Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop - June 15, 2026

Planning Commission — Monday, June 15, 2026

BodyFrederick, Maryland

SessionPlanning Commission

DateMonday, June 15, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:06:01

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

1:03

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

1:08

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.

1:17

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.

1:24

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.

1:33

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

1:39

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

1:46

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

1:51

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

1:58

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

2:04

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

2:10

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

2:14

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

2:17

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.

2:28

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.

2:40

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

3:04

Thank you.

5:02

Okay.

5:02

Thank you.

5:03

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

5:11

Yeah.

5:13

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.

5:23

It asked for applicant justification to be provided.

5:27

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

5:31

I'm sorry.

5:32

Yeah.

5:33

Modification request one.

5:35

There's no applicant justification included in that.

5:38

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

5:41

For the uh ESDs.

5:44

Correct.

5:45

Yeah.

5:45

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.

5:53

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

5:58

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

6:03

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

6:12

Oh, I understand.

6:13

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.

6:27

So it just a grading condition.

6:30

It's just a grading condition.

6:32

It's yeah.

6:32

Okay.

6:33

Thank you.

6:34

Uh no further questions at this time.

6:37

Commissioner Roby.

6:42

You're combining two lots, correct?

6:45

Two parcels, yes, sir.

6:46

Yes.

6:47

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

6:55

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

7:01

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

7:10

Can you repeat that last part?

7:11

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.

7:26

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.

7:39

Sir, I I truly apologize.

7:42

I cannot.

7:43

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

7:45

Uh they are being two separate parcels uh combined together.

7:50

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

7:55

So treated as one parcel.

7:57

Yep.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████45%

Environmental Protection███████████████████████23%

Noise Ordinance█████5%

Economic Development█████5%

Procedural████4%

Community Engagement████4%

Parks and Recreation███3%

Water And Wastewater Management███3%

Affordable Housing██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop - June 15, 2026

The Frederick City Planning Commission held a workshop on June 15, 2026, reviewing two subdivision modification requests, a parkland site plan, a forest conservation zoning text amendment, and a proposed text amendment to allow data centers (Critical Digital Infrastructure). The meeting included presentations, commission questions, staff comments, and public testimony. Key themes included compatibility with neighboring uses, environmental impacts, and the appropriate level of regulatory oversight for new industries.

