Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 2023 6:30 PM Regular 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://www-regionalwebtv- com.filesusr.com/html/2c630b_52690fe286848cd4501315f061e711d7.html?wchannelid=2aucum61zm&wmediaid =xz9ysk6kug The agenda, staff report and associated 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 Mary-Margaret Marshall, Secretary Mike Craig, Principal Planner Susanna Finn Taylor Owen, Administrative Assistant Chris Hornung Tom O’Toole 1. CALL TO ORDER 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 www.regionalwebtv.com/fredcc, or Facebook live at www.facebook.com/FXBGgov. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM [00:03:00] There were five members in attendance of the meeting at the call to order. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA [00:03:28] Mr. Hornung motioned to approve the agenda and Ms. Marshall seconded. The motion passed 5-0. 5. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICIES, ORDINANCES, OR APPLICATIONS None. 6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR DISCLOSURES OF CONTACT [00:04:06] Mr. O’Toole, a member of the church, referenced an email from the City Attorney who confirmed that he does not have a personal or financial interest in SUP FY23-0003 according to the Conflict of Interest Act. Ms. Marshall stated that she is in the same position and is able to participate. 7. OLD BUSINESS [00:05:23] (Attachments) A. Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception Parish., requests a Special Use Permit to consolidate and expand the Religious Institution use in the block bound by William Street, Stafford Avenue, and Augustine Avenue. Mr. Craig provided an overview of the application background and an updated report to the proposal. The Planning Commission did not have any questions and welcomed the applicant to the front of the room to speak. Mr. Charlie Payne, the applicant’s representative, was present to answer any questions. Chair Durham opened the public hearing for public comment. Kim Rudisill, 1316 Brent Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Alice & Edward Whelan, 1325 Royston Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Sue Sargent, 1318 William Street, spoke in opposition to the application as president of the College Heights Civic Association. She appreciated the changes made so far and listed several questions and concerns she would like to be addressed in the application. Mike Worsham, 1317 Royston Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Anne Little, 726 William Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Director Johnston read several written comments aloud. (Attachment) Ellen Brown, 1407 Dandridge Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Ronald Smith, 1318 William Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Patricia Worsham, 1317 Royston Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Rachel Sargent, 812 Daniel Street, spoke in opposition to the application. Chair Durham invited the Planning Commissioners to speak. Mr. O’Toole asked the applicant to clarify the concerns raised regarding the public notice efforts. Mr. Payne stated that they were compliant with the City’s public notice requirements, and Mr. Craig confirmed. Mr. O’Toole asked Mr. Payne to address the questions raised in the public comments regarding the daycare. Mr. Payne stated that the church would have to meet all federal, state, and local government requirements regarding certifications and licensing. There is not currently any daycare on site, but there is a pre-school. The church does not currently have plans to establish a daycare in this application but may explore that possibility in the future. Mr. Hornung stated that he understands the bulk of the concerns expressed with the application which are not strictly exacerbated by the proposed request for the special use permit. Particularly the complaints regarding traffic and parking, which he has noticed before. He suggested that input from the parking committee would be beneficial to explore opportunities to mitigate impact on traffic. Mr. Payne responded that they would be open to exploring those options. He stated that most of the uses they are discussing tonight have already been in place for a long time. The new proposal includes the addition of on site which is adjacent to the church campus to create a living space for the priests. Grouping all of these components together under one Special Use Permit makes enforcement and oversight more efficient. He addressed the public comments presented and explained efforts made by the church to positively benefit the neighborhood, which includes the employment of a police officer to provide traffic control along William Street after services. Chair Durham suggested that another officer should be placed within the neighborhood, such as Stafford Avenue, to patrol and enforce the parking ordinance as well. Mr. Payne stated they are open to considering that possibility. Chair Durham then mentioned the sidewalks and Mr. Payne confirmed that the sidewalk will be straight, concrete, impermeable, and ADA compliant. They then discussed overuse of chemical treatments on the lawns at the site. Mr. Payne confirmed that the original gate proposed was removed from the request and there will not be any obstructions to the driveways. Chair Durham closed the public hearing and invited the commission to make a motion. Mr. Hornung motioned to recommend approval of the application on the condition that this be brought to the Parking Advisory Committee to evaluate the conditions in the surrounding area and recommend improvements that can be made to address residents’ parking concerns. Ms. Finn seconded the motion. Mr. Hornung explained the reasons why he supports the application. Chair Durham agreed with motion and stated there is an opportunity to improve the site. He then polled the commissioners. The recommendation passed 5-0. Mr. Johnston stated that the City Staff is currently working on a Small Area Plan update for the neighborhood and encouraged everyone to participate in the process as it is an opportunity to state concerns as detailed policies can be developed as a result. Community meetings are scheduled for August and September. B. Ideal Realty Group, Inc. (contract purchaser) requests a zoning map amendment of 90.06 acres from Planned Development – Medical Center (PD-MC) with proffered conditions to Planned Development – Mixed Use (PD- MU). [01:03:00] (Attachment) Mr. Craig provided an overview of the project and the staff recommendation. Mr. O-Toole asked for staff to clarify the proffer statement documents and the general development plan. Mr. Craig sated that the proffer statement will be the core of the application and the specific phrasing in the document is critical as the general development plan will need to conform to it. The development plan is general and includes land bay planning, the phasing, the transportation network, and their anticipated sanitary sewer and water concept. It also includes technical details such as the frontage rules, transition rules, and form-based elements. He then explained the design elements in the drawing and how all of these will inform future review for the following plans, plats, and permitting if approved. Mr. O-Toole asked for more details concerning the clubhouse mentioned in the memo but not in the proffer statement or GDP. Mr. Craig stated that the clubhouse falls under the project amenities section of the proffer and then referenced the design guideline manual, providing a brief overview. Mr. O-Toole asked who will maintain the alleyways and other facilities. There was a discussion regarding ownership and land use. There will be a homeowner’s association to be responsible for privately owned properties and roads. Mr. Hornung asked staff to identify the discrepancies between the applicants proffer analysis and the staff computed proffer guidance. Mr. Craig provided a background on the project and the changes made involving the city schools which altered the estimated proffer impacts. Ms. Finn asked if there is a possibility to expand the road widths from two lanes to four lanes if council wishes to pursue alternative funding mechanisms. Mr. Craig confirmed that it is possible that the roads will have four lanes but if a funding source is not confirmed then it will revert back to two lanes subject to council. Mr. Craig spoke on the tools use to determine the calculations, VDOT’s involvement, and the possibility of the applicant utilizing tax increment financing. There was a discussion pertaining VDOT, their requirements and recommendations, infrastructure design, and funding opportunities. Mr. O’Toole