Okay, it is 6 p.m.

and we're gonna go ahead and get started.

We have a pretty large agenda this evening.

So welcome to the March 9th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing of the City of Fredericks Planning Commission.

Before we begin tonight's proceeding, I'd like to give a little background of the Planning Commission and the procedures that we will follow this evening.

Members of the Planning Commission are all residents of the city and are volunteers appointed by the mayor and board of aldermen, now known as City Council.

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

Its powers and duties are assigned by the Charter of the City of Frederick and described in Section 202 of the Land Management Code.

All of tonight's cases have been appropriately advertised pursuant to Section 301 of the Land Management Code, and cases tonight will be presented to the Planning Commission in the following format.

Introduction of the case, presentation of the case, and initial recommendation 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 all 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.

All speakers must begin their comments by providing their name and general address for the record.

Members of the public will have three minutes to give comments, and anyone representing a group will have 10 minutes to give comments.

The timer clock will show you your remaining time.

At this time, everyone planning to give testimony tonight, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in.

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.

All right.

Thank you.

Good evening.

On our regular announcements, we will have the Planning Commission workshop at 2 p.m.

on Monday, March the 16th at 2 p.m.

in this room.

Later that evening, we will have the citywide community outreach meeting at 6 p.m.

Also in this room.

The materials for both of those will be posted online and streamed.

We have a couple of additional announcements this evening.

The planning department will be presenting an introduction to the East Street Corridor form-based code at this coming Thursday, March 12th City Council work session, which is held at City Hall and begins at 6 p.m.

It's also streamed on the public meetings page.

The purpose is to provide a basic overview of what the FBC that's form-based code consists of and the steps that we have taken thus far in the process.

And finally, on our last announcement, we'd like to congratulate Commissioner John Temple for his appointment and present him with a certificate.

That is all.

Thank you.

Okay, next on the agenda we have approval of minutes.

So I'll be looking for a motion for the approval of the February 9th Planning Commission minutes.

I move for the approval of the February 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Seconded.

Okay.

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

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

So that is an approval of the February 9th, 2026 Planning Commission minutes.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for approval of the February 17th, 2026 Planning Commission workshop minutes.

Motion to approve the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission workshop minutes.

Second.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

That's approval of the February 17th, 2026 Planning Commission workshop minutes.

And finally, I'm looking for a motion for approval of the March 6, 2026 Pre-Planning Commission meeting minutes.

I move for the approval of the March 6, 2026 Pre Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Seconded.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval of the March 6, 2026 pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

Next, any public hearing consent items.

I don't think we have any.

We do have our next item is a continuance, Section 404, Table 404-1, use matrix, Section 816, convenience stores with gas sales, and Section 824 gas stations and gas sales, PC 25-248, ZTA zoning text amendment.

The applicant is requesting a continuance to the April 13th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

This is asking for a continuance simply to allow staff more time to analyze the proposal and to provide to you an adequate report.

Okay.

Do we need a motion to approve the continuance?

Okay.

So I'll be looking for a motion for the continuance till April 13th, 2026.

I motion to approve the continuance of the Section 404, Table 404-1 use matrix, Section 816, convenience stores with gas sales and section 824, gas stations and gas sales, PC 25-248 Z TA until the April 13th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

And I second it.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Continuance has been granted till April 13th, 2026.

So next we have some miscellaneous items.

The first of which is approval of the 2026 through 2027.

Thank you very much.

Just to recap, at January's hearing, the Planning Commission approved the first three months of the 2026-2027 calendars, which cover both the standard track and the extended track schedules.

The approval was with the requirement that additional time be built into the timeframe so that the planning commission packets could be published online earlier, both for the planning commission and the public.

Since January, we've discussed the request with the mayor and reevaluated our internal work program and concluded that within the schedule proposed that you have in front of me this evening, there is adequate time to post the agendas and staff reports for the hearing the Friday before the Monday before the Monday.

So from two Fridays in advance of the Planning Commission hearing, which gives the public and uh the and applicants and the commission all two full weekends, which is when we recognize that a lot of folks have to relegate time to to reviewing the materials before that hearing is uh actually held.

So with that, we request your final approval for the calendars as drafted and prepared for you this evening.

So I'll be seeking a motion for that approval.

I move for the approval of the 2026-207 uh PC schedule second.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

That's approval of the 2026 to 2027 PC schedule.

Uh next we have fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2032 capital improvements program.

So this is the Commission's app annual opportunity to make recommendations to the mayor for items to be included in the capital improvements program for the next five years.

The CIP is adopted by the council as part of the budget proceedings annually, and while it covers a five-year period, it uh funds are only allocated uh for one year, uh, the first year of that that CIP.

Uh we discussed this item at last month's workshop and covered the documentation provided in your packet, which includes the planning commission's recommendation letter from last year, uh the use the project matrix we presented last year, as well as the sustainability committee's recommendation.

Since our workshop, we have obtained the final signed version of the AMAC or the Active Mobility Advisory Committee's recommendation letter for your consideration as well.

For this year, we've updated the projects in the matrix with their current status, focusing uh in the matrix in the summer you have in front of you on projects that have specific relevance to the work the commission does in terms of development and growth within the city.

As we talked at the workshop and the pre-planning commission meeting, if there are items that are not specific to an individual CIP that the planning commission wants to include in their recommendation that tie into maybe future CIP projects.

With that said, then we are requesting your recommendation to the mayor for projects that the commission would like to see included or prioritized as part of the upcoming CIP.

We've discussed all of the projects.

I'm happy to speak to any specific ones.

And Zach Kirshner, our chief operating officer is also here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

So this is basically for a discussion amongst the commissioners.

So I'll go ahead and kind of do this like a roll call to get things started.

Starting with Commissioner Temple.

Any thoughts or ideas on prioritization?

I think that the AMAC ha has a very great letter.

Where AMAC is actively voted that they recommend those deferrals if it means missing out on things that help the functionality better.

I think you know E Street, as we talked uh last meeting, uh kind of straddles that line where having sidewalks is it would result in beautification.

Um so that's one where we could probably still prioritize it, but but downtown streetscape, unless it's a you know significant change.

That's something where I don't see as much value of of really improving the functionality for our citizens.

Um I'll leave it at that for now.

Commissioner Buono, any thoughts there?

Yeah, I also um want to echo that.

I don't have too many changes or adjustments.

I mean, I do think that usually when you're trying to plan something and make big changes, it's nice to get a couple of easy wins early, you know.

So I do like that they've kind of staged it in a way that we can get some improvements, you know, basic things such as you know, marking for for uh bikes and stuff like that, and whether or not that actually gets utilized fully, at least it leads to future development and builds out kind of the soft infrastructure that can get then get built out later.

So I would I need to do a little bit more reading just because I made a mental list of this, but I think that we can try to prioritize some of those as immediate ones.

It can kind of be a good easy step of things to do.

And then some of these other involve planning and those can be done in the background as they're kind of separate team efforts to be done.

So um, but I I like the list that they have here.

Uh no no real suggested changes.

Okay.

And Commissioner Robey.

Thank you.

Uh in general, in terms of the prioritization list, I don't have any issues with it.

What I would like to see uh would like to see sharpened, if you will, is more specificity on the schedule for executing these projects and a little more specificity on the estimated budget in terms of when we're planning on providing funded for these obligations going forward.

And just in clarification because of my newness to this body, uh this is going to result in a letter to the mayor from this commission.

And who drafts that letter?

Are you drafting it and we approve it?

Is that what happens, or are we authoring the letter?

Great question.

Thank you.

Uh so we'll ask that someone makes a motion uh either based on the letter from last year or uh amendments to it, changes to it, new items if we want to work off of that format.

So uh we'll we'll need a motion articulated, a vote on it, and then uh I will draft the letter, circulate it to the chair, allow for her review if she feels comfortable uh with the language of it and it reflects what was discussed here, then she'll um you'll be authorizing her to sign it and we'll send it to the mayor.

Thank you.

And so I had a couple of comments.

I like the prioritization.

Um I'd like that, you know, the fact that we got the AMAC letter.

Um, uh, like Commissioner Temple said, I think having the functionality at this point um is really the priority.

Um sidewalk, sidewalk, sidewalks.

We want to make Frederick walkable.

I think uh this is a way to go ahead and get started with doing those things.

Again, this is um, although we're looking at a um a five-year plan, this is really only for one year.

So we do this each year, and I think that's important to keep um in the back of our minds here.

Um thing we we had last year was the study of the smart traffic systems.

I know that is not specific to any one CIP, but I think broadly that could be something we want to consider going forward.

Um that is all I had.

If we want to, if it's there's anyone who would like to have more discussion, otherwise I would be ready to take a motion.

I can do it.

We probably want to also offer an opportunity for public comment when the commission is um wrapped up.

It's got it.

Okay.

All right.

So if we're wrapped up, is there any public comment on the list?

I don't know what that is either.

Oh boy.

Uh I know.

She's not on this list.

Yeah.

So do we have any public comment for this case?

I'm I'm not able to read one of the names here, but it looks like it's not for this case.

So you're welcome to come up.

You'll see what you can find out.

Okay.

Good evening.

My name is Heather Goddard and I represent East Frederick Rising.

Uh first want to thank the Commission for placing a priority on the East Street improvements.

Um as you note in your letter, um the design work for the um East Street is expected to commence after the adoption of the form-based code for the E Street corridor.

Um since that process uh is quite some ways from being um complete, uh we would ask that the commission examine an item from that was found in the letter.

Um active mobility advisory committee.

Um they do mention their second item of the E Street redesign.

Um the current request is to improve E Street $750,000.

It is important, but the most critical safety benefit of the CIP can be realized through painting walking zones akin to Maxwell Alley, where there are no sidewalks today.

Staff indicated that such paths could cost as little as $60,000.

Improved lighting, curb work, and other improvements in the CIP would significantly improve the corridor, but in a constrained budget, we believe that walking paths would still present a significant safety and accessibility improvement to the current situation.

So we just wonder if uh the commission could consider that as part of their uh priority, especially if um function over beautification is a goal.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any additional public comment?

No.

Okay, I'll take it back up here.

Um do another roll call starting with Commissioner Buono.

Any questions or comments?

No, no questions or comments.

Commissioner Robey?

No comments.

And Commissioner Temple.

Zach, can I put you on the spot here?

Um the thinking about the painted side sidewalks on East Street that were just mentioned and are in that AMAC letter on an arterial like East Street.

Is that a feasible and safe solution to the problem?

Yeah, we we would really need to take a look at that design and see whether or not that can be incorporated in a safe manner.

Obviously, uh the pedestrian zones that we've painted in the downtown alleys, much lower uh speeds, much less traffic.

Um certainly we're happy to evaluate it.

It's it just may or may not be feasible, but we really haven't gotten to that point yet.

We recognize the need for the funding at least if we do want to explore that.

Thank you.

One other thing I think I'm thinking about as I read last year's and think about it is um rails with trails is in many phases and many different layers of development.

I think us uh there's an inertia of completing projects and something as significant as this, maybe moving that up in our priorities to advocate for the city doing everything it can to complete that you know all the way through as expediently as possible.

Um so we have the statement trail that that runs, you know, that's been in talks for however many years is something to think about.

All right.

Any comments from the other commissioners?

Yes, along the lines of Mr.

Seth uh Temple.

Um concern is that we have a lot of different reports on shells that pertain to the E Street corridor over the last decade or so.

It would be nice if we could see a summary schematic of what the lane pattern is projected to be for E Street and where you're going to have parking along E Street.

As Ms.

Otter talked about where the pedestrian trails might intersect and how that's going to interface with each other.

Uh and how I I'm a big fan of treescape.

I think that the north end of E Street is a tree desert.

And so I would like to see where the city is planning on investing in tree canopy along the E Street Corridor and adjacent areas such as in front of the uh shopping center that's at the north end of the quarter.

But that's what I'm I don't really have, I don't have a clear picture in my mind, at least from Fourth Street up to uh North Market Street, what the lane structure is going to be for E Street.

And I've just like to, and you guys have had a couple of visual visualization projects for that that aren't consistent necessarily with each other.

So I and I'm not pro I don't have a preference for one over the other necessarily.

I just want to see where the city's leaning right now.

But that's that's it.

Thank you.

I don't have any additional comments.

Um like to make a motion to move forward with an approval with prioritization of rails with trails being more towards the top of the list and evaluating the painted uh walking zones if they're safe.

Where do we read from I guess I'll swing at this.

I would like to make a motion for a planning commission recommendation letter that prioritizes the completion of E Street rails with trails through the existing CIP projects that evaluates either through that evaluates uh striped sidewalks along E Street in that in the E Street sit CIP that maintains the other prioritizations from the 2026 letter and de-emphasizes the downtown streetscape plan effort in the letter.

I will second that very well structured.

Thank you.

That is a motion by Commissioner De Temple and a second by Commissioner Robey.

All in favor.

Aye.

Recommendation for the approval of a letter granted.

Right.

Next we have Frederick Commerce Center lot one, PC 22-1016 FSI final site plan.

Thank you very much.

This is a request by the applicant of the final site plan for Frederick Commerce Center Lot 1 that was approved in 2023 for a two-year extension of the approval.

The final site plan is for the million square foot warehouse and logistics facility on the north side of Gas House Pike that was approved on March 13th of 2023.

Final site plans are valid for three years from the date of the Planning Commission's approval and will expire after that three-year period if a building permit has not been issued.

The code does not specifically outline criteria or conditions that be must be met uh in order to uh grant uh extension.

Uh but from a policy perspective, the intent of expiration dates is to ensure timely construction of approved projects and that projects are reviewed in accordance with the latest regulations.

In other words, it's expected that over time development regulations are going to change to better adhere to new guiding principles.

And we want development to adhere to those as they come online.

For example, if we adopted regulations for landscaping in 1980, I can assure you that our landscaping regulations under the LMC are much more robust at this time.

If you didn't have expiration dates, the the end product would be we would have projects that could be to potentially constructing under um standards that have been improved over time, and then we don't want to miss that opportunity.

At the same time, that policy intention is being balanced with the time that it's necessary to build the project.

After the planning commission's approval, there is a lot that the public and the commission doesn't see on that it takes to get to a building permit.

There are improvement plans, grading and sediment erosion control permits and and other permits from outside entities, sometimes like the Maryland Department of Environment or FEMA approvals that need to be put in place.

And that's all before the building permit can be issued.

So there's a lot of work that has to get done.

So you want a time frame of validity that allows for that to happen in a reasonable pace, but once again encourages the development to happen in a timely manner.

The applicant's request letter states that the basis for their request is pending legislation that may create additional opportunities for the their site and the intent to ensure that this plan doesn't expire while those that that conversation is happening.

In the absence of any expressed um logistical impediments to the approval, uh a two-year extension is inconsistent with previous extensions that the planning commission has granted, and staff is therefore recommending a one-year extension.

I feel this time frame will allow the applicant to evaluate the progress of any pending legislation, and if appropriate, pick back up with the administrative approval processes to get this project to building permit.

The applicant also has the opportunity to seek another extension.

So if we find we are in January, February of next year and they still need time to follow through with any of those final processes, uh, they can come back and ask for another extension by the planning commission.

With that said, uh you only have one action, and that is approval of the two-year extension.

Uh we are our findings are that the administrative uh their administrative steps in the development process that have not been completed at this time.

However, the applicant has continued to execute aspects of the approved preliminary plat for which the lot is part of and therefore is continuing to make progress on the overall development warning in extension, however, we are recommending that for one year.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Uh we'll go ahead and get started uh with some questions.

Commissioner Temple.

A change in use requires a change uh a new site plan, even if anything, even if all the engineering stays the same, a change in use requires a new site plan, correct?

