OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop - November 17, 2025

Planning CommissionMonday, November 17, 2025
BodyFrederick, Maryland
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, November 17, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:51:42

Transcript — Verbatim
0:29

You already all right.

0:30

It's two o'clock.

0:32

And we'll call the meeting to order.

0:33

And I'd like to welcome everybody to the November 17th, 2025 workshop for the City of Frederick Planning Commission.

0:40

Before we begin today's proceedings, I'm gonna do an overview of the process that will follow today.

0:45

Um the workshop process is a little less formal than the process we use for the hearing.

0:50

Um for each agenda item, we will start with having the applicant come up and present their um project to us, walk us through and just a reminder if you're asking for modifications, make sure you explain the modifications, your justification, and the reason you're asking for one.

1:08

Following the applicant presentation, um, we will have the commission ask questions of the applicant, and then we will have the staff present or add their comments or their thoughts to the case after the staff presentation.

1:20

The commission will again get the opportunity to ask questions of staff, and then at that point, we may have a little bit of back and forth, um, some discussion to resolve issues.

1:29

Following that, we will have public comment, and if needed, the applicant will then have the opportunity to come up and respond to public comment.

1:37

Um, and then we'll conclude the case.

1:41

Um, if there is anybody who is here for public comment, just know that that you will have um ask that you sign up on the sign-up sheet over on the side table.

1:51

And just a reminder that um public comments will be limited to three minutes.

1:56

And um at that point, everybody who is in the room today to make statements before the commission, be it staff, applicants, or public, needs to be sworn in.

2:07

So at this time I'll ask everybody to stand and raise your right hand.

2:12

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

2:19

If so, answer I do.

2:21

Thank you very much.

2:25

We don't officially have announcements on the um agenda, but is there anything, Christina, that you need to announce before we get started?

2:34

All right.

2:35

Then our first case is um PC PC 2548 FSI final flight plan for Carvana.

2:57

Do we have the applicant for this case?

3:05

Well are you the applicant for the Carvana case, Luke?

3:18

Nope.

3:18

Nope.

3:19

Nope.

3:22

That probably wouldn't be very helpful then.

3:24

Um, we'll just put this one on hold.

3:29

Our next case is the Thomas Johnson.

3:31

Are you all right?

3:32

All right, well, we will come back to Carvana in a bit.

3:38

So we will first be discussing um the eye.

3:44

PC 25-244 PSU slash FSI.

3:48

Final site or preliminary plat and final site plan for Thomas Johnson Drive Governor's Place.

4:06

Hello.

4:07

Hello.

4:08

You ready for us to give our little intro?

4:11

All right, my name is Andrew Welker.

4:12

I'm with Oshman Properties, and with me today I have Mary Patton with Fox and Associates.

4:17

Um I wanted to provide just kind of an overview and some context and some history about this particular site plan um in relationship to some of the other development work that we've done in the immediate area.

4:29

So uh lots 4C and 4D.

4:32

Um sorry to interrupt.

4:33

When you get a chance when that pulls up, can you use a pointer as you speak to the site plan so we can follow it?

4:38

Absolutely.

4:38

Yeah, thank you.

4:43

I'm just gonna wait because I'm gonna get confused if I don't if I don't.

4:47

Thank you.

4:48

I'm gonna say things that I need to point at, and they're not up there.

5:07

Well, why she's getting that loaded.

5:09

There's some things I can say that don't require graphic support.

5:12

Um so in 2019 and even leading up to 2019, Oshman properties started developing and looking at the entire 21.4 acres, which was the original unsubdivided lot four uh piece of property, and we looked at how we could break that down and create a professional office campus.

5:31

Um and so since then we've now subdivided it into uh three parcels with today's subject parcel being now asked to subdivide further into two more, so four kind of subdivided parcels and an out lot that shares stormwater management and the forestation for all the projects on the site.

5:50

Um we have two buildings standing on the campus today.

5:53

One was originally constructed 110 Thomas Johnson Drive in the 1980s and expanded upon in the 1990s, and then about a year and a half ago, we delivered uh three-story professional office building at 112 Thomas Johnson Drive.

6:06

So on lots 4C and 4D, we're proposing to kind of continue that pattern of uh creating a campus, and kind of along the way we've asked for modifications that um really help blend the lines between the parcels that are all integral to this campus.

