All right, are we ready to get started?

It is two o'clock, and I'm calling to order the Planning Commission workshop for October 20th, 2025.

Before we start today's proceedings, I'm going to give an overview of the process that we follow, especially since the workshop process is a little bit different than the hearing process.

And so that we understand what and why you're asking for.

Um if you want to go to the last few pages to see the Talbot.

And so on this, it's labeled the 24 by 52 rear load down home.

This is a new product we're bringing through with Lenar.

Um believe it meets a need out here and meets all the architectural requirements that you all have laid out.

Um but on our new submission, it will be labeled the Talbot as we just received that unit type name from Lenar.

Um I believe there was also a comment uh asking why we had the high vis designation on the plans, and that is really just for our own programming to make sure that we uh step up the elevations on units that have a high visibility to the public or rest of the community.

Okay, we will do a roll call for questions.

We'll start with uh Commissioner Buono.

I don't have any questions in the moment.

Okay, Commissioner Valencia.

No, thank you.

Commissioner Lewellan.

No, thank you.

So just to clarify, you are doing high visibility on appropriate units, but that's not one of the design criteria that you that you need to meet.

Correct.

Or that you've elected to meet.

Correct, that's not required.

Um but we just do it to make the community look better.

Okay.

Um are the high visibility units designated anywhere on the site plan or in the um so we know which ones they are.

Uh they are not right now, but I can make that at it.

Yeah, for the hearing, yeah.

Thank you.

Great.

Any other questions?

Nope.

Staff, Pam.

Um, I would just have to add that um for most part their site plans already been uh going through the process.

So I would say that if you want identification of what the high visibility lots would be, I would say they would add that in the design booklet and just label list those lots and that way.

And I I think the high visibility um the explanation of what is really included in high visibility.

We've had some come through that it's more like at the landscaping or more like more if it's even windows or anything.

So that would uh it would be good to have um what's involved with the high visibility.

We can do that.

Okay, and that's it.

Okay, thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for staff?

No, I don't either.

Do we have any public comment on this?

Nope, seeing none.

Thank you very much.

All right, so our next case is um the expanded Harman Park site plan, PC 25-399 FSI final site plan.

Um, and just so that you know there was a glitch, and I don't think any of us have actually been able to see the site the site plan yet.

I know I haven't.

So you might want to just spend a little bit more time kind of going through it so we have a good understanding.

We've been able to read the staff report, but I couldn't hear the first part.

Sorry, you said you did not see the site plan.

I said we uh I at least I haven't, I don't think any we just got it when we sat down, so none of us have been able to actually see the site plan yet.

And we should have a PowerPoint presentation right here.

We'll pull that up and that'll walk through.

We even rendered it, it's nice and colorful.

So Chris Mariga again with Harris Moriga.

Uh the Greenberg Gibbons folks were tied up in a meeting down the road today, so but they're watching or will be watching.

So I'll walk you through the uh presentation in the meantime.

But this is for uh Harmon Park.

So there's several parks.

There you go.

That'll kind of walk through in terms I'll give you a brief history of the master plan subdivision to how we got to where we did today, not just for Zex education, but for everybody, although he's probably up to speed on this neighborhood as well.

It's got a lot of press.

Um so we do have unconditional approved master plan approval.

Uh with that, we designated the entire west side of E Street, which is shown here in green, running north-south.

That is all going to be dedicated to the city of Frederick.

Um, as you all may recall, that was 6.9 acres.

There was a lot of discussion at the master plan stage on what other parkland might be provided, and then whether that parkland would also incorporate forest conservation planning.

So all these things kind of come together with this plan.

Um, but where we ended up here was we were just going to dedicate the 6.9 acres on the east and do pocket parks within the parcels on the on the, I'm sorry, on the west side.

Um, but we came through you all for approval.

We decided to add, or you all at your suggestion, to add another three acres of parkland that would be city contiguous parkland on the east side of the project.

So that in total, we will have you know approximately 10 acres of public parkland, and then we will have private open spaces as well, which you've seen on some of the site plans for lot five.

I think lot one has proposed some of that as well.

Um so after the master plan, we then moved on to the preliminary subdivision plan, preliminary forest conservation plan.

Uh again, you know, this this kind of showed the the total 10 acres of public parkland.

It showed the forestation that would need to occur within that public parkland.

We have gone to Mayor and Board for that approval for the West Side to plant within the parkland.

So that's all been accomplished.

So what's remaining, and really the reason we're here today is to talk about Harmon Park, which is the remainder over here on the west side of East Street.

So existing Harmon Park is on Winchester, and this would be immediately adjacent to it.

So today, Harmon Park has some amenities.

There's a baseball field, there is a building that doesn't get a lot of use, a little tot lot area in a pavilion, but it's basically you know it's pretty under the underutilized for the most part.

So, you know, the master plan vision kind of from the beginning was to expand and have as and as part of this gateway, kind of a usable, more functional park than Harmon Park.

You know, Harmon Park also, you know, accesses off of Winchester Street only, so it's really hard to see even from E Street.

So this will, as you can see on the site plan here, this will incorporate and basically double the size of Harmon Park with what's been proposed.

So the way this process works, the developer is obligated to, after subdivision plan approval, go back to parks and rec commission, work with them on creating a plan for the park of what they would like to see in terms of the amenities, the parking, you name it.

So we did that with staff.

So we worked with um Bob Smith and his team to kind of come up with what uh amenities might be required in this park, and then we went to the parks and rec commission to get their recommendation for approval also.

Um so that's the park that you see here.

So the the darker green areas to the north and the south, those are the limits of the A forest station that were approved by the the city council.

Um so what's left is uh if you come in off of Winchester Street, this is actually a new parking lot kind of in the southwest corner.

There the only parking today is on street on Winchester.

So this provides about 20 spaces in the southwest corner.

There's a small pavilion area, there's a new expanded tot lot.

The area here in the middle is a multi-use field.

It's not necessarily a regulation, it's probably 70% of a regulation size soccer field or football field.

So enough for smaller you know, activities and smaller games.

You're not gonna have a major competition here.

But anyway, um, it does provide active space.

We're keeping the in the northwest corner of the existing building, which will probably get repurposed somehow.

I think there's some bathrooms in there, so that can be updated at some point.

And then this north-south line here, this is what we've added to the east.

So this will front on East Street, it has pickleball courts, is what Parks and Rec was looking for.

There's tennis, and there's basketball.

It wouldn't be a light necessarily, but it would probably have blinkers, and there'd be a place for pedestrians out in the middle.

So that's being um designed now as part of the subdivision plan improvement plans or the infrastructure plan.

So there will be a connection to get over to the rest of the brickworks project, as well as there still will be a north-south uh sidewalk that's that will remain from Minochasi all the way up to South Street.

So that's the park that's been recommended for approval by the parks and rec commission.

And then the last piece of it we're asking for while we're here, just south of the plan here, which you can't see, it's over here.

There's an area that's not in forest conservation and it's and it's not in a Potomac Edison easement.

So it's it sits down towards the circle as you head south on East Street.

What we're looking for is an opportunity to place a sign for the grocery store.

You can see based on this image here, it's you know, roughly three, three and a half feet, and we'll put some more dimensions on here by about five feet or six feet.

But the purpose for this, and the reason we want the easement in the park, is that if you're traveling southbound on East Street and you get to the roundabout, if you don't know to make this left turn to get into the grocery store as seen in the sign and continue past the circle, you end up down at Minoxy Boulevard, and you'd have to either U-turn to come back up, which I don't think anyone wants to do at that intersection, or you'd have to loop, you know, all the way around this project.

And maybe I'm talking about.

If you're coming southbound, you want to know right about here with a couple hundred feet to go that to get to the grocery store, you need to go around the roundabout and turn in.

Otherwise, like I said, you're doing a U-turn down here, which is not ideal, or else you're coming all the way around and looping around, you know, this entire project to get back in.

So the easement would be negotiated with the city council.

It would be um there wouldn't be any burden on the city to maintain it or anything like that, and if it ever had to be removed, that could all be part of it.

But it would basically allow the developer to maintain and erect a sign here uh for directional signage, really, to the grocery store.

So that's the only kind of unusual request with this.

But with that, I'm happy to answer any questions about the park.

Right.

Thank you very much.

Um we'll do a roll call starting with Commissioner Valencia.

Um we go so where that where that crosswork where the crosswalk is.

Um did you say that there's not a light there?

Or could you just explain that one more time?

There wouldn't, right?

There wouldn't be a light to stop traffic.

It would probably, if anything, and it's being reviewed now by the traffic engineer, city traffic engineer, it would probably be a blinking light that lets you know that crossing is occurring at that at that crosswalk.

Okay.

And then comes up with something different after he reviews it.

So then the um like the existing park right now, when you when we got to the little orange rectangle at the top, you said that would be updated at a later time, or what what is that again?

That's the existing building that's on the property that had it basically remains locked up.

It has some bathrooms in it that they don't open at this point and some other space.

Parks and rec wants to repurpose it somehow, some way, probably updating the bathrooms.

I'm not sure what the whole program is, but we're gonna keep that'll be the one structure that remains on the site.

And then so the existing like pavilion that was in like the other picture that you showed initially, like so.

Is any of that getting updated or so that'll be removed, and we're gonna they wanted to put a new pavilion here closer to the top lot for shade associated with anyone playing there, they can go sit in the pavilion area right next to it.

So it'll be a new pavilion.

