CIrY OF FREDE1UcKSBuRG

PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES

August 14, 2019

7:30 p.m.

715 Princess Anne StreetCouncil Chambers

You may view and listen to the meeting in its entirety by going to the PlanningCommission page on the City’s website:

https://amsva.wistia.comlmedias/czu 1 29g99e

The Agenda, Staff Report, Applications and Supporting Documents are also availableon the Planning Commission page.

MEMBERSKenneth Gantt, ChairmanRene Rodriguez, Vice-ChairmanSteve Slominski, SecretaryDave DurhamChris HornungTorn O’TooleJim Pates

CITY STAFFChuck Johnston, Director,

Planning and Building Dept.Mike Craig, Senior PlannerJames Newman, Zoning AdministratorSusanna Finn, Community Development

PlannerCathy Eckles, Administrative Assistant

1. ALLTO ORDERChairman Gantt called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Chairman Gantt explained meetingprocedures for the public, as well as expected decorum during public comment.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTESJuly 10, 2019 — Regular Meeting

Mr. Pates moved to approve the July 10, 2019 minutes with his edits; Mr. Durham seconded.The motion passed 7-0.

4. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTThere were no conflicts of interest reported.

1

5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGA. Catholic Diocese of Arlington, SUP 2019-01 requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a

‘Religious Institution’ (a Rectory) on a 10,000 square foot lot (GPIN 7779-64-4797) at 1604

College Avenue.

Mr. Newman presented the staff report with a power point presentation.

Mr. Hornung asked how the amendments to SUP99-o7, with conditions applying solely to the Rectory,will be tracked. Mr. Johnston responded that documentation will be made as to which conditions applyto which parcel. The new SUP It doesn’t replace the original SUP99-o7 but is a revision, anenlargement of the original, with its own set of conditions. The purpose of the Rectory is inherentlytied to the Student Center; it is part of the same use but the special use conditions do not necessarilyapply to both parcels.

Mr. Pates asked if any of the conditions that applied to SUP99-o7 apply to this parcel. Mr. Johnstonsaid no. Mr. Pates asked what the primary use of this property is and Mr. Newman responded itsprimary use is a Rectory. Mr. Johnston clarified that the primary use of the special use permit is theStudent Center, with the Rectory being an accessory activity to the Student Center. Mr. Pates statedthat with only one person living there and the first floor being offices, in his opinion, the primary useis as a religious institution. Mr. Johnston stated that is why the applicant was requested to file a specialuse permit. Mr. Pates asked if this were solely a religious institution and no one lived there, how manyparking spaces would be required? Mr. Newman stated that based on the office space, six spaces wouldbe required, but pursuant to the Code, a change in use does not require a change in the parkingrequirements. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that a change of use does not require a change inthe parking requirements.

Mr. Durham requested a condition holding the Diocese’s employee level at five.

Chairman Gantt questioned the conditions which Mr. Johnston clarified were as listed on page 2 ofthe staff memo.

Mr. Durham mentioned all the comments from the public about the impact of combining the twoparcels and requested staff to address those concerns and how the conditions do address them. Mr.Newman responded that the house can only be occupied by the priest; the house is on its own lot andthus would revert to single-family home if the Diocese sold the property. Chairman Gantt requested acondition that the house must revert to a single-family home if the Diocese wished to sell. Mr.Johnston stated that this was not necessary because, as a permitted use, the property will always revertto a dwelling, but if a buyer wanted another special use of the property, it would have to go throughthe SUP process.

Mr. Slorninski discussed his concern about meetings occurring [in the house] with 20 people in an areanot really conducive to parking, if the Student Center were also in use at the same time. Mr. Newmanstated that the Student Center was the main meeting area, which was the intent of the condition tolimit the focus of the Rectory to day-to-day operations and the Student Center being the proper venuefor larger meetings. The request for this condition was made by the College Heights Civic Associationand agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Slominski asked if there was any limit on how many meetings couldbe held which Mr. Newman said no but if there ends up being any complaints, the City will investigate.

Mr. Pates asked about the map prepared by staff that shows parcels that are tax exempt as stateinstitutions and charitable organizations. Mr. Johnston stated that City Attorney has advised staff that

2

tax status of parcels is not a land use issue. Chairman Gantt stated that Mr. Newman sent an email tothe Commission explaining the legal aspects of this issue.

Mr. Rodriguez questioned the 20-person limit on the meeting space in the Rectory and asked whetherthat would raise a Fire Marshal issue. Mr. Newman stated the Fire Marshal does review the meetingspace as part of the occupancy permit application. Mr. Newman said he would do more research onthis topic.

Chairman Gantt then opened the public hearing:

Meredith Beckett, 1401 Brent Street, president of the College Heights Civic Association, stated that hertwo major concerns were the vacation of the property lines (which has been withdrawn) and theamendment of the requested special use permit. The Association wants a stand-alone special usepermit, as it feels amending the current special use permit may expand the uses of the property. Theoriginal special use permit jid not have conditions to restrict or govern the day-to-day use of theproperty. The [Planning] Commission had been convinced at that time that the uses would be religiousand educational opportunities exclusive to the University of Mary Washington ministry. TheAssociation believes that the Student Center has had numerous events not exclusive to MaryWashington, so the Association is concerned that non-exclusive uses will expand to the Rectory. TheAssociation is also concerned with the meeting room “morphing” into too many people all descendingon the area at one time if meetings are scheduled at both the Rectory and the Student Center at thesame time.

Sue Sargent, Fredericksburg, 22401, stated she supported Meredith Beckett’s comments. Ms. Sargentstated that on July17, 2019, theArlington Catholic Herald had a story regarding grade-school studentsfrom the Northern Neck harvesting corn on the Middle Neck. The article had a photo of the StudentCenter and contained information that the 8o students attended mass at the UMW Catholic StudentCenter Chapel, which is not a church. The original special use permit approved by the PlanningCommission specified that the use of the Student Center was just for UMW students. Ms. Sargent wasnow hearing the assumption that the use for the Rectory was be just for a priest; the Association needsmore clarification and conditions that it has to be for that use only. Ms. Sargent therefore requestedthat only a stand-alone special use permit be approved with conditions set out to clarify all theassumptions she is hearing.

John Nere, 1718 College Avenue, stated he believed that most of the recommended conditions weregood but that condition No. 4 should go further and not only prevent the existing residential buildingfrom being expanded but also prevent alteration of the building’s exterior appearance. Mr. Nerefurther believed that condition No. 6 went beyond the original application, in that meetings being heldat the Rectory were not in character with the neighborhood residential appearance. He believed thatmeeting space at the Student Center should be sufficient. As stated by Ms. Beckett and Ms. Sargent,the neighborhood does not oppose the Rectory or the ancillary use, just the possible uses that themeeting space could entail. Mr. Nere requested that condition No. 6 be replaced by a condition thatlimited the use of the residential property as in the original application—a Rectory and some officespace. He also wanted to request a separate, stand-alone special use permit to keep the conditionsseparate; he didn’t see any need for a combined special use permit.

Rachael Sargent, Fredericksburg, 22401, stated she was a member of the Catholic student center atLynchburg College, where there was one house to support numerous religions. She felt there was noneed for now expanding to two structures for one center. If the Rectory were just for diocese use, thereshould be no need for a combined special use permit for that much space.