So a new development project would be looked at exactly as such if there were in new, if there's legislation passed that creates new opportunities, or they decide that uh this is better off as a uh manufacturing building that would require new site plan approval.

And we would evaluate that against APFO certificates uh that were previously approved to make sure that that proposal is then in line with um the previous approvals.

I'm gonna stew on this and then ask you to follow up, Gabrielle.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Buena.

No, I don't have any questions.

Commissioner Rowy.

I need an education.

Uh on the surface with regard to this project, I don't have any issues on the project per se or the extension.

I appreciate your one-year extension compromise.

Uh, what I would like to have the planning department be thinking about is this type of land use in Frederick County in terms of warehousing and diesel traffic.

Uh, I see a an upsurge in the population of warehousing type projects and development.

And I want us to think hard as a community as to how much of that we want to invite in or welcome into our community before it starts changing the character of the community.

And I don't have an answer for you, but I'm I would like you all to be thinking about that and come back to us at some point with how you evaluate whether there's a sufficiency or whether we will take all that they want to come in.

I also realize that this particular project may have a change in use going downstream.

And uh that the city is going to be going through a lot of uh regulatory considerations, ordinance type considerations to the alternative use of this property.

And I don't want any indication that what we are doing now and uh having this extension for another year or two years to in any way indicate that the city is going to approve a change in use to this alternative use that's being considered.

That's it.

And I don't have the one thing I just wanted to comment or or can I guess confirm.

The APFO certificates are still valid until 2029, but that would be specific for the logistics warehouse.

Is that correct?

So the certificates are good um until 2029, and that's based on the overall land area that was covered under the preliminary plat.

So the the preliminary plat that divided the overall land mass was where we conducted APFO testing, and the applicant assumed certain uses as that time because maybe they didn't have site plan development program for each lot.

So they made certain assumptions about the impacts of proposed development.

When we get a site plan that comes in after a permanent preliminary plat where we've done that testing, we look at that site plan and we look at any other approvals and we ask ourselves is this consistent, are the impacts consistent with the impacts that were assumed at the time of preliminary plat.

So a new site plan that would come in for a different development program, we would pull it pull out that original approval, look at the assumptions about traffic water sewer, if it were a residential project school capacity, and we would once again evaluate to make sure that that project isn't increasing in density or intensity over the original assumptions.

If it is, then additional testing would be warranted.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Um additional questions?

I know, Commissioner Temple, you said you may have some questions.

I think this is actually a Scott question, maybe not.

Um could we extend based on the passing of the ZTA or failing of the ZTA?

So instead of just providing these one-year extension, one year extension, the applicant has indicated that the reason they're looking for an extension is because the pending ZTA that they're that's working the process right now.

So could a you you can would it be acceptable to condition an extension on, you know, the extension is good for three months after a planning commit or city council vote on the text amendment that they've presented.

I mean, sure, we could do something like that.

I don't like that idea.

And the reason for that is the goal is for the public to have notice of something, and now everybody's got to keep track of when their extension is because we don't know when that text amendment is going to come through.

I think that you're better off making a specific timeline and then we follow that.

I I don't I don't hate your idea, but I think it's for record keeping and for following along and for anybody that's tracking this, I think it would be better to have a specific timeline in place.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

So we have no other questions.

One more one more question, Commissioner Ruby.

Uh if I understood Ms.

Collard uh statement.

If when they come back in after the one-year extension and start talking about a different project with different resource requirements, the AFPO that might have been approved for the 2023, uh, that will be reconsidered.

They won't be grandfathered in on that AFPO that they're that if there are significant modifications in the request for different aspects of the APO that they don't get grandfathered in.

So if the I'm sorry, I don't know if I got all of it.

If the project is to expire.

I'll restate.

The pro the warehousing project will have one cents or set of demand for we'll say utilities, whether it's water or electricity, and just use those two for right now.

If they come in and change the use of that facility and it requires a much greater use of your resources, they won't be grandfathered in on the old AFPO.

They will have to go through another AFPO review, I hope.

Correct.

So once again, we're we're looking back to the original assumptions of that overall preliminary plat.

Uh you you could steal capacity from another lot, but that probably isn't uh that may not be feasible and probably not a good idea.

Overall, if there were an undeveloped lot in a project, um, if you had a a preliminary plat for 10 non-residential lots, and you made certain assumptions about the impacts, those assumptions aren't tied to individual lots, but it becomes sort of a record-keeping exercise of each site plan that comes on how much capacity it's it's eating up until ultimately you land yourself in a position where you've used up all of the capacity.

Um at some point, the overall land area covered under the preliminary plat, if they trip those thresholds will require new testing.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, I'll ask the applicant to come up.

Good evening, members of the planning commission, Lisa Lawler Gradator of the law firm of McCurdy Demon Gradator.

On behalf of the applicant, TCC FCC owner one.

With me tonight is Chris Mariga of Harris Morgan Associates and Patrick Myers of the Tramil Crow Company.

You have a long agenda this evening, so we'll be brief.

This is simply a request to extend the existing site plan approval for an approximately one million square foot office and logistics center, a warehouse on lot one and Frederick Commerce Center.

Although we have requested a tier extension, the applicant does not oppose staff's proposal of a one-year extension with the ability to later request an additional extension.

To be clear, this extension really is being requested because of current market dynamics.

My client has not identified a user for this site yet, and building a warehouse on spec is not feasible.

As the extension requested noted, the current market conditions have also caused my client to explore the possibility of constructing a data center on the site.

And while we have filed a zoning text amendment application that would establish data centers as a permitted use in the city and create a regulatory framework for data centers in the city, the granting of this extension would not allow the warehouse approved under this site plan to just be built as a data center instead.

And it does not represent planning commission support for the data center use at this time, either at this site or anywhere else in the city.

The two matters really are separate and distinct.

Both are driven by market forces, as Patrick will describe in greater detail in a moment.

But the only request before you tonight is to extend site plan PC 22-1016 FSI and to grant the applicant additional time to secure a warehouse user.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Patrick Myers of Tramil Crow Company.

Thank you, Lisa.

As Lisa said, my name is Patrick Myers.

I am with the applicant Tramil Crow Company.

And I'm just here to provide a bit of background, as Lisa said into market conditions and what we've done to date since the site plan was originally approved.

So there's a bit of color since the original site plan approval.

We, the applicant, have spent millions of dollars uh for this development of this site for the approved warehouse use.

That includes obtaining a grading permit.

Um however, we have not obtained IP approval as noted or entered into PWAs because we have not identified a user.

Um we have been and intend to continue to market what we call lot one, the subject site tonight for sale or lease as a warehouse slash logistics use.

And that's posted on our website for Frederick Commerce Center.

Uh it's a marketing website if you'd like to take a look.

Um and it clearly outlines that we're we're marketing lot one for warehouse and logistics.

However, um, because we have speculatively constructed uh a 680,000 square foot warehouse right next door to this site, of which 402,000 square feet uh are is still available for lease and sitting vacant and has been for two years.

Trying to build something in the city to right now isn't a working form with little or no benefit actually for the taxpayers.

We don't get a hell of a lot out of a of a warehouse, and we certainly aren't going to get anything out of a data center.

Okay.

And in Predamin, the residents are the residents are the clients here, and always really should be treated as such.

I fully understand and compromise position represented.

I really do, but the planning department.

I just don't agree with it.

But based on the decades-long development, you know, the way the city works, that's actually a very positive move forward and hopefully a harbinger of things that come.

In that regard, if you do vote for supporting the one-year extension, it needs to be made clear this has nothing to do with the data centers.

I hear the lawyer comment on that.

I give you credit for figuring that one out up front, uh, or the success or failure of the data center text amendment.

They are separate absolutely separate and needs to stay separate, even though I don't have a little skeptical in the commentary.

Uh there will be no additional extensions granted.

That that really has to be there if you give them the DD year.

I mean, you know, it just has to stop several.

We'll give you a year, we'll be a sport on all of the D these things.

But you got that time four years to get this ready.

You got a fisher cookbee, you know, sooner or sooner or later.

And and and frankly, uh after the one-year deal.

Based on the current amateurist junior achievement text amendment proposal containing some truly hilarious quasi arguments.

The one about trying to equate the water usage to a car wash is one of my favorites.

Uh there is a chance of this not passing at all, let alone within a year.

So my suggestions to get ready to sell the property or build a warehouse.

Um not ask for anything else.

Just make it clear that the applicant needs to be prepared accordingly.

Thank you, guys.

I appreciate you.

I really do.

Thank you.

Is there any additional public comment?

No.

Would the applicant like to say anything?

No?

Okay.

Um.

So back to the Commission for any questions.

Commissioner Roby.

Less questions than a statement, if we may.

Um I'm keeping it simple sitting up here right now.

Uh I'm not thinking about the alternate use for this property on data centers.

What's before us now is a warehouse development that's asking for a one-year now extension for warehouse purposes.

Uh I has I don't feel it's putting pressure on the city or the residents of the city, the community itself, to resolve what the conditions are going to be for the city to allowing data centers to come into the that's not part of our equation tonight.

So that's how I'm addressing this going forward, just letting you know.

So I like the two-track approach that Ms.

Gradator uh mentioned earlier, and that's how I'm approaching it.

Okay.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Temple.

I agree with everything you just said.

Commissioner Buono.

Yep, same thing.

The way that I see it is that they're asking for an extension for one year.

Or well, I think they're asking for two years, but I think one year is a happy medium that gives them some time to figure it out.

And then um, you know, that can be re-evaluation issue, but also I think there has been three years of development potential, and this is one more year to figure it out.

Great.

One more item, if I may.

Uh in this process, and because it's come up, I I made a conscious decision not to say anything earlier on this subject, but I would love to see the planning department.

They're gonna have to work through a public process, I would imagine, but come up with what needs to happen before we can consider uh the reality of having a data center come into Frederick.

I don't I'm not positioning myself one way or the other, but I'd like to know what has to take place as we consider that option moving forward.

And uh and whether well that let's just leave it there for right now.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um so I don't have any additional comments other than I would like to thank uh the planning department for addressing the APFO questions that we had.

I think that made perfect sense.

And I also think that one year makes sense.

Um and with that, I'll be looking for a motion on action one, uh, which is approval of a one-year extension of the final site plan PC 22-1016 FSI for Frederick Commerce Center, lot one.

I motion for the approval of a one-year extension of the final site plan PC 22-1016 FSI for Frederick Commerce Center lot one, finding that one year is a significant enough time for them to prepare for the next steps and commence the project.

I second that.

Okay.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's four to four to zero approval.

All right.

Next agenda item is Sycamore Springs multifamily architecturals, PC 22-51406 PND.

Good evening.

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

The applicant is requesting approval for the architectural plans for the new multifamily buildings at Sycamore Springs.

Um, the name of the product is the Shamboard.

And they are also requesting approval of a modification to allow square windows with a one-to-one ratio.

Um, as part of the master plan, the building and urban design standards in Section 604 of the land management code apply.

Specifically, this class B standards that are applicable to P and D's planned neighborhood developments.

And the applicant has addressed all of them.

Each of the criteria for the elements is being met as is demonstrated in the staff report, as well as exhibit C of the architectural packet.

There is a landscaping plan that the applicant provided.

That's exhibit E in the architectural packet, but it's not one of the additional additional elements that need to be approved with this.

And the modification is to Section 604 B3H2A, which is to allow windows with a one-to-one ratio and a horizontal ratio of less than one and a half to one.

There are square windows along the sides of the buildings, which are in the owner's bathrooms.

The applicant states is this is to provide natural light while maintaining privacy.

And there are also square windows on the front elevation of the buildings and in the dormers to provide architectural interest.

Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that the windows will provide natural light while also providing more privacy in the bathrooms, and it does increase architectural entrance along the fronts of the buildings.

And additionally, the proposed windows do um are in keeping with the character of the overall design of the buildings.

So with that, um the first action is approval of the modification of Section 604 B3H2A to allow windows with a one-to-one ratio and a horizontal ratio of less than one and a half to one.

Staff finds that the request is in keeping with the character of the overall design of the project and is consistent with the previous architecturals that were approved in other communities.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

And then action two is approval of the architectural elevations for the Ryan Holmes multifamily buildings for Sycamore Springs.

Staff finds the architectural elevations meet the criteria of Section 604 of the land management code and the approved master plan for the planned neighborhood development.

Staff recommends therefore approval of the architectural elevations for the Ryan Holmes multifamily buildings with the following conditions.

There's just one.

On page six of the plans, correct sorry, exhibit B, Note F for windows and entryways to state that the windows meet the one and a half to one ratio, with the exception of the two one-to-one windows per the modification request.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

So we'll go ahead and get started with questions.

Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Temple.

Maybe it's just a suggestion.

In my short time here, I've seen this modification request quite a few times for small windows and dormers.

I know bandwidth is always capacity, but it's probably worth evaluating if there's a change to the code to accommodate this in this use case to prevent the work of staff and developers in the event that that's what we want.

So just something to think about.

Commissioner Bueno.

Yeah, no questions.

I second that same idea.

And I agree.

I think any time we're seeing something where the answer is typically going to be the same each time, we should be considering making some change.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

With that said, uh, we'll invite the applicant up.

And have you been sworn in?

I have not.

Okay.

Anyone else come in a little later that's not been sworn in that would like to speak?

If you would stand up, please.

We'll go ahead and do that now.

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

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Nick Wade with Ryan Holmes.

I'm the applicant for Sycamore Springs.

Thank you, Ms.

Kelly, for your review.

Um Ryan Holmes is very excited for the opportunity to bring affordable housing to Frederick City.

Um we're proposing to build um six 16-unit condo buildings uh in the Sycamore Springs community.

And um as we stated in the application, we're achieving seven um elements with uh the minimum being four.

And as we've demonstrated here, like I said, these are 16-unit surface park uh condominiums.

Um what you're seeing on the screen right now is the front facades, uh which is going to encapsulate a mixture of stone, uh veneer, um shiplap siding, and then shake siding in the gables.

And then we're also um adding the additional four dormers on the front to um just to add an additional architectural feature and break up the roof line.

And as we've discussed with the one over one windows, um this is the side elevation.

We will have stone uh stone water table wrapping the sides of of the buildings, and then the typical five over one windows, except for in the center of the buildings, uh which is the owner's bathrooms, to be that's a one over one window to provide some natural light into the side of the units with only having in condominiums with only having two side, two exterior sides to the home.

With that being said, I want to thank Ms.

Cully for for her review, and I don't have any other comments to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um we'll take it back here, uh starting with Commissioner Temple.

Nick, you said um affordable housing.

Is there um grant money or income restricted?

Or you when you say affordable housing, you mean because of the unit type and the density, it is more affordable.

Correct.

Purely due to the density and the unit type will be able to offer housing here in the low 300, something we have not had in the city since pre-COVID.

All right.

Thank you very much.

No other questions?

All right.

Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

And Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

And I have no questions either.

Thank you.

Uh with that any public comment.

No, no.

Okay.

If we have no other questions, um, I would go ahead.

We can go ahead and take a motion.

I'm looking for a motion for approval of a modification of section 604B 3H2A to allow windows with a one-to-one ratio and a horizontal ratio of less than 1.5 to 1.

I move for the approval of modification of section 604 B 3H2A to allow windows with a one-to-one ratio and a horizontal ratio of less than 1.5 to 1, finding that the request is in keeping with the character of the overall design of the project.

And it's consistent with previous architecturals that are approved in other communities.

Seconded.

Okay.

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

All in favor.

Aye.

That's approval.

Vote of four to zero.

Thank you.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for action two, which is approval of architectural elevations for the Ryan Holmes multifamily buildings for Sycamore Springs.

I motion for the approval of the architecture elevations for the Ryan Holmes multifamily buildings for Sycamore Strings, finding that the elevations meet the criteria of the LMC and the approved master plan.

