Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll try that. Oh, hello. It's working.

We step back a couple of minutes to make sure everyone online knows what is happening.

We're working on it. So, okay.

So, let's start with this room.

Oh, okay. For those participating virtually, we were having some technical difficulties at the beginning of the meeting. We have taken roll call and established an in-person quorum, and we are now going to be requesting, Ms. Rowe, I think you should be able to hear us now. You requested to participate virtually. Could you let us know where and why you are participating virtually today?

I am participating from home because I am an old woman.

All the way down.

Oh my gosh, alright. You try one more time for us.

Can you hear me?

Is it me?

On the computer itself by check that.

Can you hear me now?

Oh, thank you so much, Ms. Rose.

Thank you. For a third time, I'm so sorry. Could you repeat it one more time? We were having technical difficulties again.

Can you hear me now?

We can. We can hear you loud and clear.

Okay. I am participating from home because I hurt my neck.

Oh.

Hope you feel better. We have a motion to allow Ms. Rowe to participate virtually. So moved. Second. We need discussion. Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on the motion to allow Ms. Rowe to participate virtually. Please call the vote.

Mr. Poole. Ms. Greenfield. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Penick.

Aye.

And Mr. White.

Aye.

Motion passes and Commissioner Roe, you should be allowed to participate virtually now.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We have minutes from June the 16th of 2026. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.

Second.

Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of minutes from June the 16th of 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Pinnock. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Abstain. Mr. White. Aye. That motion passes and those in against are approved.

Director, we have a report. I hope everyone had a non-eventful Independence Day weekend. That's all I've got for you.

Thank you. Consideration of continuances and deletions from the agenda.

We do have one. We have one consideration. It's for a continuance. It's item two, ordinance 2026-093. This is a special use permit to authorize the special use of the property known as 3317 Rare Monument Avenue for the purpose of up to four single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. And this is a request by the applicant to continue until the August 7th planning commission meeting.

Now, just for purposes of discussing this, August 7th is the meeting that we're going to have presentation on the streets.

Potentially. Currently, this will be the only item for sure.

This is the one that we would prefer to have it on.

Yes. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Here we have them. We have a request from the applicant to continue item number 2026-093 for the 3317 Rear Monument Avenue to August 7th, 2026. Do we have a motion? So moved.

Second.

Any discussion? All in question, we're voting on moving, continuing the matter of 3317 Rear Monument Avenue to August 7th, 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole?

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Hebert? Aye. Hi, Ms. Knight. Hi. Mr. Penick.

Hi.

Ms. Rowe. Hi. Mr. White.

Hi.

Motion passes, and you guys will see that again on August 7th.

Would you please present the consent agenda?

The consent agenda, we have item 3, ordinance 2026-152. This is to close to public use and travel an unimproved portion of Lafayette Street. located north of Sterling Street and south of Grove Avenue, consisting of approximately 5,159 plus or minus square feet upon certain terms and conditions. Item 4, Ordinance 2026-155, to authorize the special use of the property known as 5 North Colonial Avenue Rear for the purpose of up to six attached garages, which may be rented to persons who reside outside of the same entire block as the property. Upon certain terms and conditions, Item 5, Ordinance 2026-156, to authorize the special use of the properties known as 5219 5221 and 5221 and a half Euclid Avenue for the purpose of up to six single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. Item six, ordinance 2026-157. This is an ordinance to amend ordinance Number 2021-018, adopted February 22nd, 2021, as previously amended by ordinance number 2022-052, adopted March 28th, 2022, which authorized the special use of the properties known as 5300 Rear, Hull Street Road, 5311 Warwick Road, 5315 Warwick Road, and 5323 Warwick Road for the purpose of up to 65 single-family attached dwellings to instead authorize up to 73 single-family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. to modify the addresses included in the special use in certain terms and conditions upon certain terms and conditions. Item 7, Ordinance 2026-161. This is to amend Ordinance number 2026-063, adopted May 11th, 2026. which adopted the fiscal year 2026 to 2027 special fund budget and made appropriations pursuant thereto by transferring $480,000 from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services special fund into amend ordinance number 2026-065, adopted May 11th, 2026, which accepted a program of proposed capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 and the four fiscal years thereafter, adopted a capital budget for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 and determined a means of financing the same by appropriating $480,000 of such transferred funds to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services Fire Training Facility Burn Tower Replacement Project in the Capital Investment Opportunities category for the purpose of constructing the city's burn building to enhance the safety of fire service personnel while conducting live fire training. Item 8, Ordinance 2026-162, to declare a public necessity for and to authorize the acquisition by gift, purchase, Condemnation or otherwise certain fees, simple interest, temporary construction easements and permanent easements for the public purpose of facilitating the construction of the Hobby Hill Lake Dam Rehabilitation Project. Ordinance 2026-163 to declare public necessity for and to authorize the acquisition of the real property known as 5624 Campbell Avenue and the grant and acceptance of certain easements relating to the acquisition of such real property. for the purpose of implementing the combined sewer overflow mitigation project known as CSO-012 storage tank project. Item 10, UDC-2026-07, the location character and extent review of proposed street and transportation infrastructure improvements in Chaco Valley, including Oliver Hill Way, North 18th Street, Venable Street, Mosby Street, and Lee Street. This is a request to refer it to the July 16th UDC and to the July 23rd Public Art Commission meeting. Item 11, UDC 2026-08, the location, character, and extent review of the proposed architecture for the architectural archaeological pavilion over the historic Lumpkins Jail site, part of the Chaco Campus project located at 1500 East Franklin Street. So the request to be referred to the July 16th, 2026 Urban Design Committee meeting. And item 12, The City Planning Commission Resolution 2026-005. It's a resolution of the Richmond City Planning Commission approving the Public Art Commission Work Plan for fiscal year 2027. That's the consent agenda.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Are there any questions from members of the commission on the consent agenda? I'll open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public, either present or online who wishes to speak Issues on the consent agenda. Anyone online?

