Planning Commission

From: AlexCapshawTaylor To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] In Support of ADUs Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 8:58:43 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. I’m writing in support of updating the city of Fredericksburg’s zoning regulations to include allowing ADUs. As a homeowner in the city (I settled here permanently after graduating from MWC in 2004), I recognize that ADUs will play a vital role in providing affordable housing in an increasingly unaffordable and desirable area. ADUs are also family friendly, as they allow comfortable multigenerational living helping to solve another thing our city is in need of- childcare. Thank you for your consideration. Alex Capshaw-Taylor 117 Springwood Dr. Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Alex Capshaw-Taylor Author, Little Man Knits (Pluie Press, 2018) & Dressed in Knits (Interweave, 2015) www.worldknits.com From: Rhett Daniel To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 8:36:31 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. I’m generally supportive of ADUs and the city taking a measured look at updates to ordinances needed to accommodate ADUs; as well as the potential for financial opportunities afforded to the city and local businesses. In a similar vein the city should look at unoccupied dwellings that have remained vacant for extended periods of time and/or are unfit for habitation. Dan Salisbury 1613 Charles St. -- V/r Dan Salisbury From: Darin Alleman To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU Hearing Public Comment Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:55:24 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. Hello Planning Commission! My name is Darin Alleman and I've lived in the city of Fredericksburg since I moved here in 2017 from south central Pennsylvania. I really enjoy the direction the city is going since I've moved here. The projects like the Chatham Bridge restoration, the new Lafayette roundabout, and Washington Ave & Fall Hill Ave two-way conversion among other improvements have all enhanced my experience getting safely around the city by car, bike, and foot. I feel that the proposed ADU amendments are very aligned with the long term goals and plans of the city, especially the following goals explicitly stated in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan: have distinct and linked neighborhoods be a place where learning is a way of life build community through cultural vibrancy have a green and clean environment I strongly believe that allowing homeowners the freedom to create ADUs will help the city grow in an organic way that promotes inclusion, belonging, and a sense of community. I can understand the concerns and fears that folks may have with allowing more ADUs, but I think there is ample room for a compromise that would allow by-right ADUs while also preserving the character and charm of the neighborhoods within the city. I'm unfortunately unable to attend this hearing in person but I look forward to tuning in virtually to listen to other comments and discussion about ADUs! Darin Alleman 702 Hanson Ave From: Elizabeth Safley To: Taylor H. Owen Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commission March 8th Comment Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:32:33 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. Hello Taylor, Please submit the comment below for Wednesdays Planning Commission Meeting regarding ADU’s Thank you for your assistance, Elizabeth Dear Planning Commission of Fredericksburg, My name is Elizabeth Safley Griffey. I reside at 1231 Hanover Street. I am in full support of the Planning Commission and City Council Members implementing Accessary Dwelling Units (ADU) into the Fredericksburg 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 would 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 the City.    In summary, ADU’s 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: Erin Capshaw-Taylor To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pro ADU Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:00:18 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. Good Morning, I’m writing in support of updating the city of Fredericksburg’s zoning regulations to include allowing ADUs. As a homeowner in the downtown area city, I recognize that ADUs offer numerous benefits including increasing affordable housing options, providing independent living for our elderly loved ones to age in place next to a family member/caretaker, and providing families increased options for in home childcare with ADUs serving as nanny suites. As a single mom by choice with aging parents, living in a home built in 1920, the latter two benefits are particularly important to me. ADUs are a wonderful solution to enhance or ease multiple challenges that I, and our community at large, struggles with. Thank you for your consideration. Erin Capshaw-Taylor 204 Princess Anne St Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Sent from my iPhone From: Kim Eckhardt To: Planning Commission Members Subject: [EXTERNAL] Assessory Dwelling Units Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 3:08:47 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. Good Afternoon. I wanted to comment on the issue of Assessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)s that is currently being debated in front of the Planning Commission. We own property in the downtown historic district and for the last 16 months have rented a place in Key West and have been traveling back and forth between the two cities. The cities are very, very similar. Both are historic in nature (believe it or not, Key West is steeped in Civil War history) and the layout of the historic areas, in particular, are very similar with historic victorians and 1940'S and 50's houses lining the narrow streets very close together....and are similar with all the issues that go with retro fitting a urban area with modern city planning.   The current large cars don't quite fit the narrow streets.   There is not enough parking for the cars that people have.   And there is definitely not enough affordable housing for locals. The biggest issue that Key West faces, as does Fredericksburg, is a housing crisis where rents are skyrocking, housing stock is limited (for both sale and rent) and people just can not afford to live where they work. The historic houses have been, or are being bought up, by those that can afford them (mostly out of towners) and rented either on air bnb or to locals at a price that the local service industry and workers (teachers, police, etc.) simply can not afford. The beautiful single family homes that appear so ideallyic in Key West from the street are anything but that. Look up the side of many houses and you'll see steps that lead to an upstairs apartment (a lot of times are really just the attic turned apartment) or a path leading to the back of the house where another entrance can be found to a "condo" unit in the backside of the house. If you see a pool house or smaller home in the back, it is more than likely being rented out to a tourist or maybe to a local at a price that they have to work two or three jobs to afford to even live there. There isn't a mother living in that smaller coach house. Or a family living upstairs from their parents. The reality is that the landlord (probably isn't even a local resident) isn't giving the renters a break or any kind of affordable housing. Instead, they are jacking up the prices of the units (both for tourists and community members) and making as much money as they can and are giving nothing back to the community. These beautiful bahamian historic homes have been allowed to be chopped up into apartments (or condos) mostly under the guise of "affordable housing". Now there is no way to put them back together again to restore them to the original form. The damage is done. The houses are now apartments.   