Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 2025 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 Susanna Finn, Chairwoman Mike Craig, Director Carey Whitehead, Vice-Chairman Kelly Machen, Zoning Administrator Dugan Caswell , Secretary Bailey Thompson, Community Development Planner David Durham (remote) Tanagra Cafferky, Administrative Assistant Mary-Margaret Marshall Josh Summits, Director of Economic Development & Jane McDonald Tourism Joseph Winterer William Morris, Director of Public Works 1. CALL TO ORDER [00:01:27] Chairwoman Finn 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 [00:04:23] There were seven (six in-person, one remote) members in attendance of the meeting at the call to order. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA [00:04:43] There were no changes to the agenda. Ms. Whitehead moved to approve the agenda, Mr. Caswell seconded. Motion passed 7-0. 5. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICIES, ORDINANCES, OR APPLICATIONS None. 6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR DISCLOSURES OF CONTACT None. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARING – New [00:05:54] (Attachment) A. Technology Overlay District: The following four items are under consideration for the creation of a Technology Overlay District in the area generally known as Celebrate Virginia South in the North End of Small Area 1: a. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment modifying the North End of Small Area 1. CPA2501-0002; b. A Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment establishing a Technology Overlay District. UDOTAFY25-03; c. A Zoning Map Amendment applying the Technology Overlay District to 253 +/- acres in the North End of Small Area 1. ZMA2501-0008; and d. A Zoning Proffer Amendment for the Neon Project (GPIN 7860-50-3126 and 7860- 40-5307) to permit uses consistent with the Technology Overlay District. ZMA2501-0007 Mr. Craig introduced Josh Summits, Director of Economic Development & Tourism (EDT). Mr. Summits said the presentation will be split into 3 parts: • Josh Summits will present the Technology Overlay vs. Mixed-Use Development: Fiscal Analysis and Impact Analysis • Kelly Machen will present the Review Four Items Under Consideration: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Proffer Amendment for the Neon Project • Mike Craig will present the Points of Discussion and Recommendation Mr. Summits presented. Mr. Summits reviewed two development scenarios for the land proposed for the TOD - the Technology Overlay style development including data centers and a Mixed-Use Development scenario more similar to planning concepts previously submitted to the City for the area. In December of 2024, Mangum Economics was commissioned to look at the economic and fiscal impacts of both scenarios. Wetland Studies and Solutions (WSSI) was commissioned to look at the environmental considerations of both scenarios. These items were discussed in the January 2025 work session. Mr. Summits reviewed the finding comparisons of the scenarios and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) Study for fiscal revenue, traffic impact, air quality, electricity usage, public services and emergency services. Mr. Summits explained the difference in tax revenue between the two scenarios. Mr. Summits discussed the study’s findings on water usage, noise, and other environmental considerations as well as the recreational amenities in the area. Ms. Machen gave a brief review of the four items under consideration. They include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Unified Development Ordinance Amendment, and a Zoning Map Amendment to create and apply the TOD. A proffer amendment for the NEON project site was also reviewed. Mr. Craig reviewed the timeline of the TOD. Mr. Craig outlined TOD discussion points chart as they relate to appropriate use and modification needs for the site: Minimum Campus Size, Water & Sewer, Noise, set-backs, buildable areas, river crossings, building heights, viewsheds of sight lines from the river, and trail access. Ms. Finn opened the floor to the Dais for questions for staff. Ms. Whitehead, Mr. Summits, and Mr. Craig discussed power generation needs as outlined in the JLARC study and bills that have come before the state house. Ms. Whitehead discussed environmental goals and the Comprehensive Plan including how light and noise from data center uses could impact on wildlife. Discussion included the boundaries of the TOD and the preservation areas in the Comprehensive Plan, the existing conditions of the Celebrate Virginia site, lighting standards, and state and federal environmental requirements. Ms. Whitehead, Mr. Summits, and Mr. Craig discussed the availability of land for development in the City and the two development scenarios that could potentially unfold in that area. Ms. Marshall reviewed the differences between one large data center campus vs. multiple small data centers on smaller parcels of land. Ms. Marshall and Mr. Craig discussed new river crossings and internal roads as it relates to the TOD layout. Discussion included the transportation component of the City’s overall Comprehensive Plan as well as setbacks. Mr. Winterer and Mr. Summits discussed alternative energy goal incentives. Other jurisdictions have larger amounts of land to dedicate to net zero goals, but the city does not, so the offset would be minimal. They also discussed recreational trails and potential ordinance items related to them as well as time of day noise ordinances. Mr. Durham brought up a possible point of discussion of residential setback consistency differences in the document. Mr. Durham and Mr. Summits discussed Water Use Service Agreements and Power Use Off-Set Purchase Agreements. Mr. Durham asked about generator hours in Northern Virginia versus the City of Fredericksburg generator hours. Northern Virginia includes air quality attainment zones that have added regulations about emission producing uses like generators. Mr. Caswell and Mr. Craig discussed the current UDO regulations on data centers. Data centers are permitted in most commercial zoning districts and light industrial by Special Use Permit and in the heavy industrial district by right. Industrial water cooling requires a special use permit. The draft ordinance included a series of performance standards and the proposed modifications are meant to be more stringent to reflect what has been learned since 2018. Mr. Caswell inquired about the Dominion Power Study. Mr. Summits responded that staff is scheduled to meet with Dominion Energy on February 21, 2025. Dominion’s Energy Transmission Team and Data Center Development Team will be in attendance. Mr. Caswell and Mr. Summits discussed how industrial water cooling could impact river water. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality regulates new water withdrawals and major discharges into the river. Ms. Finn inquired about the transmission lines timeline. Mr. Summits said that the timeline of delivery dates will be one of the topics of the February meeting with Dominion Power. Dominion Power requires a process to establish grid extensions and upgrades to the network. Ms. Finn and Mr. Summits discussed how many data center buildings would be built on a campus and how setbacks would affect building placement and size. Ms. Finn clarified that these ordinances and amendments brought before the Planning Commission tonight would only enable this type of development in this specific area and were not proposed in other areas of the city. Ms. Finn opened the public hearing for public comment. Ms. Finn invited the public to come to the lectern and state their name & address for the public record. Brent Hunsinger, Representative of the Friends of the Rappahannock, 3219 Fall Hill Ave, Fbg, VA 22401, spoke about his organization’s opposition to the TOD and would prefer a Special Use Permit instead. Mr. Hunsinger thanked staff for buffering changes and incentivizing additional stormwater treatment. Mr. Hunsinger asked staff to clarify the definition of bridging water, water use disclosure, include the reuse water cooling mandate, and to include the mandate that the viewshed apply to all buildings. Mr. Hunsinger would like to know how the location of the new transmission lines was determined and by whom. Mr. Hunsinger spoke about the 18% loss of the tree canopy. Marianne Diffin, 908 William St, Fbg, VA 22401, spoke in opposition to the TOD. Ms. Diffin would rather retain the original residential use plan and have the data centers apply for a Special Use Permit instead. Joe Brito, 544 West Rocky Run, Stafford, VA 22406, referenced a petition that was in favor of the river crossing. Mr. Brito asked why the river crossing is not in the Comprehensive Plan, given the congestion in the area. Mr. Brito cited the River Crossing Study done by Stafford County and the City of Fredericksburg. Mr. Brito would like more transparency of the TOD plans. The Silver Company provided two different plans, residential and TOD, of which only one lists recreational amenities, and the other would limit trail access. Parish Waters, 115 Carter St, Fbg, VA 22405, spoke about wanting more information leading up to this meeting. Mr. Waters would like more review of the decision-making process. Joanna Berger, 205 Berry Pl, Fbg, VA 22405, spoke in opposition to the TOD. Ms. Berger spoke about light pollution and its impact on native wildlife, energy usage and its impact on climate goals, and Data Centers impact on jobs lost due to AI creation. Ms. Berger would like the river