stated that the three-million-dollar difference is substantial and the developer should be the responsible party to provide that. Chair Durham wanted to know the official acreage of the zoning map amendment. Mr. Craig stated that it should be 83.6 acres as shown on the GDP. Chair Durham stated that number is inconsistent across their application documents and Mr. Craig stated the applicant will confirm and make the appropriate corrections. Mr. Charlie Payne was present to answer questions and provided an overview of their request, addressing questions raised by the commission. Mr. O’Toole requested more information regarding the “Live District” for assisted living and active adult multifamily as shown in the design manual. This will be part of the total number even though it will not be residential use in the Live District. This could be age-restricted but it’s going to be left open and flexible depending on the market. Mr. O’Toole asked why single-family detached homes are excluded. Mr. Payne explained that they are not the best option for this project as it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. There was a discussion about alternative mixed uses and why they were dismissed as well as building materials for the single family attached homes. The use of vinyl siding greater than four inches is discouraged. Chair Durham brought up the retention pond and park area. He asked if there are other pond styles which would be more natural in appearance and supportive of the local ecosystem. Mr. Payne stated that they will meet the environmental regulations and are considering those design details. Ms. Finn requested confirmation of the total signalized pedestrian crosswalks at Cowan Boulevard included in the GDP. There was a discussion regarding the impact of traffic and pedestrian safety and the commission concluded that additional crosswalks would be beneficial. Chair Durham summarized the items discussed and opened the public hearing. Lawrence Thuotte, 2207 Hayes Street, spoke in opposition to the project. Chair Durham closed the public hearing and invited a motion. Mr. O’Toole inquired if additional housing was included in the residential portion of the application. Mr. Craig stated it was not. There was then a discussion regarding the phasing of the project and occupancy requirements. Mr. Hornung motioned to recommend approval of the Ideal Reality Group, Inc. zoning map amendment from PDMC to PDMU with staff conditions including the restriction on four-inch vinyl siding as exterior material for residential units and the addition of the signalized pedestrian crosswalks across route three as directed by staff. Ms. Marshall seconded and Chair Durham called for roll call vote. Marshall – Aye, O’Toole – Nay, Finn – Aye, Hornung – Aye, and Durham – Aye. Motion passed 4-1.  Special Use Permit for Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception Parish Overview • Issue • Shall the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception Parish? • Staff recommends approval of the special use to the City Council, subject to conditions • Property is 5.414 acres combined (currently on 15 parcels) • Requesting approval to replace, update, and expand religious institutional use permissions for Saint Mary’s • Would replace 7 existing SUP approvals • Proposed improvements include: • Interior sidewalks with lights • Water feature • 600 sqft addition to rectory • Removal of some fencing Location Saint Mary’s Located Between: • William St • Royston St • Stafford Ave • Augustine Ave Moved to William Street in 1972 Planning Commission Public Hearing • Multiple public comments regarding the application, both positive and negative. • General topics discussed: • Parking • Proposed ancillary uses (vacant lots) • Institutional feel versus the residential character of the adjoining blocks • Notice to adjacent neighbors • Desire to keep separate SUP permits for each building and/or to revoke the existing SUP approvals • Benefits of having Saint Mary’s as a neighbor • Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan/Unified Development Ordinance and compatibility with neighboring properties Applicant changes since the Public Hearing • Changed use on two vacant lots to “Open Space for Religious Institutional Use” • Stated that the applicant will need to pursue an additional SUP should they wish to develop the property beyond the by-right uses listed under the R-4 District • Clarified that 1308 Royston (vacant lot) is to be merged into the adjacent lot (use noted as caretaker/single family) • Updated the proposed use for the three Buckner Street parcels from religious institutional to “open space/parking for religious institutional use • Removed gates from the GDP • Looked at sidewalks and offered to plant landscaping around the sidewalks • Location, material, and lighting desired for safety • Confirmed notice provided, resent notice for June 14th meeting • Stated they are installing timers/motion sensors for the lighting on the homes • Notes the location of existing signage on GDP with pictures provided • No additional signage is shown or proposed at this time Uses Property Current Use Proposed Use 1301 William St Church Facility Religious Institution 1009 Stafford St Office / Preschool School / Assembly / Office 1102 Augustine Ave Rectory Caretaker / Single Family 1313 Buckner St Parking Lot Open Space / Parking for 1317 Buckner St Parking Lot Religious Institution 1321 Buckner St Parking Lot 1104 Augustine Ave JP II House (Parish Assembly Ministries) 1101 Stafford Ave Catholic Charities (Office) Office 1110 Augustine Ave Vacant Lot Open Space for Religious Institution Use 1300 Royston St Music House (Staff Caretaker / Single Residence) 1308 Royston St Vacant Lot Caretaker / Single Family (To be merged with adjacent lot) 1312 Royston St St Joseph’s House Assembly (Meetings / Residence) 1316 Royston St Vacant Building Assembly 1109 Stafford Ave Vacant Building Assembly 1115 Stafford Ave Vacant Lot Open Space for Religious Institution Use 1117 Stafford Ave Principal’s House (Staff Caretaker / Single Family Residence) Proposed Parcel Layout • Will help address impacts of proposed expansion by preserving neighborhood fabric • Merge three small lots containing existing parking spaces into the large lot • This will place the primary Religious Institutional Use onto one parcel. • Combine lots 1 and 2 into one lot • Vacating a non-conforming property line through the building • Limit 1104 Augustine Avenue to lot dimensions • Consistent with neighborhood lot pattern • Incorporate a portion of Lot 15B and 1308 Royston Street into 1312 Royston Street • Maintain the neighborhood lot pattern General Development Plan • Primary Church Use Area: • Main church assembly use • School use • Office / Ministry uses • Ancillary Church Use Area: • Accessory church uses only: • Residential / Caretaker • Assembly (small group meetings) • Office • Child Care (currently allowed, not proposed at this time) • Proposed conditions on use, hours, appearance, lighting, landscaping, & parking  Saint Mary's Parking Parking Address Parking Type Parking Demand* • Off-street parking requirements Off Street Garage On Street driven by sanctuary, which is not 1102 Augustine Ave 0 0 7 5 proposed to change 1104 Augustine Ave 1 0 6 • 222 parking spaces provided 1300 Royston St 1 2 2 1312 Royston St 1 2 8 15 1316 Royston St 0 2 6 • Off-street parking requirement is 1317 Royston St 0 0 2 met, even if accessory uses were 1109 Stafford Ave 1 1 27 4 required to have off-street parking. 1101 Stafford Ave 2 0 5 1301 William Street 146 5 9 127 Sub-Total 152 12 58 • Sidewalks proposed to direct traffic Total Provided 222 Total Parking Demand* 165 to main lot *The ‘Parking Demand’ is an estimate of the parking requirement if each ancillary use is calculated separately, and does not reflect UDO requirements. Parking • On-street parking restrictions mapped • Considering the extent of the parking discussion, Planning Commission should recommend to City Council that the Parking Advisory Committee evaluate the on-street parking along the blocks near Saint Mary’s. Parking • Parking violations from May 2022- 2023 • Most on Saturdays (Hanover St.) • 30 Sunday tickets (23%) • Mainly on Stafford (sign violations) VIOLATIONS PER DAY OF THE WEEK (MAY 2022-2023) Sunday, 30, 23% Monday, 2, 2% Saturday, 64, 49% Tuesday, 8, 6% Wednesday, 15, 11% --- Violations Friday, 12, 9% Provided Recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The Property will be developed and maintained substantially in conformance with the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). 