On Wednesday night, the Fredericksburg Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the removal of the city’s Railroad Station Overlay District.
Do those words not mean much to you? If so, you’re not alone. In this space, the Free Press will attempt to explain the specifics and significance of the decision.
So, what is the Railroad Station Overlay District?
The Railroad Station Overlay District (RSO) was established in 1991 to promote development near the train station, according to a presentation from Fredericksburg Director of Community Planning Mike Craig.
It covers 13 parcels on Princess Anne, Frederick, Charles and Sophia streets south of the station. The Janney Marshall Building, which houses the Free Press offices, sits within the area.
Overlay districts modify the existing zoning of a parcel; according to a memo posted on the city’s website in November, 11 of the parcels within the RSO are zoned commercial downtown while two are R-8 residential.
How did we get here?
The RSO was modified in 2012-13, changing its purpose to more of a transition zone from the downtown commercial district to Darbytown, the adjacent residential neighborhood. As part of those changes, the maximum building height within the RSO was reduced from 50 to 40 feet, and an open space requirement was also added.
The Small Area 7 plan from 2020 references the RSO, noting that it is “incompatible with recent adaptive-use projects in the neighborhood,” such as the Frederick Street lofts and the Janney Marshall Building. Those properties were removed from the RSO and subsequently approved via a special-use permit process.
The Planning Commission first held a public hearing on the issue Nov. 13, and Wednesday’s meeting was a continuation of that. Removing the RSO was also discussed during a City Council work session in September.
What did city staff recommend?
At Wednesday’s meeting, Craig reiterated staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission urge two actions by council:
- Approval of a zoning map amendment removing the RSO from the above-mentioned 13 parcels;
- Approval of a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment removing the RSO.
What did the public have to say?
A majority of those who offered public comments were against removing the RSO. Their concerns included:
- Availability of on-street parking;
- Density and building height;
- Proximity to CSX freight trains like the one that derailed this past summer and a potential third rail;
- Traffic and pedestrian safety in Darbytown;
- Historic preservation.
One commenter who supported removing the RSO mentioned that its deletion could allow for higher-density housing, allowing young professionals like him to live in the city.
For one commissioner, the issue hit close to home
During public comment, Darbytown resident Eric Marshall revealed that his wife, Mary-Margaret Marshall — who serves on the Planning Commission — did not receive a pre-briefing on the topic before Wednesday’s meeting.
Prior to the vote, Commissioner Adam Lynch suggested that Marshall might not have been able to afford her home when it was constructed but that it aged into affordability relative to the rest of the neighborhood.
In response, Marshall said that while recent mixed-use developments have benefited her personally, leading to dramatically increased property values, they’ve all but priced out people like her and her husband.
“I would not buy my home today four years later in any way, shape or form,” she said. “From a personal investment purpose, it has benefited me, but in no way would I pay $800,000 for the $600,000 that I purchased.”
Lynch, in turn, countered that “an extreme scarcity of housing” is the true primary driver in increasing prices.
“When we don’t build, that’s the environment we’re sustaining,” he said.
How did they vote?
After a brief discussion and a failed friendly amendment, the commissioners voted, 4-2, to approve both recommendations. Commissioners Marshall and David Durham voted against.
What happens next?
The City Council will likely include the RSO on its agenda in January. Removing it would necessitate a change to the city’s UDO, requiring a public hearing and two readings.