Aside from the issues of housing, the other significant similarity is that both cities are tourist destinations. The city of Key West is grappling right now with how to reign back in the tourism monster that they created 30 years ago. A very LARGE part of the housing issues there are tied directly to the ADU's that they allowed to happen when they allowed the houses to be cut up into apartments for shared "affordable housing" for families. If you allow ADU's to be legal in Fredericksburg, what are the criteria for allowing it? Especially in the historic district? Are you going to regulate the look of the additions to these houses to allow for private entrances? How about the interior work that they will need to do to build kitchens, etc? What is the impact that this will have on water, sewage, schools, police, fire etc. Do we have the infrastructure to support more units?   Do you have enough code enforcement to either verify these additions/changes or code enforcers after the fact? Are you going to allow people to rent these out to Airbnb etc? Because that's exactly what is going to happen. That will not help cure the local affordable housing issue at all. In fact, that will send the people scrambling for affordable housing into more of a crisis than they currently are in. They will then be fighting for housing against tourists and the airbnb market. I would say that Key West is about 30 years ahead of the tourism game than Fredericksburg. I'm sure that they wish that they could turn back the hands of time and re-do some of their decisions. Fredericksburg has an opportunity to not make the same mistakes. I implore to please really consider the ramifications of allowing ADU's to become a prominent part of Fredericksburg's city housing. It is not the answer to the affordable housing crisis in Fredericksburg. While it certainly sounds good in theory, the reality of what you're going to allow happen is that investors (probably not even local) are going to see dollar signs only and will buy up houses and chop them up into smaller units and charge an astronomical rent. And maybe/probably not even to local people who are hunting for housing. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. It is a complicated situation and you're looking for answers and I applaud you for that. However, I really don't think that allowing ADU's is going to give you the answer that you're looking for. More likely, it's going to create way more problems than you have anticipated. Sincerely, Kim Eckhardt 540-379-6331 224 Princess Anne St. From: Lindley Estes To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment on ADUs Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 12:12:05 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. Hi, My name is Lindley Estes and I live at 814 Charlotte St, Fredericksburg, VA 22401. I am emailing to voice my support for the proposed amendment to the UDO allowing ADUs. With the rising cost of housing, especially as it pertains to care for elders, I think it would be a significant advantage to life in the city. Not only would keeping families close-knit in this way benefit locals personally, it would add to the tax base by increasing the square footage taxed, etc. I've heard complaints that this would strain our schools and roads, but in my opinion ADUs are not often used by whole families with children who would be attending our schools or who commute and have multiple vehicles. In addition, having a governing principle behind ADU use would make it easier to make sure they are used properly, rather than having them come up on a case by case basis. For reference, here is the part of the agenda I am commenting on. Accessory Dwelling Unit Text Amendment UDOTA FY23-01 Accessory Dwelling Units - The City of Fredericksburg proposes amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to permit and to establish regulations governing the use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) associated with single-family detached dwelling units. Thank you. Lindley Estes 434.480.2535 Social @lindleylizestes From: QuincyLouise To: Taylor H. Owen Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commission Meeting Comment Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:38:55 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. My apologies, my address is 713 Littlepage Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 On Mar 8, 2023, at 11:37 AM, Taylor H. Owen <thowen@fredericksburgva.gov> wrote:  Thank you. For any future comments, please include your full address. Taylor Hedelt Owen Community Planning and Building 540.372.1179 thowen@fredericksburgva.gov From: Quincy Crecelius Click [mailto:quincylouise@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:46 AM To: Planning <planning@fredericksburgva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commission Meeting Comment 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. Please submit the attached letter for comment at tonight's Planning Commission Meeting. Regards, Quincy Crecelius Click 540-424-3463 March 8, 2023 Dear Planning Commission, I would like to voice my support to legalize accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as this option should be available within the city of Fredericksburg for those who choose to pursue it and use it adhering to applicable laws and codes. I have learned about the proposed amendments by following City Council meetings, reading the Free Lance-Star and attending an information session on this subject. We need many tools to address many needs and this is one such tool to access a variety of housing options. First, ADUs exist in a grandfathered format and are happening in various ways regardless of legalization because there is a need. I fear that not addressing this through an amendment to allow ADUs will result in shotty, hidden construction without dignity for some users. All our choices as neighbors can affect one another but I fail to understand how a legal ADU does this any more than a paint color I dislike in opinion. Second, I have not encountered any opposition argument that I agree to be concerning as someone who owns a home, works and educates my child in the in the city. While I have paid close attention to the topics of parking and our schools keeping pace with what should be expected growth, I have not heard those opposed to ADUs solidifying these issues and I feel those would both not be affected much by ADUs. I welcome the focus brought to the topic of school quality as it is vital to our success, especially economically, as a city. The focus of property values and desirability of our city as a place to live, work and play depends greatly on a strong school system and only little