Okay, it is six o'clock.

I'd like to welcome everybody to the April 13th, 2026 meeting of the City of Fredericks Planning Commission.

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

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

The commission is made up of five regular members.

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

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

All speakers must begin their comments by providing their name and general address for the record, and members of the public will have three minutes to give comments.

Anyone who is representing a group will have 10 minutes to give comments, and 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.

Thank you.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the planning department for announcements.

Good evening, everyone.

There are four announcements this evening.

The first is that the Planning Commission workshop will be held one week from today, Monday, April the 20th at 2 p.m.

in this room.

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

Again, that is in that in this room.

And the last two.

Thank you, Lewis, for your service.

And then lastly, um, we are going to be saying goodbye to Zach Buono, uh Commissioner that has given his time, and we have very much appreciated it.

He is going on to bigger things.

Um, but maybe one day we'll see him back.

So thank you for your service, and I will present you with a court.

And I'd like to add a comment.

I think um, you know, through Zach's tenure, which although it's been short, he certainly has questioned the status quo and added to our conversations and helped us along with the city planning.

So thank you.

All right.

Uh next we're moving on to minutes, and I would ask for a motion uh for approval of the April 10th pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

I motion that uh I motion that we approve the planning commission minutes of March 9th, 2026.

Seconded.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I'll be looking for a motion.

I'm sorry, so we'll all uh looking for a vote for approval for those minutes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that's five zero for approval of the March 9th Planning Commission minutes.

Also looking for approval of the April 10th pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

I motion to approve the April 10th, 2026 pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

And I second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 5-0 for approval of the April 10th pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

Next, we have public hearing consent items, which we have none.

We also do not have any continuances.

And our next items under miscellaneous would be election of officers.

I'm looking for a motion for an election of chairperson.

I'll make the motion to for chairman to the microphone.

Excuse me.

We do already have a chair elected.

That is Commissioner Llewellyn was elected the chair.

And then we paused elections to get more planning commissioners.

So we are looking for vice chair and secretary.

Not for all positions.

Okay.

Thank you for the clerics.

We're going to vote for you again.

All right.

So looking for a motion for election of a vice chair.

I motion to appoint Commissioner Roby, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission.

Second.

Okay, so that is motion by Commissioner Temple, a second by Commissioner Montez.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

So that is approval of vice chair.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for an elected election of secretary.

I motioned for Commissioner Temple to be the secretary.

Okay, looking at the second.

I second.

Great.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's five to zero as well.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Our next item would be the NICOLOC building expansion, PC 22-653 FSI, the final site plan.

The applicant is requesting a three-year extension of the approved final site plan at 8400 progress court.

And with that, I will turn it over to staff to provide a summary.

Thank you.

This was originally proposed to construct a 45,616 square foot addition to the existing industrial building and was approved by planning commissioner November 14th, 2022.

The site plan was valid for three years from the date of planning commission approval, making the expiration date November 14, 2025.

In accordance with Section 309 of the land management code, the planning department issued a six-month extension, which extended the expiration date to May 14th, 2026.

Adequate public facilities for waterline and sewer line were approved with the final site plan, and the project is exempt from testing on road adequacy.

Due to the size of the project, the adequate public facilities will expire November 14th, 2027 and do not require an extension at this time.

In reviewing the request, per section 309 of the land management code, a building permit must be issued within three years approval, or the plan becomes void.

At this time, no building permits have been applied for, nor have any improvement plans which are processed through the engineering department.

Per the applicant's request letter, the extension request is being made due to the construction timeline being pushed back to close on another property.

And in addition, they cite high interest rates combined with recent tax recent tariffs, which increase costs on both construction and equipment.

Specifically, the manufacturing equipment is from a German company called the MASA group.

These were the same reasons provided for the administrative six-month extension.

The stated goal is to pull required permits prior to purchasing the equipment.

Although the code offers no guidance or criteria for the commission when extending a development plan beyond the administrative extension provisions, the intent of setting the expiration dates is to ensure timely construction of approved projects, and then the projects are in compliance with current regulations.

The expiration date establishes a reasonable time frame within which an applicant is anticipated to complete the necessary processes that follow the commission's approval.

Staff recognizes the applicant faces unique challenges by obtaining equipment from Germany and acknowledges the interest rate and tariffs.

However, extending the plan for the full term of the initial approval is a significant extension and affords the applicant double the time of others.

Other applications do face similar challenges and have met the same benchmarks within the time.

The development should reflect the most updated city codes, but no timeline has been provided.

And a lesser extension will encourage the applicant to pursue the project in good faith.

Staff is recommending a one-year extension of the plan.

So the commission has one action.

Approval of a three-year extension of the final site plan PC 22 653 FSI for Nicoloc building expansion.

Finding that after unconditional approval, the applicant has not filed improvement plans and therefore cannot file a building permits.

That the purpose of the expiration dates are to ensure developments within the city adhere to the most out updated regulatory requirements.

And the city is currently undergoing changes with a strong focus on planning and potential changes to the land management code.

A two or three-year extension would be inconsistent with previous extensions granted by the planning commission.

Staff recommends approval of a one-year extension of the final site plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll take a row call for questions, starting with Commissioner Temple.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

In the event we approved a three-year extension, the APO APFO certificates would expire in the middle of that extension.

What does the process look like for the applicant to update the APFO certificates?

And does that create an instance where they're coming back to us in any way during that three-year period?

So they would expire November 14, 2027.

This one with the three-year extension would be May 14th of 2029.

So they would have to come back for an extension on the adequate public facilities.

So yes, if you did three years, they would have to come back for an additional extension for the APFOs.

And maybe this is a question for the applicant, but was there conversations about requesting the extension of the APFO at the same time as a part of this action or as a part of this application?

No.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Buono.

I have no questions.

Commissioner Roby.

Thank you.

The question that I have, maybe it's going to be developed later, uh, be answered later by the applicant.

But the approval that was given in 2023, 2024, whatever the initial approval for AFEO, that may conditions easily could change in the city with all the other development rapidly taking place here that might affect those decisions.

So having an extension of three years is somewhat problematic to me in terms of uh our ability to respond to current conditions versus historic conditions.

That's why staff is recommending a one-year extension.

I hear you.

And Commissioner Montes.

I'll reserve any questions for the applicant that I have.

Okay.

And I have no questions for staff either.

So with that, I would ask that the applicant come to the podium for their presentation, please.

A little button button at the end.

Oh, there it is.

It doesn't have a button.

It doesn't have a button.

Oh no.

I can speak with the hard for our applicants.

So looking for the joke.

There it is.

All right.

Hi.

Um Jody Walker from Harrisburg and Associates here representing our client.

Um we're asking, as as Christina um explained, we're asking for a three-year extension.

With the understanding that we'll be at we'll have to go for additional APFO if it goes past that November 14th date.

One reason being a one-year extension.

After we would get that one year extension, it takes it takes six months to get the improvement plans approved.

The improvement plans have not been submitted as of yet.

So by the time those improvement plans are processed, improved, approved, and we're ready to move on with construction.

So that's one reason.

But we're open for discussion if there's any questions.

Okay.

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

Okay.

Commissioner Rove?

No further questions.

And Commissioner Montez?

Yeah, I do have a question.

So you haven't filed.

Is it work now?

Okay, you can hear me now.

Sweet.

So you're requesting a full three-year extension.

So what is your milestones or what are your plans to file an improvement plan?

Um building permits, timelines.

Correct, correct.

Um we're gonna start the process of improvement plans as soon as possible after this approval and uh move forward with that and start processing the improvement plans to get them through the process.

So we can get everything in order to start the construction.

They can order the equipment they need.

Um it's just gonna take a longer time than initially thought, and with the tariffs and everything that's kind of extended that timeline even further.

So was was there also any emphasis on a project in another area that detracted from the project.

Correct.

So well there was another project they were pursuing in another part of Maryland, I believe, and that's that took some of the attention away from this one.

And that combined with the cost, the decision was made to hold off on the improvement plans to see if we can get things to level down more with the cost and extended it out.

So we're trying to get that extension so we have the enough time for constructability and to get the improvement plans processed.

Okay, understood just last question.

So now if you were granted this extension, would this be uh and project with more emphasis so that if you were granted the extension, it falls with the many other developments that have to f you know fall under the timely development.

Yeah, yeah, this we'll this will start processing as soon as we're able to get it the plans ready and in, and we'll um take our initial steps to try and get that done and focus on this project to get it ready and constructed.

Awesome.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Temple.

Walk me through your justification that you know six months from now the improvement plans are approved.

Nine months is inefficient, inadequate time to get a building permit issued.

I mean, I don't think that tracks with the city review process typically.

So I'm having a hard time understanding why we would need to extend even further.

Uh well if I don't know if you're referring to the the city process as far as the improvement plan processing goes or the site plan processing goes.

Because it's kind of two separate conditions.

I'm sure you might I'm sure you are aware, but um as we've been finding it historically here recently.

It's taking six months to eight months to get improvement plans approved.

It's just taking a longer time to work through those details and things lately.

And the building permit, you you you think even having that issued in the recommended extension isn't adequate.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, correct.

No further questions, thank you.

Okay, and uh some of those questions were along the same lines that I had.

Um did the other property that was being developed, has that concluded?

Has that already closed, settled?

I believe so.

I'm not sure.

I'm not okay, because I know that was one of the reasons why you didn't really start on this one, so that would be something I'd really want to know.

Um again, the same thing.

Like, how do we know that the timeline and the milestones will be met within this time frame would be another one of my questions.

Um so I guess if the other property has not closed, can you even begin on the improvement plans for this and with spending on on the materials that you need?

Uh that could be a possibility.

I'm not sure.

I'm not sure where they are on the other project that was mentioned.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Um so with that, um, we'll see if there's any public comment.

We don't have any public comment, I don't think.

No.

Okay.

So we have no public comment.

Um another question, if I may.

Sure.

We can have we can bring a discussion up here.

Yeah.

Um thank you.

So if we grant only a one-year extension, and the applicant fails to complete his requirements within that.

Then the process starts from ground zero all over again rather than from where you can't do another six-month or one year extension at the end of one year because it's passed in the current deadline.

So they're not prohibited from asking for another extension.

If it does expire before they get another extension, if that is what they need.

Um an ex an expired plan does have to go through the planning commission all over again, but this also frees up the opportunity for a different type of development, um, or their development will be reviewed under any standards that have changed since that point.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Commissioner Temple, did you have something?

I I I think we need to consider here that it's we're not really freeing up the site for another type of development because it's a building addition.

I mean, in we we are in theory leaving that as an option open, but it's not uh a greenfield development where something else is gonna go unless the business closes, sells and it gets redeveloped.

Um the applicant is concerns around the permitting process.

I wonder if uh the commission would be open to a what I would call an 18-month extension, meeting them more in the middle, giving them time to get the improvement plan and the building permit through.

Um that also would line up with the APFO extension date.

So in the event that they are extending again, they're doing that at once.

Um I like that idea because you know we we certainly don't want to see the same cases over and over again, and this would allow an appropriate amount of time.

Um any other commissioners have any thoughts?

Commissioner Montes.

Um yeah, I I would agree with that as well.

I think that's that's proper uh given the uh the request from the applicant.

Okay.

Yeah, I think the 18th month is fine, is a nice kind of middle balance that's that strikes it.

Um I guess I would ask, is is that okay to have an uh non-typical one or two year base length, or is there a reason has to be pretty?

You can do whatever number you want.

Although I would like to add that Commissioner Temple is actually doing something pretty great here because that would set the expiration date in line with the APFOs.

Okay, I'm a month off.

It would need to be a ninth.

It would need to be a 19-month extension.

18 months would take it to November 14, 2027.

No, but we're in the fourth month here.

Oh, but it's from May.

I'm sorry, how does it say that from now?

I'll shut up.

You're okay.

Go ahead and remind yourself that you had it.

I know, I just almost like 10 minutes.

Perfect.

All plan.

So I think that's a good one I think that's a good plan with it.

If everyone else is okay with that.

I'm gonna just meet some adjustments and see.

Do you want to take the so I would be looking for a motion on action one?

Uh I motion for the approval of an 18-month extension of final site plan PC 22-653 FSI for NICLOC building expansion.

