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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone who's representing a group will have 10 minutes to give comments.

The timer clock will show you your remaining time.

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

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

If so, answer I do.

Thank you.

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

And with that, we'll start with any announcements from the planning department.

Thank you.

And good evening.

Next Monday, that is July 20th.

We will have our planning commission workshop inside of this room at 2 p.m.

The agenda was posted earlier online if you'd like to look at it.

And later in the evening at 6 p.m., our citywide community outreach meeting will be held in this room as well.

Thank you.

All right.

So at first, we're going to approve some prior minutes.

So with that, I'll be looking for a motion for the approval of the June 8th, 2026 Planning Commission minutes.

I move to approve the June 8th, 2026 Planning Commission minutes.

Seconded.

Okay, that is a motion by Commissioner Montes.

A second by Commissioner Temple.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 4-0 for approval of the June 8th Planning Commission minutes.

Next, I'm looking for a motion for approval of the June 15th Planning Commission workshop minutes.

I motion to approve the June 15th, 2026 Planning Commission workshop minutes.

I second.

Okay, that is a motion by Commissioner Temple.

A second by Commissioner Roby.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 4-0 for approval of the June 15th Planning Commission workshop minutes.

And last but not least, I'm looking for a motion for approval of the July 10th pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 4-0 for approval of the pre-planning commission meeting minutes.

Next, we do not have any public hearing consent items.

So we will move on to continuances.

And shall I read each of those?

One at a time.

Okay.

So our very first continuance is Industrial Center East Lot 337, PC 26-68 FSI, final site plan.

Thank you.

This is a request for continuance due to ongoing APFO testing.

The previous APFOs under the former site plan expired along with that site plan.

They've come in to just renew the site plan, and we have some more testing that needs to be done.

So they are requesting a continuance.

Okay, I'm looking for a motion for approval of the continuance.

I motion to approve the continuance for the Industrial Center East Lot 337, PC 26-68 FSI final site plan.

Second.

Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner Montes, a second by Commissioner Roby.

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 40 for approval of the continuance for the Industrial Center East Lot 337.

The next item for continuance is the West Frederick Public Library PC 26-64 FSI final site plan, PC 26-65 FSCB combined forest and delineation and preliminary forest conservation plan.

The applicant is requesting a continuance due to ongoing stormwater review.

We have provided a new date and anticipate the stormwater report to be incoming and reviewed for the next meeting.

Okay, I'm looking for a motion for approval of the continuance.

I motion for the approval of a continuance for the West Frederick Public Library PC 26-64 FSI and final site plan PC 26-6 FSCB.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 4-0 for approval of the continuance of the West Frederick Public Library.

The next item with a request for continuance is the West Side Regional Park Community Center, PC 26-29 FSI final site plan.

The applicant is requesting a continuance to the August meeting due to uh ongoing stormwater review similar to the previous item.

Okay, I'm looking for a motion for approval.

My motion that the Westside Regional Park Community Center.

PC 26-29 FSI final site plan be continued.

Seconded.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 4-0 for approval of the continuance.

The next continuance item is Carroll Fuels Gas Station, PC 25-628 FSI final site plan and PC 25-629 FSCB combined forest and delineation and preliminary forest conservation plan.

This is a request for continuous to the August 10th meeting.

Again, they are undergoing stormwater review.

Okay, I'm looking for a motion for approval.

I motion to grant a continuance for the Carroll Fuels Gas Station, PC 25-628 FSI final site plan, PC 25-629, FSCB, Combined Forest Stand Delineation, Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan.

I second.

That's a motion by Commissioner Montes, a second by Commissioner Roby.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's 4-0 approval of the continuance.

Next on the agenda, we do not have any miscellaneous items, and we have no old business.

With that, we will move on to new business, which would be the Kellerton Land Bay's D and E, PC 26-67 PSU FSI combined preliminary plat and final site plan revision, and PC 26-66 PFCP preliminary forest conservation plan revision.

Good evening.

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

The applicant is requesting approval of revisions to a previously approved combined preliminary plat, final site plan, as well as a preliminary forest plan for Kellerton Land Base DE.

In accordance with Section 309G for site plan amendments and section 504F for preliminary plat amendments, the Commission may only consider issues relating to the proposed amendments and may not consider matters that have been previously approved and that are not related to the proposed amendment.

For the forest plan, the commission may determine if the plan complies with section 721 of the land management code.

The preliminary plat and site plan is to adjust lot lines in section three of the development so that all of the lots meet the minimum 60 foot lot width requirement.

The number of lots is not changing and the lots are consistent with all of the other dimensional standards that were approved with the master plan.

There are no changes to parking or access.

And the only change with the landscape plan is to create additional buffer plantings to offset the forest conservation easement changes that were done.

The forest plan revision is to accommodate a stormwater area between planting areas A and C and to create a new planting area B.

Again, nothing else has changed with regard to APFO or stormwater or anything else.

So with that, the first action is the approval of the combined preliminary plat, final site plan, PC 26-67 PSU-FSI for Kellerton Land Bay's DE.

Staff finds that the site plan complies with all the applicable criteria for five articles 4567 and 8 of the land management code.

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

And with that, staff recommends unconditional approval of the preliminary plat and final site plan.

Action two is approval of the preliminary force conservation plan, PC 26-66 PFCP.

Staff finds that complies with section 721 of the land management code, and therefore staff recommends unconditional approval of the preliminary or I'm sorry, the combined forest and delineation and preliminary forest conservation plan.

And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead with a roll call starting with Commissioner Temple.

I have no questions at this time.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Robey.

I likewise have no questions at this time.

I have no questions at this time.

And Commissioner Montes?

No questions.

And I have no questions either.

Uh with that, but ask the applicant to please come up.

Um thanks to Sherry for sharing the staff report.

I don't really have anything else to add.

Um she did a great job summarizing what we're proposing here tonight, but I am happy to address any questions if you have any.

Thank you.

Um we'll go ahead, starting with Commissioner Roby.

I have no question for the replica.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Montes.

No questions.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions.

Okay.

And I just have one clarifying question for you.

Um so the new plantings in area B will be offsetting the loss of plantings in the areas A and C.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

We're still meeting all required mitigation on site.

Yep.

Perfect.

Thank you so much for that.

Um with that, um, we would move on then to see if there's any public comment.

I don't think we have any.

Um do we need any discussion up front with the commissioners?

No.

Okay.

Well, I'll be looking for uh motion for the first action, action one, approval of the combined preliminary plat, final site plan.

The combined preliminary plat, final site plan PC26-67 PSU slash FSI for Kelitan Land Base D and E.

Finding that the site plan complies with all the applicable criteria of the LMC.

Second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's 40 for approval of action one.

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

I motion for the approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan, PC 26-66 PFCP for West Frederick Public Library.

Uh, finding that this plan complies with section 721.

Oh, wait, sorry.

One second.

No, I think it was just the way it was typed on this one.

Yeah, that was a typo.

It's supposed to be Kellerton.

Yeah, I just I just I just noticed that.

The plan numbers correct still.

Correct.

All right, thank you for Kellerton then for the Kellerton Land Base D and E would be the ending of that, finding that it complies with section 721 of the LMC.

Yeah, I'm wondering if do we need to start over with that?

Yes.

I don't think so.

No, I think it's fine.

All right.

Seconded then.

Okay.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 4-0 for approval of the preliminary forest conservation plan.

Excuse me, for Kellerton Land Base D and E.

Thank you.

All right.

Our next item on the agenda would be Canterbury Station, PC 25-247 PSU, FSI, combined preliminary plat and final site plan.

I am entering the staff report on record.

The applicant is proposing a combined preliminary plat and final site plan for 204 residential units, including renovation of the banner school buildings, subdivisions of lots 202, 203, and 204, and resubdivision of lot 205.

The applicant is also requesting three modifications to section 605 landscaping standards.

In reviewing a final site plan, the commission must consider the criteria outlined in section 309E of the land management code, which includes compliance with all the applicable criteria of Articles 4 through 8 and 12, conformance with any area or master plan, and adequate facilities to service the impacts of the development.

Section 309J, in considering modifications, the Commission must find the modification will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of the code.

The modification is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And the application includes compensating design or architectural features to meet the overall objective of the requirement.

Per section 507A of the land management code, in reviewing a preliminary plat, the commission must find that the platform that the platform forms conforms to all comprehensive plan and all applicable requirements within the LMC.

The final forest conservation plan was unconditionally approved on February 18, 2020, and the stormwater report was approved on February 3rd, 2026.

The preliminary plat encompasses lots 202, 203, a portion of lot 204, and lot 205 on the north side of Shiverstap Boulevard.

Lot 2 was initially subdivided to contain only the banner school buildings on 7.17 acres.

Lot 202, 203, a portion of 204, subtracting the condo lot, creates the new lot 203R for multifamily units.

Lot 205 is being resubdivided to add approximately 2.34 acres to lot 1, which has been dedicated to the city as public parkland.

The Canterbury development was originally to be constructed in six phases, however, through iterations of the plan, phasing has been reduced to four.

Most items on the phasing schedule have been bonded or under construction or will be covered under future improvement plans.

Staff does request the applicant move phase five to phase four, as most are all going to be constructed by Madison on North Market.

The phasing schedule has, however, been approved.

With the subject plan, there are 51 lots containing 204 units remaining in phase three, while phase four for lot 205 has not started under the subject plan.

The project complies with all dimensional and density regulations under Section 405 of the land management code, and per chapter 19, affordable housing, which is moderately priced dwelling units, are required, and the applicant intends to pay a fee in lieu.

Per section 608 parkland and open space, it requires an infill development to provide 500 square feet of parkland per dwelling unit.

The park requirement under this project is 2.34 acres, which is proposed to be added to the existing lot one for an overall dedication of 7.84 acres to cover the entirety of the project.

This has been accepted by the city as public parkland.

Approval of the preliminary plat constitutes approval of the parkland dedication, and therefore the commission must consider the proposed dedication in terms of suitability for public recreation, location, accessibility, topography, shape, size, relation to surrounding properties in the comprehensive plan.

In evaluating the dedication, the commission should consider the recommendation of the parks and recreation commission, which unanimously voted for the dedication on April 14th, 2026.

The area abuts an existing dog park dedicated to the city, and while the area's usability for recreation is limited due to floodplain and existing forest conservation easements, it will provide a public benefit by protecting environmentally sensitive areas and creating a large buffer between the parkland and commercial development.

The project complies with section 601 access management and section 607 parking and loading standards.

Per section 605 landscaping standards, the property landscaping requirements, and interior parking lot landscaping have been met.

This leads to our three modification requests.

Modification number one to Table 6053.

The applicant is requesting a modification to eliminate buffer requirements between lot 2020R and the abutting lots within the development, such as 204.

