Welcome to the June fifteenth, two thousand twenty-six workshop of the City of Frederick Planning Commission.

Before being beginning today's proceedings, I'd like to give an overview of the process we will follow today since it's different than the process we use for a hearing.

For each item on our agenda, we will start the conversation with the applicant by having them come up to the front table and walk us through their project.

And for those of you new to the process, we do ask that you provide a thorough overview of your application, specifically addressing any modifications that you are requesting.

Following the applicant presentation, the commission will then ask any questions of the applicant.

Then we will ask staff to address their comments on the application, followed by the Commission questions and comments to staff.

After the staff presentation, we may go back to the applicant for additional questions.

We will then ask for public comment, and if needed, we'll go back to the applicant and our staff with additional questions.

Anyone wishing to make public comment is asked to sign up on the sheet provided on the table just inside the door.

And when taking public comment, we will invite people up in the order on the sign-in sheet.

Then anyone who is not signed up will be given the opportunity to comment.

Before beginning your public comments, please give your name and address.

And note that public comments are limited to three minutes, and you will be able to see the timer to the left, and the light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds remaining, and red when time is up.

After speaking publicly publicly at the meeting regarding any application, anyone speaking publicly must be sworn in prior to giving their remarks, including the applicant, city staff, and members of the public.

Therefore, at this time I ask that anyone who anticipates giving comment or testimony on any agenda item, please stand to be sworn in.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead with a roll call for questions from the commission, starting with Commissioner Temple.

Yeah.

As I was reviewing the staff report, there's a modification request to include environmentally sensitive development for stormwater management within the right of way.

It asked for applicant justification to be provided.

Could you give us some context on the needs for the other thing?

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Modification request one.

There's no applicant justification included in that.

So I was hoping you could talk us through that right now.

For the uh ESDs.

Correct.

Yeah.

So those are going to be provided uh via roadside swells, and underneath that's going to be sort of an infiltration uh system for that ESD.

Uh I believe those are provided within the right-of-way.

It's my understanding that it's a modification to put them within the right-of-way.

So trying to understand the reasoning that they have to that modification is required and they cannot go on the property.

Oh, I understand.

So it allows for uh positive drainage directly from the roadway into the roadside swells, which is where the ESDs are located, and it's just uh an efficient use of that area.

So it just a grading condition.

It's just a grading condition.

It's yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh no further questions at this time.

Commissioner Roby.

You're combining two lots, correct?

Two parcels, yes, sir.

Yes.

And each parcel independently met the adequate public facilities ordinances some years back.

My concern or my question to you is with the combined lots, would they still pass?

Like would you now trip uh a requirement to re have moderate price houses in that facility with the combined number of lots?

Can you repeat that last part?

I'm sorry, I I'm hard of hearing the lots separately, parcels separately met the requirements for adequate public facilities, specifically the moderately price units.

But together they might exceed the number of units where you can dismiss that, and you may have to reconsider or be asked to consider moderately placed housing as part of the development.

Sir, I I truly apologize.

I cannot.

I can't, I didn't hear that last part.

Uh they are being two separate parcels uh combined together.

You're afraid that if they are one, they would exceed.

So treated as one parcel.

Yep.

Then the number of lots in that combined parcel may trip a requirement to provide a number of moderately priced housing.

They require a number of I'm sorry.

I may require what the other one is.

Okay.

They if you have only a few number of lots, you are just relieved from having to comply with that.

But if you exceed a certain number of lots, and staff will help us understand what that trip line is, you may be required as a combined parcel to provide moderately priced dwelling units.

If that is something that staff finds that we need to provide, I uh request that we do that in the technical review with engineering.

Just bringing the issue up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And I'll just add to that that the staff report um does indicate um that the final plats were already recorded and exempted from the APFO.

Just to just to note that.

That is a separate lots now that they are combined.

I'm wondering if that's still true.

Okay.

Um let's continue with the questions and we can get um staff.

We can have staff address that.

Do you have additional questions, Commissioner Robey?

I do not.

Okay.

And Commissioner Montes.

No questions at this time.

Okay.

And uh just to clarify, so my understanding is that these are two separate subdivisions, thus it met those requirements already.

Um, but was there any thought to create one subdivision from the two since they are right next to each other, and that of course would then eliminate the need for a modification.

I think because they were originally approved separately, uh, the applicant wanted to continue this process to have it more efficiently go through staff review.

And so they want to keep it separately.

Okay, thank you for that.

Thank you.

Um with that.

I would ask um that the staff present their comments and presentation.

Thank you.

The case planner is unable to attend due to transportation issues, so I will be taking over.

All right.

Uh so there are three uh modification requests, one of which is to the street improvement standards to have the stormwater management facilities in the right of way.

In this particular workshop report, we have not been provided updated modification letters, so we worked off of the previous modification letters from the old plans, uh waiting on confirmation that that is still identical and for them to update the dates and to resend it back to us.

So that analysis is coming from somewhere.

And then they also have two landscape modifications, and this is basically the areas between the subdivisions.

Um you don't need screening between something that's being built as the same development, so we're not concerned about that.

Um as mentioned, the APFOs have already been reviewed.

And so because this is two subdivisions that was previously platted, they've already been tested for APFO, and they are exempt from the MPDU provisions because that plot was already recorded and exempted with those APFOs.

So we are still on track.

Um not really anything else to add.

Thank you.

Uh we'll go ahead with uh roll call questions starting with Commissioner Roby.

No further questions.

Commissioner Temple.

I have a question for Commissioner Roby.

Um did you feel like your moderately priced dwelling unit question was answered there, or is there still misunderstanding of the combination of two subdivisions?

If I can chime in on the um moderately priced dwelling unit ordinance, um when this project was re-invigorated in 2020 or how many of our years ago um it was, we analyzed the applicability of both the MPDU and the APFO because it is sort of a unique um situation where a project was completely developed and final plot uh final plats recorded for the lots, but no building permits ever issued.

But then because of the stormwater management regulations uh changing the demands for the design, they had to re rework the preliminary plots.

So we analyzed all of that back in like 2020.

There are two standards in chapter 19 of the city code, which is the moderately priced provisions.

Um a project is exempt if it's found exempt from APFO, which it was because it's recorded lots with no further subdivision happening, no new lots, and then um a project had had previously unconditional approved site plan preliminary plat, final plot or master plan.

So at the time when we were looking about the at the applicability of the MPDU provisions, because they had recorded final plats, actually implementing the original preliminary plat.

Uh, we found that criteria to be met as well as the criteria related to APFO, therefore deeming this project exempt from the moderately priced dwelling unit provisions.

Thank you.

That answers my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Montes, any questions?

No questions.

Commissioner Roby, did you have additional questions?

I see your microphone on.

It is on.

Probably shouldn't be, but uh thank you for the clarification by staff.

Um I'm just of the opinion that the conditions of combining the two lots are now changed conditions from the approval process that took place some years back.

And uh I'm not saying that you need to reverse your decision.

I'm just saying that this is a kind of situation where you may be asked by commission uh to look at that issue.

And uh that's where I am right now.

Thank you.

Okay, and do we have any public comment?

All right, well, that concludes uh this proposal for this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, our next item will be the Ren Quarter Parkland, PC 26-103 FSI final site plan.

I ask the applicant to come forward, please.

Uh good afternoon.

Thank you for having us.

My name is Luke Zeller, and to my right is uh Matt Holbrook, and also in attendance is uh Payton Stone, my clients from St.

John properties.

Uh before you today is uh what you'll see the Ren Quarter uh Parkland site plan.

And we are here with a site plan revision uh as part of an agreement my client has entered into with the city to provide uh stormwater facilities.

You will see in the uh northern corner or plan bottom left.

Um part of that agreement is that my client will develop 75 head-in spaces off of the old gas house bike roadbed that is to be accessed near the intersection of East Church and the future 7th Street connection.

Um before you today, you will see a interior landscaping modification request.

So the area of these 75 parking spaces is currently in, is in R 12 zone ground uh currently owned by the East Church HOA.

They have agreed to uh turn over this land to St.

John properties to develop the 75 parking spaces, and St.

John's will then in turn turn that over to the city to be parkland.

Um but the R 12 zoning conditions for landscaping require that any surface parking lot with more than 20 spaces have a minimum of 10 percent interior landscaping uh coverage.

Um I don't know if you could uh shift to plan sheet five.

Um but this area is currently surrounded to both the north and south uh with the honeycomb pattern, those are the forest easements that are added as part of the front quarter.

And while they are not honeycombed, there is two forest easements actually between uh East Church Street and these 75 spaces that will largely screen this area.

Also in this area on both sides of the old gas house pike road bed are two power lines, uh one towards the Fairview Cemetery in the Carroll Creek and one towards the East Church uh Nicodemus development.

And there's also a gas line that kind of goes through that area as well.

Um seeing how we were limited by those existing utilities, and we were trying to get the 75 spaces in the area uh between the access off of East Church and the turnaround that is um maybe on sheet four, located uh near the Fairview Cemetery.

Um we were requesting this modification.

Uh we are adding shrubs within these islands where possible, and as well trees in the areas that aren't encumbered by the easement.

Um we just believe that um, you know, given these constraints uh and the existing forest easements, we are still meeting the intent of the code.

Um I would like to add we are also connecting the 75 spaces to the shared use path that runs along East Church Street with uh pedestrian connection.

And uh turn it over to uh staff if I've missed anything or if you guys have any questions.

If you happen to have a pointer to point out to us exactly where the parking is and where it connects to the walking path, I think that would be good to demonstrate.

Yeah.

Let me just figure out all right.

So right here is where these 75 spaces would connect East Church.

This is the 7th Street uh connection that kind of goes over into the East Church development.

Uh there is a pedestrian connection that will meet the shared use path along that old gas house pike roadbed on both ends uh from here, as well as a connection over here closer to the Fairview Cemetery.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

All right.

Um with that, uh, we'll go ahead with a roll call for questions, starting with Commissioner Montes.

Yeah, so I just wanted to confirm.

I know there's the encumbrances with the easements, but would there still be I guess how constrained is it to the point where you can't have more small canopy trees and something without violating the utility easement.

Uh so I do know that the power line uh closer to East Church is lar the East Church development and East Church Street is a larger line than the one that's in the parkland.

I have we have gotten comments from Washington Gas.

There is actually also an eight-inch gas main that kind of runs along uh and then jogs across uh the old roadbed alignment in here.

We've been told that we cannot plant trees um within 10 feet of the gas line.

Um we have gotten modifications in the past to plant smaller trees underneath lines, uh power lines, but um they are usually at risk of being cut as they get larger.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Roby.

No serious questions.

Uh I find it ironic that the city can plant trees within a couple of feet of the gas line going into my house, but you're restricted here.

I guess they have the main, yeah, the main line.

Yes.

Yes, I think.

Commissioner Temple.

I'm expecting this is outside the purview of this application, but I'm gonna ask it anyways.

Can you explain to me uh the background and history of the blue paths on this exhibit and how and kind of what city responsibility versus St.

John's responsibility, how it ended up there?

Um Yeah.

So for the purpose of this application before you today, St.

John properties only responsibility would be the construction of the 75 spaces off of East Church Street, as well as the storm water area and the pedestrian path connecting the 75 spaces.

Uh the parkland plan as a whole, you see before you it has come before the planning commission a couple times.

Um it was originally a matin plan and kind of also went through uh review as four-star.

Um those blue paths you see, um the one right here is along the old farmhouse uh driveway.

And then this one here um has gone through a design change uh, I believe by the Department of Public Works during a previous site plan review.

It used to be located on top of the uh berm, but it was requested to be uh shifted downwards.

But um, I believe that was between uh four star and the city to they were at four-star and would construct the red road along Bond Street, and then uh the blue would be over the repurposed driveway.

Um, and then this one would be constructed by the city um to coincide with the uh Carroll Creek uh stream rehabilitation project.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I have no questions.

Um, but I did like that you're using the old roadbed for parking versus creating something new and taking away uh more green space in the city.

Um that it's screened from you know by surrounding uses.

So I did like that.

But I have no questions.

Um so with that, I would turn it over to staff.

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

I think Luke did a pretty good job of explaining everything, so um I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great.

And I will start with Commissioner Roby.

Any questions?

I'm not sure whether the question is to staff or to applicant.

Uh this is a park area.

Is what material should probably have Reddit on here, but what material will your parking surface be?

Uh believe it'll be asphalt.

Um, and then the trail uh could either be concrete or asphalt as well, but uh we'll probably work with the city during the improvement plan phase to uh determine specific uh composition of the parking and the uh sidewalk.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner Montes.

No questions.

Commissioner Temple?

No questions.

All right.

And I have no further questions either.

Do we have any public comment?

Okay, well, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay.

The next application for review is the forest conservation ordinance, PC 24-224, ZTA.

This is a zoning text amendment for Section 721 of the forest conservation plan forest conservation.

And with that, I will hand it over to the city.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to try to walk you through the updates to Section 721 that are proposed as concisely as possible.

So these are amendments that are being brought forward by the department to Section 721.

This is our forest conservation regulation guidance that you review on a regular basis.

The regulations are largely driven by state requirements.

So this set of amendments reflects updates from two bills passed at the state level, as well as updates that we see necessary to successfully implement our canopy goals and to move our project or our program through the process.

However, we did put the amendments on hold as the state was developing their model ordinance for local jurisdictions to use, so we could use that as a guide.

A draft was provided last year from DNR, but however, they still have not finished their model ordinance, but the updates under the state legislation do go into effect in uh July 1 of this year.

So regardless, we need to move forward with our updates to the code.

As such, we plan to bring this to the planning commission for recommendation in July, and then we will submit to talk with the city council at a work session and a regular meeting, and hopefully not be too far behind that July 1st deadline.

