All right.

It is six o'clock.

And we're calling the meeting to order.

And I would like to welcome everybody to the November 10th, 2025 Planning Commission hearing.

Before we get into the meeting for tonight, I'm going to give everybody a little bit of a background in the planning commission and the procedures that we'll be following.

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

Okay.

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

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

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

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

We'll then have the opportunity for the commission to question staff.

Followed by commission questioning of the applicant.

After that, we will allow opportunity for public comment and if necessary, the opportunity for the commission to ask questions of the public in response to the public comment.

Finally, after all that, we'll give the applicant a chance to respond to public comment.

Then it will come up to the table up here where we will have a discussion and any questions, further questions that we might have, following by followed by a com the commission action.

In support of the planning commission tonight, we have members of the city's staff members from city's planning department, engineering department, and legal departments.

Or wait a minute.

Do we have transportation?

Oh, there he is.

I didn't see you at first.

And we will also anybody who's here to make public comment, if you could sign in the sign-in sheet and let us know which case you are making public comment on.

Um everybody tonight, whether you're um public, staff, applicants, anybody who's making comments before the um the commission needs to be sworn in.

So at this time, I would like anybody who wants to be sworn in to stand and raise your right hand.

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

If so, answer I do.

Thank you.

All right, so before we move on, I just wanted to check with the commission.

Do I have anybody um tonight who is either ineligible to vote on an item or wishes to recuse themselves from an item?

I wish to recuse myself from the Frederick Health Master Plan.

Thank you.

And we'll remind us of that when we get to that case.

Okay, thank you.

All right, at this point, do we have announcements?

Hi, good evening.

Uh yes, so a week from now, this coming Monday, 1117, we will have the planning commission workshop in this room at 2 p.m.

It's also of course streamed on our website as this is being streamed currently.

Later that same day in the same place, we have our uh citywide community outreach meeting at 6 p.m.

where we introduce new cases to the community.

The first item on our agenda tonight is the approval of minutes.

We have three sets of minutes to approve.

Um the October 13th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes, the October 20th, 2025 Planning Commission workshop minutes, and the November 7th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

I move for the approval of the October 13th, 2025 planning commission meeting minutes.

I second that.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

Oh yeah.

So that was um three in favor, and Commissioner Manellas abstaining.

I move for approval of the October 20th, 2025 planning commission workshop minutes.

Second.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

I move for the approval of November 7th, 2025, pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

That was a motion by Commissioner Valencia.

A second by Commissioner Manellus.

All in favor?

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

All right.

We now have some continuances.

Requests for continuances that we need to address.

Steph, do you want to have uh continuances for two Highland Trail projects, PC 2550 PSU slash FSI, and PC 2556 PFCP?

Both of these are requesting continuance to the December 8th Planning Commission hearing.

Uh that is because we one more review does need to be completed to clean up some items.

Okay.

Any questions from the commission?

No.

Then I'll take a motion.

We can do both of these in the same motion, correct?

Okay.

Okay.

I move for a motion for PC 2550 PSU FSI, the combined preliminary plan and final site plan of Highland Trail and PC 2556 PFCP preliminary forest conservation plan Highland Trail to be continued to December 8th, 2025 Planning Commission hearing.

Second.

That's a motion by Commissioner Valencia and second by Commissioner Manellus.

All in favor?

That's unanimous.

And then our next continuance.

Our next continuance is PC 25249 ZTA.

This is a zoning text amendment for section 838, Table 838-1, mixed use building, live work unit standards.

They are requesting a continuance until December 8th to the next planning commission hearing.

The plan is to also bring them to the November workshop.

Once this continuance is had, there has been uh some substantive information provided in the last submission that we would like some input on before moving to planning commission.

Thank you.

Any questions from the commission?

No.

No, okay.

I move for approval of PC 25-249 ZTA zoning text amendment section 838, Table 838-1, mixed use building live work units standards with a continuance till the December 8th, 2025 Planning Commission hearing.

Second.

A second by Commissioner Manellus.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Right.

Our next item on the agenda is PC 18-189 PSU FSI, the combined preliminary plat and final site plan for 800 East Patrick Street.

Thank you very much.

This is a request for a one-year extension of both the plan itself as well as the APFO certificates.

This is a 15-unit development that was approved in 2023.

I'm sorry, it was in approved in May of 2020.

And it was valid until May of 2024 after accounting for the normal expiration and then an extension that was uh approved through a special ordinance uh after COVID.

The applicant uh requested an administrative extension as well as received uh uh planning commission extension of both the certificates and the plan uh that have brought the uh new expiration date till November 11th, 2025.

Having not yet received building permits, they are asking for another one year extension of both those certificates of APFO and the plan itself.

The certificates of APFO were for waterline and sewer line adequacy as well as schools.

The project was exempt from road testing based on the de minimis trip generation uh that would be proposed.

Uh the code outlines what the council or the commission should take into consideration when looking at the APFO certificates.

Um and in our summary, we have uh expanded upon the applicant's extension request in terms of the progress that they've made in moving through the post-approval uh post-planning commission approval processes of improvement plans, easements, and building permits, and we do believe in good faith that they are working towards obtaining those final building permits and support the one-year extension of both requests.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you.

Um we'll just do a roll call for commissioner questions.

Um starting with Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

Commissioner Menelis.

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Valencia?

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Lewellan?

No questions, thanks.

Thank you.

Do we have the applicant?

Do we need the applicant?

He was aware of the meeting uh this evening.

I'm not sure of his whereabouts, um, but he had submitted his applicant uh his request extension.

All right.

Um do we have any public comment on this all right?

Well, we'll bring it back up here.

Does the commission feel confident enough to address this tonight?

Or do you want to wait to hear from the applicant?

I would like to wait to hear from the applicant.

I was gonna say this.

I mean, yes.

They should be here.

I would think so.

Um, then we need to have somebody propose a continuance or motion for a continuance.

800 East Street.

Yeah.

Um, I move for the continuance of PC 18-189 PSU FSI combined preliminary plat and final site plan for 800 East Patrick Street to December the 15th eighth eighth.

Oh, second 2025, second.

So that is a motion to continue from Commissioner Manellas, the second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor, aye.

That's unanimous.

All right, thank you very much.

That brings us to the Frederick Health Master Plan.

Um, that's PC 24-66.

Um master plan for Frederick Health, and you're going to step out.

I will be recusing myself.

All right.

Somebody will come and get you when we're done.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

I would just um ask everyone just to be mindful of speaking very closely to the microphones.

It's very difficult to hear over at the side, it might be out in the audience as well.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Um, I'd like to enter the staff report into the record.

Um, as we know, this um project is for a master plan for the Frederick Health Village to contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses, including up to 750 dwelling units, um, 1,260,000 394 square feet of non-residential uses, and the um approval of four mixed use conditional uses, which are senior senior living and retirement facilities, nursing home, domiciliary care, adult living facility, medical laboratory, and helistop.

And there are three modifications the applicant is requesting.

Um for 611, Section 611 of the LMC for street improvement standards, one for section 417, table 417-2 setbacks for principal buildings in the MU district to modify the minimum lot frontage requirement, uh, and one for section 606B lot and block design principles to allow lots without frontage on a public street or access.

And then the um applicant is also requesting findings of adequacy for Ford Road intersections in accordance with section 4-14 of the city code under the adequate adequate public facilities ordinance.

So back um just wanted to give you an update.

Um, at the September hearing, um, you know, as you know, the applicant um requested a continuance so that they could go back and um look at some more information that they could um bring forth to the planning commission for their discussion and for timing with regard to how the project would move forward.

Um, and they did um submit a presentation regarding that regarding the timing um for the whole project.

Um that uh provides um the project how it would um how construction would proceed as it relates to um road improvements and um the timeline is intended to be ill illustrative and subject to change, but it kind of gives you an idea of what um what we would be looking at as as the project moves forward.

Um for uh the timing of public improvements, um that timing is especially expressly um regulated by the LMC as well as the APFO.

Um one is for on-site improvements like the internal road networks.

Um they must be constructed concurrent with new lots that the infrastructure will serve unless it's subject to a deferral agreement that would be approved by city council prior to a final plat for new lots being recorded.

Um the public infrastructure necessary to access those lots uh must be designed and improvement plans would be approved for those as well.

Public works agreements also would need to be executed alongside an acceptable surety, such as bonds or letter letters of credit that are held until the work is completed and inspected.

Um for off-site improvements, um, they are subject to the um chapter four of the city go for mitigation, and there are two options that would need to be completed in order to find uh to receive a final certificate of adequacy.

That certificate must be issued before any building permit is approved.

They would have to enter into a public works agreement, including the acceptable sureties, or enter into a mitigation agreement, which would allow for the developer to phase the construction of off-site improvements.

That would go to the city council, and they have the authority to approve a mitigation agreement.

Also, the um since the September hearing, the provisional certificate for roads has been revised to add accurately reflect these options.

It did eliminate the reference to the work being being completed prior to the first building permit.

So I misspoke earlier.

Should the applicant seek to pursue a mitigation agreement to phase the off-site improvements, that would be considered by the city council prior to permits for the development project.

So that's what I had for the updates.

I can go through the staff recommendations.

The first one action one is approval of the senior living and retirement facilities as a mixed use, conditional use per section 404, table 404-1, and in accordance with sections 310, 837, and 861 of the land management code.

Staff finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan and LMC, and that the primary objective of the MU district is to provide a mix of residential and non-residential uses, which are part of an overall master plan for the development of compatible uses.

Two, the characteristics of the senior living retirement facilities will not create any greater adverse impact than permitted uses that do not permit or do not require conditional use approval, such as automobile, filling stations, grocery stores, banks, restaurants, department, and discount stores, and other uses permitted in the MU district.

Three, that the proposed activity will comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in sections 837 and 861 of the LMC for mixed use conditional uses as described in the staff report and as further evaluated at the site plan stage.

For that, staff recommends approval for the senior living and retirement facilities as a mixed use conditional use.

Action two is approval of the nursing home domiciliary care, adult living facility as a mixed use conditional use.

Again, per section 404, table 404-1, in accordance with section 310, 837, and 841 of the LMC.

Staff findings are that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan, and in the primary objective of the MU district is provide a mix of use and non-residential uses, which are part of an overall master plan and development, that the characteristics will not create any adverse impact and permitted uses that do not require conditional use approval.

Three, that the proposed activity will comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in sections 837 and 841 of the LMC for mixed use conditional uses.

So the recommendation is that staff recommends approval for a nursing home domiciliary care, adult living facility as mixed use conditional use.

Action three is approval of a medical laboratory as mixed use conditional use per section 404, table 404-1, and in accordance with sections 310, 837, and 841 of the LMC.

Staff findings are the same.

The purpose or the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the comp plan and it's um complies with the primary objective of the MU district, which is to provide a mix of residential and non-residential uses that are part of an overall master plan.

Two, um, the medical laboratory will not create any adverse impacts.

Um those that do not require conditional use approval, and three, that the proposed activity will comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in section 837 of the LMC.

Staff recommends approval of the medical laboratory as a mixed use conditional use.

Action four is approval of a Heliport as a mixed use conditional use per section 404, table 404-1, in accordance with sections 310, 837, and 828 of the LMC.

Staff finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan as well as the MU district.

Um, two, the characteristics of the use will not create any adverse impact or greater adverse impact than permitted uses that do not require conditional use approval.

Um, and three, that the proposed activity will comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in sections 837 and 828 of the LMC.

With that, staff recommends approval for a heliport as a mixed use conditional use.

Action five is approval of the modifications of city standard details.

Um detail 9.0, 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, and 12.0.

Staff finds that the modified street sections are compatible with surrounding neighborhood street layouts.

Two, the modified street sections are compatible with the overall development of the city, as other developments within the city have had similar modifications approved.

And three, the modification is not subject to compensating design features, but will enable more compact urban design that is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MU zoning district while providing for adequate bicycle pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

And with that, staff recommends approval of the modifications as requested.

Action six is the approval of the modification to section set 417, Table 417-2 setbacks for principal buildings in the MU district and column B frontage, as well as section 602 B2 or 606B2 to modify the minimum lot frontage requirements and allow frontage onto a public street, private street, and/or open space for all three lot types.

Staff finds that it enhances the community character, allows for unique spaces, reduces impervious surface, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

With that, staff recommends approval of the modifications as requested.

Action seven is finding of road adequacy in accordance with section 4-14 of the city code, adequate public facilities ordinance for the following four intersections.

The first one is Minocase Boulevard at Shorebird Street at the Walmart entrance, which is in the traffic impact analysis intersection number nine.

Number two is Maryland 26 at Minocasy Boulevard, which is intersection number 10.

Three, Monocassee Boulevard at River Bend Way, which is intersection number 11, and Wormens Mill Road at Mill Pond Road, which is intersection 17.

Staff finds that the existing roads and intersections are adequate as adequacy cannot be achieved without altering alteration or removal of existing structures, and the applicant is incorporated as much mitigation as reasonably possible.

Therefore, staff supports a finding of road adequacy for the four above-noted intersections in accordance with section 4-14 of the city code.

And action eight is approval of the master plan PC 24-662 MU for Frederick Health Village, a mixed use development containing up to 1,200 or 1,260,394 square feet of non-residential uses, up to 750 residential units, and 17.2 acres of parks and open space.

Staff finds that the master plan complies with the applicable criteria of section 417 of the land management code, which is the mixed-use districts MU1 and MU2.

The recommendation is staff recommends approval of the master plan for Frederick Health Village with the following conditions.

One, the traffic impact analysis must receive final approval and a note added for the approval date.

Two, update note 13 with the proposed trip cap per acre.

Three, update no 14 to indicate that provisional and or final APFO certificates have been issued and the issuance date for each one.

Four, update note 20 with the approval date of 3125 for the four-stand delineation.

Five, update note 20 or in note 20, remove the stormwater concept plan from the list.

So if that's not approved, then why move through the remaining actions, so to speak.

So I wanted to bring that up and let you know that you should move forward with action number seven first.

We'll do a roll call for commissioner questions.

Um starting with Commissioner Manellus.

Thank you.

Um this seems like a distant memory.

It's been a while.

Um so I had a question for Chairman, I think.

Um it was about um Grange Mill Lane.

Hi.

Hi, how are you doing?

Um so I just wanted to just look again at where this would go through.

So this would be going, it says here um I'm on page 28 of the staff report and talks about the construction of Grange Mill Lane through the project from Mill Pond Road to Women's Mill Road.

Um I just want to make sure that I am following so this road, the lane would lead to Mill Pond Road.

I just want to make sure I understand.

So if you have a sure.

Um you know I think the mic's probably a little too far.

I can hear probably too.

Uh but I think you're asking about the connecting road from between Mill Pond and Warman's Mill Road, correct?

Um, so uh so I don't know if it's this battery or it just goes away.

Uh so that uh sort of east-west road there is um where's the point of pointing at?

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I don't know.

It it I think it's there and then it goes away.

Then it's not, yeah.

Do you have another one?

Okay.

Maybe I can hit the so that's the west end of it, then that road is Warman's Mill Road, uh going up.

It's working now.

Uh this is Minocase Boulevard.

You see US 15 here.

Um, the new uh extension that has been constructed, sort of a faded line.

Uh it's right through here.

So the new road will go from the roundabout on Mill Pond Road uh connect through the property where you have a uh parking lot drive aisle today, and and it crosses the railroad tracks right at this point.

