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.

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.

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.

Um we have two buildings standing on the campus today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Um we are creating um another entrance into kind of a main entrance off of the shared access drive with a roundabout that was constructed as part of previous site plans.

Um so this roundabout or traffic uh calming feature um will be utilized again to provide main access to lot four C.

Um we're also creating a kind of cross aisle connection.

Um there's an existing uh curb cut here and access to parking on lot four A.

And we're we're proposing to create create another access point um here off of that access aisle again to help with with circulation, um, particularly for patients that will be showing up to the building or guests, they can drop off, they can park, they can get in and they can uh easily leave the site.

Um one thing that we're able to do on this site is distribute parking all around the building so that we can have employees and kind of uh consistent visitors take advantage of the uh convenient parking behind the building and then visitors and kind of first time visitors could use the parking area in the front.

On lot four D so I guess I should say that lot four C in the building, um, the 53,000 square foot building, we are um certain this will be multi-tenanted.

Um we're certain that it is well, it is likely that we will be building this on spec or on speculation, meaning we will build it without a specific tenancy in mind, other than professional office users.

Um so we have I should say a lot more design information and certainty about certainty about what this building um will be and how it should lay out.

Um this building on 4D, 10,000 square foot single story, um, will likely be a complementary use or another professional office user, um, though that one will likely be built with a user once one comes forward, and then we can work with them on the specifics of how that building lays out.

Um to that effect, we're really looking at these two parcels as if they are um kind of working in concert and working as one.

So there will be cross parking and of course pedestrian access um will traverse over the parcels.

There's some stormwater management that both parcels uh will share uh as it's constructed and built out.

Um with that I will let Mary kind of walk through some of the comments and modifications uh to provide a little bit more context there.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mary Patton with Fox and Associates.

Um I'll start with our modifications.

We are requesting four modifications, the first of which relates to um parking.

So for lot 4C, we are meeting, we are in between the minimum maximum parking allowed.

For lot 4D, we are requesting a modification to exceed the maximum parking.

So that's that rear 4D is our rear lot.

So part of the ask with exceeding the parking on lot 4D is to help support some of the uses that would be proposed with lot 4C.

And when you look at the lots as a total, while I know the LMC requires us to look at them sort of in individually to make sure they're meeting their code requirements.

But it it resulted in having more paving and more parking right along our frontage.

And we felt if we can fit it in the rear of the site where it's away from the frontage of Thomas Johnson, as well as it would be screened by the forest conservation plantings along Route 15.

There's some value in that.

So we're meeting our our parking that we need for the functionality of the site while adding some nice green space along Thomas Johnson Drive.

The LMC requires large loading space for these uses.

So we're requesting a modification to reduce that from a large loading space to a small loading space.

Since we've got vehicular circulation going across the parcel lines, it makes sense that there would also be lighting spillover to make sure that those areas are safely lit.

So our division line between 4D and 4C is runs right along that parking there.

So there is some spillover along that property line as well as along our southern property line to lot 4A.

And then our final modification is related to the lot line and the parking lot screening.

Our request today more relates to the lot line screening that would be required along the northern property line.

That's a public sewer line, and the easement is 20 feet wide.

It kind of straddles the property line, so it's about 10 feet onto our side.

And then there's an additional 10-foot private sewer easement on top of that.

So there's about 30 feet or so that's in easement.

Typically, the city doesn't like to see planting in those easement areas.

So we tried to avoid that.

And there's also an existing stormwater facility on the north side of our site on adjacent property.

And uh Maryland Department of Environment requires that there is no woody vegetation planted within 15 feet of the toe of the slope of that stormwater easement.

So there's a good chunk of site here where we wouldn't want to put planting anyway because we don't want to impact their stormwater facility.

We are providing planting where we can.

As I mentioned, we're we've got planting in that front open space area.

Um we're able to squeeze some in the islands that are provided.

Um but for the length of that for some of those areas along the length of that northern property line, we're requesting um a modification for those reasons.

There's a lot of existing infrastructure and easements that really prevent uh additional planting from being placed.

We are still meeting our on lot tree requirements, so we're kind of shifting around where those trees are.

Um we're still providing canopy, you know, forest can't canopy on the site, but just not necessarily right along that north property line.

Um a couple uh additional comments just to build on the staff report that um that Pam provided.

The stormwater concept development plan was approved with our last DRC.

Um, so that sort of checked off the list.

And in regards to the APFO certificates, those were previously approved with the preliminary plates um the other lots have been developed, they've been vested.

Um it's just that engineering needs to make sure that those previously approved certificates um still cover the proposed improvements with these that we're showing today.

Um and then one final thing I'll share.

We did get the comments from engineering about the ADA route and trying to make some improvements to that.

Um could I switch to the document um review here?

Do I need to press anything on my end?

There we go.

So the main this is kind of a zoom in right along the entry.

On the on the top of the screen is Thomas Johnson Drive, and that's our shared access entry.

And then um right here, um, we got some comments from engineering about they were concerned about providing some relief right in that center island.

The existing island is not very wide, but what we'll propose is and we'll include this in our next submittal, is just widening that island to allow um an area for pedestrians to pause if they need to in the middle of that um that wider dry aisle, um, and then it would just connect back into where this this hatched area is all um our ADA route.

I think that's it.

And Andrew, anything else to add?

No, I think that's it.

If um have any questions, be happy to answer them.

All right, thank you.

We will do a roll call for commissioner questions.

Um starting with Commissioner Valencia.

All right, I do have a few questions.

Um when I'm looking at all the modifications, like as you were talking about them, I guess what came to mind for me was would there be a way for you to not need the modifications if you lost some of the parking spots that were modification and put the the buffer and screenings there since that was lost elsewhere, and also if you had the plants where the lighting spillages, that would also eliminate that modification too.

So it kind of like if you redid the screening, like the buffer screening and put that where the other modifications were being asked when that eliminate the modifications that you're asking for.

Sure.

Yeah, I was gonna say, are you I just want to clarify your question?

Is it a suggestion that we eliminate um 50 parking spaces so that we can provide buffer screening in certain areas?

Is that what you're proposing or suggesting?

No, what I'm saying is that where okay, so let's go back through them.

Um looking like page two and three.

I mean, where the modifications are listed.

So okay, so the first modification was you know to exceed the amount of parking spaces, like okay, and then the second modification was to okay, eliminate the loading spaces.

I'll skip over that one.

Let's go to number three.

Um, the parking, the lighting.

So the light spillover where you said it was in between where you pointed with the pointer.

If there was the modification like number four, where it was you know not meeting the buffer screening, could that just be where the light spillover is, and then that wouldn't affect the drivers?

I think um see this.

Yes.

So we have not yet resubmitted on this, but we have addressed the lighting spillover that was from our parcels to the unaffiliated or third-party parcel to the north.

So we've in our minds addressed the critical spillover, which is imposing that spillage onto somebody else.

Um to your point, if we were to create landscape buffers along these parking lines, parking lot lines, it could help with the light spillover.

Um technical side of that is that the photometric doesn't take into consideration any vegetation for spillover, so it would be hard for us to reflect that without moving the lights more inboard.

Um but the second counterport point to that is we're really trying to kind of blend the interior lot line so that they're not obvious to our our campus, um, so that when people show up uh to one building or they're going on their lunch break walk, you know, around the campus, we see that, and then they go out the TJ Drive.

We really wanted to feel like all four buildings, once they're constructed, are part of an integrated campus.

And I feel like if we started to break that up with interior buffers, it would start to get visually disjointed, so people would have you know less visual cues on where they're supposed to go, um, and it would start to feel less like a whole campus integrated than um than what we're proposing.

There there are trees proposed along that southern lot line.

Um if you wouldn't mind there we go.

So you can see there's obviously the darker circles are the proposed trees, and then there are some existing trees as well that um well, I was referring to when you pointed down the middle of the parking lot where you said that was gonna be the light spillage.

Right, this line here, right?

That's that's where the spillage will occur between 4C and 4D.

Um I mean, there's not which that would be, you know, there's not trees right along the property line, but there are trees in this larger island as well.

Um, yeah, I guess differently we don't want it to look like spillage at all.

We want it to look like consistent even lighting across the parcels.

Um that's that's the intention.

I and I understand your suggestion as well.

Well, yeah, because I mean I'm gonna think of light spillage as safety to the driver, so not what it looks like.

Like yeah, aesthetics aren't safety.

So I was just thinking that that could I mean that kind of goes hand in hand with all the modifications that you're asking for.

So and then um what was it that you had on the projector?

That area again.

Could you go back over?

I'm sorry, it was what was that?

What you shared on the projector?

You said that.

Um, so where I guess does that fall where we were just looking at, is that like the lighting spillage area that we were just talking about?

Where you're saying, if you want to go back, I can't.

Yeah, yeah.

That's our I'm just trying to gauge that on the map again.

Right.

So we're we're zoomed out, but that image that was just on the projector, that is from this shared drive aisle.

So this is technically off of our lot, but it's a private drive aisle that's shared among the four parcels.

And the comment was can we connect across the bottom of the circle?

Can we connect across here?

We did look at those options.

Uh the challenge became slopes and and meeting ADA.

And if it were all new construction, no problem, but because a lot of this is existing, the pavement, the buildings, the sidewalks are already there.

This is the um, I call it the simplest or least disruptive location to make this cross.

And then in response to uh traffic engineers' concerns about an area of reprieve, somebody could pause.

We are modifying this curb island in the shared access drive so that there is that kind of protective curve five feet wide so that somebody can go halfway across the street and then wait to go the second half.

So that's that's the subject of that um that blow up that we.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Gwellen.

I have no questions at this time.

All right, Commissioner Bologna.

Hi, I apologize for being a few minutes late.

Um I had a couple of questions, and perhaps this was answered before.

Um so I see that the lot uh I'm looking at online.

I think this is the same uh to the south as depicted there, kind of the other side there.

That's just additional, you know, there's that shared line, and then there's a parking lot there, and then the other building that's unaffiliated with you all, right?

You said this can be like a campus that's completely unaffiliated to your development here, correct?

Or it's not a part of the site plan submittal, but it's uh a part of this overall campus that part of the overall campus, yeah.

Okay, I was just curious.

Um, you know, I don't know if this is regular or if that's possible.

It's always just a way you guys are asking for extra parking.

Is the parking being used in these adjacent buildings as part of the same campus being fully utilized?

Because, you know, if you're just backing two parking lots right up to each other, there could be a more efficient way to do any do all of that in addition to making making it more streamlined for parking purposes and pedestrian navigation purposes.

Um, you know, personally, when I'm in these kind of developments and there's just two parking lots against each other, then there's some sort of light blocking, you know, easement in between that I have to walk all the way around.

Realistically, that isn't always the best use of space, nor the most attractive looking.

So it kind of just defeats the entire purpose.

Just curious if that was considered or if that's possible.

I don't know how that falls with you all and how that would affect the zoning rules themselves, since you are asking for additional parking.

Sure.

Um so I guess the to kind of provide a diff some additional information.

We do have so there's a building that's off the site here that was originally part of the overall 21 acres.

Um this common drive aisle is on a 10-acre parcel to lot 4A, which was also part of the original 21 acres, and then these two lots that are part of this proposed site plan are part of that original 21 acres, 21.4 acres.

Um we have where we can, because of grades, existing pavement, existing grades, and then how we get a new building here and get it to drain without a sewer pump, et cetera.

Um we are creating pedestrian connections between the parking lots.

Um and this is mostly so, you know, there are going to be generally established parking areas for each building.

Um, but we also know that sometimes people come to a campus and they see the building they're supposed to go to, they f see a parking spot, and it might be, you know, technically associated with another building.

We don't want them to feel like, as you said, have to go all the way around, get out of their car, repark.

So there are connection points between the parking so that someone could naturally park where they want to park and still make it to their destination.

So we are we're trying to integrate them as much as possible.

We do have some kind of existing confines that we're working with in terms of grades and improvements that um that I think we've tried to address on this plan.

Yeah, no, that makes sense.

Just curious.

I you know, I know that technically parking falls within the purview of the specific, you know, lot or building and all of that, there's all these specific rules around that.

You know, and this maybe is a bigger question outside the point of this commission, what we do here, but a lot of times you have these back to back-to-back, you know, lots that'll have the extensive parking.

Realistically, it they're never full.

You know, realistically like 15-20% of the lot at any one time for one building is going to be used, and there's a maximum set for that reason.

Oh, theoretically, if every single person went to go get dental checkup or you know, whatever, whatever it is at one time, it would be full.

So I was just curious if there was any way to see that while you're asking for the modification for more parking, if there could be a way to integrate the parking for many of these same use health spaces.

If you'd consider that, if that's not doable, totally fine.

Just as someone knows.

And I don't disagree with you.

A lot of times you see these parking lots and they're you know 15% empty or 85% full, however you want to look at it.

Um but we do run into um, you know, requests, demands even from prospective tenants that say, you know, we um we require four and a half spaces per thousand square feet, or we require four spaces, or what is your parking ratio?

So in some cases it's you know, it's a deal um potential deal killer for a prospective tenant.

Um there's also you know, maybe it's only 85% used at any given time, but you have you know, people leaving, people coming, so having options for where you can park depending on whether you're going to building A, B or C, if you want to be at the rear of the building, you know, having a little bit of of available parking is good.

If we were 100% full, that would terrify me in terms of how we manage our tenants and their guests when we're over a hundred or when we're completely parked out.

Yeah.

No, I respect that.

Just trying to think on the larger scale, this is a campus type of environment, and that's the idea behind it.

Campuses and mine are usually integrated.

You know, there's separate people to different businesses.

Each business you have to say, this is our land, this is our space.

But realistically, like if you think of you know, this is not a downtown area.

Think of a downtown area, there's not specified parking typically for a business.

There is there's parking nearby, and you're gonna come to this area, you're gonna park and you're gonna go to a one of the places that is here in this campus.

So just curious about that, because you have two big, you know, a large parking area next to another parking area.