3

Everett Clark, 1212 Dandridge St., stated that he agreed with the majority [of the speakers] that astand-alone special use permit should be issued since the two properties were claiming to be separateuses. He was under the impression it was to be a Rectory with office space and some visitors. Themeeting space was the biggest concern, along with the hours the meetings were allowed. He felt themeetings should be no later than ëonventional office hours.

Chairman Gantt then clarified a point of order in that the applicant should have been allowed to makea statement and been queried by the Commission members prior to the public comments. He thencalled the applicant to speak. Bruce Reese, Legacy Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr.Reese stated that the applicant concurred with - and urged the Commission to support - the staffrecommendations. The applicant considered the conditions fair, but first and foremost this was aresidence for the priest. He urged that it be treated like any other home in the neighborhood whenspecifying conditions. Specifically, since other residents were not given conditions for having guests inthe home and are defined as three or more unrelated people, the applicant was asking for the sameconsideration.

Mr. Rodriguez asked if the applicants were willing to not alter the exterior of the home. Mr. Reeseagreed to that as a condition.

Mr. Durham questioned the meetings issue and asked what types of meetings might potentially beoccurring. According to the application, the Rectory was meant to be for the priest and his office space,so why would the Diocese object to a restriction limiting the meetings to management of the StudentCenter? Mr. Reese stated that the plan was not to have large meetings or even special events in theRectory. The applicant said there may be opportunities for students to be in congregation for dinnersin the setting of a home but with this condition, the 21 person will be turned away. Mr. Reese washesitant to adopt restrictions on the types of meetings.

• Mr. Durham asked Mr. Reese if the uses currently planned for the Rectory were not the sort of usesthat currently happen inside the Student Center. Mr. Reese concurred. Mr. Durham then asked if itwas accurate to say that in the case of a dinner/social event, it could take place as it does now. Mr.Reese agreed and stated that events larger than 20 people would be in the Student Center

Mr. Durham stated he would like to see a condition to restrict combined events, as a meeting in theRectory of 20 people was not burdensome but both buildings filled to capacity would be. Mr. Reeseagreed with that legitimate concern but the Fire Marshal would be setting limits on the buildings. Mr.Reese stated that there never was the intention of the Rectory being able to add 20 more people to ameeting at the Student Center.

Mr. Hornung stated that based on the first floor drawing (approximately 1,000 sq. ft.) and approximatesize of the meeting room, he believed that no more than 20 people would fit in that room.

Chairman Gantt then closed the public hearing.

Mr. Johnston responded to concerns about the request for a stand-alone special use permit to betterprotect the neighborhood. He said if the Rectory were a free-standing special use permit, it would bea simple step for the Diocese to make this a Rectory for the “church down the road” or some otheractivity because it would be no longer tied to the Student Center. The Rectory was adjacent to andshould be a secondary use to the Student Center or there would be a broader interpretation of thepurpose of the Rectory. Mr. Hornung asked if any of the conditions discussed apply to the existingStudent Center; Mr. Newman confirmed that the property conditions apply only to the Rectory. TheStudent Center was approved without conditions in 1999. Mr. Hornung asked if any of the permitted

4

uses under the original special use permit were now allowed on the Rectory, which Mr. Johnston saidno. Discussion ensued regarding the uses for each parcel.

Mr. Rodriguez asked what the technical action would be to create two separate stand-alone special usepermits for the two parcels. Mr. Johnston responded that the applicant requested an amendment toSUP99-o7 and the applicant would have to change the request. Discussion ensued regarding theprocedural steps that would be involved if the Commission were to deny this request.

Mr. Durham stated he believed Mr. Johnston’s and Mr. Hornung’s earlier conversation was actuallythe same facts, just restated differently. Mr. Johnston clarified that they were different aspects of thesame use but only one special use permit. Mr. Durham stated the point was that the amendment onlyapplies to the Rectory, so it has no effect on the Student Center except that the two parcels are nowconsidered two conjoined uses but with conditions that only apply to each [individual] parcel.

Mr. Durham asked staff if there could be two conditions added: (i) to limit the employee level at onlyfive employees; and (2) to maintain the existing structure with no exterior alterations. Mr. Johnstonstated that the second request could be easily modified to change condition No. 4 to also state that nosubstantial exterior alterations could be made that would change the character. Mr. Johnston statedthat with regard to the request to add a condition limiting the number of employees, he was hesitantto tell the applicant at this evening’s meeting they don’t have the right to hire another person but woulddirect staff to investigate this action before the matter goes to Council. Mr. Durham asked if thisproposed special use permit were approved and a particular parking parameter was set, would anyfuture amendment of the use be altered and require the applicant to come before the Commissionagain? Mr. Johnston stated that the parking parameters that were established for the Student Centerwere based on the [Generalized Development Plan] and the square footage, not on capacity or numberof employees; however, the staff could make Council aware of the parameters and include it inconditions going forward.

Mr. O’Toole made a motion to approve the recommendation with modifications as discussed to theseven conditions: No. 4 will be restated to include no exterior alterations. Commission alsorecommends to staff to review the employees for a recommendation to Council. Mr. Hornung secondedbut further commented on Condition No. 4, to more specifically state there will be no exterioralterations affecting the residential character of the Rectory. Mr. Pates stated he would be votingagainst the motion, as he felt the City was allowing many different types of development — commercial,University, and religious institutions — to encroach upon and degrade residential neighborhoods,especially College Heights. Mr. Rodriguez felt that requesting an employee review and possiblecondition creates an administrative burden. He feels it was governmental overreach and was almostinclined to deny the motion based on that. Mr. Hornung stated that he understood that all theCommission requested was to do additional research on the meeting and office space to provide toCouncil as part of their consideration, not to draft additional conditions. Chairman Gantt stated it wasnot what he understood and Mr. Durham clarified that the Commission asked staff to investigatewhether additional conditions could be crafted for Council, based on future employment requirementsand the potential parking parameters if the Diocese expanded the employee base of the Student Centeror the Rectory. Mr. Johnston stated that gave him ample direction to proceed. Mr. Durham clarifiedthat essentially the Commission was giving staff the latitude to use its judgment for recommendationsto Council.

Mr. Durham stated that he believed the concerns about the misuse of the Student Center recently, asdocumented in the Arlington Herald, should be discussed with the Student Center staff aboutappropriate uses as defined by SUP99-o7. Mr. Slominski concurred with Mr. Durham that the incidentof abuse of the appropriate uses should be looked into.

5

Motion carried 5-2, Gantt and Pates denying.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGA. John Janney, RZ2019-05, SUP2019-o3, and SE2019-ol, requests three actions to

renovate the historic industrial building dating to c. 1872 at 401 — 409 Princess Anne Streetinto approximately 2,100 square feet of commercial space and 12 residential units. The projectrequires three requests:1. RZ2019-05 - A Zoning Map Amendment to remove 401 and 409 Princess Anne from the

Railway Station Overlay District.2. SUP2019-o3 — A Special Use Permit to permit a total of 12 units units per acre) in the

Commercial Downtown Zoning District.3. SE2019-oi — A Special Exception to § 72-32.2.C(2) Mixed-Use Regulations to permit the

mixed-use project to contain 2,100 square foot (io% of the 20,906 gross square feet ofbuildings on-site) as non-residential use.

Mr. Craig presented the staff report with a power point presentation.