and the land protected so that future generations could also enjoy nature. Alexanna Hengy, 2412 Lafayette Blvd, Fbg, VA 22401, spoke in opposition to the TOD. Ms. Hengy spoke about how climate change in the coming years will put a strain on resources, housing, and infrastructure. Ms. Hengy spoke about corporate accountability and consumer choices. Matt Kelly, 1309 Hanover St, Fbg, VA 22401, requested additional time to review the information including regional water and transmission capacities. Mr. Kelly would like to know what are the plans for future redevelopment of the data center sites once those centers become obsolete. Rebecca Brinkman, 1515 Princess Anne St, VA 22401, spoke in opposition to the TOD. Ms. Brinkman spoke about tax revenue and preserving the character of Fredericksburg. Ms. Brinkman would like the public to have more input before the City Council votes on the TOD proposal. Quinn Lipetz, 1204 William St, Fbg, VA 22401, spoke about how more research needs to be done about power purchase agreements, the impact on river water levels, and the past fiscal short sightedness of past administrations. Karen Cohen, Attorney with Gentry Lock, 919 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219. Ms. Cohen represents Allied Properties, which owns about a third of the land in the TOD. Ms. Cohen spoke about working with the city and the developer to create a campus environment within the TOD or as a residential site. Ms. Cohen spoke about minimum acreage calculations and how that might affect either plan. Mary Beth Rich, 1609 Augustine Ave, Fbg, VA 22401. Ms. Rich is a realtor and serving President of the Board of the Greater Fredericksburg Habit for Humanity. Ms. Rich requested that the City consider dedicating a portion of the potential data center tax revenue funds towards affordable housing projects, citing Henrico County’s project as an example. In this way, the city could help to create “Generational Wealth”. Ms. Finn requested that the public comment letters be read into the record (Attachment): Anika Rowe, 427 Woodford St, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote in opposition to the TOD. Ann Little, 726 William St, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote about alterations to the TOD. Donna Stanton, 921 Hanover St, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote in favor of the TOD, but had questions about water usage. Rachel Sargeant, Ward 3, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote in opposition to the TOD. Meghan Colon, 112 Clintock Dr, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote in opposition to the TOD. Rebecca Light, 207 Pitt St, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote to request to delay the TOD. Julie Kaye, 1616 Franklin St, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote in opposition to the TOD. Sue Sargeant, 1318 William St, Fbg, VA 22401, wrote in opposition to the TOD. Mr. Craig introduced Charlie Payne of the firm Hirschler representing the applicant. (Attachment) Mr. Payne presented the proffer amendment for the NEON Project Zoning Proffer Amendment for the Neon Project to permit uses consistent with the Technology Overlay District. Mr. Payne talked about noise level requirements, set-backs, and conservation easements. Mr. Payne timing and the regional data center market. Mr. Payne compared traffic counts, set-backs, and reviewed the property’s boundaries and easements. Mr. Payne noted the benefits to the city in tax revenue, construction jobs, and high-tech employment. Mr. Payne explained that the reason for the requirement of at least 150 acres of contiguous land is to incentivize a master developer to build the infrastructure needed. Smaller individual campuses would result in not having a uniform look and could create unintended impacts for this project. Mr. Payne reviewed the proposed reuse water system and temporary potable water bridging as a future reuse system goes online. The developer will build the water reuse system and the city will enter into a water service agreement to control the water system. Mr. Payne suggested possible changes to set- back requirements such as reducing the set-back between two same use properties. Mr. Payne noted that today’s modern data centers are very quiet and the increased noise from the cooling chillers is generally four months out of the year and is not year-round. Mr. Payne noted that the current Planned Development Commercial height is 90 feet and requested that it remain at that height to provide for more flexibility in setbacks and buffers. Ms. Finn opened the floor to the Planning Commission for questions. Ms. Finn asked staff to briefly review and compare the current proffer statement with the proposed amended proffer statement. Ms. Machen explained that the current proffer statement has plans for apartments in the back of the property with mixed-use commercial with apartments above in the front. The proposed amended proffer statement would allow for either the current plan or allow for another type of project under the TOD ordinance. Mr. Durham and Mr. Craig discussed Clean Energy Goals and the city’s operational resolution goal of being fossil free by 2035. Mr. Durham suggested that a developer be required to include building renewable energy sources at the same time of building construction and not wait for the development to become compliant at a later date. Mr. Durham discussed property ownership in the proposed TOD, which is approximately 250 acres. The minimum campus acreage required would be 150 acres, so the property owners would need to work in partnership in order to create a data center campus. Mr. Durham and Mr. Summits discussed the power sub-station requirements and ownership. Three 300 megawatt sub-stations would need to be built by the developers and then ownership would be turned over to Dominion Power. The power generated would be still dedicated to that user. Ms. Whitehead and Mr. Craig discussed sound testing, enforcement of sound rules, and increase sound due to equipment deterioration over time. Ms. Whitehead and Mr. Craig discussed the JLARC Study’s classification of data centers. The study states that Data Centers should be in industrial areas. The Unified Development Ordinance lists data centers as institutional use. Whether it is listed as industrial or institutional, the rules and regulations would still have to adhere to the same performance standards requirements. Ms. Marshall asked about renewable energy practices in the data center industry. Mr. Payne responded that the Amazon Campus is 100% renewable energy based through power credits and Spotsylvania Solar Facility generates 500 megawatts of power of which the power credits are purchased by Microsoft, Apple and other companies. Data Centers participate in renewable energy markets. Ms. Marshall asked what are the infrastructure impacts of a larger vs. smaller data center campus. Mr. Payne responded that larger uniform campus would be easier to incorporate set- backs, sub-station placements, power line placements, and better use of open space requirements. Ms. McDonald and Mr. Craig discussed the water service agreement that would need to be developed by Public Works Department and by City Council. Ms. Finn opened the floor to the Planning Commissioners for discussion. The Dais was given a work sheet with topic points for discussion. Ms. Finn outlined how the discussion would be conducted as the Dais moves through the topic points. A summary of the elements of the TOD discussed and a conclusion of the discussion follows: • Campus Size was discussed – No minimum acreage required. • River Visibility was discussed – No buildings should be visible from the river, including any accessory structures or building mounted equipment. • River trails were discussed – A campus shall provide for reasonable access to the Riverfront trail network along its perimeter within the TOD and encourage the developer to work with non-profit groups to minimize impacts to recreational trails. • River Crossing was discussed – Comprehensive Plan should be amended to include river crossing language that the city supports option A in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the UDO would state that the development must accommodate the city’s preferred river crossing and the modification to Carl D Silver Parkway.  • Generator noise was discussed - No exemption to db limits for generators should be included. • Hour based noise limits were discussed - Higher decibels levels during day hours from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. • Post development noise studies were discussed - Noise levels should be confirmed prior to an issuance of an occupancy permit and that the noise level be checked and certified as long as the facility is operational. • Noise test locations were discussed - Noise testing locations shall be at the property boundary and at any point within an adjacent property. • Industrial cooling water was discussed - additional clarification language should be added to denote no use of new or expanded groundwater intakes and the terminology about “industrial cooling” should be changed to “data center cooling”. • Ancillary on-site water treatment was discussed - William Morris, Director of Public Works explained the water treatment process including potential reasons for a water treatment facility on site to aid in water recycling and ensure water entering or leaving the site met standards. • A potential water service agreement was discussed - Water service agreements cover perpetual water use. The water service agreement review by City Council should include a public hearing process. Mr. Durham motioned to extend the meeting beyond the 11 p.m. time limit. Ms. Whitehead seconded. Motion carried 6-1. • Setbacks were discussed – A uniform setback to residential use should be 200’. Setback to street right-of-ways could be reduced to 25’. Setback from dedicated conservation easements should remain at 150’. • Building height were discussed – Building height limit should be 70’. • Clean energy agreements were discussed – 100% of the power for data center use should be obtained through clean energy sources or purchase of power agreements. Ms. Finn thanked her fellow commissioners and staff for working together through the review. Subsequent discussion included uses permitted by-right versus a special use permit requirement, the City Council’s requested review by the Planning Commission, the timeline for review, and the development of potential recommendations by the Planning Commission. Mr. Summits summarized the Dominion Power process for identifying and constructing new infrastructure and that public comment was part of the process on what route/s Dominion Power would propose as Dominion Power work through the development of scope. Public participation in that process was discussed as was the potential information to be considered at the upcoming meeting with Dominion Power on February 21st. Mr. Durham requested that staff scrutinize the draft ordinance for any discrepancies before sending it to City Council. Mr. Durham also requested that the staff report include a more complete summation of tonight’s deliberations, considerations, and recommendations when staff makes their presentation to City Council. Ms. Finn closed the public hearing. Mr. Durham made a motion to recommend approval of all four proposals with proposed changes to the various documents with the various recommended changes that the commission elucidated to staff. Mr. Caswell seconded the motion. Ms. Finn conducted a poll vote. Ms. Whitehead votes Nay. Ms. Marshall votes Nay. Ms. McDonald votes Nay. Mr. Winterer votes Nay. Mr. Durham votes Aye. Mr. Caswell abstains. Ms. Finn votes Aye. Motion fails 4 to 2 with 1 abstention. Ms. Whitehead motioned to recommend denial of the four proposals to the City Council. Ms. Marshall seconded the motion. Mr. Durham and Mr. Craig discussed what portions of the various properties could have a data center built on them without the TOD, but under the SUP process. Ms. Finn conducted a poll vote. Ms. Whitehead votes Aye. Ms. Marshall votes Aye. Ms. McDonald votes Aye. Mr. Winterer votes Nay. Mr. Durham votes Nay. Mr. Caswell votes Aye. Ms. Finn votes Nay. Motion passes 4 to 3 with no abstentions to recommend denial of the package as presented to us and as modified. [05:27:07] (Attachment)  B. Dominion Academy: A Special Use Permit (SUP) for a School at 1931 Plank Road (GPIN: 7779-22-2713) zoned Commercial Highway (C-H). SUP2412-0008. Kelly Machen presented the Dominion Academy application. Dominion Academy proposes a private school that would provide elementary through high school education for special needs children. The school would be the entire lower level of the building around back of the Westwood Shopping Plaza. The applicant has occupied the space since 2016 as an adult daycare facility. The adult daycare is moving to a larger facility, so Dominion would like to establish the academy here. There would be a approximately 20 students at first. Drop-off & Pick-up times would be staggered. The applicant is licensed through the Department of Education, accredited by the Virginia Association of Independent Special Education Facilities, and accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. Staff recommends approval subject to “SUP for Dominion Academy School” dated December 13, 2024. Valerie Fleck, Director of Dominion Education for Dominion Care presented the application on behalf of Dominion Academy which provides autism services and outpatient therapy waiver services. Ms. Fleck spoke about the underserved special education student population in the area and compared current use with future use. Hours of operation would be 8 am to 4 pm. Ms. Finn opened the floor for questions from the commissioners. Ms. Finn asked for clarification of the potential number of students. The school will start with 20 students and the facility has capacity for 50 students. Mr. Durham asked if there are other special needs schools in the area. Ms. Fleck responded that there is the Rivermont School and the Gladys Oberle School. Discussion included providing local schooling to cut down on long-distance transportation. Ms. Finn asked if there were any members of the public in council chambers who would like to speak on this item. There were none. Ms. Finn asked if there were any electronically submitted comments on this item. There were none. Ms. Finn closed the public hearing. Ms. Whitehead moved to recommend approval with the condition recommended by staff that the project move forward generally in compliance with the general development plan. Mr. Durham seconded the motion. No discussion. Ms. Finn polled the commission. Ms. Whitehead votes Aye. Ms. Marshall votes Aye. Ms. McDonald votes Aye. Mr. Winterer votes Aye. Mr. Durham votes Aye. Mr. Caswell votes Aye. Ms. Finn votes Aye. Motion passes, 7 – 0, to recommend approval. [05:46:46] (Attachment) C. Area 5 University / Central U.S. Route 1 Small Area Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment (Continued Public Hearing). CPA2024-04 / ZMA2410-0006. - A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Chapters 10 and 11 of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Small Area Plan for Planning Area 5 - A Zoning Map Amendment to rezone approximately 13.2007 acres of land from Commercial Shopping Center to Commercial Highway, and to adopt form-based regulations, as recommended in the draft Small Area Plan for Area 5 The Planning Commission deferred the public hearing to the March 12 meeting as no one was in the chamber and it was past midnight. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Finn asked if there were any members of the public in council chambers who would like to make a comment on any topics relevant to the Planning Commission. There were none. Ms. Finn asked if there were any electronically submitted comments on any topics relevant to the Planning Commission. There were none. 11. ADOPTION OF MINUTES None. 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS [05:49:56] A. Chairman Comments Chairwoman Finn noted: Tonight’s work was detailed and that she was proud to be part of this group. B. Commissioner Comments Ms. Whitehead wanted to call attention to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ invitation to the public for an informational hearing on the proposed nomination of the Fall Hill Planning Commission Regular Session February 12, 2025 Technology Overlay District & Economic and Environmental Considerations Presentation Summary • Technology Overlay vs. Mixed-Use Development: • Fiscal Analysis • Impact Analysis • Review Four Items Under Consideration: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment • Zoning Map Amendment • Proffer Amendment for the Neon Project • Points of Discussion and Recommendation  Technology Overlay District (TOD) Review of Economic and Fiscal Impacts and Environmental Considerations Mixed-Use Scenario vs. TOD Technology Overlay District (TOD) Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Mixed-Use Development Includes: • 1,942 new residential units, • 120-key room hotel, • 150-bed assisted living facility, • 75,500 gross square feet of warehouse • 50,000 gross square feet of office space, and • 302,500 gross square feet of commercial space Technology Overlay District (TOD) Mangum Economics – Executive Summary Findings 1. New residential, retail, restaurant, hotel, and other commercial development located at Celebrate South would have a significant economic and fiscal impact on Fredericksburg. • The net annual fiscal benefit to the City from the proposed Celebrate South project(s) would be approximately $3.1 million. 