|
For quick access, click on a title here, to jump to that article, below:
-
Thomas Johnson Apartments
-
Habitat For Humanity Grant Award
-
Parkland FIL Use
-
All NAC meeting/NAC 11 meeting re: Hotel
-
Historic Preservation Commissions
-
City Charter Review
-
County Council: Ijamsville +55 Senior Facility and S. Frederick Corridor Small Area Plan
-
State Legislature Decisions Impacting Frederick City and County
-
Assuring Sufficient Schools to Meet the Growing Need in Frederick County
-
Westside Regional Park Update
-
Code Changes for Native Landscaping in the City of Frederick
-
Upcoming Meetings and Events
Thomas Johnson Apartments
On
March 18, Ausherman Properties indicated that the company would pay
fees in-lieu (FIL) for not building the required 10–11 MPDU units for
the proposed development at the Thomas Johnson Apartments, citing
‘obligations and red tape’ for not constructing the units while
targeting renters at 80–120% of AMI. With PC member and City staff
support, the developer’s justification was accepted, thereby not
providing sorely needed affordable housing for our low-moderate income
residents. CRG acknowledges the legitimacy of the developer’s assertion
of obligations and red tape yet wonders if the concept of “mixed income”
housing, a key goal of the MPDU program, is appreciated or endorsed by
the City. In response, CRG suggests overcoming these impediments might
be accommodated by assistance of an MPDU expert in Planning (or other
relevant staff) to guide developers throughout the MPDU development and
maintenance process. As well, outreach to Montgomery County which has a
robust MPDU program without any FIL “buyout” might be worth considering.
Habitat For Humanity Grant Award
On
March 21, the Board agreed unanimously to support a $200,000 grant
(using City Housing Funds, derived from MPDU FIL collections) to Habitat
for Humanity to cover unforeseen costs associated with the project on
All Saints/Ice Streets. Alderpersons acknowledged how important this
project is to help low-income families build wealth as the 12 units will
be condos not rentals — a good step forward to provide housing and an
opportunity to build equity for this portion of our community. But are
there other public or public-private partnerships that should be pursued
to support the needed housing while amassing MPDU funds to build (or
provide seed or gap financing for) mixed-income housing? CRG looks
forward to new options to provide housing in a diverse mixed-income
complex, help build equity for lower-to-moderate income persons, and
dramatically expand public-private options to build more housing.
Parkland FIL Use
On
March 20, the Board of Aldermen (BOA) decided to allow a FIL to
eliminate the parkland requirement in an 11-unit townhouse development
off Baughmans Lane. The dedicated portion of the land would be less than
3 acres, thus not viable for Parks and Recreation. There was some
confusion among Alderpersons about what the funds could be used for if
not a park. Bottom line: Parkland fees can only be used to fund parks or
pay off park debt and not for any other City need.
All NAC meeting/NAC 11 meeting re: Hotel
The
hotel/conference center workshop was presented at the all-NAC City
planning meeting on Monday, March 18, and discussed during the NAC 11
meeting on March 19. There was also some discussion of the project at
the East Frederick Rising meeting on March 20 where Richard Griffin
confirmed the project is moving forward but the recognition that some
hurdles remain. The major point raised was that the site plan reveals an
approximately 10% smaller hotel/conference center than originally
proposed. Concern was expressed about the magnitude of the public side
of the proposed partnership. The developer and the City have apparently
agreed to go forward with a plan that will allow full parking, necessary
for the project to be accommodated on-site with two levels of
underground parking in the plans. The impact on traffic from
hotel/conference center activities was not discussed but will be
included as part of the APFO submittals later in the review process. The
proposed site plan could not be found on the City website. More
transparency and details are required.
Historic Preservation Commissions
City HPC:
Item 11 on the long March 28 Historic Preservation Commission agenda
was a demolition plan for 69 S. Market Street. This plan is a piece of
an overall development project for a mixed-use 5 story building just
south of Carroll Creek Linear Park. A demolition plan for 77 S. Market
Street (one of the three lots devoted to the new construction) has been
proposed; this demolition plan was not approved at a prior workshop as a
tie vote by members prevented a decision on whether the structure was
contributing (historic) or not. The overall proposal received both
positive and negative comments.