If that was if there would have been discussions with any of these other neighboring places whether there could be something that's worked out instead of that change for additional parking requests.

Um that's the only one that I had, and if there was even if there was an exploration that had been done there just to, you know, do a little ask or something like that.

But but that's all.

I think I think too, that's why it's you know, while the property line is there on paper.

Um that's why too, it's um important to think about the two lots as a whole when you're looking at that maximum parking number, because ultimately we if we just shifted parking from 4D to 4C, if there were you know physical space to do that and we lost that green space at the front, we could technically be under on 4C, but we didn't we really wanted to preserve that green space.

Appreciate that.

Um so that's why we're kind of shifting the location of it, and we do intend it to be shared between the two lots.

Um and uh, you know, again, that's why I think it's important to look at them as like a total that they're ultimately under each lot um when you look at them totally.

Well, yeah, no, I I appreciate that too.

I I I caught that part, and that's nice.

I'm thinking of just outside of this development, if the same thing could be put to the entire I know there are prior developments that had been done before, and I don't know what those how the correlation of that the their parking maximums and stuff was decided, because I think it's a direction that the city I think wants to go in to try to like not require extra parking if needed, but that also correlates to you don't need to build extra parking spaces if they're also not needed.

So just uh just a thought on that.

Um that's all the only question I had.

Commissioner Nellis.

Yes, um, thank you.

Um do you guys what how many or how many um bike racks are you guys offering?

Are you guys offering any bike racks on the property?

Yes, we've got uh 10 bike racks on each lot.

Um each lot.

Okay.

So there's for the lot uh for C and it's just a little bit further west, yep, on 4D.

Okay.

And um just curious about that four D lot.

Um I guess you're looking you would be looking for a specific um person to lease, I guess, or buy the land or the property and have it designed and developed.

So we I mean we took the design as far as we needed to to say, okay, this is how we get 10,000 square feet on this lot, here's where the entrances are.

Um I pointed that out because we do not have a user identified for that 10,000 square feet.

Imagine it could be somebody that um you know that wants a 10,000 square foot building to themselves.

Um maybe they have uh the need for loading or a small shipping and receiving area component, maybe they're professional services or manufacturing, maybe they're you know, durable goods manufacturing or medical devices.

So we're keeping the options open for what um the end user might look like, but certainly it would fall under the the allowed uses under the professional office or under the professional business zoning.

So we're not proposing any change of use there.

We just don't know precisely who that's going to be.

And then the 4C you mentioned that you're just designing it, you're you're in you have no user in mind, I think I heard you say, is that correct?

We I mean we have a kind of a category of users, so the medical professional services, um, you know, office users, and um typically between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet.

Uh we would love to tell you that we've got pre-lease interest to that building, um, only that we've got generally leasing interest on Thomas Johnson Drive, um, and that we think as we get closer to building this building, we'll get more serious interest.

But it will be a multi-tenant building just like 110 Thomas Johnson Drive is, and how 112 Thomas Johnson Drive is, um, anywhere from five to ten, ten tenants, depending on their sizes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and just one last thing.

Um, I I agree with with Zach about the um sometimes these um parking lots are empty, they're not always full, but I also don't have a problem with the modification either.

So kind of like either way.

Thank you.

Okay, so most of my questions have been answered.

That's good.

Um but I was wondering, wouldn't have life been made easier if you re-platted this and platted it into one lot instead of keeping it two separate lots.

It it sure would have been.

Okay.

And that's and you know, that's not a justification for modifications either.

Hey, had we done this as one lot, then we could have done these things.

Um, you know, we were looking at it as um, as you suggested.

What if the user that is interested in the 10,000 square feet, they want um, you know, kind of build it exactly how they want and they want to own their own real estate.

It gives us flexibility in how we develop the site.

It's helpful for uh helpful for financing if we have one type of user in this building and a different type of user in that building or a collection of users.

So it's really about flexibility as we progress the campus, but I 100% agree if we had just done it as one campus without all of this, then we would we would have been uh through all the site plan approvals a couple years ago.

All right.

Is it in your um contracts with with potential users or buyers, are there certain facility or certain types of uses that are not pre not permitted in in your campuses?

Um I mean there are uh that we specifically prohibit that are allowed by by code.

That would be allowed by code, but you've said since this is a medical type campus, we don't want to I mean I think we would avoid um I mean there are some conditional uses that we would avoid completely.

I mean, obviously if there was a um like a a child care or daycare center or something like that, maybe that 10,000 square feet could just that's not what we're assuming will will end up there.

Um so there's no specific uses that we're we're saying we would not entertain for this building.

Um but because it's a three-story shared office building, you're going to only find certain users that that makes sense for.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um ahead.

Okay.

Um actually the questioner prompted when you were answering another question over here.

Um so when Commissioner Manelis asked about like some of the uses that would be in the building for 4D, I think it's 4D that you just said.

Um when you you had said manufacturing.

You said potential medical main manufacturing or so for the modification request number two with the off-street loading and eliminating the large loading spaces and things like that.

If there's manufacturing going on there potentially for that building, then wouldn't they have bigger deliveries?

Or or we would have to, if that was um a requirement of a tenant, which we're not expecting, which is why we're asking for the modification not to put in a large loading dock.

If that was a requirement, we would have to come back and request a modification or an amendment to the site plan, which not our preference, but if it were for a specific tenant and that was a requirement, then we we would do that.

And we and I think we would be able to accommodate in the rear of that building.

I mean that answers my question, but thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, we good?

Stephanie.

Uh just add some explanation.

The applicant did present very well, everything inclusive.

Um the thing about these modifications is I want to um explain to you is that they are very um usual modifications you will find for business parks and shopping centers.

Um yes, it would be easier if this was one lot, they would not have these modifications to separate the lots as they do.

But lots of clients, as in shopping centers, also like to own their own their own lot.

And um with this though, um the sections of the LMC doesn't address exceptions for the business parks and and shopping centers um to address how they divide these things up.

It's it's always uh looking at it as a separate lot.

So we uh technically have to go through the modifications for them to be able to design the way that we're usually want to see business parks and everything.

You do not want to see uh maybe large strips of trees going through lots where they want to have their their like they said, their parking to be uh cohesive and everything for everybody, also with the parking because they are separate lots and um different ownerships maybe in the future, they need to have a blanket, maybe access and maintenance agreement between all the lot ownerships and and as they are the owner of all the lots at the at the time, they will execute something like that.

So there's uh circulation throughout the uh business park.

The other thing we were thinking, I was thinking of here for you of the median and the handicap um uh design.

Uh Cherin could not make it here today, but he did offer up to me also the fact that he requested to have that median expanded on for that purpose as they've explained is that he wants to make sure there's safety across there from one side to the other within that um drive.

And what else is there?

I think that's it.

Um trying to think.

Oh, the users and a professional business, of course, our land management code has the use matrix and outlines anything that would be able to go into this professional PB area.

Um the other thing is PB does have um kind of a unique thing too as a business park if they have little accessory uh sub uses that they would want to include, but they have to go under the requirements of the LMC to bring any uses in there.

So but they are addressing the fact that they are a medical business park for most part.

That's it.

Great, thank you.

We'll do a roll call for questions.

Commissioner Balencia.

No, thank you.

Commissioner Wellin.

No, thank you.

Commissioner Bono?

No, thank you.

Commissioner Millis?

Nothing, thank you.

Um so I just had one quick comment for the um before the hearing.

The text regarding the landscape screening modification.

To me, that sounded like you were talking about the lot line between C and D, not the lot line between the Osherman property and the north boundary.

So just make sure that that's more clear when when this is revised that it's it's not the lot line between C and D.

Thank you.

Um I wanted to um explain to Zach also too.

I know he was concerned about overparking and previous surfaces, which we all want to reduce as much as possible.

Many times, I mean, these sites have come in, the couple that they do have there existing, um, fall within their parking requirements, of course.

Um, but when we do find a site that maybe is on the heavy side of the range, but they are not meeting some of their planting requirements and forest conservation and other things, we asked them to reduce.

Um we we encourage them to reduce.

But this site has been here existing, they have met all their forest conservation.

It's already plant, it's been planted and they met it in full, and they are meeting their their landscaping requirements.

So they have given us green space.

Yeah, nope.

Oh, good.

I just whenever I see something.

I was assure you that we do are mindful of that when we look for if they don't do not meet our green space stuff.

Yeah, no, no, no problem with that at all.

My uh my thinking on it is also is that more space that is in parking is space that could be developed into something that is higher value also for the developers too, and higher value for you know all of all of us as well.

So just thinking of that if you know it and get in thinking of the developers as they're doing all the uh any future work.

We've we've seen you guys a few times.

So we'll see you guys from work.

Great.

So is there any public comment on this case?

Seeing none, is there anything else from the commission before we move on?

No.

Do you have any questions for us?

Thank you.

Is the applicant for Carvana here now?

All right, and we need to swear you in.

Um anybody else who needs to be sworn in.

You might as well do that now.

Um, if you need to be sworn in, I'd like you to raise your right hand.

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

If so, answer I do.

Thank you very much.

All right.

So we are now looking at case PC PC 25-488 FSI final flight plan for Carvana.

Good afternoon.

I'm Jody Walker with Harris Mergan Associates.

And before you is uh Frederick Commerce Center lot two for the cover of Carvana use.

Uh this plan was previously approved in uh 2001.

And since its approval, uh the site plan has since expired.

So we are back up for reapproval of the site plan.

Uh it's basically the exact same site plan that was presented and approved in 2021.

The with the uh economic downturn and everything, uh it wasn't feasible for this project to move forward once it was approved.

So with that in consideration, now the economic climate is slightly improved for this situation, so they're moving forward with this project now, and we're trying to uh obtain site plan approval again for the same project.

Uh we are asking for uh one modification, which is the parking landscape modification.

That does not refer to the uh guest parking.

Which is the guest and visitor and um employee parking is right up front along here.

That parking has more than the required landscaping, and it's required 10 percent interior landscaping.

We're providing 15.9 percent landscaping in that parking lot.

Uh what that modification refers to are the vehicle storage areas, which are on the east side of the property, and the processing part of the project, which is to the east of the the proposed building and along the front of the proposed building in between the parking and the proposed building.

Uh this will be for a carvana, which will be where they will take the trade-in vehicles, um, do any improvements to those vehicles that need to be done before they're able to sell those.

Uh it's also for the storage of the vehicles to be sold at this location or to be shipped outside of this location to other carvanas or other places to be dealt with.

Um so this will be a large storage area for those vehicles that are to be sold.

And the modification requested is for the landscaping in those parking storage areas for those vehicles that are for inventory.

And the reason being is for leaf droppings, uh bird droppings, um fruit, things of that nature coming off of the trees onto those vehicles.

And it would require more intense cleaning of the vehicles before they're able to be sold.

So that's why we're asking for that modification and also the modification is for is for store, it's for inventory storage versus vehicular visits to the site, which help reduce the trees more or less help reduce the impact of those vehicles and and creates the shade for vehicles for people visiting, which isn't the case that's needed for the uh vehicle storage that's on site.

So again, this is this is for kind of a re this is for a reapproval of that previous site plan.

And as a um it wasn't put in the report and it wasn't in the uh modification letter, but I did want to point out that um we're asking for that modification and one of the one of the um comprehensive one of the uh compensating features.

Lost my tongue there.

One of the compensating features is the additional landscaping that we are providing in the visitor parking lot.

Uh so rather than 10 percent landscaping, we're providing 15.9 percent landscaping in that parking lot.

So that's all I have.

If anybody has any questions.

Great, thank you.

We'll do a roll call for commissioner questions, starting with Commissioner Llewellyn.

Uh so I'm in the staff report, I'm not seeing the exact modification request and what's being provided, what's required?

Um it talks about it vaguely, but I'm not seeing some like a table or something.

So it's I guess really a question for staff.

Okay, well then you're looking for just the uh numbers of what um would be required for them?

Right.

What what is the modification exactly being requested?

Modification is for 10 percent of the impervious uh parking area.

Um that is the regulation that they're asking for modification from.

Um as to the calculation of what that percentage would be.

I don't have that right now.

If that's uh what you want to know, the square footage and the 10 percent would be I'm just I'm just not clear with what it is.

So on page three of the staff report.

Yeah, so I'm looking on page three.

I think parking lots of greater than twenty spaces in all zoning districts except for downtown require the 10 percent.

But I don't see so they're asking for no interior landscape.

None.

Okay.

On the vehicle storage.

Correct.

Lots of okay.

So I I understood when you were saying it and and why, I just I don't see it here.

So you're looking for a calculation of what that would be that we're asking for a modification from or I guess I don't understand the question.

Usually it's in the staff report and it's not.

It doesn't say modification number.

It does.

It says they're requesting a modification to eliminate the parking interior landscaping for vehicle storage areas.

Where are you looking?

Right there.

Okay.

So parking lots of greater than 20 spaces, that whole paragraph.

Well, yeah, the list.

Uh-huh.

The sentence at the end.

Requesting a modification to eliminate.

Okay.

I guess if that can be in bulge, it's usually positive, that's why.

Like all these, they say modification request number one to section blah blah blah.

That's you're requesting to eliminate it completely.

Okay.

Just wanted to clarify because it wasn't didn't pop out when I was reading it.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay.

Commissioner Brono.

No questions.

Commissioner?

None for me, thank you.

Commissioner Valencia?

That was my same question, but I am happy for the extra trees.

Thanks.

And I have no additional questions.

Staff.

Excuse me.

Um, I really don't have anything to add.

Like I said, this has been um vented the first time through, and they've not changed anything at this point.

Um it's a reapproval of the site plan to um validate it and have it move forward.

All right.

So do we have any commissioner questions for staff?

No.

I just I have one question.

Is this the lot that because it's in the airport easement has to be like completely clear cut and then replanted with short trees?

Correct.

You'll see you'll see on the plan this this area to the east uh was completely cleared of the existing forests and replanted with smaller trees.

