Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2024 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/fredpc 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 Susanna Finn, Vice-Chairman Mike Craig, Principal Planner Mary-Margaret Marshall, Secretary (remote) Bailey Thompson, Community Development Planner Dugan Caswell Tanagra Cafferky, Administrative Assistant Kenneth Gantt Adam Lynch Carey Whitehead 1. CALL TO ORDER [00:01:55] 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, or online at https://www.regionalwebtv.com/fredpc. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM There were six members present in chambers and one member, Mary-Margaret Marshall, attending remotely for a total of seven members in attendance at the meeting at the call to order. Mr. Durham declared that a quorum exists. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Mr. Lynch moved to approve the agenda, Mr. Gantt seconded. Motion passed 7-0. The agenda was amended later in the meeting to add Discussion Item 8. C. Railroad Station Overlay District to the agenda. Mr. Lynch moved to approve the amended agenda, Mr. Gantt seconded. Motion passed 7-0. 5. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR DISCLOSURES OF CONTACT [00:05:39] None, but Mr. Durham clarified that a conflict of interest only exists if a commissioner has a financial interest in the issue at hand. If a commissioner expresses an opinion because of participation in another organization, it is not considered a conflict of interest by law. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING [00:06:40] A. Multiple Applications – Jeremiah Community Micah Ecumenical Ministries, Virginia Supportive Housing, and Mary Washington Healthcare (GPIN) 7860-90-3994 - ZMA FY 24-0006, SUP FY24-02, VAC 2405-0002. Mr. Durham said the applicant offered to allow the Planning Commission to extend beyond the one-hundred-day decision limit, so the public hearing on this item will be continued to the October 23, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Durham invited the applicant to come to the lectern to provide comments or information about the application. Meghann Cotter of Micah Ecumenical Ministries, Inc. (Micah) provided information on the Jeremiah Community application: • The proposal is for permanent supportive housing, not for temporary housing. • On-site support will include Micah professionals & partnering agency professionals, case managers, trained volunteers, property managers, and twenty-four-hour monitoring. Potential residents will go through a screening process in coordination with the Fredericksburg Regional Continuum of Care. Approved residents will sign a lease. Eventually there will be vocational training on-site as well. • The project will be done in phases with a projected twelve to twenty-four months building start on the residences and a three-to-five-year building start on a medical building. • Micah and City Staff are currently reviewing the right-of-way aspects of an access road on the property. • Micah will continue to work with the nearby residential neighborhoods and regional authorities. Mr. Durham asked the Dais if they had questions for the applicant. Mr. Caswell discussed the feasibility difficulties of a road placement as dictated in the current Comprehensive Plan for the site. Mr. Gantt discussed the decision timeline. Discussion included the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the proffers and other legal documents, and future meetings with City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Durham opened the floor to the public for comments. Seeing none, Mr. Durham asked if any public comment letters were received. No letters were received. Mr. Durham continued the public hearing through October 23, 2024. 8. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICIES, ORDINANCES, OR APPLICATIONS [00:27:44] The agenda was amended at this point in the meeting to add Discussion Item 8. C. Railroad Station Overlay District to the agenda. Mr. Lynch moved to approve the amended agenda, Mr. Gantt seconded. Motion passed 7-0. A. Area 5 Small Area Plan Update (Attachments) Bailey Thompson, Community Development Planner, presented concepts for Area 5 Small Area Plans that will be included in the draft Comprehensive Plan amendments. The presentation included the consulting firm, Rhodeside & Harwell’s report development process, review of several community meetings, types of Transects, concepts like the Brain Power