OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop – August 17, 2026

Planning Commission — Monday, August 17, 2026
BodyFrederick, Maryland
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, August 17, 2026
StatusNEW · FILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:52:19
Transcript — Verbatim
0:30

Welcome to the uh August 17th, 2026 workshop uh for the Frederick Planning Commission.

0:38

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

0:47

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

0:55

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

1:05

Following the applicant presentation, the commission will then ask any questions of the applicant, and then we'll then ask the staff to add their comments, followed by the commission questions and comments to staff.

1:17

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

1:21

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

1:28

Anyone wishing to make public comment is asked to sign on the assignment sheet over here on the table on the sidewall.

1:35

And uh and when taking public comment, we will invite the people up on the order that they signed up on the sheet.

1:42

Anyone who has not signed up will be given the opportunity to comment.

1:46

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

1:50

Public comments are three minutes long.

1:52

You'll be able to see the timer over here on the left.

1:56

My left, and uh give your name, address, lost my space.

2:03

Uh when the timer turns yellow, you have 30 seconds remaining for your comments.

2:07

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

2:16

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

2:30

Do you solemnly swear to 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?

2:40

If so, answer I do.

2:42

Thank you.

3:00

The applicant come up.

3:01

Thank you.

3:08

Good afternoon.

3:11

Um vice president with Ryan Holmes.

3:14

Um today we're coming here to um add an additional floor plan to the already approved Sycamore Springs Architectural Um approvals.

3:25

So in our packet.

3:29

Um essentially what we've done is we've added the Allegheny floor plan.

3:34

Um, I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that.

4:05

Maybe one more, I'm sorry.

4:16

Okay.

4:18

Um so we're proposing to add uh what is called the Allegheny floor plan.

4:22

Um it's it's 2200 square feet, so looking as um interest rates continue to be elevated, uh looking for a single family product that's a little bit smaller and more affordable.

4:33

Um with that being said, what we've tried to identify um in our application is the achieving elements that the Allegheny does provide with you know the different architectural elements for approval.

4:49

So we're proposing three separate elevations, AC and K.

4:54

Um A has a front porch portico with the option for a full porch.

5:00

B comes with a full porch and has uh a stone water table, and then K is uh what we call our cottage elevations and has a full front porch, uh stone veneer, and then also board and batten siding.

5:16

Um as we scroll to the side elevations, um we're proposing, much like we've gotten approved in the remaining uh portion or remaining elevations and floor plans for Sycamore Springs of having masonry water tables on A and C to the foundation line, and on elevation K, it'll go to uh the bottom of the side windows.

5:42

And that's on the next page.

5:45

Uh one more down, I'm sorry.

5:56

Um and you will notice we do have a one over one window on the right hand side.

6:01

We have submitted as well a modification uh for this window.

6:06

Um it's a privacy window in a powder room, so we like to have some natural light into the powder room, but also respect the privacy of of the homeowners.

6:16

Questions.

6:20

We'll do a roll call, Mr.

6:22

Montes.

6:23

Yeah, I'm sorry, can you just walk me through specifically?

6:28

So you said it's the right side elevation.

6:30

So this is like for uh like a powder room correct.

6:34

We're looking for to add the additional windows.

6:37

Um so the additional window is already existing there.

6:40

Okay.

6:40

Um we're we're seeking a modification so it adheres to the to the city approved plans.

6:46

All right, thank you.

6:49

Commissioner Temple.

6:52

Yeah, thank you.

6:53

Um you say powder room, uh the elevation same mud room.

7:00

Is that the same thing?

7:01

I think of a mud room without having a bathroom and not requiring privacy, unlike a powder room, which would require privacy.

7:10

It should say powder room.

7:12

Okay, so it so it is a potter room.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Architectural Design███████████████████████████27%
Affordable Housing████████████████16%
Zoning And Land Use███████████████15%
Mixed Use Development████████████12%
Site Plan Approval████████8%
Historic Preservation█████5%
Procedural████4%
Active Transportation███3%
Landscape Design███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Frederick Planning Commission Workshop – August 17, 2026

The Planning Commission held a workshop on August 17, 2026, to review five development projects: Sycamore Springs architectural amendments, 404-420 E. Patrick Street architectural review, 437 N. Market Street (Steam Bakery) final site plan, The Heights at Himes final site plan and plat, and Renn Quarter Lot 2 preliminary plat and final site plan. No votes were taken; the workshop provided feedback for applicants to address before formal hearings.

