This evening because with our last month's um meeting, our chair had um that was her last official meeting with the with the planning commission.

So we now have a vacancy of a chair.

Previous uh vacancies, the prior month left our vice chair and secretary position also vacant.

So currently we have no no officers, and the first thing we need to do tonight is an election of officers.

I will ask the commission members uh to confirm in your discussion, as we discussed at our pre-planning commission meeting on Friday.

Their intent just to elect a chairperson this evening and not the full panel of vice uh chair and secretary, and that is because we have several pending appointments and future appointments that will be made and um thought it best to have a full planning commission to select from our slate of officers.

So if in your discussions that is the way you'd like to proceed this evening, I would just ask for you to have discussion on that and confirm that intent.

With that said, I will call for a motion to elect a chairperson for the planning commission.

So, as part of the discussion, I just want to confirm that um this evening we will be electing uh chairperson, but in future meetings we may have a full election once we have a full commission on board.

Okay.

Do I have a motion for a chair?

I'd like to motion for uh Commissioner Lewen Llewellyn to for the chair position.

All right, that is um motion for Commissioner Llewellyn.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

That is a second by Commissioner Bueno.

All those in favor.

That is a vote of four to zero.

Congratulations, Commissioner Lowellan, and I will hand the meeting over to you uh to give the official call to order.

Thank you so much.

Excellent.

So I'd I would like to call this meeting to order.

Uh welcome to the February 9th, 2026 meeting of the City of Fredericks Planning Commission.

Before beginning tonight's proceedings, I'd like to give a little background of the planning commission and the procedures that will follow this evening.

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

The city council.

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

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

Introduction of the case, presentation of the case, and initial recommendations by staff, commission questioning of staff, applicant or authorized agent remarks regarding the case, commission questioning of the applicant, public comment, applicant response to public comment, commission discussion and questions, and finally commission action.

In support of the planning commission, staff members from the city's planning, engineering, and legal departments are here in attendance.

Anyone wishing to speak publicly tonight regarding any application, including members of the public, must be sworn in prior to giving their comments.

If so, answer I do.

Thank you.

Before we start the review of our cases this evening, we do have several administrative items to take care of.

We'll start with any announcements from the planning department.

Thank you, and good evening.

This coming Tuesday, February 17th, will be the Planning Commission workshop.

It's held at 2 p.m.

in this room.

It will be on Tuesday instead of Monday due to the President's Day holiday.

Following that at 6 p.m.

is our community is our citywide community outreach meeting in the same room.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have on the agenda approval of minutes.

So I'm looking for a motion for the first set of minutes, which are the January 26, 2000, or I'm sorry, January 12th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing minutes.

I move to approve uh the January 1226 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Seconded.

Okay.

That's a motion by Commissioner Buono, a second by Commissioner Temple.

Is the second one as well?

Yep.

And then we also have the 20th and the and February 7th.

January 20th.

Okay.

January 20th, 2026.

Planning Commission workshop minutes looking for a motion.

Oh, I apologize.

Yes, we will need I can make a motion to move approval of them if that's fine.

Uh let's do one by one.

Um so I will ask for a vote by saying all those in favor.

I have to abstain because I didn't attend that meeting.

Okay.

So we have three.

Would that be all right, Gabrielle, to just have the three approving that we're here?

Okay.

So we have uh we state the vote will be um one abstained and three approving.

Um the next one that we have.

I'm looking for a motion for the January 20th, 2026 Planning Commission workshop minutes.

Motion to approve the January 20th, 2026 Planning Commission workshop minutes.

And I second that.

Okay.

Um looking for a vote.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, so that's four votes approving.

All right.

The next thing we have would be I'll uh motion for the approval of the February 7, 26 2026 pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

Seconded.

Okay.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, so that's for approving the pre-planning commission meeting minutes for February 7th.

All right.

Next up we have public hearing consent items, which I don't think we have any at this time.

So we will move on to a continuance.

We did receive a continuance prior to this meeting for section 404, table 404-1, the use matrix, section 816, convenience stores with gas sales, and section 824, gas stations and gas sales.

Uh Planning Commission 25-248 ZTA zoning text amendment that will be continued until March 9th.

Do we need to have an approval for that?

Or we're just saying it's continued.

You will need a motion, yes.

Okay, so I will take a motion to continue.

I motion to continue the section 404, table 404-1.

Use may check section 816 to stores gas sales and section 824 gas stations and gas sales, PC 25-248 ZTA to March 9th.

I second that.

Okay.

Um all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that's four in favor to continue until the March 9th meeting hearing.

All right, next we will have our first case.

And that will be Chase Bank, PC 25-191, FSI final site plan.

Uh Commissioner Wellen?

Yes.

We do have one item under miscellaneous, the Harry Grove Stadium signage request.

Oh, apologies.

I was cut off.

There we go.

Apologies.

So we do have Harry Grove Stadium signage request, which is a request for a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed signage at Harry Grove Stadium in accordance with Section 864U of the Land Management Code.

Thank you very much.

The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the City Council as the chairperson said for the installation of new signage at Harry Grove Stadium in accordance with Section 864 of our land management code, which is our sign regulations.

Harry Grove Stadium is owned by the city, but attained sports is the owner and operator of the Frederick Keys.

Under the lease agreement with the city, they have the opportunity to install naming rights signage on the stadium, which is subject to approval by the mayor.

The city receives a proportionate share of the naming rights fee paid to attain sports.

The organization's sneaking naming rights is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW Local 24, which is captured in the sign design in your packet this evening.

The request is being reviewed in conjunction with a very active construction project if you've driven by recently to expand the stadium facilities, which I believe our applicant team will touch on.

Section 864 of the LMC generally establishes the amount, size, location, and type of signs that are allowed on all properties throughout the city.

So in your staff report, you'll see subsection U, which is that unique requ stadium signage allowances, and basically says that subject to a recommendation by the Planning Commission and the Parks and Rec Commission, the council can approve signage without any prescribed limitations on the size amount location.

There are provisions that do say that lighted electronic and changeable copy signs are not permitted and do discuss the locations where that section applies.

As you'll see in your application materials and on the screens, the new signs are on the new batting building edition that's under construction currently, if you that you see from New Design Road.

Two signs are proposed, one on the northern side of the building visible from within the stadium, and the other on the southern side visible from that parking lot off a new design road.

The signs are both 183 square feet and approximately 14 feet in length and nine feet in height.

As I said, there are no prescribed allowances for the amount of signage.

However, the general purpose and intent of section 864 is to allow for appropriate wayfinding for the public.

Signage while sometimes can be viewed as an obstruction or clutter to our landscape, it also provides really meaningful um ways to make make sure people know where they're going and to get there safely.

Um but it is within the context of it being proportionate to a building and complementary to it and not becoming overwhelming.

So with that in mind, uh in reviewing the signs, uh staff does recommend approval of or recommendation, I'm sorry, to the city council for approval of the signs as depicted.

Uh with one note that the signage in later discussions, uh, the proposed signage is intended to be lit uh because that uh requirement in the LMC prohibits it, uh, would recommend that in your recommendation uh that you include the the notation that uh if you support the signage that it'd be without it being internally lit sign.

Uh and that would be our recommendation uh to you moving forward.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Gabrielle.

Um so um Commissioner Temple, do you have any questions for staff?

Can you clarify that last bit for me?

Can you clarify that last bit for me again?

The applicant would like it lit, and you're recommending that it is not correct.

So the code uh indicates that I find it um uh lighted electronic and changeable copy, so like ticker tape, whether it be like uh the signage that it's electronically or um otherwise kind of manually changeable copy are not permitted.

So the signage that's proposed currently would be internally lit, and that is not permitted under the code.

So in our recommendation, had we known it was going to be internally lit, we would have recommended to you a recommendation with the condition that the signage not be internally lit.

Uh is that clarify?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Buono, do you have any questions?

Yeah, uh can I get some more reasoning as to why there was uh it's preferred, you know, by or suggested by staff to not be internally lit.

Um I mean I know that this is location is right off of the highway.

It's I don't think there's just a field in front of it.

It's kind of a distance away.

Is that just be I don't know if there's too many other houses?

Is it just a lighting issue, or is it just standardization to not have it, or it is is there a reasoning, one one reason or the other?

Because I know it is kind of standard for a lot of sports stadiums to have the signage lit to be seen, especially if games go into the nighttime, you know.

Um but uh if if the city has a certain ordinance, or is it just complying with the current rules?

Good question.

Um does it is unique for the city to hamstring itself with its own requirements such as that not knowing all can context that an application may come forward.

Um the regulations were drafted, uh it was in response to a recognition that we had basically an absence in our code addressing Harry Grove Stadium.

Uh it was owned PRK.

When we looked at the table and we looked at the zoning, we went, well, they're not allowed any signage technically.

Um and it's also different from what we would consider government speech.

A lot of signage is exempt from our regulations just as government speech.

So when the city needs to put up a sign alerting the public to something or serving a public purpose, that's government speech and just generally not subject to our provisions.

So we recognize this kind of gap.

Not really government speech, but not a provision in the code to address it.

Uh the fix was then to propose a set of uh procedures that would allow for individual contextual consideration of signage, subject ultimately to the council, but still keeping in mind that general purpose and intent of our code regulations, which is not to create anything that would be flashing or bright or uh to the extent that it could conflict with um emergency service vehicles or other um public safety lighting, which is just a general purpose statement in our code that we don't want um signage that would conflict with traffic lights or police lights or anything of that nature.

So generally um lighted electronic changeable copy um tend to fall under that I guess then the alternative is if it's not internally lighted, um there are other ways to light the sign.

Is is there are are the applicants seeking anything like that alternatively, or is it just gonna be when it's dark, they can't see it?

So we've interpreted this section lighted sign to me internally lit, uh emanating its own light, right?

Uh a light on the ground aimed up at a sign would not be an internally lit emanating its own lighted.

Um that would be permissible.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Yeah, go ahead.

All right, I think John wants to ask another follow-up question.

Commissioner Bono is allowing me to ask a follow-up question here.

If the applicant was to add in the event that we were to not recommend an internally lit sign, and council um votes on a recommendation, would the applicant have to submit a site plan to show light um changes to then have an externally lit sign, or is there a threshold to you know do that?

I'm just trying to understand the impact there.

So the our lighting regulations in the land management code are specifically related to like parking lot lighting, establishing minimum levels of safety for uh parking lot lighting and maximum minimum ratios.

