Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Of the planning commission to order. Thank you all for being here tonight. First, could we start with the, polygraph instructions, please?

This meeting is being held in person in the 5th Floor Conference Room at City Hall. While staff and a quorum of planning commissioners are attending the meeting in person, citizens may choose to participate in the meeting virtually. All written comments that were received by email prior to 12PM today have been provided to the planning commissioners in advance of the meeting. During the public comment period, speakers will be asked to limit their comments to three minutes for an individual or five minutes of representing a group.

Thank you.

Miss Greenfield? Here. Miss Seaver? Here. Miss Knight? Present. Mister Pinak? Miss Robertson? Here. Miss Roe? Here. Mister White?

Here.

You have Gordon. K. It's a pullback here, so we will move past the chair's comments and move into the approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes to approve. Hopefully, everyone had a chance to look through them. Are there any questions? We have a motion on the October 7 minute.

So moved. Second.

You call them, please.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White.

Aye.

Motion passes, and those minutes are brief.

Great. The May 5 meeting minutes. Any questions? K. Do we have a motion?

Mhmm.

Are you a Becca Lee? I'm sorry. Could you second? Sure. Thank you. K. We have a motion and a second. Would you call the question, please? Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Ebert?

Aye. Ms. Knight? Aye. Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Roe? Aye. And Mr. White?

Aye.

Motion passes, those minutes are approved.

Director Wong, do you have your directors report?

Nothing to see.

Okay. Do we have any continuances or deletions from the agenda? We

do not.

No. Okay. Would you call the consent agenda, please?

For the consent agenda, we have item three, ordinance twenty twenty six dash o nine nine. This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 310 North 25th Street for the purpose of up to one two family attached dwelling and two dwelling units within an accessory structure upon certain terms and conditions. Item four, ordinance twenty twenty six dash 100 to authorize the special use of the property known as 908 North 30th Street for the purpose of up to six single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. Item five, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero one to authorize the special use of the property known as 4201 Corbin Street for the purpose of a day nursery for up to 12 children within an accessory structure upon certain terms and conditions. Item six, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero three to authorize the special use of the property known as 3300 Delano Street for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

Ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero seven to amend and reordain ordinance number twenty seventeen dash o seven three adopted 04/10/2017, which authorized the special use of the property known as 1117 West Franklin Street for the purpose of an expansion of an existing institutional use upon certain terms and conditions to authorize a reduction in size of an existing institutional use. Item eight, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero four, to authorize the special use of a portion of the property known as 1117 West Franklin Street for the purpose of up to one to up to two single family detached dwellings and two dwelling units within an accessory structure upon certain terms and conditions. Item nine, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero five to authorize the special use of the property known as 2208 Y Street for the purpose of no more than two single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. Item 10, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero eight to amend and reordain ordinance number twenty twenty four dash two fifty nine adopted 11/12/2024, which authorized the special use of the property known as 1301 North 27th Street for the purpose of up to one single family detached dwelling and one single family attached dwelling upon certain terms and conditions to include 2720 S Street and to modify the plans in in certain terms and condition.

Item 11, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero nine to close to public use and travel a portion of public right of way located South Of Brooklyn Park Boulevard and East of Robin Hood Road consisting of approximately 11,105 plus or minus square feet upon certain terms and conditions. Item 12, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one twelve to authorize the chief administrative officer for and on behalf of the city of Richmond to accept accept funds in the amount of $2,002,659 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and to appropriate the increase to the fiscal year twenty twenty five to twenty twenty six capital budget by increasing estimated revenues and the amount appropriated to the Department of Public Works stormwater facilities, improvement projects, the utilities category for the purpose of funding the Broadrock Creek stream restoration project. And item 13, UDC twenty twenty six dash o six, this is the concept location character and extent review of a new Riverside Park located at 3021 Dock Street. And I would like to note on the consent agenda that we did receive a an email for item 11, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero nine, and that printout is in front of you guys now.

Do any members of the commission have questions in the consent agenda? Hearing none, I will open a public hearing. At this time, if there's anyone in the public in person or online that would like to offer comments in support of the consent agenda, this is the opportunity.

Do we have anyone online?

I do see one person online, and I believe this is this is the person who submitted the email. Chris Banks, you should be able to unmute your microphone now and address the commission.

Mr. Banks, if you can hear us, can you unmute yourself and offer your comments? Mr. Banks, we're gonna pass by for just a moment and take the next speaker, and we'll come back to you and see if you can get online. Oh, is that no. You just took us handouts. Okay. Is there someone to Yes.

Oh, well, actually, this is the applicant. So

it's an unfit. So I found that Bear with us for just a minute. Chris, can you try one thing?

Can you try pressing space bar

while you talk and see if that helps?

I'll try to

okay. We'll try to we'll we'll come back.

K. Mister Banks, we're gonna come back to you. Do you wanna take the next person?

Whoever is online for the Richmond Waldorf School, you should be able to, unmute your microphone now if you would like to address the commission. Can

everyone hear me okay? My

name is Andrew Ross, and I'm the executive director, at Richland Alder School, regarding item number 11, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero nine. The main comment that I wanted to make in support of this, Chris, who's on this call, as well as John that's in the meeting room there and maybe some others from the Shore Park Civic Association. The part that I wanted to express is that the work that we've been doing over the last year with outreach to receive support from the neighborhood has been extensive. And so I do hope that the commission can recognize, and I can provide necessary emails and correspondence related to that support. You have in front of you a letter of support that was written last year as well as other adjoining neighbor letters of support.

You also have there in the room, Laurie Markham from Markham Planning, and just wanting to be able to, as needed, express the level of outreach that the school has done to be able to convey prior to even bring it forth to the commission where we were in relation to this project. So wanted to be able to share that with you as it is a property that is right in front of our 2.8 acres and finding the best way to utilize it to

support our school. Thank you.

Thank you. Let me see if mister Banks is able to unmute. So I promoted mister Banks, promoted I you to to the presenter,

so I'm hoping that now you are able to unmute.

Yes. And I appreciate that you have it did not click over until the previous speaker spoke, so I I appreciate that. I assume everyone is able to hear me now?

Yes, sir.

Excellent. Thank you again for for taking my my, my letter. I know I sent it in at the last minute, and that's why I wanted to have an opportunity to speak just in case it didn't come through. So I apologize if I'm summary some summarizing some of it, but I just wanted to express an opinion as a as a resident in the neighborhood of Sherwood Park. Unfortunately, I am unable to support this resolution as written because I feel that it combines two distinctly separate actions that should be independently evaluated.

