Planning Commission

From: LASURIANITA To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: changes at Snowden Street West Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 2:30:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello I'm writing in concern for the rezoning and how it will affect our small businesses on 1215 Snowden St. I reconfirm all that was stated in this prior email sent by Mr. Perry below and hope it's considered on the immediate impact and accessibility it will cause to our businesses La Surianita LLC ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Roy Perry Date: Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 11:16 AM Subject: changes at Snowden Street West In reference to: 1213-1215 Snowden Street closing. Thank you for your time ! I am in favor of some of the changes but not all. I clearly see that closing the left hand turning lane onto Snowden, northbound, is necessary. You are crossing southbound traffic onto route 1. However, closing the right turn lane onto Snowden going Southbound makes no sense at all. Your plans to close Snowden St. from Rt. One will all but destroy the 3 minority businesses who are there in operation. As stated, by one of your representatives, "people follow the path of least resistance." Your design will restrict the flow which could make these businesses lose customers and look toward other businesses to deal with. I appreciate the fact that there has been a turn-around included at the end of the street instead of the original design of all grass. -However, will the turn-around be large enough to accommodate a 56 foot tractor trailer (not Box truck) such as a UPS or even Fire truck, to make their deliveries and to be able to exit Snowden St? -Will there be customer parking access while trucks make deliveries especially since there is no parking in the turn-around?   -Say a truck did park in the turn-around long enough to make a quick delivery, how would a parked car be able to get off Snowden? -What happens if a tractor trailer (once on Snowden) realizes he can't turn around and has to back out of Snowden onto Augustine Ave. to exit? Did you take this into consideration? This does not solve the non-existent Snowden St. problem, it creates unwarranted Snowden St. issues. There has never been an accident on Snowden St. on record (with all deliveries inncluded). How can you improve a 100% record? Also, I am concerned about what appears to be a 110 to 120 degree right hand turn from the new merger onto Augustine Ave. Will a 56 foot tractor trailer be able to make that turn? This will not only affect deliveries to Snowden Street but also to Giant Supermarket or any other store in Eagle Village Shopping Center for that matter. 1. I am asking that you consider extending the merging lane and utilize the Emancipation bypass so that it includes Snowden Street. This will allow for the natural flow of traffic going South to continue and the ability to take a right onto Snowden. Those who wish to turn right on Augustine will be able to at the end of the merger. This gives 2 sources of exit off of Rt. 1 so to not bottle up Augustine Ave. 2. As for the sidewalk, money can be saved by doing away with the dangerous sidewalk next to merging traffic going around the carwash and Augustine. The same goal can be accomplished by running the sidewalk from the College Ave light (as proposed) to the existing Snowden Street sidewalk 1/8th the distance that already runs to Augustine Ave. and the Shopping Center. A painted crosswalk can be painted on the street at the end of Snowden to cross the street to the other side. Thanks for your time and consideration Roy B. Perry 1032 Conway Road Fredericksburg, Va. 22405 From: william m beck To: Planning Commission Members Subject: [EXTERNAL] RRSO Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 9:52:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, I hope you will see the wisdom in keeping the RRSO, particularly the height restriction. An increase in the allowable height will really only serve as an increase in the incentive to destroy existing, often historic and character defining, structures. The very few tall buildings in the neighborhood should be allowed to stay as the special landmarks that we know. Reasonable greater density can be achieved without the intrusion of overly tall structures out of keeping with the existing character of the community. Zoning should serve to enhance the safety and happiness of the current residents and property owners. Thank you for giving this and every matter your careful consideration. Bill Beck formerly 708 Caroline St and 301 Sophia St now 321 Twin Lake Drive From: Whittingham To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments regarding RSOD to be read at tonight"s meeting Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 12:42:56 PM Attachments: email signature.