I am seeing no one online.

I'll close the public hearing, bring it back. Sorry, excuse me. Please come forward, sir. I'm right up here to this. Give us your name and tell us what you're concerned about. I also have a drawing that I put together.

I don't know if that's okay to hand out before the first time doing this. I'm concerned about number four, ordinance 2026151, the special use of the rear of 5 North Colonial. So I'm a resident of 3 North Colonial Avenue. I'm part of the market for representing it. That property depends on my family, sir. 60 approximately years and rid of the second owner of that property. My concern is not necessarily with that garage being renovated. I think it should be renovated. It has kind of put the last day to cover the graffiti. It's falling down apparently. I'm more concerned about the extension of the property into the next door alley of the 40 foot adjoining alley there for Me, as a member of the public and as a member of somebody in that alley, I'm concerned about the turning radiuses and access to that alley, especially from sanitation personnel and a fire, EMS, and then just the public use personnel of that alley. Currently, I watch from my apartment every single Monday morning sanitation crews having a hard time making the turn. They go from, as you can see, the top line on that drawing, and they make a loop down and then go to the bottom line on the and then turning back around. Right now they have a very hard time making that turn as is usually if somebody is illegally parked right next to behind in that kind of area where the proposed addition is, they really have to make three or five point turns to access sanitation. So I just wanted to make sure that was kind of noted on the commission and that the board was aware of that before making that decision.

Okay.

Could you give us your name, please? It's Mark Kukowski.

Kukowski, are you objecting to this? Would you like it moved to the regular agenda, or are you just bringing this to our attention?

I don't exactly know the difference between the two.

In order for us to more thoroughly consider your concern, we should move this to the regular agenda, let you make the same presentation. You can just say what I said. Yes. But what I'm trying to get at is you would prefer that that proposed addition.

I think it should maintain in the 40 by 40 area that it's represented the property lines are and not encroach onto public property that is there for access.

Just for clarification, the existing buildings that are in disrepair, are they in that same location?

No, they are in the 40 by 40 area right there. And that's the lot that the owner has. As far as what I could tell from their plans, they're asking for additional 18 feet of the alley from the city and then 18 by 40 foot area. That's that orange kind of coated area.

Did you have an opportunity to speak with the applicant about this? No. Did they approach you?

There was something posted on my door, I think, a week ago from the planning commission.

Other than that, did the applicant come and speak with you? Not to me personally, no. Is there a motion to move this item to the regular agenda?

Is there a second?

Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Chair.

A quick clarification. The gentleman in the podium said taking a public right-of-way or alluded to the project ENCROACHING INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I TALKED ABOUT.

WE'LL NEED TO TALK TO THE STAFF ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S OKAY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I THINK THIS ITEM IS NUMBER FOUR AND PUT IT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL THE QUESTION. WE'RE VOTING ON MOVING ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.

I'm supposed to do it one by one.

Okay.

We'll go fast. Mr. Poole?

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Eber? Aye. Ms. Knight? Aye. Mr. Penick?

Aye.

Ms. Rowe? Aye.

And Mr. White? Aye. Motion passes, and that item will be moved to the regular agenda. Chair Poole, where would you like that item on the regular agenda?

Well, since he's at the podium...

Go for it.

If you will pause just for a moment so we can do the amended consent agenda. Just stay right where you are. So we now have an amended consent agenda and we have a motion to approve. I'm assuming that the motion would continue as asked.

We do not have a motion just yet.

Okay.

And we have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Voting on the consent agenda as amended, please call the vote.

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Ms. Fittick.

Aye.

Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White. Motion passes and the amended consent agenda is adopted.

Very good. Would you please call item number four?

So the first item that we have on the regular agenda today is actually going to be item four, moved ordinance 2026, that's 155, This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 5 North Colonial Avenue Rear for the purpose of up to six attached garages, which may be rented to persons who reside outside of the same entire block as the property upon certain terms and conditions. And Ms. Oliver is going to give us an overview of the project ahead of the applicant.

Before we do that, Mr. Kowalski, as I understand the answers to my question and Mr. Pinnock's questions, you're concerned is the extension into the alleyway itself.

Yeah, I'm fine with that proposed. I think it's 14, 12 foot height adjustment. And the area just taking down, I think it's said raised the entire building and then rebuilt on third thing. I just was more concerned on it encroaching into the alley.

And the purposes of keeping this in proper order, I'm going to reserve some time after the, presentation from the staff and from the applicant for you to come back if you have something further. All right. Very good. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Ms. Oliver. I will present on behalf of the planner who's unable to be here tonight. So let me share, I'll share. This is not going to be your typical presentation, but we'll get through it. All right.

I'll share the screen. POSSIBLY. IT'S NOT SHOWING ON OUR SCREEN HERE.

IT'S A TAKE CONTROL BUTTON THAT ISN'T CLICKED UP THERE. TAKE IT WITH WHAT BUTTON? RIGHT THERE.

WELL, IT'S JUST NOT SHOWING WHAT I'M SHARING. IT IS SHOWING ON, I CAN SEE IT. It's really aggravating.

You can do the focus on content thing.

Yeah, we're just really struggling.

We're really struggling. Oh, there's the gallery. Oh, nope. Yeah, who is this from last?

This is pretty brutal.

Oh, yeah, because the content's not even showing up. Look at that.

Okay. Well, let me go ahead and pull it up on here and we'll just share the screen.

Oh, do you want to click share?

Well, no, because it's still not going to share.