Finding that 18 months is adequate time for them to meet the thresholds required by the approval.

Um, but is not enough time for them to get away from the current regulator regulations.

I'll second that.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's five to zero approving for 18 months.

Thank you.

All right.

And the next item we have would be the Kellerton Architecturals land base C and E.

And the next item we have would be the Kellerton Architecturals Land Base C and E, case number PC 13-195-14 PND.

And with that, I would hand it over to staff for their report.

Good evening.

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

The applicant is requesting approval of architectural elevations for several different models for Kellerton Land Base C and E.

Those models are the Kipling, Prescott, Bradbury, Livingston, and Preston models, as well as a new elevation called the Normandy.

It's for an existing model, the Devonshire model that was previously approved in a prior architectural package.

The applicant is also requesting approval of a modification to allow windows to have a vertical to horizontal ratio of one to one in order to have square windows in some of the models.

The property or the um for this PD, this planned neighborhood development, the property is subject to the requirements in section 407 as well as section 604 D.

Those are the architecturals for single family attached and detached homes.

And with that, there are, I'm sorry, it's 604B, Class B standards.

And there are five elements that the applicant must incorporate into the designs.

Those are listed in the staff report.

And of those, the applicant is proposing six elements to be incorporated into the design.

Three of those fall under letter I, which are other elements that can be approved by the commission.

So those elements, the one B is main entrance, G is exterior finished materials, H is windows and entryways, and then for I'm proposing that every fourth house in a visual row must have a full porch, portico porch, or brick stone front.

And those the same front architectural facades of a house will not be allowed adjacent to or directly across the street from each other.

Chimneys must also be masonry siding clad chimneys.

I'm sorry, they have to be masonry and siding clad chimneys are not allowed.

So for high visibility lots such as corner lots, they would add additional architectural elements to those sides.

Those elevations with this window type are the Kipling Farmhouse, Preston Heritage, Preston Vintage, and the Preston Farmhouse.

The planning commission may grant this type of modification.

Provided after a review of the graphic and written testimony, providing that other options are in keeping with the character of the overall design of the project.

The applicant states that the windows are secondary in nature to the front elevation of the homes.

And they are included to provide a diverse diverse element as well as architectural interest, and they coincide with other elevations with one to one ratio windows that have been previously approved.

Staff concurs with the applicant's statement.

And they add diversity and architectural interest to the elevations.

And there are also other elevations both within Kellerton as well as other developments throughout the city that have had this one to one ratio approved.

Those examples of developments would include Sycamore Springs and Sycamore Ridge.

So with that, the first action is approval of a 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 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 of section 604B 3H2A.

And then the second action is approval of the architectural elevations for the Kipling, Prescott, Bradbury, Livingston, and Preston models, and the new elevation called the Normandy for the Devonshire model for Keystone Custom Homes in Kellerton.

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

Therefore, staff recommends unconditional approval of the architectural elevations for the Keystone Homes, single family models for Kellerton.

That's all I have.

Thank you very much.

So I will do a roll call starting with Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Montez.

No questions.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

And Commissioner Buono.

Also no questions.

And I don't have any questions either.

So with that, I would ask the applicant to come up to the podium for their presentation, please.

I think this thing's automatically on.

Yes, great.

Good evening, Commissioners and staff.

Thanks for having me.

The staff presentation and recommendations was very thorough, so I don't want to waste too much time.

I just wanted to state that the additional home uh offerings for the Kellerton community are intended to respond to the needs that we've been seeing from our customers.

Uh one of those being first floor owner suites as we're trying to cater to an aging community as well as uh people planning ahead uh to uh kind of age-proof their homes.

Uh the Devonshire Normandy uh is uh uh elevation that we thought would reinforce the English cottage style that was kind of the impetus for the design character of the Kellerton community.

Begin with uh with that, I will leave it to you to ask any additional questions.

Otherwise, thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

Uh with that, we'll start with Commissioner Montez.

No questions.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

And Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

And I have no questions either.

Uh we have no public comment.

Is that correct?

Do we have any discussion with the commission up front?

No.

Okay.

So go ahead.

Uh my discussion is just reiterating the staff that I'd love to see an effort to evaluate this window uh modification that we repeatedly get.

Um our time is valuable, staff's time is valuable, applicants' time is valuable.

Maybe this is a conversation with our council liaison at the next opportunity.

But I would agree.

Um I'll just reiterate that this uh modification is uh is a repeat frequently.

Yeah, great.

I think that's great to have in the record.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

No.

All right.

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

Our motion for the approval of a modification of section 604 B3H2A to allow windows with a one-to-one ratio and a horizontal ratio of less than 1.5 to 1 per the staff findings with the stack recommendation that we approve this.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor?

Hi.

Aye.

And I apologize.

Uh I meant to say that was a motion by Commissioner Buono and a second by Commissioner Montez.

So that was approved five to zero.

Uh, next we'll be looking for a motion for action number two.

Motion for the approval of the architecture elevations for the Kipling, Prescott, Bradbury, Livingston, and Preston models, and a new elevation called the Normandy for the Devonshire model for Keystone Custom Homes in Kellerton.

Finding that the architectural elevations meet the criteria of section 604 of the LMC and the approved master plan for the P and D.

I second it.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's five to zero approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our next item.

I don't know what I have.

Okay, so our next item would be the Tom Bhomas Pemberton plat, PC 25-603 FSU final subdivision plat.

And I will turn that over to staff for their report, please.

Good evening.

This is a final plat for the Pem Thomas Pemberton plat.

The applicant is requesting to combine two existing residential lots into one to be able to build a new residential dwelling.

One lot was built on top of the without platinum together.

So now that they want to rebuild, they have to replat them into one lot.

But we did make a note of that in there.

And also discussed some other houses in the neighborhood there were concerns about you know this house not being kind of in the in the form of the neighborhood.

But there is in the land management code some guidelines that go over what we determine whether or not a house is fits the neighborhood character when you're taking two lots and combining it into one.

So those are street frontage, alignment, site, uh size, shape, width, area, and suitability for residential use.

And so these are guidelines that the planning commission can use to whether or not to approve or deny whether or not they feel that this house of this project meets that qualifications.

Showing other lots in the neighborhood that were there were six other lots in the neighborhood, um ranging from about 16,000 to 30,000 square feet.

Um this house is about 19,000 square feet.

Um but the only difference is the other ones were a little bit smaller, but still looking at them and looking at this current lot, they are similar and follow what the code is intending.

Um as far as forest conservation, um it is it's less than 40,000 square feet, so there's no uh that does not apply.

It is over 5,000, so they'll have to do stormwater management.

Um it's after they submitted it, um, this lot will be 19,577 square feet.

Um and like I said, even though it does have a little bit of slight, it's slightly larger, it's still within the uh consistent with what the code is looking for as far as shape, frontage, alignment, and suitability for residential use.

Um this does not rel this does not result in any new lots, so uh the adequate public facilities ordinance.

There was an exemption approved on January 17th of 2025.

Um the applicant uh that one action is to approve the final plat for PC 25603 FSU.

Um, and staff finds that it is within the applicable requirements of the land management code, specifically section 515, and staff recommends uh approval okay.

Thank you very much.

I'll start with the roll call with Commissioner Montez.

Uh yeah, just quick question for staff.

Um according to section 515.

Um this should really kind of fit the character of the community.

And um it's been noted that there's been about six properties that are similar in nature, but the overall community, if um correct me if I'm wrong, uh does have a different character than what is being uh potentially proposed here.

Um so I guess my question would just be what would be the guarantee or commitment that for example this wouldn't be consolidated into a giant, you know, development that's kind of out outside of the scope of the community.

Can you just rephrase one more time?

I couldn't quite quite catch question.

Oh, yeah, no, so um just in keeping with section 515.

Um there were about six other properties uh that are similar in nature to what is being proposed here, but the overall uh community um does differ from what is being proposed if I have that correct.

Um so my curious question would just be what is the um what would stop this from being out of character according to section 515?

So when you're looking at an overall community, it's not just the majority of homes that we look at.

Um good communities are normally going to be a mix of different incomes, right?

Um we've noted as they've shown in exhibit B that there are several lots that were two lots that were built a long time ago with one house in the middle.

Um currently, with our current code, which has been updated since all of this community was developed.

Um they have to come every time to planning commission to consolidate something residential.

They've shown that there are other lots that were built as one, and so if anybody, you know, who owns the property were to need to demolish a home, they wouldn't be able to put it back in the way that it was or under our current standards without combining the lots, because that property line down the middle, we now have updated codes, we have setbacks.

You cannot do what they used to do in the neighborhood.

So thank you so much.

Okay, Commissioner.

And I just and if I could just interrupt for a second.

Um I forgot to mention that I'm entering the entire staff report into the record.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Temple.

No questions for staff.

Thank you.

Commissioner Buono.

Also no questions for staff.

Uh Commissioner Roby.

I guess I have a redundant position to staff or a question to staff.

And how is it that this action is being asked to be done now?

Combining two lots into one lot.

Uh, in the staff's opinion, can be done within the current code versus a new situation occurring a month from now.

And a new situation you're saying would have to comply.

Is that what I understood you to say that you I didn't hear the first part of your question.

Sorry.

What was the first part of the question?

I'm looking for the timing of when this kind of action is acceptable or allowable versus when it's not.

And I heard that now at this time for this particular application.

Uh it's acceptable because I guess it precedes.

I I need a better understanding of why it's acceptable now versus why it would no longer be acceptable if it was we'll say six months from now, and a new application came in, they would then have to comply with the resubdivision of one lot.

So in order for them to build a home the way that it was originally, where it's across that property line, we have to eliminate that property line.

There are several existing uh duplicate, it's basically double lots side by side, and this used to be done a lot where a new community comes in and people buy multiple lots so that way they can build across them.

But we no longer allow that.

So if they want to put back something that is similar to what was before, um that is consistent with other lots in the neighborhood, they would only be able to do that if we eliminated the middle property line and combined the lots.

I thank you for that clarification.

I'm just trying to think of the rationalization for approving it now.

And uh and and your justification from the city's perspective as I understand it, is that because it's a pre-existing condition where two lots have combined as one.

Uh and that was done before we required them to remove that center line.

Uh the fact that we could remove it now while the house is still there.

Forget the fact that they want to tear it down and build another one or something.

That's where I'm coming from on this.

The home is already demolished.

The home is already demolished?

Yes.

Yeah, there it's a vacant lot currently.

I know the facade that got taken down and then allowed demolish it.

So yeah, we're citing that it's consistent with other double lots within the community.

That's where we um look at the size, the frontage, all of these different items.

And so if they're compatible with you know, more than one in the community, um, then we would support it, yes.

Thank you.

Okay, and I had questions kind of around the same token as to why now.

Um so I think that's been answered as as well as it can be at this point.

Um so with that, I'll ask for the applicant to come up with their presentation to the podium, please.

Good evening, Commissioners.

For the record, Nol Manolo losses of Officer Kerman, address of 30 West Patrick Street.

Uh, here on behalf of Thomas R.

Pemberton, trustee of the Thomas R.

Pemberton Revocable Trust property owner.

Uh pleasure to be here this evening.

Uh welcome, Commissioner Montez.

Uh just wanted to again say it's um uh uh appreciate the opportunity to come in front of you tonight.

Also uh with me is Mr.

Jim Zanelli uh with Fox and Associates.

Uh they're a longtime uh land planner surveyor.

Mr.

Zanelli, and you don't have to stand.

Mr.

Zanelli has been uh uh doing survey work for over thir uh you know three decades now, and he's with Fox and Associates.

Also uh present as um Mr.

Mike Pilch with uh North Market Construction, and he's actually been doing uh residential construction in City of Frederick for uh approximately 23 years.

And I'll just note for the record I'll submit um copies of their resumes so that you have in the record the um their status as experts on the subject matter.

And again, um Mr.

Zanelli was the one who drafted the um consolidation plat, which is before you tonight, and that's what we're seeking the approval.

And uh Commissioner Roby, you you had some great questions, but that actually I'm hoping will become a little bit more clear as I walk through some of the facts in the history.

