Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 2023 6:30 PM IN PERSON MEETING 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/a5u3tuavtd The Agenda, Staff Report, Applications and Supporting Documents are also available on the Planning Commission page: https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/241/Planning-Commission MEMBERS CITY STAFF David Durham, Chairman Chuck Johnston, Director Adam Lynch, Vice-Chairman Mike Craig, Principal Planner Mary-Margaret Marshall, Secretary Bailey Thompson, Community Development Planner Tom O’Toole Taylor Owen, Administrative Assistant Susanna Finn Kenneth Gantt Chris Hornung _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER [00:00:00] Chairman Durham called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers and explained meeting procedures for the public. Members of the public were invited to attend or access this meeting by public access television Cox Channel 84, Verizon Channel 42, online at https://www.regionalwebtv.com/fredpc, or Facebook live at www.facebook.com/FXBGgov. Mr. Durham noted that at the January 25 Commission meeting, he had mistakenly limited General Public Comment to three minutes. He asked for a motion to suspend the public comment time limits during tonight’s meeting, so that during the Commission’s scheduled public hearing and during the General Public Comment period, commenters present in Council Chambers would have unlimited time to make comments. Mr. O’Toole so moved, seconded by Ms. Marshall. Motion passed, 5-2 (Lynch, Gantt voting: no). 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM [00:03:34] There were seven members in attendance of the meeting at the call to order. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA [00:04:12] Mr. Lynch moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Hornung seconded. Motion passed 7-0. 5. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICIES, ORDINANCES, OR APPLICATIONS None. 6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DISCLOSURES OF CONTACT [00:04:30] Mr. Hornung said he did not have a conflict of interest, but wanted to report that he and several other commissioners attended a College Heights Association meeting on February 5 where the Accessory Dwelling Unit text amendments were presented by City planning staff and discussed by City residents.  2 7. PUBLIC HEARING [00:06:46] A. UDOTAFY23-01 Accessory Dwelling Units - The City of Fredericksburg (Attachment 1) Mr. Durham noted that City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance §72-84, Definitions, §7241.1, Principal Use Standards, §72-42.5, Table of Common Accessory Uses, §72-42.6 Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses, to Establish Regulations Governing the Use of Accessory Dwelling Units associated with single-family detached dwelling units and directed the Planning Commission to develop a robust public information process on this topic. He said, per City Code, the Commission must make a recommendation to Council, or request additional review time, within 100 days of this meeting, the first Commission public hearing on the matter. Therefore, he said, the Commission is to take action (or request additional time) no later than the Commission’s May 10 public meeting. Further, Mr. Durham said that at its January 25 meeting, the Commission voted to establish a public information process that included the following elements: 1. The proposed UDO text amendments will be the subject of a public hearing at each of the scheduled public meetings between February 8 and May 10. This is a minimum of four and a maximum of seven public hearings depending on the conduct of optional supplementary fourth Wednesday of the month public meetings in February, March, and April. This evening’s meeting is the first of these public hearings. 2. The Planning Commission and Community Planning and Building Department staff will conduct four Public Information Sessions during this period, two on Wednesday evenings and two on Saturday mornings, at community locations to engage the public in a less formal setting and elicit feedback on the proposed UDO text amendments. 3. Planning staff will make itself available to meet with any City Neighborhood Association or other community organization that wishes to engage on this issue. 4. Planning staff will make information about the topic available to the public for its use on its website and via its social media channels. Mr. Johnston reviewed the issues raised at the College Heights Association meeting on February 5. He provided information on the allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units until the adoption of the 1984 zoning ordinance, with at least 90 units still in use. He shared the following schedule for public meetings on this topic: Wednesday, February 8 6:30 pm Council Chambers* Plng Commission Public Hearing 715 Princess Anne Street Saturday, February 11 10:00-11:30 am Dorothy Hart Community Cntr PC Community Session 408 Canal Street – Room 1 Wednesday, February 22 6:30 pm Council Chambers PC Supplementary Meeting Wednesday, March 8 6:30 pm Council Chambers* PC Public Hearing 715 Princess Anne Street Wednesday, March 15 7:00 pm Lafayette Upper Elem School PC Community Session Wednesday, April 12 6:30 pm Council Chambers* PC Public Hearing 715 Princess Anne Street Saturday, April 1 10:00-11:30 am School Board Meeting Room PC Community Session 210 Ferdinand Street Wednesday, April 19 7:00 pm Police HQ Training Room PC Community Session Wednesday, May 10 7:30 pm Council Chambers* PC Public Hearing 715 Princess Anne Street  3 He said that the following three meetings are sponsored by civic associations/private organizations, with public access controlled by that entity. Sunday, February 5 2:00 pm Christ Lutheran Church College Heights Civic Association Wednesday, February 16 6:30 pm Central Library Rising Sun Civic Association Thursday, February 23 6:00 pm TBD Fred 15 / Fossil Free FXBG Community Meeting Mr. Johnston reviewed the proposed amendments to permit and to establish regulations governing the use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) associated with single-family detached dwelling units: 1. An ADU would be a secondary dwelling unit established in conjunction with and clearly subordinate to a principal dwelling unit, whether part of the same structure as the principal dwelling unit or as a detached structure on the same lot. 2. The total occupancy permitted within a single family lot (a family and two unrelated persons or no more than three unrelated people total) are not proposed to be changed. 