Clearly, the developer took careful note of the comments and has
revised/reworked the development plan, including the demolition at 69 S.
Market Street. Instead of retaining only the east and north facades of
the historic building, the entire shell will be retained and
incorporated into the (yet undefined) new construction. Some defining
features will be removed — most significantly the rear (west) facing
open porches. After lengthy discussion, commissioners agreed that, until
they had a better idea of the revised overall development, they were
unable to make any substantive comments on the demolition plan for 69 S.
Market Street. This agreement led to a decision that the developer
would provide revised renderings and/or a revised overall site plan at
the time of or prior to the April 11 HPC workshop focusing on demolition
of the possibly non-contributing (non-historic) 77 S. Market Street
building. CRG members have volunteered to help residents of the 69–77 S.
Market Street development area understand proposed demolitions and
specific future construction to guide their interactions with the
developer and City staff in finalizing this area plan. This is an
important project for downtown with several moving and interrelated
parts. Stay tuned!
County HPC: On April 2, the County Council adopted an
amended ordinance providing that when the County identifies private
property that should be considered a historic property, the owner has
the right to provide comment. Although it would be unlikely that an
owner would not offer comment without the amended rule, this guarantees
owner input. This is an important stipulation because once designated
‘historic’ or ‘a contributing resource’, the owner has fewer options in
modifying the property.
City Charter Review
On
March 27, the Board of Aldermen (now informally addressing itself as
the Council and Council members) reviewed and discussed Charter Review
Committee (the Committee) Recommendations #5 and #6, age and residency
requirements and term limits.
Recommendation #5: Age and Residency requirements for
the Mayor and Council members. In general, Council members agreed that
the revised Charter should include such requirements. As for age, the
Committee’s recommendation is 18 for a council member and 21 for Mayor.
Council members thought a minimum age of 18 should be required for all
offices, though some opined that age 21 was an appropriate minimum age
for Mayor. If this differential age minimum were applied, however, what
happens if a mayor pro tem (the highest popular vote recipient or elected by her/his peer council members) is under age 21?
Recommendation #6: As for residency requirements, the
Committee recommended a minimum 3-year residency for Mayor and a 1-year
residency for Council members. Again, Council members concurred with a
need for a residency requirement but were not sure about the length of
such. The City Attorney asserted that the 1-year requirement was more
legally defensible, adding that other jurisdictions have been
unsuccessful in the courts when attempting to impose a longer residency
requirement. The most critical issue, added council members, is the
City’s (or the Legislative body’s) ability to enforce residency
throughout the term of the elected official, reflecting on past Mayors
and (then aldermen) who resided (officially) in other jurisdictions
during their term but were allowed to remain in office.
County Council: Ijamsville +55 Senior Facility and S. Frederick Corridor Small Area Plan
On
March 20, the County Council voted to rezone 35 acres for Knowledge
Farms, a mixed-use age restricted (i.e., 55+) community in Ijamsville.
There would be 150 assisted living beds and 147 age restricted units.
The primary obstacle is a second access to MD 355, requiring MD SHA
approval. Although providing housing for older members of our community
is a necessity, there is no mention of affordable housing for the
development, raising fear for more extraordinarily expensive housing for
well-off residents without addressing reasonable housing prices for
low-to-middle income seniors or others https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/economy_and_business/real_estate_and_development/county-council-approves-rezoning-for-ijamsville-mixed-use-development-with-conditions/article_528c4626-4e80-5f71-a30e-34f738630027.html.