on a few small, 2-person dwellings and only as they increase housing accessibility. I do find it concerning that in the opposition some seem to want to keep others out of our lovely community, as the diversity here is what I value and fear has not resulted in things I am proud of in history. Please allow ADUs as a further housing option, as it is never a requirement, but continuing the ordinance against it will limit the full self-actualization of our city. Quincy Crecelius Click Ward 2 of 22401 From: nelson Sargeant To: Planning; Planning Commission Members; Charles R. Johnston; Michael J. Craig Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rachel Sargeant 3-8-2023 Public Comment on the ADU Ordinance Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:17:37 PM Attachments: Rachel Sargeant 3 8 2023R Public Comment Proposed ADU Ordinance.pdf 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 am attaching my 3 min public comment on the ADU Ordinance to be read out loud at the 3- 8-2023 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for doing this. Sincerely, Rachel Sargeant 812 Daniel St, 22401 To the Planning Commission, My name is Rachel Sargeant, homeowner at 812 Daniel Street 22401 in College Heights neighborhood. I am writing about the proposed ADU ordinance. I am asking the Planning Commission to consider the complexity of issues that arise when determining what standards should go into an ADU ordinance. Other localities, like Alexandria, use a 3-Year ADU Phase In Process because of the complexity. An example is one that the College Heights Civic Association asked in its list of questions submitted to the Planning Department in Oct 3, 2022 about how are you going to address the problem of a supposedly “new” ADU from claiming they are a “grandfathered ADU? Planning gave the answer that almost 100 current ADUs have been identified. And if the regulations are passed, then such units would be legal dwellings if they conform to the adopted standards. But Why not use Year 1 to study what needs to be done to address the CURRENT inventory of existing ADUs? In the Aug 2022 Housing Innovation Report: ‘ADUs for All’ (Greenberg and Chapple out of UC Berkeley) state: Check to ensure that the property of the current ADUs is covered by insurance. Look at how to reduce the risk that a tenant will take legal action against the homeowner: Why not guarantee that these units are brought up to Code, if not by today’s Code, then the one that was in place at the time the unit was built? You are under an obligation to ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY of residents living in these 100 units. Sam Shelby, the Alexandria planner who spoke at the Fred15 meeting on Feb 23 said after the meeting that Alexandria did this in Year 1. It’s the right thing to do. Thank you to Planner Chuck Johnston for preparing the spreadsheet from other localities. Please include Norfolk. Norfolk’s ADU ordinance is touted as ‘a model of best practice’ and may eventually be used if/when Virginia moves to adopting a state-wide standardized ADU ordinance so that localities don’t have to go through this mish-mash of patching together standards and running it by each city-county attorney. Norfolk’s ordinance states what is important to residents in College Heights ‘Owner- occupied’. It says: ‘The property owner shall reside on-site, either in the principal dwelling or in the ADU, during times the ADU is available for rent’. Also please be mindful that in the same Aug 2022 Housing Innovation report mentioned above: ‘the data shows that ADUs are generally built mostly in affluent communities, and to the extent that we tout ADUs as a solution for building wealth and Equity, it’s not accomplishing that goal as well as policy makers would have liked to see’. Thank you for your consideration. From: SMA Reunion To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ron Smith address is 1318 William St 22401 Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:30:27 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. to add to the Public Comment email. Good evening. My name is Ron Smith. I am a homeowner at 1318 William St, 22401. From: SMA Reunion To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ron Smith ADU Public Comment Planning Commission 3 8 2023 Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:28:54 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. I am writing to ask if the Planning Commission and City Council will consider the details of the City of Norfolk's ADU ordinance process. Norfolk went through an extensive planning process to elicit input from all of the diverse community of stakeholders. I am attaching links to a Norfolk example of an ADU application which includes the condition that the ADU is 'owner-occupied' during the time that the ADU is available for rent. I do not see any 'by right' condition in their ordinance. You can access this link through Google. Just type in 'Ordinance 1474 Robert Huntoon City of Norfolk'. This application for a Conditional Use Permit, and not a 'byright' one was approved because it met an extensive list of conditions, including notification of neighbors who could be impacted by the ADU. https://norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59402/C-15-Conditional-Use-Permit---531-New- Jersey-Ave In reading through the Norfolk ADU Conditional Use Permit application, I also learned to search for' neighborhood conservation district overlay'. A Neighborhood Conservation District overlay encourages the preservation of the character and stability of existing neighborhoods. The design overlay districts encourage compatible development in certain areas of the City. These districts have a unique established neighborhood character, architectural coherence and harmony, as well as a vulnerability to deterioration or negative impacts resulting from weak wording of the standards in an ordinance without a ADU Conditional Use Permit process..   The City of Alexandria also planned out a 3-Year ADU Phase In Process to make sure the city did not rush through its ADU decision so that all stakeholders developed a better sense that their ADU points and concerns were considered and well taken. Another excellent resource on ADUs is 'State of the Market and Local Policy: Accessory Dwelling Units in the Commonwealth of Virginia'. This report was developed by George Mason University, Virginia Tech and Virginia Housing Forward https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2021/RD629/PDF Finally I would like to point out that the Arlington County Planning Commission met this past Monday 3-6-2023 to hear extensive public comment on 'the missing middle'. Please watch the You Tube video to hear more than 70 stakeholders express their concerns 'pro- and con' re: the hot potato issue of the supposed 'missing middle' and its impact on single family neighborhoods. The public comment begins at 1:12:23. Thank you for your consideration. 