There just won't be any bathrooms.

Well, I think they're gonna they they would be up in this existing building, and that's what Parks and Rec has to figure out is how that's gonna work.

Right.

But like as it stands right now, like there's no usable bathrooms at this park at all because it's always locked.

Yeah, I mean they'd be in that building, or I guess they are in that building, but I'd that'll be up to yeah, Bob to figure out.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Llewellyn?

Um so back to the crosswalk, you had mentioned there might be something in the middle, so they can walk partway and then stop if there's traffic.

But there would be flashing lights.

That's this rectangle in the middle here.

So that is there'll be an at grade, a gap basically in the median where you can stand with bollards there, so you're protected in the median before you would then continue to cross.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner Pologna?

Yeah, I have a couple questions.

I mean, some of these might overlap with the uh conversation you guys have with the traffic engineering folks and stuff like that, because just when I look at you know, this um you're gonna want to have more people right now.

East Street is like the major entryway into the city, and especially during rush hour, night, you know, right in that kind of nighttime period, it gets very busy on that street, and you got some people going pretty fast on it, and you're gonna have a lot of cars.

That's just the way that it is.

So just if you're having you know now a public park backed up right to it, um, are you guys planning on having it open directly to the street or put like a fence or something like that just you know, just for safety reasons?

Um, I'm not sure exactly what the you know, I can't get a good view of what the scale looks like from the standing view from this right here.

Or if you have any mock-ups of what that looks like, just to get an idea of what that, you know, how close these are to the uh like how close the they would be to the street.

I've seen this, yeah.

It's kinda hard to see to imagine from the code.

Yeah, it's kind of hard to see how close.

And this has been reoriented a little bit since the master plan approved.

Yeah, it kind of just looks a little closer on that.

So I just I'm not sure the scale of that too well.

Yeah, we I mean, certainly, you know, there'd be a minimum of you know, fencing around like the courts themselves keep the balls from going loose.

But it's a good question.

I mean, it's something you know we can discuss with parks and rec.

I mean, would they like to see a little more of a perimeter, you know, fence around there?

I mean, it's yeah, I don't want to like divide it off, but at the same time, if you're gonna have you know these sort of small little grassy areas surrounded by it, you want to make sure you're not gonna have too much risk of people going down there because this is an unused space right now, which no one is basically doing anything here.

Yeah.

So now if it's gonna be a park that is right up against East Street, that's the main thing that I question that I question on.

The other thing is for that crosswalk, and you guys have it down there.

How close is that to the roundabout on the back on the back end?

That is like I know it's kind of hard to see because it gets cut off there, like how how far is that distance to it?

So I think Pam and I calculated this the other day, right?

I think we're just about 500 feet down from where the sign is.

So it's probably six or seven hundred up to this.

Okay, yeah, I would just wonder, especially during, you know.

I'm just thinking of the extremes here, you know, like the extreme time points.

If people are walking across, cars have to stop, you're gonna get back up potentially into the roundabout, which is what you don't want on a roundabout, because then it really screws up that system because there's no light system there.

So I don't know if it makes sense to try to move that crosswalk farther up as opposed to there, like farther up East Street.

I I just don't know.

That might be a traffic engineer question.

I'm just trying to think of it from our point of view.

Yeah, no, it's a good question.

So the the lot one subdivision site plan, which you all are reviewing now or will be reviewing very soon.

This this Chiron's been looking at this crosswalk location in relationship to actually an entrance drive into lot one.

So I think that's different.

That's the separation distance they're looking at right now.

Yes, wasn't sure because there is sidewalk gonna still be on the other side, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I was just thinking about that just because you don't want that to be the extreme.

And I'm sure you guys are gonna talk with with the uh you know, traffic folks about what the right way to do a safe crossing there is, whether there's any traffic calming or what they're gonna do.

That's just the general thinking/slash concern about it because it is gonna potentially have a lot more people right here on the side of East Street when it's not really the nicest place to walk by right now.

Yeah so I'm not sure if they're planning how to balance you know, traffic calming and safety there with um you know, with with this.

So that that's that's uh that's a good question.

And that's um like I said, there is an infrastructure plan in for East Street that's coordinating that location or the entrance into lot one.

So that'll all be tied together with that crossing for pedestrians.

Great.

And then the other question is so you know, you it looks like to the north of this there's uh that's dedicated, what would it what do you guys call that dedicated um forest forest land to the to the north part connecting it to the rest of the city?

This corner.

Yeah, that corner there.

So is that just gonna be sort of uh what what is that gonna look like?

Is that gonna be sort of nicely, you know, kind of like the linear park tree land, or is that just gonna be kind of let it let it go?

What is that go?

It's more it's a forestation, so it's it's let it go kind of things, yeah.

Then if you guys are gonna be making a signs, it might be nice on the north side to have some sort of signage that lets people know that there is the park to the south side, because right now there is the park is underutilized and that's the more accessible side.

So to have the park be accessible, it'll be accessible by the you know, development on the other.

But if there's anyone else who's on the closer to the city side, it'd be nice just to have signage to let people know.

Yeah, good point.

That they can take the sidewalk down to the park, because right now, as you said, there's that which street is that the Winchester.

Winchester Street.

There's Winchester Street, and then there'd be along East Street, and those are the two ways to get there.

And Winchester Street's not being utilized right now at all.

And there really is no draw to walk back down this way at all.

So the only ways to access this park would be the crosswalk, which we don't know how dedicated or safe that's gonna be, or the the existing ways to get there that no one else is using anyways right now.

Um it appears.

So I I don't know the right way to balance that.

I don't know if there can be another I don't I don't even know if another pedestrian walkway makes any sense.

But just some sort of way to, you know, sp ushering.

Directional signage.

Yeah, to signage that kind of makes it clear that there is going to be a park down down that direction.

You can see it when you drive in, but when you're a pedestrian, you're not walking.

You can't do it.

Correct.

Yeah.

That's a good point.

Uh that's that's all that I have, I think.

Um so we're while we're on the crosswalk.

Um I was wondering, and we don't have Chirian, so it's probably his answer.

If it's possible to make because we've talked with other parks where there's a lot of traffic making the crosswalk a little bit wider and a little bit raised.

Um even if we don't have a stoplight system, at least that will make it more clear to all of the traffic that it's a crosswalk, and at least people will have to put their brakes on when they're going past it.

Um I like the idea of the of the light flashing um for at least a little bit that will catch people's attention.

But if we can do something, I mean I know I know the big traffic coming things kind of interface interfere with traffic, but if we can do something that's um that's just a little bit wider, a little bit raised, that might be helpful.

Um can you clarify the fencing again?

Um follow up because I know right now there's fencing between Harmon Park and this piece of property.

What exactly is that just coming out or um or it sounded from the staff report like some of it was coming out, but not all of it.

I think I think staff's comment was some was shown to come out here, but I think the comment was to go ahead and remove it all through here, which is fine.

Okay.

And then um the parking lot.

So on Sundays and whenever there's um church events going on, that I mean Winchester Street is barely passable for cars parking on both sides of the street and really really crowded, and I'm would be surprised to find that it's not going to take very long before that parking lot becomes church parking.

So I don't know.

I don't know if there's a place to make the park usable and move the parking lot so it's not right on Winchester.

I mean, I used to live right around the corner.

It was really, I mean, it's really impossible to drive down Winchester on Sundays or whenever there's a church in session.

Um maybe it's just as simple as putting a fence across the parking lot, but then that means that somebody from DPW has to go and unlock it and relock it.

But I don't know, just keep that in mind.

Okay.

Um, because I can I can guarantee you that people will start parking in that parking lot, and then there won't be spaces left for anybody who wants to use the park.

Understood.

Um and then the mon monumented sign, is there other options that can still convey to people they have to go around the roundabout without putting a big monumented?

Uh the only other option that we had talked about at one point was doing something, it would still be on this side of the road, it'd have to be on the west side, something closer.

But the fear is the closer you get there, if you're catching it last minute and then trying to swerve over to make that left-hand turn.

This seemed to be kind of the most appropriate location.

But I mean, just you know, like a standing, you know, like a road sign.

I mean, something that's not quite as the alternative could be if you guys are putting one sign for that.

Could they also just put like a thank you for coming to Frederick sign?

You know, like to balance it out.

Because it's fine to have the business there makes sense on from the purpose of calming traffic.

But if you're gonna be putting a sign, it might not be, you know, I I I'm not sure how that's gonna look.

You're so this as you're heading south.

This is the grocery store back here, you kind of see.

I mean, there will be a sign down there, but again, I think the thought is if you get too close and miss it, then you're in monocussy.

I'm not asking as much about the location as other forms of signage that aren't quite as in your face as a monumented sign, but still conveys the information that people need to go to around the roundabout to get to the to get to the commercial section.

I think is it 864 J KQ?

I forget.

But I think I think this sign is actually this is allowed per code and the signage meets what's in the code.

We're not asking for modification or anything bigger than what's allowed for an off-site directional sign like that.

Okay.

And we'll we'll put the actual dimensions on it so you can see what we're talking about.

Right.

Any other questions for your applicant?

Here's where it sits.

Yeah, right.

Personally, I kind of like the nicer sign versus just having a metal, you know, like like one of the metal green signs that just has like a loop here.

It's I I think it could be done nicely and tastefully if it's if it's there.

Is there a name of the shopping center, or is it gonna be have the name of the grocery store in particular?

Uh that's a good question.