Yeah, that'll work because it's showing on everybody. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So you guys are going to see what's on my screen. Everybody else at home can see just the map that I'm trying to share with you, but that is OK. Actually, I might be able to.

I think I can do this, OK. OK. OK. Thank you. Solve it? No. That's unmuted. It's unmuted? Yeah. Okay.

Try it again. Can you just make sure you can hear me?

Okay, that's good news. Okay. Sorry for the technical difficulties. Okay. So I've pulled up here. This is our GIS just to show you where we're talking about. We're talking about these properties here, the rear. on this block. So the applicant is requesting a special use permit to authorize the construction of a six-bay garage structure accessible by alley. The new garage structure will replace an existing garage building dating back to the first half of the 20th century. The property is located in an R6 single-family attached residential district in which garages are permitted use. However, the applicant is proposing a new garage structure that exceeds the maximum permitted height limit of 12 feet, so it'll be taller than that, And it will allow the garage space to be leaseable to those who do not own or lease a principal dwelling unit on the block. Staff's recommending approval because this proposal aligns with the master plan's recommendation for neighborhood mixed uses and garages aren't appropriate accessory use in that area. And staff also concludes that it meets the minimum criteria outlined in the city charter. If approved, It would be subject to special conditions. One of those conditions is that the special use permit is granting exclusively the use of the property, but they would still need to get a separate. Here, I'll just read it the way it's written. The special use permit granted by this ordinance is expressly conditioned on the adoption and compliance with an ordinance closing to public use and travel. A part of the alley in the block bounded by North Colonial Avenue, Floyd Avenue, North Arthur Ashe Boulevard, and Elwood Avenue substantially is shown on the plans. I will show you those plans. That's here. This is a different orientation than what you're looking at here. So you can see here's five and three. Those are these units down here. So we're talking about this is the 40 feet of public right-of-way that's there. They are requesting to close 18 feet here to allow for the garages to encroach in that. And if that is not approved by DPW, this special use permit would be null and void. Other conditions, it specifically outlines that the use is for six attached garages that can be used to persons residing outside of the entire block. It also says that the plan should be substantially shown on the plan or that the improvement should be substantially shown on the plan and that any mechanical equipment, if there is any, must be screened from the public right of way. So with that, we would recommend approval of it. We've received some letters of support from the public today and then today we heard from other neighbors.

I have a question. Has DPW considered the issue that is being raised?

Yes. So we've, and I don't want to speak on their behalf, but they have considered it, and that is going through that process right now. I don't know where the ordinance is in the process.

We don't know whether they would approve it or not.

Let me stop sharing for one second, and I will read to you exactly what their comments are. I'm just nervous.

I don't want to misrepresent anything.

I'm still sharing, aren't I? Because I'm still sharing today. Do you have a representative from DPU here?

From DPW? DPW. I don't think anybody who's came here specifically to discuss this case. We always love to hear.

Do you want a mock-up?

I'm just going to make a statement. Do you want a mock-up?

Vice Chair and members of the Commission, and Cara from Department of Public Works. This request has come in for the closing of that portion of the right-of-way in the cage for this special use permit and development. Public Works has coordinated with all city departments, including Public Works. No one has objection to close that portion of the right-of-way. It is in the city attorney's office for approval, attempt to approve to go through Council approval process. So hopefully very soon, I would say if not July 27th, if not then following in September, it will be introduced for Council action.

Assuming you heard Mr. Krakowski's concerns about turning radius, is that part of the decision process that you all considered?

No, I have not looked into, I just heard about it. So it needs to be evaluated further and I will be happy to sit down with the applicant if there is any issue, but I have not looked into that detail.

I have a thought. I think we're premature on considering this matter. Is there a motion to continue this matter?

Could we hear from the applicant first before we make a

Thank you, Mr. Kerr. If you will hang tight.

Is the applicant present?

Mr. Baker.

Mark Baker, Baker Development Resources, here on behalf of the property owner. The property owner lives in the block and is this gentleman's neighbor. We'll say they did contact neighbors. They presented takes letters and support based on that outreach. So this has been, you know, we had a conversation with staff and public works sat down with them pre-application before even applying for this. This is an exceptionally large area right away. You think of an alley, the notion of 15 foot wide alleys, which is what you have adjacent to the alley on either side, right? It's fairly typical for the area. It's currently 40. And so the proposal was, And again, in concert with planning staff and public works before even applied, was to reduce that to a margin that was still greater than what public works typically ask for in an alley. So we're at over 21 feet, whereas they ask for 20 typically. So we proceeded with that application. We recognize the concern, want to be careful who we're addressing it as well. Move forward, it has moved through the process. It's unfortunate that The planning staff person is not here to speak to it. It's unfortunate that the DPW specific reviewer is not here to speak to it. But there was an even, although there was a DPW review prior to even the application, there was a more thorough review during the application. It was my understanding that they even had a truck out there to, in fact, show that they could make, you know, to themselves, you know, show that they felt comfortable they can make those maneuvers. And it's also worth noting that to the extent that you know, these maneuvers are shown, there's only one maneuver in particular that they're showing as being closed and that's in the corner of the area to be closed. We're not closing that entire right away. In fact, if you could put that, could you put that back up? But again, that was the area of specific evaluation. It's been a long process. We had a long period of review with staff and that's an item that we're aware that they specifically looked at.

You heard Mr. Kokowski say that the only thing he got was a posting on his door. I know what your normal course of conduct is. Did you make contact with this Mr. Kokowski?

We always write letters to Alderman's. right so we don't necessarily go out knocking on doors our client as well as he lives in the block he lives in the block you know went around to all the property owners and you know i don't know to what extent he was able to get tucked in perhaps perhaps not but uh again as a result of his outreach he got six letters of support in in the neighborhood in the in the block so um our typical outreach was had here we met with with the museum district association uh multiple times on it as well So, yeah, we've definitely done at least as much as we do on other cases, but I would argue more here than any cases.