So again, um as was noted by staff, and in the staff report, we have um as the exhibit which is defining the neighborhood under land management code section 515 C applicable to this to our application, the um August 12th, 1937 John W.

Grove Plat.

And so basically what happened was Mr.

Grove, when he laid out all of these lots, at a certain point um between 1940 and 1956, so approximately 70 years ago, he sold the lots, he sold the two lots in question.

But again, um there wasn't a land management code at the time, so the owner or the buyer essentially constructed one house on effectively the two lots.

And um that is is definitely common in a lot of the platting in the city.

Uh Mr.

Zanelli and I have been involved in pretty much identical types of consolidation plots at other in other parts of the city.

But um I don't know if it was customary, but you know, a family would buy two lots and decided the house size that they wanted, had to sort of straddle the two lots.

And that's why we see that throughout the uh the city.

And in fact, you've have multiple instances where that's occurred previously.

So, you know, if I rolled into the neighborhood in 1980 and I saw these houses, I would it wouldn't it wouldn't be apparent to me that the character of the neighborhood was such that there's a bunch of houses that are straddling lots.

Because again, unless you've sort of seen the 1937 plat and walked down the street and kind of looked at the houses, you wouldn't really sort of notice that there this is the case.

Now, of course, today City Frederick Land Management Code applies.

So, you know, we can't even though the house was exactly there on those two lots, we can't do it because the land management code requires you can't have a house straddling the lots.

So even though that's the condition that is it existed for decades, because we are again submitting the consolidation plat pursuant to all of the current laws, rules, and regulations, we have to come before you to ask for the consolidation plot before we can proceed.

And again, uh Mr.

Zanelli and I have done uh a few other cases along those lines.

This is the first one that in my recollection in this neighborhood, but clearly there have been some other cases where this has occurred.

So hopefully that's a little bit of a um helpful background in terms of kind of what we see.

Um again, a lot of the houses that were built.

I I I don't know if it was um just a function of the market or maybe at the time that the lots were were laid out, what the home what the owners at the time thought was the appropriately sized house, regardless, the city at the time was able to approve building of a house over the two recorded lots.

Um and again, that's how that's the condition of the house as it existed prior to when uh my client came into possession of it, and of course, they're wanting to proceed in in the same fashion.

Um and again, the the first step, of course, is to consolidate the plat so that we're in conformance with the land management code.

So again, I you know I think that the evidence that was submitted um as part of the application, the exhibit B uh noting the consolidation plat.

Um I think there is a high correlation.

We obviously feel that we meet all of the criteria under 515 A through C as it relates to the neighborhood and sort of what we're um asking for, suggesting, proposing.

And so um I don't know, I would just have at least Mr.

Zanelli stay for the record um if he believes in his in his uh expert opinion that this consolidated lot uh I'm sorry, this proposed consolidated plat does result in a lot that meets the requirements of land management code sections 515 A through C.

Is this your opinion, Mr.

Zanelli?

Yeah, Jim Zenelli Fox is a yes, I agree that this meets the intending codes.

And Mr.

Zanella, of course, put a lot of work into putting the plat together, as you know, as you're aware from the uh the DRCs, the workshops.

Um it's certainly been um under you know expert scrutiny by your professional staff, and then of course we concur with your professional staff's recommendation and findings as articulated in the staff report as well.

So hopefully there's enough in the in the record and kind of a little bit of that background as to this exercise that we periodically have to go through in the city by virtue of how lots have been historically laid out, sold, and then ultimately improved.

Um but we're obviously here to answer any questions, go through any of the criteria that you uh may wish.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Temple.

Um did you do any statistical analysis to determine where this proposed lot fit compared to the other existing lots in the in the growth part of the growth plat or the existing condition in relation to size, street frontage, area, depth?

We showed based on exhibit B, I wouldn't say statistical, but we represented within that immediate subdivision, those areas that are very similar to what we're trying to do right this time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bueno?

No questions.

Commissioner Roby.

Thank you for your answer, by the way.

I was very uh well stated and clarifying.

So my question is as follows.

You have a situation that 70 years ago you combine two lots, not legally, but you use two lots to make one lot for a larger house.

But you've demolished the house now.

What is the legal status of the two lots that remain there?

Are they like if no house had ever been built there before?

What would you be able to do with those two lots side by side in terms of moving forward in the project?

No, that's a that's a great question.

And then I mean, to answer your to answer it, um, I'll even adjust the fact pattern a little bit.

Say, for instance, there was a fire or um you know some sort of other um you know act of God that would require reconstruction, you run into the same situation where we would uh the property owner would go to the build uh city permitting department and say, hey, can I pull a permit to build a house?

Permitting runs it up the zoning and planning, and they say, well, wait a minute, if you're gonna build a house that's gonna show the footprint that's straddling these two lots, you're you're you're not you're gonna have to look for a consolidation plot I don't know that there's relief potentially by virtue of a variance at the Board of Appeals, but you know, again, um this is a situation where regardless again if the house wasn't let's just say the house was there and there was damage to it, we'd be looking for looking at the same sort of um requirements from the from the land management code, correct?

Thank you.

And Commissioner Montez uh no questions, but I I would like to second what Commissioner Roby said in a very clarifying um presentation.

Thank you.

Okay, and I don't have any further questions either.

Mine were similar um to Commissioner Robey's about you know what would you do if this wasn't done?

Are you able to, you know, move forward with developing two lots?

Um with that said, I do I believe we do not have any public comment.

Is that correct?

So we have no public comment.

Um with that said, I will take it back up here for discussion with the commissioners.

I want to start with making it, I think really clear that we need to evaluate this without looking at the existing condition as of a year ago, right?

That means not considering the the history with the house prior to demolition or that the house existed there at all.

The parcel is undeveloped right now, and it is uh we are evaluating whether or not uh 20,000 19,000 acre sorry, 19,000 square foot lot makes sense in this neighborhood.

Though those are our requirements, as well as does this comply with the comprehensive plan.

So I have some thoughts on that, but I want to give everybody else a second to share their thoughts.

And I agree.

I think it's important to level set and evaluate as is, as opposed to let's look back at something that we isn't tangible right now.

Um so I agree with that.

Any of the other commissioners have thoughts on this.

I mean, I agree.

I agree with what you said.

So I went and looked at the exhibit B that was under the record.

There are 78 parcels in it.

All right.

You can strike four of them because they were rezoned to institutional for the church that's located on the southwest side of the site.

We can't compare this against a giant church parcel.

That doesn't make any sense.

We can look at the rest of them.

When I look at street frontage, we'd be this would be the sixth largest street frontage in that neighborhood.

I understand that there's five larger, but when we look at a high correlation, is the sixth largest out of 70 four high correlation.

When we look at alignment, I'll agree.

And it's not the sixth biggest by a little bit.

The big lots are twice the size.

It's not, you know, everything else is very regimented.

Um we look at shape even majority of the lots are longer thinner lots.

This is a s effectively becomes a square.

I don't even know if there's a high correlation to the community here.

When we look at width, which I'm interpreting as depth, 140 feet, it it's pretty on par with the rest of them.

Area, like just like size, we're twice as big as a lot of them.

We're the sixth largest.

I think the last one that was the most important, suitability for residential use.

We're in an R6 zone here, which means the LMC in the city has deemed that 7,000 square feet is an adequate lot size for residential use and is suitable for residential use in this area.

We're 2.8 times that size at 19,000 square feet.

That doesn't seem suitable for the use.

You're going against that policy.

So those are some of the things I was able to find as I did this research.

Any other thoughts from other commissioners?

I think that was an excellent analysis, Commissioner Temple.

Anyone?

I can make a motion on that if it's I was just about to say if no one else has anything to say, I'd be looking for a motion on on the one action that we have.

I would like to motion for the denial of final plat PC 25-603 FSU for 301 growth.

Finding that the plat does not conform with applicable requirements of the LMC, which requires that a plat to conform with the consequences of plan.

As the plat does not comply with LU policy number one, which encourages development to be compatible with the character of existing development.

And as the plat does not comply with housing policy five, which encourages the development of compact residential neighborhoods.

Two, that the plant does not conform with the applicable requirements of the LMC Section 507 C2, to there not being a high correlation between the proposed lot and the existing subdivision in regards to the criteria laid out in 507 C1, A, C, D, and F, that it is an outlier when it in regards to street frontage width, size, shape, and area.

And three, that the plat does not conform with the applicable requirements of LNC Section 507 C1G as the comprehensive plan and zoning map have indicated that 7,000 square foot lots are suitable in this zoning district and the proposed lot is 2.83 times that size.

Conditional second.

Okay, well we've already I know that, but I would like some more discussion.

You would like to do that.

I was thinking a bit more about it.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get some more.

And just for the record, I will remove my motion.

Okay.

Do we remove the motion?

We've been asked for additional discussion.

Well, okay.

So you have a motion, you have a second or conditional second.

You can kind of you can discuss it now.

You don't have to remove your motion prior to withdrawing your motion because you're essentially discussing the proposed denial.

Okay.

So discuss it and then make some more decisions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for that.

So I was originally thinking about just you know, the suggestion from the city was from the uh staff was to approve, and then I hear what you're saying, totally agree.

But now I'm trying to re rethink through what uh what exactly they want to be developing here.

I know that it's turning into a single plat, but I guess the question and maybe I should have a question earlier about this clear for you all.

Is the plan for development as you kind of said one large property, or is it to do more properties on this down the road now that it's a combined plat?

Because it could be a question of either whether there's an increased densification.

I don't know what they're going to be doing secondarily.

If it's a I know that making a larger plat could lead to a better d area to do more denser housing, which could also interrupt what the entire like field neighborhood is versus just having one big house property on it.

So maybe maybe I was a little I'm not sure quite sure of that.

I know that that maybe should be the determining factor, but because that's a second thing that comes later, but I don't necessarily see combining it into one necessarily means that it's going to be one property with one house that disrupts that type of size of it.

And this is, you know, it's I think this might fit into the idea of how downtown Frederick could be expanding a little bit in some of these semi suburban areas densify a little bit.

I don't know what their plans are, what their the developers' plans are following this to do.

Because it could be that they're putting four stacked row homes here on it.

You know, they could be putting uh cottage court type of development here.

Are those necessarily different than the than the current design?

Maybe, maybe not.

It's fill fitting within the density expectations of this.

That's what I'm not sure of.

So I I don't know if we can appropriately ask that at this time.

So that's my thinking on it.

When we discussed that workshop, the applicant shared that it was intended to be a single family home again.

All right, I didn't understand that yet.

I will, I as long as it's within the realm that if they want to clarify that.

I think if it was to densify uh rezone would have to happen because of the zoning of it now.

And staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but being RA6 if they wanted to put dwelling units denser than that zoning allowed, it would have to be a rezone and the sub would happen then.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Yeah, I think I missed some of that conversation.

Further comments on that is the fact that we're setting precedent about precedent.

Okay, that we have the part of the justification of this application is consideration is that it's been done four or five times before, but prior to we had a land management code that said we do not want this to happen.

So we're sending a message if we deny this application at this time, or ask it to come back before us for the reconsideration or whatever, that what was done before is not acceptable for the future.

That what was done before is not acceptable for the future.

And if it's not acceptable for the future, then this application is not acceptable.

That other property owners cannot combine their lots to do this going forward.

Is that the precedent that we want to have established?

And if so to me the consolidation of lots to make giant lots doesn't align with the comprehensive plan.

And if we're reviewing under the comprehensive plan as a guiding, you know, document for the future of Frederick.

But you know, based on those policies and in the location of this that makes sense to me.

And I'm I'm thinking of the character of the neighborhood and then the fact that we do want compact size things and that this is 2.8 times the size of the other lots in that particular neighborhood.

So I'm looking at the character of the specific neighborhood, not the overall city.

Um particular to this neighborhood is how I'm thinking of it.

I just want to correct you just for the record so that there's no issues.

Um it's 2.8 times the size of what the minimal allowable lot is in the zoning.

It is I did not I did not analyze every lot in the neighborhood and see what it was in relationship to that.

Understood.

Yeah, I suppose it's challenging because when you look online from just I'm just looking at the street view of it, the three houses that are right near it are all either larger or the same size as this current one here.

