Planning Commission

From: Charles G McDaniel To: Planning Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Railroad Station Overlay District Date: Thursday, October 31, 2024 1:54:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission: I am Charles G. McDaniel at 133 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the removal of the railroad station overlay district. I have lived at 133 Caroline Street for over 60 years and I've seen that part of town grow to one of the best neighborhoods in the City of Fredericksburg. I'm especially pleased with the recent progress and the developments near the station. I'm very much in favor of the removal of the railroad station overlay district. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Charles McDaniel Charles McDaniel Chairman 800.476.6683 888.834.2121 540.220.8245 Cell 703.441.2590 Fax hilldrup.com | Move with Hilldrup, Help a Child Facebook  | LinkedIn | Twitter |  Instagram From: John Janney To: Planning Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] 11/13Planning Comm Hearing Date: Thursday, October 31, 2024 2:34:14 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. Dear Commission Members I renovated the Janney Marshall Building at 401 Pr Anne St several years ago At the time the Planning Staff helped me have the property released from RSO to get the project approved Having dealt with Overlay personally I feel it is regulatory overkill for a area already supervised by the ARB Removing the Overlay will help the area improve and grow responsibly in the future Sincerely John Janney 717 1/2 Kenmore Ave Fredbg, Va 22401 540-907-2904 JJBuilderinc@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone Lissah Michalski 316 Frederick Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 To the Planning Commission: Due to work commitments I am unable to join tonight’s meeting in person, but I want to register my concerns about the removal of the Railroad Station Overlay here in writing. I am the owner of one of the properties that is being removed from the RSOD, and this measure threatens to turbocharge a problematic development pattern that threatens the character of this important block. It appears that this body is the last and only opportunity for the city’s residents to receive an impartial hearing on this matter. In its Work Session on September 24, prior to any public discussion on the issue, City Council members were very clear in their unanimous intention to vote for the removal without delay. The decision to dismantle the guidelines that govern development in the immediate area surrounding my property will remove an important safeguard against further development that may be short-sighted, inconsistent, wildly out of scale, and disproportionately in favor of commercial development interests. This is not reflexive NIMBYism - but rather a call for a more measured and participatory approach to one of Fredericksburg’s most valuable and prominent gateways. While one may argue that it is self-evident that the RSOD has failed in its goal of encouraging residential and office infill, the community deserves a much more comprehensive discussion of the reasons of how we got here, what the City has done to make the existing policy a success, and what lessons can be taken from that. Council members are quick to refer to the RSOD as a “policy failure”, but thus far have offered the community no background, no history, and no discussion of any efforts that have been made over the last 33 years to make it a success. If this indeed is such an obvious failure, is simply removing the RSOD designation really the best we can do? Doesn’t such a high-profile area deserve much more discussion and more scrutiny? If it takes 33 years to identify a policy failure, I argue that we need to take much more than a couple of months and a couple of meetings to get it right. In the worksession there was no mention of the bewildering and difficult conversations that took place at the ARB this past year related to a proposal for luxury high-rise townhouses at 400 Princess Anne. In those hearings, the neighbors and sometimes even the ARB itself struggled to understand the developer’s proposal and potential effects on the surrounding neighborhood. Even amid all this confusion and doubt, at the end of the day it was only the existence of the RSOD that kept that very problematic project from proceeding. Approving this measure would not only undermine the community’s concerns on scale, density, and height that arose during that proceeding - it would openly and directly exacerbate them. To grant developers the right to build even more massive 50-foot structures directly across from my small duplex would further erode what is left of a critical historic context. To get a sense of what might be possible, I would invite the Commission and community to take a look at my property from the west side of the 100 block of Charles Street, where massive luxury townhouses now loom over my back patio and the other small, historic property at 317 Charles Street. These luxury townhouses were built by the owner of the 400 Princess Anne Street property, and I have no reason to doubt that a similar or even more extreme design would be built to my immediate north if the RSOD is summarily removed. Proponents of this measure will suggest that the ARB has the sufficient purview to ensure that design guidelines for the block’s development are pursued, but my experience in the past - both as a participant of and as an observer to ARB proceedings - is that the