Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2020 7:30 p.m. City of Fredericksburg Community Planning & Building ELECTRONIC MEETING I 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/urchsrllec 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, Ping & Bldg Dept Director (live) David Durham, Vice-Chairman (electronic) Mike Craig, Senior Planner (live) Kenneth Gantt (live) James Newman, Zoning Administrator (electronic) Chris Hornung (absent) Susanna Finn, Community Dev. Planner (electronic) Adam Lynch (live) Cathy Eckles, Administrative Assistant (live) Tom O’Toole (electronic) Jim Pates, Secretary (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 meeting by public access television Cox Channel 84, Verizon Channel 42, online at www.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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Mr. Hornung was absent, all other members were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Gantt moved for approval of the agenda as submitted. Mr. Durham seconded. Motion passed 6-0-1. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 28, 2020 Mr. Durham motioned to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Gantt seconded. Motion passed 6-0-1. 6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Continued Item 1. Brompton Community School LLC requests a Special Use Permit for an elementary school at 123 Lee Drive/GPIN 7778-76-8624. This property is the historic Braehead Manor. Mr. Newman recapped the staff report from October 28, 2020 with a PowerPoint presentation (Att. 1). Applicant Amber Dawson was present electronically. Mr. O’Toole noted the project is to use potable well water and asked why the City doesn’t require connection to public water. Mr. Newman said the property has a working well, but applicant wants potable water. Mr. Johnston noted that new construction would be required to connect to public water, but as this is a reuse of an existing building, such connection would not be required. Ms. Dawson that the previous owner considered public water connection, but did not pursue it because of the cost. Mr. O’Toole questioned why in the previous special use permit there was a condition to confine events to the side of the building away from Lee Drive. Mr. Newman said that this was due to the large number of people (250+) anticipated at events, but it is not a concern for the school. Mr. O’Toole asked for staff or applicant to discuss the licensing requirements. Ms. Dawson noted that the Commonwealth of Virginia does not require licensed teachers for private schools if there are no disabled students, however, the Brompton Community School has made licensing a requirement of its teachers. She said the school accreditation process is five years, as a program has to be established and observed overtime, but it is not required or mandated by the state. Mr. O’Toole requested a condition added that the accreditation process will be completed in a timely manner. Ms. Dawson stated the National Park Service (NPS) has approved the driveway expansion and the fire hydrant is still in the works. Mr. Pates asked about Condition No. 5 that requires an amendment to the Special Use Permit for any additions or new construction. Mr. Newman said that one of the Commissioners asked for this at the previous meeting, so that any changes to the site would be in conformance with the easement and City would have local control. Mr. Pates noted his disagreement with this condition because it should be under the control of the Department of Historic Resources’ (DHR’s) easement and he doesn’t think it is appropriate or within the Commission’s purview. Mr. Craig noted that the City Attorney had a similar concern as she felt the City shouldn’t become a middle party. Staff explained that the purpose of the condition was to ensure that any substantial changes were considered locally. Mr. Durham clarified that the purpose of Condition No. 5 is not to step in between DHR and the property owner, but just an additional avenue for the City to review changes that DHR may agree to. Mr. Craig said yes and that this is in lieu of having a condition that states the use will be in conformance with the GDP. Mr. Craig noted that Condition No. 5 will only apply to the special use for a school use. Mr. Lynch questioned the revenue implications of this change in use and what will this do to the amount of tax revenue the City will receive. Mr. Durham noted that the property is currently not generating any revenue. Mr. Johnston said that property taxes are based on size and improvements so the assessed valuation is not changing. Chairman Rodriguez asked if federal and state funds will be affected by pulling students from the public school system. Mr. Johnston does not know how substantial that may be. Chairman Rodriguez asked if there are any proposed modifications to make the property ADA accessible. Ms. Dawson noted there are some portable ramps proposed per ADA compliance requirements. No public speakers being present and no public comments being received, Chairman Rodriguez closed the public hearing. Mr. Gantt motioned to recommend approval to the City Council of the special use permit with the conditions noted. Mr. Durham seconded. Mr. Pates noted he still thinks Condition No. 5 is out of the Commission’s purview. Motion passed 6-0-1. 2  B. New Business 1. Sumner Partners LLC, requests a Special Use Permit to establish a 5,154 sq. ft. Royal Farms convenience store with gasoline sales with eight pump stations at 1315 Alum Springs Road GPINs 7779-70-2419, 7779-70-2391. 2. Sumner Partners LLC, requests a Special Exception to have parking in excess of 175% of the minimum requirement at a proposed Royal Farms convenience store with gasoline sales at 1315 Alum Springs Road G P1 Ns 7779-70-2419, 7779-70-2391. Mr. Newman reviewed the staff report for the Special Use Permit and Special Exception with a PowerPoint presentation (Att. 2) and noted that a vote on this matter would be taken at the December 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Durham discussed the need for a high-visibility crosswalk at the project entrance for the VCR Trail and the proposed elevated crossing of the Blue Gray Parkway by the Trail. He noted he is extremely concerned about the impact of this project on the VCR Trail. Mr. Durham discussed using differing material on the pathway, signage yielding to pedestrians, and a better plan to mitigate the issues of the entrance to the dramatically increased parking lot. Mr. Pates asked for more information on the entrance to this project and how it conforms to the Lafayette Corridor Overlay District (District). Mr. Johnston said that the District has design standards to improve the corridor’s appearance, but those vary depending on the section of the District. He said this project has a good start in meeting those standards, orientating a building entrance to the street, as well as the location of the doors, signage, lighting, and the architectural elements. The City has not yet heard from the National Park Service regarding this project. Mr. Pates asked regarding a recommendation. Mr. Johnston stated the project is still evolving and staff will have a recommendation prior to the vote on December 2, 2020. Draft conditions were outlined in the November 16, 2020 letter to applicant, copies of which were sent to the Commission. (Att. 3). Mr. Pates questioned if a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was done. Mr. Newman