connection to Somerville development be met on site, including the planting of a hundred-foot buffer on each side of the stream.

And that is the staff report.

Thank you.

We will do a roll call for questions of staff, starting with Commissioner Lewellan.

Not at this time.

I think my questions are more for the applicant.

No questions at this time.

Commissioner Valencia?

No, thank you.

All right, that leaves it up to me.

Let me go back up to the beginning.

Um what is the density of the adjoining adjoining MU developments, Somervale, and then West Park?

I'm sorry, I don't know that right offhand.

Um God, I hate this is not good.

Um, I'm thinking that it was R8.

Is thank you.

Um but it would be interesting to know that.

Um regarding the water tower, what percentage of the contribution is that to the up to the to the contribution, the the construction of the water tower.

I turn mine off when I'm done talking.

Um hold on.

I mean, I see the uh the um monetary amount.

I was wondering what percentage of that is all right.

Um I know that the engineering department uh calculated it up for the 490,000 to be their contribution.

I can't tell you what that percentage of the cost of the tank is.

If that's what you're asking me.

Yeah, that is what I'm asking you.

And typically, I mean, typically how much does the city, I mean, is it like a quarter of the per, is it a uh percentage of that population compared to the rest of the population that's gonna use the water?

Why aren't we requiring them to build the whole water tower?

There it is a tower that is needed, so all the they're evaluated on each of the projects come in, and they are calculated up with engineering's division.

I can't tell you how I think I put the calculations as an attachment to you how she figured it up, but um as for how it's applied for each of the subdivisions, I can't tell you.

Um I just wanted to go back to the question you initially had with Somerville.

That Somerville, I believe, is a mixed use project.

So, you know, that is uh density of 75 uh units per acre.

So but I like I can't tell you how much they used for because it what I don't know that offhand how much they use for residential.

But each, I mean, when Somerville was annexed, its master plan has an underlying density.

And I would like to know, I mean, is it R eight?

Is it R4?

Is it R6?

I would like to know what that is.

And I might be wrong about this, but I don't think there's an underlying density.

There's a it's a it was annexed in as a mixed use too.

And so uh their base before was agriculture from this from um from the county.

But every project, every annexation that we've looked at since I've been on the commission, does have an underlying density.

So are you asking for the underlying density for the Sage annexation, or are you talking about next door?

Next door.

So next door um their zoning is the MU.

It that's not an overlay or a floating zone.

That's just that is their base zone.

And they're allowed up to 75 dwelling units per acre.

Generally, we haven't seen anybody hit that mark, and we don't have the what Summervale is doing offhand.

Yeah, just for my clarification.

Um, what uh I'm not as familiar with all of them just getting up to speed.

R16, can you have any idea of what type of high density that is?

Just give us scope where that kind of falls.

It's pretty easy.

Um when you look at the Rs, the number is the density per acre.

So R8 is eight units per acre.

R16, I believe that's how it goes, yeah.

Um regarding the uh bikeways trail plan, um, the staff report indicates that it's there's not, I mean, we don't even know if that's feasible yet.

Is it possible to include a condition requiring a contribution to that if it becomes deemed to be feasible?

You're stating you want an extra contribution if there cannot construct that road.

No, I'm talking about the um county's 2018 bikeways and trail plan.

And the staff report um talks about how the route of that plan is likely to be out alternate 40 past this property.

Um it also says right now that they don't know if it's feasible, but if it becomes feasible, can we put in the annexation agreement a requirement that the app that the project contribute to that if it turns if it turns out to be feasible?

I would think that you could do that.

I think that's all of my questions for staff.

Thank you.

Um, so at this point, Bruce Good evening.

Um for the record, my name is Bruce Dean.

I'm an attorney with the law firm of McCurdy Dean and Gratator, and with me tonight is Chris Mariga with Harris Morgan Associates, who is the project planner.

Um I want to thank Pam for as always a very thorough and detailed staff report.

There's a lot of information in there.

Um I'm gonna touch on a couple points, and I'm also I think gonna be able to answer a couple of your questions that you might have thrown out there, uh, just because I've been doing this for a little while and was actually involved with the Summers annexation 16 years ago, 2009, so it's kind of burned in my memory.

And I would be remiss if I didn't welcome the new planning commissioner.

It's nice to meet you.

