Planning Commission

Cn’y OF FREDERICKSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2020 7:30 p.m. ELECTRONIC MEETING / COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL You may view and listen to the meeting in its entirety by going to the Planning Commission page on the City’s website: https://amsva.wistia.com!medias/pp4zrozwpz The Agenda, Staff Report, Applications and Supporting Documents are also available on the Planning Commission page. MEMBERS CITY STAFF Rene Rodriguez, Chairman (live) Chuck Johnston, Director, Planning and Steve Slominski, Vice-Chairman (electronic) Building Dept. (live) David Durham (electronic) Mike Craig, Senior Planner (live) Kenneth Gantt (live) Susanna Finn, Community Dev. Planner (live) Chris Hornung (electronic) Cathy Eckles, Administrative Assistant (live) Tom O’Toole (absent) Jim Pates (electronic) 1. CALL TO ORDER This meeting was held live and electronically by “Go to Meeting” application, pursuant to City Council Ord. 20-05, An Ordinance to Address Continuity of City Government during the Pendency of a Pandemic Disaster. Members of the public were invited to attend in person with social distancing practices and masks required or access this meetiug by public access television Cox Channel 84, Verizon Channel 42, online at ww.regionalwebtv.com/fredcc, or Facebook live at www.facebook.com/FXBGgov. Chairman Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and explained electronic meeting procedures. 2. PLE)GE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM All members were present except Tom O’Toole. 4. APLOVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Gantt moved for approval of the agenda as submitted. Mr. Durham seconded. Motor ased 6-o-i 1 5. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (continuation of Public Hearing from June 24, 2020) A. Area Small Area Downtown Plan The City of Fredericksburg proposes to amend Chapter — 10 Land Use Plan and Chapter ii Planning Areas of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Area 7 Downtown Small Area Plan. Ms. Finn reviewed a power point presentation (Att. i) showing what was changed in the proposed Downtown Plan since the June 24, 2020 presentation to the Commission. Mr. Durham noted the addition of proposed Trestle Park at the corner of Caroline and Frederick Streets to Table 4-7 City-Owned property for Future Parks and asked how to add future parks, specifically in Area 2. He was specifically focused on the land donated to the City for open space approximately 4 years ago and possibilities in Area 1, wherein there may be some open space that needs to be designated. He said that he wants to be sure the City will be using Table 4-7, Future Parks, to designate any potential future park or open space areas. Ms. Finn said that the City modified this table for Trestle Park based on his recommendation from the last Commission meeting and will check into any other possibilities. Chairman Rodriguez opened the public hearing and Ms. Finn read in the public comment letter received from: Rebecca Hanmer 138 Caroline Street (Att. 2) There being no public speakers, Chairman Rodriguez closed the public hearing. Mr. Gantt motioned to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Downtown Small Area Plan. Chairman Rodriguez seconded. Mr. Durham commended staff for the tireless work done in the last two years. Mr. Pates said, although he is supporting the motion, he does not agree with Trestle Park as open space and believes this area is intrinsically tied to the development of the new train station. Motion passed 6-0-i. B. UDOTA2020-o2 Creative Maker District The City of Fredericksbirrg proposes to amend - the Unified Development Ordinance to establish a new zoning district entitled “the Creative Maker District”. C. RZ2020-02 The City of Fredericksburg proposes to amend the Zoning Map to change the — existing zoning of about 78 acres of land to the Creative Maker Zoning District. Mr. Craig reviewed the staff report for Items 6B and 6C jointly. Mr. Craig stated the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum was modified from 0.70 to 0.75 for a more logical incremental scale relative to other commercial zoning districts. Mr. Hornung said in light of the critical public comments about reduced residential density, would staff refresh the Commissioners about the proposed changes. Mr. Craig summarized that density would change as follows: CT currently 12 units per acre by right, changed to 8 and 12 units per acre by right, depending on location; — CH currently 12 units per acre by right with no change; and — R3o currently 30 units per acre by right, changing to 12 units per acre by right; — Mr. Craig said that these changes reduce on paper the net number of units permitted by right by 114. This is balanced by providing for no automatic limit to residential units allowed through the Special Use Permit process. Structuring residential density in this way sets a by-right limit at or below neighborhood residential levels yet permits creative housing proposals that would be dense enough to meet 2 environmental and economic development goals as they could create a walkable vibrant core. Mr. Craig noted there are other performance standards in place to keep the density in check. Mr. Durham clarified that the types of developments that will come through are likely to be a variety of types, densities, and sizes, no inundation of only really large developments. Chairman Rodriguez opened the public hearing and Mr. Craig read in the public comment letters received from the following: Will Macintosh 905 Mortimer Avenue (Att. 4); Alexanna Hengy 2412 Lafayette Boulevard (Att. 5); Sean Imanian no address given (At1. 