I feel that the closure of the slip lane has been something I've always supported, and I'm happy to see the Waldorf School supports it as well, closing it for a variety of reasons, including the traffic support issues. But I'm I'm concerned about the best and possible future use and extended use thinking ten, twenty years in the future and what that property may or may not be in relation to that corner. And again, I'm also thinking about what could or could not be in ten or twenty years for the Diamond District or the fall line or adjacent trails. And it just kind of brings it back home to me that this is a space that until recently, had no opportunity to do anything else with. In fact, in the applicants application, which I I got a chance to read a couple days ago, it it was understood that VDOT maybe was looking at doing something there, and only just recently and not even publicly has said that they may not do anything there.

But I don't know that that's the case for the city or any other entity. So it seems like it's it's a fresh opportunity, one that certainly there is a proposal in front of you for something that could be done with it. But I don't know that it's, the only opportunity that could be done with that space. And so that's why I ask that, this paper be, removed from consent agenda, at least considered as part of a regular agenda, and have additional components like that VDOT study or like the the official plan presented to the public. So they can weigh in generally on the things that are being noted in the resolution, but not publicly available. So again, I I ask that this be moved off of the consent agenda for a variety of reasons that I I submitted earlier. Thank you.

Thank you. There's been a request to move this item from consent to the regular agenda. And the applicant is present, and available to make a presentation. Is it well of the commission?

I think we have a tradition

of of, moving things to regular agenda when there's any

k. You're voting on moving item 11, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero nine from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. Miss Greenfield? Aye. Miss Seaver? Aye. Miss Knight? Aye. Mr. Penick?

Aye.

Miss Robertson? Aye. Miss Roe? Aye. And Mr. White? Aye. Motion passes, and that item will be moved to the regular agenda. Vice chair Greenfield, do you have a location that you would like it on the regular agenda?

Is staff prepared for the presentation?

Could we

I know the applicant's here. Is staff prepared? Maybe we can put it after number 14.

This doesn't come from our office directly. Okay. So we can read to you. Like, we can go over the

staff report if you'd like.

What are we before we bring someone up, let's just go ahead and put it after item 14. Great. We still haven't called everyone for the opportunity to consent. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak in favor of the consent agenda? Do we have anyone that would like to speak in opposition? Is there anyone online?

I am seeing no one else online.

K. Well, I'm gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Do we have any additional questions? We have a motion on the consent agenda.

Approved. Second.

K. Do have all the questions, please? We're voting on

the consent agenda, which stands item 11. Miss Greenfield? Aye. Sievert? Aye. Justice Knight? Aye. Mister Pennock?

Aye.

Miss

Robertson? Aye. Miss Roe? Aye. And miss mister Mike? Aye. And mister McKenzie, we're voting on the consent.

Yeah. Aye.

Okay. That motion passes, and the

is adopted. Why don't we go ahead and take item number 14 and then ask Scott to the applicant to determine how to move forward with the case we just do. We're prepared. You're prepared? Yeah. Okay.

The first item on the regular agenda is gonna be item 14, ordinance twenty twenty dash one zero two. This is an ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 3415 Crenshaw Meuse Alley for the purpose of up to 13 attached garages upon certain terms and conditions and to repeal ordinance number twenty twenty one dash three twenty five adopted 12/13/2021 and all the mandatory ordinances thereto. And we will be joined by mister Brown, with the staff presentation.

Welcome, mister Brown.

Thank you.

Property is located in the Museum District neighborhood between Floyd And Wood Avenue. Property is currently vacant. The total's 9,140 thousand square feet. Area is currently being used. It has private service parking and a parking easement for $34.15.

I thought it would be useful to have some additional context about this site. In 2021, city council approved special use permit for for a two family dwelling and a two and two single family dwellings for the site. While building permits were filed in 2023, implementation of the ordinance did not advance to the construction phase. Here are some pictures of what was to be but never transpired. The applicant is requesting a special use permit to authorize the construction of 13 attached garages within an r six single family attached residential district.

While the use is permitted within the r six zone, the garages must be accessory to dwellings within the same block. The applicant wishes to be able to rent the garages to individuals outside of the block. Special use permit is therefore required. These are some elevations and the site plan they provided. His master plan designates future land use for the subject property as neighborhood mixed use.

That is I apologize. That's the wrong math. But it is neighborhood mixed use. Let's just skip that. The current zoning for this parcel is r six single family attached residential.

As stated, the use is permitted, but the proposed garages are intended to be allowed for properties outside of the same block. Here are the conditions. Special use of the property shall be as up to 13 attached garages. Permitted principal use shall be permitted to be situated outside the same entire block as the property. The height of the special use shall not exceed one story substantially as shown on the plans.

All building materials, elevations, and site improvements shall be substantially shown on its plans subject to the applicable regulations of chapter 30, article nine, division five of the code of the city of Richmond. All mechanical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from the public right of way. Facilities for the collection of refuse shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the director of public works. Such facilities shall be located or screened, so if not from adjacent property or experience. The owner shall make improvements within the right of way substantially a strong plan, including installation of gravel within the right of way of Crenshaw Alley, which will be may be completed in one or more phases as approved by the director of public.

Staff notified local residents and the Museum District Association. The state, there have been some letters of opposition that have been received. Staff, again, recommends approval. Staff finds that the proposed use is aligned with the goal of the neighborhood mixed use land use category or within the master plan. Category states that parking areas should be located to the rear of street facing buildings.

Staff finds that off street parking on what is currently a vacant lot be a reasonable use for the interior of a city block. Due to all findings on the list above, f concludes that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting of special use permits. That concludes my presentation. Are there any questions?

Do any members of the commission have any questions for mister Brown? K. Hearing none, is the applicant present would you like to make an app presentation? Yeah. Thank you.

Commissioner Knight, would you like

the fan? I have one

in my bag that I can

Sure.

Good evening, madam chair and members of the commission. My name is Sid Shoaf. I'm with Baker Development Resources, and I'm here to represent the property owner of 3415 Crenshaw Muse, and this is a special use permit request. I'd also like to request some time for a potential rebuttal should there need need be one. Property is a single lot of record in the block bound by Nansimond Street, Floyd Avenue, Crenshaw Avenue, and Elwood Avenue.

Property is accessed by Crenshaw Muse Alley and Elwood Alley, which are East West alleys and accessible from Nansimon Street and Crenshaw Avenue. The property is zoned R6, includes approximately 9,200 square feet, contains a garage and 34 surface parking spaces, 10 of which are part of an existing easement to serve a nearby business. In 2021, the previous owner of the property received approval for the special use permit that permitted four dwellings and 11 parking spaces. The dwellings were two stories and approximately 20 to 25 feet in height. Property was sold to the current owner who pursued several residential concepts, including the approved special use permit.

They even went as far as discussing potential modifications with neighbors, but in the end, they pivoted to developing the site as an accessory use after receiving feedback from adjacent neighbors. Attached garages are permitted by Wright. However, we are requesting a special use permit to waive two sections of the ordinance so that our client could more efficiently utilize the garages and serve the neighborhood. The first waiver is for the ability to allow individuals who might live outside of the block to utilize the garages. The zoning ordinance allows the garages by right if they are used by owners within the block.