District and the Village Transition Area, Historic Resources and the Architectural Review Board’s review of the plan, and various walkability upgrades including linking Area 7 and Area 5 through the Upland Open Space. Mr. Durham thanked Mr. Thompson for his presentation and opened the floor to the Dais for questions or comments. Ms. Whitehead discussed the character structure identification process and associated incentive programs to preserve a character structure. Discussion included the methods used to identify and designate the structures, the effect on commercial redevelopment if a character structure is included and what warrants for saving a structure if it is not unique or of poor design. Mr. Lynch discussed character structures along with the values advanced in the Small Area Plans. Discussion included the use of the Civic transect around the University of Mary Washington. Mr. Durham discussed connectivity across the length of Route One in Area 5 for pedestrians, bikes, and buses. Currently, Route One acts as a barrier between the east and west sides of the city. Discussion included redevelopment potential in the area, the nature of the College Heights neighborhood and the effects of transect designations, the existing housing mix in the area, and zoning regulations. Conservation Districts, pre-approved plans and other incentive tools, the size of future structures and the City’s affordability goas were discussed. B. Annual Report Transmittal Mike Craig, Principal Planner, reviewed highlights of the Annual Report Transmittal and requested the Planning Commission to draft a cover letter for the report. The report and cover letter will then be sent to the City Council and City Manager. Some highlights were Small Area Plan work, review of projects and ordinances, focused review of zoning district density restrictions, and the state of the annual Capital Improvement Plan’s projects and fund use. Mr. Craig said that the acting Planning Director, Chuck Johnston, will be retiring and noted some of Mr. Johnston’s accomplishments over the past eleven years such as digitizing the permitting and zoning process, combining Building Services and Planning Services into one office space, creation of the Small Area Plans review process, creation of the Creative Maker District and other form based codes, improvements to archeological programs, and CDBG implementation. Mr. Craig returned to reviewing the highlights of the report including land use trends of housing and commercial stock, the 2019 Street Sense Market Report needs updating, the completion of the Publisher Hotel & Amelia Apartments, nearing completion of the new middle school, and ongoing development of buildings on the Mary Washington Hospital campus. Mr. Craig noted that there is a very limited supply of lots available for development within the city, so most future housing and commercial developments will occur through rezonings and redevelopments. Mr. Craig referred to the Residential Development Projects in the report to show how few current housing projects there are. Mr. Durham said that the Planning Commission will work on the cover letter. Mr. Durham will sign the letter prior to the October 23, 2024, meeting. C. Railroad Station Overlay District (Attachment) Chuck Johnston, Planning Director, said City Council requested Planning to review the Railroad Station Overlay District’s development progress since its inception in 1991. Mr. Johnston noted that the overlay is not a separate zoning district, rather that it is a subcategory of the Commercial Downtown Zoning District. The intent was to encourage development near the train station, which did not happen. Any new projects were taken out of the Overlay because it was too restrictive. The consensus from City Council is that since the Architectural Review Board already reviews applications for that entire area, the overlay is not warranted and should be removed. This request will be part of the Planning Commission November meeting. Mr. Durham opened the floor to the Dais for questions or comments. Ms. Finn, the Dais, and Staff discussed the Area 7 Plan in relation to the Railroad Station Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan overall favors redevelopment of parking lots but recognizes that that area needs to be evaluated more on a case-by-case basis as is done in the Architectural Review Board process. Ms. Marshall said that the neighborhood in that area would like future in-fill projects to be handled better than what has recently been built. Mr. Johnston and Mr. Durham noted that there is a long-term plan for a third rail to be added in the existing right of way, so adjoining parking lots to the tracks might be altered. 