Public Comments & Testimony

No members of the public spoke during the meeting. One written public comment regarding The Heights at Himes (from the owner of Dutch’s Daughter) was noted by staff, who reported that the applicant’s revised plan addressed the concerns.

Discussion Items

1. Sycamore Springs (PC22-514-07PND) – Architectural Review

  • Applicant: Ryan Holmes (Harris Smariga & Associates) proposed adding a smaller floor plan (“Allegheny,” 2,200 sq. ft.) to the approved Sycamore Springs community, with three elevation options. A modification was requested for a privacy window in a powder room.
  • Commission Questions: Commissioner Temple asked to clarify that the window serves a powder room (bathroom) rather than a mudroom. No other concerns.
  • Staff Comment: No additional comments.
  • Outcome: The commission received the presentation and noted the clarification. No further action needed before hearing.

2. 404-420 E. Patrick Street (PC23-1411-05ARCH) – Architectural Review

  • Applicant: Andrew Welker (Oshman Properties) and Rosanna Torres (GTM Architects) presented a second workshop for the Wisner Apartments, responding to prior feedback. Key updates: specified PVDF coating for metal panels (30–40 year durability), studied thermal comfort at balconies, provided photorealistic renderings showing brick articulation, and detailed HVAC screening. Modifications sought: use of metal panel as accent material and brick piers at base instead of stone.
  • Commission Questions: Commissioner Temple appreciated the thorough response and confirmed PVDF specification. Commissioner MacShane asked about compensating design features (public art, street activation). Commissioner Roby praised the brick detailing and coating durability.
  • Staff Comment: No additional comments.
  • Outcome: The commission expressed satisfaction and encouraged the applicant to proceed to a formal hearing.

3. 437 N. Market Street – Steam Bakery (PC26-149FSI) – Final Site Plan

  • Applicant: Mary Patton (Fox and Associates) proposed converting commercial space to seven additional residential units (total 10) in a historic building. No modifications requested. Plans include streetscape improvements on W. Fifth Street, removal of curb cut, and enlarged tree wells. Parking not required per zoning; applicant is exploring off-site options.
  • Commission Questions: Commissioner MacShane asked about parking availability. Commissioner Roby noted inconsistencies in elevation notes regarding bricking in a door, suggested reusing existing doors, and requested better depiction of rooftop access and waterproofing. He also suggested more interesting third-floor windows, but applicant noted HPC approval limits changes.
  • Staff Comment: Staff concurred with applicant’s summary; noted compliance and no modifications.
  • Outcome: The commission provided design suggestions; applicant will address notes before hearing.

4. The Heights at Himes (PC26-131FSI / PC26-133FSU) – Final Site Plan & Plat

  • Applicant: Sean Benjaminson (Adtek) presented a 146-unit affordable housing development (100% moderate-priced dwelling units) on seven acres adjacent to the Prospect Center, with a 6,000 sq. ft. daycare. Five modifications requested: single access point, off-site parking (76 spaces at existing county lot), forest conservation (removal of specimen tree and forest easement for hiker-biker path), reduced buffer along bike path, and parking lot landscaping reduction.
  • Commission Questions: Commissioner MacShane questioned the building placement (originally at corner), pedestrian connections, moving truck loading, and sidewalk width on Himes Avenue. He requested a site overview showing relationship to existing Prospect Center. Commissioner Montez asked about playground safety and distances, confirmed the specimen tree could not be saved due to fire access, and addressed public concern about parking spillover. Commissioner Roby asked about walking paths from off-site parking, elevation changes, and ADA compliance. He commended the 100% affordable housing commitment.
  • Staff Comment: Staff confirmed the project fails school capacity at high school level (103% of state-rated capacity); applicant will pay mitigation fee. The Dutch’s Daughter concern was clarified (playground moved away from property line).
  • Outcome: The commission requested additional details on pedestrian routes, grading, and loading; applicant will provide an overview exhibit at hearing.