The gate exists today, that's really where the road will the this public local road will go and connect to um Warman Small Road.

And ultimately under the Comm plan, uh the road will continue.

It exists as Grange Mill Road through Minocase Center, and then Shorebird, this is actually Shortwood Road, and sorry, the the image is a little faint.

Uh so it it does exist up to Shorebird, and this is the last piece that is been the point of discussion working with State Highway Administration for an access break on 26, so that the entirety of the road could be completed.

Um that's generally the the connection between 26 and Warman's Mill Road.

Okay, so from the train tracks, you're coming in from are you coming in from that angle?

Which and what which are you coming in from?

Yes, this is this is Warman's Mill Road and uh Wegman's and uh the other retail, so it is basically Warm and Small Road.

So if you have an option to come in through there, that's where you would come in at that location.

And the other transportation infrastructure, of course, is the East Street Trail, rail through trail that will basically come up and then you can see the little line here that the trail that all the way to Minocase, and this is the transit center, or not the transit center, it's the parking right.

Right, parking right, yeah.

And the trail itself will continue along here to walk as well.

Okay, so you you're coming in that way and you're and you're gonna be exiting out of past mill pond, which is past Granger.

Sorry, I'm uh so you're coming in from Woman's Mill Road, right?

And where are you exiting?

Like if on this new road, the Granger Mill Lane.

So you're going to that's another option as an access to the site.

So you can come in through here, but there are internal streets that will connect to water side and um uh the main entrance to the hospital is right about here, so those are the other options.

There is another right in right out that is proposed over here.

So those are the three access points to Minocase.

Uh again, the one access point to Mill Pond.

There are two internal access points to adjacent residential substitutions that are proposed here.

Of course, Warman Small Road itself will be eventually extended to Minocase Bullwide, but it goes through a private property today.

So the extension will be tied to the uh development of the property owned at that corner of the end of change.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Commissioner Llewellyn, I have no questions at this time.

Commissioner Bueno.

No questions.

And I don't have any questions for staff, so at this point, we can open it up to the applicant.

Good evening.

Um members of the planning commission.

Uh it's great to see you again this evening.

I think this is our fifth public meeting on this application.

Um, for the record, uh, Chairman Strawson, members of the planning commission.

My name is Bruce Dean.

I'm an attorney with a law firm of McCurdy Dean and Gratator on behalf of the applicant, uh, Frederick Health Village.

Also with me this evening are Cheryl Chaffee, who is the president and CEO of Frederick Health, uh, Nikki Moberley, who is the board chair for Frederick Health, Don Schilling, who's the Vice President of Business Development for Frederick Health, Gary Large with Eco Developers, who's the project leader, Chris Meriga of Harris Morgan Associates, project planning and engineering, and finally Joe Caligaro with a traffic group, and you will be hearing from some, but maybe not all of these folks this evening.

Um, I do want to thank Sherry and Sherion for the staff presentation and explanations.

Um, as you know, this project has been going on for a long time, and obviously it's a a difficult case, or this wouldn't be the fifth hearing on it.

Um, and I think most of the difficulty that that the planning commission has been having with this project uh relates to off-site road issues um involved in this neighborhood.

Our team has been working very, very hard along with city staff to provide the planning commission with the necessary information in order to approve a finding that would enable this project to move forward from a transportation aspect.

And in a minute, Chris Mariga is going to walk you through our illustrative phase illustrative phasing program.

But before I turn it over to Chris, I did want to say that for a project of this size and scale, even if it's not located in a highly developed area of the city, it would be typical for the applicant to go to the city council for approval of a mitigation agreement or even a development rights and responsibilities agreement to outlight time outline timing and extent of off-site road and infrastructure improvements.

That's what Sherry was referring to when she was walking through the revised um uh APFO discussion was that it is fairly typical for projects of any size and scale to go to the city council and outline with staff's uh review and approval and assent a mean a ways and a means of addressing all these off-site road improvements.

And we're just putting it out there for your consideration as you listen to Chris and the others from our team who are going to be talking to you, that we would be more than willing to abide by a condition of master plan approval from the planning commission that the applicant must seek and obtain either a mitigation agreement or a DRRA with the city council to outline timing and phasing of off-site improvements.

So uh with that thought out there, I am going to turn it over to Mr.

Smariga who will then uh walk you through our presentation.

Chris Good evening, Chris Smyriga with Harris Moriga.

Um, as Bruce said, there's been a lot of good discussion about the master plan over the last couple months, a lot of issues, and a lot of questions that have been answered as we've moved forward.

Um the one remaining item seems to be this balance between the traffic improvements that need to be made and the project and how it will be phased and developed.

So we're gonna walk through that tonight.

Um it's a really good question.

The more we've dug into kind of how to respond to it, the more we've thought about you know all the pros and cons of the development and this phasing.

So it's it's I think it's it's created a great situation for the city, the existing residents in this area, and then the hospital to eventually be able to do something with the campus.

So this this image here obviously is the aerial.

This this fade this development that you see here in red is basically the last major development on this Monoxie Boulevard corridor.

Um we've and we've anticipated upwards of seven million dollars of road improvements that need to be made to address the development of this parcel.

Um not voting for the master plan, denying it doesn't would not fix anything in this area from a traffic standpoint.

So meaning we've got an almost 400,000 square foot building here on the campus today with three access points on a Monoxie Boulevard.

That's going to continue to be used somehow by the hospital or partners of the hospital, kind of no matter what.

So, you know, a scenario where nothing happens here, you know, we're gonna continue to occupy the space, road improvements don't get made, traffic may or may not get worse over time.

It's not really a good solution.

So, you know, our thought is is how do we pre best prepare this area for the development to be coming with this project?

And the solution, as Bruce mentioned, is a mitigation agreement that we would work with the city council on that would actually identify, you know, as best as possible when improvements would be made to the roads and when the improvements would be made to the site.

And what the proposal would be is that the road improvements would be made prior to any standalone building permit for the site.

So we'll walk through the slides here, what that timing could look like.

But basically, we're willing to make all the off-site road improvements that have been identified prior to building any new structures on the property.

So that's that's the suggestion.

So let's see how that looks.

Oops.

So 2020, and then you'll see on most of these slides here, and the same thing, the the year that's anticipated, and then the overall master plan to see how it relates.

Um, so here we are again, middle of the site.

This kind of shows some open space, what's highlighted in red is the existing building.

What we're saying here, in this 2025, this is tomorrow.

This is this is immediately basically the hospital would begin working with the city and SHA on this right in and right out on Route 26.

So, what you'll remember from previous conversations, this is a denied access part of the highway right here.

So we need to go to state highway to get them to break that to allow another access point.

But for anybody, anyone in this room, anyone that lives out here that's been to this Walmart, the Chick-fil-A, Randy Simpkins, you know, car wash and the and the Starbucks, you have one access point onto Monoxy Boulevard.

This alone, who knows the improvements that this could make to the traffic generation numbers.

No, you can get in this site and out of the site.

So we want to partner immediately before we do anything else with the city and state highway to make inroads to make sure that this thing happens at some point.

It's on the master plan.

This is where this road wants to be, but you need a partner, and we're gonna be that partner and and trying to get that access secured.

So that's 25 and into next year of 26.

2027, the dollar signs represent escrow contributions.

These are both city CIP projects that will be coming in the pipeline.

We've already promised to fund them.

We'll do that in 2027.

Um, and then in terms of improvements at Routes and Way and Maryland 26th in front of the uh the furniture store.

There's some improvements there that need to be made to make this intersection adequate.

We would make those in 2027.

Again, these subject to the mitigation agreement.

This could change a little bit, but this is the general timeline we've come up with.

2028, we then are gonna go out to Monoxy Boulevard.

These two roundabouts that have been suggested would be built.

These are you know much more efficient in terms of uh how traffic can move around the site rather than waiting at stop signs rather than waiting for people to make left turns in front of you.

Traffic would flow more easily through here and much safer.

So those improvements would be made in 28.

Again, here's our existing building.

We're not doing anything else, new structures on the site.

We did also on this slide insert when US 15 construction is gonna begin or anticipate it to begin.

It's not a part of this project directly, but I think it obviously everyone in this room knows this is a big enough road improvement.

It should be noted that that also is starting about this time.

In 2029, we would build the two other improvements we've looked at on Monoxy Boulevard, one being a median, one being uh at the light uh here onto Mill Pond, an extension of the left turn lane, and then we would build the and you all just mentioned the name of it.

I'm gonna forget it.

Is it Garrett's Mill, but the grain mill, Granger, the uh collector or the uh comprehensive plan road through our site that would occur in 2029 while construction continued on Route 15.

Now we get to 2030.

At this point, everything's faded back.

You can see all the the road improvements that are part of our certificate would have been made at that time.

Um construction would still continue on Route 15.

And then let me try to forward this.

So 2031 is about the time we start looking for a potential building permit.

We're not building at that time, but we're looking to possibly secure a building permit for the site.

Um so really by 2032, is what this slide shows.

Let me skip here.

There by 2032, so roughly seven years out is when we'd be looking for our first building permit.

In this example, we've shown a medical office building.

So we feel like you know, these are tremendous amount of improvements to be made over a seven year span before you'd see the first new building constructed.

And then if we project out a little bit further, because there are other parts of this master plan, it's not just the potential hospital piece, it's the potential retail medical office space, and then the residential, which is required as part of the mixed use zoning.

So in 2035 is when we'd be looking at probably delivering any of the first of a few phases.

We're thinking potentially residential could be three phases.

Who knows, right?

I mean, that's several years down the road.

Who knows what the product could be at this point?

Um, but that would continue kind of a third at a time, a third and 25, a 20 uh 2036, another third, and then in 2037, maybe the completion of the residential.

Um then maybe a couple years out from that, we'd be looking at completing the frontage along Monnoxy Boulevard, which would have some retail, possibly other mixed office space in it.

And then the last slide is basically somewhere sometime in the future, you know, the hospital would be potentially located on the site.

So that's kind of our proposal at this point.

We thought, as I mentioned earlier, that you know, the phasing of the improvements ahead of the construction was a really good compromise.

Um, it's something you normally don't see happen because honestly, projects can't afford to develop in that way where you put all the infrastructure in up front without you know seeing some kind of return on your money.

But that's what we've proposed in this in this situation.

Um, and with that, I think Cheryl has uh a couple comments she'd like to make as well.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Cheryl Chafee, the president and CEO of Frederick Health, and I thought it would be helpful to give you a little more context of what we're thinking and why are we thinking about these great plans for the future.

I think one thing I want to start with is that we all have the same thing in mind.

We want to have thoughtful growth for the future vitality of our community that supports you know safe roads and good health.

Frederick Health has been honored to serve this community for more than 123 years as the only hospital in the county.

Every decision that we make is guided by one question.

What does our community need today and into the future?

And so that's what we're dreaming of here what can we possibly offer our community in the future.

This project is about access, ensuring that every resident can receive emergency and inpatient care close to home.

It's about capacity, meeting the growing demand that comes with our region's population growth, and it's about sustainability, building a health care infrastructure that can serve our community for generations to come.

Equally important are the infrastructure benefits that this project will bring.

As you've heard from Chris, as part of our development, we will fund and execute significant road improvements that will address long-standing congestion in the area, and I know this because I am I am over here daily myself, and so I definitely know these roads.

Um these improvements will not happen without our project moving forward, and they will serve the entire community, not just our future patients and staff.

We also recognize that health extends beyond clinical care, and that's why we're exploring how the site's residential component that is required in the mixed-use zoning, may be able to create affordable housing options for healthcare workers, low-income seniors, or others who face barriers to affordable housing.

We don't have those details yet, so we cannot make any promises, but we can promise that we are open and committed to working with our partners to at least explore how we can make this possible.

This project reflects who we are, a community-based mission-driven health system that reinvests every dollar back into local care, local jobs, and local well-being.

On behalf of our leadership team, our medical staff, and all of our team members, we do thank you for your partnership and consideration of this project.

I would now like to introduce Nikki Mobberly, who is our board chair, to share a few remarks.

Good evening.

Thank you, Dr.

Chaffee, and thank you to the members of the planning committee for your time and attention to this important matter.

I thought it would be interesting for me to add some additional context as to why I am so personally passionate about this project, not only as uh a member of the board and chair of the board, but also as a member of the community.

Um in my second year as chair of the board, but I've also been a member of the board for nine years.

I've also served Frederick Health on their patient and family advisory council as a member of the hospital's ethics committee and as a member of the advanced care planning committee, where we traveled the county educating our community on the importance of advanced directives.

I'm not a Frederick native, having been born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in case we have any native Pittsburghers here, but I have lived here most of my adult life, that is for the past 35 years in Frederick County.

And as such, I've had the chance to access many of Frederick Health services for myself and for my family over the course of those years.

My first husband died in the care of hospice after a valiant yet short fight with a rare malignancy.

After that, I became a hospice volunteer and I've been active with hospice for the past 27 years.

After I remarried, my daughter was born with severe and profound developmental delays and complex medical issues.

She didn't walk or talk.

She had daily seizures, and she received a prognosis for a lifespan to be little more than three years.

During those first few years of her life, we drove back and forth down the road many times to Children's National Medical Center as well as Johns Hopkins for her care until we decided that we wanted something different for her and for our family.

We made the decision to transition all of her care to Frederick County.

Thus, since she was three years old, any time she had to be hospitalized, which was often, she was cared for in the Frederick Health Pediatric ED or inpatient floor.

This shift allowed us to support Erin with the highest quality care as well as a quality of quality of life being with people who are from our community.

They got to know her and love her.

And for and it also supported our family's quality of life being close to home so we could support our other children and juggle work, pet, and family needs much more easily.

Erin spent her last illness in the pediatric inpatient floor for three weeks before she entered inpatient hospice.

And she died at the age of 19, just two days after Christmas in 2019, surrounded by her family and Frederick Health staff who knew her and did not just care for her, but loved her.

This is truly a special place for me and my family.

Thus, as a mother, I care deeply about having such high quality care available and accessible to others in our growing Frederick community.

As chair of the board, representing the Frederick Health Board of Directors, I take very seriously our responsibility to guide this organization's mission and its future.

Our board is composed of local residents who are business leaders and community advocates, all united in one belief that access to quality health care is a foundational to a thriving community.

We've studied this project carefully as a group, and we unanimously support it because we believe it's essential to the strategic future of health care in our county.

We view this project as a generational investment in a community well-being that will serve our residents today, as well as for decades to come.

Our vision as a board is to expand access to care where it's needed most, ensure that emergency services remain timely and efficient, to strengthen our health system's ability to recruit and retain talented providers, and to position our community for sustainable growth.

We also see the broader picture that this project will enhance local infrastructure, support economic development, and even potentially open new doors for workforce and senior housing opportunities.

It's a rare moment when one initiative can serve health, transportation, and housing needs all at once.

And we're proud to bring that responsibility forward.

Our role as a board is to be stewards of the organization's mission, its financial health, and most importantly, its relationship to the community.

On behalf of the entire board of directors, I want to thank you for your commitment to a healthy future for our county, and we ask that you help pave the way for our future by voting to support the site plan.

Good evening.

Uh Don Shawan, Vice President of Business Development for Frederic Health.

Speaking to the mic.

Hear me now.

A little closer.

Better?

A little bit more.

Sorry, you have to hide.

Okay.

You good?