1500 Gateway Boulevard Zoning Map Amendment OVERVIEW – Zoning Map Amendment - Project Site - Existing Zoning - Comprehensive Plan Designation - Proposed Zoning --- Updated Documents - Staff Recommendation --- Receive Public Comment, Hold a Worksession on March 22, Continue Public Hearing to PC’s April 12 Meeting. Project Site - 4 parcels totaling 85.6 Acres - Adjacent to Route 3, Cowan Boulevard, Interstate 95 - Vacant and wooded. Sensitive environmental features are present in the eastern corner of the main site and are prevalent north of Cowan where Smith Run flows through the site. - Adjacent to the Vermont Ridge project – a City owned 11 acre open space with Civil War features. Existing Zoning - Zoned Planned Development – Medical Center - Zoning, General Development Plan, and Proffer Statement were set up for the proposed Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Clinic. The Clinic located in Spotsylvania County. - The proffers include a required minimum 35% of medical use on the site, other commercial uses, and up to 92 residential units. - The proffers included dedication of the right-of-way for “Future Gateway Blvd” but did not include the construction of the road if the VA Medical Clinic was built on the site. Comprehensive Plan Designation - Environmentally Sensitive Areas of the Site are designated T-1 “Preserved Open Space”. - Western Portions of the Site Adjacent to Interstate 95 are designated T-5W “Area-Core Workplace”. - Eastern Portions of the Site Adjacent to the Great Oaks and Governors Row Neighborhoods are designated T-4 “General Urban”. Comprehensive Plan Designation - Small Area Plan included “Future Notes on T-5W Development and Adjoining T-4 in Area 3” - Provided a sample From Based outline for the project with an employment center west of Gateway Boulevard and a transitional residential area on the north and east of the site. - Three established goals: • “Maximize the highly visible and easily accessed, large property on I-95 to attract a high quality, office / institutional or a developer of commercial space to Fredericksburg. • Create an integrated, walkable community with planned relationships, connections, and open spaces to elevate the potential neighborhood experience. • Maximize the development value of the property, while considering and respecting its context, including the use and size of neighbor parcels.” Proposed Zoning --- Updated Documents - Requested zoning is Planned Development – Mixed Use. - The project maximums are: - 649 residential units (187 single family attached units, 174 “two over two” attached units, and 288 multifamily units). - 443,900 square feet of non-residential use (204,000 square feet of office / institutional uses, 174,300 square feet of general retail / consumer, and 66,500 square feet of lodging use) per page 2 of the GDP. - Flex / Light industrial no longer included on GDP (though its still shown in the Design Guidelines Overall Map) Proposed Zoning --- Updated Documents - The PD-MU requires a 75% to 25% gross floor area minimum use mix. - The applicant has proposed 74.52% of the use to be residential and 25.48% of the use to be non-residential. - The PD-MU requires a phasing plan where a maximum of 75% of residential use may be built prior to the development of a minimum of 25% of the non-residential. - The applicant has proposed to comply with that standard. Proposed Zoning – Gateway Boulevard - Transportation programming has been updated. - Gateway Boulevard now shown as a four lane divided facility. On-street parking included in the middle section to serve residential units fronting on the street. - Traffic Impact Analysis and Proffered Construction Phasing are currently under review. A full analysis of these items can be discussed at a potential March 22 worksession. Proposed Zoning – Gateway Boulevard - Transportation programming has been updated. - Gateway Boulevard now shown as a four lane divided facility. On-street parking included in the middle section to serve residential units fronting on the street. - Traffic Impact Analysis and Proffered Construction Phasing are currently under review. A full analysis of these items can be discussed at a potential March 22 worksession. Proposed Zoning – Buffers and Transitional Zones - Transitional “Building Type” updated to require more appropriate building mass and scale. - Buffer between Great Oaks and Land Bays B modified to preserve existing stream channel with a natural buffer. - A sound wall is shown between residential use and Interstate 95, but no detail, standards, or timing on when it would be built are included. These things should be added to the proffer statement. Proposed Zoning – Analysis Forthcoming The purpose of this presentation is to highlight some of the bigger picture changes in the applicant’s proposal. A full analysis of the changes will be completed over the coming weeks and will include updates on topics such as: • Impacts to schools and public safety capacity; • Impacts to the utility system; • Impacts to the overall transportation network; • The allocation of Open Space within the project; and • The proposed “Design Guidelines” and other form based elements in the project documents. The on-going review of these project elements necessitates an additional meeting to focus on the additional detail in the project proposal. Staff Recommendation - Receive Public Comment and hold the public hearing open until the Planning Commission’s April 12 meeting. - Consider scheduling a worksession for the Planning Commission’s March 22 meeting. 1500 Gateway City of Fredericksburg Case Number RZFY23-01  Application Overview • GPIN #’s 7769-93-9151, 7769-94- 7825, 7779-02-1758, and 7779-03- 1528 • Property consists of approximately 86.6159 acres located between Route 3 and Cowan Boulevard, along the I-95 interchange • Request to rezone from Planned Development – Medical Center (“PD- MC”) to Planned Development – Mixed-Use (“PD-MU”)  Small Area Plan Purposes • Property is located within the City’s Small Area Plan 3 to include Transects 4 and T- 5W T-4 encourages higher density residential uses to support the vision of a workplace urban center T-5W encourages higher density workplace environment, including high quality office/institutional tenant of commercial and light industrial space • Project consists of the following: Up to 443,900 square feet of commercial space (25.48% of project): o +/- 204,000 square feet of office, flex industrial and institutional space o +/- 173,400 square feet of retail and consumer spaces o +/- 66,500 square feet of lodging space Up to 649 residential units (74.52% of project): o 187 – Single Family Attached Units o 174 – 2 Over 2 Units o 288 – Multi-Family Units Generalized Development Plan Landscape Buffer Plan Open Space Plan Proffer Analysis Impacts are only included for projects as identified within the City’s CIP School impacts: Capacity for all schools were extracted from the current CIP Added impacts for the new elementary school conversion Revised middle school impacts to reflect current CIP cost Revised school bus impacts to only include buses identified within the CIP The current CIP does not mention a high school project that will increase capacity, as a result, no impacts to high school improvements have been calculated Debt service credit only reflects middle school impacts, as the elementary conversion is not anticipated to add additional debt. Public safety impacts: Revised to include additional commercial development types Revised costs for all public safety related impacts to reflect the current CIP Total fire apparatus identified in the CIP: 6  School Proffers Project is anticipated to generate 209.97 total students (42.97 middle school students and 111.49 