And and the trees that are proposed in that parking lot and through the plan uh coordinate with those that request that was given before.

And but that that replanting has already been accomplished, or is that part of your obligation?

The forested area has been replanted, correct?

Okay, great, thank you.

Do we have any public comment on this case?

Nope, seeing none.

Any further additional questions from the commission?

Nope.

And do you have any questions for us?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, our next case is PC 25-491 FSI and PC 25-492 FSCB, final site plan and four-stand delineation and preliminary forest conservation plan for the sheets on East Patrick Street.

Good afternoon, Franz Eller Harris Marie Gun Associates.

Bob Franks, who is my client at Sheets, uh extends his apologies that he couldn't make it today as he is traveling and on vacation.

So I'm sure you have seen where Sheets goes out and route, you know, every dozen years or so will tear down their existing store.

It's part of their program to refresh the store and rebuild with a with a new store.

They get a lot of use and uh wear and tear, so that's that's the program that they have done.

You've seen it probably down at the mall and recently they did one up in Thermont, and there's others.

So that's what they're gonna do here.

They're going to completely demolish the existing sheets, the gas pumps, a lot of the paving, uh not all the paving, but they will keep the existing utility connections, the sewer water, and stormwater connections, and maintain the existing entrances that are out there today.

So today they have uh 16 pumps, 16 pumps, uh both on Minocase and East Patrick.

And in the proposed condition here, they're only going to limit the pumps to the Minoxy Boulevard side, reduce the number from 16 to 12.

They're also uh a large reduction in the parking spaces.

The existing site, I believe, has 52 parking spaces.

There's a lot of parking out there today.

Uh and this one has their new, you know, they've moved to a drive-thru.

And it's not the drive-thru like you think at a fast food.

I go to Sheets often.

I have never used a drive-thru.

But it is used by um, you know, parents that have a full uh car kids and they don't want to get them all out, or those folks that can order ahead and and uh then drive through.

So their drive-through traffic is is nothing like a McDonald's or a Wendy's or Burger King.

So this is employing uh drive-thru on the east side, so a lot of the parking has disappeared as a result of that reconfiguration there.

So they've dropped to 38 spaces, so 14 space drop.

The building is just a little bit larger, but that drive-through does take up some more space inside, and there's probably a little bigger kitchen um area.

So the customer service area really hasn't significantly increased.

The other thing that they have uh incorporated into this plan is the widening that's in red that's proposed there, the ongoing widening that construction that's been going on out there at the intersection of Minocase and East Patrick is part of the I believe it's the Rennes project that uh all those improvements that the Renn project required.

So they are accommodating that uh sidewalk that the city wants to build, or that the city wants Renn to build along Minocase.

Uh so that has been worked into this rework of the site.

We are we are requesting a lighting modification.

It's a very tight site.

Uh it's not a very large site by any means.

Um we're surrounded by commercial uh other commercial uses.

We're we're on a busy intersection that's already lighted.

Uh so we are having to request a modification because we can't achieve zero zero, zero foot can holes at the property line.

Uh so there is some spillage uh into the roadways at the entrances primarily where you do want a little more light uh for vehicular and pedestrian safety.

We do have uh sidewalk connections to um East Patrick that's pulled away from the actual intersection and driveway, as well as there along the Wendy's side out to Minocase Boulevard, also pulled away from the busy thorough in and out areas.

Other than that, it's a it's pretty straightforward.

That's they're pretty quick once they start, they they probably might have it down and back up in six months, eight months, something like that.

So they still have to get through the civil process yet, but um maybe maybe later next year uh you'll see it come down and go back up.

Now with that I'll I'll close and if you have any questions, I'm I'm here.

Great, thank you.

We'll do a roll call starting with Commissioner Bologna.

Yeah, no questions.

Commissioner Nellis.

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Valencia.

Yes, hi.

I do have questions.

Um can we go back to the lighting and can you use the pointer to maybe show us where like the lighting spillage would be on the screen?

Please actually that actually where we do have it's around all sides.

Right, because you said mainly at the entrances?

Not just the entrances.

Because that zero zero foot candle is such a hard threshold to achieve, um, the the values are still greater than zero zero at almost all the corners of the site.

Now, there is a revised lighting plan that's coming that's not in your package.

Um there's some notes in the revised plan submittal that talks about a new lighting plan.

What they and I've seen that lighting plan, and I compared the foot candles on both the one that's in your package and the one you'll see at Plan Commission.

They reduce the intensity, the foot candle values, but it's still greater than zero zero.

So will the lower values.

Will the new lighting plan like make the entrances more safer by not having the spillover at the entrances?

I believe a little bit of light spillages at the entrances will make them safer.

The there are there are only a limited number of lights that are at 23 feet, which is I think there's 12 lights at 23 feet.

There's a lot of lighting, but most of it's below 23 feet.

So I did see a significant drop in the um intensity, the foot candle intensity, and it did pull the zero zero closer, but not all the way into the property.

Okay.

So the perimeter lighting that's already there and existing and approved, why is that being changed?

Oh, because we're we're scrapping the whole site.

Right.

So why wouldn't it be those same lights that were approved?

Like, I mean, if it was like why are we putting the lights lights?

Well, I'm just saying, why are we putting new lights that are not that are gonna need a modification because of the spillage?

Did those lights that are existing right now have a spillage?

Oh, I'm sure.

Yeah, so okay.

But I'm sure they do.

It's it's pretty typical of these sites.

We're surrounded by other commercial properties and that are gonna have similar hours as well.

Um Yeah, no, I definitely know the sheets very well, but I also know that turning out from any of those points is like there's already like a blind spots and different things, and there's heavy traffic there, and you know, again, light spillage is dangerous for the drivers.

So that's why I'm always gonna harp on that all the time.

It's just for safety purposes, but um I'm just wondering how would that new light plan that you bring back or maybe still working on could have like minimum, you know, just try to help with the safety at the entrances, I guess is what I'm looking for, since you guys are revising it anyway.

I think I think when you see the new plan, I think you'll be pleased.

There they the company that does that plan, Red Leonard, which does all the sheets, boy, it's quite a package.

Um and I believe all the we'll make sure all the plans come in.

They even got these illustrations that are actually pretty nice to understand to understand how the lighting works.

So yeah, that's nice.

We want to see that.

So uh we'll make sure that's in the package coming back in.

It looked to me, it looks like they have to be proposed right now.

Okay, yeah, and you know, lighting has changed tremendously prize since the original was built.

So that sounds good.

Thank you.

Commissioner Llewellyn?

Um so a couple of questions and some just observation.

So as far as the lighting goes, it mentions reduction of light, says bowls, but I know it means poles, reduces visual clutter.

Um so I know you have a new plan coming with lighting.

If that can be explained um in that package that we see next, that would be helpful.

Sounds like you're getting there.

Um and then just out of curiosity, can you point with the pointer where exactly the drive-thru is going to be and like where the streets are?

I just want to understand that for myself.

Okay, so the drive-throughs in the back.

This is the drive-through lane.

Okay, so when you when you say the back, what roads exactly?

Here's um East Patrick and Minocase Boulevard.

Over here is the existing Burger King.

Uh-huh.

And this side is the existing sheets.

I'm sorry, uh Wendy's.

So, so if somebody wanted to pick pick up their order, they would come in or they'd finish gassing up and they'd come down here, go through this lane.

There's an order board here.

Then they cross and go up along the side of the building, and there is an escape lane there to let somebody pass if somebody got in there by mistake.

So they pick up their order and then they can go out that way or take the right out and go east on Patrick.

So that to me, uh, on this corner lot, uh, you know, I'm referring to that side as the back.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

That's all.

Um, so my question is um regarding the traffic patterns.

And I don't know it would have been nice to have Cherry in here, but maybe we can have have him here for the hearing as well.

But are what are you gonna be doing to like manage traffic through the through the site to like ease congestion?

Um I mean like are the is like the monocass entrance gonna be like right in, right out only, and the and the Patrick Street right in, right out only, or or is there certain traffic flow designated by the site to help help reduce congestion?

There's the um the Minocase Boulevard intersection today is full movement.

Um and this plan proposes to keep that full movement.

The East Patrick entrance is right out right in today, and we propose to keep that condition.

There is a cross connection to the sh to the Wendy's parking lot here, which then does connect to that private storage way.

Um, and that's two-way.

So no changes to the current intersection configuration uh from to from what's out there today.

Um I do think one improvement is that there's the the ability to get around this side easier than what's out there today.

The other improvement is dropping this canopy up here of pumps organizes the flow, and you're not in that you're you're you have less area where there's all this surplus paving that's typical of the pumps.

So I think there is an improvement along East Patrick's eye.

It would be interesting for the hearing to hear a discussion of having the Monocothee Boulevard entrance be right in and right out only as well.

I mean, I know just from driving through that area frequently, the worst congestion for the whole intersection happens when somebody is coming from the monoclonal boulevard across whatever direction that is, and tries to turn left into the sheets, and everything backs up.

You know what I can't remember today out there in current condition?

I cannot remember if it's one single lane.

But what is going to happen out there is there'll be four lane uh some and it would be in just uh I'd like to hear that discussion at the hearing about managing traffic in that area.

Maybe we can make sure uh Chiran can come right because he's he's been spearheading all that road improvement out there, knows it much better than I.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, as well.

Yeah, I think that'd be good too.

Is if there's I know that there's the effort to kind of improve the uh you guys have it listed out here, the sidewalk and the walkway across.

That's also gonna be, I think, worthwhile discussing, because if it's just gonna maintain the one other it if we're you know, this is gonna be built out more and anticipating more active flow of traffic with the drive-thru type of thing.

Now I know noer fewer lots or fewer um actual fuel pumps, but that'd be good to see how they expect that or to line up.

So I agree.

Okay.

All right, staff.

I think that he covered most of it.

Um this is a pretty normal scrape and rebuild.

Uh it was constructed back in the late 90s, so we can assume that anything on that property is gonna be a bit outdated and that the upgrades would be more helpful, especially the lighting um environmentally speaking.

We've come a long way.

Um so I am hoping that that's gonna be better than it currently is.

Um they are gonna again update it so that we're gonna have some minimization on those foot candles.

Um, but otherwise, it's pretty straightforward.

Um, and I will let Charian know about um the right in right out so that he is prepared.

Great, thank you.

Do we have anybody has questions for staff?

No, no questions for staff to have any public comment.

Okay.

No, all right.

Anything up here?

All right.

Do you have any questions for us?

No.

All right, thank you very much.

Okay.

Right.

So the next item on our agenda is um PC 25-249 ZTA zoning text amendment.

Go ahead.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Uh Jay Diamond with Greenbird Gibbons.

To my left, I have Nobelano, principal at Alfred Kerman, and then Eric DeVito, chief chief transaction officer and general counsel at Greenburg Gibbons.

Perfect, thank you.

Uh so just to start, first I'd like to thank staff.

I think we've had a lot of good conversations over the last month as we come back before you guys.

This is our second planning commission workshop.

The first one was, I believe was September 15th.

So there's been a lot of discussions on the background based on some of your guys' feedback that we wanted to we felt was prudent to come to you guys before we go to another uh hearing uh next month.

So to kind of give you guys some background of actually, I think I have it right.

To give you some background, so this text amendment is uh proposing to make modifications to table 838-1, the mixed use buildings, and what we wanted to call out here.

So in mixed use zoning um for mixed use buildings, what this requires, and you can see here there's the example.

This was in table 838 here.

Um the entire first floor must be either all retail, office, or industrial or all residential.

So you can see the example of what's proposed.

You can see that there's retail, commercial, office, or residential.

That's the example of the vertical mixed use development.

And then just below that this shows the mixed use development horizontal.

So what this would mean is, and we'll go to the next slide here too, we'll show the the text language from 838.1 is that by this definition here, if you were to take this lower right quadrant and put commercial in there, that would not be permitted uh in the land management code.

So again, this is 838, and you can see kind of as an application, and again, we're not trying to tie this to the brickworks project, but showing you what could be added is you know, if assuming this text amendment moves forward, retail could be added as the ground floor element into a mixed use building because residential is approved.

So I I think one thing as we talk through this that I really want to just stress to everyone is that you'll hear us talk a lot about adding retail to the ground floor, but the the provision in the code is to add residential.

So I just want to make that that clear to everyone because you'll you're hearing us kind of go back and forth.

So what we did here is kind of following the workshop last time is you can see here's the table 831.

Our language that we proposed in the zoning ordinances in red.

And some of the feedback from the last workshop is you know, how can we almost kind of restrict this really to MU districts?

So what we did is we added a effectively a line item in table 838, and it says use is permitted on the first floor in MU districts only.

So our language that we're proposing as part of this text amendment is only specific to MU districts.

So when we think about downtown Frederick, that's not MU, nothing changes from what we're proposing right now.

And then you can kind of see it in the line below where it says uses permit on the first floor, retail office, industrial.

We've added retail office, industrial, residential.

Um again, going back to that last picture, too, adding residential on the ground floor allows us to be able to program us and future applicants as well.

Mix of uses across the entire mixed use building.

So what we also did here is in addition to having the MU district, the second bullet point right here is we had a condition in here last time that said that the application had to be larger than a three-acre site.

We we understood that probably wasn't the right way to go about this, so we actually changed it to be a minimum gross floor area of 35,000 square feet.

And what this is doing is it's also protecting you know the city from projects less than well, obviously less than 35 square five thousand square feet, but larger projects that come forward in MU districts.

Um with all this too, I know there's a lot of conversation on architectural guidelines and standards.

Um this submission that we're proposing in front of you guys today only allows the use for residential to be added on the first floor.

Any submission going forward is still subject to um section 417 mixed use districts, MU1 and two, and section 604 building and urban design standards.

So again, let's assume this gets approved and be able to move forward.

We have to go back in front of city council, and then ultimately, if if we would like to incorporate this into our project, it would come before you guys again, and we still be subject to those standards in 417 and 604.