Mr. Rodriguez asked about the existing businesses in the Railway Station Overlay District (RSOD) andthe reduction in commercial mixed uses. Mr. Rodriguez asked if this project was in the DowntownParking District where the applicant could buy other spaces even though there are no parkingrequirements for this project since the UDO exempts historic buildings from providing parking.Mr. Rodriguez asked if this was not a historic building, what parking would be required. Mr. Craigconfirmed that the 12 units are currently proposed, but 2,100 sq. ft. of commercial use would require18 parking spots. Mr. Craig clarified that even though the project was in the Downtown ParkingDistrict, the only spaces that can be bought are non-residential spaces. Mr. Rodriguez asked if thesurface asphalt was currently being used adequately in the RSOD. Mr. Craig said not in the evenings.

Mr. Pates asked for the timetable for approving the application. Mr. Craig stated that the Commissionmust act by its November 13 meeting. The Commission discussed the Janney-Marshall residents’potential use of the Caroline Street/Frederick Street City lot (City lot) spaces, the vision for the trainstation’s future, the appropriate use for the City lot, the appropriate expenditure around infrastructure,and the values the City needs to preserve.

Mr. Hornung asked if the existing 21,000 sq. ft. building could be developed by right as an officebuilding and stated that under that scenario, without the historic-building exemption, 70 spaces wouldbe required by the ordinance. The proposed use without the historic-building exemption, would have25% of the required parking. Mr. Hornung asked if an office worker who lived in the City would beallowed to park in the City lot, which Mr. Craig confirmed.

Mr. Durham asked if the GDP has a specified use for commercial activity in the Janney-Marshallbuilding. Mr. Craig referred that question to the applicant but stated that the Commercial DowntownZoning District would permit a variety of different uses by right.

Mr. Rodriguez asked if the single-story warehouse shed could be converted to garage space. Mr. Craigreferred that question to the applicant.

Chairman Gantt discussed the use of the public lot by VRE commuters.

Mr. Craig stated that a walkable urban place requires a balance between density of use, open spaces,and car storage. The parking lot is vacant all night (which is peak residential parking demand).

6

Mr. Craig said looking at the big picture, there would be sufficient parking with 6 parking spaces onsite, 9 parking spaces on Frederick Street, 2 adjacent parking spaces on Princess Anne Street, and the112 spaces in the City lot.

Chairman Gantt stated the George Washington Regional Commission and Nader’s Store rent out openparking spaces for $75 monthly, so there is a value aspect there. Mr. Craig stated that the value of beingable to renovate a historical structure and preserve green space vs. the value of providing free parkingor the value of having an open parking area should also be considered.

Mr. Durham stated he felt the parking situation will not significantly impact the commuter lot. He didthink the ratio of asphalt to buildings percentage was slightly skewed because so much parking in thearea was private. He wanted to be sure not to impact commuter parking since a City goal is toencourage VRE use. Mr. Craig stated that the area has approximately 1,000 parking spaces for VREspaces, in addition to the City parking garage at Sophia Street and Wolfe Street, which is underutilized.Mr. Craig stated that the legal and political impact of asphalt requirements is a focus of staffs workwith the Parking Advisory Committee.

Mr. Durham requested a condition that the applicant lease other parking spaces for the residents ofthe Janney-Marshall building as the Commissioners can’t just take for granted that it will work outand need to consider alterative parking in order to consider these three variances. Mr. Rodriguezquestioned if a condition could be tied to the special use permit regarding leased parking. Mr. Craigresponded yes, but only as long as there was a nexus to the approval. If the Commission approved areduced amount of non-residential square footage and the addition of three additional residentialunits, that would be the tie the Commission should work with.

Mr. Durham asked if the special use permit to add three additional units made the project economicallyfeasible. Mr. Craig said he deferred to the applicant, but stated that the staff had recommendedapproval because, from a City standpoint, the renovation was primary, preserving the open space wassecondary, and the parking impact, minimal.

Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing.

The applicant, John Janney, 717 1/2 Kenmore Avenue; and Engineer, Jon Fairbanks, Fairbanks &Frankiin, were present. Mr. Janney stated that not only do the three additional units matter to theeconomic feasibility of this project, but so do the tax credits. Mr. Janney has been told by the VirginiaDept of Historic Resources (DHR), that the metal shed on the side of the building has historic statusand must be retained. Unfortunately for the project, this halts putting another 24 parking spaces onsite. If he were able to, he would redevelop the site to add those additional parking spaces but he couldnot do so during the tax-credit hold period of five years.

Mr. Rodriguez asked if the metal shed can be made into any commercial space as it would add to thesquare footage and up the percentage of non-residential space. Mr. Janney stated no. Mr. Rodriguezasked if Mr. Janney had approached the Economic Development Authority (EDA) for a grant. Mr.Janney stated no.

Mr. Hornung asked what was intended for the façade. Mr. Janney responded that the project had justgone before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review and the intention was to bring theoriginal exterior character of the building back, with no changes.

Mr. Pates asked what the DHR’s logic was regarding the shed. Mr. Janney stated that anything builtbefore 1938 was automatically considered an historic structure by DHR.

7

Mr. Pates discussed the unsafe conditions in the drop-off area of the train station and asked if the Cityhad had discussions with the applicant to acquire some of the Janney property to expand the drop-offarea. Mr. Janney stated no, but that the site plan does have a fence to surround the property and thatwould hopefully alleviate some of the pedestrian traffic across the Janney-Marshall property. Mr.Pates asked if there had been any discussions with the City about dedicating or acquiring any of thelot. Mr. Janney responded that the City may need the 6-space parking lot for future train stationexpansion. If he were able to get the 24-space lot approved, at that time he would be happy to workwith the City. Mr. Pates asked if that could be incorporated into this application. Mr. Janneyresponded that at this time he has to have it for the 6 parking spaces and the 24 parking spaces can’tbe considered until the five-year tax credit program was through.

Mr. Durham asked whether, after the five-year tax credit period has run, the shed should then be ableto be redeveloped into potential parking, along with a potential sale of the adjacent lot to the City,which Mr. Janney confirmed. Mr. Durham asked if the applicant would be willing to look into anarrangement where parking spaces could be leased for the use of the Janney-Marshall buildingresidents. Mr. Janney stated he would reserve six spaces on his property at 510 Princess Anne Streetfor the residents. Mr. Durham asked if any specific plans were in motion for the non-residential useof the building. Mr. Janney stated it may possibly be leased by the building itself as a gym.

Mr. Slominski asked whether a “green roof’ could be installed. Mr. Janney stated that insulatedsheathing is being installed so as to retain the woodwork on the underside. This is the last major postand beam property in Fredericksburg that hasn’t been redeveloped and the applicant wishes to retainas much of that character as he can.

Nancy Moore, 314 Princess Anne Street, stated she was excited to see the development but wasconcerned with the parking.

Rebecca Hammer, 138 Caroline Street, stated she was pleased there will be no encroachment on thegreen space on the northeast side of the Janney-Marshall building, that was being called Trestle Park.Ms. Hammer gave a brief overview of the history and planning of the green space. Ms. Hammerrequested a condition that the installment of the gas and power lines be carefully done so as not todisturb the landscaping beyond what was necessary and that the City work to help Mr. Janney convincethe DHR there was no need to preserve the unsightly “historic” shed.

Linda Coker, 308 Caroline Street, stated that the median in the center of Princess Anne Street wasconstructed to deter pedestrian traffic crossing all over Princess Anne Street. Ms. Coker was thrilledwith the project and was only concerned with preserving the green space (Trestle Park) and the parkingsituation. Frederick Street was highly utilized in the evening and she believes it would be so beneficialto get rid of the shed and gain those extra parking spaces.