9. OTHER BUSINESS [02:10:20] A. By-Law Amendment Article 6-4, Meetings, adding a rule that meetings shall adjourn by 11:00 p.m., unless a simple majority of the Commission members present at that time vote to suspend this rule and extend the time of adjournment. Mr. Johnston requested action on the proposed amendment. Mr. Durham entertained a motion on the By-Law Amendment. Ms. Whitehead moved to approve the By-Law Amendment Article 6-4 Meetings to add a rule that meetings shall adjourn by eleven p.m. unless a simple majority of the commission members present at that time vote to suspend this rule. Mr. Gantt seconded the motion. Mr. Durham called for a roll call vote. Ms. Marshall – Aye, Mr. Caswell – Aye, Mr. Gantt – Aye, Ms. Finn – Aye, Ms. Whitehead – Aye, Mr. Lynch – Aye, Mr. Durham – Aye. Motion passed 7-0. 10. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Durham opened the floor to the public for comments. Seeing none, Mr. Durham asked if any public comment letters were received. No letters were received. Mr. Durham closed the floor to public comments. 11. ADOPTION OF MINUTES [02:12:04] A. March 22, 2023 Minutes B. April 1, 2023 Minutes – Community Meeting C. April 12, 2023 Minutes D. April 19, 2023 Minutes – Community Meeting E. March 13, 2024 Minutes Mr. Durham asked if any commissioner had comments that would preclude the minutes being adopted. None responded. Mr. Durham declared the minutes adopted. 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS [02:12:24] A. Chairman Comments Chairman Durham noted: Recognition of Mr. Johnston’s service to the city. Mr. Johnston has been a city planner for forty-seven years, eleven of which has been with the City of Fredericksburg. Through his leadership and guidance with City Managers, City Councils, and Boards, Mr. Johnston has left his mark on this city. B. Commissioner Comments  PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - amended Regular Meeting September 25, 2024 6:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR DISCLOSURES OF CONTACT 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC HEARING – TO BE POSTPONED – Recommended continuation to October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting A. Multiple Applications – Jeremiah Community Micah Ecumenical Ministries, Virginia Supportive Housing, and Mary Washington Healthcare propose a Rezoning from R-2 to PD-R, a Special Use Permit for institutional housing, and a POSTPONED Vacation of right-of-way. Proposed uses include 189-units consisting of an 80-unit building and 109 units arranged in single or attached dwellings with three community buildings, a church, and a medical clinic. The project is located at the north end of Roffman Road and west end of Bakersfield Lane and is on a 31.7-acre parcel (identified by the Geographic Property Identification Number (GPIN) 7860-90-3994) and 1.3 acres of right of way. (ZMA FY 24-0006, SUP FY24-02, VAC 2405-0002) 8. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICIES, ORDINANCES, OR APPLICATIONS A. Area 5 Small Area Plan Update B. Annual Report Transmittal C. Railroad Station Overlay District (added item at meeting) 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. By-Law Amendment Article 6-4, Meetings, adding a rule that meetings shall adjourn by 11:00 p.m., unless a simple majority of the Commission members present at that time vote to suspend this rule and extend the time of adjournment. 10. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT A general public comment period is provided at each regular meeting for comments by citizens regarding any matter related to Commission business that is not listed on the agenda for Public Hearing. The Chair will request that speakers state their name, address and zip code; observe the five-minute time limit; and yield the floor when the Clerk indicates that their time has expired. No dialogue between speakers will be permitted. Citizens who wish to make general public comments without attending the meeting will be able to send their comments in writing by (1) delivering to the Community Planning and Building office located at 601 Caroline Street - 4th Floor, (2) U.S. Mail at PO Box 7447, Fredericksburg, VA 22404, or (3) email to planning@fredericksburgva.gov. Comments must be received by 2:30 p.m. the day of the meeting. Such comments will be read aloud during the public comment portion of the Commission meeting. In written public comments, the writer must identify themselves by name and address, including zip code, and limit the remarks to three minutes, when read aloud. There will be a total 40- minute cap for all written comments read aloud. Public comments submitted during the meeting, through the Facebook Live streaming video, will not be considered part of the official public comments of the meeting. 