said that according to the TIA provided by applicant in the staff report, pg. 2 states the proposed development will generate 470 AM peak time trips and 385 PM peak time trips. Mr. O’Toole questioned if the Alum Spring Road/Lafayette Boulevard intersection will have no left turn from Alum Spring onto Lafayette and the exit will be right turn only and then to the roundabout. Mr. Johnston said yes, it will be a right in, right out for that intersection; however, traffic going north on Lafayette Boulevard can make a left turn onto Alum Spring Road. Mr. Johnston noted that the original plan was approved for 350,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and 350 dwellings, which would have generated a considerably greater amount of trips than the 207 townhouses under construction and this 5,200 sq ft project. Mr. O’Toole noted he has a lot of safety concerns regarding the pathway crossing and this project. He asked for the Technical Review Committee’s (TRC’s) comments on the project. Mr. Gantt noted that this was sent to the Commissioners; the November 16, 2020 letter sent to applicant summarizes the TRC’s concerns with the project (mentioned above, Att. 3). Mr. Lynch was concerned about the proximity of this project, with the large areas of impervious surface, within 300 feet of Hazel Run. He said that he wants to require that all of the stormwater retention be done on site and not allow any in-lieu fees or any off-site mitigation. Mr. Lynch discussed his concerns with the impervious surfaces as there is very little real estate on this parcel for any stormwater retention and wondered where applicant intends to capture stormwater runoff. Mr. Lynch asked if there was any on-street parking is allowed on Alum Spring Road. Mr. Craig said not in front of this project, as a Fred Transit stop is shown. 3 Mr. Craig noted that the ordinance is designed to limit impervious surfaces and staff recommends that additional treatment should occur. He said all the storm water drainage for the townhomes and this site will be treated in an underground system, which also treats the drainage from Lafayette Boulevard. Mr. Craig said portions of Lafayette Boulevard utilize off-site credits, but this project does not. In responding to the request for additional parking, the applicant has been asked to apply additional Best Management Practices. Mr. Lynch said there are a lot of stormwater issues in this area. Mr. Craig agreed and noted that this is why staff is asking for a higher level of treatment. Mr. Gantt asked about plans for the traffic signal to handle pedestrian and bike traffic. Mr. Craig noted that improvements widening Lafayette Boulevard to four lanes will have to be completed prior to the townhomes or Royal Farm occupancy. Mr. Craig said the original project had a much higher density of residential and commercial space, which has been pared down. Additionally, the original project did not have a full slip lane and applicant added a full right turn lane into the property as an upgrade. Mr. Gantt asked about the lighting standards as this is a huge facility. Mr. Newman said that staff is researching this and will be requesting recessed lighting at a minimum. Mr. Gantt asked if the townhomes had been notified. Mr. Craig said the townhome developer is selling the subject property to Royal Farms and that the townhouses will be unoccupied until the road improvements are completed. Mr. Craig said the lighting standards are very strict for dark sky protection, requiring downcast and shielded lighting with a maximum of 3.0 ft. candles. Gas station canopies generally do not meet that requirement and always require a site plan exception. Chairman Rodriguez noted that while the adjacent townhomes are not yet occupied, he asked if the single family residential properties in the project further south were notified since the original approval was for commercial and office space, not a gas station. Mr. Johnston reiterated that this area was always planned as a commercial center with some type of auto oriented use at this corner. Chairman Rodriguez asked the applicant to notify the residential home owners. Mr. Johnston said this would be pursued, but was concerned about setting a precedent of how far away property owners must be notified of a proposed project. Chairman Rodriguez asked if it was possible to put in a condition that the developers must build the previously discussed ped/bike overpass of Blue Gray Parkway. Mr. Johnston noted that state legal standards say that there has to be a proportional and rational connection between the project and a condition. Mr. Durham clarified that the residential developer sold the proposed project property to applicant. Mr. Johnston said yes. He noted that if an HOA exists for the residential development, it would be developer controlled for some time and they would approve the proposed project. Mr. Durham asked if the Lafayette Corridor Overlay District and the building standards could mandate the use of certain materials due to the proximity to a historic park. Discussion ensued regarding what the developer is required to do and the substantial landscaping required. Clark Leming [Leming & Healy Law], attorney for the applicant, was present, along with Steven Klebanoff [owner and president of Sumner], applicant, and Justin Troidl [Bowman Construction], engineer. Mr. Leming discussed Royal Farms generally and the other locations in the area. Mr. Leming used staff’s November 16, 2020 letter to address some of the concerns raised. He discussed the proposed landscaping and promised to provide illustrations; provided a revised architectural rendering and elevations for the Lafayette Boulevard façade; and noted that applicant believes he can closely comply with the lighting ordinance, but will work with staff to address the issues. Mr. Leming next discussed the commercial aspects of the project, that the TIA had already been approved for much higher trip circumstances and that an additional improvement of a right turn lane has been added to the project. He noted that the market analysis describes this parcel as being a viable use for a fuel sales/convenience store. Mr. Leming noted that the more significant aspect is the Special Exception request for additional parking. He said that other Royal Farm properties parking numbers are actually higher than the request for this location. Royal Farms 4 generate traffic which drives the need for parking and can’t operate without the parking spaces requested as then people would be waiting for parking at certain times of the day and backing up traffic. Mr. Leming noted that the original development of the property had a stormwater plan approved for this commercial piece of the development. The plan was for 1.24 acres of impervious surface and applicant went beyond the state law required proposed BMPs. Applicant’s request for additional parking adds no impervious surface that wasn’t in the original plan, which had a larger FAR and less open space. Mr. Pates asked about the issue of the impact of this project on the VCR Trail and whether any discussions have been had with staff about measures to mitigate this impact. Mr. Klebanoff said no, he was unaware of this issue before this meeting and will discuss same with the engineer. Mr. Leming discussed the proposed request for a condition requiring the developer to build an overpass and clarified that there must be a nexus between the use and the condition imposed. He noted that applicant is willing to look at mitigation and safety. Mr. Durham discussed mitigating the externalities of the proposed parking lot through possibly rerouting the VCR Trail currently running along the southern edge of the property to the northern edge of the property a suitable distance from the Blue Gray Parkway and then turn south and run along the western edge. Mr. Durham felt that due to applicant’s request for the special use and special exception, a nexus exists for rerouting of the VCR Trail. Mr. Leming will discuss same with the applicant and engineer and get back to the Commission. Chairman Rodriguez requested that applicant notify the residential homeowners of this proposed project. Mr. Leming stated he will discuss this staff, but time constraints may hinder that. Chairman Rodriguez said there was no further questions or comments at this time and matter there would be further consideration at the Commission’s December 2 meeting, when a vote is planned. 