ARB, while competent and well-meaning, is a difficult setting for reconciling sincere community concern with the logic of commercial development. I urge you to table the proposal and recommend more community engagement regarding the fate of the RSOD. Nancy Moore 314 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 To Planning Commission members regarding the Railroad Overlay District I agree that the Railroad Station Overlay District hasn’t lived up to its potential. But the issue of neighborhood protection remains. I have lived at 314 Princess Anne Street since 1976. It’s a block lined with modest homes—many of them relatively affordable rentals. The streetscape is little changed from the early 1900s when many of the homes were built. Most do not have off-street parking. Efforts to preserve historic commercial properties once owned by Janney Marshall have brought upscale condos and apartments. None are as tall as the 50-foot height that will be allowed if the RSO is scrapped. I would hope City Council will retain protections for our significant historic neighborhood. Nancy Moore From: Paul Janney To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Railroad Station Overlay District(RSO) - Planning Commission Hearing Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 9:23:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Paul Janney 1408 Sophia St Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Dear Planning Commission, I am encouraged that you are taking the steps necessary to remove the RSO. The RSO, as many know, has been burdensome to development of this vital area in the City of Fredericksburg. It has made it cost prohibitive and waists unnecessary time for developers seeking to make this area active once again. The area is already overseen by the ARB, which controls mass, scale, and design - making this area already have proper oversight. Remove the RSO, encourage smart growth, and you will see the great benefits from an increased tax base and a more vibrant downtown. Thanks you, Paul Janney -- Paul Janney FXBG Real Estate LLC Broker/Owner (C)540-809-5808 Office Address 612 Lafayette Blvd Suite 200 Fredericksburg VA 22401 Mailing Address PO BOX 7535 Fredericksburg, VA 22404 From: Rachel Whitman To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: November 13th planning commission meeting Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 11:31:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Rachel Whitman 1600 Washington Avenue Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Whitmanr14@gmail.com November 13, 2024 Planning Commission P.O. Box 7447 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Dear Planning Commission Members, I have lived in the city of Fredericksburg most of my life since 1979. I love Fredericksburg and am very proud of my city. I have raised my four children here. I work in the city and I have enjoyed seeing it grow and become so alive. I love to bring friends from all over to enjoy our thriving town. My children love bringing their friends downtown and supporting the community. I am writing today to express my support for the removal of the railroad overlay district in Fredericksburg. The elimination of the overlay will allow for greater development that will help keep our city thriving. It will help our local businesses flourish. The train station area will grow and be revitalized when this happens. Right now, the restraints that are forced by the railroad overlay district is inhibiting the growth that will bring needed revitalization in that area. As a woman who is very proud to live in Fredericksburg, I want to see it continue to grow. The growth around the train station will encourage using public transportation and will help decrease traffic congestion in our city. I know that allowing this district to thrive will bring better quality of life for residents and visitors. Thank you for taking into consideration my support of this issue. I am grateful to be part of this wonderful community and look forward to its continued growth. Sincerely, Rachel Whitman 540-419-2695 From: Tyler Whitman To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Removal of Railroad Overlay District to Foster Community Growth Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:28:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tyler Whitman 1600 Washington Avenue Fredericksburg, VA 22401 tywhitman15@gmail.com November 13, 2024 Planning Commission P.O. Box 7447 Fredericksburg, VA 22404 Dear Planning Commission Members, This letter is to share my overwhelming support for eliminating the railroad overlay district in our community. Removing this restriction would unlock significant opportunities for growth and revitalization in the area surrounding our train station, which I believe holds tremendous potential for development. The railroad overlay district imposes unnecessary barriers that hinder progress in this key location. By allowing greater density near the train station, we can transform it into a vibrant hub that encourages public transportation use. This change would not only reduce traffic congestion but also help us build a more sustainable, connected, and accessible community. Furthermore, increased population density in this area would greatly benefit our local economy. A larger tax base would provide more resources for our schools and infrastructure improvements. At the same time, the added foot traffic would support small businesses in the downtown area, creating a lively and dynamic environment for residents and visitors alike. I respectfully encourage the Commission to consider the lasting benefits of removing the railroad overlay district. By enabling thoughtful development in this strategic location, we can prioritize public transportation, strengthen our economy, and enhance the overall quality of life for our community. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your commitment to shaping our city’s future. I look forward to seeing the positive changes that this step could bring to Fredericksburg. Best, Tyler Whitman 1005 City View Lane Special Exception Request for a 6 foot fence Planning Commission November 13, 2024 Overview • Issue: Should the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding a request for a 6-foot fence on the subject property? • Virginia Code § 15.2-2310 requires variance applications be transmitted to the Planning Commission, which may send a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals or appear as a party at the hearing • Recommend denial if making a recommendation is determined appropriate Location  Special Exception Area (Secondary Front Yard) Request • 6’ fence in secondary front yard • Within 12’ setback area • Administrative maximum is 4’ unless: • No closer to the secondary front property line than the front of the abutting principal structure. OR • Secondary front yard abuts the secondary front yard of another lot. OR • No closer to the secondary front lot line then any side of an accessory structure. • BZA may grant Special Exception for a 6’ fence in a front yard Review Criteria • Whether approval of the special exception will impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, or cause or substantially increase the danger of fire or the spread of fire, or endanger public safety, including impacts to adequate sight lines. • Fence is opaque design that does not permit light or air to pass through the fence. The fence location maintains adequate sight lines. • Whether the proposal will be compatible with the existing character and pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood and facilitate an attractive and harmonious community. • While fencing height and design elsewhere in neighborhood, current location is not in character with the rest of the development where fences were required to be shorter or set back. • Of 11 corner lots in neighborhood, 4 can have a 6 foot fence in the secondary front yard (back up to other back yards) and 7 abut front yards (2 are requesting a Special Exception). Review Criteria • Whether the application represents the only reasonable means and location on the lot to accommodate the proposed fence given the natural constraints of the lot or the existing development on the lot. • Somewhat meets criteria. Some topography in the rear yard, sloping down about 2 feet from the back to rear property line. Slope not considered steep. • The height of the proposed fence and the use of opaque or transparent design; the use of a buffer area between the public right- of-way and the fence. The fence shall not exceed six feet in height. • Does not meet criterion. Does not exceed 6 feet in height, but since the intent behind this criterion is to for fencing to be at least semi-transparent or buffered, the existing fence does not meet the criterion. Conclusion • Planning Commission can make a recommendation if they determine it is appropriate • BZA can approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request • If approved, the BZA could include a condition that the existing fence is replaced with one that is semi-transparent in design • If denied, the property owner will need to remove the fence, modify the fence to meet the administrative permissions in the UDO, or appeal the BZA’s decision to the circuit court Questions? Planning Commission November 13, 2024 1019 Headquarters Way Special Exception Request for a 6 foot fence Planning Commission November 13, 2024 Overview • Issue: Should the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding a request for a 6-foot fence on the subject property? • Virginia Code § 15.2-2310 requires variance applications be transmitted to the Planning Commission, which may send a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals or appear as a party at the hearing • Recommend denial if making a recommendation is determined appropriate Location  Special Exception Area (Secondary Front Yard) Request • 6’ fence in secondary front yard • Within 12’ setback area • Administrative maximum is 4’ unless: • No closer to the secondary front property line than the front of the abutting principal structure. OR • Secondary front yard abuts the secondary front yard of another lot. OR • No closer to the secondary front lot line then any side of an accessory structure. • BZA may grant Special Exception for a 6’ fence in a front yard Review Criteria • Whether approval of the special exception will impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, or cause or substantially increase the danger of fire or the spread of fire, or endanger public safety, including impacts to adequate sight lines. • Fence is opaque design that does not permit light or air to pass through the fence. The fence location maintains adequate sight lines. • Whether the proposal will be compatible with the existing character and pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood and facilitate an attractive and harmonious community. • While fencing height and design elsewhere in neighborhood, current location is not in character with the rest of the development where fences were