Mary Deadman, 214 Princess Anne Street, stated she was much more encouraged about this projectbut the City cannot count on the Frederick Street parking spaces, those spaces are consistently full.Ms. Deadman discussed the parking situation in the Darbytown neighborhood because most everylicensed driver in the neighborhood has at least one vehicle, if not two, trying to park there, which waswhy it was such a serious concern.

Ann Little, 726 William Street, Executive Director for Tree Fredericksburg, stated she was speakingfor the trees. She understands that all the gas and power lines need to be installed but was requestinga condition that either (i) the lines be bored under the existing trees and shrubs as the existing

8

landscape has an approximate value of $15,000; or (2) that she was available as a resource to ensurethe preservation of this green space.

Chairman Gantt closed the public hearing.

Mr. Pates wanted this matter delayed to the next meeting to take an opportunity to further discuss thisproject, as he felt there are many issues that had only been slightly discussed. Mr. Durham requestedthere be some specific activities done over the next month if this matter were tabled. Mr. Pates said hebelieved there were the two specific issues: (i) parking alternatives; and (2) whether a condition canbe made for the City to acquire the small 6-space lot once the applicant was able to build the larger 24-

space lot.

Mr. Durham posed two additional issues: (3) a specific plan to discover the best approach for theinstallation of the utilities, with only minor disturbance to the existing trees and shrubs; and ()whether or not there could be a provision for what happens at the end of the five-year tax-credit period,stating that the applicant would be able to proceed with an alternate parking arrangement on site.

Mr. Hornung said he didn’t think it was a good practice to have a condition that says the Cityanticipates the applicant tearing down a historic structure when the applicant was going through aDHR process. He was also concerned about a condition that the applicant was required to grant thesmall lot to the City once he was able to construct the larger lot. Mr. Hornung does not see a directnexus between this proposal and the need to expand the drop off lanes for the train station.

Mr. Pates stated he wasn’t suggesting that there would be a requirement but the applicant always hasthe ability to volunteer or proffer something and there was a clear City need for that property. Hehoped that that there could be some agreement and possibly the City could reciprocate by advocatingon the applicant’s behalf with DHR and he felt it was worthy of further discussion.

Mr. Rodriguez asked if Kate Schwartz, Historic Resource Planner, has been consulted on the historicnature of the shed. Mr. Craig stated Ms. Schwartz said its DHR’S purview to operate their tax creditprogram. Mr. Craig stated that the Commission needs to be conscious of the 2016 proffer law whereinthis was a residential rezoning and that Mr. Hornung’s focus on the nexus of the project was veryimportant. Any suggestions or discussions on the conditions need to be focused on the direct impactof the project.

Mr. Pates moved to table this matter until the next meeting to discuss the four issues that he andMr. Durham had raised. Mr. Durham seconded the motion to delay a recommendation on the matter.

Chairman Gantt stated he had a concern that the Commission should not be telling the City tochallenge DHR’S perspective. Mr. Rodriguez stated that what he meant was not to challenge the Statebut if the City of Fredericksburg and DHR think it’s historically significant, why was the Commissionbanking on the applicant being able to tear the structure down in five years. Mr. Hornung clarified thatthe tax credit would expire in five years. Mr. Johnston stated that discussion of tearing down thehistoric shed after the tax credit period, would jeopardize Mr. Janney’s ability to get the tax creditstoday.

Mr. Hornung asked if a majority of the Commissioners would like to further discuss the itemsMr. Durham brought up or go to a vote. Mr. Durham clarified that the four items he listed are all thingshe would allow staff to use their best judgment to deal with them as staff sees fit as he believes staffcan resolve and strengthen this proposal with time to work with the applicant.

9

Mr. O’Toole asked for clarification on which four points were being discussed. Mr. Durham stated thepoints were: (i) work with Mr. Janney to establish a special use permit condition involving the sixadditional parking spots at 510 Princess Anne Street; (2) work with Tree Fredericksburg on how tominimize any disruption to the green area (Trestle Park) during utility installation; () an examinationof whether it was feasible to set a provision for the future development of an expanded parking areaon site; and () long-term parking alternatives. Mr. Rodriguez felt it was more appropriate to workwith the City arborist who can then consult with whomever they choose.

Chairman Gantt stated he was not comfortable with the direction of this discussion and would not bevoting in favor of a deferment. Mr. Hornung made a substitute motion to approve the project asreferred by staff with the addition of two conditions: (i) the applicant will reserve six additionalparking spaces at 510 Princess Anne Street for the use of the properties residents; and (2) the applicantwill work with the City Arborist to mitigate the impact of the installation of the utilities. Mr. Rodriguezseconded the substitute motion.

Mr. Pates clarified that this vote was just a procedural motion to determine if the Commission wantedto vote on the three matters before the Commission regarding the Janney-Marshall building.The motion passed 6-i (Pates nay.)

Chairman Gantt asked for a vote on RZ2019-o5, a rezoning to remove 401-409 Princess Anne Streetout of the Railroad Station Overlay District. Mr. Rodriguez moved to approve and Mr. Hornungseconded.The motion passed 6-i (Pates nay.)

Chairman Gantt asked for a vote on SUP2019-o3, a special use permit to allow a mixed use residentialdensity with the conditions in the staff report plus the applicant will (i) reserve six additional parkingspaces at 510 Princess Anne Street for the use of the properties residents; and (2) work with the CityArborist to mitigate the impact of the installation of the utilities. Mr. Rodriguez seconded the amendedmotion. Mr. Pates stated that he just wants to clarify that he was voting against all three measurebecause he thinks it was premature.The motion passed 6-i (Pates nay.)

Chairman Gantt asked for a vote on SE2019-ol, a special exception for a mixed use development.Mr. Rodriguez moved to approve the special exception with the conditions as recommended by staffand by the Commission, the same conditions as listed in the special use permit. Mr. Hornungseconded.The motion passed 6-i (Pates nay.)

B. M&M Auto Parts Incorporated, SUP 2019-02 requests a Special Use Permit for ‘OutdoorStorage’ of vehicles and parts, near the intersection of Tyler Street and Belman Road.

Mr. Newman presented the staff report with a power point presentation.

Mr. O’Toole asked why an economic study needed to be done. Mr. Johnston stated this particular usemay have an impact on larger property developments within the industrial park and the City wants tobe sure of the implications of the impact on adjoining properties. Mr. O’Toole asked if the City Attorneyhas reviewed and advised on this matter. Mr. Johnston confirmed she had. Mr. Craig stated one of thereview considerations in the special use permit was on the economic impact on adjoining properties.Mr. O’Toole asked if this has been done on any other properties. Mr. Craig stated that he does notrecall this ever being done.

10

Mr. O’Toole asked if M&M Auto Parts went out of business, would the special use permit be voidedand not run with the property and was that normal procedure. Mr. Newman stated the use of storageof autos without an associated recycling center would make it a junkyard, which was not allowedanywhere in the City. This was considered outdoor storage because it was associated with the recyclingfacility which two uses are integral.

Mr. Durham questioned the distinction between a storage facility for partially recycled vehicles and ajunkyard. Mr. Craig responded that as long as there was an active processing center, it was a unifiedbusiness.

Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Charles Payne, Jr.,Hirschler Law Firm, representative for the applicant, said M&M Auto Parts has been operating for 60years in the City and Stafford County. Mr. Payne presented a power point presentation for M&M AutoParts showing M&M Auto Parts’ history; an overview showing the project details, including the existingoperations; the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; the environmental and historical impacts;and the impacts to the surrounding properties. (See attached M&M Auto Parts power pointpresentation)

Mr. Pates stated the current owner of the subject parcel was Technautics LLC and asked what thatcompany was. Mr. Payne replied it was a real estate holding company, but has no use on the property.Mr. Pates asked who the principals of Technautics are as all he was able to find out was that Jai Guptawas the manager. Mr. Payne stated the Technautics representative was present.