3. Area 2, Fall Hill Small Area Plan The City of Fredericksburg proposes to amend the City Comprehensive Plan: • Chapter 4, Public Space, Public Facilities, and Preserved Open Space, to update the Parks Inventory; • Chapter 10, Land Use Plan, to update the land use transects and apply them to Fall Hill Small Area in the General Land Use Plan; and • Chapter 11, Planning Areas of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, to adopt the Area 2, Fall Hill Small Area Plan, an expanded Small Area Plan, with land use, open space, infrastructure, and transportation policies. Fall Hill Avenue serves as a central spine to the Area and it is bounded by the Rappahannock River on the north, the Rappahannock Canal on the east, and 1-95 on the west. Ms. Finn reviewed the staff report with a power point presentation (Att. 4) and noted that a vote on this matter could be taken at the December 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Pates asked if a Word draft has been circulated so the Commissioners can comment on same. Ms. Finn said the most up-to-date draft of the Area 2 is on the City’s website, but she can also send the PDF version directly to the Commission. Mr. Pates asked if there was still a Bragg Hill Neighborhood Association and if it had submitted any comments. Ms. Finn said yes, it does still exist, but it is now named Central Park Townhomes, and no it has not submitted any comments. Ms. Finn said that one public comment was received from Robert Maple, President, Fredericksburg Trails Alliance (Att. 5), which was read into the record during the public comment portion of the hearing. She also has had supportive telephone conversations with Reverend Henderson, Kingdom Family Worship. Mr. Durham discussed the commendable work that staff has done with potential improvements not only for Area 2, but the entire City. Mr. Durham reminded the Commission that the proposed amendments to Table 4-7, pg. 4-10, 5 was the process established for the Area 7 Plan. He noted the addition of Butler-Brayne Park and Wild Riverfront Park continues the addition of new facilities into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. O’Toole asked about Stafford County’s proposed pathway across the Rappahannock River and how City residents would access it. Ms. Finn said the exact location of the Stafford path has not been designated, but it has a plan to do so. The plan proposes that City residents would access it by a suspended pedestrian bridge under 1-95. Mr. Lynch discussed the Fall Hill neighborhood center and the community’s proximity to many opportunities. He feels that Fall Hill Avenue needs some traffic calming. Ms. Finn discussed the Area Plan’s focus on elevating the status of the pedestrian to improve the safety for alternate modes of transportation. Mr. Lynch discussed that Area 2 is the northern terminus of the Gateway Boulevard expansion and asked how this advances the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Johnston explained the importance of providing an additional link in the street network serving the City. Chairman Rodriguez asked about the language in 11(2)-5 regarding reestablishing and applying the Rental Inspection Program to address housing quality asking if it aligned with the wording used in other areas of the City. Ms. Finn noted that it matched the language used in Area 6. He asked if the City is still pursuing a fire station on Cowan Boulevard. Mr. Johnston said it was possible, but unlikely. Ms. Finn read into the record the comment received from Mr. Maple. Chairman Rodriguez noted that the public hearing would remain open until December 2, 2020 for further time to receive public comments, with the vote planned for that session. 4. Commercial Downtown and Mixed-Use Text Amendment The City of Fredericksburg proposes amendments to §72-32.2, Commercial Downtown District, §72-84 Definitions, §72-53.1 Off-Street Parking and Loading, §72-40.2, Use Table, and §72-41.2 Institutional Uses to update residential density, mixed-use regulations, and permitted uses as part of the implementation of the Area 7 Downtown Small Area Plan. Mr. Craig reviewed the staff report with a power point presentation (Att. 6) and suggested that a vote on this matter be taken at the December 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Pates suggested this matter be deferred for a work session at a later date. Mr. Craig said agreed. The item was deferred to a work session on December 2, 2020, before the regular session. Mr. Durham questioned staff why Sophia Street was not identified as a retail priority area and discussed 11(7)-2 of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that many of the Caroline Street lots run all the way to Sophia Street and believes this makes them linked. Mr. Durham said that a lot of the problems with excess parking manifested itself in the construction of structures along Sophia Street. He feels some of the potential infill would be along Sophia Street yet the discussion is limited to retail priority area of just William Street and Caroline Street. Mr. Durham asked if staff has a sense of the current usage of the upper floors in the retail priority area and if staff could discuss the expected impacts on development and adaptive reuse of the upper floors. Mr. Craig said staff will do a visual survey, but knows they are underutilized and will discuss the expected impacts at another meeting. 8. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT None. 6 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Planning Commissioner Comments Mr. Lynch expressed his pleasure of serving on this Commission. B. Fredericksburg Boards & Commissions Racial Equity Feedback Angela Freeman, the Fredericksburg Diversity, Equity, and Economic Advancement Officer, discussed the purpose of the Racial Equity Feedback request and reviewed the seven questions presented to the City’s Boards and Commissions Members (Att. 7). Discussion ensued between Commission members who decided to collectively participate and deferred further discussion on this matter until the December 2, 2020 work session. C. Discussion of retail uses and the concept for the Neighborhood Commercial / Residential districts. Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Johnston asked to defer this matter for further discussion at the December 2, 2020 work session. D. Transmission to City Council of FY20 Annual Land Use Report and FY21 CIP recommendations at a joint Council/Commission Work Session on December 8 Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Johnston asked to defer this matter for further discussion at the December 2, 2020 work session. E. Planning Director Comments Mr. Johnston discussed setting a work session on December 2, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. when the Commissioners will discuss: 1. Racial Equity Feedback Questionnaire; 2. Proposed Amendments regarding Commercial Downtown and Mixed-Use Text Amendment; and 3. Annual Land Use Report and CIP recommendations. The regular Planning Commission meeting will follow with discussion and potential voting on: 1. Royal Farms Special Use and Special Exception; 2. Area 2 Fall Hill Area Plan; and 3. Commercial Downtown and Mixed Use Text Amendment. Mr. Johnston said there would also be a proposed policy to implement the recently adopted Ordinance extending the virtual meeting participation allowances. He reviewed the current policies. Discussion ensued about whether the two remote participation allowance would continue once the pandemic has expired. Mr. Johnston said he will check with the City Attorney about whether that is a state requirement or a local decision. Chairman Rodriguez asked for the Ordinance and proposed policy be forwarded to the Commission. Mr. Johnston noted if there is still time left on December 2, there could be discussion on the issue retail uses and Neighborhood Commercial / Residential District. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items to be discussed, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Next meeting is December 2, 2020. Rene Rodriguez, Chairman 7  _ __ 0) U -J I U -i-’O I D.L Eu (N L) FJ3 City of Fredericksburg Overview • Issue: Special Use Permit for a School in a Residential-2 Zoning District. • Historic Braehead Manor • School: A public or private school offering general, technical, or alternative instruction at the elementary, middle, and/or high school levels that operates in buildings or structures or on premises on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, before and after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution. • Issues with fire and building codes, property subject to an easement • Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions 0) -Q Cl) C-) a) ci) U 0 > 4-, (-) a) > C) C) -J ro (N C 0 U 0 0) -Q C,) C-) a) -D a) I. I-I 0 > 4-, C) C 0 Co U 0 fJt33 City of Fredericksburg Update - History • Council approved BnB use in 2013 • Council approved accessory outdoor events use in 2014 • Both uses expired Nov 1, 2018 • 2 yr. period to resume uses expired Nov. 1, 2020 FXBG City of Fredericksburg - Update Structure 3 floor structure: -Basement and first floor are each 2,123 sq. ft. -Second floor area is 1,256 sq. ft. -Total of 5,502 sq. ft. -Applicant wants space for 116 staff/students. -Bldg. can accommodate up to 120 persons, depending on layout  City of Fredericksburg FXBc3 Update — Required Changes • Photo luminescent exit signs • Plug in lights for emergency lighting • Provision of movable ramps for handicap access • Already connected to City sewer system • Potable water is brought the site, though there is a well water connection F)I3G City of Fredericksburg Update — School Regulations • Accreditation and licensing are optional (if not serving disabled students). No requirement for registration. • Per State Code 22.1-19: “...the Board of Education shall authorize, in a manner it deems appropriate, the Virginia Councilfor Private Education to accredit private nursery, preschool, elementary, and secondary schools.” • Applicant desires to receive a license within 5 years J3(3 City of Fredericksburg Conditions 1. Central Road shall be the primary access point. Lee Drive is to be used for emergency vehicles and disabled persons only. 2. The use is permitted while the use and property are in compliance with the easement held by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Failure to comply with the easement will result in revocation of this special use permit. 3. No signage (other than signage necessary for traffic management) shall be placed on the Lee Drive access. 4. The applicant shall complete a Fire Service Plan, to be approved by the Fire Marshal and National Park Service prior to the commencement of the use on- site. 5. Any additions to the 1859 Braehead Manor historic building, construction of new buildings, or substantial modifications of the grounds at 123 Lee Drive shall require an amendment to this special use permit in accordance with § 72- 22.6 Special Use Permits. The construction of improvements required by the Fire Service Plan shall not require an amended special use permit. 6. The use shall commence within 24 months of the date of adoption of this resolution. The use is permitted only so long as it continues and is not discontinued for more than 24 months fXj313 City of Fredericksburg ConcIuson • R2 Zoning District • Historic Property next to Nat’l Park • Previous approvals for Bed & Breakfast, Events Center • School K8th grade • 116 students and staff • 2 public comments: both in favor 0) -D (I) C) a) -D LL 0 >- CD CD 0 C I-’ ‘-I- ci) - 0 1%) — o .!2 -I-J C ci) ci) . Co (_) CD C - C) E 0 O L) ci) U ci >% CD Co (I  __ _ __ ArL2 (I, C-) G) -D 01 a) __ __L_cL) —UU ucc U (I)C __j_j C ‘OG) nEu LcJ) L. 0 C cc ( C) CD “ C 0 ED 0 IF% C L.. S D r) (-0 (J)Lr)’’’ CD fyJ33 City of Fredericksburg Overview • Request: Special Use Permit for a convenience store with gasoline sales, and parking in excess of 175% of the minimum parking requirement • Located at intersection of Lafayette Blvd, Blue-Gray Pkwy, & Alum Springs Rd. • Zoned Planned Development — Mixed-Use. • Part of the ‘Fredericksburg Park’ development. Land Bay A. Would require approval of a Master Plan, General Development Plan, and a Site Plan. • Issues: environmental impact, landscaping, corridor overlay, impact on trail system, lighting, fumes • Recommendation: Deferral of vote to Dec. 2, 2020 0) I— U) C-) ci) -D ci) U 0 >- 4-, C) C 0 Ct3 U 0 -J  0) I— D -Q (I) - C.) u) -o ci) U 0 >- C-) ‘I / 1, / rn ID_. Pt3 City of Fredericksburg Property Information • 1.7 acre site • Royal Farms gas station — 5,154 sq. ft. building • 15 parking spaces required. 175% of 15 is 27. Applicant requests 50 spaces. • Located within the Layette Boulevard Gateway Corridor Overlay District  City of Fredericksburg SUP—Comp. Plan & UDO, Corridor Overlay • Application meets goal and priorities of the Corn p. Plan, as well as the future land use map —designated for PDMC. • Meets the requirements of the PDMC zoning district • Area planned for a variety of residential and commercial uses, market conditions do not support that vision  City of Fredericksburg SUP— Impact Analysis • Lafayette Corridor: guidelines call for additional façade treatment along the rear of the building. Lighting must not spill out onto adjacent properties. Signage must meet corridor guidelines. • Traffic: Expected traffic of 193-235 trips an hour. • Fumes: Cooking process will create fumes/odors, which must be mitigated. F)J33 City of Fredericksburg SUP— Impact Analysis Cont’d • NPS: Awaiting comments from National Park Service. Not within Battlefield lines of sight. • Trails: Entrance cuts through trail system with 40 ft. wide entrance. Pedestrian crossing to be high visibility. Pathway plan calls for an aerial bridge, with access that will bypass this location. f)(13(3 City of Fredericksburg Special Exception Analysis 1 & 2: Satisfy the UDO and Comprehensive Plan Meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO. The proposed use is a commerical use in a mixed-use district. 