2. The principal religious assembly use shall be contained within the “Primary Church Use Area” delineated on Sheet 4 of 4 of the GDP. 3. All school uses shall be contained within the “Primary Church Use Area.” Enrollment shall be limited to 66 preschool students. 4. Any outdoor playground shall be located within the “Primary Church Use Area.” Any playground installed shall be screened from adjacent residential uses. 5. Lots within the “Ancillary Church Use Area,” that are currently vacant or used for parking may be developed for single family detached dwelling uses or any other use by-right in the R-4 zoning district. Any other change of use will require an amendment to this special use permit. Conditions continued: 5. The hours of operation of uses located in the Ancillary Church Use Area shall begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 9:00 p.m., seven days a week, unless a Special Event Permit is issued by the Parks, Recreation, and Events Department or a Temporary Use Permit is issued by the Zoning Administrator. Additional time for set-up/clean-up is permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. The child day care use may begin operations at 6:00 a.m. 6. Lighting fixtures for interior sidewalks within the Ancillary Church Use Area shall be five feet or less in height and in conformance with City Code. 7. Landscaping shall be installed to screen the interior sidewalks within the Ancillary Church Use Area from view of the adjacent public streets. Questions? History Property 1301 William St Previous Permitted Use 1974 SUP approved educational building Current Use Church Facility Proposed Use Religious 1992 SUP approved nursery school Institution 1994 SUP approved temporary church office 1009 Stafford St 1994 SUP approved building expansion, with Office / School / conditions: Preschool Assembly / • St. Mary’s Catholic Church shall install Office 1102 Augustine natural screening/buffer between the Rectory Caretaker / Ave proposed added parking area behind the Single Family Church and the adjacent residences in 1313 Buckner St College Heights. Trees and /or hedges of Parking Lot Open Space / sufficient quantity and height would be Parking for appropriate, to be approved by the City. Religious 1317 Buckner St • St. Mary’s Catholic Church shall improve Parking Lot Institution its current access driveway directly from William Street, as directed by the City. 1321 Buckner St 2003 SUP approved preschool, with Parking Lot conditions: • The preschool may serve no more than 66 students (per Father Rooney’s public hearing comments) at a given time, and between the hours of 8:30am through 3:30pm Monday through Friday. • Any outdoor playground installed in conjunction with the preschool or any other church activities shall be located on the main grounds of Saint Mary’s Church, not on separate lots located within the overall College Heights subdivision area. Any playground installed shall be screened from adjacent residential uses. SUP History Property Previous Permitted Use Current Use Proposed Use 1104 Augustine Ave 2004 SUP for Church Office & Education JP II House Assembly Classrooms, with conditions: (Parish • The parking and dropping off of Ministries) students for this use of the property be provided in the existing Church parking lot. • That the structure be maintained in appearance as a single-family detached dwelling unit. • That the property be combined, through a boundary line adjustment plat, with the larger Church Property. Such plat to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation. The plat shall be recorded prior to use of the structure as an office and classrooms. • The times of operation will be limited to Monday through Thursday from 9:00am to 8:00pm, and Sunday from 3:00pm to 8:00pm. • That once the house cease to be used for this Church related non-residential use that SUP shall expire. SUP History Property Previous Permitted Use Current Use Proposed Use 1101 Stafford 2012 SUP for Family Counseling Program, Catholic Office Ave with conditions: Charities • Client parking for this use shall be (Office) provide in the existing Church parking lot. Clients or staff who require handicapped parking access may park on site. • The structure shall be maintained in appearance as a single family detached dwelling unit. No signs may be placed on the property noting the counseling program. • Regular hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm. Emergency visits are permitted to occur outside of these days and times. • Once the house cease to be used for this Church related non-residential use for two years, the SUP shall expire. SUP History Property Previous Permitted Use Current Use Proposed Use 1110 Augustine Vacant Lot Vacant Lot Open Space for Ave Religious Institution Use 1300 Royston St Single Family Detached Music House (Staff Caretaker / Single Residence Residence) 1308 Royston St Vacant Lot Vacant Lot Caretaker / Single Family (To be merged with adjacent lot) 1312 Royston St Single Family Detached St Joseph’s House Assembly Residence (Meetings / Residence) 1316 Royston St Single Family Detached Vacant Building Assembly Residence / Convent 1109 Stafford Ave Single Family Detached Vacant Building Assembly Residence 1115 Stafford Ave Vacant Lot Vacant Lot Open Space for Religious Institution Use 1117 Stafford Ave Single Family Detached Principal’s House Caretaker / Single Residence (Staff Residence) Family Harmony with Comprehensive Plan • Future Land Use Map Planning Area 5: “University/Route 1” & Low Density Residential • Step towards meeting Comprehensive Plan outlook for the area • Meets goals for sidewalk connections • Comprehensive Plan Opportunity: “Protect established residential neighborhoods from existing and proposed commercial development, through transitional uses and design standards that minimize adverse impacts.” • Primary and ancillary church use area delineation creates a transition in intensity as you move farther away from William Street Harmony with Zoning District and Uses • R-4 Residential Zoning District • Allows selected uses that are compatible with the medium density residential character of the district (including religious institutional uses) • Dimensional standards for district to be maintained and some non-conforming lots are to be fixed with proposed lot layout • Primary/Ancillary use areas create transition in intensity • Proposed conditions in GDP & resolution further the transition in intensity • Strict conformity with GDP, Council approval for construction on vacant lots for uses not by-right, use of main parking lot for entire SUP area, keep existing conditions regarding school enrollment and playground screening • Within ancillary area: maintenance in appearance of structures as single-family dwellings, hours of operation limitations, accessory uses only Special Use Permit Considerations • Traffic or parking congestion • 168 existing spaces (146 main parking lot, 22 on-street) • 127 spaces required • Proposed SUP does not increase required parking • 1 space for every 6 seats in the worship area (762 occupancy) • Noise, light, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, etc. • All properties must meet city noise code • Proposed Hours of operation condition within ancillary church use area • Main hours of operation in the Ancillary Church Use Area: 8:00 a.m. and end at 9:00 p.m. • Set-up/clean-up is permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. • Child day care use may begin at 6:00 a.m. • Discouragement of economic activities • Church provides a variety of services to members and to the public • No change in additional property ownership is proposed that would impact the tax base Special Use Permit Criteria • Undue density or intensity of use in relation to community facilities • Proposal would not negatively impact existing public facilities • Reduction in affordable housing • Existing number of residential uses proposed to remain • Accessory uses will be able to shift within ancillary church use area • Impact on school population and facilities • Not applicable • Impact on Conservation/Historic Districts • Not applicable • Conformity with laws • Conforms to federal/state laws • Applicant working with building official regarding on-site permitting • Proposed SUP would negate purported SUP violations • Massing and Scale • Proposed improvements do not change massing and scale of existing structures Civic Engagement • Staff received reports of zoning violations in 2022 • Zoning Administrator created summary of Saint Mary’s SUP approvals • Subsequent meeting with Saint Mary’s staff, Planning and Building Department Director, & the Zoning Administrator regarding long term plans for the site resulted in current SUP application • Staff met with College Heights Civic Association on 4/7 & 5/23 • Saint Mary’s attended the meeting on 5/23 to answer questions • Applicant/staff responded to reported violations • Applicant met with Building Official/Zoning Administrator 5/23 regarding work done on site and the applicant is working address needs • Other general comments received regarding: • noise from kids/traffic, increase in lighting, increase in use, parking/traffic congestion, hours of operation, tax revenue, and overcrowding GDP Conditions 1. Any day care use for more than 12 children shall meet the standards in Section 72-41.2B – Child Care Center. Parking, access, and drop off for a day care with more than 12 children shall be provided from the Primary Church Use Area. 2. The Religious Institution must be developed in accordance with the Special Use Permit General Development Plan. 3. The improvements use shall commence within 24 months of the date of adoption of this resolution. The use is permitted only so long as it continues and is not discontinued for more than 24 months (per City Code Section 72- 22.6). 