We have met and talked with DNR and she the representative indicated that we were not alone in not having our our update uh completed yet, but we do um want to get that taken care of as soon as possible.

So what I thought I would do is walk through the marked up version that's in your packet.

Uh you have a kind of a clean version which shows what the the code would look like if ultimately adopted based on these proposals, and then you have this marked up version.

And for anyone who might be looking at it for the first time, uh brackets indicate that text is being deleted, and font that is in bold and underlined is new text.

So it's a little difficult to read through sometimes having that clean version is helpful.

So instead of working through the summary, which is kind of uh jumps around a little bit from section, I thought it might be just quickest to go through page by page to some extent.

Uh a lot of the brackets and underlining you see are uh reflection of kind of organizational changes.

Uh section 721 as it's currently written is a little repetitive and hard to follow.

So one of our overarching goals with this was also to improve for readability and usability, which our comprehensive plan does advocate for where possible to make our codes as as user-friendly as humanly possible.

So we also tried to do a lot of that work.

Um today I want to touch on the substantive changes though.

So the first change we're going to look at is on page one, uh, and this is the applicability section.

So this is um being renumbered to section five towards the bottom of the page there.

And what we are doing is actually making our code more stringent than it currently is.

Uh right now, the standards for applicability of section 721 are for any uh ground disturbance um development activity on a piece of land over 40,000 square feet, which is just a little bit under an acre.

So whether you have forest or not, if you're over 40,000 square feet and you're proposing some sort of regulated activity, grading site plan development, et cetera, you are subject to forest conservation.

We're proposing to add to section 721 that this will also apply to any development activity that proposes to clear 20 or 10,000, I'm sorry, 10,000 square feet of forest, regardless of the overall size of the property.

So if you have a lot that is half of an acre and you've got 10,000 square feet of forest on it, and you're proposing to clear it all, that will be subject, even though it's under that 40,000 square foot limit.

This will ensure that we have the opportunity to evaluate any significant clearing, and that mitigation is provided to account for it as a means of maintaining our overall canopy, and as we get into the changes, um, ensuring that we're we're meeting some of the retention priorities identified by the state.

In this section, we are also the second um highlighted or underlined section.

We're also addressing plans approved prior to the effective date of the state legislation, so that a project that was approved by the planning commission or by the department prior to July 1 that remains relatively the same, that there's no substantive changes, would allow would be allowed to move forward with the different steps of the forest conservation process regardless of these changes.

So it would be kind of grandfathering provision.

So next we're going to move on to page two.

Here we have a list of exemptions.

It does require that you meet one of these standards we'll talk about, that you file a declaration of intent, committing to the terms of the exemption, and then recognizing that if you propose any regulated activity, even under this declaration of intent, that then you'll be subject to the regulations.

Some of these are based on changes to the state law now, others are to bring our code into sync with the state law.

So there are five new exemptions covered under the state law.

One is for forest management practices, two is for transit oriented development, three, construction of new federal government facilities to house employ at least 2,500 employees.

Or I'm sorry, to house the employment of at least 2,500 persons.

Four was construction of a single multifamily building with at least 25 units in it.

And then lastly, solar energy facilities that are covered under the public utilities article of the state code.

In both the new applications for TOD transit oriented development, which if you've been following along with our activity here at the city, we've been we've submitted our application for TOD designation to the state, and that hopefully will be approved later this month or in July, I'm sorry.

But even under the TOD exemption and the multifamily building, those exemptions apply only if there is clearing and it's reforested at a ratio of one quarter of an acre for each acre removed, or mitigation is otherwise provided such that a half of a half acre of forest is permanently protected.

So that would allow for a developer within a TOD parcel to propose clearing to be able to meet the mitigation requirements.

So in that case, they could plant off site a half of an acre to make up for that one acre and be otherwise exempt from the regulations.

We are removing an exemption that's no longer in the state code, and that is for real estate transfers.

And what this currently applies to is situations where maybe you have a consolidation of properties with no development activity or a transfer of a portion of a piece of property.

So two adjoining property owners that one person's you know given 20 feet to another to widen their lot.

That's currently covered under this real estate transfer exemption.

That would no longer be the case.

But once again, the threshold is that 40,000 square feet.

So you're still, unless you're clearing 10,000 square feet, but the exemption that's in place now is based on the premise that there would be no development activity occurring.

So we're taking that out of the state our code because it's not in the state code anymore.

Then the local changes that we're making.

We're adding several exemptions that are already under state law, but not as a product of this latest legislation.

One is associated with forced clearing and removal of trees that are hazard to air space under determined by the FAA.

Two, stream restoration projects, three maintenance or retrofitting of stormwater management facilities, and the one that will likely be most consequential for us here at the city and redevelopment activity in general and allowing that to move forward in support of our goals for infill and redevelopment is to exempt out areas covered by impervious surface developed prior to 1991.

1991 is the magic date because that's when the state adopted forest conservation regulations and then passed them on to all of the local jurisdictions.

So if you are a project that is proposing redevelopment and you have a large impervious area that was built in 1985, you would be able to subtract that area out from any remaining total forest conservation requirement you have.

So they're not being penalized essentially for area that is already impervious.

Jumping to page six.

So we have those fees listed out in our code.

We're proposing across the board to take them out of the code specifically.

So I wanted to talk about that here.

This is just the first such example.

We want to take those fees out and we want to put them into our fee schedule that is adopted annually by the city council.

This allows us to more readily assess our fees and change them on an annual basis, aside from a text amendment.

When we have them in the code, it is a fairly lengthy process of bringing text amendments forward to the planning commission, to the city council, can take six plus months of just review process.

So it is much more expedient if we need to change our fees to be able to look at it on an annual basis, accompanied with taking them out of the fee and what you don't see in front of you today, or I'm sorry, out of the code, we are proposing to increase our fee in lieu of uh payment.

It's currently at 30 cents per square foot, which is the same rate that it was in the code when we adopted it.

Uh, this fee amount does not uh come near to giving us the money we need to plant forest conservation.

Uh so we are going to propose an amendment to the city council when we bring this text amendment forward, and that will come in the form of a uh a special ordinance to amend the fee schedule to increase that fee to be more reflective of our cost in actually planting uh the forest.

So I wanted to mention that here, um, but you'll see several places where we're taking out the fees in favor of moving it into a fee schedule to allow us to make more periodic updates.

Um, and once again, there's still a public process about it.

It would have to go through the fee schedule adopted by the the council either in in May when they adopt the budget or um if it were special ordinance at any point.

All right, moving on to page nine.

Let's see.

So this page, we are looking.

Inspections start on page nine.

Um towards the bottom, it's subsection B.

So uh inspections happen after forest conservation areas are planted.

So what the planning commission sees and the public largely sees is this process of approving a forest conservation plan.

After that's done, though, there is a final forest conservation plan that's accompanied by uh long-term protective easement and a short-term maintenance agreement.

So the long-term protective easement is what's put on the ground to protect it in perpetuity, although you can release areas of easement, but that's a different story for another day.

Um the short-term agreement is now a two-year maintenance period during which the developer plants their forest, and then do during those two years, we maintain we inspect and ensure that it's maintaining the right survival rate based on the type of tree they planted and the size of it.

So we can extend that maintenance period if we need, but we've generally found that two growing seasons is not sufficient enough to ensure that when you go out and you check for survival rate that come back five years, six years, seven years, that those trees all survived at the rate that they needed to.

So we're proposing to extend it to five five inspections, five years of subsequent inspections after the initial.

So total of six inspections and then a five-year maintenance period for that agreement.

Um we also hold the bond during that period.

Uh so we're we're assured to have the funds we need if um we need to uh pull that bond at some point, and we have specified here in the code if that during the first three years uh the survival rates aren't met.

The developer has to go in and plant back to that 100% of what they were supposed to plant in the first place.

Um, and then after the five-year period, if the plantings have not met survival rate, we will take the bond and plant them ourselves.

So that's a pretty significant change.

That is local, that's based on our experience and just ensuring survival.

Page 12.

So this is the section about our forest conservation fund.

Um we talked a little bit about taking the fee out in favor of establishing in a fee schedule, and you'll see that in subsection C.

Um the other amendment we are making here is a reflection of updates to the state code, and that's extending the time that we have as the city to pay to use that fee in lieu of payment.

So currently we have two years, we receive a payment.

We're supposed to go out and find areas to plant to account for that acreage uh within two years, that's being extended to five years or six growing seasons.

So that gives us more flexibility to identify areas and plant.

Moving on to page 14.

Uh we are subsection number nine, kind of mid-page.

Uh, this is annual report and biannual review.

So under the state's code, we are required, like all other jurisdictions across the state, to report annually to DNR our forest conservation activity.

Essentially, what plans were approved under this set of regulations, what was planted, what was paid fee in lieu of.

And then the state has added a new provision in the reporting, and that is that we not only account for the amount of fee and loo collected, but also the number of acres which the fee was collected for, and then the number of acres that were reforested, a forested, or conserved using that fee in Lou of.

So it's added an extra level of transparency about how a jurisdiction is not only receiving the money, but then what we're doing to spend it.

We'll go straight to page 15.

So in this section, we start to get into the plan requirements.

So what's required of each plan?

Um there's a lot of text here being deleted and new text being added.

It's primarily to streamline the organization of this section.

Uh right now there's a lot of repetitiveness because it goes through the type of plan, like a site plan or master plan, and what you're required at each time, as opposed to addressing the type of forest plan and and saying it one time as it applies to the different plans.

So we try to clean that up a little bit.

Um there is one substantive change that um we've had a lot of debate about over the years.

Um so I pointed out it might sound inconsequential.

Um, but there is a provision in which we get to all the way on page 24.

Um, so we have the plan approval process, and then we have plan requirements.

So we're talking about who approves what when it comes to forest conservation plans, and then um what the approval what I'm sorry, what the plan requirements are.

So this um provision I want to point out falls more under plan requirements.

Um, this is an example where we're taking our role as local government to offer more stringent standards, and that has to do with the type of protective fencing required.

So the state puts out a technical manual that we use and incorporate by reference.

Uh, and there is a protective type of fencing that is a wire tree protection fence, um, and it's it's figure D6 in the latest version of the tech manual.

Um, and that's in addition to other kind of silt and sediment erosion fences, snow fences, things that don't offer the same level of protection for newly planted areas.

Uh, we want to specify that that is the preferred type of fencing, and that is what is required that that wire fencing.

And then lastly, and this is really where the states um where the intent of the state's regulations come in.

Um they were approaching the latest bill uh with the concept of no net forest loss, no new canopy loss that we want to maintain, if not grow our our forest canopy and our forest cover.

Uh so starting on page 26, we get into what the forest conservation standards are.

So, what are the actual thresholds that you have to meet to comply with the code?

Um looking under D1 on the top of page 27, we have a lot of added font.

Um, and here you'll see that these are new and revised priorities for existing for retaining existing forests.

So these are standards when we have forest conservation on a site that we want to evaluate to make sure that we retain these priority areas.

Um the first one is adding specific specificity to the um the retention requirements in riparian areas by adding that it's at least for intermittent streams, um, it's not only the stream, the immediate area, but a buffer of at least 50 feet from the street channel stream channel, and then for perennial streams, at least 100 feet.

So defining that more narrowly, or more specifically.

Uh there is a new addition for uh forests suitable for forest interior dwelling species.

And I had to ask myself what those were.

Um so those are animals that and species um that rely on kind of deep undisturbed core forested area.

Um think of birds, turtles, amphibians, any number of creatures that really needs to live within a dense uh forested area and not on the edge or fringe.

Uh we have a provision uh forest located in tier two or tier three watersheds as defined by DNR.

These are high-quality watersheds that the state delineates.

We have then another retention priority is forest located in any water protection resource zone, a reservoir watershed or wellhead protection zone, as we have in our in the in the city, we have a wellhead protection overlay zone.

And then lastly, forest and urban areas is now defined as a retention priority.

And this is forest that is delineated by the state, meeting the urban forest definition.

And then broadly, these are areas that this we deem in our evaluation important for wildlife habitat, mitigating floodplain risks, controlling urban heat island effect, air pollution, and the type of conditions that we we would experience in a more urban area and why these forested areas are so important.

Let's see, under DC2, and that is on page 28 at the top.

And this is an interesting provision, and one we've that we're adding as a local ordinance change, specimen trees.

So their retention priorities, a specimen tree is anything with a diameter or breast height of greater than 25 inches, so big trees, uh they are uh intended to be retained.

However, there is a modification provision in our code that allows someone to ask for relief from that retention and remove a specimen tree.

We've seen any number of them be brought forward to the planning commission in the past.

And sometimes there are logistical design challenges that do require a tree to be removed.

Uh and that is maybe maybe a fact of life.

However, uh, what we're proposing to do is add a provision that requires certain mitigation.

So we want um we want diameter for diameter and trying to uh establish a mitigation rate that if you're going to remove them, you're going to plant X number of inches of trees to make up for it.

So that's what you see in C3 on 28 and 29.

We're getting close.

Um D3B, this is a lot of underlying font.

Uh some of this is just because it's been reorganized.

Um, but this is the section that is driving our priority planting areas.

So we've gone through the forest conservation process, we've looked at what we can retain.

You still have a mitigation requirement, and you're required to plant forests.

So this is guiding us in the decision of where to plant um new areas.

So we have uh numbers one through eight, I believe, are all consistent with our existing provisions.

Um, where we get into a new state requirement is subsection three, which are all unforested riparian buffers on the site, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the approving agency that the afforestation would one be in conflict with the allowable uses established for the in the riparian area.

Um I'm sure that others can think of some examples, but we have had some stream restoration projects, and I could envision a scenario where there might be a potential conflict in one area with the type of stream restoration being done that would not allow it to be planted.