Modification 2 is a similar request also to table 6053 to eliminate the level 2 buffer around the parking areas for multifamily buildings.

After reviewing the applicant's justification statement, staff agrees the modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code as it is a cohesive development and the buffering was meant to screen large parking areas and different uses.

Staff agrees the modification is supported by community character and urban design policy, which supports the creative site planning and environmental sustainability policy one to preserve and increase the tree canopy as placement of trees in these areas would not prolong the life of the tree and they would perish.

Staff also finds the request is supported by land use policy three, which promotes new development that incorporate environmental resources as site amenities, and the existing specimen and champion trees will remain on site.

Staff finds the integrated design of the development is a compensating feature in addition to the additional street trees being provided off McGundy and Favorsham, which increased landscaping and parking areas.

Staff supports both requests.

Modification number three to section 605F to eliminate the requirement for street trees on Street A.

After reviewing the applicant's justification, staff agrees the modification is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the code, as the applicant has provided more than the required street trees throughout the development and cannot plant off the street due to underground utilities and spacing.

Staff also agrees the request is supported by our environmental sustainability policy one to entrice tree canopy within the city, and community character and urban design policy two to support creative site planning to establish a built neighborhood that maintains and enhances neighborhood character.

As more than the required number of street trees have been provided overall, staff finds this to be an adequate compensating feature, and staff would support the request.

Final certificates of adequacy for waterline and sewer line capacity have been issued, and a provisional certificate for road adequacy was issued, requiring the applicant to contribute 28,662.42 cents to the city's capital improvement program project for installation of a traffic signal at the North Market Street and Canterbury Station Boulevard intersection.

A provisional certificate for school adequacy was also issued as both the elementary and high schools will be over 100% capacity, however, will not exceed 120% of the state rated capacity.

As such, the applicant has indicated their intent to pay the school mitigation fee and move forward with the project.

Final certificates will be issued after the school mitigation fee agreement has been executed, which must be completed before the first building permit is issued.

There are four actions.

Action one.

Approval of the modification to table 605-3 to eliminate the buffer requirements between lot 203R and the abutting lots within the development, such as lot 204, condominium town home lot, and the fee simple towns lots to the rear.

Finding the modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code.

The modification does not conflict with any provisions of the comprehensive plan and is supported by CCUD policy one, environmental sustainability policy one, and land use policy three.

Compensating design and excess street trees and interior landscaping have been provided.

Staff recommends approval as requested.

Action two.

Approval of the modification to table 605-3 to eliminate the level two buffer around parking areas for the multifamily buildings.

Finding the modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code.

The modification does not conflict with any provision of the comprehensive plan, and is supported by CCUD policy one, environmental sustainability policy one, and land use policy three.

Compensating design and excess street trees and interior landscaping have been provided, so staff recommends approval as requested.

Action three.

Approval of the modification to Section 605F to eliminate the requirement for street trees on Street A.

Finding the modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code.

The modification does not conflict with any provisions of the comprehensive plan and is supported by CCU D policy two and environmental sustainability policy one.

Excess street trees have been provided as a compensating feature, and staff recommends approval as requested.

Action four.

Approval of the combined preliminary plat and final site plan PC 25-247 PSU FSI for Canterbury Station.

Finding the request complies with all the applicable criteria of articles four through eight and twelve of the LMC, and there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Conditions one through five provide approved names of streets, update approval dates for APFOs under Note 2, execute MPDU payment agreement and provide the recordation references in note number 19.

Revise sheet eight of the plan set to indicate the forest conservation easements as existing and to provide the recording references, and obtain approval from the city council to accept parkland dedication that contains forest conservation easements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No questions at this time.

Okay, Commissioner Temple.

I couldn't find it in the LMC.

Is there a minimum contiguous forest conservation easement area?

Yes.

I believe that would be 10,000 square feet at least 35 feet in width.

That's for both a forestation and landscaping credit, with landscaping credit being slightly reduced.

And so anywhere they can put that amount, we normally ask for.

And is that compound when it's adjacent to others?

The reason I ask is that the northeast corner of the exhibit we're looking at here, the in the parkland dedication, there's some of those like triangular shape forest forest areas.

And they're some of them are less than that 10,000 square feet, and then but they're adjacent to existing ones.

So just trying to understand the city's interpretation of because they're next to adjacent ones, they meet that contiguous development.

No, I mean we do encourage them to touch forest conservation areas, but they are, you know, if there are their own projects, it's a it would be a separate space that we have to make sure they're technically meeting those standards.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

And Commissioner Robey.

Clarification question.

Uh the applicant is justifying removal of buffer around parking areas due to establishing a more cohesive neighborhood environment, if you will.

Could you clarify for the commission whether the buffering is to shield the public from what's going on in the development or shield the those within the development of parking in their own development to make it a more pleasant experience?

Yeah, so the intent between but between buffering is really to shield other properties from other properties.

So that way, you know, if there's one use on one property and another one here, you know, they may not go together.

They may have nuisances.

So the buffer is there to basically reduce and mitigate some of the nuisances between properties.

We wouldn't ask for buffering between uh parking on the same property from from where like the living spaces.

Thank you.

Okay.

And I don't have any questions.

Um, I do have a I do have a question.

Oh, I was gonna make a comment.

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Okay.

Um I did like that we're getting more trees overall as a compensating factor, which I think is great considering our canopy issues and our goals for the city.

Um and Commissioner uh Montez, you had some additional questions.

Yeah, so there was mention of the additional traffic signal that would be paid for or pay towards the city for the capital improvement.

Um what's the expected, I guess for the city, the expected time when that would be added or implemented.

I'm sorry, I think I'm in a little bit of a dead zone with the speakers.

Um your question was regarding the traffic light that they're providing the pro radish air contribution towards.

Yes.

Yeah.

And I'm sorry, what was the second part?

Uh like what I know they're contributing money towards it.

When would like the expected completion be uh speak just a little closer to the microphone?

When would the expected completion be for that traffic signal?

I would probably have to consult with the CIP.

I can look while you continue discuss, I don't um have a time frame for that.

Yeah, I guess my concern is I know that stretch.

It's uh it's a little tight, a lot of you know, there's gonna be a lot more units, a lot more traffic.

Um I guess also what pedestrian improvements and bicycle improvements would come from this.

Um anything that would further those goals in the plan.

So there are pedestrian connections throughout the development, and when you look at the plan, it actually leads into like the back part and goes back over, and of course, we do have the sidewalk at the street level.

So there are adequate pedestrian connections for those living within the if I remember the back of the school is kind of like cut off, right?

Is that what I remember?

So we did have a conversation about connecting to the school, and that was on a previous workshop.

We actually contacted the school district directly, and they confirmed the previous conversation that we remembered in that they do not want a connection from this development to the school.

And that remains the same.

Yes.

We we checked after the last workshop to ensure that we were on the right path, and we got definite confirmation.

They do not want a connection.

Um the only place that you can connect onto the school actually leads to recreation areas.

Um, you know, so they don't want people just wandering about using recreation.

We have parks for that purpose.

Um, you know, no need to add more more damage and therefore maintenance on our school properties.

Um they do have an existing sidewalk from the buildings in the front.

It's actually diagonal and meets up with the sidewalk along the street, and that will remain.

Okay.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um with that, I would ask the applicant if they would like to come up, please, with their presentation.

Uh Jody Walker with Harrison Marine Associates.

I'm here with uh Ryan Levy and Alex Cederbaum from the Duffy companies.

Uh Christina did a great job uh summarizing everything.

Uh again to reiterate this is kind of the last phase of Canterbury Station and kind of filling that out.

Uh it's a great example of historic preservation and how we can do infill correctly around historic preservation.

Um along with that, we'll get the uh North Market Street improvements as discussed.

Uh the sidewalk along the entirety of the project along North Market Street will be improved and increased to the five foot width.

Additional crosswalks are going to be added at Schifferstead, also at the intersection where the new uh traffic light will go.

Um as discussed, we've talked and worked with uh FCPS on possible connections.

Uh again, their concern was with safety and access to the front of the building, not having people access the rear where the fields and playgrounds and things are.

Um again, uh just to reiterate additional city park has been added to the east of the project.

Uh there are existing uh forest easements along there that have already been recorded and have been planted as part of the uh dog park and the initial improvements.

This just allows and kind of guarantees that additional park will be provided in that area as a natural buffer to the commercial ground along North Market Street.

Uh each individual section as these phases have been developed, includes their own clubhouse and pool amenities.

Uh so that's of course added in this community as well.

In response to the uh modifications, again, this was all conceived and designed as one cohesive neighborhood and community.

So the inset of those parking screening landscape areas, adjacent property, landscape areas for something that's within the development.

Uh, we're asking for a modification for that so we can keep the cohesiveness of the neighborhood and allow those pedestrian connections to exist.

And as um mentioned previously, um the compensating feature are additional trees being provided.

Uh, for example, we required 168 trees, 192 are being provided.

Uh we're required 16 street trees, but we're providing 25.

And the parking landscape has a requirement of 10% landscape coverage, and we're providing 11.1% in the parking lots.

So I'm here.

If you have any more questions.

Thank you.

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

Yeah, thank you for the presentation, Jory.

Um we met back in April.

We talked about the school.

Uh we had pu a couple public comment, if I remember correctly, about connectivity.

Yeah, I completely acknowledge that it probably doesn't make sense to uh have a sidewalk connection into the playing fields of an elementary uh middle school middle school.

Um what we talked about was a consideration of it expanding the sidewalk along market there because as much as we'd love everyone to be safely riding their bikes to school on market, we know they're gonna be on the sidewalk.

Um I see a five-foot sidewalk proposed um from the section pass where the East Street rails with trails crosses market.

Um I think there was a request from the commission to evaluate widening that at least until the point at which the you take a right under the school property, so uh kids and students and families as a bike on the sidewalk of what is a eight or ten-foot sidewalk on East Street, you know, as part of the East Street Resource Trails Project.

They're gonna either transition under the road or onto a five-foot sidewalk.

So you know uh I would hope to see the changes on the plan reflect that conversation from April, and I'd love to understand the uh internal conversation between you and your um, you know, you and your team of why you couldn't improve that, whether that was a school requirement or you know, or what to improve that condition based on all this feedback from us from the um community as well.

Okay, I do um I do know that uh part of the North Market Street improvements do include uh an additional bike lane, the entire length of North Market Street from where this project begins up to Schifferstead.

Uh so part of that will provide uh safe bike passage as well.

Um again, right now the the existing sidewalk is almost three to four feet in places, so it will be expanded to the five feet width.

Um and there's numeral numerous uh pedestrian sidewalk connections provided throughout the community to get to market stream.

Um I don't know if Alex or Ryan, do you have any comment on the sidewalk or the other?