3. The amendment would permit a full kitchen for the ADU. 4. The proposed regulatory standards for ADUs include: a. An accessory dwelling unit is only permitted in association with a principal single-family detached dwelling unit. b. Only one accessory dwelling unit is permitted per lot. c. An accessory dwelling unit may have no more than one kitchen, in addition to the principal dwelling’s primary kitchen. d. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be calculated as part of the maximum allowable density. e. Together, the occupancy of the principal single-family dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the definition of a family. f. An accessory dwelling shall not exceed: i. 400 square feet of heated area if the ADU is located in an accessory structure; or ii. 40% of the gross floor area of a principal dwelling if the ADU is within the principal dwelling. g. An exterior entrance to an accessory dwelling unit that is located within the principal dwelling shall be permitted only on the side or rear of the principal dwelling. h. Either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling shall be occupied by a resident manager. The manager shall maintain current contact information on the accessory dwelling unit permit. The resident manager will be the primary point of contact for any property maintenance or use complaints and will manage the public services provided to the site. i. The principal and accessory units shall share public utilities and services. Mr. Durham asked if any commissioners had any questions. Mr. Hornung asked about the sufficiency of city staff to inspect or enforce regulations for a complaint based system. Mr. Craig acknowledge there would be additional expectations for city staff. Mr. Durham asked for public comments. Dennis Lister, 1108 Rappahannock Avenue, 22401 He said: there was no lack of housing in Fredericksburg; it isn’t clear how the affordability of these units would be insured; are the single family neighborhoods of the City being made responsible for meeting affordable housing needs?  4 Jackie Emery, 605 Fauquier Street, 22401 She said: staff stated at the College Heights meeting there were many ADUs in the City, so why is the City doing this; with current high construction costs, there is no assurance that the ADUs would be affordable; staff said they expect only 10 or so new ADUs per year, so why are we doing this unless this part of a bigger plan; this is a Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences; this will result in more parking problems; she is totally opposed. Joseph Romero, 1114 Walker Drive, 22401 He said: he is delighted with this proposal; that it will result in more affordable units; both younger and older people need this option; it will provide housing that is affordable and provide an option for resident caretakers. Sue Sargeant, 1318 William Street, 22401 She said: her College Heights neighborhood is concerned that ADUs will be used for short-term rentals; especially by the LLCs buying College Heights property; that if this is enacted there should be a specific permit issue for this use to ensure all standards continue to be met; parking could be an issue, requiring an off-street space would require a curb cut that would eliminate an on-street space; there is no assurance that a ‘resident manager’, as currently specified, would be a truly responsible individual; owner occupancy should be required; more staff will be needed to adequately enforce proposed zoning provisions as well as building code rules; Wayne Russell, 711 Cornell Street, 22401 He said: these provisions will likely result in additional landlord/tenant issues including trash, noise, blocked driveways, tall grass, and additional school children with limited school capacity; there needs to be a cost burden analysis; these provisions would change the tenor of the City. Beatrice Paolucci, 1500 Caroline Street, 22401 She said: the extensive information provided made it look like the single family neighborhoods were being rezoned; how many emergency or over-crowding calls have come from the current estimated 90 ADUs; is there assurance that these units would be affordable; is this proposal the first step in enacting new zoning regulations in the Lafayette corridor; there will be unintended consequences. Melissa Colombo, 418 Bunker Hill Street, 22401 She said: as an architect she works for many clients works for many clients who like having or who want to have an ADU for family members or for themselves eventually, as they wish to age in place with multi-generational families; ADUs will not be used as short-term rentals as they cannot have a kitchen. Mary Ellen Wheeler, 1201 Princess Anne Street, 22401 She said: having only administrative review eliminates community input; 62% of the City’s housing is rental compared to 50% for the state; green space will be eliminated in backyards. Ms. Owen reported that written comments were received from (Attachment 2): Teresa Hall, 1216 Rowe Street. 22401 She said: she supports the ADUs proposal as it will provide for affordable housing options, allow housing options for adult children with special needs, for older relatives, for caretakers, and for residents to age in place. Elizabeth Safely Griffey, 1231 Hanover Street, 22401 She said: she fully supports the ADU proposals as ADUs would provide housing for aging relatives, caretakers, affordable housing for local workers, and allow aging in place.  