Um is located on a park property and conflicts with the mission and established stewardship practices of the park, uh, as a lot of our forest conservation areas are in parks and open spaces, whether dedicated to the city or HOA private spaces, um, but that is a kind of an exemption from this riparian planting.

And then the last one, um, if it's determined that the area is not suitable for planting materials, in which case other type of uh environmental protection would be needed.

I had to Google Google that on what type of areas wouldn't be suitable for trees.

Everything seems suitable for trees, but um, some examples I saw were um areas with very poor soil qualities, maybe that wouldn't be able to support uh the the plants.

Number third, page thirty.

Uh so this is also a state update.

Um this is in subsection Ear changing the rates at which cleared forest must be mitigated.

Uh so instead of forest that is cleared below the conservation threshold, which is how we calculate it now, being replaced at a rate of two acres for every acre cleared, any forest that's cleared under the new regulations must be planted at a ratio of one to one.

However, if the cleared forest is not in a priority retention area, so it's not in a floodplain reparian area, any other sensitive area.

Um, and since we're wholly within the priority funding area for the state, that replanting rate would be um half an acre to each acre cleared.

So within the city, we're in totally a PFA under the state's designation system.

So if the area that was being cleared was not a priority, the developer would only be required to replant a half acre at a per acre cleared.

And then the very last change I want to note page 33.

Ah.

And this is the bottom where we are adding where we are adding a plant schedule.

I referenced the state technical manual, and it provides guidance on different types or stock of planting, the size of it, and how many plants should be planted per acre spacing as well as the survivability rate that we use to calculate how much forest conservation uh how much planting needs to occur.

We are adding our own table to the code with our preferred planting stock to be used and at the applicable survival rates.

One of the more stringent standards we're taking than the state is to limit the use of uh any of our whips or seedlings, so the very, very tiny little plantings, um, to only be used in areas uh where the uh the slopes are greater than 25% if demonstrated as necessary.

Um we really want to push people to plant the larger stock, it has a better survival rate, it's more resistance against the environment, deer, um, any number of threats.

Um we hope that between the combination of the improvements to the stock, the uh extension of the inspection period, um, overall we're promoting our goals of um soundly establishing new forest conservation areas and meeting meeting our urban tree canopy goals.

There's a lot there.

Um there was probably different, you know, technical edits that I did not reference um specifically.

I'm happy to talk about those if anyone has any questions.

Thank you.

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

Yeah.

That was a lot.

Thank you.

Um Has the city ever considered anything larger than like a two-inch caliber stock when evaluating a planting schedule.

And I think about like the replacement of specimen trees and really large, you know, old trees that even if you're two for one, you're planting 40 to replace one, maybe, but it's very small.

It's going to take a really long time to establish.

So luckily, I have expert tree people in the in the audience.

Um, you know, one of the things I didn't mention while Jenny's coming up that we're changing in the code um regarding our administration of the program in general.

Uh, when we started this in 1991, 92, the planning department was kind of like the it agency because these projects were all happening in accordance with that.

We have grown in our sophistication and our staffing.

Um we now have a sustainability manager.

We have an urban forestry division of our parks and rec department.

And so one of the changes that I didn't address is kind of um making the administration more generic to give us flexibility to assign the role where it should be.

Um I'm not an arborist, so that's a good question for one.

Uh good afternoon, Jenny Willoughby.

I'm the sustainability manager for the city, and I'm an arborist.

Uh Josh Dunk is your urban forester.

Uh, but I think I can step in and answer your question.

I believe what you were asking is are you considering planting stock bigger than two inches?

Is that correct?

Yeah, I just especially when I think about the removal of specimen trees, I'd love to see an avenue for even larger trees to be planted.

I don't know what the at what point it becomes you know unrealistic or unlikely for them to survive, but I'd love to see us push our applicants to there's there's a couple things to consider.

The larger planting stock you go beyond two inches, sometimes you do get into a survivability issue depending on the species.

Uh the other thing you have to consider is the cost.

Um, as you get into those larger categories, you're talking about a substantial increase in cost.

Um so keeping it the two-inch caliper seems to be pretty ideal, one and a half to two, um, seems to be pretty decent as far as survivability, um, affordability, and then also um, you know, what we're looking at with our forest goals.

So one of the things that we have to do is every four years do a canopy assessment, and that will help us, you know, the bigger planting stock is going to help us get there faster because trees that are about 10 feet, that's that's where they start being qualified, you know, as a tree that can count uh underneath that we we can't count it towards our forest.

So um while yes, we would love to have some bigger stock in certain areas, uh those might be more like a specimen tree situation.

Great.

Another question, and I'm gonna kind of look back and forth here.

Um there's a lot of places where we interact with the county.

And you know, there may be uh an argument that oh, we want higher density homes and living in the city limits where there is more density than the county, but then I think about forestry with is there is it advantageous to you know if someone's gonna come in and and be required to do 10 acres of afforestation, which would be a huge development.

And is there have there ever been any conversations or any thought to partnership to where that's not maybe some of that's happening in the city, but some of that's happening in the counties to allow to meet some of our other goals here in the city?

That is a conversation we've had kind of internal musings, if you will, over the years.

Um in my perspective, um the environmental component of this knows no jurisdictional boundary, right?

Um stream quality starts up the road.

Um so allowing opportunities for off-site plantings in areas that are feeding the stream systems that are coming into the city of Frederick offer that environmental protection that we we want to get out of the forest conservation regulations, while maybe to your point, allowing for um greater intensification and density in the areas within the city.

Um and to which point a lot of people go, well, but we don't want trees not in the city, and and it shouldn't be construed as that.

Um we have landscaping standards um that we apply and we should continually look at to see how we need to update to to create localized environmental impacts from having nicely treed sites and nicely treed streets, um, but kind of these broader environmental benefits, what's the potential?

Um state code, my understanding is that we have the ability to mitigate within our watershed, not the watershed, but the watershed serving um the city.

So is there an opportunity there?

Yes.

Um we've never gotten as far as exploring the logistics of what those easements would look like or how exactly that would work.

The other con of it is we do have an urban um tree canopy goal of 40 percent of the city area.

So if we're if we're shipping that forest out to between here and Middletown, because that's a great environmental um sensitive area that could be protected, we're not accounting for it in our tree canopy.

So that's where kind of balancing those um landscaping standards, right, with the forest conservation and thinking really deeply about what is the purpose and intent of each and how to kind of get the most bang for your buck right out of them is um is I think part of the larger conversation.

Um we're doing this amendment, obviously.

We have state standards that we need to implement.

Um, but I anticipate that um over the coming years we'll be talking about the standards of the land management code a lot and looking at um opportunities there to talk about um landscaping.

Thank you.

Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about the watershed, but I think there's a lot of opportunity to allow it outside of city limits, but get just as much for city residents by requiring it to be uh upland in placing it places where we're still benefit from the environmental impacts of that.

Uh understand it may not be captured in in the next version of this that we see.

But thank you for that, both of you.

I can jump in too and talk about urban heat island.

Uh one thing that we identified in the climate and energy action plan was that heat was gonna be probably our major issue uh moving into the future.

And of course, trees can help mitigate some of that.

We do have an urban heat island in uh daytime urban heat island in the city that was um captured with our data in 2019.

So um we already know that we are 12, 13 degrees hotter in the city uh on the hottest day than our rural counterparts.

So putting the trees in the city is gonna benefit our our residents.

Um so just wanted to throw that out there as something else to consider.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Robey.

I agree with you on the heat islands in the city.

Very sensitive issue.

Uh I didn't hear anything in the discussion or remember reading anything in the ordinance about reporting.

I'm sorry, what was the last one?

Reporting.

Reporting.

How are you going to measure progress and work?

So our reporting process to the state?

Timing and frequency and whether it's a and to the city itself.

To the city as well.

So our report is publicly available to the we don't have an internal reporting requirement that we put upon ourselves.

We just have this external on accountability statement.

One of the things that we are working on mentioned in the executive summary is making sure we have all of that information publicly accessible on the initial state bill did require local jurisdictions to have that information publicly display publicly accessible on a website or something of that nature.

So that's kind of a parallel effort not associated with this text amendment.

But what we aim to be able to, you know, have those produced and available for public access.

Thank you.

In addition, we are going to be doing tree canopy assessments every four years as now required by this that we have to show that we are maintaining or growing canopy.

We used to do them every five, so now we're going to be on a four-year cycle.

We're starting that process this summer to be due 2027.

It takes a while to gather all the data and everything for the entire city.

So just an FYI and those canopy assessments are available on our website, the previous ones that we've had.

Thank you.

Commissioner Montes.

I just had a question regarding staffing, since there's going to be an increased requirement for more inspections.

Great question.

Thank you.

So as I mentioned, over the years, our capabilities have expanded.

Our DPW operations inspections used to conduct all of our forest conservation inspections as well.

So you had folks who were going out and inspecting the width of pavement and concrete gutter pans, um, also uh focusing on forest conservation, which um seem like a very difficult skill sets and time consuming um to have.

So we do have the urban forestry division within parks and rack on their several positions now that's been expanded to be under.

And we've had some preliminary conversations about now what are the best ways to organize our staff to match the um the the labor with the demand, right?

Um to to get people who have skills and experience in certain things matched up with the roles and responsibilities.

So I don't know that this in and of itself will create um uh additional demand beyond the capacity that we see built.

Thank you.

All right, and I didn't really have any questions, just some comments.

I'm very happy to see the change with the fee in lieu.

Um that's been something since I started that I just couldn't believe each time we were just you know waiving these requirements.

So I'm glad that um we can kind of full circle figure out where that money is going to go and that there'll be some monitoring in place there.

And I think overall these were some very thoughtful changes.

Um again, I don't have any questions for you.

Um at this point, do we have any public comment?

Please step up.

Thank you.

You can push the button on right on the microphone in front of you.

Okay.

Uh Elizabeth Law, also known as Betty Law.

I wasn't planning on on commenting on this, but uh there is uh a side issue that uh or side opportunity, and that is um as a point of interest.

The the Nature Conservancy provided uh developed a funding package and pilot project with the city of St.

Louis to go into uh to to mitigate urban heat islands in the most concreted part of St.

Louis, and they planted uh with with permission and working with the homeowners, full grown trees, probably mostly um you know arborvite kinds of things.

But the the point is that they were expecting that over five years' time they would start to see health benefits.

Well, they were seeing health benefits within the first year in terms of the level of the the cleaner air and even emotionally for the people that they started putting in gardens and such instead of coke bottles on their lawns.

The bottom line is that uh well I will I will send um Gabrielle and and uh Jenny information about this project, and and you never know.

You know, I think as a pilot project, there's got to be one sh spot of the city that could really benefit at least.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional public comment?

All right.

Well, thank you very much for that.

Um and before we move to our very last application, we do have a comment.

Yeah.

Um in advance of this next application, I requested an advisory uh opinion from the ethics commission.

I'm currently waiting for that opinion to come back.

And because of that, I'm gonna accuse myself from this discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Temple.

All right.

So our next application, of course, is critical digital infrastructure facility, PC 25-626, ZTA, a zoning text amendment, and I ask the applicant to please come forward with their presentation.

Good afternoon.

Uh I think you all know me, but for the record, my name is Bruce Dean.

I'm an attorney with the law firm of McCurdy Dean and Gratitour.

Um behalf of my client, the Tramil Crow Company, uh to my immediate right is Joe Whitebread with Tramil Crow.

Also in the audience, um we have Eric Soder and Craig Walslabin, both with Rogers Consulting, um, who are have been working hand in hand with us on this uh proposed text amendment.

And um they will probably be up here as well, if not presenting, but answering questions that the planning commission may have.

Um, okay.

So I know you probably know what a text amendment is, but we wanted to sort of walk through what the what the text amendment is and why we're here.

So a zoning text amendment, just like the one Gabrielle walked you through to the forest uh section of the ordinance.

A zoning text amendment is a change to the city's land management code.

The reason we submitted a text amendment is that data centers currently are not a defined use, nor are they a permitted use under the city's uh land use matrix.

That was a determination made by staff a few years ago, um, and it's certainly one we concur with.

There is just nothing in the current land management code that even comes close to defining what a data center is.

Um interestingly enough, I'm gonna cite back to this in a minute, too, but if you're not sure if any of you watched the uh city council workshop on Thursday evening about data centers, and it was very interesting to hear the supervisor from Loudoun County say that the reason data centers had proliferated so much in Loudoun County was that they had been defined many, many years ago as office buildings.

Well, if that were the case in Frederick, we wouldn't be here today.

But clearly data centers are not office buildings.

Um interestingly enough, in the past, uh there are a few data centers in Frederick County.

The county had previously defined them just as warehouses and then realized that was problematic.

And so a few years back, the county um instituted changes to the county zoning ordinance to further define data centers and also to put in specific siting requirements.

So uh the term of art that we use in the industry for data centers is critical digital infrastructure.

It's not something we invented, it's what the county uses in and the county um I'm sure got that information or used that that terminology coming from other jurisdictions.

Um we are we are adding critical digital infrastructure as a permitted use in certain zones and in certain areas of the city.

Um we are also in a in addition to that, we have there's also a defined use for critical critical digital infrastructure substation, which is an electric substation specific to serve the uh critical digital infrastructure itself, the data centers itself.

So um the process obviously we have submitted our application back in December.

We have had a number of DRCs, development review committees uh meetings, including one as recently as uh a couple weeks ago.

I think we have had a total of three of those.

Those are open to the public, and I know that some of the public has been in attendance at all the DRCs.

Um obviously this is our workshop before you.

If this moves forward to a hearing, you all will make a recommendation on to the city council on whether to approve or disapprove or approve with changes of the text amendment, and then ultimately it will go to the city council for their workshops and their hearings.

Uh next slide.

Okay.