So you know if you're looking at it from just that view, it's it is one of these tricky things where you're looking at it from the character of this area, it is consistent with, but is it consistent with the LMC broadly and what we want feature and yes, a precedent type setting thing where this becomes more standard.

You could I think you can argue both ways.

You can say, hey, it's their land, but you know, if they both they can develop it as is and the land is being used, but also you could argue by saying, you know, there's do we want densification and more access to housing, and this is turning two potential houses into one in a time when that's not the desire that I think we're gonna have for downtown Frederick, and this is right on the right outside as I was mentioning on the uh outskirts of where there might be some more interest in expansion and densification.

So and it is worth noting that you know, when we look at exhibit B, only the the adjacent one across the alley is uh a combined lot on that block.

So uh uh acknowledging that if someone was driving or walking down Groveland Avenue, they would see one and then the other, but along Grove or in the general neighborhood, right?

Six six out of five five out of seventy-eight or seventy four is you know uh a minor amount Commissioner Matez, do you have anything to add?

Um is this is this something that we would have to vote for today, or if there is any difference or extended discussion needed, could it be tabled?

Or is everyone resolute and their thinking at the moment?

It's a good question.

You mean as far as like continuing it for additional information and research?

Or I mean that's up to I mean, kind of the general consensus of where we're we we can go we can go that route.

We could approve, deny, we could come up with it does seem like it would have you know precedent sending uh setting consequences.

So I guess I guess we would ask that is I mean I I don't know if precedent setting I I think maybe the precedent is more of just that if this is approved, more people might know it is something that's it does set a trend in some way.

It's it's like whether it's officially precedent setting on the record or just sort of a vibe.

You know, and that's I would I would go with the vibe route.

I think that that's kind of more of what we we mean, I think that uh Roby meant with like precedent here.

Right.

That we've done it once, we'll do it again.

Yeah, we could do it again, yeah.

So I I would prefer that we maybe discuss now and try to figure out where the conflicts are right here instead of continuing.

But that's that's just my personal preference.

But I don't know.

Um where I know that you you it seems like you Commissioner has uh has a strong opinion on one side.

Yeah and I spent a lot of time thinking about can a conditional approval right to you know we've used that before to help influence um something that may not be exactly what we believe you know in but it pushes in the right direction.

But with this application I I couldn't come up with any sort of conditional approval that would be fair and um not prevent what what I'm suggesting this does against the comprehensive plan.

And I I would open that up if anybody can think of anything but you know that to me that's kind of where denial becomes the appropriate option.

Any thoughts so if there is a denial of this this evening then this parcel or becomes two parcels and then gets developed it stays two parts that's I just want it on the record is that thank you.

Yes so I guess this would stay two parcels and then the owner would have to you know either then decide what to do whether to develop both separately or to sell one and figure out from there what they wanted to do.

So I guess we're back to where we were back to where we were where we have a motion for denial we were looking for someone to second that we took it back for conversation.

Anyone want to want to change their minds or second the motion once once this motion sorry once this motion is finished we can technically throw let's say it's it's not a consensus can we technically throw it back to the applicant to ask follow questions before a full vote?

If we have questions right now I think we can ask the applicant those questions.

Right I think I want to just clarify my understanding is it was a motion that was in fact seconded and now you're having discussion about it.

So I don't think you need another second it's already been seconded now you're having conversation if part of your conversation you want to ask the applicant a question I believe you're welcome to do so if they count so if the uh commission wishes to do so.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah I guess other questions for the applicant are we still in discussion move?

We're still in discussion we're asking the applicant to come back up to be a part of that discussion so we can ask a question.

And the motion is still on the floor so right I'm gonna add another nuance to it okay because um Commissioner Montes had a question of the applicant who just asked to stand up.

Sorry go ahead no problem.

Please um so I guess just a very uh cutthroat question is there anything about this consolidation that would really create a difference in characteristic uh for this neighborhood under section 515 in your opinion um what do you see as how it fits into the overall overall characteristic I know there were sightings of certain other uh consolidated lots um but what makes this consistent with the overall uh character of the community no definitely um obviously we we would disagree with with Commissioner Temple's characterization of it and certainly uh note the factual record as to the the residents existed as a single family residence on effectively the size lot that we are seeking to have approved one two again as noted in the record just across the alley is a similarly sized lot with a similarly sized house and three the intention of the owner is literally to build his house so that he can move here and so you know again it is really as far as the the variant criteria particularly suitability for residential use under 501A 7 the facts prove it prove themselves up insofar as it was a residential use since the late the late 30s.

So we're merely going we're merely carrying forward effectively what it already existed in this neighborhood, which again um I think there are numerous instances in the comprehensive plan that acknowledge existing neighborhoods and existing layouts and existing character and existing uh walkability and that sort of thing.

So again, we're not doing anything different than what existed at the time that the comprehensive plan was contemplated, passed, deliberated on uh evaluating all of the different neighborhoods and again it's really to just put the lot to a single family residential use as it always was.

So that's that would be my response.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Roby, you were starting to say you had a different nuance for it.

Wow.

Um Mr.

Temple's argument about compliance with the comprehensive plan is a reasonable argument.

And while this property is not in the historic district, uh if it was in the historic district and you were trying to create a building this scale, it would not comply, in my opinion, with character and charm of the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale of the neighborhood in general.

And uh even though it's not it's outside the historic district, therefore it's not necessarily have to follow the guidelines.

Section six of the comprehensive plan talks broadly about mass and scale and consistency and mass and scale.

And this is an aberration of that for this neighborhood.

It may be a fifth or sixth example of an aberration of that, but that's no reason to approve it just because it's the fifth example of something that should not have happened in the first place, perhaps.

But that comprehensive plan did not exist at the time.

The others were approved and in place.

But now this property.

Excuse me, Commissioner, make sure you're talking in your microphone so we're all everybody can hear you, okay?

Okay.

Anyhow, that's where I'm coming from on this.

I'm a I'm a strong proponent of character and charm uh charm and mass and scale.

And so that's where I'm coming from on this.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Bono or Commissioner Temple, any comments?

Yeah, I'm just gonna just, you know, on the I provide the opposite just to you know, play back and forth on it.

I think it's tough because it it does technically still fit with what whether you say it was the intended standard or this or that, it is consistent with the four neighboring buildings or the three neighboring buildings around it, so that quad or area in the neighborhood, it is consistent with the character locally within that view.

Um I don't know.

I I guess my personal philosophy on this just saying is that this is someone's land.

They've they've purchased it and they are planning on developing it to things that can be used as housing now.

The alternative uh might be that we deny it and the plates they split, and then he has to sell one off and then it's developed separately, and what is the time for all of that to be done?

Might be quick, might not be.

But there's someone who wants to build and live here in Frederick now.

And this is the plan that he wants to go forward through.

So I you know, I I that's why I'm torn on this, so I want to hear the best arguments on both sides.

Because my gut feeling says if he wants to develop on this land and he's he's bought it and it is consistent with what's around, why should we be saying necessarily not to if it's not a gross deviation?

But at the same time, I do respect you know uh Commissioner Demple's arguments too about this isn't maybe not the character in the densification that is intended uh an ideal for like the expansion of uh Frederick, but there also is not two houses here right now.

There's a empty lot here right now.

So uh while uh a single family home wouldn't come in front of us, right?

Um I do think it's important to remember that every commission meeting we have one, if not two continuances with someone who wants to build here and now that we end up continuing for economic reasons or um interest rates or tariffs or whatnot, and and and while it's going to commute, you know, you just it that's always gonna happen in some instances, and so an approval here isn't a guarantee that a building permit is pulled tomorrow and someone's living in it by Christmas.

You know, you just that's always going to happen in some instances, and so an approval here isn't a guarantee that a building permit is pulled tomorrow and someone's living in it by Christmas.

I think it's important to know that you know our action is is simply for uh the combination of the two plates.

Right?

We need to think of that.

Um still looking at the comprehensive plan.

So that's my two cents.

Um we ready to just to make a decision here and call a vote.

If everyone feels confident with their opinion on it, I think we can bring it to a vote.

Yeah.

And then it will have five people, so one of one of the sides is gonna get decided.

So the motion on the table again was denial.

So all those in favor.

Okay, we've got one.

And all those not in favor of denial, meaning to approve.

Okay.

So we've got four.

No, it's not.

It's not to approve.

It was just not in favor of denial.

So you have to make another motion and take action.

You haven't taken any action yet.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so that said, I'd be looking for a motion on action one.

I'd like to motion for the approval of the final point.

PC 25603 FSU for 301 Grove Boulevard for the findings I just expressed and entered into the record by staff.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

So that is four to one for an approval.

Call for the vote for just for the those that aren't in favor.

I apologize.

You only asked for who's in favor.

You didn't ask for who's not in favor because we don't know the total vote yet.

All those not in favor.

Okay.

So we have four for approval, one for not approving.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our next item will be REN quarter phase three, revision and phase three.

Section two, revision PC 25-608 PSU FSI, combined preliminary subdivision plat and final site plan PC 25-609 PSU FSI, combined preliminary subdivision plat and final site plan.

I'd ask for staff to report give their report this time.

Thank you.

I'm entering the report into the record.

The applicant is requesting approval of revisions to the previously approved combined preliminary plat and final site plans for phase three, section one and two of the RIN quarter development.

The applicant is also requesting approval of modifications to section 821 of land management code entitled Fences, Walls and Hedges to allow fences beyond the front facade of the principal dwelling units where currently none are allowed.

Per section 309G applicable to the final site plan review and section 504F applicable to preliminary plat review.

In considering revisions to previously approved plans, the commission may only consider issues related to the proposed amendment and may not consider matters that have been approved and are not related to the proposed amendment.

In accordance with section 309J, in considering modifications to standards of the land management code, the commission must find that the modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code.

The modification is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the application includes compensating design features to meet the overall objectives of the requirement.

In addition, and considering a modification to section 821, the planning commission may approve modifications to the height and location of fences, walls, and hedges.

And in addition to the review of criteria 309 M4, the planning commission shall also consider the proposed fence, complies with site triangle provisions, is consistent with the scale and design of the surrounding community, and does not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity.

The proposed amenities with this plan include a community putting green, plaza with stream lights, fenced community garden, and fenced dog park.

Modifications one and two have been combined as the request and justification are the same, the only difference being that one set of fencing is in section one and the other is in section two.

The applicant states the request is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, citing a 2006 text amendment which stated the purpose of prohibiting fences beyond the front facade of the home is to preserve an open, unimpeded streetscape that is conducive to pedestrian activity.

Additionally, they cite section 821, which allows housing types with no backyards where fences may be constructed in front yards.

They contend the open railing fence design and 30-inch setback with the sidewalk provides an open air and friendly streetscape.

The applicant cites consistency with 2020 comprehensive plan urban design policy two to support creative site planning to establish a built environment that is compatible and enhances neighborhood character aesthetics and offers various levels of interaction and mobility with all members of the community.

The applicant notes the 30-inch setback from the sidewalk along with grasses, perennial or low growing shrubs will be used as a compensating feature to enhance the streetscape.

The applicant has provided a plant schedule, including several types of grasses, with the lowest being 24 inches at maturity and the tallest being five feet at maturity.

All criteria in section 821 has been addressed, as no fencing will be proposed in the site triangle, is consistent with the surrounding community and does not adversely impact the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity.

Staff agrees the request is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, as lots 1 through 16, front Monroe Avenue, an urban collector with high traffic.

Lots 16 through 29 front Minocase Boulevard, which is an arterial with high traffic, and they also have a stormwater area in front as well.

Lots 84 and 92 front a high traffic community recreation area, which would also be cited as high trafficked areas.

The Planning Commission approvals have previously used this reasoning to allow front yard fences for safety purposes.

Lots 17 through 23 front a stormwater management area with no abutting roadway or opposing sidewalk nor development, as there is no street nor potential for development in this area.

A street stape cannot be assigned to these lots.

At a maximum height of three feet, open rail style, and 30-inch setback with plantings, allows for light, air, and ventilation of the pedestrian pathways without feeling cut off from the community, while also providing some protection and privacy from well-traveled areas.