11. ADOPTION OF MINUTES A. March 22, 2023 Minutes B. April 1, 2023 Minutes – Community Meeting C. April 12, 2023 Minutes D. April 19, 2023 Minutes – Community Meeting E. March 13, 2024 Minutes 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS A. Chairman Comments Recognition of Mr. Johnston’s service to the city B. Commissioner Comments 13. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS 14. ADJOURNMENT Next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting will be on October 23, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. 12/30/25, 12:36 PM [EXTERNAL] Public comment from College Heights Civic Assn for the 9-25-2024 Planning Commission mtg - Tanagra S. Cafferk… Outlook [EXTERNAL] Public comment from College Heights Civic Assn for the 9-25-2024 Planning Commission mtg From College Heights Civic Association <chca_board@yahoo.com> Date Wed 9/25/2024 9:04 PM To Planning <planning@fredericksburgva.gov> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Planning, I sent this comment in time for public comment but I mistakenly sent it to Clerk of Council, Tonya Lacey instead of Planning. Sending on for your consideration when working on the Area 5 Plan. Take care, Sue Sargeant, CHCA President. FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (written) AT THE 9/25/2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (to be read out loud by Staff) Good Evening. My name is Sue Sargeant. I live at 1318 William Street. 22401. I am President of the College Heights Civic Association. I am writing about tonight's presentation of the Small Area 5 Plan Concept, which includes the College Heights neighborhood. One topic that concerns College Heights is the 'wording' that will be used in defining a 'Neighborhood Conservation District' in Area 5. NCD is mentioned on slides 6/7 in the powerpoint presentation: We understand that city staff and commissioners reference Charlottesville as the model for 'an ordinance'. We have read its language and believe that you will work to develop an ordinance that speaks to the unique character of Fredericksburg's charm in our neighborhoods. As neighbors and stakeholders, we continue to learn about the difference between a Neighborhood Conservation District as 'historic lite' and an actual Historic District. We're catching on to the need for a city 'ordinance' to provide backbone to ensuring our neighborhoods aren't overwhelmed with builds/additions that do not reflect the neighborhood's character/fabric in 'mass, height, scale'. We appreciate the work of Historic Fredericksburg Foundation staff, especially Danae Peckler, HFFI Preservationist, as well as Michael Spencer, with the University of Mary Washington historic preservation department, Helen Ross on the Architectural Review Board, and Kate Scwartz, Historic Resources Planner with the city's Community Planning and Building Dept. All of them present helpful information which aids our understanding of a Conservation District or Historic District with 'an ordinance' at our neighborhood meetings. about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 1/2 12/30/25, 12:36 PM [EXTERNAL] Public comment from College Heights Civic Assn for the 9-25-2024 Planning Commission mtg - Tanagra S. Cafferk… and, We're looking forward to attending HFFI's forthcoming workshop on a 'Conservation Distric't at the library on Sat, Oct. 12. CHCA advocates that the definition of a Fredericksburg Neighborhood Conservation District needs to include 'substantive review/requirements for demolition, clear guidelines for infill compatibility and prevent over-scaled additions'. If stakeholders need to see an example of what happens when a developer is allowed to build 'by-right' on a vacant lot in College Heights, visit the over-scale 'McMansion' in the 1400 block of Buckner St. (off Stafford Ave). Other neighborhoods in 22401 are referencing this 'out of place' build as the reason to have protections, whether