I second that.

Okay.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Go ahead.

I would like to modify mine to include the condition that corrects exhibit B of page six per the recommendation of staff.

Okay.

So that's already listed there.

And that's acceptable, Gabrielle, to go ahead that way.

Since the condition was already uh listed under this action.

Correct.

Um if it was listed as part of the action in the motion, then we then we no discussion necessary.

Good for clarification.

Great.

So we have sorry.

We have uh motion by Commissioner Temple.

We have a second by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

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

Thank you.

Okay.

Next on our agenda, we have Sycamore Springs multifamily final site plan, PC 25-580 FSI.

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

Um the applicant is requesting approval of a final site plan for 96 multifamily units as part of the Sycamore Springs Plan Neighborhood Development.

And the applicant is also requesting approval of modifications to the um following requirements on the land management code.

Um the first one is to Section 601E, minimum number of access points to allow two access points onto a public street.

In this case, it's for Shenandoah Drive.

The second modification, there are actually two parts to it.

It's Section 605, Table 605-1, landscaping standards to reduce the required or the requirements for the level one and level two landscaping buffers.

And then the last one is to Section 607 E2D for parking area lighting to allow light spillover along Shenandoah Drive.

Um, with that force plan.

Stormwater management plans have also been approved.

The plan meets the dimensional and density requirements outlined in sections 405 as well as section 407.

And parking requirements, property landscaping, and parking area landscaping have also been met with the exception of the two modifications for the buffers that they're asking for.

The project is exempt from the moderately priced dwelling unit requirements because it is it's exempt from APFO testing, and it's exempt from APFO testing because the original master plan for the development was approved prior to April 15th 2007 in accordance with city code.

There was an amendment that was approved for the master plan back in 2022.

However, in evaluating that, staff concluded that there was no increase in density or intensity from what was originally approved, and therefore the exemption is still valid.

For the first modification for the number of minimum number of access points, the applicant provided a justification statement, stating that the access to an adjacent property isn't feasible because there's the estate lot from which this development was created from or cut from, and there's open space and Aforestation areas surrounding the multifamily site to the western side and the southern side.

It's consistent with land use policy one, which is encourages can encourages development and redevelopment to be compatible with the character of existing or planned development.

And it's also consistent with community character and urban design policy two, which supports creative site planning and high quality architecture to establish a built environment that's compatible with and enhances the neighborhood character.

And staff concurs with the applicant's assessment.

The second access off of Shenandoah Drive means the intent of the code, which is to provide a secondary means of access and options for drivers in emergency vehicles.

It is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies mentioned by the applicant.

And the second entrance will serve as a compensating feature to have the entrance.

It will be on the opposite side.

The second modification is for the parking and loading standards, parking area lighting.

They're asking for light spillover up to 0.6 foot candles along Shenandoah Drive.

The applicant states that the intent is to eliminate light spillover off the property.

However, they say that there are instances where spillage is appropriate in urban settings with shared infrastructure and integrated uses.

And this multifamily parcel is part of the overall Sycamore Ridge.

I'm sorry, Sycamore Springs development.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, CCUD policy two, again that it will allow for creative site planning and high quality architecture, as well as environmental policy two.

Where the applicant states that the reduction of impervious surface helps reduce the impact on ecologically sensitive areas.

The applicant notes that there will be no lighting that will trespass onto the residences that are single family residences that are across Shenandoah Drive.

Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment, it meets the intent of the code and that adequate parking lot lot lighting is required, yet it's often difficult to achieve 0.0 foot candles at the property lines.

That's evidenced by we get this modification all the time with different site plans, so it's difficult to achieve.

Let's see.

The third modification is to modify the lands, the level two buffer requirement, which is a 10-foot buffer strip with five trees per 100 lineal feet and a six-foot high wall or hedge.

This would be along the eastern property line adjacent to the estate lot.

This level two buffer is required when there are parking areas adjacent to property lines.

13 trees are required, and the applicant is proposing a buffer strip varying between seven to nine feet with 35 ornamental grasses and a four-foot decorative fence.

The applicant states in their justification that there are existing utility easements on the multifamily lot along the eastern property line that limit the space that's available for landscaping.

So they're proposing the ornamental grasses in the four-foot-tall decorative fence along the property line.

The condominium association will be responsible for the maintenance of the grasses and the fence.

And there will be a landscape buffer that's going to be installed on the estate lot, but since it's on private property, it will it won't serve as a compensating feature or can't be counted as such.

The applicant states that it meets the intent of the code and that planting the grasses and installing the fence meets the requirements for a buffer.

And it's consistent with the comprehensive policies, CCUD policy two, which again supports creative site planning and high quality architecture.

And it offers various levels of interaction, mobility to the community while providing for innovative design.

And they state also that it supports housing policies one, two, five, and six, which supports opportunities for different housing types for residences or residents of all income levels, compact residential neighborhoods, and diverse residential development.

And the compensating features are the grasses and the design, the fence.

Staff concurs that there are existing utility easements limiting the amount and type of landscaping that can be provided.

It's not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, which is to provide an effective visual barrier between unsightly or distracting activity and adjacent properties.

The grasses and fence will help screen the parking area from the estate lot.

And it's consistent with CCUD policy two to promote creative site planning, and it will be compatible with the property as well as the adjacent lot estate live.

And again, the compensating feature will be the ornamental grasses and fence.

The next buffer modification request is to modify the level one buffer requirements.

That's a six-foot buffer with five trees per 100 lineal feet.

This is along the western and southern property lines that are adjacent to the Sycamore Springs developments, open space and stream buffer areas.

18 trees are required along the southern property line, and 27 are required along the western property line.

They are not proposing any plantings or buffers for this.

The applicant's justification is that the property backs up to floodplain and stream buffer, as well as the open space and deforestation areas.

And the design of this site for the multifamily buildings were done to take advantage of the views of the floodplain area in the stream and the buffers as well as the Aforestation areas.

The enforcement of the buffer would achieve the opposite of the intent, as the buffer would detract from the open space and forested areas, as well as access to trails.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan, land use policies one and three, which encourage development to be compatible with the character of the existing and planned development.

Transportation policy five, which seeks to create and maintain a fully accessible pedestrian network throughout the city, as well as environmental sustainability policy two, which encourages protection and restoration of ecologically sensitive lands to protect water quality.

The compensating design features is that they will be protecting the floodplain area as well as the stream buffer, and they'll maintain the access and view sheds from the multifamily residences as well as providing access to the shared use path.

The A4 station areas will also help provide screening.

Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment.

The intent of the code is met in the floodplain, stream buffer and the open space A4 station areas all serve as a natural buffer.

It is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies mentioned by the applicant, incorporating natural resources like those the floodplain and the stream buffer as site amenities.

And the sensitive areas in the proposed open space and A4 station areas also serve as compensating design features by providing a natural buffer.

With that, um that is all for the presentation.

The first action is the approval of the modification to section 601 E1, minimum number of access points to provide two accesses onto a public street instead of one access to a public street and one access to an adjacent property.

Staff finds that the second access off Shenandoah Drive meets the intent of the code, which is to provide adequate access and options for drivers in emergency vehicles.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, and that they encourage development to be consistent with the character of existing and plan development and offers mobility to members of the community by having an alternative entrance and exit to the multifilament family site in the event that one is blocked.

And the second entrance also serves as a compensating feature to have as an entrance on the opposite side of the site.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

The second action is approval of the modification to section 607 E2D, parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow parking lot light spillover of up to 0.6 foot candles along Shenandoah Drive.

The request meets the intent of the code and that adequate parking lot illumination is needed.

And the spillover will not impact the single family residences across the street.

The lighting provides security for residents in the parking areas, and the spillover helps illuminate the shared use path along Shenandoah Drive.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan policies by reducing the amount of lighting, thus reducing energy demand and increasing safety in the pedestrian and parking areas.

And lastly, the compensating design feature is the reduction of the lighting that is needed, and it provides additional illumination for the shared use path.

And staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

Action three is approval of the modification to 605, tables 605-1 and 605-3, landscaping standards, level two buffer requirements to reduce the parking lot buffer requirement along the eastern property line.

The intent of the code is met in the ornamental grasses and a fence will help provide a visual barrier between the parking area and the estate lot.

It's consistent with a comprehensive plan policy to promote creative site planning that will be compatible with the property in the adjacent estate lot, and the compensating design features are the ornamental grasses and fence.

And staff recommends approval of that modification as requested.

The fourth action is approval of the modification to 605 that table 605-1 and 605-3 landscaping standards level one buffer requirements to wave the buffer requirement along the southern and western property lines.

The intent of the code is met in that the floodplain, stream buffer, and the proposed open space and afforestation areas will all serve as natural buffers.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan policies by incorporating natural resources like the floodplain and stream buffer as site amenities and encourages protection and restoration of these ecologically sensitive lands to protect water quality.

And the sensitive areas in the open space and the A4 station areas will serve as compensating design features by providing a natural buffer.

Staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

And lastly, Action 5 is approval of the final site plan, PC 25-580, FSI, Sycamore Springs multifamily site plan.

The plan complies with Articles 4567 and 8 of the LMC.

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

Staff recommends approval of the final site plan with the following conditions.

One is note seven, add the proposed trip cap per acre number.

Note 24, add the APFO exemption approval date.

Note 29, update the list of the modifications approved and create correct the section of the land management code for the parking lot lighting modification, which is 607 E2D.

And that's it.

Happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And we'll start with Commissioner Roby.

Thank you.

My question is a clarification question on action three.

That's where you were trying to get rid of a tree buffer and put in some ornamental grasses and a four-foot fence, I believe.

But there's no specificity on what you are trying to achieve with the grasses.

Do we need to put a height, a minimum height for the grasses?

Do you want the grasses to be equivalent to the fence height to provide a physical barrier?

Or what are you trying to achieve with the ornamental grasses?

We don't have any type of um height requirement.

Um even for regular buffers, we don't have a height requirement for those.

So it would just um the grasses would just help um shield some of the uh lights, headlights from cars from going on to the estate lot.

So that brings my question back.

I agree with you.

Uh and I have ornamental grasses on my property that are like only a foot.

That's not going to achieve your objective.

And I've also seen ornamental grasses that are two or three feet tall or whatever.

You probably could have a much different.

Is that what you're looking for to shield automobile lights?

If that's so, then we should have a minimum.

There's a lack of specificity to assure that you achieve your goal the way it's written now.

Um we could ask the um the applicant may be able to um elaborate on.

I know the site plan has the types of orn ornamental grasses that they're proposing, but I'm not over familiar with those species.

So I don't know if the applicant would be able to elaborate on those and if they know how how tall they actually grow.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Commissioner Temple.

When this was at workshop, we talked about an easement for the landscape buffer on the uh home adjacent property.

I'm not seeing that.

Did we where did that end up?

Um the estate lot owner was not um comfortable with having an easement on their property.

Um so that's why that even though they're providing landscaping still on that estate lot, it can't count toward on the landscaping requirements because we have no protection that or no um, I guess, assurance that that buffer would remain.

So it's so that there won't be any easement.

Okay.

And that is action three, correct?

Yes.

So in a world in which the property line is 15 feet to the east, you were meeting all of the requirements of the buffer, or if they were putting an easement, we would meet the requirements of the buffer.

I'm I'm understanding that correctly.

I yes, perfect.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bueno.

No further questions.

Okay.

And I I had thought about that easement too, and I believe I read that the estate owner wasn't interested in uh managing that.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um I don't have any other questions for staff.

So with that, I would ask that the applicant come up, please.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Jonathan Pembroke.

I'm with Alsherman Properties.

With me tonight is Jeremy Holder, also with Alshman Properties, as well as Chris Marega with Harris Mariga.

Uh we're here on behalf of the applicant, which is Sigamore Springs Frederick LLC.

Um first and foremost, I want to thank you all for being here tonight.

I know it's beautiful outside, and everybody would rather probably be outside with family, but thank you for being here and thank you for your time and service.

Um the other thing I would like to say is thank you, staff for a very comprehensive uh staff report.

Um you kind of hit all my highlights that I was gonna say.

So um I would offer one or two uh small refinements, specifically regarding the buffer on the uh eastern side of the property here.

So as Sherry, I believe said, this uh existing estate lot to the east is owned by the Barrick family.

They were the original property owners of the entire farm.

Um they've been fully apprised and fully involved with it with the design of the project, and we've been in talks with them about planting a uh land the landscape buffer on them because of the existing sewer and storm drain um lines that run up that eastern property line preventing us from from planting those uh trees there.

Um the barracks do not want an easement.

They've offered a letter uh stating such.

They don't want an easement, they don't want a licensing agreement or say plan enforcement agreement that would obligate them to maintain or replace, or even the HOA to maintain or replace those trees.

Um they wish to have the trees, that's why they're shown here, um, but they don't want to encumber their property with any type of easement or agreement.

Um that said, there was uh some discussion about our compensating features, which is the four-foot ornamental fence as well as ornamental grasses.

Um there's two types of grasses being proposed.

There's fountain grasses, um, which according to a quick Google was approximately two feet tall, and then miscanthus, which is a minimum of three feet tall, typically five to six feet tall.

Um the whole goal of that screening, parking lot screening is for the vehicular screening for the for the for the headlights and whatnot going on to the adjacent properties.

So, you know, a you know, two feet, three, five, six feet.

I think you're hitting it.

So that about does it for me.

If there's any questions, we're happy to answer.

And uh we appreciate your time.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we'll start with Commissioner Temple.

No further questions.

Okay, Commissioner Buono.

No questions either.

And Commissioner Robey.

I just want to say I was quite pleased with your answer on the height of the uh ornamental grasses.

So thank you very much.

It takes away my concern.

You can thank and yeah, I had some questions about uh light glare going into people's eyes when they're driving on Shenandoah Drive, but it sounds to me like you have that covered with those.

Um so with that said, do we have any public comment?

No.

Okay.

Well, we will take it back here.

I'm looking for a motion on action one, approval of a modification to section 601 E1, minimum number of access points to provide two accesses onto a public street instead of one access to a public street and one access to an adjacent property.

I motion for the approval of the modification of section 601E1, uh minimal number of access points to provide two accesses onto the public street instead of one access to a public street and one access to an adjacent property.

Uh based on findings one and two as introduced into the record by staff.

I second.

Okay.

So that is the motion by Commissioner Temple, a second by Commissioner Buono.

Do we want to consider finding number three?

It doesn't really seem like a true compensatory feature to me.

And and therefore I don't want to create a precedent of it being a compensatory feature.

Okay.

So we have uh again a motion by Commissioner Temple, second by Commissioner Buono for the request with findings one and two.

All those in favor.

I'm sorry.

Uh in order to grant a modification, we need to find that all three criteria of a modification are met.

So if if you want to have discussion maybe on that motion, um I don't know if it would be entirely.

I will modify my motion to include finding three.

Okay.

Did you want to discuss it anymore?

We can talk about it.

Okay.

So again, we have a motion by Commissioner Temple and a second by Commissioner Buono for the request, including all three findings.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's four to zero approval of action number one.

So I'm looking for a motion on action number two, approval of a modification to Section 607 E2D parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow parking lot light spillover up to 0.6 foot candles occurring along Shenandoah Drive.

I motion for the approval of modification to Section 607 E2D parking and loading standards, parking area lighting to allow parking lot light spillover up to 0.6 foot candles occurring along Shenandoah Drive per findings one through three right into the record.

Seconded.

Okay.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

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

Next, I am looking just read the action.

We can read the full request, or you can just read the action.

That would read the request interval in the motion.

Either way.

Oh.

I think I have to.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I'm looking for a motion on action number three.

And Gabrielle, do I need to read each action?

Um each action should be read out by either you or the person making the motion.