Staff agrees the sided lots are supported by the stated comprehensive plan policy, as the ability to have fenced in yards may enhance the neighborhood character so long as they have been carefully chosen.

We will note that the original request during workshop included more lots, and they have been we have worked with the applicant to get them down to these ones.

Staff also agrees the 30-inch setback from the sidewalk and proposed plantings are adequate compensating features as they create a welcoming aesthetic for pedestrians.

Staff also agrees with criteria section 821 has been adequately addressed.

No changes are proposed for parking or access, and the previous approval stand.

Similarly, landscaping standards were already approved, and certificates of adiccy adequacy were issued with the original master plan, and subsequent applications, including revisions and analysis, have been conducted to determine that the proposal is consistent with previously issued certificates.

The commission has four actions.

Finding that the modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, is consistent with urban design policy two of the comprehensive plan, and they have provided compensating features.

And they have provided compensating features.

It also complies with everything from section 8 to 1.

And staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

Action 2.

Approval of the modification to the requirements of Section 821B2 to allow fences for the rear loaded townhomes for lots 16 through 29 and lots 84 through 92 of REN quarter phase three, section two.

Finding that the request complies with all items right in action one.

Staff recommends approval of the modification as requested.

Action three.

Approval of the combined preliminary plan and final site plan, PC 25608, PSU FSI for REM quarter phase three, section one.

Finding the request complies with all applicable criteria and articles four through eight of the land management code and adequate public facilities to serve the site are available.

Staff recommends approval with one condition, just to remove the leftover fence and arrow notations on sheet three of section one, pointing to lots 31, 32, and 39.

Action four.

Approval of the combined preliminary platinum final site plan PC 609 PSU FSI for ring quarter phase three, section two.

Finding the request complies with all applicable criteria in Articles 4 through 8 of the land management code, and there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.

Staff recommends unconditional approval.

Thank you.

And thank you.

No questions.

Commissioner Roby?

No questions.

No questions.

Commissioner Montez?

No questions.

And Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

And I have no questions either.

So with that, we'll ask the applicant to come to the podium for their presentation, please.

Hello again.

Jody Walker Walker with uh Harris Morgan Associates.

I'm here with the applicant, uh, Karen McJunkin.

Um we agree with the staff report and here to answer any questions you might have.

Any any presentation do you want to show us?

Anything?

Um, I can point to the lots we're talking about.

Okay.

What is it?

This one.

Yep.

So this is the uh illustrative plan for REN phase three, uh section one and two.

Section the section line cuts through here.

So units north of that are essentially section one, these units are section two.

Uh we initially came in asking for fencing along all the rear loaded townhomes.

So that would have been the lots fronting on Monroe along the pond and the interior lots here as well.

And same thing down here.

Uh we are asking for everything along here as well.

Uh so now we've worked with we've worked back and forth with staff on where we could limit those fences.

Uh so the fencing is now proposed as uh working through staff and what the report says.

We're relatable to the lots along here, along Monroe Avenue, as well as the lots fronting the stormwater management area.

And then the lots in the middle that are fronting on the putting green and the seating area with the fire pit.

And then the lots fronting onto a monocasey that have a stormwater area and a separate sidewalk from Minocase in front.

So those are those are the restricted units that we're looking at placing these uh fences on.

Thank you for that.

Uh we'll go ahead with a roll call for questions, starting with Commissioner Roby.

Thank you.

Uh I'm going to deviate from what you're asking us to approve tonight just for clarification purposes.

Okay.

Uh I don't want to.

I see what looks like three ponds up there.

Yes.

Okay.

Ponds or stormwater management areas.

They're dry ponds.

They're blue.

Yeah, they're blue just as an illustration, but but they will be dry ponds.

You answered my question, so thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Montez.

Um questions for now.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Blono.

Yeah, just as I'm trying to think of the uh character of what this area is going to be, you know, trying to imagine as compared to the existing area you have.

What do you what is planned maybe for that future retail site?

Is it kind of again open, like you know not sure yet because it's open.

And they're shopping it around looking for a user.

Okay.

Um so that's still open.

Because I know on the other side it turns more and more residential.

Well, yeah.

But on the other side too, it's like Frederick Airport and stuff like that.

So it turns a little bit warehousey real quick.

So I was just curious where how how that's going to fit in in like kind of shifting between semi-dense resistance and pretty dense residential to this crossing that, you know, it's not it's monoclusy, but it's crossing that over and then getting to more of this.

You know, there's like some restaurants and stuff there, but it's it's like warehousey type of type of environment.

So I'm just trying to factor that in as we think about the fencing and the separate outhousing as pairs opposed to the other designs that are more open in a way, I guess.

So okay.

I'm just trying to think that through.

Um do you have any mock-ups or like visuals that you maybe have about what you guys expect this might actually look like?

Uh for the fencing?

Or or just just for like the retail side.

For like the housing too for all of these with the fencing, just so we can kind of get an idea.

Okay.

I believe you there's examples in the uh we're looking at the example in the modification letters in the state now that's what we're looking at just for the record.

Okay.

Okay, no further questions.

Okay.

And I have no further questions either.

Um with that, I believe we do not have any public comment.

So I can bring it back up for any discussion with the commission.

Anyone this is not discussion for approval or anything.

But one of the sensitivities that I have for this kind of development is the appearance of a lack of yards.

You have a I don't know how many units you have there, but there's very little screen space for the community to aggregate or you know socialize in.

And this is the kind of development that I would like to discourage for our community.

But we're not voting on that tonight, as I understand it.

So I've that's for the record for our commission to keep in mind for future developments that are this way.

Uh that's all I want to say at this point.

May I build on that though?

Um while we talk here.

Uh it's actually a question for the applicants.

Um the amenities that were added to this plan that we haven't seen before, and we're voting on that as well.

Okay.

Um these all meet and go into the open space requirement that was required at the master plan stage.

Um what does ownership of the dog park and the playground and the pickball court look like?

Is that for the northern half that's rentals?

Is that owned and operated by them?

And is it for resident use only?

Is it open to all of the community?

I know it's not gonna be deeded to the city to maintain, but what is usage look like there?

Um first off, both sections are rentals.

Oh, thank you for that clarification.

And so all of the amenities in there um spread throughout will be owned and operated by us as part of the rental community and be open for everyone.

And one of the reasons why we did this plan was in reaction to a line of questioning you all had at the work session, which was where the amenities located, are they dispersed?

Are they tucked away?

And part of our plan and what we found people like is in a community this size, 176 units, that dispersal is important to people.

And while we do have one community gathering area, you know, the the folks down at the end will have a dog park down there at the southern end, and there will be another one up at the northern end.

And it also promotes walkability throughout the community.

You know, if you want to play pickleball, you're gonna be walking past your neighbors to get up there.

And that's okay.

So that's how we design this.

Um and that's why we brought this plan in answer to your question from the work session.

Um thank you for that.

You know, I understand pickleball playground, that's very hard to um fence off and restrict, but you know, a lot of times dog parks uh management companies or HOAs require tags for the community.

Is that intended here?

Or is it you know it's it's on a well we'll see how it goes.

We don't initially start out doing that.

I could see a scenario where if um we have some issues, you know, there's gonna be the shared use path.

Great on monoclusy.

You know, if there's some incursion, uh we may have to.

We'll we'll just see.

And and you know, it's it's not like we're we've got you know, um police force out there keeping folks out.

It's just if it gets out of hands.

Yep.

No, and I asked that because you know there's residents that aren't living in a planned neighborhood like this who are close by still who look for those amenities.

Um out here we're surrounded by warehouses, um, as was mentioned previously.

So it not quite the same dynamic.

I don't anticipate.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was actually the other question I was gonna have too about I'm seeing where you know it looks nice uh framed out like this.

I just have a couple of questions.

I know it's not directly kind of due to the fencing questions here, but for the locations of the pickleball and the dog park and all that.

I know where the pickleball and the dog park is.

There's a tr there's like a tree line there.

Is that tree?

There is a tree line there, and then there's other enhancements.

There's a tree line exactly where the pickleball court is.

Right.

And then further to the right on the plan, there isn't.

You'll see plantings on the other side of the stormwater pond.

And there's that face of the warehouse if you've been out there, there's there is that side of the warehouse.

It'll get screened over time.

Okay.

I was just curious if that if the tree line that is there is on this property or if it's on the other.

No, it's it's on the warehouse property.

Oh, it's on the warehouse property.

So that tree line will remain there.

Okay.

Okay.

I was curious because it's a parking lot otherwise.

Um then the other is the yeah, the bottom community garden area that is just sort of I guess the tree line also along the bottom left, like the the bottom part there.

That's also on the other adjacent property, correct?

It it is, and you know, it remains to be seen what's done on that property.

We we don't control that property.

But again, you know, the planting plan, the landscape plan calls for screening of that area.

Okay.

Yeah, no, I'm I'm just curious.

Just um yeah.

I I don't have to have your guys' job, but just from a personal view as someone who might be moving into these, sometimes it might be nicer to think of some of these green spaces more centralized as opposed to putting them right up against the busy roads or the parking lots or kind of stuff like that.

Like I'm thinking of that bottom community green dog park is right along monocussy.

It's not a busy part of monocracy, but it's gonna get busier as opposed to maybe things like that, which could be the areas where the children in this neighborhood would potentially be going to could be more centralized as opposed to on the outskirts.

But that's just I'm just talking out loud here.

I'm just throwing some ideas for the doesn't really matter.

I mean you gotta fit it all in there for the phone.

No, you're right.

Yeah, we talk about that stuff all the time.

And it's like, okay, what's gonna be the gathering spot?

Is it the putting green?

You know, right smack dab in the middle, and then we've got a seating area and a gathering area for the community.

Uh we don't always get it right, but we talk about that stuff all the time.

I I am glad that you guys are including these other amends.

I think that is nice.

So I'm just just trying to have some questions here.

Uh I did have a question about the front fencing.

Um in terms of this is these are rental town homes.

Um, so there will be a property management uh company involved in here.

Is there a violation mechanism already in place or planned for I don't know, tenants who happen to uh I don't know, pile up things or let's say violate the character of the And uh yes, and I promise it's much more stringent than an HOA.

Okay.

Good answer, thank you.

You did a good job justifying that at the workshop, so thank you.

Uh but what I'm noticing, and just talk to me philosophically, if you will.

Uh if if I look at all the yellow townhouses up there, whether it's this bottom line towards me at the bottom of the page, or even in the middle of the diagram.

There are very few trees per unit.

What's the philosophy in your mind of having canopy in a community like this?

It it looks clustered in some sort, but a lot of tree desert areas as well in this development.

You know, this is and Jody, you did this plan.

This is conceptual versus per the landscape plan, is that correct?

This is what's on the site plan.

You know, we we typically we show on the plan what is required by the city, and then we tend to enhance after that.

Um because you're right, you know, landscaping makes or breaks a community.

Yes.

Thank you for that.

I'm gonna uh I guess I'm gonna ask staff, not tonight, but to come back and let us know what the canopy requirements are for a site plan like this.

So uh just so that we can look at that for future developments, not so much in this case.

Because this has already been approved, right?

For so I don't want to get back into that again.

But uh thank you.

Any further discussion?

Okay, with that said, I will be looking for a motion on action one, please.

I motion for the approval of the modification to the require requirements of section 821B2 to allow fences beyond the front facade of the rearloaded townhomes for lots one through twenty-three of run quarter phase three section I or one, thank you.

Um per findings one through six as entered into the record by staff.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That would be five to zero for an approval of action one.

I'm looking for a motion on action two.

I motion for the approval of the modification to the requirements of section eight twenty-one B2 to allow fences for rearloaded townhomes for lots 16 through 29 and lots 84 through 92 of rent quarter phase three, section two.

Per findings one through six have been read into record by the staff.

Seconded.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's five to zero for an approval of action two.

I'm looking for a motion for action three.

I motion to recommend the approval of the combined preliminary plat and final site plan, PC two five-six zero eight PSU uh slash FSI for rent quarter phase three, section one, according to staff's findings.

We have a second.

I will second, I will conditionally second that and ask for discussion.

Okay.

We'll take the discussion back to the floor.

Go ahead.