Um Chris and I are kind of regulars around here, so you'll get kind of sick of my voice in my face.

Um, but we'll try to keep it entertaining.

Always like to have some joke at my own expense if I can think of one.

Um, but that like I said, there's a couple points on this I did want to touch on that I think are are worth noting.

This is, as Pam said, consistent with the comprehensive plan.

We've done a lot of annexations in the last several years that were actually tier three, which means they weren't originally planned for water and sewer.

They are adjacent to the city, but no one had actually thought of them as annexation areas until the last 10 years or so.

This property is tier two, which, if you're an old timer like me, means it was in the considered in the 2002 Chester water study for areas that could be added to the city and connect using city water and sewer.

So for almost 25 years, this property has been deemed ready for annexation when the city grew out to it.

Also consistent with that designation is the fact that when the Summers farm was annexed into the city in 2009, and as part of its subsequent master plan, it was required to provide a road connection area to this Prakash, what's now known as the Prakash property, what we're calling SAGE.

We have investigated that connection.

We do think it is potentially feasible, and I'm gonna get to that in a second.

We're not saying no to that at all.

But I do want to talk about that in a minute.

I just like I said a couple other comments.

Uh the city, it was noted in the staff report that the city does have sufficient water and sewer to serve this property at the density we're requesting.

Uh, and that schools are generally below capacity, except for the high school, so we're only gonna be paying one mitigation fee on this.

And then the staff report did note, and again, a lot of it has to do with the Summers property development, but there is a significant amount of road infrastructure that is being planned for and built in the in the surrounding neighborhood, including the uh comprehensive planned extension of butterfly lane through summers to meet up with old camp, which is part of the um I guess calling it the city beltway, is a little bit of an exaggeration, but that does actually that's the ring road, Minoxy Boulevard, Christopher's Crossing, Old Camp Butterfly.

It actually turns into a circle through the city.

Um the only negative that's really serving this property is the water pressure zone.

It is difficult to develop a significant portion of this property due to the water pressure.

It I'll let Chris uh talk about it if you have specific questions, but it it really limits that bubble is actually bigger than the bubble we can actually build in.

It's it's really about 50% of the property is unbuildable.

So with that constraint, um we think the maximum number of units we could get on there was 350, and that's probably a little high, but that is what we requested to put in there.

We have been talking to various developers about this.

Mr.

Mr.

and Mrs.

Percash are not developers, they they own the property, but they they're their businesses elsewhere.

They would just like to annex it and and have a developer uh move forward with the development.

So because they're not experts, we wanted to have some development teams come in and take a look at this.

And the one comment that we've gotten that's been consistent is that there are a lot of financial asks being made of this property.

The road the road connection, the bridge, as I said before, is probably feasible, but it's going to be incredibly expensive.

Um, as well as the $8,000 a unit.

I know that's become sort of the city standard.

Um, but again, you just have to add all these together.

You're also talking half a million dollars for a water tank.

You're talking $750 a unit for the pedestrian bridge, uh, state highway improvements on and off-site, which we don't even know what those are gonna be yet.

So you add it all up, and particularly if you're talking about a lie tech developer, which is some of the folks we've been talking to, um, it just becomes difficult to to necessarily do all of those things.

Will uh with all of that said, it is not the planning commission's job to necessarily weigh in on whether something is economically feasible or not.

So am I gonna sit up here and tell you that any of the conditions that Pam is proposing are faulty or bad.

I am not gonna do that because eat in each and of themselves, each one is is a valid and worthy goal.

I'm just telling you that when we get to the city council, we're probably gonna have to sharpen our pencils and not necessarily be able to sit there here and smile and say, yeah, we're gonna do all of those things.

Because the one thing I will tell you that I have learned over the past few decades of doing this is when you overpromise, then you can't deliver.

And the last thing the prakashes want is to have this property annexed into the city with a laundry list of financial requirements that cannot be met because the property doesn't generate enough money to pay them.

So we are gonna sharpen our pencils between now and the city council, but I did want to bring that up.

Um regarding the density of the Summers farm, uh, as staff has said it is uh zoned MU with the MU zone does allow up to 75 units per acre.

However, um in 2009, the annexation, which was then an annexation resolution.

We didn't even do annexation agreements back then, caps the the density on summers at 310 units.