Mr. Durham asked about the 12-18 month cycle a vehicle body frame sits in storage and if that wastypical. Mr. Payne replied yes and once the time period was exhausted, the vehicles are crushed andsold for metal. Mr. Payne stated this was a ioo% recycling center and the facility even uses some of theoil to heat the facility in the winter.

John J. Schwartz, Commercial Real Estate Broker based in Henrico County, spoke on behalf of M&MAuto Parts and Technautics, LLC. Mr. Schwartz stated Technautics reached out to him to sell theproperty. After numerous attempts to develop this property, including a data center possibility, noneof them worked because of the site limitations, size, shape, and maximum potential results of thefunctional building uses. Technautics requested Mr. Schwartz to express a very strong concern for theCity’s efforts to scrutinize the off-site impact of this use. Technautics was concerned that the City, bythis latest study request, wants to second guess this project with a well-known successful company.Technautics thinks this late hour type of scrutiny was highly unusual and potentially bad business forfuture City development. Mr. Schwartz requested the Commission move this project forward.

Ann Little, 726 William Street, stated that she had previously worked with Mr. Morrow in 2015regarding the trees around his business park property. The property was the cleanest operation shehad ever seen and she was very impressed by his dedication to creating an environmentally friendlyoperation.

Cary Leach, i6 Fairfax Circle, owns approximately 16 acres in Industrial Park across from M&M AutoParts. He said he served on the City’s Planning Commission and the Industrial Development Authority.Mr. Leach stated M&M Auto Parts was a fabulous neighbor and runs a wonderful operation.M&M Auto Parts was encouraged to come to the City ten years ago; encouraged to expand five yearsago; and will be able to operate more efficiently with this latest expansion. None of his businesses haveany objections to M&M Auto Parts’ plans as they know the operation will be run efficiently andenvironmentally safe. Mr. Leach discussed the possibility of a data center in this location and why it

11

just wouldn’t work. This project was perfect for the site and the City should realize this was the bestcase scenario. The land has been trying to be sold for over ten years with no takers and he encouragesthe City to approve this project.

Chairman Gantt closed the public hearing.

Mr. Rodriguez moved to approve SUP2019-o2 for outdoor storage associated with a recycling facilitynear the intersection of Belman Road and Tyler Street. Mr. O’Toole seconded. Mr. Johnston asked ifthe approval was with the four recommendations staff presented in the staff report. Mr. Rodriguezasked for the recommendations to be restated. Mr. Johnston did so. Mr. O’Toole stated that was themotion he seconded. Mr. Slominski stated he believes this was a great project however he was not afan of the statement saying the City should get out of the way if the City wants to be a nice city to workwith. The Commissioners represent the citizens of the City and want to be sure they are always actingin the citizen’s best interests. The Commission was pro-business but the Commissioners do notappreciate comments stating the Commissioners sometimes get in the way while they are doing dueprocess. Chairman Gantt agrees with Mr. Slominski. Mr. Pates would like to hear back from staff as towhy they are recommending delay until after the economic study was done.

Bill Freehling, Director of Tourism and Business Development, stated that the Technautics propertyof 30 developable acres, in a City of 10.4 square miles, was one of the largest green field developmentsites the City has. The City wants to be deliberate in the analysis of the potential for the property to besure this was the highest and best use for the property. There are potential higher intensity businesses,which would yield more in tax revenue. Mr. Johnston augmented Mr. Freehling’s comments that therewas one other adjacent use not mentioned by Mr. Payne, Braehead Farm. What happens to this tractwill impact the 28 acre Braehead Farm site when it eventually does develop.

Mr. Rodriguez asked if staff had received any comments from any adjoining property owners. Mr.Newman stated no public comments had been received.

Mr. Durham asked Mr. Freehling for clarification on the analysis that’s been done to find prospects forthis site in conjunction with the current owner and whether the City has engaged in any cooperativeprospecting. Mr. Freehling stated that the City has had a dozen or more conversations with Mr.Schwartz over the past four years, mostly through the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance (FRA). Duringhis five years with the City, the City has responded to 20+ inquiries for information from the FRA fromdifferent prospects looking for industrial sites. There have been a half dozen site tours of the propertybut none have materialized. Mr. Freehling stated that when the FRA comes to the City with a prospectneeding 20-3 0 acres of industrial land, this is the only property the City has.

Mr. Durham asked what zoning district allows data centers. Mr. Freehling stated it is allowed in otherdistricts as a special use, but only 1-2 allows data centers by-right with stipulations on the water coolingsystem. Mr. Durham asked about the impacts to M&M Auto Parts’ business if they are not able to dothis expansion. Charles (Rick) Morrow, owner of M&M Auto Parts, explained that the number ofvehicles they process has increased and the types of cars they are purchasing are more late-model cars.When buying late model cars, you have to get as much as you can from that vehicle to make it worththe buy. All the body panels stay with the car. Many different models of cars are on the road so whenyou get a potential sale, there is not a stack of cars that all have the same parts, it has to be specific,possibly even a specific year for the model. Therefore, the impact to the business of not being able tostore the cars for an extended period of time would mean they would have to diminish the volume ofwork they do which would mean less revenue and some job losses. Mr. Durham stated his line ofconversation was to illuminate the true use of the property and how these parts would be used and at

12

what frequency to better understand the nature of the facility’s use. Mr. Morrow stated 90% of theirbusiness is wholesale, selling to body shops, etc. to repair cars for someone else.

Chairman Gantt asked for a vote on the motion made by Mr. Rodriguez to approve SUP2019-o2 alongwith staff recommendations.The motion passed 5-2 (Gantt and Pates nay.)

7. OLD BUSINESSDiscussion of Planning Commission Bylaw Changes regarding the Status of Land UsePlanning Annual Report and the annual review of the City’s proposed Capital Improvements Plan.

Mr. Pates suggested that due to the lateness of the hour, this discussion be tabled until the nextCommission meeting.

8. NEW BUSINESSA. Transmission of the Annual Report None.

9. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTNone.

10. OTHER BUSINESSA. Planning Commissioner Comments

Chairman Gantt asked the Commission to save September 12, 2019 for the fall social.

Mr. Durham reviewed his handout regarding solar power installations in commercial, residential, andgovernmental development and redevelopment projects. Mr. Craig stated that the ComprehensivePlan discusses the Clean & Green Committee as having responsibility for evaluating existingsustainability policies and recommendations. Mr. Craig suggested that staff take the time to marry upMr. Durham’s request with the Clean and Green Committee, work with the Committee, and thenreturn a recommendation. Mr. Durham agreed with that plan as this was clearly a land use questionbut also an area for Clean & Green and other departments within the City that would have interest inthis matter. This matter covers not only land use policy and the UDO, but the SOLSIVIART criteria alsopertain to other departments.

Mr. Johnston stated that the City encourages solar development with the Property Assessed CleanEnergy (PACE) ordinance. This legislation was adopted by the City as part of the baseball stadiumprocess. PACE provides an opportunity to finance environmental enhancements to developmentactivities. Mr. Durham agreed this was helpful but just wants to reiterate how important it will be forthe City to get the SOLSMART designation. SOLSMART works with FRA to prospect for businesses asthey will want to locate in a locality that has policies that allow them to do these types of projects.However, beyond the development and redevelopment aspects, Mr. Durham was also interested inwhat the City itself was thinking about, i.e., how to use its rooftops, how to work with City schools, etc.