6); and Rupert Farley 1305 Caroline Street (Att. 7). Adam Lynch, iio8 Sophia Street, spoke against the residential density limits in the Creative Maker District stating that even if this district is built out to its full capacity, the proposed residential downsizing will ensure less units per acre than in Bunker Hill and that environmentally friendly missing middle housing cannot be constructed under these density limits. He feels that this proposal will take a growing area in a growing city and saddle it with limits, which will underutilize a promising urban area. Mr. Lynch further noted that this proposed text amendment will not only apply to Area 6 but is a blueprint for future maker districts as it creates two new zoning classes, with primary input from homeowners in a single area of the City. Mr. Lynch believes the special use permit process built into the proposal places disproportionate power in the hands of an organization that has a vested interest in suppressing housing supplies and that creating a precedent setting zoning code under the influence of a small cross section of one neighborhood discourages new growth. Mr. Lynch believes there is also another dynamic at play in that this proposal was developed with only input from a neighborhood comprised mostly of older, financially stable homeowners and that to develop a maker district vision that truly reflects the will of the people, the City needs to seek out Fredericksbwg residents of all backgrounds and all neighborhoods to be sure the City includes affordable housing opportunities. There being no further public speakers, Chairman Rodriguez closed the public hearing. Chairman Rodriguez noted that he actively worked with the Canal Quarter group and disputed Mr. Lynch’s notion that the group was not diverse. Mr. Durham believes that the goals he has heard staff talk about seeking to create and the goals in the citizen comments mirror each other and asked Mr. Craig to comment on that dynamic. Mr. Craig said the core issue with am: zcning district is how to handle residential growth and the City developed a strategy for urbee infill. The urban infihl strategy, permitting residential density to be set on a project basis by special use permit, can be followed with potential changes to the Commercial Downtown zoning district where there is such a disparity between units per acre on the ground. The elimination of the suburban artificial maximum “caps” will legalize creative housing proposals on a variety of lot sizes in place of the current suburban dynamic superimposed on urban settings where artificial “caps” create market and legal pressurc that resuis in a limited residential marketplace comprised of either large lot single family homes or acres of land being consolidated by heavily capitalized firms for garden apartment complexes. The balanced approach in the Creative Maker District permits residents to have a voice in the development process. The process permits the City to be ambitious, to meet climate goals, and to be environmentally sustainazle, permitting infill residential development at a scale that can absorb the growth in places where it does the most good. Mr. Craig said that the City has kept Area 6 as a mixed use district, kept the by-right residential levels relatively stable, structured the area as a creative and inclusive marketplace, and provided the form-based code to limit building heights, widths, and footprints, which is the critical way to control the intensity. Mr. Durham said that the primary goal of this zoning district process is not to establish residential develop cr cuts, but to encourage mixed use, adaptive reuse, and to allow different sorts of uses then what is currently used in order to have more creative approaches to attract entrepreneurial types into this area. Mr. Craig agreed. Mr. Gantt motioned to recommend approval to City Council of UDOTA2020-02 creating the Creative Maker District and consolidating form-based regulations. Mr. Durham seconded. Mr. Pates said that he disagrees with the public comment about the characterization of his neighborhood. He also saId that he plans to vote against the recommendation. He disagrees with the opposition to the residential limits from people who are claiming the City is promoting suburban sprawl. Mr. Pates stated his opposition to this is because there are no caps on residential density through the special use permit process. Chairman Rodriguez said he would be supporting this proposal as he has been working with the very diverse Canal Quarter group throughout the process. Motion passed 5-1-1. Mr. Durham motioned to recommend approval to City Council of RZ2o2o-o2 to amend the Zoning Map to change the existing zoning of about 78 acres of land to the Creative Maker Zoning District. Mr. SIominski seconded. Motion passed 5-1-1. 7. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT None. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Area 1 and 2 Small Area Plan Concept Preview Mr. Craig and Ms. Finn did a general review of Area 1 Celebrate Virginia / Central Park and Area 2 Fall Hill Small Area Plans with a power point presentation (Att. 8) noting that these items will be discussed at the Commissioner’s August 12, 2020 meeting with reports from Streetsense (on Area i) and City staff (on Area 2). B. Next Phase UDO Text Amendments 1. Transfer of Development Rights 2. Industrial Use / Performance Standard Review 3. Planned Development Mixed Use Ordinance Revisions — 4. Conservation District Overlay / Neighborhood Infihl 5. Area 7 Text and Zoning Map Amendment Mr. Craig did a general review of the upcoming Planning Commission work seasons. C. Planning Commissioner Comments Mr. Pates noted his displeasure of the Commissioner’s motion to recommend approval of SE2c2o—o2 to City Council as he still feels there is nothing special about it. Mr. Pates believes an Accessory Dwelling Unit should have a more distinctive definition and should only apply to separate buildings, not changing the interior of a single family home. Mr. Durham said the George Washington Regional Commission has created a survey regarding housing affordability and would like to have it more broadly advertised. Ms. Finn said she had forwarded tho survey to the City Manager’s Office and the Public Information Officer for posting. D. Planning Director Comments Mr. Johnston noted that Council will discuss the ADU Special Exception and Cowan Station Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning, and street vacations at its upcoming July 14, 2020 meeting. The August 12 Commissioner’s meeting will primarily be a working session with a transmittal of the Area 1 (Central Park/Celebrate) and 2 (Fall Hill) Plans as a joint work session with City Council. The timing and format of the meeting is yet to be determined. 4 Mr. Johnston discussed that Streetsense’s Area 1 ideas may differ from staff. Staff will transmit Streetsense’s report, following up at a subsequent meeting with alternatives and options. He noted Streetsense’s base premises were that commercial and retail development is shrinking, while the potential for residential is growing. The Dov7ntown Plan arid the Creative Maker District and rezoning will be discussed with Council at a work session on August ii and then a public hearing on August 25, along with the Parking Ordinance amendnr rnts. Mr. Gantt asked about the comparison between Streetsense’s views and the City’s alternate plans and why the need for two mrtings. Mr. Johnston said that it is appropriate to present all of Streetsense’s informaif on, but after the Commission has had a chance to absorb this, to then present the alternate concepr Mr. Pates asked if the Commissioners will have any chance to talk and question Streetsense about their its report, Mr. Johnston said their staff should be available electronically. 9 AB3URNMENT There being no further items to be discussed, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Next meeting is August 12, 2020. Rene driguez, Chairman )  ATr. 1 ‘-4 Ct I Open Space - 11(7)14 Formalize the City owned parcel adjacent to the - 11(7)9 Recognize the historic John DeBaptiste Ferry J anney-Marshall Building (called Trestle Park by nearby Landing on Canal Street with water access and interpretation, residents) as a City park. Regarding the section of green formalizing this as a City park. space north of the concrete wall, adjacent to the access lanes and parking, flexibility may be needed for a future new and expanded Train Station and access lanes. However, the green space and its healthy tree canopy are an asset that should be maintained for no and as much as possible in the future Train Station expansion. TABLE 4-7 CnY-OwND PROPERTY FOR Fun RE PARKs RESOURCE ACREAGE PLANNED USE Open space, picnicking, pathways along river Natural area on Fall Hill 56.9 bluffs Zig-Zag Trenches (Civil Warj 4.758 Historic site Smith Run Battle Site 11.0 Historic site Tiestle Paik .25 Open space DeBaptiste Ferry Landing .50 Historic site, open space and water access  - Access and Mobility Vehicle HotortzedTrarnportatlon Legend: ... . Exis1ng T,olley bn Now Trn Statioi EoisIrg Downtown Paktng Lc1r,Ct oposed Downtown Patktng L)tstnct - 11(7)24 Particular attention should be paid to the effects RtDUC P.nktnq traffic pattern changes may have on parking, visibility, and Nottli I’incens Anne and (ac4ineMrec Ainelta and WIIIanl StteeIc speed. This study should evaluate the potential to remove South Pflncesc