Council to scope study of alternate routes after developer seeks change to Frederick Road alignment

City staff and an applicant asked the Fredericksburg City Council Tuesday to consider studying alternatives to the currently mapped Frederick Road extension after Planning & Zoning approved a development plat in the extraterritorial jurisdiction with a condition tied to thoroughfare plan consistency.

Cliff/Clinton (city planning staff) told the council the P&Z action approved the development plan with a condition that any future thoroughfare plan be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan (illustration 2.3) and that staff cannot sign the final plat until an alternate route is defined or the condition is satisfied. The staff presentation cited the city code provisions for development plats and the state-law timeline for P&Z consideration.

Applicant Robert Radovan asked staff to study relocation or removal of the mapped Frederick Road alignment so the approved development plan could move forward. Radovan told the council the project team submitted a traffic-impact analysis (TIA) and that the project, as described in public comments and applicant materials, would include hotels and residences. In response to residents’ questions about scale and traffic, Radovan stated: "We have 60 hotel rooms, 37 villas that are part of that, and roughly 45 estate lots. We have 3 restaurants ... and a spa about 12,500 square feet." Radovan said the developer has completed a TIA and is working with the city on review.

Multiple residents spoke. John Bernard, speaking for neighbors in Countryside Bend, voiced concerns about the low‑water crossing at Barrens Creek and asked whether increased traffic would force local residents to detour via Everly and Olive without assurances of a new connection. Another nearby property owner (noted on a speaker card) emphasized that purchasers were aware of the existing right‑of‑way restriction and questioned where a removed right‑of‑way would be relocated.

City staff and Radovan discussed prior Kimley‑Horn analyses: staff said Kimley‑Horn identified several north–south corridor extensions in prior studies (2006 and re-evaluated in 2016–17), and a 2019 cost/benefit study rated the Frederick extension lower than other options, in part because of a bridge/low‑water crossing. The transcript cites an $18,000,000 pre‑COVID cost estimate for the bridge element; the applicant and staff said current construction costs could be considerably higher (applicant estimated roughly $30,000,000). Staff also noted many of the mapped thoroughfares fall in county jurisdiction and that the county has indicated it will enforce the city’s thoroughfare map in its development review.

Council members asked whether reengaging Kimley‑Horn would be a one‑off request to accommodate this applicant or part of a broader re-evaluation. Staff advised that Kimley‑Horn could scope an alternate‑route study and return with schedule and cost; staff noted that a narrow technical study is quicker than a full comprehensive‑plan amendment and that an alternate‑route approach could be drafted carefully to avoid an immediate comp‑plan amendment if council chose that path.

Council’s preliminary direction was to allow staff to reengage Kimley‑Horn, scope the study and return with schedule and cost estimates. Staff said they would meet with Kimley‑Horn the next day for scoping and then provide a follow-up to council. The P&Z condition remains in place and staff said they cannot sign the final plat until the condition is satisfied.

No formal vote on the plat or comp‑plan amendment occurred; the council’s action was procedural direction to scope further study.

Next steps: staff will scope a Kimley‑Horn study, report schedule and estimated costs to council, and return with options and wording that could address the P&Z condition.