Mr. Johnston reviewed a data center information meeting on August 12, 2019 where one of theelements discussed was the use of solar power to augment their power demands.

B. Planning Director CommentsMr. Johnston reviewed items from the August 13 Council meeting stating that the Douglas Streetvacation was withdrawn; the right-of-way shift of Alum Spring Road was approved; and archeologicaltext amendments were initiated. He reminded that the Area 1 and Area 2 charrette will be October 21-

13

24, 2019, along with other public meetings to discuss the areas. The plan was to move forward withArea 5 (College Heights), Area 8 (Mayfield), and Area 10 (Lafayette Corridor) next spring.

Mr. Rodriguez stated that he wants to be sure the Commission and staff don’t lose sight of discussingthe City’s parking situation and was requesting a work session for further discussion. Mr. Johnstonsuggested a work session be held at the September ii Commission meeting, which was agreed to bythe Commissioners.

11. ADJOURNMENTThere being no further items to be discussed, the mmission adjourned at 11:32.

Gantt, Chairman

14

Cathryn A. Eckles

From: James D. NewmanSent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:47 PMTo: Cathryn A. EcklesSubject: FW: Tax Exempt Parcels -Draft MapAttachments: 2019-08-13 TaxExempt.pdf

From: James D. NewmanSent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:16 PMTo: ‘David Durham’; ‘Steve Slominski’; ‘Tom O’Toole’; ‘Chris Hornung’; ‘Rene Rodriguez’; ‘James Pates’; ‘Kenneth Gantt(kdgantt.fredpc@gmail.com)’; ‘james.pates@dot.gov’Subject: Tax Exempt Parcels -Draft Map

Good afternoon Commissioners,

Attached is a draft map showing the location of tax exempt parcels around College Heights. A more polished version willbe in tonight’s presentation.

James Newman, AICPFredericksburg Zoning Administrator540-372-1179 Ext 231

DISCLAIMER: Information contained in this e-mail does not take the place of a written zoning determination and is not intended to be an officialzoning decision. To obtain an official written zoning decision, contact the Zoning Administrator for more information.

1

U)G)C.)

. L

a)

C

CC,

C

CC

CC

(ICCCCC’

£CC’

ci)U)U

CCC,c..J

CCC

C•

Cuci)S.

Cl)I.

c3)ci)

ci)

ci)

0C)C

Cl)ci)

ci)

00I.

Ea)x

LU><

0)

C

C,)

c3)D

CuCl)

— -

.2 cu C— o —

- .— — cu

Cu . ) o - —(1 U C/) -J c_) UJ 04-

0.E‘C

NC

ityof

Fre

deri

cksb

urg

Leg

end

Tax

_P

arce

lsT

ax_P

arce

ls

Sta

te

____

Loca

l

__

__

__

Rel

igio

us

Cha

rita

ble

Tax

Exe

mpt

Pro

pert

ies

inC

olle

geH

eigh

tsA

rea

Aug

ust

2019

01,

000

2,00

0F

eet

Map

byP

lann

ing

Ser

vic

esA

ugus

t14

,20

19I

II

I

(fJ-

(D

C(D

-c(D

C-ciIs-)0

0

>C

I0

C,,

C,,

I0

>C)III

OV

ER

VIE

W

•R

equestis

specialuse

permit

(SUP)

inaccordance

with

§72.22.6,etal.of

thecity’s

UD

Oto

allowfor

arecycling

centerw

itho

utd

oo

rstorage.

The

proposeduse

will

notinclude

anynew

buildings.

•P

ropertyconsists

of2

parcelstotaling

6094

acres(G

PIN#

7778-97-6600&

7778-96-9874)

ofw

hich60

056acres

aresubject

tothis

application(site

isundeveloped

exceptand

SUP

doesnot

includethe

Verizon

cellto

wer

areaapproved

in2017)

•T

heproposed

usew

illsupport

theapplicant’s

existingI 38,000

SFtransportation

recyclingcenter

operationslocated

nearbyon

135I

Belm

anR

oad(C

ityR

esolution

10-89)

•P

rojectis

within

theC

ity’sB

attlefieldIndustrial

Parkdirectly

acrossB

elman

Road

fromthe

applicant’s5+

acrestorage

sitem

ostrecently

developedto

supportthe

existingoperation

(City

Resolution

I5-84)

•P

rojectis

consistentw

ithC

ity’scom

prehensiveplan

andU

DO

zoningdistrict

goals

(asconfirm

edin

staffrep

ort

andprior

approvals)

•C

urren

ttax

revenuegeneration

forthe

siteis

$1,538and

with

theproposed

usean

estimated

$42,I 54in

totaltaxes

annuallyand

with

theexisting

usea

totalof

$122,222in

annualtax

revenuesgenerated

byM

&M

Auto.

•E

xistingO

perationprocesses

approximately

I,700non-operable

vehiclesper

yearand

storesits

post-recycledcar

frames

bothonsite

andoffsite

•V

ehiclesinclude

newer

models

•A

llvehicles

areinitially

drainedof

allhazardous

fluids(see

SUP

10-89)

•P

artsare

collectedand

inventoried

•E

mploys

atotal

of60

persons

•G

eneratesover

$80,000in

totalannual

taxrevenues

(RE

/PP/Sales/BPO

L)

•P

rojectw

illexpand

businessoperations

andem

ployment

basefor

Com

pany

•T

heproposed

usew

illserve

theE

xistingO

perationand

maintain

thesam

ebusiness

hoursfrom

Monday

thruFriday,7:30

a.m.to

5:00pm

.

EX

IST

ING

OP

ER

AT

ION

S

•——•

Proposed

Use

isco

nsisten

tw

ithth

eC

ity’sC

om

pPlan

andis

locatedw

ithinP

lanningArea

9and

Sub-P

lanningArea

9A,w

hichincludes

the

City’s

Battlefield

IndustrialP

ark

•P

lanningA

rea9

enco

urag

esth

edev

elopm

ent

ofindustrial

usesw

ithinth

eindustrial

park.S

ub-Planning

Area

9Aencourages

industrialuses

•T

heP

roposedU

sew

illfacilitate

andsu

pp

ort

the

following

keyfactors,

asapplicable,fo

rthis

planningarea:

•C

ontinuingdevelopm

ent/expansionof

theC

ity/Battlefield

IndustrialPark

•Protection

ofareas

ofw

etlandsw

ithinthe

City/B

attlefieldIndustrial

Park, includingH

azelR

un

•E

xpansionof

currentC

itybusiness

andtax

revenues/jobspertaining

tothe

same

•P

rojectis

consisten

tw

ithprio

rC

itySU

Papprovals

I0-89and

I5-84

CO

MP

PL

AN

CU

RR

EN

TS

UR

RO

UN

DIN

GA

RE

A

•P

ropertyis

locatedw

ithinthe

Battlefield

IndustrialP

ark

•A

llproperties

adjacentare

zonedIndustrial

•N

orth:W.C

.Spratt,

Braehead

Farm,

Milstead

&M

ilstead

•W

est:B

raeheadM

anor,N

ationalPark

•E

ast:P

rintInnovators,

Belm

anR

oad(across

Belm

anR

oadis

Existing

Operation)

•South:

Lee

Hill

IndustrialPark

S

V

Mnc

_[

‘‘

\____\

‘_::)

——

—I.