2. New data center development would have a significant economic and fiscal impact on Fredericksburg. • A single 250,000 gross square foot data center, the City would receive approximately $5.0 million in annual tax revenue from ongoing commercial operations of a single data center. • A 12 building data center campus = $59,460,000 annually in new City tax revenue • Data centers place very few demands on public services. They create little traffic, internally provide a high degree of security and fire suppression, so therefore place few demands on City emergency services. Technology Overlay District (TOD) JLARC’s 2024 Study Relating to Community Impacts of Data Centers Air Pollution • Despite the increase in data center emissions in recent years, their overall contribution to regional air pollution is still relatively small. In Northern Virginia, emissions from these generators make up less than 4% of regional nitrogen oxides emissions and less than 0.1% of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. • Overall air quality in the region has improved, with reductions from other sources like vehicles outpacing the rise in data center emissions. • DEQ staff believe the emissions from these generators are unlikely to have significant adverse effects, and the agency has initiated a three-year study to better understand their local air quality impacts in Northern Virginia. If the study identifies any concerns, DEQ has the authority to introduce additional regulations. • Federal and state regulations impose strict limits on when and how long backup generators can operate. • Data centers cannot run generators indefinitely, even in emergencies, as they would soon exceed their emissions limits. Technology Overlay District (TOD) Mangum Economics – Executive Summary Findings 3. Data centers in Virginia use diesel backup generators to maintain operations during power outages, contributing to air pollution, but their overall impact on regional air quality is minimal. Technology Overlay District (TOD) JLARC’s 2024 Study Relating to Community Impacts of Data Centers Energy Reliability • Electric utilities in Virginia are responsible for ensuring grid reliability before adding large customers, like data centers. While utilities must serve any customer within their service area, they prioritize grid stability over immediate service. • PJM, the regional transmission organization, requires utilities to secure enough generation capacity to meet the next three years of demand and maintain a reserve margin for peak load events. While the grid can currently meet demand, PJM forecasts a potential shortfall in reserve capacity by 2030. • Transmission planning has proven effective in protecting grid reliability. For example, Dominion paused adding new data center loads in Loudoun County in 2022 to address regional transmission constraints, and the company expects to resolve these issues by 2025. Additionally, Dominion informed customers in 2024 that adding new large loads would take 12 to 36 months longer due to the increasing demand and necessary transmission planning. This process ensures that new data center loads are added without compromising grid reliability. Technology Overlay District (TOD) JLARC’s 2024 Study Relating to Community Impacts of Data Centers Energy Costs • Utilities, such as Dominion, incur costs to build, operate, and maintain the energy grid, which they recover through customer rates. These rates are designed to allocate costs based on customer type. • The State Corporation Commission (SCC) regularly reviews utility rates to ensure they align with cost recovery needs. For instance, Dominion’s rates are reviewed every one to two years. • A JLARC-commissioned study found that current rates fairly allocate costs to different customer classes, including data centers, which pay based on energy use and system demands. However, as demand from data centers grows, it could increase overall utility costs, potentially affecting all customers, including non-data center ones. • While utility rate reviews aim to allocate costs appropriately, residential customers may still experience cost increases as a result of growing data center demand. Analysis suggests that a typical residential customer could face higher costs, potentially adding up to $33 per month by 2040. Technology Overlay District (TOD) Mangum Economics – Executive Summary Findings 4. Electric utilities in Virginia prioritize grid reliability when adding large customers like data centers, following federal and state standards, with ongoing planning and transmission studies to ensure sufficient generation capacity and address potential shortfalls, while managing the impact of increased demand on the grid. 5. As demand from data centers grows, utility costs in Virginia may increase, with data centers covering most infrastructure costs, but residential customers could still experience higher rates due to the need for expanded energy capacity and transmission upgrades that benefit all customers. This increase could be offset if localities use new tax revenue from data center development to lower real estate tax rates for residents. Technology Overlay District (TOD) Wetlands Studies and Solutions (WSSI) – Memo Summary Overview • Summarizes the potential environmental effects of developing the general area in the City of Fredericksburg (City) known as Celebrate Virginia South. The evaluation focused on two development scenarios: (1) a data center with campus, and (2) a mixed-use development that would include hotel, retail/commercial, and residential uses. • Evaluation of the following resources: Visual Character, Noise, Water Use, Environmental Justice, Public Recreation, Impervious Surface and Stormwater Runoff, Surface Waters (e.g. streams and wetlands), Threatened and Endangered Species, and Cultural Resources. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Visual Character • The visual character of the Study Area would change substantially with either development scenario. Both data center and the commercial components of mixed-use development can be deemed unsightly to nearby residents. • Visual mitigation measures such as landscape screening, architectural walls, landscaped earthen berms, adequate vegetation buffers, and appropriate setback distances for infrastructure can reduce the visibility of the data center. This is consistent with the proposed TOD ordinance. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Noise • Per the December 9, 2024 Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) it is noted that while there have been some data center facilities with noise complaints, the majority of data centers have not been subject to any complaints either due to their location or other design considerations. • Of the facilities that JLARC reviewed they estimated a range of 40 to 59 decibels (dB) which is on the level of normal conversation. • Mixed-use development, while not receiving recent scrutiny, will also have an increase of noise mainly through the addition of traffic. According to a study conducted by J. Urban Health, urban residential noise levels also range from 45 to 60 dBA. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Noise RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City require site specific noise studies if a development is proposed adjacent to residential uses in order to evaluate the base level in the Study Area compared to projected operational noise. The proposed 60 dBA (day) and 55 dBA (night) limits are similar to other jurisdictions and would be in line with expected noise levels for a mixed-use development. This is consistent with proposed TOD Ordinance. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Water Use • Water use was estimated for both scenarios, both of which result in substantial amounts of water, the primary difference being that mixed-use development would use nearly 100% potable water, and the data center would use approximately 5% of its water as potable. • According to JLARC’s December 2024 Draft Report Data Centers in Virginia, data center water use accounted for less than 0.5 percent of total state withdrawals. • The City’s wastewater treatment plant will undergo upgrades to increase its capacity from 4.5 million gallons per day capacity to 6.0 million gallons per day. Neither development scenario is anticipated to exceed the daily capacity even on peak use days such as hot days in the summer when irrigation, pools, and cooling water use in the data center is highest. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Water Use Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Water use RECOMMENDATION: Once either development scenario proposes specific plans, it is recommended that the City analyze water use to determine how the development would affect the supply of potable and reclaimed water and the capacity of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. These recommendations are consistent with the City’s site planning process. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Environmental Justice RECOMMENDATION: Communicate accurate and current information about any proposed plans to educate the residents and the churches about the projects (either mixed-use or TOD), and to engage representative community leaders and stakeholders in the planning process if concerns from these communities arise. This recommendation is consistent with the City’s site planning process. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Public Recreation • Neither development scenario would directly affect the use of or access to the beach or ridgeline trails; however, the trails around the quarry could be affected by data center development and the need for security and public safety. There is potential for indirect visual and noise impacts from either development. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – Impervious Surface and Stormwater Discharge • In either development scenario, an increase of impervious surfaces and resultant stormwater discharge is expected. • Data centers have large impervious surface footprints with large buildings, equipment yards, etc. However, a mixed-use development will have a similar amount of imperviousness through the construction of the various residential/commercial buildings, the required support roadway infrastructure, and other appurtenant facilities. Technology Overlay District (TOD) WSSI Summary Findings – U.S. / State Surface Waters, Endangered and Threatened Species, and Cultural Resources RECOMMENDATION: In either development scenario, the project will be subject to state and federal laws about environmentally sensitive areas and cultural resources. Planning Commission Regular Session February 12, 2025 Technology Overlay District & NEON Proffer Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Add language to Chapter 11/Land Use Planning Area 1: Celebrate Virginia /Central Park: • Include opportunity for a technology campus(es) within the North End Area Plan T-4 General Urban Transect and the North and Riverfront Regulating Plan • Include option to vacate a portion of Gordon W. Shelton Boulevard to accommodate technology development • Specify utilization of water reuse systems instead of potable water • Promote access to recreational opportunities along the riverfront as part of any technology campus design Unified Development Ordinance Amendment • Establish a Technology Overlay District • Promote technology centers where new/existing infrastructure could support the proposed by-right uses including: • higher education/vocational schools, data centers, research/development, light manufacturing, and utilities • Includes standards for the Rappahannock River viewshed, setbacks, buffers, landscaping, noise, noise studies, water-cooling, fencing, stormwater, lots/streets, building height, and lighting. • Update the use standards for Data Centers • Add requirements for differentiated surfaces and building façade materials • Add additional screening for accessory equipment Zoning Map Amendment • Apply Technology Overlay District to 11 parcels (253.44 acres) GPIN ACRES ADDRESS 7769-47-1903 75.53 (Portion) 0 FALL HILL AVE 7769-49-5130 19.66 (Portion) 0 GORDON W SHELTON 7769-59-8455 1.96 3001 GORDON W SHELTON 7769-69-0025 4.63 0 GORDON W SHELTON 7860-40-5307 42.51 0 GORDON W SHELTON 7860-50-3126 20.50 3050 GORDON W SHELTON 7860-50-7578 21.74 6001 GORDON W SHELTON 7860-62-2096 35.86 5030 GORDON W SHELTON 7860-71-9630 27.45 (Portion) 6500 GORDON W SHELTON 7769-68-0346 3.52 0 Carl D Silver Parkway 7860-61-7602 0.076 0 Gordon W Shelton Blvd NEON Proffer Amendment • Owner/applicant request to amend the proffers for the NEON at Celebrate Virginia South project (approved via Ordinance #23- 30 on December 12, 2023) • Would permit a data center project subject to the proposed Technology Overlay District • Would retain option to develop as originally approved • Covers 63 acres: zoned Planned Development-Residential (56 acres) and Planned Development-Mixed Use (7 acres). • Access to the ACA is retained with both projects TOD Review and Recommendation January 14 – Joint Work Session Overview / Regular Session initiation of UDOTA, ZMA, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment January 22 – Public Input Session with City Council and Planning Commission February 12 – Planning Commission Public Hearing February 25 – City Council Public Hearing TOD Review and Recommendation Two Issues: 1. Is the proposed Technology Overlay District appropriate in this area? 2. Based on public input and review, should modifications to the Technology Overlay District be recommended to City Council? TOD Review and Recommendation Points of Discussion – Minimum Campus Size: 1. At the December 10, 2024 work session, staff initially recommended 150 acres as the minimum acreage, but staff presented a recommendation of 75 acres as the minimum at the January 14 work session. During its January 14 regular meeting, the Council directed that 150 acres be the minimum for purposes of discussion in the initiating resolution. TOD Review and Recommendation Points of Discussion – Water and Sewer: 1. Consider specifying no new groundwater or surface water sources for industrial water cooling? 2. Consider specifying that industrial cooling effluent water, if not treated and / or retained directly on-site, shall be redirected to the City’s public sewer system? 3. Consider specifying that ancillary water and sewer treatment facilities are subject to approval by the Public Works Department? TOD Review and Recommendation Points of Discussion – Noise: 1. Consider specifying requiring that Data Center generator yards be screened from residential uses by either the principal building or an engineered sound wall and that any generator(s) shall be enclosed and muffled for mitigating sound? 2. Consider striking item D.6.c from the draft ordinance, which granted an exemption to emergency generator testing from the maximum noise levels? 3. Consider adjusting the hours of “day” and “night” in the draft ordinance from 7:00 am to midnight (day) / midnight to 7:00 am (night) to 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. (day) and 9:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m. (night). 4. Consider specifying that sound measurements must be met at any point on adjacent properties (not just at the property line)? TOD Review and Recommendation Points of Discussion – Noise (continued): 5. Consider more specificity in the description of a Post-development noise conditions study such that: • It is conducted annually in perpetuity; • It is conducted during peak data center operations; and • That additional standards are cited for the study preparer. TOD Review and Recommendation TOD Review and Recommendation TOD Review and Recommendation Points of Discussion – Setbacks and Height: 1. Consider applying a 200’ setback from residential uses in addition to residential zoning districts? 2. Discuss setbacks to internal campus roads (such as a new River crossing), Interstate 95, and adjacent areas that are in deeded conserved open space. Technology Overlay District (TOD) Technology Overlay District (TOD) Rappahannock River Viewshed Analysis Study Technology Overlay District (TOD) Rappahannock River Viewshed Analysis Study Technology Overlay District (TOD) Rappahannock River Viewshed Analysis Study TOD Review and Recommendation Points of Discussion –Height: 1. Consider reduced heights to limit data center development in portions of or the whole site to 2-story (70’). 2. Clarifying that the viewshed language prohibiting visible buildings from the River applies to all buildings on the site. TOD Review and Recommendation TOD Review and Recommendation Points of Discussion – Setbacks and Height: 1. Consider stating that a campus should provide for reasonable access to the Riverfront trail network along its perimeter within the TOD and encourage the developer to work with non-profit groups to minimize impacts to recreational trails. 2. WSSI Study --- As noted in the City’s Small Area 1 Plan, “Recreational activities should be managed through responsible partnerships with community and institutional organizations that promote awareness of the Riverfront as an important asset of the City and protect the history and environmental sensitivity of the area.” TOD Review and Recommendation Recommendation: Hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Proffer Amendment for the Neon Conditional Zoning and formulate a recommendation for the City Council. NEON at Celebrate Virginia South Proffer Amendment City of Fredericksburg Zoning Case #ZMA2501-0007 Application Overview • NEON Property includes GPIN Nos. 7860-50-3126 & 7860-40-5307 (total of 63 acres) • Previous rezoning approved on December 12, 2023, as Ordinance 23-20 • Property is currently zoned Planned Development Commercial (“PD-C”) and Planned Development Mixed Use (“PD-MU”) • Request for a Proffer Amendment to allow, in addition to the uses approved under Ordinance 23-20, the uses detailed under the City’s Technology Overlay District  Application Overview (continued) • The NEON Property is conducive for viable data center development • The NEON Property and adjacent land assemblages as shown and encouraged under the TOD, will encourage an economically viable data center campus • Data center development will generate greater local tax revenues & high paying tech jobs (e.g. approximately $18 million annually in gross tax revenues for every 1 MM SF; plus supporting services, construction, and materials vendors) • Data centers also create less traffic than what is currently allowed as the project stands – 0.75 trips per 1000 sq.ft. (e.g. vs. Wegman’s roughly 13,000 trips per day and NEON’s 6,400)  Key Points Regarding TOD • Subsection 72-34.8 B (1): Minimum acreage should be 150 vs. 75  Consistent with the City’s long-term PD-C goals of requiring 150 acre of contiguous land areas: Section 72-33.2 A (2) of the UDO provides: “The district should be reserved for development on contiguous land areas of at least 150 acres under single ownership or control capable of containing an aggregate gross floor area in excess of 500,000 square feet”  The purpose for this requirement is to establish a uniform development pattern and to ensure a master developer will build all of the necessary infrastructure  Large campus data center projects are the current trend and consistent with the JLARC study. AWS’ average campus size in the region is roughly 423 acres  A smaller data center campus will cause additional impacts, including the need for more and unnecessary transmission facilities and overhead lines  Key Points Regarding TOD • Subsection 72-34.8 B (1): Minimum acreage should be 150 vs. 75 (continued)  Large campus style development areas will ensure viable square footage yield and adequate area to meet setback, buffer and open space requirements, especially given that the overall TOD campus is roughly 250 acres  Anything less than 150 acres will not create efficiencies of scale, nor encourage clustering of data center uses within the TOD and may disincentivize a master developer to make the capital investment to construct the necessary infrastructure for the desired campus  Any standalone 75 acre minimum site will have to build necessary onsite and offsite infrastructure to develop a data center project on its property. This will certainly reduce the maximum yield for data center space and eat-up a lot of the said acreage due to the need to locate multiple substations and additional transmission facilities and meet the City’s development standards for open space, setbacks