Can you if you can speak into the microphone, please remember this is recorded and being broadcast?

You sworn in earlier?

No.

Okay, let me swear you in.

Thank you for that.

A second here.

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

If so, answer I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Um the thought on the sidewalk was again like the proposed bike lane that's going on north on uh North Market Street and the five foot sidewalk.

Uh the other thing is a lot of the kids that are currently coming or the walking that's coming through uh down East Street now is actually coming from the neighborhood behind us.

So the thought was a lot of them are actually walking through the neighborhood and popping out right by the school down by the uh the new traffic light essentially.

Um thus making it right on making it right on North Market, making that immediate right right back into the school.

Um there's a sidewalk right behind the fence on the school side that most people take there, and I think it cuts up through the tennis courts or uh into the school parking lot.

So that was the initial process.

Okay.

So you think that if someone's on East Street and let's say they're using the the wide rail trail path that uh has already been built, uh they're gonna then divert through the community to the end point, at which point they'll pop back out and only be on a five-foot sidewalk for a hundred feet before they pop back into the school instead of just continuing down that.

Uh I I think a lot of the ones that come from a lot of the ones that come from I don't know the neighborhood behind us.

Yeah, it's it's the neighborhood to the uh down 16th Street.

South on the plan.

Um a lot of the kids now actually walk through the neighborhood and then it's walking across the old banner school grass field.

So I think a lot of people are gonna walk the neighborhood and then it'll take the new sidewalks and the new new new pedestrian crossings and bump out right there on Market Street.

Um basically like in the front of the entrance of where the uh uh banner school, the old banner school is now, and make that immediate right back into the school.

Kind of divert through I understood.

And just last question on that was it sounds like you didn't even evaluate technically widening that sidewalk to something that's more um manageable for cyclists, you know, young cyclists and pedestrians.

Is that correct?

Uh I'm not I I'm not sure on that one.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Um then the last question I have here is can you just confirm uh in the parkland dedication area the transmission lines that run through there?

There I I couldn't see the easement lines super well on the plan.

There's no proposed forest easement underneath the transmission lines, correct?

I can't imagine they allow it, but it's not a good thing.

Yep, all right, thank you.

Okay.

Uh next we have Commissioner Robey.

I have no questions at this time for the applicant, but I do want to give a kudo uh to the engineering that you all Duffy puts into these buildings.

They are leads silver or better.

And I'm really glad you're in our community.

Thank you.

Commissioner Montes.

Uh can you just like walk me through the specific sidewalk improvements?

Uh kind of along where and and how it will be improved as part of this project.

Uh as far as the interior of the project or market street.

Market street.

Market street.

Uh the sidewalks will be improved to a five-foot sidewalk from the end of the trail.

If you see uh where the trail crosses.

Could you use the pointer?

That would be helpful for us to see on the screen.

Thank you.

So right here is where the existing rails to trails is.

So from this point down to Schiffer Stat will be widened to a five-foot sidewalk.

And then there's additional five foot sidewalks provided throughout the development, interconnected, and then comes down and connects out to Market Street, which will then lead you to uh the school.

Thank you.

What I was in since you're pointing, I just if you don't mind, from the can you highlight where the uh sidewalk entrance into the school is in the you know plan northwest corner of the yeah, right there.

Oh, yes, yes.

So there's a yeah, it cuts up through here and then comes across.

This is a pipe, but it's we don't have the uh detail of this plan, I guess, on this sheet, but there is a uh a sidewalk that comes up through here and comes up to the front of the school.

So Commission Ronda is what I had hoped they had considered from our meeting was widening that section of their frontage from which acknowledging that they it is in a very bad condition right now and they're widening it from four to five to meet the LMC requirements.

I had hoped uh as a compensatory feature, they had would evaluate widening that further to get to that intersection with this the school.

I would have agreed with that, yeah.

Um do we have any public comment at all tonight?

I don't think so.

All right.

I can take it back up here for some discussion with the council with commissioners.

Excuse me.

So excuse me.

Um the modifications um obviously are not in regards to um sidewalks so much as um the final plat in action four would be.

Um so it sounds like our questions and concerns are around the final.

Um so if perhaps we want to make a condition.

That's a thought.

I don't know if the other commissioners what their thoughts are there.

If we want to think we're checking with Christina to see.

They do meet the technical standards that are required.

Um not sure what type of condition we would add on there.

Um the concrete sidewalk that they show is actually set back from North Market a bit.

It's actually on their property, uh, not currently in the right of way.

And you know, this is for safety purposes.

They do have some competing entrance uh interest up at the front of the site.

There is some stormwater ponds that have to go in, um, which would mean we could widen it in certain areas, but not the full way throughout.

Um if you're looking at the actual plans, the the second to the last page will show that there are um the stormwater there up at front, and there's there are also several trees.

So it does technically meet the standards.

Um I'm not sure how much more we could widen it.

Okay.

Um, but you know, if you want to make a condition, let me know.

Okay.

Okay.

Um and then um Gabrielle, have you found anything out about the traffic light timing?

Have you found out about the traffic light timings?

I was able to pull up the CIP, and unfortunately it is a CIP broadly for construction of traffic signals and roundabouts.

Uh so it's compiled with a bunch of independent or different projects, so there's no specific timeline for this specific.

Thank you for checking.

Appreciate it.

Looking to staff, would it be appropriate to assuming the commission you know motions on it to add a condition that asks for the evaluation of widened sidewalk in that along that frontage, or is that too ambiguous?

That they're requesting.

Generally, the sidewalk standards are established to provide the minimum acceptable um and that will be uh handed over to the city for public maintenance and consistent with our expectations for maintenance.

Um I would not want to condition it on that without evaluating the feasibility of a larger sidewalk, and if that is a desired improvement, that would be continuous um along this entire streetscape.

So I would not want to provide a technical recommendation on the viability of that condition at this time without consulting with probably engineering staff and further looking at the design of the plan.

Thank you for that, both of you.

Thank you.

Thoughts.

No, it was just um I mean if Commissioner Temple was very passionate about that condition.

It seems like it's feasible to add it, but um depends on the scope of your passion for that.

Because once it is approved, then it's kind of hard to go back on that.

Yeah, I don't I mean from from the from the staff comment there.

You know, one, it's not our place or in our power to say this has to be eight feet as much as I would have loved them to make that contribution to the degree.

Um looks like we're ready for a motion then.

Yeah.

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

I motion to approve the modification to table six oh five-three to eliminate the buffer requirements between lot two zero three R and the abutting lots within the development, such as lot two zero four, condominium Tamha, town home lot, and the fee simple town lots to the rear.

Uh finding that the modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intents or the code.

The modification does not conflict with any provision of the comprehensive plan and is supported by CCUD policy two, ES policy one, and LU policy three, compensating design and excess street trees and interior landscaping have been provided.

Seconded.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's four zero for approval of action one.

I'm looking for a motion for action two.

And motion amended approval for modification.

According to the findings by staff.

One through three.

One through three.

Okay.

Okay.

Seconded.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's four zero approval of action number two.

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

I motion for the approval of the modification of section 605F to eliminate the requirement for street trees on street A per findings one through three as entered into the record by staff.

Second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's four zero for approval of action three.

And lastly, I'm looking for a motion on action four.

I motion to approve the combined preliminary plat and final site plan PC 25-247 PSU slash FSI for Canterbury.

Uh finding that the request complies with all the applicable criteria of articles four, five, six, seven, and eight of the LMC, and there are adequate public facilities to serve the fight site with the following conditions.

Uh one that it's uh provide approved names of the streets, update approval dates for APFOs under note number two, execute the MPDU payment agreement and provide the recordation references in note number 19, and revise sheet number eight of the plan set to indicate the forest conservation easements as existing and to provide the recording references.

Obtain approval from the city council to accept park plan dedication that contains forest conservation easements.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

So that is uh three for approval and what abstaining.

Thank you.

All right, our next item on the agenda is 600 South Market Street, PC 26-24 ZMA zoning map amendment.

Thank you.

I'm entering the staff report into record.

The applicant is record requesting a recommendation to City Council for a zoning map amendment to rezone a 1.03 acre portion of 600 South Market Street by removing the institutional floating zone and changing the base zone from downtown residential or DR to light industrial M1.

In considering the removal of the floating zone, the planning commission and city council must consider the criteria and make findings of facts in accordance with section 306 E9 of the land management code.

In considering an individual rezoning, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the criteria and make findings of fact in accordance with Section 306 C 7.

Additionally, per Section 306 C10, entitled Mistake, the Commission may make a factual determination as to whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of mistake.

Per Section 306 E3, the zoning map amendment requires two public hearings by the Commission.

This is the first of those hearings, and no action will be taken.

The proposed use of automobile seals and service center or dealership is permitted in the M1 zoning district, which covers most of 600 South Market Street.

The 1.03 acre undeveloped portion of the site is currently zoned DR with the IST floating zone.

That's institutional floating zone.

Prior to 2005, the entirety of the site was zoned in as one.

However, following the adoption of the 2004 comprehensive plan, the land management code was adopted and a comprehensive rezoning was conducted.

The property directly to the north of 600 South Market Street is the Maryland School for the Deaf, which was rezoned to DR with the institutional floating zone applied.

Around the same time, a portion of 600 South Market Street was conveyed to the State Highway Administration for improvements to Minocasy Boulevard, which changed the lot lines.

Per Section 403 entitled District Boundaries of the Land Management Code, zoning district boundaries shall be construed as generally following lot lines.

The rezoning in conjunction with the off conveyance of state highway administration caused the property to be assigned DR and the institutional floating zone.

Based on the purpose of the institutional floating zone, it would be appropriate for the Maryland School for the Deaf, but inappropriate for either the former use of this site, which was Nolan Plumbing Supply, or the proposed current use, which is a BMW of Frederick.

Per section 306E, the City Council may approve an application to revert to the base zone applied by the city during the most recent comprehensive rezoning if the use upon which the application of the floating zone was based has been discontinued.

The property is proposed to be developed in accordance with the prior base zone, and the proposed revision is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

Given this, the previous use of the site and proposed use are not permitted within the floating zone, and there are no proposed institutional uses at this time, nor at the time the zone was applied to this portion of the site.

The remaining area of 600 South Market is zoned M1 and has been developed in accordance with that base zone.

The reversion is in harmony with the following 2020 comprehensive plan policies.

Land use policy one to encourage development and redevelopment, land use policy four, which allows uses that build upon local economic assets, community character and urban design policy six, which promotes redevelopment and rehabilitation of blighted and vacant structures, economic development policy three to maintain a diverse mix of industry, and fiscal policy two to encourage growth that enables the city's non-residential tax base to comprise a larger share of the overall tax base.