Okay.

So I'm looking for a motion on action three.

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

Landscaping standards of level two buffer requirements to reduce the parking lot buffer requirement along the eastern property line based on all three findings introduced into the record by staff.

I'll second that.

Okay.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

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

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

I motion for the approval of a modification to section 605, table 605-1 and 605-3 landscaping standards, level one buffer requirements to waive the buffer requirement along the southern and western lot lines per findings one through three having been read into record.

Seconded.

Okay.

That is the motion by Commissioner Bueno is second 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 am looking for a motion for action number five.

A motion for the approval of the final site plan, PC 25-580, FSI, Sycamore Springs Multifamily, per the findings introduced into the record by staff with the following conditions.

Note 24 add the APFO exemption approval date.

And 30, Note 29.

Update the list of modifications approved and correct the section of the LMC for the parking lot light modification, Section 607 E 2D.

I second that.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

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

Thank you.

And our next agenda item is 40 West Booster Pump Station Replacement, PC 25-487 FSI.

Final site plan.

Thank you.

This is a final site plan to construct a booster pump station known as 40 West, located at 1001A West Patrick Street to replace the existing underground facility with a larger above ground facility.

The site is zone general commercial is within the highway noise impact overlay and is also within the Golden Mile Small Area Plan.

As a public utility that is permitted in all districts, it does not have the same requirements as a typical commercial development.

As a project site of under 40,000 square feet, it is not required to comply with section 721 for forest conservation.

Similarly, projects with less than 5,000 square feet of disturbance are exempt from stormwater management.

As shown in the dimensional and density regulations table within the report, the project complies with section 405 of the land management code.

A previous final site plan for the area behind the booster station confirmed that 959 parking spaces were required and 965 were provided.

This plan removes one parking stall, leaving 964, which is adequate for the development.

There are no new access points.

The site will be secured with an eight-foot tall fence with no barbed wire.

The landscaping plan proposes shrubs and perennial planters to buffer the structure from West Patrick Street.

And while the previously approved site plan for Aspen Dental, which is the project behind the booster station, shows street trees.

The locations of this infrastructure and utilities on the site is making planting of those trees no longer viable.

Instead, a hedge is proposed across the full front of the proposed structure with additional shrubbery along each side of the building to buffer view from both sides of travel on the roadway.

They have added additional architecture to the roof line per comments from the Planning Commission workshop.

Per Chapter 4 of the city code, projects undertaken by the city are exempt from adequate public facilities analysis, and the exemption was granted on February 24th, 2026.

There is one action.

Staff finding that the request complies with all criteria from Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the land management code, and the project is exempt from adequate public facilities.

Staff recommends approval of the final site plan with the condition that Libra and folio of recorded access through the shopping center to the station is provided.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

And Commissioner Robey.

Thank you for responding to the revised profile of the structure.

I appreciate that very much.

And I have no further questions or statements.

Okay, and I have no questions.

At this point, I'd like to ask the ask the applicant to come up.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you very much for being here.

And Christina, thank you for giving that good summary.

I don't have too much to add beyond what she said.

Um, just to reiterate some of the points.

This is a uh utility um infrastructure project.

Um so I sorry, I should have introduced myself.

I'm Jeff Wiling, I'm a GHD with the engineers behind the project.

And with me is um Vaughn Wingfield, who is with uh DPW with the city, um, who will be the owners and occupants of the site.

Um so there's a new parcel designated for this property and obtained by the city, so that's why the site is being moved along the right of way from where you can see it in the upper left corner to the new location as shown on these plans.

Um there was a lot of consideration given to the appearance of this from the road to the south.

Um so we did uh landscaping um to block that as best as possible.

And in general, to try to uh meet the needs of the city while providing an aesthetically pleasing building that didn't draw unwanted attention to it.

Um so if you have any other questions, um, we're here to answer them and let me know.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

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

Yeah, no, just I want to mirror thank you for those light little architectural adjustments to made.

It was a nice little feature.

If it's gonna be a building sitting there, might as well try to make it look a little bit nice.

No other questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Roby.

No further questions or statements.

Commissioner Temple.

No further questions or statements.

Okay.

I don't have any either.

Do we have any public comment?

We do not.

All right.

Well, then I will take it back up here, looking for a motion for action number one.

I move for the approval of final site plan PC 25-487 FSI for the 40 West Booster Station replacement per the findings run to record with the one recommendation uh with falling conditions, sorry, that the um applicant add the library and folio to the recorded access easement through shopping center site.

Seconded.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval four to zero.

Thank you.

Next on our agenda, we have Floor and Decor edition, PC 25-401 FSI final site plan.

Thank you.

This is a final site plan to construct a 7,580 square foot addition to the former Joann's fabric store for conversion to a floor and decor located at 1003 West Patrick Street.

The property is zoned general commercial and is within the highway noise impact overlay.

It is also within the boundaries of the Golden Miles Small Area Plan, which is a guide for development along the West Patrick Commercial Corridor.

A checklist for the small area plan has been provided by the applicant.

As the project is within an area less than 40,000 square feet, it does not require a forest conservation plan.

The stormwater development plans were approved by the engineering department on January 6, 2026.

The plan complies with Section 405 of the land management code entitled Dimensional and Density Regulations.

The plan also complies with Section 601 Access Management, which requires two access points, with one being to the adjacent property.

As this is part of an overall shopping center, the plan has access to two public streets and five to adjacent properties.

The minimum parking required is 208 parking stalls, with 347 as the maximum, and 208 parking stalls, again the minimum, have been provided.

Additionally, 21 bicycle parking spaces are required and 21 have been provided.

One large loading space is required and has been provided as well.

In regards to landscaping standards, four trees are required across the lot area and four trees have been provided.

10% of the parking area must be landscaped.

This equates to 2,242 square feet, and the applicant is providing 4,886 square feet.

All required adequate public facilities have also been issued, and the commission has one action.

Approval of the final site plan PC 25401 FSI for floor and decor addition.

The request complies with all applicable criteria from Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the land management code, and there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.

Staff recommends approval of the final site plan with a condition they provide a revised utility drawing showing the location of the existing fire department connection.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and start with questions with Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

And Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

I have no questions either.

With that said, we'll invite the applicant up.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm Connor McManus with Dynamic Engineering on behalf of the applicant, Floor and Decor, with whom Jacob Ryback is here.

Nothing to add.

Pretty straightforward on this one.

Okay.

Take it back here.

Do we have Commissioner Buono?

No, no questions.

Commissioner Robey.

No further questions.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

Okay.

And I don't have any questions either.

I did want to comment.

I like the fact that we have additional landscaping and we're meeting the tree requirements for that site.

Having gone through there just yesterday.

Do we have any public comment?

No.

No.

Okay, I'll take it back here.

Looking for a motion for action number one.

I motion for the approval of the final site plan PC 25-401 FSI for floor and decor addition based on the findings that it complies with all the applicable criteria of the LMC and their adequate public facilities to service site with the following condition that they revise the utility drawing to show the location of the fire department connection.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval four to zero.

Thank you.

Our next project is the Costco Edition, case number PC 25-579 FSI final site plan.

Thank you.

This is a final site plan to construct a 5,931 square foot addition to the existing Costco wholesale store with associated parking located at 10 Minocase Boulevard.

The applicant is also requesting a modification to Section 607 of the land management code entitled Parking and Loading Standards to reduce the required amount of parking.

The property is zone general commercial is within the highway noise impact overlay.

A combined forest stand delineation and forest conservation plan was approved on February 24th, 2020 and is still applicable.

The stormwater development plans were approved by the engineering department on January 6, 2026.

The plan complies with Section 405, dimensional and density regulations, as this is considered and as this is considered a big box store.

This requires six mandatory design elements and three optional items.

We have provided a table within the report showing that all six mandatory items have been met and that the applicant proposes three of the optional elements.

I will note that the addition is in is consistent with the overall existing structure.

The development is required to have one access point to public street and one to an adjacent property.

However, no new access points are proposed to change this remains in existing condition.

The required parking for the project is a minimum of 644 and a maximum of 1,074, with only 575 provided with a modification request.

Seven bicycle parking spaces are required and have been provided.

Three large loading spaces are required with four existing.

As stated, the applicant is requesting a modification to Section 607.

Specifically, Table 607-1 entitled parking schedule to reduce the required minimum parking from 644 spaces to 575 spaces.

While a study was unable to be conducted due to the timing of the application and the recent blizzard, the applicant has provided history on parking stalls and the current conditions.

A 2022 site plan for ADA site improvements shows 625 proposed parking spaces.

However, in December, they counted only 600 spaces verified on site.

Although they were not installed in compliance with the 2022 site plan, they were still in compliance with the minimum number of parking stalls required at that time.

The applicant states that the purpose of the code is to provide sufficient on-site parking area off the public street to meet the need generated by each property in order to minimize traffic congestion and hazards.

They believe the request is not contrary to the purpose or intent of the code, as the existing traffic flow throughout the site will be maintained.

And they have recently purchased the neighboring Super 8 Motel site at 20 Monocasse Boulevard to use as employee parking.

The applicant also cites consistency with land use policy one, five, and six of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

Applicant will use the off-site parking for employees as a compensating feature.

Staff agrees that the request is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code and believes the addition of neighboring employee parking will help meet the intent by minimizing traffic congestion.

Progress towards this additional parking has been made through approval of a demolition permit for the motel and an active sketch plan to create employee parking.

Staff concurs with the cited comprehensive plan policies and finds that off-site parking is an adequate compensating feature.

We move on to landscaping.

Full compliance was addressed in the previous site plan, and within the additions project scope, 10% of the parking area must be landscaped.

This equates to 1,149 square feet, where 3,698 has been provided.

All applicable adequate public facilities have been issued as exemptions.

The Commission has two actions.

Action one, approval of the modification to the requirements of Section 607, Table 607-1, entitled parking schedule, to reduce the required minimum parking from 644 parking spaces to 575 parking spaces.

Staff finds the modification is not contrary to the purpose of the intent of code.

The modification is consistent with comprehensive plan land use policies one, five, and six, and the applicant has provided additional off-site parking as a compensating feature.

Staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

Action two.

Approval of the final site plan PC two five five seven nine FSI for the Costco edition.

The request complies with Articles 45, 6, 7, and 8 of land management code, and there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.

Staff recommends approval of the final site plan with the listed four conditions.

Thank you.

And thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Bueno?

No questions.

And Commissioner Roby.

Carnival's question.

I don't know much about well.

I have a mental image of what the existing motel hotel is that you all request for demolition.

Is any consideration being given to keeping that structure in place and using it for low and moderate income housing?

You haven't driven by it yet, have you?

I didn't hear you.

You haven't driven by it lately, have you?

The demolitions are demolition is underway.

I didn't know that.

I'm not staff, but I wanted to.

Thank you very much.

I take it back.

Anyway, any additional questions?

No, I was going to comment.

I drove, you know, I drive by that way a lot, and very much in the midst of demolition.

I don't have any questions either, so with that said, I would invite the applicant to step up, please.

Hi, good evening.

Kessra Kelly with BL Companies here on behalf of the applicant.

I will echo what others have said.

SAP does an excellent job, you know, summarizing these projects, so I don't have anything specific to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right.

We'll take it back here to Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

And Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

I don't have any questions either.

Thank you.

Do we have any public comment?

None.

All right.

With that, I will take a motion for action number one.

A motion for the approval of the modification of the requirement requirements of section 607 table 607-1 parking schedule to reduce the required minimum parking from 644 parking spaces to 575 parking spaces.

Based on the findings introduced into the record by staff.

And I second.

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

All those in favor?

That's approval 4 to 0.

Thank you.

And next I'm looking for a motion for action number two.

A motion for the approval of the final site plan PC 25579 FSI for a Costco edition per findings that have been read into the record with the recommendations of the following conditions.

One, as sketch plan SP25 SP-25-22, approved 812-2025 to cast history table.

Update the APFO approval dates in case history table to the most recent approval dates at it.

And for the Northeast Property Corner, note 80 D 4405 from corner.

Provide the distance away from the corner.

Seconded.

Great.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval 4 to 0.

Thank you.

Okay.

Check time.

Our next case is West Ridge Square, PC 25 403 PSU FSI combined preliminary plat and final site plan and PC 25-404 PFCP preliminary forest conservation plan.

Good evening.

This is a proposed combined preliminary plat and final site plan to resubdivide the shopping center to create new lot 5 for 119 multifamily residential units and retain lots 1 through 4 for mixed use development.

The applicant is requesting several modification, a total of five, including the city standard street detail, two from Section 607 regarding parking, and two from Section 605 regarding landscaping.

The applicant is also requesting approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan.

The existing shopping center, most of which is on lot one, contains approximately 240,000 square feet of commercial space.

It was previously zoned general commercial, but was rezoned in 2022 to mixed use.

The applicant will demolish 103,000 square feet of the eastern portion of the main shopping center building.

A demolition review has already been completed and approved in June of 2022.

The project is also within the Golden Mile Small Area Plan, which is a guide for development along the West Patrick Commercial Corridor.

The applicant has provided a checklist noting that goals for policy three and policy five are applicable.

These include upgraded appearance, an image of the corridor, and high standards of design within the planning area.

In regards to forest conservation, the development site has very little green space, no forest, and no critically sensitive land area.

Street tree credits are proposed for 46 street trees, and the rest is being paid feed and loo.

The stormwater report was approved by the engineering department on January 20th, 2026.

The plan complies with Section 405, dimensional and density regulations, except for the minimum interior side setback for non-residential, which was modified under the master plan.

Similarly, the plan complies with Section 407 performance standards for flexible zoning techniques, with the exception of architectural design requirements, which will be submitted under a separate application for planning commission review.

Under Chapter 9 of the City Code regarding moderately priced dwelling units, the applicant will comply by paying a fee and lieu.

As there is a residential component, the project must comply with Section 608 of the land management code regarding parkland and open space.

As an infill development, they should provide 500 square feet per unit for a total of 1.37 acres of dedicated parkland.

The commission may approve a combination of FianLU and private parkland that does not exceed 20% of the total parkland required.

Applicant proposes 20% private parkland with a pavilion, tot, and open spaces with 1.10 acres paid fee and lieu.

Section 601 access management.

There are two required access point, and the applicant is providing five.

Access separation distances have been evaluated and comply with this section.

The applicant is requesting a modification to Section 611 street improvement standards to standard city detail 11.2 for a local road to provide a 42-foot-wide right of way instead of 55, and to reduce the traveling lane width by one foot from the standard 11 feet to 10 feet.

The modification does not conflict with the general purpose or intent of the regulation to provide complete street features, such as sidewalks and landscaping and parking.

The modification does not conflict with any provision of the comprehensive plan, citing transportation policy seven to preserve and enhance the city street system grid, and transportation policy four to promote bicycle mobility and construct a dense complete bicycled network consistent with all ages and abilities.

The plan complies with the required parking as the non-residential side requires a minimum of 612, maximum of 1,020, and the applicant proposes 735.

The residential portion requires 238 spaces and 282 are provided.

Four loading spaces are also required for the non-residential portion, and there are four existing.

Applicant is requesting modification to table six section 607, table 607-1, entitled Parking Schedule, to reduce the required 72 bicycle spaces to 30.

The modification will be contrary to the purpose and intent of the code by providing bicycle parking where there is currently none.

There are walkable connections and a transit station within the vicinity that allows for more multimodal transit.

The modification is consistent with transportation policies 5 and 8 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the dense design of the neighborhood and walkability to the non-residential portion provides an overall compensating feature and supports a lower need for total bicycle spaces.

Applicant is requesting an additional modification to section 607G for parking area setbacks for the shopping center from 25 feet to 6.9 feet.

The modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent to screen large parking areas from other uses, as the intent of the mixed use district is to provide active spaces and the area will be landscaped.