and buffers. Again, a smaller campus is also not advantageous to the City’s economic development goals under the TOD Key Points Regarding TOD  Subsection D (2)(d): (Setbacks from roads) We recommend this setback be 100 feet vs.150 feet adjoining a public road  Subsection D (2)(f): (Minimum Setbacks) Setbacks between similar data center uses and industrial uses (whether or not under common ownership) should be 25 feet vs. 100 feet and under common ownership that adjoin even less (meet fire code)  Subsection D (6): (Sound max weighted decibels) We recommend the following:  The 55 dBA and 60 dBA standards should apply only if the data center use adjoins a residential use  If a data center use adjoins a commercial use the standard should be 60 dBA and 65 dBA  If a data center use adjoins a similar use or industrial use that standard should be 72 dBA and 79 dBA. Key Points Regarding TOD  Subsection D (7)(d): (Sound Study Period) We suggest a period of 5 years vs. 10. At the end of the day, the data center user must comply with the ordinance standard  Subsection D(11): (Building Heights): In order to ensure maximum development flexibility, we recommend the current draft height standard remain at 90 feet. This will allow for not only development flexibility (e.g. increased square footage), but also an opportunity for greater setbacks and buffering, and open space. Please also note that under the City’s current PD-C District, the maximum allowable building height is 90 feet. Still must comply with river view requirements Questions?  Karen L. Cohen cohen@gentrylocke.com (804) 956-2065 (Direct Dial) (804) 205-4926 (Cell) February 12, 2025 BY EMAIL TO: Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council – For Distribution to Council (tlacey@fredericksburgva.gov) Planning Commission (PlanningCommissionMembers@fredericksburgva.gov) Dear Madam Mayor, Members of City Council, and Members of the Planning Commission: I represent Allied Properties (“Allied”). My client owns about one-third of the land of the proposed Technology Overlay District (TOD).1 Preliminary plans that have been vetted by a data center developer show that Allied’s site can yield a data center campus with a substation and three, two- story buildings consisting of approximately 1.3 million square feet, generating annual revenue to the City of $25 million.2 One entity need not own the entire TOD in order for the desired development to occur. Development may involve the TOD’s two owners and may occur in phases. The City EDA’s load letter request to Dominion identifies “multiple property ownership” (not a single owner), and the request contemplates a power ramp-up in stages over an eight-year period from 2027 to 2035. The conceptual “site plan” the EDA provided in response to Dominion’s request for information identifies the Allied property as a possible location for one of at least three substations in the TOD; the other two substations are shown on the Silver-controlled properties. As with any development, final site plan approvals will require coordination for utilities, security, access, or otherwise as may be appropriate for the particular type of development, while reasonably aligning with the City’s vision of a “campus-like atmosphere.” See Proposed Ordinance, § 72-34.8 (Purpose and Intent). Unlike a large, planned development district with multiple uses and many owners, here, there are only two owners and a relatively small overlay district designed to primarily promote one type of use (data centers). Thus, an acreage minimum really is not necessary to achieve the TOD’s goals; the market will take care of that. Nevertheless, if the City wants to set a minimum, it needs to be 75 (not 150), so that data center developers who are interested in developing a data center campus on Allied’s approximately 79 acres clearly understand that data center development on this land is by-right, regardless of what may or may not materialize on the adjacent property. As you know, the Neon proffer amendment allows the owner to develop their already approved apartments or a “data center alternative.” We understand that a data center deal is in the works, but the reality is 1 Allied entities, Rappahannock HP LLC and Rappahannock AG LLC, own TOD parcels 7769-47-1903 and 7769- 68-0346, respectively, totaling approximately 79 acres. 2 This is based on the City’s information that a 250,000-square-foot data center building generates $4,955,000 in annual tax revenue (source: Mangum Economics report). 919 East Main Street, Suite 1130 Richmond, VA 23219 • PO Box 780 Richmond, VA 23218-0780 that both options remain on the table for that owner, and a data center will not be built in a day. Therefore, the Allied property’s immediate marketability cannot be tied to its neighbor’s development plans; it must be able to reasonably market its own property for by-right development of a data center campus on its +/-79 acres, a campus that is estimated to generate $25 million in annual revenue to the City. Obviously, other important factors influence marketability, particularly the availability and timing for getting power – but ensuring that a data center campus is a by-right land use on Allied’s land is one key factor that is well within the City’s control at this moment. We are happy to discuss this further with you or answer any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Karen L. Cohen cc: Kelly J. Lackey, City Attorney Timothy J. Baroody, City Manager Michael J. Craig, Planning Director, Community Planning & Building Joshua A. Summits, Director, Economic Development & Tourism Michael S. Kitchen, P.E., IMEG James H. Oeste, Jr., CSM, Vice President of Real Estate, Allied Properties John J. Yannacone, Manager, Rappahannock HP LLC and Rappahannock AG LLC, c/o Allied Properties 2 From: annelittle726@gmail.com To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] comment for public hearing today Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:36:55 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 Commission The decision on Data Centers have been rushed beyond measure. The city is desperate for the income from data centers because our city has overspent for too many years on projects that other cities have been more careful with their citizens tax dollars. I urge the city to: slow down. Hold public forums and get citizen input, Make this project subject to a “Special Use Permit” - not “By Right” – keep control to protect the public Use air cooling instead of water cooling- protect our drinking water and river Require extremely strict noise regulations - protect our neighbors from the constant humming sound. Place large (1000 ft) buffer zones around the entire facility and be required to plant dense stands of trees in the buffers. Require the data developer to save as much tree canopy as possible and plant more trees wherever possible. explore how less energy can be used and mitigate climate change and power use. Do we really need 12 data centers? Greed is not always good. limit the building of data centers to as few as possible to protect our city and our citizens. Anne Little 726 William St Fredericksburg, VA 22401 540-207-4298 annelittle726@gmail.com From: Wayne & Donna Stanton To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please read for tonite"s planning commission Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:39:39 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. We have reviewed many of the materials provided as part of the Technology Overlay District (TOD) which have been provided.    Generally, in favor of the data center development in the proposed area.   However, concerned about the water usage.     Not sure what has to be agreed upon for the rezoning request, vs the detail plans for the data center (which we understand, will be reviewed by staff).      The zoning request indicate the use of reclaimed water.       We don’t see anywhere where there is a commitment of when, how, where and how expensive to design / build / maintain the “infamous” purple line which will be built from the waste water plant (near Dixon Park) approximately 8 miles to the TOD.     Will there be a requirement for the recycled water be available before the data center is brought online.    If not online, how much potable water is available from the city to provide to the data center(s) vs what is needed to run the data centers?     We all know that water is a limiting resource in the area, and who gets the priority for withdrawal from our beloved Rappahannock River—    Spotsy vs Fredericksburg vs King George vs. Caroline?     residents?   commercial?    data centers?   etc?.    What are the required expenses for the residents / taxpayers for required upgrades to support the data center?    vs the timing of the expected revenue? Thanks for the service you provide, Donna Stanton 921 Hanover Street Fredericksburg,   VA 22401 wdstanton@gmail.com m: 540.729.5353 From: Paul Kay To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] Technology Overlay District Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:03:18 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. My name is Julie Lee Kay. I live at 1616 Franklin Street, Fredericksburg VA 22401. I am against the proposal to create a technology Overlay District in what is commonly known as Celebrate Virginia South. The City Council is asking for this change in order to allow Data Centers in our small town. The Virginia Legislature came out with the "JLARC" report in December, clearly stating that, based on their months long study of the matter, data centers should not be built near residential areas or schools and should only be built in Industrial areas. This is a very black and white issue. We don't have an industrial area that can handle having a data center complex, so the issue should be moot. There are many concerns listed in that report, but this is the one that you will be addressing tonight.   