elementary students) Proffers focus on elementary and middle school student generation given the project’s impacts to both and planned facilities under the City’s FY 2023 CIP Conversion of Walker-Grant Middle to a new elementary school Building new middle school Over $2.8 million in Cash Proffers  $2,012,015.85 for Schools  $1,297,074.24 for MFA and 2/2 Units ($2,807.52 per unit)  $714,942.14 for SFA Units ($3,823.22 per unit)  $845,952.19 for Public Safety (includes residential and commercial uses) Total development contribution changes between original submission and today: Previous analysis: $2,324,464.20 Current analysis: $2,857,941.57 Other Proffers Provide a 10' wide multi-use trail along Gateway Blvd., connecting Plank Road with the existing trail along Cowan Blvd. Provide 5' wide sidewalks along parking lots to provide internal pedestrian circulation throughout the development. Reservation of a pedestrian bridge access connection to be built by others Preservation of open space in Land Bays G & H  Transportation Study Areas • Plank Road (Route 3) and Gateway Blvd/Ramseur St. (Signalized, Gateway Blvd Ext will replace Ramseur ST. With the future extension of Gateway Blvd.) • Plank Road (Route 3) and I-95 NB Ramps (Signalized) • Plank Road (Route 3) and Mahone Street/Altoona Drive (Signalized) • Plank Road (Route 3) and Westwood Shopping Center /Greenbrier Shopping Center (Signalized) • Plank Road (Route 3) and Woodlyn Drive/Huntington Hills Lane (Signalized) • Plank Road (Route 3) and Westwood Drive/Westmont Drive (Signalized) • Carl D. Silver Parkway and Cowan Boulevard/Central Park Boulevard (Signalized) • Cowan Boulevard and Preserve Lane (Unsignalized) • Cowan Boulevard and Snowden Hills Boulevard (Signalized) • Cowan Boulevard and Hospital Drive/Manor Drive (Signalized) • Gateway Boulevard Extension and Mahone Street (Future Intersection) • Cowan Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard Extension (Future Intersection) • Gateway Boulevard Extension and Ramseur Street Relocation (Future Intersection) • Gateway Boulevard Extension and Internal Connection #1 (Future Intersection) • Gateway Boulevard Extension and Internal Connection #2 (Future Intersection)  Transportation Improvements  Improvements at the entrance near Gateway Blvd. and Plank Road intersection Construction of one additional eastbound left turn lane with 300 feet of storage and a 200 foot taper Extend the existing eastbound left turn lane to have 300 feet of storage and a 200 foot taper Construction of southbound approach (Gateway Boulevard Extension location) with one (1) exclusive left turn lane, one (1) shared left turn/though lane, and two (2) exclusive right turn lanes Southbound approach improvements consisting of constructing one exclusive left turn lane, one left/thru lane, one right/thru lane, and one exclusive right turn lane  Coordination with VDOT and City on implementation of the future traffic signal timings within the Plank Road Corridor  Improvements at the intersection of Cowan Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. extension Install a traffic signal or roundabout at this location in accordance with the TIA, as defined below, all subject to final design for the Project and site plan  Transportation Improvements  Improvements at the intersection of Gateway Blvd. Extension and Mahone Street Construction of a right-in/right out two-way stop controlled intersection with Gateway Boulevard Extension as the mainline and Mahone Street as the side street  Improvements at the intersection of Gateway Blvd. Extension and Ramseur Street (as relocated) Relocate Ramseur Street to intersect Gateway Boulevard Extension to the north of Mahone Street, and construct a two way stop controlled full access intersection at this intersection  Improvements at the intersection of Gateway Blvd. Extension and Internal Connections (#1-5) to ensure Extension is free-flowing and the Internal Connections are stop controlled  Improvements at the intersection of Cowan Blvd and Preserve Lane/Evergreens Lane Restripe the southbound approach to delineate a 11 foot wide shared left turn/through lane and an exclusive 11 foot wide right turn lane  Transportation Improvements  Improvements to the Gateway Boulevard extension from Plank Road to Cowan Boulevard.  In lieu of constructing the said improvements, may construct the full, four (4) lanes of Gateway Boulevard extension from Plank Road to Cowan Boulevard (including intersection improvements at Cowan Boulevard and Plank Road as shown on the GDP), and receive the Cash Proffer Credit ($4.3 million)  Dedication of applicable right of way required for the construction of all transportation improvements Transportation Transportation  Economic Development Approximately $279 million investment Estimated $214 million in gross City tax revenues and net $88 million over the first 30 years or on average $2.1 million annually Addition of 2,781 jobs during construction Anticipates 1,252 permanent jobs at full buildout Total annual incomes to generate approximately $443 million in salaries. Questions?  UDOTA FY23-03 Modifications to the Planned Development – Residential Zoning District March 8, 2023 OVERVIEW – - Population & Housing Unit Projections - The Status of the City’s Housing Market - Big Picture --- Policy / Ordinance Updates for Moving Forward - Why Modify Planned Development - Residential - Review the Proposed Modifications to Planned Development – Residential - Recommendation and Next Steps  Fredericksburg Population Projection* City of Fredericksburg 2020 2030 2040 2050 Population Dynamics – Stafford County 156,927 182,243 211,320 243,561 Spotsylvania County 140,032 155,407 177,568 202,386 - Per 2020 Census Data: City of Fredericksburg 27,982 31,224 35,051 39,402 27,982 Residents *Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Population Projection - 3,242 New Residents by 2030 300,000 250,000 - 7,069 New Residents by 2040 200,000 - 11,420 New Residents by 2050 150,000 Stafford County 100,000 Spotsylvania County 50,000 - City of Fredericksburg 2020 2030 2040 2050  Fredericksburg Housing Unit Projection* Housing Dynamics – 2020 2030 2040 2050 Stafford County 50,272 58,411 67,731 78,064 - Per 2021 Census Data: Spotsylvania County 48,522 53,774 61,442 70,030 2.4 persons per household City of Fredericksburg 11,887 13,287 14,915 16,767 *Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service - 1,400 New Units by 2030 Housing Unit Projection 90,000 - 3,028 New Units by 2040 80,000 70,000 60,000 - 4,880 New Units by 2050 50,000 40,000 Stafford County 30,000 20,000 Spotsylvania County 10,000 - City of Fredericksburg 2020 2030 2040 2050  Homeownership trend during 2015-2020 Housing Cycle: 2015 - 62% Renter Occupied / 38% Home Ownership 2020 – 60% Renter Occupied / 40% Home Ownership Population Pressure = housing demand = higher housing costs. 