Planning Commission

1500 Gateway Boulevard Zoning Map Amendment OVERVIEW – Zoning Map Amendment - Project Site - Existing Zoning - Comprehensive Plan Designation - Proposed Zoning --- Updated Documents - Staff Recommendation --- Discussion / Questions 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. - Use types need to be defined and listed clearly in the project documents - Substantial conformance with the GDP and Design Guidelines Manual should be established. Proposed Zoning --- Updated Use Mix - 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 --- Sanitary Sewer Availability and Project Phasing • A study by Whitman, Requardt, & Associates identified segments of the downstream sanitary sewer interceptor cannot accommodate additional flows without system improvements. The improvements have been identified and recommended for inclusion in the FY 2024 Capital Improvement Plan, which is currently in process. If approved, these improvements are programmed for design and construction within the next 4 to 5 years as funding is appropriated. • The Department of Public Works is in the process of developing a Sewer Pro Rata Program for the Hazel Run Sewer Basin. This program is intended to identify costs for various sanitary sewer infrastructure improvement projects that can be proportionally assigned to developments and projects that will contribute additional flow to this sewer basin. It is anticipated that the final Pro Rata rates and proportional equations for the Hazel Run Sewer Basing will be determined within the next 6 months. Proposed Zoning – Gateway Boulevard - The application is still unclear on whether or not the project includes building two or four lanes of Gateway Blvd. Extended. - The “Roadway Assessment Evaluation” used to evaluate the number of lanes for Gateway Blvd. is not the appropriate tool according to VDOT. - The number of lanes of an urban road segment should be based comparable conditions in a locality, the anticipated land use of property’s along the facility, the configuration and traffic flow on adjacent roads, and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Gateway Blvd. Extended is envisioned to be a link between Route 3 (where it is currently 10 lanes wide) and Cowan Blvd. (which is 4 lanes wide). The property served by the road extension is envisioned to be an intensely developed workforce center with supportive residential use. The appropriate configuration of Gateway Blvd. Extended is as a four lane divided highway. Proposed Zoning – Gateway Boulevard - The applicant values the construction of two lanes of Gateway Blvd. Extended at $4.35 million dollars. - The credit concept is unenforceable without an extensive set of procedures established in the Proffer Statement for how payment and credit would be applied in consideration of the timing of building occupancy (at which time school and safety proffers are collected), selling and purchasing of lots, transfer of ownership and liability, and road construction phasing. - The applicant may include information in the “Proffer Justification Analysis” about the amount of cash proffers they propose for the project. Any concept of an investment offset should rely on sound data including: - A cost estimate showing the actual value of any investment; - A clear and enforceable timeline for when that investment will be completed. Proposed Zoning – Gateway Boulevard Extended / Route 3 - Pedestrian Signalization Across Route 3. - Southbound Left / Thru Lane should be separated into two lanes. - Eastbound Left Turn Lanes into Gateway Blvd. should be extended to a minimum of 355 feet. Proposed Zoning – Gateway Boulevard Extended / Cowan Boulevard - Clarity on the intersection improvement at Cowan Boulevard. - A Roundabout performs substantially better in terms of LOS and should be the intersection. Proposed Zoning – Other Transportation Improvements 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 – Open Space - Land Bay G and H – Discussion on Pond location and extension of Smith Run Nature Trail. - Total amount of Formal Open Space needs to be quantified. 6.72 acres required. - Minimum standards for the formal open spaces should also be established. Where formal open spaces are proposed, several quantifiable standards should be provided including: • The minimum width and length of the formal open space as well as a maximum width to length ratio; • A description of its accessibility and adjacency to street frontages; • definition of how the open spaces will be planted, utilized, or amenitized. The description should include whether each amenity will be open to all residents of the project or if access will be limited by land bay or other factor. Proposed Zoning – Frontage Plan - A maximum number of “alternative lot frontages” should be established to gauge conformance with § 72-51.3. - Front Loaded Townhomes need connection to a sidewalk network. - Standards for townhomes fronting on Formal Open Space need to be established. Proposed Zoning – Building Type Standards Staff Recommendation Discussion / Questions From: Elizabeth Safley To: Taylor H. Owen Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Planning