Would you be willing to modify your motion to allow the to add the condition for the removal of the leftover fence and error notations on sheet three of section one pointing to lot thirty-one, thirty-two, and thirty-nine?

Yes, I would I would do that.

All right.

Okay.

So that is a motion by Commissioner Montes, a second by Commissioner Temple, also reading the condition.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's approval five to zero.

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

A motion for the approval of the combined preliminary plat and final site plan PC 25609 PSU slash FSI for Ren Quarter Phase 3, Section 2.

Uh, per the finding that the request complies with all the applicable criteria of Articles 4567 and 8 of the land management code, and there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.

Seconded.

That is the motion by Commissioner Bueno with second by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's five to zero for approval of action four.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next.

I think we're okay, you guys, to go through with the next item before a break.

Good.

Okay.

All right.

So our next item is Walmart PC 25-490 FSI final site plan.

Um, and I will go ahead and give that over to staff.

Thank you.

I'm entering the report into the record.

The applicant is requesting approval of the final site plan for a 4,368 square foot building expansion for the online grocery operations of the Walmart store located at 2421 Monacasy Boulevard.

The app the applicant is requesting a modification to the land management code, Section 607, Table 607-1 parking schedule to reduce parking below the minimum requirement.

The property is was originally developed as Frederick Trading Company, but was redeveloped as Walmart in 2016.

The online shopping area has been part of its operation since 2018.

However, the subject plan proposes to expand the building on the northeast corner to accommodate more online operations.

In reviewing the final site plan, the commission must consider the outline the criteria outlined in Section 309E of the land management code, which includes compliance with all applicable criteria of Articles 4746, 78, and 12 of the land management code.

Conformance with any area master plan and adequate public facilities to accommodate the impacts of the development in accordance with section 309J in considering modifications to these standards.

The Commission must find the modification is not contrary to the purpose and attended the code.

And the applicant has included compensating features to meet the overall objectives.

The final forest conservation plan was approved February 10th, 2015, with a forestation being met on site.

The stormwater development plan was approved by the engineering department on March 18, 2026.

The plan complies with Section 405, dimensional and density regulation.

The plan also complies with Section 601 regarding access management and Section 607 parking and loading standards with adequate loading spaces, but less than the minimum required parking stalls.

This brings us to modification one to section 607B, Table 607-1 parking schedule to reduce the required minimum parking spaces from 794 spaces to 758.

The applicant states the modification will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, as it is to ensure that adequate parking is provided for the use.

The applicants have provided parking analysis of other Walmart stores, such as those located in Hampstead and Randallstown, show that an average of 62% of the parking is occupied.

That percentage when applied to the Frederick store would be 469 spaces.

The applicant notes the modification is consistent with 2020 comprehensive plan policy land use one to encourage development and redevelopment compatible with the existing.

The applicant notes that as a compensating feature, they are going to remove an existing canopy that currently impedes the transit bus from using a nearby drive aisle, adding a heavy duty concrete patch to prevent deterioration in the area of the bus stop, and construct a bus shelter to replace the current picnic table.

They also cite new signage and striping for better directional identification.

Staff agrees the request is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, as the parking analysis shows current parking space standards may be higher than is actually needed for the use.

Staff also agrees with the site of comprehensive plan policy and the compensating features to increase transit usage and decrease the number of parking stalls used.

The plan must also comply with section 863 shopping centers and big box stores.

As this is in the general commercial district, six design elements are mandatory and three are optional.

The applicant has provided elevations that just demonstrates compliance with all of these items.

Full landscape compliance was addressed in the previous site plan, and the site was developed within those thresholds.

As this project is an addition and only affects an interior parking landscaping, we've confirmed that there will be providing at least 10% of parking lot landscape within the limits of this project.

Exemptions for waterline and road capacity were granted in December of 2025, and sewer line was approved by the county around the same time.

The commission has two actions.

Action one approval of the modification to the requirements of section 607, table 607-1 parking schedule to reduce the minimum required parking spaces from 794 to 758.

Finding that the modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, is consistent with comprehensive plan policy land use one, and the applicants provided transit improvements as a compensating feature.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action two.

Finding that the final site plan complies with all applicable criteria of the land management code and adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the impacts of this development.

Staff recommends approval with one condition that note number 18 on the cover page is updated to reflect the county sewer line APFO approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we'll do a roll call with for questions, starting with Commissioner Roby.

No questions.

Commissioner Montes.

No question.

No questions.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

And Commissioner Buono.

No questions.

And I have no questions either.

With that, I would ask the applicant come up for their presentation to the podium.

Sorry.

Is there a button on here?

Okay.

Hi everyone, how are we doing?

Good evening.

My name is Christina Bauer.

I'm here with Bowler Engineering.

I have Brandon Rao with Bowler Engineering here as well, and then Joe Colligero here with traffic group, just in case there's any questions.

But I think the staff report did a wonderful job.

But as mentioned, uh we're proposing a just over 4300 square foot uh expansion uh intended to support and enhance an existing operation for the online pickup and delivery program that Walmart offers.

Um I believe it was already mentioned this is an existing operation.

The pickup spaces are already located over here.

Um just proposing some restriping and an increase of 10 spaces total dedicated to pickup.

There are 20 in existing conditions.

Um we did meet with transit prior to filing any applications, and as mentioned uh the existing canopy is to be removed.

That was something that they had specifically asked for.

It was currently impeding traffic, enhancing some signage to to restore the condition to one way, which was a condition of the original approval.

Um and again making improvements to the bus stop that is existing there.

Um I think overall there.

That's pretty straightforward.

I'm happy to talk and answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

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

Uh no questions.

Commissioner Temple.

Do we have a map of the rest of the improvements or uh zoomed out?

I'm really putting our director of planning on the spot here.

Do it.

Yeah, that sheet should be a good sheet for you.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's should be sufficient, thank you.

Um my question is for the intersection that's at the plan northwest corner of the auto spa express in front, you know, between the auto spa express and the corner of Walmart.

The plan northbound traffic that's leaving from the parking lot.

That's a four-way stop for them, correct?

And they can go left and right.

Are you talking about on to turning back out of the center or into the leaving it?

Yeah.

Uh sorry, I have to zoom.

Sorry.

No, it's okay.

It's just hard to see on here.

And Joe Joe may be better to kind of talk the traffic stuff.

Hi, good evening.

For the record Joe Colligaro with the traffic group.

Can you repeat your question?

I wasn't sure exactly which location.

Thank you, Joe.

Um where the auto autospa expresses, you know where that is.

Further to the left?

Uh the bottom right corner of the exhibit that we're looking at now.

Oh, the auto spa, right, the car wash.

Yep.

So there's uh drive aisle that is hidden right now by the AI assistant, unfortunately.

Um at the top left corner of the auto spa.

That inner that four-way intersection right there.

Yeah, there we go.

Laser pointer it up for us.

But it is like, I'm gonna get a very simple answer to my question, and we're gonna have gone through all this and I'm gonna feel guilty.

There we go.

All right.

Oh, now I'll look at the line to the same time.

Well, go ahead.

What is your what is your question?

We'll get there.

Okay, right there.

Yes.

From a vehicle that is leaving the site in that intersection from the parking lot.

So there's two, there's two stop signs.

There's one coming across the frontage of Walmart that needs to stop before it enters that intersection.

There's one coming north from the auto spa that needs to stop as well.

So that one, the one that's plan north.

Yep.

Is that vehicle able to go straight and take a left turn as well to go in front of Walmart or to go back towards the pickup?

Unless it's restricted physically, yes, it can.

Um I'm gonna look to see if Google's gonna tell me otherwise.

From my personal experience.

I don't I just I don't remember if there's any restrictions for that movement.

Are you saying you didn't you're make a left and come back?

No.

They could go straight north.

They can go straight and then bear to the left.

Oh, this way.

Or or correct or to the one way.

They go north and zig.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that's allowed in the current condition and in the proposed condition.

It's not restricted.

Okay.

There's just a stop sign at that location.

It doesn't go to the case.

So it's not restricted.

But they can come back and turn they could come and turn left to enter or go across the frontage or continue to go north.

Is that a conflict point that wasn't considered as a part of the realignment?

That was done a long time ago.

Um back in 2013, 2014.

Unfortunately, I was here and remember, did that work?

Um we worked closely with the city on that.

And a lot of times if we hear comments from Walmart itself, we would come in and help them.

So we did receive some requests from the city to make some just general changes to the site as relates to site distance and some plannings, but we haven't heard anything uh negative from that movement.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Buono.

Any questions?

No questions.

Thank you.

Um so one question I had about the parking analysis.

Um was there an I didn't see any analysis of the two Frederick sites for parking.

The or the other.

So that that is correct.

So we've been doing a lot of parking studies for Walmart.

And generally speaking, in the larger scale, the Institute of this is getting deep.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers, what do they do when they look at trips and parking?

They survey other sites.

So the surveys are not just locally to one location, they are nationwide.

So as we were doing the local studies for Walmart at these three locations, we saw very similar results.

Okay.

And we also see what is happening here through some of the imagery where you know there's some unfortunate parking situations because there's lack of parkers in this in certain locations.

So we're extremely confident in our results.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And then um one other question.

I know in the public comment uh there was a question that was posed about the shorebird entrance still being an option option for shoppers.

Um just wanted to make sure I understood that as well.

Yes.

The entrance um or the intersection of Shorebird and Monopasy Boulevard will remain the same.

Great as it is today.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh and with that, um, I don't think we have any public comment.

Yeah, oh, I apologize.

Commissioner Rhodi.

I th I thought I started with you.

No.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I want to you to talk to me about this diagram you have up now.

Can you get close to the mic, please?

Sorry.

Is this the before?

This it is correct, is are proposed.

This is proposed.

Is that the color we propose?

Yeah, come on up.

Okay, because if you go to your initial diagram that had the color layout.

Yeah, that was just an illustrative rendering that it reflects the same condition that's shown on the site plan.

Well, I didn't notice as many parking spots along that corridor on your colorized version that you had up in the beginning.

I I'm not sure if I can switch back to that one, Gabrielle.

The illustrative running you're talking about the color version you had that was originally up.

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, but it's a little bit hard to see, but if you see the little circles, those are the numbers on the spaces.

The striping coloration unfortunately doesn't translate well to this format.

What I was gonna compliment you, and you may tell me that that there's none required.

Uh because this drawing depicts a layout that seems to have more traffic fluidity to it than what might be existing now.

The other thing I like about this drawing and this layout is the green space that you have associated with it.

That's gonna make it less a tree desert and a more pleasing environment for the users of this facility.

So I'm putting that on the record.

Um but you still have the parking in there, which is gonna, I guess, provide some congestion, if you will, for people who are gonna be using this new added wing that you have to the facility, right?

The the expansion is for associate or uh what I should say, store employee use only.

No customers will be using that at all.

Uh the purpose of the program, you place an order on an app, they come, they get it pull into their designated spots, and they bring your order right out to your car.

I'll let it go for it now.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I need to I want to just thank the applicant for providing what I consider a true compensatory feature by adding a bus shelter.

We have a lot of applications where the compensatory feature is meeting the landscape requirement or something else that's just uh a standard part of the requirements.

Thank you for providing something truly compensatory to go above and beyond with this application.

Thank you.

Share that with Walmart.

So do we have any further discussion?

Okay, with that, I'm looking for a motion for action one.

I motion for the approval to the modification of the recrom requirements of section six oh seven table six oh seven dash one parking schedule to reduce the required minimum parking from not seven hundred and ninety-four parking spaces to seven hundred and fifty-eight parking spaces.

Per findings one through three as entered into the record by staff.

I'll second.

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

All those in favor?

That's five to zero for approval.

Looking for a motion for action number two.

I motion to approve uh final site plan PC two five dash four nine zero FSI for a four thousand three hundred sixty-eight square foot building expansion for the online grocery operations of the Walmart store located at two four two one Monacasy Boulevard, according to the uh findings with condition, approval with condition, that they update note number eighteen on the cover page to reflect county sewer line APFO approval.

I second.

Okay.

That is a motion.

I second.

By Commissioner Montez and a second by Commissioner Buono.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's approval five to zero.

Thank you very much.