\\I\\I\\.

_

\\\\

‘—

_7\

_\\

\\_

\

N)

I\\\_

_)

-‘‘I2a7

\\

:.\

\

- -C)

---

S

‘\‘-

__\

I\

-

\f\’\

S\E

AU

OR

\\—

\\_-—

S1O

O•

,

S422U

.C

/

jjjj;:\\\

-

‘I

\\\\

L\

xstflg

I

FacilitY.S

-’

“

V

S-

Ex

ist

Ii

UT/

C

—o•

LP

I2O

I7O

tS327

—

20520

2/

LEGEN

D

F2

U0

02

200

NO

TE

:ST

ON

ETM

AV

ELWA

YT

OB

EI,,

MIN

IMU

M000N

03U

UG

AFG

UTE

ON

COMPACTED

SUD

GEO

CIE

00

090ME

VE

OE

QU

AL

•P

rintInnovators

•M

ilstead&

Milstead

(HV

AC

contractor)•

Departm

entof

Gam

eand

InlandFisheries

•C

ox•

M&

MA

utoP

arts•

Carico,

Inc.(steelfabrication)

•S

unbeltR

entals•

BM

C—

Building

Materials

&C

onstructionS

olutions•

Belm

anR

oadR

ecyclingC

enter

•S

uperiorPaving

Corporation

•M

axey’sT

owing

Alo

ng

Ty

lerS

tre-

p—

—_

.

•F

redericksburgW

aterworks

Departm

ent•

Habalis

Construction

•N

orandexB

uildingM

aterials•

K.S.l.

(autoparts)

•C

entral Virginia

Battlefields

Trust

•R

appahannockR

oofingC

ompany

•C

omm

onwealth

Custom

Restoration

•M

onstersand

Machine

•Julian

C.

BlyC

o.•

Braehead

Farm•

InflatableJum

pR

entals

CU

RR

EN

TS

UR

RO

UN

DIN

GA

RE

A

.‘

4.

-

*

.:A

longC

entral

Road

Alo

ng

Sq

mrn

it

•l.C

.E.H

eating&

Cooling

•F

redericksburgL

ivestock•

Thurm

anB

risbenC

enter

Market

•W

CS

pratt•

H&

SFencing

•B

raeheadM

anor•

Fredericksburg

Goodw

ill•

Tw

inR

iversR

oofing&

•W

ebE

quipment

Construction

•W

&G

Construction

.•

Southern

Air

Magnitude

Machine

&•

When

PigsFly

Fabrication

•Big

Boy

ofVirginiaT

rading•

Sum

mit

Recycling

•H

elenaC

hemical

•F

redericksburgW

orkshop•

Greenbrier

Music

Store

•Ferguson

Waterw

orks•

IndianFlooring

•360

Driving

Clinic

•N

ationalC

oach/Martz

Group

•E

astC

oastM

etalD

istributors•

SafaH

alalM

eats•

Mid

Atlantic

Fasteners

•N

orfleetM

ulch

CU

RR

EN

TS

UR

RO

UN

DIN

GA

RE

A

3

rnz-1

>znm-10

jr

.-

zCC.’,

-1

>

-v>

• (

•l

p*.

,. %•

£q

:

. ‘.

z0-1,

mmH

C

r)I

I i

F 111111

11

F

F.

I

dO

HS

AJJ

D

1.

I

I.,‘I

—

I

I

...

4

.1•

I

IL

I.’

I.

I,,

I

H

I

1

TR

EE

S&

FE

NC

ING

AL

ON

GB

EL

MA

NR

OA

D-

EX

IST

ING

OP

ER

AT

ION

k

EN

TR

AN

CE

TO

EX

IST

ING

OP

ER

AT

ION

zj

/

L_

L

F

11

•T

heenvironm

entalstandards

(I5-84)

forthe

proposeduse

aresim

ilarto

thosefor

the5

acrestorage

parcelsupporting

theE

xistingO

peration

Stored

vehiclesw

illnot

includeany

hazardousm

aterials(e.g. batteries)

orfluids

•P

ropertyis

notw

ithinthe

100year

floodplain

norare

thereany

slopesin

excessof

20%

Not

locatedin

aflood

zoneo

rw

ithinany

River

or

Chesapeake

Bay

Preservation

Overlay

District

•A

pplicantw

illnot

disturbany

wetlands

onthe

Property

•A

lltraveiw

aysw

ithinthe

Proposed

Use

will

include#57

stone, andstorage

areasw

illbe

grass

•E

xceeds(50%

+I)

them

inimum

openspace

requirements

(minim

umof

10%required)

forthe

1-2D

istrict

•T

hereare

alsono

known

historicalresources

onthe

site(subject

tofarm

ingfor

years)

•A

djacenthistorical

areasare

bufferedby

500+feet

offorests

andparam

eterfencing

(8feet)

IMP

AC

TS

TO

SU

RR

OU

ND

ING

PR

OP

ER

TIE

S

The

Proposed

Use

islocated

100feet

tothe

west

ofthe

Existing

Operation

andadjoins

several1-2

zonedproperties

Review

Criteria

underS

ection72-22.6

D.2

ofthe

UD

O(as

applicable):

(a)T

raffico

rp

arkin

gco

ngestio

n:

>T

heP

roposedU

sew

illdecrease

traffic(m

inimum

of1200

trips)as

therew

illbe

lessdaily

tripsfrom

theP

ropertyto

theStafford

sitefor

storage.

>E

xistingO

perationhas

more

thanadequate

parkingfor

anynew

trafficto

thesite.

(b)N

oise,lights,

dust,odors,fum

es,vib

ration,an

doth

erfacto

rsw

hichad

versely

affectth

enatu

ralen

viro

nm

ent:

>A

llactivities

underthe

Existing

Operation

occurindoors

andsubject

tothe

requirements

ofC

ityO

rdinance10-98.

>P

roposeduse

will

beused

onlyfor

storageof

postprocessed

materials;thus

therew

illbe

minim

umnoise,fum

esor

vibrations

>T

hesurface

ofthe

storageareas

where

saidm

aterialsw

illbe

locatedw

illinclude

stoneand

grass.T

heapplicant

will

constructat

leastan

eightfoot

(8’)high

fence(6

feetalong

Belm

anand

Tyler)

made

ofthe

same

material

andcolor

asthe

currentfence

bufferingthe

Existing

Operation

There

will

alsobe

landscapingalong

Belm

anR

oadand

Tyler

Street

asshow

non

theG

DR

Historical

andenvironm

entalsensitive

areasare

bufferedby

extensiveforest

(500+feet)

andover

18acres

ofw

etlandareas.

IMP

AC

TS

TO

SU

RR

OU

ND

ING

PR

OP

ER

TIE

S

Review

Criteria

(continued):

(c)D

iscou

ragem

ent

(Enco

urag

emen

t)o

feco

no

mic

dev

elopm

ent

activities

that

may

pro

vid

ed

esirable

emplo

ym

ent

or

enlarg

eth

etax

base:

This

proposalw

illdevelop/utilize

avacant,undeveloped

industrialproperty

tosupport

theE

xistingO

perationthat

isfairly

resilientto

market

swings

(domestic

andinternational

markets)

>T

heP

ropertyis

currentlyin

landuse

andpaying

$1,538.40

peryear

inreal

estatetaxes.Ifthis

projectis

approved--the

totalannual

generatedtax

revenueis

estimated

tobe

over$42,000

peryear.