Strict adherence to this regulation would reduce the amount of parking and impact existing drive aisles.

The modification is consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 1 to encourage development and redevelopment compatible with the character of existing development, and the compensating design has been provided by a higher than required parking lot landscaping.

In terms of required property landscaping, 18087 trees are required and have been provided.

The plan complies with required street trees by providing 18 more than required.

Similarly, 10% of the parking lot must be landscaped, and the applicant proposes 11.7%.

The applicant proposes a modification to section 605E for landscape buffers and berms to reduce the required level one buffer along the west property line to the rear of the non-residential building from 10 to 4 feet.

The modification will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of the code as they have provided as much landscaping as possible under these as built conditions.

Modification is consistent with land use policy one of the 2020 comprehensive plan, and the additional landscaping, including street trees, is considered a compensating feature.

The last modification being requested is to reduce the required 10 foot level 2 buffer to 4 feet for non-residential parking.

The modification will not be contrary to the purpose intent of the code, as again they have provided as much landscaping as possible under these existing conditions.

2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 1 is supported, and the additional landscaping is still an adequate compensating feature.

Capacity for waterline and roads have certificates issued, with capacity for sewer line and capacity for schools being issued as provisional.

School capacity fails at elementary and high school levels, however, they fall below the 120%, which provides them the option to pay a school mitigation fee, with the final certificate being at issued after payment has been executed.

The commission has seven actions.

Number one, approval of the modification to standard city street detail 11.2 for a local road.

Finding that the subdivision is subject to an approved master plan to achieve a mixed use high density development.

The modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent or the regulation to provide complete street features such as sidewalks, landscaping, and parking.

The modification does not conflict with any provisions of the comprehensive plan or the general purpose or intent of the regulations.

Per 2020 comprehensive plan transportation policy seven to preserve and enhance the street grid system and transportation policy four to provide to promote bicycle mobility.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action two.

Approval of the modification of table 607-1, parking schedule to reduce the required 72 bicycle parking spaces to 30.

The modification will not be contrary to the purpose and to the code by providing bicycle spaces to the site that currently has none, with residential walkable connections, in addition to a transit station for transportation options.

Modification is consistent with the 2020 comprehensive plan, transportation policy five, and transportation policy eight.

The compensating design are architectural features.

The compensating design are architectural features so as to meet over objective of the particular requirement is the mixed use dense design with neighborhood walkability to the non-residential, which lessens the need for total bicycles parking spaces.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action three.

Approval of the modification is Section 607G parking area setbacks for the shopping center setback from 25 feet minimum to the existing 6.9.

Finding the modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent or regulation to allow for screening of large parked areas since the intent of mixed use is to provide active spaces and the parking area will still be landscaped.

Modification is consistent with 2020 comprehensive plan land use policy one to encourage development and redevelopment compatible with the existing.

The compensating design or architectural features have been provided by having additional landscaping above the requirement.

Staff recommends approval.

Action four.

Approval of the modification is section 605E, landscape buffers and berms, level one to reduce the buffer along the west property line to the rear of the non-residential building.

Modification will not be contrary to the purpose intent of the code by providing as much landscaping as possible under the current as built conditions.

Modification is consistent with 2020 comprehensive plan policy land use one.

The compensating design or architectural features so as to meet the overall objective of the particular requirement to buffer between property uses is mitigated with additional landscaping, including street trees.

Staff again recommends approval.

Action five.

Approval of the modification to section 605E, landscape buffers and berms, level two for non-residential parking lot for buffer along the west property line from 10 feet to 4.

Again, the modification is not contrary to purpose intent to the code by providing as much landscaping as possible.

Modification is consistent with land use policy one, and the addit and the additional landscaping is considered a compensating design feature.

Action six.

Approval of combined preliminary plat and final site plan.

Finding that the final site plan complies with all applicable criteria in articles four, five, six, seven, eight, and twelve of the land management code, and the adequate facilities and services will be available.

The preliminary plat complies with section 507A of the land management code and conforms to the comprehensive plan.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and final site plan with conditions one through nine listed in the report.

Action seven.

Approval of preliminary forest conservation plan.

Staff finds that the plan complies with criteria outlined in section 721 of the land management code.

And it's also in compliance with applicable criteria of the State Forest Conservation Act.

Staff recommends approval of the final forest conservation plan with conditions one through three as listed in the report.

Thank you.

And thank you.

Any questions?

No, no questions.

Okay.

And Commissioner Robey.

I have a clarification whether it comes from the developer or comes from staff.

You talked in the beginning of your staff report about the fee and loo offering from the applicant.

It's unclear to me where the fee and lieu portion of that discussion applies versus the compensatory terms that they're providing us for additional landscaping and plants and the development.

So I don't see biometrics.

Do you mean is there a particular one?

The moderately priced dwelling units.

No, I'm not worried about it.

I like all the compens uh compensatory language that was used for adding trees and landscaping throughout the project.

Uh what was a red flag was when you asked for fee or they asked for fee and loo.

And I was just wondering where the fee and loo uh applied and what we're not getting versus what we're getting.

Um I'm a big fan of landscaping and trees and green space, so no worries.

So there is some fee and loo for the forest conservation if you're referencing that.

Um the site is an is a it's already developed.

There's a lot of impervious surface over there.

That's why in the forest conservation plan there was no forests or critical areas identified.

So they do have the option of using street trees and paying fee and loo.

They have um quite nicely provided 18 additional street trees, which of course goes into reducing their fee and loo payment.

So that is the current proposal.

Thank you very much.

No problem.

Commissioner Temple.

I understand that it's the long-term intent that they potentially smooth out the entrance from 40 into the development so that the main north-south what is called river stone is a smoother grade instead of a right turn and then a left turn, you know, for yep.

So that's so that's the intent, and I understand we can't really equivocate on when and how or what that happens.

But is it are we past the point where we can um consider Riverstone being hill crest because that would be a continuation of Hillcast Drive when that connection is made?

Is it too late to consider that?

I believe so.

We're at the stage of approving the site plan.

Um the thing about street names, and this is something that I have learned through my discussion with engineering, and of course, you know, my experience.

Um, developers are allowed to name their portion of the street whatever they like, and it does denote to people where they are on that street.

So for example, in my hometown, we had a street that had three different names, and I knew that if I I was on one section, I was in the unincorporated part, and I knew if I was on the name section I was in the city.

So we could ask, uh, you could make it a condition that you ask them to revise it to continue.

I I don't know what the what else we could do in that instance.

Thank you.

And I have no questions at this time.

I'll go ahead and ask the applicant to come up, please.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you so much.

This is a rather complex um uh project, and so I apologize for all the modifications, everything.

Wonderful job, and would like to just uh reiterate what many people have said so far.

The uh staff here in Frederick, they do an outstanding job of making sure that everyone is conforming to the regulations while being reasonable being able to kind of talk through issues.

So really do appreciate that.

Um I work in a lot of jurisdictions, and very few can I say that about.

So thank you.

Um I am Daniel Rigaud, I am with MCB Real Estate, the applicant.

I'm here with my um uh civil team, uh Chris Smarega, who you all know well as well as our legal team, uh at Lisa uh Gradiator.

Um so I I I would like to uh uh just very quickly kind of give you how how we got to this um place.

Uh we acquired the center in uh 2022, and when we did, we knew that Burlington is going to roll out.

So when you have basically uh, you know, uh a third, it's a very significant.

But we really saw it as a great opportunity because this is a 1980s vintage retail, um, which is all car centric and it does not really relate to today's culture at all.

So um, you know, in working with our design team, we came up and we realized we go ahead and come into the mixed use, which we went ahead and rezoned it, and then we got our master plan.

And you know, we really loved the fact that we're going to have the retail that's going to really be rather porous with the residential.

And um when we reviewed the uh sector plan, um there were just so many things where you we could really lean into it.

Um a lot of it was increasing connectivity, um, both uh vehicle as well as pedestrian, and so we have the uh north-south connector river stone, um uh which uh is really great.

It's a much more proper uh connection coming down from a key parkway.

Um and then we have the distinct honor of being the first segment of the east-west connector, the avenue, um, which we were very creative.

We spent uh we got so many different firms involved in the naming of that street and decided to go with the avenue.

So and then we have the multimodal um uh you know, uh oversized sidewalks, which is connecting up to the park, and uh we are uh doing a upgraded um uh crosswalk as well as redoing the entrance into the parking of the park because that's going to be a great feature for all the residents living there.

We want to, you know, propel them up there, get onto the tow path, go downtown, you know, ride their bikes and all those things.

So it really kind of leaned very well into that.

Um and then um uh aesthetically it's really going to, you know, create more of this new urbanist look with uh the two public roads, there's parallel parking, which is very urbanistic, and uh we are redoing the uh the retail center.

Um the facades have all been redone.

We've done a lot on the retenanting of it, and we're very excited to get to the next phase, and uh we'll be able to go ahead and finish that NCAP, have something really rather exciting there.

We're talking about doing a nice mural which would kind of speak to the um residential.

And uh, you know, in the end, it's certainly not going to, you know, meet every requirement of the new urbanist, but this is exactly why the MU2 is here is because it realizes that it's transitional.

And so we we have done everything.

I cannot tell you how excited we are about this, and it's been over two years and we probably have another you know, 10 months, 12 months to go.

But uh we are very excited about it, and I just wanted to impart that to you guys.

So um now for the truly exciting stuff to talk about any modifications, I'm going to leave that to Chris.

So thank you.

Good evening, Chris Mariga with Harris Moriga.

Um I'm not gonna go through all the modifications as Daniel mentioned.

When you're an infill redevelopment site like this, there's gonna be some uh modifications just in terms of relationships of buildings to new roads and things like that, where we covered a lot of this with the master plan where where the commercial or the western side of the site um you know is built under a different time and a different code.

So there's gonna be those types of modifications.

And as we introduce things like the River Stone, the public roads, or the avenue here, you know, some setbacks, you know, change what can and can't be met.

You know, some setbacks, you know, change what can and can't be met.

So buildings become closer to the street, which is what you want.

Um the parking gets placed closer to the street as well.

So like the parking standard is 25 feet on a shopping center.

That's a completely suburban type model.

An MU, you want the buildings up close to the street.

So those are the kind of modifications that we've been discussing.

Um the one probably most important that I want to talk about though was on Riverstone.

We spent a lot of time talking about the pedestrian connectivity in addition to the roads.

So we've extended this eight-foot path from the the new bank site uh heading all the way north up to Key Parkway.

As Daniel mentioned, we're going to reconfigure the entrance to Willowdale Park so that there'll be a pedestrian entrance over to the park, which then will tie you into Carroll Creek Trail, get you all the way downtown.

So we really think that's an important connection.

What we added was on the west side, we found that there was room.

We could get a five-foot sidewalk down this section of the of the um of the road.

We did not have that at the workshop when we were here before.

Uh we still need to keep the 42-foot right-of-way because as you can see, there's a loading dock in this northeast corner of the building.

That's kind of the the point that we can't widen any further to the west because all the trucks that serve these tenants use that loading dock there.

So we need to keep that, which puts makes it a little bit difficult to get the right-of-way we need.

What we've shown on the detail on the plan is that eventually as the center redevelops in the future, we could get the additional right-of-way, realign the sidewalk in this portion if necessary.

But this is basically going to be two travel lanes, two parking lanes, and then two sidewalks.

Eight feet on the east and five feet on the west.

So with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

But um really excited about seeing this come to fruition.

Thank you.

Uh we'll start with Commissioner Temple.

Is Hillcrest out of the question?

Was that a naming question?

I was gonna hear the thing I'm big on continuity of naming.

Um just curious if it was considered or something that could be considered um understanding that in the future right now it's discontiguous, but in the future it could be very contiguous.

So the thought would be right.

We would the we showed that on the plan, how this could connect in the future once this is redeveloped.

I guess the question is would we consider I guess if life safety and everyone else, the street naming folks would allow us to call this little section Hillcrest as well.

Uh cutting through the site.

I guess we we can certainly go ahead and take a look at it.

Um I don't know what the nature or the size of Hillcrist on the other side is.

So we'd want to go ahead and review that.

And um, you know, we are not opposed to I can tell you typically finding a name that's going to be accepted is very challenging.

But uh we can go ahead and take a look at that.

So thank you.

Commissioner Brono?

Yeah.

Um I just want to commend you guys again.

I think you guys the excitement you have is uh I think very much warranted.

I I love to see projects like this.

Um I guess just I have a question.

Is this uh plan that you you know, this plan of sort of this parallel road development to the major arterial strode, whatever it is.

Is that something that you guys have developed internally as you guys thought about it, or are you guys referencing other similar projects that have been done in the past using this method?

Um are you talking about the avenue?

Yeah, the avenue.

Yeah, the avenue, that's part of the sector plan.

That's one of the main tenets is to increase the flexibility.

Was that something you guys sort of came up with, or did you guys borrow that from some other development efforts and get inspiration from other stuff?

Because I think it's something that a lot of places could benefit from doing because it's a pretty elegant solution to solving, I guess you could say developments like this.

Because it is challenging to try to chip away at one of these big roads the way it's designed, but splitting up and having multiple parallel roads that then could be pared down is uh is a better way as a transition, as you guys said.

I'd love to see more places do that.

Yeah.

And you know, that's absolutely best practice.

I mean, you know, anything that we're doing where we are able to control all the factors, we would always do that.

So uh seeing it in the plan, it was very refreshing, and we leaned into it with excitement.

Yep, very eager to see where that goes.

All right, thank you.

And and it comes from the golden area small, the the golden mile small area plan like the city document planning document that guides the development on all these parcels.

Commissioner Robey.

I'm just real appreciative that you are using best practices and employing current urban new urbanism into this project.

So thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

And you know, one thing that um we were looking at, and I failed to mention, I believe we're adding over 230 trees.

I believe we're adding over 230 trees.

So I mean, you know, it's really greening it up.

It's going to be noticeable.

Yeah, no.

I love landscaping too.

I'm huge into it.

So it will definitely be very different after it's done.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And I don't have any questions.

I think it's great.

I love that you can walk from downtown, and I can't wait to see that back entrance to it.

I'm always the one sneaking around Route 40 going back ways, but this is going to be really nice to see versus some of the other things I'm seeing out there.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions I just want to state for the record that this street will be called V, with the modifier being avenue, and that's really fun.

If you think about it, that's actually kind of fun.

I like that.

All right.

Do we have any public comment?

All right.

Well, I will take it up for a motion for action number one.

I move for the approval of the modification of the standard city street detail 11.2 for the local road per the findings one through three introduced into the record by staff.

And I second.

That is a motion for approval by Commissioner Temple.

A second by Commissioner Buono.

All in favor?

I that's four to zero of approval.

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

I motion for the approval of modification of table six oh seven-one parking schedule to reduce the required seventy-two bicycle spaces to 30 in accordance with findings one through three as read into the record.

Seconded.

Okay.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval four to zero.

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

I move for the approval of the of the modification to section 607G parking area setbacks of the shopping center setback from 25 feet minimum to the existing 6.9 feet per findings 1 through 3 as entered into the record by staff.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval four to zero.

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

I move for the approval of the modification is Section 605E, landscape buffers and burns, level one, to reduce the buffer along the West Property line to the rear of the non-residential building per findings one through three having been read into record.

Seconded.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval four to zero.

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

I move for the approval of the modification of section 605E, landscape buffers in Berms level two for non-residential parking lot for buffer along the West property line from 10 feet to 4 feet.

Per findings 1 through 3 as entered into the record by staff.

Second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That is approval 4 to 0.

I'm looking for a motion on action number 6.

Clarification before this.

Do I have to read in all those recommendations?

Yes, after you're all okay.