So there would be no site plan requirement uh to demonstrate anything with that.

Thank you.

I'll yield it back to you, Commissioner Bono.

Uh that's all the questions that I had.

I think we're good.

Commissioner Rowy.

I just have one question.

Uh is there a term limit uh for this the rights to have this sign in place every 10 years kind of a thing?

Or what what's going on here in terms of uh the design of the sign and how long it's good for?

So that's probably a better question for uh Richard Griffin, our economic uh development director, to maybe answer in terms of the the lease agreement and the naming rights agreement that's being negotiated with the the council and the mayor and board or the mayor, sorry.

Um there is no restriction in the land management code from a zoning perspective that signage be changed out at any point.

I just didn't assume it would be in perpetuity, so in perpetuity.

Correct.

Umce placed, um there would be nothing that would require it to be removed.

And I'm sorry, if I could just remind everybody up there, it's it's hard to hear over here.

I don't know what it's like up there.

Everybody has to really face those mics and make sure you're talking into the mic so that it is captured for recording purposes.

Thanks.

Any other questions, Commissioners for this for staff?

Okay, well thank you.

Uh we'll go ahead and have the applicant come up for their presentation.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

I don't see a button.

There it is.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Richard Griffin.

I'm Director of Economic Development for the City of Frederick.

And I have with me this evening Slater Fuchs, the general manager of the Frederick Keys, along with his colleague, the Assistant General Manager Brandon McGee.

And they can answer any specific or technical questions.

But let me give you just a little bit of background.

Those improvements are well underway and are to be delivered so that we can play baseball in the stadium on April the 14th.

That's our first home game.

And uh it's gonna be a winning game, right?

I think it's that's the plan.

Uh the new performance batting center that you can see on the screen and the one that Gabrielle uh mentioned in her staff report um is uh obviously new, and it was not a building that was considered when this section of the code was was written.

And uh the lease between the city and the keys uh for the use of the stadium does pro provide for naming rights signage.

The mayor has the right to approve naming rights signage or naming rights, and uh the city council has the right to approve the sign itself subject to uh recommendation from the planning commission and parks commission.

So we were going to the parks commission tomorrow evening or with you all this evening.

The staff report that Gabrielle uh provided to you was outstanding, and I think it it explained everything in detail.

Um I will say that you had a question about the length of the term of the naming rights.

It's a five-year naming rights.

Um so potentially, you know, it could change after five years, but um it also could could stay there, as Gabrielle said, it could be uh for many, many years that they could be a sponsor of this uh uh facility and have the naming rights.

Um I think uh the the question about the lighting has been answered.

They they obviously would like to have internally lit signs similar to the existing sign that says Nimeo Field, which is internally lit.

Um uh they understand that you all cannot provide that approval for them this evening, but yet you can provide approval for the sign unlit, and that's what they're seeking.

So unless you have any questions for me, uh I'm happy to try to answer them, but uh they're here as resources as well.

Thank you.

Um so I'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Bueno.

Do you have any questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Roby.

No further questions.

And Commissioner Tempen.

Commissioner Tempo.

Yes, um, the NIMEO field signage that's existing.

Is it internal facing, external facing, and are they both internally lit?

Help me there.

It's both internally and externally facing, and both are lit.

In internally lit.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And I have no additional questions.

Um do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Okay.

Um I think at this point we'll be looking for a motion.

I think that we might have some discussion first on it.

Okay.

Apologies.

I don't think I agree with staff on the not allowing an internally signage.

I think the consistency.

Um to the other existing signage.

Um makes sense.

And I would say if we, you know, if there is issue, you know, with that, or or maybe uh exploring the field-facing sign.

You know, everything is internally lit out there, the the scoreboard and all that.

So if we wanted to think about the public face versus the, you know, the the new design road frontage versus the field.

Maybe that's a conversation.

Um I don't personally see an issue with both both of them being um internally lit, but I think I do understand that front from the road from the highway is different than someone sitting in the stadium, right?

Like the IBEW sign is not going to be any more distracting than the scoreboard or all the other things for for the user experience or for someone driving down.

I'm forgetting the name of that road right there.

But we're right off the not new design, the you know um the one that parallels the cemetery.

Yeah, exactly.

Um I think it's market is it it turns into market.

Yeah.

It turns into market when it gets a little higher on whatever it is right there.

Yeah.

Um, someone driving there is all the other signage is going to be just as distracting.

I don't think there's a change there.

Um or along stadium drive, which was the road I was really referencing because of where that placement is.

Um you'll see it more from stadium drive than from market.

Um but that that's kind of where I'm at.

So I'm kind of curious what the rest of the staff's thought or commission's thoughts.

Yeah, for me as well.

I don't uh I I think I tried to ask staff a little bit.

I don't fully understand the recommendation against the internally lighted.

I know that there's other ones I get I get the safety reasoning potentially, and it's orange, I guess it's gonna be based on this coloring.

Um I guess I would like to know how big it is compared to the NIMIO sign.

Is it significantly larger?

I mean, I know the NIMIO sign curve, like the signage is relatively large and noticeable.

Um but I think it's gonna be much smaller than it based on the size of the building.

Um I think it's gonna be lower down and smaller, I'm assuming.

Yeah, I just wanted to I heard what you just said there.

Just uh I'm uh uh Slater fuchs, uh the GM of the keys.

The sign is much smaller than uh the NIMIO sign.

So this sign is about 15 by 10.

Uh so the NIMIO sign is probably Brandon, how big do you think the NIMIO sign is?

It's probably a double triple the size of that.

So we've you know it's a proportionate to the building size is what we tried to do is to make it as proportionate as we could.

So I just wanted to address that.

Yeah, because I I feel comfortable approving it for for it to be lit personally.

Uml unless they're really I don't know.

I hear the concerns about safety, I hear I hear the concerns about what not wanting to conflict, but I don't think that where this location is right now, based on I drive through past all the time.

I don't see the potential for that.

It's uh obviously a stadium, it's obviously a baseball field, there's all sorts of distractions.

They have fireworks there consistently.

Uh I don't think that this is significant distraction any more than the fireworks that go off every single Friday and Saturday night are, in my view.

So that's my opinion on it.

Any other discussion?

Understanding that an internally lit sign would be a modification.

Correct?

No, I don't know.

It's not even a modification.

So no modification.

The recommendation doesn't need to carry a modification request of any kind.

In in the event that we voted uh one way or the other.

The there would be no modification to that provision.

Um it's really just a question of whether the council has the authority to override that section of the LMC in their jurisdiction and under the lease agreement.

How did the original NIMIO sign get approved then?

I'm sorry.

How did the original NIMIO sign that is internally lit get approved if this one the rules if we approved it as is?

Was there an exception written to allow that one to be, or is it a totally different process?

Are you asking if I'm sorry, it was just as you're saying whether we have the ability to approve something that like if we approve this sign to be lit, is that's outside of our purview.

Then how was the original internally lit NIMEO sign that is there now approved?

There has only been one case that I'm aware of that used this provision of the regulation.

I don't know if it was that sign or if that sign predates this provision.

Okay.

Um so right.

And and the planning commission isn't approving anything this evening.

It's just a council recommendation.

Um we'll discuss with the legal department if when it approaches the council, if they have the ability to say, yes, but we have this other lease agreement and these naming rights agreements that allow us kind of autonomy to approve that.

So um just in our recommendation to you in compliance with the code, um the suggestion is that we would recommend to you to include the caveat that it comply with the provisions in the ordinance ordinance um and not be lit.

But ultimately it will go to the council.

Okay.

So they'll have a follow-on conversation with the council and then can figure that all out later.

Okay.

I think that makes sense.

Okay.

Any other discussions?

Okay.

Um so if there's no other discussion, we'll go ahead.

So if there's no other discussion, we'll go ahead looking for a motion on action number one, which is a recommendation to city council for the proposed internally lit signage as depicted on the attached exterior elevations, finding that the proposed signage is consistent with the purpose and intent of section 864 of the land management code.

Do you have a motion on that?

Yes, so I'm looking for a motion for approval.

Yeah, I will I motion for the approval of the recommendation to the city council for the proposed signage as to fix it on the attached exterior elevations.

I would definitely proposed signage is consistent with the purpose and intent of section 864 of the land management code.

Second.

Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner Buono, a second by Commissioner Temple.

All in favor.

Aye.

That's for approvals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we're moving on to new business with Chase Bank PC 25-191 FSI final site plan.

Good evening.

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

And the applicant is requesting approval of a site plan to replace an existing bank building with a new 2938 square foot bank with an ATM drive-through in its place.

And this is this property is part of the Westridge Square mixed use development.

There are also seven modifications that the applicant is requesting involving mixed-use districts setbacks for principal district or principal buildings, building and urban design standards, parking and loading standards, drive-through facility standards, and landscaping standards.

And in section 417 for mixed use districts, all requirements are met with the exception of a maximum side setback, which is 25 feet, and that's the first modification that they are requesting.

The applicant is requesting that side setback to be increased to 140.8 feet along the eastern property line.

This is to better situate the building closer to the Westridge development to the interior of the mixed-use development.

Staff concurs with the applicant's justification as they provided, finding that the intent of the code is still being met by bringing the builder closing closer to the rear of the lot, which faces the interior of the West Ridge development.

And it's also consistent with community character and urban design policy six by redeveloping the property and the larger Westridge Square development.

Along Frederick's traditional business corridors, such as the Golden Mile.

With regard to compensating features, the new architectural features of the bank will improve the aesthetics of the site, and it will also improve its connectivity with the overall development by providing new sidewalks connecting to the interior of the development.

In uh the second modification is with regard to section 604 for building standards.

There are certain elements that the um that will need to be complied with, and the applicant is proposing elements A through F as part of their design for the building.

There's one item A or element A, which is the building orientation.

Um it requires that it be oriented toward the front or the street, and the applicant is instead requesting the modification to orient it toward the rear of the property, which faces the Westridge development.

Um there's some significant grading between the property and West Patrick Street, so it makes sense for the building to be oriented more toward the um toward the rear of the property as it is part of that overall mixed-use development.

Staff concurs with the applicant's justification that they presented.

As I said, the building will be oriented toward the interior of the community to emphasize pedestrian activity.

And having the building oriented toward West Patrick Street does not provide connectivity to the sidewalk on the street due to the steep slope, but having it oriented toward the Westridge Square development promotes pedestrian activity within the or connectivity within the community.

It's supported by land use policy one.