Per section 306 C7, findings of fact, and considering an individual rezoning, the Commission and City Council shall make findings of fact that include population change, affiliability of public facilities, present and future transportation patterns, compatibility with existing and proposed development for the area, and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the city's comprehensive plan.

As residential development is not permitted in the M1 zoning district, this rezoning would have no impact on population.

The site has been evaluated and public facilities are available.

The property was evaluated on transportation patterns, and the rezoning of the property would not increase the number of access points to affect those patterns.

The rezoning is compatible with the existing use, and the proposed amendment would support the following 2020 comprehensive plan policies.

Land use policy one to encourage development redevelopment, land use policy four to allow land uses that build upon local economic assets, community character and urban design policy six to promote redevelopment and rehabilitation of blighted and vacant structures, and economic development policy three to maintain a diverse mix of industry and fiscal policy two to encourage growth of the city's non-residential tax base.

Per section 306 C10, mistake, the applicant may show strong evidence of a mistake in order to overcome the strong presumption of the correctiveness of the existing zoning, and the commission shall make a factual determination as to whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of mistake.

The applicant has provided a justification statement outlining the above mentioned facts regarding the zoning change on the property.

Based on the zoning prior to the comprehensive rezoning in 2005, and taking into account that the establishment of zoning districts follow lot lines, staff agrees with the applicant that the application of the DR district and IST floating zone was erroneously placed on the property and likely due to the changes in the lot lines during the same time period.

Based on this, the property should be rezoned to M1 to correct the mapping mistake.

This is the first of two public hearings that the commission must hold, and therefore there is no action to be taken at this time.

But I'm open to questions if you have any.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the explanation.

Both this explanation and the uh applicant's lawyers explanation and review.

I can't quite hear you, I'm sorry.

We're fine.

Um I thought I went closer.

The final zoning for the area in gray is going to be M1, or is it going to be G C So the existing area is gray, that is M1.

If you look at the little triangle in the little blue triangle tail kind of on the end, that is the area that we are proposing to rezone.

Um the entirety of the orange outline is the parcel itself.

So we have two different zonings on there.

We call this split zoning.

And so we're trying to make the blue gray.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Okay, and Commissioner Montes.

Uh no questions because I recall the applicant uh applicant's lawyer's very lengthy detailed explanation.

So no further questions.

Commissioner Tample.

I'm not against this this happening, but I guess my question is if this uh city was to do this over again.

Like, would M1 the right zone for this?

And I understand I'm just postulating here is that that's it's the only partial that's M1.

There's other zones that allow the intended, the current intended use.

It's islanded, it's not by other M1 areas.

And was that at all considered of just, hey, let's take this islanded existing M1 use because of the previous use on that site.

And instead of just rezoning this one triangle snippet, let's rezone it all to better meet the comp plan in the long run.

So before the comprehensive plan was done, it was all zoned in one.

And in general, when you're looking at zoning, you're going to look at the historical context of the property, and I believe Nolan Plumbing Supply was there prior to the 1980s.

Um they were there for a very long time, and they did operate for quite a while.

They've since relocated, but at the time of the comprehensive rezoning, they were still there and active, and the only appropriate use would be light industrial.

You'll notice it's it's not in two, it's not it's not anything heavy.

Um, but light industrial did work there.

Um we we don't generally rezone things after the comprehensive rezoning was done.

You if you look at my report and all of the sections that you have to comply with, it would be very difficult for us to try to change it now.

And so the sort of best worst option is to just make it all at least the same zone.

Understand all of that, and I think the best part of that statement is the best worst option.

Um, but no further questions, thank you.

I will just add that a lot of planning is inheriting um things that were not problems in the past, and trying to correct something that was not a problem in the past is a very difficult hurdle to overcome because you do have you know property rights and you want to maintain your industry.

Um yeah, it is just the best worst option.

Okay.

Um with that, I guess we'll ask the applicant to come up with their presentation.

Um good evening for the record, Bruce Dean with a law firm and McCurdy Dean and Gratitour on behalf of the applicant and owner of the property.

Um I first want to thank Christina for her report and for the hard work she has put in uh working with me and my client on this um application.

Um it is not that common.

I've in my 40 years almost of practicing land use law, I've done maybe two or three mapping error rezoning cases.

Usually um, certainly the city of Frederick, I don't think I've ever done one.

Um, because usually staff's really careful about where the property lines are.

And that as Christina said, there's even a bias in the land management code as there was in the prior 1986 zoning ordinance that zoning when possible should follow lot lines.

You should not create split zoning um on purpose very very often.

There is a couple reasons why you might do it, but for the most part you don't.

And as Christine also said, this property, and it's in our justification statement, and I don't want to beat it to death, but it was much bigger when it was originally established as an industrial use.

It was about 25 acres, now it's about 12 acres.

Um a lot of land was conveyed out of this property for those of you who have been here a while.

That area down there didn't used to look the way it does today at all.

There was a truck stop where Costco is, um Market Street was two lane, one lane in each direction.

That was also the main exit that you would get off of 270 to come into downtown Frederick.

So the neighborhood has changed a lot.

Um, when it when the properties was was reduced in size from 25 acres down to the 11, almost 12 acres that it is now.

I just don't think anyone was that careful about compiling a list of all the properties that were conveyed to state highway into this city to turn what was then a private road called Walser Drive into Minocase Boulevard.

So anyway, um I don't want to bore you.

We did, as Commissioner Montez said, we did provide you with a uh lengthy justification statement.

And I would just agree with um staff that this property never met the criteria for the IST zone.

Uh it was a mistake to rezone that 1.03 acres from the then residential to or then industrial to the current residential.

Um not pushing back, but I I will just tell you uh Commissioner Temple, my client has no problem with the M1 zoning.

A car dealership is permitted in M1 when we were looking at various sites.

Um I and particularly he wanted to be in the city of Frederick or as close to it as humanly possible.

And we were looking a lot of car dealerships are zoned industrial.

So I we sort of had a map, and I was looking for either gray or red on it because either one would work for him.

And this was for him uh an ideal site due to the access that there is on Market Street and Minocase Boulevard, and frankly, due to the nearby other car dealerships, both existing in plant.

Um as you all know, car dealerships like to be near each other for ease and shopping.

So with all that, uh, you know, I'm I am here to answer any questions.

I know that um this you're not making a decision tonight.

Um if you do have any questions, you know, we'll be here to answer them next month as well.

If something pops into your head between now and then.

Uh but with that, um thank you for your time and I'll see you in August.

Okay.

Uh we'll do a quick roll call starting with Commissioner Montes.

Can we get a BMW X5?

That's a joke.

I I I have to I I I have to admit I have a BMW and I have been eagerly awaiting for this dealership to open because I don't want to go to Rockville to get all the stuff done.

Agreed.

It's quite a far track.

So thank you very much.

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner Temple.

No questions, thank you.

And Commissioner Robey.

No questions either.

And I have no questions at this time either.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh the next item on our agenda will be Sunday Farm PC 25-627 annexation.

Thank you very much.

Um this is a request for recommendation to the city council for annexation of just under 52 acres to be zoned MU, which is uh our base version of the mixed-use floating zone.

The lands on the north side of the city, south of Sunday's Lane, and west of 15.

And the purpose is to expand upon the Bloomfield's age-restricted development project.

As we discussed at our workshop in May, the Bloomfields Project is the composite of two previous annexation actions, which were later addressed through an amended annexation resolution, resolution number 1725.

And that was for the purposes of laying the groundwork for the applicant to develop the property as an amenitized age restricted community.

That project has since been through the master plan process and approval and subsequent stages of the development process, including preliminary plats and final site plans, and construction is ongoing.

The land that is subject to this annexation is almost completely surrounded by the Bloomfields community, and it's the request of the applicant to develop the property as part of that project.

It's the applicant's intent to extend the terms and conditions of annexation resolution 1725 to this property so that the provisions that applied to the development of the initial 539 acres also apply to this 52 acres, including the density limitation of 1,500 units.

In considering an annexation request in your recommendation, the commission should consider whether the annexation will one, be consistent with the plans for the present and future development of the city, two, further our goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

Three, be located near existing or planned public facilities, and then lastly, if it will result in an adverse fiscal impact on the city.

To assist in the decision making process, the applicant has provided their outline for extension of services, which touches on how various public facilities will be made available to the property.

It also addresses any impacted cultural historical resources, the fiscal impact, and of course, alignment with our comprehensive plan.

That outline for extension of services forms the foundation of what will be the annexation plan, which is required under the state law, requires that a jurisdiction thoughtfully consider annexation and establish an outline of how public facilities will be provided to serve that new area.

And that'll be something that's adopted by resolution by the council.

As the impacts on public facilities are fundamentally unchanged since the previous evaluation of 2017 because we're spreading that density out now over the new newly annexed area.

New impacts beyond what were previously contemplated are not anticipated.

So I wanted to just focus on my comments on the comprehensive plan.

The municipal growth element and land use chapters of the comprehensive plan are really organized around three tiers of growth.

We have tier one, which is our in field development, and that's our priority as a city.

That's where we want to see growth occur, and that makes good sense.

It's consistent with smart growth policies where you want to place density where public facilities are already available.

You can save money on extending infrastructure, and it also creates more walkable communities as well as communities that can be served better by mass transit and other modes of getting around because you have that scale.

Tier 2 is then the area beyond our initial our immediate boundary, and that was in 2020, or I'm sorry, yeah, 2020, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, and represents the area that at that time we planned for water and sewer service.

Tier 3 is then beyond that and is the last priority for annexation.

And this is when tier one and tier two are substantially developed, tier three should be annexed.

It's also the area outside of the scope of the study of the Potomac River Water Supply Agreement, which estimated long-range needs and was the basis for cost sharing between the city and county for certain infrastructure to meet those needs.

The Sunday property is best classified as tier three based on the comprehensive plan and the maps included therein.

And therefore, we have not planned for water and sewer demands to serve this area.

However, once again, since it's the intent to spread the initial density out over this property, we've already gone through the efforts of planning and expecting those impacts for those units, and it doesn't change that.

We don't anticipate any additional evaluation would be needed.

APFO conduct study was done with the initial master plan, and provided that those certificates remain valid and don't expire otherwise under the code, the project would be able to proceed based on those assumptions.

Similarly, any impacts on traffic schools or demands for police and fire and rescue have already really been analyzed under those initial annexation applications, and the terms of the resolution that were devised reflect the impacts that were anticipated, whether that's in terms of financial contributions for road infrastructure or the density cap even itself.

While the comp plan focuses on that tiered structure, it also expressly recognizes the need for flexibility to evaluate the value that annexations bring to our community, especially in terms of promoting connectivity and tying into existing development and expanding upon that.