4. Church properties shall utilize the main parking lot to the greatest extent possible, except for handicapped parking where needed and for residents of church properties. 5. The structures outside of the Primary Church Use Area shall be maintained in appearance as Single-Family Detached Dwelling Units. ST. MARY OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PARISH City Case No.: SUP 23-01  APPLICANT BACKGROUND ❖ St. Mary of the Immaculate Conception Parish (the “Church”) is the Applicant ❖ The Church has been operating as a religious institution in Downtown Fredericksburg since 1858 (165 years), and at this Property since 1971 (52 years) ❖ From 1974 to 2012 the City has approved several Special Use permits (“SUP”) for various projects and accessory uses located on the Church property ❖ This SUP Application encompasses all prior SUP approvals and additional related Church uses on the subject property  APPLICATION OVERVIEW ❖ Religious institutions are defined as “[a] structure or place in which worship, ceremonies, rituals, and religious education are held, together with its accessory buildings and uses (including buildings used for educational and recreational activities), operated, maintained, and controlled under the direction of a religious group. Religious institutions include churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. ❖ This application is subject to the requirements of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RULIPA) ❖ This SUP application is being requested to allow for the expansion of the Church’s supporting accessory uses and to consolidate and incorporate all prior, existing special use permits granted to the Church on multiple properties within the 1301 block of William Street enclosed by Stafford Avenue, Royston Street and Augustine Avenue (consisting collectively of 7.132 acres in total)  APPLICATION OVERVIEW ❖ Request is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan: ✓ Property is located within the City’s Planning Area 5: University/Route 1 Central ▪ Protect established residential neighborhoods from existing and proposed commercial development, through transitional uses and design standards that minimize adverse impacts ❖ Special use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning district regulations as a compatible and transitional use within the neighborhood ❖ The Church is a long standing member of the neighborhood and endeavors to promote harmony with the existing uses and planned use of the neighboring properties ❖ The project will be designed and configured to ensure compatibility and a positive transitional use with surrounding uses  PROPERTY – PROPOSED USES • Religious Institution at 1301 William Street (GPIN 7779-62-6888); • Assembly at 1104 Augustine Avenue (GPIN 7779- 62-6888); • Caretaker/Single-Family at 1117 Stafford Avenue (GPIN 7779-63-3047); • Open Space at 1115 Stafford Avenue (GPIN 7779- 63-3062); • School/Assembly/Office at 1009 Stafford Avenue (GPIN 7779-62-6888); • Assembly at 1109 Stafford Avenue (GPIN 7779-62- 3987); • Office at 1101 Stafford Avenue (GPIN 7779-62- 4921); • Open Space/Parking at 1321 Buckner Street (GPIN 7779-62-5914)  PROPERTY – PROPOSED USES • Open Space/Parking at 1317 Buckner Street (GPIN 7779-62-5968); • Open Space/Parking at 1313 Buckner Street (GPIN 7779-62-5090); • Caretaker/Single-Family at 1102 Augustine Avenue (GPIN 7779-63-6190); • Open Space at 1110 Augustine Avenue (GPIN 7779- 63-6128); • Caretaker/Single-Family at 1300 Royston Street (GPIN 7779-63-6201); • Caretaker/Single-Family at 1308 Royston Street (GPIN 7779-63-5175); • Assembly at 1312 Royston Street (GPIN 7779-63- 5150); and • Assembly at 1316 Royston Street (GPIN 7779-63- 4087).  PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY UNDER SUP • Building an addition to 1102 Augustine Avenue • Proposed 5 foot wide sidewalks internally linking buildings and uses back to the main Church campus • Additional landscaping along the proposed sidewalks • Onsite water feature behind 1312 Royston Street Questions? From: Richard Whalen To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments Addressed to the 14 June 2023 Meeting of the Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:17:12 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. 13 June 2023 Please read my comments addressed to the 14 June 2023 meeting of the Planning Commission. Thank you for your consideration. Edward R. Whalen 1325 Royston St. Fredericksburg, VA 22401 “ 13 June 2023 Background I live on the northeast corner of Stafford Avenue and Royston Street. My address is 1325 Royston St., Fredericksburg, VA. My side of the street requires a resident parking permit on Monday through Friday from 7 AM to 7 PM. The properties on the other side of Royston Street are owned by Saint Mary Catholic Church of which I am a member. During the weekends and religious holidays a large number of people attend church services causing a strain on the neighborhood’s limited parking availability. Unfortunately one result of this limited availability is that a few church members who attend the services violate the City Code for Parking and make it unsafe for residents and other church attendees. Examples of these violations are: Parking in front of the fire hydrant on the northeast corner of Stafford  Avenue and Royston Street Parking very close to crosswalks on all sides at the intersection of Royston Street and Stafford Avenue. Parking very close to crosswalks on the west side of the intersection of Buckner and Stafford. Parking very close to Stop Signs on Royston, Buckner and Augustine. Parking that blocks people’s marked driveways. Over the past several weekends the examples I give above have happened at least once on each Saturday and Sunday. On Saturday 10th of June I was pulling out from Royston Street and making a left turn onto Stafford Avenue. My “Sight Distance” was blocked by a car parked within 3 feet of the intersection of Royston and Stafford; this created a very dangerous situation. To further exacerbate these safety issues there is routine speeding on Stafford Avenue. On one occasion in the past year my next store neighbor had her parked car demolished by a speeder who crossed from the south lane to the north lane on Stafford and struck her car. Her car was moved 45 feet by this collision. Suggestions: The part of Stafford Avenue closest to Route 1 has parking spaces that are marked, painted and clearly delineated, whereas the south part of Stafford Avenue by the Catholic Church does not. Either marking and painting the spaces clearly or putting signs up prohibiting parking near these intersections (Per city code) would be a good step towards the solution of this problem. Extending the time of resident parking requirements on Stafford, Royston and Augustine to include Saturday and Sunday will also help alleviate some of the burden put on residents Daily rigorous enforcement of the speed limit on Stafford Avenue and on William Street would also be a boon to safety in this area. The new parking spaces on William Street by Saint Mary Church have caused a merge that can become very difficult. It might be worth considering restricting the right, westbound lane on William Street and College Avenue to right turn ONLY onto College Avenue. This would eliminate many of the problems that can be seen at that merge. Thank you for your consideration, Edward R. Whalen, Alice F. Whalen 1325 Royston St. Fredericksburg, VA 22401 “ From: physjock@aol.com To: Planning Commission Members Subject: [EXTERNAL] letter to planning commission Date: Friday, June 9, 2023 9:51:00 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 had previously sent this letter to be read at the planning commission meeting, but omitted my zip code. I am resending with the zip to ensure the letter is read. The zip is 22401. I am writing to all of you in hope that someone with a vote can and will see fit to stop St. Mary's from combining SUPs for individual, formerly single-family, residences it owns. In addition I would like this letter to be read at the next Planning Commission Meeting. I will try to be brief. 