Again, it's supported by redeveloping a property to be compatible with the character of the existing and plan development, and also supports community character and urban design policy two, which supports creative site planning and high quality architecture in order to establish a built environment that's compatible and enhances the neighborhood character.

Lastly, the design elements for the facade facing West Patrick are comparable to the improvements on the front of the building, thus giving the impression that the front is oriented toward the street.

Next, under parking and loading standards, there are 15 spaces are proposed, which is the maximum permitted.

There are two modifications for parking, though.

One is for parking area lighting, and the other one is for parking area.

The parking area is set back from the right-of-way, which this particular one applies to shopping centers.

For the lighting, the ordinance does not allow any light spillover.

However, there is spillover along all four of the property lines.

There is a lot of existing lighting out there from the shopping center that some of it was considered or put in with the lighting plan that the applicant provided.

So that in turn makes some of that spillover due to the existing lighting.

So the staff concurs with the applicant's justification.

It does meet the purpose and intent of the code.

As the property is, as I said, in an existing built environment, it has existing lighting throughout the Westridge Shop Square Shopping Center, and the lighting is needed for safety reasons, especially being a bank.

So the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, environmental sustainability policy four, and community character and urban design policy two, in addition to land use policy one by adequately lighting the parking areas and increasing safety in the pedestrian and vehicle areas.

And then design of the new lighting will act as a compensating feature by improving safety while providing consistent photometrics across the development.

The fourth modification is for the parking area setback.

The request is to have the setback be reduced from 25 feet to 10 feet.

This is for parking setting back parking areas from the street right of way.

However, the elevation of the bank is much lower in relation to West Patrick Street, so there's that elevation drop, which provides more of a natural buffer between the two elements.

So it meets the intent as there is a natural buffer that's still being provided.

Again, it's consistent with the comp plan, policy, land use policies one and twelve, and community character and urban design policy six, which promote the enhancement of community identity and visual character by improving city gateways and the supporting the redevelopment of underutilized part uh parcels.

Um lastly, uh staff concurs that the additional landscaping that's being provided will be counted as a compensating feature for the request.

Um there are also supplemental regulations in section 819 for drive-through facilities, and one of those is that at least seven cue spaces are required in the drive-through lane.

Um the applicant is proposing six, thus they are requesting a modification for this.

Um the applicant's justification is that there will only be an ATM lane, there won't be any full service lanes.

Um the additional queuing spaces would not be necessary and the meets the intent of the code, and then an adequate number of spaces is still being provided.

In addition to the comp plan yet, land use policies one and twelve, as well as community character and urban design policy six, they all promote the redevelopment of underutilized parcels and the rehabilitation of blighted and vacant structures.

Um lastly, staff agrees that the new facility will be a better design that removes unnecessary lanes that a full service drive-thru would typically need, thus, it eliminates the need for those additional stacking spaces.

And the sixth or the sixth modification relates to another requirement that's in section 819, and that's that one lane one-way lanes are required to be 15 feet wide.

The applicant is proposing 11 feet.

Is that per the lane is for personal vehicles and they will still have adequate room for circulation through the drive-through.

Staff supports the request as an 11-foot lane, can still accommodate regular passenger vehicles.

And with other, as with the other modification requests, it's consistent with the comp plan in the support of redevelopment of properties and redevelopment of a site.

For landscaping standards, all other requirements have been met with the exception of street trees.

There are two street trees that are required, and they are being provided, but they will not be planted within the right-of-way.

They will instead be planted outside of the right-of-way.

Staff supports the request in that it meets the intent of the code, and that there will still be a buffer along the east and west sides and the south side, which is buffered by the lower elevation of the site from West Patrick Street.

And the north side is adjacent to other parking areas and the shopping center.

Comp plan policies, economic development policy three is supported, which seeks to maintain a diverse mix of industry.

Additional landscaping again is being provided within the site as a compensating feature.

This is for the level two buffer that's required along parking areas.

The applicant is requesting reduction in the buffer width plantings and to remove that wall.

It supports economic development policy three and land use policy one for redevelopment and maintaining a diverse mix of industry.

And it also is the redevelopment of a blighted or vacant property.

And again, for a compensating feature that applicant is proposing additional property landscaping.

Those are all the modifications.

So no additional forest plan was needed for this.

And the the um all of the exemptions for the adequate public facilities ordinance have been approved.

So with that, I'll start with the first action.

That's approval of a modification to Section 417 C1, mixed use districts, M U1 and MU2.

Table 417-2, setbacks for principal buildings in the MU district to increase the maximum 25-foot interior side setback to 140.8 feet along the eastern property line.

Staff finds that the intent of the code is still being met along the other setbacks and brings the building closer to the rear of the lot.

It will still be able to accommodate parking and having the building closer to the rear setback situates the building closer to the interior of the Western Square mixed use development.

It supports the comp plan land use policy one 12, as well as community character and urban design policy six, as well as economic development policy six.

Action two is approval of the modification to Section 604 D3A, building and urban design standards.

To the standards requiring a building to be oriented toward the street in order to have the building be oriented toward the westridge square development versus West Patrick.

It meets the intent of the code.

That is it's part of the western square development, and the building will be oriented toward the interior of the community to enhance pedestrian connections.

It's consistent with comprehensive plan use policy one, community character and urban design policy two, which again supports redevelopment of vacant sites and supporting high quality architecture that is compatible and enhances neighborhood character and aesthetics.

Compensating design features include design elements for the facade facing West Patrick Street that are comparable to the improvements that will be on the front of the building, thus giving the impression that the front is oriented toward the street.

With that, staff recommends approval of that modification.

Action three is approval of a modification to section 607 E2D parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow light spillover along the property lines.

The request meets the purpose and intent of the code as the property is in an existing built environment that has existing lighting throughout the Westridge Square Shopping Center, and additionally adequate lighting is needed for the bank and ATM for security purposes.

It's consistent with the comp plan environmental sustainability policy one, community character and urban design policy two, and land use policy one by adequately lighting the parking areas and increasing safety in the pedestrian and vehicle areas.

And new lighting will be designed to help decrease the spillover that currently exists and helping to reduce that the amount of spillover that's there now.

And with that, staff recommends approval of that modification.

Number four is approval of the modification to section 607 G1B, parking and loading standards to increase the parking lot setback to reduce the required setback for parking areas in shopping centers from the right of way from 25 feet to 10 feet.

Staff staff concurs with the applicant's assessment.

It is the intent of the code is met, which is to provide additional landscaping and buffering for parking areas and in this case for shopping areas.

The elevation of the bank is much lower into in relation to West Patrick Street, which provides more of a natural screening between the two elements.

And additional landscaping and enhanced architectural features are provided as compensating features, and there is an excess of interior parking lot landscaping proposed, which is 3,720 square feet versus the minimum 1,404 square feet that's required.

And therefore staff recommends approval of that modification.

Modification number five is approval of a modification to section 819 B1 for drive-through facilities to reduce the required of number of drive-through stacking spaces from seven to six.

Staff finds it meets the intent of the code and that there will only be one ATM lane and no full service windows, thus, additional queuing spaces are not necessary.

An adequate number of spaces is still being provided.

And the compensating design feature is the new facility, which will be a better design that removes unnecessary lanes that a full service drive-thru would typically need, thus eliminating the need for eliminating the need for additional parking or stacking spaces.

Number six is the approval of a modification to section 819 B3, drive-through facilities, one-way lane to reduce the required lane width from 15 feet to 11 feet.

It meets the intent of the code and that the 11 feet can still accommodate regular passenger vehicles.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan policy, community character and urban design number six, and that it supports the redevelopment of properties and additional landscaping is proposed as a compensating feature.

Staff recommends approval of that modification.

Action number seven is approval of a modification to section 605, tables 605 1 and 605-3, landscaping standards to reduce the buffer width, required number of plantings, and to remove the six-foot-tall wall or hedge that's required in a level two buffer.

It meets the intent of the code is in that there will still be a buffer area along the east and west sides, and the south side is buffered by the lower elevation of the site from West Patrick Street, and the north side is adjacent to other parking areas within the shopping center and development.

It's consistent with comprehensive plan economic develop development policy three, as well as the land use policy one and community character and urban design policy six, and that it supports the redevelopment of vacant and blighted struct uh properties.

And again, additional landscaping within the site is provided as a compensating feature.

And staff recommends approval of the modification.

The uh next one, Action 8 is approval of the modification to Section 607 F to allow street trees to be placed outside of the street right of way.

Um the intent of the code is being met and that the um required number of trees are still per being provided.

Um they will, however, need to be protected uh protected by it, the placement of an easement on the property.

It's consistent with environmental sustainability policy three, which seeks to minimize the environmental impacts of development through best management practice practices, transportation policy five, which seeks to create and maintain a fully accessible pedestrian network throughout the city, and comprehensive plan, community character and urban design policy three, which seeks to improve the overall streetscape in the city, and um the um character, I'm sorry, community character and urban design policy two, which supports creative site planning and high quality architecture.

Additional landscaping is um proposed along West Patrick Street on the property as a compensating design feature.

And staff recommends approval of that modification.

And lastly, is action number nine, approval of the site final site plan, PC 25-191 FSI for Chase Bank.

Site plan complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the LNC.

It's consistent with a comprehensive plan and the approved master plan, and the site will be adequately served by public facilities.

Um staff recommends approval of the final site plan with the following conditions.

One on the cover sheet and the permitting summary chart at the APFO exemption approval dates.

Two, provide the street tree easement delineation for uh maintenance of the proposed street trees.

Um three, um needs to be unconditional approval and recordation of the final subdivision plat, STF 25-398 FSU, and also unconditional approval of the preliminary force conservation plan, PC 25-404 PFCP.

And then five is the unconditional approval of the master plan PC 22 651 MU.

And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Guano.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Roby.

Can you put that up?

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Uh I'd like a little bit more information on your recommendation to accommodate the modification for lanes to go from 15 feet to 11 feet in this area.

Um the um applicant um, I believe they provided a circulation plan.

I don't know if that was included.

Oh, the they provided the ATM queuing study.

Um, and that was for the well, that was for the number of um queuing spaces.

Um, but they also stated that um because the bank will accommodate accommodate only passenger vehicles, that the 11 the 11-foot lane is adequate and will still be able to accommodate those cars through the um circulating through.

There's something there's something else I'm missing or that you're looking for.

Thank you for the answer.

Uh I guess if the code is 15 feet and is trying to the applicant is trying to get approval for 11 feet.

I'm wondering why we're deviating from the code.