3. Sufficient time for review and comment Staff letter dated Nov 16. requests additional improvements, hence recommendation to defer a vote to Dec. 2nd meeting.  City of Fredericksburg FXBG Special Exception Analysis 4 & 5. Does application follow good zoning practice? What is unique about the application? The applicant believes their convenience store use also contains a fast food use, which would require additional parking beyond Code minimums. Additional impervious dedicated to parking would create additional runoff, which should be mitigated.  City of Fredericksburg FXBG ConcIuson • Planned Development — Mixed-Use Zoning District • Meets Comp. Plan goals for business development • Market factors have reduced commercial demand for this planned - development ‘Fredericksburg Park’ • Issues with corridor design, lighting, parking, fumes • Rationale for excess parking is fairly debatable, plausible  _ __ 0) I— D -Q C)) C) U 0 >- C-) (N C (N (N L C) 0 C C 0 ‘4_I _I_) 1%) C) -D (_) I w a) E E 0 U a) Co  Afl. 3 James 0. Newman 715 Princess Anne Street Zoning Administrator, AICP, CZO P.O. Box 7447 Planning Services ivision Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7447 City of Fredericksburg, Virginia Telephone: (540) 372-1179 idnewmanclfredericksburgva.gov November 16, 2020 Sumner Partners LLC 7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 1080 Bethesda MD, 20814 Delivered via to email to sklebanoffsumnerpartners.com RE: Royal Farms — Special Use Permit and Special Exception Application Dear Applicant, The Technical Review Committee has reviewed the General Development Plan associated with SUP2O2O-05 and SE2020-06. In order for the City staff to make a recommendation that the Planning Commission take action on the prolect, please address the following comments and resubmit any modified materials by Tuesday November 24. These items will form the basis for conditions of approval: 1. Environmental Impact The amount of parking requested will result in additional --- impervious surface and an increase in nutrient runoff. The square footage of impervious surface exceeding the required parking should be treated on-site using a Best Management Practice (BMP) from the Virginia Stormwater Management BMP Clearing House. These practices are approved for post-construction use to meet the total phosphorus water quality requirements of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program regulation. The BMP should be located on-site and upstream of the manufactured Stormtech filtering device serving the overall project and Lafayette Boulevard. 2. Landscaping Please provide additional parking lot landscaping along Blue-Gray --- Parkway in accordance with Code Section 72-55.2.B. Please ensure adequate foundation plantings are installed in accordance with Code Section 72-55.3. The dumpster will need to be screened in accordance with Code Section 72-55.5.C. Please ensure to add a note for the enclosure stating material type and dimensions. 3. Lafayette Boulevard Corridor The Lafayette Boulevard facing architectural rendering --- provided does not meet the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Design Guidelines. The elevation appears as the rear of a building and must be updated to provide some architectural detailing and transparent building elements in accordance with the guidelines. Please see pages 38-39 of the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Design Guidelines book. Please ensure that you provided revised architectural renderings and elevations that are in compliance with the guidelines. 4. Signage and Lighting Please ensure that signoge meets Code requirements, including --- for the Lafayette Boulevard Gateway Corridor Overlay District. Also, please provide  information on the proposed project site lighting. The purpose of the City’s exterior lighting regulations is to: 1) Regulate lighting to assure that excessive light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent lands, neighboring areas, and motorists; 2) Ensure that all site lighting is designed and installed to maintain adequate lighting levels on site; 3) Provide security for persons and land. Lighting standards include standards for hours of illumination, shielding, maximum height, and maximum illumination value. Gas stations typically request illumination values under their canopies that exceed the permitted maximum illumination levels on-site. The appropriateness of these types of exceptions may depend on shielding all lighting elements from surrounding residential uses. Please provide information on how the lighting impacts from the site will be mitigated and whether or not exceptions will be required from existing City codes. 5. Fumes Please provide information on how all cooking fumes and other odors will be --- mitigated. 6. NPS --- The National Park Service has been contacted for review of the application. If you have any questions, please call me at (540) 372-1 179, or email me at jdnewmanfredericksburciva.gov ‘ames D. Newman, Zoning Administrator, AICPØ CZO  __ ___________ ______ Arr. 4 Cl) c_) G) -0 cD LL 0 a) I1 H H E Cl) c%J Il:I:14a3 U- FXBG City of Fredericksburg Fall Hill 400 Acres 1000 Households 125 Acres of Public Open Space I 75 Acres of Private Open Space 0 I 1 FALL 4 / 4 4; 4. / I 1. ,,. 4..  City of Fredericksburg FX130 Public Engagement and Land Suitability Analysis  Lb 4 a) cI -H U x [‘1 a) U  - D Cr) / / •/ N1 r r __ _ -D C 0) C 0 -c 0 C’) E a) I. Cl) a) 0 0 0 -a5 -c 0 - C Cl) 0) U) a) a) _c -I-I C_) C LI— Ci C 0 o > - Cl) 0) 0 - rr -I-J E a) D “4-) E - C >.D C 0 2 x W 1, . . .  City of Fredericksburg FXBS Plan Overview a) Cl)  _____ _______ FXBG Neighborhood Center j / _J t..:] Property Consolidation / I ‘ii, :] Potential Infl Redevelopment k) A I :• I OO Alley Vehicle Access \\ 4 u Existing Multi-Use Path — —•: % —‘ Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Pedestrian Lighting t Potential Fire Station F 11 Evaluate Ped. Crossing Safety Improved Pedestrian Crossing I -a I Snowden Park Proposed New Park  FXBG Access and Mobility 4= Gateway Boulevard Extended 0 Bus Stop 1-95 Impact Area o Future 1-95 Interchange 4= Rotinian Road Extended River Access Street 4-— Existing Multi-Use Path I I Proposed Multi-Use Path Sidewalk Expansion Lighting Expansion  FXBG Environment and Open Space River Access 4., Steep Slope/Environmental Facility Stream xx Pedestrian Bridge Canal Off-road Established Trails ci Trail head ee Proposed Multi-Use Path Established Multi-Use Path  FXBG Wild Riverfront Park Focus To STAFFORD COLINTYTRALLS Pedestrian Promenade - -, Vehicle Acecess <X><> Pedestrian Bridge $ River Access 0 Parking Area Community Facility Historic Interpretation —  FXBG Implementation Infrastructure • Complete the street network on Bragg Hill Drive, Roffman Road, and Wicklow Drive with the addition of necessary pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks and lighting. • Vacate unused right-of-way from the realignment of Fall Hill Avenue to create a more development-friendly site with a useful pattern for circulation using the side streets. • Ensure the extension of Gateway Boulevard includes a multi-use path to safely cross Fall Hill Avenue connecting to the existing trail, and continuing to the riverfront. Regulations • Rezone Commercial Highway zoned land to a more appropriate mix to support and transition to nearby neighborhoods • Rezone publicly held land and preserved open space categorized as Civic or T-1 to a public, recreational, open space, and environmental zoning district (PROSE). • Protect environmentally sensitive land by clustering and future development in the area away from these features. Public Facilities • Implement the Chesapeake Total Maximum Total Daily Load Plan, identify and study possible locations for updated, create additional open spaces, create upgrade required best management practices, and reduce the amount of nutrients in storm water runoff. • Develop a Fall Hill Park that preserves the forested character of the area while allowing for experience based recreation for all ages. • Develop a “Wild Riverfront Park” accessible by all modes that links visitors with the scenic riverfront providing both historic interpretation and environmental interaction. • Continue to improve the Sunshine Ball Park and develop additional recreational amenities, as feasible at this facility and Snowden Park.  