5. Renn Quarter, Lot 2 (PC26-104PSU/FSI) – Combined Preliminary Plat and Final Site Plan

  • Applicant: Brian Morris (Matin Companies) and Chris Mariga (Harris Smariga & Associates) presented a 30,000 sq. ft. retail center with four buildings on Monocacy Boulevard. Modifications: reduced parking lot setback/buffering from internal property line (compensated with additional landscaping), and setback of one building to accommodate a drive-through and grade changes (20-foot fall across site).
  • Commission Questions: Commissioner Montez asked about completion timeline (~2 years), pedestrian connectivity to Carroll Creek trail, and the discrepancy between earlier renderings showing retail on both sides of Bond Street versus current plan. He expressed concern about the drive-through and asked applicant to stay true to street-facing design. Commissioner MacShane asked about tenant interest (neighborhood retail, named restaurant types) and requested comparative examples of grade changes. He also noted a mention of a “hotel” in earlier materials; applicant clarified no hotel planned.
  • Staff Comment: Staff found the plan consistent with the master plan and original APFO certificates.
  • Outcome: The commission requested additional visualizations of grade transitions and asked the applicant to consider more pedestrian-friendly design at the hearing.

Key Outcomes

  • Sycamore Springs: No changes required; proceed to hearing.
  • 404-420 E. Patrick Street: Commission satisfied; proceed to hearing.
  • Steam Bakery: Applicant to correct elevation notes, consider door reuse, and provide additional roof details before hearing.
  • Heights at Himes: Applicant to provide overview exhibit, pedestrian path details, loading area consideration, and sidewalk width analysis for hearing.
  • Renn Quarter: Applicant to provide grade comparison renderings and further address pedestrian connectivity and drive-through impact at hearing.
  • General: No votes taken; all items will return for formal public hearings at future meetings. The commission thanked applicants for responsive presentations.

Meeting Transcript

Welcome to the uh August 17th, 2026 workshop uh for the Frederick Planning Commission. Before beginning today's proceedings, I'd like to give an overview of the process we will follow today, since it's a little bit different than the process we use for hearings. For each item on our agenda, we will begin the conversation with the applicant by having them come up to the front table and walk us through their project. For those of you new to the process, we do ask that you provide a thorough overview of your application, specifically addressing any modifications that you're requesting. Following the applicant presentation, the commission will then ask any questions of the applicant, and then we'll then ask the staff to add their comments, followed by the commission questions and comments to staff. After the staff presentation, we may go back to the applicant for additional questions. We will then ask for public comment, and if needed, go back to the applicant and our staff with additional questions. Anyone wishing to make public comment is asked to sign on the assignment sheet over here on the table on the sidewall. And uh and when taking public comment, we will invite the people up on the order that they signed up on the sheet. Anyone who has not signed up will be given the opportunity to comment. Before beginning public comments, please give your name, address. Public comments are three minutes long. You'll be able to see the timer over here on the left. My left, and uh give your name, address, lost my space. Uh when the timer turns yellow, you have 30 seconds remaining for your comments. Before speaking publicly at the meeting regarding any application, must be sworn in prior to giving their remarks, including the applicant, uh city staff and members of the public. Therefore, at this time I ask that anyone who anticipates giving comment or testimony on any agenda item today, please stand to be sworn in. Do you solemnly swear to 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. Thank you. The applicant come up. Thank you. Good afternoon. Um vice president with Ryan Holmes. Um today we're coming here to um add an additional floor plan to the already approved Sycamore Springs Architectural Um approvals. So in our packet. Um essentially what we've done is we've added the Allegheny floor plan. Um, I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. Maybe one more, I'm sorry. Okay. Um so we're proposing to add uh what is called the Allegheny floor plan. Um it's it's 2200 square feet, so looking as um interest rates continue to be elevated, uh looking for a single family product that's a little bit smaller and more affordable. Um with that being said, what we've tried to identify um in our application is the achieving elements that the Allegheny does provide with you know the different architectural elements for approval. So we're proposing three separate elevations, AC and K. Um A has a front porch portico with the option for a full porch. B comes with a full porch and has uh a stone water table, and then K is uh what we call our cottage elevations and has a full front porch, uh stone veneer, and then also board and batten siding. Um as we scroll to the side elevations, um we're proposing, much like we've gotten approved in the remaining uh portion or remaining elevations and floor plans for Sycamore Springs of having masonry water tables on A and C to the foundation line, and on elevation K, it'll go to uh the bottom of the side windows. And that's on the next page. Uh one more down, I'm sorry. Um and you will notice we do have a one over one window on the right hand side. We have submitted as well a modification uh for this window. Um it's a privacy window in a powder room, so we like to have some natural light into the powder room, but also respect the privacy of of the homeowners. Questions. We'll do a roll call, Mr. Montes. Yeah, I'm sorry, can you just walk me through specifically? So you said it's the right side elevation. So this is like for uh like a powder room correct. We're looking for to add the additional windows. Um so the additional window is already existing there.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com