Because of the site constraints, they're unable to provide that extra um that extra width.

So just in general, you're comfortable with the narrower roads.

Yes.

I think when we uh did the workshop there, it was the mainly the bottom left if you look on the graph.

I'm sure that they can if if the uh applicant is here today, they can speak on it.

But I think it was the bottom left close to the retaining wall area, it was just a bit narrow.

And they basically said that because it's shape of survey, it can work, it just the building was too close, but I'm sure they can talk about it more.

I was pleased to see the compensating uh features or aspects with regard to landscaping.

So I thank you for that.

Uh can we talk a little bit about lighting, seeing so we're now not as part of this project, but as part of the site where likely to have residential units in the near vicinity of this particular project at some point.

And what are we doing to make sure that the lighting provided for the bank is not going to provide light intrusion to those residents?

Um I can't answer that um completely, but as um there will be other site plans that will come through as the Westridge Square um gets built out.

And right now, I think there's some adjacent parking that is also planned in the master plan that's going to abut this property.

So the light spillover will go into other pro parking areas and not necessarily the residential portions that are being proposed.

Thank you.

Okay.

And Commissioner Temple.

Nothing for staff.

Thank you.

Okay, and I have no questions for staff either.

Uh so moving on, uh I'd like for the applicant to come up.

And I believe you were not sworn in, so I'd like to do that.

Is there anyone else who arrived after the fact to be sworn in?

They could stand up.

Okay.

Okay.

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

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Reed Cooksey with Stonefield Engineering and Design.

Uh my address is 555 South Old Woodward, Suite 12L, Birmingham, Michigan, 48009.

Um I do uh appreciate staff reading that very long uh report.

Uh that was uh I I promise the application is not as complicated as is all the language made it seem.

Um I put together a little presentation here today, kind of introduce it to you guys, paint the picture a little bit clearer because it can be kind of convoluted with the reports and everything.

So what we're looking at today is the uh redevelopment of the Chase Bank as part of the Westridge shopping center.

Um the bank currently exists today.

Um I have some photos of the existing bank, and really what we're trying to do is really meet the intent of the comprehensive plan and the Golden Mile Corridor with redevelopment and revitalization and kind of connect these uh community features throughout the uh throughout this corridor.

So if you'll see here, uh sorry, let me get the pointer.

Um this is the site in discussion uh right here, right off of West Patrick, right at the front of the uh the development.

Uh you'll have Hillcrest Drive uh as the through lane for our shared access drive, as well as key parkway to the rear.

Um that comes into play with the uh with the pedestrian features that we plan on implementing.

Some of the projects of the goal uh uh project goals here.

Um, you know, we're trying to prioritize pedestrian access, you know, per the golden uh corridor plan.

Um enhance customer experience, taking a more antiquated uh property, a more antiquated approach to banking, simplify it, go with a smaller uh development that fits more in line with the goals of this new mixed-use development here.

Um with that will be updated aesthetics and then coordinate with that uh Westridge development to kind of tie it all together.

And then lastly, implement some green infrastructure by reducing the imperviousness on site, adding that landscaping, and also um putting a bioretention facility for our specific our specific plan here to uh to kind of tie all these uh modern uh goals together.

So our design proposal.

So this is the existing bank site.

Um you'll notice uh it's a uh brick uh bank with the uh the green uh roof that the rest of the Western shopping center has.

Uh but one of the biggest issues with this bank is um it's highly, highly vehicular-oriented.

We have three lanes with a full uh full use uh window.

Uh the new bank, we the only and we'll get to the drive-thru and and some of the modifications there.

What we're going for is a more modern approach to banking.

People aren't using the full service window.

If they need full service requests, they're going to walk in, do their business that way.

Uh we don't need as many lanes of traffic.

The only people that we are actually oriented towards traffic is going to be the people that are just coming using the drive-up ATM as well as a uh and you can't see it on these slides, but there's a parking over on the uh west side over here parking area that had a drive-up ATM that's since been removed.

And that's the reason we have the drive-up 18 is just to provide that feature for uh the residents and the and the customers as well.

You know, we're kind of we had the the separate drive-thru ATM, we had the three lanes, and we're just reducing it to one with a with a walk up ATM.

So what you'll see here is there's you you kind of come in, you go through and then you pick your lane and leave.

This building was over 4,000 square feet.

Our new building is less than 3,000.

Uh so reducing the size of the footprint there, and then also reducing the the vehicular demand.

And then as you can see by some of the views, um, you know, again, a very antiquated, more dilapidated looking site, and we really want to refresh that and make it a uh a more modern feel that that fits with the corridor and fits with this whole revitalization of uh the Westridge development.

So our proposed bank site.

Um so what you can see here is a more uh easily accessible site, not only for pedestrians but for vehicles.

Uh you have the this the stacking lane here, which accommodates six stacking spaces.

We provided a stacking study that shows on average we need about 1.2 stacks uh for a drive-up ATM.

We provide six.

Again, most people, if they have an ATM need, um, you know, it they're in and out very quickly.

Very rarely do we see over two cars that are actually stacked.

I don't know about you, but if I see two cars stacked, I'm either gonna go use the ATM inside, or I'm just gonna go find the next bank down the road.

Um but and then the other feature is having a uh easier, easier circulation within our uh drive-through within our uh uh parking area here.

Before it was a dead-end drive that was encompassed by the the uh stacking lane for the old drive-thru.

With this, we have a two-way circulation that allows customers to come and go as they please.

And then again, one of the larger features is making this pedestrian connection from uh Route 40 here, it's an eight-foot shared use path that comes through and connects, and then I'll have on another slide how that goes with the greater uh greater Westridge development.

Um of the other features.

So we have the new bank facility, the drive-up ATM, you know, our ADA spaces right up front.

Uh we do have a walk-up ATM at item D here.

Um, you know, that again is for more pedestrians, that's right in the inside.

Uh it's a 24 uh 7 operation there.

If you're a uh member of the bank, uh it's open to everybody during the business hours.

But again, trying to uh orient it more towards the pedestrian-friendly nature that we're we're trying to go for.

Um again, I know mentioned the shared use path.

Um, and then we have the compensating trees along the uh the front edge here.

Again, we only are required to have two trees up there.

As you can see, we have uh six up here.

We went with more of a flowering uh tree, something to break up the aesthetic and break up kind of the uh the view shed, and and I'll have some examples of the the plantings we're going with as well as some uh some renderings as well.

Um the uh like I said, the eight-foot path then comes down and connects to our site, but also we have a connection over here.

Um the West Ridge development is reworking this parking, and you'll see kind of how that that uh connects to allow full access to Key Parkway from where we are going.

We show a crosswalk here.

I think that was one of the the items that was discussed in the PC workshop is who's gonna come first.

You know, we don't really want this dead-end pathway and how is that operate.

We've been working a lot with them.

It looks like we're gonna be coming to development around the same time, so we don't think there'll be any issues there.

But again, we show that for reference, and if need be, we will install that to make sure that there's some direction when our when our pathway goes in.

And then we have our bio retention feature over on the right.

Um, that's one of the uh the main goals, you know, sustainability, environmental consciousness here.

You know, there is a large uh detention pond as part of the Westridge development that we're in, but in order to meet state code, um, we're going with a natural feature as opposed to any swarm mechanical or in payment in lieu of.

Um so this will again provide some sort of green space as well as you know, um a treating our our stormwater.

And then the pathway again for safety, it was mentioned a few times.

There's a significant grade change between Route 40.

It's one of the reasons why our building is oriented the way it is.

The object object of that code is to orient it for more pedestrian-facing uh use.

We have about a seven-foot grade change from the highway to our site that isn't very pedestrian-friendly, so we do need a loop around to the rear to have our access to here, and that's kind of where the orientation comes from.

And because of that, and because of the uh the safety features, we are putting a slight guardrail up just to make sure for that shared use with bike use and things like that, that there's no issues with the uh the slopes here, you know, and in our plantings.

Like I mentioned, we are have been working hand in hand with the rest of Westridge development, and kind of what you have here is how that whole network is going to connect.

Currently, uh you have our bank, and I'm I'm sure if you guys have been to the site, you'll know down the shared use.

There is a uh kind of walk-down uh dirt trail that people I guess have been walking down.

And one of the major major goals of the uh the golden area plan is to make that connectivity there.

We'll be installing the uh the pathway around our site, and then you can see the reorientation of the parking here to have that through connection all the way through to key parkway and then their whole network of sidewalk that they'll be installing to unlock the shopping center connections as well as the new residential.

And then one thing I want to note is just the separation.

You know, we have the commercial up here, but there is significant separation between our site and the uh the residential site, so any lighting noise is is really not going to be a factor.

And that's shown in our photometrics that the lights we're installing are actually an improvement from what's existing out there, but it's just in nature of what's going on, it's it's in tandem with the existing lighting in here, and it it won't really be a factor where our lights, you know, once we get across the uh the uh drive here, we really won't have any uh any issues with glare or anything like that.

The foot candles are already negligible at that point.

As far as the building elevations here, um again, we are going for more modern look here.

Uh what you'll see is a mix of uh Nishiha paneling, you know, so a high-end fiberglass as well as some uh stone verneer to kind of have those neutral tones breaking breaking up elements.

You know, we're not going for anything flashy or you know, we want to meet that modern modern aesthetic that that we're all looking for.

Uh there is some metal paneling, some uh aluminum as well, and you can see how all of these elements kind of worked in tandem to bring that neutral palette, but also bring a nice aesthetic.

And then it's uh you know, with the glazing, it kind of breaks up the elements, and then I do have some uh renderings that show how these elements work with all of the flowering trees and other landscaping that we're that we're gonna be installing here.

Here's some of the other uh looks as you can see in the the rear, you know, we we have more of that stone, um that stone look with the glazing.

Again, some of the uh elements here, you know, we have some safety features, things like that because we are a bank, um, as well as the drive-up ATM with overhang there.

Um here's what the proposed street views will look like.

Again, there's a significant grade change, and then you can see we kind of have the elements of the different shrubs, the uh trees as well, breaking up any of the uh impervious elements in that view.

Um and you can see it's a much lower profile um because the street is so high, you'll still be able to see the new shop, the shopping center bind as well as the new development, and it you know, kind of helps uh transition the uh the shopping center with the with the newer residential.

Um here's another look at it from a different angle.

Again, you can kind of see the grade change here, but you know, planting the trees as well as having planting beds around it really help break up some of those uh those elements that we currently face.