So the purpose really of this text amendment is just really to add the use of residential and mixed use districts greater than 35,000 square feet.

So what we wanted to show you guys is in the justification statement, we put a bunch of different examples.

Two here that we wanted to highlight.

This is the galleria Carroll Creek, which received the final site plan approval uh last month.

Ultimately, this is what we're trying to get to for mixed-use developments.

And I understand this has the Carroll Keek Carroll Creek overlay, there's a different zoning ordinance compared to MU districts, but you can see the retail, it's approved up here by Carroll Creek, and then has amenities and units facing East Street and uh on the south side of this building here as well.

So granted, this has not been built but was recently approved.

But this is ultimately what we're trying to get to.

This is another project in Arlington, Virginia.

This is 1919, and we had shared this actually last time at the last workshop.

Um, what you can see here is core power yoga, and then if you move down the street, this would be the residential lobby, and keep moving down.

You can see it better in this picture here.

That's the residential units, and you can enter that all in from the ground floor level.

And then again, not trying to tie this necessarily our project, but showing you in the planning commission how this could be applied as uh proposed zoning ordinance.

You know, if this project or this text amendment gets approved, what we could do as Greenberg Gibbons in our lot six um site plan is you can see the multifamily building here.

The blue is the residential lobby, there's a concrete podium in there too.

We could be able to add, you know, some amount of retail into the uh ground floor.

What's interesting about the zoning code is even in an MU district, a pure multifamily building can be built, right?

So which means is that this project lot six could move forward just as purely multifamily.

We think uh obviously by submitting this text amendment, being able to incorporate retail, again, the code allows for retail, but doesn't allow for residential, that we have a much more comprehensive project, future uses and future site plans that come before you guys if they have the ability to add retail, it's gonna be a much more integrated project to add to the streetscape, the public realm, and so forth.

Um so for those reasons, you know, this could be something that we come forward with in a couple of months, assuming city council approval and then uh um reapplication, resubmission of the application itself.

So with that, um happy to answer any questions.

I don't know if Noel, if you have anything on the justification statement.

No, thanks, Jay.

I mean, again, um no Manala with Officer Kerman.

We uh definitely benefited from the discussion because again, we were before you with the previous iteration.

Definitely took the feedback, and again, it's it's one of those as you all are well familiar with, and and then uh uh Commissioner Bono, you'll become well familiar with there are a lot of quirks of the zoning of the land management code where they don't necessarily um gel as as initially anticipated.

And so again, this section 838 viewed in isolation.

Um you know, when you try and apply that to a mixed use project, we're running into this this issue, and and that's why, you know, again in our justification.

We wanted to make sure that we made you all and the and the city council aware that clearly we're this text amendment, again, wherever it is in the city, but again related um specifically to mixed use, you know, the purpose of the mixed use zone.

And again, this is from land management code section 401.

Mixed use district is intended to provide a planned district that allows for the integration of residential and non-residential uses, provides for mixed dwelling unit types and housing densities, provides for compatible and complementary retail office and employment uses, provides for greater flexibility than single use districts through a planned review process that ensures safe, efficient, convenient, harmonious groupings of structures, uses and facilities, et cetera.

And then again, also in section 417 under the purpose statement, the mixed the MU district provides a flexible procedure for the approval of developments that provide compact pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that cannot conform to some of the standards of Section 411 of this article.

The MU district procedures offers discretionary case-by-case review procedures for such developments in lieu of the more predictable ministerial process established in Section 411.

And I just thought it was important to get get those purpose statements onto the record because again, when a lot of what came out of the discussion when we were with you previously, we were looking at this this section 838 and analyzing it from a um a Euclidean zone, or the questions that were arising in our minds was was from a more Euclidean zone approach.

Again, MU as we we added the the the um the line in the table and then the additional subsection.

We're clearly saying, hey, look, you know, I this section 838, if you're defined as a mixed-use building, okay, we get it, you know, as far as these integration of uses vertically, but if you've got an MU project in the MU zone, we wanted to just carry forward the flexibility that MU is contemplating.

So that's that's what I just want to make sure to provide that context.

And again, definitely benefited from the discussion with you all and with staff, and um, we're here to answer any questions.

But thank you.

Great, thank you.

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

Um I definitely like seeing this in red.

That makes it, you know, I like a chart.

But um, I guess I I was in favor of this when it got presented, but not really for the reasons that you guys aren't even touching on.

It was all about the accessibility for me.

And I feel like that was like why is this not in the LMC because of accessibility of having the first floor living, the first floor shopping, all that there for people that may have that need.

So I I still like it.

This looks good, I like when it's highlighted, but um really it was a it was all about accessibility for me when it first got presented, and I don't know, maybe to say that a little more because I think that's that's a big piece of this.

Like it's missing and it wasn't able to be done, but accessibility is a huge thing.

No, definitely we didn't want to minimize that.

That clearly was in our initial justification, but appreciate the comments, so we definitely share that sentiment.

So, you know, I I I like something rare, but thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wellan.

I have no question.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bologna.

Yeah, this is the first time I'm seeing this.

I like it a lot.

Good job.

I think catching one of these weird little accidental loopholes in a way, but kind of like a roadblock, not a loophole.

But um, I think that this also kind of just shows that uh y'all are thinking along the same lines, I know that broader in this project.

There was a bunch of community concern and push back about BERT works, but I think you guys are moving in the direction of wanting to incorporate this similar type of design that uh the rest of the downtown Frederick area has because a lot of it was built before there were these land zoning specific requirements, and people did just build their residential next to you know the restaurant next door that didn't care, didn't matter.

But this is I think uh allowing you to you or whoever else is developing there in the same kind of spirit of that kind of idea that you are living and working and enjoying life near where the things you'd want to do.

So um no, I appreciate this totally in favor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Nellis.

Yes, thank you.

Um like it as well.

Um like the versatility um and also the accessibility, like um Commissioner uh Valencia had mentioned.

Um just a couple of questions um in regards to, and I think you kind of answered that already, um maybe clarification in terms of if residential is on the first floor, how does that, and then maybe that's a staff question.

Like if we start to do MU's MU's and M1s, um vertical, um 35,000 square foot minimum.

Um what happens with some of the requirements?

How does that change?

Maybe um if it changes, um traffic patterns, you know, parking requirements, like what like what impact would that possibly have, if any.

Do you want us or do you want staff to answer?

You guys can answer it and then they can answer too.

They can add on.

Sure.

So I I would say ultimately this text amendment, right?

If we're to get recommended for approval, anything that comes before planning commission at that point is still gonna have to abide by the balance of the LMC.

So any submission, whether it be a final site plan, staff's gonna have their review.

There's gonna still be the workshop process, there's still gonna be the hearing, they're still gonna have to do APFO, Chirian's gonna opine on anything that's put before you guys.

So I think at a high level, you know, any submission that gets approved based on this text amendment is still gonna come to you guys for vote, and you'll have the opportunity at that point to opine whether you approve or disapprove any for any future submission.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

I think Jay touched on on it also when he mentioned APFO, but certainly then at that point you would have the the calculation for the the um as opposed to it would be a hundred percent residential use would be counted, or the the the dwelling units, now you'd have a square footage of of non-residential, so then that's where the that's where the APFO would pick up the difference.

Okay.

Um real quickly, so I did a exercise with Siri trying to figure out where in Frederick is 35,000 square foot.

Um you know, I I did the giant off of Monocasey Boulevard, but that was greater than 35,000.

So I was just curious for a frame of reference.

Like, what are we talking about?

Is that like a safe way size?

Is that like uh so as an example, right?

So here's the gallery at Carroll Creek.

Um in the final site plane, this was about 60,000 square feet as the first floor.

Okay, that was 60,000.

Okay.

And you guys are talking about 35,000 on the first floor, minimum then.

Minimum, correct?

Right.

And so I'm thinking, oh any other comments?

Nope.

Oh, he was just making the equivalent of about roughly three quarters of an acre as a as a point of reference.

Okay, like half of a football field or something.

Acre versus football field.

Football field is I'd have to defer to Sirius to the conversion of football field to acreage or we can ask Chat GDT after it.

Yeah, we can do that.

Um and so I was thinking to myself, this would most likely probably apply to new development, right?

More so.

I mean, and because I'm I don't know, and I don't know, but I was just thinking to myself, 35,000 square feet or an up vertical M1 and two.

I mean, I'm just trying to think to myself that would that fall.

Would this text amendment apply mainly to new development?

Yeah, okay.

That's what I was going to double check because I'm thinking to myself, I don't think of anything else in in the city that's like that.

That's definitely a of a fair observation, which again we've uh you you're you're uh getting at it from a different angle, kind of the point we've been trying to make.

Now, granted, you can have MU applications for you know, there's no minimum, but again, uh, I think you very likely the ones that you're gonna see are gonna be uh you know more uh greater in size.

Okay, um thank you okay.

So I'm gonna ask you my questions, and I expect that we'll have staff chime in later too.

Um overall, I agree with everybody else, the concept is good.

There were things about what I see as holes in the land management code that still make this to me more complicated than it seems you guys think it is.

Um so the first thing I did was go back to section 838 and look at the table.

Um there is no definition in the land management code for a mixed-use vertical building.

They do have a l a definition for um a live work unit.

Um so and there's nothing in the land management code that says at what point in the development is a designated multifamily versus mixed use, and it seems like we need to do that.

Um I mean, if you're saying that this only applies to mixed-use vertical buildings, well, then it doesn't seem like it would do brickworks any good because they're a multifamily building, and so would they need to revise their site plan to come back and be designated as a mixed-use vertical building?

I don't know.

So those holes seem like they need to be filled in.

Um, and Gabrielle knows more about the land management code than I do, so if I'm interpreting it wrong, that would be interesting, but uh it seems like it would be useful to add a definition, add a statement that says at what point in the process of building is designated as mixed use vertical.

Um in your justification letter and you put in conditions, um and and one of the conditions was um numbers was it number three, oh no, number two, where no more than 50 then retail should not exceed 50 percent of the building's first floor growth square footage.

Well, as I was thinking about it, if we're designating only mixed use vertical buildings for this, then by definition, those buildings already have to have a hundred percent retail or office on the first floor.

So does the language actually need to say that it should be no more than 50% residential?

Yeah, if I could respond to that, that should have came out of our last justification.

Okay, we we struck that when we resubmit it, so that language come out going forward.

Okay, okay.

And then the only other question that I have is we need to do something about design guidelines, because right now section 640, there's design lines from design guidelines for multi-use or for single family um dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and commercial dwellings.

But if you're doing a building that's a mix of residential and commercial, then we need to understand what design guidelines apply, and somebody needs to think about what those design guidelines should be.

Okay.

Yeah, I I have some thoughts internally that we can share.

Yeah.

So I'll since we've responded to the first to the last two, I'll definitely respond with the first one.

And that was my first question.

I was like, are we uh Jay?

Are we really is this a mixed use vertical building?

Because if not, this doesn't apply to us.

But again, um there are there have been other instances where terms have been utilized that aren't defined in the definition section, and I think what I guess in practice it's been a designation that's been given at the plan stage.

But to your point, I that was something I identify.

I mean, again, as the lawyer, I'm like, well, do we fall under the definition of mixed-use building and then oops no definition?

Yep.

Yep.

Okay.

All right, anything else for in the commission?

All right, staff.

Thank you.

So, yeah, there has been a lot of changes.

Um, and we actually had a meeting, which is why there's some more conversation that we need to have.

That's why we brought it back to workshop.

We didn't feel comfortable going forward with all these changes without you guys.

Um, one thing for sure is that they did adjust it to where it will only apply to the MU district.

Um, and as mentioned, there's not a ton of area left to become MU and to build, so it will likely just be for newer buildings, but we can't predict what will be happening in 20 years.

The 35,000, um, just for your reference, a football field is 1.32 acres.

It's a little bit bigger than we all think.

But 35,000 uh square feet, yeah, it's you know, grocery store, big bigger grocery store size, something like that.

Um, I don't think it's uh an inappropriate metric to hit.

Um is there a lot of information behind why that metric was hit?

No, just that that makes sense to everybody who who builds things.

Um one of the big ones uh as far as the percentages.

We had this is a big part of the discussion.

Do we want to limit the percentages, or do we want to say that you know you can have some residential and you can have some commercial?

Is there a downside to you know not giving a percentage?

And is there an upside to adding one?

And we couldn't really find that there was.

Um flexibility is the whole purpose of mixed use.

So it makes sense to kind of give a little bit.

Um as far as the design requirements, that would be the multifamily portion would uh would comply with the multifamily portion of that code, commercial with the commercial side of that code.

Um we do this, it's a continuous streetscape, and we just would apply those ones to those portions.

The issue is though, does that give us what we want out of our streetscape if we allow both?

And that's kind of the conversation here is do you guys want additional design or architectural items uh concerning the appearance and the usage of the streetscape?

Um so we're really looking for information on that.

Um the only other thing is uh in reference to definitions.

I've never seen a code that had all the definitions in them.

Um the APA, which is the American Planning Association, does have some definitions.

Uh they actually used to give us books with definitions in them.

So normally we are referencing if we if we don't have a definition in a local code, we can reference the the national planning definition if we need to, but no, our code's not perfect.

Um it could definitely be added.

But I think the the main goal today is to figure out do you guys want us to uh do you feel like this is enough, or do you want to make sure that there's more design guidelines?

Right.

Well, let's just gonna add um regarding a definition.

I don't think adding one um is a bad idea.

Uh the way the code's structured currently, we kind of define it by the absence of a definition, all the other regulations around it kind of inherently decide what a mixed-use building is.

For example, we allow like accessory retail in certain multifamily situations, but that's defined.

So anything beyond that, you're inherently going to have to have um uh kind of that it's going to be a mixed use building if it doesn't meet that accessory retail, it's a use uh district where multiple uses are permitted.

We have provisions that allow for multiple uses.