It's a little under 100 acres, so it's three units on the gross and probably five units per acre on the net, which is why it's being developed as single family houses and townhouses.

Um I think this discussion came up, I believe, with Commissioner Strawson at the workshop that you had the same question why are we putting so much density next to a lower density?

And we get that.

Um that that's that is a an issue for discussion.

Um, but with we met with staff and looked at the property, and again, with 50 percent of it being undevelopable.

Um the R16 on the gross ends up being more like of an R8 on the net because there's so much of it is gonna be.

Um I know Pam would like a lot to see a lot of it as parkland and fro and and open space, and that probably we'll be able to do all that because we're not gonna be able to build on it.

Um, but it does limit how much you can do.

And if you if we were to agree to do an R8 uh density just to throw that out there, uh, which would be a mixture of townhouses and maybe some small lot single families, there is no way it would generate anywhere near enough um value to do the road connection to Somervale to pay all the off sites.

So the density also is much more in keeping with the current city comprehensive plan.

Um when Summers was annexed, it was a sort of a an older comp plan which had the sort of idea that Frederick was gonna be dense in downtown and suburban in the outskirts, and the current comprehensive plan doesn't look at the city that way.

It looks at all land within the city as having significant value.

It's it's got access to water and sewer, which property just across the street does not have.

Um, and for that reason, the comp the current comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2021 uh strongly urges as much density as possible, and certainly we've been hearing that from the city council in our last few annexations.

So that is why, in a nutshell, we're asking for the R16.

So, with all of that, um again, thank Pam and staff for the for the staff report.

We agree with the conclusion that this property should be annexed.

It's always been intended to be annexed.

Um, and therefore we ask for your recommendation, and I can hopefully answer any additional questions you might have.

Thank you.

Um, we'll do a roll call for commissioner questions, starting with Commissioner.

No questions.

Uh shame that I wasn't able to work with you all in the workshop on this and just getting started now, but looking forward to working with you on future projects.

Absolutely.

Commissioner Blencia.

Um, not right now, thanks.

Commissioner Llewellyn.

Not right now.

No.

So how feasible is the road connection?

What's that?

I said how feasible is the road connection.

It's feasible in that with enough money, anything can happen.

I guess what I'm saying is it is fine, it is feasible from a topographical standpoint.

Okay.

So that's we just want to make sure that a bridge could be built there and would actually work.

And um, I'll let Chris come up if you have any detailed questions about design or anything like that.

It is really difficult to forecast costs.

Um, but we have to, because uh again, through experience, if you promise to build something, but you don't have the money to build it, you don't, there's no point in in doing these things.

So I said this at workshop, and I will say it again.

This makes absolutely no sense if you can't connect it to Somerville.

I'm not dispute.

I'm not disputing that.

So we we are proposing.

I did not say that we would not build the connection.

I'm just telling you, um, like I said, each and every one of the recommended conditions are make sense and are worthy.

Um I just can't promise that we're gonna do be able to do all of them.

But but it is noted that that I you that is what you said at the workshop, and I'm not disagreeing with you.

All right.

Um I don't have anybody else have any other questions?

Go ahead.

Yeah, so uh I went back and watched the workshop again because it was you know back in May when it was a while ago here, yeah.

And you said it most likely would not be built because of it would be a multi million dollar cost.

So is something changed since then that you're only are you still looking into doing it?

We're absolutely looking into doing it.

I I told the client and Chris and the developers who we had looking at it.

I said we got a plan on building that connection if it's at all possible because that's what the city's gonna want.

It's been planned for it.

Chris had his engineering folks take a look at it.

They said yes, it can be done.

Um we could probably even give you, I don't want to put Chris on the spot, but if he's willing to put a number on it today, we could probably put a number on it today.

But those numbers don't we're we're not supposed to take into a and if you want to put it on a as a condition on the annexation that it must be built.

That is certainly within your purview, and I'm not trying to argue out of it.

What I just wanted because I remember the the discussion we had at the workshop too, and I said we gotta see if we can do this.

And the answer is yes we can.

And it may be that yes we can, but we can't do something else.

That's all I'm saying.

Um I did actually also have a question about the calculations in your table, and it's way down here, so I have to find it.

Um your table about the the costs versus the benefit to the city per unit.

I guess it's in the attachment that's on the outline for extension services.

Um, that's the school.

We we actually used for that.