In a first, very positive and inspiring meeting, the Council
also unanimously adopted the S. Frederick Corridor Small Area Plan
applying form-based code, a zoning approach that emphasizes
consistent building and street designs versus assigning specific uses to
individual properties in an area (e.g., residential, industrial,
commercial, institutional, etc.). The area between routes 85 and 355,
out to Buckeystown and the Monocacy Battlefields, will be a high-density
zone built around an extensive interconnected street network and
parkland. Implementation of the plan is the next major step and CRG
applauds County Planning staff’s willingness to incorporate input from
residents, businesses, and developers to revitalize the largely
commercial and industrial area as well as the Planning Commission and
Council for their continuous support for this progressive plan. Now for
the City’s languishing East Street Corridor’s form-based code effort:
What’s taking so long?
State Legislature Decisions Impacting Frederick City and County
Residential Sales / Contract Disclosures:
CRG congratulates members Betty Law and Bobbi Huber for their efforts
as a part of a small team trying to initiate legislation to inform
future homeowners about nearby Superfund sites. The legislation,
HB0486/SB0125 (Residential Property Sales — Contract Disclosures —
Superfund Sites), was sponsored by Delegate Fair and Senators Lewis
Young and Folden, recently passing through the House and Senate in
Annapolis. The bill is currently in final legislation processing. Key
points in the legislation are notification through a signed disclosure
statement that the home being purchased is within one mile of a National
Priorities List Superfund Site. The buyer will have a 5 day right of
rescission if they decide not to make the purchase. This will ensure
that people moving into an area potentially impacted by a Superfund
site, like Fort Detrick's Area B, have the information they need about
the site's potential health impacts to keep their families safe. Mrs.
Law and Ms. Huber want to thank Senators Lewis Young and Folden and
Delegate Fair for their efforts. Also special thanks to Clean Water
Action and Jennifer Kunze (of that organization and our team member) and
Jen Hahn (our team lead) for their efforts in keeping the bill on track
and guiding us through the process.
Data Center Legislation: Ms. Law is also to be
congratulated for her strong and repeated commitment to encouraging our
legislators to adopt responsible data center building and operation
requirements through her assistance to Senator Karen Lewis Young.
Unfortunately, the governor and state legislators seem to be primarily
focused on the theoretical $41M tax revenue and job projections
predicted from data center construction and performance. The Governor's
bill is in direct conflict with the legislature’s passage of its own
requirements for carbon emissions, power demand, and commitment to
renewable energy sources in the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022. The
Governor’s legislation (SB474/HB579) eliminates the Public Service
Commission’s role in regulating diesel generation, thereby removing a
critical check on unlimited data center back-up energy-supported
operations. The existing PSC process would not have automatically
rejected diesel generators but could have imposed environmental
restrictions or compensation for emissions. CRG is concerned about the
positive posture of (some) environmentally committed representatives to
this data center legislation. However, due to pressure brought by
Senator Karen Lewis Young and a few colleagues, environmental groups,
and individuals, amendments to the legislation have been adopted. The
Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) will report to the General Assembly
every two years on the feasibility of clean emergency backup
generation, ideally to be used to pressure data center adoption of new,
cleaner backup technology as it becomes available. Further, the League
of Conservation Voters’ amendment would divert 15% of the revenue from
data centers to a fund that will meet the state’s climate goals. It’s
anticipated that next year more concessions may be won from the
Governor, Assembly, and data center lobbyists.
Assuring Sufficient Schools to Meet the Growing Need in Frederick County
Frederick
City and County are in dire need of more schools to meet anticipated
population growth. Every effort should be made to advance one or more of
the options below that move projects forward. The County and the
impacted municipalities can best address this need only by working
together. No longer can a City, e.g., Frederick, allow extensive
development while abdicating responsibility to the County for our
children's education: any developer who is seeking to be part of our
County's and City's growth must be told from the beginning that they
need to be true partners in the allocation of both land and financial
support towards school construction.
Options:
#1: Embracing an urban school concept (i.e., city schools in dense population areas) especially where land/space are limited.
#2: Forward funding:
Basically, a contract between the developer and the County where the
developer agrees to fund and build a school for a pre-determined
purchase price by the County. This process helps expedite and
potentially expand construction of needed schools and has reportedly
been used more than once in Frederick County both in the building of
schools (Waverly) and for the FCPS Administrative offices.