Each garage would be subdivided to be on their own lot for the purposes of selling or renting each individual individual garage. The rental or sale of the garages would be prioritized to individuals that already live on the block before marking the. This allows the flexibility to occupy the garages should there not be enough demand from individuals from within the block already. The second waiver is for the height. By right, the garages could be no greater than 12 feet as measured by zoning, and we're proposing 16 feet.

The purpose of the waiver is to provide lofted storage space to provide greater utility than just covered parking. If the SUP is approved, there would be 13 garages of varying sizes. Like the previous SUP, 10 parking spaces within the easement would be retained. The garages are not like your historic garages that you find in the neighborhood. They're typically substandard in size. These garages are larger, purposely designed for vehicles. As you can expect with a modern garage, it can accommodate typical household storage. 've been intentionally designed to meet today's needs for vehicle storage, accessibility, and maneuverability. In fact, they exceed the city's required requirements for parking maneuverability. Setbacks will not be required by right for garages here.

However, we are proposing variable width setback that ranges from 1.4 feet to 2.4 feet in order to provide an apron to increase maneuverability and to provide a transition between the garages and the alleys. Regarding access, the garage would generally utilize the two East West alleys, and we amended this request to improve the Crenshaw Alley at the eastern end of the property with gravel based on discussions with the community. Regarding utilities, the garages would only be served with electrical service. Water and sewer service would not be provided for the property. Regarding the exterior, the garages would be built with vertical cementitious siding to ensure durability while also being compatible with the nearby neighborhood.

While the special use permit would allow additional height to accommodate additional storage, the impact is mitigated by the overall design. The lofted storage would be located within the pitched roof and this allows the design to present a one story facade at the alley with the additional height being located more central to the site at the peak. The garages are arranged into groups of three with a break between them to break up the massing. And additionally, plans are proposed to soften the alley scheme. Furthermore, we would be pursuing both site plan and subdivision applications, so there will be further review and scrutiny from the city staff to ensure that all city requirements are met.

Finally, in terms of neighborhood outreach, we originally mailed out letters to all property owners within 150 feet of the property back in October 2025. We met with neighbors on-site in November 2025. We've had numerous meetings with the Museum District Association's Land Use and Zoning Subcommittee to discuss the project, and we've also fielded various calls and e mails from a number of the neighbors in the area. Throughout the entire process, we've heard comments both for and against proposal and have had the opportunity to discuss them. As of now, we have a position of no opposition from the Museum District Association.

They did, however, request a condition allowing the garages to only serve residential uses outside of the block or written confirmation from staff that it would be enforced with this intent. We are agreeable to this either way as this has always been the intent of the proposal. Lastly, we do understand that as of this morning, there are two letters of opposition in your case file. And with all that being said, I appreciate your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions from the commission. Thank you.

Any members of the commission have questions for the applicant? I have one, just point of clarity. There's

gonna

be 13 attached garages, and then you said there's gonna be 10 surface spots for one of the residents?

Yeah. So in this design right here, there's 13 attached garages. These are the 10 existing parking spaces that are in an existing easement, and this was also retained during the previous special use permit that Jonathan shared.

So there's gonna be because there's currently 34 surface. Even with the garages, there's going to be less parking today, and your request is by right because you wanna be able to utilize those. Your it's by right to request this for the SEP because you wanna utilize them for folks who don't live within that block. That's correct. But if everyone lived in that block.

They would only they would only have to

serve the parking spaces there now. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

There's no other questions for members go ahead and ask questions. I just

think you said it, and I what is the proposed material?

The proposed material, it's gonna be a brick foundation, and then it's gonna be hardy, lap siding. It's vertical, cementitious. It's just durable. It, it's compatible with the existing block as well.

Thank you. Any other questions? K. Hearing none, we'll open the, public comment period. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the application, we could please come forward.

Do we have anybody online?

I'm seeing no one online. K.

Let's see here.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak in opposition to ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero two? Is there anyone online?

We need no one online.

K. So we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve.

Second. Discussion?

I think they're one story garages that, yes, they got a pitched roof, but the looks like the homes on Elwood and on on Floyd are generally three stories. So I I can't imagine that the the white difference would would be material, and I think it's a good use of an interior space.

Any other commissioners have any questions or comments?

I would disagree that that the proposed materials in keeping with the neighborhood are Not really look and keeping to me, but I don't know that that is make or break.

We have a motion in the second. We call the question on ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero two.

Miss Greenville? Aye. Miss Hebert? Aye. His name? Aye. Mister Penick?

Aye.

Miss Robertson? Aye. Miss Rove? Aye. Mister White? Aye. And Mr. McKenzie?

Aye.

That motion passes, and that item will be forwarded to city council with the recommendation of approval. Thank

you. Are we ready to move forward with ordinance twenty twenty six dot one zero nine? There's no consent to the regular appendix.

Go ahead and present item since this previously was item 11, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero nine. This is an ordinance to close to public use and travel a portion of public right of way located South Of Brooklyn Park Boulevard and East Of Robin Hood Road consisting of approximately 11,105 plus or minus square feet upon certain terms and conditions.

Also, speak to the or speak.

That's fine. Yeah. So I'll just say, it is this case. This is regards to street closure. It's a general location character and extent item for the planning commission, which basically means our role here is to evaluate it in terms of conformance with the past plan.

And so when it looks at right away and transportation networks, I'll say, like, this specific section of right away is not called out in any particular way. But I'll say it's also not called out in any particular way in terms of, like, being critical towards future infrastructure transportation needs. I think probably the best course of action would be to have the applicant or app if you wanna extend the invitation to open that up here from that request. We also have staff from the Department of Public Works who we work with when it comes to right away vacations. So Emkara is here and would be able to answer any questions that board may have.

K. Do any members of the commission have questions for director Bong? The applicant is present. Before we bring the applicant up, anyone would like to hear from our DPW representative? I'm good. Okay?

Same there.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members members of the commission. Mhmm. I'm Kara from the Department of Public Works. We have worked very closely with the applicant and also with the Department of Transportation also to make sure that we cover all the bases once we put the vacation on the right of way. From public works point of view, we have closed the slip lane two years ago because that's, from a safety point of view, is not, in favor because it's connecting with the Brooklyn Park Boulevard at very acute angle being the cyclists there and also people making left along Lamont Avenue.

They were not in favor of it, so we closed this slip lane.

Could you point that out, please, the slip lane? Thank you. Just for reference.