I'm assuming this is gonna be the grocery store name.

There's other signage that says brickworks, like there's a big kind of a smokestack in one of the buildings.

I think you all saw that had brickworks on it.

Okay.

Yeah, just curious.

Any other questions?

Staff.

Okay, we'll start with the signage.

Um, as um, it states in the in the report and also too with uh with uh Chris has said that they're gonna find uh follow our off-site signage dimensions and distances that they're uh compliant with.

Um the sign has to be only be so far from the um lot that it is uh uh applying to, and that's why they're looking for the grocery store to lot four.

And um they fell within the distance and they are um restricted to 10 square feet for the signage that rather even if it's monumented or if it's uh a small little tiny uh flag of the sign or something, but they are restricted to the 10 square feet, and that was condition of Parks and Rec also too that they recommended that they comply with that section, and I think the applicants had no problem with complying for that.

They recommended that they comply with that section, and I think the applicants had no problem with complying for that.

They had tried to go for um the ZBA before for larger signage and everything, and they were denied.

And um, so uh their location and everything of not being interference with the park itself and stuff, and also knowing like the explanation of of some of the traffic difficulties and stuff that it maybe it was uh justified.

So that's one there.

Also, to all the improvements that you've seen uh proposed, the applicant will not be improving the park.

Um there is that section we listed here in the report that they have the option to and then get credited towards their impact fees for parkland, but they've decided they will not improve it.

It will be the responsibility of the parks and rec to use their funds to improve that park.

Um, yes, and the fencing, um, it was my opinion that the park being designed and everything should not be divided.

It's gonna be a seamless park as Harmon Park.

Um, and also too, it came in with a fence um, I think shown along East Street, so they will have an opening there at that access point across um East Street, and the safety of it as Chairin has proposed for the crosswalk is um and I believe your suggestion of the raised crosswalk is um justified, and that will go to Cheering as information because that will have to go in with their improvement plans on that road design.

So um I think I've covered everything.

Um it's uh it's a great improvement to the plan.

Um, and I think oh access, I I know you're you were worried that people won't know there's a park there.

Um I have to say it might be just my personal opinion, but I don't think anybody will miss this park because it's going to be notable when they come in for this development.

For one, with the numbers that are gonna come in and use it, also to the fact that um we've always told the developer no one's gonna miss your grocery store.

Um but also two um the improvement going down East Street and going out to the county back and forth as an entryway to the city.

I think people are gonna very much noticeable the changes that will take place along there for that park plan, and um uh I think they will find a way um in the area as a neighborhood park.

So um any questions for staff?

No.

Okay.

Um any if the developers not paying for it.

What is the time frame that usually happens when the city decides to build a new park?

How long is it likely to be before the site?

Yeah, I can't tell tell you where they they uh prioritize their park land as um they put their funds together and figure out where they're going to improve.

Yeah, thank you.

That's a parkland question.

All right.

Um any public comment.

Come on up.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Heather Goddard.

I live in Minoxie Village in Frederick, and I am on the board of directors of East Frederick Rising.

So we were really excited to see the site plan come through.

Um, the actual site plan, it might not have been in this documentation, but when they um presented it at the community outreach, um the site plan was included, so we got to take a peek.

Um we really like the courts.

We love the uh walking paths, the improvements around the park perimeter.

Um we actually do like the idea of a fence um separating the smaller tot lot from the courts and also from E Street.

Um fenced in areas for the smaller kids is nice for when you have a a toddler or a um someone with special needs who may elope from their caregiver, uh dementia patients.

So uh I would want you to kind of we want to ask if you to take another look at that and see if maybe the fence is a good idea or pull the community or people who do utilize tot lot areas and see if that fence is does end up being something that you might want to keep instead of combining it all.

Um we would also like to see uh some sort of water feature like a mister, like a water mister.

Um there really few of them in the city.

Um they're very useful, they help cool people down, they increase the amount of time that people um spend in these parks.

Climate change.

So really we would love to see any kind of part that is improved if it has even a small water mister.

The I would like to, if you wanted to look at the one in Othello Park, they have a button where you push it, it's just a pole.

It misses for like 30 seconds and shuts off automatically.

So it's a small feature, super helpful.

We didn't see where the water fountains were, but I guess they are somewhere, even if the um bathrooms aren't improved.

A water fountain, of course, is really important.

We uh would like also to request perhaps uh consider a soccer goal at one end of the field, doesn't have to be regulation, and hopefully it's a smaller size for the kid.

Um we wanted to provide as an example, Kidweiler Park does have two goals on either side, but even just one goal, it really increases the usage of an open field.

It's really nice to have for the for the kids.

Um we do agree that it would be nice to have a sign for Harmon Park.

Um nobody might miss that.

The park, no people don't miss, for example, Third Street Park, but it's a placemaking um element.

It's it's really nice to have the name of the park on a nice sign.

So please think about putting a sign with the name of the park.

Even it's it's just more than a and a marker, an identity marker.

It's it's just really nice to have as a placemaking feature.

Um and we want to remind the planning commission about the shared use path that we've requested along outlaws A and B can really help connect this park, cutting off that corner and putting taking bikes off the roads of South Street and East Street so that they can cut across, cut through uh the brickworks development and get to the park uh with a way that is off the streets.

It's gonna make it so pleasant, such a nice um access point.

And of course, thank you for pointing out how important it is that that crosswalk be as safe as possible with the raised roads.

Um maybe it should be signalized more than just a flashing light, but thank you for thinking of that.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Do we have any other public comment?

No.

And um I hope if you don't mind me mind me making one more statement because I just saw it in my notes and I had forgotten about it.

It would be great if you could find some area in here for a small dog dog park too.

I don't know how that would work, but but there's no dog parks on there's a lot of empty space here without dog parks.

I mean, not just here, but on this side of the city.

So all right.

Any other comments or questions from the commission?

Yeah, I mean, I guess the follow-up and the fencing.

I we do hear that about the fencing, that does make sense.

And you know, if they're gonna be tennis courts, basketball courts, a lot of these are gonna be fenced in areas anyways, and that might just be the character of this park, is that this is just gonna have a bit more fencing, and I don't think it would interrupt, it's not gonna be an open type park like you know, the linear park or or you know, Carroll Creek or anything like that.

It'll just be more of a recreational park.

And so maybe there is space for you know, but a dog, a fenced and dog area as well.

If we're just gonna be having a fenced in type park area.

So we we can we can think about that.

Yeah, cool.

Right, anything else?

Thank you.

We'll see you at the hearing.

All right.

Our next case is PC 25.

Oops, dash 400 FSI final site plan for 220 North East Street.

Hello.

That's better.

Sorry, I did the opposite of what I was supposed to do.

Uh my name is Andrew Welker.

I'm with Oshman Properties here on behalf of the applicant.

Um wanted to give you some background.

If we when we get the uh slides up, I'll want to point to some things as well.

Um but we started working, uh, we've been engaged in this property, this project since around this time in 2022, so almost three years.

Um so it's been a bit of a journey, and it's given us the ability to um study several options for the site, which included kind of maximum density, five-story, um, you know, urban infill multi-family project, all the way down to you know, just re reuse of the existing building.

Um what we're proposing is kind of squarely in between of those two, those two extremes.

Um little bit of background about the the makeup of the site currently.

Um there are two buildings on the site.

Um the uh what was former Roads and Rails Museum is the main building that you see when you're driving on East Street.

Uh it's this building here, it's approximately 7,000 square feet.

It's basically a series of garage openings, warehouse and storage building in the back.

One notable characteristic of the existing site is that the current building, the main building, actually encroaches into the right-of-way by about 12 or 13 feet.

So the property line cuts that building not in half, but as you can see, the property line goes through the the face of that building.

So in the course of the last three years, one of the kind of the early findings was that we put this project in front of the historic planning commission for demolition request.

The demolition request is a function of a building being over 50 years, et cetera.

And we're proposing two buildings.

One will be an eight-unit multifamily or two over two condo/slash townhouse building.

And the other building will contain 10 units.

So we have 37 parking bays, which counts as 30 parking spaces due to the tandem spaces.

So instead of being now five feet from the back of the curb with uh with sidewalk in between and telephone poles in between, uh they will be about 27, 25 to 27 feet from the back of the curb.

So really opening up the uh the street wall and the streetscape uh between the curb and the building.

Um both of the buildings will front and face the right-of-way at 2nd Street and East Street.

All access to the parking areas will be through the alley per the LMC requirement that uh parking spaces are hidden from the public right-of-way, and also when an alley is available, that the alley is used to access this parking spaces.

It'll be four-story buildings.

Um maximum height allowed is 75 will be considerably considerably below that maximum height requirement.

Um, and we are in the process.

I believe the city is still reviewing the water sewer APFO submission, and we did get our results back for schools testing.

We did fail at the elementary school level.

Our project generates uh 16 students total.

Um eight students total, four at the elementary school level, two in middle school, two at high school.

Uh elementary school uh was not failing in the first year, but then failed uh beyond that.

So we have elected to pay the fee and lieu.

And because this is a project of less than 25 units, um, we are exempt or not, or sorry, MPDU uh does not apply to this project.

Um otherwise staffed, I think did a very good job of matter factly kind of laying out the the facts of the of the case in the site plan, and um I'm here to answer any questions and Mary with Fox and Associates is here as well in case they get a little too technical for me.

Okay, thank you.

Um so we'll start with a roll call of the commissioners.

Um, Commissioner Lellen.