Um, you know, we're asking for modifications for setbacks, but if you look at the current site, we're actually improving what's out there because right now it's just a big wall of uh drive-through and circulation.

Here's our proposed plantings.

Again, we went with a nice array working with a registered landscape architect, uh flowering trees, uh screening trees, things like that to help break up not only the uh impervious elements, but also you know, headlights and any potential glare that may come out.

Our site is sunken in, so there really is not gonna be any issues with headlights because we're six or seven feet lower than the highway.

But again, trying to put a nice mix of grasses and flowering plants to really you know revitalize what's out there because I believe it's just currently a couple trees and maybe some boxwoods.

So really kind of give it a refresh look with a uh you know some pops of color in there.

Um I also have a slide here for a modification request.

I know we've kind of been through them, but you know, we are requesting a a number of them, but a lot of them are mainly because we are just an outlet for a redevelopment where we're redefining the uh uh existing property lines because currently, if you look, the bank is on a very small parcel and the parking is on a separate one, so we needed to combine that and that triggers some of the uh the setbacks and you know uh separation, but we've really tried to compensate as much as we can with some of the landscaping elements as well as you know, trying to keep this as pedestrian-oriented as we can while still providing a service to the uh to the community, you know, that is uh that is in need.

Um you know, people still use banks, you know, especially in this corridor, especially with the residential coming in, and that way it kind of you know rounds out the the different uses in this uh Westridge development.

Um with that I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Um, we're very excited to uh revitalize the bank there off West Patrick, and you know, we're we're excited to continue to be a member of the uh city of Frederick.

Okay, I'll kind of go back.

We'll start with this.

Commissioner Rowby.

I am shouldn't say surprise, but I'm pleasantly surprised by what I'm looking at here.

You guys have gone to a lot of trouble to make this highly livable, so I appreciate that.

Uh I see the walkability efforts that you went to here.

Are you also going to have provisions for bicyclists to do their banking business?

Yep.

So we actually have uh bicycle, we have a bicycle rack that is being proposed with it, and then the the intent of the eight-foot path is to provide the connectivity from uh Route 40 to Key Parkway, so that is a shared use path for both pedestrians and and bicyclists.

It's uh the pathway is under five percent, so that's ADA compliant, so there's not going to be any any issues, and then the the guardrail we're implementing is just you know, again, to to provide some some safety aspects there for the uh for any cyclists that they are potentially there.

Um and then one thing I did want to note I forgot in my presentation with the uh the trees being planted on our site for the uh that modification request.

One of the reasons for that, obviously there's some green space between the sidewalk and and our site.

You know, there's uh you know intent to widen that um existing sidewalk out there, I think to 11 feet, and then part of that plan is there'll be a slight retaining wall because of the widening in the in the slopes that are on our site.

And we because of that, there's really gonna that's gonna eat up the rest of the green space within the right-of-way.

So does it make sense to plant some trees that in two, three years, whenever that plan gets implemented for them to come back and request, hey, can we put these relocate these onto your site or right on the property line, put an easement around it?

We're fine with them being on our property.

It'll make them be more successful and you know, again, help break up the uh the elements as part of our uh part of our development.

Thank you.

Commissioner Temple.

Uh all I wanted to say was thank you for the uh removal of the parking modification that you presented at workshop.

You're guys loud and clear on that.

You brought the parking count down.

Um great presentation, no further questions or comments.

And Commissioner Bueno.

Yeah, overall, very impressed.

Really like the uh I think recently we've gotten a lot more of these where you guys do a whole demonstration of what it's gonna look like.

It helps us better understand the flow of the space, and it's a lot more useful for us instead of just sort of pulling up pictures online on Street View and trying to figure that out.

Agreed, and I appreciate the 15-minute read down rundown of the uh the requests, but it's really hard to paint the picture in there of what exactly we're requesting, and you know, we think this helps all parties in that way we're not kind of ping-ponging back and forth with what exactly is are we looking at here and things like that.

And you know, I do appreciate you saying that.

And using the local plants.

Very good job.

Like that.

Appreciate that.

That was nice little touch.

And then I think the one ask I was gonna have, I don't know if it's worth some modification or anything with it, totally fine if we'd considered it.

You guys, you know, have the walk around.

I think we might have touched on it.

Was there any exploration in on that graded area to put stairs or anything like that connected from there?

Just because, you know, we have that walk-around there, but if that is a walk-up pedestrian accessible ATM, you know, right now this use path along Patrick isn't really you know, broadly used, but the idea is it's gonna get expanded, it will get used more pedestrians.

Uh I have a feeling what's gonna end up happening is some people are just gonna take the little trip down there and you're getting to get one of those you know, walked in type of semi it's one of those things where it might not be used, but I feel like it might end up just getting used anyways.

Because I know if I was walking along there and I need to go grab, I'm just gonna walk down there.

You know, I'm just gonna walk down the little easement.

But of course, I mean not everyone will, but that's just a question whether that was discussed.

It was it was discussed after our last meeting, because you know, again, it was brought up if if we can make a more direct connection.

One of the things that was discussed about that was the fact that uh the improvements to Route 40 is going to include a retaining wall.

So that's gonna make it very difficult to have a set of stairs from there through that.

Um and then uh one of the requests from the traffic department was that guardrail along the access drive.

So we really don't have a good location, and by the time you get around the guardrail, you're pretty much at the north side of the site there.

And um, you know, but it is something we discussed because of the comments from the uh PC workshop.

Great.

Yeah, I wasn't just sure.

All right, thanks.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

And I don't have any other any questions, but uh thank you so much for the renderings.

It's really helpful and seeing the pollinator plants, that makes me very happy.

Absolutely gotta save the bees, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Speak for the bees, speak for the trees.

All right.

So with that, um, do we have any public comment, Jennifer?

Did anyone sign up this evening?

No.

Okay.

All right, but then we'll take it back here for any discussion.

How do we do all the approvals on this?

Can we just do them all in one or do we have to go one by one on each of them?

Okay.

Each action individually.

I'm sorry.

Okay, well, have some talking.

No.

Okay.

So we will start with action one.

I'm looking for a motion on action one, which is approval of a modification to section 417 C1, mixed-use districts, MU1 and MU2.

Table 417-2 setbacks for principal buildings, MU district to increase the maximum 25-foot interior and side setback to 140.8 feet along the eastern property line.

I motion to approve the modification of section 417 C1, mixed-use districts ME1 and MU2, table 417-2 setbacks for principal buildings MU district to increase the maximum 25-foot interior side setback to 140.8 feet along the eastern property line per findings 1 through 3 that were introduced into the record by staff.

And I second.

Okay, that is a motion for approval by Commissioner Temple.

A second by Commissioner Wono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

So that is approval of action one with a vote of four to zero.

Action two.

And it will fill out all of the stuff.

Just so we don't have to read it out twice.

Make it a little faster.

Okay.

I think it's good.

Okay.

So I'm looking for a motion on action number two.

I move for the approval of modification to section 604 D3A, building and urban design standards.

So the standards requiring a building to be oriented toward the street to have the building be oriented toward Westridge Square Square Development versus West Patrick Street.

Per staff findings one through three is introduced into record.

Seconded.

Okay, that is a motion by Commissioner Buono, a second by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

So that is approval of action two by a vote of four to zero.

Next we have, I'm looking for a motion for the approval of action number three.

I motion for the approval of a modification of section 606, 607, E2D, parking and loading standards, parking and lighting to allow for spillover along the property lines.

Per the findings one through three introduced into the record by staff.

And I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Temple, second by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

So that's approval of action number three.

Um looking for a motion on action number four.

I move for the approval of a modification of section 607 G1B, parking and loading standards to increase the parking lot setback to reduce the required setback for parking areas in the shopping center from right-of-way lines from 25 feet to 10 feet.

Uh per staff findings 1 through 3 entered into the record.

Seconded.

Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner Bueno for approval.

Seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval of action number four with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion on action number five.

I motion to approve uh a modification in section 819 B1, drive-through facilities for circulation to reduce the required number of drive-through stacking spaces from seven to six per findings one through three as introduced into the record by staff.

I second.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval.

A second by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval of action number five.

A vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for approval of action number six.

I move for the approval for a modification to section 819 B3, drive-through facilities.

One-way lane to reduce the required lane width from 15 feet to 11 feet based on uh findings one through three by staff introduced into the record.

Seconded.

Okay.

That is a motion by Commissioner Buono for approval.

Seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That is approval of action number six with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for action number seven.

I'm motion for the approval of a modification of section 605, table 605-1 and 605-3.

Landscaping standards should reduce the buffer width, number of required plantings, and remove the six-foot tall wall or hedge per findings one through three as introduced into the record by staff.

And I second.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval of action number seven with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for approval of action eight.

I motion for the approval of modification to Section 607 F to allow street trees to be placed outside of the street right of way per staff findings one through three as read into record.

Seconded.

That is the motion by Commissioner Buono for approval, seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval of action number seven with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I am looking for a motion for action number eight.

Eight nine.

Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize for action number nine.

I motion for the approval of the final site plan PC 25-191 FSI for Chase Bank based on that the site plan complies with all of the applicable criteria of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the LMC, and is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan and the approved master plan, and the site will be adequately served by public facilities.

On the condition that the cover sheet is updated to include the permanent on the following conditions, that the cover sheet in the permitting summary chart add the APFO exemption approval dates that they provide street tree easement delineation for maintenance of proposed street trees, the unconditional approval and recordation of final subdivision plat STF 25-398 FSU, the unconditional approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan PC 25-404 PFCP, and the unconditional approval of the master plan PC 22-651 MU.

And I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval of action number nine with a vote of four to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you guys so much.

Really appreciate working with you guys.

Thank you.

All right.

Excuse me.

Next we have PC.

This is the Frederick Youth Center in South End Park, PC 25-520, FSI final site plan and 521 FSC FSCB, combined forest stand delineation and preliminary forest conservation plan.

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

For the youth center property located off Scotty's bus lane, and the Boys and Girls Club in South End Park property.

The existing vacant office building is proposed to be repurposed into a youth center, and the existing boys and girls club is to remain, but site improvements are proposed for that property.

That includes one of the improvements is a 623-foot square foot addition to the youth center building.

The applicant is also requesting six modifications.

One is to force conservation, two for parking and loading standards, one for street tree planting density, and two for landscaping standards.

For the forest conservation, the planting requirement is 0.46 acres.