So yes, just can you explain that where the data came from and how you how you estimated those capital?

I don't have I don't have the outline in front of me.

I apologize I didn't print it out and bring it with me, but I'm pretty sure we used the City of Frederick's Tischler report that was done to determine the cost of housing in the City of Frederick.

And basically, that report, uh, the numbers are a few years old, so you gotta extrapolate for inflation and housing inflation has actually gone faster than regular inflation.

So housing values are actually significantly higher than they were when the Tischler report was done.

But what we did was we used those numbers to determine the cost of housing versus the revenue it generates for the city and showed it to be a net.

So what inputs go into expenses to the city?

Is that from the city's report?

We don't make them up.

Running the running everything, and then what input goes into the revenue per unit?

Is that property taxes?

It's a combination of property taxes and fees and income taxes that come back to the city of Frederick.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Anything else?

No.

Thank you.

At this point, I'll see if there's any public comment on this case.

Give us your name and address.

Yes.

Uh my name my name is C Raven.

I live at 5512 Old National Pike.

Um the proposed entrance to the highway uh is right across from our driveway, which we share with 5508.

Well, we would require it would require a stops, a stop light at least.

Um right now, as we said before, um, we've said before that there's a problem entering from our house onto alternate 40 already.

So I'm not gonna go into that because we said that before.

So that would um directly impact our property.

Um we're also concerned about our property values going down as a result of this proposed uh development.

And finally, I'll just say this.

Um we would encourage Mr.

Prakesh to find another buyer for his property that would preserve the landscape and the green space and our view of sugar loaf.

It's already a wedding venue, which is used often throughout the year.

Surely a new owner could improve the property because it does it could use some improvement and maintain it without cluttering the neighborhood with ever increasing population density, which is becoming an issue in Frederick County.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

All right.

Any response?

No.

All right, so then that comes up here.

I'm not sure how you all want to proceed.

Do we need a discussion?

Yeah.

Um chime in.

Um I think our discussion up here would mainly be do we want to add anything to the recommendations?

Because I think we're all pretty adamant on the must have a bridge.

So I I would just like to suggest we just add that to the recommendation.

That's something that would have to be worked out with city council.

I would like to say at this point that I am really more leaning toward this is not appropriate.

As many aspects of the comprehensive plan as support this, I believe there's just an equal number of aspects to the comprehensive plan that don't support this, particularly the um the high density.

And regardless of how Mr.

Dean interprets the comprehensive plan, I spent the weekend reading it, and pretty much everywhere in the comprehensive plan, it still talks about high density close to downtown within transit areas, within you know pedestrian areas, and to me, this particular property is absolutely inappropriate for high density.

Um and also a lot of the community care community character aspects of the comprehensive plan and um the need for connectivity and bikeability and walkability, this does not meet any of those either.

So personally, for those reasons, I'm leaning toward not recommending not recommending this, but I absolutely agree that if the rest of you feel that that you want to recommend this, that we need some additional um conditions.

So I think I'm leaning toward recommending it, but with the additional recommendations of must have the bridge and also the stoplight that they just proposed because of the entrance to their house.

I said I'm leaning towards recommending this with the additional recommendations of putting that stoplight in front of your house and your property and must have a bridge.

We're not recommending the stoplight well if it's like a toplight in front of the girls.

No, we could really give people not talking from the audience.

Okay.

That's fine.

Or we can my main thing is recommend having a bridge.

The road.

Yeah.

Um I think another thing would be just in the thinking of you know, how are people getting to and from these places?

We don't have it, we absolutely would need the bridge.

But what about a safe transit stop?

How are you gonna put that there if it's not even safe to drive out of your driveway?

Um so I'm kind of I'm kind of thinking approved with a lot more conditions that I don't think are feasible, which why am I gonna do that?

Or not recommending it, it doesn't make sense to me.

I've been stuck up there, and I won't I hate I the other day I I lost out on a commission because I refused to drive in the dark up there in the rain.

So yeah, I I reviewed I was not part of the workshop meeting myself, but I reviewed all the content and saw what was discussed.

I mean, I drive out here occasionally.

Um I'm not one to try to stand in the way of development, you know.

I like the idea of more housing, but the idea of a high density, not even mixed use, not even trying to develop a new community type center out here, this is not going to be you know travelable.

This is gonna be a lot of cars going back and forth, even though it's high density.