No questions, thank you.

All right, Commissioner Boweno.

Sure.

So the uh I know you guys are changing the setback distance.

What is the front of these going to be like?

I'm just trying to get a better idea of what this is gonna look like from the streetscape type of view.

Uh I can't quite so the um and this is not a very zoomed-in, but the front the front of this, so this is the front of right, call this building one.

This is the front of building two.

Um the fronts will have entrances into the units.

Um they'll also be able to enter the units through the garages as well.

Um for these units that are on the corner, so units nine through twelve that do not have garages, they will have entrances where the garage openings were in the other buildings, and they'll also have entrances on the front.

Um so if you're familiar with two over two, it's the inside is kind of like an MC Esher drawing where you know your access into the into the building, and then you have you know, kind of um stairwells that cross and get you up to the different let uh levels.

So there will be entrances along the frontages.

Um they will be covered so that you know while they're getting the keys out, they're out of the rain and out of the weather.

Some of those entrances will have like a shared covered awning.

Some of them will be isolated.

Um yeah, there will be entrances covered.

We're looking at um putting porches uh and covered balconies on the exterior of the building, trying to create as much visual interest for the frontages of the buildings as possible.

Um in terms of what they look like exactly.

We've heard a lot of comments about blending in with the surroundings.

I think the safest bet is probably red brick that you'd find uh throughout Frederick.

But there's a there's a lot, there's a wide variety of uh building types just in you know the adjacent blocks.

You have some of the more traditional row homes um that are down Austin Alley and and 2nd Street.

There's some CMU block buildings that were auto shops, now roof roof shops or pastaros.

Um you have a kind of Victorian style home across the and there's a four-story warehouse.

So it'll that'll be a challenge trying to uh kind of pick the right mix of you know, blend a modern but also really fitting into uh the character of the city of Frederick.

So that's a that's a challenge that we're ready to confront.

Yeah, so uh it's not necessarily mixed use where the first level might be X might be some sort of you know, make could be housing, could be second other other top of shop, it's just gonna be housing all throughout.

Just I'm just trying to get a visualization on what it's gonna look like.

Yeah, 18 units of housing and and no other uses and uh the calculation for the 30 spots, is that just the assuming whatever one and a half or cars per unit?

Is that kind of the assumption you guys made?

So did that.

So in in DB, the minimum required is one and a half per unit.

Um so at 18 times one and a half, 27 would be the minimum required.

However, this project is located close enough to mass transit where that requirement is cut in half.

So uh 14 would be the minimum required number of parking spaces.

Um our belief is that in order to market and sell um condo or rent condo units, um, we should be providing two parking spaces for each one of those units.

Uh and so that's what we've uh achieved with this site plan.

So two spaces per unit plus uh a guest or delivery space for DoorDash or your groceries or a guest uh on site.

So we have in our minds one additional space because we're expecting each of the units to utilize two spaces each.

Okay, yeah, I do appreciate that you guys have built it to kind of continue the front facing streetscape.

And I I hear you guys about the uh balancing the amount of parking.

So you guys did a good job at least of hiding that.

Is the access is gonna be I'm just trying to see it would only be accessed through Austin Alley, all of these would just be accessed through that way?

Okay.

Um is that a I can't remember, is that a one-way or a two-way?

That is two-way.

Is it two-way alley?

Okay.

And then what is the what is adjacent to this to the to the back side?

I don't quite know what's currently.

So this is a this is a building that is under renovation.

It's a residential building.

It was once a recording studio, so it was a single-story CMU block building, um, very nondescript uh in its previous life, but it has since been purchased and is being kind of upconverted and um heavily added on to as a residential project.

If you go by it, it's really ornate uh in terms of its form.

It's I think it's a four-story residential building, our single family home.

Um so that yeah, that's what's adjacent to us behind us.

Okay.

No more questions.

Commissioner Valencia?

None at this time, thanks.

All right.

Um 27 feet sounds like a lot.

You don't need a modification for the front setback there.

And I'm sure Pam can address or Sherry can address that too.

No, we don't.

Um we actually have no modifications for this site plan in general.

Okay.

Um, but the front setback, I believe, is zero.

There's no minimum, there's no maximum.

And we landed, we're actually uh eight feet.

It it varies a little bit because the property line is skewed to the frontage of the building, but we're minimum eight feet from the property line to the building wall.

Okay.

It's 27 feet from the curb line.

The curbside.

So we're adding a landscape strip, uh, unobstructed five foot sidewalks.

It sounds like space in the middle of an urban area, there's a huge setback, but it doesn't.

If you could bring us uh a concept of what that's gonna look like for the hearing, that would be helpful.

Sure.

Sure.

What I'm sorry, what it's just uh the when you said the 27-foot setback, that sounded like a large setback for the urban area.

Um so if you could just just to help us understand if you could bring bring us a concept.

That's that that that's what you're missing.

Is that 12 or 13 feet that gets added to the eight and the five?

Yeah.

Um it is really if you were trying to you can't really walk along that side of the sidewalk.

It's gonna be I think it'll be a pedestrian pro improvement significantly there.

Yeah, the amenity space is that gonna be fenced off from each East Street, or is that going to be open to East Street?

I mean, I know it's for the residents, but is it it is for the residents?

It is not our intention to gate block or fence that off.

Um we would want our residents to be able to go in and through in and out of that um amenity space as they please.

Um certainly if there becomes an issue or security or safety or concerns like that, then you know, as as it being on private property, they would they would have to decide if that's something that's and the the two buildings that are like facing the amenity park, are there entrances into those buildings from the park?

That's that's correct.

So these four units, um so like for instance, this building has four garages on the back.

This building, because of the arrangement of the site, we couldn't get four garages, so they get basically bonus rooms, whether it's uh home office or you know, uh uh theater room on the ground floor, and there will be direct entrances into those.

And what are you planning on putting in there?

Um picnic tables?

Um it'll be it'll be a passive amenity, so benches, hardscape, landscape, potentially covered with shade.

Um still working out the details of that.

We want to be mindful of not um you know creating something that has a lot of ongoing maintenance and issues for the owners of the project.

Okay.

All right.

I think this is a really cool idea.

This is a kind of housing that we really need in downtown.

Um two over two are really kind of cool.

Cool con coal housing type.

It's good balance for hiding the hiding the parking too by maintaining some level without making it overwhelming the front parking and stuff.

So I think it's I think it's a good balance.

Any other questions or comments from no Sherry?

Okay.

Um just wanted to point out that the um for parkland requirements um in the downtown commercial residential district.

Um it's uh the developers required to pay a fee of one thousand.

Speak into the microphone a little better.

Oh, sure.

Thanks.

Um in the DB district, they um are responsible for paying 1,000 um dollars uh per dwelling unit, um, and that will fund park improvements and um areas in the city as specified in the code.

Also for the APFO, um the um road um a certificate for roads is not required because it's the project's um located entire entirely within the downtown uh mobility fee district, so they'll have to pay that mobility fee, and that's to be paid prior to the first building permit.

Um as Mary said um and Andrew both um the um the project did fail at the elementary school level, um, but they are um eligible to pay the fee because they um are under the 120 percent state rated capacity.

And Mary sent that over this morning um a letter stating that they wish to pay the mitigation fee.

So they'll be issued a um certificate for schools for that.

I think I that's it.

I that's all I have if you have any questions.

Actually, one one additional ask.

Um yeah, when you guys build out like show that what that layout looks like for that 27 feet as well.

Um I'm gonna assume you guys have have you guys talked yet with uh what the East Street development plan sort of is.

I know that there's been talks of mixed use or like a bike bike lane or protected bike lane there, because if there's additional length there, it could uh I'm again not sure quite yet what the other projects going along there is, it could be worth taking the what three or four feet of that space adjacent to the street if it's gonna need to be redeveloped anyways, because it seems like right now the sidewalk is barely a sidewalk as is.

So, as you guys are doing that could be worth talking to see if that could be built in with other projects to use some of that uh along that too.

Yeah, we we did um or I did, I did meet with East Frederick Rising and we went through a bunch of the ideas and saw you know, kind of two plans that they were running with or or the city is running with in terms of adding bike pedestrian lanes or bike lanes to to E Street.

Um what's what's interesting is that to the north of this this site and to the south of this site, so you have Shabro and those buildings are slammed right up against and also to the north, there's a what I also in the historic district to the north, we're not um as another building that is directly adjacent to that right away.

What's what's interesting is that to the north of this this site and to the south this site so you have Shabro and those buildings are slammed right up against and also to the north there's a what I also in the historic district to the north we're not um as another building that is directly adjacent to that right away so even reclaiming some of that right away and moving the curve back is going to create an awkward layout or situation when you consider what's happening at to the north and the south so it's like one block and we we proposed something that made sense to to us but certainly if there is you know a long range plan about how that can that can coordinate better we we would uh take a look at that right do we have any other questions for staff I just one question cherry do you have any um additional information on on why they decided not to um do the historic preservation overlay or could you at least just make sure that their the report is part of the package when we seated the hearing yeah I'll include it okay thank you um so we are open for public comment hi it's uh Heather Goddard from Anoxy Village and on the board of directors of East Frederick Rising there's a lot to love about this project um love the rear parking love the first floor even though it's a two over two the first floor is one unit the second floor is a unit then the third floor the third unit is takes up two floors of the second and third and then right next to it so we really love the fact that there's a first floor that doesn't require steps it just checks a lot of boxes of missing housing types that we are lacking in the city.