Discussion Items

Subdivision Modification Request (PC-??)
- The applicant requested modifications to combine two previously approved subdivisions (lots recorded, no further subdivision). Modifications included placing stormwater management facilities in the right-of-way and eliminating landscape screening between the merged parcels.
- Commissioner Temple asked about applicant justification for the stormwater modification within the right-of-way. The applicant explained it allows positive drainage from the roadway into roadside swales, which is an efficient grading use.
- Commissioner Roby raised concern that combining the two parcels might trigger a requirement for Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs). Staff clarified that the lots were previously platted and exempt from APFO and MPDU provisions, as the final plats were recorded and exempted. The commission noted the issue for technical review.
- Staff noted that updated modification letters had not yet been provided, but analysis was based on prior submissions.
Ren Quarter Parkland – Final Site Plan (PC 26-103 FSI)
- Applicant Luke Zeller (St. John Properties) presented a site plan revision for 75 head-in parking spaces to be developed on land owned by the East Church HOA, to be turned over to the city as parkland as part of a stormwater agreement.
- A landscape modification request was made due to existing utility easements (gas, power lines) and forest conservation easements, limiting interior landscaping within the parking lot. The applicant argued the existing forest screening meets the code intent. Trees and shrubs would be planted where possible.
- Commissioner Roby asked about parking surface material; the applicant indicated asphalt, with trail material to be determined during the engineering phase.
- Commissioner Temple inquired about the history of the blue paths on the exhibit and city vs. applicant responsibility. The path along the old farm driveway is applicant-built; the path along Bond Street will be constructed by the city.
- Public comment: none.
Forest Conservation Ordinance – Zoning Text Amendment (PC 24-224, ZTA)
- City staff presented comprehensive updates to Section 721 (Forest Conservation) to reflect state legislation (effective July 1, 2026) and local goals. Key substantive changes include:
  - Expanding applicability to any clearing of 10,000+ sq ft of forest (even on lots under 40,000 sq ft).
  - Adding five new exemptions (forest management, TOD, federal facilities, single multi-family building with 25+ units, solar energy) with reforestation/mitigation ratios.
  - Removing the exemption for real estate transfers.
  - Adding local exemptions for forced clearing by FAA, stream restoration, stormwater maintenance, and redevelopment on impervious areas built before 1991.
  - Extending the inspection and maintenance period from 2 to 5 years (total 6 inspections) with bond retention.
  - Moving fee amounts out of the code and into an annually adopted fee schedule; staff noted the current fee in lieu ($0.30/sq ft) is insufficient.
  - Requiring protective wire fencing (type D6) for newly planted areas.
  - Adding retention priorities for riparian buffers (50 ft for intermittent streams, 100 ft for perennial), forest interior dwelling species, Tier 2/3 watersheds, wellhead protection zones, and urban forests.
  - Requiring mitigation for removal of specimen trees (diameter >25 inches) at a ratio of diameter-for-diameter.
  - Changing mitigation ratios: cleared forest replaced at 1:1 (not 2:1), with a 0.5:1 ratio for non-priority areas within the Priority Funding Area (city).
  - Establishing a planting schedule with preferred stock and survival rates, limiting use of whips/seedlings to slopes >25%.
- Commissioner Temple noted that larger planting stock beyond 2-inch caliper might be needed for specimen tree replacement. Sustainability Manager Jenny Willoughby said larger stock has cost and survivability issues.
- Commissioner Roby asked about progress reporting; staff said a public dashboard and 4-year canopy assessments (starting 2027) will be available.
- Commissioner Montes asked about staffing impacts from increased inspections; staff indicated the Urban Forestry division can handle the demand.
- Public comment: several speakers supported a cautious, transparent approach and emphasized the importance of tree canopy for climate resilience.
Critical Digital Infrastructure Facility – Zoning Text Amendment (PC 25-626, ZTA)
- Applicant Bruce Dean (Trammell Crow Company) proposed adding “Critical Digital Infrastructure” (data centers) as a permitted use in M-1 and M-2 zones on parcels 75+ acres. Four sites currently meet that criteria, two of which are owned by Trammell Crow (lots 1, 2, 4, 5 of Frederick Commerce Center). The amendment includes performance standards: 500-foot setback from residences, 55-decibel daytime/24-hour noise limit, Tier 4 generators, architectural design requirements, and pre- and post-construction noise studies.
- Applicant Joe Whitebread explained the site’s advantages: proximity to National Cancer Institute, Riverside Tech Park, Frederick Municipal Airport, existing high-voltage transmission lines, and prior infrastructure improvements (gas house pike widening, utilities). He emphasized that without a specific user, detailed questions (water use, cooling, exact height) will be addressed during the site plan process.
- Commissioner Montes questioned compatibility with the comprehensive plan, citing potential strains on water and electricity, limited job creation, and the inability to fully assess impacts. Commissioner Roby expressed concern about cumulative noise, generator testing duration (e.g., 50 generators = 10 weeks), and the need for a maximum water use ceiling and a city-wide cap on data center acreage.
- Commissioner Temple recused herself from this item after requesting an advisory ethics opinion.
- Staff Director Gabrielle Collard presented three regulatory options: (1) By-right (high threshold, planning commission compelled to approve if standards met), (2) Conditional use (Zoning Board of Appeals reviews context-specific impacts), (3) Floating zone (local law, council attaches conditions). Staff recommended the floating zone mechanism for greater oversight and transparency.
- Public comment: multiple speakers (Elizabeth Law, Kathy Kinsey, Hannah Nickerson, Eric Belmont, Rob Thompson, Steve Jakicic) urged rejection of by-right zoning, citing lessons from Loudoun County, environmental impacts (water, climate, heat island), and the need for a thorough study prior to any decision. Some supported a conditional use or floating zone and highlighted opportunities for innovation (district energy, battery storage).

Key Outcomes

Subdivision Modification: The workshop concluded with no vote. Staff and commission will address the MPDU concern during technical review.
Ren Quarter Parkland Site Plan: The workshop concluded with no vote; the applicant’s presentation was received and questions answered.
Forest Conservation ZTA: The commission is expected to make a recommendation in July 2026, followed by city council work session and regular meeting. Staff will incorporate feedback from this workshop.
Critical Digital Infrastructure ZTA: The commission will hold further workshops; staff will refine the proposed amendments, including consideration of a floating zone, and will provide an analysis of all parcels >75 acres in M-1/M-2 zones. The next step is a formal hearing for a commission recommendation.

Meeting Transcript

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?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com