6:21

And so I think you'll find that a lot of the modifications that Mary will go over with you in a in a moment um are consistent with the asks that we've made in the past and kind of help us establish a campus without it looking like four separate parcels.

6:37

Um of the goals is to improve distribution of parking around the buildings and then also uh shared parking among the parcels as well as pedestrian interconnectivity.

6:49

Um getting into the specifics of of this particular site plan, um, as the staff report and the workshop um outline uh suggests.

7:00

This is um lot four C in the kind of the northeast portion of the the site plan.

7:08

Um and it is proposed to contain a 53,000 square foot professional office building that is three stories in height.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████48%
Procedural██████████████████████23%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████7%
Transportation Safety████4%
Public Engagement████4%
Planning Commission Training████4%
Parking Policies███3%
Forest Conservation███3%
Active Transportation1%
Summary of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop - November 17, 2025

The City of Frederick Planning Commission convened on November 17, 2025, for a workshop reviewing five major agenda items: site plans for commercial and retail developments (Thomas Johnson Drive, Carvana, and Sheets), a proposed zoning text amendment for ground-floor residential in Mixed Use districts, and continued revisions to the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. The meeting emphasized the distinction between project specifics and applicant-requested modifications, as well as the procedural boundaries between administrative staff and quasi-judicial decision-making.

Consent Calendar

  • No routine consent calendar items were discussed as the meeting focused on substantive workshop deliberations and public testimony.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Heather Goddard: Expressed opposition to the Zoning Text Amendment (PC 25-249), arguing that amending the Land Management Code for a specific large-scale project (Brickworks) is inappropriate and that such changes are better suited for the Zoning Board of Appeals or the future Form-Based Code implementation.
  • Sharon Kemper Cerez: Provided extensive testimony advocating for the adoption of specific sections from the Frederick County Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. She recommended incorporating protocols for special committees, evidence proceedings, cross-examination, and communication with division managers to strengthen the commission's quasi-judicial role.
  • Peter Brem: As the incoming District Three Council member, expressed constituent interest in updating the Comprehensive Plan and Land Management Code, seeking formal guidance and recommendations from the Planning Commission to initiate these updates.

Discussion Items

  • Thomas Johnson Drive (PC 25-244): Oshman Properties requested four modifications to integrate a professional office campus across two lots (4C and 4D), including exceeding parking maximums on one lot to preserve frontage green space, reducing loading space requirements, and modifying lot line screening along easements. Commissioner Valencia suggested reconfiguring parking to eliminate modifications, but applicant Mary Patton responded that such a change would result in a visually disjointed campus and increased paving; Commissioner Bologna discussed the potential for integrated parking between separate parcels, which Patton stated is difficult due to existing grades and grading constraints.
  • Carvana (PC 25-488): Applicant Jody Walker presented a re-approval of a previously approved 2021 site plan, requesting one modification to eliminate 10% interior landscaping in vehicle storage and inventory areas to prevent leaf and bird droppings from accumulating on vehicles. Staff noted this modification was already described in the report but acknowledged the need for clearer formatting. Commissioner Valencia expressed support for the extra landscaping in visitor areas.
  • Sheets on East Patrick Street (PC 25-491/492): Applicant Franz Eller discussed a rebuild project replacing 16 gas pumps with 12 and reducing parking spaces from 52 to 38 to accommodate a new drive-thru. The applicant requested a lighting modification acknowledging unavoidable light spillage at zero foot-candles at property lines, citing safety requirements at entrances. Commissioner Valencia requested clarification that the revised lighting plan would prioritize safety at entrances despite the spillage. Commissioner Llewellyn asked for clarification on traffic flow management at the Minocase Boulevard intersection.
  • Zoning Text Amendment (PC 25-249): Applicant Jay Diamond proposed an amendment to Table 838-1 to allow residential uses on the first floor of Mixed Use (MU) district buildings with a gross floor area over 35,000 square feet. Commissioner Valencia supported the amendment for improving accessibility to ground-floor living. Commissioner Nellis questioned the lack of a formal definition for "mixed-use vertical buildings" and the potential impacts on parking and APFO calculations. Commissioner Bologna and Staff discussed the need for specific design guidelines for mixed-use facades, with Staff suggesting commercial standards apply to the first floor. Applicant Eric DeVito noted that other municipalities often allow this mix via Form-Based Codes or existing codes without text amendments.
  • Rules of Procedure: Staff presented updates to the Rules of Procedure regarding meeting times, public comment batching, and information requests. A significant debate occurred regarding Section 9.1 (formerly 10.9), which states commissioners "take no part in... research of matters of fact." Commissioner Valencia and others argued for removing this language to allow commissioners to request and access information more freely to ensure a complete record, whileStaff and Commissioner Llewellyn argued the language is critical to prevent commissioners from introducing independent findings of fact that could jeopardize the quasi-judicial nature of decisions in court. The commission agreed to reference Ordinance G24-16C regarding information requests and debated removing the specific prohibition on independent research.