5 Dugan Caswell, 3006 Linden Avenue, 22401 He said: as an architect he has designed many ADUs for clients to accommodate aging in place, multi-generational living, and affordable housing options; the proposed limits of 400 sq ft or 40% of a residence were too limiting for practical and fully functional units; another metric such as lot size, should be used to ensure neighborhood compatibility. P. Shawn Faherty, 1208 Dandridge Street, 22401 He said he was in favor of ADUs as many would benefit, providing: home owners with supplemental income, in-law suites; housing for staff and students at UMW or Mary Washington Hospital. He said simply allowing fully cooking facilities would be safer; there should be a city review; to ensure compatibility; ADUs are less intrusive in a neighborhood than churches or other organizations. Ellen Brown, 1407 Dandridge Street, 22401 She said she was opposed ADUs because of the potential impacts on schools, water, garbage, sewer systems; there are enough rental units in the city; the city lacks personnel to handle violations for rental units, let alone additional ADUs. She said affordable housing is an issue, but ADUs would not will not necessarily be affordable just because they are small; ADUs for elderly family members is a reason, but the elderly family member will die and the ADU could become an Air BnB; there should be a Special Use Permit required for ADUs whenever there is a tenant change. Mr. Johnston responded on several topics raised during the public comments: the proposed 400 sq ft limit on external ADUs happens to coincide with the Building Code limit of 400 sq ft for ‘Tiny Houses’, but the proposal is not for Tiny Houses on chassis that are commonly seen in television shows, such ‘trailer’ Tiny Houses are not allowed by the Virginia Building Code; stick built Tiny houses are allowed by the Building Code and are provided some design/dimension flexibility; the concept of a Lafayette corridor form based zoning district was in the Downtown Plan to replace current industrial and commercial districts, but there is no relationship to proposed ADU provisions in single family neighborhoods; this provision will not in itself solve the affordable housing challenges in the City, but would be one step in this effort; state code only allows incentives for large scale affordable housing efforts; there is no Special Use Permit process currently for ADUs; a Special Exception can be requested, but exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated. Mr. Durham asked if Commissioners had any questions. Ms. Finn asked if other code changes would result from this proposed change. Mr. Craig said that neighborhood conservation districts could be considered after neighborhood initiation. Mr. O’Toole asked of an ADU could be used for a Homestay or Bed and Breakfast units. Mr. Johnston said such units are not allowed to have kitchens, so an ADU could not be used for short-term stay units, unless the kitchen was removed. Ms. Marshall asked how short term stays are regulated. Mr. Johnston said up to two rooms are allowed as ‘Homestays’ with administrative review, three to five rooms are allowed as ‘Bed and Breakfasts’ with a Special Use Permit. He said the Zoning Administrator regularly patrols sites like Air BnB to determine if advertised units are complying with regulations. He said operators are quick to either comply or shut down. Mr. Lynch asked about the provision for limiting coverage to 30% of the rear yard. Mr. Johnston said that accessory structures can have a five foot so long about 2/3 of the rear remains open. He said using lot size to regulate the size of an ADU could have unintended consequences where there is an existing modest sized primary house on a  2/14/2023 Accessory Dwelling Units Planning Commission Public Hearing 2023 February 8 Process • Tonight ‐‐‐ Overview of ADU topic / Open public hearing • Future ‐‐‐ Gather public comments and questions and respond with appropriate analysis. • Analysis Available this Evening At the Lectern ‐‐‐ • Handouts in response to questions posed prior to the College Heights Neighborhood Association meeting on Sunday. • Handouts in response to issues raised at the College Heights Neighborhood Association meeting on Sunday. • Staff report including Virginia localities’ experience with ADUs, Neighborhood Parking Analysis, Anticipated Impacts to Public Services and Utilities. 1  2/14/2023 Historically, most residential areas in the City had a diverse mixture of housing types to allow different segments of society to share a neighborhood. This diverse mixture included: accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, single family courts, townhomes, and small apartment buildings. These housing types are called now called ‘missing middle housing’. 2  2/14/2023 • Permitting accessory dwelling units would: • Make legally conforming a common residential feature of the City • tax records show at least 90 ADUs currently in area of the City east of Rt 1. • Allow a family to provide independent living space for family members needing some assistance. • Allow additional rental income (to not more than two unrelated people) for resident property owners. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Meeting Schedule • This is the schedule of meetings to discuss the proposals for Accessory Dwelling Units. • The meetings are either as: Public Hearings, which are more formal sessions, with speakers limited to five minutes OR Community Sessions, which are more informal opportunities for conversations among all parties. At these sessions, there will be no time limit on speaking beyond the scheduled meeting parameters. • Wednesday, February 8 6:30 pm Council Chambers* 715 Princess Anne St PC Public Hearing • Saturday, February 11 10:00 am Dorothy Hart Cmty Cntr 408 Canal St – Rm 1 PC Community Session • Thursday, February 23 TBD TBD Fred15/Fossil Free Fxbg • Wednesday, March 8 6:30 pm Council Chambers*; 715 Princess Anne Street PC Public Hearing • Wednesday, March 15 7:00 pm Lafayette Upper Elementary 3 Learning Lane PC Community Session • Wednesday, April 12 6:30 pm Council Chambers* 715 Princess Anne Street PC Public Hearing • Saturday, April 1 10:00am School Board Meeting Room 210 Ferdinand Street PC Community Session • Wednesday, April 19 7:00 pm Police Dept – Training Room 2200 Cowan Blvd PC Community Session • Wednesday, May 10 7:30 pm Council Chambers* 715 Princess Anne Street PC Public Hearing *All the Planning Commission public hearings will start at 6:30. They will occur in the Council Chambers in City Hall ‐ 714 Princess Anne Street. Council Chambers access is on the Hanover Street side of the building. 3  2/14/2023 • New standards would permit accessory dwelling units by right in: R2, R4, R8, CT, CD, PD-R, PD-MU, PD-MC zoning districts, located either within principal single‐family dwellings or in accessory structures. • New standards would not change the number of people allowed on a property: a family and not more the two unrelated persons (unrelated to the family). 