City Council

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA HON. MARY KATHERINE GREENLAW, MAYOR HON. WILLIAM C. WITHERS, JR., VICE -MAYOR, WARD TWO CITY COUNCIL HON. KERRY P. DEVINE, AT-LARGE HON. MATTHEW J. KELLY, AT-LARGE HON. BRADFORD C. ELLIS, WARD ONE HON. DR. TIMOTHY P. DUFFY, WARD THREE Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street HON. CHARLIE L. FRYE, JR., WARD FOUR Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Council Work Session December 6, 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Articles 1 & 2 of the Unified Development Ordinance Amendment The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia held a work session on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. Council Present. Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw, Presiding. Councilors William C. Withers, Jr., Kerry P. Devine, Timothy P. Duffy, Charlie L. Frye, Jr. (7:10) and Matthew J. Kelly. Council Absent. Councilor Bradford C. Ellis. Also Present. City Manager Timothy J. Baroody, City Attorney Kathleen Dooley, Director of Planning and Community Development Charles Johnston, Zoning Administrator Michael Craig, Development Administrator Marne Sherman and Clerk of Council Tonya B. Lacey. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Johnston presented a PowerPoint that discussed: Why the amendments were being considered, specific measures for revitalization, mass transit, mixed use, 3.0 FAR: UDO amendments, pros of approving the amendments, cons of approving the amendments and small area plans. (See Attachment II for more information). Councilor Duffy asked if the State addressed the proffer legislation and gave more room what would the Council be allowed to do. Mr. Johnston explained they would have to go through the same process by sending it to the Planning Commission and then bring it back to the Council for approval. Mayor Greenlaw asked if the proposed changes were the best changes for the future of the development of the City and Mr. Johnston said it was important to have the criteria and the 1 City must be responsible when the City have projects come forward. He said it would behoove the City to put things in order to allow the best proffers for the City. Vice-Mayor Withers expressed his concern with the 3.0 FAR and the Commercial Shopping Center (CSC) zoning and the Commercial-Highway (C-H) Zoning. He said the CSC and the C-H zonings back up to residential neighborhoods and the commercial went from a .5 to a 3.0. Vice-Mayor Withers said there was a reason for the current FAR and he would like to set some sort of guidelines where commercial back up to residential. Councilor Kelly said he asked what the rational was for the 3.0 FAR and no one could tell him. He said the problem he was having with the 3.0 was that it did not make sense for the City. Mr. Baroody said the City could stand down on the matter and he explained that the City did not make up the 3.0 it was handed down through the General Assembly. He said the only thing not taking action would jeopardize was any future projects that the City may like. Mr. Craig explained two technical elements. The first being the areas where they plan transition of 3.0 FAR may be needed and the other was the list of impacts they check for special use permits and the list of typical conditions. Mayor Greenlaw said there were areas where the 3.0 made sense and she said if those areas were identified to make the flexibility to make them special use projects. Vice-Mayor asked why the City wouldn’t designate those areas upfront so that developers would know that the 3.0 FAR would not be allowed everywhere. Mr. Johnston said if the concern was a buffer than they could incorporate it in the special use criteria that says a structure should be setback twice there height from any single family residential district. Vice-Mayor Withers suggested sending this back to the Planning Commission for more review and discussion. City Attorney Dooley explained that the 3.0 FAR made no sense because FAR was a measurement of commercial density and they were talking about residential rezoning. She said the Council must ask if this was a good guidance statement for the City and whether it was what they wanted to tell developers. She said one way to accomplish what the Council wanted was to put in the future land use each of the areas where the City believes the 3.0 was appropriate and say whatever was appropriate in the vision. 