And the applicant is proposing to meet that with.049 acres of street tree credits, 0.09 acres of specimen tree credits, and 0.321 acres of fee and loo, which equates to $4,194.90.

There is the first modification for forest conservation.

And the request is to remove a specimen tree due to the impact to the critical root zone or CRZ that will occur on the boys and girls club site due to parking improvements.

The applicant, however, is proposing to retain the tree and protect it during construction.

So the modification is just needed in case the tree does not survive and needs to be removed in the future.

So they don't have to come back and get that modification.

Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that they provided as parking in better vehicular circulation are needed on the site.

However, reducing the impact to below 30 percent would prevent such improvements, thus creating a hardship.

Enforcement of the requirement would deprive the applicant of making needed improvements that are commonly required on other properties.

Limit where the improvements can be incorporated.

And it's not the result of a condition relating to land or building use on a neighboring property, and water quality will not be adversely affected as stormwater improvements are proposed for the site.

Lastly, the applicant is intending to retain the tree as the CRM the critical root zone disturbance is 31%, which is only 1% above the 30% threshold.

Thus, there is a reasonable chance that the tree will survive with proper protection measures.

And the project does meet those performance standards as well as the requirements in section 409 for the institutional zone.

For the design standards in section 604, there are four elements that must be incorporated into the design of the building.

For parking, the youth center property requires 37 spaces, and the applicant is proposing 35.

There is no on site parking that's currently at the boys and on the boys and girls club site.

Therefore, the site is considered to be non-conforming, and no additional spaces would be required.

However, the applicant is proposing seven spaces for this site.

For the second modification for the reduction of the spaces from 37 to 35 on the youth center site, the site will be primarily used by families who are dropping off and picking up children and young adults as well, and will utilize the parking for only a few minutes.

So the adequate is adequate parking will be the 35 spaces will still be adequate.

Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that the parking areas will be mainly utilized by parents or guardians, dropping off children for activities at the youth center.

And staff agrees that the request is consistent with comprehensive plan policy, municipal growth policy one, as it is redeveloping and improving existing sites, which is encouraged in the city.

And lastly, there is parking across the street at McCurdy Field, as well as a bus stop nearby that can serve as compens can serve as compensating features.

McCurdy Field is also owned by the city, therefore there is no formal parking agreement that would need to be done.

For modification number three, this is for parking area lighting spillover along the property lines as outlined in the staff report.

There are existing street lights that are part of the lighting plan and account for the majority of the spillover.

Other lighting is needed for safety between the youth center and the boys and girls club, as these two sites are intended to act as one and complement one another.

So there will be pedestrian traffic going back and forth between the two sites, and therefore extra lighting is needed for safety purposes.

The property is in an existing built environment that has existing lighting spillover throughout the area, and again, adequate lighting is needed for the safety of the children and the parents.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan policy land use policy one to encourage redevelopment and community character and urban design policy six, which supports the redevelopment of underutilized parcels and the rehabilitation of blighted and vacant structures, as well as to reinforce the unique character of the existing structures where appropriate.

The proposed lighting in passive recreation areas and areas not used after dark will be minimized as compensating design features.

With regard to landscaping, the plan generally meets the landscaping requirements, but there are three modifications that the applicant is requesting.

One is request to reduce the number of street trees along Scotty's bus lane and Burke Street.

There is a narrowing land, a narrow landscaping strip that may compromise the survivability of the trees as they need a certain amount of room to grow, and with the narrow strip or the strip being so narrow, the trees might not survive.

In addition, there are overhead wires that cannot have plantings underneath of them.

And then along Burke Street, there are specimen trees that could be adversely impacted if the street trees were to be planted.

It meets the intent of the code and that there are limit factors limiting the placement of the street trees, including the narrow landscape strip and overhead wires, and planting trees along Burke Street would compromise the viability of the specimen trees.

And planting trees along Burke Street would compromise the viability of the specimen trees.

It meets comp plan policy environmental sustainability one, which supports the preservation and addition of tree canopies in the city.

And the city's force conservation requirements prioritize the prova preservation and protection of specimen trees.

Request number five is the request to reduce the level one buffer requirements along the property lines.

The two properties again are to act as one entity, and open access is proposed between the two of them.

Safety overhead wires and existing parking also hinder the placement of the buffers.

It meets the intent of the code, which is to buffer against unsightly properties.

However, these two properties complement one another and they will be compatible with the neighborhood and improve existing conditions of the properties as well as the building on the youth center parcel.

They are to function as one facility with the access between the two and the improvement of the existing building for the youth center and additional landscaping that is proposed will serve as compensating design features.

The sixth modification is to reduce the level two buffer requirements that are for parking lot areas.

There will be no trees for the west side of the youth center parking lot, no trees on the north side, and there will be a reduction from seven to six trees on the south side due to existing conditions and wanting to maximize the area available for site amenities.

Staff concurs with the quest, it meets the intent of the code and land use policy LU2 in that it will be compatible with the neighborhood and will improve the existing conditions of the properties and the buildings on the youth center site.

It will provide plantings along the stormwater management facility one to help screen the north side of the eastern parking lot, and existing and proposed trees also help with the screening.

Lastly, the improvement of the existing building for the youth center and additional landscaping that is proposed will serve as compensating design features.

And there's also an additional 920 square feet of lot landscaping that serves as a compensating feature.

So with that, um the first action is approval of a modification to section 607.

Parking and loading standards, table 607-2 parking schedule to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required from 37 to 35.

Staff finds that parking areas will be mainly utilized by parents and guardians, dropping off children for activities at the youth center.

Two, the request is consistent with policy municipal growth.

One, as it is redeveloping and improving existing sites, which is encouraged by the city.

And three, um, the off-site parking at McCurdy Field as well as the street parking in the bus stop can serve as compensating design features.

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

Action two is approval of the modification to section 607 E2D, parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow parking lot light spillover occurring along the property lines as follows.

A is up to 3.9 foot candles along with South Jefferson Street, up to 3.5 foot candles along Scotty's bus lane, up to 1.2 foot candles along Burke Street, up to 1.1 foot candles along the southern property lines, up to 3.9 foot candles along the property line abutting the parking spaces off of South Jefferson Street, up to 2.8 foot candles along the western property line behind the youth center building, and up to 2.1 foot candles along the property line between the youth center and the boys and girls club properties.

Staff finds that the property is in an existing built environment that has existing light spillover throughout the area.

And additionally, adequate lighting is needed for the safety of the children and parents using the facilities.

Two, the lighting is consistent with comprehensive planned land use policy one to encourage redevelopment and community character and urban design policy six, which supports the redevelopment of underutilized parcels and the rehabilitation of blighted and vacant structures, and two reinforce the unique characteristics of the existing structures where appropriate.

And three, the proposed lighting in passive recreation areas and areas not used after dark will be minimized as a compensating design feature.

And with that, staff recommends approval of that modification.

Action number three is approval of modification to section 605F5 to reduce the number of street trees.

Staff finds that there are limit factors limiting the placement of the street trees, including the narrow landscape strip and overhead wires, and planting trees along Burke Street would compromise the viability of the specimen trees that are there.

Two, it supports policy environmental sustainability one, which supports the preservation and addition of tree canopies in the city and the city's force conservation requirements also prioritize the preservation and protection of specimen trees.

For the youth center property, the number of street trees are being provided as property landscaping.

And for the boys and girls club property, the elimination of the required street trees for Berk Street will reduce the critical root zone disturbance of the existing specimen trees.

And those are would serve as compensating design features.

And with that, staff recommends approval.

That modification is requested.

Action number four is approval of a modification of section 605, tables 605-1 and 605-3, landscaping standards, level one buffer requirements to reduce the buffer requirements along the lot lines.

The request meets intent of the code, which states that landscaping standards are intended to screen between incompatible land uses and to enhance the natural environment by reducing the visual effects of unsightly activities.

The existing and proposed activities on both sites serve as comp they're complementary to one another, and there are community amenities that will help create a park-like setting and will allow the two properties to function as one entity.

And that it will be compatible with the neighborhood and will improve existing conditions of the properties as well as the building on the youth center site.

And three, the improvement of the existing building for the youth center and additional landscaping that is proposed, service compensating design features.

And staff recommends approval of that modification.

Action number five is approval of a modification to section 605, tables 605-1 and 605-3 landscaping standards for the level two buffer requirements to reduce landscape buffer requirements a lot along the lot lines for parking areas.

On the request is the intent of the code, that the landscaping standards are intended to screen between incompatible land uses and to enhance the natural environment by reducing visual effects of unsightly activities.

The screening will still be provided for the parking area adjacent to Scotty's bus lane in the stormwater management facility one to screen the parking from the street and the existing parking off of South Jefferson Street or butts the parking area to the north adjacent to the site and they are compatible uses.

So it's consistent with land use policy L2, L U2 that will be compatible with the neighborhood and will improve existing conditions of the properties.

And three, it will provide plantings along the stormwater management facility one to help screen the north side of the eastern parking lot and the existing proposed trees also help with screening.

This along with the improvement of the existing building for the youth center and additional landscaping on the property will serve as compensating design features.

With that, staff recommends approval of that modification.

And the last modification is number six, approval of the oh, I'm sorry.

PC 25-520 for the Frederick Youth Center and South End Park.

Staff finds that the plan complies with articles six four, five, six, seven, and eight of the LMC is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, and the site will be adequately served by public facilities.

Staff recommends approval of the final site plan, PC 25-520 with the following conditions.

Cover seat general notes, note three at the approval date for the FPFO general exemption, and note four at the approval date for the combined forest plan.

And C update the access separation and parking requirements tables to remove the modification references to the for the access separation and the parking for the boys and girls club.

Action seven is approval of the modification request of section 721 force conservation to remove the specimen tree number one due to impact to the critical root zone.

Staff findings are number one, parking and better vehicular circulation are needed on the site.

However, reducing the impact to the critical root zone below 30% would prevent such improvements, thus creating a hardship.

Two, enforcement of the requirement would deprive the applicant of making needed improvements for the site that are commonly required on other properties.

Three, there is no special privilege being granted to the applicant as the existing conditions, such as utilities and other infrastructure on the property limit where the improvements can be made.

Four, the applicant is intending to retain the tree as the 31% critical root zone disturbance is only 1% above the 30% threshold.

Thus, there is a reasonable chance that the tree will survive with proper protection measures, such as protective fencing and signage.

Number five, it's other coast is not the result of a condition relating to land or building use on a neighboring property.

And six, the water quality will not be adversely affected as stormwater improvements are proposed for the site.

And staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

And then action eight is approval of the combined force and delineation, preliminary force conservation plan, PC 25-521, FSCB for the Frederick East Center South End Park.

Staff finds that the plan complies with Section 21 of the LMC.

And staff recommends unconditional approval of the combined force and delineation and for uh preliminary force conservation plan.

That is it, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

We'll start with Commissioner Robey.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh just a general question, if you will.

There was a lot of removal of trees here.

And I don't know what the number is.

I'm not looking not looking for one-to-one, but there is going to be a replacement of some trees.

Maybe the applicant, when he comes up and speaks to us, will talk to us in general terms about the tree removal and the tree replacement on the site.

But it looks like we're getting rid of an awful lot of canopy.

And I don't know how much is being placed back.

So that's my general question.

Would that be better for staff to answer?

I don't know exactly how many are being removed.

Um I know, you know, there, I don't know how many they're actually removing, but they're um, you know, the modifications are for them to not have to put the um you know the buffer trees and the street trees um due to existing conditions.

So I don't know that they're necessarily removing any, but they're um you know, they're asking to not have to place the trees that are required.

That's fine for now.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions for staff.

Uh Commissioner Bo, no.

This might also be a question for the applicant.

Um I think with seven, they're removing that specimen tree.

Was that originally on the on the plan that was presented at workshop?

I can't I can't remember whether that one that removes it was.

Okay.

That's the one that was.

Okay.

Good.

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay.

And I have no questions at this time either.

Um with that, we'll invite the applicant up.

Good evening.

Uh Jeremy Holder with Osherman Family Foundation.

Um, with me this evening, I also have Mary Patton and John Mosellan from Fox and Associates.

Um I first want to thank staff for working through this.

Um, as you've seen, two projects in a row, um, sometimes existing sites create more challenges than brand new ones.

Um, and it takes time to sit down and work through those.

Um, you know, this project is uh it's it's a milestone for the project, just as it is for any project.

But this one's unique in the fact that there's been such community involvement and getting us to the point where we have the site that was granted from the county.

We have the city who's agreed to own, operate, and maintain the facility, and we've had a huge huge amount of uh stakeholder input into how the building is used and what needs to be programmed for the building.

Um the site plan doesn't encapsulate all of those efforts, but it does mean that we can move forward with the final architecture, assuming that we're able to gain approval this evening.

Um, as it relates to the trees.

Mary can probably speak to numbers, um, but we're essentially removing pointer.

We're essentially removing some dated trees along this frontage that that will ultimately screen away the front of the building, um, which is going to be much more aesthetically pleasing and and will be more appealing to the streetscape with those trees removed.

Um, and then there are a few along this frontage in the location where the stormwater.

And again, they're uh, you know, I don't want to say they're unhealthy, um, but they're not pristine trees by any means.

Um the one that's in question um is this tree, which is a very nice tree and actually anchors um that portion of the site.

Um we do believe that we can keep it, but in meeting the requirements of the code, we had to ask to remove it.

Um, but in meeting the requirements of the code, we had to ask to remove it.

Um very simple explanation.

There is an existing driveway that comes up through here and serves.

Um in order to get the geometry to work for the buses that drop off and pick up, we have to adjust that.

We wanted to add parking.

Um this dashed line around the tree is the critical root zone.

We're pretty sure roots aren't growing under the existing asphalt driveway.

Um, but they have to be calculated for purposes of the critical root zone.

So we're we're confident that we're going to impact less than the 30 percent ultimately.

We just can't graphically or statistically show that.

Um then there's always the fact that when we get out there and grade, if the tree was planted and grew in its early years and it was very, very wet, the roots don't have to go deep.

They're on the surface of the ground.

We have to make sure we've got ADA accessibility from the from the right of way.

Um so making sure we accommodate all those things.

We're just trying to make sure we don't have to come back to you, take a tremendous amount of staff's time if we find out that we have to.

Um, but fully intent on trying to keep that tree in place.

Um housekeeping from our workshop.

Umone from the commission, I don't remember who asked us to contact transit and see if they would be willing to consider a bus stop in this location.

Um we did reach out to transit.

We got a response from their director, um, summarizing the existing locations in proximity to the site, and then reinforcing that at this point in time they don't have any intention to reprogram their routes, um, which would put a spot a stop along the Scotty's bus frontage.

Um they did cite one thing that I never really thought a lot about, but they they try to avoid in their bus routing um basically opposing left-hand turns.

Um so they don't want to turn across traffic if they don't have to rearrange their kind of their travel route.

Um, um again, just want to thank staff um for all the work that it's taken to get to this point.

Um Mary's available for questions if you have any relating to the specifics of the modification requests.

Um otherwise we would uh just ask for your approval and thank you for your consideration.

I'm gonna just number the trees.

Okay, number the trees.

So just quickly uh on the tree, uh question of the number of trees.

Um, as Jeremy stated, we are removing four trees along the front edge of Scotty's bus lane.

On the youth center site, we're actually planting back 16 trees in it and as well as shrubs.

And then on the uh boys and girls club site, uh other than that specimen tree, which we intend to keep if at all possible, we're planting four additional trees.

Thank you very much.

Uh we'll go ahead and start with questions.

Uh Commissioner Temple.

Thank you.

Um, we were at workshop uh we talked briefly about how the sidewalk along Scotty's bus is four feet.

Did you at all evaluate making that five feet to be an incline to the city standard?

We have confirmed that we are going to remove and replace the sidewalk.

Um I'll make the commitment to you this evening as long as the engineering team doesn't tell me I botch ADA grades somehow and make it impossible to address.

I think we can accommodate the five foot.

All right, thank you.

Um Commissioner Bueno, any questions?

Nope, no questions.

Glad you're gonna try to keep that tree if totally possible, because I think that is a that is a nice tree on the site there.

But yeah, whatever you guys got to do, because you don't want to become a safety hazard later.

But yeah.

Um good, no questions.

Great.

Uh Commissioner Rabi.

You mentioned excuse me, you mentioned uh you're willing to accommodate or we're gonna try to accommodate a five-foot sidewalk.

Is can staff respond?

Is that adequate for what staff believes we need in that area?

I don't know myself, so I'm asking.

That's our typical sidewalk with requirements, so I have.

Thank you.

And I have no other questions at this time either.

Um did you have another question?

Okay.

So do we have uh let's say any public comment?

I don't think we did.

No.

Okay.

Any discussion here?

No.

Okay.

Well, let's go ahead and get started.

I'm looking for a motion on action one.

I have moved for the approval of a modification of section 607, the parking and loading standards, table 607-2 parking schedule to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use center from 37 to 35 based on staff findings 1 through 3 as read into record.

Seconded.

Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner Buono for approval.

Seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action one with a vote of 420.

Next, I'm looking for a motion on action two.

Yeah, I request approval of the modification in Section 607 E2D, parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow for parking lot light spillover according along the property lines as follows.

Up to 3.9 foot candles along South Jefferson Street, up to 3.5 foot candles along Scotty's bus lane, up to 1.2 foot candles along Burke Street, up to 1.1 foot candles along the southern property line, up to 3.9 foot candles along the property line abutting the parking spaces off South Jefferson Street, up to 2.8 foot candles along the Western property line behind the Youth Center building, and up to 2.1 foot candles along the property line between the youth center and the boys and girls club properties per findings 1 through 30 as read into the record by staff.

Aye second.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That is approval of action two with a vote of four two zero.

I'm looking for a motion for action three.

I move for the approval of modification is section six oh five Five to reduce the number of street trees per staff findings one through three as read into record.

Seconded.

That is a motion by Commissioner Buono for approval, seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action three with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for action four.

I request a I make a motion for approval of modification of section six oh five, table six oh five-one and six oh five three, landscaping standards, level one buffer requirements to reduce the buffer requirements along the lot lines per findings one through three as introduced into the record by staff.

And I second that.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval of action number four with a vote of four to zero.

I'm looking for a motion for action five.

I move for the approval of a modification of section 605 tables 6051 and 6053, landscaping standards, level two buffer requirements to reduce landscape buffer requirements along the lot lines for parking areas, as per staff findings one through three as has been read into record.

Seconded.

That's a motion by Commissioner Buono for approval, seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action number five with vote of four to zero.

I'm looking for a motion for action number six.

A motion for the approval of the final site plan, PC 25-520, FSI for Frederick Youth Center's South End Park.

With the following conditions, the cover sheet general notes are updated.

Note three to add the approval date for the APFO general exemption.

Note four, adding the approval date for the combined forest plan and updating the act's separation and parking requirement tables to remove the modification references for access separation and parking for the boys and girls club per the findings as introduced into the record by staff.

And I second.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action number six with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for action number seven.

I motion for the approval of the modification request of section 721 forest conservation to remove a specimen tree number one due to impact to the critical root zone as per staff findings one through six haven't been read into record.

Seconded.

That's a motion by Commissioner Buono for approval.

Seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action number seven with a vote of four to zero.

And finally, I'm looking for a m a motion on action number eight.

Motion for the approval of the combined forest stand delineation, preliminary forest conservation plan, PC 25-521, FSCB for the Frederick Youth Center, South End Park.

Per the findings introduced into the record by staff.

And I second that.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval.

Seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action number eight with a vote of four to zero.

Thank you.

You guys want to power on through.

Okay.

All right.

Next, we have our very final project of the evening, WIP Clean Car Wash, PC 25 481 FSI final site plan, along with PC 25 483 FSCB combined forest and delineation and preliminary forest conservation plan.

I'll hand that over to staff.

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

The applicant is requesting approval of the site plan and combined forest plan for the renovation in addition to the existing car wash for the car wash with vacuum new vacuum stations.

The applicant is also requesting modifications.

There are four of them to sections of the land management code, including minimum off-street parking spaces, parking and loading standards for parking area lighting, landscaping standards, and street tree planting density.

The new car wash will be 5,095 square feet, and we'll have 22 parking spaces with vacuum stations.

The plan meets the bulk and density requirements for the general commercial district.

It meets the parking requirements with 24 spaces to be provided.

I hope that's correct.

Let me double check that.

24.

So it meets the requirements with those spaces, and then one large 12 by 50 loading space is required.

However, the applicant is proposing one small 9x20 space in the car wash escape lane as there is not enough space to provide a large one.

So that's the first modification request.

Staff supports the modification.

It's not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, and then a loading space will be adequately will adequately serve the use.