4  2/14/2023 Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards • One ADU per lot • One ‘kitchen’ in an ADU (in addition to one in principal dwelling) • ADU not counted when calculating density • Occupants in both the principal dwelling and ADU must be related family members and not more than two additional unrelated people (current rule) • If in principal dwelling: limited to 40% of dwelling’s gross floor area • If in accessory structure: limited to 400 sq ft (defined by Building Code as a ‘Tiny House’) • Any exterior entrance for an ADU in a dwelling would on the side or rear. • There must be a resident manager Associated Changes • Residential Kitchens • A core element of a dwelling is food preparation, with only one ‘Kitchen’ allowed per dwelling. This amendment would allow a second full kitchen for the ADU and add a definition of Residential Kitchen. Any room in a dwelling principally used, intended, or designed to be used for cooking or the preparation of food or drink, which contains or is constructed to contain a range, oven, and/or stovetop, with sink and refrigerator, any one of which are greater than 24 inches in width. 5  2/14/2023 Comprehensive Plan – Goals and Policies Chapter 7, Residential Neighborhoods and Housing Policy 8: Increase homeownership opportunities while also ensuring the City achieves an appropriate mix of housing choices (single‐family homes, townhouses, loft apartments, accessory apartments, etc. Chapter 8, Historic Preservation Goal 6: Use smart preservation strategies to address the affordability of housing. Policy 4. Encourage a mix of uses and housing types that reflect traditional neighborhood patterns, including accessory dwelling units, bungalow courts, attached housing, carriage houses, and other missing middle housing types. asdf Comprehensive Plan – Area Plans • Area 7, Downtown Opportunities: Promote residential and mixed‐use development in corridors and the downtown core. Protect the existing variety of “missing middle” housing types within neighborhoods. Evaluate an Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance that permits existing neighborhoods to evolve to meet the changing housing needs. T‐3 Transect: Allowing accessory dwelling units is one option to continue this pattern of appropriate incremental growth. The building mix in the T‐3 Zone are compatible in form and scale to single family homes with some ground floor commercial use in some areas Implementation Regulations: Evaluate existing ordinances to ensure they adequately protect the City’s existing stock of non‐conforming missing middle housing and evaluate an Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance to ensure City neighborhoods can continue to evolve to meet modern housing needs. 6  2/14/2023 Next Step Further Discussion 7 Accessory Dwelling Units Planning Commission Public Hearing 2023 February 8 Process • Tonight --- Overview of ADU topic / Open public hearing • Future --- Gather public comments and questions and respond with appropriate analysis. • Analysis Available this Evening At the Lectern --- • Handouts in response to questions posed prior to the College Heights Neighborhood Association meeting on Sunday. • Handouts in response to issues raised at the College Heights Neighborhood Association meeting on Sunday. • Staff report including Virginia localities’ experience with ADUs, Neighborhood Parking Analysis, Anticipated Impacts to Public Services and Utilities. Historically, most residential areas in the City had a diverse mixture of housing types to allow different segments of society to share a neighborhood. This diverse mixture included: accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, single family courts, townhomes, and small apartment buildings. These housing types are called now called ‘missing middle housing’. • Permitting accessory dwelling units would: • Make legally conforming a common residential feature of the City • tax records show at least 90 ADUs currently in area of the City east of Rt 1. • Allow a family to provide independent living space for family members needing some assistance. • Allow additional rental income (to not more than two unrelated people) for resident property owners.  Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Meeting Schedule • This is the schedule of meetings to discuss the proposals for Accessory Dwelling Units. • The meetings are either as: Public Hearings, which are more formal sessions, with speakers limited to five minutes OR Community Sessions, which are more informal opportunities for conversations among all parties. At these sessions, there will be no time limit on speaking beyond the scheduled meeting parameters. • Wednesday, February 8 6:30 pm Council Chambers* 715 Princess Anne St PC Public Hearing • Saturday, February 11 10:00 am Dorothy Hart Cmty Cntr 408 Canal St – Rm 1 PC Community Session • Thursday, February 23 TBD TBD Fred15/Fossil Free Fxbg • Wednesday, March 8 6:30 pm Council Chambers*; 715 Princess Anne Street PC Public Hearing • Wednesday, March 15 7:00 pm Lafayette Upper Elementary 3 Learning Lane PC Community Session • Wednesday, April 12 6:30 pm Council Chambers* 715 Princess Anne Street PC Public Hearing • Saturday, April 1 10:00am School Board Meeting Room 210 Ferdinand Street PC Community Session • Wednesday, April 19 7:00 pm Police Dept – Training Room 2200 Cowan Blvd PC Community Session • Wednesday, May 10 7:30 pm Council Chambers* 715 Princess Anne Street PC Public Hearing *All the Planning Commission public hearings will start at 6:30. They will occur in the Council Chambers in City Hall - 714 Princess Anne Street. Council Chambers access is on the Hanover Street side of the building. • New standards would permit accessory dwelling units by right in: R2, R4, R8, CT, CD, PD-R, PD-MU, PD-MC zoning districts, located either within principal single-family dwellings or in accessory structures. • New standards would not change the number of people allowed on a property: a family and not more the two unrelated persons (unrelated to the family). Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards • One ADU per lot • One ‘kitchen’ in an ADU (in addition to one in principal dwelling) • ADU not counted when calculating density • Occupants in both the principal dwelling and ADU must be related family members and not more than two additional unrelated people (current rule) • If in principal dwelling: limited to 40% of dwelling’s gross floor area • If in accessory structure: limited to 400 sq ft (defined by Building Code as a ‘Tiny House’) • Any exterior entrance for an ADU in a dwelling would on the side or rear. • There must be a resident manager Associated Changes • Residential Kitchens • A core element of a dwelling is food preparation, with only one ‘Kitchen’ allowed per dwelling. This amendment would allow a second full kitchen for the ADU and add a definition of Residential Kitchen. Any room in a dwelling principally used, intended, or designed to be used for cooking or the preparation of food or drink, which contains or is constructed to contain a range, oven, and/or stovetop, with sink and refrigerator, any one of which are greater than 24 inches in width. Comprehensive Plan – Goals and Policies Chapter 7, Residential Neighborhoods and Housing Policy 8: Increase homeownership opportunities while also ensuring the City achieves an appropriate mix of housing choices (single-family homes, townhouses, loft apartments, accessory apartments, etc. Chapter 8, Historic Preservation Goal 6: Use smart preservation strategies to address the affordability of housing. Policy 4. Encourage a mix of uses and housing types that reflect traditional neighborhood patterns, including accessory dwelling units, bungalow courts, attached housing, carriage houses, and other missing middle housing types. asdf Comprehensive Plan – Area Plans • Area 7, Downtown Opportunities: Promote residential and mixed-use development in corridors and the downtown core. Protect the existing variety of “missing middle” housing types within neighborhoods. Evaluate an Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance that permits existing neighborhoods to evolve to meet the changing housing needs. T-3 Transect: Allowing accessory dwelling units is one option to continue this pattern of appropriate incremental growth. The building mix in the T-3 Zone are compatible in form and scale to single family homes with some ground floor commercial use in some areas Implementation Regulations: Evaluate existing ordinances to ensure they adequately protect the City’s existing stock of non-conforming missing middle housing and evaluate an Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance to ensure City neighborhoods can continue to evolve to meet modern housing needs. Next Step Further Discussion From: Dugan Caswell To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU Ordinance Questions/Comments Date: Thursday, February 2, 2023 12:54:17 PM Attachments: image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I’m an Architect living and working in Fredericksburg with a small practice that my wife and I established in 2018. A significant portion of our practice’s body of work thus far has been the design of ADUs and projects to accommodate aging-in-place and/or multigenerational living arrangements. The current housing affordability crisis makes this issue not incipient, but already in progress. I firmly support ADUs in Fredericksburg, for a plethora of reasons, but I also want to point out that the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals align with the outcome of allowing ADU’s. With that said, limiting the size of detached ADUs to 400 SF would essentially preclude any design other than a studio-style apartment. Limiting the size to 400 SF would especially harm those seeking ADA and/or wheelchair accessible design, which seems like the opposite of the City’s intent. 400 SF is smaller than the ADU limitations set by the nearby municipalities; In short, too small. In addition, I ask that the ordinance make some accommodation for existing structures: Repurposing an appropriate existing detached structure would align with the City’s sustainability goals, and would reduce the burden of those seeking an ADU who are lucky enough to have a detached garage or the like, however most of those structures will be over than 400 SF. Limiting attached ADUs to 40% of the primary structure’s living space would preclude converting the basement of a single story house into an ADU. I understand that those limitations are an attempt to set some boundaries to the density of building on City lots. But perhaps instead of 400 SF and 40%, the Commission could consider the adoption of FAR or Open Space Set-Aside ordinance that would allow for more flexibility. Approaching the limitations that way would be more egalitarian, and would increase opportunity within the City as those with already large homes can already comfortably house multiple generations, while those with smaller homes need more space to accommodate an aging parent, adult children or a tenant. Finally: While the Commission considers this subject, it occurs to me that some accommodation may also need to be made to the rear yard setbacks, as enforcing it on, for instance, a ¼ acre plot would plant a backyard ADU in the middle of it, thus essentially eliminating the “back yard” and seemingly contradicting the intent of that ordinance. If instead, ADUs were allowed to be set at, for instance, a 5’ setback from the rear lot line, a backyard space could be maintained between the principal and accessory structure, while still maintaining fire separation: a seemingly ideal solution. Thank you, Dugan Sullivan Caswell, Architect Principal m. 540.369.6112 ACVN Architects PO Box 3968 Fredericksburg, VA 22402 From: Elizabeth Safley To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: ADU Planning Com. 2/8 ATTN: Chuck Johnston Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 4:20:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From: Elizabeth Safley <mesafley@aol.com> Date: February 6, 2023 at 4:16:25 PM EST To: planning@fredericksburgva.com Subject: ADU Planning Com. 2/8 ATTN: Chuck Johnston Dear Planning Commission of Fredericksburg, My name is Elizabeth Safley Griffey. I reside at 1231 Hanover Street. I am is full support of the Planning Commission and City Council Members implementing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) into the Fredericksburg City ordinance for Brompton Heights/College Heights Neighborhood. ADUs will give property owners the option to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit for aging relatives or Caretakers to live close to Family Members. ADUs will provide affordable housing for the local work force who would like to reside in the Community where they work ADUs will provide property owners who would like to remain