The current garages that are there have been in disrepair, but they were used in the past for garages. Yes. Is this banning them because?

Well, so, I mean, you may be able to recall we just had that case that came through and That was another case that was similar. This area is littered with like every one of these captured parcels that are on interior lots, many of those have, or interior alleys rather, many of those have similar garage situation, but those are older garages that are commonly, yeah, they might be used, but over the years that use has been not so much for automobiles over time, because they're difficult to get into. And they're difficult to even get out of your car once you get in. So this is the idea here was to create six very well-sized, and that's why you're seeing some of the support from adjacent property owners is that the idea is that they would be able to utilize those. The additional height is something that would allow for additional storage above and sort of a lofted storage space. So these are designed to be something more akin to what you would get in a garage in a more modern house. So it's sort of trying to meet the needs of today's market with a garage that's still accessible. And by the way, these meet zoning's maneuverability standards for despite the expansion in order to get in and out of the garages. So the size of the space within the garage as well as the backup space meet the dimensions that are required. So they're made to work. They're made to function just like a garage that you'd see on the rear of a property that that had a single family dwelling on it that weren't parcel. They have all those same attributes that we might've used elsewhere. This is having to come, and by the way, those would probably be about right. This is just having to come to you because it's on an interior parcel that doesn't have frontage.

Questions for Mr. Baker?

But it's your testimony that all of this has been reviewed in the process And the new ability has been proven to DPW to the extent that they looked at it. Yeah. Mr. Karish testimony that he is waiting for the city attorney's office. Other than that, everything else is approved.

Yeah. And his testimony actually takes it a, takes it a step further. I mean, the many instances where DP, all of our cases where we're having to provide parking at the rear of the parcel, DPW reviews those as an access, right. This one, again, it replied to the special use permit because we're having to go through a process. It's not, it doesn't have frontage, right? So they reviewed it as a part of the special use permit and they signed off on it. So the special use permit doesn't move forward until all the reviewing agencies have signed off on it. And if they haven't signed off on it, right, they're not making a recommendation approval and those reviewing agencies are here saying something.

That's what was curious to me because of the second caveat, so to speak, in the special use permit addresses that very issue as,

needing to be done post approval of the- That's the review of the closure, which requires a separate action by council. So that's why that has to happen. So it doesn't mean that they don't still review it from the standpoint of, you know, functionality and meeting their standards, especially use permits still 100%. We wouldn't go through this process if they weren't going to review the standards until afterwards, right? Because the special use permit would have then been pursued speculatively and could be rendered you know, void by virtue of some future review that's yet to take place, right? But by his testimony, that secondary review has also taken place. So they've actually reviewed this twice, whereas oftentimes in garage situations, maneuverability, special use permits, they only review it once. So I'd argue they've gotten to see this more often than your average special use permit.

Well, that was what was so confusing to me because I know each individual case is its own case, but I know how you you normally do things and how you would drink something here. Yeah, that's right.

When we're here with the special use permit, for future reference, if we're here, and we'll go back and forth on issues with reviewing agencies, we may have to revise things, but once it gets here, for a special use permit and staff's making a recommendation of approval, it's because all those reviewing agencies have signed off on that.

Questions for Mr. Baker from the committee?

I was just going to also attest that prior to, there was an informal conversation with DPW prior to this application even coming in to see if this was even remotely in the realm of possibility, because they weren't even going to pursue it if DW, no chance of supporting it. They've reviewed it probably three different times.

Which confirms what Mr. Baker was saying.

Sure. So it's my understanding from hearing Mr. Baker that the SDP has been assessed and DPW is part of the review process has looked at being able to the turn radius and accessibility. Really the only issue that DPU is looking at now is in the attorney's office to actually close a portion of the easement that has nothing to do with like accessing the alley. Yeah.

So, yeah. And I can see, I went to try to see if it was lined up slated for a docket yet. If not, I can see it in the system. So it's still waiting on an introduction date, but the ordinance exists and it's, speak by the attorney's office.

But that doesn't change the fact that DPW has already examined whether or not this alley could function appropriately with this extension. Okay.

I'm going to open a public hearing, ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak in favor of this case. Galsky, I take it you're opposed. If you would come back up here and see if we can address some of your concerns and and have you understand where we are in the process and anything you want to give to the commission for their consideration.

Yeah, I think, thank you to the board, everyone. But I think my major concern was just that the public works was looking at it and that, you know, our alley was still going to be able to be serviced on both sides. And even if, you know, this is kind of setting precedent for next door at the three north colonial rear, If that gets closed, then I was concerned that we would not be able to have access for sanitation and emergency personnel down that alleyway because, you know, that turn in between three north and three north rear and five north and five north rear is difficult in my truck in general. And so that's the same amount of width for that they're proposing is a 21-foot and a 21-foot on either side of the thing. And if my truck can barely make that, I was concerned that a trash truck wouldn't be able to, especially when I hear them at 8 a.m. on a Monday morning backing up and yelling, trying not to hit garages. That was what my concern was. And the comment on one thing interfering, that's inner and outer turn radius on that board. So you can see if it's two green lines would be the sanitation one. The farther out green line is the stated average for a trash truck is 50 feet turning radius. Inner of that would be assumed eight foot wide trash truck. So that's where the inside of the trash truck would be. That was my concern. And so I think I just didn't want, I wanted to make sure that everything was going to be serviced on our alley and that we weren't going to have this conversation once it's already built. And then they're like, well, a trash truck from your property where they should be over to public books.