All right.

So as you can see from the comments already made in the presentation, you know, we're very committed to the county, to the city, uh, to deliver our core mission of healthcare.

I think that's the unique thing about our application is this is a large parcel site, but we are a healthcare system trying to plan the future for health care, using this site as a facilities destination as we see fit in the transition of services.

So we're much different than what a regular developer would be looking at this property.

And I hope that's taken for under consideration.

So we're the last, I'm the last speaker, and didn't know if you had any questions you want to bring about, either to myself or any of the colleagues that already spoke.

Great, thank you very much.

We'll do a roll call for questions from the commission, starting with Commissioner Menelis.

Sorry.

Um, I have some comments and maybe a question or two.

So I just first want to say that um I appreciate and kudos to the applicant for listening to the community in what it said it needed in terms of traffic and some other issues.

I appreciate the effort that's being made to present this information in terms of having a phased approach, especially having some of the roads, the infrastructure built before building, you know, the units.

So I do appreciate that greatly.

Um and I thank you for seeing and hearing the community at large.

So thank you for that.

Um Bruce, you did mention something about a DRA, which I don't know what that stands for.

What does that stand for?

DRRA is a development rights and responsibilities agreement.

Um it is uh effectively a legal contract between a developer or an applicant and the city of Frederick.

Um they were used in Frederick County for some large residential projects.

Um, but in fact, Frederick County has now restricted them to basically mostly non-residential projects.

Um this is a mixed use project, and Frederick City has has the statutory authority to enter into DRAs.

It has entered into one, I believe, in the Riverside Corporate Park, and we are envisioning something similar.

It's sort of like a mitigation agreement on steroids, because it outlines not just the off-site road improvements, which a mitigation agreement is gonna pick one type of infrastructure stick.

This would cover everything.

Um for example, a mitigation agreement would not cover our commitment to enter into negotiations with the city and state highway to get that right in right out on this Maryland 26, because that's not one of the off-site road improvements that's identified in our APFO study.

However, as Chris said, and as Mr.

Caligar has explained, and I think Chairman has explained that that right in right out on to 26 could be a game changer in terms of traffic in that neighborhood.

And it is a comp planned road, but as Chairman has said to you more than once, that doesn't mean it's necessarily gonna happen.

And in fact, it won't happen in a vacuum.

And so a DRA uh would actually, we could commit to the city to spend time and dollars on that on that effort.

So it would be in addition of to what the APFO certificate would otherwise require.

That's just one example, Commissioner Manellas.

I can probably come up with a couple more things that we could put in a DRA if we wanted to, we could cover the Rails to Trails project, where that's gonna be in a DRA.

We could cover how much park land.

Um it's really a negotiation between the applicant and city staff, and then it goes to the city council for their approval.

Um, but it's sort of a wide-ranging agreement of what are we gonna do for the city and what's the city gonna do for us.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um I think the other question I had was um it's not a question, but yeah, I do also appreciate hearing about the affordable housing, possibly for people who work there.

I think that's really important in seniors as well.

Um, just real quickly, I noticed with your phase one, phase two, phase three, there's two fifty units for each phase.

Is that like the the town homes?

Like, what are you doing?

Do you know yet?

Are you that that was based on a guess?

Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna be completely transparent here.

Um that is based on the idea that they would be 750 multifamily units, affordable, some mixture, whatever.

Um, what Mr.

Large, our project leader has come up with is probably the market could absorb 250 the most every couple years.

So that's why we've proposed breaking that up into three phases.

We there is no way, and I can tell you this from 38 years of doing this.

There is no way you could build 750 apartments there and expect that to happen overnight.

It just doesn't work that way in Frederick City.

We're just not big enough.

All right.

Um I think that's it.

Oh, well, no, I had one more question.

Um I didn't hear anything about like walking.

Like what's what's what's going on with that?

So walking is interesting because you're seeing a master plan, and even the the illustrative master plan that's on the screen today, it's a bunch of colored blobs, right?

It doesn't show the interconnectivity that that has to happen as part of the site plan approval for an MU project.

If you want a master plan on how to do a master plan, talk to Gabrielle because she's the one who's taught all of us in this room.

Um, but we will be required when we execute this master plan and start building it out to have a completely pedestrian-friendly project.

And that is actually something we have said all along.

Um, but it's required by your MU ordinance.

So every street's gonna have sidewalks, there's gonna be um a plethora of walking trails throughout the property, particularly um if you know for the residential people don't want to live in areas where they can't walk from one place to another.

Um one of the beauties of this project is that it is close to so much retail um that the folks who would be living in those residences would not necessarily get in their cars to go to Wegmans or go to Market Square.

Um they could literally walk to Walmart, walk to IHOP.

Um and even if they would wanted to get their car washed, they could take it into the car wash uh in front of Walmart and never get on 26, never get on Warman's Mill Road.

So it's a combination of pedestrian-friendly and um and bike-friendly and shared use paths.

The and as Sherry said, the the rails with trails project goes right through this site.

So that's another pedestrian aspect.

You may remember when we were doing the Warman's Mill Court apartments on the south side of 26.

That we that project um put up the money to build the pedestrian bridge across 26.

The other thing that that didn't get mentioned is that pedestrian bridge, once connected, once constructed, will enable these folks if they want to bike from this project down to downtown, they can do it.

And they would not it would be very difficult for them to do that today.

Um if they were hikers, they could hike from there to downtown.

I'm thinking it's a couple miles, but um certainly folks in Frederick, it's a very bike-friendly community, and I can see that rails with trails going, you know, from this project down to downtown Frederick very easily.

So thank you for that.

I um agree.

So I guess we'll see more of that at the site plan level.

You will see this commission will see every bit of that at site plan.

Um I think that is it for me.

I was trying to see where I saw Chris talk about the restaurants.

I just trying to figure out where that is.

Um I saw the completion of the retail and mixed medical office.

Um where's the um so the what's on the screen right now is darker red fronting along Minox Seat Boulevard is a mixture.

We're not expecting there to be a whole lot of retail in there.

It is permitted.

Um so that's why it says retail and mixed medical office.

This is again really primarily um a medical campus.

That's gonna be the focus, but that's why that's a different color.

Okay, it's uh is that when you say retail, is that the restaurant?

Or is that could be?

It could be.

Okay.

Um I guess that's it for me.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um, Commissioner Lan.

Um so no questions.

I did want to uh reiterate what Commissioner Minel has said.

I really do like the phased approach of this.

Um and looking at this, it made a lot more sense, and I appreciate that you've listened to us as well as to the public on this.

Um as far as the DRRA, would that then be a part of the finding of road act at PCP?

No, you uh if if you wanted to put in a condition that we enter into a DRA or mitigation agreement, it would be I would suggest and I'll defer to Mr.

Waxter, but we would that would be a perfectly appropriate condition of approval of the master plan.

Oh, the master plan.

Okay, thank you very much.

Commissioner Bueno.

Hi.

I uh as a recent member of the commission.

I'm sorry that I was unable to uh talk with you guys prior in the workshops for this, but I was all caught up and excited to see this project and uh caught up on all the feedback you guys received.

Um I just had two questions, uh just small ones.

These are probably gonna get hammered out in the same way farther on when you get to the more you know specific parts of the master plan.

Uh the first is I know you guys mentioned a helipad here.

Are you guys planning there to be an emergency type department here?

And how do you think that uh the entryways to this can be mitigated by emergency vehicles?

Is that part of the plan here?

Or is that I mean that's way down the road, of course.

That's way down the road.

Just curious.

Yeah, that would put that in the road.

Okay.

That's I just figured those those in here here.

And then yeah, um, I mean, I will say that uh you know, senior centers, if because that is one of the conditional uses we're asking you to approve, those do have a uh perhaps slightly higher rate of being accessed by emergency vehicles.

I know because my mom was in one for several years.

Um and they you know these the folks who develop those are very experienced in putting in wide drive aisles, big exit areas and everything.

So that'll be addressed.

Okay.

Yeah, I do appreciate that you guys are thinking of the idea of having uh access to the hospital nearby because that is something that a lot of times with older folks.

That easy access without having to drive.

But in conjunction with that as well, um just another suggestion.

I was this wasn't talking about in the workshop, but um, as you guys, you know, I appreciate you guys are building up the roads to allow kind of helping to mitigate some of the other problems that have had from the rapid development of this area.

Um but as you guys think about it too.

There's now going to be multiple areas within here that are going to be potential um uh retail areas and it as you mentioned the connection with downtown Frederick and what we're looking at 20, 30 years down the road.

Uh it might be useful just to try to see how the transit system that's non-car dependent develops in the city as well.

Because as you're building this out.

You know, we appreciate you guys thinking about the roadway for cars and the bikeway and the pedestrian-friendly way.

But there's the opportunity that as the state expands in its rail system or other types of local trades.

Absolutely that that's accounted for somewhere.

And I can tell you we we're we work with Shirian on a site-by-site basis, but he's advocating for bus shelters, you know, pull-off areas, everything.

Your transportation staff is well aware of the needs for transit.

So yeah, just as you guys keep that in mind, because it's going to allow you guys to easily handle some of this as well without having to worry about additional car.

That's all appreciated.

No other questions.

Thank you.

Um, so a couple questions.

Um, the first one is the Walmart write in right out.

As far as I understand it, there's actually two parts to that.

Part of it is getting the road built from 26 up to Mill Pond, and then the other part is getting state highway administration to approve the right in and right out.

Um is it feasible to for you all to work on getting the road built, even though it's possible.

I mean, it sounds like it's highly unlikely that SHA will ever approve the right-in-write out.

I wouldn't say it's it's highly unlikely that SHA will ever approve.

I I think that it is past due.

I just don't know that anyone's focused on it as much as they have.

Right.

And I think Charian has said to us, and I don't I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I know that they he would welcome our addition to the team to try to get that break in the 26.

Yeah, it seems to me that even if you could get the road built from Walmart up to Mill Pond, that would still relieve a lot of traffic.

And that that we can definitely with a with a stub, you know, for the someday to 26.

Do you understand the question, Jim?

Yeah, I believe so.

Um, so I believe the question is even if the write-in write out doesn't occur, if the stub road did come in, I believe, and Chairman may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's gonna have to come in with the Lee property.

I think it's on the Lee property where that road would have to come in.

So they would have to dedicate that land.

He's impossible to find apparently.

Um but that's what would have have to happen.

Walmart is set up to accommodate that road.

So they have an access already prepared where they could that road could be connected to them.

That gives them full access into the entire triangle.

So it definitely would help.

It's just a process of getting in through the private community.

I recognize that.

And and are you guys gonna be able to take steps to work with the private property and see if we can make that happen?

Absolutely.

And and again, that's something if this project moves forward, we we'd be happy to commit to being part of that solution.

And then my other questions have to do with um the obstacles to the affordable housing.

Um your CEO talked about, you know, you're willing to look into affordable housing, but there's no promises because we don't know what obstacles might come up in the future.

What are some of those obstacles?

And sorry.

Predominantly that would be financial obstacles.

We we are a health system, so we would not be able to subsidize affordable housing.

But what I'm saying is that we would be more than happy to work with partners who can help make that a reality.

Okay, that sounds nice.

Um I still am not sure why you can't commit to building the 12%, 12 and a half percent required MPD use.

Again, perhaps we can that's that is for future planning for that site.

That's exactly what we would explore is how could we make that happen.

Okay.

But the land management code requires 12.5% of the units that you build be MPD use.

And at the very least, I would like to let the driver commit to those.

I mean, we would love to see that you build more affordable housing if you can get the financing, of course.

So we we've been digging into the data on the MPD.

We've been digging into the data on the MPDU requirements and what's been provided in the pipeline that the city has since the MPD ordinance was adopted.

And what's interesting, we're over 12,000 units that have been in that pipeline since we adopted the MPDUs.

It equated to about 1,350 or so MPD units being built, and that's what's in the pipeline to be built.

So we're actually citywide, we are meeting the goal of the 12.5% within like 20 or 30 units.

It's amazing how close it is.

And the other piece that people don't realize is for the projects that don't provide NPDUs, they are paying a fee in lieu, which you've received plenty of.

Um, but that's that's another we all know that.

That's another 17 million though, on top of the 12 and a half percent requirements.

So what I'm saying is we're meeting the 12 and a half percent, I mean, within a handful of units, and still providing 17 million.

So I think the next discussion for MPDUs, which I think would be important here, is how do we spend that money then to deploy more housing?

We who?

We the city or we master health.

I feel like we're part of the city.

We the city, right?

So I mean I think there's some very interesting discussions.

Or are you counting just all of the affordable housing projects that have been a hundred percent affordable?

Yeah, so it's both because the LITEC projects are MPDUs.

Yeah.

And so what Chris is saying is the market is working in terms of the the city has gotten 12 and a half percent of the housing that's being built is being built as a LITEC project and qualifying as an MPDU.

All the folks who aren't MPD or LITEC projects are contributing the fee in lieu.

So you're getting what Chris is saying is you've gotten 1,200 affordable housing units approved, not all of which are built yet.

Um, and then you're getting 17 million dollars from all the non-M LITEC projects that that are paying the fee rather than constructing affordable housing.

But I I want to be fair to to Dr.

Chaffee.

We are the hospital is not a residential developer.

And I can tell you, having been through negotiations on numerous multifamily projects that the LITEC developers and who can build the affordable housing, um, and the folks who cannot have very different financial performers, they have very different economic requirements.

And what she is basically saying is we cannot commit to building something because we're not the builder, but we're happy to meet with LITEC developers who are who do build affordable housing and see if they would be interested in some or all or what some percentage of the 750 units.

Um nor can she commit to saying, well, we'll make any builder build 12 and a half percent affordable and whatever the math is 87 and a half percent market, because that is a economic formula that frankly has never happened in Frederick ever.

And so the hospital is not going to be promising to be the guinea pig for the real estate or the residential real estate um development uh team in in Frederick City because they are not part of that.

They this the whole housing part of this master plan would be developed by someone else other than the hospital.

So it's just impossible for us to commit to doing that.

And I'll stop there.

Go ahead.

No, I I hear you on that.

I I do appreciate that.

I I want to just echo that.

It is a positive that there's going to be housing here, and you know, it's under, I think, my personal view, and uh, you know, the city's view of personal view that if you build housing, it's a supply-demand thing, so it's still in the better.

And it also is I will I will break a little bit and say that this potentially could be very highly valued land because it is next to a hospital in the middle of a residential area in the middle of a commercial area.

So I I do hear that.

Um so I think that I understand the uh hesitation to not quite commit to it fully.

Um, but I think that would just be appreciative to not uh I think in the balance of having 200 for what is 750 units in this relatively small area.

I think it's understood.

But that's my view.

I just want to express that.

Appreciate that.

I don't know.

Personally, I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that we can't build what's required by the land management code because nobody else has built it yet.

So Commissioner Strauss, and if I may just weigh in a little bit on the legislative um requirements of the code.

So the um provisions under for the MPD ordinance uh does give the option without any discretion of either the council or the planning commission the option to pay a fee in low of.

So the legislative body has decided until they amend the code if they choose to do so, that paying the fee is just as good as providing the unit.

So I mean that that is the takeaway when you create an ability to either provide or pay, and you leave that to the discretion of the applicant, um, that that they are equally as acceptable to the city.

So it would not be proper for this commission to condition an approval on the provision of them because that would be in a way circumventing or superseding the the legislative bodies to allow for that fee in lieu of.