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing as a resident of the Darbytown neighborhood in opposition of the proposed removal of RSOD from City Code. Removal of the RSOD would be a detriment to the area. It is a residential neighborhood with years of history and it should stay that way! Many of the buildings that have gone up in the last few years clash with the style of the neighborhood and detract from the late 1800's look. Darbytown is slowly losing its history... it's disappointing that future generations will not know the look of America's Most Historic City. Signed Bob Whittingham, 428 Dunmore Street, 22401 -- From: Christopher Ellis To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to the removal of the Railroad Station Overlay District Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 10:38:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am writing to express my opposition to the removal of the Railroad Station Overlay District from the city code of Fredericksburg. I have lived on lower Caroline Street for 15 years, and the staggering amount of construction that has taken place in that time has made me concerned for the character and charm of our lovely city, not just my corner of it. Allowing the area around the train station to be categorized as "Commercial Downtown" is disrespectful to those of us who make our homes in Fredericksburg. I do not wish to see our city transformed by the constant backfill of Lego homes and ugly condos into every nook and cranny. I fear the removal of the RSOD will open the floodgates for profiteering developers to shoehorn new construction into every nook and cranny. At the minimum, the city should conduct a comprehensive study of the long term effects (for pedestrian safety, traffic flow, sightlines, etc.) before making such an impactful decision. The purpose of the RSOD was to act as a buffer between commercial and residential areas, and it should continue to do so. I would urge you to let the RSOD remain intact. Sincerely, Christopher Ellis 116 Caroline St, Fredericksburg, VA 22401  From: D EMIRO To: Planning; Subject: [EXTERNAL] For Public Comment on the Removal of RSOD Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:49:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Hello, My name is Danielle Emiro. I live at 4363 Caledon Road, King George, VA. 22485 While I do not currently reside in the downtown area, my mother does, and I frequent the area often. The Fredericksburg area as a whole has been my home my entire life and I am saddened by the vast amount of development in recent years. I strongly oppose the removal of the Railroad Station Overlay District. Removal of the RSOD will allow builders to apply for special use permits which would then allow exceptionally large homes and buildings in an area that has already seen significant growth. It would also allow buildings near the railroad tracks; which after the July 20th incident, I think we can agree would be irresponsible. Last year, residents barely voted down a measure that would have allowed a builder to put up 64, 3 story townhomes, near Carl's Ice Cream. This not only would have congested the area traffic wise, but would have added to the strain on the school system and public transportation. I am also opposed to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment. Our very small city, in my humble opinion, has seen enough development over the last few years and I feel it is imperative that you put your residents first in these very important decisions. Please remember you are elected to serve the residents of Fredericksburg City and you owe nothing to the builders. Slow, sensible growth. Respectfully, Danielle Emiro 6 December 2024 To: Planning Commissioners planningcommissioners@fredericksburgva.gov cc: Planning@fredericksburgva.gov Dear Planning Commissioners and City staff: Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. (HFFI) respectfully asks that the Planning Commission defer action on removing the Railroad Station Overlay District (RSO). The recent staff presentation did not provide much context for the establishment of the RSO, the factual basis on which it was created, nor why its “failure” seems solely predicated on recent adaptive re-use projects of existing historic buildings. The primary point made was that parcels were removed from the district for past projects and should therefore, be removed from the entire covered area. Staff’s presentation did not discuss that these projects involved the rehabilitation of historic properties—the driving factor in the removal of these parcels from the RSO. The historic preservation component of these projects was used to justify their exemption. The city’s preservation goals have long supported the adaptive re-use of existing historic buildings. State and federal governments along with the universal building code also enable special exemptions and greater flexibility in support of the adaptive re-use and preservation of the built environment. Thus, it is unsurprising that these particular projects were “grandfathered” out of current zoning. Before changing zoning, a substantive and thorough explanation of why such an alteration is needed, why the existing zoning is having undesirable effects or failing to meet city goals, and how the proposed changes is expected to meet stated new goals should be clearly presented to the public. During works sessions and meetings, a majority of City Council members have indicated that density and height restrictions throughout the city needed to be increased. It was made