Given what you've heard this evening about the reviews, the multiple reviews that DPW has given to this particular project, do you still oppose the project?

I don't think like the hard proposed and the concern of the board, I still also don't necessarily think that the outlet should be closed. Another 18 foot into it, but I think, Overall, I'm still concerned about it, but if the Department of Public Works says that's okay and it's gone through a proper review, I just wanted to make my public opinion heard.

Any questions for Mr. Kukowski?

Just one. Yes, sir. Sir, your attorney, Radiant Software, has assumptions of vehicular sizes and operations.

So I'm an engineer by trade, so that's an AutoCAD drawing, so I made the assumptions of an eight foot standard wide vehicle, which is, you know, height for even a trash truck and then turning radius is based off of, you know, Department of Transportation information that's readily available. Thanks, sir. So that's where that came from. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in opposition? Opposed to public hearing, bring it back to the commission and ask if there is a motion to issue number 4, 5 North Colonial Avenue, Rios.

Move approval.

Second.

Any discussion? I'm satisfied from the testimony from DPW and staff that this has been vetted and looked at.

I'll also say that in an adjacent street, I own a piece of property that is exactly like this. And I am very well aware of the issues. I think it's now been fully vetted by the department, and I'm comfortable to support this paper. Anything further? I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of item number 4, 5, North Columbia Avenue. Please call.

Mr. Poole?

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Ebert? Aye. Ms. Knight? Aye. Mr. Penick?

Aye.

Ms. Rowe? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Motion passes and that item will be recommended for approval to city council.

I do want to say to Mr. Krakowski that I appreciate his concerns and your testimony and your being here tonight. We thank you very much.

Next item.

The next item that we have is going to be item 13, ordinance 2026-153. This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 2502 4th Avenue for the purpose of a day nursery for up to 12 children. upon certain terms and conditions. And we are joined by our planner, Ms. Wilson. Welcome. Hello.

Maddie, give just one second.

No, she's sharing. So I'm going to have to share it. Oh, it's not working.

No, it's not.

So this is for, my name is Madison Wilson.

This is for ordinance 2026-153, located at 2502 4th Avenue. The full ordinance title is to authorize the special use of the property known as 2502 4th Avenue for the purpose of a day nursery for up to 12 children upon certain terms and conditions. Currently, it is a residence. It's a single-family detached home located on 4th Avenue between Magnolia and Myrtle Streets. It is located in the neighborhood Highland Park, Southern Tip, a 4,200-square-foot lot and 0.096 acres. and adjacent properties are located within the same R6 zoning district. The area is generally single family residential with some small neighborhood commercial and institutional uses present nearby. So as said before, the proposal is for an in-home daycare for up to 12 children and the outdoor space will be 1,650 square feet in the rear. And here are some small floor plans, but the floor plans are to indicate the space that will be allocated to childcare on the first floor and the second floor will remain a residence. The future land use of the property is residential, which highlights that bicycle and pedestrian access are prioritized and accommodated with low residential density And it's not possible to provide frequent transit within these areas. So the area is meant to kind of maintain lower traffic in the area. The primary uses for residential are single-family homes, accessory dwelling units in open space, and secondary uses are duplexes, small multifamily buildings, institutional, cultural, and those secondary uses can be found along major streets. The zoning for the parcel is R6 single family attached residential. The proposed use does not conform to the following sections of the zoning ordinance, which is section 30-412.2, which is permitted accessory units uses and structures, which basically means the day nurseries are not permitted in homes in this district by right. The conditions are as follows. The special use for the property shall be as a day nursery for up to 12 children, not including children living on the property. All mechanical equipment for the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible by any adjoining public right-of-way. The hours of operation for the day nursery shall be from 7 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The day nursery shall be licensed by and operated under the requirements of the Virginia Department of Education or its successor agency. The day nursery shall be operated by the owner or occupant residing on the property. A minimum outdoor play area of 100 square feet for each child enrolled shall be furnished on the premises, but not within the required front yard. The outdoor play area substantially shown in the area labeled as shaded area shows portion of existing backyard to be used for childcare on the plans shall be enclosed within a continuous opaque structural fence or wall, not less than four feet in height. and such fence or wall shall not be located within a required front yard. And no play equipment or structure shall be located within the front yard or required side yard. The staff recommendation, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the city's master plan pertaining to chapter four, diverse economy. The master plan supports businesses of various sizes and impact, and this permit will allow the applicant to start a small business. Additionally, a day nursery which serves 12 children will positively impact the growing neighborhood that surrounds the property. As families continue to populate neighborhoods like Highland Park, another option for nearby childcare is a community benefit. Staff find that due to all the findings summarized above, the safeguards contained within the city charter relative to the granting of special use permits are met. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit request. And then here are the plans again. And if you need me to zoom in or anything, I can.

Questions for Ms. Wilson.

I have one. If the state care had been operating since December of 2025 with 12 children, would that have been illegal?

It wouldn't be in conformance, but they are allowed to operate with up to four children by right. They just can't exceed that number.

Any other questions from members of the Commission? Thank you so much. Is the applicant present?

Please come forward, give us your name, make your presentation.

And if there's questions from the Commissions, they'll ask.

My name is Leticia Jones. I'M THE CHILDCARE PROVIDER LOCATED AT 2502 4TH AVENUE. I RECENTLY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. I WAS RENTING A PROPERTY LIKE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FOR 16 YEARS. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 2010. I WAS ALWAYS LICENSED FOR 12 CHILDREN, BUT WHEN I PURCHASED THIS HOME, STATE LICENSES HAD TO GO THROUGH SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, SO WHICH REDUCED MY CHILDREN TO FOUR. I'VE HAD FOUR CHILDREN SINCE JANUARY AT THIS LOCATION. I PROVIDE QUALITY CHILDCARE FOR MAINLY ALL OF A LOT OF THE AREA CHILDREN OVER THE HARLEM PARK AREA. I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR 16 YEARS. WHAT ELSE?

