[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6475377,"mediaKeyId","5734441-cc4dd6188d006910e004af3d4ca75ceb","parentId",5734441,"title","Planning Commission actions: approvals for water tower, medical office and apartments; multiple landscaping and lighting modifications OK'd","audioSeconds",7020,"startMs",7020000,"endMs",-1,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734441-cc4dd6188d006910e004af3d4ca75ceb&start=7020&end=0","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734441-cc4dd6188d006910e004af3d4ca75ceb/thumbnail_7020000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6475377/Frederick-City/Frederick-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-actions-approvals-for-water-tower-medical-office-and-apartments-multiple-landscaping-and-lighting-modifications-OKd","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6475377-0e8e0566e7af1c809ea6808d6ef770d7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485461&Signature=bTj6cv9nmjXul-J1bhOoyQ5oWwhI9W1cBXwKR~wggSxAVeK1GC8WzvxNIensRY72RZFMXja0OsRbDxhkQt7eyfO5gKRXyMgCvyPwuOUBiOBR7EGTj6m5Y0lkmlxJTH~K2Ud6Lmkn5BXveNlRZe68N9syQDRYwL9bMpp~UCFTepbvNpnhLfjWRP6Dv16RbdHFECWBbVYYDt3r4q6LQCn0KJQ5eV5g84PaihgAwY4Wr0u5S1rV1eV3DAiehIS1cYipMduA5I62IQ6mY4BrE0~r1UuRP4rn~C6nU3KkpURYj-BZBuDKhirowqDkgY9nO~0LHwaYGEjZgW~OjQ5AP8iV0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Frederick","date","2025-09-08T00:00:00Z","article","The Frederick City Planning Commission voted on multiple final site plans and related modification requests on Sept. 8. Key outcomes are summarized below.

Bloomfield water tower (PC-25-79 PSU/FSI)
- Action: Approved a modification to allow barbed wire on top of a 9.5‑foot security fence around the tower site and approved the combined preliminary plat / final site plan for the city water tower parcel.
- Why it matters: The 1‑million‑gallon water tank and associated security fencing are part of planned utility infrastructure for the Bloomfield area. Staff found the proposed fence was consistent with public‑utility security needs and recommended compensating landscape plantings.
- Vote: Modifications and final approval passed unanimously.

Advanced Implants & Periodontics – Frederick Research Park, Lot 8E (PC-25-161 FSI)
- Action: Approved three modifications (eliminate the required large off‑street loading space for the smaller medical office; reduced buffer tree counts where utilities or stormwater features prevent planting; and reduced parking‑lot buffer trees in one location with compensating planting elsewhere) and approved the final site plan for a 9,734‑square‑foot dental/medical office.
- Why it matters: The lot is the last undeveloped parcel in the Frederick Research Park and staff found compensating features (additional on‑lot trees and reduced impervious area) that met the intent of the code.
- Vote: All motions passed unanimously.

Warman’s Mill Court Apartments final site plan and forest conservation (PC-24-1008 FSI; PC-24-1009 PFCP)
- Action: The commission approved four modifications to lighting, buffering and street‑tree requirements (to account for narrow right‑of‑way widths, utility easements, and stormwater facilities) and approved the final site plan for a 306‑unit multifamily project with a small non‑residential building; commissioners also approved the preliminary forest conservation plan and a modification to remove selected specimen trees after staff and applicant materials documented constraints.
- Why it matters: The project is proposed as a 100% affordable (Low Income Housing Tax Credit) development that includes on‑site public access improvements and developer contributions for rails‑with‑trails; several modifications were granted because of existing utility corridors and floodplain constraints. Conditions include Council approval of any fee‑in‑lieu for parkland and MDE approval of flood‑plain modifications prior to mass grading.
- Vote: All motions passed unanimously.

Other procedural items
- The commission continued the Frederick Health Village master plan (PC-24-662) to Nov. 10, 2025 to allow the applicant to provide written phasing commitments linking mitigation to building permit triggers (motion passed unanimously).
- The commission recommended denial to City Council of a text amendment (PC-25-55 ZTA) that would have allowed administrative modification of MU phasing; commissioners asked staff to draft a denial letter asking the council to pursue a broader economic review and a clearer public process before changing the code (unanimous).