clear that this included the Old and Historic Fredericksburg Overlay District (OHFD). The area around the train station has been specifically mentioned by council members for more intensive residential development. Discussions have also occurred among some on council who are not prepared to support the city’s goal of establishing Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) to preserve the distinct features of our city unique as it runs contrary to their height and density goals. These discussions represent significant changes in the city’s goals to maintain Fredericksburg’s unique and historic character. And these discussions have occurred without any community engagement at work sessions and retreats. Before considering any further changes affecting the OHFD, City Council needs to clearly articulate their height and density goals across the community and engage directly with the public to better understand the level of community support for those changes. This is especially pertinent around the train station after the recent derailment. Residents in the immediate vicinity of the rail line have voiced 1 concerns with the City’s position that the OHFD will, “ensure an appropriate transition is maintained in the Train Station District.” Staff presentation at your November 13th meeting referenced the proposed 400 Princess Anne Street project as a successful example of the OHFD’s protections, yet failed to mention City Council’s vote to deny a special permit to this project because it did not meet OHFD goals and design guidelines. Has any internal review of this project or process been conducted following the council’s vote? Might such a review be completed before further zoning changes are made to clarify potential impacts and expectations for future development in the immediate area and OHFD? HFFI strongly recommends that the Planning Commission delay any action on the RSO until the “failure” of the RSO is clearly articulated. While the guiding principles of the RSO seem at odds with current thinking of City Council, the concerns of impacted area residents, members of the public, members of the Architectural Review Board, and council’s voting record provide sufficient cause for further review of this matter to ensure community support going forward for increased density and building height in the city and especially in the OHFD. We sincerely thank you for your consideration of this issue, and for all you do to ensure the stewardship of Fredericksburg’s cultural historic landscape for residents and property owners--past, present, and future. Sincerely, David James, President Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. 2 From: Ed Sandtner To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Railroad Station Overlay District Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 1:32:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening Commissioners, I would like to speak to the proposed removal of the Railroad Station Overlay District. In the City's rush to develop available vacant land in the downtown area, mistakes have been made and I am afraid will continue to be made. One only has to look around for ample evidence. The issue is not simply development or no development, but what type of development. I am afraid that if there is not tight and strict criteria that demands that any new construction in the Historic District must be compatible with and enhance the historic character and ambiance of the surrounding neighborhood. If not, then what does having a Historic District really mean? I would recommend that you not move forward with the removal process until the City can come up a better vision in conjunction with neighboring property owners, HFFI and other like groups and organizations. Thank you. Ed Sandtner 132 Caroline Street 22401 From: Forrest Dickinson To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Removal of the RSOD city code Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 8:10:41 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. IF THE RSOD CODE ISN'T BROKEN, THEN WHY CHANGE T! The residents in the historic district of lower Caroline Street have no desire to change the code because they like what the current code provides and protects. Safety is a concern for allowing future density in the district so the obvious answer to that problem is not to allow more density near the train tracts. There is enough motor vehicle traffic,ie. truck,motorcycle and muffler showoffs as it is now and in addition to that nuisance there is dog waste in people's yards which will certainly increase with more development. It would be a commendable act on behalf of the Planning Commission if they decided in favor of maintaining the aesthetic nature of the present very historic neighborhood. Over the years a steady prideful effort by the residents in the area below(east of) the railroad to beautify their neighborhood in a manner keeping with the current nature of the district. Increasing developmental density will most likely not inject an improvement in the overall character of our neighborhood. SO WHY CHANGE A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!TAKING NO ACTION WOULD BE POSITIVE AND COURAGEOUS. submitted by Forrest