I I agree with Joan that this is not in the spirit of the city's high density plan, which is kind of relying on working alongside transit, building out alternative methods, be able to easily get to those other places.

And this this is what this is gonna do is put a bunch of people, have to take a road out, as you guys are saying, and then have to drive, you know, one mile down the road to the the shopping center, the golden mile down that that way.

You know, if in 20 years there's development that does come out, the city naturally grows there, the character of Golden Mile changes, maybe it's appropriate then, but right now it doesn't seem to be appropriate with the character of the area, nor really conducive to build out what's uh where it is right now in the city's growth.

Um if this was a mile closer, if this was right across the way from some of this, if this was in the trying to redevelop a parking lot in one of these, you know, more commercialized areas, potentially, but I I don't I don't see that this is in fitting with the uh the overall idea.

Um so as far as conditions go, I would agree that the condition to um construct the road with Somerville property is an absolute condition.

I mean, if that road is not feasible either financially or technically to be built, then the annexation shouldn't occur at all.

Um there was a recommendation in the staff report that the property in the house um proceed with um with application for the Maryland Historical Trust, and if eligible through that, then proceed with a uh recommend or um application for the National Hill Register of Historic Places.

I would like to add that as a condition.

I agree with the parkland dedication on site.

I agree with the full forest conservation on site.

Um I would make a maximum density of R8, not R16.

And um I would like to add a condition that if the county bikeway is feasible to go out that way, that there be a contribution required for that.

And um I personally would like to see our condition of um constructing some MPDUs if it is at R 16 and not allowing the fee in lieu.

I like all the conditions that you just said.

Um but I also think that adding that many conditions, and there's probably a whole list more that we would probably think about afterwards after we leave here tonight, like even when you were talking about the transportation, and then like you know, then I'd be like, well, can we also put a bus shelter in there?

Like, I mean the list could go on and on and on.

So again, realize that some of the details that you're thinking about.

Well, I'm just saying it's would come with a site plan, not annexation agreement.

But right, that would just be super extensive, I think, to add into this recommendation where I'm kind of I think we just do a yay or nay on the recommendation that's proposed at this point.

Then make a motion.

I will say that the staff, the staff recommendation of the road connection if feasible, if not feasible, then two entrances on 40 or a monumented entrance.

No.

Absolutely, the only condition is build the road.

For me.

Yeah, I agree with that as well.

I don't I don't think we need two entrances out of an already congested area.

So do we want to do this with must build the road?

Or do we want to add more to that?

Or just an eye.

Well, we have to make a motion one way or the other.

I know do we um I'm thinking if we do that we change um four require road connection unless demonstrated, take that strike the unless demonstrated piece out.

Were there any other must-haves besides changing that wording and for there any for you that must must have um if we made a motion you would want to include um at this point?

Anything else?

Could you say the the um no fee in lieu that what you had said for that the last um my personal favorite?

Yes, if um require that the MPDU contribution be built without fee and lie.

Okay.

Okay, well, I will make a motion then.

Um motion to support the recommendation for approval of the annexation with the R oh.

Wait, never mind.

I'm gonna start that right now because this R16.

Someone you want to do a motion.

I'm not doing that.

Okay.

All right.

I move for uh recommendation to city council for annexation of the Sageway property with a zoning of R8.

Finding that the property uh finding as previously read into record by staff with the following.

One through five is read by staff with conditions that expressly state that the honorable will provide right of way and frontage improvements along alternate US 40 is required by MDOT, and any cost for such off-site public improvements required by will not be credited towards the RIIC.

That the $8,000 RIIC contribution will be increased annually to reflect the consumer price index beginning at the adoption date of the annexation resolution until the first building permit is issued, that the contribution towards the design and construction of the pedestrian bridge along the south side of Route 40 between Grove Hill Road and Waverly Drive, referenced in paragraph four, be $750 per unit and not deducted from RRIC, and that the payment be made at the time of the building permit for each unit type.

Number three, paragraph nine is amended to indicate that the entire parkland dedication requirement for future development will be met on site and require road connection be made to Summervale.

Second.

A second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Was that aye?

Yes.

So all opposed?

That would be me.

So we have three in favor, and Commissioner Stronson opposed.

And that brings us to the conclusion of our meeting, but the question is that the question is that the first one is the first one.