Anne and (ard:ne Stre access to Princess Anne Street from Dixon Street. \ /  ATT 2 From: Michael J. Crab To: C. Homuna (chomuno)vmaib,com; Davd Durham: James Pates: Kenneth Gantt (kdpantt.fredncca)amail.com; Rene Rodnuuez: Steve Slominski; Tom O”Toole (totooleverizon.net Cc: Charles R. Johnston; Cattirvn A. Eddes: Susanna R. Finn Subject FW; [EXTERNAL] Area 7 Plan Trestle Park - Date: Wednesday, JuLy 08, 2020 4:29:56 PM Planning Commissioners, See below comment regarding the Area 7 Downtown Plan. Mike Craig From: Rebecca Hanmer Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 3:56 PM To: Michael J. Craig; Susanna R. Finn Cc: Maureen Widic; Ed Sandtner; Linda Coker; Anne Little; Andre Pineda Subject: [EXTERNAL] Area 7 Plan Trestle Park - Dear Susanna, we have read the memorandum that you wrote to the Planning Commission for tonight’s meeting (July 8). This concerns the Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Area Plan for Small Area 7. As you can imagine, the Trestle Park Committee is thrilled to see the proposed additions to the Area Plan’s discussion of Trestle Park on page 11(7)14, responding to our comments for the June 24 public hearing. lam referring to: (1)the specific reference to “park” for protecting the green space adjacent to the Janney-Marshall Building, which we call “Trestle Park;’ and (2) the addition of our requested language regarding the value and maintenance of the green space north of the concrete wall. We thank you, Susanna and Mike, and all in the Planning Department who have had a role in this action and have been so responsive to our neighborhood concerns. You may be sure that we will follow the Commissions action on this closely, and support final approval by the City Council. We also thank you wholeheartedly for reaching out to the Parks and Recreation department to further the process. I will be writing Ms. Sheihorse as well to offer our help and support. Best wishes in these challenging times, Rebecca Hanmer for the Trestle Park Committee. Sent from my iPad  ATT2 From: Michael J.Craia To: C. Homuno (chornuno(vmaiLcom: David Durham: James Pates: Kenneth Gantt (kdoantt.frdocomaiLcom: Rene Rodnciuez: Steve Slomlnski: Tom O”Toole (tlotooleverizon,net) Cc Charles R. Johnston: Cathrvn A. Eckles: Susanna R. Finn Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL) Area 7 Plan Trestle Park - Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 4:29:56 PM Planning Commissioners, See below comment regarding the Area 7 Downtown Plan. Mike Craig From: Rebecca Harimer Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 3:56 PM To: Michael J. Craig; Susanna R. Finn Cc: Maureen Widic; Ed Sandtner; Linda Coker; Anne Little; Andre Pineda Subject: [EXTERNAL] Area 7 Plan Trestle Park - Dear Susanna, we have read the memorandum that you wrote to the Planning Commission for tonight’s meeting (July 8). This concerns the Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Area Plan for Small Area 7. As you can imagine, the Trestle Park Committee is thrilled to see the proposed additions to the Area Plans discussion of Trestle Park on page 11(7)14, responding to our comments for the June 24 public hearing. I am referring to: (1) the specific reference to “parka for protecting the green space adjacent to the Janney-Marshall Building, which we call “Trestle Park;” and (2) the addition of our requested language regarding the value and maintenance of the green space north of the concrete wall. We thank you, Susanna and Mike, and all in the Planning Department who have had a role in this action and have been so responsive to our neighborhood concerns. You may be sure that we will follow the Commission’s action on this closely, and support final approval by the City Council. We also thank you wholeheartedly for reaching out to the Parks and Recreation department to further the process. I will be writing Ms. Shelhorse as well to offer our help and support. Best wishes in these challenging times, Rebecca Hanmer for the Trestle Park Committee. Sent from my iPad  ATT4 From: Will Mackintosh To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL) Comment for July 8 Planning Commission MeetIng Date: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 10:46:02 AM This public comment is intended for the July 8th Planning Commission Meeting. - From Will Mackintosh, citizen of the City of Fredericksburg. Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to voice my concern about the rezoning of the Canal Quarter Creative Maker district. I am supportive of the move to a form-based code, but I am concerned that the T-4M and T-5M designations will not allow enough by-right density to allow this crucial corridor to thrive and develop the way we all hope it will. I am a member of the Fredericksburg Economic Development Authority, and although I do not speak for them in an official capacity (I am writing a private citizen), I believe that the T-4M and T-5M designations will inhibit our abillty to pursue the Economic Development Strategic Plan that we have jointly adopted with City Council. Goal #10 of our Strategic Plan is “enhance gateways into the city.” Thus it is critically important that we support the redevelopment of critical entrance corridors to our City, including Route 1 and Princess Anne Street. Thriving commercial corridors like those we hope to see in the Canal Quarter need a critical mass of nearby residents to sUpport their businesses. That’s why our downtown is so thriving; it is surrounded by a dense concentration of residents who patronize the businesses. The Canal Quarter has struggled in relative terms because the surrounding blocks are less densely populated or are in many cases depopulated, because they are filled with parking lots and other nonproductive uses. Allowing greater residential density in those unoccupied blocks will provide the customer base needed to make the businesses along the revitalizing Route 1 and Princess Anne corridors thrive. Another goal of our strategic plan (#2)is “develop the workforce of tomorrow.” In order to do so, we must support workforce housing in the City, meaning housing that is affordable for all segments of our workforce. I am concerned that the low densities allowed by the T-4M and T-5M designations will only allow relatively large and therefore relatively expensive housing to be built. The Canal Quarter is ideally located to host some of the right-sized, right- priced housing that is so desperately needed by our young families and our growing population of retirees. Adopting such restrictive zoning would necessarily price them out of our market. I hope that the Planning Commission will consider allowing a considerably higher by-right residential density in the Canal Quarter in order to support the City Council and the EDA’s jointly shared economic development goals. Sincerely, Will Mackintosh  ATT. 5 From: Alexanna Henav To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNALJ Re: RCM comment on proposal Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 4:33:30 PM Hello Members if City Planning, My apologies that my comment was sent without a greeting at the top or a signature at the bottom. I realized how little time was remaining and hit send before before able to add those components out of concern for the deadline. Thank you for taking the time to read the Rappahannock Climate Mobilization’s thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Alexanna Hengy RCM Board Member (540)760-1215 On Jul 8, 2020, at 4:29 PM, Alexanna Hengy c wrote: My name is Alexanna Hengy and I live at 2412 Lafayette Blvd Fredericksburg VA 22401. I am a Board Member of the Rappahannock Climate Mobilization (RCM), a coalition-based organization dedicated to intersectional climate justice. I speak on behalf of RCM when I say I oppose the proposal to create a new special zoning district called the “Canal Quarter Maker District” in the area around Carl’s. The reason for this opposition is that it would “down-zone” 78 acres of land, lowering the allowable density of residential units in this area which could otherwise be a highly walkable community with denser development like apartments. Sprawl is one of the biggest threats to the environment, requiring increased use of cars, and larger residences without shared walls require more energy use, This is also a matter of housing justice, economic justice, and racial justice. Often older, upper-middle-class white property owners will resist apartments and other denser, more affordable housing falsely claiming that these forms of housing bring in “bad elements”. What this denser, more affordable housing actually brings is quite positive. It brings increased walkability to our city, allowing Fredericksburg to be a car- optional city, which is highly appealing to many people. It brings us closer to achieving the environmental goals the city has committed to, and closer to the scientific imperative of achieving essentially zero emissions city-wide by 2030. It brings greater health and protection to our Rappahannock River, with sprawl being one of the highest water-quality challenges it faces. It brings greater equality and opportunity for low-income families and renters, which often due to generations of systemic racism, is disproportionately composed of the black community and other minority communities. It also brings more customers to our small businesses; having more people living in walking distance of these businesses will offer much needed help. If aesthetics are of concern to our residents, we can put requirements in place that the apartment adhere to the similar style and look of the downtown buildings. We can also include a requirement for flowers and trees to be sustainably maintained in a green space around the apartment which would both be environmentally beneficial and likely make our residents feel favorably about the apartments. We should but a requirement that any apartments or other dense housing built in this area stay below a certain rent level, ensuring that this is affordable housing.  