FXBG — — Old Mill Park — I — r — — — Canal Stroet Wharf — — .- I — I, _ 1 # __• 44 4% ..o -I I— — I 1 I I — — —— ‘4 Multi-Use Path (Proporrea) / 4.—-. Multi-Use Path (LxIsrinq) 4— — Bicycle Boulevard (Proflosed) <4% — 4 + Shared Roadways Existinq and Proposed) 4.. — — Sicewoiks (Existing uOd i-iopcrred) — — — — Ott-- Road Trails )rxirrrina and Pruporrod) River Acoest. Points Ovorne Rtreet Walk oritaii lazGl Run (Preenway Ui-icons Open Space FXBG City of Fredericksburg Next Steps Hold the public hearing open until December 2nd  ATr. 5 From: Rob Maole To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Area 2 Small Area Plan Comments Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 1:18:53 PM Good afternoon! There is so much to be excited about within the Area 2 small area plan! From our (FredTrails) perspective, the potential of all the ideas within this plan would offer even more of a platform for Fredericksburg becoming a must visit outdoor recreational location. Our currency construct of trails would be enhanced by adding more green space via the areas with steep slopes, dedicated park land, and deeded open space. All and all, a win for the trails, trail users, and the City. In supporting the need for maintaining and building off-road trails, and through our current MOU with the City, we would look to continue our partnership with the City on expanding and enhancing our amazing local trails. In addition to FredTrails being supportive of the overall plan itself, I have included a few bullets for your consideration 1. Upgrade and enhancements to Scout Trail surface 2. Inclusion of a structure over wash-out on Scout Trail 3. Access to Fall Hill Riverside Park/Butler Brayne Park from Scout Trail 4. Access to Fall Hill Riverside Park/Butler Brayne Park from Wicklow Drive Thanks, Rob Robert Maple President Fredericksburg Trails Alliance 804.445.3898 www.fredtrai ls.or 0) -Q - ATT.6 U 0 >- z oz -I — w oz 0> (Jw LLJ 0.— 0z 0  l)(J33 City of Fredericksburg 1. Area 7 Downtown Small Area Plan 2. Commercial Downtown and Old and Historic Fredericksburg Overlay District (OH ED) 3. Disconnect between density rules and historic development patterns 4. Calibration of active uses and Retail Priority Area 5. Next Steps / Recommendation  JD3 City of Fredericksburg 1. Area 7 Downtown Small Area Plan The Area 7 Downtown Small Area Plan identified three key issues with the Commercial Downtown Zoning District: • The Historic Downtown is envisioned to be a vibrant and sustainable part of the community but artificial residential density caps inhibit adaptive reuse of historic structures and compatible infill development. • The Commercial Downtown zoning district specifies the location and character of “mixed-use,” however, the requirement too broadly requires where active retail is required and too narrowly defines what constitutes an active use. • The Historic Downtown is uniquely positioned as a priority area for active retail and entertainment uses and the use definitions and standards need to evolve to clearly permit them. Solutions Discussed in the Creative Maker District and Area 7 Downtown Plan Public Hearings Align with City Vision: • Encourage adaptive reuse of underutilized historic structures (fight Demolition by Neglect); • Fight Climate Change — Fossil Fuel Free Fredericksburg; • Protect the River by reducing sprawl and increasing the ratio of people per square foot of impervious surface; • Provide for sustainable housing choice; and • Increase economic vitality / vibrancy of the Downtown Core. 0) U -Q LI) C,) C-) ci) D > C) CD U S. 0 a) > > C) 0 LI) U a) LL L) 0 4-I. U, I -c, CD -o 0 -D C CD C 0 4-I C 0 CD U a) E 2 0 U 0) C -o (I) a) C-) I. 4-, G) CD -D G) U 4-, 0 C >- a) C-) E 0 0 a) > a) L) C 0 4-, v U-;. U, v-i -o C CD - a) C C i— U C > C 4-, Vi C a) -c C a) ci) C C: 4-, a) - 4-, U ci) C C 0 U “I r  FXBG City of Fredericksburg 3. Disconnect between density rules and historic development patterns - SE 2016-01 - SE 2017-02 - SE 2017-02 September 27, 2016 September 12, 2017 CURRENT PROPOSAL § 72-32.2 IBy-right density 18 du / acr (MF); 12 du / acr (TH) Proposed Units / Acreage 14 units (7TH & 7 MF) / 0.52 acres 16 units (7TH & 9 MF) / 0.52 acres 13 units (13 TH) 1 0.52 acres Proposed Density 29 units per acre 31 units per acre 25 units per acre 0) I— D C 5 3 (I) C-) a) 4J C-) 0 CD z z (N 3 0 0 0 U 4-, 0 C C: > a) :3 C U p C-) C 0 3 C. C) C C) C C C C a) 3 0 C C) C C) > .11 c a) r.-; C -o • 0 0 0 0 C: C 3 C: C) C) L) 3 0 C 0 -3 0 C: C: C: o 0 ‘3 3 C C - C) . . 4-, 0 C) z Lf) I C): C) C) -c 3 CC C: “C C o C -o 0 C) 3 C) C o o C: C o 0 C: C C: 0 -‘C C: C) C: C C: C C: C CD ‘C •— C) C) U C z - ‘I) C a) C) C— C ‘C 0 C C 0 [I C: > C C 4-, C: V.) C) C) C: ‘C C C) C- t — C: C-) a) z ‘C z C: C-fl -o C (N C) 0 ‘C 0 2 a) C) 2 a) c-)C 4-, a) -Q 4-, U a) C C 0 U U-) r  J3(3 City of Fredericksburg 3. Calibrate By-Right Levels for Mixed-Use in the OHFD / CD? By-Right Increase in Mixed-Use Permitted Units 24 to 36 Units Per Acre There are 315 parcels within the Commercial excluding City ownership, churches, floodplain properties, recently completed projects (Parkview and Frederick Street Lofts) / townhome developments (Riverview and Lafayette Station), obvious properties that will still remain non conforming in terms of density (1-leflin Apartments / Galleria), and properties within the Railroad Station Overlay District. Additional Units Permitted - Mixed-Use Projects # of Add. Units # of Lots Effected N° 1-2 Add. Units 208 3-4 Add. Units 25 5-10 Add. Units 9 10-13 Add. Units 3 38 Add. Units The Post Office  FJ(R13 City of Fredericksburg 3. Calibrate By-Right Levels for Mixed-Use in the OHFD / CD? By-Right Increase in Mixed-Use Permitted Units - Hisrnric Fredericksburg District Downtown 24 to 36 Units Per Acre EFFECT: • Conservative proposal — limits increase to mixed-use projects in the CD and the OHFD. The increase may be monitored overtime to gauge effectiveness / impact. • Majority of the effect is to permit modest number of additional units in the areas where they most likely will contribute to adaptive reuse of historic structures. • Permits an increase in units on viable infill parcels where new construction will require parking offsets. • Increases the potential of the Post Office to achieve the vision established in plans dating back to Jump Start.  