Commission February 22nd Comment Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:38:23 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    I hope this letter will be put into the record at today’s Planning Commission meeting. The City Planning Commission held a meeting at Christ Lutheran Church. There seemed to be no central reason in favor of allowing by- right ADUs. As person after person brought up objections, the Planning folks shifted their reasoning from “granny” needs it, to “affordability,” to “many years down the road there are projections of a tight housing market,” to “young folks do not want to purchase single family homes anymore.” People at the meeting had very valid objections to all of these, especially in older City neighborhoods with very small lots. The City Planning Commission acts as though by-right ADUs are a “done deal” when they present information, and that their job is to educate us homeowners about why they are right and we are wrong on this issue. Instead, they should listen to what the owner –occupier folks who come to the meetings want. From what I hear this was also the attitude at other meetings held by the Planning Commission staff. They are well-spoken, but they seem intent on ram-rodding this down our necks quickly. Planning folks put out information indicating they expect only a small number of ADUs, but they present no data to support this. Other Virginia localities have a variety of restrictions that Fredericksburg is so far not willing to incorporate, so data from these localities may not be indicative of what will happen here. Many of these localities also spent a lot of time developing these restrictions, and phasing in the ADU policies. Fredericksburg is doing neither. Doesn’t Fredericksburg have a high enough percentage of rentals? I oppose by-right ADUs in older, existing Fredericksburg neighborhoods. These older neighborhoods already have high density housing per acre compared to some of the newer neighborhoods. There are also concerns about the infrastructure such as schools, water, garbage, and sewer system that was not designed to support high population density. 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 is already a frequent occurrence in City rentals? 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? IMHO the City should find some land and work with a local developer on apartments or low priced housing or subsidized for all City/State employees, like police, fire, teachers. Home owners should need a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the space to be considered an ADU whenever the tenant or owner changes. Please table the proposal to add ADUs in existing subdivisions until you have researched more thoroughly how other Virginia localities are handling them. If you choose to push this through, why not first try a 3 year pilot program in a newer subdivision that has extra land per existing home and let the older neighborhoods stay under existing ordinances? Ellen Brown 1407 Dandridge St Fredericksburg VA From: jusfrank@aol.com To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment to be read at Fredericksburg ADU Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:45:01 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. Out of fairness for Fredericksburg residents that bought their homes prior to any new ADU approval/process -- and to address those owners valid concerns of having an additional residence added to the back yard or residence of their adjacent neighbors property -- some consideration for the impact on existing owners on each side of a proposed ADU should be provided in the approval process. A model for this process already exists in city regulations for the approval of short-term vacation rentals of bedrooms/residences thru such sites as Airbnb and VRBO. One of the current Regulations to achieve City approval of the application for residential use of these type rentals requires that the two closest adjacent property owners must be informed of the application and approve of their neighbors intent to use their property as a vacation rental. Given the similar potential ADU impacts on neighboring property values, including loss of privacy, noise, parking, etc., any application for an ADU should at least require the same fair consideration and the approval of adjacent property owners as is currently in place for the approval of vacation rentals. Frank Crissey 9 Lafayette Station Fredericksburg, VA 22401   From: nelson Sargeant To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment to be read out loud for the Planning Commission 3-22-2023 Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:26:04 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 Rachel Sargeant Rmns08@yahoo.com] Good Evening. My name is Rachel Sargeant. I live at 812 Daniel St. 22401. I am writing about the ADU ordinance. I have been reading research articles about ADU ordinances. I get the impression that when they are first proposed in a town’s Planning Commission that the ordinance does not have many conditions in it. The hope is that more homeowners will build one if ‘the conditions, the rules’ are relaxed. This