Meeting note: All approvals were made with the typical technical conditions (e.g., recording of subdivision plats, final engineering sign‑offs, and any state or federal environmental permits where noted).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Frederick - Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission approved a water tower site plan, a medical office final plan and a 306‑unit affordable apartment complex on Sept. 8 while granting targeted landscaping, lighting and loading modifications tied to utilities and floodplain constraints.","taxTitle","Frederick City, Frederick County, Maryland","taxId",4996,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6475382,"Planning Commission recommends denial of proposed MU phasing text amendment, asks council for broader study",2715,3551000,6266000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734441-cc4dd6188d006910e004af3d4ca75ceb&start=3551&end=6266","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734441-cc4dd6188d006910e004af3d4ca75ceb/thumbnail_3551000.jpg","/articles/6475382/Frederick-City/Frederick-County/Maryland/Planning-Commission-recommends-denial-of-proposed-MU-phasing-text-amendment-asks-council-for-broader-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6475382-b3e48035dc4f96abc0ed783b3c5e000a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485461&Signature=ZhmfdRQtPEAg902nL0fIUdmKOQ6soXcyVrlLUh11iI6l65nnolvf-4guwoO9F1uijEv-BNRY5L7CaJQxtpb9xoIUJe9Hb3EKl3r2K6Q7F8hMjrT4XkRPTFTbTeWeEYkVs3YngpWpLEP-LRWO0grCSwVAyADMcQLYet-3UYOymud0LsoA6~xg2kLA~Weo-Z43ptPJC1ZSfBBhRj1~C-u0gbCHsHBQAb6-dGc-QxySzZEgiystYJLPOs~bMIedNl1zOQz98JQYyz5ruBecJnnnvwMZSevt5wPC5mc3SHXG5vVxcigB1~coQwMrLXMPibns~AQXhrAqGpgJ1hD6F0dD3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Frederick City Planning Commission on Sept. 8 recommended that City Council deny the proposed text amendment (PC-25-55 ZTA) that would have allowed mixed‑use developers to propose project‑specific phasing schedules and, in many cases, have those phasing modifications approved administratively by the planning department.

Staff and public testimony

Planning staff recommended that the commission weigh the proposed change against the Land Management Code and the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and suggested that if the commission wanted flexibility it should recommend changes carefully and conceptually, rather than turning broad discretion over to an administrative approval process. Gabrielle (staff) told the commission the ZTA should be assessed for consistency with code and plan goals and cautioned about delegating substantive judgment without safeguards.

Public commenters and nearby residents strongly opposed the draft language as written. Multiple speakers said that phasing decisions have community implications and should remain subject to public hearings before the Planning Commission (and, where appropriate, City Council). Resident Adam Apostoli and neighborhood coordinators urged the commission to preserve public visibility over phasing decisions. Several speakers recommended hiring an independent commercial economist to review requests for administrative phasing modifications and said the city should require any flexible approach to include recorded, enforceable mitigation agreements.

Applicant position

Brian Morris, representing the applicant, said the applicant and staff had exchanged drafts and that the proposed language was intended to add predictable flexibility for mixed‑use projects. Morris said the applicant concurred with staff’s analysis and asked the commission for a positive recommendation. When asked whether the applicant would accept a narrower compromise that preserved the current percentages but allowed case‑by‑case exceptions, the applicant declined to support rewording during the hearing.

Commission action and rationale

Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend denial. In discussion they cited the absence of supporting citywide data showing the phasing rule is blocking projects and expressed concern the draft would shift substantial discretionary authority to staff without defined standards, public notice and an opportunity for near‑term public comment. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a denial letter for the council that explains the commission’s concerns and requests a broader study, including an economic analysis and a recommended public process for any future code changes.

What happens next

The Planning Commission filed a unanimous recommendation for denial and requested that staff prepare a draft letter to the City Council documenting the commission’s reasons and recommending next steps: an economic/commercial market analysis and a public process for any future phasing flexibility. City Council will receive the commission’s recommendation and decide whether to draft, modify or schedule the proposed code change for public hearings.

","The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council deny a text amendment that would let applicants ask planning staff to administratively alter mixed‑use phasing requirements; commissioners and public commenters urged a more deliberate study, public hearings and an economic analysis before delegating such authority.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6475387,"Frederick Health master plan continued after multi‑hour traffic review; developer to return in November",6834,432000,7266000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734441-cc4dd6188d006910e004af3d4ca75ceb&start=432&end=7266","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734441-cc4dd6188d006910e004af3d4ca75ceb/thumbnail_432000.jpg","/articles/6475387/Frederick-City/Frederick-County/Maryland/Frederick-Health-master-plan-continued-after-multihour-traffic-review-developer-to-return-in-November","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6475387-d799a7182d1a5dd73cc4d9ec1a7feb0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485461&Signature=nfDoEUzUth0em5BMwPYijsFW7CLyLX5C4iR~0AzJRJAPW2U3yNiZDD3QpOIxaTIVBzOUXrzEi9XuzukFLMtpiTd2dcePHgwE5Xt-Mb-AqJV0WU02e6hfa4cSsqa261kf-s1EFKFr2vyteLAnwqVR-Pq8aoi0Mf~aPj-GzVISTgWWCvk1xQuL5T5Tt66TbxdjggO4MBG6oSHiEkkiJ4iaMXPlmVKty1Ly8jyt~Vw-spHP0dD-RceayjdZEbJquB90y-RzvpyPO2Aakebu8PJA9GOkQ3CySZUcSOau-EEDtR3iledHZIXwRO2dx8ctg0m~HqL03bO7L3~8l99sEjaqfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Frederick City Planning Commission on Sept. 8 continued action on PC-24-662, the Frederick Health Village master plan, to the Planning Commission hearing on Nov. 10, 2025. Commissioners voted unanimously to continue the matter after a multi-hour presentation and public comment period concentrated on a traffic impact analysis and a package of mitigation measures the applicant says will reduce localized congestion.