Um it probably should be uh maybe an amended section um as part of this tech amendment just to cross-reference properly, but we we define um where mixed use building is allowed under multiple sections.

So I guess my point is um while it's not specifically defined, the regulations of the code kind of define it inherently.

Um I don't know that it's critical to have it, but it it doesn't hurt.

I think it would probably just be a broad definition of a you know building that contains more than one use, you know, and multiple levels of a singular structure, much like we define mixed use development.

Is there anything in the code that says at what point the designation is applied?

I mean, I I again I know we're not looking at just just as this applies to brickworks, but how at what point would you say the site plan changes and now this is going to be a mixed-use building versus some how at what point is that designated?

Is there anything that says that?

So any building that has an integration of uses vertically, unless it falls under the thresholds for multifamily with accessory retail, which is really defined to be kind of a self-contained living unit for right retail only for the residents of that building.

Anything is inherently going to be mixed-use building and have to comply with all of the different regulations that speak to it.

So I don't know that you need a threshold necessarily to establish what is a mixed-use building any time it's not accessory retail as otherwise defined in the code, it's gonna be a mixed-use building, and all of the regulations that apply to mixed-use buildings will come into play.

So assuming some version of this text amendment passes, and Brickworks wants to apply it.

Do they have to redo their site plan for that for the multifamily building?

Right.

So they want to add if they want to add retail to that, do they have to redo their site plan?

Correct.

It would be a revision to the final site plan.

Now it might be a very nominal revision, it might just be confirming parking calculations work.

Um they may need to change maybe um uh building openings or you know, that could influence any of the site design elements if they have to change the sidewalk because they're adding a entrance somewhere, those could be very nominal with regards to APFO, or always referring back to those initial certificates, um, no matter what you change on a site plan.

So that's always a check and balance in that system.

Okay, right.

So does um we'll do a roll call to for any other questions or to address um staff's question to us, um, Commissioner Valencia.

So does um we'll do a roll call to for any other questions or to address um staff's question to us, um Commissioner Valencia Just come back to me actually.

Okay, Commissioner Llewellyn.

I have no questions, thank you.

Commissioner Bono.

Yeah, I had one question.

So you mentioned briefly, and maybe this is a bigger discussion we can talk about later, but um, you know, commercial versus residential, there are certain, you know, differences in the physical design and an architecture and stuff like that.

And then when you do have a design like this, where it could just be one half of the ground floor of a building.

You mentioned there could be some uh issues with that.

Do you can you maybe elaborate a bit more on what some of them are, or give the idea of is which one is more restrictive?

If it was one of the more restrictive than the other, I haven't dug into it, you know, because you don't want to have it designed so that it really has one section that's completely not fitting with the overall design of the building.

Is the commercial or the residential side more restrictive in terms of the architecture and other design portions of it?

Or is it kind of they're just different, you know.

I just just get an idea there if we wanted to have a change or something listed in there about that in in the in the amendment or the code.

A lot of the section 604 criteria for design for commercial are focused on that first floor elevation.

So if that's where you want to create the streetscape, if the intent of the mixed-year zoning district is to create a streetscape that is active and inviting and all of those good things, um, then a more commercial oriented design would do that if you have retail on the frontage.

So in looking at which of the do you apply multi the residential, multifamily, or commercial, if you're integrating non-residential on the first floor, it should be more characteristic of a non-residential or commercial building.

As opposed to that multi-family from there on up, it can have you know characteristics maybe more like a multifamily, but I think that commercial footprint is what's critical in the mixed-use district if you're integrating uses.

Yeah, great.

And then I think the other question too is no, there's you know, we're talking about the first floor here, but there's also situations maybe in more urban areas where it's actually the first two, three floors are actually commercial, and then you know they can have residential next to it because there are sometimes multi-story commercial, you know, frontings.

Maybe I don't think it's gonna be part of this project, but it could be part of other ones as we think about that.

I don't know if uh I haven't read specifically whether it needs to specify first floor or if it is sort of a in the situation where you have vertical and horizontal integration mixed, if that should just be thought of as well.

Um, because we might run into the same problem because maybe there is a situation where oh, we want to have a store that has like two levels of you know, shopping available, even in downtown Frederick, you'll have some buildings that are people are running businesses out of the second floor, you know, go up the stairs and then there's uh yoga studio or whatever it is on the on the second floor of one of these buildings that could be residential.

Same type of thing.

I think it goes with the same feeling of flexibility in design and trying to build so that places could be both.

But just to think about it, because I know we're specifying first, because in this case, but maybe we maybe we just make sure we don't narrow ourselves with that language unnecessarily commission.

I'm I actually have the same question as Zach did for the very um Commissioner Broner did on the very first question that Gabrielle already answered, so thank you.

Okay.

Um and uh I will just add that I don't know what the answer to the design guidelines question is, but I think before this goes to the city council, it needs to do something about giving guidance guidance on how to apply design guidelines to a mixed-use building.

I mean, I don't know enough about design guidelines to say what it should be, but but it needs the amendment needs to address it.

Anything else?

All right.

Um, any public comment on this come on up?

Yes.

Is there anybody else who needs to be sworn in?

Oh, Sharon, I think.

Yeah.

Well, she may not be planning on copying.

Um raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly asswear or 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.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Heather Goddard, and I live in Minoxie Village in East Frederick.

Uh, from the beginning, uh, this original plan, one of the critiques was that the building was oversized.

Um, it's so large that it's 500 feet long on the one side that obstructs the connectivity between lot five, which is the residence, um, and the townhomes and the commercial lot.

Um, and one critique of the Euclidean zoning is that these large buildings impede connectivity.

So a form-based code will regulate the size of the building to the human scale.

Such was one that is this side wouldn't be permitted.

Um but it we're not in uh the age of a form-based code, and so this project was approved.

Um a second point is that the LMC we is famously complex, it's convoluted, it's full of layers that consequently can even contradict one another.

Um and so if this was approved, the whole LMC would have parts that would need to incorporate and adjust, such as that you just described.

Um I think there's a strong case for that, but is this not more appropriate to go through the zoning board of appeals?

Um they can make their case that way, and this is that such that it would only be permitted for this particular project and this building to amend the entire LMC to allow buildings over 35,000 square feet and all of the other restrictions and um adjustments to the LMC so that this one project can be approved for ground floor retail.

I'm not sure that that's the right path to go.

So I just wonder if that could be explored instead of rewriting the LMC such that a large building the size that wouldn't normally typically be approved under uh with all of the form-based uh considerations, the active streetscape and the all the the wonderful things that we're trying to get uh incorporated into this area, um, which is struggling right now to um successfully develop mixed use areas in general, and I don't know if this is necessarily the best way to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right, any other public comment?

No.

Anything else up here from the commission before we I do have a question for the applicant.

All right.

Yes, so I I was just thinking, um I know you guys have I've you know gone to your website, looked at your products, your portfolio, uh, what you guys have, and I was just curious.

Um, you know, as we up here constantly use the LMC and so forth, um, and we've had a number of text amendments that have come through here.

And I was just curious um when you're dealing with other municipalities, um for example, this particular um amendment that you're requesting.

Um how is their land management code set up?

Like whether it's Columbia or Baltimore, or like are you going through, like let's just say if this same product was um you were trying to do this in Baltimore or Columbia or Montgomery County, you know, based on their land management codes.

Are you going through a text amendment process?

Is there a variance allowed in the LMC?

Uh you know, I'm just curious about that.

Good job.

Hi, Eric DeVito, Greenberg Gibbons.

Well, I will say we've done this a couple we're going through it right now and in Rico County, Virginia, which it's there's no text amendment.

It's first floor retail is allowed with first floor residential under their existing code.

So yeah, that project is a form-based code already.

There's a form-based code overlay at Henraiko that everybody's referencing right now.

So we don't need a variance, we don't need a text amendment.

They've set up their form-based code to allow first floor to have these mix of uses residential and retail on the first floor.

Um what I think one of the pictures that Jay had up there was Virginia, was Northern Virginia, it was Alexandria, which I'm not sure how that was done, whether it was done with a variant, I'm fairly certain their code does allow it.

We've done it in Baltimore County at our Hunt Valley project where we have ground floor residential and retail right next to each other in the same plan.

It's part of their code.

It wasn't a text amendment or a variance where we did it there.

So I based on my experience, honestly, I think this is the first time I've probably we've had to go through, at least since I've been there and I've been there for seven for here for seven years at Green Mergibons.

This is the first time we've had to go through this process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was very helpful.

Okay.

I I guess following on the comment from the um, I I know there's been some past about the entire project as a whole.

Um I wonder, have you guys considered, because this is kind of more akin to what the intent of the form based code is, having this portion of the design of this this plot be just put it under form-based code.

I don't know if we can partially do that.

We don't have a form-based code yet.

What is the timing of this?

Could it possibly just be delayed until that gets approved and then put in?

Because I know you guys are probably tracking.

So if if I have constantly asked Gabrielle what is the status of the form-based code.

So before I give my little sidebar comment, I'd like to hear what the status of reform-based code.

So there's a second draft.

Um it's published on our website if you want to review the second draft.

Um the uh goal is for the beginning of new year uh with the new administration to embark on a series of policy discussions about critical elements of the form-based code.

Um, while a lot of the form-based code revolves around design elements, um, one of the critical components is also a regulating plan.

So it's sort of a master plan, like we see with the brickworks uh that lays out new roads and dedications of open space and parkland.

The major difference is that um those properties are all owned by a bunch of different individuals and are all all already developed.

So we have some some really unique conversations to have about how we acquire right-of-way, how we acquire parkland and parcels from properties that are develop already developed with uses.

Um it's a very it's trying to apply a long-range development plan to an area that's gonna really incrementally develop over a long period of time.

So a lot of the the um structure we have in our code uh is is not are not good mechanisms for this type of development.

So we have this whole series of policy conversations that we really need to have about how we acquire right-of-way, whether the city embarks on um kind of uh proactive acquisition of right-of-way and construction of infrastructure.

Uh we also have nonconformities, so you're applying a new code to properties that are already developed, and how those new codes might affect the ability of existing uses to grow and change over time if not in full compliance with the form-based code.

Uh, there's also just a general conversation about process and the level of prescriptiveness of the form based code and uh the practice that it goes through, whether um you go right to you you comply with the all the criteria and there's no planning commission process well or whether we still have an expectation for a public process.

So we have these policy discussions, there'll probably be about four of them that we plan to bring forward to the new council in work session settings uh to help inform the final draft of the form-based code.

So I I wouldn't want to definitely commit to a time frame um because I think each of those policy conversations in and of themselves are going to be pretty um pretty needy, and then the regular the regulations that have to be amended to uh address those, and any other um provisions outside of the LMC that may need to be adopted to implement it.

Okay, and so I would say what I was gonna say before, which is basically I don't think that this should be held up for the form-based code.

If we you know, we talked about the form-based code when we first saw the master plan.

If that was the case, this project would never happen.

So I would just say I'm not for me, I'm just not in agreement with it, that the timeline is not there.

You know, we don't know what's gonna happen when.

I don't think any of the projects that come before us should be held to that standard until you know the city gets itself together and has all the things that it needs to be successful before we can do that.

So that's where I'm at with that.

That makes sense.

Just thinking that this is this is not right now being asked on a specific parcel itself.

This is saying more broadly, we're going to be changing the the code as it is currently to think fill the gap that the foreign-based code would potentially be trying to do in a different way, you know, allowing for this flexibility in the different design functions that we currently isn't there.

So yeah, maybe it's redundant because we'll do this and then another option comes along down the road.

Just curious if that's if that's something that's been thought about.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I do appreciate um you providing us some feedback about the other municipalities.

I was curious about what their process could potentially be, and it just underscores for me that there needs to be a comprehensive review, you know, um, and changes to the land management code.

And I'm just curious, Gabrielle, when was the land management code enacted, or when did it like when the LMC was uh adopted in 2005?

2005.

And the changes that have been made um incrementally, I'm assuming, is based on is development driven, correct?

I guess I I'm not sure.

Maybe there may have been some city things.

There was a mistake or you know an error, or if you know there needed to be a unique situation such as this where that would apply, that's when the it's updated, but there hasn't really been a comprehens.

Well, let me not say that.

Has there been a comprehensive review of the LMC since it's been enacted?

So there has not been since the comprehensive plan was updated.

And that would have probably been the the timely time to do it right.

Um we did multiple supplements after the LMC was initially adopted.

There were a lot of just things that need to be reconciled and corrected.

Um there have been incrementally both applicant-driven text amendments, um, you know, specific to uh a cause, there have been ones that we've had to make to reflect changing state codes like forced conservation, um as well as uh just policy individual policy initiatives that we've um had over the years.

Uh the most appropriate time to probably kind of holistically evaluate the zoning regulations is after a comprehensive plans updated.

Uh generally there's a comprehensive rezoning that follows an up uh update to your comp plan.

Uh there was not a comprehensive rezoning.

A lot of times that would also involve changes to the regulatory framework or updates um to that as well.

So that would have been the most natural time and appropriate time to do a full kind of overhaul or review of to see if you needed to do extensive changes to implement your comp plan.

Okay, thank you.

And just to refresh my memory, the 2020 comprehensive plan, I believe, and you know, obviously, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it is not codified, right?

So you don't you don't really codify a comprehensive plan.

Um you adopt it.

So it was adopted in 2021.

Um and then it it is in effect.

Um it became, I think it was adopted in April and became effective in October of 2021.

Um I think are the right dates.

So once it's adopted, it it is in in effect.

Um, and from there we should be moving forward in implementing it.

Uh, we're getting ready to be putting out our first inaugural comprehensive plan monitoring report in the next probably month.

And we'll bring it to the planning commission for a workshop that kind of captures uh the implementation that's been done, both in the short-term ongoing long-term um spheres, but you don't really codify your comp plan.

So that is why, as well, you can't use a comp plan alone to confirm to to approve or deny a project.

Correct.