Umce again, that may be something that that is discussed in the future.

I know there's a lot of discussion about affordable housing with our current council, and I'm sure with the future council coming into place, that will be uh item of of discussion.

Um, but currently, as it's as it's written, that provision of the city code and the LMC do allow for the payment in lieu of kind of by right.

Uh the other thing I wanted to touch on was the applicant's um suggestion that the uh council enter into a DRA with the applicant.

Uh that is also a matter that's legislated under our code when it comes to the adequate public facilities ordinance.

The applicant is given an option uh to meet the provisions of a certificate.

They can either enter into public works agreements and place sureties bonds or or other charities to uh improve all of the the requirements under that certificate prior to being issued a final certificate, which happens prior to building permit, so they can either essentially design bond and guarantee all of the infrastructure that you see in a provisional certificate, or they have the option to enter into mitigation agreement, which is given that that's description that discretion is given to the council to negotiate.

A DRRA can be a tool that's used as a mitigation agreement.

Once again, I would be concerned on that trying to condition an approval of a plan here upon compelling the council to enter into any type of agreement is really um not appropriate condition for this master plan.

Uh once again, we have to hearken back to the requirements of the LMC, what we're evaluating this master plan against, uh the decision before the commission regarding the road adequacy.

Um there are the four intersections that that does uh require the commission's sole discretion to determine those are adequate.

But once the code again, the code gives us criteria to evaluate that, right?

We have to look at can they provide any more mitigation without removing structures?

Have they provided all the mitigation they can?

That's the guidance that the code gives you to evaluate those those uh requests, um, not whether there's a DRA and it's phased or whether there's affordable units.

So I would caution that we we hearken back to those criteria when looking at our our uh provisions of adequacy, and then also respect the legislative authority that's been designated under the code with regards to both the DRA and the MPDU agreements.

I I would agree 100% with what Gabrielle said, and I think there just must have been a slight miscommunication, and if I if so, I apologize.

Uh I would agree you cannot compel the city council to enter into any kind of agreement with the developer.

What we were suggesting is a condition is that the applicant seek to obtain the approval of a mitigation agreement or DRA with the city council.

That puts the burden on us to at least try and work with the city to do it.

And I I we are here to commit to do that, and uh that's why I said I thought it was an appropriate condition.

I would agree with your director of planning that you cannot compel the city council to enter into an agreement with us.

Um thank you for that.

Are there any other more questions from the commissioner for the applicant?

No, just no, just a Gabriel.

Um you could write a condition, Gabrielle, that would be for the applicant to seek to obtain a DRR.

Speak just a little closer, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Um so we could have a condition that says that the applicant will seek to obtain to potentially obtain a DRR with the city council.

I would I would ask two questions.

One, why are we conditioning the plan upon that approval?

So what's the the relationship?

What's the nexus that makes us want to establish that condition?

And then two, if if there isn't a reason, if we look at all the criteria of the LMC and we look at this master plan, um, and we say, yeah, meets all of these checks, then that shouldn't be necessary, I guess is what I'm saying.

Um, and then I think that just as a matter of policy, attaching a condition that is hard to enforce.

Um does the applicants you know send us a letter and go, can we have a DRA?

And then someone goes no and we all walk away.

Is that is that achieving what the commission's intent is, right?

You want conditions that are based on your review of the plan where you feel that it does not meet the standards of the code.

So amend this, change that to meet the standards of the code.

Uh if this plan otherwise meets the requirements of the code, what is that condition gaining you, especially if it's not really enforceable, the applicant will, to the best of their intent, try to pursue this.

I I don't question their good faith and intent at all with this project.

I think that the testimony we've heard tonight and in past meetings is very genuine and um is a project that will contribute to the greater good immensely.

But what is that?

What is that goal of that condition?

And if they don't meet it, is the plan not sufficient if they don't meet it, right?

If if the DRA isn't executed, is the plan somehow not compliant with the code?

I I would suggest no.

Um so then is it properly a condition?

Because you you want to have conditions that bring the plan into conformance with the code requirements so what I will say is um in hearing your quote your question about like what is the intent, you know, what is the purpose, and if right now they don't they they don't have adequacy, that's clear, you know.

So they don't have that.

Um and so one of the ways that we're looking at is what they presented, which was the phased approach that would allow them to have some of that infrastructure built before they built the other piece of it, which is the units, right?

So to me, you know, when we talk about you know whether they meet the whether they meet the code or not, okay.

So let's just say, for example, I don't believe they meet the code, you know.

The road adequacy is not met, you know, and so I guess for me, when I'm hearing them talk about having that infrastructure in place first, you know, before building, you know, whatever they're planning to build, the other units, and then eventually the hospital, then to me that makes it more possible down the road for me to say, yes, this meets adequacy from the sense of they are putting the infrastructure in place before putting in the units.

And so I guess for me, um I'm just not understanding what's the reluctance, or maybe it's just not appropriate as you say, for why we wouldn't be able to say, you know, hey, you know, let's try to, you know, put a ring on it.

Let's try to make a commitment.

You know what I'm trying to say?

So I'm just trying to understand why that's not possible.

And I guess for me, then that I don't know what your response is going to be that, but I I feel stuck, you know, right now, just hearing your preliminary comments.

Is it a phasing?

The phasing of any APFO required improvements is subject to the jurisdiction of the council through mitigation agreement, which a DRA could serve as that mitigation agreement.

They could do that in that format.

Um, so the council gets to decide when when those improvements come on hand.

If the applicant does not want to actually design and be ready to construct through providing bonds to the city, all of those improvements prior to permits.

So the options for how the improvements come online have been legislated in the code without a role of the planning commission in deciding how that that works.

Okay, so what you're saying is that um there can be a change where the applicant has decided that they're not gonna make the improvements.

Um is that what I'm hearing you say?

We don't have the discretion to not make the improvements.

It's just a timing.

They they can either so that provisional certificate outlines a bunch of items that they need to either contribute to or construct.

All of those things have to either be designed and we have to have financial guarantees, so ready ready enough to construct.

They either have to do that before we issue a final certificate, that final certificate is needed before they can get any building permits.

So that's one option.

Pretty much design and bond anything right up front.

The other option is to go to the city council and ask for a mitigation agreement that would phase those improvements alongside the developments.

So terms like prior to the 20th building permit, we'll do X, Y, and Z prior to the 50th building permit, we'll do I J and K.

Um, whatever those improvements are.

So that that negotiation of the timing of all of those improvements is given to the council through a mitigation agreement.

But they have to perform all of the tasks in that provisional certificate, one way or the other.

It just is the default is either you need to do that before you can get a building permit, or if you want to negotiate the the phasing of those improvements, then you do that through a mitigation agreement through the council.

So those are the two requirements in the APFL.

Thank you.

And to be clear, we are offering to go the second route to try to live up to that phasing schedule that we have shown you rather than just bonding everything and going on our merry way.

Um one way or another, you the improvements, all the improvements that Chris discussed and that were shown on those exhibits will be built.

She's 100% correct.

Um we're just offering to negotiate that with the city council in a way that's as in conformance as possible with the the illustrative that we walked you through tonight of our phasing plan.

And as Chris said, that would entail things not just being bonded and financially guaranteed, but actually constructed and open to the public before occupancy and building permits being granted.

Um I still don't have a problem with you putting a condition that we seek uh uh DRA or mitigation agreement.

However, if the staff says that that's not a proper condition, I can just give you my word that we will okay.

Um so I Gabrielle had another question.

Um if you don't mind.

So in looking at action seven on page 3334.

Um, I'm looking at the staff, um, the request for vote adequacy um with section 414.

I've read that um again.

And um I'm looking at the finding that was written.

I'm not really a fan of the language.

Um, and I say that only because I feel like it doesn't reflect the reality.

I mean, it says the existing roads and and intersections are adequate as adequate cannot be achieved without alteration or removal of existing structures.

The admin has incorporated as much mitigation as possible.

I mean, yes, but it's still not adequate.

So I mean, I don't know, is there a way that we can um kind of like finesse the language to reflect um I guess the actual reality, what I'm trying to say is it's not like we're sitting here talking about adequacy, but it's not we're not approving this because it's adequate because adequacy could not be found.

Like, you know what I mean?

Like there's more to this, there's more richness to this conversation than what I see on this paper.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you what I'm trying to say.

Um, I mean, inherently we're acknowledging that the infrastructure is not adequate.

Um, that is kind of an omission, right?

Where we're we're basically saying um we've evaluated these intersections, they're not adequate.

We're not trying to hide that or not or shy away from that, um, but that physically they cannot be brought into adequacy without removing things, whether it be buildings or bridges or any other structure, um they so they can't be brought into adequacy because of that, and if there was any mitigation, the developer could provide to eek towards adequacy, they provided it.

So if we had identified something that made it a little bit better, but not fully better, uh then that would be part of that conversation.

But it I mean it's essentially yes, we they can't bring about adequacy because there are impediments to doing so, and they've done everything they can, and and that's the decision the commission's asked to make.

Just also note that this language is exactly the language from the land management.

I know.

Okay.

And if you're making a motion and making a finding, you can make it any way that you want with any information that you want.

And I would um just to expand on upon um Sherry's closing after going through her recommendations.

So the the code um requires that in order for a plan to be brought forward to the commission uh and scheduled for a hearing, that that certificate of adequacy is issued.

Without that certificate of adequacy, none of us should even be here.

That certificate of adequacy has been issued predicated on the fact that the commission will make these findings of adequacy.

So if the commission does not make these findings of adequacy, then we're going to say that the application itself is not properly before the commission and should be pulled.

You won't even act on that.

That will be essentially we'll stop there.

That's why that is a threshold issue.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

At this point, it's time for public comment.

Um can you, Jennifer, get me the sign-in sheet?

And at this point, we'll um take the opportunity if anybody's come in and not been sworn in and want to make comments before the commission, let me know now.

All right.

Anyone else?

Um go ahead.

I'm gonna ask everybody to stand.

And um anybody who wants and also is this Mr.

Sheen who was with 800.

We will get to you in a minute.

We actually continued your case because we weren't here, so but you might as well be sworn in now as well.

Um so do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and the statements made in the planning commission um in the hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If so, answer I do.

Great, thank you.

Um so we have um Lenny Jones.

Come on up, and remember to give us your name and address, and um you have three minutes and you'll be able to see the time countdown on the time clock in front of you or over there.

I think my name is on uh Lair Lairy.

I live at 816 Dunbrook Court.

To give you an idea where that is, if you know where the Walmart light is, I live exactly across the street.

The only thing that divides me from the intersection is a white fence.

Okay.

Uh I am first of all, I want to say for myself, I'm for the hospital.

Okay.

Now I hear about the fact that oh, we're gonna put in roundabouts.

Well, roundabouts may help with the flow, but in many cases, they're not safer than a four-way stop.

They're just not.

And when you think that at 26 in minocacy, right at that spot, it's six lanes.

And minocacy is two.

And despite the six lanes, there's huge long backups.

So you can imagine what it's gonna be in the roundabout.

People are gonna be stuck in the roundabout.

People are gonna be trying to work and wedge themselves in to the round into the um uh uh uh roundabouts.

Um cannot imagine having more cars on Minocassie.

I think if you're even just gonna go with the hospital, which is what I suggest you all do, that you close off the entrances and exits that take you on to Minocasi.

So the only way you can get to the hospital is by the new road.

And I have a lot more to say, but I can uh but I can I can see that my time is up.

But I hear things like oh um, well um people can go ahead and walk to the store.

People can go ahead and ride their bikes to the store.

How many stores have you been at where you've seen a bike in front of it?

You don't because people have to bring packages home.

Thank you.

Can you wrap your comments up?

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Rick Weldon.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Rick Weldon.

I'm the president and CEO of the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, a business advocacy organization with over 1,000.

I have to brag, over 1,000 nonprofit, for profit, and public sector entities.

I'm speaking on behalf of our 30 member board of directors.

The chamber views the proposed Frederick Health Village mixed use development as a long-term, multi-phase investment in our community's future.

The concept includes residential, commercial, and institutional components with the potential for a future hospital campus, and will unfold gradually over the next decade or even more.

Our nation, state, and community are facing a crisis in health care planning and delivery.

Frederick Health has always considered the long-term health needs of our community, and this plan is further evidence of that.

We also recognize the ongoing concerns about traffic and infrastructure capacity in this area.

Those are real issues.

But the city's planning process provides several tools to manage them, including phased approvals, transportation impact studies, and development agreements that link project progress to infrastructure improvement and capacity thresholds.

The question before the commission is not whether every challenge can be solved today, but whether the framework allows for responsible management and regulatory oversight as the project develops with consistent application of the city's planning tools, this project can balance growth with infrastructure needs and contribute to Frederick Health's viability and long-term vision for sustainable, well-coordinated development as they plan for how they'll meet the complex health demands of our growing and aging populations.

Now, I haven't had the honor to meet with many of you.

The last time I testified before the planning commission was on the downtown hotel project, and that's been a couple years.

And on that basis, we ask you to support the Frederick Health Village Master Plan, and we appreciate and respect your civic work on behalf of the City of Frederick.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I'll start by saying I don't envy you.

I want to make a few comments, I'll make them short from the perspective of a resident, and I've heard everything that's been said here today, and I'm one who's generally supportive of a hospital and recognize the value it brings to the community, and I hope it can be brought about.

But I want to bring us back to the facts.

And the fact is along the monoxy corridor, you have intersections that are either not adequate or barely adequate at today's level.

The plan says 750.

Well, the plan that we read says still says 1270.

We talked about that last time.

750 units is three times with triple the number of residential units in the market area.

And those people may be able to walk to market, but they have to drive to work.

And they're probably not going to be walking to the hospital work because those aren't the employees that are going to be able to afford to live there.

Plus, you have all the development along Monocasi Corridor.

The problem is, and really appreciate all the things that Frederick Hill says that they're going to do, those are needed today to meet the log jams along the Monoxy Corridor, especially the 26 Minoxy intersection and those immediately adjacent to it.

Frederick Health doesn't have the power to commit to the things that really need to be done.

They're in the comprehensive plan.

But they're what's the right word that they use, they're contemplated.

Mayor O'Connor was at the debate at Warman's Mill last week, week before, and he reminded us that 15 widening went from contemplated to maybe getting started next year.

That's a 25 years, and we're talking about a multi-phase project that's probably going to realize significant traffic increases for the people that live there, plus the people who are going to be working there well before these contemplated projects come a reality.

So I would ask that if you figure out a way to help this project go forward, and I hope there is a way to do it, it needs to be predicated on some of these things happening that are not in Frederick Health's capacity.

26 interchange.

Right in, right out.

The state already said no.

Hopefully they'll come back and we can be convinced.

And it's good to hear FMH is going to be an advocate for that.

But if it doesn't work, what happens?

So some of these steps that are outside their power need to be built in to the phase plan that they have to happen first.

And if they don't happen, then we don't add two to three thousand cars to the neighborhood.

And I think I'm ahead of my time, and thank you very much.

And again, I don't interview.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that's everybody who's signed up.

Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to make comments?

Good evening.

Uh Richard Griffin.

I'm director of economic development for the City of Frederick, and I bring you greetings from Mayor O'Connor and the senior leadership team of the city who asked if I'd make a few comments on behalf of the plan that you have in front of you this evening.