F)IBG City of Fredericksburg 3. Calibrate By-Right Levels for Mixed-Use in the OHFD / CD? - Lot Sizes OHFD v. Non-OHFD Total Units (Mixed-Use Permitted By-Right w/ Change) 11tmn ()HFD within OHFD v. Non-OHFD Projects IMPACT 1- SCHOOL POPULATION: Lot Size Number of Lots Within OHFD The OHFD is an area of the City differentiated by Total Units (Mixed-Use) Number of Lots Less than 0.1 Acres 195 buildings or structures having an important historic, 1-5 252 8w 0,1 and 0.49 Acres 113 architectural, archaeological or cultural interest. \Vith 6-10 42 , 13w 0.5 and 1.06 Acres 6 a prohibition on demolition, ra’.ing, or removal of 15 3.2 Acres ‘l’hc Post Office 20-38 am’ historic landmark, building, or structure. B’ 5 maintaining the historic built environment and, as a Outside the OHFD 115 The Post Office consequence, applies pressure to continue the Lot Size Project Name Outside the Ol-IFD historic lot pattern, which is smaller than other areas 30 Acres Cobblestone Total Units Project Name of the CD. The effect is that development in the 20 Acres TeIeraph Hill 400 Multi—Family Cobblestone OHFD does not generate the type of subdivision / 19 Acres Fredericksburg Park $4 SFD Telegraph I Jill lot / building type that typically carries a bulk impact 207 SFA Fredericksburg Park 16 i\cres Vak it Apts / ‘F wnh rnes on the City’s school system. 178 ?v[F / SFi\ Valor Apts / Townhomes 12 Acres 1-lith1ander 91 SF1\ Highlander 1 1 Acres 1—lamptons at Noble 138 SFA 1-lamptons at Noble  FXBG Cfty of Fredericksburg 3. Calibrate By-Right Levels for Mixed-Use in the OHFD / CD? IMPACT 2- PARKING: CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG WALKER PARKING ACTiON PLAN MCR. 207 Id-4I53. 1- L FrIday 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Wednesday 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. A B A B Zone Downtown Downtown Service Total Core Retail Total ore Retail Service Supply 740 110 850 726 31 757 Public Off-Street Demand 210 52 262 485 4 489 % Occupied 28% 47% 31% 67% 13% 62% Supply 433 471 904 433 471 904 Public On-Sheet Demand 316 308 624 331 316 647 % Occupied 73% 65% 70% 76% 67% 72% Supply 173 581 1754 1159 502 1661 Total Demand 526 360 886 816 320 1136 % Occupied 45% 62% 51% 70% 64% 69% City of Fredericksburg Downtown Base Map 13 Sock Ncrflbe. — — SkdY A’ec WALKER Sa,c.: W,pUl1 CO1)$UNG&1 2017  FXBc3 City of Fredericksburg 3. Calibrate By-Right Levels for Mixed-Use in the OHFD / CD? IMPACT 2- PARKING: • The parking supply in areas “A” and “B” has substantial excess capacity at both the weekend and — weekday peak (the 886 525 excess surface parking spaces in areas “A” and “B” could accommodate all of the increased use without adding any parking into the system). • The supply of on-street parking immediately in front of popular destinations is highly sought after and — used regularly (public on-street occupancy at peak hours ranges from 70 72% in areas “A” and “B”). • Public on-street parking spaces at key destinations are a finite resource and cannot be replicated. • Recommend that the residential portion of required off-street parking for a mixed-use project within the CD / OHFD be provided on private property: • Adaptive reuse of historic structures is exempt so this provision would not impede good reuse. • Infill mixed-use construction would accommodate residential parking outside the public parking supply.  City of Fredericksburg FXB(3 3. Disconnect between density rules and historic development patterns Proposed Review Criteria: § 72-53.1 Off-Street Parking: The required off-street parking for the residential portion of a mixed-use project shall be provided on private property. § 72-32.2.C. Performance Criteria for Residential Projects. Any residential development in the Old and Historic Fredericksburg Overlay District that requires a special use permit shall be subject to the following performance criteria: 1) If a proposed development is located in the “Retail Priority Area” as described in the Area 7 Downtown Plan then it shall be a mixed-use development in accordance with subsection D below. 2) The City Council shall consider, in addition to other relevant factors, whether the proposed development includes appropriate provisions for archaeology, historic interpretation, or enhanced open space. Existing Review Criteria: § 72-22.6.D(2) Special Use Permit Review Criteria looks at potential adverse impacts created by: (a)Traffic or parking congestion; (b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; (c) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; (d) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; (e) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; (f) Impact on school population and facilities; (g) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; (h) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; and (i) Massing and scale of the project.  FXBG City of Fredericksburg 4. Calibration of active uses and Retail Priority Area TRANSECT MAP The uantecs nap dla:teases the runes card so identify torrent settlement bud commerce pattern, Sod to doter nest dereopment ni deselupmeur. or redereiopmeor witmn Area. This was de,eooed after cmdriug the ensong and mrcipacsag the borne buds coscecuomnt Area T. wiasda ma starred S pubbe ooaapues000rs. mulatto, opportumamnes foe rcs-mnd2000c r,th naerrrted nsaed.ose and some areas for bmgiaea density dotriopmtut Area V con:.:s; of So rtnthtd Ulnseet roots — ±86 acres ± 260 acres i?rn ± 33 acres c acres ± acres Retail Priority Area (7-3 CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG  City of Fredericksburg F)(Bc3 4. Calibration of active uses and Retail Priority Area Update the Mixed-Use Development Definition: A tract of land or structure developed for two or more different uses, such as, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, institutional, public, or entertainment. Such uses arc functionally integrated and share vehicular use areas, ingress/egress, and pedestrian access.use groups from the following list: (1) Residential (including all Residential use categories); (2) Lodging (including the Visitor Accommodations use category); (3) Office and Educational (including the Offices, Health Care Facilities, Educational Facilities, and Government Facilities use categories); (4) Retail and Consumer (including Alcoholic Beverage Production, Eating Establishments, Indoor Recreation, and Retail Sales and Services use categories and Light Manufacturing in the Creative Maker District). In a mixed-use development, no single use group shall make up more than 75% of the total gross floor area of the development, and all uses are functionally integrated and share vehicular use areas, ingress and egress, and pedestrian access. Within Commercial — Downtown, a mixed-use project would have to: 1. A mixed-use structure, or the combination of structures collectively situated on a mixed-use site, shall meet the definition of a mixed-use development set forth in 72-84 of this code. 2. Within the “Retail Priority Area” established in the Area 7 Downtown Small Area Plan (fronting on Caroline Street between Amelia Street and Wolfe Street, or fronting on William Street between Caroline Street and Charles Street), at least 30% of the gross floor area of the ground floor of (1) a mixed-use structure, or (2) all structures on a mixed-use site that front on these streets, shall consist of uses in the Retail and Consumer use group, as defined in § 72-84 of this code.  f:J(Dt3 City of Fredericksburg 4. Calibration of active uses and Retail Priority Area Calibrate permitted uses in Commercial Downtown: Additional Use Category Use Type C-D Requirements — Institutional Uses — I ducational