So if you look at the slide that's on the screen off to the right, you'll see four properties highlighted in different colors.

Uh when we drafted this text amendment, we specifically limited it in two ways to properties that are zoned either M1 or M2, which are your two city industrial zones, and we also limited it to properties that are 75 acres or larger.

And based on our current review of the city zoning map, uh we believe there are only four sites in the City of Frederick that would meet those specific criteria of being having industrial zoning and being 75 acres or larger in size.

Um it's noted on this that two of those four properties have been sold by Tramil Crow.

They were all uh originally owned by Tramil Crow, but the one to the right, which is highlighted in yellow has a site plan approved by this planning commission for uh a Carvana uh site, uh mostly car storage but also detailing and cleaning up cars as they come in.

Um then to the south highlight circled or whatever highlighted in red is the site that was recently purchased by Amazon for a logistics warehouse.

That site plan was also approved by this planning commission uh believe late last year in 2025.

So the tramil Crow, uh, while it is the applicant, this pro this text amendment, if approved, would apply to any of these four properties, but we believe it would pretty much be just for the the one highlighted in white and the one highlighted in blue, because we have no reason to believe that the other two uses are not moving forward uh full speed ahead with their development of their logistics and warehouse uses.

Um this um I just wanted to go quickly through some of the performance standards and guide rails.

Um I'm gonna go before I go get into the details, I just wanted to go back to that presentation that was made last week to the City Council.

Interestingly enough, uh Joe and I were in attendance, and I'm sure other people here in the audience were there as well.

Um, but the the supervisor from Loudoun County mentioned um six factors that communities must address when considering data centers.

And while we don't agree word for word with everything that the Loudoun County supervisor cited, we did agree with all six of these um considerations, um, and we have tried to address those that are appropriate for the land management code within our text amendment.

Some of them uh specifically regarding power and water are probably best addressed by the city in other documents other than the land management code.

Um back to the text amendment issue, as property owners and citizens of the City of Frederick, we're not allowed to apply for changes to any code we want in the city.

Text amendments are limited to your land management ordinance.

So we can ask for changes to the land management code.

You guys can vote on changes to the land management code, but if the city wants to change its regulations regarding, for example, how it allocates water to projects that is outside our ability to change, and what we've been saying, and I'm sure Gabrielle will weigh in on this too.

But we've been saying if the city wants to develop a specific policy on the use of city water for data centers, um, we would like to be part of that discussion, but it's not something we control.

Um with that, the the six factors that were mentioned were noise, power, water, emissions, setback, and appearance.

And I'm going to go through the ones uh that we're addressing.

So, first of all, and these are not in specific order as to those six that were mentioned, but they're in order on the slides.

So, first setbacks.

Uh we have proposed um an increased performance standard of a minimum setback of 500 feet from the nearest residential structure.

If you look at the map that's on the screen, the purple circles represent a 500-foot radius from the nearest residential structure or a thousand foot radius from the nearest residential structure.

Uh but the supervisor from Loudon County said 500 bare minimum, thousand preferred preferred.

But the supervisor from Loudon County said 500 bare minimum, thousand preferred preferred.

We proposed 500, but we did want to provide this exhibit to show you that at least as to the two sites we're proposing, we can meet those standards even for a thousand foot setback.

For noise, we are proposing that we would exceed the city's noise ordinance with regards to residential adjacency.

Currently we are proposing, I think it's a 55 at night and 65 during the day.

Is that correct, Joe?

Yeah, and we're proposing 55 decibels 24 hours a day.

Regarding how noise is assessed, we have provided specific language that uh very similar to what the county has approved in terms of having a sound study done as part of any site plan application that would be reviewed by staff and considered by you as the planning commission and considering any uh site plan.

Um that assessment would not only include um existing ambient noise as of today, uh, but also what the future noise would be, uh not including not just our data center, but if there's other data centers that have been approved but not constructed yet, those all have to be measured.

Um then we're also proposing a post construction noise assessment uh to make sure that what we promised we were going to do that we are actually doing.

Uh with regard to emissions, we are proposing um a tier four or equivalent for the generators.

Um that again was a something that was discussed last week.

It's been a uh significant discussion item at the county.

Um tier four is a significant increase in the reduction of particulates to what current industry standard is, which is tier two, and what most of the data centers in Loudoun County that you hear so much um complain about, those are not tier four, those are tier two.

Um we have also in for the the noise included limits on the time of day and duration for the generators that's in there.

And then with regard to uh appearance, we have put in requirements that for architectural design.

Um frankly, and these are these are conditions as to impurance that do not exist for any other industrial use.

So personally, while I find all industrial buildings kind of look the same, these would actually be held to a significantly higher standard than the distribution centers that are being constructed around them and elsewhere in Frederick City and Frederick County.

Um so that's very high level.

I'm sure you're gonna have some questions, but I'm gonna now turn it over to Joe to sort of walk through their development of the Frederick Commerce Center and sort of what they're seeing having occur here.

Thank you.

I'm Joe Whitebread with Tramel Crow Company.

Um I thought it would be helpful.

You know, I've been working on this project for close to six years now.

And I think everyone up here on Planning Commission today was not on planning commission when we started.

So I wanted to take a brief moment to just sort of go through some of our sort of project history, orient everyone a little bit, excuse me.

Um, and sort of help explain sort of how Tramel Crow Company arrived at the idea of data center on some of this property.

Uh so prior to my involvement, even what we referred to as lots one through three.

It's up here with the laser pointer, these two north of Gas House Pike, and actually it is cropped out of that one, but here south of Gashouse Pike, which is actually where we have our existing warehouse.

Uh those properties were annexed into the city in 2017, and given M1 light industrial zoning.

My firm got involved around late 2020, early 21, uh, and we're under contract to purchase those three lots.

And at the time we were processing several site plans, one on each lot.

And we closed we purchased the entirety of the property in January of 2022.

Uh simultaneous with our purchase was our sale of lot two, again up here with the laser pointer to Carvana, who, as we mentioned earlier, has an improved site plan.

And our understanding is they are hoping to break ground later this year uh with their facility.

And we are working on warehouse and logistics plans for the other two lots.

Somewhat simultaneously or somewhat overlapping with that, uh, we put these two properties under contract.

This is the former Tom's Farm and this is the former Mercer Farm.

We refer to this as lot four, and this is lot five now.

And we began the process of annexing those into the city as well.

We were seeing at the time very strong warehouse logistics demand both here and at a more macro level.

So we proceeded with that process, which is very similar to the one with the zoning text amendment, planning commission, city council vote.

And those were annexed into the city in 2024.

And after that, we submitted a site plan for lot four.

It was actually just two buildings approximately where the laser pointer is.

This is a very early concept of those designs.

And then after we'd gotten approval for that, we had a user come along who was interested in the entirety of the former Thomas property, now lot four.

And so we submitted a site plan for them.

That is a distribution center, and that was approved by this planning commission late last year, at which point that client Amazon Services, that is the distribution, the logistics, the I ordered something online and it gets delivered to my house side of their business.

Purchased the property late last year.

And are proceeding with their plans for more traditional warehouse logistics development on that property.

Also on here, you know, I mentioned lot three.

That one Tremel Crow Company speculatively built a warehouse building.

So if you drive out there now, that is the large building that is out there.

It is currently about halfway leased, and we're actively seeking more tenants and getting some decent tire kicks, which is very encouraging.

As part of our development of the existing warehouse that's out there, you know, we had a number of other infrastructure improvements that we built.

So we widened gas house pike from two lanes to five.

We constructed logistics park road running north-south between lots one and two.

That is where the laser pointer is right now.

And again, approximately here is the existing warehouse.

I'd also like to note as part of that development, we planted the entirety of the forest conservation requirement for lots one through three.

So that includes approximately 75 acres of new forest planting, not just retained forests, that is a separate acreage.

And I know Gabrielle was speaking about it earlier.

The city holds bond for that while we are in the maintenance period, which is ongoing for those.

So that includes this a major chunk of that is included in this area up here, the sort of rectangular piece at the north end of lot one.

And a significant portion is here on the large hill, sometimes referred to as Iron Ridge.

We originally were not touching it.

We were told by uh both the city and FAA that they had concerns about tree heights in that area of the existing trees.

And we were told to clear those 16 acres and replant with new trees.

And as we replanted those, and you can see it in the approved plans, a lot of work went into where things get planted.

So on the areas closer to the airport at a higher elevation, we were required to plant trees that do not grow over certain heights at maturity.

Um the idea is to try and minimize any instance where anyone needs to go in and remove obstructions.

Um then as we get further away and at a lower grade, different varieties of trees are planted to and they can grow taller.

So we worked on that.

Um similarly, you know, we have forest conservation plans for uh lot four and lot five going for the overall as part of the site plan uh that was approved for lot four.

So we have all of those going.

A few other things I want to note, you know, in addition to the trees is you know, this so the broader scheme of all this was this is an industrial park.

We're sort of building on Riverside Tech Park.

We're building on the existing Aldi warehouse, uh, both of which are more industrial type uses.

And this was seen as you know, obviously separate.

We're not part of Riverside Tech Part, but a sort of continuation of that theme uh in this part of the city.

And you know, the we mentioned earlier, I'll go back a slide.

Hopefully we go.

Um, the four properties impacted by the zoning tax amendment we submitted are approximately 495 acres out of a total 550 that encompass what we refer to as Frederick Commerce Center.

So that includes these four plus the existing warehouse at lot three is Frederick Commerce Center.

The lots impacted by the zoning text amendment are approximately 495 acres.

That is a little less than half a percent of the total land area of the city of Frederick.

Uh so then that gets us to sort of how we arrived at Nexus.

So as I mentioned, we had been proceeding with a number of site plans.

And I'll say the warehouse logistics and industrial market changed very dramatically back in mid-22 to early 23.

And we continued with the construction of our building, but sort of, and I'm showing it here, you can actually see the existing building before it was paved.

But we sort of hit pause on site plans for lot one, and uh Carvana, who had purchased lot two, put their development plans on hold for a little while.

Um so we were working on that when the market shifted.

So we started looking at other possibilities, and you know, those possibilities that there are a lot of them.

It's do we wait?

Do we explore other uses?

What other uses do we explore?

There's a lot of analysis that went into that and a lot of thought.

And when we sort of stepped back, we looked at we're an industrial park.

We are surrounded by National Cancer Institute, future industrial lab space development uh adjacent to us in Riverside Tech Park.

We're surrounded by an existing Aldi warehouse.

We have a warehouse that is delivering and now exists.

Um we have Carvana who has purchased their property and is going to be building uh you know a car facility there.

What else do we have?

We're near the airport.

You can see it well, you can't see it.

It is covered up by this lot four label, but that is Frederick Municipal Airport.

Uh and planes taking off from one of the runways do head over these properties to some extent.

This dashed blue line here is existing high trend high voltage electric transmission lines.

We looked at, hey, we have constructed logistics park road, we have widened gas house pike.

As part of those improvements, we have put larger utilities in the road to serve these properties.

We have improved the roads to account for traffic by the proposed development here.

Uh so we saw a lot of infrastructure in place, we including electric that would support the idea of data center here.

And while all this was happening, the data center market is also evolving.

And you know, we frankly had talked about this back in 2020 prior to purchasing lots one through three was you know, is this an area that could be good for data center?

And at the time and where the data center market was, and paired with uh sort of the warehouse logistics market trends, we felt that warehouse logistics was our best bet.

Fast forward and we're reevaluating, and as the data center market has shifted and made Frederick both city and county very attractive, we saw an opportunity to pivot.

So we looked at in making that decision, we looked at what makes Frederick Commerce Center special, what makes Frederick special, what makes this location within the city the right location for this type of use.

And we circle back to industrial, industrial medical research, industrial, airport infrastructure.

A lot of reasons that it made sense to us to put this type of use here.

Another thing I do want to specify is I know it comes up a lot, and we'll touch on this as we go.

Tremelcrow company is a speculative developer in most cases.

So I mentioned this existing warehouse, lot three.

We constructed that with no tenant.

The idea is we build it, find a tenant, we lease it, and our business model is oftentimes to sell these properties.

So at the moment, we do not have any specific end user or operator on board at this time.

It is Trammel Crow Company as the applicant, and we're trying to make this an attractive location for those types of users.

And I also want to touch on some of our performance standards.

So we go back to here.

So again, we think this is a great location because we are largely sound surrounded by industrial existing warehouse, existing warehouse, Riverside Tech Park, which is industrial, it is biopharma manufacturing.

And again, Frederick Municipal Airport, and you can see it better on here.

This is approximately the flight path.

So sort of going over lots four and two for that runway, and then south of lot four for the other runway.

So we set that up and looked at how can we set up our zoning text amendment to achieve this.

And in part of that analysis, you know, we also looked at the comprehensive plan.

And I think this is very important.

You know, there are a number of policies and goals within the comprehensive plan that we feel our application supports, and those are detailed in our application package.

But some of them is you know building off of economic and local and regional assets.

So you know, Frederick is in many ways a tech hub.

You have Riverside Tech Park, which has a lot of research lab space.

You have Fort Dietrich, and you have the entire 270 corridor.

And we're seeking to build off that by providing a different type of land use than just warehouse and logistics.

We also have you know, there's an economic goal of having a mix of industries within the city.

So we see the opportunity to add a new one, particularly one that has been demonstrated to have ripple effects.

You know, it's not just the data center, it is data center adjacent things, including electricians, uh IT professionals, and all manner of support staff.

Um, and not all of it has to be tech based.

You also have security as well.

You know, people can get jobs providing security at these facilities.

An entrepreneur could start a security firm specializing in this type of facility.

So we see it as a mechanism to really grow not just the tech industry in Frederick, but all types of industry and commerce.

Uh and we feel that is very supported by the comprehensive plan.