You. Slip lane. And that's it's closed right here and making left to Lamont Avenue. And, also, this one mainly is part of the Brooklyn Park Boulevard, the bike lane project. To to make it safer, we have to do this to make it more like urban kind of intersection, 90 degree than more high speed slip lane.

So from safety and operation point of view, this area is closed, and the median is had to maintain by us. But once we close this one, we can have this sidewalk connected and has an urban kind of connection with the sidewalks that then have this area connected with the sidewalk. So from Public Works point of view, it works. And from VDAT point of view, the STAR study, they are working on Exit 78 Boulevard exit. This is area is outside of out of temporary of their STAR study, and they are not proposing any improvement for Fall Line Trail or any other trail or any other improvement in this intersection.

We did verify with them, and we are comfortable that right now this can proceed as is. And in future, if there's any six year, ten years when we don't report anything, any improvement, and applicants said that they will work with us for any or any improvement, they can work with us for reverting that part of the right of way back to us. So probably both support this location.

Okay. Hang tight just a second. I believe commissioner McKenzie has a question.

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Right now, I know there are those sort of temporary flagpoles. What is going to be the permanent structure connecting the site?

The permanent structure will be the current all around, and I think, part of the condition of this ordinance is, occasionally, they're going to bring a site plan together. All this will be developed, And we will have more comments on the site plan that the curb, the sidewalk, all these things part of the parking lot that will be reviewed and approved by public works together with the site plan review. Thank you.

Any other members of the commission have questions? Thank you, sir. Don't go far in case there's additional ones okay. Great. Thanks. The applicant wants to come forward? Thank you.

Chair Bingfield and members of the commission, I'm Laurie Markham. I am a proud parent of three children who go to the Richmond Waldorf School, and so I'm here in a volunteer capacity. We have been working with the Department of Public Works for a little over a year on this process to close this portion of right of way and acquire it so that the Richmond Waldorf School would have better pedestrian safety in the front of its campus. Our ultimate plan would be to provide additional parking in this area. Right now, the parking is around the perimeter of the school.

And for and the school has events. There's lots of parking along the street, along Brooklyn Park, and then it's very kind of confusing how to get through the front door which across this median with no sidewalk and through this sort of interstate just,

like, designed like

an interstate right in front of the school. So we would, acquire the the right away from the city. I think the the price that that we would pay the city is around a $100,000 for this portion of land. And then we would come back through the we'd to do an institutional master plan and a site plan that would be reviewed by the planning department and the planning commission that would show all of those improvements for the school. So we were we are happy to be here this evening and grateful for the partnership with the Department of Public Works, and would ask that you recommend approval of the closure to, the city council.

So I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm sorry I don't have additional presentation material.

But Well,

all we would be voting on is the closure, not sort of endorsement of a transfer or anything like that.

Also, the closure of the right of

way would allow for the the transfer of the property to the Richmond Wall

Right. But we're not we're not we're not speaking to that. We're speaking on the closure of the street. Correct?

And the transfer to the to the adjacent property owners. So the the the street has technically been closed to traffic for two or three years with temporary measures. So you're there you currently can't drive on it.

Yes. It is more than annual patient vote. K.

Any other members have questions for Ms. Markham?

May not have this information at this time. Just I mean, it's a little tight back there, little bit around. Is the idea once you get to a parking spot that you're gonna do something different in this back area?

No. Currently, our the pickup and drop off is back here, which is helpful for getting the cars off of Brooklyn Parkway. So the the rest the remainder of this would stay sort of stay the same. We just have additional, parking in front of the school and have a a more of an entrance on the street, a more of a

presence than we Okay. Thank you.

Any additional questions for the applicant or DPW? Okay. I'll be hearing none at this time. We will move to the public hearing. At this time, we'll open the public hearing on Ordinance Number twenty twenty 09. Is there any member of the public that would like to speak in favor the opposition or of the application? Excuse me. Yes, mister Bennett.

Can I ask Seth again to clarify Please? What the ordinance is? Because I think to mister White's question, is this just for the closing, or is it for the closing and subsequent acquisitions?

I think we're looking for staff to answer that. Yes. So there there are sorry. There are condition I'll be ringing again because I'm Laurie Arco.

There are conditions in the ordinance that would have to be satisfied in order for us to acquire the property, including the approval on-site plan, the the payment of the $100,000, and several other conditions, which is these are work conditions that we would have to meet in order to actually for it actually to be transferred. But the ordinance would allow that process to happen.

I was just gonna ask if we vote, and today, we're voting on closure and kick starting the process. And if you satisfy each one of the markers in this process, then the transfer happens. You don't come back to plan a commission for another

We we would come back for the approval of the institutional master plan amendment, which would, be required in order for us to meet the approval of the site plan condition. So you will see us again. Okay.

Does that answer your question, commissioner Bennett?

Yes.

Thank

you. Thank you.

Because I was also a little confused myself. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Great. At this time, we've we will now open the public hearing. Is there any member in the public that might be speaking in favor of the application?

Is there anyone online? I am seeing no one online. K.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition? If you could please come forward to the podium and announce your name, please. One at a time, but you're welcome to come up. Good evening. Good evening. My name is

Vaughn Stevens, and I am in Monroe a resident of Sherwood Park. I live on Goldberg. If you could map that up there, I'd like to show him a few things. I don't have a problem with closing the slip lane. The slip lane's been closed since August 2023 when the bike lanes were installed.

It needs to be something needs to happen with it. I have a problem with what discussion you just had about what happens in this ordinance. Because as I read the ordinance, there is a paragraph in the ordinance that says that in consideration of closing that slip lane, the school will pay a $100,000. And there is no place that says if they meet any site plan amendments or master plan updates. It says it's gonna happen concurrent concurrently. Am I reading that, Ronnie, director Bach?

No. I'll say well, not specifically outlined in the ordinance. There is a notice. If the property were conveyed and became part of the Waldorf School property, then the zoning for that Waldorf School property would apply to the new section that would right. Their boundary would be adjusted, and they would have to apply by any zoning code stipulations to do any type of improvements or development on that property.

So it's two separate questions. If you close the slip the slip claim and you pay a $100,000, you own that land. The only question in the future becomes how do you get to use it? Because it's an institutional piece of property. They have a master plan.

They have a plan of development and they'd have to amend both of those. But we all know from previous SUVs that we've dealt with that if we have the conversations about what you wanna build before you acquire the property, we have a lot more give and take going on than if you've already paid a $100,000, you own it, and now the neighborhood has concerns and you meet the zoning recommend requirements, so we have very little voice. My concern is as a pedestrian. I walk in front of that school almost every day. Laurie and I have joked over the years about how I think of the trash on Robin Hood.