will help with meeting the Planning Dept’s ‘in-fill’ goal or at least say that ADUs were tried. As the ‘in-fill’ goal is reached, then the Planning Dept adds more restrictive conditions because they’ve used up all the land to build on. So Fairfax no longer has a condition that you have to be ‘a senior’ to build an ADU. They’ve put in that ADUs now have to have a 2-acre lot. Then the next step is to address the ‘missing middle’ and build multiple units, 6-8-plexes near detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood, as Arlington has currently passed after public comments from neighbors who were divided on watching the density increase so much. I’d like to point out that the College Heights neighborhood already has a variety of housing options of duplexes, triplexes, and apartments as well as ADUs already in place. Those ADUs should not be ‘grandfathered’. They should be brought up to Code so that they are safe and healthy for occupants. Sam Shelby, from the Alexandria Planning Dept, who spoke at the February 23rd, Fred15 ADU Community Session said after the meeting, it was the right thing to do to inventory and bring the existing ADUs up to Code because you want to make sure occupants are in a safe and healthy place to live. In addition, there should be other ADU conditions spelled out in the ordinance re: safety, because they are not covered in other regulations, such as ‘The ceiling of a basement ADU must also be fire rated to protect the floor above for one hour’. These ADU-specific conditions within the ordinance is one of the reasons why Alexandria adopted a 3-Year ADU Planning Process. To spend quality-time, not rushed time, with more staff on the team to get the ordinance and process planned out right. Year One was for the city to inventory all the current ADUs in place. We need this 3-Year Process in Fredericksburg. Not the rush job that a few members of the Planning Commission want. We hope they’re in the minority. The City needs to give more time to develop a quality ADU ordinance within a 3-Year Planning Process, like the other localities have done. It is also important to see how many ADUs are in each neighborhood so you can assign a cap per year on the ADU applications. Other localities do ‘a cap’. Please look at the caps, for example in NoVA, Charlottesville, Boston municipalities with single family neighborhoods (as in the Position Paper ‘THE STATE OF ZONING FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS’ by Amy Dain). And adjust accordingly for the smaller population of Fredericksburg. No neighborhood should have to bear the brunt of ‘developer-investor’ overbuilds of ADUs. That’s why we need a solid ‘owner-occupied’ condition in the Fredericksburg ADU ordinance. Please take out that ‘resident manager’. Put in ‘owner-occupied’. The ordinance also needs to specify a minimum lot size. No ADUs on 30 ft lots. Please use an extended planning process to look at the research on the recurrent disadvantages to ADUs, such as potential links with displacement and gentrification (Bertolet 2018), the risk of creating more temporary rentals (Furman Center 2014), and the overcrowding problem for associated off-street parking space (Chapple et al. 2012), notwithstanding concerns about the affordability of ADUs. (link: time https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0hq3v32c). Thank you for your consideration. FY 2024 Recommended CIP and Capital Budget City of Fredericksburg March 22, 2023  Capital Improvement Plan AGENDA • Short description of key concepts • Quick overview of Capital Budget • New projects included in the FY 2024 – FY 2028 CIP • Carryover of previous year projects • Questions?  Capital Improvement Plan Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Budget • The Capital Improvement Plan is a five-year listing of major capital projects. It is a long range planning document that strategizes the acquisition, enhancement, and replacement of public facilities, equipment, and infrastructure. The process includes input from staff, citizens, and City Council and is used as a tool to keep the public informed about future needs. The plan is re-evaluated and amended each year and does not appropriate any funding. • The Capital Budget is adopted and appropriated funding for the current fiscal year for use on the approved capital projects.  Capital Improvement Plan The CIP is a working plan, therefore each year staff works towards making improvements that will allow a more user friendly document for the reader. Some of the changes we made this year include: • Table of contents organized by Fund, if there are different departments within the fund, they are listed alphabetically by their department. • We will be adding page numbers to the Fund Summary Pages beside each title to identify the page number for faster access to a specific project. • In working with the Planning Department, we have included the segment of the Comprehensive Plan that the project is tied to on the project sheet. Capital Improvement Plan  Capital Improvement Plan New projects included in the FY 2024 –FY 2028 CIP Public Works Fund – Fund 0302 Lafayette Drainage Upgrade • Project is