#3: Lease back construction/P3:
Currently utilized in Prince Georges County as part of their multiple
funding options approach to help build 18 schools (6 of which opened
this year) in 10 years. The basic premise is that the developer funds,
builds, and maintains the school for 30 years. During that time, the
County pays off the debt annually from its Operating Budget and takes
over the school at the end of the 30-year period. The advantages are
obvious - faster builds and more schools with the expense (to the
County) more easily allocated over an extended time period.
#4: Co-locations:
Combining undeveloped, limited public parkland space with a critically
needed school to enhance utilization of both. An urban school concept
(see #1 above) for an elementary school works in this configuration.
Baltimore County has used this model successfully in Parkton, MD.
#5: Wait for money from the State to slowly, slowly drop from the legislature. Not Recommended.
We
(the City and County along with developers) need an all-hands-on-deck
approach to put Frederick back on track to providing a quality education
for our children. As the City and the County population base grows at
the fastest rate in Maryland, anything less is unacceptable. The
Maryland General Assembly has taken the initiative under bills SB
1152/HB 1016 to establish a Frederick County School Construction Master
Plan Workgroup to comprehensively evaluate all school facility needs in
the County and explore solutions including those mentioned above. If
adopted these bills would require that any recommendations be adopted by
the end of the year. CRG applauds this effort and encourages Frederick
County and City officials to fully support and engage with this
workgroup.
Westside Regional Park Update
On
behalf of the City, The Ausherman Family Foundation sponsored public
meetings on April 2 and 3 to give residents an opportunity to provide
input on their needs and preferences for a completed park on the west
side. On the one hand, the primary focus of the Sports facilities
consultant group describes athletic fields and a sport complex designed
to attract regional tournaments and events from outside the City. On the
other hand, residents of the surrounding west side community — who will
be the primary users of the park — advocated for more traditional
non-athletic amenities. Chief among these preferred amenities would be a
full-fledged Community Center to serve the needs of the residents on
the west side. In addition, sheltered picnic areas, bike paths, and
ample green space could make the park more family-friendly along with
providing a safe environment for all.
The major challenge in the development of the park is developable space.
CRG supports an effort that looks to maximize the best of both worlds —
offering key athletic components while assuring construction of the
critical assets that will help enhance the quality of life for
local residents.
Code Changes for Native Landscaping in the City of Frederick
At
a City workshop on April 3, Jenny Willoughby, the City's Sustainability
Manager, submitted proposed changes to the City's code to match
Maryland House Bill 322 (legislation that prohibits imposing
unreasonable limitations on low-impact landscaping, such as rain
gardens, pollinator gardens, and xeriscaping).
The Sustainability Department supports efforts to improve habitat,
reduce energy costs, capture and treat stormwater onsite, and reduce
outdoor watering needs through low-impact landscaping. This update to
City code would provide specific definitions (for managed low-impact
landscapes, native plants, noxious weeds or plants, invasive plants,
pollinator gardens, rain gardens, meadows, xeriscapes); aesthetic
requirements; and maintenance requirements that will provide guidance on
how low-impact gardens can fit into the Cityscape.
To watch a video of the workshop online and learn more specifics of the proposal, go to https://cityoffrederick.granicus.com/player/clip/5892?view_id=45&redirect=true. There will be more discussion of the proposed code changes in future City meetings.
Upcoming Meetings and Events
City Planning Commission, April 8, City Hall, 6 PM:
Workshop and hearings of multiple new developments, including 226 W.
South Street; Belle Air Planned Neighborhood Development; Sycamore
Springs Planned Neighborhood Development; Wormans Mill Court Apartments.
https://cityoffrederick.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=12&event_id=4174
City Charter Review Legislative Session, April 10, City Hall, 1 PM: Recommendations 8, 9, 10, and 11
County Planning Commission, April 10, Winchester Hall, 9:30 AM:
New construction in Middletown, Libertytown, and Frederick.
Additionally, a Site Development Plan approval to construct two
buildings totaling approximately 550,000 square feet of warehouse space
in New Market. https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/15112
|
No comments:
Post a Comment