1. Folks on the Planning Commission and City Council who have an affiliation to St. Mary's should recuse themselves from a vote on all issues that come up regarding St. Mary's.   If there were other religious institutions with issues before the City, I would request the same of them. 2. The SUPs previously granted to the Diocese of Arlington/St. Mary's here in College Heights should not be combined. The DOA agreed in the current SUPs to keep the properties looking residential. That is no longer their intent with walkways between them and gates blocking driveways. If there is a single SUP granted, it should combine the RESTRICTIVE aspects of the current SUPs. Since when is it OK to buy something, sign a legal agreement in the form of a SUP, then say that agreement no longer suits you so it should be changed? 3. At the last Planning Commission meeting a Church representative was asked why parishioners from surrounding counties and other jurisdictions did not attend the parishes nearest to them. The answer was that St Mary's was somehow more welcoming, and had better facilities. Why doesn't DOA spend some of its money upgrading these other locations to make THEM more desirable? Continuing to spend money to improve St Mary's will do nothing but exacerbate the problem of parishioners not attending local parish churches. The Planning Commission should be concerned that if they allow DOA to make St. Mary's into a larger compound, this will only be the beginning of the story and eventually DOA will purchase more properties in College Heights. When is enough enough? 4. Parking on Wm St: inconveniences thousands of people who have to form 1 lane and can't see what's coming towards (or out of) Stafford Ave. William Street was paid for by these taxpayers. Now it's a taxpayer-paid parking lot for St. Marys, and re-paving is done at taxpayer expense. Nowhere else in the City has a non-taxpaying entity gotten such a good deal on a parking lot. St. Mary's should NOT be granted a single SUP for all its properties in College Heights. Ellen Brown 1407 Dandridge St. 22401 From: Mike Worsham To: Planning Commission Members Cc: Planning; Mary Katherine, Greenlaw; Chuck Frye; Kerry Devine; Matthew J. Kelly (kelly058@verizon.net); Timothy P. Duffy; Jonathan A. Gerlach; Jason N. Graham; Timothy J. Baroody; Kathleen Dooley; chca_board@yahoo.com; Ernie Ackermann; Martin Davis; Charles R. Johnston; Cat Paccasassi; Vicki Null; Clark Diane; Dennis Lister; Jack Cianciotto; Ellen Brown; Lynn Ackermann; Ernie Ackermann; Kim Rudisill Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: St Mary SUP Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 3:27:44 PM Attachments: PC Comments 05242023.pdf Current SUPs and Conditions.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. Mr. Durham and PC Members, I respectfully request to delay the vote for the St. Mary SUP to allow sufficient time for College Heights residents to review and assess the latest SUP revision. We received the updated information late Friday afternoon and many people were away for the weekend. Planning and the applicant had several days following the last PC meeting to prepare the revised documents. I am asking for reasonable and sufficient time for the public to review and prepare comments. Thank you very much, Mike Worsham On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 07:50:27 PM EDT, Mike Worsham <m-p@verizon.net> wrote: Mr. Johnston, I wish to request a more rigorous and objective review of the SUP request by Planning. It seems clear to me that this submission is inadequate in meeting SUP requirements and if brought before the Planning Commission for a vote it should be denied. According the the City web site a SUP application is required to comply the following: Description of the development’s impact on neighboring and adjacent properties, please be specific and submit a complete and accurate description on a separate sheet of paper showing: 1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan; 2. Harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning district regulations; 3. Harmony with the existing uses or planned use of  neighboring properties; and 4. Traffic Impact. Many of us in this area have significant expertise in writing responses to Government RFPs which have to exactly comply with stated requirements. The applicant's response in this case does not provide a specific, complete and accurate description of how they comply. A response like the applicant's would be quickly rejected as "non-compliant". The following are my comments on why the applicant does not meet SUP requirements: 1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan The applicant clearly does not provide a "complete and accurate description" of how the proposed SUP complies with the Comp Plan. The very first bullet point on page 4 of the Zoning Narrative submitted by the applicant speaks to meeting "certain opportunities" for Planing Area 5 in the Comp Plan. Please refer to the excerpt below from The Comp Plan, Land Use Planning Area 5, specifically the second and third bullet: Per the second bullet point above, as far as I know there is no "existing and proposed commercial development" that the Church property can protect the neighborhood from. The Church property is completely surrounded by residential homes today so there is nothing to transition from and nothing to protect against. The narrative statement looks to be a weak attempt to comply with SUP requirements by stating something that tries to prove compliance, but fails completely. In fact, if the SUP is implemented as requested, the residential neighborhood will experience increased adverse impacts since the applicant is wanting to establish accessory uses which means more intense uses of the residential homes owned by the Arlington Diocese by holding religious studies, meetings and various "assemblies". The applicant also requests to be given the right to "shift" usage as they see fit which is a significant overreach. The narrative does nothing to address the bullet point above about UMW, underage drinking, parking, and rental units. The narrative response to this Comp Plan compliance requirement is simply not applicable. This section does speak to installing new sidewalks between the Church and the residences. The GDP information includes the proposed addition of 600 linear feet of sidewalks that are five feet wide. The Comp Plan addresses important environmental factors such as stormwater runoff and impervious surfaces. The unneeded addition of this much impervious sidewalk surface violates the environmental intent of the Comp Plan. There are also issues with air, noise and light pollution. The applicant is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning district regulations Again in the narrative the applicant cites the transition nature of the property and again this position is weak and simply not applicable. The applicant does have existing SUPs with specified conditions in place today. Since the applicant is successfully operating today with these SUPs/conditions, denial of the new SUP does not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise and therefore does not violate RLUIPA. 