I mean, your your comp your land use regulations should implement your comprehensive plan, right?

They should embody and and um implement the goals that that are in the comprehensive plan.

And that's why I say after you do an update of a comprehensive plan, you want to look at your regulations and and ask ourselves are these implementing the visions of our comprehensive plan, and if not, where so that when you enforce those regulations, they are inherently enforcing your comprehensive plan, right?

They are bringing it into fruition because everything is in line.

Okay.

One final question.

Area, area, area, plans, is it small area plans?

Those are not codified as well, right?

They're not they don't have to be codified.

Right.

Those so those would be adopted um similar to the comprehensive plan.

We have uh the East Street and the Golden Mile Small Area Plan.

Um we are getting ready to start on an update to the Golden Mile Small Area Plan because that was initiated or adopted in 2013.

So it's been a long time, and we want to kind of brush that off and see if there are updates we want to make before developing a regulatory framework for it.

Thank you.

Right?

What other questions?

Okay, go ahead.

Yes, sir.

Um is this the first time that a developer has kind of approached about a situation like this in their in terms of there being uh in the in this issue in this kind of like little gap in the code.

Has there been other developers came forward with plans and said, oh, we'd love to be able to do this, but uh we technically can't, and this is just getting brought forward now.

It or even just like it seems similar to this, or is this sort of just like a we talked about the size being very large?

Um I don't know.

The the city staff.

Do you have any input on that?

Sure.

So um not not all localities allow applicants to produce text amendments.

Sometimes they have to lobby their elected officials on the Frederick County, you cannot apply to change as a developer and applicant, you can't apply to change your your jurisdictions code.

You have to kind of go to one of your city council members or county council members and say, hey, I think you should change your your land management code or equivalent.

Um our code does allow for an applicant to petition uh to change the code, and so it is not unique that we have folks proposed those things I mean in other in other projects that have been reviewed in the past, you know, was in the what this change would do.

Has would this have affected any other prior, or is this sort of just a random out there like rare case?

Just curious.

It would impact any any project um subject to similar regulations.

Um I think are you asking whether another developer is asked to do first floor residential.

Yeah, like that's that's what I mean.

So this is this issue been an impediment in the in the past.

It kind of goes back to this sort of threshold question of there really aren't that many MU1.

Because so MU1 was the Euclidean zone that was comprehensively put into place in 2005, actually, after the adoption, and that included this property.

So again, between and there weren't, I don't believe that many that were what would be considered undeveloped properties that were zoned MU1 at the time.

And then MU2 is applicant-driven.

And again, I probably can count on one or two hands, the number of MU2 projects that have come forward.

So qu from my perspective, having been doing this for 15 years or so in the city, I'm not surprised that this is the first time that this is coming up, given the again, the relatively small number of MU1 and MU2 applications.

Clearly, Section 838 very likely would have come up in in sort of other zones where there were vertical mixed use projects.

But again, because there haven't been that many MU1, MU2 projects, this is probably the first time that we're having to contend with it.

Okay.

Thanks.

And it's it's an expensive building construction type to do this.

I mean, our Towson Road project, which is another Baltimore County project, which is residential over retail, um, and has retail on the same first floor that goes, you know, residential lobby retail next door, kind of the retail sort of plugged into the building.

It's very expensive construction.

So it's not common, I would say, around here.

Frankly, it's common in DC, is certainly common in Northern Virginia.

Um it's more common in Baltimore City, but you know, when you get out to some other areas like this, it's not as common.

So I'm not terribly surprised no one's asked you to do this yet, although the Carroll Creek plan, it looks like they wanted to do, but I believe you have an overlay there which allows it, so it didn't come up there.

Um so we were probably the first one that came to you showing this dilemma saying, hey, we need to take a look at this.

Okay, sounds good appreciated.

Yeah, thanks.

All right, are we done?

Apparently, do you have any questions for us?

No.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so that brings us to the last item on the agenda, which is our continued discussion of the rules of procedure.

Thank you.

I'll just um provide a quick overview of the updated uh summary we provided, responding to a couple issues that the commission had questions about at the September meeting.

I think we skipped a month.

Um so with regards to meeting times and the autonomy of the planning commission to end their meetings at a different time than otherwise established by the city council.

Uh, we did establish or attach resolution 1402 to your report, which uh was passed by the Board of Aldermen now City Council that basically says that uh public meetings should all end uh to the greatest extent possible by 11 p.m.

Um that language allows for some um uh subjectivity or authority of the presiding officer to exercise some judgment, uh obviously if it is 1045 and we have six items on the agenda, it's probably time to say, okay, we're not going to get to items four, five, and six, and we're going to end the meeting.

Uh if we are at 1032 starting a new item that we anticipate is going to be relatively straightforward, and for some reason it ends up getting to 1105.

It doesn't mean we have to stop everything and you know and shut down immediately.

Uh it really is to the greatest extent possible to provide that guidance to the the commission that we should run our meetings in an orderly fashion to hopefully get everyone out of here by 11 p.m.

Uh there was also a question about uh the time frames for receiving public comment uh for items, and so we provided just kind of a summary of our current practice.

Uh right now, if we receive any public comment in the process up until the planning commission workshop, we include that as part of our workshop packets.

So you'll have any information we've received at that point in terms of public comment.

Similarly, when we go to publish our planning commission hearing packets, any public comment thing you that was received from the beginning that was included in the workshop packet up into the hearing would also be included in your hearing packet.

Now, there's also the week in between the hearing packet being published and the hearing itself, which we may receive public comment in.

And our current practice and policy has been to try to batch that public comment as much as possible.

So we're not sending every email individually to the members of the planning commission, but kind of on a daily basis, taking stock of what we received, compiling it and sending it to the commission.

Uh we do that even on the weekend days leading up to the meetings.

Uh so the planning commission is not receiving a ton of emails on Monday morning or Monday afternoon.

We also try to periodically uh provide comments the Monday of the meeting up until that start date to make sure that the commission has everything we recognize, of course, that um and and as should people who who comment that uh public comment received three minutes before the meeting is maybe not going to get the same benefit of review that someone two days in advance did.

We do want to make sure that public comment is provided to the commission in a timely and efficient way that allows for folks' positions to be heard.

We have been discussing some kind of technological solutions to getting that comment to the planning commission faster and even more individually.

So if there's a way for the planning commission members individually to have access to an email where that's being received, so that you know Commissioner Manales can look at it when her schedule is convenient and Commissioner Valencia can look at it when her schedule is convenient, not waiting, but always having access to that may uh be a way we can make make review of public comment more convenient.

I would caution that setting different standards for public comment for planning commission versus city council or any other body could be very confusing to the public to someone who maybe submits public comment for city council and then wants to submit for planning commission.

It may be discouraging to find out that the cutoff has passed for planning commission comment.

We obviously see a lot of lines of demarcation between the different boards and policy and commissions we support, but the public um generally doesn't perceive those different differences as much.

And time in terms of timeliness of our publication of our packets, um we have generally adhered to the policy or aspiration that packets for workshops and hearings are all published for planning commission and zoning board of appeals a week before their respective meetings, so Monday before the Monday.

Obviously, over the course of the past couple of months, probably a year and a half, um, we probably have not met that that goal or aspiration as often as we would like to.

Um, some of that is a staffing resource issue, which is hopefully nearing resolution.

We have uh full full team of staff on board now.

Uh, so that is a great help.

Um, but we've also tried to take looks at how we can update the format of the staff reports you're receiving so that they're more concise, less wordy.

That's good for us in preparing them, which helps on the front end, and it's also good for the commission members in public in receiving them, that they don't have to pour through these voluminous tomes of documentation, but we can uh capture information in much more digestible ways.

So hopefully that will get us back on track to provide uh those packets, like I said, a week ahead of both meetings.

The last item we touched on was request for additional information.

Uh, there was a question about what's the best way to ensure that if one commissioner has additional information they're looking for after a meeting, that it gets to all the commission members, and that that's a um an obvious uh consistent C we want to provide.

Uh the recommendation and why our workshop format is so great is we have our workshop.

So if there's additional information that you need from this meeting, we're all here.

We're here to hear to ask questions to make sure that we understand exactly what that information is that you want.

So any information you ask for from this workshop should be captured in our hearing packet.

That gives us time to prepare it and respond, but then also ensures that that information is delivered simultaneously to all of the planning commission members at one time.

Recognizing, of course, that you may leave here today and go, gosh, I should ask this question.

I would recommend that you provide that to us, to staff, division manager.

Christina is a perfect point of contact.

Uh, just kind of quickly summarizing what that information is, and then we would provide that in the hearing packet once again, uniformly and simultaneously for all of the commission members.

Now that's not to say if you have a question, we're on page six.

I saw you said this, but I can't find it.

That's obviously we are here to help you review your materials and to facilitate your review and make sure that you understand what you're looking at.

So if there are those types of questions, uh we are accessible all the time to respond to those.

But any additional concerted information that you may want post-workshop should be provided in our hearing packets.

And then we have our pre-planning commission meeting on the Friday before the hearing.

Uh, once again, that's a format where all of the commission members should be present to be able to ask for that additional information, and we would follow up at the hearing on the Monday with that information for you.

So I think we have a good couple of catches between workshop hearing and pre-planning commission where everyone should be privy to the same conversations and the receipt of the same information that way.

There were also questions just about general nature of requests for information.

I think our presentation on the the uh rules of procedure and discussing the um you know what information is applicable to the decision making criteria of the commission and quasi-judicial uh proceedings.

I would just continue to reiterate that that our role here as staff is to provide the information that you need to make the decisions you need to within the scope of the regulations that you have to apply it to.

Uh so we we would look for those requests, we'll provide feedback on those and get you the information.

That is kind of the nature of the game.

Um I don't know that there's a uh a change in your rules of procedure that need to be implemented um to to change that working relationship or uh the applicability of certain information to quasi-judicial proceedings.

Happy to answer any questions.

All right, we'll just open it up for discussion.

Go ahead.

Um I guess I'm a few things.

I guess two things for right now is where is it written?

Because this whole packet of like not again, not having the side by side of the could you speak just a little bit closer?

So again, we're we're back to like not having this, like it's hard to see it side by side with all these like lines and all that.

So I'm on I'm on like page 12.

I would say I guess the revision of like 10-9.

I still feel like that has not been addressed where it comes to uh commission members take no part in the daily staff routine of administration and regulations and research of matter of facts, although they you know blah blah participate in site visits.

Um but I feel like that still has that wording we've asked to be revised since day one, and it's just still not where I'm kind of at the point of if we could just cut it off where it says commission members take no part in the daily staff routine of administration, period, and then start the the rest of it, they do participate in site visits and discussion pertaining to the more significant matters to be considered at commission meetings.

Like I just feel like that should just since since nobody wanted to revise it, I just feel like we could just take that part out.

So I would caution.

Um, you know, we want these rules of procedure to help you in doing your your jobs and any other commission members to come after after your terms.

Whether or not we say that commission members should participate in in independent research does not change the fact that you should not, right?

That you should not bring independent findings of fact to the meetings.

It won't change under an appeal if you introduce facts that that are outside of the scope of the project and and the proceedings in front of you, it won't change that that could make your decision subject to appeal, which is what we want to avoid.

So that we're gonna name question of what you were just talking about, which is where does it say about the sharing of info with everyone, like everything that you just outlined before we opened up this discussion?

What part in this revision is that stated?

Well, I'm sorry, what section is like, yeah, that's what I'm wondering.

What section does it say about the sharing of information and you know being shared with everyone after we request it here?

I'm just trying to see where that's written in the rules of procedure, and then would that kind of cancel out the wording that I'm saying for 10.9?

Or I don't know if it's 10, I don't know if it's not.

I don't understand this these strikeouts and I guess it's now section nine point one.

I don't know.

Yeah, so when you're looking at it, the brackets or things that are eliminated in the bold or the areas that are new.

So I think you're looking on page nine.

I think what you're suggesting it's now nine point one, whereas the brackets, the 10 is eliminated, just so you are familiar with going through this.

But where does it say that everything like when you were just going through all the stuff that we were revisiting, where does it say about the sharing of info with everyone and how it would be in that next hearing packet and how it would everything that you just went through?

Which section is that in or is it not the the guidance that we provided in the workshop summary, just in terms of kind of good good process for if you have questions, you need to ask them at the workshop.

The commission will follow up with or I'm sorry, the staff will follow up in our hearing packets.

That that's nowhere in the rules of procedure.

Um, I think that's just more a matter of of practice.

We have a workshop and there may be language we tried to expand, I think, on what the purpose of the workshop was.

Yeah, that's completely rewritten.

So I just that's why I'm asking where is that at?

If that's what's been discussed, I guess.

But now you're saying it doesn't go in here.

So we talked about um, you know, that the purpose of the workshop is to allow the commission to review and develop new development proposals.

It's in seven, too.

I found it.

Thank you.

Yeah, it does say it.

Informational items.

Page 11.

Um this is not I think this is different than what you ran through when you were talking about it, because this is saying to schedule an informational item, so we have to schedule it, the commission member must first notify planning division staff and the chairman at least 15 days prior to the workshop.

The item will be scheduled for a workshop date based on the time available on an upcoming agenda after priority, after priority is given to regular matters coming before the commission in accordance with the planning commission schedule and the time necessary for planning division staff to prepare materials in response to the request.

I'm reading that that feels outrageous.

That would pertain to if the planning commission wanted to have a discussion about hey, I saw that micro mobility is a really big challenge, and I'd like to have initial discussion about how we can talk about that uh at the planning commission.

Uh what I was referring to in the presentation of our summary was more information regarding a specific application.

Uh, this is a final site plan for sheets.

We want to know more about what kind of landscaping is going to be provided on the south side.

That would be a question you ask at workshop, and we follow up with at the hearing.

That language pertaining to informational items is separate from any item that is on your your docket, and that that kind of just exchange of why we're having a workshop to discuss a project to get feedback to provide additional information.