Dickinson* 300 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, Va. 22401 *Forrest Dickinson has been the owner of 300 Caroline Street since the mid 20th century. From: John Urban To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Railroad Station Overlay District (RSOD) Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 3:45:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to express my opposition to the removal of the RSOD from the city code. The RSOD was established as a buffer between the residential area of the Darbytown historic neighborhood and the commercial downtown area and that commitment should be maintained. Current development in Darbytown, in contravention of its nature as a historic neighborhood, has already degraded its historic nature and exacerbated residential parking problems. Additional development through future special use permits will detract from the vision of Fredericksburg as a “historic city.” In line with this vision, I urge the Planning Commission to keep the RSOD intact. Sincerely, John D. Urban 300 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Sent from my iPad From: jandbsperlazza To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Railroad Station Overlay District comments Date: Friday, December 6, 2024 12:05:07 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 whom it may concern, I would like to voice my opinion Not to remove the Railroad Station Overlay District. Having served on the Architectural Review Board a number of years ago, I found that this Board was one of the many voices in the preservation of our Historic District, it was only a vehicle to preservation. In more than one occasions City Counsel over road a number of our decisions. Therefore, this RSO needs to stay in place as a deterrent to the complete build out of all open spaces within the city. The charm of Fredericksburg is at risk in over developing of and cramming build projects throughout the Historic District and once lost it’s not likely to make a come back, please leave this Ordinance in place, maybe a rewrite of this ordinance in necessary as opposed to its removal. Thank you, John Sperlazza 113 Caroline Street Fredericksburg, Virginia From: Landon Davis To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Darbytown Railroad Overly District Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 2:37:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I hope this email finds you well. My name is Landon Davis I reside at 304 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 and am an owner of 316/318 Charles Street.   I understand the planning commission is holding a hearing on December 11, 2024 regarding removing the railroad station overlay district from certain areas in “Darbytown”. I support the removal of the railroad overlay district. This type of overregulation is a major driver of high housing costs, and removing the overlay district will constitute a small step towards affordability. I’ve seen an anonymous memo being circulated indicating that the RSO provides a much needed buffer between the train tracks and residential development. If it is a buffer, it is one in name only and provides little to no practical benefit. In my opinion, while some of those who do not support the RSO’s removal state that removing the RSO is a bad idea because of things like needing a buffer, and train derailments etc., what they truly care about is slowing growth. They are concerned that the removing the RSO will open the door to high density development. First, I personally think there is a very good argument that higher density development is exactly what this area and the City at large desperately needs. Second, the underlying zoning of the area will not change, developers will have to apply for a special use permit to increase the density beyond what is permitted by right in the CD zone. In my personal and professional experience, a special use permit is extremely difficult and cumbersome to obtain – I would equate it to being slightly less difficult than securing a full-fledged rezoning. The PC and Council will have the opportunity to review, request changes, and deny any special use permit applications for higher density developments that come forward, and the neighborhood will have ample opportunity to speak out against such applications. It would seem far more intelligent and efficient for City leadership and the residents of Darbytown to review and make decisions on these projects on a case by case basis at the special use permit application stage vs. trying to maintain a blanket ban on such development by fighting to keep the outdated and unnecessary RSOD in place. My family and I love being a part of this community, and it goes without saying that I respect and appreciate that others, including my neighbors, may have different opinions, and those opinions are valid and deserve to be heard. Thanks to the Planning Commission members, City Council and City Staff for their good work and efforts on this project. Best, Landon Davis From: Lawrence Fisher To: Planning Commission Members Subject: [EXTERNAL] RSO Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 10:07:00 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. Regarding