Sorry, the conditions.

No, you can cite um you know one through nine as as shown in the staff report.

Okay.

I would also take this moment to just mention that if you are interested in making a condition that they look at the street name, you you would have to speak that and add it.

Um if you want it to be a condition, but again, it is just an ask, it's not a requirement from the conversation I heard.

All right.

I move for the approval of the combined preliminary plan and the final site plan PC 25-403 PSU slash FSI per the findings into the record by staff per the following conditions.

One, obtaining unconditional approval of the master plan.

Two considering changing ridgestone to Hillcrest Drive.

Three.

You could say with the following conditions one through nine in the report, and then add whatever condition you need.

Okay.

Then let's just start over.

Okay, we're going to run it back.

Canceling it, running it again.

I move for the approval of the combine preliminary plat and final site plan PC 25-403 PSU FSI per the findings and the conditions entered into the record by staff, adding a condition number 10 that the applicant with the city and county consider the changing of the name from Ridgestone to Hillcrest Drive.

I second that.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval four to zero.

And I'm looking for a motion for action number seven.

And I motion for the approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan PC 25-404 PFCP in accordance with the findings written by staff with the recommendations or with the following conditions that one, we verify the total number or the applicant verify the total number of public street trees with preliminary plat and final site plan PC 25-403 PSU-FSI, one residential 35 or 45, or two non-residential 11 or 17 to provide street tree calculation to equal the 0.5 acre credit, and three adjust FILO if applicable.

Seconded.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval four to zero.

Thank you.

And last but not least, we have a project section 802, accessory dwelling units, PC 25-614 ZTA.

Zoning Text Amendment.

Thank you very much.

This is a request for a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for proposed amendments to Section 802 of the LMC, which is our section on accessory dwelling units.

Section 802 was last amended in 2021 to expand the opportunities for ADUs, which when we say that term generally, we're talking about either units that are incorporated within a dwelling unit like a basement apartment or a detached ADU.

That whole section covers both.

I think most people's minds jump to the detached ADUs, which some of these amendments do uh pertain specifically to.

But the whole section uh talks about both ADUs that are in a house as well as uh detached units like an apartment above a garage.

However, since 2021, there have not been any detached ADUs successfully constructed by permit under the current regulations.

That is not to suggest that there are not ADUs that have been in existence for a long time, or ADUs that were created without the proper permitting, and there just been no ADU permits issued.

This amendment was initiated as part of a broader work plan to address affordable housing needs that was initiated by Council Vice President Nash during a series of meetings of the housing health and education committee under the last administration.

The broader work plan remains an initiative of the Public Sport Committee under the new administration, uh so I'm sure this conversation will continue both specific to this text amendment, but as well as the role ADUs uh play in uh the affordable housing toolbox.

When we're talking about text amendments, uh there are two criteria we need to keep in mind, and this is what your recommendation should be based on, as well as the council's ultimate decision.

And they are does this change implement policies of the comprehensive plan?

Does it move us towards our aspirations?

And then secondly, are the changes consistent with the existing regulations?

What we're looking for here is um avoiding creating any conflicts with other sections of the code, um generally relying on um other examples of where similar policies or principles are already adopted in the code to kind of expand those.

So this amendment focuses primarily on three aspects of the existing regulations.

In your draft ordinance, um, we have the changes are um either in brackets and that means text is being eliminated, or in bold and underlined, and that means new text is being added.

So the three uh substantive components uh that the amendment addresses relate to parking, the requirement for the property owner to occupy a residence on the site, and lastly, the maximum size of an ADU allowed.

I'm gonna touch briefly on each three each of those.

With regards to parking, our current regulations require one space for an ADU.

If the parking on the property exceeds the minimum required for the principal dwelling already, so if you have a single family house and it has two park three parking spaces where only two are required, you don't just need to add another one for the sake of adding another parking space.

You're covered with with three for the principal dwelling unit and the ADU.

However, if the dwelling unit has just enough parking to serve the minimum requirement uh for the unit, the principal unit, so if it's a single family and you only have two parking spaces, you would need to add another parking space for the ADU.

The proposed regulations are twofold.

First, uh they propose to eliminate the requirement for the parking space for an ADU where the property is within 1,320 linear feet of a transit site and connected by continuous systems of bicycle and pedestrian pathways that can be accessed.

This standard also applies to general parking reductions allowed in the DB and DBO districts currently in the code.

So once again, when we look for consistency with our existing regulations, this is a principle that we've also employed to reduce parking requirements in our downtown districts.

Second, where an additional space is needed, the standard for determining what constitutes a parking space is being adjusted to reflect conditions that are more likely to occur in existing built scenario.

So when we have typical site plans like you've been discussing this evening, the standard parking stall dimension is measured as nine feet wide by 18 feet.

This is this is pretty standard and is appropriate in shared parking arrangements.

However, in a situation that's on an individual lot by lot basis, we believe that dimension can be reduced to allow for a little tighter configuration of parking, provided that those spaces don't uh extend into public right-of-ways or otherwise impede people traveling on sidewalks or out into the roads.

So the proposal is eight feet wide and eighteen feet per space.

I'm sorry, 16 feet per space, provided that the uh it doesn't encroach into the public right-of-way.

The other component of how we measure parking spaces that's being adjusted is when you have parking spaces that are double parked essentially, we only count that as one and a half spaces because access to both is not guaranteed.

Uh, in a situation where people are living on a residential property together, uh, we believe that there's greater flexibility to be able to jockey cars around and be able to accommodate more vehicles within that same parking space.

So we would not penalize tandem parking or double parking by reducing it by a half a space and count those as two full spaces, even if you're double parked.

Once again, these changes are modest uh adjustments to reflect what we more often see in an already built environment where you're not designing this to meet the specific use for this purpose, but uh to accommodate people being able to incorporate them into their properties.

The second substantive change is related to owner occupancy.

Under the current regulations, the property owner has to live in either the ADU or the principal dwelling unit, and a declaration of restriction must be uh recorded referencing that for the referencing the deed for the property so that people are aware of that and it travels with the deed, and that has to be recorded prior to building permits being issued.

While that relationship of having the property owner on site may be more um more accommodating to familiar relationships, maybe an aging child who you know isn't ready to go out on their own yet, wants to stay at home, or maybe a parent who needs assistance.

The proposal is to eliminate that requirement to allow both the units to be available for rent.

This does not eliminate the restriction that an ADU cannot be rented for less than 90 days, which is intended to prevent ADUs from being used as short-term rentals, so there's still that requirement.

It just does not require the owner to live in either of the two dwelling units.

Part of the basis for this change was that when we initially adopted the regulations, we did not have a rental licensing program in the city where properties of certain types of rental properties qualifying need to register with the city and be subject to inspections to ensure safe and habitable or rental units.

It also provides a city with a registration of who is renting property and contact for those for the responsible parties for those units.

This registration would not be required where a property owner was on site.

So if I have my house and I'm renting my ADU and I live there, the rental licensing requirement would not apply, but in the case where you would have two rental units on the property, they would be subject to that provision.

So it provides an added layer of regulatory oversight that wasn't initially in the code when we adopted that provision.

The last proposed amendment is related to the maximum size of a detached ADU.

Now keep in mind size is a function of a lot of things.

Um size is the maximum size that we'll talk about in one in a second, that's 800 square feet.

But size is also determined by compliance with our impervious surface ratio, uh the maximum amount of lot coverage than a generally an accessory structure can occupy on a piece of property setbacks that are defining the building envelope, as well as uh height restrictions.

In addition to those, there's this uh limitation of 800 square feet.

The proposal is to allow an option for modification to increase that size limit, provided that you comply with all of the other factors to allow an ADU that's over 800 square feet but less than 1,200 square feet.

Uh and this would be a modification the planning commission could approve.

We've defined certain criteria that are consistent with, for example, the fence modification requirements where we're looking at compatibility with the community.

Uh so those criteria are that the planning commission has to find that the request is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, it's consistent with our comprehensive plan, that the structure includes compensating design or architectural features so as to meet the overall objectives of the section, and lastly, that it's consistent with the scale and design of the surrounding neighborhood.

Um of the genesis for this uh proposal is um when we're thinking about constructing an ADU either in an addition to or in an existing accessory structure.

Um that hard threshold of 800 square feet could create kind of artificial uh design requirements that might not be the best use of the space if you have a large garage and you're looking at putting a second story on it.

Um how that um layout is designed to artificially meet a threshold of a hard square footage might not be the best use of space and allowing some flexibility based on the context was deemed appropriate.

That is the bulk of the substantive um changes.

There were some um minor edits you'll see uh just to correct references that were wrong in the code or or um references to other sections for alignment.

With that, uh the request is a recommendation for uh I'm sorry, a recommendation for approval of the proposed amendments as contained in the draft ordinance, and once again that's a recommendation of the city council.

Finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the existing provisions in the land management code and reflect policies that are used in other sections of the code, and two that the proposed amendment further furthers policies of the comp plan, including those of the land use housing and municipal growth chapters, and those are called out specifically in the staff report.

And we do support a positive recommendation to the city council.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Um with that, let's go ahead and start with Commissioner Roby.

Any questions?

The answer is yes.

Questions I'll frame it.

Um my major concern about this ordinance.

Uh it's citywide, if I'm not mistaken.

And I don't know in today's day and age if you have an investment commun, if you have an investment community that wants to come in and buy homes and provide ADUs and create a transforming a neighborhood to a rental neighborhood where there's no owner occupancy on site changes the character of that neighborhood and perhaps the livability of that neighborhood.

So I don't know how you control a flood if Frederick is really attractive and and you get these investors coming in and wanting to buy ever properties and add ADUs and feel like they can the pencil profits are worthwhile that I'm making those a test.

What is the city's position on neighborhoods changing that way?

I I understand the concern very much.

I think from a land use perspective, we tend to focus on the land use itself and the characteristics that the land use creates.

So for example, when we talk about a multifamily building, the code is blind to whether that is condominium units where people are going to buy the units or whether they're rental units.

The parking requirements are the same, the building dimensional standards are all the same.

Um so we're focusing on that impact as a multifamily unit when we try to measure things like parking or you know the size of the building and how it relates to surrounding buildings.

Um we don't look at the status of the people living in it in terms of whether they are renters or homeowners.

It's it's still a dwelling unit.

I understand that sounds all very, you know, uh uh clinical and and um but but that's how we would review it from a land use perspective.

But I don't want to diminish the concern that I'm I'm sure um people share.

I think having the rental licensing program and also keep in mind that we have basic property maintenance requirements and the like.

Um, you know, those are your standards that are going to ensure that a property maintains, whether it's owner-occupied or renter occupied, um, uh a minimum um level of being taken care of, I guess.

Thank you.

Uh I appreciate everything you've said.

What still bothers me is the fact that there's no constraint to where they can go.

I know you've said it was purposefully written to be citywide, but I'm thinking along the lines of the example that's been used for years for our historic district or adding new historic overlays within the district where the community that's there has the opportunity to approve or not approve the application of historic district regulations and constraints to their neighborhood.

So I I would I'm kind of thinking I would like to see that kind of constraint mechanism built in to neighborhoods that are being asked to accept this new ordinance before it's imposed upon them.

I think say this at the beginning.

Um as with previous recommendations to the council, the text amendment before you is um is the proposal.

The commission has the opportunity to make a recommendation to support, not support, deny, or recommend um with all alterations or modifications to the code.

Generally we've um tried to guide the commission if you want to grant a uh a recommendation of approval with modification, that you generally state what the intent of it is, don't try to get into crafting language because that obviously has to be tied into the code.

But um, you know, a recommendation for support of this amendment uh eliminating the provision um to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement, right?

That would be the type of recommendation you would want to make.

Um if that helps in your questioning and deliberations, keep in mind recommend approval, denial or approval with some sort of modification, and then to the extent you can articulate the change that you would like to see in the code um and then that gets passed on to the council.

Thank you.

Uh I am I have fewer concerns about the code itself than where it's applied.

So any recommendations I would make would be to give community sectors of the city the opportunity to decide whether that code would be applicable in their neighborhood, much like we do for historic overlays.

So that's it.

Okay.

Commissioner Temple.

Yeah.

Um parking question.

I see uh in in in BU and the four additional parking requirements um that have been added.

Is there a hierarchy of which one applies?

Because I'm having trouble understanding like if I'm within that 1,320 feet, but I'm taking away you know, space to put a structure, do I not have to uh uh add a space for the ADU and so uh I would one love some understanding myself to help my recommendation, but two think maybe there's some clarity needed for the layperson citizen who's reviewing this.

So the intent of the the provisions are um that if your ADU has less than if your site has less than the required parking for the principal dwelling unit and the ADU, you need to provide a parking space.

However, if you are within 1,320 linear feet, the additional parking space is not required.

So if you had a non-conforming, if you had a conforming use with parking that only had two spaces, and you removed a space to so your single family dwelling unit has two parking spaces.

You're within 1,320 linear feet, but you're taking away a parking space.

You're now making your principal dwelling non-conforming, and we wouldn't let you do that.

So you'd have to have those two spaces still for your principal dwelling.

So if you had a garage and you were like, haha, I'm gonna convert this, and that's taking that parking space away, you would still have to maintain compliance with the single family dwelling unit parking requirement if you complied.

So thank you for that.

I think based on that, I'd love to discuss, you know, once we get through staff and and public comment.

Expecially downtown.

I want to recommend anything we can to avoid adding parking spaces at the cost of housing.

This is where we want to we need to make denser and the best place to not have parking, and would hate to make people add parking just to make the ADU work.

So I appreciate that explanation and think that can be a discussion for our recommendation of approval denial and et cetera.

Commissioner Bueno.

Yeah, I guess it's just in line with that, just for clarification.

I hear that, but also I think that there I had the same thought.

But there's a note in here that as long as the location is near enough, I forget the exact number to a bus stop or some sort of public transit, um, and at least downtown.

I I can't think of anything that falls outside of the location to a bus stop that would necessitate that, because I think that that parking feature is waived if it's within that distance.

And like I kind of tried to map it out.

I don't think there's anywhere within like at least near the historic district and mostly downtown that is outside the range of that.

You'd have to go out to like the suburbs a bit more to find somewhere that's outside of that.

Just clarification on that, too.

And I guess let me ask staff this now.

DB and DBO have parking reductions associated with them and DR does not.

Is that correct?

Putting you on the spot here.

That is correct.

So the provisions of 607 for the downtown districts.

Get to them.

Oops.

Um they are all applicable to the DB and DBO, and they range from not requiring additional parking when you're just changing a use to allowing additions of certain sized and kind of a tiered way when that triggers requirements uh for additional parking.

But DB and DBO.

Thank you.

No questions.

Okay.

Um so my question would be, because I'm thinking about the setbacks and the sizes.

Do we know how many lots in Frederick City would even meet the criteria to be able to fit an ADU?

And I'm thinking of the ones that are not attached to the home or the garage.

No, is the short answer.

Um, we have not gone property by property to try to fit um an ADU on it.

I will say that the standards are based on um standards for any accessory structure.

So whether it be an ADU or a garage or a little greenhouse that you want to put on your property, um, the concept was to not create any physical form that would be more of an impediment that is already allowed as any other type of accessory structure.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Okay, so if we don't have additional questions here, we don't really the applicant really is.

I think we've covered everything.

Thank you.

And you've got that.

So public comment.

Did we have any Jennifer on that?

I think we had some on the sign-up sheet.

And if there are people here who were not sworn in and would they'd like to speak, I would need you to stand up, please.

And I'll go ahead and do that.

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

If so, answer I do.

Thank you.

All right.

So the first person we have is Meta Nash.

Yep.

So when you come up if you or as a reminder to state your name and where you live.

Thank you very much.

Uh my name is Mita Nash, and I'm a resident of the City of Frederick.