V ATT. 6 From: Charles R. Johnston To: Cc: Michael J. Craig; Cathrvn A. Eckles: C. Hornuna (chomungvmaiI,com: David Durham (daviddurham.bgDcamaiI,com; James Pates; Kenneth Gantt (kdaanttfredocomaiI,com); Rene Rodriguez: Steve Slomlnski: Tom 0Toole (tiotooleverizonnet Subject RE: [EXTERNAL) Online Fomi Submittal: Contact Us Ctra,les R. Johnston, Community Planning and Building - Dir&or Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 4:50:52 PM Mr. Imanian Thank you for your comments. They will be read into the record at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. Chuck Johnston Charles Johnston AICP CNU-A Director Community Planning & Building Department City of Fredericksburg 715 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 540-372-1180 From: noreply@fredericksburgva.gov [mailto:noreply@fredericksburgva.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 4:30 PM To: Charles R. Johnston Subject: IEXTERNALI Online Form Submittal: Contact Us Charles R. Johnston, Community Planning - and Building Director Contact Us Charles R. Johnston, Community Planning and - Building Director Name Sean lmanian Email Phone Preferred Method of Email Contact Are You a Fredericksburg Yes Resident? Question or Comment Hello, This is from Rappahannock Climate Mobilization a local environmental group. When we were informed that the Fredericksburg Planning Commission is deliberating on a proposal to create a new special  zoning district called the “Canal Quarter Market District” in the area around CarPs. This was brought to our attention and we have a few concerns about it. The proposal would downsize 78 acres of land in a very walkable area, meaning that it would lower the allowable density of residential units in an area that we believe is well-suited for denser development like apartments. We take issue with this because urban sprawl is the most pressing water quality challenge facing the Rappahannock River and we are trying to turn toward a more sustainable form of development. We want more small apartments and other denser developments in walkabte areas. Here are a few brief reasons why I think you should consider Walkability Downtown Fredericksburg is a walkable space that - has the potential to be a car-optional city, reducing carbon usage. But the proposal puts arbitrary units/acre limits that make it unfriendly to environmentally friendly compact development. - Sustainability Infill is more environmentally friendly than - building on our urban fringe, but the proposal does not allow adequate density of infill. The end result is, development instead occurs on the suburban fringe and the result is more car- dependent sprawl and more carbon emissions - Affordability and Equity. Puffing strict density limits hurts housing affordability, which hurts low-income people and renters most. - Helping local business. The neighborhood is near several local businesses and the new FXBG Food Coop. Having customers within walking distance can help businesses stay afloat. Kind Regards, Rappahannock Climate Mobilization Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.  9 ATT. 7 From: To: Plannina Subject [EXTERNAL) Maker Diii proposal Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 4: 16:33 PM Dear Commissioners, My last presentation at City Hall was to voice concerns about legislation that would restrict higher density development; the type of density necessary to efficiently provide city services and extract ourselves from automobile dependency. I have similar concerns with the proposed Maker District, and hope you will direct your attention to the density issue. Many denser communities such - as the Fan in Richmond and Georgetown in DC are very attractive and - pedestrian-friendly. It’s my hope that we don’t discourage that from happening here. Rupert Farley 1305 Caroline Street 785-7900  Small Area Plans: Area 1 Celebrate Virginia / Central Park Area 2 Fall Hill H II Jil i I ‘jii 0 I I 0 z  I •• C CD CD . z C z CD .J) I • • • II CD CD CD r-t CD — o r I—s z. d. I. .1 1. Area 1— South 4 • The Future of the Road Network: • Drive aisle retrofit? I • Evaluating major roadways. lu • The Nature of the Place. —  I U a I Cl) • . p’ ..: •,—4 -J C.) C) 4- 0 cv P.— C) E r C” 1 . Cl) C) C) C.) C) C . .  . z I. 0 N CD 0 0 0 0 CD C a a -I 0 z Ir LJ z 0 -I m (0 0 z z m ii 0 I 0 I 1100111 0 0 a C., tffFFL rTI z -I m ‘Jill -4 I 2. Area 2 Access and Mobility: • Network Completion. • Gateway Blvd. Extended. • Formalize River Access. New Road Costtuction Road Sidewalk Expansion EUSPth o Bus Stop • • ‘j—- 1-95 Impact Area o Putu 1-95 Inrthange  . • C • • C/)(1D rJ) . I— )•2•1 . . -s- r+ I—’ • ) ii’ 3. Next Steps Finalize reports: • Area 1— Streetsense. • Area 2—CityStaff Transmit reports to Planning Commission and City Council (August 12). Convert reports into Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Fall / Winter). Upcoming UDO Text Amendments: 1. Transfer of Development Rights 2.Industrial Use / Performance Standard Review 3.Planned Development — Mixed Use Ordinance Revisions 4.Conservation District Overlay / Neighborhood Infihl 5.Area 7 Text and Zoning Map Amendments