Key Outcomes

  • Thomas Johnson Drive: The commission proceeded with discussion of the modifications without a final vote, as the case remains in workshop and a vote will occur at the subsequent hearing.
  • Carvana: The commission proceeded without objection, noting the re-approval process for the site plan.
  • Sheets on East Patrick: The commission deferred final action pending the submission of the revised lighting plan, which is required to address Commissioner Valencia's safety concerns regarding light spillage at entrances.
  • Zoning Text Amendment: No final vote was taken. The applicant agreed to remove the condition limiting residential use to 50% of the first floor after Commissioner Manelis raised logical concerns about the definition of mixed-use vertical buildings. The commission deferred the final recommendation pending further clarification on design guidelines and the definition of mixed-use vertical buildings.
  • Rules of Procedure: The commission requested that Ordinance G24-16C be cross-referenced in the Rules of Procedure regarding information requests. Commissioner Valencia will continue to advocate for the removal of the "research of matters of fact" prohibition, while the commission acknowledged the need for better documentation of information flow processes. The meeting was adjourned without finalizing the Rules of Procedure revisions.

Meeting Transcript

You already all right. It's two o'clock. And we'll call the meeting to order. And I'd like to welcome everybody to the November 17th, 2025 workshop for the City of Frederick Planning Commission. Before we begin today's proceedings, I'm gonna do an overview of the process that will follow today. Um the workshop process is a little less formal than the process we use for the hearing. Um for each agenda item, we will start with having the applicant come up and present their um project to us, walk us through and just a reminder if you're asking for modifications, make sure you explain the modifications, your justification, and the reason you're asking for one. Following the applicant presentation, um, we will have the commission ask questions of the applicant, and then we will have the staff present or add their comments or their thoughts to the case after the staff presentation. The commission will again get the opportunity to ask questions of staff, and then at that point, we may have a little bit of back and forth, um, some discussion to resolve issues. Following that, we will have public comment, and if needed, the applicant will then have the opportunity to come up and respond to public comment. Um, and then we'll conclude the case. Um, if there is anybody who is here for public comment, just know that that you will have um ask that you sign up on the sign-up sheet over on the side table. And just a reminder that um public comments will be limited to three minutes. And um at that point, everybody who is in the room today to make statements before the commission, be it staff, applicants, or public, needs to be sworn in. So at this time I'll ask everybody to stand and raise your right hand. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that the response is given and the statements made in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If so, answer I do. Thank you very much. We don't officially have announcements on the um agenda, but is there anything, Christina, that you need to announce before we get started? All right. Then our first case is um PC PC 2548 FSI final flight plan for Carvana. Do we have the applicant for this case? Well are you the applicant for the Carvana case, Luke? Nope. Nope. Nope. That probably wouldn't be very helpful then. Um, we'll just put this one on hold. Our next case is the Thomas Johnson. Are you all right? All right, well, we will come back to Carvana in a bit. So we will first be discussing um the eye. PC 25-244 PSU slash FSI. Final site or preliminary plat and final site plan for Thomas Johnson Drive Governor's Place. Hello. Hello. You ready for us to give our little intro? All right, my name is Andrew Welker. I'm with Oshman Properties, and with me today I have Mary Patton with Fox and Associates. Um I wanted to provide just kind of an overview and some context and some history about this particular site plan um in relationship to some of the other development work that we've done in the immediate area. So uh lots 4C and 4D. Um sorry to interrupt. When you get a chance when that pulls up, can you use a pointer as you speak to the site plan so we can follow it? Absolutely. Yeah, thank you. I'm just gonna wait because I'm gonna get confused if I don't if I don't. Thank you. I'm gonna say things that I need to point at, and they're not up there. Well, why she's getting that loaded. There's some things I can say that don't require graphic support.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com