First, in full disclosure, all three of my children have been born at Frederick Health Center at the moment at Frederick Hospital.

A month ago, my niece had twins there.

And I make a lot of presentations in the community, and almost every presentation I make in out in neighborhoods, and you ask the question how many people either know or have someone in their household or in their neighborhood who either work at Frederick Health or have had a family member who's been treated there or a friend or colleague, and almost every hand goes up.

I think we can all see the importance of the health care system in the community.

I wanted to make a few comments about the rationale behind between the land management code and the comprehensive plan of the city.

And it says in this vision statement that its goal is to make City of Frederick the most livable city in the mid-Atlantic by 2040.

Now, obviously, that includes a whole lot of things.

But among the things, you all are very focused on transportation this evening.

Rightly so.

Frederick Healthcare as a partner in all of these transportation uh plans and with their master plan approved for that right in, right out on to 26 and some of the other things than we are without without it.

In all the time that I've been um you know here working at the city, it's rare to have seen a plan from an employer that has as many uh transportation improvements being made before the first new building is being constructed.

It's it's really rare.

So in closing, I would just like to say that this master plan is the first step in the process.

Um it's not the last step, and I recognize and appreciate the fact that you have a hard job in front of you.

Um, but I ask on behalf of the administration and certainly our senior leadership that you give uh uh significant um thought to what they proposed and approve this master plan this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um is there anybody else in the audience who would wish to make public comment?

No, seeing none.

All right.

Yes.

Uh good evening again, Bruce Dean.

I'm gonna be really brief.

Um I just wanted to address one of the things that Richard just said, because um he talked about the comprehensive plan, he talked about the master plan and how this is the first of many steps in the process.

But I think what what we've been trying to stress is our as our project team to the commission, is there's a lot of things that this can do.

Um it can do a lot of things from the road infrastructure, as Richard said, it can do a lot of things from for social infrastructure, can do a lot of things for health care infrastructure, can do a lot of things for the aging infrastructure of our city.

Um, but it can't do any of those things without being able to help plan.

And that's why step one is a master plan.

Um you're not approving any buildings tonight.

Uh you're approving some conditional uses if you if you if you choose to do so that we would like to incorporate in the future uh community.

Um, but we can't do any of these things without an approved master plan.

Um we would we really really do want to not just be part of the downtown community but part of Frederick City as a whole.

That's why the hospital made this huge investment in buying the former state farm headquarters.

Um this is this is a just a huge huge project from the the hospital standpoint, and I think that that um that our team has has proven that or at least tried to prove that to you tonight.

Uh no one is disagreeing with the neighbors and the residents and all of us.

I mean, I don't know anyone who lives in Frederick City who doesn't use 26 and Minoxy Boulevard in US 15.

Um we get it.

Um but we are committed to that neighborhood, we are committed to that part of the city, and we need to be at the table to be able to help fix that.

Um so please, please.

Uh I hope you see fit to make the appropriate findings with regard to the infrastructure, which will then enable us to start executing on all of these benefits that this project can bring to Frederick City transportation, not in the least, because as Mr.

Jones said, these are um existing and Mr.

Payne, I think both said these are some existing problems that needs to be that need to be fixed that are not going to be fixed if this if we aren't moving forward.

So you and you could get cherry and back up here in Joe Caligaro, and they could tell you which percentage of what improvement we're gonna make goes to help existing problems versus help future problems.

But I can guarantee you right now a lot of those improvements are fixing existing problems, and those improvements will not be made without this project.

So we do ask for your support and the ability to move forward with this.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Right.

At this point, it comes back up here.

And the first question we need to discuss is the just the um issue of adequacy.

Any discussion, any questions, any thoughts.

Well, if nobody has any discussion or thoughts, then we need to make a motion one way or the other.

Can I just ask you?

Is it a matter of the other thing?

Yeah, we've got to do that.

We've we've actually closed public comments.

Okay, I just we really can't, and I apologize, but we really can't take any more public comment or questions at this point.

It's with the council and or excuse me, with the commission.

So certainly the gentleman will hear what you're gonna do, so we'll we'll get it understanding.

Um I guess I feel like before we decide that we're gonna vote, I I mean I'm just curious about where everyone else is.

So we're not you know surprised unexpectedly surprised at the vote.

I mean, I'm just gonna go.

Dorothy, you gotta make sure you're up to that microphone so we can hear you.

We can't hear you here, sorry.

I'm sorry.

Um I will try to bring it up closer.

Um so as I was saying, I'm curious before we take a vote doing a pulse check to see where everyone is before we actually vote.

So it's not you know an unexpected surprise.

I'm just and only if people want to respond, but I'm just curious as to where everyone is.

Okay.

Sure.

So go ahead.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So Dorothy, I I think like you I I like the phasing part of it.

I don't like the verbiage.

I understand that's how as it's written into the land management code.

Um, but I really really want some type of condition of following the phasing approval.

And I know we talked about whether that should be in the master plan stage or with road adequacy.

I think it fits more in with road adequacy now that I've heard everybody and then thinking through it.

And I really would like to include that as my thought.

Yeah, my view on it is I'm I'm leaning towards the idea to approve.

I hear their uh I like I like the fact that they spent time to come up with this plan for phasing and at least presented that it shows that they have are acting good faith towards this.

I also think that reasonably, um I think part of this process is typically when they when a group comes forward and helps and gets assistance from the city about whether the roads are gonna be adequate.

You know, if they wanted to build a hospital system here, uh and the roads are not adequate, it's not gonna be usable for for them.

It's not gonna work well.

It's not gonna if they wanted to build housing.

Um I I think people typically know the places they're gonna move.

No one's gonna move to a place if it's really that clogged up and useless as roads go.

So I think that not only the road development is not only a benefit to the city, but it's also benefit to them to in order to functionally develop on this space.

So I know that we can't guarantee here as our role to, you know, dictate or mandate them to do this, but I think that the good faith of them coming forward with this, you know, it it's difficult for them.

They they could it's their land, they technically could just say, hey, we want to build on it, and then city's gotta make the improvements.

But and then we say, no, okay, that's not gonna work, not gonna fly.

But they came and said, we're going to work to develop this, you know, public roads so that we can develop this to you know, build a hospital.

It's not like they're just building a lot more housing that's surrounding it too.

Um so it's providing a good for the city as well.

So that's that's my view on it.

There's no such thing as a perfect project, there's always issues with it.

But I think the balance between trying their best to mitigate the issues in this space, and part of you could say that this issue with you know access to or the the issue with there being issues with the roads is not telling their fault.

There's lots of other housing that's been built, multiple projects that have built here over time that maybe along the way it should have been improved there, but that's a different conversation from past we were we were involved in that.

Um so I think that they've done a lot that they can't mitigate it.

This is a long project they've put out there, lots of things can and will change on it.

We'll get more granularity on the project goes forward, but I feel like this is gonna be an improvement and an improvement over what's space that could be better used in an area that is is better used developed than it is right now.

So that's my that's my view on it.

Thank you.

What are your thoughts, Chair Woman?

Swesson I'm still not sure.

And part of what you said is that it's not their fault.

It's not the applicant's fault.

Um we've actually had more interest from the city than we've ever had on a project before.

It's the city's fault.

And the city needs to change its policies.

And personally I appreciate the offer to do the construction, do the improvements before any building.

Apparently, we don't have teeth to make sure that you live up to those promises.

But we also need the city to step up and do things to make this more livable.

I mean, we talk about livability, but this part of the city is not livable right now, because I live up there and it's not livable.

So I don't know.

So I echo your that's those are those are my thoughts.

It's like yeah, and I think my thoughts are I do appreciate the applicant hearing the community and us at the last couple of meetings.

I do appreciate them providing a plan that shows a phased approach in which the infrastructure, which really is what this is about, it's about the infrastructure.

Um so I appreciate the fact that the applicant has you know shown us that you know they're interested in putting the infrastructure in place before they decide to build anything.

So I I think that a good way, and they also appreciate um if it's just the idea or the thought of having affordable housing, hopefully it will metamorphose into something of more certainty.

Um, but I do appreciate that as well from the applicant.

Um if I'm honest, you know, I think where I'm a little bit stuck is back at the you know and not being able to provide a condition that speaks to the phasing.

I understand, Gabrielle, what you mentioned about the appropriateness and you know, the roles and responsibilities of the city council versus the planning commission.

So I appreciate you providing that clarity for us.

Um so in my head, I'm just trying to problem solve, trying to figure out how we can kind of merge everyone, you know, into one definitive vote and for that, and I just don't know what the way forward is.

I mean, I don't know if we can you know I'm open to ideas because I mean we need, I mean, the applicant needs a minimum of three votes for this to pass.

Great to have a majority of four.

Um so in my head, I'm just trying to think about what we can do to kind of get us all at the four or minimum three.

Um I don't know.

I think I need help from you guys to kind of do that somehow.

I mean, I know Gabrielle said we really can't have that as a condition, but there's got to be some verbiage we can use there to say that you know, a finding of road adequacy is being met based on the phasing proposal, and just add that that little couple of words there, would that be sufficient and agreeable?

Or a phased approach?

Because this is a proposal because you know it's a draft, it could change.

So I mean, I would say a draft proposal.

Um I guess the question that I have is I'm sorry, I was having a hard time hearing Commissioner.

I guess the question that I have is I apologize.

Um so as I as I see this, you know, it's it's phased where the first half of the proposal as their timeline they're giving is to make it such that these accesses would make it either at or closer to adequacy for the road access for the project at large.

And then the second kind of part is then the development of the housing and the hospital and stuff like that as part of it.

Could you put in a conditional that says that they can't begin the second part of the actual housing development portion until the these intersections meet adequacy?

So whether that's done by the city or done by them that it's completed.

That's a good idea.

Like could we could we not just have that?

I I I don't know how to know the policy.

Could you have that?

Which kind of whether it's them or the city that does it, is that not the purpose of the phasing anyway?

So phasing is complete part one so that we can do part two.

Right.

So can we tell them, okay, then finish part one before you can do part two.

Again, that is the essence of a mitigation agreement, which is up to the council to decide.

And we can't we can't put that in there.

But is the mitigation, but we're not dictating the mitigation agreement.

We're just saying they can't do part two until that's exactly what a mitigation agreement is.

Right.

The mitigation agreement would dictate how much they could do before certain improvements were bought online.

Okay.

Yeah, we're just saying whether they do it or it is done.

Correct is the agreement saying that they're doing it with the city, or is it just like it has got to be done somewhere or another before they can begin?

So all of the all of the improvements except these four intersections, which are not gonna be adequate regardless, are if they make all these improvements and they want to do that all day one, they can do that.

And they can build however they want to build.

Um if they don't want to do that and provide all of these improvements essentially through design and bonding up front, then they can pace that out.

But that's all subject to the council's discretion.

There's nothing that would give the planning commission the latitude to dictate what pieces come online first relative to infrastructure.

I do hear you uh about the concern that this is not the the this issue is I think just to the natural progression.

This is a separate kind of aside.

But it's a natural progression of Frederick wanting to expand and produce more housing and grow as a city, but relying on the current standard of you know, using older uh roads and car dependency as the model to do so.

So this is kind of beyond us as a commission, but I hope that if uh the city's looking that this is what's gonna happen and that maybe this is a situation where in future, if there's gonna be development, there needs to be better planning ahead of time beyond us as the planning commission to to mitigate some of these.

Yeah.

Uh yeah, yep.

Yeah, I'll try and then explain a little hopefully along the lines of what Gabriela said to your question.

So uh the conditions of approval of the APFO provisional, so to say conditions are all due on day one if they want to go forward.

So once you approve it, that is all due.

So entirety of it is due on day one.

What the mitigation agreement or a public works agreement or a DRRA would help them in phases in a way that's tied to the development.

If say if it's a residential portion that's built first, they can the way they do it is a negotiation process to say, okay, I want to do XY and Z as my phasing, then we tie to that a development program that fits the impact from that development.

So the mitigation agreement or a public uh uh or a DRRA is um it it's tied very closely with the development program.

So it's really where um we look at an assessment of what the impact is and what the best improvement to mitigate that in improvement.

So looking at this like a 2025 or 30 year project in the hospital, the physical hospital may be coming.

Late in the in later years there may be some that are more that may happen in the next five years or ten years.

Then we can make an assessment, what is that priority improvement that needs to happen?

How does I mean if the so the in the totality even once this is approved, they can we can work with the hospital to get the road connection open, but break on 26.

So those are all things that we can move forward through a mitigation agreement.

Not necessarily after condition, but I think as uh Bruce was mentioning.

There's a whole lot of things that we can work to time the delivery of infrastructure more closely with what's will be on the ground.

Yeah, I guess maybe there's a follow-up question for for the uh city.

Um this is just the master plan as we go forward and they start to develop parts of the smaller.

Do each of those have components that they have to meet the like you know, road road use and and like the access, so all of those subcomponents when they come forward later will have the same question of oh, you're now building this row of housing.

Is there adequate you know, drivability to and from?

Because is that not just solving the problems that when they come back in 2030 or whatever it says?

If they haven't done everything else, they're gonna come forward and say, all right, we want to build these houses.

Oh adequacy not there because none of these improvements have been done and then they fail.

Is that not just what's gonna happen if they don't do the phased approach realistically?

I mean we're not gonna we might not be there, but whoever is the is that gonna be the next steps later on, or if we approve today, the adequacy of road issues is no longer on the table, and now it's just gonna be the very local site plan of each of each like parcel that they develop, just for clarification.

So each plan that comes in after this.

So we've gone from master plan, we'll go down to preliminary plat, which will start to um define the interior road networks and the lot layouts at each step of the process, and then final site plan where we're looking at the actual buildings on the site and the landscaping, all that good stuff.

So as we work our way into a more narrow focus at every step along the the path there, we uh go back to these certificates that were issued, and we go, are they proposing now what was assumed in terms of impacts with these initial certificates?

At some point, if they started to either kind of piecemeal improvements that that tripped those assumptions that we've measured now, now they're 50 units over what we previously assumed, or they've anticipated a new use that's a lot um more demanding in terms of water usage, and they go over kind of those assumptions that we've locked in now, then they would have to retest again.

The certificates are only valid for a certain period of time under the code.

The applicant can and through a DRA would be able to extend that time frame.

I believe a DRA is valid up to 20 years.

Um I don't know if there's an extension provision under state law, we'd have to look at that, but once again, that would be the city council's um purview.

So if they don't get those building permits within the lifespan of those certificates, then new testing would have to be done because that you know we've kind of established this time frame after which if you haven't built your project, the world around you has changed, and we want to capture that change.

Now keep in mind that the project does remain background data for anything that comes afterwards.

So if we get another project that goes into the same school feeder pattern, but even before this project starts constructing, we report that as background and we go, okay.

Well, these trips are out there, these children are going to the schools, this water and sewer demand.

So it stays in that pipeline as long as it's valid.

At some point, if it if it expired and the certificates no longer valid, it would drop out of that background essentially because they have no they have no entitlements at that point.

Does that help?

Yeah, that helps.

And I'm sorry this is gonna seem obvious, but the adequacy certificates that you guys have passed, are that based on the assumption of the improvements that they've listed as part of this plan, or are those certain you know those certificates just now?

Like are they based on the ground as it lays right now?

What are those certificates actually based on?

Like like that, like your your adequacy certificate certification.

Is that based on the assumption that these road improvements are gonna get made or not?