I'm sure the applicant will explain a little bit more in their presentation, but as you heard at workshop, uh their intent is to maximize the design potential in a way that preserves open space and uh is environmentally sensitive while still capturing that density.

Uh so from that perspective, even though this annexation won't result in additional density, which is really the intent of annexation, right?

We have a lot of goals that talk about annexing for growth.

Uh, this is kind of a net neutral annexation and on face value that might not specifically align with some of our goals to provide more housing and expecting our growing capacity.

However, um, as described in the backup materials you have in your presentation previously, uh, this annexation does meet multiple objectives as outlined in um page six of your staff report this evening, uh, various elements of the comprehensive plan, including the land use, municipal growth, housing, parks and recreation and transportation.

So uh we see fit to um uh to listen to the the policies of our comprehensive plan that um ask for that flexibility in annexation uh to further the goals of of all those different project uh policies.

With that said, we have one action that we're asking this evening, and that is a recommendation to the city council for annexation of the Sunday farm containing approximately 51.98 acres to be zoned mixed-juice MU1.

And staff's findings are that the request is consistent with plans for the present and future development of the city by expanding upon an existing development project.

Two, that the request furthers the goals and objectives of the 2020 comp plan, including those found in the land use, municipal growth, housing, parks and recreation, environmental sustainability, and transportation chapters.

Three, the property is near existing and planned public facilities, including that which will be constructed by the applicant as part of the Bloomfields ARCD.

And lastly, the annexation does not result in adverse fiscal impact upon the city.

Staff supports a positive recommendation from the planning commission to the city council for annexation as requested, with the following terms to be incorporated into the amended annexation resolution.

And they are two.

One, that the development of the property will be in accordance with all previously established provisions in resolution 1725, including the density restriction, and secondly, that the resolution acknowledges the need to amend the master plan for bloom fields to incorporate the property, and that the property will be integrated comprehensively into the developments designed for roads and pathways.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Um I want to go down an APFO rabbit hole here.

Um this is an interesting case of annexation where density is going to decrease in the city with this approval versus all the other ones where density, yeah, if an annexation is for housing density theoretically will increase very unlikely we annex in, you know, large lot homestead style developments.

Um PFO from what we see here considers, you know, for water sewer and roads, it's trips, peaking, um you know, fire flow.

It doesn't us, we're not presented with linear footage of of roadway of waterline of sanitary sewer, but uh there's an intrinsic assumption that with lower density development, you require greater numbers, you know, linear footage of road, linear footage of sanitary sewer and water.

And with that, there's a higher cost to the city that will eventually own, operate, and maintain that infrastructure against a reduced tax burden because of the lower density.

I don't think we're going to solve that problem tonight, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it and how we balance those two things outside of all the other things that the comprehensive plan is looking at us to balance against.

Sure, thank you.

Um I mean, I think firstly it's it's um important to acknowledge that sometimes the added infrastructure, depending on the design can provide um benefits though, as well, looping water systems and providing connectivity.

So the cost per square foot and the benefit how you cost benefit analysis those out is not something that we've spent a great deal of time trying to do, in all honesty, um, because there are advantages to designing the property in a way that while it might result in additional linear feat um improves design or connectivity or even the efficiency of the infrastructure.

So how you weigh those things, I think is a really interesting question, and I I don't I don't have an answer.

Um I would I would love to have an answer for you, but I don't.

Um I think that might be that might be all I think.

Um I think that might be it.

I don't know where there was something somewhere with it, and I lost it.

Um but I think it it's kind of the foundational question of annexation, right?

And uh what densities are most appropriate.

Um I think hearkening back to the flexibility that's also given, we recognize that there is kind of a time and a place for consideration of unique developments, you know, composition and how that relates.

It's not all density density density.

Um I think in areas where we have environmental constraints and we have areas where we're trying to preserve more open space, um there are advantages to not looking at it solely with that dollars and cents mindset.

No, I I agree that you know if you're lowering the density but adding in a school site or 20 acres of parkland, it you know, that cost benefit analysis comes outside of direct costs, but I just think it's an interesting um I would love to see planning explore that um through the HPFO process of really what to inform us as we review these what you know those long-term impacts of the city are outside of just you know demand peat traffic, traffic counts, right?

So I think from a broader policy question, and we're actually involved in in conducting some additional kind of build-out scenarios for the city as a whole as we plan to do additional water and sewer planning with the county and reevaluating PRWSA and the Central Sewer Service Agreement.

Um, you know, questions raised.

Why would you ever annex anything on the periphery at a lower density?

Why wouldn't you annex this as R20?

Um and then there's also a question about compatibility of the surrounding community and whether multi-story multifamily buildings clustered at the periphery of the city are are going to be as inherently compatible with the surrounding land as not.

And I think that the key really is about timing of annexation.

A project of a super high density of multi-story multi-family buildings on the periphery might not be a viable development option right now, and not thinking specifically about this project.

The question is, is it maybe not time to annex then?

Or do you want to keep that capacity on your inner growth where increased density is viable and um can be constructed and save the hinterlands until we need that additional capacity, and then that additional density out there becomes more viable, right?

So I I think annexation is largely just a timing issue.

When is the right time?

Thank you.

I don't I don't want to spend the whole evening petificating, but this is a great conversation.

Commissioner Roby.

Nice explanation.

Thank you.

Uh I had a question along the lines of Mr.

Temple.

Commissioner Temple.

Uh mine did less dealt less with the number of homes in the development than adding 50 acres of to the development.

Did that increase the cost to the city for providing the amenities the city's going to be responsible uh for providing on this uh development?

Because you're telling the city council and us that there is no result in adverse fiscal impact uh on.

So that's my question just in general.

Sure, additional infrastructure that's going to be constructed through the property will be added public infrastructure that becomes the city's responsibility for maintenance and upkeep.

Um you have to balance that, of course, against the tax revenue that's being generated by the additional units.

Um the applicant may want to speak.

They provided an updated fiscal analysis that may want to address that as well.

That looks at both short-term and long-term economic costs and benefits of annexation.

Just an observation.

I think that they added the 50 acres, and they're just spreading the original units out amongst the additional 50 acres.

So my question was really spreading the infrastructure that we are going to be providing to the houses that are in this development.

Correct.

Correct.

So to the extent that they wouldn't be able to construct the full number of units, I would defer to them, but you're correct.

I'm going to approach this from a different direction.

Because this is a learning, this is our first, my first annexation sitting in this position.

How does a city determine what its costs are that they're going to have to absorb for annexations?

And how do they determine whether that is reasonable?

And so we do require fiscal analysis to be submitted as part of the annexation application.

I'm I would be remiss to speak intelligently about how those analyses are performed and the outcomes of it.

Okay.

So that's pretty much where I was going, what you just said.

That they would have provided under the original annexation plan, they would have provided you a fiscal analysis.

When they added 50 acres to it, do they redo the fiscal analysis and tell you what the we do add these 50 acres going to cost the city an additional X amount of dollars to execute their responsibilities?

I believe we received an update to the fiscal analysis for this annexation.

Um but I would have to double check out the incorporated with the additional outline, or I failed to include it in your backup.

I'll have to locate that.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Um so Gabrielle, are you looking for that?

Is that my understanding?

You're you're going to look for that the applicant maybe could address it when we get to them.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um I'll go ahead and move on then to Commissioner Montes.

I had similar questions already.

I'd like to hear the applicant speaking.

We go from there.

Thank you.

Okay.

And that's what I was thinking is we'll go ahead at this point and ask the applicant to come up to present and hopefully after their presentation, explain uh the fiscal impacts to us.

Certainly.

Um good evening again for the record, Bruce Dean with the law firm and McCurdy, Dean in Gradator.

Um also with me this evening are Eric Soder with Rogers Consulting and Michael Natelli with Natelli Communities, who is the developer of the Bloomfields project and also the contract purchaser of the Sunday's property.

Um I'd like to thank Gabrielle for her history of the annexation that we went through three times, an original annexation in 2009, subsequent annexation in 2012, and then an amendment to those combined annexations in 2017, which created the Bloomfields active adult community.

Um we've discussed several times with a density cap for those two properties of 1,500 units.

That same 1,500 units were further analyzed and approved with the master plan for Bloomfields was approved.

However, um you keep talking about lowering density.

We're not lowering anything.

We are achieving those 1,500 units.

The preliminary plan, and I believe Eric, that's effectively what we're looking at.

Those are the lots that are approved in the preliminary plan, are less than 1,500.

We were not achieving 1,500.

And it would have been a much lesser community had they tried to achieve 1,500 rather than try to cram them in.

So just understand, you know, this planning commission, it wasn't the four of you, but this planning commission has reviewed and approved those plans.

But it was always with a kind of hole in the donut that was missing.

And so if the Sunday family had not wanted to sell this 52 acres, we would be left with somewhere significantly under 1,500.

I think it was 1300.

13 something.

So we are actually achieving close to 200 units that the city would not have otherwise gotten by proving this annexation.

So that's just sort of the one way of looking at it.

This is not a lowering of density or decreasing of density.

There is actually going to be, and I'll I'll let Eric talk to the actual numbers when he gets up here, but there's going to be significantly more units due to this annexation built in the city than there would be otherwise.

As far as the fiscal impact, um, I believe it's is contained in our outline for extension of services.

And we utilize the city's numbers updated to 2026 numbers or 2025.

I can't remember when we filed this application.

I think it was late 2025.

Anyway, so we're we're using the city's numbers for how much does the city pay typically to serve residential units, and how much tax revenue is generated for the city by those same residential units.

And so we were able to show, and I Eric, do you have the exact numbers?

I'll go over there.

Eric will go over the exact numbers, but this is a net fiscal benefit to the city by achieving the whole 1,500 units.

The other thing I would just add is, and it's relatively minor, um, but there is a per unit fee set forth in the existing annexation resolution.

You are now going to get all 1,500 units times that fee rather than just the 1,300 units times that fee.

So that's an additional benefit to the city for regional transportation improvements.

So with all that, we believe that while this is a little bit of an odd annexation, because as Gabrielle said, typically, and I've done dozens, maybe more annexations over the last several, you know, tens of years doing this.

Um I don't remember doing one previously where we weren't asking for new quote unquote growth, but but effectively it is new, quote unquote growth, because uh just to hit the dead horse one more time.

We are getting the city more housing in this project than we would be able to without this annexation.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Eric because he there's other things that go into this that he can get into.

Um but currently the property.

How does this thing work?

There.

This section of the project up to the right, does not connect to this kind of prop part of the project over here.

You people got to come out and go and around.

This up here is the future parkslash school site.

So these folks are now gonna be able to come right through and access not only each other, but also the public use site.

So there are this actually becomes a much more efficient use of ground.

Um, and there's probably fewer feet of water and sewer lines because they don't have to go around the triangle, they can go through the triangle.