Do you need the actual street address or just that I'm a city resident?

I've got that here.

Okay.

Uh increasing the amount of affordable housing to the public as a stated goal of this text amendment.

Housing affordability is a concern.

It's a concern in Frederick, it is concerned Maryland.

It's a concern in the country.

I think we all realize that.

But do ADEUs achieve that goal and at what cost?

When the current ADEU ordinance was adopted, an owner residing on the property, either in the home or the accessory structure, was a crucial component, and I thought help generate the support for the original ordinance.

It allowed the owner to have additional income, accommodate older children, aging parents, whatever.

But there was an owner on the side.

I'm here tonight to speak to this draft ordinances proposal to eliminate the requirement.

I've been researching ADUs a bit recently on the Maryland Department of Planning and websites and others.

And most Maryland jurisdictions require the property owner to reside on site.

For personal experience, I have a family member who was outbid many times, 7.3, by cash investors that you know, business investment, real estate investment rates that were cash on the money, and it's not an uncommon practice.

So I think there is a real fear that neighborhoods could, if you don't require any ownership, they become an investment.

In fact, the news post had an article that quoted Zillow, I think it was last week, and this is from Zillow saying the trajectory we're seeing in rentals reinforces why it continues to be one of our most compelling opportunities.

So I mean, there's a big elephant in the room.

Older neighborhoods, those without HOAs or master plans protections are vulnerable to these economic forces.

In this ordinance, it says the master plan will be restricted to 10% of the single-family lots having ADUs.

Okay.

Why no cap on any other neighborhood?

Why?

You know, just the master plans.

Homeowners associations currently do not allow them.

So basically, whatever this demand is or this market you're creating is going to be directed towards older neighborhoods.

But simply because of closer in, larger lots normally.

Think of uh the North Market Street area of Batee J, Grant Wilson, Westbrook, downtown, Center Street, Baker Park, who or what are protecting those neighborhoods.

You're going to protect a master plan with only 10%, but yet the rest of the older neighborhoods with no HOAs are fair game.

Okay.

The unintended consequences.

For example, buying a modest home at that three minutes.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

I think I uh was asking questions.

Let me just say that the 1,200 square foot dwelling, you add a single, you add an ADU to it, you're de facto subdividing that property and creating two houses on a single family lot.

Have questions about water hookups, sewer connections, how that's all uh related.

But anyway, I urge you to recommend reinstating the requirement that was initially in the text amendment that owners live on the property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Linda Dev.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Linda Dove, and I'm a resident of Frederick.

ADUs, as I understand them, were originally intended as an additional housing opportunity for family members.

Now they are being identified as one solution to creating affordable housing.

And I want to share with you why ADUs will not be affordable.

Referencing the renovation of an existing garage or building a new dwelling for an 800 square foot one-bedroom, one bath structure will cost close to 300 plus thousand dollars.

The numbers are based upon local standard costs for construction, such as foundation and structural work, creation of a sewage line from the street to the ADU, the addition of water lines and service, electrical service tying into an existing house will probably require upgrades to the wiring of that house and increasing the load to accommodate the ADU.

There are many other costs, but just construction fees and then to finish the interior.

Based upon the construction numbers and using a rental fee of $1,800 per month, it would take 13 years just to recoup the capital expenditure.

This is a break-even cost that does not consider increased property taxes during that period, nor does it consider the cost of money.

If you opt for adding a tiny home or pre-fab dwelling to a property, the expenses will be similar.

The structure will require a new foundation along with construction costs just mentioned.

There could be additional charges, such as shipping, local delivery connections, and the ADU would have to be of a style with finishes keeping in character with the existing house.

ADUs have their purpose as originally intended, but do they really address the lack of affordable housing?

I would also like to add a comment about eliminating the need for an owner to occupy the property and increasing permissible size.

It seems to me this could only benefit someone who wanted to split an existing parcel in order to build multiple homes.

And again, these would not be affordable.

We do need affordable and moderately priced housing for the people who help drive our economy.

This problem is not only local, but across the state and the country.

The challenges are the cost of land that remains high.

Materials can be scarce, thus they're more expensive.

And in many instances, wages have not kept pace with inflation.

We need to explore other options, and I thank you.

Thank you.

And then we have, and again, I I apologize, I cannot read your handwriting.

SJ are the first two initials.

Steve?

Okay.

Real quick.

Real quick, Steve Jacobsick Market Street.

The goals are admirable.

The execution is subjective here, and the devil's in the details.

I don't think that not having the owner on the place and the rage expenses as just detailed really lends this whole deal to affordable housing.

So really, if you're going to I would want to move it forward, but I think maybe an opportunity to add, you know, recommendations or comments as it moves to the City Council are critical.

Without some sort of incentives, financial incentives to keep the cost down of building something, it's never going to be affordable because it just the numbers just don't work as just the detailed.

And I and also in in with um I call him Bob, Commissioner Rovey concerns, I think are legitimate as well, because the logical dictate that if you got to spend that type of money to build something, okay.

And then you got you know you open the door up to it being an investment and an investment opportunity that you know that is not truly the goal of affordable housing or taking care of a family member.

So now you're going to get an outside investor coming into the into the mix who is not going to make their project affordable because of his cost, and and also you know going down the road that um Commissioner Robey spoke to, I think you really could address the deterioration of the character of a neighborhood.

Okay, I understand that the character of a neighborhood is defined by the land use is parking spaces, but it's a lot more than that.

And you're really taking a risk by opening up you know an investment opportunities for market price housing in established neighborhoods that is really counter to the everything that we want to accomplish, including affordable housing.

Do we have any additional public comment?

Good evening.

I'm Ann Ryan.

I'm with Frederick Housing Solutions Task Force, and right on the heels of uh releasing the uh city county housing needs assessment this past week, um, we see um an invitation to expand the array of housing options that might make a difference to those who can't find anything now.

And so ADUs is on that list, as uh single room occupancies is on that list, smaller cottage clusters is on that list.

And what do we do as a city and a county to weave in an array of housing options that people can afford?

Um and as the um previous speaker mentioned, the ADUs are not cheap.

Um the challenge that we have as policymakers, or you have as policymakers is how do we combine um the concerns about people who make under $25,000 and having nowhere to live in the City of Frederick with the invitation to build smaller, to offer an array of options that they might be able to afford.

And is ADU one of them?

It should be.

Um, but there's been not one permit requested in the last five years, so something's wrong.

But what can we do to make it right?

And maybe some of these suggestions about parking are good, maybe the owner-occupied is not a a good one.

But what do we do to make it right?

And then how do we incentivize people to actually participate?

When we have nobody who wants to do it, then what do we do?

We need to invite people in who will want to build an ADU, make an ADU happen so that it's better for their household and it's better for the community.

So I'm hoping that we can make our way there.

Thank you.

Yes.

My name's Kate McDermott.

I am a resident of Frederick.

I live on Klein Boulevard in the Westbrook neighborhood.

And so when you talk about, you know, an 800 square foot ADU, my neighborhood is where you could pull that off.

We're talking about 1950 ranches, small Cape Cods, large lots.

I fully support our city's need for affordable housing.

But we just heard tonight about a project that's going to put 119 units on Route 40, transit accessible, shopping accessible, and they're paying fees in lieu for moderately priced units.

I don't see ADUs being the problem.

I really think the fee in lieu is the problem.

It just makes it too easy not to build affordable housing units.

But I I really want to stress that you know, in in our neighborhood, Westbrook, and all the others that were mentioned, you know, you're when we talk about community character.

I would just ask all of you, would you want to be living in a community where all of a sudden the lot size allows you to have two rental units next to your single family home?

Who defines community character?

I would say the people who live there define community character, not just parking, not just square footage.

I mean, to uh has anyone even looked at the notion of saying a percentage of the lot size can be set aside for an ADU as opposed to a flat 800 with the option of going to 1200.

My neighbors on Klein Boulevard, here are some of the average square footage.

1405, 1757, 1750, 1869.

That's just a small sampling.

Okay.

Many of the homes have been expanded over the years.

But that tells you what the original footprint of most of the homes were.

I argue that 800 is just an arbitrary number that really could create more problems than it's designed to fix.

So my hope is that this body will send this back to staff for additional study, additional consideration of some of the consequences, owner-occupied square footage in particular, and consider the impacts on the people who actually live in these neighborhoods, and don't just define community character by metrics, parking, et cetera.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I will take it back here.

Um starting with Commissioner Temple.

Thank you.

Um question for staff based on uh the the latest public comment about lot coverage.

Um could you just quickly highlight for us in ADU, uh new ADU, so new impervious coverage, whether that's replacing parking, replacing backyard, uh, how the open space and pervious cover requirements would be treated for that ADU.

So any accessory structure is subject to our impervious service ratio.

That is based on the zoning of the property, so it varies um in terms of how much actual imperviousness you can have on a property, but that's gonna factor in your principal dwelling unit footprint, that's gonna factor in your driveway, that's gonna factor in lead walks, um, any other surface that you might have on your property that is impervious.

In our low, or am I saying impervious to rainwater um that reduces or diminishes the infiltration of rainwater into the ground?

Um so for our four zoning district, uh the the maximum pervious surface ratio is 40% of the lot area for R6 through pretty much all of our 12 uh yeah, uh 50 percent of the lot area can be covered by all that.

So that that's gonna be our first factor.

We're gonna look at the zoning, look at what's already there, and then um apply that factor and see how much additional coverage you can have.

There are then setbacks.

So the accessory structure setbacks require that if you are within six feet of the principal structure, you need to meet the requirements for the principal structure, because that's six feet of basically it's an extension of whatever it is.

So once again, those setbacks are gonna be dictated, they're side setbacks from property lines and rear setback.

We're predominantly talking about the rear yards, so with the front setback is um also exists, but probably not applicable in this instance.

So those setbacks are going to start to define what we call the building envelope.

If you're greater than six feet um from the house, then let me make sure I get this right.

In a new accessory structure, uh the minimum setback required for an ADU that's less than six feet is the principal setback.

Each um minimum setback for an ADU that's more than six feet from the principal structure is either half of the required setback for the district or three feet.

So that's going to be if you're creating something new more than six feet from the house.

If your minimum setback is eight feet for the side, then it's going to be four feet, that half of that.

Um you also have a maximum lot coverage requirement under section 803.

And that limits the maximum amount of coverage of the rear yard to no more than make sure I get it right.

Let's see.

Not to exceed 30 percent of the actual rear yard where the dwelling unit is being placed.

So that's taking the distance between your house and the rear property line, and no more than 30 percent of that can be covered by the the accessory dwelling unit.

That's in addition to the impervious surface ratio.

They're not trying to get at the same thing.

Um I think that covers it.

And then the 800 square feet, if you have that left is the maximum size.

So the reinterpret that the intent of this and the way it's written is that a on a R4, which is the least dense of the residential zones in the city will have these unit will be have the least amount of impact because of higher open space requirements and pervious requirements, et cetera.

But as the residential density based on the zoning goes up, those requirements typically get smaller correct.

And I'm just trying to think of like the size and scale is we're not gonna see with the way the code is written in an R4, you're not gonna see a uh twelve hundred square foot, you know, you're not gonna see everything get paved over and this giant unit get built because if someone has a existing three-car garage and they're building this ADU next to it, they're gonna trigger something else that says, hey, there's too much development on this parcel.

And I I know that's like a very specific case, but that is the intent of the way this is written, correct?

I think that's the general policy.

However, I wouldn't put the caveat that uh all of these things are gonna be, and to Commissioner Lewin's question about uh have we seen where these are all possible, it's gonna be a function of the lot size, the house placement on it, how large the house is.

If you have a very large house already on an R4 zoned lot and you're eating up that 40 percent, you might have no room.

Um you if you have a one-car garage and a single family house that's very large.

Um so but the standards are intended to create a level of um of scale with the existing property and the the proper the uh home on it.

Yep.

So I know that doesn't address the uh rental versus owned issue, but hopefully it helps cover some of this you know impact of community.

But thank you for that, Gabrielle.

Commissioner Bueno, any questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Commissioner Rowie?

Thank you.

Um I was intrigued by the public comment this evening.

And uh and Mr.

Temple's uh statement about whether the R4 zoning might change if we add a bunch of ADUs.

Are we now gonna be R8 kind of a thing?

And how that's gonna impact.

But my real question is to the audience or to the community that spoke to us tonight about affordability and what are we going to get what we're asking for as a result of adding ADUs?

Or is I'm going to attribute it to Mr.

Jakobic, but I might be wrong on that.

But the question is, what will be the cost?

If we take their example, uh one of the examples was used tonight that an ADU might cost you several hundred thousand dollars for a twelve hundred square foot uh facility.

Uh how does the cost when you f when you do the economic analysis for profitability and payback for the loan for that kind of a unit, is that going to still be in the affordability of the low and moderate income housing range, or is it somebody's gonna have to have a different level of economic uh capability to give you the money you need to pay off your loan to create that asset uh within a reasonable amount of time and what what a reasonable amount of time is, I don't know how you determine one was talking about 13 or 15 years or something like that.

But my concern is that you may not get you may not achieve what you want.

That what you may get the ADUs, but you may not get affordability because they need a certain amount of money to get their debt paid off for providing that asset.

So we I think there needs to be some economic analysis on whether or not ADUs as written in the ordinance will achieve your goal, or whether you will get additional housing units, but you may not get the low and moderate income housing that you're looking for.

Can I respond that real quick?

Yeah.

Sorry, if you can answer first.

Yeah, I so like from my perspective as a younger person who might have one of these ADUs myself, it's not only just that whether it itself is low-income housing, it's the flexibility that it provides.

So I know that at least people from my age group, the benefits of ADU are that your parents could move in, such that instead of having them live in another house by themselves, which might be twice as expensive, even if it's a one that they've held for a while, they can sell that house and then move in and not go into nursing homes or not go into extended living, which is more expensive to have to manage if they can no longer live by themselves fully and they can't sustain themselves in that house in a house that might be too big for them.

So it's not only that the ADUs themselves might be you know affordable, but they unlock other housing that is someone that they gotta live somewhere.

Someone who's in the ADUs has to live somewhere.

That housing that they're in separately, you know, is now available.

So it's not only just that, but it provides a greater flexibility, and that's at least from the perspective of the younger person, how that uh can affect it, if not you know, it's not always we're gonna build an ADU to rent it out to someone.

It could be you build it out so that a family member or you know a sibling or something could live there in that type of build.

So I hear you on that, but it in my perspective, if there's more access to housing in general, more options, and it provides greater flexibility, and then the numbers will work out down.

It might not be perfect, and I have my concerns too about the can you know what was discussed earlier about whether big developers will come in and just build a lot of housing using this as a you know, whether it's a loophole or a feature, you can call it either way, but they're gonna build a bunch of housing that can be denser than intended because they have ADUs.

That might not be a bad thing.

It's gonna be a different thing, but it's something that you know it also provides people like me potentially to be able to do that.

So that's my thinking on it.

So I I hear it, there's always unintended consequences.

And sometimes it's do you want to try to figure out every single little loophole and correct everything, or is that something we can reactively see something's gonna happen changing here?

This plan commission is still here, there will probably still be developments that come up that try to do this, and then we can determine whether that's in the spirit of you know the the code to figure out that point.

So my perspective is that this is not nothing's perfect, but it's a it's a good direction.

It's it's a movement in that good direction.

Everything has its flaws, but I think that overall it's trying to meet a name that that solves it.

Thank you.

I don't I don't want to get into a debate and but you're no, no, what I'm saying, you struck a good cord with me because my previous house was on Gascouse Pike, and I put a mother-in-law wing on that house just for my mother-in-law, could move in and we could watch over her and provide it took three of us to make her feel independent.