Here are my major concerns: Noise: Besides the just released reports of illnesses that are showing up in residents living near data centers, a Manansas man (Carlos Yanes) just wrote: to Prince William County officials. "As a father that has recently and helplessly watched his children go to sleep with their hands covering their ears when then the noise is at its worst, I beg you, don't wait till your (sic) forced by the law. Do something now." :I know our City Council is also concerned about this, and I appreciate it, but even the lower decibel rate times the size of the building would generate a constant hum, as if you were at a conference with hundreds of people talking. Property value: There are three communities which would be affected by being so close to the proposed data center complex to be followed by a second complex in the Hylton property. Can you imagine what these will do to the property value and quality of life to these residents? Yet, the only opportunity to hear about what the city wants to do has been in city council chambers over a less than two month period. There has been no effort to alert these communities via flyers or a forum held in a convenient venue close to where they live that would accommodate the number of residents that surely would attend such a meeting. The forum held at Dorothy Hart earlier this month was sponsored by concerned citizens, with approximately 140 - 150 people attending.   Environmental impact: The City signed a 100% Clean Energy Resolution in 2019 and a Tree Canopy pledge. It has done very little to implement even no-cost actions to decrease our carbon footprint. Millions of dollars through the Inflation Reduction Act and free assistance from colleges to draft a clean energy plan have not been actively pursued. Data Centers are listed as one of the huge contributors to increasing Virginia's use of energy.   Questionable length of service: While the current residential /mixed use planned for this property would bring in property taxes for decades, these data centers would have a relatively short "shelf life." What are the plans once they are no longer needed in five or so years? The money sounds amazing, but we need to find other ways to creatively fund our city's needs. Do not approve this proposal. Thank you. Julie Kay  DATA CENTER QUESTIONS TO CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Matthew Kelly 1309 Hanover Street F’burg 22401 540-455-7122 1. Why is there no city effort to impart information to the general public? 2. Please provide more details on why this process has been put on the fast track. 3. There are currently efforts at the state and federal levels to provide more oversight of data centers. What steps are the city taking to ensure these efforts can be incorporated into any current data center agreements? 4. It is understood that tax breaks are being given to data centers due to jurisdictional competition. Are these incentives actually needed to build these data centers? 5. Will there be limits placed on how long the business property taxes will be granted? 6. How will the city deal with the issue of depreciation of value on data center equipment as it relates to revenues? 7. Why is the city not waiting for state and national guidelines before moving forward? 8. Per the 2018 Data Center discussions SUP would apply to all projects outside of Industrial zoning and in all cases based on water usage issues. Why is the city changing this approach now? 9. What is the current permitted water withdrawal capacity from the Rappahannock for the city and surrounding counties? 10. How much of this capacity is needed for data centers here in the city and surrounding counties? 11. How long will data centers be using potable/drinking water before going to the use of non-potable wastewater? 12. What commitments will the city receive to meet the target for going to wastewater? 13. What action will be taken if the deadline for the wastewater infrastructure is not met? 14. Regarding the wastewater lines to support data center cooling, can the city provide a map of the possible routes these could take? 15. Can the city explain the impacts they expect in the community during the construction of the wastewater line(s)? 16. Will the city have any oversight regarding the scope and construction of this line? 17. In the case of the Celebrate VA site it is our understanding that the property owner has the water rights to the quarry. Will it be used for cooling data centers? 18. The data center project proposed for the Hylton tract does not mention going to non-potable water. Is this project being held to a different standard than the project being considered for Celebrate VA? 19. The 8.3 MGD water requirement listed for the Hylton project represents a quarter of the amount of state-permitted water withdrawal from the Rappahannock for Spotsylvania and the city. With the number of centers going into Spotsy have there been any discussions with them about future water needs? 20. Looking at the water usage for the data centers on the Hylton tract will the city’s maximum 6MGD of wastewater be sufficient to support data centers in Celebrate VA? 21. If there is not the wastewater capacity to support data center cooling in the city what are the alternatives being considered? 22. How will drought/low flow conditions be addressed in the agreement? Who has priority for water usage? 23. Can the city please provide a map of the possible location of transmission lines to these data center projects? 24. Will there be a need for additional transmission stations? If so, where would they be located? 25. Does the city expect to have any oversite regarding the construction of the electrical infrastructure needed? 26. Has there been any discussion of using natural gas as opposed to diesel fuel for data center generators? 27. The Celebrate VA Tech overlay surrounds two housing complexes and the Hylton data center project as proposed is adjacent to neighborhoods. What community outreach has the city done for the neighborhoods that will be affected by these projects? 28. What impacts does the city expect on these neighborhoods as a result of these projects going forward? 29. The 2005 MOU with the Silver Cos. states that no structure will be seen from the river no matter the time of year. Can the city please provide documentation to the public to show that this commitment will be honored? 30. The 90’ height limit for both sites is not clear on what is included in that measurement. With data centers, there is the possibility of significant rooftop equipment. Will this be considered in the 90’ height limit? 31. A city goal is to increase tree canopy coverage. These projects represent a significant loss of tree coverage? Can the city explain the impact of data centers on this and other environmental goals and how they will ensure compliance? 32. How does the tech overlay in Celebrate VA affect the proposed new river crossing project? 33. A number of statements have been made that the noise issue has been resolved. Can the city please provide more details on how this has come about and what specific actions will be taken to mitigate noise? 34. Millions of dollars for transportation improvements were put forward to try to secure the VA medical facility. What is the city willing to invest to ensure community concerns and council environmental goals are met? 35. Will the questions from the public be answered and will they get an opportunity to review and comment on the final draft of the TOD performance standards before the scheduled City Council vote of February 25th? From: Rachel Sargeant To: Planning Subject: [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT 2/12/24 Planning Commission Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:14:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This is for PUBLIC COMMENT for 2/12/2025 PLANNING COMMISSION. My name is Rachel Sargeant. I live in 22401, Ward 3. Like the Friends of the Rappahannock, I do not support the Technology Overlay District. It needs more work on the standards in it. You and Council are rushing this process and will not acknowledge what the JLARC report says: Data Centers are incompatible with 'residential'. and should be 1000 ft away from residences. You have Data Centers surrounding The Seasons Apts on 3 sides within 150 ft. For Jublilation Senior Living, they are within 200 ft. Why the discrepancy? Why are you not following the JLARC study stating "Data Centers near residences? Then 1000 ft away?' Please address the environmental impact of data centers, considering alternative power sources and data center cooling processes that do not use water, and protect our drinking water. Our community is grateful to have the Friends of the Rappahannock here to educate and protect and restore our river. Please make it a priority to ensure standards are added to protect our environment. Thank you for your consideration. Rachel Sargeant rmns08@yahoo.com From: Rebecca Light To: Planning Cc: "Rebecca Light" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on Technology Overlay District Public Hearing 2/12/25 Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:56:47 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 Chair and