(combined

$122,000w

ithexisting

use)

The

projectw

illnot

includeany

newbuildings

orinfrastructure;thus

theproposed

usecreates

aunique

development

flexibility(assist

alocal

businessw

ithgrow

thim

pactsand

generatepositive

taxes--yet

becapable

ofredevelopm

entforoth

erviable

uses).

(d)D

estructio

nof

or

encro

achm

ent

upon

conserv

ation

of

histo

ricdistricts:

>T

herew

illbe

none--

theN

ationalPark

isapproxim

ately525’

tothe

eastand

thisbuffer

areais

heavilyforested.

Historic

Braehead

Manor

islocated

approximately

1,070’from

theclosest

pointof

projectand

theproject

includesan

8’opaque

fencearound

theentire

storagearea

andlandscaping

alongB

elman

andT

ylerS

treets.

(e)T

hispro

jectw

illbe

inco

nfo

rman

cew

ithap

plicab

lefed

eral,statean

dlo

callaw

s.

(f)T

hepro

jectw

illh

ave

nom

assan

dscale

impacts

and

again

bescreen

edby

fencin

gan

dlan

dscap

ing.

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N

•V

ehicularaccess

tothe

Property

will

befrom

Belm

anR

oadonly.

•T

herew

illbe

approximately

I,200less

tripsgenerated

fromthe

facilityto

theStafford

locationannually

(2,400less

tripsif

returntrips

fromStafford

with

partsto

shipout

iscounted

separately)w

hichw

illnegate

the60

newtrips

perday

tothe

facility(e.g. em

ployeetrips).

CL

OS

ING

CO

MM

EN

TS

Application

isconsistent

with

City’s

comprehensive

planand

UD

Orequirem

entsand

consistentw

ithprior

SUP

approvals10-89

andI5-84

•T

heproposed

usew

ill:generateapproxim

ately$42,154

yearlyin

newtax

revenues,a2,640%

increasefrom

thecurrent

generationof$

1,538;andfurther

createapproxim

ately15

newjobs

•T

heexisting

usecurrently

generatesapproxim

ately$80,000

yearlyin

totaltax

revenuesfor

thecity.C

ombined

with

theproposed

use,M

&M

Auto

will

contributeover

$I22,200

inannual

taxrevenues

tothe

cityplus

75direct

jobs

The

projectw

illbe

adequatelyscreened

fromview

(Tyler

Street

andB

elman

Road;and

National

Park)and

haveno

environmental

impacts

•P

rojectw

illsupport

andexpand

anexisting

business,which

isa

cityeconom

icdevelopm

entpriority

andw

illnot

hinderfuture

development

ofthe

industrialpark

Given

thedevelopm

entconstraints

forthe

site,theproposed

useis

areasonable

andproductive

use

0CmCM-H

0zCM.

On 27 July I requested the addition of an agenda item for this PC meeting,specifically, a briefing from staff on their review of city ordinances and policiesrelating to solar power installations in commercial, residential, and governmentaldevelopment and redevelopment projects. The goal was to understand thedegree to which Fredericksburg ordinances and policies encourage or discouragesolar projects and what options exist to address identified shortfalls using theDOE SolSmart criteria as a benchmark. PC members I’ve provided you with aprintout of these criteria and an article noting the recent award of SolSmartdesignations to eight southwest Virginia coal country communities including sixcounties, an independent city and a town.

I’m hoping to start an inter-departmental and cross-committee/board discussionabout the value of such a designation given what the comprehensive plan statesabout city goals regarding the development of a sustainability ethic andFredericksburg’s associated triple bottom line of environment, equity, andeconomy. See pp. 11-2, 11-3 of the CP for that discussion including the followingidentified best practice to support a livable built environment: “Encourage greenbuilding design and energy conservation.”

It is my contention that Fredericksburg should seek to maximize our associationwith renewable energy projects inside the city because renewables are conduciveto job creation and innovation, they promote sustainability through renewablepowered buildings and electric mobility, and because localities that embracethem tend to offer a higher quality of living by being inclusive, healthier, andempowering places to live.

With that said, I renew my request for staff to embark on a review of cityordinances and policies relating to solar power installations in commercial,residential, and governmental development and redevelopment projects.

—— —— —

SOl SMART

SOLSMART CRITERIA

SolSmart awards cities, counties, and regional organizationspoints using objective criteria for removing obstacles to solarenergy development. Communities that receive sufficientpoints are designated SoiSmart Gold, Silver, or Bronze.

Points are awarded in the following eight categories. Information on SolSmart designation levels

can be found here.

PERMITTINGImplement permitting best practices to provide solar developers and installers a

transparent, efficient, and cost-effective approval processes that also protects your

communitys valuable staff time.

PLANNING, ZONING, & DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONSProvide maximum siting options for rooftop and ground-mounted solar projects while

preserving your community’s character and historic resources.

INSPECTIONProtect public health and safety while ensuring compliance with state and local codes.

CONSTRUCTION CODES

JOINOURMAILINGLIST

SOLSMART IS FUNDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SOLAR ENERGY

TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE.

ICMA SOLARFOUNDATION

GETSTARTEDTODAY!

>REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION

>APPLY FOR DESIGNATION

> MAKE A REFERRAL

HOME

ABOUT

FAQS

EGAL

© 2019 SoiSmart. All Rights Reserved. SoiSmart is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office.

Southwest Virginia communities recognized for solar work

By Sarah Rankin

July 25, 2019

https://www.a pnews.com/e36045eead354cacaad74b77b44320a7

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Eight Virginia coal country communities were recognized Thursday for theirwork to encourage the growth of solar energy, which supporters see as a means of boosting economicdevelopment in the struggling region.

The communities earned designations from SoiSmart, a nationwide program funded by the Departmentof Energy. SolSmart recognizes local governments that have taken action to cut the time and expenserequired to install solar energy systems.

“Southwest Virginia prides itself on the production of energy, and this is just a different way ofcontinuing the energy production,” said Lou Wallace, a member of the board of supervisors in RussellCounty, one of the eight recipients. “Many manufacturing companies are looking for communities andcounties who are forward thinking, and having this designation just solidifies our commitment to ourfuture,” Wallace said in a statement.

SoiSmart has awarded more than 275 designations across the country, but the eight Virginiacommunities are the first to be recognized in central Appalachia. An awards event was held Thursday inSt. Paul.

The “nonhardware” expenses of implementing solar, from dealing with planning and zoning to financing,constitute about two-thirds of the cost, said James Schroll, senior project manager at The SolarFoundation, a nonprofit that helps manage the SolSmart program. Streamlining those factors is intendedto help draw in new solar businesses.

As part of earning the designations, most of the local governments trained their permitting andinspection staff on solar best practices and reviewed their planning documents to see how solar-specificgoals could be included, Schroll said.

Others went further. Wise County adopted zoning language that would make it easier to install solar,and Scott County added a property tax exemption for solar energy use, he said.

In addition to Russell County, the communities recognized Thursday were Wise, Dickenson, Lee, Scottand Tazewell counties; the city of Norton; and the town of St. Paul.

At least seven large-scale solar projects totaling more than 4 megawatts are expected to beginconstruction in the area by the end of the year, according to The Solar Foundation.

“Going forward, I hope that other localities across Virginia will look to these applicants and make iteasier for communities across the Commonwealth to go solar,” U.S. Sen. Mark Warner said in astatement.