I met mister Ross within the first two weeks of him coming to the news account to introduce myself. I introduced him to the Sherwood Park Civic Association. I love the school. I want them to have the school. But I do not want for them to institute the parking plan that they have assurance. And that would

be this. This

is the slip lane existing. What they wanna do is bring that parking lot here and exit onto Robin Hood Road. And they would exit onto Robin Hood Road within 50 feet of the intersection with Brooklyn Park Boulevard where there is no crosswalk for me to walk. Where there is a median so you think about parents that are dropping off their kids, come out on Robin Hood, and they wanna go back to the fan. What are they going to do?

They're either gonna do a u-turn on Robin Hood right there at Brooklyn Parkway, or they're gonna turn left on Brooklyn Parkway, they're gonna turn left into Sherwood Park and rush down Link Bridge to get back to Brooklyn to Robin Hood. The city has a high has a speed date. Brooklyn Parkway is a high traffic fatality, whatever you call it. It's one of the places where we're supposed to be worrying about speed and we're supposed to be worrying about traffic safety. The red line goes right in front of the school here.

The orange line is Whimpridge, the street I live on, which means that they're traveling five to 10 miles an hour over the speed limit already. They're using it as a cut through. What happens when you have people coming out where this blue is? They're gonna come right through my neighborhood and turn around and go back to the Diamond District. It's not safe.

Just on Friday, on Endicott Road, right here, a car exited Brooklyn Parkway, ran the yield sign on Wentbridge, a car traveling on Wentbridge, swerved to avoid them, went through two fences, and knocked on a post in somebody's yard where their one year old plays regularly. If we keep building traffic flow in a high traffic safety network, and worries between I only have three minutes.

Right. So I just wanna start the timer so I'm not trying to rush you.

No. I'm to say, because other people wanna speak. I just say, let's have the plan. Let's talk about the parking plan before we sell them the property. Because I don't think it's safe for pedestrians, and I don't think that it's gonna be safe for bike people either. One second.

No. I just wanna clarify. You I think you said it didn't have a problem with the school acquiring the property. You have a problem with how they intend to use it.

That is correct.

Thank you. And I think commissioner McKenzie has a question.

Yep. I have two.

That was one. Second one, are you speaking in your personal capacity or part of the association?

Well, I'm speaking in my personal capacity because I did not know about this until last week. Having said that, I have served on the government affairs and safety committee for four years, and I didn't know about this till last week. So the community outreach has some kind of problem.

And you have a.

Sorry. Thank you. You're welcome to come forward. Sure. If you could just provide your name, please.

It's Robert Hood. I live on Brooklyn Parkway, basically, across the street from where this proposed parking lot will be. Because the so the purchase of the slip lane will enable the the construction of the parking lot. It will enable the destruction of this plot of open space land and create a 34 car parking lot, which, as far as I know, does not exist currently anywhere in the North Side. Beyond those concerns, Brooklyn Parkway is a MPS designated cultural landscape.

It is it is also part of the only original intact design of Frederick Law Olmsted. Those who are familiar with them, he built Central Park. He built the the Biltmore Estate Grounds and US Capitol Grounds. And he personally designed two neighborhoods, one being Sherwood Park. And Brooklyn, they his original design has been adjusted to grabbing stents with the exception of Brooklyn Parkway.

It has remained intact since 1891 when it was originally designed and conceived including this little pocket right here. That was kind of his signature. It happens in pocket parks. These little open space pocket parks. If this plane was acquired, it would lead to the incorporation and destruction of that park pocket park and also allow for a 3rd Floor parking lot in that space.

I also agree with the traffic concerns that the previous speaker brought up, and that's pretty much my stance on it now. So when this was first presented to our neighborhood association, there wasn't a clear outline of plan. We we could be, and I would like to remain open minded to some development of space. We'll be occupied currently by Waldorf, but never a parking lot in front of the building and definitely not the incorporation of that currently open pocket park space. And I think we met last night in our government affairs committee meeting discussing these concerns that we agreed to the idea of potential change but never agreed to an actual plan.

And so we have all genuine concerns about this project.

You. Any time, can you please come forward and copy your comments?

My name is John Gas, and I am a neighbor. I live on Whippie Road. And last year, I was president of the Neighborhood Association of Sherwood Park. And as headmaster Ross earlier mentioned in his preamble, we have had a collaborative relationship regarding this piece of property, the association and the school. And indeed, I am the author of a letter in support.

It came out last year based on a presentation that was made at one of our meetings, Trump and through Ross. And it was a very preliminary presentation. But we were, number one, very much in favor of closing the slipway. I think you'll hear any dissent on that. But, also, we've understood there would be a development for parking. And I suppose that my question tonight, and and it's more of a question than a statement to you, is about language.

And

the planning commission, you're used to seeing graphics, plans, gentleman architect has spent sixty years doing that. But we're dealing with the verbiage right now. And in this ordinance, there's a mention of 34 parking spaces. And I'd like us to strike the 34 parking spaces and revisit this issue. The reasoning is that I've done some studies on the parcel also.

I think the 34 parking spaces is a tight squeeze that doesn't address some of the safety concerns that we've heard today, some of the aesthetic concerns that we've heard today, and some of the the neighborhood concerns just about how circulation happens on that space and how much of the Brooklyn Parkway Greenway is encroached by cars. So for that reason, there is a way that we can adjust the language. I would be in favor of striking an actual number of parking spaces in this ordinance so but it's not a albatross around our necks for us to do all the time. Any questions?

Any questions? Thank you, sir. Is there any other member of the public president that would like to speak in opposition at this time? Do we have anybody online that would like to speak in opposition? We do.

One second. See a couple of hands. My hands are going down, and then hands are going up. There we go. Okay.

Sorry. Give me just one second. I think it's. I'm so sorry.

Tara Fitzpatrick, you should be able to unmute your microphone now and address the commission.

Hi, all.

Okay.

Hi. Thank you for, taking public comment on this. I have a few concerns, and they kind of vary widely on this. I'm a resident, and homeowner on Brooklyn Parkway down the street, a few blocks over. And I am a a a big supporter have been a big supporter of the slip lane being closed over the years.

I think that slip lanes are technically considered car infrastructure where that really don't support safe pedestrian or bike access to any roadways. Typically, around slip lanes is not very good. So I've been a big supporter of the slip lane being closed. As part of that, we had always hoped that the long term goal would be that these slip lanes would be depaved and could be potential for access to the community in some way. And I think that there's still this has only been a few years.

This was considered a lighter, quipper, quicker, cheaper design back in 2020, 2021 when it was installed. So there's still sort of the opportunity and the conversation around what the future of that may look like. If this parcel is created and then allowed to be purchased by the Waldorf School that takes that off of the table. I also have concerns because in my training through my work in pedestrian and bike advocacy as somebody who is was awarded a grant and managed a grant through VDOT, I have a lot of concerns about eminent domain in the long term, given the adjacent nature to the interstate. So just because the STAR study doesn't indicate that there is any project or plan happening now, a lot of these projects and plans take ten or more years.