So we don't think this is a negative to the city at all.

Um, and um I think it meets all of the criteria for the city council to approve the annexation.

It's as Gabrielle said, it's technically tier three, but it's surrounded by tier one, which is the city existing city.

So it's true infill, um, which tier three annexations very, very rarely are.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Eric.

Good evening.

Uh, again, for the record, Eric Soder with Rogers Consulting.

I'm gonna talk a little bit about the fiscal um uh uh analysis and then which kind of relates to your question about um efficiency and some of the land planning.

Um it's evidenced in our outline of extension of services.

Um you know, we had prepared a fiscal analysis in 2017, um, and then those were updated.

Um I think a couple of the key things, so uh the total annual, this is annual ongoing revenue totals over 20 point 21.1 million dollars, which includes revenue for property taxes, income taxes, charges for fees and services.

Even back in 2017, the one-time revenue to the city was over 12.4 million.

You know, we have to pay for everything, all the sewer connections, all the water connections and MPD fee and loom payments, water impact fees, park facility fees, et cetera.

The annual, the biggest really thing is the annual ongoing property tax revenue totaling $13.5 million.

That's $8.5, $8.4 to the county, 7.1 to the city, and $5.6 to the state.

And those numbers were actually from 2017 and was a very conservative estimate based on the assessed value.

And those values were about 50% less, 40 to 50 percent less than what we're actually seeing today.

I mean, they were in the two to 300,000 dollars.

Now the single family detached are six to seven fifty.

The Villa Project product is about 450 to 550.

So those were very conservative uh estimates, and property taxes are one of your biggest um revenue um producers in the in the city.

Um the other you know key thing with a lot of these estimates with the Tischler study that was originally done, um, but we didn't redo it, but we just know that it's it's it's consistently high, is the persons per household.

Um it was done with two point something persons per household.

Um the city, along with the county commissioned a study back in 2019 from Tischler Vice that did an analysis on the cost of growth, and um the one thing that they found, and it was also has been proven out in other uh literature and other um studies, that the actual persons per household in an active adult community is around 1.5 on.54 to be exact, um, which makes sense.

You can have some you know single um households and some double house uh double um person households, very few three.

Um so again, those estimates are very high.

Um same with water and sewer consumption.

We provided the um the city um working with our engineering, you know, uh just in terms of some of the the water uh consumption because generally used from a planning purposes, 250 to 300 gallons per day.

But we found, I mean, Michael has developed uh woodlands, so we have real time data that um gosh, I think it was less than like it was like a you know 125 gallons per day.

So you're talking about you know, almost half, if not more, reduction in water.

You know, makes sense with um just a significant reduction in persons per household.

But you're still paying the impact fees and you're still paying those service fees.

I mean the city doesn't have a lesser rate for those, so there's significant revenue.

The other key thing with that study, without us having to do our own study is the city did their study in 2019, that's that did show that active adult communities are do provide a net positive impact, fiscal impact on the county or on your services.

So this isn't you know, this is third party that both the city and the county commissioned, and it showed that it was a net positive.

And again, those assessments were very low.

I remember it, I want to say it was around 274 or 325 was the number that they were finding was the break-even point.

You know, obviously at some point um based on your property taxes, it's a net positive, but it was a pretty low number, and certainly with active adult because the amount of services are less, schools being one of the biggest things that aren't impacting that.

So that's evidenced in our um uh outline of extension.

Um just to talk a little bit about the land plan, um, as Bruce noted, um, you know, with that hole in the donut, it was always you know envisioned or planned for.

I mean, it was in our um one of our prior annexations and carried forward on the master plan to provide connections, and in your packet, I think the prior slide showed it that Bruce was talking about.

Yes, we had connections, but until you can really get on the land and plan for it, we really don't know how that's all going to kind of shake out.

Um fortunate um that the Sundays were in a in a position now with their um you know estate planning to um work with Natelli to now sell it.

So we were able to re-envision this whole area.

So as Bruce said, we're able to take that full density, spread it out, yes, along that area, but we're able to make a lot more efficiencies.

Um, you know, we deal with your staff all the time in working with you know fire and rescue, um, the trash trucks, the mailman, and how they're gonna get around.

As you can imagine, these kind of separated land bays do create inefficiencies.

So even just that alone providing a a griddet network uh even in a suburban setting is is significant.

And then just the water and sewer infrastructure, you know, allowing us to capitalize on the major water and sewer infrastructure instead of having completely separate lines everywhere.

So those, you know, while we haven't done that fiscal analysis, you know, down to that um level.

I can sit here say, you know, I I believe it's it's gonna be um a wash at best um, if not more um more efficient.

So you know, just to have uh the road connections you'll you know, have your water sewer infrastructure connections, et cetera.

On top of that, we get a better land plan.

We've got a you know, a huge green uh large infrastructure that we get to create along uh Willowbrook extended and then bloom fields.

Um we still have multiple points of access.

We were able to remove one of the multiple points of access here, because you do need two points of access in each lamb bay, and we had to have two.

This one is a crossing an environmental feature.

We don't need that anymore because we'll have not one at the roundabout, we'll have one up at Sundays uh up here, and then we'll have the other one over here where you recently approved the water tank.

And we'll have some additional ones in the future, as Bruce said, for this uh city property or park, and then one near the interchange.

But um what it allowed us to do is again realize that density.

If we were to have to achieve 1,500 units on the prior plan, it would have likely probably been like 85 percent villa product, and you we wouldn't have had you know any you know any or a little bit of single family detached.

So what we're able to achieve on this is another like 466 units.

65 percent are single family detached, and they'll be in different um lot sizes.

We have 30 percent villa product and then five percent in the cottage product.

So diversity of housing stock is also another key thing in as uh as part of the city's uh comprehensive planning efforts.

So with that, I'll pause and see if there's any additional questions.

Thank you for that.

Um we're gonna go ahead and start with Commissioner Roby.

I want to thank Mr.

Dean and Mr.

Soder for your explanations.

Uh my concern was never about the development itself.

I I happen to be a cost kind of guy.

And I believe that when this product project comes before the city council before they review it, they should know what the costs and benefits are going to be for the city.

I hadn't seen them yet, and your explanation was edifying.

So thank you very much.

That's what I was looking for.

That's a good point.

It was not meant to be critical.

It was meant to be.

No, understood.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Montes.

I would like to also thank you for the explanation, especially on the fiscal component.

Um to me personally, it makes sense.

It's like a jigsaw puzzle.

All right, it's like a missing piece.

Um a lot of connectivity, a lot of greenery.

So um no further questions.

Commissioner Tempo.

You know, when you bury a fiscal analysis on page 105 of No, I mean it's it's positive, but I uh I probably wouldn't have asked some of those questions as well.

So I apologize for that.

Um but thank you for the explanation.

Do you mind flipping to the uh current, I think it's exhibit C4, the current plan or what was previously approved?

Can you just highlight for me broadly, like understanding that this is all um part of a master plan that will have to be modified assuming uh council um approval of the rezoning?

Um where have approved site plans what already has an approved site plan.

I I mean I know some of this is in the ground and it's been existing for years, but uh if I'm not mistaken, some of this hasn't been through site plan.

Is that correct?

And if so, can you point to me one?

I think everything has been through site development plan, even this this northern piece here.

Um these we would have to have come, we would have come back.

It was only preliminary plan, so we would perhaps be coming back for site plans on both of these lay the the northern lamb bays, but everything else have gone through site development.

Because we're building out to here, like roughly right here is the pump station if you're on 15 and you see the one kind of brick building that's roughly in that area.

And it's getting all built out through here.

So that's all through site development.

It's going, you know, some of these other phases are going through improvement plan phases, but the council, this commission, the body has seen the site development plans for these land bays here.

We would would have still come back for site plan here.

We will be coming back with a revised master plan.

We'll we're gonna step back revised master plan, obviously, before we go back and do a site plan.

Yeah.

Yep.

Well, I'll get the mic eventually.

Thank you for that.

Uh no further questions at this time.

Okay.

And thank you for that explanation.

I think understanding uh the fiscal impact is very helpful for us.

That's a good question.

Um I really like understanding the fact that, hey, we wouldn't have had the about 200 units.

So that was helpful.

Um I don't have any questions at this time.

Do we have any public comment?

I don't think we do.

All right.

With that, I'm going to take it back up here, and I would be looking for a motion.

I motion for a recommendation of the city council for the annexation of the Sunday farm containing approximately 51.98 acres to be zoned to be zoned mixed use MU1 finding that the request is consistent with the plans for the present and future development of the city by expanding upon an existing development project, that the request furth the goals and objectives of the 2020 plan, including those funding the land use, municipal growth, housing, parks and recreation, and environmental sustainability and transportation chapters, that the property is near existing and planned public facilities, including that which will be constructed by the applicant as part of the bloom fields ARCD.

And then the annexation does not result in an adverse fiscal impact upon the city with the um two recommendations to council that the development of the property will be in accordance with all the previously established provisions in resolution 17-25, including the density restrictions, and that the resolution acknowledges the need to amend the master plan for bloom fields to incorporate the property, and the property will be integrated comprehensively into the developments design for roads and pathways.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's four to zero for the recommendation to council.

Thank you.

All right.

And then our last item on our agenda would be to put my glasses back on.

Uh will be Section 721, forest conservation, PC 24-224 ZTA zoning text amendment.

Thank you very much.

Um this is also a recommendation to the City Council for amendments to section 721 and 1002 of the land management code related to our forest conservation regulations.

Uh section 721 is forest conservation, 1002 is the definition section of the code.

As we discussed at the previous workshop and pre-planning commission meeting on Friday, the impetus for these amendments are updates at the state level that were required to adhere to.

There are two bills incorporated into the text amendment that Senate Bill 224 and Senate Bill 526.

In addition, we've also taken this opportunity to improve our local standards, uh, beyond which that the state requires to improve the effectiveness of our program, promote our goals for canopy coverage, and overall improve the flow and organization of the section of the code so it's more user-friendly, both for the staff, the public, and anyone um looking to um file a plan with the city.

I'm gonna walk through the most significant updates, um, and then at the end of my presentation, I'm happy to answer any questions related to things I didn't highlight.

Uh, first I wanted to talk about the state changes.

Uh so we've added to the list of exemption provisions, uh, one for solar facilities and the other one pertaining to forest management.

These exemptions um basically say if you meet one of these definitions or are one of these types of projects, you do not have to address section 721 any further.

You know, pass go, don't collect 200 on your primarily exempt from this section of the code.

We're extending the time period that we have to spend our money, and I'm I'm just going through the um kind of the structure of the code itself.

Um we have a section pertaining to our fee in lieu of uh which we can get through um development applications that can't otherwise meet the mitigation requirements on site, and that's a whole process to demonstrate that they have to pay the fee in lieu.