But uh this is you made a valid point.

Thank you.

I also think if you accept the premise that more housing lowers the cost of housing overall then these become affordable, right?

And so well you may be spending uh someone may be spending $300,000, you know, per the uh quote that was provided by you know public comment to do this someone moving into the 800 square foot brand new ADU is still leaving something older available someplace else, right?

So if you accept the premise that more housing creates you know more opportunity.

Um I think that helps with the affiliate affordability argument.

Also we want to increase if we're tr if the goal is to increase the supply of housing, you know, and and that's a benefit, whether or not these are affordable per square footage, you know it that's up to whoever's spending the money to do this right.

Um and if the market can handle it, the market's gonna handle it.

Um I would say um, you know, being in real estate, a question I get a lot is about multi-generational living.

I have a client right now, older her daughter is in her 20s, doesn't want to move out from home, but the mother doesn't really want her sharing the same living space.

So we've been looking for things that have that ability, even if it's to have a separate living space in the basement.

And I think that's what we need to be thinking here, is like you're saying, you know, we're creating this, and that is allowing someone to not have to be in a very expensive um adult living situation as they as they grow older.

Um I don't know what I think about the owner occupancy, non-owner occupancy, because that's kind of where I don't I I agree that I'm I d not seeing that that would be affordable to do.

Like if I wanted to build a second unit at my home, would it be affordable for me to do that and then rent it out to someone and provide them with affordable housing?

Most likely not in the first you know, 10, 15 years or so.

So those are my thoughts.

I think it's a it's a move in the right direction.

I think it needs um, you know.

Fine-tooth comb, really an analyze this as we go through it since we haven't had any in five years, you know, see what comes of this.

Um but again, I don't particularly like the owner occupancy change.

May maybe we talk about these th three items, right?

The the primary three items independently, just so we can work towards a recommendation.

Um I just want to ask the the rest of uh the commission, the eight hundred square foot line to twelve hundred square foot line, do we have any concerns with that?

Is there a m modification recommendation that we want to make it?

I mean, for me, my thinking is my full house is like twelve hundred square feet.

So I can't imagine like I don't know.

I don't know if the problem like it's it's like okay you can add that.

I just don't know if the problem was that oh the ADUs aren't big enough to make it worthwhile building.

I don't I don't necessarily see that.

I mean I see it more as an issue if you think of like a suburban style development, they build like a second smaller, larger house there.

But I think that that's up to the cost undertaking.

Are you willing to take out like 300K in loans to build a house that big because that's realistically what that's gonna be?

I don't see any issue with allowing it, but it's also I don't think a limiting factor.

There hasn't been any built, so I don't think that's gonna change anything.

I think it's like a think it's a null point.

I think it's like we could do that, but I don't think it's gonna that's gonna be the thing that's gonna make more ADUs be built, personally.

But I mean I could be wrong.

Like, I was gonna say I personally like don't know if Planning Commission should be reviewing an 801 square foot addition, right?

But but I understand that a threshold has to exist somewhere.

800 square feet is where school impact fees take I'm gonna look to staff 800 and one square feet is when a school impact fee is required for a unit.

So if we're gonna have a consistent policy, then I'm good with I'm good with it there.

So I don't see a need to modify or change our recommendation for the size.

So again put that one down.

Parking.

I'll I'll say I would like to see, and if I'm making the motion, I'm recommending that council uh valuates a way to not require new spaces, or I'm sorry, not require new spaces or replacement spaces in D B DBO and DR, which would be downtown business, downtown business office, and downtown residential, where it's actually not the densest part of the city, but it is the um most mixed use part of the city.

It's actually not the densest part of the city, but it is the most mixed use part of the city.

So I won't get into language, but that would be what my uh recommendation would be.

Yeah, I hear the I hear the concerns about the parking thing.

I I also like if you just yeah, because I do see situations where, especially downtown or in this area, you at want to add, you might have two parking spots, you want to add an additional, you know, one room ADU.

You don't have three parking spots.

So that's just not going to happen.

And in the situations we're talking about, that could be, I don't know if uh, you know, my mom's driving very much at that point, you know.

Maybe, maybe not.

But I I agree.

I think that that's you know, I guess there's situations where technically people would use a spot for parking to build the ADU, so you want to make sure that there's a continuation of the parking that they had, but I don't know if that's something we should be dictating with this with this evidence.

My thought is that we have a lot of these alleys that have homes on them already, right?

You look at Chapel, you look at Maxwell, they have homes on them already.

So have both old non-conforming homes and then they have new developments.

Um so if someone in one of these zones wants to take their two or three spaces that's alley accessed and put an ADU, it I don't think it stands out that much.

There's plenty of homes that don't have parking, you know.

So I that's kind of my thought there.

For those areas.

For those areas.

I agree.

I agree.

Um I live downtown for 14 years and never had parking.

Um so I I think it's a non-issue, and I make that makes sense for me.

I think it's one of those things where if someone chooses to build that, they're putting them.

Are you deciding to have to get street street parking every day?

And that's that's something that's gonna affect their home value if that's how it is.

They gotta make the decision, they're a big boy, big girl, they can they can determine that.

It's an economic question that they need to make, but I don't want to, you know, parking spaces cost 40,000 if you think about it, right?

So let's let them make that.

Um what's a better use of space?

And that they can determine it.

Yeah.

All right.

I think the third one then is owner, owner occupancy.

Um I think our public comment overall in what we received in writing and what we heard this evening, um, has told us what the public wants.

And I I tend to agree.

I have people calling me, sending postcards, wanting to buy my property on the spot.

Several, you know, several times a week at least.

Um you almost feel bullied.

Right?

Get out because we want to do this in your neighborhood.

Um so I would like to remove that condition.

Yeah, let's go.

What is it?

You want to remove?

Rem remove uh or have it be that the owner needs to occupy one of those units, whether it be the primary or the ADU.

So you want the owner to be there?

Yes, I do.

I agree.

I guess the the alternative of yeah, the alternative is that let's say you do own the property and you put an ADU and then you do move out after five years, you now basically can't rent out your house.

Yes, you're just selling it.

It transacts as one part.

Right.

It transacts as one.

So the owner if you're selling your house to me, I'm buying both of them.

Yeah, I'm just saying that that person could not become a landlord to that property now.

The person purchasing purchases both of them, but I guess a question for staff would be does the purchase the does the person purchasing them have to occupy one of the units?

How I I that gets very complicated there.

I can reiterate that if you need it.

Under the current regulations the property owner has to live in one of the two units.

After it transacts even.

I'm sorry.

I have an ADU on my property.

I sell it to Zach.

Zach has to live in the ADU.

Yes, that's the intent of having the deed restriction so that when Zach buys it and he gets all his paperwork at closing, he understands that he's committed to either living in one of the two.

Yeah.

But I could not like I own the house.

I I I choose, okay, I'm leaving.

I got a job somewhere else.

I can't rent out that combined property to anyone to a family.

I can't rent out that combined property to anyone now, because I'm no longer an owner of you have to live on premise.

Yeah, so yeah, that's what I'm just saying.

Now that situation happens.

Where you're forced to sell if you own a property, then leave because of that.

And that's I that's a niche kind of off.

I mean, like but it is a realistic thing that some people think about, you know.

A job changes.

A job changes, you gotta leave.

Yeah.

It's no longer your primary residence.

Now you have to sell the property.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's just a different it's uh it's a restriction that the city's placing is that you can now functionally not rent it out to someone in that time, so it's gonna sit vacant or be or or be it's going to sit vacant or be or have to be sold in that or and you can't split it up and just rent out one.

You can't just say, all right, the back one is vacant now, or and you can rent out the main property.

There's you're just making a weird little block in the rule there that I understand the alternatives that you don't want mass rental, you know, tiny town type of thing, you know.

But you also you know don't want to accidentally mess with the other way around.

And have vacant property issue.

And have a vacant property issue.

You know, because you don't want to I don't I don't know what that would look like.

You know, someone gonna say I'm condemning my own ADU so I can rent out the main property.

That seems silly, but that's what people would do.

I I don't know.

I'm just just thinking as someone who might build one of those that's the level of advocate.

Yeah, that's something that's there a middle ground where I mean the idea that's a good idea.

There's a duration at which it would be how many property.

It would be something like that.

We can't put that into this.

That's not something we can do at this level.

Well, is you could have a deed restriction that ex the last over a certain time.

That's what I was I was just thinking, like what would be that time frame?

Would it be you have to live in one of those units for the first five years?

That's still happening the person could talk about it.

If you could, but it it's some sort of arbitrary.

Yeah, what is is is it three years or something?

I don't know for sure.

Isn't there some sort of like rule around primary ownership and stuff like that for homes?

Like 90 days or something.

Depends on the loan.

Yeah, but anyways, some that that's my only devil's advocate on the other side of that.

Because I do agree, but you don't want to accidentally pinch people for for no reason on the other side.

So do we want to add language about a the deed restriction time length?

That gets a little in the weeds.

It gets in the weeds and I don't feel comfortable doing that here.

I think we uh I think we've uh I don't know.

I thought you were saying we're watching you.

Yeah.

Let me look at the action.

Yeah.

I mean what I feel confident doing is I think it's okay to leave it in, but maybe I don't know if we can make a note that this was a point of discussion for it to be monitored and followed up on.

Like if we get a boom of ADUs and this becomes a problem, it might be something that we can evaluate later on.

You know, if this becomes a what we're fearing it that it could be, we can figure we can figure it out later.

But I don't see any need to put a restriction on it.

So in our letter, can we put the things that we were concerned with?

Sorry, what was the last part?

In the letter that goes to council, would we be able to put maybe a list of the things we were concerned with as part of this discussion so they understand while we were deliberating, these items came up here were possible solutions because this body shouldn't be making the final decision, which we're not, but I think we have some good ideas.

Correct.

I would um stick to stick to a vote approval, denial, or approval with modifications, and then if there's kind of commentary you want to provide on the deliberations, if you can articulate those to the best of your ability in kind of a concise way in the motion, we'll make sure we can um incorporate that in the letter.

Just so we can just so we get it right.

We'll go back and we listen and then we'll we'll we'll look back in the room.

It's just harder to take the full conversation and pull out what we think is important.

Um we want you to make sure you're specific on it.

Understood.

So we've discussed, do we want to clarify specifically what changes we want to make?

I think the first two are relatively clear, right?

The third one we just have to phrase properly.

Right.

So what do we exactly term the changes to be made, the modifications to me?

Evaluating the impact of non-owner occupied units and considering how it impacts the adverse effect of the transaction of the property and evaluating a time deed restriction to ensure it's owner occupied for duration.

Which is arbitrary.

And then make a note to say to evaluate that this could be a solution later.

That that's what that that's all of this is, right?

It's like we're not making we're not taking a but just suggest to remove it, or do we just just keep it in, but also here's a note on it.

I think we uh you'd go either way on it.

I mean I think if I'm making a motion, I'm making a motion for approval on the conditions that the impacts be evaluated for non-occupied occupied commits and the timing of the deed restriction.

Yes.

That's I think that's what I'm saying.

Yep.

Yep.

And then if they have questions they can ask us for it.

Yeah.

They're here too.

So Commissioner Ruby, do you have something?

You look like you're I was listening mode, but my reaction was I think You know how when you qualify for low and moderate income housing, there's that formula for what I guess what the revenue I would like the revenue stream that results from an ADU.

Now using your example of family.

So I my issue with that.

Just a reminder, yeah, everyone make sure we speak very close and directly into the microphones.

I hear you.

So my issue with that is that if you tag housing cost restrictions to this, the only people are going to be able to do that are investors.

Right?

Like uh Joe homeowner is not applying for a grant to get money to build an ADU.

In the event they have one, maybe they can lease it at that rate, but any new ADU construction is not going to be able to be built cheap enough to lease at those prices.

Right I mean like and so like I agree with you, but it's like if we require that you're either just not going to get any, which has happened for the last five years, or investor who can find some way to finance a block where they've built they've bought 15 homes and they're using the grant to build 15 ADUs and you know making it affordable, you know, somehow, right?

Like that's the only way it's going to work out because unfortunately most affordable housing that's built is built well above market rate and subsidized down to it, and I don't want to create that situation.

Um it's like the knock on effect that we talked about.

It's like this might not be per square foot affordable, but it would maybe open up another house elsewhere that is affordable, or it increases the total supply so that everything gets closer to affordable and somehow four blocks away dips now down.

It's looking at the whole thing.

It's a macro thing.

And it's difficult because you want to we're trying to fix it here, trying to do something to help here, but it's a macro problem that this is just assisting with.

So I I I I I feel that that idea, but I think that realistically the way that these kind of map out as I understand it, it's not quite as straightforward as like I'm gonna rent out this back property to someone who needs affordable housing.

It's not always how it goes.

So would you be comfortable with an approval?

Yeah.

Approval with the recommendation that the ownership is the ownership requirements are left in because of the discussion we've had.

Because a denial denies the other parts.

Right.

Um I don't think it's materially that different than an approval based thinking that these are issues.

But I see two options.

It's one, it's an approval with the recommendation that they remove the owner-occupied the leave in the owner-occupied requirement, or we're denying or or recommending for denial of the entire thing.

And so we can list in the findings why we're making that first one, but I think the first one is better than the second one.

I agree.

We should have uh notes about this for them to reevaluate it if they say that's a good point.

We'll we'll talk about this in a couple later and get back to it.

Okay.

I think that's good.

Okay.

So those if you want do you want to take and summarize those three?

You use so well playing them out.

I'm happy to as well, but I just need to make sure we got them all specifically set out our areas of concern.

Okay, I'm looking for a motion on action number one.

I would like to make a motion for the recommendation of the approval of the approse of uh proposed amendments as contained within the draft ordinance with the following recommendations for council consideration.

One that the code is rewritten to not uh add net new parking to DB, DBO, and DR zones because this is the most mixed use part of Frederick, and we want to preserve housing there.

And two, that the owner-occupied provisions are left in the ordinance because of the concerns of community character and because of the concerns of community character.

Wasn't there one more timing of the deed restriction?

Um We talked about one more in the community beginning.

Right.

And then it was timing of deed restriction.

Yeah, I guess for three.

In the event the council leaves in the non-occu-occupied as acceptable.

We asked them to consider a time deed restriction or other avenues to ensure that it does the ADU does not become an avenue for investor, you know.

Rapid development.

Big capital investor rapid development and degradation of the community character of each of the zones and neighborhoods that these could be placed in.

I agree with what you said.

I'm not sure how to write that.

That's a that's a tough one to do.

We don't have to write it.

Okay.

We don't have to.

But I we will need a second.

They got the vibes.

Gabriel can think of the I need a second.

I second, I second that.

Yes.

Okay.

Excuse me, can I ask one question?

Just I want to make sure I'm absolutely hearing right.

Uh so you said that the code is rewritten to not require new net parking for DB, DBO, and DR.

Is that to substitute the provision related to transit?

Or in addition to it.

And it's true.

So a new provision be added that in addition to the transit proximity, that no additional parking is also required.

Additional parking is also not required in DB DR and DBL.

That's right.

Yes.

Correct?

Yeah.

Is it clear if it's clear just to remove the parking that you in those zones can replace parking, like existing parking?

Or is that less clear for the intent?

So you'd be probably then you get into like the provisions about non-conforming parking.

Um you could add language and we don't have to worry about the specific wording, but a new provision be added to indicate that if parking is removed to create the ADU in DRDBO or DB.

Additional parking is not required for the ADU nor to account for the lost space.

That makes that makes sense.

Finding for adding a new provision to the parking so that if parking is removed for an ADU and DB DBO or DR, no new parking is required required.

Period.

That works great.

And that's that's seconded.

Yep.

So that was a motion by Commissioner Temple, a second by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

That said, the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.