Yeah.

Sorry, are these improvements locked in essentially?

Yeah, they are they like locked in or it's if they didn't do them and they came forward and said, hey, we want to do this, would the they not like would they fit not with those adequacy certificates not work for that?

So we have had instances where people have revised mitigation agreements um over time.

I think the Ren Quarter project had a revised mitigation agreement where the improvements were or amended over time.

Um but these improvements are those of the certificate and control any of the off-site improvements.

On-site construction is then part of the development process generally.

Okay.

Well, I was gonna say I think we're at the point we just need to take a vote and see how it falls out.

Okay.

Um, but I do want to just before we do that, um, the provisional certificate has the wrong number of um units, residential units in it.

It still says 1270.

Yeah, I was just gonna say that.

Um so I don't know how we that's not correct.

Typically, um the the test could be for much higher density than uh because if it's a longer time um that could be looking at a different uh mix and oftentimes the traffic studies are look at a higher impact than actual uh so that the it's just uh a development envelope.

Um the actual approvals will be through the site plan process or the the densities that would come through.

But as we just explained to to Commissioner Buono, this gives them an extra 350 units to you know so I'm I'm not gonna approve it.

No, we're we're we're you're you're you are being asked to approve a master plan that has a maximum of 750 dwelling units.

Whatever this I agree the the APFO cert still has that higher number.

Um that's just for testing purposes.

You are not approving any more units than what's on the master plan 750, I promise you.

Yeah, that's what it says right here.

It says right here again.

Oh God.

So instead of 750, each one has the wrong one on it.

Yeah, they do.

All three.

All three.

Yep.

Right.

Well, let's have a motion, take a vote and see what happens.

Okay.

I move forward.

Bring the microphone closer.

Sorry.

I move for approval uh finding of road adequacy in accordance with section 4-14 of the city code, adequate public facilities for the following four intersections.

Monocracy Boulevard at Shorebird Street, Walmart Entrance, Maryland 26 at Monocase Boulevard, Monocasey Boulevard at River Bend Way, and Warman's Mill Road at Mill Pond Road.

Staff findings that the existing roads and intersections are adequate as adequacy, cannot be achieved without alteration or removal of existing structures, and that the applicant has incorporated as much mitigation as reasonably possible.

Um staff is supporting that recommendation, and I move for that approval.

I second that is that we need to do.

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

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

I know, yeah, I can't.

I think we should still I I don't know if I'm ready for that this vote just yet.

Well, obviously we just had a I know you know we just had a tie.

So I'm sorry, I didn't see.

Were there two opposed and two uh in favor?

Is that what you're doing?

Two in favor and two who haven't voted yet, but I'm opposed.

Okay, well, you need to finish the vote on this, because you called for the vote, so make a count.

Come on, Dorothy, you have to vote one way or the other.

Um I'm still thinking I want to know if I could modify the language of the vote.

Or is it too late now?

It's too late, I think.

Is it too late for me to add language?

Yes.

Well, you have something on the table now.

So unless the motion maker withdraws the motion, then you ought to finish this vote.

I'm talking to Llewellyn.

So I would agree to withdraw the motion if you are motioning for approval with a different condition that you'd want to bring up.

Um I was thinking to myself that um talks about the existing road and intersections are adequate, as adequate cannot be achieved without alteration or removal of existing structures, and the applicant has incorporated as much mitigation as needs to be possible based on the phased approach of the various other road improvements that will be provided.

I'm sorry, I'm I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying there.

Okay.

Are you so is your motion uh is that intended to provide justification for why you're making that motion based on this wealth of information that they provided about all the future improvements that will go on in the area?

Well said.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

Okay, but that is with also the understanding that what they presented this evening, any future phasing of their improvements is subject to that negotiation with the council through a mitigation agreement.

That is fine.

But my so for example, my reason for voting on this specifically, yes, I understand the vote is not adequate and so forth, but it is because they provided additional information around a phased approach related to the infrastructure that they're going to provide.

It doesn't have to be a mitigation agreement, but that's the reason why I would be voting for adequacy.

Does that make sense?

And I think that was a language that I wanted to include.

Well, see, I don't think that needs to be part of the motion.

That's your justification for being in support of the motion, and that's fine, because the motion really is a repeat and what is required under our code.

And so it's a it's very clean under the code and it says what it says.

Your justification, I think is depending on how you feel, is adequate.

You can say that I support this because of these things.

I may not agree that with whatever the statement is, but you're in support of the motion to approve based upon what the language of the code is and the other things that you've added.

So that doesn't have to be part of the motion.

So here's my question, Scott.

So I can't add additional findings is what you said.

Because that's my so we're still keeping the language, which you said as part of the code, which I read and I understand, but I'm also adding my own additional findings.

So are you now saying, and it's not my findings are not saying you must enter a mitigation agreement.

All it's saying is that you know I find road adequacy based on the fact that adequacy cannot be achieved, and they did the best that they could, but what also is another finding that I have is based on the approach that they provided that shows road infrastructure that you know could be provided at some point.

However, I however that should be articulated.

But I I understand what you're saying.

I don't think that that's I think that that is your logic behind why you are you would be in support of this.

It's a finding for me.

But if that if if that's what you need to say, is that's why I'm supporting this because I also include or I also find this, that is completely fine with me.

I would prefer the motion to be to include the language of the statute, and that you have these additional reasons, findings, if you will, as to why you're in support of that.

And I believe that that is fine.

That is okay if you choose to do that.

I feel like we're saying the same thing, but in a roundabout way because and I could be wrong because I see Christina is shaking her head, no, maybe, but we're keeping the same language from the code.

Sure.

That's a finding, and then an additional finding for me, or at least I don't know who everyone else would agree, would say, you know, um, based also on the additional information, and I don't know how we would phrase it.

We could that is completely acceptable.

If you want to do that, it doesn't change the motion, but it adds to your find it adds to what you are saying in terms of why you would be in support or not in support, depending on how the motion would go.

You're gonna add this to say this is why I'm in support based on this finding that I am making.

Right.

That's okay.

That's yeah, I can get behind that.

Uh I don't know what anyone else thinks about that.

Though I don't have the language crafted in my head just yet.

But I think if you just say it out loud, the gist will be recovered recorded.

So I think we have to make a new motion because the motion was drawn.

You can make the same motion, and uh the commissioners that want to be in support of that can make their findings as because you make a motion, it's seconded, then there's discussion, and then there's a vote.

Right?

So go through it in that in that order.

All right.

Motion Okay, so I move to uh for a finding of road adequacy in accordance with section 4-14 of the city code, adequate public facilities for the following four intersections monocracy boulevard at Shorebird Street, Maryland 26 at Monocracy Boulevard, Monoxy Boulevard at River Bend Way, and Warman's Mill Road at Mill Pond Road, with staff findings that the existing roads and intersections are adequate as adequacy cannot be achieved without alteration or removal of existing structures, and the applicant has incorporated as much mitigation as reasonably possible.

Um finding that uh the staff has found the road adequacy for the four above noted intersections in accordance with section 4-14 of the city code.

Okay, before I ask for a second, I would like to clarify that those are not staff findings or staff recommendations, those are the commission findings and the commission recommendations.

So if you don't agree with that, then I do agree with that.

Okay.

Now for a second.

And I would add the additional finding um that um based on the draft phase approach that includes additional road infrastructure provided by the applicant.

So again, just to be clear, you're trying to amend the motion, right?

You're not supporting the motion.

You are amending the motion.

We haven't had a second yet on the original motion.

So I know we're picking over little things here.

She made a motion.

That's her motion.

If you want her to amend a motion, then ask her to do that.

But otherwise, get a second, and then say those things that you just said in terms of those are your findings.

And that's fine.

You can do that.

But it doesn't have to be a finding included in the motion.

I believe you intended to amend the motion, Chris.

Yes.

Is that acceptable to you?

That is acceptable to me.

Okay.

Now do I have a second based on what I read?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Is that you?

Okay.

So that was a motion by Commissioner Lewell and a second by Commissioner Manellas.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's three.

I'm opposed.

That's three to one.

Um so that is action seven, which is the finding of adequacy.

So at this point, we can continue to the beginning of the actions.

We have four actions regarding mixed use, um, approval of mixed use um conditional uses, one for the senior living and retirement facilities, one for nursing home domiciliary care facility, one for laboratory, medical laboratory, and one from the heliport.

Um before we do specific motions, I don't know if we have any discussion or comment, but I want to give you my personal comment that we have not seen enough information on these conditional uses to adequately assess the criteria that are that we're required to assess.

And I personally think that that approval is more appropriate for the site plan stage than the master plan stage.

And I would agree.

So any other questions, comments.

Okay, we have um action one is um approval of senior living and retirement facilities as a mixed use conditional use per section 404 table 404-1.

Do I have a motion?

I move for approval of senior living and retirement facilities as a mixed use, conditional use per section 404, table 404-1, and in accordance with sections 310, 837, and 861 of the land management code.

Findings one through three as read by staff and recommending approval for senior living and retirement facilities as a mixed use conditional use.

So that's a motion by Commissioner Lowell and a second by Commissioner Bologna.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

So that's uh Commissioner Lewell and Buono in favor.

Commissioner Strawson and Manellus opposed.

Okay, well, you have to take an action on that because you didn't have a that wasn't a motion that passed.

So it's not a denial and it's not an approval.

So you have to take further action.

I missed the last.

I missed the last part of your comment.

Oh, I'm saying it's a motion that that wasn't approved.

It wasn't also, I mean, so all you have is a motion that did not pass.

So you have to take further action on action one.

So can you remind me again what what your issues?

I think one, two, three, and four here.

What are your uh challenges that you guys are seeing with those?

The can the um criteria that these have to meet are listed at the beginning of the staff report.

And essentially um the conditions are very specific related to um conditions of the site, and since, in my opinion, we have absolutely no information on where, if, how, when any of these uses are going to go in there, we cannot.

I cannot find I don't know about the rest of you, but I cannot assess whether or not um sorry, I just wanted to say that um when I think I don't remember which hearing it was, but that um when we discuss these conditional uses that while they can't specifically be evaluated at this time um during the site plan stage when they would be presented or proposed at that time, they would then be evaluated for those criteria at that time.

I understand that, and in my opinion, that's the appropriate time to decide whether these conditional uses are appropriate.

So would you be agreeable to say we would approve consideration of no even want to go that far?

I guess that's the question is if if these are not approved in the master and like the the initial site plan here, could they just be added later?

Or is this is are including these four here in this plan today requirements such that later on, or would there need to be an amending of the entire plan later if one of these four wanted to be added to a more specific part of the plan later?

It just means that they can bring them in the site plan, and then we have adequate information to to fully assess all of the criteria.

We're not saying that they can't ever be, I'm not saying that they can't ever be addressed, just that I don't think they're given that all we have is colored blobs, we don't have enough information to assess yet.

The code requires mixed use conditional uses to be considered as part of the master plan.

So inherently that kind of sets up for a situation where there's going to be vagueness.

Um the master plan level, we're looking at this conceptual uh land use allocation, we're looking at the relationship of uses and major road connections.

Um we're not looking at the details of meeting necessarily a prescribed setback.

But the code is asking at this master plan for the commission to consider the compatibility and appropriateness of the use in that context of the generalized land use map and its relationship to the surrounding world.

And then as it's noted in the staff findings, the finding is that the development will have to comply with all the more prescriptive requirements of section 837 61 for assisted living and senior senior living and retirement facilities at that site plan stage.

So it is um intended to be a incremental or uh what's the word I'm looking for?

Kind of a what's the word it's intended to be an incremental approval process, right?

That at this master plan you're looking at the compatibility overall in the scheme of the information that you have with the understanding that inherently they're going to have to comply with the requirements dictated for those sections.

So if you don't support the overall relationship of that potential land use in this context, that would be a reason to not support it.

But if it's um based on not being sure that it's going to comply with those specific criteria, those are that's kind of baked into the process, they will have to comply with those.

They'll have to prove it later.

And the planning commission approves that later, of course.

Yeah, that was my understanding that this is just that they are intending to include those as part of it, as part of the overall plan, and then later on when they introduce a site plan that is a senior in retirement facility, we'll then have to determine whether that specific sub plan meets all of the requirements for whatever whatever that would be for the city's requirements for such a such a building.

Um it doesn't necessitate that we have to approve later on down the road the specifics of whatever that plan is.

It's just that this site will or potentially could include such a building.

Am I correct?

Am I correct on that?

Sorry.

Oh, correct, correct.

This is this is the general evaluation, any conditional use, um, whether we think about it in the context of a mixed use, conditional use, that's a master plan, or a conditional use that goes to the zoning board of appeals.

The idea of conditional uses is that without a deeper dive into the exact location and the compatibility of surrounding land uses, that we wouldn't otherwise just say this is a permitted use in MU, right?

We want to look at it in this particular project and say, does this make sense here?

Is this compatible?

Is it compatible with the land uses around it and and within this master plan?

So that's that's the distinction of why something is a mixed use conditional use versus just a buy-right use.

Um is that the commission is empowered and employed to look at it in the context of a specific development proposal with the expectation that the refined design plans will be reviewed later as a site plan.

And if that was the case, then that's the criteria that the staff report should have presented to us.

But it listed 13 very specific criteria that we are to assess 13, 14, I lost count, but so on page, I'm just looking at page nine, we talk about the characteristics of its use and operation in question relative to adjacent properties and the types of impacts it could create.

So for each senior living nursing home medical laboratory helistop, we we evaluated those criteria, that criteria for all of those uses and generally found that in the context of this specific project and what's proposed within it and around it, that it would not create any greater adverse impact than a use that was permitted by right, like a retail store.

Do we want more information?

So are you looking for more information than that?

Do you want are you asking for more to prove that sort of staff finding to back that staff finding up?

I'm not asking for anything.

I don't I'm going to be voting no.

So I what I don't under what I need to figure out is how we move forward from here.

Can I get some better clarification as to why you're a no on it?

I just want to understand because I from my point of view, I see this as they want to put these types of developments on here.

They asked to put them on here.

The city they're the you know commit to review said, yes, that is that seems fine to include them here because they're not going to be a huge departure from what the plan of this space is going to be.

And then when they come forward and say we want to build a hospital in 2035 or whatever, and say we want to build a hospital with a heli stop on it.

Here is the specific plan for the hospital with a heli stop.

And then we could say, actually, your heli stops in the middle of the parking lot.

That doesn't make any sense.

Rejected.

Like that's what we could do in 10 years.

But right now it's just saying this is kind of what they want to do in the future, and we're just building, we're just approving the idea that it could be in there in the future.

But the specifics, we're not dictating the specifics right now.

That's my understanding.

So I see no problem with approving it as it fits in with the character of this entire project.

But if I if my thinking is different, I'd like to know where your thinking departs from mine.

It in my perspective, and asks very many specific questions that ask to be answered now that we don't have the data for the can you point to those in particular so I can so I can read those you're saying there's many specifics that I I'm just I'm just curious because I don't want to.

Noise levels, making sure that the location of the of the uses are not obstructing um walkways.

Um I mean those could all be rejected later in the specifics when they actually choose to build those sub-components.

Right?

Is that is that my say that?

I don't know if that's my understanding.

But I don't know if that's my understanding.

Yeah.

It it can you get some clarification on that?

You know, that it each of these would be part of a subcomponent of the plan that have to be approved later, correct?

Or or no?