in their home to “Age in Place” added income to sustain their lifestyle and offset the cost of living in Fredericksburg. In summary ADUs will add to the housing supply and benefit residents, property owners and the City of Fredericksburg. Thank you for your consideration, Elizabeth Safley Griffey From: physjock@aol.com To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us - Charles R. Johnston, Community Planning and Building Director Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:11:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I didn't see how to send the online form to the Planning Commission, so I sent it to Mr. Johnston and am forwarding to the email address above in hopes that it reaches the Planning Commission members also. Ellen Brown 1407 Dandridge St -----Original Message----- From: noreply@fredericksburgva.gov To: physjock@aol.com Sent: Mon, Jan 23, 2023 11:08 am Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us - Charles R. Johnston, Community Planning and Building Director Contact Us - Charles R. Johnston, Community Planning and Building Director Name Ellen R Brown Email physjock@aol.com Phone 5403711910 Preferred Method of Email Contact Zip Code 22401 Am I a City Resident? The Fredericksburg mailing address contains 3 localities: City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County and Stafford County. Is your zip code 22401? If not, you likely are not a City resident. Do not fret! Click on your zip code to find your place of residence and services for you. Spotsylvania residents: 22407 22408 Stafford residents: 22405 22406 *Exceptions: 1. If you live on River Road from 5321-5517, then you do live in the City. 2. If you live in the Summerfield subdivision, please check your address on this map (PDF) to see if you live in the City. Question or Comment I wish to go on record as being opposed to the ADUs in existing Fredericksburg neighborhoods. I have numerous concerns about this, especially in older neighborhoods where the infrastructure such as schools, water, garbage, and sewer system was not designed to support it. It seems we have enough issues with the large volume of rentals that currently exist, many of which are little more than flop houses. The City lacks the personnel to handle violations with rentals, much less violations with proposed ADUs. I fully understand and support the desire for affordable housing here, but unless someone can show that ADUs will provide that, I am against them. Just because ADUs are small doesn't make them affordable. Where is the data showing that renting ADUs is any cheaper than multiple people sharing houses, which happens in some rentals. How will you go about enforcing ordinances associated with ADUs: owner/occupier, number of people per property, etc? IMHO the City should find some land and work with a local developer on apartments or low priced (or subsidized for all City/State employees, like police, fire, teachers) housing in a NEW subdivision, not allow this in existing subdivisions. Re the "grandma" reason for allowing ADUs: what happens when "grandma" is no longer there? How will the City prevent this space from being used as an AirBNB or rented to someone else? The home owners should need a SUP for the space to be considered an ADU whenever the tenant changes. Please reject ADUs in existing subdivisions. Ellen Brown 1407 Dandridge Street From: Faherty, P. Shawn To: Planning Cc: Timothy P. Duffy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance - public information process Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 7:11:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Regarding ADUs, I would like to voice my opinion in favor of them. I do recommend the city proceed judiciously and keep us informed during the process. Thank you for hearing me and I’m sorry I can’t be there in person but am out of town for a funeral. I see ADUs as a benefit to many. They provide housing options within the city that is not getting any bigger. ADUs provide supplemental income for homeowners. They provide an “in-law” suite for family members. We live in close proximity to UMW and the hospital and students, faculty and staff need affordable, convenient housing options--ADUs can provide that. And people who rent should be able to have a stove/oven. I’m not clear why those may be in question in these discussions—perhaps that defines an ADU? I certainly see stoves and ovens as safer than a hotplate. To continue, homeowners in the city should be allowed to have an apartment/ADU in their basement and/or garage but I would agree that the city could review and approve it. Building a “tiny house” or new structure in the back/side yard should be reviewed and considered but I see that as different from an ADU inside of an existing dwelling or outbuilding (or a garage that is built with an attic apartment), etc. I see this as much less of an issue than churches and religious organizations buying or inheriting properties that are removed from the tax rolls. Again, thank you for these open proceedings and for hearing my desire to approve at least ADUs in existing or newly approved structures like a garage. Sincerely, P. Shawn Faherty 1208 Dandridge St, Fxbg, VA 22401 703-994-0309 From: Teresa Hall To: Planning Commission Members Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU February 8 2023 Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:50:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. February 8, 2023 Dear Planning Commission of Fredericksburg, My name is Teresa Hall. I reside at 1216 Rowe Street. I support the Planning Commission and City Council Members implementation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) into the Fredericksburg ordinance for the Brompton Heights/College Heights neighborhood. ADUs provide a number of advantages, some of which include: Provide affordable housing for people who want to reside in the community where they work (i.e. teachers, healthcare, EMS, city government workers etc.) Property owners will have the option to build an accessory dwelling unit for adult children with special needs, older relatives, or onsite caretakers, providing these individuals an opportunity to be independent, contributing members of their community Provide property owners who would like to remain in their home to “Age in Place” as the added income will help to sustain their lifestyle    ADU’s