We love the fact that um although it's a shame to lose an older building this one with it not receiving that historic designation the streetscape of you know the pedestrians gaining that extra 12 feet is is a real bonus um we did have a couple questions why only a five foot sidewalk um there's that area if you've got before and then all of Chabro and then all the way up until sixth street the sidewalks are brick they're kind of in a herringbone pattern so a five foot concrete sidewalk is not going to look great and it's not going to fit in and we could also I just think with that we could get more space for pedestrians even if it's one block we should get extra any block that we can we should add extra space and five feet is just not enough so um and why not brick why why do why can't we we work on that um yeah we've looked at the E Street redesign for many years um we all would love to see the utilities undergrounded and we understand that it's not reasonable to expect one single development on one block a building to uh address that problem but is there any way that traffic can make a statement on to how maybe an underground conduit just as a placeholder or something if we're digging up that part of the streetscape is it possible to at least look at the feasibility for the city to underground or the or the applicant to underground a conduit to make space for under undergrounding those utilities in the future we're gonna keep seeing these plots redeveloped and we need to we just need to make a planks thank you any other public comment or Andrew do you have any anything you want to say in response so I feel like I should just offer some context um we are showing a five foot wide sidewalk and I believe the minimum is four and um we're being really careful about um staying uh directly uh in alignment with what is in the land management code and it's for a couple reasons it is a that frontage um there because the building has been so close to the road there is a lot happening underneath the sidewalk there currently um and this is similar to you know why we're showing concrete not brick we can certainly at improvement plans say you know what this project needs a six foot sidewalk or this project would really look better if it had brick um but I've heard from several people that I talked to is they don't want they don't the last thing what they want is for us to come back in nine months or a year and say hey we couldn't make a six foot sidewalk work so we're here to revise our site plan which showed something that we weren't required to do but now we can't do it and it's similar to like shrubs and landscaping our landscape plan shows five trees it's not required it's not required for us to do anything more than that but certainly if we decide at the time of improvement plans or if we plant an extra shrub or ten then that's permitted but if we show them on the plan and we show we plant nine instead of ten now we have a site plan issue.

We'll get to that, but that is that is the reason.

And and conduits under a ground.

I we would we would have to be incredibly lucky um to pick the location, the size of that conduit, because they will have to study the entire length of each street, where that power should go.

A lot of times it ends up in the middle of the street, buried, and not necessarily on the you know, under the sidewalk or out in the way.

So you know, certainly if there's some guidance or some suggestions or things that we could consider as we move to the uh the final site plan submission, the revised submission.

We're we're open to those to those suggestions, but those are the reasons why not everything that I might have discussed with the residents and the neighbors in East Frederick Rising are shown on the plan right now.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Yeah, and I think that when we can see some of those like layouts of what that sidewalk looks like, it would be great to keep it in character with the other areas there.

So we appreciate absolutely any other final thoughts?

All right.

We are concluded that case.

That brings us to our final case for the day of PC 25-194 FSI final site plan and PC 25-195 FSCB, combined force stand lineation and preliminary preliminary force conservation plan for BMW of Frederick.

Good afternoon, Franzeller, Harris Mariga and Associates, Bruce Dean, MacAvoy, Dean and Gradator.

Uh, we're here today on behalf of our out-of-town client who sends his regrets.

He could not make it down from Massachusetts for today's meeting, but should be here at the formal public meeting.

Uh Joe Lanham from Hyenus, actually, I think is what's listed on the plan.

So I worked on this project many, many years ago.

Uh I think it was 1987.

The original building had been built, which was which was a large warehouse.

The Minocase Boulevard was called Wasler Drive, and there was a truck stop there and a hotel at the end of the road.

They owned 25 acres back then, uh, Nolan did.

So I worked on the office addition on the front, and I think it included the second warehouse, large rectangular warehouse on the back.

Um not sure which one to which one's the pointer.

Oh, there we go.

So when I when I say the warehouse, there's a large rec.

I'm not sure what that label is, but underneath that label is the original two-part warehouse built over two different periods of time.

There's some one-story office in the front and a freestanding metal shed and a lot of pipe out there today in a yard right here.

Uh so the goal, if unless there's some issues, huge issue with the existing structure.

The goal is hopefully to reuse the structure that's there today and not complete demolition.

Um this site saw a lot of work with the state highway.

Things got very confused with the extension of Minocasie Boulevard and the construction of E Street.

Uh, and that led to some confusion over how the property ended up going from 25 to 11 or so.

There's a lot of confusion there.

Might talk a little bit more about that.

But as part of that work, Costco was was there at the time when the state highway was negotiating all this improvement, and the entrance ended up back here and built.

So we're maintaining that entrance, maintaining the drive aisle that comes in, maintaining the uh right in, right out on South Market Street.

There's a median out there today.

So basically the framework of a lot of the site is already set up with the existing building and the existing roads uh and whatnot.

So the plan is to can convert it to a BMW dealership.

It'll be the first in Frederick.

Um I think it's gonna be a very nice project uh when it's all done.

We we have um a lot of landscaping that's going in.

Uh the pipes gonna go away, the metal structures gonna go away.

We're going to uh beef up the landscaping, add more landscaping up against Maryland School for the Deaf, who already is planted if a significant amount of trees on their property.

I think their goal is to probably screen, even if we weren't coming to screen uh Costco and the liquor store and the Nolan building from from the School for the Deaf.

So they've they've started down that path.

Hence the modification about not making a second non-public road second point of access.

You don't really, you know, the the although I live on the South Carroll now, and I would love to take that entrance and drive through Maryland School for the Death, but they have a sign there on Market Street.

The buses only are to go down through the the school.

So we don't want to connect.

And I don't think Maryland School for the Death would want us to connect this commercial use to that institutional use, hence the modification.

Uh the second modification is just uh for lighting.

We have a few areas where we can't get zero zero foot candles at the property line.

I'm very happy to say that the lights are not gonna be twenty-five feet tall.

They're they're much smaller, lower to the ground, uh probably lower than the street lights that are out there today.

So we do have a modification for some spillage at the property line.

Otherwise, uh Bruce and I are here to answer any questions you might have, and um uh he looks very much forward to coming to the city of Frederick.

Thank you.

We will do a roll call for the um quit first round of commissioner questions, starting with Commissioner Bologno.

No questions, Commissioner Valencia.

Um questions, just more of a comment.

I like the repurposing of what's already existing, so that's making me happy with this.

And I feel like the reasons make sense of why you wouldn't want to come back the commercial to like Maryland School for the Deaf, and like everything.

I mean, that's that just makes sense.

So yeah, your modifications make a lot of sense to me.

That's all I want to say, because I don't say that often.

Thanks.

We all know that.

Commissioner Llewellyn.

Yeah, I have no questions either, but it made perfect sense to me.

I'm very familiar with the area.

So to see, you know, no, we don't want people test driving cars out and around, is what I was thinking about.

So I like it.

Um, so which of the entrances will be the primary entrance?

Yes.

The monot I would anticipate boulevard entrance.

And that's the one that's like across from the hotel and the liquor store.

Where there's a traffic light there.

Yeah, traffic light lighted one.

Okay.

And will there be any kind of a sign there indicating that that's the primary entrance?

So it's right there.

See it on there.

Yes, there is a proposed.

I had to look at the plan just to make sure there is a sign there.

Okay.

Uh at that entrance.

So and then could you just I was not clear when I was reading the staff report.

Um, just show us where the light spillover is is going to be, and then just let us know what the what the foot candles are.

I mean the rationale made sense, but I just want to be able to see it.

Is that on to Market Street or on to the school for the deaf trees?

Onto the school for the deaf.

Okay.

And then that's Margin.

Northeastern and Western property.

So northeastern, this would be the northwestern.

Okay.

And the northeastern would be over.

And is that still school for the deaf trees?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

That Maryland School for the Deaf is our adjacent property on the highway.

All the way there is a state highway, drainage easement back in here.

They are our neighbor to the new one.

Right.

And then that area to the northeast, that's where the um forestation is going to go.

And that's that's on the IST zoned property.

Okay.

So you'll just be able to do that.

I'm sorry, is your mic on?

I just can't really hear you.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you.

I've been like, eh.

I would just add that that IST zoned land, we will be filing a request to rezone that.

Oh, okay.

It it was a mapping error.

That's what the staff report said.

As Fran said, they used to own twenty-five acres, they now own around twelve.

Somehow in that shuffling of the acreage and the redesigning of all those roads, that corner was not shown on the GIS map.

So SDAT has it wrong, the city has it wrong, but that's what they own.

So working with staff, uh, they agreed to allow the site plan to move forward as long as we weren't using that triangle.

Uh, we would have filed a rezoning to get it M1 already, but there's a moratorium because of the election, so go figure.

Um but we don't really need it at this point.

It's probably will be incorporated into the staff into the site plan as additional on site vehicle storage, more likely than anything else, because I don't we're not proposing any building or anything down there, are we, Fran?

Correct.

No building on that land.

Um, and and the line is shown if you went to the next page.

Do I control it?

You can kind of see it.

Um the line is shown on one of the pages as to where the zoning.

And the only other thing while we're finding that that I would just mention is um Mr.

LaHam, the the applicant is a car dealership car dealer, as Fran said from the Northeast from the Boston area.

And he did a favor for BMW, and their favor back to him was they said we're going to find you the number one place in the United States to open a BMW dealership.