for a section of Lafayette Blvd which experiences periodic flooding at times of heavy rain events. An evaluation needs to be done to evaluate improvements needed to handle stormwater flow. • This project includes engineering in FY 2025 and a construction project will be added to the CIP based off of the evaluation report. Pavement Condition Study • This study is for the inspection and evaluation of the existing pavement conditions of City maintained streets. A pavement condition index will be assigned to each street, which will then help identify streets for the annual Paving and Rehabilitation program. Sidewalk & Access Ramp Replacement • Annual program to replace sidewalks throughout the City that have deteriorated, displaced, or are non- ADA compliant. The goal is to replace 1800 linear ft per year or 375 4x5 squares.  Capital Improvement Plan New projects included in the FY 2024 –FY 2028 CIP Public Facilities Fund – Fund 0305 Alum Spring Park • This is for a site level or master plan of the park and parking lot development. Once this plan has been completed, it will give a guide of how to prioritize the improvements to the park. Dog Park ADA Access and Equipment Replacement • This project is to resurface the dog pens, update water fountains, and agility equipment. The pathways need to altered to allow ADA access to the roaming areas. Doris E Buffett Pool • The maintenance facility at the pool, the pool building and pool house require repair and envelope protection work on roofs, siding, doors, and gates. Dorothy Hart Community Center Improvements • This project is for a dehumidification system, auditorium flooring, and ADA access ramp and stair replacement. Fredericksburg Area Museum • The sandstone foundation and mortar is showing significant signs of deterioration. This is for repairs to the foundation. A consultant is evaluating and proposing the procedures for restoration. The HVAC system needs replaced to keep the environment stable in the museum. This is important due to the sensitive nature of the artifacts presented in the museum.  Capital Improvement Plan New projects included in the FY 2024 –FY 2028 CIP Public Facilities Fund – Fund 0305 Hazel Run Open Space • The Area 7 plan envisions this City owned acreage as community open space. This is for a master plan with development to follow after the plan has been completed. Motts Run Reservoir • This is for a site level or master plan of the park and parking lot development. Once this plan has been completed, it will give a guide of how to prioritize the improvements to the park. This project does include picnic shelters. Police Department HVAC Replacements • The HVAC units and chiller system are nearing the end of their life expectancies and the replacement units are scheduled out accordingly in this project. Train Station Infrastructure Plan • The Area 7 plan identified a need for this type of plan. It will provide concepts and cost estimates for an expanded train station. It would identify parking, signage, wayfinding and ticket sales. This plan should be in place prior to the construction of the third track.  Capital Improvement Plan Carryover of previous year’s projects • The Current CIP will not include a project sheet for any projects that were previously approved in FY 2023 as part of the Capital Budget unless changes need to be made to the project (ex: scope of work, costs). • The funds associated with those projects are appropriated as part of the Capital Budget and then “carried over” as part of the year end accounting process. • We did include a section in the transmittal speaking to some of those larger projects that were approved last year but are in the beginning stages. Two examples of those are the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the new Middle School.  Capital Improvement Plan New Middle School • The new Middle School was included in the adopted FY 2023 budget. This school replaces the current Walker-Grant Middle School which was built in 1988. On November 8, 2022 , City Council approved the comprehensive agreement between the School Board and First Choice for design and construction of the project. The total gross value of the agreement is $75.58 million. Wastewater Treatment Plant • On January 18, 2023 , the City entered into an interim agreement with Ulliman Schutte Construction LLC for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This will accommodate future residential, commercial and industrial growth. The current project cost is projected at $158.5 million and will expand the capacity at the plant from 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 6.0 mgd. The City has worked diligently to secure any funding sources that were potentially available for this project. Of the total project cost, $97.6 million is compromised of grant funding which will reduce the amount ratepayers will have to pay for the project.  Next Steps and Upcoming Budget Meetings Upcoming Budget Meetings: 6:00 pm Budget Work Session April 18, 2023 7:00 pm FY 2024 Budget Public Hearing 5:30 pm Budget Work Session April 25, 2023 7:30 pm Regular Session – First Reading on the FY 2024 Budget Thank you! Questions?