2015 - Median Home Value $317,900 2020 - Median Home Value $376,700 (+ 18%) 2015 – Median Rent $1,058 2020 – Median Rent $1,287 (+ 21%) One partial response is to ensure adequate housing supply. Size of the circle = the size of the housing project. The characteristics of housing developments in the western portion of the City are different than in the urban / infill areas in the eastern portion of the City. - Planned Development Districts: - Supportive Housing - PD-Mixed Use - PD-Commercial - Accessory Dwelling Units - PD-Residential - Creative Maker Districts - Capital Impact Study - Proffer Policy - Downtown Infill - Sewer Improvement - Form-Based Urban Program Neighborhood District - Workforce Housing Ordinance - Shopping Center Redevelopment  Why Modify the PD – R? Comprehensive Plan: The City’s Planned Development Districts represent a “Unique Challenge and Opportunity” (see Comprehensive Plan page 11 (1)-3, Area 1 Small Area Plan), evolving a 20th century tool to for 21st century settings. The general development plan criteria are in need of an update. A more effective zoning tool is a blending of a traditional planned development zoning district, addressing the ‘what’ aspects of development (permitted uses and special uses), and a form based code, addressing the ‘how’ aspects through urban fabric, frontage, and building type standards. An immediate implementation step for the Area 1 Plan (Comprehensive Plan Page 11(1)-27) states --- “Review the City's Planned Development Zoning District regulations and updated them” including: • Add form based elements; • Consider permitting additional residential use in the PD districts (special use permit vs. zoning map amendment); • Review maximum heights in the PD districts and adjust them in accordance with the transects where additional height may be appropriate.  Proposed Modifications to PD - R Density Changes: Increase the potential residential density from 6 units and acre to 24 units per acre. Any proposal will be reviewed through a zoning map amendment process and will be required to mitigate any impacts on public facilities like schools or public safety. The PD-R district was created approximately 20-years ago explicitly for the 390-acre Idlewild neighborhood, which is now built out with a mixture of single-family attached and detached units. Increasing the potential residential density PD-R now from 6 to 24 units would help meet current and anticipated market expectations for housing opportunities. Such additional residential development would have to address its public service capital impacts. But, without the possibility of additional residential uses, the City is likely to experience greater housing costs and increased vehicle congestion.  Proposed Modifications to PD - R Add Form Based Code Criteria: Replace redundant “general standards” developed before the adoption of the UDO with Form Based Criteria. Form Standards include: Urban Fabric Standards - Requires a network of complete streets, blocks, and formal open spaces; Transitional Zones - Requires appropriate buffers or steps down in mass and scale to adjacent uses; Frontage Standards - Requires consistency in streetscape and building envelope; and Building Type Standards --- Requires active building facades and quality construction types. Modification to Height Standards: Overall height in PD-R is currently 35 feet for residential and 60 feet for non-residential; Proposed height regulation is 60 feet for any structure (subject to review on GDP / Transitional Zone).  Proposed Modifications to PD - R Update the Remaining “General Standards”: Consolidate 13 existing “General Standards” into six considerations dealing with: Neighborhood commercial uses; Arrangement of land uses; The transportation system; Historic and cultural resources; The environment; and Public facilities.  Proposed Modifications to PD - R Permit (but not require) a Few Additional Neighborhood Commercial Uses: Currently, the PD-R district requires ‘one or more neighborhood commercial uses’. The proposed change would delete this stipulation, but to continue to allow up to 15% of the gross area of a development to be neighborhood commercial. Permit the following uses (subject to review on the GDP): Adult Day Care; and Bakery. Permit the following uses (subject to review on the GDP and by Special Use Permit): Cemetery, Columbarium, Mausoleum Recommendation and Next Steps: Recommend Approval of the Proposed Ordinance to the City Council: • A City Council Public Hearing Would Follow Planning Commission’s Recommendation. • Once Public Hearing is Completed, City Council Considers the Potential Ordinance for Adoption.  The Neon Zoning Map Amendment OVERVIEW – Zoning Map Amendment - Project Site - Existing Zoning - Comprehensive Plan Designation - Proposed Zoning - Rezoning Analysis - Staff Recommendation --- Receive Public Comment Continue Public Hearing to PC’s April 12 Meeting. Project Site - 2 parcels totaling 63.006 Acres - The parcels are generally bounded by Gordon W. Shelton Boulevard to the east, the Seasons apartments and Poets Walk Memory Care Facility to the south east, vacant wooded property to the west, and vacant graded property to the north. - The 63.65 acre GPIN 7860-20-7474 to the west is under a conservation easement. - The subject parcels are vacant and were largely graded during the original development of Celebrate Virginia South. The eastern two-thirds of the property is flat. The western third of the property contains steep slopes in excess of 25% grade along with several stormwater facilities. Existing Zoning - Zoned Planned Development – Commercial. - Part of the Celebrate Virginia South Development. - Subject to the Celebrate Virginia South Agreement, which is an agreement between the City and the Celebrate Virginia South property owner’s association with rules about different aspects of the development. It is not a proffer and would remain in effect on these properties if rezoned. Comprehensive Plan Designation - Environmentally sensitive areas of the site are designated T-1 “Preserved Open Space”. - Western Portions of the Site adjacent to the “Riverfront” area are designated T-3 “Sub-Urban” to provide a transitional area. - Eastern portions of the site adjacent to Gordon Shelton Blvd are designated T-4 “General Urban”. Comprehensive Plan Designation - Focus on Transportation network: - Street connections between existing and proposed development on the eastern portions of the site. - Trail connections between proposed developments in the western portion of the site. - Pedestrian improvements at intersections with Gordon W. Shelton Blvd. - Focus on Open Space network: - Project interface with the Riverfront Area and associated nature and recreational trails. - Focus on Celebrate Virginia South Pump Station. Proposed Zoning - Requested zoning is Planned Development – Mixed Use. - The project maximums are: - 758 multifamily units. - 25,000 square foot clubhouse that includes co-working space, fitness center, event space, and other amenities. - 20,000 square feet of commercial use Analysis – Transect Map Non-Residential Use and Use Mix Ratio: - The project does not provide a use mix or a phasing plan as required by the PD-MU ordinance. The commercial numbers do not appear high enough to meet the PD-MU standard. - The proposed commercial appears over-parked in a way that may require a special exception. More information on the non-residential and parking plan is needed. Analysis – Transect Map Residential Use and Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 Residential Neighborhoods and Housing Goals: Unit Type Number Development MU Multi-Family 32 Neon Multi-Family 726 Neon 369 Silver 232 Seasons 1 251 Seasons 2 Age Restricted 207 Jubilation - Proposed gates (circled in yellow) vs. Policy 14 “do not allow gated communities