And they found Frederick because not only do our demographics work, there's also no BMW dealership anywhere near here.

So it's this is the perfect hole in the donut.

Um and he is cannot wait to come to Frederick.

He's thrilled, and he's a great guy.

I'm sorry can't be here today, but we will bring him to your hearing um next month.

All right.

Are there any additional questions or comments for applicant before we move on?

No, all right.

Go.

Staff.

Yes, go.

I don't have much to add other than um if you look at today's GIS map for the city, you will see that the shape is different.

That's because it's been tacked away from a case boulevard being expanded.

Um that is something that we can very likely fix internally through the the D chain and and how it's been shipped away.

As far as the IST zone, we did find a map from about 20 years ago, so the error has been there for decades, which would which is why we have to get through the proper rezoning.

Um, so everybody can be a part of that.

We can't just pull it off as much as we understand it is an error.

Um, and we also currently support both modifications, so um, that's where we are.

All right, thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Nope.

Nope.

Any public comment?

Nope.

I think we're done.

You have anything else you need to say?

We'll see you at the hearing.

Thank you.

So we now have our training.

Um, do we need to take a quick break before we start?

All right, so just for the formal record, this is our training session.

Um we're going to be learning about quasi-judicial hearings, and um take it away, Scott.

All right, thank you very much.

Um start with if you have any questions after this is over, or if you need to ever talk to me about this, this is not uh limited to you know however many times we get together and do this.

Please get in touch with Christina, get my number or whatever, and just call me up.

Because there's sometimes you think you've got it, and then sometimes you have a question, and by all means let me know.

I'd rather you call me and talk up this through than not have that and have a question about it.

So start with how these cases, how your cases end up over in circuit court.

If someone chooses to appeal one of your decisions, it goes to circuit court and they look at it um for several different ways they can determine whether to uphold your decision or to overturn your decision.

Um they look at the main three that we always put in our briefs, and uh let me back up and say to me, sitting over there in the legal department, and and uh what your determination is and what you rule, I truly the the goal of me is not to care what you say yes or no to something, right?

It's the goal is to make sure that whatever you say yes or no to that I can go to court and I can defend it with a brief.

Could you just take a quick step backwards and define what a quasi-judicial hearing is, and then give us an example of what we do that is a quasi-judicial hearing and what we do that's not?

Sure.

So everything that you were working on today at the workshop was is going to be a determination.

Are you gonna give approval or not approval for this?

Those are all quasi-judicial.

You're making a determination based on the things that are presented to you in in that.

We have rezonings that the mayor and um counsel do, the council does, those you are making a recommendation for a rezoning, so you're not making a decision in that.

So the cases where you are referencing for approval or recommending for approval or recommending for not approval, text amendments, and those kinds of things, those are not quasi-judicial, right?

We still have certain rules we gotta follow for those, but they're not quasi-judicial.

The ones that I'm talking about now specifically are the ones where you are giving approval, and then it's being decided, and then the applicant walks away with an approval or not, and they'll either appeal or not, or the other people who are here who don't like your decision, be they the neighbors or somebody else, they can appeal that.

So it's not just the applicant that can appeal, it's the the parties that are coming before you that say, Hey, I'm in support of this, or hey, I'm not in support of this.

So they are also eligible to appeal these cases.

And we we had that recently with a um HPC case where the developer, the owner of the property, got approval, and some of the neighbors who didn't like the approval then appealed that decision, and so now we're going through an HPC appeal based upon what a neighbor says, I think that you made the wrong decision.

So it's not just the applicants that are that are coming before you, it's the other folks as well.

So that's why we kind of be it's very important to be very um open and clear about all of our decisions.

So the first thing the court's gonna look at is did you make up the right decision based upon the law, right?

Did you have the ability to decide this in the way that you did?

Is you didn't say no because this building casts a shadow on this building over here, right?

That's not a that's not a permissible denial.

I use that example because we did that very early on in my tenure here.

The planning commission asked me, hey, can we deny this because this building is too tall, it's casting a shadow on this building.

I looked at it, I said no, you get it you can decide if it's too tall based upon how far or how high it is in the LMC.

And they said, Well, right, it's 40 feet in the LMC, but that's still cancel setter, so we're gonna deny it.

And then immediately got appealed.

And the Bruce Dean, who was here quoted me in his brief saying, Well, city attorney said you can't deny it for that, and then they did.

And so it was a it was a difficult case.

We ended up losing over in circuit court, and they were able to then get their approval that way.

So it's always important that you decide the case on what the law says, what the LMC says.

We try to make sure that you know we're in the four corners of that document.

Um second part is is the record that you're deciding upon.

Is that sufficient?

Um and it's not a matter of whether the court thinks that you made the right or wrong decision, but is there facts, are there facts in the record upon which you can make your decision?

Um that this is generally handled by staff.

Staff is making sure that you have all the right things.

You do a great job of asking applicants, say, Well, I'd like to see this, or I'd like to see that, or please explain this or fact or this scenario to me, and we'll we'll get that.

And those are all facts that are in the record, doesn't have to be written down, but it might be an answer you get from the applicant or an answer you get from staff.

All of all of these answers and all the written documents are part of the record.

And as I say, the court will look to see if there are sufficient facts in the record from which you could make your determination.

And then the third part of it, it's it's sort of tied to that.

But could a reasonable person come to the conclusion that you did based upon the facts that are in the record, right?

Could any rational person?

And and that's a pretty hard hurdle for someone who's opposing you or trying to have your case overturned to say that you didn't make a rational connection because almost any connection is a rational one.

But what you usually hear me hammer on is I'd like you to give reasons, right?

I I make a motion to approve, and then you just read staff report.

That's not really good enough.

Staff does a great job in putting together these things.

And over the years we have modified how the staff reports are written because we want this to be your words and not staff's words, right?

I find it's consistent with the LMC because of this, and then add to that.

Say why you're you've read the staff reports, you know you've done the hard work, show off a little bit, right?

Talk about why you believe that this is consistent with the with the code, or this is consistent with the LMC, or in cases where we're talking about the um comp plan, I find that these different areas of the comp plan are met by this particular decision that we make.

And and I can say that even when we're I want you to do that even on these non-quasi judicials, right?

When we're doing a recommendation for a rezoning, and you say, Well, I find it's consistent with the comp plan for this or that, I think that's really good.

It gets you in good practice, and it helps the the folks that are listening, they want to hear that we're making good decisions up here no matter what the case is.

So I don't want to limit it to just quasi judicial, but it's really important then.

And so if you ever I hope you would never, but if you ever hear me say, well, um maybe you could expand on that and kind of give some of the reasons why you're making this decision.

My ears will always perk up when you're gonna about to deny something, right?

Because that's when we're most likely to get an appeal because the applicant has invested a lot of it, you know, time and effort and money into this.

And if you're gonna say no to them, I really want it to be backed up.

I really want it to have a solid foundation for why you're saying no, so that in the event that they appeal, I I can because I'll be quoting you, right?

I'll be writing down the words that you say.

I'll we get the tape, the transact, the whole thing goes over to the court, the transcripts, and I'll be writing down.

Well, commissioner this said on this at this point, she did not find, or he did not find it was consistent, or he did find this.

So I I'm I won't quote you, you know, badly, but make sure that you use um rationale, make sure you speak out and don't just say, because there's there were some cases where the commissioners simply read what the staff wrote down.

And the courts on appeal have said, well, maybe they didn't make their own findings, maybe they didn't make any findings, they just adopted whatever staff said without any kind of rationale behind it.

And so again, it's really important that you to the extent that you need to look at, and we want you to use a staff reports, they're there for your benefit, but read them and then also make decisions, make statements that this is why and how you're supporting your decision.

Um I didn't really um in the handout I gave you, I didn't really go into motions making, and that's a whole different concept, but let me touch on that real quick.

When you make a motion to approve, right?

Let's pretend we're going with a motion to approve.

Um I I make a motion to approve and someone else says second.

It's you don't have to in probably before any of your time, we had a motion to approve, and that would be 13 sentences about why there was a motion to approve, and then somebody would say, Well, I would second that, but I didn't like m answer number 12.

Okay, well, let me make a new motion to approve, and then all the 13 but minus the 12.

We don't have to do that.

You can say motion to approve, there can be a second, and then say, well, here's all the reasons why I am supporting the motion.

And all this comes in again as what I'm gonna be quoting you as here's the rationale behind your vote, right?

Here's the rationale as to why you are in support, or this is a route why we're not in support of this particular motion, or here's why someone says I motion to deny, and you say I second that, and here's all the reasons why I think it should be denied.

And and our chair does a good job.

You go through each person, what would you like to say about this?

What would you like to say about this?

And I I appreciate it, I hear it, and I I the more talking the better, right?

And uh a decision is almost more locked in stone when I have one commissioner saying, Well, I'm actually in support of this, and then three saying no, right?

Now we've got a conflict a little bit, and you have a lot of discussion.

You have someone who's saying, Well, I do think it's it's consistent, and you have three people saying no, I don't think it's consistent.

That's that's fine because now you're making a decision based upon all the evidence that's in there, and the court's never gonna overturn that.

The court's not gonna substitute its answer for what your answer is.

Even if they would think, well, looking at all this facts, I would have decided B, and the Planning Commission decided A, that's okay.

That's not their job to change your decision.

It's only their job to see if your decision should be upheld.

And that's that's really the theme and the goal behind all that.

So when I say motion making, be very verbal in your motions, be very talkative, the more talking the better.