This would be if you wanted to talk about something that is not one of your pending development applications.

So we have our our pre-planning commission training sessions we've discussed as an opportunity to have general dialogue about specific training options.

But then one of the questions that the commission's also asked is well, how do we talk about something that's not a site plan or a master plan in front of us?

And that would be at as an informational item at a workshop, but we wanted to establish some parameters just to set a pair a fair expectation for how we would process that.

Um, you know, if you if you tell us tomorrow you want to have a workshop next month on form-based code, we may need more than three weeks to get ready for that.

So just trying to set a fair expectation for everyone about how those sorts of information items.

I guess I'm not following why some is in here, and then we're talking about other stuff is not all here written.

I'm not I'm not understanding why this isn't all written.

Why do we have part of it written and then part of it being discussed right now?

Like of if that's the way it's supposed to operate why you wouldn't want this informational item.

No, everything that I asked a question about saying it's not written in here that you did an overview on, why is it not written in here?

I I think some of it's just a a matter of and and we can expand on like what what we talk about at a workshop.

Um I think the the rules of procedure are intended to guide the commission's activity.

The day-to-day implementation, if Commissioner Valencia sends us a question via email asking for some additional information.

I'm talking about just practice.

I'm gonna say Commissioner Valencia, that's great question.

We're gonna incorporate that in the hearing package just so everyone has access to it.

Um I don't know to the extent I would get into that fine grain of correspondence.

Um I think if you wanted to.

But I feel like if it was that simple, like the way you just said it, very simple.

Why can't that be added?

If that's the way I I think it can.

I I I think you there's a balance between in your rules and procedure dictating every every motion everyone makes because you want to have some flexibility.

Um I don't want to have to say, well, you didn't ask for this at workshop, so I'm not providing this at hearing.

Well, we don't want to hear the opposite either.

Well, I don't think we I don't I don't think that's the point of it being written, I think.

Right.

I don't I don't think that um I think that I think it's the unwritten purpose of the workshop is that you're here to ask questions and that information is to be provided to you in the hearing.

But we've got problems getting information before, which is why we asked for that to be written, and this has gone on for months, specifically asking to make sure that that's clear that we can get the information that we're asking for.

I and can I add to this somehow?

Um I I think part of the issue, Gabrielle, is track changes is so hard.

Like normally when I look at a document that's been revised over and over again.

There's normally like red ink that has track changes.

It is dizzying.

Look at this, looking at this, because I am so confused.

Even though I understand that one has been adopted, the other one is you know, in draft, and I understand all that, but it's you know, when you look at the printout, it is very confusing.

I don't know which way to look at this, you know.

Um, and so I'm the the fifth or sixth attachment you have is the clean rules of procedure.

Um the one, two, three, four.

The fourth attachment, if we're looking on the online version is the markup, and the fifth one is what the document would look like if it were if it were all track changes accepted, so that you have kind of a clean and a marked up version.

Okay, so the black underline is the track changes, is what you're saying, I think.

Is that correct?

The one with the bold and bracket is the track changes.

Okay.

And then the one after that listed online is the updated one.

That what it would look like if all of the changes were adopted.

Okay, where it says approved.

No.

It says approved, but it doesn't have a date.

Right.

So that's the that's the clean version of the proposed changes.

What they would look like if all of those track changes were adopted.

Okay, and be and be and before that is the um the added text, the added text.

The first the first thing you have is our our current rules of procedure, and they have an adopted date.

Okay, and the second one is the um this is the ones with the with the um Zach was showing me with the um um bolded, whatever.

Real quickly, Gabrielle.

I just wanted to ensure that I went back to that initial question from um um commissioner uh Valencia, and I guess I'm looking at the section, it's about the independent research.

Where is this again?

Which section of us not being allowed to do independent research.

Where is that again in this document?

Because it's kind of confusing.

I have it on page 12 right now.

That I guess it's used to be 10 and now it's nine and oh, so it's nine point one.

So the only revision was from field trips, change the wording to site visits.

Right.

Okay, so let me say this.

Um, because I pulled something up from my end, the city code, just trying to find what I wrote where.

Um, there it is.

Okay, so nine one is where we talk about commission members take no part in the daily root staff routine of administration and regulations and research of m research of matter facts, basically independent research.

Um, although they do participate in site visits and discuss discussion pertaining to more significant matters to be considered at the uh commission meeting.

So I think I've um I'm just trying to figure out where my notes are.

Okay.

So I think I've already clearly stated that I'm not in agreement with that language and was hoping that that language would be removed, but since that language is not being removed, um, I'd like to add to this um ordinance number G24-16C information, which basically says um at the planning commission's request, a public official shall provide to the planning commission within a reasonable time available information that the planning commission may require for the performance of its functions.

So I would like to have that language added, referenced in some way in that section, so that way I think it's a good compromise.

If you guys, because you know, this is supposed to be all rules of procedure, but I don't really feel it is because you know you guys are adding the language that you wanted in here, you know, and that's fine, but I'm like there needs to be language about information in some place that refers into this document.

So if you want to keep 9.1, that's fine.

I mean, it's not fine, but you know, you please add um ordinance number G 24-16C information.

And again, I'll just read this out loud for the record.

At the planning commission's request, a public official shall provide to the planning commission within a reasonable time available information that the planning commission may require for the performance of its functions.

So if we could add that, that would be great.

Sure.

Um all of the changes that we've made have been at the request of the commission.

Um the the last rules were procedure were adopted fairly recently, so this item was brought back at the planning commission's request.

So if there's language that the commission does not want in the amendments, uh this is this is your rules of procedure as you noted, and we've just been responsive to the request to add information to them.

So I don't want I don't want to lose sight of that.

Um we did ask for that to be removed from like day one when we revisited this.

So Gabrielle, that's that's fine.

I appreciate you saying that.

Thank you very much.

Um if we could remove that language, so I'm trying to be measured and fair.

Because I think that both parties need what they need, and I am, you know, for the most part balanced, you know, and measured.

And I understand your concern or staff's concern overall, but I also understand our concern.

And you know, and I think that this is gonna be a work in progress, you know.

Um continuing to can you move back a little bit so I can see Gabrielle, sorry, I'm bending forward too much.

Um so I I think that this is a relationship that's continuing to develop, you know, typically with teams is storming, norming, all the little processes that you have in place, and I just think that you know, I understand staffs need to have some control, you know, in terms of ensuring that we keep ourselves on track, you know, um, and staying within the boundaries of the information that needs to be understood, you know, in order to get the work done.

But what I also understand is there are times that we're gonna need information that staff may not feel is necessary, but is still in scope, and so I feel like you know the language for information should be added to um this rules of procedure.

I feel like 9.1, you know.

The planning division staff is the contact for all communications between commissioners and the public.

I think that should stay.

You know, commission members take no part in the daily staff routine of administration and regulations and research research of matters of staff if I could just frame this in perhaps another way.

Um one of the things that I took from Scott at our training last month was um the record is critical in addition to the decision and the consistency with the land management code, the quality of the record is critical under a judicial review, and that the planning commission is responsible for making sure the record is complete.

And so we just want to make sure that the rules reflect our ability to make sure that the record is complete as we see it.

So, yeah, um, you know.

When we talk, I I agree with that.

Um, so to that language to that language, um, and I don't know what my fellow commissioners, this is not just me, I'm just talking to everyone to get your perspective.

Um, because you know, I think it's important that we get information as well, but I would say that you know, maybe striking the part that says um research of matters of fact that's all I wanted to have removed and then add in what you just wanted to add in.

Yeah, I in research matter of staff matters of fact matters of matters of fact, sorry, and leave the rest of it in there.

So the planning division staff is the contact for all communications between commission members and the public.

Commission members take no part in the daily staff routine of administration and regulations, although they do participate in site visits and discussion pertaining to more significant matters to be considered at the commission's meeting.

So I would like to request, and I don't know what a you know, Commissioner Llewellyn thinks, you know, um, just about researching and Commissioner Brono, what they think about and research a matter of facts.

I do think that we should add that language about information though as well, or at least reference back to that ordinance of G uh 24-16 C.

So I think referencing the ordinance makes perfect sense, but we've got to clearly document that if we ask for documentation during a workshop or you know, after the meeting, before the hearing, that that be addressed somehow somehow.

And I get sometimes you're not gonna have the document, you're maybe um have time constraints there, but to not address it has you know is gonna cause a problem.

So I think clearly documenting that process, whether it just be adding a 9.3 um or addressing the ordinance would be great.

But anybody else sounds reasonable to me.

I think that sounds good, and then I feel like that helps both sides.

Yeah, yeah.

If staff is okay with that.

Or would that be okay, Scott, before you leave?

No, I'm I'm sorry, I'm okay.

He has a meeting.

Yeah, yeah.

Sorry.

But does that okay?

So I guess this will just get continued later.

Since we can hear what Gabrielle has to say, I think that these are the commission's rules.

Um, I think that the things to keep in mind are that um omitting certain texts does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't adhere to certain standards, including certain text um that is too prescriptive, could hinder our ability to coordinate the way we want to.

So I think there is uh a fine balance.

These are rules of procedure.

We want the public to be able to pick these up.

We want new commission members to pick these up.

I want everyone to understand the rules under which we operate.

Um and I think so.

I think including the language about researching independent matters of fact, I think that that that is critical because we don't want a new commission member going in, coming in and saying, I I've spent the last weekend researching this and I'm entering this into the record because that's not the commission's role.

So we want to make sure that new members understand that and that the public understands that's not what this body is for.

So I think that language is is very important.

Um the degree to which we cross-reference ordinance G 2416, though that those are the general, it wasn't the charter, now it's in the city code, those are the general powers of the commission, and and so that is a fine cross-reference or inclusion of the same language cut and paste into that.

Um, I think that that doesn't, once again, that doesn't change whether it's in the rules or it doesn't change the reality just because it's in the rules of the procedure, but if it if it makes it more clear to a commission member or the public, then it's a fine thing to do.

Um, in terms of the back and forth of you know, that come out the commission member shall request information at a workshop and be provided with it at a hearing and at a pre-planning commission and provide it at a hearing.

You know, I think I think it's um I would it's very specific, right?

And to the extent that someone asks on Sunday morning, uh sends an email and says, Oh, I forgot I wanted this additional information.

Can you get it to me?

I want you guys to have that opportunity.

I want us to be able to respond.

Oh, we forgot this.

Here you go.

Um that we don't want to we want to set an expectation for how we want to do things, but don't want to necessarily uh make life more difficult for us by expressly calling things out and then someone saying, Well, now you're in violation of your rules of procedure because Commissioner Larlin asked for this three days before the meeting and it wasn't at the pre-planning commission.

And so I I think there's just a good balance of what sets a good expectation for everyone's understanding, what information do we trust is just the way we coordinate in the system, that we have workshops.

The purpose is for you to ask questions and for us to provide information in the hearing.

Um I how much of that needs to be prescribed, I'll defer to the commission, but I would just note that that's the balance I think is appropriate to strike when thinking kind of broadly about things.

Okay, so I'm just gonna say real quickly, um, I still disagree.

I think that the research of the matters of fact should be removed.

I think that when you have an onboarding process, that is where you talk about your expectations for new commissioners, what they are expected, what is expected of them, and they shouldn't be running around researching things and bringing it in and saying I want to enter this into you know the record.

Um, you know, even with Frederick County, when I looked at their rules of procedure, it's not in that language is not in there, but you know, it is still most likely an expected rule.

I just feel like this is punitive in some way, you know.

But you know, um I feel like the onboarding process should communicate, you know, what is required of a commissioner.

You know, I've discussed this before, and I know you guys will want to do it.

There should be a bulleted thing that says as a fellow commissioner, this is what you will, you know, you state that you will be doing this is what the requirements are, then you sign it, you initial it just like they do, you know, in the federal government, where you do, you know, all these initials and then a signature.

Um, and that should take care of that, I believe.

But I'm gonna let this go right now because I know it's 429.

I don't know if there's public comment.

Um, but just for the record, I'm not in agreement with the research re leaving in the research of matters of of fact, and maybe the next time we see this document at a workshop, I'd like to also understand what is the information flow process as it relates to when staff and commissioners are not aligned, you know, what is the next step?

Is there an appeals process?

You know, where does it go?

Who does it is is legal involved, you know.

So and that's for another conversation, but I just wanted to put that out there.

I know that we don't have enough time for any more discussion.

Anything else?

All right.

Anything else from you all?

I would just uh reiterate um the Confederate County's rules of procedure do have similar language about the matters of fact and other jurisdictions too.

And it's once again just to reinforce that the planning commission acts as a as a judge in a in a courtroom um in reviewing the facts that are before them.

Um and and that's an important um that's an important thing, and I don't say that to try to stymie the ability of the planning commission to carry out its duties.

It really is just about in quasi-judicial matters, reviewing things that are up we can uphold that don't get appealed, that um that are legally sufficient um and and are carried out in accordance with the code.

Um that is my only motivation um not to uh once again restrict unnecessarily the planning commission or any of its members now or in the future, um but really to make sure that we're carrying out the the legislative authority given to the planning commission in applying the rules uh and making sure that those decisions are upheld and aren't appealable.

Do we have public comment on this issue?

Chair, are you sworn in?

No.

Let's do that just to be official.

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

So answer I do.

I do.

Thank you.

My name is Sharon Kemper Cerez.

I'm a city resident, um long time planner.

I've been a county planning commissioner for six years prior to uh working uh at the city.

I no longer am employed at the city.

I have total sympathy by staff, uh, colleagues of whom I have great affection, and for the planning commission, who I know is um at h a point of paradigm shift in the way the planning commission both works and is uh considered by the public and staff.

I'm just going to ask you to refer to the rules of procedure for Frederick County Planning Commission, and I've made some notations at the end of this.

If I can get through it in time, um you can ask me questions as to why I'm recommending certain sections and how that might affect you.

Starting with the Frederick County Planning Commission, they have a very good front piece to their uh rules of procedure, and it deals with a purpose.