Then we go back to our zoning text amendment and figure out how can we get some of these guardrails in and these protections.

And so we look at, you know, while not exactly our immediate neighbor, you know, it's on the opposite side of the monoxy, there is the dearbot community.

So we know noise is important, setbacks are important, and that's why we have 500-foot setbacks currently proposed.

That's why we are lowering the daytime allowable noise level for data center use to 55 decibels.

And this was based on a number of things, including industry best practices, but also feedback we have gotten from uh you know concerned citizens, uh civic groups and people in this room.

Similarly, you know, why we have the generators as tier four equivalent uh is work on that particulate matter, work on uh and also have restrictions on when they can and can't be tested durations.

All of that is designed to work on these six practices.

Uh and as Bruce mentioned, the ones that are appropriate for a zoning text amendment.

We don't control all of them and can't put everything in there.

Um then so I want to talk about some of the major design elements as well that relate to the zoning text amendment.

And I think it was important to mention that we don't have a specific user operator uh in mind because the next step after a zoning text amendment when the zoning is there is we submit a site plan.

At that point, I envision having a user and can answer some of the detailed questions that I just can't answer today because I don't have XYZ company saying, hey, this is how this is what our buildings look like very specifically.

This is the type of heating cooling MEP systems that we put in there.

Um but I do want to touch on them because they are critically important to this whole process.

And I want to make sure that everyone understands some of those answers happen at the next step.

Some of them I can give today.

Um we mentioned water earlier, and I think everyone here knows you know that is a uh certainly a challenge for a number of these facilities.

And water use, the specifics of how buildings on this property would use water will be determined as part of the site plan process.

Some may use water just for toilets and sinks and you know whatever else they're providing their employees and use an air-cooled cooling system for the server data.

Others may use a closed loop system, which does use water, at which point we will evaluate what the water needs.

And that goes through the city's adequate public facilities ordinance where we test and say, hey, we need X amount of water.

What does that mean in terms of improvements that the me as the developer is required to make to the municipal system at my cost to support that use?

There's also the allocation process where I have to apply to the city and say, hey, can I have this much water?

And I may not be told I can have that much water, or I may be told that what much water is not available to me.

Um that is a lot of the next step in terms of water design.

But I think it's a key point to know that we have to go through the adequate public facilities ordinance.

Improvements to the municipal system required by development here are my responsibility, my cost as the developer.

Um that ties into the different cooling designs use.

So I'm skipping ahead a bullet here to our third bullet.

There are a lot of different types of cooling systems.

Each use different resources, and there are trade-offs with each.

These users are trying to be as efficient as possible when designing their cooling systems.

Um as part of the zoning text amendment, we aren't really addressing that.

That again is to the site plan because at that point we're gonna have a user on board who is going to be able to tell us what type of system they would like to use.

Um we also hit on power, and I mentioned one of the reasons we think this is a great location for data center is the existing high transmission or high voltage transmission lines that run through lot one at the north side of the property.

The way that process works is we apply is first energy is the electric provider.

We apply to them and say, hey, this is you know how much electricity we think is needed here, and they evaluate that process or evaluate that through a process called a detailed load study.

That identifies the improvements required to transmission to get power to our site while maintaining their required redundancy and grid stability.

Um we also have talked about noise earlier and are working on a predevelopment acoustics study measuring existing baseline noise levels.

And again, once we know a user, once we know what equipment they are putting on the roof in the equipment yard on the ground, what type of cooling they are using, we are then able to do a sort of subsequent study that will model anticipated noise levels based on all of that.

And again, that is something we see and recommended in the zoning text amendment as something that would be dealt with during the site plan process.

So we acknowledge that there are some things that we don't have answers to today, but our goal in drafting this text amendment was to create a mechanism for the city to regulate these things.

So the text amendment, again, it's very focused.

It limits this type of development to four properties within the city.

And anyone else who wanted to pursue that type of development that isn't these four properties, they have two options.

They can rezone the property or they can annex property into the city.

Both of those processes go back before city council.

So anyone outside of these four properties that who is interested in this has to go before city council, and city council has discretion to say yes or no, we want more of this or we don't want more of this.

We acknowledge that this is a different type of use than just standard warehouse and logistics space.

And putting these supplemental performance standards into the text amendment is a way to acknowledge that and focus on sort of the six criteria that had been mentioned by the Ashburn supervisor from Loudoun County.

So with that, you know, we are very interested in answering your questions, hearing feedback you have for us that can be incorporated into the next iteration of our text amendment.

Thank you.

There's many thoughts.

One is that this is very unknown.

As you said, there's many questions that can't be answered today.

And this is a complete new class of use that would be introduced into the city.

It is not just another office or regular use.

You mentioned the comprehensive plan, and there's a lot of concerns in terms of how much availability of land we have in the city limits over 75 acres.

That's noted as being limited.

There's a lot of concern regarding drought and as the climate changes and as droughts might become more common, that water use is going to be increasingly important for us as a city.

So there is not, it's not even mentioned in our comprehensive plan specifically addressing this class critical digital infrastructure.

And I just I mean I'm going to have additional questions going forward, but just based off of what you're proposing, I don't see a compatibility with the comprehensive plan.

Because once this is introduced, as you said, it can start with those one to four lots, but then it can expand out significantly.

And we just do not have that capacity, in my opinion, in the city for this with water, electricity, um, and even just the type of developments that we want within the city to really help us become that livable, walkable city with a job base.

You mentioned electricians.

Initially there are that influx of jobs, but usually data centers, once they're introduced, they don't really produce an exponential amount of jobs.

So that's just my initial comment on that.

Well, I think I would counter a bit and say that if the city, specifically the city council deems that, hey, we do not have capacity for more than is allowed under this zoning text amendment.

They have the right to say no to anyone else who wants to do it because there are no other properties that meet this criteria.

So anyone who wants to do it has to rezone or has to annex, and city council can tell them to go pound the sand in perpetuity if they would like.

Could you elaborate on what you think a fully comprehensive enforcement mechanism looks like to you?

Well, that would be extremely in my opinion, and I mean based off of my readings and everything.

I just don't see it as the best compatible use to introduce into Frederick City.

You said you mentioned once the site plan is introduced, that is when we will discuss more about cooling.

You mentioned AFPO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but water and sewer, is that is that looked at?

Yes.

Yes.

That is part of the adequate public facilities ordinance.

They evaluate uh water, sewer, and road capacity.

This is a non-residential project, so they would not look at schools for this one.

Okay.

Yeah, but there's we'll come back to it, but there's there's a couple additional things on my mind because I just there's a bit there's a lot of sales that go into this and behind the scenes, and part of it is to sell the package that this is going to be beneficial.

And even I'll leave it at that for now.

I would like to hear public comment.

Commissioner Rowy?

Thank you.

I have uh I want to start in Adamsdown.

There we're talking about a community under 2,500 people that are going to have 25 plus 100 acres up to 4200 acres of land that's going to become data centers.

I think if you took a poll of the residents of Atamtown, they would say the livability impact to their community as a result of data centers coming into their vicinity has been disastrous.

And my concern is that Frederick City, a city currently of 100,000 people growing very rapidly at the moment.

Uh the risk is much higher.

And that we need to proceed with extreme caution, that we don't jeopardize the livability which we have earned uh nationally, if you will, uh, for our community.

Uh right now you're talking about our ability to control additional prospects for data centers in the Frederick City community.

But you didn't say anything about our ability to control your development proposal for data centers.

As I understand it, until the city uh adds data centers to that use table uh that you have uh data centers are not an allowable use in Frederick County.

My feeling you're talking about the noise study that you are willing to do.

You call it a pre language is enough there, but you're talking about an early noise study that you were willing to get involved with.

But that noise study is still occurring after or as part of the process for submitting a site plan, right?

Master plan, whatever it is.

That means the city's already made a decision at that point to allow data centers to be considered.

I want the city to take a clean look at that process, if you will.

We'll come back to that in a second.

There's more.

I just kind of arranged my thoughts, excuse me.

I think I don't know the city's done this.

I've talked to several per people in our community.

And I think this there are some arbitrary numbers that you all are provided as part of your ordinance.

Some is set back from residential units.

Some has been decibel levels that you all have had.

I don't know that the people that are making this decision have experienced that.

I would like the city before they say green light consideration of these proposals you're giving us, that they actually go witness up close what 55 decibels sounds like.

And when you're going to hear it all day long, or at least all daytime day long, if you will.

One of the Rowan data centers has close to 100 uh generators.

He's like the size of this room.

That's box car size.

I haven't heard them, but they're they've got to be astoundingly loud.

I think that we need to our planning staff should hear what that's like.

Our decision makers on the city council should hear what that sounds like and understand the noise impact that they are asking their community to bear if we allow your process to go through.

I think that we have arbitrary setback distances of 500 feet to residential stuff, but I don't know if that's enough.

I want to know what the noise level is for a generator at 500 feet.

And is it still 55 decibels or is it higher than that?

I don't know what happens with the decibel level if you're running multiple generators rather than one generator.

Uh the language currently in the ordinance is understandably vague, and when you talk about the number of generators required to maintain operations of your data center even during periods of constrained use.

But uh I just think we should know this stuff.

We should experience it.

I don't know the impact of height.

I think the city should look at that and say, do you want to live next to a data center building that is 90 feet tall?

I just think these are things that at front end we should look at before we green light the study.

We could spend an awful lot of time, I'd hate to open this door, start down the path, and have buyer's remorse, if you will, in mid-process or early process.

So I think there are some things that I would encourage the city to do prior to and the day delay that's been proposed by many factors in this discussion.

Uh that we'll come back.

Well, I think those are sound suggestions, sound recommendations.

I want to go to the fact that putting data centers in a rural community like Adamstown that's mostly farm, not to denigrate them or say they're less important.

But impact impacting a 2500-person community is different than impacting a hundred thousand person community.

I think that uh I apologize.

Uh I may have to come back to that too.

I lost go ahead.

I well, I I wanted to touch on uh your comment about some of the arbitrary seemingly arbitrary uh standards.

And I should have touched on this earlier, but they're not arbitrary.

We are looking at industry standard best practices.

You know, when the supervisor from Ashburn was here, he spoke about how, you know, under the zoning this was type of use was originally classified as office.

He also spoke about a number of other lessons learned from things that if we look back in hindsight, absolutely never should have happened.

You know, you can always go find that picture of a data center and it's you know a hundred feet from someone's house.

That never should have happened.

And so we're working with industry standard best practices.

We also set a number of these based on feedback we got from civic groups in the community.

Uh and we are open to discussing them.

Um we'll provide information as we can to planning staff and the planning commission to help understand sort of how we got those and why they are appropriate.

Um but we we want to provide the information you want to be able to feel comfortable.

But I I did just want to touch on this was not just me sitting over the uh 500 feet sounds right.

Um there was more thought that went into it.

I don't argue that.

And I agree with you that the 300, 500 foot number has been used repeatedly as an industry standard across the country.

My point to you is that we're talking about I'm gonna call Frederick a treasured landscape.

People can argue with me about that.

But this community has worked hard to earn its livability standard that it's recognized as having achieved.

And I would hate to put that standard in jeopardy, because once you lose it, you can't get it back.

So that's where I'm going for there.

I think something that has not been discussed at all for our community.

It is different putting a data center in a rural environment.

We are an urban environment, and I think that some of the standards that were considered appropriate by the county for their sighting may not may need to be revised for an urban environment.

I don't know what those are, but to that end, I would recommend that included as this process.

We have somebody else can define what it is, but an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement based on our urban environment, uh what appropriate safeguards we should be including uh as part of this due process.

Uh I applaud that you've you've looked at other areas and you think that at least the sites that you've identified are the clearest sites that are available uh in the Frederick City area that you recognize.

Uh but annexation happens all the time, and that can open the door for other locations within the city limits if those are the standards that you have.

Um, why don't you talk and I'll come back to it in a second?

I have one additional question.

Would an industry standard prevent an applicant from deviating from it?

Not sure I understand the question.

So you said they they have to meet the industry standards for let's say sound distance or whatever.

Would that prevent someone who wants to open a data center from deviating from those industry standards?

So an industry standard is more of a best practice and could be deviated.

I'm just going to get like a yes or no kind of answer.

Like would it be a good idea?

No, it would be not prevent anyone from deviating.

What does prevent anyone from deviating is that we put it in the zoning text amendment, which makes it a requirement.

So if we identify an industry best practice and put that in the text amendment, we cannot deviate from what is in that document.

Commissioner Montes, is that the rest of your question?

Okay.

Commissioner Robey.

Slow thinking.

The next is going to deal with zoning.

And uh I'm pleased that the consideration of having buy-right zoning is more or less being eliminated from the table if you are consideration.

Both Frederick County and Loudon County have made overt decisions to not have floating zones.

And I'm somewhat surprised that the city and the applicant is pushing floating zones.

I will admit a lack of sophistication to fully understand the ramifications for floating zones.

But I felt that I achieved a level of understanding for hard overlays.

And I grew to really like that Loudoun County people, the gentleman you spoke of earlier, his predecessor, Buddy Riser, made it clear that hard overlays are very strong asset uh for planning purposes.

And the fact that you've got four sites in close proximity that right now you believe are I don't want to use the only, but the primary areas that the fact that they're together would make them suitable for a hard overlay.

But uh I want I would like the city and the applicant to think about those ramifications.

That it becomes very difficult when you have associated landowners or adjacent landowners wanting to get on the same money train, if you will, that rezoning allows.

We saw it happen just recently in Adamstown as an example.

I'm not gonna talk about the political side of it.

But we had roughly 1,500 acres that was approved.

And then some landowners really wanted to get in on that, and we had a uh an ambiguous rationalization for expanding that hard overlay by over a thousand acres.

And uh it didn't need to be done then because we hadn't fully gone through the learning curve of the initial 1,500 acres.