within the City limits.” - Breakdown of the site design in the western portion of the site does not conform to concept of a “transitional area” adjacent to the Riverfront. Analysis – Transect Map Intensity of Land Use vs. Availability of public facilities: - Public school and safety capacity: Source Total Capital Impact Study $6,598,954 Proffer Statement $3,190,422 Difference $3,408,532 - Utility analysis underway. Applicant identifies need to contribute its prorated share of capital utility infrastructure improvements in Celebrate Virginia South in their proffer statement Analysis – Regulating Plan Urban Fabric Standards - Access: - General street connections conform to Area 1 Plan. Detail on public or private access is needed. - Pedestrian connection to proposed development to the south of the western portion of the site not included. - Additional detail needed on proposed pedestrian crossings at Gordon W. Shelton Blvd Analysis – Regulating Plan Urban Fabric Standards – Open Space: - Perimeter nature trail conforms to Area 1 Plan. - Need more clarity on whether the clubhouse and amenities are commercial uses or open space uses for the community. - No “formal open space” delineated with the project. Need better quantifiable standards for the open space areas that appear to be formal open spaces. - Future River Recreation connections are labeled on the GDP, but more detail is needed to ensure they meet the standards in the Riverfront section of the Comprehensive Plan. Frontage and Building Type Standards Some elements of frontage and building type standards were included in the applicant’s project documents, but more information on both are needed. For example, a rendering was included of architectural elements and streetscapes for the buildings along Gordon W. Shelton Blvd, but there is no commitment in the proffers or quantifiable information in the GDP requiring the applicant to adhere to the rendering. Staff Recommendation Receive Public Comment and hold the public hearing open until the Planning Commission’s April 12 meeting to provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to the issues identified in the technical analysis. NEON at Celebrate Virginia South City of Fredericksburg – Rezoning Property Overview  Project is located in Celebrate Virginia South along Gordon W. Shelton Boulevard  Consisting of approximately 63 acres  Located in the Area 1 Small Plan (TZ 3 & 4)  Currently vacant land and zoned PD-C (since 1998)  Also nearby to the Fredericksburg Nationals Stadium, Wegmans shopping center, 4 multi-level hotels, other multifamily uses and the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center Project Overview  Requesting a zoning map amendment from PD-C to PD-MU for purposes of developing a mixed, planned development with viable residential and commercial components  Project is the third and final leg of the Silver Collection at CVS and is compatible with current developments in the area:  Silver Collection (market rate MF)  Jubilation (age restricted MF)  Neon—mixed use development (MF + Commercial)  Project consists of 758 apartments, majority being one and two bedroom (5% 3 BR)  + 25,000 SF clubhouse that will include a co-working space, fitness center, event spaces, resort pool, food and beverage services and other services  Clubhouse will be open to residents and non-residents who pay an annual club fee  + 25,000 – 30,000 SF commercial space for retail shops, restaurants, consumer services, and contemporary craft beer garden  Current multi-lane/parkway transportation infrastructure already in place with 80% remaining capacity Project Overview (continued)  Immediate access to City trail system and entertainment venues such as Fred Nats Stadium  Will support entertainment venues like Nats Stadium and conference center and other businesses at CVS with immediate and with walkable access  Project is geared towards tech-savvy young adults between 25-40 years of age who want to live a more modern lifestyle, work and play environment  Co-working space is highly sought after in this age group and it is anticipated Neon’s clubhouse co-working space will work as an incubator to attract new businesses to this area  Project is anticipated to generate at full build-out $2.9 million in tax revenues netting approximately $600,000 annually in direct revenues  All three Silver Collection Projects generate $4.8 million annually and net approximately $1 million in direct revenues (e.g. taxes generated on site) Comprehensive Plan Analysis  In accordance with Small Area Plan 1 (includes 1200 acres)  Project promotes higher level of mixed use development near existing compatible residential and commercial uses  Promotes internal and external pedestrian mobility and connections to City’s trail network, commercial businesses, residential developments and entertainment venues  Promotes live, work, play lifestyle in a self-sufficient and sustaining residential community  Will support existing businesses at CVS including Fred Nats, Wegmans, and will attract new commercial investment to the CVS area  Positive job and tax revenue creator and economic development initiative  Project has support of surrounding businesses, including Rappaport Companies at Central Park  Supported by extensive transportation infrastructure  Promotes open space and connects to City trail systems  Positive economic development driver and tax/job generator Economic Development  Fiscally Positive CVS Development  Includes Silver Collection, Jubilation and Neon  Estimated total project cost is $263.2 Million (Neon alone is $155 million)  One time impact from construction and development activities = $92.9 million & 378 jobs  Total spin-off spending during construction is $55.4 million, which will generate 165 new jobs  At full build-out annual gross tax revenues = $4,800,714 (Neon is $2.9 million of this number)  Annual net tax (direct) revenues = approximately $1 million annually with Neon netting $600,000 annually  Attract a greater diverse workforce to the City including Millennial and Gen Z employees/entrepreneurs [entrepreneur ecosystem & offer modern lifestyle] Parking  UDO Requires 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling for MF developments  Planned Development Districts require 1 parking space per unit  Applicant sees this as inadequate parking since typically more than one driver lives in a unit and many residents have more than 1 car or other like boats, motorcycles, and other motor vehicles  Neon’s Clubhouse business model with the co-working space anticipates to involve upwards of 200-400 non-resident memberships to utilize the facilities on a daily or weekly basis  Other supporting commercial uses (Beer Garden, other mixed uses) have the ability to serve as a host site for larger social and community-oriented events and activities during most of the year which justifies an increase in parking on site  292 spaces of the total 1,383 are on-street parking spaces  176 spaces are located within park-under garages Proffers  Schools and EMS  Based on historical and current data of similar projects in CVS, it is anticipated the total number of school-aged children in the Neon development will be 57 (which = 0.075 per unit or 3.9 x less than city estimate which equates to $3,629 per unit & 1.75 persons per unit for EMS impacts and $580 per unit all x 758 units= $3.190 million).  