Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pauses decision on MU phasing text amendment after lengthy public comment, schedules continuation
Summary
After extensive public comment and commissioner questions, the Frederick City Planning Commission on June 16 continued consideration of a zoning text amendment that would replace a fixed 75/25 phasing rule in mixed‑use districts with flexible, project‑specific phasing reviewed by the appropriate authority.
The Frederick City Planning Commission continued a proposed zoning text amendment (PC25‑55ZTA) June 16 that would replace the current mixed‑use (MU) district phasing thresholds — which currently restrict building permits for more than 75% of residential units until at least 25% of the non‑residential floor area is constructed (and vice versa) — with a framework allowing applicants to propose project‑specific phasing plans for review by the appropriate reviewing authority.
The applicant argued the existing 75/25 phasing requirement is rigid and can make full build‑out less likely because market conditions differ widely by location and over time; the applicant said greater flexibility would allow master plans and phasing to respond to local market demand. Staff recommended approval of the amendment as consistent with the code and the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, while acknowledging that master plans and code changes apply citywide.
After more than a dozen members of the public — many representing homeowners in the Renn Quarter/Wren Quarter area — spoke in opposition, commissioners asked the applicant and staff for additional materials before making a recommendation to the city council. Commission requests included: empirical data showing how the 75/25 rule has affected development outcomes (including any post‑2012 impacts from a prior amendment), comparative jurisdictional examples showing outcomes, sample project phasing plans demonstrating what a “general phasing plan” would look like in practice, and proposed criteria for when staff (rather than the reviewing authority) could approve changes to an approved phasing schedule.
The applicant (represented by Philip Palmer of Schulman Rogers and consultant Chris Moriga) said the proposal would retain reviewing‑authority oversight and that the department’s administrative change authority would only apply when APFO determinations (traffic, schools) are not affected. The commission continued the item to a July 14 workshop and asked the applicant and staff to return with the requested analyses and suggested sample criteria for administrative adjustments.