And we could have that all that could have been delayed until we found out is this working or not.

I feel the same way here.

I feel if we open the door to you guys now without strong ways to have a stop button after the fact uh that we're gonna lose control of data centers and uh in the county or in the city.

And so I was very pleased when the county went that direction.

And I would like to see the city if they're going to go down this path to strongly consider adopting a hard overlay process rather than a floating zone.

I'll leave any discussion on the exact nuance between floating zone versus hard overlay to staff, but that is an ongoing topic, and we can certainly explore the nuance of that.

I'm just trying to put my concerns out there.

It's not anti-data centers, it is anti-threats to livability for Frederick.

And so if you may very well prove, and the city may very well agree that these sites that you all have pre-invested in are actually ideal sites for data centers.

If that's the case, you won't hear an objection from me.

But I think we need to understand number one, do we really want data centers in our community?

Because you don't the city used as their justification uh for supporting this data center initiative as a community obligation to support uh its community population's use of AI and that kind of a framework for the cloud, if you will, whatever you want to put on.

To me, that isn't was not an adequate.

I'm not trying to throw the city under the bus.

But the point is there's we have a lot to lose, and I want us to make sure that we protect livability.

Uh I'm not sure I completed my thoughts on the other, but um that's where I am for right now.

All right.

Um so I have a few comments and questions as well.

Um I think a lot more due diligence needs to be done.

One thing I hear probably since I started on the commission is is it compatible with the existing neighborhood?

And I don't want to dismiss the fact that looking at the map that we have up right now, although there are a lot of uh institutional type things out here.

If you look to the right, there are homes.

And maybe they're not in the city, they're in the county.

And I did listen to the council uh meeting on Thursday while it was happening.

Um I I know there were people doing giving public comment who live outside of the city, but probably in these neighborhoods and also along Lingonore Road.

Um I think the sound obviously carries, and that would be a uh, you know, that and water would definitely be their consideration as well as mine.

Uh one thing that came up that I did not hear in the questions is the Maryland Data Center impact study, and this might be a question really for the city and not the applicant, but I understand that was due by September or possibly December of this year.

I did want to confirm that.

I don't know if you're aware of it.

I've heard November is a more likely date of the case.

November.

That's just what I've heard.

I'm not gonna vouch for them, but that's I I just you know, I I don't live under a rock.

I hear what people have to say, and I think that, you know, I'm not a scientist.

I don't know what these impacts are.

Um I concerned with them absolutely.

I'm a concern with our neighborhoods.

Um I think the the setbacks, you know, I I'll admit I was out in my yard with a a laser measuring thing to see how far my neighbor's house was because I can hear their music.

I can hear fireworks in my neighborhood.

I don't know if that's the decibel level, and I don't know that I want to hear it and test it myself, but I think um, and I appreciate your your doing a pre-sound study, but I don't think that really is helping me to make this decision.

I I did appreciate that you were doing that.

Um questions I have.

I'm looking at the minimum building height of 90 feet, and I'm wondering is that the top of the building, or is that the equipment on top of the building?

That's not specified here, and I think that's pretty critical because that can get kind of high.

Um I know looking at these houses on the right and new homes are being built there.

What's their view?

Right.

Um other questions I had.

I did want to understand, and this might be for the city.

I want to confirm these 75 plus acre lots that are in the city.

These four obviously we're all aware of, but are there others and are can we identify where there is acreage that's next to county, which maybe would be annexed to even have more space for these data centers.

I want to understand what areas of the city are truly impacted by this type of text amendment.

Um again, looking at compatibility with existing neighborhoods, and um I did want to thank all of the people for the public comment we received prior to this hearing, as well as Thursday night in the uh council workshop.

Um that was critical.

But I really think we need to kind of pump the brakes here.

That's just my opinion, maybe not a question.

Um but if you can answer my questions about the building height, um that would be great.

And I think the other questions might be better better served for staff.

So on the building height, uh 90 feet is the tallest point.

I will also add, because we are in close proximity to the airport, we have to get approval from both FAA and MAA for our maximum height points.

And based on what we've seen out there, I don't think we're gonna hit 90 feet.

We're gonna be you know, envision a more two-story facility, which will probably be on the order of 70 feet at most.

Okay.

So the tallest point then would include any equipment on the building?

That that is my understanding, but I don't have the code in front of me.

I I would defer to to staff, but I mean we didn't change the building height from what we could, you know, any other industrial building could be the same height.

So um again, and this might be going back to what Commissioner Robey's points were, you know.

We propose, we don't vote.

City council votes.

You guys rec we propose, you guys recommend.

We've been this is any zoning test amendment is uh it's a buzzword.

I drives me a little crazy, but it's an iterative process.

What you start with is never the same as what you end up with.

And I can tell you right now that what you have in front of you is not what we submitted in December.

It has gone through changes at request of staff.

Staff has also requested other things that we have said, you know, we're not comfortable saying yes to that.

That doesn't stop you from recommending that that be imposed on this text amendment doesn't stop the city council from adopting something that has even totally different standards than the ones we all talk about and agree with.

So again, the the 90 feet was just one that um you know going back to what is it about makes a data center objectionable to certain people.

Height has not really come up that much unless it's next to a residential neighborhood, which we're trying very, very hard not to be.

But with that said, Mr.

White Red here could build a 90-foot-tall warehouse and you all would have to approve it as the planning commission, that site plan because that's what the land management ordinance says.

So I think Commissioner Robbie, did you have another question?

I saw you grab your microphone.

Thank you.

I agree with Mr.

Dean.

Uh where height became a point in Adamstown as an example is a dramatic change to their view shed.

And so it went from beautiful bucalic farmland to 90 foot.

What I don't understand, maybe you can address is why data centers need 90 feet of height.

What are you doing with that volume of space inside the building?

So we are not proposing any change to the height limit from what exists in the land management code today for this type of use.

I do not anticipate our buildings being that tall, and as I said, we also have to get approval for our building height and maximum elevation by FAA and MA given the proximity to the airport.

So for a data center, though, and I think this is sort of what your question was getting at.

Depending on the system, there can be cooling equipment on the roof.

There can be generator equipment, although that is almost exclusively in the generator yard on the ground.

But there is often rooftop mechanical equipment to manage the various building systems.

So are you envisioning if you have data centers on these properties that you're going to be building hyperscale data centers similar to what's happening in Adamstown?

So when I refer to hyperscale, it is not what it is being used for.

Is it cloud computing?

Is it AI?

It really refers in my mind to the electric load that is being requested.

And I think these would fit the general definition of hyperscaler based on anticipated electric load.

Of what I envision.

Thank you.

What I'm thinking about in hyperscale and using your power analogy that you started with we have a data center that is going to have one building is going to have 90 plus, almost 100 generators surrounding it, supporting the operations within that building.

Using the schedule that you have and your ordinance, uh that would mean that if you have a hundred generators, and I'm just throwing that number out as arbitrary, you would have 50 C's of testing.

Basically, you can do two data two generators per day, okay, is the way you had it set up there.

So you can that's 10 weeks, solid 10 weeks of data center testing if you did that.

If you have more than one building, that just increases it.

We need to be aware of the amount of time generators might be running.

I realize it's only one generator at a time, but it's just constant for ten solid weeks or you know, five days a week anyway, uh for that kind of thing.

It's not temporary stuff.

It's it's going to be continual at the scale that we're talking about for these data centers.

So that noise can be intrusive.

And then the resulting pollution is another subject.

We will have to talk about that later.

And there are industry standards to take in care of that.

But we need to know that kind of information.

Um I would encourage the city to encourage you to create a for your properties here that you're gonna go down this road to kind of give a maximum not to exceed ceiling use on water.

That you that you and you know, you can only do the best you can at this stage, but be conservative, you know.

Be conservative so the city can plan, you know, we have to put aside earmark this much of our water capacity to this industry, and then they can decide whether they want to do that.

But we're I don't want, I don't I don't find acceptable the logic of waiting until you get final designs in to know what your demand zone is gonna be.

We're making a decision for a data center industry and our community, and I also encourage the city at this time uh to anticipate uh how many data centers they're willing to support, how much acreage of data centers are they willing to support.

This is just the start.

You've got 500 acres here of which what three hundred fifty is gonna potentially be data centers.

But you're the door will now be open in the city's now the ordinance in place.

Given the constraints you got, data centers can crop up all around the city.

And this in my mind, the city needs to put a ceiling on that.

Yeah, we'll allow them, but we don't want them everywhere.

Okay, we don't we don't want to become allowed in county and they just have them every place you can think of.

So I think we agree with you.

I mean, we did try to craft the text amendment in a way that would limit them.

But again, um, if there are additional controls that you want to recommend the city council put on in terms of number of acres or whatever, I agree with all that.

We're not sure we're not opposed to that because we it was never our intent to have these proliferate across the city.

But the community is going to decide why they want data centers.

When we know that there are data center campus five miles away or whatever it is going down to Adamsdown.

How does the whole Frederick County community has already made an investment in data centers?

And is Frederick going to benefit from having a data center industry within their city limits, or will they be better off keeping it from within their city limits and from a livability perspective?

So I want to end my discussion on that because that's my biggest concern.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Okay, and with that said, I'm going to hand it over to staff for their presentation and comments.

Thank you very much.

Um this is obviously an incredibly complex conversation.

And I don't know if I take solace in the fact that communities across the country are having the same conversation.

Um, but we do have examples to benefit from the presentation last week, um, lending some good information to to the work, the um independent research we've done with staff from an interdisciplinary team, um, sustainability, economic development, our legal department, uh, ourselves, engineering, looking at things like water allocation.

All of those have been, these are the conversations we've been having as well.

So while um it it may feel that there are no answers at some times.

Um these these are the important topics, and I think we're honing on in on all of the important conversations that need to be had.

And and the applicant um is at a bit of a disadvantage um as stated.

They um they can propose amendments to the land management code.

Our code allows for an outside entity to propose a change to the code.

Um, this the LMC portion of the city code.

However, things like the noise ordinance are a chapter in the city code, uh, water allocation is governed by a chapter in the city code.

Um we've talked about business personal property taxes and the ability to be able to get that um out of these projects.

Once again, not a land management code um tax amendment.

So I think in that way, this conversation really deviates from a lot of the text amendments that we have.

Um I think Commissioner Montez spoke to it very eloquently.

This is an entirely new industry that its impacts are not solely limited to what we can regulate through zoning.

There are other components of this that have all been drafted in a world where data centers didn't exist, frankly, right?

Um things like our noise or noise ordinance, we're working on updates to that.

And so that has to inform this conversation.

Um the legal department's office is um is aiming to work on updates.

The noise ordinance, even before this conversation came along.

So reimagining all of these things in this kind of new world order where this is part of that conversation is very holistic and it's it's more um than the applicant can address in a tax amendment.

So I think um this conversation just speaks to all of that, and it I'm not telling telling anyone anything they don't already know that it is incredibly complex.

And and with that in mind, um, I wanted to talk mostly today about the options should the city consider establishing this as a use that we have in our zoning toolbox to regulate it and what those different options mean.

The applicant is proposed that this be a permitted by right use, and we throw that around a lot.

We uh it's permitted by right.

But let's really talk about what does that mean and what do we have to think about in this context to decide do we want this by right or not?

What that means is that if an applicant we have regulations, we establish the by-right use, the applicant proposes a site plan, comes in with it, meets all of the objectives.

It is by right.

The planning commission must approve it unless they're asking for modifications or or um concessions through the limited authority that they have under uh the section 309 of the LMC.

Uh the planning commission is pretty much compelled to approve it.

Um there's not a lot of latitude in going, well no, in this location, this doesn't meet that, uh, it causes concerns here.

So what that means is that when we're establishing buy right uses, we have to be really, really, really mindful and conscientious of the standards that we're establishing.

And we have to think big.

We have to think about the whole city.

We have to think about M1, M2 zoning here, now in this iteration or that iteration over there in a future annexed property.

And we all have to, as a community, say, yes, we feel comfortable with these standards.

We've drafted that in any one of those potential situations, this would be okay.

And when I say okay, that's just a simple way of saying compatible and consistent with our comp plan and all of the all of the um mantras that we we talk about when we're talking about um comprehensive planning.

These are compatible uses that don't cause adverse impacts that um that further our goals of our comprehensive plan.

So uh by right is a pretty th high threshold.

Um we also have a tool called a conditional use uh in our zoning ordinance, and conditional use is um an easy one or one that we hear about more frequently than others, restaurants with entertainment.

So restaurants are permitted by rights in any number of zoning districts, general commercial, um neighborhood commercial, et cetera.

When you add entertainment, the use becomes a restaurant with entertainment beyond certain thresholds.

We do have limit limited entertainment that can occur without that conditional use.

But um, so you have a restaurant with entertainment.

And what that's the is that we're saying when we we make that a conditional use is that this use warrants a slightly higher level of discretion and oversight to look at a specific request in its context.

What area of general commercial is this located?

Is the next door neighbor property zoned R12, or is this general commercial in a sea of general commercial?

Um what are the potential impacts?

What is the scope of the activity proposed?

Is it going to be music until two o'clock in the morning, last call?

Is it, you know, is it all day, all night kind of thing, or is it a limited scope of entertainment?

And the conditional use process allows the zoning board of appeals to review it in that context and then assign specific conditions should it deem them necessary to prevent any adverse impacts and promote neighborhood cap uh compatibility and such.

Then kind of the third option that we've covered in our summary and what we've advocated for from a staff perspective is to establish a floating zone mechanism to make this a zoning decision of the legislative body of the city council that would be able to once again have that context specific evaluation.

So data center A, the characteristics of it, is it hyperscale?