it is a Conservation District or Historic District, with a strong 'ordinance' in The Code, for 22401 neighborhoods. Another concern of the College Heights Civic Association is Expanding Alum Springs Park and Connecting It Via a Downtown Connector and William Street. We realize that this alignment is to address the unsafe bypass turn from Rt. 1 North to Rt 3 East Blue Gray. Howver, We are still concerned with increasing traffic occuring on William St. In addition there are Historic Resources in Alum Springs that will be disturbed with this road build. We realize the city can acknowledge that these cultural treasures exist. but what are you going to do about mitigating the damage to them when you build this 'connector road'. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. The College Heights Civic Association would also like to congratulate Chuck Johnston, Director of Community Planning and Building, on the occasion of his retirement. Chuck has attended our neighborhood meetings and always been available to answer our questions. His work with the College Heights neighborhood is appreciated. Best Wishes Chuck! about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane1 2/2 Area 5 Small Area Plan Planning Commission September 25, 2024 Bailey Thompson Community Development Planner II  Summary • Identify Area 5 • Review Process • Review Historic Resources Map • Transect Map and Land Use Focus Areas • Review Mobility Maps • Review Uplands Open Space Expansion Where in the City are we?  Plan Timeline Project Kickoff P.C. Discussion Community Meeting #1 P.C. Discussion Community Meeting #2 June 7, 2023 September 13, 2023 September 20, 2023 November 8, 2023 November 16, 2023 P.C. Completes City Council Work P.C. Discussion P.C. Discussion Community Meeting #3 Comment Session Transmittal January 10, 2024 February 14, 2024 February 24, 2024 April 10, 2024 May 28, 2024 Architectural Review Area 5 Report Converted P.C. Concept Discussion Board Discussion to Small Area 5 Plan September 25, 2024 September 23, 2024  Transect Map T-4 T-5C Civic T-4 Civic T-1 Preserved Open Space T-3E T-3 T-3E Sub-Urban Edge T-4 T-4 T-4 Civic T-3 Sub-Urban T-3 T-4 General Urban Civic Civic T-3E T-5C Core Corridor T-4 T-1 Historic Resources Older Neighborhoods with an Established From and Pattern Older (Typically) Non-Residential Buildings that May Now be Considered Historic Eligible National Register District Centered on the University of Mary Washington Neighborhood Issues Neighborhood Conservation Districts: • Building Width Averaging • Building Scale • Minimum Façade Transparency • Required Façade Features • Context-Based Housing Arrangement Pattern Books and Design Guidelines Vacating Old Right-of-Way Stubs for Pedestrian Connections and Open Space Work with Civic Uses to Reduce Parking Demand and Increase Safety on Adjacent Streets Village Transition Area Potential for Walkable Commercial, Entertainment, Dining, and Service Uses Character Structure Designation Form Based Code: • Focus on Frontages • Shared Access and Rear Loaded Parking • Height Steps • Transitional Zones (Height, Mass, Buffer, Alley) Evaluate “Pre-Approved Plans” for Historic Housing Types Built within the Existing Lot Pattern “Brain Power District” Unique Economic Development Opportunity at the Confluence of the City’s Two Major Institutional Partners (UMW and MWH) and the Power Substation Short-term Property Improvements to Encourage Façade and Landscaping Upgrades Form Based Code Approach to Major Redevelopment: • Re-establish Historic Block Pattern • Focus on Frontages and Building Orientation • Shared Access and Rear Loaded Parking • Focus on Formal Open Spaces Including the Repurpose of the Antiquated Service Road Vehicular Mobility College Avenue / US Route 1 / Eagle Village Drive Intersection Eagle Village Road Network Augustine Avenue Access / Crossing Route 3 E to US Route 1 N Ramp Rebuild (SmartScale Round 4) Beverly Drive Access Management Downtown Connector Bike / Pedestrian Mobility and Safety Sidewalk Infill: • Westmont • Greenbrier • Olde William William Street Corridor: • Traffic Calming (1200 – 1300 Blocks) • Enhanced Pedestrian Corridor (to Downtown) Downtown Connector Beverly Drive Connector Neighborhood Traffic Calming: • Stafford Avenue • College Avenue • Keeneland Road • Hanover Street  Linking the Uplands Open Space Marye’s Heights to the Battleground Athletic Complex Connections UMW Performing Arts Center Rowe Street / Cornell Street Bicycle Boulevard (The Heslep Amphitheatre Connection) Olde William Street Pedestrian Connection Expanding Alum Springs Park and Connecting Via Downtown Connector and William Street Campus Walk Area 5 Small Area Plan “Character” Historic Resources Older Neighborhoods with an Established Form and Pattern Older (Typically) Non-Residential Buildings that May Now be Considered Historic Eligible National Register District Centered on the University of Mary Washington Neighborhood Issues Neighborhood Conservation Districts: • Building Width Averaging • Building Scale • Minimum Façade Transparency • Required Façade Features • Context-Based Housing Arrangement Pattern Books and Design Guidelines Vacating Old Right-of-Way Stubs for Pedestrian Connections and Open Space Work with Civic Uses to Reduce Parking Demand and Increase Safety on Adjacent Streets Historic Resources Older Neighborhoods with an Established Form and Pattern Older (Typically) Non-Residential Buildings that May Now be Considered Historic Eligible National Register District Centered on the University of Mary Washington Village Transition Area Potential for Walkable Commercial, Entertainment, Dining, and Service Uses Character Structure Designation Form Based Code: • Focus on Frontages • Shared Access and Rear Loaded Parking • Height Steps • Transitional Zones (Height, Mass, Buffer, Alley) Evaluate “Pre-Approved Plans” for Historic Housing Types Built within the Existing Lot Pattern Period of significance of 1946 (completion of the Route 1 bypass) through 1964 (opening of I-95) Identified structures are representative of mid-20th- century commercial architecture constructed along Route 1 to take advantage of increased automobile traffic and shifting development patterns. Mostly commercial structures, some residential included where they have been repurposed for commercial uses OR are separated from neighborhood environments. COLONIAL REVIVAL  MINIMAL TRADITIONAL Add Map COMMERCIAL  CONTEMPORARY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE COMMERCIAL/POSTMODERN Railroad Station Overlay District in the Commercial Downtown District City Council Work Session 2024 September 24  Railroad Station Overlay District Council members asked for a review of the Railroad Station Overlay District: Council Work Sessions were held October 10 / November 14, 2023 February 13 / and March 12, 2024 RSO established over the Commercial Downtown District in 1991 to encourage development next to RR station. Modified in 2012 to limit the impact of Commercial Downtown development on the adjacent Darbytown residential neighborhood.  Commercial Downtown District Metric Standard Residential-adjacent Railroad Station Overlay Front setback Conform to set- Conform to set- Within 25% backs of adjacent backs of adjacent of setback on adjacent structures structures lots Side setback 0 15 15 Rear setback 0 25 25 Height (feet) 50 50 40 FAR 3.0 mixed use 3.0 mixed use 2.0 2.5 commercial 2.5 commercial Residential density 12 12 8 single family Residential density 18 18 8 multi-family Residential density 24 24 24 mixed use Residential density – 36 36 36 OHFD or elsewhere by SUP Next Steps?  Two recent removals of the overlay district 1. In 2017, the Coffee Warehouse (310 Frederick, 29,621 sq ft) was removed from the RSO to enable the reuse of the 1880 structure. New structure behind (46’ 8” height: 3 apartment levels over 1 parking level in floodplain, at that time). • A special use permit was approved for 31 units/acre residential density (17 apartments and 4 townhouses). • A special exception was approved for 18% commercial use was approved (25% is minimum for at lease one use in a mixed-use project).  Two recent removals of the overlay district 2. In 2019, the Janney-Marshall Building property (401 Princess Anne, 19,297 sq ft) was removed from the RSO to enable the reuse of the 1869 structure. • A special use permit was approved for 33 units/acre residential density (12 apartments). • A special exception was approved for 10% commercial use was approved (25% is minimum for at least one use in a mixed-use project). 3. In 2023, 400 PA LLC proposed to remove 400 Princess Anne property from the RSO to enable the 4 townhouses (32 ft to roof/41 ft to stair roof) in the parking lot behind the 1939 coffee shop structure plus 1 next door, in addition to 3 units over the coffee shop. • A special use permit was requested for 37 units/acre residential density (8 units). 24 units allowed by right for this solely residential project.