the upcoming December 12 hearing pertaining to eradicating the RSO, as I spoke at the prior hearing, but I am unable to attend the December 12 hearing, this correspondence intends to reiterate my previously expressed concerns. Foremost, the flawed process by which the proposed changes to the RSO was noticed to affected property owners has not complied with Virgina law in numerous respects. Recent efforts to remedy that process has not been sufficient such that changes to the RSO would violate the property rights of resident effected, as well as their Due Process rights. Furthermore, although my property is adjacent to the RSO, I invite and welcome members of the Commission to visit my property at 301 Sophia Street -- the historic and iconic Pump House -- to see how the proposed revisions to the RSO will affect the property adjacent thereto (401 Sopia Street which is currently in the RSO). The RSO was intended to preserve the historic nature of that part of our community. Changes to 401 Sophia Street (which is in the RSO) will result in construction that will restrict the epic views of the symbolic railroad bridge crossing the Rappahannock at that location--perhaps the most photographed and painted view in Fredericksburg. Moreso, it will also obstruct the historic view of the Pump House, possibly one of three structures most associated with Fredericksburg. Moreover, the view across the Rappahannock to Ferry Farm--where our first President was raised--will also be marred. At the very least, 401 Sophia Street should remain within the RSO, though I also agree with others that the RSO should remain in its entirety. In sum, any decision to jettison the RSO is simply inviting costly litigation that the City should not endure. I appreciate your careful deliberation regarding this matter. Lawrence H. Fisher 301 Sophia Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 T. (412) 577-4040 lawfirst@lawrencefisher.com www.lawrencefisher.com  From: frank widic To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Hearing comments re: Railroad Station Overlay District (RSOD) Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 2:55:15 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. nWe do not support the removal from the City code of the RSOD. The removal of RSOD would significantly impact the Darbytown neighborhood by potentially dramatically affecting the character of this neighborhood. In the past, Special Use Permits were singularly permitted for the Lofts, the Janey Marshall and the Charles Street townhouses, because of critical historic preservation requirements. Now we are faced with the removal of the RSOD to make it easier for developers to build throughout our community by use of the Special Use Permit. It is essential that the City effect proper research and study to identify the traffic, safety and economic effects of future development around the railroad station. A neighborhood development plan for our area would allow our community to decide what our area should look like and define how our neighborhood should grow and accommodate future change. We are very concerned that our neighborhood retain its character. Darbytown consists mostly of single family residential homes. The few non-residential buildings in Darbytown are low rise. The removal of the RSOD would make it easier for developers to construct buildings not in keeping with the height and character of existing commercial and residential structures in Darbytown Thank You, Maureen and Frank Widic 119 Caroline Street Fredericksburg, Va 22401 From: Paula Chow To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Railroad Station Overlay District Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:16:22 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 Planning Commissioners, I urge you to vote on retaining the current Railroad Station Overlay District (RSOD) as was established years ago as a buffer to protect the Darbytown District from the Downtown Commercial district. As many of our historic neighborhoods in Fredericksburg, Darbytown's historic features include all of its homes and businesses, not just a select section. The recent Special Use Permits for The Lofts, the Janey Marshall project and townhouses on Charles Street are sufficient and additional buildings will continue to gradually destroy the very unique and special neighborhood Darbytown currently is.   At what point will Fredericksburg turn the corner and no longer be the historic city for which it is known? If the majority of residents of Darbytown who live 24/7 in the very neighborhood in question are voicing opposition, what justifications do planning commission members have to vote differently? If you, a planning commission member, lived around the train station, what would your attitude be about the removal of the RSOD, seriously? You may represent a city mission perspective, but you must also consider representing Darbytown by listening to our concerns and to continue a dialogue as necessary. Developers obtaining Special Use Permits to build units will not be affordable housing. The luxury housing to be built will attract wealthy out-of-towners.   