I'd never like approve second, okay vote, and we're done.

Because it's just that's just subject to no one knows why you voted, even if you know it's all in the staff report and that's fine.

We want to know why you're saying it.

And so do the people that are so the applicants and the people that or for or against the project.

Um so that takes care of most of the um sort of the the quasi-judicial functions behind it.

Um we get into a little bit now of the um sort of the fair proceedings, which goes towards what everybody calls that due process.

You have a question.

I actually do have a question.

So um this takes us back to the discussion we've been having about when we need additional information.

You said that one third of the one leg of the stool is is the record sufficient.

Well, who determines if the record is sufficient?

I mean, if one of the commissioners asks for information and it's not provided, in our opinion, then the record is not sufficient.

But well, you could have you could have one person who said, I would like to know more about this, and you could have three people saying, I think I have enough to make a decision, they can make a decision, even if one person's asking for more.

It is certainly always our goal.

It you the answer is you decide when the record's sufficient.

Okay, so if one of us has asked for a piece of information that hasn't been provided, then we what do we do?

We say, well, we're gonna continue this until we see this information.

I don't think I can fairly judge this case until I have that answer, and I'd really like to have that answer, whether it be from the applicant or maybe staff can get that for me.

But I think that right now I don't know enough information to make a well reasoned determination.

So we're gonna have to continue this matter until I can get the answers to this question because I think it's very important to me to understand that before I can lend my vote to a positive or a negative.

Okay.

Right?

Before we move on, does anybody else have any questions regarding the quasi judicial or the motions or the record or anything that he's talked about so far?

All right, great.

Okay, next part is yeah.

So the next part is the next step in this is um what we call due process, or is it a fair hearing?

Do we provide the applicant and the people who are for or against it the opportunity to say what they want to say, to present their side of the story, and we always want them to be able to do that.

I I don't know, John, if you've had one of these cases where could the very very rarely used thing that people can do is I can be here, I can testify, and one of the public members can sort of cross-examine me about my testimony.

It happens very rarely, but it's important when it does, and and we'll know it because we'll have a whole lot of people on one side, a whole lot of people on one side and a whole lot of people on the other, and there's times when someone doesn't believe or doesn't want to believe what the statement is that either the applicant is saying or something else.

So when those happen, and I I have a little cheat sheet I can hand to you, and when they you might have it in your book already, it talks about when we're gonna have cross-examination.

It's relevant for every single case.

There's always the ability to have cross-examination, and there is it's deemed that if you don't ask for it, then you've waived that right.

So, how do we distinguish between that section where we're having official cross-examination and this um circumstances that happen fairly frequently where we just start ending up having discussions and questions, you know, just back and forth between between the the you know public and the applicant or whoever's sitting there.

I mean, it's so it's that's a hard thing, right?

And and and we we kind of play it by ear because it like I say it doesn't happen frequently.

Um, when I think about it, and I'll certainly know from staff, and they'll know that hey, this is such a hot button that we're gonna have a lot of people on one side or the other of this of this case, and in the event that we know that's gonna happen.

I will I will get that, and I will get it to you anyway.

But it's a little preamble that you read, and you say, in the event that we have any cross examination, and anyone can cross examine him.

We've had it the times where we had to put up that other um podium over here, and people could stand there and ask questions of the applicant and say, like, tell me what this is, tell me what that is.

That's different than their public comment that the applicant may or may not come up and try to respond to it.

But in the event that it happens, you are permitted to ask.

Now, we've had it kind of get overboard too, where people are sort of abusive with that, and you ask the same question and they're badgering, and uh that's when you, Joan, would have to stand and say, 'I'm not gonna allow you to continue to ask the same questions, or the I'm not gonna have 15 people asking the same question.

Please ask a different question.

And then they get to well, they'll start testifying, and that's not a question.

You'll say you need to ask a question.

It's not your time for public comment, it's your time to ask the applicant a question.

That can happen as well during public comment.

A public per a person giving public comment can be cross-examined by a different person who wants to give public comment.

We can go really far down this rabbit hole.

Again, thankfully it doesn't happen very frequently.

It happens in these really charged meetings, and when the time comes, we'll know it.

But if and if there's something if if it randomly popped up during a meeting, then I would try to explain how it works and we'll set some parameters, and there'll be times when you might not be allowed or have the opportunity to give every person you know five minutes of cross-examination of each individual witness, because we'll be here for four days doing a hearing.

So we don't want that either.

So, like you could for any public comment, you can limit public comment if we had 30 people lined up in dur during certain situations, we're gonna have to limit it.

You have rules, and we can always modify these rules when necessary.

As I was telling you earlier, if if we got to a point in our meeting when it was, you know, 10 o'clock, and even though we can go to 11, but everybody is just mentally done, right?

Because we had such a hard thing.

Take a break, maybe get, you know, we can talk and say, hey, look, we have three more hours of meetings.

We only have another hour to go here.

We're not gonna get through all this.

We're gonna go ahead and end early tonight so that we can have a we can all be a little bit more alert and see what's going on.

I don't ever want you to try a case or try a case.

I don't want you to have an act do an application when you're not ready, right?

So if we even if it were 1045, right, and we have time to start another one, but you know it's gonna be 45 minutes.

Let's just agree not to do that so that you can get through a whole case and be you know at your best.

Because the later we get in the night, the less and less we are at our best.

Um so getting back to fair hearings, we want to we want due process for everyone.

And so that includes or that gets to the part in my um uh document, whatever I've given you here, it's called ex parte communication, which is what we don't want you to have, right?

We don't want anyone from the outside talking to you individually or having communication with you individually that would keep this from being fair.

I don't want to have a conversation with you over in the parking lot or in the grocery store that's might influence your decision, and it's not done in front of everybody or everybody here in the room.

So it's really important, and you may get this as as you become warranty, Zach, when you're and people see you on TV now, and maybe they will want to talk to you about one of the cases.

So they'll come up to you at a party or something and say, hey, what's going on with that library?

Hey, what's going on with that development?

Hey, I'm I'm sorry, I can't really talk to you about that because that's coming in front of us, and I gotta not be able to do that.

Doesn't stop people from coming up and talking to you, and you'll find that that if it happens, then you come up to the you know, your next meeting, say, I was approached, somebody started talking to me about something, and then once I realized it was about one of our cases, I immediately shut them down and I didn't talk about it, but was it was an ex-part J communication, so I will disclose that, and then I will also tell you that that doesn't influence me, and I can still be fair and impartial about this case, right?

So again, we've disclosed it, no harm in disclosing something.

We we said stop, and then we move on.

So that's something else to consider, and it's it's difficult for you because you're not celebrities, but you kinda kind of know an important role here, and people will see you and they will know, and they might accidentally come up and start talking to you about a case.

Another thing that you gotta get you gotta be careful about is we'll make a decision, we'll make a decision.

It'll go to appeal, right?

You're done.

Thank thankfully we're done with the case.

And then somebody will come up and talk to you.

A newspaper will say, Hey, what did you think about this now that it's over?

Be extra, extra careful because not only can the court uh um rule in your favor, rule against you, they can remand it back for more fact-finding.

Let's say the court says that I don't think there was enough to support their decision, I'm gonna remand it back for planning commission for more deliberations.

Well, oh my gosh, last week I just told the Frederick newspaper what my opinion was on this because I thought it was gone, and now it's back in front of me again.

Now that could be a problem.

So even after a case is finished, just be very guarded in what you say to anyone, because you never know if that can be appealed back to you or can be remanded back to the planning commission from the circuit court.

Is there a formal process by which the Planning Commission is told of if cases have gone on to the court or gone on to appeal?

I mean, just so that's it so that we just to have an idea of what's going on.

I don't think we've ever I mean it's not a secret, right?

Because it's not a secret.

If we if we get any, we could certainly disclose to you that hey, case XYZ has been appealed to the circuit court.

Be happy to make sure that you know that.

Thankfully, we do a pretty good job and and we don't get appealed.

But if it ever did come to that, then I think an email to you to say this case is on appeal, FYI.

I think that's totally appropriate.

I mean, I don't think it happens very often.

Or maybe or maybe it happens more often.

If it does, but it's still aspect.

And if it did, then and again, that's the the risk is that it can come back down, and so then we would again not want to make an opinion on that.

And that can really be, let's pretend we're doing a case where we're just recommending for approval or not, right?

You're recommending a rezoning for approval.

It goes, you you said on you said your piece and you send it up to the um uh city council.

What if they send it back to you, right?

What if they say, hey, I'd really rather planning commission come up with these other things or think about this, and then uh does that amend their uh recommendation?

So it's just good not to talk to I mean you talk about anything else, just don't talk about the things that talk about it in public while we're here, don't talk about it when we're not, right?

Um you uh let's see.

Next part I have in here is the part about um conflicts of interest.

And that I I've highlighted in the handout I've given you.

Um it's section 21-4 of the city code.

You can find it online.

Um and the ethics commission for the state will change the rules every once in a while, and we'll adopt new we'll adopt to stay consistent with that.

So what I've highlighted here is just some of them.

This is not all of the things that you should or shouldn't do.

Um, but these are the the conflicts of interest that you have to follow.

If you ever have a question about this, this is important, you talk to me and you ask me, can I or can I?

And because Dorothy has asked me this one before, because of some of the things, the other things I do in my job, can I sit and judge this case?

Would that be considered a conflict of interest?