The application before the commission is for a mixed‑use master plan that would include medical campus uses and up to 750 residential units; the applicant’s original traffic study also modeled a larger, higher‑density scenario. Bruce Dean, attorney for the applicant, told the commission the larger study was intentional. “This is not a typo,” Dean said, describing an earlier study scenario that modeled up to roughly 1,200 residential units to test a range of potential future build‑out. The applicant emphasized, and documents before the commission confirm, that the plan currently under review proposes 750 residential units.

Why it matters: Commissioners and members of the public repeatedly said traffic and roadway capacity along Monocacy Boulevard and Maryland 26 are already strained, and signaled they needed clearer phasing and mitigation commitments from the applicant before voting on findings of adequacy under the city’s Adequate Public Facilities rules. The applicant and its traffic consultant described a mix of developer‑funded improvements and longer‑range state projects they say will be required to maintain acceptable operations.

Most important facts

- The applicant reduced its earlier request from seven intersections to four for findings of road adequacy after revising the traffic analysis; several intersections remain the subject of mitigation or longer‑term plans.

- Traffic engineer Joe Colajaro of The Traffic Group described the study methodology and told the commission the team collected counts during 7–9 a.m., 4–6 p.m. on weekdays and 11 a.m.–1 p.m. on a Saturday to develop capacity, operations and 90th‑percentile queue analyses. “We collect data from 7 to 9 in the morning, 4 to 6 in the evening, and 11 to 1 on a Saturday,” Colajaro said.

- The developer described immediate and near‑term off‑site work it will fund, including a 100‑foot northbound left‑turn lane extension on Monocacy Boulevard at Mill Pond Road and restriping to create a two‑way left‑turn lane at selected locations. Joe Colajaro estimated the developer‑side improvements presented in the traffic materials will cost on the order of $8,000,000.

- The project team also pointed to longer‑range improvements listed in the Maryland State Highway Needs Inventory and the city’s comprehensive plan (2020), including a comp‑plan “Grange Mill Road” parallel facility and a potential future interchange on Maryland 26. Those latter elements require state planning and funding and are not developer commitments.

What commissioners and the public said

Planning commissioners pressed the applicant to show clearer links between phasing, building permits and delivery of roadway improvements. Commissioner Manelas repeatedly asked which roads and which phases would be built when; the applicant said the primary comp‑plan road connection would be required as part of Phase 1 because the residential subdivision cannot be created without a city road providing frontage.

Public commenters voiced mixed views. Some neighborhood residents said existing congestion at Monocacy Boulevard, Shorebird Road (Walmart entrance) and the Maryland 26 corridor is already severe, with drivers running red lights and long queues. Supporters told the commission the proposal would provide neighborhood services, health care access and 306 net new workforce‑housing opportunities within walking distance of services.

Applicant perspective

Don Schilling, vice president of business development for Frederick Health, said the health system acquired the property in 2019 and has looked at multiple long‑term options to serve future health needs. Schilling told the commission that without a master plan approval the project cannot proceed to necessary site planning, which he said could jeopardize planned investments. “We’ve done what we can on our part to satisfy the criteria,” Schilling said.

Next steps and the commission’s action

After hearing staff, the applicant and public comment, the commission voted unanimously to continue consideration of the master plan to the Nov. 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting so the applicant can provide a clearer phasing schedule and written commitments tying specific mitigation steps to building permits and phases of development.

Ending note

Staff emphasized that three of the constrained intersections identified in the traffic analysis are already operating at degraded levels and that some mitigation will depend on capital projects the state must fund. Commissioners asked the applicant to return with a clearer, visually organized phasing plan showing the timing of key road improvements, the relationship to building permits, and any commitments on affordable housing or senior housing types that could reduce trip generation.

","The Frederick City Planning Commission continued consideration of the Frederick Health Village master plan to the Nov. 10, 2025 meeting after hours of staff, applicant and public discussion focused on traffic impacts, proposed road improvements and phasing of up to 750 residential units.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission actions: approvals for water tower, medical office and apartments; multiple landscaping and lighting modifications OK'd

Planning Commission recommends denial of proposed MU phasing text amendment, asks council for broader study

Frederick Health master plan continued after multi‑hour traffic review; developer to return in November