Additionally, development close to the railroad station and tracks is irresponsible and inappropriate. Accidents will occur as evidenced by the July 20, 2024 train derailment and increased train traffic is also in the future. Please do not vote to remove the RSOD from the Fredericksburg City code. Respectfully submitted, Paula Chow 132 Caroline Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 From: Trevor Spear To: Tanagra S. Cafferky Subject: [EXTERNAL] To be read at planning commission 12-11-24 Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 1:01:09 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. My name is Trevor Spear. I live at 320 Princess Anne St. I’ve lived in Darby town for nearly 9 years. I also live there for several years when I was in my 20s. I know the area intimately we have no parking. We do not have enough parking for the residence that are there. When the Janey Marshall building was renovated. There was parking in front of that building all the way to the train station. After six months that parking was removed. Which put further strain on the parking in our area. I was also told that they were going to build a parking lot where the barn is on that property they owned it for five years. You as the governing agency were completely within your rights to tell them that he could not renovate that building until he had substantial parking for that building. That was not done and I don’t know that that building will ever be taken down or The parking lot will ever be put in. At this point what incentive does the owner of the Jenny market building have to put in the parking lot? The condo is built on Frederick Street ruined the Parking on that street. As far as I’m aware that is the only street side parking that has a 75 foot long fire lane in front of the building. All parking in Derby town should be resident only. We have no parking. We have no room for anyone else to build anything else in that area. I spent the majority of my life working and selling new homes. There is no way to put in more homes in this area and not adversely affect the lives of the people that currently live in Darby town . Trevor Spear  From: Val Keane To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] RSOD Comments Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 6:40:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  I am writing to state my opposition to the Railroad Station Overlay District (RSOD) being removed from the City Code. As a resident of Darbytown for over 25 years, I appreciate why the RSOD was incorporated into the City Code in 1991. It was primarily put in place to provide a “buffer” between the residential neighborhood of Darbytown and the Downtown Commercial area; to blindly remove it without further study shows a disregard for the residents who are directly impacted. I respectfully request that you do not support the removal of the RSOD from the City Code. Valerie Keane 300 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Sent from my iPad Railroad Station Overlay District in the Commercial Downtown District December 11, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting  The development process includes a review of vehicular and pedestrian safety with each project. In addition, the City has many planned transportation improvements to enhance safety and mobility for both pedestrians and vehicles in this area: • Converting one-way pairs to two-way traffic (11(7)-23/24). Converting one-way pairs to two- way is a traffic calming safety improvement focused on slowing traffic in neighborhood areas. *COMMUNITY MEETING DECEMBER 18 6-8 PM AT 601 CAROLINE STREET* • Expanding bicycle corridors including connecting the off-street shared use path network comprised of the Bankside Trail, the VCR Trail, and the Dixon Park Connector with an on-street bicycle boulevard along Caroline Street (11(7)-21/22). • Recently completed train platform and pedestrian access project at the Train Station to reroute pedestrian traffic so that it no longer must cross Princess Anne Street. • Upgrade of the Lafayette Boulevard intersections between Kenmore Avenue and Charles Street. The upgrade is focused on providing safe pedestrian crossings of Lafayette Boulevard and reducing the width of those crossings. 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 • 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.  • 1 Residential Unit – 7.33 “Trips Per Day” • 1,000 SF of Office Use – 10.77 “Trips Per Day” • 1,000 SF of Restaurant – 112.13 “Trips Per Day” 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. Area 5 Small Area Plan Planning Commission December 11, 2024 Bailey Thompson – Community Development Planner II  Summary • Identify Area 5 • Review Process • Transect Map and Land Use Focus Areas • Review Historic Resources Map • Review Mobility Maps • Review Uplands Open Space Expansion • Review Zoning Map Amendment • Next Steps Where in the City are we?  