So there could be conversations starting now or at any point soon that would be ten to twelve years off before we see them funded and and built. And I think we're gonna, in this area, specifically, have a lot of shifts in our transportation because of the adjacent nature of the Diamond District and possibly with code refresh. So it is a concern to me that we're making a decision that is a bell that we really can't unring or that would be extremely expensive for the city to take back if they had to via eminent domain. So, you know, there could be infrastructure that's safer for all modes of transportation users that could use this space, more productively, again, or it could be to pay for other community use. So that's a concern of mine.

I know that, all of the adjacent parcel owners have to sign on to this, and it does look to me like part of it does come up even if it's just an inch up to the 1223 Brooklyn Parkway property. So just wanted to, you know, confirm that that has been explored and that that they are on board with that as well. I believe that VCU Health System is the owner of that parcel. There are also environmental concerns. I do professionally, and I'm speaking right now as a private citizen, but professionally, I do student active transportation safety advocacy.

And through my work, I have to dig into a lot of different design guides and best practices. And really, on a school property, it's really just never a good idea to use, like, the property of a school for cars for a few reasons. It takes away from educational programming opportunities, but you then have to pass the right of way. And in this case, right now, what we see is the one right of way at Lamont and then going back over by Wentbridge. Would this add in?

We know that it's gonna be 34 parking spaces. Are they adding an ingress and egress on Robin Hood Road? Is it gonna be just an ingress or ingress or just an egress? Like, how how is this going to work here? The wider the driveway, the less safe that it is for people outside of vehicles, specifically pedestrians and people on bicycles.

And it's frankly not really in line with Richmond three hundred. So I noticed that in the application and in the study from the city that they mentioned that it is in line with objective eight and part of nine, and that's not the case, that adding parking does not actually improve pedestrian safety all throughout the Richmond 300 document. There are repeated references to limiting the number of parking lots that are built as part of our future plans and limiting the number of driveways. Driveways are generally just not safe.

If you could wrap up your comments, please. You we're we're past the three minute allotted time.

Okay.

Thanks. Thirty thirty seconds. Couple

couple more things real quick. The lighting seconds. Sure. Lighting requirements per the city code would be more light pollution. And, again, impermeable impermeable surfaces are also a concern of ours as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Mr. Banks?

Yes. Thank you again, Richmond Planning Commission for moving this to the regular agenda. I just wanted to add one additional note is that I think it's pertinent. It should be part of this discussion perhaps now at a later time. The available on street parking that is within a half a mile radius. I say that because those are buffered parking protected buffered bike lanes. They function best. They function best when they are filled with cars and there are not enough residents to fill those parking spots. In fact, the only time those parking spots up and down Brooklyn Parkway are protected with parked cars is during events held at the Waldorf. And that is actually the safest time on the street.

There's video available. I can make it available. It's it's available through other channels of what traffic looks like when it drives through there and there are cars parked on the street, and what it looks like now when there are no cars parked on the street. And let me tell you that all of our our speed issues are improved. Cars actually stopping at the stop sign is improved.

Those those things that make an intersection tighter and safer are only helped when we use the spaces that are on the street. And that is that's something that as a resident who lives on Brooklyn Parkway, I actually lost the spaces in front of my in front of my unit when we did these these bike lanes, and I and I'm fine with that. But I think that there's a real opportunity to make the street safer by actually parking on the street if if we if we do it as a as a community. So that's the only comment that I have is that I think that we really need to understand that that parking on the street makes that street safer. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else online that would like to speak in opposition?

I'm seeing no one else online.

Hearing none, we're gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. And there was a request for maybe removing parking. So if the applicant maybe wants to give the two minute for single person that I'm sorry. Yes.

I'm. Again, Laurie Marcum, thank you very much. I won't, take too much time, but I do wanna just clarify that the is a condition written into the ordinance that requires us to get a site plan approval, and there is no condition around the 34 parking spaces. That is in a in a write up somewhere, but it is not a condition in the ordinance. So there's no need to strike that language. It's a that's a test on the ordinance. Okay. Additionally, we we are I think it there is

it seems to be, like, a lot

of opposition to this paper, but I think we all have a mutual interest in keeping this piece of road, not a road. And so this the Waldorf School, who's the most directly affected by it, offered to pay the city or the property and to do the improvements to make it into a safer space, Build the six foot sidewalks, move the street lights, plant the street trees. So those are all things that that we, as a neighbor, are trying to do to this space. If the city wanted to come and spend a bunch of money and make it a lovely city park, we would certainly be supportive of that. But we just don't see that happening in the immediate future, and the current condition is unacceptable, at our front door.

And so that is why we have spent all this time trying to get to where we are today. So but I do think that we have a mutual like, we we are all in mutual agreement that it should not be in the condition it is today. So we appreciate your time.

As we and so it it it sounds to me like much of the comments that we've gotten today are not in opposition to the school acquiring the land. It's out of concern for ingress and egress and and, its effect on traffic safety. Understanding that you would have to go back and get a site plan approved, I assume you're comfortable taking the risk that you need to meet with these members of the community and, to the extent possible, work to satisfy their concerns and hopes that you'll get this plan approved? Yes. Okay.

More than that, I I think that I heard support for closing the slip lane

Mhmm.

But concerns over the potential for what will come next. And I would like to, thank you, mister Banks. I commute in into and home from work every day on the street, either in my car or on a bike. And I did not read the paper as carefully as I should have. I read the closure and the transfer, and I stopped because I thought, great.

I love it closed. And I'm sorry. We will have more conversations after there's a motion, but I'm not hearing opposition to the acquisition or the closure. I'm hearing serious concern about what comes next in opposition to parking

in front of that building as so.

Are there any other questions for miss Markham at this time? Thank you. Okay. We could, get a motion and a second so we can open a discussion.

I move to approve given the understanding that a site plan would be an approved site plan would be required.

Second. K. There's a motion and a second. Let's have discussion. Doctor. Bonk.

Can I just can I just quickly provide a point of clarity just for your discussion? One, a question about property ownership and consent came up. So the weird shape right away, but it does not parcel right to the east that's, VCU owned, they they're not, a fronting party. It's a tangent point that comes to it, but they are not a fronting party. The Waldorf School is the only party that fronts this section right away.

So they're the only one in terms of a party that needs to sign off basically on this process. I just wanted to clarify that. And then just yes. To to reaffirm what this paper is and what it isn't, so it's a closure. In that closure, there are certain conditions that the applicant has to meet in terms of I think one providing either relocating utilities or providing easement for utilities.

So things that miss Parkham talked about, street lights, also paying for the property and its value. If those don't happen, disclosure does not happen. I think the the question is, right, like, what's going to come of the future of it. And right now, as I mentioned, it would be subject to provisions of current zoning ordinance or whatever ordinance is in place at the time. And right now that would require application of a site plan to go through that process.