We just we approve heli's heli, you know, helicopter pad today and they just build it wherever they want.

That's not how this works, right?

Or is it what comment site plan?

So no, they can't just put it wherever they want.

So you're absolutely right in what you're saying.

This is a uh an approval for a general type of use.

This is gonna be, you know, a mixed use, both medical and residential sort of compound, and they know they're going to need these different things.

We are supposed to provide each of these items, each of these criteria to look at at this point in time.

Um we have looked at each individual one.

If you want to, if there's a specific issue that you have with one of them we that you want to discuss, we're happy to do so.

Um but this is how we would initially evaluate something.

Um it all makes sense in the sense of a mixed use uh development, especially in this area.

We of course at the site plan level, we're gonna deal with street connectivity, we're gonna deal with pedestrian connectivity, we're going to get into that sort of sub very specific detail.

Um but to your point, no, they're not gonna put a helistop in the middle of a parking lot.

Um might even be on top of a building, you know.

So, yeah, but if you have specific things about the criteria you want to discuss, we are absolutely here to do so.

So if I mean I I don't want to say this, but if you feel like you don't have enough information to make a decision on some of these actions, and I'm guessing that if you were saying, are you saying no to not just action one but some of the other actions as well?

Yes, I am.

Then it would be I mean, I don't know that I I want staff to just sort of you know just start guessing at this, but if you have specific questions that you want to pose to us, and then we can goodness Bruce will shoot me when I say this, but maybe this can't be decided tonight, and we have to come back with more information for you to give us an approval.

Um that I mean that would be the way I would I would not want you to say no or to not vote on something that you think you need more information.

It's our job to provide you with information, and if you feel like you need some more information, then we'll do our very best.

We um won't be me, but it'll be the staff here that will provide you with whatever the appropriate information that you need so you can make an informed decision on this matter.

So if that's if you feel that is the case, then we'll have to give staff more time to come up with that information for you.

And we would want you to articulate exactly what information that you're that you need to feel confident in taking action on it.

And I would also um just note that the applicant's justification statement is in the packet for each of those mixed use conditional uses, so it may be something that they also want to submit a revised justification statement for your consideration to speak to whatever information that you feel like you're lacking.

Okay, well, I'll start with uh Helestop.

Um for me, I feel like there's really not enough information on that.

It talks about how you know um there won't be any adverse impact.

Um, but we don't even know where it's going to be.

I mean, yes, it's gonna be with the affiliated with the hospital, but where exactly like I mean, I guess I don't have enough information to determine whether it will not create a greater adverse impact.

Like there's no real information about it when you're looking at it just as a hospital will be part of the helicopter will be part of a future hospital, which would be site which impacts potential errors will be minimal.

I mean, there's no real information that speaks to how it why they're saying it would be minimal for me.

Um to say yes, this is correct, a helix stop will not create any greater adverse impact.

That's one thing, but there's more.

I mean, go ahead.

I think you're gonna say something.

Oh, yeah, I was just gonna I was gonna ask me, and maybe I'm misunderstanding it too.

Is that it is your concern on this that uh if they do put forward the idea of a helistop, and then it does produce, you know, we we we find then for whatever building that they're building with a helistop that it does have an issue, that we have no recourse to stop it at that stage?

No, just the the site plan is the time that's appropriate to assess the criteria that have been included in the staff report.

Then then I guess I have the other sorry, can I get this clarification again?

If if we tonight strike these out and say, nope, not approved with these components in it.

Later on down the road, if they want to put a Heli stop in the building, what is the how would they how would they do like you know I'm just saying hypothetically could they do that?

Like would they have to do a change of the map of this plan there?

Like how does what does that look like down the road if we reject it now?

So if this plan were not approved with any of the requests for mixed use conditional uses, the master plan itself would have to be substantially amended in terms of just notes and things on the plan, so we wouldn't want to take action on that tonight if if those approvals aren't all kind of cued up to fall in line uh the way they're outlined in your staff report.

Um, because we would want the master plan to be amended to reflect that.

Um the applicant could come back and ask for additional mixed use conditional uses.

Um it is intended to be done through a master plan action, so a revision to the master plan, um, or whether it comes through as a future site plan.

Um, we'd have to look at it once again kind of in the context of this larger plan and have these same conversations about compatibility.

Um I think it the the master plan process is intended to create a unified development.

And in doing so, applicants are given flexibility, but the planning commission is given higher levels of discretion, right?

Um, if everything's very prescriptive, it's easy just to check the boxes and say you're approved.

In a master plan development, what we're looking to do is kind of balance this flexibility with this discretion and overall get a the best project possible.

Um so with that said, I think it's incumbent upon us to consider these uses in that overall context of the master plan because it's part of that whole synthesized hole that we're looking to create.

Yeah, I mean that's in in my view.

If it is, you know, 10 years, 2035 over 2041 and saying we're gonna build the hospital.

If tonight we're approving this master plan and it's not included, there's going to potentially be a helipad here in 15 years when there's five different people sitting here and they're evaluating this proposal, and it doesn't include that.

They're gonna say, well, there was no helipad approved on the initial master plan for this, approved in 2025.

I might want to reject it because obviously you guys didn't care enough 15 years ago to plan there was a helipad.

And I think that them coming forward and saying we're planning all of these things on this property makes sense because these are all things that they're saying we want to do potentially.

But it makes sense to include them now so that in the full idea of this master plan, we're we're considering all of these important parts down the road.

And it's okay that we don't know the specifics of it now because we probably won't, but it's better, I think, on our side to say, yes, it's good to have these as part of our overall thinking and have it documented and say these are what might be included in this full site plan.

Such that way down the road when they actually build it, it's not a hey, we need to amend the entire site plan here and add something that might now seem disruptive because for the next 15 years going to be developing stuff without that built into the master plan.

That's that's my thinking on it is that we want to include everything that could be there that they want to be there from the beginning.

That's that's my view of it, even if the specifics aren't specifically there yet, because it's 15 years away.

But that's that's my point why that I'm on the side of vote, yes, on these.

But I do respect you guys as as to why you want more clarification.

Yeah, I think uh when I look at this and it talks about the conditional use is a criteria, and that you would have to meet the criteria.

And right now when I'm looking at the different categories, I don't I see opinions, I don't see facts.

And so typically when we receive stuff like this, we're getting information, you know, that these criteria actually are responding to.

So there's no way to really say that it doesn't create, it does or does not create a greater adverse impact.

There's no way to really determine or at least to measure, you know, um other things like um maybe we can take them one by one.

Let me interrupt again for a second.

Um effects of the use upon the peaceful enjoyment of people in their homes.

I mean, there's no real I mean, I guess what I'm looking for is something that's more fact-based in terms of the hella stop, like you know, some more information.

Um, even for number eight talks about traffic conditions and it talks about facilities for pedestrians at sidewalks and safe zones and parking facilities available and the access of cars uh saying the hell of stop will the use will not have any impact on pedestrians or or uh facilities, it speaks to um the fact um there was something else that I saw here, I can't I can't really find it right now, where it talks about this would be a um complementary to a neighborhood.

Hold on.

It says shall not be disruptive to a mixed use employment office reality residential environment.

Um it says here there it is.

It says on the bottom of 15, as previously noted, the use is generally seen as a community benefit.

Um and that the disruptions are short in nature and will be tolerated by the community.

I mean, that's just really a statement.

I mean, like where are the facts that support that kind of um, I guess for me, that's where I am in my head in regards to um some of this stuff.

Okay, so that that absolutely makes sense for action number four.

You're talking about the heliport, and I know I believe that there was some conversation about action number one with the senior living center.

Um, where are there any of the actions or any of the other actions that you would like specific information about, or can we take can we take action on any of these other actions tonight before we have to say can come back and get more information specifically with regard to action four with the heliport or with action one?

Or is there any other information that you can say now that you are prepared to vote on, or that you specifically want more information from staff if that is what you are seeking?

I can be prepared to vote on action three.

I'm sorry, say again.

I can be prepared to vote on action three.

Um, which is let me just move this this way because I'm looking at these.

Maybe it was first for staff's sanity on this.

Why don't we go through for staff's sanity?

Why don't we do it through one at a time?

So I believe that there was a there was a tie vote on action one, so there was no action taken on one, so it sounds like the commissioners want more information with regard to action number one.

Is that correct?

That sounds reasonable.

Okay.

And are we able to articulate to staff what more information we want to have on action one?

Because it sounds like we're gonna have to continue that one.

Is can you tell staff what you want to see on action one?

Again, from my perspective, just as Commissioner Manellas was saying, specific information on the specific criteria, not just opinions that you're looking for like data to support excuse me.

I have a question on this one.

So on one of them, uh, when we say that it's that a helistop is not going to affect pedestrian or vehicular circulation or affect them in any way.

So it is inferred that everyone understands that a helicopter in the sky is not going to interact with those two variables.

Um so further explanation isn't provided.

Are there more specific are there specific things that you need more information on, things that don't make sense?

Information on the noise levels on the odor, the odor.

The nuisance factors.

Okay.

All right.

So you want more details on how we as staff have evaluated those those uses and okay.

I understand.

As we had put in there, you know, a parking deck.

There's also convenience orders that are allowed there with some gas seals.

Those things are going to provide a lot of fumes at the base level.

Um if you want that information provided into the document, we can definitely bake that in.

Right, because it says here, you know, we'll not create uh a greater adverse impact to the operations of any primitive use, et cetera.

I mean it doesn't like like we just talked about.

It doesn't really matter.

You want some more examples of some nuisances that we the you want to ensure that we have evaluated it to your satisfaction.

Yes.

Okay.

So that's so to me, um chiming in here again.

That seems like actions one through four.

We're talking about the uses, the mixed use um parts.

So it sounds like it would be good to have staff come back with specific information about actions one through four.

That's including your HELA use, helipad use.

Yes.

Is it is it for all four?

Are there issues that you have on all four?

You said three, but like uh just for clarification, uh four I think makes sense.

That is a odd different thing, but uh do you have specific issues or clarifications that about a senior living facility or a nursing home?

Like I to me, those just sound equivalent to apartments in in many ways, and there's no different than saying it's mixed use, but just for a specific patient population.

I I don't see that that affects uh I would need more necessary information on that, but but if you do, that's fine.

I would like to know just I just for curious curious.

I mean just again, there are very specific criteria that we're being asked to assess and not information on how each of those meets the specific criteria.

Now, if that was not what staff intended for us to go through criteria by criteria and evaluate that, then you're welcome to rewrite the staff report and say the only thing we want you to consider is whether or not generally these things belong in this in this area, then we'll be happy to do that.

Actions one through four.

So now we're on action five with um street details.

I don't have a problem with action five.

I don't either.

That's it, was just the conditional use ones.

No, I I don't have a problem with action five.

So we can take so you can do something with regard to action five.

I think eventually we'll come back and you're gonna have to get some kind of a resolution of one through four, whether that's a continuance or not.

We'll maybe do that together.

But if you can get through some of the other actions, let's let's proceed as far as we can tonight.

So do something with regard to action five.

Can we um continue four actions and then just do an assessment of just those four actions after the staff has yeah?

I mean eventually you're gonna have to you're not gonna be able to take act take anything on action eight, because that's the whole the whole action plan.

Um again, it it would be useful to staff if we if we could get through some of the other ones, we can do that.

If we know that you know there are some more questions to say with regard to action, we're down to action five and six at this point.

Um and if you want more information on those, we can go through that.

I think you just said you believe that you have enough information to make a decision with regard to numbers five and number six.

So number five, I don't know about six yet.

So let's take all the actions we can, then let's vote to continue one through four plus eight, or any of the other ones that you're not comfortable with making a decision on tonight.

I just want clarification.

So um if we approve five, let's just say six, we already approved seven.

So when we come back, it would be one through four plus eight.

We would not be revisiting the ones that we already I just want to confirm.

That is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Um so action five is a request um to approve modifications to city standard street details.

Um zero, eleven point zero, eleven point one, eleven point two, and twelve point zero.

I move for the approval of the modification of the city standard street details um ST not 9.0, 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, and 12.0, finding that the modification street sections are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood street layouts, the modification of street sections are compatible with the overall development of the city as other development within the city have had similar modifications approved, and the modification is not subject to compositing design features, but will enable more complex urban design that is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MU zoning district while providing for adequate um bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular circ circulation.

That's a motion by Commissioner Manellas, a second by Commissioner Buono.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

Um action six is an approval for modifications to section 417, um table 4172 regarding um setbacks and the ability to allow frontage onto a um open space open spaces.

I move for approval of a modification to section 417, table 417-2, setbacks for principal buildings, mixed-use district and column B, frontage, and to section 606 B2 to modify the minimum lot frontage requirement and allow frontage onto a public street, private street, and/or open space for all three lot types.

Finding that it enhances community character, allows for unique spaces, reduces impervious surface, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

I second.

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

All in favor?

I that's unanimous.

All right, and then seven.

Very did seven.

It did seven.

Yep.

Do you want to do a context on eight?

Continue one through four and eight.

Should I read that?

Uh so how am I doing this?

I um move for the continuance in order to get additional information on actions one through four and eight.

And we will we will continue that to a specific.

A specific hearing date, which is what's next month.

December 8th.

December 8th, yes.

December 8.

Okay.

2025.

I'll second that.

That's fine.

That's a motion by Commissioner Manellas, a second by Commissioner Buono.

All in favor?

Aye.

That's unanimous.

All right.

Um tell uh Commissioner Valencia she can come back in.

Um so before we move.

We'll wait for her to come in.

Um welcome back.

Um before we continue.

Um the applicant for the 800 East Street has arrived, and we had to make him sit through that long discussion on Frederick Hell.

Um, can we excuse me?

Can we do a motion to undo the continuance and go ahead and hear that project?

Okay.

Let me let me do it this way.

I make a motion to I would I'm sorry, I would say no to that.

If then the potential that was somebody was sitting here in the audience and was waiting to hear that case and then they left.

I don't think I don't have any clue that anybody was here, but I don't think that we should do that tonight.

Okay.

So I'm sorry.

But that would be if somebody turned off their TV and was watching, and specifically for that.

I mean, I I don't think in the interest of the public, it would be uh permissible or a good idea to call that one back.

I'm sorry.

That makes sense.

Um we will move on to the next one.

Let's take a break.

I can't fit the beauty of the arrow then right now.

Yeah, we actually have this one.

Okay, everyone.

We're gonna start in a second.

Okay.

So we're going on to new business.

And we're gonna start with Frederick Commerce South lots four through ten.

Um PC twenty-five three nine five PSU preliminary plat and PC twenty-five three ninety-six PFCP preliminary forest conservation plan.

I guess we'll get a staff report.

Uh okay, I will enter the staff report into record.

The applicants request an approval of a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat for Frederick Commerce Center South to combine a previously approved lots four, five, and six into one lot, lot four, reducing the total lots from nine to seven.

These seven buildable lots are now lots four through ten that make up the Frederick Commerce Center South, increasing the lot configuration for lot four from thirty-seven point forty-four acres to a hundred and thirty-one point thirty-nine acres.

The property continues with one access from Gas House Pike, a reservation to connect to the adjacent property to the south, and an emergency access to Lingonor Road.

The property is identified is environmentally sensitive with three separate stream bits, blood plain adjacent to the Minoxie River to the south, mature forest and a bald eagle habitat.