Members: Good evening: This is to request that the Planning Commission DELAY making a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not a TOD should be considered. Due to the lack of public transparency to date, it is requested that you help slow down the approval process to allow public access to read for the first time the detailed information provided in your 2/12/25 Planning Commission Agenda Item 9A for the creation of this TOD. This information will help Fredericksburg’s citizens provide their much needed input at a future public hearing. Thank you, Rebecca Light 207 Pitt Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Dominion Academy Special Use Permit Planning Commission February 12, 2025 Overview • Request to open Dominion Academy, a private school providing elementary through high school education for individuals with special needs • Applicant is Dominion Care • Located in the Westwood Shopping Plaza (1931 Plank Road) • Applicant has occupied the property since 2016 as an adult day program (which is moving to larger location) • Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions Code and Comprehensive Plan UDO: • C-H intended for automobile-focused commercial uses not dependent on adjacent uses or pedestrian trade • Proposed school utilizes existing shopping center office space • No exterior/site work proposed or required for the use Comp. Plan: • Land Use Planning Area 3 Plank Road/Route 3 - T-5c (Area-Core) Transect • School is a civic use, which is permitted in the T-5c transect • Helps meet goal to “Provide a quality education that assures opportunity for all students, so that they are encouraged to meet high academic standards and empowered to become productive citizens” SUP Analysis Occupancy: Proposed maximum of 20 students and two classrooms with 5- 10 employees Mass and Scale: Intends to use existing building (aprox. 7,700 sqft) Parking: 18 spaces required (22 if only use on a property), has 31 spaces Traffic: School has vans to transport students to off-site activities. Drop- off/pick-ups are to be provided by private vehicles and small buses operated by Fredericksburg, Stafford, and Spotsylvania (applicant will coordinate timing to stagger buses) SUP Analysis Lighting/Environment: No modifications to outside proposed Noise: No excessive noise proposed Impact to Community Facilities: No proposed impacts Affordable Housing/Historic District Encroachments: Not applicable SUP Analysis Impact on School Population: Will provide a closer school location for students with exceptional needs who are traveling outside the area to similar schools located in Northern Virginia, Richmond/Henrico, and Norfolk/Virginia Beach areas Conformity with laws: Will need to meet all applicable regualations Applicant is licensed under the Dept. of Edu. and accredited from the VA Association of Independent Special Education Facilities and the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities Staff Recommendation • Approval subject to conditions: 1. The use must generally be in accordance with the submitted General Development Plan titled “SUP for Dominion Academy School,” dated December 13, 2024. Questions? Planning Commission February 12, 2025 Dominion’s • Dominion will be a premier provider in which our passionate and innovative team will deliver sustainable, Vison quality, whole-person care through a full continuum of therapeutic services to empower individuals in the Statement development of skills necessary for success. We envision a society in which all people achieve their full potential for health, education, and well-being across the lifespan. Dominion’s Mission Statement Empowering those we serve to develop sustainable, lifelong skills through individualized quality services and supports. 1931 Plank Road, Suites 101-106 Fredericksburg Background Dominion Care offers Autism, Mental Health, Substance Use, Educational and Behavioral Health Services throughout the state of Virginia. Dominion has occupied the property at 1931 Plank Road since March 2016, providing adult day support services to individuals with disabilities. Due to the growing population of clients in need of services, Dominion Waiver Services has secured a larger space within the City of Fredericksburg. Dominion Academy and Therapy Education Center, a private, therapeutic day school currently has two locations in Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia. In 2024, Dominion received 23 referrals for students in need of private day school from the Fredericksburg area. 1931 Plank Road, Fredericksburg Parcel #7779222713 / SUP 2412-0008 • Current Use • Proposed Use • Dominion Waiver Services • Dominion Academy & Therapy • Adult Day Program Education Center (TEC) • Population – adults with • K-12 Private Day School intellectual and developmental • Population – students eligible to disorders receive special education services • Licensed by the VA Department of • Licensed by VA Department of Behavioral Health and Education (VDOE) Developmental Services (DBHDS) • Expected occupancy to open – 20 • Occupancy - 50 students Dominion Academy and Therapy Education Center • We recognize the growing need for educational services in the Fredericksburg area • This initiative is aimed at assisting students, parents, and schools who need an alternative school option • Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. • Proposed number of employees: 5 -10 • VDOE Licensed • VAISEF Accredited (Virginia Association of Independent Special Education Facilities) • Increased Access to Education COMMUNITY BENEFITS • Dominion Academy can provide necessary resources and support, reducing the need to travel outside of the city to access services • Reduction in Transportation Costs • Alleviate the burden of transporting students outside of the Fredericksburg area • Enhanced Community Engagement • Dominion Academy fosters a strong sense of community, encouraging families to participate in school events and activities • Diverse Educational Options • Specialized curricula, mental health and support services that cater to the unique needs to each student • Economic Benefits • Job opportunities in both teaching and support staff positions • Improved Student Outcomes • With increased access to education, students may experience better academic outcomes due to reduced stress from long commutes and increased engagement with local resources • Enhanced Safety • Traveling outside of the city can pose safety risks, particularly for younger students.  Care is what we do! Contact: Valerie Fleck Director of Education Valerie.Fleck@Dominion.Care Area 5 Small Area Plan Planning Commission February 12, 2025 Bailey Thompson – Community Development Planner II  Summary • Identify Area 5 • Staff Recommendation • Review Comp Plan Amendment • Review Zoning Map Amendment • Discuss Proposed Changes • Staff Recommendation  Staff Recommendation 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 Next Step: City Council Public Hearing 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 Initiation P.C. Public Hearing P.C. Discussion P.C. Public Hearing Board Discussion December 11, 2024 January 22, 2025 February 12, 2025 November 12, 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  Historic Foundation & Neighborhood Focus Neighborhood Conservation Districts: • Character provided for the College Heights, Westwood and Westmont neighborhoods • “Focus on the form of high-quality urban neighborhoods while providing a venue to achieve modern housing goals” • “Actions that would be subject to NCD review may include new construction, large additions, demolition, and changes in unit type or count” Eligible National Register District Centered on the University of Mary Washington  “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 “Due to the area’s unique location and disposition, consider taller heights, larger floor area ratios, and units per acre metrics than the typical Commercial Highway zoning district.”  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  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/Bicycle 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  Zoning Map Amendment • 4 parcels at 13.2007 acres • Rezone Commercial Shopping Center to Commercial Highway • Adopt T-5C Form-Based Regulations  Proposed Text Changes Text changes about Neighborhood Conservation Districts to provide further clarity on p. 11(5)-6 • Character of the neighborhoods • Actions subject to review • Impact on affordable housing Emphasis of the Brain Power District’s specific location on p. 11(5)-8 • Route 1 and not adjacent to residential neighborhoods Expanded text on the pedestrian and bicycle network along the William Street corridor on p. 11(5)-12 Updated Brain Power District implementation step on p. 11(5)-15 • Evaluate Unified Development Ordinance elements: height, floor area ratio, units per acre  Staff Recommendation Planning Commission Public Hearing – Tonight • Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Chapters 10 and 11 of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Small Area Plan for Planning Area 5 – Recommend Approval • Official Zoning Map Amendment to rezone approximately 13.2007 acres of land located from Commercial Shopping Center to Commercial Highway and to adopt form- based regulations, as recommended in the draft Small Area Plan for Planning Area 5 – Recommend Approval Next Step: City Council Public Hearing Zoning Map Future Land Use Map  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 19, 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 Zoning Map Future Land Use Map