2  Councilor Duffy stated that when you look at subdivision such as Altoona and what it backs up against it is not ideal and he noted that it was not always the FAR, it was the quality of the development in some sense. Councilor Kelly added that when looking at the density and the level of by-right development that was allowed it had caused Route 3 to be a mess. Mr. Johnston explained that he did not think meeting a special use standard would be easy to do because a project of this scale and magnitude would not be able to sail through because of the intensity and level of density. Mayor Greenlaw said the City needed the flexibility and she also explained that a 3.0 FAR does not always mean a 50,000 square foot building it depended on the size of the lot. She said using a special use permit puts the burden on the staff before it gets to the Council. Councilor Devine said the her issue was that the projects that have been coming to Council have been questionable and there were areas where the City knew they don’t want certain large projects and she wanted to find a way to let that be known upfront. Councilor Kelly asked if there was a way to say that the City did not want 3.0 FAR in certain areas and City Attorney Dooley said the Comprehensive Plan was where the City stated its vision for the community and developers could use the Comprehensive Plan to see the type of development the City would like to see. Councilor Kelly stated that no one would look at the Comprehensive Plan and said he would like to see a single sheet with the regulations on it. City Attorney Dooley explained that the Comprehensive Plan was a legal document and had legal status and they were golden when it came to judicial review. Vice-Mayor Withers said he was concerned enough with the 3.0 FAR that he would like to see it go back to the Planning Commission for review. Councilor Duffy said because the 3.0 was in pockets he was fine with moving forward. He said language could be put in the Comprehensive Plan that the City would take serious any projects that go up against residential neighborhoods. Councilor Frye asked if there were any developers coming forward with project and was that the reason for this topic and Mr. Craig said there were some residential rezonings being considered. Mr. Johnston said he was comfortable doing what the City Attorney suggested by talking about where the 3.0 FAR was possible and putting the text in the Comprehensive Plan before the January 10 meeting. 3  Articles 1 & 2 of the Unified Development Ordinance Amendment. Mayor Greenlaw noted that with regards to Article 2 over the years the question had been asked who had final approval over minor subdivisions (50 lots or less). The staff approves 1 to 9 lots and anything above that go to Planning Commission and City Council. She noted that most everywhere in the state only major subdivision go to Council and as far as the State was concerned minor subdivisions could be approved by the administrator. City Attorney Dooley explained that the General Assembly amended legislation a couple years ago and Council amended the UDO to conform to that legislation sating that a subdivision with less than 50 lots, the locality, could not require preliminary plats but it did not say anything about who would approve the plat. The Code of Virginia believes the Planning Commission or some other agent of City Council has the plat approving authority for subdivisions, but she added that City Council had not liked that and wanted to have final approval of subdivisions. City Attorney Dooley said what they were suggesting was to eliminate Planning Commission public hearing for subdivisions because there was a 60 day deadline and staff could not get two public hearing in during that 60 days. Ms. Sherman clarified that the State Code required action on any subdivision plat whether it be preliminary subdivision plat or final subdivision plat. She said it was unrealistic to have staff review it and be able to give true guidance whether it was consistent with the code and hold a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting with in a 60 day period. Ms. Sherman explained that they were proposing to eliminate the public hearing at the Planning Commission level but still have them review it and forward it to City Council for public hearing. The second tier, minor subdivisions (10-50 lots), city council had chosen to either allow the developer to submit a preliminary plat and go through that process or go straight to the final subdivision plat application which Council would act on. There was also the administrative subdivisions (9 or fewer lots) which staff is the only one who reviews and takes action on and it does not require any type of public notification. City Attorney Dooley explained that Article 1 was a general provision, such as applicability and jurisdiction and Article 2 was administration, procedural regulations for all of the types of land development permits. There were 3 themes that needed addressing and most of the changes fit into one of the three themes. Ms. Dooley stated that Article 2 was complex because they were combining subdivision and zoning provisions in one article. She proposed to bring this back to the Council at the January meeting. (See Attachment III for more information). 4  Ms. Sherman informed the Council that they may want to take a look at the 21 day comment period for certain administrative actions because a couple of developers have found it egregious. She stated that if Council felt that staff had the ability to review the guidelines and make appropriate decisions then she suggested doing away with the 21 day comment period. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time. Mayor Greenlaw declared the work session officially adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ____Tonya B Lacey______ Tonya B. Lacey Clerk of Council City of Fredericksburg 5