The project will satisfy the entire forest conservation requirement of twenty-three point twenty-five acres with plantings on site.

The plat uh conforms to the comprehensive plan, all applicable requirements of the LMC, and includes city streets shown on the transportation element of the comprehensive plan and provides for continuation of existing public ways, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths.

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Correct area summary note 11 for adjusted lot for acreage and other lots accurately for total land area of 241.85 acres.

Identify areas with 25% or greater slopes and add symbol in the legend if applicable.

Sheet C 309, remove the plant legend gas house pike.

Plant schedules to state road length to verify the lengths and the number of street trees required and providing for compliance.

On the landscaping sheets, adjust the street trees closer to a hundred foot on center apart.

Correct street tree numbers accordingly.

Number five, delete uh delineate and label the setbacks on all drawing sheets on sheet 17, lot six, label the connection from the call de sac to southern property line as a reservation.

Number seven, obtain unconditional approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan, PC 25-396 PFCP.

Number eight, add the trucks left turn only sign detail with measurements on the plan on sheet 201.

Identify the dedication areas with square feet on sheets 201-203, provide lead lines to delineate the width of the dedication areas.

Note three, delete and replace with the properties are subject to terms outlined in the annexation agreements and or amendments.

Number 12, label the recording.

Recorded references for the forest conservation easement agreements on sheets C 200 and C 201.

And Note 18, add the previously approved preliminary plat PC 24-319 PSU and approval date.

Number 14, add bold standalone note on first page of the plan stating the applicant will comply with the U.S.

fish and wildlife service guidelines in regard to proceeding with the construction on site.

And number 15 on sheet C200.

Draw the 330 feet radius infrastructure bold line from the eagle nesting area and the 660 feet construction radius bold line from the Eagle Nesting Area.

Action 2, approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan PC PC 21-396 PFCP.

The plan complies with the criteria outlined in Section 721 of the LMC and the State Forest Conservation Act.

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Increase the Aforestation or Reforestation plantings by 0.44 acres to satisfy phase two requirement and correct the phase two planting table accordingly.

Place note on signage details that 50% of the protection signs will remain and maintain permanently.

Add tree height column to WA-3 and UP3 and UP4 plant list.

Add quantity column to all plant list.

Thank you.

So we'll do a commit roll call for Commissioner questions, starting with Commissioner Balencia.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manellus.

Nothing, thank you.

Commissioner Lewellan?

No, thank you.

Commissioner Bueno.

No questions.

Thank you.

All right.

I just have one clarifying question.

Um regarding the did you have my agenda?

Oh, sorry.

That's okay.

Um regarding the phase one and phase two under the forest conservation plan.

The staff report says that um phase one is um just the lot four mitigation.

Does that mean that all of the rest of the lots are under the phase two?

Uh yes.

Um, because the staff report just talks about lots five and six.

Uh the five and six lots are the only ones uh uh south of the the stream, and that is where all the phase two planting rolls.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um applicant.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Jill Whitebread.

I'm with Trammel Crow Company, and I represent the applicant TCEIL FCC South.

Uh first, thank you all for being here.

I know this was a marathon meeting, so we'll try and move quickly so we can all get home.

Um thank you, Pam, for the thorough staff report and comments, uh, as well as all of planning staff who helped.

Um the first item on the agenda for us was the uh revision to our preliminary subdivision plan.

At a high level, Pam summed it up.

We were consolidating some previously proposed lots for an end user who no longer needs that configuration.

Uh, and some other high-level items I would like to touch on.

You know, this preliminary subdivision plan meets all the requirements of the previously approved annexation resolution 23-22.

We meet all our prior conditions to approval of the preliminary site plan.

Excuse me, preliminary subdivision plan.

Our APFO certificates for water and sewer were approved with the original subdivision plat.

The changes we're proposing here do not make any changes to those and are within the bounds of those approvals.

And the location of logistics park road does not change as it pertains to the subdivision plan.

Uh then our next item, the forest conservation plan.

Similar changes to accommodate our end user.

And the primary one there was uh revising the forest conservation so that lot four, north of the stream that sort of bisects the two properties is able to stand on its own.

All the forest conservation for the development of that property is provided on that property, and this allows our end user to not be linked with anyone else in the industrial park.

Uh again, we made all prior conditions to approval of our preliminary forest conservation plan.

We are protecting the environmentally sensitive areas that Pam mentioned, including uh the Balda Eagle habitat as part of our revision to this subdivision to the preliminary forest conservation plan.

We've also increased the size of the buffers in these areas, uh, which is net positive for the site.

And as Pam also mentioned, we have a couple specimen trees that were previously proposed to be taken down as part of our initial plan, and we're now able to save a few more.

Um and lastly, we're providing some increased uh forest conservation areas as part of breaking them up into two phases.

Um, and Pam had a bunch of thoughtful comments in her staff report.

We have no issue with those either.

Uh so now I'm here to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

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

No, not at this time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manellus.

None for me, thank you.

Commissioner Lewellan?

No, thank you.

Commissioner Buono.

No, no, thank you.

I don't have any questions either.

Um, do we have any public comment?

Nope, seeing none, it comes back up here.

Any questions or discussion from the commission?

No, so we have two actions.

Action one is the um approval of the preliminary plat.

I move for the approval of the preliminary plat PC 25-3935 PSU to subdivide 241 plus acres into seven lots for future industrial use, finding that the plat conforms with the comprehensive plan, all the applicable requirements of the LMC, and includes city streets shown on the transportation element of the comprehensive plan and provides for continuation of existing public ways, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths with the 15 conditions read into record by staff.

Second.

That is the motion by Commissioner Minellis, the second by Commissioner Balencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nope, that's unanimous.

And then action two is the uh approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan.

I move for the approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan, PC 25396 POCP.

Finding the plan complies with the criteria outlined in section 721 of the LMC and the State Forest Conservation Act with the recommendations 1 through 10 that were read in by staff.

Second.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Balencia, a second by Commissioner Manellas.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

No, that's unanimous.

All right.

And then our last item of oops.

Speaking to the last item of the day is PC 25-397 FSI.

Final site plan for lot four.

Um Frederick Commerce Center lot four industrial warehouse.

Okay, I'll enter this staff report into record.

The applicant is requesting approval of a final site plan for lot four to construct a 225,000 square foot distribution logistics building facility building and a one-story auxiliary and two one-story auxiliary buildings totaling 6,836 square feet.

The primary building proposed is a 225,000 square foot warehouse for distribution.

There will be a separate 5,000 square foot service center building for the company's fleet vehicles and a second accessory 1,836 square foot building for the inspecting automated vehicles.

There are four access points off Logistics Road that will be used as follows: one access for semi-trucks, two accesses for delivery vans, and one for the employee parking.

Signage will be provided directing semi-truck traffic westbound on Gashouse Pike to minimize impact on the Lingonore Road.

The applicant is requesting modification to table 6071 to exceed the maximum number of parking spaces.

The vehicular parking spaces for employees is in compliance.

However, there are additional 887 van parking spaces for the fleet delivery operations, which is specific to the distribution use.

The applicant is requesting modifications 607 E2D parking area lighting shall be arranged to contain the light within the property boundaries.

The lighting plan shows light spillover on four driveway intersections of logistic road and a slight 10-foot spillover onto lot 10, which is under the same ownership.

Staff supports modification that the lighting provides sufficient lighting for the facility operations and public road safety.

Landscaping is in compliance on this lot.

And for most part, the bald eagle habitat is located on lot four, and the applicant has obtained a general eagle permit for bald eagle disturbance through the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service that outlines conditions to protect the bald eagles during construction, plus expanded the Aforestation area on the southern part of lot four.

Action one, a modification to section 607-607-1 parking schedule to exceed the maximum parking number permitted to provide 1,248 spaces.

Finding the modifications not contrary to the purpose intent of the code by providing adequate site parking for the proposed use for employee and specific operational needs.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, water resources policy nine and environmental sustainability policy two.

The parking lot is a setback, a significant distance from the public right-of-way, earthworms, and additional landscaping are provided as compensating features for the increased parking.

Staff recommends approval as required as requested.

Action two and modifications section 607 E2D parking area lighting shall be arranged to contain the light within the property boundaries.

Lighting is not in conflict with the purpose and intent of the code to not impact properties on or distract from safety.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan and land use policy four and transportation policy eight.

Compensating design and features so as to meet the overall objectives of the requirement include shared lighting within the industrial center and does not impact neighboring properties outside of the center.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action three, approval of the final site plan, PC 25-397 FSI for lot four to construct the 225,000 square foot distribution logistics facility building and the two one-story auxiliary buildings of 6,836 square feet.

The final site plan complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 4, 6, 7, 8, and 12 of the LMC, and the adequate facilities and services will be available to accommodate the impacts of the development.

Staff recommends approval of the file with the following conditions.

Add a standalone note on page C10 of plans dating the applicant will comply with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines in regard to proceeding with the construction on site on sheet C 300.

Draw the 330 feet radius infrastructure bolt line from the Eagle nesting nearing the 660 feet construction radius line from the Eagle Nesting Area.

Number I think I numbered these things wrong.

I'm apologize for that.

It will be one through 10 conditions.

Next uh condition is complete general notes 3.3 and 3.4 with FAA and MAA approval dates.

Update general note one with approval dates.

Add to project data and parking note to the 887 van spaces and reference modification requests to table 6071.

PC 25-395 PSU and preliminary forest conservation plan PC 25-396 PFCP unconditional approvals.

Protected uh forest areas are to match the approved preliminary forest conservation plan PC dash PC 25 25-396 PFCP property landscape table table correct note and table that the 10.94 acres times 200 trees per acre equals 2,188 trees.

Tree preservation area has 14 acres, and the phase one is protecting 10.94 acres of Aforestation and the 10.62 acres of retention.

Label the square footage of the interior landscaping parking areas for verification and correct table landscape trees required based on the total lot area.

Address engineering comments with traffic notes two and three to be added to the plan and plan to be updated in accordance with the stormwater approval for engineering review.

And that is the staff report.

Thank you very much.

Um we'll do a roll call for commission questions starting with Commissioner Bono.

No questions.

Commissioner Manellus, none, thank you.

Commissioner Buncian.

Where was the correction for it being one through ten?

What would be the tenth one?

I I can't hear you.

What would be the uh correction that you said it's now one through ten?

What would be the tenth?

I had double numbered one on those conditions, so it's really one through ten.

Oh, I see it on the front page.

Okay, there we go.

Because on the back it looks one through nine, but it's on the front.

Okay, thank you.

You can see why it was missed.

Right.

Commissioner Lowell.

Oh, no questions.

And I don't have any other questions for staff either.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joe White Bright again uh for the applicant TCIL FCC South.

Uh, as Pam mentioned, uh, we're reconfiguring and submitting the site plan for a specific user to build a 225,000 square foot warehouse and logistics building with two auxiliary structures, one for vehicle inspection before they leave the site, and one for minor uh fleet maintenance.

Uh again, similar to the other two plans we already discussed.

We're meeting all prior conditions to our uh initial approval of a speculative plan several years ago uh that are still applicable.

We have oriented this as a Minoxy Boulevard oriented uh development.

Um logistics park road access is all site access is off of logistics park road, where we have four curb cuts.

Um again, as Pam noted, we will have signage directing all truck traffic westbound.

Uh we're requesting two modifications with this.

The first, as Pam mentioned, is parking.

Uh this is user-driven.

They have a large fleet of delivery vehicles that go to consumers' homes and need parking for both those and the vehicles that associate show up in to drive those vehicles.

A uniqueness to their use uh compared to what is typically contemplated in the land management code.

The second modification is for lighting.

We have some minor spillover, and I'm gonna try and get the laser pointer to work here.

We have minor spillover into the right of way for logistics park road.

This app will actually increase safety and will be supplemented by the required lighting in logistics park road for street lighting.

We also have a minor 10-foot spillover into lot 10.

That is this semi-triangular lot up here.

Um that is owned by this us as well.

And as Pam mentioned, we see lighting spillover within the confines of this industrial park as a non-issue.

So we're okay with that as well.

Um and we also made a few minor tweaks to the site plan since you last saw it, including reducing some impervious areas.

Um, as the primary one.

So with that, you know, I'm also here to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

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

No questions.

Commissioner Man Ellis?

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Valencia.

No, thank you.

Commissioner Llewellyn.

Um, yeah, just one question in regards to the lighting.

So I understand it doesn't impact neighboring properties outside of the center.

Um, but are there any safety issues to consider for the drivers within the center?

I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear all of that.

Are there any um safety considerations for the drivers within the center?

You know, because of the lighting.

It says it won't impact neighboring properties outside.

But what about inside?

Uh so we're not worried about minor spillover inside.

As we said, it is 10 feet onto an adjoining property, and once street trees and things like that grow in, it will probably functionally be zero.

Uh, and then in terms of impact to drivers within the property, you know, the lighting is designed to provide adequate visibility at nighttime hours.

So a little extra is not seen as a negative.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so I had a question about the impervious surfaces.

Yes.

And um, in fact, you cite water policy nine about limiting impervious surfaces as uh support for the increased parking spaces, and just intuitively that didn't make sense to me because more parking seems like more asphalt.

So could you explain that?

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh so basically, we were able to in these areas here and here, we were able to reconfigure the staging areas of the delivery vehicles to be more efficient, which allowed us to shrink the impervious area without impacting the uh vehicle spacing and the number of vehicles we're able to accommodate.

And is that the amount of in per impervious or pervious um area that you freed up equal to or more than the amount of impervious surface by the additional parking or so I I will answer your question in a bit of a roundabout way because uh we don't have an exact comparison.

So our previous plan that we looked at at PC workshop back in September had larger impervious areas here and here, and we had the same total amount of parking.

So we have reduced that as part of our mitigation to be more efficient in these staging areas here and here without sacrificing the number.

So the numbers stayed the same, and we have added mitigation by being able to reduce impervious by being more efficient with our design.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No.

Do we have any public comment on this case?

Nope, seeing none, it comes back up here.

We have let me get to the right spot.

We have three actions.

Um, action one is uh modification to the parking schedule.

Do I have a motion?

I move for the approval of a modification to section 607, table 6071 parking schedule to exceed the maximum parking parking number permitted to provide 1,248 spaces spaces.

Finding the modification is not contrary to the purpose of the intent of the code.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, water resources policy nine, and environmental sustainability policy two.

The parking lot is set back a significant distance from the public right away.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Balencia, second by Commissioner Bologna.

All in favor?

I that's unanimous.

Um action two is the modification regarding parking area lighting.

Um to not impact the properties and distract from safety.

The modifications consist of the 2020 comprehensive plan, use policy four and transportation policy eight and the compensating design and features so as to meet the overall objectives of the requirement includes shared lighting within the industrial center and does not impact neighboring properties outside of the center.

Second.

That is a motion by Commissioner Manellas, the second by Commissioner Valencia.

All in favor?

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And the third action is approval of the final site plan.

Okay.

I move for approval of final site plan PC 25-397 FSI for lot four to construct a 225,000 plus square foot distribution logistics facility building and two one-story auxiliary buildings of 6,836 square feet.

Finding that the final site plan complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 46, 7, 8, and 12 of the land management code, and that adequate facilities and services will be available to accommodate the impacts of the development.

Second.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

That's unanimous.

And that concludes our meeting tonight.

Thank you, everybody, for your attention.

Thank you all very much.