3. Harmony with the existing uses or planned use of neighboring properties When the Church was first built in 1971 and operated at a level much like the other churches in College Heights, the applicant was likely in harmony with the neighboring properties since there was much lower attendance. Over the years Church attendance grew appreciably and created problems that have been discussed in great detail such as traffic, parking and pollution. Now, as stated in the narrative, the applicant is requesting a SUP "to allow expansion of the current religious institution and supporting accessory uses". The applicant has grown so large already and now they are asking the City to allow expansion. Expansion is clearly not in harmony with the existing or planned uses of our neighborhood. Additionally, the applicant is asking that the previous SUPs be voided and a new umbrella SUP be created "for the purpose of promoting efficient chronicling and identification of such permits." Attached is a summary of the existing SUPs and conditions compiled by Mr. James Newman, Zoning Administrator, dated July 22, 2021. As you can see, this summary has a map and TWO pages of SUPs and conditions. Two pages. How is tracking these SUPs and conditions so burdensome and impossibly difficult to the City that tax payer money is spent to come up with a new SUP with what will be relaxed conditions that favor the applicant and does not address the concerns of the neighbors? It is difficult to believe that City personnel and the applicant can not efficiently and effectively operate with the existing SUPs. 4. Traffic Impact Traffic and parking is at times a significant problem and at other times attendance is lower with less traffic and parking problems. It does not follow that expanding the religious institution and accessory uses will have no impact on traffic and parking and that existing infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the expanded uses. The narrative states that "all parking needs will be served within the existing Church parking lot on William Street." Attendance is so great that at many times overflow parking spaces on streets around the Church are filled. This is true for William, Stafford, Royston, Augustine and Buckner, but streets on the other side of William such as Adams, Daniel, Bright and Moncure are also greatly impacted. Many residents testify that their driveways are blocked and parishioners park too near intersections so that sight lines are obstructed creating hazardous conditions for pedestrians and drivers. Also attached is a pdf of my public comments at the Planning Commission meeting on 5/24/23 for your information. We believe College Heights is the best kept secret in Fredericksburg, but the applicant has clearly grown too large for our once quiet neighborhood. If St. Mary truly can not meet the needs of its current parishioners without further expansion, perhaps some of the services such as Spanish Masses can be transferred to other nearby Churches which are closer to many parishioners. St. Mary could sell some of the homes to private families so the properties can be returned to the City tax base like the University of Mary Washington has done and College Heights can again have families living in much needed and highly desired single family residences. With respect, Mike Worsham  Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2023 Mike Worsham 1317 Royston Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 • If you study the General Development Plan and the Narrative submitted by the law rm hired by the Diocese of Arlington you will see numerous assertions that are not su ciently supported and justi ed by facts. • They claim their proposed changes do not alter the residential character of our neighborhood, but this is not true. The character is already altered for the worse when the properties were surreptitiously purchased by the Arlington Diocese. • Most Church owned homes on Sta ord, Royston and Augustine do not look like true residences where people live. These homes mostly have a sterile feel to them almost like an old movie set from the 1950s. • Residences have people and families living in them. Neighbors mow the lawn and visit with each other. Kids play with other kids on the block. This is one of the reasons we moved here. • There is a statement that says we believe the property is supportive of and compatible with surrounding residential uses in the area. There is no justi cation to this weak assertion. • Why? Because the Church creates signi cant detrimental issues that negatively a ect the surrounding area such as increased tra c congestion, air and noise pollution and road wear, a continually eroded City tax base, increased tra c and parking problems and overuse of lawn chemicals and pesticides. • There is another statement that says “We believe” the project is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The previous stated detrimental issues illustrate that the project is not compatible regardless of what someone believes. • There is a statement that the Church is a long standing good neighbor and this is highly debatable. Other smaller churches in our neighborhood are good neighbors, but St. Mary has actually out grown its location. ffi fi fi ff ffi ffi ff fi fi • The crush of parishioners create serious safety, tra c, parking and noise problems. The Church has done nothing noticeable to address these well known problems like a truly good neighbor would do. • Another statement says that the Church “intends” to reduce any impact it may have on the surrounding residential uses. We already have a huge impact so if the Church is truly interested in reducing its impact, it would reduce the number of events that attract many people from outlying areas in Spotsylvania and Sta ord and restrict activities to those that it can adequately manage. • It is clear this mega-church is already too large for the neighborhood. • The Church’s 1/8/23 weekly news letter states that “It’s a matter of Growth, because we desire to expand what we already are.” Where does this desire come from and why is growth good? • Why is there such an enormous emphasis on growth? Why do they need to grow? Who bene ts from this growth? • Perhaps successful fund raising and growth is a way to achieve career advancement within the Church hierarchy. • Perhaps St. Mary real estate investment and exploitation is just a portion of the overall Diocese of Arlington nancial strategy. The Arlington Diocese is well known for its real estate acquisitions and the demolition of buildings to make parking lots. They allow parishioners to park in these lots for services, but charge commuters for parking during the week. • Demolition of homes and parking lot construction are very real future possibilities but you hear they have no real plans at this time to raze homes or to even sell the homes. I’m not convinced. • The GDP calls for gates to be installed at each driveway along Sta ord, Royston and Augustine. They say it is because of complaints. They say their plans won’t change the residential character of the neighborhood. Installation of gates only makes our neighborhood look like some kind of institutional compound with security devices installed to protect it against some kind of threat. • The GDP calls for new sidewalks and lighting. So now, instead of a residential community, we are going to have a compound behind gates that looks like some kind of business or hospital complex. • The SUP Narrative states that the Church’s existing infrastructure is adequate to accommodate Church use, so why is this SUP to allow ff ffi fi ff fi  Church expansion even necessary if operations and resources are adequate today? • The SUP Narrative states “all parking needs will be served within the existing Church parking lot on William Street”. There is regular over ow parking on all streets surrounding the main Church grounds, on both sides of William. People block driveways, park at the intersections limiting safe turns and park the wrong way on the wrong side of the street. It would be interesting to know how many parking tickets have been written. • We want to preserve the integrity of College Heights as a primarily single family residential neighborhood. • We respectfully urge the City to deny the St. Mary SUP and require individual permits for desired changes to Church property. Mike Worsham College Heights Civic Association Director 443-995-1879 fl From: Mike Worsham To: Planning Commission Members; Planning; Mary Katherine, Greenlaw; Chuck Frye; Kerry Devine; Matthew J. Kelly (kelly058@verizon.net); Timothy P. Duffy; Jonathan A. Gerlach; Jason N. Graham; Timothy J. Baroody; Kathleen Dooley; chca_board@yahoo.com; Ernie Ackermann; Martin Davis; Cat Paccasassi; Vicki Null; Clark Diane; Dennis Lister; Jack Cianciotto; Ellen Brown; Kim Rudisill; chrisbraney@icloud.