Uh with that, I'm thinking we should take maybe just a quick maybe ten minute break, if that's all right with everybody.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

We're going to go ahead and resume our meeting.

Starting with excuse me.

We'll be starting with a text amendment recommendation.

And this is Section Four oh four table four oh four dash one use matrix, section eight sixteen on convenience stores with gas sales, and section eight two four gas stations and gas sales.

PC two five dash two four eight ZTA zoning text amendment.

And with that, I'll turn it over to staff.

Thank you.

I'm entering the report into the record.

The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the city council to amend Section Four Zero Four, Table Four Zero Four Dash One use Matrix and the Land Management Code to allow convenience stores with gas sales and automobile filling stations as a conditional use in the MU dash one and MU dash two mixed use districts.

Applicant also proposes to amend Section 824, gas stations and gas sales by amending table 824-1, gas pumps by location or district, to remove the notation of districts where the use is not permitted, add the manufacturing office zoning district, and remove the standards relating regarding lots within 200 feet of residential and resource conservation zoning districts, and provide a new table for calculating the number of pumps per 1,000 square feet of lot area, and by adding a requirement that fuel pump fuel dispensing pumps be set back at least 100 feet from the property line of the nearest lot used for residential purposes and 100 feet from any area zoned resource conservation.

If the residential lot line is within a roadway, the separation distance shall be measured from the nearest residential building wall.

Beginning with the revision to section.

My apologies.

Per section 306 of the land management code in considering a text amendment, the planning commission in its recommendation to the council must consider whether the proposed changes implement the policies of the comprehensive plan and are consistent with existing regulations.

Beginning with a revision to Section 816 to substitute the term referring to the zoning board of appeals with the words reviewing authority, as there are two types of conditional uses.

Mixed use conditional uses allowed in the mixed use districts are considered by the planning commission during the master plan process or by the city council if a rezoning is required in conjunction with that master plan.

This revision is not a substantive change to the code but generalizes the reference to pertain to whichever body is given the authority to approve the request as established elsewhere in the code.

This should help streamline the permitting process by reducing confusion between regular conditional uses and those in mixed use zoning.

The applicant also proposes amending the use matrix to allow convenient stores with gas sales and automobile filling stations as a conditional use in the mixed use district to treat these related uses consistently and to ensure that both receive additional scrutiny through the conditional use process.

However, it is stated that that conditional use would be by the reviewing authority of zoning board of appeals, which is not the appropriate reviewing authority for conditional use in mixed use.

This change will not affect the permissible nature of these uses within other zoning districts.

The applicant is also proposing to amend the table regarding gas pumps by location or district to remove the notation of districts where the use is not permitted, add the manufacturing office zoning district, and remove the standards regarding lots within 200 feet of residential or resource conservation.

They also provide a new table for calculating the number of pumps per thousand square feet of lot area.

The applicant further amends the section to add a requirement that fuel dispensing pumps be set back at least 100 feet from the property line or to the nearest lot line used for residential purposes, a hundred feet from any resource conservation zoned area, and in the case where residential property lines are within a roadway, the distance should be measured to the nearest residential building wall.

These changes correct table 824-1 with the correct zoning districts corresponding with allowable use.

Staff recognizes this is a clarification to the land management code.

The intent of table 824-1 is to establish the number of pumps in each zoning district based on lot side and create more restrictive provisions for gas cells within close proximity to potentially sensitive land uses.

Under the current code, properties may have between 0.03 and 0.4 gas pumps per 1,000 square feet of lot size.

This means on the high end, they need 33,333 square feet and 2500 square feet of lot size for one pump respectively.

Property within 200 feet of residential resource conservation zones are limited between zero and zero point zero two gas pumps per thousand square feet of lot.

This means that a property within 200 feet of these zoning districts would either not be permitted to have gas pumps, or at most could have one gas pump per 50,000 square feet, which is over an acre, making the location effectively not viable.

The proposed revision would maintain most of the calculations with those applicable to planned neighborhood development updated from 0.03 gas pumps to 0.2 gas pumps per thousand square feet of lot, which is the same as mixed use districts, mixed employment, and manufacturing office zoning districts.

The revision also seeks to eliminate the restrictions regarding number of pumps relative to the residential and resource conservation zoned areas and to add a condition that field pumps be set back at least 100 feet from the property line used for residential, 100 feet from resource conservation, and where the residential lot line is within a roadway would be measured to the nearest residential building wall.

The applicant has provided several instances where residential lot lines falls within a roadway.

These situations usually occur due to private ownership of right-of-ways and could create a far larger setback than the intended 100 feet.

For example, the Brahmar, and I apologize for the pronunciation, the Brahmar condominians off South Ambrose Drive include all of Warren Way within their property lines.

From the condo building to the edge of the property line would be approximately 100 feet.

However, without the caveat and the code for these situations, their requirement would effectively be doubled due to the inclusion of the private road within property boundaries.

Staff understands these situations can cause undue hardships and agree that the addition of the clause in the code is needed for when these circumstances arise.

While the existing code intends to restrict the number of pumps, it does not address the location of those pumps on a site, and this proposed amendment corrects this.

A concern regarding distance and safety was brought up at the Planning Commission workshop on how the change from pump limitation based on proximity to sensitive land areas versus a strict distance separation from those areas to the pumps would affect safety.

An inquiry to both the building and fire departments resulted in reference to the National Fire Protection Association 30A code, which regulates motor fuel dispensing systems, including gas pump guidance.

From this, they provide a separation distance of 10 feet from property lines, buildings, and vehicles being served.

Staff found there was no distance separation guidance provided through the Environmental Protection Agency.

The applicant provided standards found in other municipalities with an excerpt which states the city of Brunswick utilizes setbacks ranging from 20 to 40 feet to regulate automobile filling and service stations adjacent to residential districts.

The town of Middletown regulates gasoline stations differently with the general commercial district pumps must be set back 50 feet from the nearest adjoining property retail gas from the nearest property.

Retail gas lane sales in conjunction with light manufacturing are subject to the same 50-foot setback, but this use is also subject to pump density limitations of no more than one pump per 1,000 square feet.

The proposed text amendment will help currently non-conforming sites to come into compliance.

The applicant identified six convenience stores with gas sales constructed between 1960 and 1987 on a smaller, on a lot smaller than 50,000 square feet and located within 200 feet of residential, which we would consider non-conforming today.

They're now being proposed to be demolished, and one new convenience store with sales that totaled 12 gas pumps is proposed.

Although this is a cumulative loss of eight gas pumps, the property still required a variance from the ZBA to redevelop, as the immediately adjoining lot to the rear is zone residential.

The distance from the residential zoning boundary to the gas pumps is approximately 225 feet.

There is no access nor a road connecting the gas station to the residential use.

Several other gas stations built decades ago will continue to age without the ability to redevelop in their current locations.

The proposed amendment of the code would allow redevelopment of the same use consistent with the current configuration, which would help prevent blight by modernizing the community and having the sites brought up to current standards, which are higher in regards to safety requirements than when the gas stations were previously built.

In its recommending role to the city council, the planning commission must consider the extent to which the changes are consistent with the code and the degree to which they implement the comprehensive plan.

The applicant has stated several 2020 comprehensive plan policies that will support the text amendment, including land use policy and economic development.

The commission has one action.

Recommendation to the city council for approval of the proposed amendments as contained in the draft ordinance.

Finding the proposal implements land use policy 7 and economic development policy 4 of the 2020 comprehensive plan.

The proposed amendments eliminate inconsistent treatment of similar uses, refine discrepancies in the wording of the of the land management code and city processes, and assists in streamlining the permitting process.

The proposed amendment corrects errors within the existing table and proposes an acceptable alternative that will allow for non-conforming sites to redevelop as their existing use will help modernize both look and safety of gas station sites.

The proposed amendment also supports the intent of the code to protect potentially sensitive areas by creating distance from uses and therefore it's consistent with existing code.

Staff supports a positive recommendation to city council for the amendments as proposed in the draft ordinance with a proposed modification to the language that the term that the term district be revised to development within the table 824-1 in reference to planned neighborhood developments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me, thank you.

With that, we'll take a roll call for questions, starting with Commissioner Montes.

No questions.

Commissioner Temple?

No questions for staff.

And Commissioner Buono?

No questions either.

Commissioner Robey.

Yes.

I I we got a description here on safety, but there's no reference here to noise, odor, or providing screening between the residential units and the commercial activity.

So could the staff respond to how this complies with land management code in that regard?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, as we've shown, we did references between our building department and our fire department.

We consulted them to see if there was anything that would cause for concern there.

The guidance from the handbook that they use to do their reviews only requires 10 feet, and of course, those are done nationally, so they take into account a lot of these nuisances.

We also referenced a couple of other codes from other cities regarding that.

Buffering is going to be handled by the landscaping code, so they're always going to require a buffer between GC and residential resource conservation.

Um as far as you know, noise and fumes, um, again, in looking for everything that we could, the maximum separation distance we could find being established was 50 feet, and this proposal is asking for a hundred feet, so double what is currently allowed elsewhere.

So, in staff's pos uh opinion.

There are no recommendations to modify the land management code to provide more restrictive aspects to safety noise odor or screening.

You're comfortable with the land management code as it is.

Yes, the land management code has a lot of protections against noise odors.

We have that mentioned several times throughout the land management code.

And again, these factors were taken in when we're talking about a separation of a hundred feet.

Um again, that's that's adequate from what we have found.

It's twice as adequate from what we have discovered.

Thank you.

Okay, and I don't have any questions at this time.

So with that, I would ask that the applicant come forward with their presentation, please.

I'm gonna check this mic.

Okay.

Good evening, members of the planning commission.

Lisa Gradator of the law firm of McCurdy Damon Gradator, 31 West Patrick Street.

I'm here tonight along with Ed Warmold on behalf of the applicant, the Warmalt companies.

I want to thank staff at the outset.

The staff report does a truly excellent job of summarizing both the need for this text amendment and the reasoning behind each and every one of the amendments that we have proposed.

I know several of you were not at the workshop, but as I stated then, we've been working closely with staff for many months to craft this text amendment and we and to provide the research to back up our recommendations.

All of that research is in your packets and was touched upon by Ms.

Roderick in her presentation.

This text amendment cleans up sections of the LMC relating to gas pumps that contain errors and inconsistencies, and it updates regulations that apply when gas pumps are located in the vicinity of residential or resource conservation uses.

The amendments that we have proposed are more protective of the surround of these surroundings sensitive uses than the existing code provisions, and the cleanups will provide the predictability and consistency and application that the comprehensive plan aims to provide.

Um I did want to add to Ms.

Roderick's response to Commissioner Robey's question.

Um we did go back and forth, as I said, for several months to try to craft this text amendment in a way that as it should would apply broadly and appropriately throughout the city.

And so when we were trying to come up with an appropriate setback, one of the reasons we chose 100 feet is that that is the more that is the setback that applies in the more stringent uh performance standards for industrial uses in the LMC and section um 833 and 834.

So, in terms of noise and protection and all of that, you know, the this use is gonna get the same protection that any sort of an industrial use that's developed in M1 would get.

So we felt that was appropriate.

Staff agreed.

Um we are otherwise in complete agreement with the staff report and its recommendations, and we're here tonight just to answer any questions that you have and to request a positive recommendation to the city council.

Thank you.

Uh we'll go ahead with the roll call starting with Commissioner Temple.

No questions for the applicant.

Commissioner Bo.

Yeah, I think that when this first came up, we had asked a couple of questions about um, you know, we felt that this was maybe a health-related type of question, because it had to do with the gas pumps and stuff like that.

Did you guys do any assessment of of that or similar type of guidances around this just from that perspective?

I appreciate the distance, you know, similarity with other industrial uses, but I think that was one of the questions that that we had.

I'm just curious if you had done any work on that or have any had thought about that.

So what we did was collaborate with staff.

Um staff had those conversations with the building department, the fire department.

They um I think it was you, Commissioner Llewellyn, who had asked about EPA standards.

There were not any from our perspective as developers and attorneys, you know, all we can do is look at you know what are the analogies, right?

So we looked at other jurisdictions, you know, some of their separation distances are only 50 feet, and that was one of the larger separation distances that we found.