Site plan basically is a process of ensuring compliance with zoning subdivision, other departments weigh in on it, but it does not specifically dictate what type of land use activities would be going on or in what configuration specifically it would be going on. Just have to right check the boxes for code when we go through and review it. I just

pretty

good attorney on the spot. I don't know in terms of, one, if we could further condition the work that's to specifically illustrate land use, which is, I'll say, a little bit different because this is a LCE paper, right, of, like, seating city property, if that is even a possibility or not. But in but in terms of if if not, then the applicant would just have to follow the rules that are in place of this point right now.

Mister Gibson, do you have a response to that?

I

think that's a conversation we

should have outside of this meeting.

Mister Chairman, I have some question for doctor Vank. Doctor Vank, I'm looking at the staff report, and it says the petitioner is the city of Richmond. Is that then a mistake and that the petitioner is actually the Waldorf school?

Sort of answer because it's my I wrote the staff report. The petitioner is listed as city of Richmond. DPW gave their ONR transmittal memo, and they received a letter, from Laurie Markham in 2025 on behalf of the Waldorf School requesting the closure, but the property is the city. So they're the petitioner, but working with closely with a request came from the

So I'll say it's like the mayor's papers, like, by request. The the city is the one saying, look. I'm petitioning to this right of way at the quest of an adjacent property owner. So this I don't think it last right of way or alley vacation that we did. So those individuals will petition essentially DPW. So they're right of put it to the director, and DPW is the one that brings forth that request for closure because it is our prop.

Can I ask a follow-up question? Before this, when you brought this flat up, you mentioned that and this is where I'm confused. The the the way that the ordinance is written is it doesn't talk about any conveyance of the property to the adjacent landowner, but then it in the beginning, but then it does talk about it further on in the summary paper. So I'm still confused as to I thought this was just the vacation of the slipway. And you just, I think, told us that it's the vacation of this of this slipway plus the conveyance of the property to the adjacent property owner.

It is both, and I think that is the condition. And so it's section and the conditions g on page four

Okay.

That talks about the applicant paying the city of the sum for the right of area to be closed.

It it comprises the CEO to

if the conditions are met.

Also on the Sure. Do wanna set in, please?

Talk a little bit about just because some of it, I'll say, is maybe not referenced in here, but as part of city code in terms of how we deal with right away, which is in, I think, chapter 24.

I just wanna make sure what we're voting on. So it's the closing of this city property as a as a right of way, the slip, and authorizing the city to sell the property to the adjacent property owner.

Yes. It does. Okay. Again, I'm Kara from Department of Public Works. If you look into page number three, the article two e, like elephant, says clearly that to the out of the site plan, code of Virginia says so and so, for the construction of the improvements on the site and the proposed right to way closer and location.

So this is a precursor of G where, say, once it's closed, you can also have to pay $107,792 So all these conditions have to be met within eighteen months. Site plan, the location and payment, and also some of these concerns came up for the access on the lobby hood floor, that will be part of the site plan. It will be designed, and design will be reviewed by all of us. This ordinance did not give them a design. They said you have to come back and satisfy all the requirements.

So 34, whether it's become 20 or 30, that's a background. It's listed in the ordinous transmitter, but nothing has said anything on the ordinous itself. Only ordinous conditions will apply. Nothing in the attachment.

Just have additional questions before you step away. I just wanna make any additional questions? Thank you, sir. Doctor. Bong?

I just you see, remember to to to reiterate it the way it is conditioned, it is actually tied to being both. That is if a adjacent property owner does not go through with a plan of development or the fees to, acquire the property, the right of way is actually not closed. So it's all all tied in, and I think part of that is so, like, there's a a game for the parcel that just doesn't get closed, and we don't know what to do with it. So it's it's tied into those things happening in terms of those conditions have to be met. If none of them one of them is not met, right away, it's not closed.

Or discussion? We don't have a motion and a second. I'll call the question.

Before we please call the question, I'm I'm just going to say that I'm going to be a no on this. I'm not feeling really confident in the the questions and the back and forth on what's covered and what's not covered and what may or may not be permitted in whatever the zoning code may be for this property at the point in time that they get ready to develop something. That's not enough projection for me. It's a shame, especially with this being an area that was designed by Fredler Claw Olmsted, that we don't have a cultural heritage stewardship plan in place to, potentially offer, some level of protection or to offer a mechanism to get some level of protection for the landscaping here. So I'm gonna be a no.

Are there any other comments? More question?

Is there voting on ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero nine? Miss Greenfield? Aye. Miss Ebert? Aye. Miss Knight? Aye. Mister Pennock?

Aye.

Miss Robertson?

Aye.

Ms. Roe? No. Mr. White? Mr. McKenzie? Aye. That motion passes, and that item will be forwarded to city council with the recommendation of approval.

Thank you. K. We'll move on to ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero six.

Item 15, ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero six is an ordinance to authorize a Mosby Court South redevelopment preliminary community unit plan permitting the development of a residential community of up to 500 dwelling units and up to 25,000 square feet of ground floor commercial area on approximately 12.84 acres of land located at 1804 P Street and 1930 P Street upon certain terms and conditions and to repeal ordinance number nineteen sixty one dash one sixty four dash one forty four and all amendatory ordinances thereto. I will be giving the presentation on this. I printed out the packet for you guys for this because the site plan is quite large. Oh, you may not be able to see. Shyana Trump.

I'm a planner, and I'm giving the presentation on Mosby Court South, the preliminary community unit plan. This is coordinates 2026Dash106 to authorize a Mosby Court South redevelopment preliminary community unit plan permitting the development of a residential community of up to 500 dwelling units and up to 25,000 square feet of grounds for commercial area on approximately 12.84 acres of land located at 1804 P Street and 1930 P Street upon certain terms and conditions and to repeal ordinance number nineteen sixty one, one sixty four, one forty four, and all the mandatory ordinances there too. To orient ourselves a little bit, Mosby Court is located in the East End. Mosby South is technically in the Fairmount neighborhood, and it is in the 7th City Council District, but it is right on the line of the 6th And city, 6th And 7th City Council District. Just to give a closer look, this the parcels that are highlighted are the Mosby South, community, and then here's just a little aerial view.

If you're familiar with, Martin Luther King Junior Middle School, it is located directly across the street. And it's right off of the Lee Street Viaduct, so if you're going towards the east end from downtown. The community is also located within a fifteen minute walk distance to Jefferson Park and then also the newly renovated Luxfield. And then the GRTC bus route five services the bus stop at Mosby And P Street. We're talking about Richmond 300.