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Keep our residential neighborhood residential Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 1:29:00 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 be read at the June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting From: Pat Worsham 1317 Royston Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Keep our residential neighborhood residential We purchased and improved our home in the College Heights residential neighborhood according to all rules and regulations of the city of Fredericksburg. We had no way of knowing the Diocese of Arlington had purchased many of the homes on our block and had an agreement with the City to keep them in an appearance of single family homes per the current SUPs. This was a very deceptive agreement between the city and the church. The Diocese of Arlington’s plan was to slowly acquire all the homes privately on the block. Had we known this, we likely would not have purchased our home. Keep our residential neighborhood residential The applicant's area is not a transitional zone. It is in the middle of a neighborhood of single family residential homes. Zoning is what keeps our residential neighborhoods residential. The applicant's proposed changes are not in the best interest of the community. Keep our residential neighborhood residential No one objects to a small church on the corner but we do object to the mega church that is trying to take over our neighborhood and draw people in for the purpose of increasing attendance and donations. The church wants to use these homes more intensely and frequently than our neighborhood can support. It is just too much church for our neighborhood. Keep our residential neighborhood residential Respectfully, Pat Worsham 1317 Royston Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS From: nelson Sargeant To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT RACHEL SARGEANT RE: ST. MARY"S SPECIAL USE PERMIT Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 1:30:54 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. This is PUBLIC COMMENT for the 6-14-2023 Planning Commission Meeting. It is from RACHEL Sargeant. It is within the 3 MINUTES. Good Evening. My name is Rachel Sargeant. I live at 812 Daniel St. 22401. I am writing about the St. Marys/Diocese of Arlington application and the "Generalized Development Plan' in it. I would like to thank the Zoning Staff, especially Kelly Machen and Mike Craig, for the work they did on the 2nd Revision. The detail and the The 'Figures' which picture out the parcels: The Church" and 'The College Heights houses" as well as the 'color- coding' helps us to better see the effect of what is proposed in the one SUP. Plus each house now has A USE on it. I do have some questions. For the rectory house on Augustine Ave that has the proposed 600 sq ft addition: For clarificaiton: Does that mean just 'priests' who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders will live there? or are 'Deacons' also included? The St. Mary's Director of Operation, Chris Lanzarone said that the house will be home to 5-6 priests. For the 'optional day care'. I have concern about child safety and health. There needs to be more specifics on it. Is it going to be 'licensed' or under a 'religious exemption'. If it's under 'voluntary registry', then it can only have 4 children. Where do the children play for outside time? Will a fence be added to the house backyard or will they play on the Church's playground? I am concerned, especially for the children and other vulnerable ones, about the amount of pesticides that St. Mary's uses on all the house lawns that the Diocese of Arlington owns. Any sidewalk walker on Stafford, Royston, and Augustine can smell the fumes after an intense lawn treatment and the parishioners spraying the properties. So how will the children in the day care be protected from the fumes or even touching the grass after a treatment? I heard that the St. Mary's Garden Ministry may be studying what Good Shepherd Catholic Parish in Alexandria does in practicing 'environmental stewardship'. This is encouraging to hear. The Saint Cut - Tear -Ree (Kateri) 'Care for Creation' ministry at Good Shepherd sounds wonderful. I'm looking forward to her Feast Day coming up on July 14th. https://www.kateri.org/ From: nelson Sargeant To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT BY RON SMITH RE: ST. MARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 12:02:17 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. [This email is for Public Comment to be read out loud at the 6-14-2023 Planning Commission meeting on the St. Mary/Diocese of Arlington Special Use Permit. It is from Ron Smith. It is WITHIN THE 3 MIN read-aloud]. Good Evening. My name is Ron Smith. I live at 1318 William St. 22401. I am writing to express my concern that I was not provided timely notice on the St. Mary/Diocese of Arlington's Special Use Permit Application as an adjacent homeowner. The certified, return receipt letter was supposed to be provided by the Applicant at least 14 days prior to the May 24 hearing. The United States Postal Service receipt to 'attempt' delivery was dated May 19 which is not within the required timeline. In speaking with neighbors, I've learned that others did not receive the notice by timeline. The homeowner adjacent to St. Mary's Church at 1211 William St. is one of them. He owns the historic 'Rosehill' house next to St. Mary's and the surrounding lots. I've learned about a May 22nd meeting that the College Heights Civic Association Board of Directors had with Zoning Staff, St. Mary's Director of Operations, Christopher Lanzarone, and TWO Hirschler attorneys, not one but TWO, TWO attorneys, who represent the interests of St. Mary/Diocese of Arlington: When Mr. Lanzarone was asked, 'Are there any more plans by St. Mary's/ Diocese of Arlington to buy up more properties in College Heights?', Mr. Lanzarone responded: 'There is 'a right of first refusal' on the two parcels next to the house next door'. end quote. This is the homeowner at 1211 William St. I request that Planning Commission remember that this required notice was not submitted as per city procedure by the Applicant. It needs to be documented into the public record. It is also troubling to hear how the 'right of first refusal' on the homeowner's property was obtained. St. Mary's sent out at least one Eucharistic Minister to attempt to get the first homeowner, the current one's mother, to sign the paper. A parishioner was sitting in the waiting room of the St. Mary's rectory and witnessed the Eucharistic Minister enter the room and loudly proclaim to the church secretary in front of others: 'I almost got her to sign!!!!' meaning the current homeowner's invalid mother. This guileful method of operation is similar to Diocese of Arlington acquisition of some of the homes in College Heights which St. Mary's pastors 'spin' as: 'homeowners come to us to sell their house'. Not true. St. Mary's representatives 'visit' the homeowner, an aging widow, in person and indicate that St. Mary/Diocese of Arlington is interested in buying her house. She is not ready to sell at that time and says, 'no'. When the widow's children ask if it's time to move, the widow mentions St. Mary/Diocese of Arlington's interest in the house and that they will pay above asking price, and then the family sells to them. This is not being a good neighbor because of the way the properties are acquired by the Diocese of Arlington. 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 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 Municap Proffer Analysis ❖School Impacts  We revised middle school cost to reflect amount in the recently adopted City of Fredericksburg School Board Budget for FY 24  Proffers include contribution towards the expansion of James Monroe High School as provided in most recent City CIP  School bus impacts have been removed, as they are no longer in the CIP due to the City receiving a grant for school buses  Elementary school conversion impacts have been removed as they’re using grant money for this conversion  We included 2/2s as a townhouse impact vs. multifamily impact Municap Proffer Analysis ❖Public Safety Impacts  Revised fire station improvement costs to reflect updated costs identified in the City of Fredericksburg FY 24 Recommended budget –CIP  Revised fire apparatus impacts to only reflect the four vehicles and their costs as identified in the City of Fredericksburg FY 24 Recommended Budget – CIP • The MuniCap analysis reflects current resident and employment population Proposed School Proffers ❖Project is anticipated to generate 228.43 total students (47.31 middle school students,117.42 elementary students, and 63.70 high school students) ❖Proffered over $3.7 million in Cash  $2,909,577.33 for Schools ➢ $ 1,074,899.52 for MFA Units ($3,732.29 per unit) ➢ $ 1,834,677.81 for SFA and 2/2 Units ($5,082.21 per unit)  $858,553.98 for Public Safety (includes residential and commercial uses)  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 transit bridge access connection to be built by others ❖ Applicant will grant a trail easement to the City for purposes of connecting to the existing Smith Run Trail and open space areas in Land Bays G & H ❖ Applicant will provide and construct a pedestrian trail and interparcel road access from Gateway Boulevard Extension to the City’s Vermont Ridge parcel and will stub a water connection to the same ❖ Preservation of open space on Land Bays G & H ❖ Construction of a sound wall adjacent to I-95 along areas adjoining any Residential areas ❖ Participation on a prorata cost share basis for impacts to City public utilities ❖ Stormwater pond on Land Bay G will be outside of the RPA adjacent to Smith Run ❖ Phasing: Project includes 3 phases, and 20 month restriction after approval for CO  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 ❖ PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS: ✓ Improvements at the intersection of Cowan Blvd. and Gateway Blvd. extension ➢Install a traffic signal or traffic circle at this location in accordance with the TIA all subject to final design for the Project and site plan approval; ➢Provide signalized pedestrian crosswalks with traffic signal design plans as required by the City and VDOT. ✓ 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 ❖ PHASE 3 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 ➢Modification of the existing traffic signal by installing a right turn lane overlap phase for both the existing northbound approach and the proposed southbound approach. ✓ Coordinate with VDOT and the City regarding the implementation of the future traffic signal timings within the Plank Road Corridor. ✓ 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.  