I THINK A LOT OF MY

parents are, they used to take public transportation or they're in walking distance. So parking isn't an issue because they're usually, if it's, if there's a family with a car, they usually have siblings. So it's like, I've never had 12 children exact. I've always mainly had 10 at the most, maybe nine to 10. Right now I'm saying I only have four. I've had four since January, but.

Could you give us your plan for pickup and drop off?

My drop-off time, I only pick up from school. I only pick up from school. The parents pick them, they drop them off to the daycare and they pick them up. Drop-off time is usually from 7 to like 8.30. Pick-up is like, I would say 4.30 to 5.30.

And how, physically, how does that occur with respect to the property? Where do the children exit? Because the issue that was raised was the fact that there's a lot of traffic along.

A lot of traffic from the daycare fair? No. Oh, they exit through the front, through the front door. As soon as you come into the property, that's the daycare space, the daycare area. The downstairs area along with the backyard is the play area. My personal living space is upstairs. Stay licensed. USDA certified.

And you or your, I think you have one other employee.

Yes. Well, actually I have two.

But someone accompanies the children when they're being picked up.

Yes. Yeah.

Any other questions from members of the commission?

Just to clarify. So if I understood, you're saying that you bought this property THINKING THAT YOU COULD JUST TRANSFER WHATEVER?

NO, I WASN'T THINKING I COULD TRANSFER. I KNEW IT WAS A PROCESS, BUT I HAD TO DISENROLL A LOT OF MY CHILDREN WHEN I GOT TO THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE STATE LICENSING SAID I HAD TO GET ANOTHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO THIS PROPERTY. WHICH YOU BOUGHT IN JANUARY. YES. SO FROM JANUARY UNTIL NOW, I ONLY HAVE FOUR CHILDREN, ONLY

Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate you coming tonight.

Okay. I'll open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak in favor of this case. Anyone online?

Seeing no one online.

Is there any member of the public that wishes to speak in opposition? Anyone online?

I am seeing no one online.

Just to ask, is Judith Wood

online? No, there is only currently one external person online.

Ms. Wood is the person who filed the letter today raising issues that I think the applicant has addressed. Any other members of the public wish to speak? Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission and ask if there's a motion on 2502 4th Avenue special use permit will allow day care, day nursery for up to 12 children. Is there a motion?

Second.

Any discussion? Clearly appears to me this young lady knows what she's doing, went through the proper process, even reduced the number of people in accordance with the rules, and is now asking for that to be changed by the special use permit. I support the paper.

Any other?

Call the question. I'm on approval 2502 4th Avenue. Mr. Poole?

Aye. Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Ebert? Aye. Ms. Knight?

Aye.

Mr. Penick?

Aye.

Ms. Rowe? Aye. Mr. White?

Aye. That motion passes and that item will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval.

And last item.

So the last item on the agenda is item 14, ordinance 2026-154. This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 1235 North 36th Street for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

And I will actually be giving the presentation on this item. The applicant is here as well to speak following that. To the fun part.

There's a fun part.

So I'll be presenting on ordinance 2026-154.

This is at 1235 North 36th Street.

This is a special use permit to authorize the property known as 1235 North 36th Street for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. To orient ourselves, we are in the east end of the city in the Oakwood neighborhood on North 36th Street. And as you can see on the right, general location of the site is where you can kind of see that undeveloped land within that red circle. That's obviously not the exact property lines, but it's generally there on an unimproved portion of North 36th Street. Zooming in just a little bit more, the property is approximately a fourth of an acre at 10,890 square feet. It is currently unimproved, and the street in front of it is also unimproved. This is pretty much exactly what it looks like. The applicant has requested to divide the property into two lots, and those lots would be substandard according to the underlying zoning. The proposal includes dividing the property into two lots to be improved with single family detached dwellings. In addition to the subdivision and the construction of the dwellings, they will be extending 36th Street, the street itself, as well as the sidewalk in front of the property. And then they also are planning to pave to the rear alley. I'm gonna go back one more slide. You can see, At the bottom of that red thing, you can see kind of where that alley runs. And so they'd be paving from the front of the property to the back and essentially providing access to that alley.

So I did a little fancy photo for you guys.