Facilities Vocational or Trade Schoul P Institutions /IIK///Ormm P 1;’/’/,,7, C’ui1mv, i,w/ S 72-41 .2i\ L Q )iWenti( n Center - Commercial Uses - Animal Care Veterinary Clinic P 72-41.313 - Recreation, Indoor Recreation, — Inch or P Retail Sales and Services 1-listoric Dependency Limited -c P 72-41.3K Office/Retail • Calibrate definitions: • Differentiate laevcen auditoriums and Convention Centers • I .lirninate overlap in the Indoor Recreation definition  IE)R3 City of Fredericksburg 5. Next Steps / Recommendation The proposed modifications will help maintain the historic built environment and the historic lot pattern within the CD / OHFD. Due to the strict controls designed to preserve a smaller more compact historic environment within the OHFD, regulations equating numbers of units with available square footage of land problematically suppress the usability of historic structures and prohibit desirable infill. Land to unit ratios are more appropriate in areas of the City where lot consolidation and demolition of structures is permissible and where new infrastructure must be provided to accommodate additional land uses especially in areas without form or design controls. What was said canonically about suburban parking standards in 2009 rings true today regarding suburban residential density rules: “Fredericksburg’s downtown was developed prior to the invention of the automobile. Its historic built environment is in the style of a classic, pedestrian-friendly, “Main Street.” The City values its downtown and does not wish to encourage the demolition of structures to provide new surface parking spaces. However, its current parking regulations require suburban-style parking to be provided for expanding businesses or for the change in use of structures. These regulations, combined with the prohibition against demolition of structures, have combined to discourage the expansion of businesses and the change in the use of downtown structures.” (Ord. 09-22) 0) •c) -Q C (1) C) 0 a) U -D >‘ a) 4-’ LL o 0 4-, ci) >- C Ci) 4—’ E 0 4-, E b 0 U U ci) = ci) - E 0 - ci) CD bD o E •‘ ci) U ci) ci) C o . 4-, C ci) -c 0 CD U CD - 0 C E -o E Ci) ci) E ci) 0 E -c 4-) L) ci) 0 — > 0 LI) C ci.) E 0 CD (F) a) -D C a) >< ci) 2 z 2 0 U ci) ci) Lfl  ATT’. 7 Timothy J. Baroody City of Fredericksburg City Manager P.O. Box 7447 Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7447 D. Mark Whitley City of Fredericksburg Telephone: 540 372-1010 Assistant City Manager FredericksburgVA.gov Doug Fawcett Assistant City Manager Dear Boards and Commissions Members, The purpose of this outreach is to request your support in the City’s effort to gather input related to racial equity to be used for Fredericksburg City Council’s consideration as it establishes priorities for the upcoming biennium. In 2017, the City Council held discussions related to the future of the Slave Auction Block, formerly located at the corner of William and Charles Streets. City Council recognized that its decision- making process would take place within the larger context of a community dialogue about race, history, and memory. The community dialogue began prior to 2017 and it continues today, with leadership from the local religious community, business community, historians, academic institutions, and the African American community. Throughout 2018, the City conducted community engagement work, with the support of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience, on telling a more complete history and to turn “dialogue into action.” City residents and stakeholders have been integral to these discussions and Council’s actions have sought to reflect the voice of our community. These efforts are consistent with Council’s 2036 Vision Statement of Sharing Our Past, Embracing the Future. In July, City Council approved a response and recovery plan in response to calls for reforms to address racial inequities. The pace of the development and implementation of the plan has been accelerated by the recent civil unrest. The plan’s third phase addresses strategic planning. To support this effort, city staff is working to collect community input for Council’s consideration. Input will be collected from various community groups, institutions and directly from residents and community stakeholders. As an official City authority, commission, board or task force, your input is vital. Please consider discussing the attached questions with members of the respective authority, commission, board or task force and respond in writing. A response may be drafted from the perspective of the group, as a body. Additionally, member responses will be accepted should members wish to respond individually. Please respond no later than November 18, 2020 and send your responses to adfreeman@fredericksburgva.gov Thank you in advance for your consideration and your continued contributions to moving our great city forward. Sincerely, Timothy J. Baroody City Manager  Authority, Board, Commission or Task Force Racial Equity Input—October 2020 At its June 18, 2020 special meeting, City Council discussed the response and recovery plan that calls for reform to address racial inequality and race discrimination. This plan describes the Council’s desire to hear from its community stakeholders through one or a series of “Whole of Community” meetings, in order to obtain input to shape its deliberations during its multi-day priority-setting meeting. The Council will use the theme of racial equality to tie together its priorities for the next biennium and generate a draft statement of its Vision, Desired Future States and Actions for community review. The goal is that the accomplishments of this phase will lay the groundwork for the longer- term City Council and community response to manifestations of racial inequality (and racial inequity) throughout the City. Accordingly, the City has identified your group as one of several to provide feedback that will be used to inform City Council’s deliberations to determine future priorities. It is envisioned there will be a later effort to host conversations more broadly across our community and in a manner that would allow deeper, richer feedback and insights. This information gathering effort is part of the city staff pre-work to offer City Council a very broad overview of some initial community sentiments related to support for the development of a racial equity plan. 1. What is the name of the Authority, Board, Commission or Task Force? 2. Based on the work you do in this group and as a conununity stakeholder, are you supportive of City Council’s efforts to undertake a more formal process to explore this issue and develop a racial equity plan? Why or Why not? 3. Would you be interested in participating in a more formal process to develop a racial equity plan? If so, how? 4. Are there efforts in which this group is currently engaged in today related to racial equity? If so, what efforts? What efforts, if any, do you propose to continue or initiate over the next two years? 5. In the capacity of this group, are there areas that you see which may be areas of opportunity where the City should focus when exploring racial equity? If so, what areas and why? 6. Are there areas that you see in your personal life and/or in the city that are areas which may be opportunities where the City should focus when exploring racial equity? If so, what areas and why Qf comfortable sharing? 7. Please offer your reactions to the City’s response to recent civil unrest.