But once we get to the point where we've accepted the fee in lieu of, uh we currently have in our code two years or three growing seasons to spend that money.

Uh we are extending that to five years or six growing seasons consistent with the state updated model ordinance, giving us a more reasonable time period to identify locations to plant and then actually conduct the planting.

So that is a benefit to our administrative operations.

And next, much of the state uh legislation focused on reparian areas and stream buffers.

So uh these areas are now expressly stated as a priority for retention.

So when we get a forest conservation plan in and they have forest on their site, if one of the areas is a stream buffer, that is a priority for retention and would have to request a modification to remove any of that forest.

Uh these areas um also have updated requirements for a forestation under the state law.

Now, if you've met your forest conservation requirements, so you've had to plant maybe, and you planted all of the areas of the site and you still haven't wholly completed planting of any stream buffers or reparian areas, you have to plant those, even if that would put you beyond what you wouldn't otherwise owe.

There is an out to that the applicant has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the reviewing authority, and that out would be if the applicant demonstrated that it would otherwise conflict with allowable uses of the reparian area, if the land is located on park property and conflicts with the mission and established stewardship practices of the park, or if it's not suitable for the establishment and retention of plantings, in which case substitute environmental protection must be provided.

So some examples of where someone might say, Well, I can't plant this reparian buffer, or where we as the city might not want it planted.

If there were slopes that precluded survivability, maybe, if there was a associated stream restoration project that with the design somehow didn't want trees there, that would be evaluated on a case by case basis, but otherwise those areas would have to be completely planted.

Next, we get into provisions when forest is proposed to be cleared.

So we have existing forested areas and an applicant is proposing those to clear those to make way for the development.

The mitigation ratios are changing.

Any forest cleared must be replanted at a rate of one to one, one acre removed, one acre planted.

However, if the forest is not in a priority retention area, and this applies to us in the city where we're a priority funding area, it can be replanted at half an acre to one acre.

And this is a state allowance under the code.

However, even though we are a priority funding area for the state, if a priority retention area or priority planting area is identified, that would still have to be at that one to one rate.

So if we had floodplain or steep slopes or environmentally sensitive areas that are otherwise a priority, that would have to be planted at that rate of one to one.

Lastly, we've updated the code to reflect the new allowances for transit oriented development and multifamily projects for 25 that consist of 25 units or greater on a single parcel.

And these are new provisions allowed in the state code.

Obviously, balancing policy statements about density and development and what kind of development we want and the need to balance that with environmental impacts and forest conservation.

So for those two types of development, when forest is removed, it's it's I'm sorry, forest removed must be reforested at a rate of a quarter acre planted for one acre removed, or a half acre permanently protected for one acre removed.

So lesser standards for those types of development would be required.

As far as local updates, and we've discussed those both at the workshop, and then some areas where we had to step back a little bit to move forward with our state regulations.

We've added exemptions that were previously allowed under the state ordinance, but we had not incorporated it into our own code.

One pertains to forest clearing and removal of trees that are hazards to airspace defined by the FAA.

Two stream restoration projects, three, maintenance or retrofitting of stormwater management structures, and then lastly, and this is probably the most substantive, uh, we're proposing to exempt out areas covered by impervious surface that was developed prior to 1991, which is the date we established our forest conservation requirements.

Uh, those will now be subtracted from the net tracked area that you would use to calculate your requirements under Section 721.

Um and that has a relationship with our fee in lieu of requests.

Um, a lot of times we we've had pad sites out on the golden mile, um, completely 100 impervious percent impervious areas where someone is looking to plant, you know, drop in a new um pad site.

Those are currently technically subject to the forest conservation regulations, and they have very little opportunity to do anything but request fee and lie of.

Um and you're also not experiencing a situation where you have forest or you have green spaces that need to be planted because the area is currently impervious.

That does not exempt them from landscaping requirements and the light, but it really does force people into a situation where they have to request a fee and of uh that then puts more money in our pockets, and we have then the challenge of spending it on in a thoughtful way.

So this is a lend allowance under the state code, and I think will be advantageous to infill development throughout the city.

Uh we've updated our administrative procedure procedures to allow for greater flexibility for departments within the city to participate in the management of the program and the implementation of the code.

Uh, currently, now we we get all very nicely into defining the engineering department shall do this and the planning department shall do this.

And while that's helpful to an outsider who might be trying to navigate our systems, it doesn't allow us flexibility to most efficiently assign tasks to the areas where the expertise lies.

Over the past couple of years, our urban forestry division within our parks and rack department has really grown, bringing in new expertise in forest conservation and a new arborist.

So we want the flexibility to strategically be able to use the resources we have and manage our staff's time and allocation of responsibilities to make up for the lack of you know shout out in the code.

There are obviously other ways to communicate that to the public and to applicants just through general coordination and communication on applications.

So I don't think we're missing anything there.

We're extending the short-term maintenance period from two years to five years.

So this is the time period during which the city holds a bond and has a maintenance agreement with the property owner.

So you come through planning commission, you get approval of your preliminary forest conservation plan.

What the planning commission doesn't see is that there's an administrative process of a final forest conservation plan.

As part of that, when someone's planting forest, they have to execute a short-term and long-term agreement.

The short term is this maintenance agreement that stipulates the survivability rates of the plantings that they're providing, and then we hold a bond for that money.

Right now we release that after two years.

We found through experience that that two years is not always adequate to ensure the survivability, that things look great for two years, but then year three comes and things don't look so great anymore.

Um and we've let go of everyone's money, and um we don't have a surviving forest.

Uh so it's being extended to five years in order to maximize the potential of long-term survival of those plantings.

It does result in some admin added administrative costs to the city.

Obviously, we're monitoring something and doing more inspections during that time period, but we see the value in that in terms of the overall outcome.

The next two updates are related to fees that are currently incorporated into the code.

Um the challenge with putting fees in a code is that to change those fees at any time, whether it's related to inflation or cost of materials or anything, uh, administrative costs, you have to do a text amendment to amend the land management code, which takes time.

Uh we think it's much more flexible and um efficient to have those fees in our fee schedule.

That way we can address those annually as needed with the adoption of the budget.

There's still public meeting process, that's still something that has its own spot on the agenda come budget season, um, but is a little more um a little more maneuverable in terms of administrative time.

Uh the next change that we discussed at the pre-planning commission in some detail is the intent to establish a mitigation ratio for when an applicant removes a specimen tree.

So a specimen tree is now defined as those that are 30 inches or more in diameter at breast height or DBH.

Uh, the proposed ratio for removal of a specimen tree that's in fair to excellent health is to provide new plantings totaling two times the size of the speed uh the specimen tree removed.

Um if you're a specimen tree in poor health, um you're going to probably request removal of it.

It may be dangerous, um, it may likely be coming down already.

Um that does require modification, as would any specimen tree.

The planning commission has to individually consider it.

Um, but if it's in poor condition, there would be no required mitigation.

We're looking to only provide that in cases where the tree provides um long-term environmental benefits.

Uh also in the realm of mitigation, we're proposing that anyone, any time someone proposes to release an easement and clear forest that was previously required under section 1721, that new plantings be provided at a rate of two to one.

Two acres removed, one acre planted.

Um has happened on occasion where uh a development project came in and forest conservation easement was established, the forest was planted, and then for some reason in the future, someone says we need to remove it.

Um we want to create a biggest obstacle as possible to that in requiring that two to one that the applicant would then be responsible to hopefully deter it from only occurring in those situations where there is some overriding reason that it needs to occur.

Uh we revise the landscape credits to reflect the state code, and then lastly, we're proposing a preferred planting schedule where larger stock or trees need to be used as opposed to whips or seedlings, which can only be used under the proposal in areas with slopes greater than 25%, and then they would be subject to a maintenance uh period of seven years.

Once again, the intent is that people are planting larger, more sturdier stock that's going to meet those survivable limits.

Um little seedlings and whips are deer food.

Um, not that they aren't all, but um barely barely recognizable, um prone to not have a root structure that can support uh any sort of heavy rain like we have last week or other um environmental climate changes that we might experience.

So that is the breadth of our changes.

Um as I said at our pre-planning commission meeting, um, some of our local changes we did have to take a step back on, including changing the applicability, uh it's a balance of moving this forward to be in compliance with the state laws um and making sure that anything that we're proposing above and beyond can readily be implemented in a way that's consistent with its intent.

So we're we're gonna look to update those, uh continue the conversation, but want to move forward with our state updates as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Uh we'll go ahead and do a roll call starting with Commissioner Montes.

Yeah, first like to thank you all at staff.

Um I know it's probably been a blitz trying to get everything done for compliance.

Um I just had a question, so I know this is Maryland, you know, passed this this law and we're trying to get into compliance with it.

And we've gone above above and beyond on certain things.

Public comment mentioned a 12-inch topsoil requirement.

Um could you speak to that and kind of the rationale uh of exceeding kind of the baseline uh by quite a bit from Erwin?

I can speak to that as a non-arborist.

Um, my understanding of that provision is um that the intent the intent, and this is one of the areas I might receive Mr.

Alison's comments and brought it back to to our team who's been working on that includes um our sustainability manager and our arborists.

So people who have much more technical knowledge about planting specifications than I do.

I apologize, not here this evening, but um the intent is to ensure that the earth, if it has been compacted, has been tilled enough or mixed up enough to really allow that root structure to grow and not be stymied by the compacted earth.

Um that's the intent, the extent to which we need to review Mr.

Allison's comments and can take it under advisement uh and see if the wording of our code needs to be tweaked a little bit to um achieve that end but not create any unintended consequences.

Um, I think we want to look into the Commissioner Temple if with an understanding that we're gonna be voting on a recommendation or uh of some kind tonight to accommodate Mr.

Allison's comment, which I I think there is some ambiguity there, is would you be looking for a um do you need an action by us as a part of that of any motion to modify the text that we've seen before it gets to council to accommodate whatever the arborist and planning determines needs to be reflected.

Great question.

Um to the extent that the planning commission is comfortable making a recommendation that is not specific, I would say yes.

Um, generally with tax amendments, it's very difficult to sit here and come up with well, we want the words to read X, Y, and C.

Um, you know, there are certain maybe minor tweaks that maybe during the planning commission's deliberations we can land on specific language.

Um, but generally, like I said, to the extent that the planning commission is comfortable, I would recommend that you recommend um the the intent of what your aim is, right?

Like that you be able to articulate what it is you want to see staff work on or the council take into consideration as specific as you can be, um, but really capture the intent and worry less about change word, you know, 30 to 32 and change, you know, whatever.

Um I think that's most effective.

Thank you.

Okay, and do you have another question?

Go ahead.

Uh we pull on this thread a little bit on Friday, but the new plantings and replacement of the specimen tree removal.