This is essentially what they're proposing. So extending the street to new single family detached buildings. However, it is located in an R5 single family zoning district, which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet and a lot width of 50 feet. And they are proposing to divide the property equally. So each lot would have roughly 5,400 square feet in area and then would be 45 feet in width. So pretty close to the underlying zoning. In addition to the lot area and lot width, they are requesting relief from just the front yard regulation. The other yards are in compliance. And so the R5 district requires a 25 foot front yard and they are proposing 15 feet. And for some context, the property is also designated as neighborhood mixed use and properties within this designation are typically 1,500 to 5,000 square feet. And so the subject property is currently greater than two times the typical amount that you would see in a neighborhood mixed use designation. However, as you know, it's on an unimproved portion. This is kind of an unofficial shot of the block. You can clearly see that the property is like the second largest parcel aside from the one directly across from it. And so dividing the property would actually be bringing it to more in kind to the rest of the immediate block as well. We also, just as a reminder, I'm not going to go through all of these. The proposal staff finds that it meets the minimum criteria outlined in the city charter for special use permits. Just got those check marks there. Extending the street and adding two single family detached dwellings. It won't be detrimental to safety, health, morals, or general welfare. It will not create congestion or hazards, overcrowding. And this is not going to be adversely impacting anything else in the neighborhood as far as schools go parks, water supplies. In fact, it's actually enhancing the public right of way. So I would say that it's doing more. And then of course, it's not going to be interfering with any adequate lighter air. In addition to satisfying the minimum criteria, there are the proposed ordinance conditions, which includes that the special use of the property shall be as up to two single family detached dwellings and one single family. Oh goodness. Two single family detached dwellings. I have no idea where that condition came from. Please ignore that. Sorry, I'm going to pause to make sure that is not. And that is, I would like to correct both this presentation as well as the staff report. There's a drafting error. This is a copy and paste error. This is not for two single family detached dwellings and one single family detached. That sentence doesn't make sense. It's the two single family detached dwellings. No off-street. Parking shall be required for the special use and then all site improvements shall be substantially shown on the plans. All mechanical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened as to not be visible from any adjoining public right-of-way. And prior to the issuance of a building permit for the special use, the establishment of no more than two residential lots substantially shown on the plans shall be accomplished by obtaining the necessary approvals from the city and recording the appropriate plats and deeds among the land records of the clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. And we talked to briefly about it, but the owner shall make improvements within the right-of-way, including without limitation the extension of the pavement and sidewalk along that portion of North 36th Street, shown and labeled as approximately 102 feet extend of pavement, and the installation of pavement along that portion of Canapa Street, shown and labeled as proposed pavement tied to rear alley, substantially as shown on the plans, which improvements may be completed in one or more phases as approved by the Director of Public Works. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the city's master plan and that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit as it is written in the ordinance for two single family detached dwellings and not the drafting error that's listed in the staff report at the end.

Questions for Ms. Troth? I just want

I wasn't clear. Is the paved area that connects 36 to the alley intended for public use?

It will be dedicated public right-of-way. Okay. I missed that. It could be dedicated public right-of-way. The street's not extended yet, and so Public Works has worked with them, and they'd like it dedicated public right-of-way, so it likely will be. Okay.

Any other questions from members of the commission?

Wait, Neil, I'm going to let you help. Okay. I'm going to ask if the applicant is present and wish to make a presentation.

Well, I'll sit down.

Why don't you come on up, give us your name, and tell us about your project and how much engagement you've had with the neighborhood.

My name is John Carlos and I'm representing my client, which is the owner of the property. He's present as well in case there are any questions regarding the engagement. So mostly with the original process of the SMP, which is with the Syria Association and all the departments, but not with the neighbors.

Questions, first calls.

Thank you very much. I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO PRACTICE ONLINE.

I AM NOT CURRENTLY SEEING ANYONE ONLINE.

NOW, YOUNG LADY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION?

IF YOU COULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE US YOUR NAME.

WE'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

a real concern because I don't understand re-zoning.

Good afternoon, my name is Mary Fitzgerald and I live at 1233 North 36th Street. And I had some concerns because I don't understand re-zoning and the sun was attached to my fence and my yard. And I wanted to know what was going on. So that's why I came here. So what do you mean by re-zoning, Phyllis?

start with this is what's called a special use permit it is a particular ordinance that applies only to this property and it travels with the land so in other words with this gentleman you'll get a special if that special use permit is approved by city council you will be able to build two houses there in accordance with the plans that he submitted and he has to follow all the rules that are in the ordinance itself which the as Ms. Trump presented. So it's not a rezoning. It's a special use permit, which is a specific ordinance that applies to this property and this property only. What's in the ordinance itself controls what that person can do with that property.

This is like a little slither lane in the property because the creek used to be there and the lane was a fill-in. So they tried to make a street, but the people rejected it. So it's like a little sliver of lane there and then. And the letter that I received said it wasn't large enough to build two family units on it. So I don't know how they're going to do that, but it's up to them. I just want to know, was my lane interfering with him? Since I was right next door, you know, right up on me.

If they do, you need to come back and tell us, but they have no authority to interfere with your lanes.

Thank you. That's all I needed to know. You're welcome.

Thank you. Have a good evening. I meant to ask, are there any questions for Ms. Fitzgerald from other members of the commission? Thank you, ma'am. You're welcome. Any other members of the public wish to speak in opposition?

Yes, sir. Please come forward. What's your name?

My name is Andre Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald? How are you doing? How's everybody? Welcome. Are you related? I am her son. Now, I've been living on, I lived on 36th Street all my life. I'm 59 years old. It was an unstirred property with 30 people. And after about three or four years, houses popping up in spaces where there used to be yards. Now the house, now this wants to be disturbed. I want to know what's the purpose. How does it benefit anybody in that neighborhood to put two more houses in that space? You say it doesn't disturb anything. There's an ecosystem that goes on there. There's an ecosystem that happens there. You start turning down that stuff, you destroy that ecosystem. There are already wild animals running in different yards now in the neighborhood. I don't see the benefit of this to the neighborhood. I don't see the benefit to the neighbors. I don't see the benefit of this to my mother. I saw that sign attached to her yard when I came over. I took it off. Whoever did it had no right to put a sign on her yard, her property center. Oh, we're going to do something here. You put it where you're going to do something that. You don't mess with her property, her territory. And I don't trust this establishment, whatever you're doing, whatever you're building, that you won't infringe on her property line. Because I tell you what, I will be watching. And when it happens, I will be up here to shut you down. I will be where you are to shut you down. Out of all the spaces in Richmond, all the dilapidated properties in Richmond, why this one? This one is undisturbed. It has been undisturbed since I've been a child. I'm a grown man now. And now you want to come disturbing to put up what? Cause it's the new thing in Richmond is just build properties everywhere with no care. You're going to put what? Extend the sidewalk. And you said it's not going to cause a problem. You, you, her, Ms. Trump says it's not going to be a problem. You don't know how much traffic come down that block now and just come down and turn around and go back out. People don't even live there. You extend that, that just means more traffic coming down there, turning around and going back out. So to say it's not going to harm anything, unless you live in that neighborhood, you don't know. Your research can't tell you that.