will create more affordable options that will benefit residents, property owners, and the City of Fredericksburg. Thank you for your consideration, Teresa Hall  OBSERVATIONS FROM THE COLLEGE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY MEETING i. Why are we doing this? The City is growing and is expected to continue growing in the long term. The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service projects that the City’s population will grow by 11,000 people between 2020 and 2050. The City’s housing stock will expand to meet the demand. The bulk of new growth will be accommodated with the development of new neighborhoods and mixed-use projects in the western portion of the City. However, there will remain a need for - and an opportunity for homeowners to provide - smaller, unique affordable housing opportunities outside of the typical residential development framework. Existing neighborhoods are well suited for additional niche housing opportunities. Existing neighborhoods are within existing service areas for police, fire, and trash services. The school buses already go through them. They (generally) have an excess of street parking (see analysis in the PC’s February 9 staff report). They are (generally) walkable, include parks and open spaces, and are adjacent to pedestrian oriented commercial and mixed-use areas. They are the predominant land use by land area --- existing neighborhood zoning (PD-R, R-2, R-4, and R-8) makes up 52% of the City. Fredericksburg is defined by its neighborhoods. The historic character of the City’s neighborhoods includes a variety of housing types. These housing types are all similar in bulk, scale, mass, and impact on services. A mixture of housing types in the same block network provides a level of economic accessibility and variety that is a fundamental part of the character of existing neighborhoods. The City’s zoning ordinance was changed overtime, however, to limit the type of housing permitted within neighborhoods to single family detached housing. This is a trend all over the country with several unintended consequences including escalating housing costs and sprawling automobile dependent development. The City has used the Comprehensive Plan process to identify appropriate housing policies. Through those public processes, goals were developed encouraging a variety of housing, infill that is compatible with established neighborhoods (including specific mention of accessory apartments in Chapter 7 Policy 8) in terms of scale and massing, and historic housing types (such as ADUs) to protect and enhance the City’s historic neighborhoods. Additionally, the Area 7 Downtown Small Area Plan calls for the evaluation of ADUs as a tool to ensure City neighborhoods can evolve to meet modern housing needs. ADUs were common in City neighborhoods up until they were made illegal forty years ago. Permitting ADUs would allow existing single family homes in the City to reuse a portion of their existing house or build a new addition / accessory structure with a small living space. The total permitted occupancy on the lot (in both the existing home AND the potential ADU) would remain the same as it is now. Based on the experience of comparable jurisdictions, about ten – fifteen of these conversions would occur each year for the first few years the ordinance. Say conservatively that means two additional people in each or about 30 new residents a year. There are +/- 30 “neighborhoods” in the City with single family homes so conservatively over ten years potentially ten or so additional residents could be included in each existing neighborhood without altering the fundamental character of these important areas of the City. ii. How many people may live in residence now? iii. What's the difference in this ordinance and just getting a SUP? By-right is permitted in a zoning district after an administrative review to ensure the use complies with any regulatory standards. Special use requires each proposed ADU to go through a public hearing process with the Planning Commission (for a recommendation) and the City Council (to decide whether or not to approve) in addition to compliance with any regulatory standards. iv. What about parking, how will that be handled? The City has conducted an analysis of the existing public parking supply within neighborhoods. In general, City neighborhoods have a high amount of available on-street parking and low demand. Modest parking congestion (defined as greater than 50% of the available on-street parking occupied) occurs in areas with one of two variables: 1. Concentration of built lots less than 30 feet in width: In the Princess Anne Street South Study Area there is a substantial amount of built lots that are less than 30 feet in width. Up to 60% of the available parking is occupied in the evening, but the relatively low amount of curb cuts and other obstructions along the curb line means that there is still available area for car storage. Being public, the parking is flexible, which protects supply, though it is likely residents often have to park in front of each other’s houses.  2. Concentration of curb cuts in Areas 6 and 7: There is a high concentration of curb cuts for private parking in the Charlotte Street West and Canal Quarter – Virginia / Fall Hill study areas. Both areas still maintain a substantial amount of available parking. However, parking in front of each lot is limited and relatively inflexible due to the small distances between each curb cut. In both cases, the demand for on-street parking is mitigated somewhat by the substantial amount of private parking as well as the presence of long unbroken frontages available for parking at the ends of each blocks. The addition of Accessory Dwelling Units to these areas will not negatively impact the existing parking supply. The proposed ordinance would not permit an increase in occupancy over what is already permitted in a single family detached home. While adding off-street parking would still be an option, it would not be legally required for each ADU to be packaged with additional curb cuts and other obstructions that could impact the supply and flexibility of existing on-street parking. These considerations, coupled with the relatively modest number of ADUs anticipated to be constructed in City neighborhoods indicate that there is sufficient parking to accommodate these uses in keeping with