Fredericksburg Planning & Zoning Commissioners returned New Vista Development LLC’s reconsidered site plan and conditional‑use permit for 1032 South Main (Milam) Street to staff for additional review, saying outstanding design and safety issues must be resolved before the commission makes a recommendation to city council.

The action, taken by a 7–0 vote after a public hearing, followed lengthy testimony from the applicant, multiple neighborhood speakers and city staff. The applicant is seeking approval for condominium and townhouse uses and associated site work on roughly 14 acres.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the plan otherwise meets many code requirements but flagged a handful of items — most notably the proposed extension of Crestview Drive that would create a cul‑de‑sac longer than the code’s 500‑foot guidance — that pose public‑safety and precedent risks. Neighbors said construction could threaten a long‑standing retaining wall on adjacent Windcrest property and raised concerns about parking, tree clearing and trust with the developer.

The commission’s review focused on three recurring issues. First, planning staff and the applicant disagree about whether a portion of the development is classified as townhouse lots (which are treated differently in the zoning ordinance) or single‑family lots that would trigger the 500‑foot cul‑de‑sac limit and require a major subdivision waiver. Planning staff told the commission, “the way the code is written, you cannot extend beyond 500 feet for single family homes unless you have a waiver of the subdivision regulations,” and flagged that the cul‑de‑sac length could set an unwanted precedent if approved without a formal waiver and clear findings.

Second, neighbors from the Windcrest communities and two homeowners associations pressed the commission on potential damage to an existing retaining wall that sits on Windcrest property immediately north of the New Vista site. The applicant said the wall is not on New Vista land, presented a civil‑engineer inspection prepared by Dale Salsmeyer, P.E., and offered an easement to allow Windcrest access for inspection and repair. One resident told the commission, “I urge you to, deny the request,” citing fear of blasting or heavy equipment destabilizing adjacent foundations.

Third, the fate of an aging house on the property drew repeated comment. PB MacMahon Jr., director of operations for New Vista, described it bluntly: “House is generally dilapidated beyond recovery.” Staff told commissioners that the structure has not been designated an historic landmark and that recent changes in state law limit the city’s ability to unilaterally designate a landmark without an application from the property owner.

Staff and applicant positions: Development staff reviewed the revised submittal and found the project met many dimensional and parking requirements cited in an earlier staff report, but emphasized that the cul‑de‑sac issue remained unresolved and should be addressed in any future recommendation to council. The earlier staff report that originally recommended denial — prepared by the former planner and included in the packet — remains in the public record and was the basis for the commission’s cautious approach.

Public input: Multiple neighbors and HOA representatives opposed approval as submitted, citing the cul‑de‑sac length, potential structural impacts to Windcrest’s wall and concerns about removed vegetation and prior promises on landscaping and parking. The applicant repeatedly said it wanted a cooperative relationship with neighbors and that many technical concerns could be addressed in final engineering and site‑plan reviews.

Commission action and next steps: After discussion, a commissioner made a motion to return the matter to staff so the applicant and staff can resolve outstanding items and provide a single, clear recommendation. The motion passed 7–0. The commission directed staff and the applicant to resolve the cul‑de‑sac configuration (or identify a viable waiver or alternate routing), confirm whether lots meet townhouse or single‑family classifications under the code, verify parking calculations for each lot, and document any mitigation or agreements regarding the Windcrest retaining wall. The item will return to the commission when staff files a revised package with a clear recommendation.

What the file shows: In the packet and discussion, staff identified a parking shortfall on one residential parcel (Lot 1 R1) and a parking surplus on another (Lot 1 R2); staff and the applicant also noted that the property’s existing house has some historically relevant fabric but has not been designated or protected under the city’s landmark process. The applicant supplied a civil‑engineer report and said it had offered access to Windcrest for wall inspection and repair.

With the record left open for staff‑applicant follow‑up, the commission did not make any final land‑use decision tonight and emphasized that any recommendation to council should be accompanied by a clear, written staff report that resolves the cul‑de‑sac, parking and retaining‑wall questions.