Sir, I'm just curious because I don't dispute that there was a sign put on your mom's property. I understand that. But there's also a citywide rezoning going on. So I'm wondering if I'm supposed to make it OK. No, that's not my question, sir. But there's a there's campaigns out there and people are placing signs to raise awareness. Was it a blue sign or was it a blue sign?

OK, yeah.

Thank you.

And I cut it off. because they had no right to do that to her property. That's making it look like her property is being rezoned.

I just wanted to understand, sir, if it was a blue sign that the city could have posted to make someone aware, or if it was part of an external campaign and someone put it there by mistake. I was curious.

What you want to say is rezoning. I asked her her points, which means if you're looking, you're like, oh, we're going to get this property right here too. And that's not the case. I'm making sure that's not the case.

No, I understand that. I just want some clarification. Thank you.

Glad I could clarify that.

Any other questions for Mr. Fitzgerald? Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming. You're welcome.

And I will be watching.

Any other members of the public wish to speak in opposition? Anyone online?

I do.

Please come forward. Give us your name.

We'd be glad to hear from you.

And I'm concerned about that property, the 1235 property, because I do recall that there was some tombstones on that property. So I'm concerned that there may be some burials under that ground that have not been, that's going to be dug up. So I don't know how surveyed the land has been. looked into to find out what was on that property prior, but I'm not sure that you can build on a grave.

Is that right? There are very specific and strict rules with respect to any burial sites within the city of Richmond. And if they're discovered, they must immediately stop and address those rules that are in the state code and the city ordinances. But until that happens, or unless you have some specific items to present to us that show us that there are grave sites there, then it will be a part of the process as they begin their construction. But if they discovered that there are remains and or indications of burials there, they have to immediately stop and address that issue by state code and city code.

So my other concern is the congestion area, because now I do have noticed that that is a dead end area. They built two houses on the opposite street. I'm assuming they had special use permission to build houses, two houses on the opposite side, but they did not extend the sidewalk out. They did not pave the street there. And now it's just a big turnaround where Actually, the block is getting too full with homes and cars and there's not enough room for anyone to make any turnarounds. So they're running into cars. It's very congested. And so that's my concern with putting two more houses on the opposite side again, then there's no more space for turning around and parking. It's actually getting very congested. Are there plans to extend that street all the way through to the next street in the near future.

That's not a part of the special use proposal that's before this commission.

So that's my concern. It's just getting, it's very congested.

I think I understand there's a proposal to at the end of the street, connect it back to the alley. If you wanted to go into the alley from the end of the street, you could, but not to

No plan to extend the street. So you're saying the houses that are being proposed to put there, they're going to be able to access the homes through the alley? I don't know. Is that what you're saying?

The plan shows two houses at the end of the street. There's a new alleyway to connect to the existing alley. On the opposite side of the... Yes. Opposite from Ms. Fitzgerald's house.

Would you like me to share?

I can't share it short again because it is getting quite congested in that neighborhood with cars and rail.

And so I'm going to try to zoom in.

So this is the actual live shop of the property. I can, but I won't be able to show you the proposed improvements, but I can just show you the property.

So are you seeing right here, you know, right along this side, they're proposing some.

Yes. So this they'll extend 36th street and then they'll be taking the pavement and connecting it back to the alley.

Okay.

Excuse me.

Please, if we would, one person at a time.

Okay. So, like I said, it is because this, as you can see right here.

Okay. Sorry. I'm sorry. No.

It's on a delay. In front of that.

There we go.

There is, it's very congested. These are the two houses that they put on the opposite side. Oh dear. And all of this is just congested. It's just, people are just coming, trying to make a turnaround. And so two more houses, that's four vehicles where there's real tight parking issues and more congestion. And I did notice that property, I saw that they had started tearing down the, woods that were there. And they did dent her fence. Did some damage to her property while they were tearing down those woods. But again, I'm just concerned about number one, that there are some graves that are under there and then the congestion in that area. So that's why I'm opposing. Thank you.

Any other questions? for members of the committee. Anyone else wish to speak in opposition?

Ma'am, we have your first name for the record.

It is Inga Brown.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak in opposition? No one on line.

No one on line.

for this public hearing, bring it back to the commission and ask if there's a motion on item number 14, 1235 North 36th Street, special use permit for two single family detached dwellings. Is there a motion?

Second. Second. Any discussion?

Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of item number 14, 1235 North 36th Street, two single family detached dwellings. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Pinnock.

Aye.

Ms. Rowe. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. That motion passes and that item will be forwarded to city council with a recommendation of approval.

Thank you very much. Is there a council action update?

I do have one. So haven't seen you guys in a while. It's been almost a month. City Council last met on June 22nd. There were four special use permit ordinances that were adopted. That includes the Tuxedo Boulevard case. If anyone's been following that, it's been a little while. And then one right of way ordinance was adopted. And then there were two new, there was one new special use permit introduced and referred to the 21st. And then there was an amendment introduced and referred to the 21st as well. The updates I have for you.

And you made mention of a number of papers being introduced. Would that be on the second meeting in August?

Yes. So if you are planning on going on vacation in August, please try to let us know ahead of time. We are expecting quite a large docket for at least the second August meeting. And there are a number of items that may be on the first August meeting. So just if you're planning on taking vacation over the summer, try to let us know so we can. I would hate to not have a quorum and there be 30 cases on the agenda.

I would hate for there to be 30 cases. All right.

Anything else?

We are adjourned. Thank you very much.

Please be careful on your ways out.