Is it something less in location B and be able to review those things in very context specific and once again allow the council to attach conditions of rezoning should they deem them fit, conditions of rezoning, then um have to be complied with in order to maintain certificates of use and occupancy and be able to operate on that property.

So it's kind of the highest level of discretion now it is, and I'm sure why the applicant isn't jumping up and down to promote a floating zone.

Um it is it does introduce a very high level of discretion even when the council finds that conditions or that the criteria have been met, they're generally not compelled to rezone.

They don't have to, they're not going to be forced to.

Um those are the three options we considered at the at the end of the day based on the evolving nature of the Indus industry itself, and with the potential scope in mind, and I know the applicant has and and very much so.

I I did my own independent search of you know, parcels over 50 acres, parcels over 60 acres, currently zoned M1, and you know, looking for every hole in the argument I could poke, right?

Um how would this apply?

But the the truth is that our zoning text amendments should be broad, they should anticipate other zoning land, other land zones similarly in the future, whether it be through annexation, and while the council um could review a request for annexation for M1 in their head, they should go, well, data centers are permitted use in M1 now, how do we feel about that?

Um, would we want data center here?

Um in rezoning cases, uh M1 or M2 zoning would have to be changed through what's called an individual rezoning, and that requires an applicant to demonstrate change or mistake.

So they have to demonstrate there's either been some change in the character of the community that wasn't anticipated or a mistake.

Like, whoops, you you rezoned that improperly with your last comprehensive rezoning because you relied on missing information or facts that weren't accurate or some sort of you know technical error.

Um there could be a mistake that someone brought forward to rezone to M1 at some point in the future.

And now data center, which hasn't been contemplated, if we keep our scope really narrow in that location could be a permitted use, and we haven't we haven't fully vetted it.

The floating zone allows us to set up a fra structure and a framework that can be then applied in a limited scope.

Maybe it's a floating zone that's only applied to M1 or M2.

Um it can be applied in a limited scope, but with a very contextual evaluation that allows us to keep on top of the evolving technology, keep on top of the understanding of the different impacts, and as it it changes over time because it is a new and emerging industry.

Um listening to the presentation last week, you know, it just uh in Loudoun County's experience, what they have learned with the proliferation in their community um has changed the the thought on it.

And I I think from a staff perspective, um we need to promote a conservative um responsible approach to introducing new industries.

Um, and I think that floating zone uh mechanism is the most appropriate.

Um with that said, uh the applicant has laid out their criteria that they've drafted.

There may be additional conditions we need in this framework.

Um, and to the applicant's point, maybe there's um framework that needs to be established in the city code that needs to run parallel with this floating zone concept that they cannot produce themselves.

We need to take the lead on pursuing that.

Um if there's any anything else, I wanted to make sure we really just address those that structural framework, I think is so important because there are so many um kind of uncertainties.

Oh, I did want to touch on the building height.

Um 90 feet, and this is the case whether you were building a warehouse or an office building in any one of these zones on 90 feet is the maximum.

Um, but we should be mindful that Section 405 also allows for some height and crochet encroachments in industrial zones for you know, elevator penthouses and equipment and those sorts of things.

So the ultimate height that that we deem appropriate um if we can land on a specific figure in the code needs to also account for that.

But once again, having the floating zone opportunity to review and look at the context, maybe a hundred and ten-foot tall building isn't problematic in some area, but maybe here um we have other regulations to promote um controlling that height, the airport overlay, but in in some locations, maybe other than the airport, a 110-foot tall building would not be appropriate.

So it allows us that ability to review very context-specific um development.

I think that's all I had I wanted to add.

All right, thank you for that, Gabrielle.

Uh, we'll go ahead and do a roll call, starting with Commissioner Roby.

Thank you.

Uh I'm going to recommend uh that's I'm going to recommend the staff talk to the county uh people that were involved in data center decisions.

Uh why they made the change from floating zone to hard overlay.

Uh I was told why Virginia did it.

You all heard the other night I have yet to listen to that session of last Thursday.

But uh I'm real curious as to what that is.

My concern is that it provides a harder or an easier stop button for the county and makes it simpler.

That if you're not proposing if you're proposing a data center that's not within this hard overlay, then forget about it.

We're not interested in talking to you about it.

This is these are the only areas we're willing to consider a data center.

The way the language is currently written down in the ordinance as I understand it.

It's property owner-driven.

So where they're requesting a floating zone type thing.

It's there's less city control on it until after the applications come forth.

So this limits the number of applications you're going to have to review.

I want to go back to an earlier discussion discussion that was talking about electrical demand.

And uh one of the things that I regretted of Frederick County in the early part of looking at the quantum project, if you will, was they never asked for what the total demand of electricity was going to be.

If you've been at all watchful of what's happening in that area with regard to the MPRP transmission line, it is a real disruptor for the community in terms of impact on landowners.

I realize that that particular transmission line is not serving any data center industry in Maryland.

But it would be nice to know for your development what your demand you I know you pose a question to Potomac Edison or Energy First, whoever you talk to.

It would be nice to know ahead of time if there's going to be new transmission lines required to bring electricity to your sites that's going to impact community landowners for having those new lines put in.

And you know it can be approximated, you know, but the idea is to know at the front end, yeah, we're asking our community to bear these additional uh property or power lines coming into the community.

I can address the um the county's overlay and the distinction how we use overlays versus floating zones.

So overlays are generally designated in a specific area.

So the airport overlay around the airport, it's a radius intended um to control impacts of new development on you know the viability of the airport in some instances, but also ensure that um construction is compatible with air traffic.

Um the historic preservation overlay.

Best example, it surrounds the area that we've um designated where we we want to promote our historic preservation, not the full national register district, but um a good chunk of it.

The county's overlay is in a specific area where they want to guide their data center development to.

Um the floating zone concept where you can control where it's placed, um, M1 or M2 zones only, is uh better tool when you don't have a designated area where you're trying to regulate it differently, right?

Um either preventing certain things or um controlling for adverse impacts you you're trying to designate an area.

Um we've talked about it in the scope of affordable housing.

People say, oh, an affordable housing overlay.

Well, no, we want affordable housing everywhere.

We don't want to overlay because that's kind of geographically tied.

Um and we want to see that everywhere.

So that's the distinction between a floating and an overlay in the city's lexicon of zoning.

Um the other thing I would just keep in mind, and I know it's it's very difficult when we have applicants propose a text amendment because they're not they're not amending our text out of you know for fun.

Um they're coming with a specific example.

And the specific examples can very much inform the way we think about the text amendment, but should not be the sole controlling factor, right?

The the the real life example of these properties gives us things to think about.

It gives us, oh, what do you do with water?

Where do we put this?

It's close to the river.

What is that impact?

What's the maximum height here?

Um so it can help inform what we need to think about, but we need to stay stay at that kind of 3,000 foot level that this is a text amendment, so allow the specifics to inform the broader, right?

When we're looking at text amendments.

So this particular project's energy usage or um location of transmission lines, all of those things, well, important and can help us like help the gears turn.

Um, we want to stay focused on the legislative piece at this stage.

I'm I'm reluctant to get into a debate, so to speak.

But I will point out that the county is over 400,000 acres, and this county made a decision of one percent uh for data centers, and not only do they make that decision on area, but by using the hard overlay, that one percent currently is restricted uh to the Adams Town area.

Uh if you just have open floating zones, then let's say that the whole county was Frederick City, okay, as an example.

Then any place you had a property over 75 acres, you could make an argument that that property would be eligible to have a data center for uh given other constraints as well.

I know it's a very broad thing for you.

Sorry about that.

Uh the other thing I wanted to you talked about elevation.

Do you know the elevation of your sites versus the airport?

Sorry, not offhand, and I don't want to quote incorrect figures.

I'm not really asking you to put you on the spot.

It's just a cruise that the airport seems to be might be considerably higher.

So that I can touch on a little bit.

So the edge of the when FAA and MAA evaluate our height, what they're looking at is what is called the approach surface.

Is an imaginary plane from the end of the runway up at a particular slope.

And I have to keep my buildings under that.

Uh and then in terms of elevation of these sites relative to the airport, they're generally situated such that I can get buildings under that plane uh provided that they aren't too tall.

So an example lot three, the existing warehouse, uh, which you can see, and I'm you know drawing a line sort of over here towards the runway, you can see sort of in the path.

Um that building is what is known as a 36-foot clear warehouse.

It means at the interior bay, the minimum unobstructed height from our roof assembly in steel is 36 feet.

To do that, we had to lower the property a bit, and we had to do a uh different roof than we would normally do.

So if you think about a traditional house, triangular roof is called a gabled roof.

On this one, we had a mostly gabled roof, except at the end closest to the warehouse, where we had what is called a hip.

So it basically cuts off truncates that side of the triangle.

Uh, and that was to get the building height down.

So we know it can work, but also we know we can't go very high.

Like we can't.

You know, Gabriel throughout a stat of you know a hundred and ten foot building, and we aren't gonna have that.

We aren't gonna have a 90-foot building here.

Uh we're gonna have to stay under that approach surface.

I agree.

Uh I agree with the logic, is what I want to say.

Um I will tell you we had experience recently within the last five to seven years, and Frederick on what's called the Sly Family Farm.

And uh they wanted to multi-use on that corner.

And the city and the airport elected not to.

In your favor, the reasons why they preferred the zoning that they've got there now for light industry is exactly what you're providing in the flight path on the other side of the problem, if you will.

They wanted warehousing rather than homes.

They wanted fewer people that would be a nuisance factor in terms of complaining about airplane noise, and they wanted to improve safety in terms of having fewer people that might be vulnerable in terms of an accident, an air and air accident of sorts.

You meet all that requirements because you have very few people working at your facilities and they're flat roofed.

It's almost an ideal use of property from an FAA perspective, would be my guess in that.

Umgratulations on that.

Um I probably said more than I should have today.

But uh I'm gonna let it go.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Oh, I want to say, by the way, just a curiosity.

This is not you, okay.

This is actually to staff as a sense.

If you uh go back and you read, which I did recently, the mobilize Frederick, well, it's not your the Frederick County working group on data centers, okay.

They actually said if we're not doing it in Adamstown, the other areas they would consider data centers was Urbana, Brunswick, and Adams were the only areas where where three were given.

I'm curious as to why Frederick didn't ask to be included in that inventory.

Had you all made an overt decision not to consider data centers in your community then?

Uh but right now that wasn't part of the recommendation that came out of the working group study from the county.

I'm sorry, and miss pieces of that.

Why we didn't look at the county looked at other areas.

I'm sorry.

In the work and the data center working group report.

They talked about the out of town area, the quantum loophole area.

And then when they were looking at recommendation stuff, they were making the point that other areas where data centers might be considered outside of uh Adamstown would be Urbana and Brunswick.

But they I don't know, it was purposefully or just whatever.

Frederick City was not included in that.

And I was curious as to whether that was a Frederick City's request or whether they didn't find it.

Um just an oddity out there.

I don't know if that working group looked beyond the jurisdictional authority of the county um to make recommendations for independent municipalities.

Um you said Brunswick, I don't know if it was in in Brunswick or in the Brunswick area that they were suggesting.

But um the city's land use authority is autonomous from the county, so I don't know if that was a factor.

Isn't Frederick City the same kind of municipality, independent municipality as Brunswick and Urbana?

Urbana is not a municipality.

Right.

Thank you.

I think we probably did that because of the Amazon experience 10 or 15 years ago.

Thank you.

Commissioner Chair, I did also just want to make a note because I anticipate that we do have some public comment.

Um we have our citywide planning department community outreach meeting uh this evening at 6 o'clock.

So we do have a hard stop around 545.

So I just wanted to make sure that we remain conscious of the time and get our public comment in too.

Thank you.

I I'm aware of that, and and I'll forego my questions, but let's uh go ahead with Commissioner Montes if you have any questions of staff at this time.

I'll just make it really quick.

Just wanted to note that uh they wanted the applicant said that kind of employment opportunities and things could be of use and economic um benefits, and it was kind of tied a lot to Loudoun.

Um I just wanted to note that again, we we're very different than like a Loudoun County, even like the property tax benefits that they get is because of how they tax the business personal tax, and we don't get the extent of those benefits.

Um so, in terms of the economic argument, uh long term, just wanted to point that out.

And then lastly, before public comment, I just wanted to say in I understand there's the buy-right, buy right, conditional use, and floating zone.

Um your intent in applying by right.

What would can you walk me through that?

Because obviously it's less oversight and less review when you apply that way.

So I would say that is a topic of ongoing discussion between us and staff.

And our intent when we started has been to try and attract users to this site and make this an attractive site for them.

And part of the way we do that is we take on the risk and the piece where there's uncertainty.

So that's the text amendment.

And then when there is certainty, we are able to better attract them.

So what we were trying to do was be cognizant that we need guardrails.

So it's not just buy right, it's buy right with the supplemental performance standards that we made that we talked about earlier.

So the additional setbacks, the facade treatment.

And that was our goal was to try and balance those.

And I would say it's been an ongoing topic with staff, and you know, hear additional feedback from uh Commissioner Roby as well.

And like we are taking that in, and that is something that we're gonna have to evaluate.

Is that still the best path forward?

What we initially proposed.

Right.

And then I guess for staff, I would just say I thank you again for all of your excellent analysis and behind the scenes work that you all do.

Um I like your comment on the conservative approach.

Um I just also wanted to point out that we are kind of going against this with the comprehensive plan.

That's kind of how we're gonna be evaluating this and judging this.

How does it really fit into the comp plan?

But we haven't even updated the comprehensive plan to specifically address this new class of use in the city in a comprehensive manner, right?

So I I just want to urge all the commissioners here and everyone not to kind of rush into okay, well, we can kind of start with this zone and might be more lenient.

Um really I think the basis for this is just it's incompatible in general based off of everything.