Plan Timeline Community Meeting Community Meeting Project Kickoff P.C. Discussion P.C. Discussion #1 #2 June 7, 2023 September 13, 2023 November 8, 2023 September 20, 2023 November 16, 2023 P.C. Completes City Council Work P.C. Discussion P.C. Discussion Community Meeting Comment Session Transmittal January 10, 2024 February 14, 2024 #3 February 24, 2024 April 10, 2024 May 28, 2024 Area 5 Report Architectural Review P.C. Concept Architectural Review Board Discussion Discussion P.C. Discussion Converted to Small Board Discussion October 23, 2024 Area 5 Plan September 23, 2024 September 25, 2024 October 14, 2024 City Council Architectural Review P.C. Public Hearing Initiation Board Discussion November 12, 2024 December 11, 2024 November 12, 2024  Transect Map T-4 T-5C Civic T-4 T-1 Preserved Open Space Civic T-3E Sub-Urban Edge T-3E T-3 T-3 Sub-Urban T-4 T-4 T-4 Civic T-3 T-4 General Urban T-5C Core Corridor Civic Civic T-3E T-4 T-1  Village Transition Area Potential for Walkable Commercial, Entertainment, Dining, and Service Uses Character Structure Designations (more detail to come) • Period of significance of 1946 (completion of the Route 1 Bypass) through 1974 (1973 oil embargo/general decline in new construction in vicinity). Future Form Based Code potential: • Focus on Frontages • Shared Access and Rear Loaded Parking • Transitional Zones (Height steps, 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  Zoning Map Amendment • Rezone Commercial Shopping Center to Commercial Highway • Adopt Form-Based Regulations • Public frontage (below) – complete street with pedestrian orientation • Private frontage – consistent building envelope and parking / service located behind the buildings  Form-Based Code Focus primarily on the “form” • Relationship of the buildings to each other and the public realm • Form and mass of buildings • Scale and type of streets Where in the City? • “T-5C Core-Corridor” designations within the Commercial-Highway Zoning District • “T-4M & T-5M” designations within the Creative Maker Zoning District • Planned Development Zoning Districts  Form-Based Code Primary Components: A) Public Component • Between the street center line and the public right-of-way line B) Private Component • Yards, building placement tools, and parking lot placement tools on private property C) Building Type Permitted • Identify building types and frontages • Setbacks, building orientation, transparency, mass, scale, and building façade activation  T5-C Core Corridor Transect Focus to retrofit and redevelopment of auto-oriented shopping centers into mixed-use nodes with human-scaled urban streets Applies with redevelopment incorporating residential or mixed-use Legal Application: Zoning Map Amendment to Apply T-5C transect on Commercial Highway Zoning District parcels For Small Area 5: • Rezoning from Commercial Shopping Center to Commercial Highway • Activation of T5-C Core-Corridor Transect  T5-C Core Corridor Transect Small Area T5-C Transect 6 Activation Small Area 3 Small Area 10  Zoning Map Commercial Shopping Center (CSC) Small Area rezoning to 6 Commercial Highway (CH) Small Area 3  T5-C Core Corridor Transect – Area 3 • Required 4 parcels to be rezoned CSC to CH • Recommended in Small Area 3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Approved as amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance • Approved July 9, 2019  T5-C Core Corridor Transect – Area 6 • Required 5 parcels be rezoned from CSC to CH • Recommended in Small Area 6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Approved as amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance • Approved July 9, 2019  T5-C Core Corridor Transect – Area 10 • Existing CH zoning • Application of the T5-C Transect • Approved alongside Small Area 10 Comp. Plan Amendment • Approved Sep. 10, 2024  Neighborhood Focus Neighborhood Conservation Districts: • Building Width Averaging • Building Scale • Minimum Façade Transparency • Required Façade Features • Context-Based Housing Arrangement • Review of Demolition 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  Area 5 Historic Foundation 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  Character Structures 24 designated buildings as Character Structures in the Local Inventory of Historic Structures • Architectural Review Board Action on Nov. 12, 2024 Benefits of Character Structure Designation • Qualification for exemptions in the International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC) and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) such as parking requirements and interior modifications. • Priority given to adaptive reuse where form-based code applies. Flexibility in site development standards. • Policy language and documentation of resources provides support for preservation in entitlement processes.  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: • Reinstitute On-Street Parking • 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 Spring Park and Connecting Via Downtown Connector and William Street Campus Walk  Next Steps • Planning Commission Public Hearing– Tonight • Amendment to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan to Adopt a New Small Area Plan for Planning Area 5 – Recommend Approval • Amendments to the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Approximately 13.2007 Acres of Land Located in Planning Area 5 from Commercial Shopping Center to Commercial Highway and to Adopt Form-Based Regulations, as Recommended in the Draft Small Area Plan for Area 5 – Recommend Approval Zoning Map Future Land Use Map