Currently 26 school aged children are at Silver Collection which includes 369 units (18 (3) BR units), which we believe is mainly due to inherent limits of 1-2 BR and development’s attraction to single persons and young couples Renderings (Main Street) Clubhouse Elevations (Front) Clubhouse Elevations (Back) Questions? 1405 Franklin Street Variance request to reduce front and rear yard setbacks Planning Commission 2023 March 8 Overview • Issue: Should the Planning Commission make a recommendation for the variance requests to reduce the front and rear setbacks for 1405 Franklin Street? • Virginia Code § 15.2-2310 requires variance applications be transmitted to the Planning Commission, which may send a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals or appear as a party at the hearing • Staff recommendation: Recommend approval with conditions, if making a recommendation is determined appropriate Location – 1405 Franklin Street Background • Zoned Residential R-4 • Property is 2,113 square feet • Legal non-conforming to minimum lot size of 7,500 • March 3, 2022 letter concurred with legal option that 1403 Franklin Street was 2 legal lots of record (1403 and 1405 Franklin St) • 1405 Franklin Street contains parking for 1403 Franklin Street • 1403 Franklin Street contains a legal non-conforming commercial use, that would be converted to a single-family home, removing the need for the parking on 1405 Franklin Street Existing Conditions 1403 Franklin Street Street Context Street Context Plat Request • A reduction in front and rear yard setbacks to allow for the construction of a single-family detached home Code Requires Applicant Proposes Variance Front setback 22 feet (infill calculation) 8 feet (house) 11.8 feet (based on 10%) 10% = 19.8 to 24.2 feet Front Stoop 13 6 feet (stoop) 7 feet Rear 24 2 feet 22 feet Side 6 6 and 8 feet None Proposed Layout Proposed Building Analysis Request must meet the definition of a Variance: • “a reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area, bulk, or location of a building or structure…” • The shallowness of the lot prevents construction of a house without a variance (approx.: 2.4 inches of buildable depth) • Similar lots in neighborhood reviewed to determine reasonableness: Address Front Setback Rear Setback Lot Size 911 Monument Ave 7 1.4 2,464 1405 Sunken Rd 10 4 2,640 1403 Franklin St 1.8 1.6 2,033 1420 Franklin St 22 2 2,842 1428 Franklin St 22 2 3,162 Requested Setback 8 2 2,113 Public Comment • One public comment has been received • From an adjacent property owner regarding access to an existing gate • Applicant has included the gate into the attached plans for reference and has noted that this is a civil matter that they have addressed • Requested variance is for a reduction in setbacks for the front and rear yards and not the side yard, where the gate is located Record of Decision Conditions Recommendation of approval with the following conditions (to be reviewed with City Attorney prior to BZA hearing): 1. The location of the house for 1405 Franklin Street shall be in substantial accordance with the Final Site Design submitted on January 24, 2023, by Robert Kelsey. 2. The non-conforming use at 1403 Franklin Street shall be converted to a single-family detached home prior to the issuance of a building permit on 1405 Franklin Street. 3. A property survey showing the two separate lots at 1403 and 1405 Franklin shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading plan or building permit on 1405 Franklin Street. 4. The curb cut in front of 1405 and 1407 Franklin Street will be reduced in general accordance with the Final Site Design submitted on January 24, 2023, by Robert Kelsey as modified if necessary to meet Public Works standards. Questions? Analysis Request must meet one of three general tests showing that strict application of the terms of the ordinance would: 1. Unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property • Use is severely impacted due to lot size at 72% less than the required size 7,500 sq. ft. 2. That the granting of the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance • The applicant has not identified a physical condition hardship. 3. Alleviate a hardship by granting a reasonable modification to a property or improvements thereon requested by, or on behalf of, a person with a disability • The applicant has not identified a hardship related to a person with a disability. Analysis Request must meet five specific tests (all): 1. “The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance” • No hardship was created by the applicant 2. “Granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area” and “the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance” • Proposed variance maintains a portion of the front setback found in the neighborhood • Conversion of 1403 Franklin Street to a conforming use would benefit the neighborhood and would be required to remove the existing parking spaces on 1405 Franklin Street. • The property does not need to provide off-street parking, but the applicant proposes to provide at least two off-street parking spaces, for the use of 1403 and 1405 Franklin Street. • To maximize on street parking and reduce the impact of on street parking demand created by the new dwelling, the applicant has proposed to reduce the existing 21-foot curb cut in front of 1405/1407 Franklin Street to serve only 1407 Franklin Street. Analysis Request must meet five specific tests (all): 3. “The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance” and “the hardship will not be shared generally by other properties;” • Property is unique in size compared to lots in the immediate vicinity • Requested variance is comparable to similarly sized lots in the neighborhood 4. “Granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such property or a change in the zoning classification of the property” • The R-4 District allows single-family detached dwellings by-right Analysis Request must meet five specific tests (all): 5. “the relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process that is authorized in the ordinance pursuant to subdivision 6 of § 15.2-2309 or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A 4 of § 15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application.” • A Special Use Permit, Special Exception, or Administrative Modification cannot reduce setbacks beyond what is already permitted From: Susan Pates To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 9A on Agenda for March 8, 2023 Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:41:33 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. Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to share with you my ownership of 909 Monument Avenue with access to the rear garden from 1403 Franklin Street. My husband and I owned this property from 2004 to 2006. We bought it from Patricia Davis who had lived there since 1995. Fred Franklin bought it from us in 2006 and he owns it presently.   All of us have used the rear entrance to this property via 1403 Franklin Street (and what is now being called 1405 Franklin Street). There are gates and a concrete pad inside the gates for parking a vehicle. We never asked permission. This usage needs to be preserved. I hope you find this information useful to you. Sincerely, Susan Pates