Uh currently we have in the comp plan and everything that needs to be put into the comp plan to really take this in a cautious manner.

That's just my view and public comment.

Um I know I said I wasn't going to ask a question, but the one question I still had kind of outstanding for the city, and Gabrielle, you touched on it.

Um, where are these 75 plus acre lots across the city?

And if that's something we can have.

I'm assuming we're gonna have another workshop here.

Um that would be great if we could see something like that and and really get our eyes on what are we talking about here, and not just these two lots.

Um with that said, I'd like to move on to the public comment portion.

Um, Jennifer, if you can bring me the list of people who have signed up, we'll start with them.

And again, uh we do have a three-minute time limit unless you're with a group, and in that case, you can speak for 10 minutes.

Our very first person would be Betty Law.

And if you haven't been sworn in, please let me know and I'll swear you in promptly.

But I think everyone was Betty Law, uh 1758 Wayfield Drive, Frederick, Maryland.

First, let's be honest here.

This CTA is not about 20 megawatt server rooms, little data centers.

This CTA is about bringing hyperscale data centers and AI factories through by right within a hundred feet of residences anywhere in the city, as we say, where you may have 75 feet, and that number could change to 50 feet, uh 50 acres rather.

Second, I want to publicly thank Gabrielle Collard, Director of Planning, and your staff for their incredible careful analysis and the hard work you've done regarding this proposed CTA.

I agree that uh, first of all, I agree that this is not a compatible use with a city that maybe by 2040 could be 200,000 people or 2050, certainly.

Um I totally agree with staff's recommendations to establish a floating zone for CDIs, and I'll tell you why.

You can have a CDI floating zone, that is also M2.

So you've got your hard fast.

And the thing that you and what you get with a floating zone is you get the council authority.

The council would then adopt standards, not a ZTA that serves the purposes of one developer who may have his heart in the right place, but he's one developer, and by right, anybody could move in.

And Amazon has already put down a marker, Amazon.

The council would adopt standards for the floating zone, uh, hopefully for M2 as well.

And the process then would be open not only to the planning commission, and then it would be open to the count to the city council for a number of workshops, and then the final decision.

And then each project that comes forward has to go in front of the council, and it would hit the paper, and the people would know there would be the level of transparency that would allow people to speak about whether or not they're okay with that.

The developer just said, well, the airport won't let us be 90 feet.

We'll have to do whatever.

Well, if that's the case, why didn't they tell Gabrielle we'll bring it down to 60?

Because that's what the airport will say.

That's the issue with discussion versus what's in the ZTA.

And the and the city council would be able to have the authority and the responsibility to oversee this process, this whole process as we go in further into the 21st century.

The commission would review each final site plan.

So your authority, it would be intact, and you would have the paper before you, the four corners of the document, as the attorneys say, that you can do this, you can't do this.

It should be, it should be 20-30 pages when you finish it.

It shouldn't be seven.

Seven is okay for one site plan.

If if this were an industrial zone, and I guess I blew it, but thank you very much, and especially thank you, Gabrielle.

You've been fantastic.

All right, next we have Kathy Kinsey.

Hello, um, I'm Kathy Kinsey, and I'm here speaking on behalf of Mobilize Frederick as the chair of Mobilize Frederick's Government Affairs Committee.

Um we've previously submitted some pretty detailed comments into the record, which I assume all of you have at least seen or skimmed.

We've previously submitted some pretty detailed comments into the record, which I assume all of you have at least seen or skimmed, so I don't want to spend my time going over those detailed comics, but we did make recommendations for adoption of a range of regulatory requirements to mitigate or avoid altogether, if possible, adverse impacts associated with data center development in the city.

I just wanted to make a few general comments about the process and a lot of what I'm saying is been said in the discussion here today.

As Commissioner Montez pointed out early on, hyperscale data center facilities are not like standard industrial developments.

They are unique because of their scale and their impact on the grid, on electricity rates, on energy supply, on water resources, on climate, which we haven't heard much about, but our the county and cities joint climate and energy action plan called out data centers as the single biggest challenge to meeting our climate goals and our renewable energy targets going forward.

We said all of this in our written comments, but I think it's you know, we're saying again that a thorough understanding of the full range of impacts of hyperscale data center development is required in order to be able to develop a regulatory framework, which is what is needed here to protect our environment and our community and its quality of life.

You know, at last week's workshop, the city council, as was discussed here, heard from Supervisor Turner that Loudoun County's initial approach to uh buy right zoning for data centers was a big mistake in hindsight.

And they've since done away with that.

And of course, there are a lot of other lessons to be learned from Louden County's experience.

Um the PLAD Commission were to be inclined to support moving ahead now with consideration of a proposed zoning text amendment, then we believe that the Planning Commission should simply reject a recommendation for buy-right zoning and instead make a recommendation to support a transparent and deliberative decision-making process that's going to solicit input from expert subject matter experts, um, jurisdictions with experience with data center development, and the public.

Um, as I think has been said here tonight, this should be the first step in the process before we move ahead with further consideration.

So, an equally important is the data center study that's about to come out later this year, probably sometime in the fall, September, October is what we've heard to expect its its release.

Um, and that's going to be that's going to contain hopefully some very important um information.

So I agree with you that what's called for here is a very cautious approach to this that will inform our policy and decision making on what is really a very important matter for the city going forward, which is going to have long-term consequences for the city and the quality of life that we have here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Hannah Nickerson.

Good afternoon.

My name is Hannah Nickerson.

Do I have to say my address?

I'm sorry, you could say in general.

Or is that just for the okay.

I live on Sherman Avenue in Frederick.

Uh we don't have to allow data centers within our city limits, especially since there's about 2,500 acres available for them down the road.

But if we do, we better make sure we're smart about it.

I appreciate the city's effort to proactively establish standards on this topic.

As a sustainability professional, I'm no stranger to working with high-intensity facilities.

They are more common than many realize.

But these moderate and hyperscale data centers are in a class of their own in regards to energy and water use.

Maryland remains strong in having some of the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals in the nation, aiming to decouple economic growth from emissions and protect public health.

These facilities are unfortunately at odds with our sustainable development goals.

And as federal environmental regulations slacken, I encourage Frederick to give itself the tools it needs to drive transparent, balanced, and data-based decisions and accountability as it faces these land use pressures.

Simply put, the scale of potential impacts of these facilities warrants a higher level of land use review.

The proposal allows data centers as a permitted by right use in the M1 and M2 districts.

And as admitted by the applicant today, impacts on energy and water use may vary greatly case by case, but all of them will be significant.

I would encourage the commission to consider whether conditional or floating uh conditional use or floating zone would provide more oversight and transparent transparency.

Similar to the zoning for chemicals and plastics manufacturing industries.

I am also concerned that the ordinance evaluates land use implications without addressing cumulative impacts.

One facility may have limited impacts, but multiple facilities, cumulative cumulatively impact infrastructure, noise, emissions, land use, and public health.

Lastly, I hope the city will think beyond impact mitigation and consider innovation.

In other communities and countries, data centers are increasingly being integrated into district energy systems that capture waste heat for nearby buildings and neighborhoods.

This is just one example.

We have to be ready to spearhead these discussions and negotiations.

As Frederick develops its approach, I encourage the commission to be discerning and do your research.

We have the opportunity now to decide how and if this development happens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And last on our list is Eric Belmont.

Thank you so much.

The previous speakers have so eloquently talked about the water perspective on this.

I'm a zero emission subject matter expert, and I wanted to talk around the issue of the generators, the sound question involved here, and uh I'm concerned that there's no observance of the fact that better energy storage systems have been implemented in other data center projects throughout this country and the world as an alternative to diesel generation.

This is not only an opportunity to reduce emissions, but reduces the sound challenges of those down to near zero.

And it's being done in this country as well.

The state of Maryland is actually considering a bill, HB 1530 34, to require better energy storage systems to be incorporated in zoning and the construction of data centers.

And I uh raise this just to say that there are more options than just uh uh diesel.

This is a very narrow perspective, but I do want to make sure that that's is considered along with the broader perspective here that there's more than one way to do this.

If it's done, there's a cleaner way, an acquired way.

Um leave it at that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Do we have additional public comment?

Please step up one at a time.

Afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Rob Thompson, 806 Bond Street, um, member of the Ren Quarter community.

And I really have to ask you all, as it sounds as though you are, to be very, very cautious with this proposal.

Um, approving zoning and LMC changes that don't have really strong or enforceable protections for everything from water use to electricity demand really are very problematic.

Um and clearly this broad buy-right framework is not something that we should pursue in any way.

For me personally, with these um living so close to what this proposed data center would be.

Water is a huge issue for me.

I've lived in Frederick for three years now, and drought has been a constant concern each and every year.

So be your wildfires last year in New Jersey and continuing across in Canada.

And so water is something that we really can't afford to treat lightly.

And a data center would easily place serious burden on the city's water supply and sustainability.

I also want to mention something that's really local and personal.

Kids in my neighborhood actually fish where Carroll Creek enters the Minocase River.

It's just downstream from this proposed site, and it really bothers me.

If warmer water is discharged back into the monocasey, it's going to harm the ecosystem and including the fish that the kids are trying to catch.

I really hope that you'll think about this and consider requiring self-generation or on-site electricity capacity as well if these ordinances get through and we do proceed with the data centers in the future.

Thanks so much for listening.

Thank you.

Yeah, Steve Jacobsic, uh North Market Street.

Um founding member of Citizens for Responsible Growth, who puts out a monthly newsletter that's distributed to over 600 people.

I'll try to keep my comments to a reasonable amount of time, but in case I spill over, I can give me a little bit of indulgence because I'm a member of a group.

Um really talking about here is putting the cart before the horse.

I think that's what the bottom line is on all of this.

And I totally agree with what um with what with what Kathy says is that there needs to be a study, there needs to be a committee, there needs to be scientists, there needs to be engineers uh in a silver community such as we have here.

We have an excellent um you know, you know, m amount of people that that have served served in these industries in their careers, and I think they would be very um helpful uh for both guidance and things of that sort.

So I would start there.

First thing I would do is just throw this thing away and you know, let Bruce Cassius check in, let's all move on, and then we can go get down to serious business because there are just some things that we know to be true.

Okay, it's not gonna be by right zoning.

That's that's off the table.

I think that's fairly obvious.

If you haven't watched the um the um thing on Thursday night, the uh council workshop, and you should watch it so you don't get your information just from the cherry picking that was done in the earlier presentation, because the number one thing that was mentioned by the gentleman from from Lounge County was buy right zoning is just a disaster.

Okay.

I don't remember that being mentioned in any of the pillars that they brought up on their first page.

He also spoke a lot longer about some of those actual issues.

So I think that would be that would be very, very uh beneficial.

So by right zoning is gone.

I think the other thing that troubles me just a little bit is uh why are you even mentioning M1 zoning in any conversation?

I think the only reason why M1 zoning is probably even mentioned at all is because that's what the guy owns.

Okay, but so that would probably um take that off the list because any I'm not a scientist, I'm not an engineer.

I sold pants for 40 years.

All right, I can read the the difference between M1 and M2 and say it's it's not even a contest.

Okay.

So this is definitely an M2 zoning conversation, dead stop, okay?

The other thing I thought was very interesting, and in the report that Gabrielle and her wonderful team has done, and I can't say that enough, is when they sent their report out and their whatever is the executive summary, they boldered the word not on that.

The only word bolded on the entire ten pages was not.

There's nothing compatible in the city of Frederick to what is being proposed here.

I don't remember last time you guys bulled in anything, but I that one you know, you know, you know, stuck out at me.

So basically what we're trying to do, and where did 75 acres come from?

I don't know.

Maybe that's the size of a lot that I own.

Let's put 75 down there.

Okay.

And you know what?

You're telling everybody else to go pound sand.

I'll tell you what, why don't they tell you the same thing?

I mean, what are we really talking about here?

We're talking about a guy who built a who built a warehouse that he can't lease.

Okay, so I don't know.

Let's make a where take a data center out of it.

That might be something good.

And then he's got another lot that he can't sell.

So what let's just put the cotton the the vice president of common sense hat on.

What's really happening here?

Okay, we're having somebody come in, all right, that's gonna impact their quality of life on every single level.

Okay, they're gonna pollute our air, they're gonna pollute our water, they're gonna raise utility rates, they're gonna you you can't name one positive thing here.

And then they're not even mentioned if they're gonna give us any money for it, because you know we don't need that money.

We we don't build schools in the city, the county built schools.

We have 300 million dollar budget up 50 million dollars from a year ago, where we argued about giving money back to the citizens.

So there's no reason, all right, on God's green earth, okay.

We're the sustainability person on God's green earth that we even need this in the first place.

They're justice.

We don't need the money, and we don't need the incursion on our quality of life.

I mean, it's just quite frankly, as simple as that.

There's a reason why it's never been included, and a reason why it never should be included again.

If you if you want what I would do if I were you guys, not that you need my my my advice, okay, because you seem to pretty much get it right now, is just just kick it down the road to the city council tonight.

Okay?

And so you guys, Peter, you and your you you you and your advertising, you know, you people there, don't vote it down.

So why waste the next three, four or five months?

Why waste Gabrielle's under staff's time doing this stuff?

Frankly, if it wasn't so serious, it would be it would it would be funny.

Okay?

But we don't spend your time, your quality time, don't spend their quality time doing something that is no chance of passing, no chance, zero on a scale of ten.

Start a committee, put quality people there on it, which you because you got them here, and do it the right way from the beginning.

That wasn't bad.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have additional public comment?

Anyone?

Do we have any comments from our commissioners?

Commissioner Montez?

Commissioner Ruby?

I just appreciate the passion and the care for the community from the public comment.

Um yeah.

I agree with Commissioner Montez.

Okay.

Well, I have nothing more to add to that.

So with that said, meeting adjourned.