Um this may have always been in in the in it in some form, but I find it very confusing that if it's a 30-inch diameter tree.

You have to replace that twice the size as measured in circumference.

So like we arborist landscapes don't talk in circumference.

What's the what do you know the history there?

And like to me that's it's better than radius, you know, in terms of getting an equal area, but it's still not area, and so you know, trunk area or canopy area as we were discussing.

I think the most analogous um or condenser measurement would be to replace 30 inches in diameter with plantings of two times the diameter of those plantings to basically say you remove 60 inches of specimen tree and you're gonna provide 120 inches as measured in diameter of specimen tree.

Um I think the conversation I looked back quickly over the weekend to see if I could find more um thought presses behind that, unfortunately, because this was one of our own local ordinances.

I didn't find a lot of um discourse and email or correspondence about that standard and where we landed on that.

Um, I think the intent is to try to establish as much canopy on the site as possible for the individual tree, because keep in mind that this is a a specimen tree, it's not a forested area, right?

So it's not this one-to-one anchorage.

Um, what is the value of the specimen tree and why do we want to keep it?

It's its canopy.

Um a tree that large is going to have a lot of canopy.

So the intent of the recommendation the recommended language was to establish as much canopy on the site to mitigate for that um to twice the canopy, ultimately at full maturity of the canopy lost.

Um so could there be um could that be better articulated likely so uh I think swapping circumference for area, right?

Like like because of math, you know.

Um this is not a math class, but like we I think swapping circumference from area I mean it achieves that, but it's a drastic increase in the compensation that applicants would have to do of the removal of specimen trees.

And I wish I you know we could look at kind of a 30-inch tree, a 40-inch tree, right?

Like how many trees it would be, but you're uh I don't know, and I I know that we're in staff comment right now, and um, but I just I don't know if you're gonna achieve that with double circumference versus area, but again, as I that math I was doing on Friday was like 30x, right, because of the relationship between circumference and and radius and area.

So uh I think this is a step in the right direction, um, but just throwing that out there as we finish up a staff comment and have our discussion.

And Commissioner Roby.

First off, I want to thank the staff.

I mean, the work that you all did in trying to marry the the local ordinance with the state provisions is a lot more complicated than your reading of it, and I appreciate the effort that went into both executing that work and presenting it in a clarifiable manner.

Uh the question that I have is not with the ordinance itself.

Uh I'm actually I'm I was comfortable with the explanations you gave earlier as well as the explanations you gave today.

Um what I'm asking is the people, the audience that are impacted by this that have to comply with this new ordinance.

Have they had a chance to read this ordinance and provide comment to you outside this meeting, or is this the public input uh for this ordinance change?

This is the first reading that the public will have had to look at this.

Sure.

So um we actually initiated this text amendment two years ago.

Um and at that step in the process, we we met with the land use council, we solicited feedback on the land use council being an organization of different builders, real estate interests in in the city and uh countywide.

Um we met with them, we received some feedback, we provided responses to the feedback they provided.

Unfortunately, things went on hold for a little while.

We waited for the model ordinance um to come out from the state.

Um, and then obviously the deadline of July 1 came and went, um, and and there was a renewed sense of urgency to move this forward.

Um we have not specifically conducted outreach to the land use council on this set of amendments, besides notifying them that it's on the agenda this evening and it has been posted online.

Um right prior to the meeting.

I did receive an email from Jonathan Pembroke, uh, a member of the land use committee or council who um reached out to the council members um thinking this was their meeting um provided some additional comment that um we haven't had the time to evaluate yet.

But I expect um that we will continue to receive some comment.

Um, but that that conglomerate of people most likely to file an application um that would be impacted by this.

Of course, every resident in the city is impacted um by this.

They might not be the applicants applying for a forest conservation project, um, but obviously the outcome of it is of interest to everybody in the community.

Um so encourage them to review this back up in the continued conversation with the council.

Thank you.

That's all I have right now, thank you.

Okay.

And I don't have any uh questions per se.

I liked it no, this is a tough one because you know I'm thinking of trees in my yard.

I'm thinking of some trees.

I got 10 trees for a gift one time, and which ones survived were two.

Um and they're certainly not as big as the other trees.

So I'm I'm just thinking of my personal experience there and then neighbors cutting trees down and the area.

Um if if we make a recommendation, and I understand there's additional public comment, then the council will will the council have a hearing, or will they need to make a decision in their next meeting or following meeting?

How will that work?

Uh I would generally uh expect to have a council work session.

Um there are multiple committees of the council, um, but the trend has been for text amendments because they are so far so far reaching, um, not specific to any one of the committees uh to be brought to a full work session with the council.

So that is uh 6 p.m.

meeting on a Thursday evening, um, similar format to a regular meeting, but for workshop purposes.

Uh and then um after that work session is generally when we will initiate public notice that we have a newspaper posting requirement, so we have to space it out a little bit um before the regular meeting.

Thank you for that.

That's very helpful.

Do we have any additional questions?

Yes, Commissioner Roby.

So extending on what Commissioner Teppel talked about, uh the circumference of a 15 uh 30-inch tree will have a circumference of 94 inches.

The circumference of a two-inch tree has six point two eight inches.

So you're gonna divide six point two eight into ninety-four to get the number of replacement two-inch trees have to that you need to replace it.

Yeah, and that's what I'm trying to figure out.

And I was thinking about this a little bit more, and um not to be really nerdy, right?

But uh circumference is equal to two pi r, right?

R being the radius or or pi d as the diameter, and I'll just stick with pi D as the diameter, right?

And so the relationship between the diameter and the um circumference is going to be constant to where you know it's uh between a uh we're using a two-inch one because that's the minimum correct.

Is it is a two-inch tree the minimum caliper size that it's in a as an approved planting or can you are wall here?

That is our we have the one to three gallon, five, seven gallon or one-inch caliper um in our planting schedule.

But you you raise a good point.

This is the required plantings for forest conservation areas.

Um so would there be a minimum applicable to this standard?

Okay.

Um I would say that's not expressly stated because these are um these are for the A4 station areas.

All right, so I'll I'll pivot to one inch if that's the minimum, and there's not a current mechanism in this, like the whether you use diameter or you use circumference, the canopy area does not change, right?

So it with the way the um uh uh text amendment is written now, we could strike circumference and write diameter and that you would get the same canopy area because those equations have a constant relationship.

Um pivoting to area though, and uh from if we consider a uh a one-inch diameter uh tree has a trunk area of one point five some jet dot dot dot dot dot.

You know, it's it's pi divided by two versus a 30-inch tree has a trunk area of 225 square inches.

Okay, and so that's a I hate that we're doing this math on the record because someone's gonna hold me to it.

Um a hundred plus to one trunk area.

Now canopy, and and this is where I'm I'm starting to think about our recommendation um to council.

Um canopy's not directly, you know, across every tree directly correlated to trunk area, right?

Where um you know it won't be 22 or you know a hundred times the canopy area, right?

Because a one-inch or two-inch tree could still have you know a nice six or seven um foot diameter or circumference canopy, but it's drastically different than if we're representing it based on area or canopy area than circumference or diameter.

And so what I'm thinking about is uh a recommend uh uh our recommendation potentially um having a a condition that uh planning and um the the arborist I'm sorry, is arborist in planning just for as I craft this recommendation that that planning with city staff better consider trunk area or canopy area versus diameter or circumference in replacement of specimen trees.

I think this is really where we want it to apply because these are the million dollar trees that can never be replaced in any of our lifetimes.

Like if we're gonna stick to some like it really challenging to remove these trees, this is where we want to focus.

Yeah.

Um so it sounds like there would be multiple things that we would recommend to the the council, that being one.

And thanks to Commissioner Temple for the excellent mathematics explanation.

You see, people say you'll never use geometry.

Nope.

Today we did.

Um Yeah, it would also be for the evaluation of the uh topsoil uh requirement.

Um so I guess that could be put in there too in specific terms and um anything else we put in would be uh to uh you know have like strong strong wording so that when it comes to council then they can they can take that up.

Commissioner Roby, did you have anything to add as far as conditions go?

I'm just gonna recommend the staff find a simplified process to come up with an answer so that we don't have to go through the machinations of that this discussion is involved.

That you know when we had our last meeting, we talked about having 15 two-inch trees replacing one 30-inch tree.

That sounded pretty simple to Bob.

And the s but when we start getting into canopies and circumferences and areas of trunks, that gets pretty complicated, at least intricate, and uh it's much more I would I would agree that it's complicated, right?

But if you take a 150-year-old maple tree that that's a 30-inch diameter and you replace it with 15 two-inch trees, you know uh uh assuming you they all survive as Commissioner Llewellyn indicated.

Um it's decades until you meet the similar coverage, right?

On a tree by tree basis, you're right.

Uh and I don't fault the goal.

I just fault the process.

I'm trying to find a simplified way to get to an equitable answer without getting into a debate.

So uh but you're right.

And and this is what Gabrielle talked about uh uh at the last meeting was that we want to replace canopy.

So but we just got to find a simplified process to do so.

So I was I'm gonna read two two sentences here prior to making any sort of motion.

Um staff review the definition of topsoil and provide clarity on it its definition and requirements.

That that's based on the public comment we got, which I think is um, and then um staff review the relationship between canopy area, trunk area, and tree caliper size to better maintain tree canopy area when the removal of specimen trees are considered in section G1C.

Any thoughts or modifications on the other?

I like how you said it because we're we're clearly defining what we're recommending and those conditions and and being articulating them to so succinctly that I think our intent is met.

I would just uh probably I mean it was fantastic, but I would probably just add that did you mention it was 12-inch uh exceeding like kind of the evaluation of the 12-inch topsoil requirement for this that exceeds the state level and kind of the intent behind that uh to further evaluate that.

That's probably something like that.

Yeah, uh, that further evaluate, right?

Definition and requirements to prevent confusion from applicants here.

I guess to like a yeah, it's a prevent confusion or evaluate the intent.

That sounds sounds good.

Anything else?

I get all right.

All right.

Well, I am looking for a motion on action one uh I would like to make a motion for a recommendation to the city council for amendments to section 721 forest conservation as uh with two conditions.

Uh that staff review the definition of 12-inch topsoil and provide clarity clarity on its definition and requirements to prevent confusion from future applications, and that staff reviewed the relationship between canopy area, trunk area, and tree caliber size to better maintain tree canopy area when the removal of specimen trees are considered in section G1C based on the uh these proposed amendments are consistent with the existing structure and organization of the regulations and promote the following policies of the 2020 comp plan environmental sustainability policy ES1 and environmental sustainable sustainability policy ES2.

I second.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

That's 4-0 to it for a recommendation to City Council.

Thank you.

With that meeting adjourned.

I'm starting.