Transportation Improvements ❖ PHASE 3 IMPROVEMENTS (con’t): ✓ 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 THROUGHOUT PHASES (1-3) ✓ 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. ✓ Dedication of applicable right of way required for the construction of all transportation improvements. ✓ Construction of two lane improvements to the Gateway Blvd. extension from Plank Road to Cowan Blvd. ✓ Applicant will agree to construct four lanes of the Gateway Blvd. extension if City approves a tax increment financing method or other public funding method mutually acceptable to the City and Applicant. Transportation Transportation  Economic Development ❖Approximately $279 million investment ❖Estimated $214 million in gross City tax revenues and net $92 million over the first 30 years or on average $2.2 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? Residential Regulation Update Overview of Proposed Changes Planning Commission Public Hearing 2023 June 14  June 9: Council approved PD-R amendments • Density Changes: Increase maximum residential density in PD-R to 24 units. • Form-Base Code Development Criteria and taller residential structures: • Form-Based Development Criteria were added to require a General Development Plan to be comprised of Urban Fabric, Frontage, and Building Type Standards. • New PD-R regulations permit either residential or non-residential structures to be a maximum of 60 feet in height (subject to FBC “transitional zones” and “building type standards and approval on the GDP). • Use Changes: • PD-R now allows, but does not require, neighborhood commercial uses, with up to 15% of the gross area of a development allowed • Adult Day-Care Center and Bakery uses are now permitted by-right, • Cemetery, Columbarium, Mausoleum uses permitted by Special Use.  Additional changes for Residential Use and Development Standards/Definitions for Planned Development / Downtown / Creative Maker Districts and Form-Based Code • Single-Family Attached (townhouse) Design/Unit Flexibility & Choice Changes to sections 72-41.0; 51.3, Standards, and 72-84, Definitions • Multi-family and Single-Family Attached Unit Fractional Density Credit Changes to section 72-82.5, Rules of Measurement for Bulk • Environmental Protection Changes to section 72-51.1, Standards Single-Family Attached (townhouse) Design/Unit Flexibility & Choice Changes to sections 72-41.0; 51.3, Standards, and 72-84, Definitions • Provide design flexibility by allowing more than one single-family dwelling on a lot in planned development districts. • Provide design flexibility by not requiring strict conformance to lot frontage, size, area, depth, etc. standards in planned development districts. • Add to definition of ‘Single-family Attached Dwelling’ to include the vertical stacking of two units (‘two over two’ townhouses). Examples of Two Units Stacked  Multi-family and Single-Family Attached Unit Fractional Density Credit Changes to section 72-82.5, Rules of Measurement for Bulk • Establish density credit for: Unit count • Multi-family efficiency units (less than 600 sq ft) 1/2 of a dwelling unit • Multi-family one-bed room units (600 to 899 sq ft) 2/3 unit • Townhouse two-bedroom units (less than 1200 sq ft) 3/4 unit Recognizes generally lower occupancy levels and lower costs of smaller units. Applies to Planned Development (with not more than 25% of units allowed fractional status nor base density exceeded by 150%), Commercial Downtown, and Creative Maker Districts, as well as to Form-Based Code projects (residential projects in commercial zoning districts).  Environmental Protection Changes to section 72-51.1, Standards • Add the 100-foot Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection buffer to the list of constrained areas (floodplains, steep slopes, excavation areas, unbuildable soils) where not more than 50% of the allowed density may be shifted to the balance of the site. • Three technical changes: • include entire property for which 75% of allowed density may be shifted to the balance of the site (currently 75% of density is not shifted when less than 15% of a property is affected); • change the term: one-hundred-year frequency to one percent annual chance floodplain; and • identify the Building Official as the party that determines if soils are unbuildable.  Current sensitive areas with limits on use of density Proposed to include entire property not just 15% or more of property • Property with a 1% chance of flooding 377 acres 5.6% of city Formerly known as the 100-year floodplain • Steep slopes with grade in excess of 25%, 767 acres 11.4% of city • Quarries/landfills, abandoned mines, or excavation areas, 10 acres 0.2% of city • Soils determined to be unbuildable. TBD To be determined by Building Official Proposed additional sensitive area • Property in Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Area (RPA) 173 acres 2.6% of city Environmentally Sensitive Areas  Process Timeline • City Council initiated these proposed amendments on May 9 with an effective date of June 13. The amendments were advertised for Planning Commission public hearing on June 14. • Per Virginia Code, the Planning Commission has 100 days from the June 13 public hearing to make a recommendation to City Council (September 13 Commission meeting).  Permitted Density Built Density With Fractional Density Credit2 Zoning Units Built Units Average Units Built Units with Units District Per calculated Size per proposed per Acre under current (sq ft) Acre fractional density Acre regulations credit Hanover House Commercial 36 Total: 22 501 Total: 16.5 37 (Apartments) Downtown - on Eff: 3 459 Eff: net 1.5 100 Hanover Mixed Use .45 One-bed: 13 738 One-bed: net 9.0 St. w/in Historic ac. Two-bed: 6 1,038 Two-bed: 6.0 District Cobblestone Commercial 24 Total: 314 16 Total 269 14 (Apartments) Downtown – on Eff: 0 N/A Eff: 0 627 Multifamily 19.61 One-bed: 118 628 One-bed: 78 Cobblestone ac. Two-bed: 172 1,023 Two-bed: 167 Cir. Three-bed: 24 Three-bed: 24 Winchester Commercial 24 Total: 34 24 Total 29 20 Place Downtown - on Eff: 4 546 Eff: 2 (Apartments) Multifamily 1.42 One-bed: 8 861 One-bed: 5 606 Amelia St. ac. Large 1-bed: 14 933 Large 1-bed: 14 Two-bed: 8 1,176 Two-bed: 8 Silver Planned 24 Total: 369 24 Total 338 22 Collection Development on Eff: 0 N/A Eff: 0 (Apartments) - Commercial 15.6 One-bed: 189 784 One-bed3: 158 1201 Ashford ac. Two-bed: 162 1,109 Two-bed: 162 Cir. Three-bed: 18 1,526 Three-bed: 18 Highlander Commercial 12 Total: 90 2,244 11 Total: 90 11 Park Downtown – on * No units under (Townhomes) Single-Family 8 ac. 1,200 sq. ft. 251 Willis St. Attached Fredericksburg Planned 16 Total: 204 1,758 15 Total: 204 15 Park Development on * No units under (Townhomes) – Mixed Use 13.8 1,200 sq. ft. 1203 Rampart ac. Dr. 1 - Special Exception granted in 2018 for 50 units per acre, with mandate for 4 units reserved for households earning 50% AMI and rented at the HUD HOME Low Rent Limit. 2 – Proposal for Multifamily dwelling under 600 sq. ft. to be counted as 1/2 dwelling unit, multi-family dwellings between 600 and 899 sq. ft. to be counted as 2/3 dwelling unit, and a single-family attached dwelling under 1,200 sq. ft. to be as ¾ dwelling unit in Planned Development, Commercial Downtown, Creative Maker Districts, or where form-based code standards are applied. 3 – In Planned Development Districts, no more than 25% of the total units will be granted fractional status in each of the fractional categories. The Silver Collection project has 41% one-bed units, thus only a partial amount are granted fractional status.