the character of the City’s very valuable neighborhoods. v. Who's looking at the impacts to services? (i.e. police, fire, rescue, etc.) The City is growing and is expected to continue growing in the long term. The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service projects that the City’s population will grow by 11,000 people between 2020 and 2050. City services are planned to expand to meet that growth however those units are arranged and located. The most efficient way to utilize City services like public safety, fire and rescue, and waste removal that are service boundary and response time based is to permit an appropriate amount of residential use within existing service areas. ADUs would permit a modest amount of additional residential use in areas of the City that are within those service boundaries. vi. What about infrastructure impacts? (i.e. water, sewer, waste water management, etc.) The City is growing and is expected to continue growing in the long term. The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service projects that the City’s population will grow by 11,000 people between 2020 and 2050. Water and sewer availability are planned to expand to meet that growth however those units are arranged and located. Related to ADUs, overall occupancy of the property will remain consistent with what is permitted currently for single family homes. The main concern for water and sewer demand takes place on the homeowner’s side of the meter. If a large family or occupants of an ADU generated enough demand, they may need to upsize the water meter and supply line serving the house to maintain desired pressure. vii. Actual differences about today, this is only about a kitchen (internal) and other codes, as necessary (external). (see graphic) viii. How will enforcement be handled? As the population of the City grows, the demand for housing increases and many people search for affordable housing options. Overcrowding in single-family dwellings affects the surrounding neighborhood with impacts ranging from availability of parking, increased traffic levels, increased trash, to increases in noise, and negative impacts on overall health and wellbeing. The Unified Development Ordinance (U.D.O.) establishes that a dwelling unit is limited in occupancy to one Family. The U.D.O. defines a Family as “one person or two or more persons related by blood, adoption or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, with no more than two boarders; or a group of not more than three unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit.” Enforcement of overcrowding within the City of Fredericksburg generally starts with an inquiry or complaint about a potential violation submitted to Community Planning and Building by a citizen or via an inner-agency code enforcement. Staff places the information regarding the complaint into a zoning violation form and tracking spreadsheet. The Zoning Administrator and/or Principal Planner will then go out to the property, knock on the door, talk to residents, and request access to perform an interior inspection of the residence. Most often residents are unaware of the overcrowding regulations and are honest about how many people are residing on the premises. General questions asked of residents include: 1. How many people live here? 2. Names and relationships to each other? 3. Do you own or rent the property? 4. How long have you lived here? 5. How many vehicles do you have and who owns them? During an inspection, staff will take pictures to provide photographic evidence of occupancy including the number of beds, bedrooms, and cars. If there is no response to our presence from inside the dwelling, staff will conduct an exterior inspection only, which is limited to areas visible from the public right of way, driveway, and sidewalk up to the front door. A warrant is required to forcibly gain access to the interior of a property. License plate numbers will be compared against any previous staff visit and/or run through the police to compare owner names. Inspection notes and pictures are compiled into a field notes inspection sheet that is kept with the files for the subject address and the overcrowding tracking spreadsheet is updated accordingly. If a violation is found, staff sends a Notice of Violation to the property owner explaining the violation, what needs to be done to correct the violation, and telling them to contact us to set up a site visit (generally around 30 days) to verify the issue has been resolved. We provide some leeway regarding the 30 days so as to not leave college students homeless during exams or as necessity dictates for the specific situation at hand. Additionally, property owners/residents have 30 days to appeal a Notice of Violation. Included with the Notice of Violation is a memo regarding overcrowding that provides contact information for various services and enforcement agencies that can assist with the situation, as well as details describing overcrowding and the fines for non- compliance. Overcrowding is considered a criminal offense, lodged against both the tenant and landowner, in the City of Fredericksburg. Overcrowding is punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $2,000 for the first offense. The fine increases to $7,500 if the violation is not abated and the fine may be assessed every ten days the property is in non-compliance. If the property in question is a repeat offender, fines and misdemeanor charges will be pursued through the court system. The City of Fredericksburg has only had to place fines on properties for overcrowding a couple of times as generally the situation is resolved before fines are necessary. Over eight years of tracking, there have been inquiries on 73 different addresses regarding overcrowding with a total of 32 verified violations. The remaining inquiries were either verified as conforming to city regulations or closed due to insufficient information required to pursue an official notice of violation or obtain a warrant to access the home. Staff continues to track any inquiries regarding overcrowding within the City. Overcrowding Tracking Statistics Year Addresses tracked Verified Violations 2015 13 6 2016 16 6 2017 11 4 2018 13 3 2019 13 3 2020 10 5 2021 6 3 2022 3 2 2023 0 0 Total 85 32 (38%) Total (minus repeats)* 73 30 (41%) Repeat Addresses 10 8 *Two properties addresses have multiple violations