If I don't know the answer, then we can go and get an ethics opinion, and they will they'll say, Yes, you may not, you should not do that in this manner.

And it's that's of no consequence, we get an answer for you.

Um for the most part, you know, a conflict of interest is something where you're automatically gonna be disqualified because it you have a an interest in the business that's coming in front of you, um, a family member does, um, you have a relative who's negotiating the on here, you're negotiating to get a job with one of these folks.

Again, always call me and talk about that because these are all the I want to call the automatics, right?

If any of these happen, and again, familiarize yourself with that online.

If any of those you tell us ahead of time, right?

The first thing we do is make sure we have enough of you here, right?

If two of you are out, we only have two left that we know that we won't have a quorum.

Well, then we'll have to come up with something else, or we'll continue the case.

But if one of you is is um conflicted out, if you will, then as long as staff knows ahead of time, and what we'll do is we announce it at the beginning of the either the hearing, probably do it twice.

Do it at the beginning of the hearing and then do it at the beginning of that agenda item.

We announce say, hey, uh Natasha's not going to be able to participate in this one because it involves you know her family member.

So you would say I'm conflicted out.

At that point in time, I don't want you to just come and sit in the front row, I want you to go ahead and leave the room because I don't want you to sit here and make faces or have the appearance that you're making faces like, hey, you need to approve this, hey, you're wincing, hey, you're doing this.

Really try to be above board here and just have no influence at all.

So that person's asked to leave the room, and then when the next when get to the next case, somebody will go out and get you and you come back in.

Okay.

That's different than not being eligible, right?

If you have a conflict, I want you to leave the room.

If you're not eligible, you can be here because if the case gets continued, you'll be able to catch up and be eligible before.

Like if you didn't uh get a chance to read the material, you didn't do whatever you need to do that makes you aneligible, that doesn't make you have to leave the room.

All right, there's so that's a distinction.

Is there maybe any questions sort of about the distinction between not eligible and conflicted out?

All good?

Okay.

And again, if if this is confusing or if I'm going too fast, call me at any point in time and we we'll talk about it.

And if you ever have any like you're struggling with whether or not you're conflicted out, call me and we'll talk it through.

So now you've got no financial interest, you've got no family that's involved in this.

However, this is my neighbor, right?

And I am feeling very strongly that I want to vote one way or another on this depending on the project.

So now I can't even, I can't even vote on this in good conscience because I know I'm internally conflicted, right?

That's another way to get kicked out of a case, another way to be out of a case.

I want you to stay there and vote on everyone that you can.

And that that can happen, right?

It really happens everybody, it could be your neighbor, it could be, you know, a project that's right down the street that's gonna impact you in some good or some bad way.

Don't vote, right?

You all you have your integrity.

I don't want anybody here to ever question, well, I know that Joan lives around the corner from that, so no wonder she wants that amenity put in there, even though we all think it's wrong.

We know your vote for it just because it's gonna help you.

You can say all you want to, that's not true, that's not true, but that's not gonna change the perception, right?

And so the appearance of impropriety is something that we guard against.

We don't want anybody to think for one second that you voted on something because you have a personal interest in that.

All right.

Um the rest of this about um you can't hold any employment uh that would make it impartial.

One of the ones that I um notice because it it's come up in HPC before is you can't represent uh anyone before any of the boards if you if you have this interest.

So if you have a business interest and it's you can't come here and represent that I'm going to be, you know, for this or try to promote this.

What that's not the same as if, and we I use HBC because I was on HP C for a long time, but some one of the commissioners had a he would vote as a HPC member, but then he would come to the mayor and board and say, I'm not here as an HPC member, I'm here as an individual.

My individual preference, it might be different than what the HPC outcome was, but I'm here testifying for myself by myself, not as a member of the other commissions, and then say what they want to do.

That is allowed.

Okay.

Um we talk about and sometimes you'll vote that Joan can sign a letter for the commission, right?

There's there can be times when the the um planning commission may say, we want Joan to go and testify um before the mayor and board, or may go to a trade show or go to some meeting with the builders and represent the planning commission to say this is what we think.

That can also be approved as well, but it has to be approved by the group, right?

You wouldn't go and say, I'm the planning commission chairman and this is what we think.

When nobody told you to say that, right?

Nobody agreed to that.

You can go there and say, I'm on the planning commission.

This is my personal opinion, and I don't, you know, whatever, whatever.

But as long as you're very con very upfront about that.

So if there's ever a question of of whether we could send one of you to go represent the whole group, we would vote on that, and that can also be done.

But you be very careful when you are testifying or doing something the way you're representing an outside group, don't say that you're here for the planning commission.

Don't even let that sort of filter in.

All right.

Um again, if you have any specific questions about that, then you absolutely contact me and we'll go through it.

I I've I can offer so many different you know scenarios, but it's never gonna be the right one, so it's easier if if when we just talk it through.

Um the last thing I have in here is about the open meetings act.

Um the big thing that I you'll see me jump in on is there'll be a a conversation on the email that's going around, and we're talking email-wise, and somebody says something, and then somebody has something something else.

You'll see me jump in and say, hey, uh, let's not have a conversation via email, because that depending on, and it's there's no measuring stick, but depending on the number of you that is on the email, depending on the amount of traffic that we get, so somebody starts we were gonna talk about hey, this has to be continued, but then somebody says, Well, I think it's probably not gonna be successful anyway, because of this, then somebody else says, Well, I actually like this part of the project, and now we've delved into we're having a conversation about the case that's not open and and outright for everybody.

So you really gotta be careful with any sort of violations of the open meeting act like that.

Um doesn't mean that if we had a Christmas party and the four of you are standing around, you know, having a you know a wine spritzer or something, that you're automatically having an open meeting in front of everybody, right?

Just don't talk about business if that were the case.

And and we'd be prepared to to, you know, we're always prepared to kind of correct that.

We've we've had parties where you know somebody's leaving and everybody's at their retirement party.

That's totally fine.

But we just don't talk about um business, we don't do not violate that.

Um a meeting again is when you're meeting to do business, not when you're meeting to have a you know a social hour or something like that.

Uh we talk about the quorum.

Um if you are um if you're at the meeting and we've had this before where we've lost quorum in the middle of a meeting or even lost quorum in the middle of a of a you know agenda item, or heaven forbid we've had cases where someone sat there and didn't realize what was going on until something got said like, oh my gosh, this is in fact involving something that I know.

Interrupt, stop, do what you need to do.

If you have to take a chance to go outside and talk with me about it, we will come back in and say, didn't realize that Natasha was actually conflicted out of this thing, right?

Because we didn't realize it was her cousin that was involved in the in the case somehow.

Again, it's happened.

Weird stuff happens all the time.

The more open and the more honest we talk about these things, the better off we are.

And again, my goal, defend your decisions, right?

Don't let anything bad happen to whatever your proceedings are.

So if that were to come up, we stop and we figure it out.

If that means we lost a quorum for that event, that's okay too.

Never stick around and say, well, I'm gonna I'll take a chance that nobody notices this so we can make sure we have a quorum so we can take get this thing done tonight.

Oh well, if we lose a quorum and you can't vote on something because somebody had to leave, that's just the answer, right?

If heaven forbid, if you have a family emergency up here, right, and you need to leave, but there's you that means we're gonna lose a quorum.

Guess what?

Family emergency takes priority, right?

And we have to postpone something.

That's that's the way that works.

So we've had it where we've lost quorum in the middle of meetings and things.

We haven't um so far, even the last couple years, we haven't really had any horrible weather delays where we've had these, because we've done it before where we had to start having meetings via again during COVID, but also during snowstorms or things where we've had to meet, you know, uh, not in the office here.

That happens few and far between, but again, when that does, Christina or Gabrielle, and we'll be in touch with you and let you know, hey, we're gonna try to do this remotely, or we're not gonna be able to do this remotely.

There were you you guys have been here when we used to do some of these meetings remotely.

And that can happen if we need to, but we try to again it I think it's better when everybody's looking at each other face to face and you can try to and ask direct questions, you can have follow-up.

I think it's easier, but to the extent that that happens, that's also a possibility.

Um I say all this, I talked really quick.

Um I didn't hit all the parts of this this document, but read it if you'd like and call me if you have any questions.

Make sure you go back and read that ethics ordinance.

It's it's like I say, it's right on the city web page.

Just make sure you're familiar with it, right?

I don't want anybody to ever question you and and say you did this wrong, because that's just that's not worth it.

It's not worth it to you and your you know dealings with everybody else in Frederick.

Anything that I didn't touch on or any questions that you have for me.

Thank you.

Anybody have questions?

No?

No.

Thank you very much.

We can, we can probably later and what I talked to Gabrielle about is maybe when we get some new people on board, rather than have to bring you all back to do this, maybe I'll go and have this kind of a training session with a new member.

But we should also, when the time comes, that w if you have a question about, hey, what's a better way to make a motion or let's do this, we could do a more in-depth, and I I hate to role play and do all that, but we could come up with different like all right, let's practice making a motion on this one, and what would you say, and how would you defend it?

We can go through that if you really feel like we need to do that.

Um, let us know.

We'll set aside another time to to have a couple practices.

Great, thank you.

Anything else?

Anything else?

This was helpful, thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you so much for listening.

I appreciate it.

I know it's kind of redundant and a little boring.

It's not not fun listening to the dumb lawyers talk, but okay.

We're all good.

All right.

Well, then that concludes our meeting, our workshop.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Bye.