The best one, however, is with the city of Gaithersburg.

Why is that important?

We'll deal with later, but essentially it's because these rules of procedure are not just for you.

They are also for the public who needs to understand why the planning commission exists and for what purpose these uh procedures exist and what their expectations are themselves.

Um that's the fr the front piece.

The second piece under is um under offices and committees deals with special committees in the in its entirety, I would recommend you incorporate section 2.5 and all the uh subsections to that, which deals with the way the Frederick County Planning Commission and to a certain extent, Rockville, who also has uh something similar, has allowed for special uh a special uh committee to look at certain matters for the planning commission at certain times.

We'll talk about that later if uh if you want.

Um actually that yes, that's section G, Chapter 1 of the City of Rockville.

Um if you go to evidence 3.7 in the county Frederick County Planning Commission, it talks about evidence.

And it's in this particular section that it talks about uh the importance of um uh evidence proceeded and talks about uh submitting facts in common and matters falling within any members' experience.

But the best the best is uh a section on this is in the city of Gaithersburg that literally enumerates the typical rules of evidence, and I know um Chairman uh Strawson is familiar with those and talks about the uh value of the the caliber and quality of evidence proceeded uh presented to you by the public and other uh applicants.

Next, I would uh go to I'm gonna try to get through this, please, Lord let me.

Um section 6.6.

Um the Frederick County Planning Commission, as well as uh other jurisdictions talks about the planning commission requiring additional relevant materials in the form, et cetera, et cetera.

Now that typically is at workshop.

You can do it at hearing, but you need to be doing that at workshop if you're doing it for an from an applicant.

The cross-examination, again, the rules of cross-examination are really important.

We don't address that.

But rules of cross-examination may accrue to the public who might want to get up and at a certain period of time in a in a hearing and ask.

With your permission, I may continue.

I'm finding this very helpful.

Thank you, Chair Strausson.

Uh, I won't take much longer.

The um there's a shorter version of the rules of evidence um for the in the city of uh Rockville, chapter uh two-f cross-examination.

If you go to section uh 11.2 uh for Frederick County, um I I only submit this because it's of tone.

Um it the Frederick County actually uh sees the uh directors, they call them directors of uh development review and the director of comp planning.

Um we have division managers here, and it basically establishes that they are the contacts for routine commissions for their related their their respective um subjects.

The reason why that's important is if we want to cross the silos, even in our own department, we need to have comp planning involved in the day-to-day, what's not working of planning decisions.

It they just need to tell you as for as far as I'm concerned whether or not something is in fact compliant and how many objectives, not not little policies, but how many objectives are actually being accomplished, and whether none are.

You can't comply without teaching first.

Section 14 , um there's a communication section in Gaithersburg that deals with nothing shall prevent the commission from obtaining advice and it specifies which ones.

And and I will stop at that and take any questions you may have.

Great, thank you.

Um my first question is if you have any of this written down, if you could submit it as public comment.

Um I will be glad to uh note this down in a forum and submit it to the planning staff and they can see that.

That would be awesome, and it can be added to our package the next time we're gonna be able to do that.

If I might if I address this again.

If I might explain a little something too, your finding of facts, if you do it during a hearing process, is not really cool.

The uh you become then part of the evidence, and that's not what you want to be.

You want to be the adjudicators, the listeners of evidence.

And if you have the rules of evidence listed in your rules of procedure, it will greatly help the public understand what they need to be responsible for when they make their comments and what the applicants need to provide you.

Your your your the section uh on special committees that the county and uh Rockville have included, deal with a non-quorum component of the planning commission.

And if you go back, let's just go back right now since you've given me a little bit of time and with your permission, go back to the Frederick County Rules of Procedure Section 2.5 starts at the uh bottom of the second page.

Special committees may be appointed by the commission to study specific issues identified by the commission and to make recommendations for further action by the commission as a whole.

These are not related to a specific application.

Great.

Thank you.

Can can we take it just a second, Commissioner Walencia has to leave in a couple of minutes, so I'd like to give her the opportunity to ask you.

Okay.

Each special committee, they you you give yourself a time certain, one month, two months, three months.

A problem statement must be identified and approved by the commission, right?

You would uh and this is what happens at the county level.

A proposed the special committee's final report, which you have your time certain, you have a problem statement, a time certain for that two member, no more than two members to look into it, provides the uh a uh the research and provides a white paper basically, a memo to the rest of the commission.

It's not it's not finalized by staff.

It's you may get their permission to copy it, you know, and send it to you or post it, but the work is done by the by the subcommittee, the special committee.

Uh your final report would include one or more of the following recommendations, and this is what limits your your inquiry.

Proposed amendment to the commission procedures, right?

Just what you're talking about now, proposed recommendation to the director or to the county executive, or in this case city, the mayor or the city council, a proposed legislative recommendation to the council or count or executive, or a determination that after full consideration, no further action is needed.

Now, this is really appropriate when you're looking at um definitions, for instance, that you might want to include.

Um certain technical uh aspects like why do we have so many gravel parking lots and yet we don't allow new development to have gravel parking lots?

You know, uh the the concept of grandfathering, you know, what what's up with that?

Why do are people allowed in perpetuity?

One class of people allowed to have a right not included, not allowed by others in the same zone.

So these are the kinds of things you might look into.

What's sustainability?

How is a certain uh definition sustainable really?

Um, and and look a little bit into that.

But that's not related to an application that's in act that's on your plate.

Now, one of the things you might um I really applaud the inclusion of these particular rules of procedure.

But again, the rules of procedure for you, um, and I I want to compliment you.

You're no longer you're you this is all part of the of the chapter activity and the growth of the city of Frederick.

You you're no longer a passive planning commission.

I've listened to these your your plea for training.

I s I totally sympathize with you.

I I understand the dilemma.

You're now becoming an engaged planning commission, and this you're not alone in this frustration, and and staff is not alone and their frustration with how to deal with that.

So I would really look at uh the Frederick County's uh rules of procedure.

Uh I will enumerate those in a short memo for you and and cross-reference them with this with uh uh the city of Gaitersburg and send that send them to uh Gabrielle and to uh um Christina Christina and uh they can send them to you.

I'm sorry.

I loved her, but I I only got to work with her for a couple of months.

Um now, Christina, I will tell you there are people in the community that have done training.

I I personally have done ethics and planning commissioner training since 2015 for the Maryland uh planning commissioners association and and before that since 2006 since I was uh active uh the pl uh professional developments officer for the Maryland chapter of the American Planning Association.

I'm not alone.

There are many people who will who have pre-approved by uh Maryland Department of Planning and Maryland Planning Commissioners Association courses that they have in the CAN that could be slightly modified, absolutely appropriate for training.

But you have the it doesn't have to all fall on staff.

Staff is limited in their time and effort.

So you need to self-actualize, continue that, and uh figure out how you want to proceed.

And if there's any way I can help, um I'll be glad to do it.

Great, thank you.

Let me just see if anybody has questions.

I I do, but I'm waiting for Natasha in case she has to.

Do you have any questions?

That was excellent.

I can't wait to see it all written down and then I can reference every single reference.

Thank you.

All right, and I'm gonna go.

Thanks.

All right.

Um, real quickly, Sharon.

Thank you so much for your quick presentation, and thank you for also gonna be passing it on to Gabrielle.

I'm not trying to put you on your on the spot, but do want you to brag a little bit about yourself.

I just want to make sure I'm very clear on what your credentials are.

Outside of having been a planner for the city of Frederick, where else have you worked?

What else have you done?

Um I've been an AICP, that's a certified planner since 1990.

I've worked for private sector companies, Greenhorn and Amaro was one of my first uh things here in Maryland, but I've been a regional planner in Northwest Florida.

I was a program manager for the first regional comprehensive plan.

Nine counties, 28 municipalities, I had two and a half years to get that puppy done, and it was enacted into law uh in uh 19 uh 18 1987, mid mid-1987.

Um I went from there to uh uh to GNO, basically, when I moved back to um Maryland.

Um I then went from there to uh I had my own business as a planning consultant.

I did that for many years.

Um in 2003, I went to work for the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission as the coordinator coordinator for housing research and policy from uh Montgomery County, Maryland, um, and that was one of the best, one of my most fun jobs.

Um I retired from that uh due to my mother's health largely in um 2012 and became a uh planning commissioner actually for uh City of Frederick, uh pardon me for Frederick County in 2015.

I was served as a Frederick County planning commissioner and did some planning consultation during all that time that I was not otherwise employed until uh 2021 and I uh applied for a position with the City of Frederick and then worked there.

But I've worked um in Germany, um, uh Puerto Rico, uh all over the place for various DOD clients under a clearance for for almost a decade in the 1990s.

Okay, so that's an accumulative of how many years of experience.

It was fun.

It was it was 35 years.

I have served as an off uh aside from being professional development officer for the um Maryland chapter of the American Planning Association from 2006 to 20 um 11, then became the president of the Maryland chapter of the American Planning Association from 2011 to 2013, uh actively trained in ethics, new new planner certification, and various other general planning topics uh from 2006 um, really to date.

And um I've I've done that training at national conferences, um, regional conferences, evaluated uh graduate programs uh in ethics, specifically a Catholic Uh for the graduate uh planners, and uh have trained, as I said be earlier, at for the Maryland Planning Commission, uh Planning Commission Association and for the Maryland chapter of APA on a regular basis since about 2006.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate all that service.

Thank you.

We have any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Yep.

Come on.

Um I need to get sworn.

I was just gonna say I didn't think I'd seen you stand at any of those swearings in.

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

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Great.

Thank you for your patience with my swearing in.

Uh my name is Peter Brem.

I live in the City of Frederick, and I'm here today because I'm the District Three Council member elect to be inaugurated on the 11th.

One of the issues that District Three constituents shared with me is is a desire to see the comprehensive plan updated and the land management code updated.

So I have a civics question that I'm embarrassed to ask.

So, Gabrielle, perhaps you could help.

Does that request begin with the planning commission, or does it begin with a council member, or does it begin with staff or some combination?

Well, the comprehensive plan update is written into Maryland state law, and it is required to be updated every 10 years.

So I'm assuming that within the next couple of years, the staff is already going to be starting to actually have a requirement too for our five-year kind of review.

Um so we're going to be coming up on that shortly in 2026.

Uh the comp plan monitoring report we put just are finalizing now is kind of a great framework and baseline for now kind of doing that re-review, uh preparing a report to kind of summarize where we are and where we're going.

The next full comprehensive plan update would be uh in ten year to tenure increments.

So just to stick with the comprehensive plan, could the comprehensive plan review include updates?

To the land management code or updates to the comprehensive plan.

Comprehensive plan.

We would probably keep those somewhat limited, but I don't I don't think it's prohibited.

Um because the state says every 10 years is a must, but I'm wondering because of the rate at which the City of Frederick is growing, is maybe we pull that forward and make it a five-year update.

But again, where where does that decision come from?

Uh so uh a couple places.

Um as a as the council president or commission president said, um, uh we are obligated under state law.

We have our own departmental work plan, which kind of outlines the increments that we're going to be able to do that.

But but um really the council is um probably the the best starting point.

Um the planning commission in the past has made recommendations to the council on initiative that they think are important, um, but ultimately the council and then working through the executive branch in terms of allocating the resources to to conduct all that.

And then is that also true for the land management code?

Uh uh update to the land management code as well.

Um that would also likely be something that would be initiated through the council's versus the commission.

So I I can't speak for the council, and again, we're not even elected, so who cares?

But I do want to let you know that I am very interested in the planning commission's guidance about things like a desire to update the comprehensive plan now and to update the land management code now, and uh including any recommendations about specific upgrades that you would recommend.

That to me would carry great weight when it comes to City Council.

And again, I can't speak for my other council members other than say they are most interested in this topic as well.

Great.

Thank you very much.

I would just add that the planning commission is a recommending body on both comprehensive plan amendments as well as the land management code.

So that is the mechanism for kind of soliciting that feedback from the folks who deal with it the most of the time.

But as you've heard me say, the City of Frederick doesn't lack for people who know what the problems are and have ideas on what the solutions are.

We lack for people who are listening.

And so I just want to encourage the planning committee to let City Council let me know.

I can't speak for city council about these issues so that we can take deliberate action in consultation with the planning commission.

Thank you.

Yeah, and just know that um I mean we do periodically write, you know, recommend not recommendations, but letters to the council saying here's some things that we think are important that we need to look at.

So we can kind of keep that in mind as well.

As well, so that once you know, once the new council has is seated, we can as a as a commission can be thinking about, you know, out of all of the things that that we think need to be done the most, and we can do an a formal some kind of formal letter.

And because things get lost in the back of file cabinet drawers, if there are issues that have not been addressed over the past couple years that you would like to re-affirm as something that council ought to look like, look at, please let me us know about that as well.

That's good.

Thank you so much.

And I would say that I'm newer on the council as well, but or on the on our commit committee as well.

But um it's also an invitation.

I don't always know if on these larger uh hearings and the meetings whether they're actually city council city council attendance at those.

Because I think that that can provide an opportunity to see at the forefront what the issues appear to be, not just from us, and we're happy to relay that, but I could also just be an opportunity for the next there is actually an of so far a formal official liaison from the city council to the to the planning commission.

Um the liaison the current liaison.

Council member McShane.

Yes.

I understand.

So I mean that's something that's from your perspective very important is to appoint somebody who's interested and somebody who's here and listening to all the meetings.

Yeah, I I I've got to say again, based upon district three constituent feedback to me, planning is job number one in terms of importance.

We've got to focus on this, and therefore I I will do my best, but I may not be the liaison to the planning commission to make sure that we're in sync and attuned to the issues that are going on.

Because it starts here.

I want to say thank you, Peter, and hopefully that invitation will apply to former commissioners as well.

Possibly.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, great, thank you.

And thank thank you for coming and making your statements today.

All right.

If we're done, I'm going to call the meeting adjourned.