required to be shorter or set back. • Of 11 corner lots in neighborhood, 4 can have a 6 foot fence in the secondary front yard (back up to other back yards) and 7 abut front yards (2 are requesting a Special Exception). Review Criteria • Whether the application represents the only reasonable means and location on the lot to accommodate the proposed fence given the natural constraints of the lot or the existing development on the lot. • Somewhat meets criteria. Topography in the rear yard, sloping down about 4 feet from the back to rear property line/Rampart Street. • Placement of the fence within secondary front yard setback would place some of the steeper slopes outside of the fenced in backyard. • The height of the proposed fence and the use of opaque or transparent design; the use of a buffer area between the public right-of-way and the fence. The fence shall not exceed six feet in height. • Does not meet criterion. Does not exceed 6 feet in height, but since the intent behind this criterion is to for fencing to be at least semi-transparent or buffered, the existing fence does not meet the criterion. Conclusion • Planning Commission can make a recommendation if they determine it is appropriate • BZA can approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request • If approved, the BZA could include a condition that the existing fence is replaced with one that is semi-transparent in design • If denied, the property owner will need to remove the fence, modify the fence to meet the administrative permissions in the UDO, or appeal the BZA’s decision to the circuit court Questions? Planning Commission November 13, 2024 Railroad Station Overlay District in the Commercial Downtown District November 13, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting  Railroad Station Overlay District RSO established over the Commercial Downtown District in 1991 to encourage development next to the train station. Modified in 2012 / 2013 to limit development on the adjacent Darbytown residential neighborhood. Modifications overtime included changes in purpose, reduction in permitted height limits and floor area ratio.  Railroad Station Overlay District Area 7 Downtown Plan: The RSO is discussed in the “Train Station District” portion of the Area 7 Small Area Plan. Under Policies for Land Use and Infill (11(7)-13 and 11(7)-14), it states that: “The Railroad Station Overlay District … is incompatible with recent adaptive reuse projects … The mix of zoning and overlay districts within the area should be replaced by a new form based code (neighborhood commercial and residential) that will permit compatible infill while serving as an appropriate transition in intensity from the Downtown to the adjacent neighborhoods.” “The mixed use development ratios currently included in the zoning ordinance for this area are unrealistic as exemplified by their numbers in the last two developments. More appropriate standards and densities are needed to support development and adaptive reuse in the area…” “This area is most suited for sustainable multi-modal living but is out of balance … The engineering and design focus in the Train Station Area should shift to better balance automobile infrastructure with buildings and meaningful open space.” “Infill development should be a priority in the Train Station Area.”  Commercial Downtown District – Standard Rules vs. Railroad Station Overlay Metric Standard Residential-adjacent Railroad Station Overlay Front setback Conform to set- backs Conform to set- backs Within 25% of adjacent structures of adjacent structures of setback on adjacent lots Side setback 0 15 15 (residential-adjacent) Rear setback 0 25 25 (residential-adjacent) Height (feet) 50 50 40 FAR 3.0 mixed use 3.0 mixed use 2.0 2.5 commercial 2.5 commercial Open Space Req. Within OHFD, 0.5 acre site + - 10% of site 10% of site Formal Open Space Residential density SF 12 12 8 Residential density MF 18 18 8 Residential density MU 24 24 24 Residential density – OHFD 36 MU By-Right within 36 MU By-Right within N/A or elsewhere by SUP OHFD / Any permitted OHFD / Any permitted by SUP by SUP 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), reduced side setbacks, and reduced rear setbacks 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 total units). • The remainder of the project conformed to the standards in the RSO. • Under RSO Cyan area (1.07 acres) limited to 9 total units by regulation • Existing residential density of neighborhood is much higher: • Orange parcel – 53 units per acre • Green parcel – 45 units per acre • Pink area – 23 units per acre (8 total units) • The RSO regulations are not transitional. They are less permissive than the actual conditions in the adjacent neighborhood. The entirety of the RSO is located in the Old and Historic Fredericksburg Overlay District (OHFD). The provisions of the OHFD have been relied on to ensure development is consistent with the historic character of this area of the City and provide a transition between the more intense commercial uses in the downtown core and neighboring residential neighborhoods. Looking back at the review of recent projects, the Historic District’s case sensitive Design Guidelines are a sufficient “form based” set of regulations for new and redevelopment in the Train Station District. Recommendation: • Recommend approval to the City Council of the zoning map amendment removing the RSO from 13 parcels. • Recommend approval to the City Council of the Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment repealing the RSO.