Policy community character and urban design policy six, which promotes the redevelopment of underutilized part parcels as well as the rehabilitation of blighted and vacant structures.

The placement of the loading space in a minimally used area in conjunction with the effort to restrict deliveries are acceptable compensation, compensating design and operating features.

Number two is the lighting modification.

It's to allow light spillover along the property lines.

The request is being made for increased safety on the site.

Staff supports the request.

It's not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, which is to reduce glare and errant lighting on neighboring properties, as the area is a well-developed commercial area with a parking lot on one side of the lot and a tire repair center on the other side.

Screening trees and downward lighting are going to serve as compensating features for this.

For landscaping, the requirements have been met except for the level one buffer that's required along property lines that abut other general commercial zoned properties.

So the third modification is to reduce the width from six feet to three feet on the west side of the property and four feet on the east side as there is insufficient room to provide a six-foot buffer.

Staff supports the request as it's not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code.

As the required landscaping is still being provided, albeit in a smaller landscaping strip.

And compensating features include the increase in the number of plannings and shrubs.

The fourth modification is to allow existing landscaping within the 20-foot landscape easement that's along Maryland Route 26.

Um have that landscaping to count towards street tree requirements due to existing utilities and easements.

Staff supports this request as it meets the intent of the code and that plantings cannot be planted within utility easements.

Um the utilities and easements are part of the existing environment, so redevelopment of the property needs to be mindful of those utilities and easements, and the existing 20-foot landscape easing easement with those planting serves as a compensating feature.

Um with that, um the action one is the approval of the modification to section 607, parking and loading standards, table 607-4, minimum off-street loading spaces to provide one small loading state space instead of a large loading space.

Staff finds that it is not contrary to the purpose and intent in the code, and that a loading space is still being provided.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan, um, community character and urban design policy six, as well as um land use policy one, and the compensating design features having the loading space in the escape lane, which will seldom be utilized and will not interfere not interfere with operations.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of that modification.

Action two is the approval of the modification of section 607 E2D, parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow light spillover along all property lines of up to 3.5 foot candles along the front, 0.6 foot candles along the rear, and up to 5.4 foot candles along the sides.

As the um the pro the area is already well developed with compatible uses on either side.

Um the request is consistent with the comprehensive land use policy one, which is to encourage development and redevelopment to be compatible with the character of the existing plan development and community character and urban design policy six, which supports the redevelopment of underutilized parcels.

And screening trees and downward lighting would serve as compensating design features.

And therefore, staff recommends approval of the modification.

Action three is approval of the modification to section 605, table 605-1 and 605-3.

Landscaping standards to reduce the buffer width from six feet to three feet on the west side and from six feet to four feet on the east side.

Staff finds that the uh request is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code as the required landscaping is still being provided.

It's consistent with the comp plan land use policy two, and that it will be compatible with the uh neighborhood and existing development and will improve existing conditions of the site and compensating design features include the increase in the number of plantings and shrubs.

And staff uh recommends approval of that modification as requested.

Um action number four is approval of a modification to section 605 F5, street tree planning density to allow the existing landscaping within the 20-foot landscape easement to count towards street tree requirements.

Um request meets the intent of the code and that the plantings cannot be planted within utility easements, um and the utilities and easements are part of the existing environment.

Um, so the redevelopment of the property needs to be mindful of those um utilities and easements, and there is existing landscaping within that easement.

Um it's consistent with the comp plan land use policy one, um, which encourages development and redevelopment to be compatible with the character of existing and plan development.

And three, the existing 20-foot landscape easement with planting serves as a compensating feature.

Um with that, staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

Action five is approval of the final site plan, PC 25-481 FSI for whip clean car wash.

Staff finds that the site plan complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 456, 7, and 8 of the LMC.

It's consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, and the site will be adequately served by public facilities.

Um therefore staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Correct the rear setback in note 11 on the cover sheet, and two, add the approval dates for the APFO exemptions and the modifications in notes 24 through 26 and 28 through 33 respectively.

And action number six is the approval of the combined forest and delineation and preliminary force conservation plan, PC 25-483 FSCB for whip clean car wash.

Um staff finds that the plan complies with section 721 of the LMC, and staff recommends unconditional approval of the combined forest and delineation and preliminary forest conservation plan.

And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh we will start with Commissioner Temple.

No questions for staff.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Buono.

No questions either.

And Commissioner Robey.

Thank you.

Uh does staff look at the noise impact of this type of operation.

You're expanding that there want to put vacuum systems in.

So I'm just curious as to what the noise situation might be.

Um that's not something that we would look at.

Even if it were in the highway noise overlay, because it's a non-residential property, we don't take that into consideration.

Thank you.

I guess that answers that question.

Okay.

And I have no questions.

So with that, we'll ask the applicant to come up.

Good evening.

My name is Brett Schechter.

And essentially our intention here is to modernize the facility.

Again, adhering to a more modern uh type of wash.

At the same time, we also have a um loyal customer base currently that uh takes advantage of a full service offering.

And so we intend to commandeer six of those vacuum spots to continue offering full service to our customers.

Go ahead and start with questions with Commissioner Buamnow.

Sure.

I had one question.

I think that when we looked at this the first time, we had a question that came up about parking for any um staff or workers you guys might have, because I don't we didn't see that dedicated here.

Uh was that ever addressed or figured out exactly how that works?

Are they just going to park in like an adjacent area?

We were just curious on that because it's not specifically listed here.

Yeah.

Um if need be, we will uh park in those spots where vacuums uh remain.

Uh they'll just be dual purpose.

Okay.

Okay.

And Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Temple?

Yeah, what do you mean by if need be?

I mean, there's going to be employees.

Um there's there's no other land that you control.

So are you looking to get a uh you know, sign an agreement with one of the neighboring owners?

Are you expecting your staff to just you know street park?

Um, you know, d there's or are you not expecting them to your employees to drive?

Um well some of our employees do carpool.

Um we do also have an agreement with the skating rink.

Um they permit us to park um on the spots that are closest to our lot.

Um that's something that's been in place for a long time, so we're appreciative of that.

Um but there again, uh if we do have employees, additional employees, whatever the need be.

Um we wanted to fill the site with those vacuums.

Um, but again, if employees need to park and fill those spots, it's just something that we have to do.

Yeah, thank thank you.

I wasn't I wasn't aware that there was an existing agreement with uh with the skate rank.

So thank you for that context.

Sure.

Uh no further questions from me.

And I have no questions.

Um do we have I don't think we have any public comment that I'll ask.

No.

Okay.

So with that, uh we'll bring it up here.

Do we have I'm sorry, I just wanted to comment with um we see this with all the car washes that have come through in the city, where um the vacuum stations, the vacuum station spaces also serve as employee spaces.

So um they're keeping in line with what we typically see for these sites.

Yeah, I I just say thank you on that.

I would love I don't know what well, I guess you'd have to go out and survey to see if that's actually how they're being used, or are is this just a place where the streets are taking the load or adjacent uh you know property owners and parking lots are taking the load where they don't have agreements.

I'm not I'm not looking I understand you have an agreement and that's great, but I think for us to understand from the city is you know long-term, how how does that how do we want to handle this?

Um but but no issues with it here because there's an agreement in place.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

One, please.

Uh you were talking about modernizing the operations of the equipment.

Um I'm assuming you can tell me.

Uh are you talking about energy efficiency?

Are you talking about less environmentally intrusive chemicals being used, that kind of thing?

Um as far as modernizing for the most part, it's all new equipment.

Um the tunnel that was built there has equipment that's dated.

And it's just not up to par with what we like to provide as a state-of-the-art experience for the consumer and for the consumer's car.

So as far as SOAPs that are being used, there aren't too many changes in SOAPs.

The EPA went through a lot of the chemicals used for car washing cleaning about 10 years ago.

And most of the um uh acids are removed and unavailable.

And um most of the uh or all the chemicals are very environmentally friendly.

Um so the modernization really comes from the entryway with pay gates and license plate recognition, um, the extension of the tunnel to allow for new equipment.

Um again, a complete new tunnel package.

Um then the removal of the self-serve uh uh cleaning bays, uh and replacing them with the self-serve vacuum bays.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Anyone else?

Yeah.

All right.

Uh with that, I am looking for a motion on action one.

I move for the approval of a modification to section 607 parking and loading standards, table 607-4, minimum off-street loading spaces to provide one small loading space instead of a large loading space uh per staff findings one through three having been read into record.

Seconded.

Okay, that is a motion by Commissioner Buono for approval, seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action one with a vote of four to zero.

I'm next looking for a motion on action two.

I move for the approval of the modification is section six oh seven E2D, parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow spillover along all property boundaries of up to 3.5 foot candles along the front, 0.6 foot candles along the rear, and up to 5.4 foot candles along the side.

Um per the findings that were read into the record by staff.

I second that.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's approval of action two with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for action number three.

I move for the approval of a modification of section 605, tables 6051 and 6053, uh landscaping standards to reduce the buffer width from six feet to three feet on the west side and from six feet to four feet on the east side per staff findings one through three having been read into record.

Seconded.

That's a motion by Commissioner Bueno for approval, seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's approval of action two with a vote of four to zero.

I'm sorry, action number three.

Next, I am looking for a motion on action number four.

Yeah.

I move to approve the modification of section 605 F5, street planning density to allow existing landscaping within the 20-foot landscape easement to count towards street tree requirements per findings one through three as introduced into the record by staff.

I second that.

That's a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Bono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's approval of action number four with a vote of four to zero.

Next, I'm looking for a motion on action number five.

I move for the approval of the final site plan, PC 254-481 FSI for the whip clean car wash.

Um staff finding the site plan or uh.

Yes, uh for the site plan, or sorry.

But the staff find the site plan complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 45678 of land management code and is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, and the site will be adequately served by public facilities with the recommendations that the uh uh final site plan has the following conditions.

Um, correct the rear setback in Note 11 on the cover sheet, and two, add the approval dates for the APFO exemptions and modification in notes 24-26 and 28-23, respectively.

Seconded.

That's a motion by Commissioner Buono for approval, seconded by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval of action number five with a vote of four to zero.

And lastly, I am looking for a motion on action number six.

Yeah, I motion for the approval of the combined for stand delineation preliminary force conservation plan, PC 25-43 FSCB for the whip clean car wash, uh, based on the findings that this plan complies with section 721 of the LMC.

And I second that.

That is a motion by Commissioner Temple for approval, seconded by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's approval of action number six with a vote of four to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

And with that meeting adjourned.