Um so we did try to be conservative, and like I said, use the current regulations in the LMC that apply to industrial standards to get at that issue about health.

Um, there are obviously layers of state um environmental environmental regulations that protect public health.

Um so I think you know, besides that, that's all that we could come up with.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right, and Commissioner Roby.

No further questions, thank you.

Commissioner Montes.

No further questions.

Okay, and I have no further questions either.

Um that said I know we don't have public comment.

Do we have any discussion between the commissioners?

None.

Okay, with that said, I'm looking for a motion on the action, which again is a recommendation to city council.

I motion to recommend to the city council for approval of the proposed amendments as contained in the draft ordinance exhibit A per the findings introduced into the record by staff with the condition that the proposed modification language district be revised to development.

Within table 824-1 gas pumps by district slash location in reference to PND.

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

All those in favor?

That's five to zero for approval of a recommendation to city council for approval of the proposed amendments.

Thank you very much.

All right, last but not least.

PC 25-615 ZTA zoning text amendment for home occupations.

So I'll give that back to staff to discuss.

So this is a request for recommendation and council as staff for updates for regulations of home occupations.

However, this was um appropriate timing because this was a section of the code that we also recognize needed some updates and modernization on tour, like the game economy and e-commerce.

Um it was kind of antiquated with regards to concepts like delivery, which now become prolific in our neighborhoods, whether it's Amazon or UPS that are not supposed to find a day, uh, that type of impact has become characteristic even in residential communities.

Uh so we partnered to uh draft this ordinance in your package.

You can have a draft that reflects what's proposed to be uh new section 829.

The entire section is proposed to be repealed and replaced with vacuum language.

So if our comparison sake with the existing section, you'll want to adjust the statement that's in the background.

Under our current regulations, there are two types of home occupations.

What we refer to is no impact in occupations and conditional use commissions, a latter which has to be approved by the zoning board of the police.

And also new districts except DVDR and DOT are districts, uh the MBR, which is a residential office on the zoning district that's fairly limited.

Uh you'll see RO zoning along really high um high intensity traffic forwards on Rosan Avenue, over there, small clusters of this ROC Street on the three crossover under 15.

Uh, these are areas where you'll see uh residential uses become not as liable anymore because of the traffic so we lost in the conversion of residences in general speaking, but that's just a background on our in those zoning districts.

Um there's specific provisions that are distinct from residential, uh zoning classifications otherwise.

So I just want to touch on what's allowed in residential context.

In these areas, and no impact on occupation does not allow for customer visits, no employees, no deliveries or storage related use, and no more than 20% of the home square is less can be used for the business.

No impactations in those downtown districts or RROS.

No impact on occupations in the residential districts, um, as well as the DRDO and RO are all approved through a zoning order.

Um by comparison, conditional useful occupations are also held by that square footage limitation.

I think do not produce any additional pedestrian or peculiar trips, except the one-day delivery by a circus like the S and FedEx and are committed logically designed outside of the public unfair to go or type home occupation or allow to generate noise, odor, dust, or other impact that are characteristic or structured to resolve.

Under our proposed regulations, there will be three types of home-based businesses.

However, all three will be authorized upon each other use.

Those terms are that you must concur completely within such structure on the property with principal structure or accessory structure, they cannot operate in the law group in the states.

And there can be no exterior modifications that would attract the residential characters specific to the needs of the business.

Third, none of the activities can create noise order migration fields layer or any electrical interpreter interference.

Detect what levels become the original code special and residential settings.

Next, you know, sort of hazardous materials allowed in any case.

Deliveries are only allowed for common functional delivery services like Amazon or FedEx specific language, including track trailer deliveries, and then lastly, the existing provisions that we have in the code about that space, the amount of house that can be used in all the residential zones remains in place but does not apply in the downtown RO.

So those are the common characteristics for any of the three types of home applications of what we're home these businesses I'm going to talk about.

All three are bound by legislators.

So first we have a no impact.

This will require zoning, it will not require any zoning permits or approvals.

These do not allow for any on site visits.

And they're not allowed to have any employees.

So this is a truly visible home-based business.

And for this reason, also have the content of low working as no impact home-based business.

These sorts of businesses will prior zoning permit and allow for services like home tutoring, music instruction, and the line.

In all zoning districts, except the downtown and RO, the customer visits are limited to five per week within more than one time.

In the downtown in RO, there is no specific cap on the number of visits, provided that the applicant can notice to approve that zoning permit, that there's adequate part onset or offset to accommodate the customers' vehicles about our supplement.

This would be demonstrated through the permit process.

Lastly, we have this commission of use system that requires the zoning board appeals for approval, and this allows the most flexibility.

Customer businesses are allowed by a point only with a maximum of 20 visits per week, but no more than five a day.

And then as a conditional use, the review would be subject not only to the specific parameters of section 29, but also two sections of the code that apply specifically to the zoning board of appeals and the conditional uses.

But ultimately, the summary of those sections is that the zoning board of appeals has a lot of latitude to review context-specific situations, whether we're doing a specific type of business, they're reviewing a specific location, and they are empowered and responsible to make sure that these instances don't get created, and they're allowed to put any conditions on that approval to prevent the overseas.

Child care is covered under section 811 of the code as well as under state regulations, so totally separate.

However, we do indicate in the proposed draft that only a no impact home occupation could occur where the home is also being used for a child day care.

So this would be those really limited, invisible home occupations that wouldn't have any visitors in addition to the folks coming to the house for child care driving off.

We need to think of how this is consistent with the code, and we need to think about how the principals of our comprehensive plan in our analysis and the staff report we do want to find that it expressly supports housing policy six, which is for diverse residential development and development of the city and implementation starting to six, which is allowing for flexibility for appropriate commercial use and home occupation in residential.

If you look at the comprehensive panel broadly, it speaks a lot about mixed use and reducing vehicle miles traveled and having more people be able to live work like in their communities, and this is all the support that goes in addition to uh policy that advocates from line on regulations and the processes that apply to.

And having more people to be able to work by their communities and this is all the support of the in addition to uh policy badge and market regulations and uh process so with that uh we were seeing recommendations in console for approval that the most amendments is the main draft ordinance finding that one on the proposed amendments to make your flexibility certain restrictions on one basis is a main eight, we have part of the secondary limitful use of residents, and the neighborhood activity that policy is like the side of the house.

The amendments are also consistent with the code as a tiered structure that classified basically business entities with the characteristics, and then the staffing processes are consistent with the existing regulations and code, and then secondly, the proposed amendment further's policies that would be happy as a man, including housing policy.

Thank you very much.

Uh we'll start with Commissioner Temple.

No questions for staff, thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Buono.

No questions for staff.

Commissioner Robey.

Thank you for addressing many of the issues.

Thank you for addressing many of the issues that were brought up in the workshop.

Uh but a new one came to mind to me.

Uh and I'm not challenging your ordinance, I just want to know how your ordinance would handle the situation.

And that is a business like you're gonna fix up cars or auto resident as an example.

And uh you can I can envision the car actually being repaired inside a garage, but it may be inventory or other vehicles maybe inventoried in your front yard.

We had that situation on I guess it's Austin Alley and Third Street for a long time where there's a VW restoration place where they they actually stockpiled cars for parts and and then pick the parts out of those to restore other people's VWs.

So then they use air impact wrenches and air compressors and some noisy type things.

So I was wondering how that kind of an occupation as an example occupation might be handled by this ordinance.

Um probably wouldn't be anything on base value that would explicitly permit that.

I think where you're gonna learn problems are probably the noise and impacts of that sort of service being provided at a house.

Um air tools or um impact wrenches and the and the like that are creating senses that would be practical that are uncharacteristic of a residence as a resident who may change your oil once that we're cost on your property, and then there would be nothing else with that, and that that was on a regular basis in accordance with the amounts of visits that can occur if that were five times a week on an ongoing basis every day.

I can see that generating some new sense activity, which would be um would be enforceable from the provisions of our code if noise or odor or dust from those annual intensive activities.

Yeah, on the noise side, uh, my concern was what would be normal noise or intermittent noise by a homeowner might become more regular noise if it was business was generating that.

The second was the concern that your front yard might be used as a car lot, okay, for temporary storage of vehicles while they're being maintained or after they've been maintained and you're waiting for them to be picked up by a customer.

And so the unsightliness that that would impose on the neighborhood and character.

So I would like to discourage that kind of activity being allowed.

So in that case, um, any able storage that would be outside of a structure would be strictly prohibited.

So that would be a fairly easy violation of the site that you are, you know, you have five cars you're working on, and you're outside of principal structure on the property.

And they're prohibited under the regulation that requires all the operations to be inside.

If that's the case, thank you.

Okay, and Commissioner Montez.

Uh yeah, so let me actually go on.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

All right.

Um, so what would stop someone from, you know, because this time around, this is pretty sub substantial change.

This would have no impact be a tier now.

So what would stop from someone from saying, hey, I'm a no impacts, and then they start kind of underground, bringing in people, and then you know, it becomes they kind of skip the process of having to get like a zoning approval or something of that nature.

Um nothing would prevent that from happening.

Um, wherein lies the solution?

Um someone may start their no impact and starting my you know, knitting business at home and I'm selling on Etsy, and then I've got a great fan base, and now I'm inviting people to my house.

And now goes on every day, and they're bringing you know, even with boxes.

Um, it would be an enforcement issue.

Nothing would necessarily at least that from that from happening, um, but we should have the right six to sign them with a violation, and then um I I guess I guess my thought would be if there is a a tier where you can have no requirement, if there is a tier where you can have no um requirements for a zoning approval that's some people you might see an uptick in people trying to game the system or the rules because I mean commercial space is expensive, it's very expensive.

So I mean a lot of people would be like, oh well, I can try to do this and maybe I can get away with it.

And so I guess that that having that base level, I guess is just an initial I guess concern of mine in terms of there being no enforcement or not, like no approval requirement that entails more strict enforcement after that.

Um that's thought I had to see a couple years ago, two or three years ago now, um, are not development department offering us.

Um had a great uh uh mini brain firm where they were operating people they were offering um small grants to start up businesses, a lot of home-based businesses.

Yeah, all of these books coming out of the workers because now there's money available.

And this was the first time we started recognizing that people were even aware that they needed any sort of approval to do some of the types of businesses because some of them were as simple as well.

I make three, you know, maybe hats, maybe maybe hats a week, and then I go to the post office that is all on Etsy.

And technically, you can be like that that's a home-based business.

Um, another common example is uh a lot of or um like photographers who do photo shoots for your family and holidays, graduation pictures, they go off on site, they meet their clients, they take pictures of people in your park, they come home, and then usually you ever think send the photos to the clients, and that that is the depth of it.

Um we realize that so many folks in the world we live in are operating these types of businesses without even knowingly um violating the regulations.

So part of it is the you know, let's not make those things violations.

If these sorts of businesses are occurring out there all the time and they aren't looking through is why create a system whereby it's prone to creating violations for those folks.

Right.

It is a balance, I think, between um enforcement and it's completely understandable.

I saw public comment too um on that, and definitely it can ease a lot of uh barriers for people.

So definitely, yeah, balancing act.

Thank you.

Um so the only things I thought I I was thinking about this, and I thought, well, during the pandemic, everybody started creating cottage industries and doing this these very same things that you're talking about that they didn't even know they weren't allowed to do.

Um, and reading the public comment, it sounds like you know, in this in that case, you know, someone did report her and and it was a violation.

Um so I like the idea of opening this up a bit.

I think you know, hopefully people won't take advantage.

There are going to be people out there doing that still, um, but I think it's about time that we did have the three tiers clearly defined.

Um so I I guess I'm all for it.

I don't see who they would be harming in most cases.

Um any other discussion with the commission?

No.

Okay, well, I will be looking for a motion for the one action that we have, which again is uh for a recommendation to council.

Uh I motion for the approval uh for a recommendation to the city council for approval of the proposed amendments as contained in the draft ordinance per findings uh read into record by staff.

So I had a motion by Commissioner Bueno and seconds by two commissioners, Temple and Montez.

With that said, uh all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That's five to zero for approval of recommendation for the text amendment.

So thank you.

And with that said, meeting is adjourned.