Goal 14 housing, objective 14.6, this is directly from the text. The objective is to transform RRHA public housing properties into well designed, walkable, mixed use, mixed income in transit adjacent communities. Furthermore, Mosby is designated as a priority neighborhood, and the primary next step for Mosby Court is the Mosby South. And Mosby South is the southernmost development of Mosby Court. So all of the areas highlighted in purple, that lilac color are RHA properties that are dedicated to Mosby Court.

This preliminary community unit claim is specifically for the Mosby South community that's So Mosby Court was opened in 1962 by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority to provide additional public housing following the displacement of over 1,300 residents as a result of the mid century 17th Street redevelopment project. Mosby Court has a total of 438 dwelling units. Mosby South has just under a quarter of those units with a 106 units on the site. The city's master plan designates Mosby South as neighborhood mixed use. The community is located within its own micro node indicated by the red star.

You know, there's a lot of colors up there. The property is also located within a mile of other larger nodes, including the Shaco And Downtown Core National Regional nodes and the Jefferson Marshall 25th and twenty fifth and nine mile neighborhood nodes. The neighborhood mixed use designation is defined as existing or newly highly walkable urban neighborhoods. Building size, density, and zoning districts for these areas can vary depending on historical densities and neighborhood characteristics. Building height is generally two to four stories, except on major streets where the height can increase.

Primary uses include single family houses, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, small multifamily buildings, and open space. Secondary uses include large multifamily buildings, retail, office, personal service, institutional, cultural, and government uses. Additionally, Mosby is designated as a major mixed use street. Major mixed use streets can apply volumes of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Development along this type of street should have form elements such as buildings to the street with parking in the rear as well as building windows and entrances on the street and incorporate streetscape features such as trees, benches, and trash receptacles.

These streets are ideal locations for transit routes and stops. So we're talking about the preliminary community unit plan here. Chapter 30 of the city's code specifies that the owner of any tract of land situated in any district, any zoning districts, in which comprises not less than 10 contiguous acres of area except for intervene intervening public streets and alleys may submit to the planning commission plan for the use and development of such land in a manner that does not conform in all respects with the regulations and restrictions prescribed for the district in which such tract is located. Mosby South was previously developed under an another community unit plan, and the current proposal would repeal the previous ordinance on for that such plan. We are where the red star is at the preliminary stage of a community unit plan.

Preliminary community unit plans are general in nature, and they must be approved by both the city planning commission and city council. Following approval of the preliminary CUP, they will have to come back, for a final community unit plan. This can be done by code at the same time as the preliminary or separate. They are doing it separately, and this can be the entire site or in phases. The applicant is proposing to do the final plan in phases.

The final plan is more detailed, and it is only submitted to the city planning commission for approval. Following approval of a final plan for one or more phases, the applicant can then submit actual construction level documents with specific details. And so we are general entire site. The content of a preliminary community unit plan must be the following five things. This is more of just a reference slide.

We don't have to it's a lot of words, but it must show the maximum number of dwelling units and maximum amount of commercial and residential floor area proposed, the general character and location of all building structures and open space, the general location of all means of ingress and egress in areas for the parking and circulation of vehicles, specific features of the plan, which are intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent development. And lastly, a statement as to the manner in which such plan meets the criteria set forth in section 30 dash four fifty six. So for the first one, talking about maximum number of dwelling and maximum floor area, they are proposing as the ordinance reads, these are maximums. So the maximum amount of dwelling units that the ordinance would allow is 500 units. That does not mean they can do they have to do 500.

They can do four eighty, but up to 500, they are allowed. They can do up to 600,000 square feet of, residential floor area and then up to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor area. These are maximum, so this may not be the exact number that you see. For number two and number three, we're talking about general location of building structures and open spaces and then general location of parking and circulation of vehicles. And it's in your packet if you can't see it, distinctly, but this is the site plan, the overall site plan for all of Mosby all of Mosby South.

And you can see that this depicts the general location of all of the buildings, the street grid, and alleyways. So it does, two and three, kind of giving you a general layout for the site. Four and five, they must specify features of the plan which are intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent development, and they also have to have a statement as to the manner in which such plan meets the criteria set forth in section 30 dash four fifty six point four. These are things that you would find in the applicant's report that they submitted, and the staff report reviews that and specifies why staff feels that they have they have proven that this is compatible with adjacent development as well as that they're meeting that criteria. And the applicant is here to give a more thorough presentation about everything, but I'll go over kind of high level overview staff findings.

Talking about compatibility with the existing neighborhood, there are four really key things, site layout, building typology, density, and then collaboration. So for site layout, the arrow is kinda small when you can see they are reinstating 19th Street, so they are reconnecting the street grid. 19th Street is currently not a through road like that, so they are redoing the street grid. And if you remember the neighborhood mixed use category specifies that this is one of the most important things with new development is reinstating or incorporating a new street extended street. Additionally, they have those features that we talked about on major mixed use streets.

Mosby is a major mixed use street. They've got buildings up to the street there. They're showing street trees, sidewalk improvements. All of the vehicles are moving behind the buildings. No fronts of the buildings are opening to parking areas. There is on street parking, but it's not opening up onto a parking lot. So all of the parking is in the rear. Buildings are to the street, and so it's pretty much exactly what you would see in a neighborhood mixed use, lane use. Additionally, talking about site layout and being compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, you can see the tallest building there, up to five stories on that that corner, that is closest to MLK. That is on Moseby Street, so the major mixed use street.

They're keeping most of the density along Moseby Street, and then you can kinda see that normal transect where they're stepping down to two level townhomes closest to the existing residential area. Building typology, Richmond, especially the East End, is known. We have a ton of different types of housing in the East End, and so they're proposing a few different types of buildings. You've got, two story townhomes. You have stacked flats, and then you also have the walk up buildings here.

And then the most dense, what you saw on the corner is gonna be that five story mixed use building. This building typology is the only one on-site that is proposed mixed use, and that is where the Ground Floor commercial will be located, so at that corner of, Mosby And 0. When we talk about density, currently, this is a jump in density. This is a great jump in density. Currently, most we have is about eight units per acre.

That is in line with our residential land use category. Just for reference, we talk eight to 10 units per acre. This is located on Moseby Street, neighborhood mixed use designation. So, 39 units per acre is very similar to what you see throughout Churchill, sometimes even more in the surrounding neighborhood. And in addition to the density, when talking about how quickly people are gonna be moving in, they're gonna be phasing development.

So you're not going to see this overnight increase in den you're not gonna see a 300% increase of people on the site in a year. It's gonna be this is a multiyear project, and so the density will be incremental. Lastly, talking about collaboration. This is not an extensive list at all, but just like some of the names that come to my head, everyone is kind of looking at this. There are so many stakeholders. RHA and their the applicant that they had run the preliminary community unit plan. They have been out in the neighborhood. They've been with the city. They're talking to public works, public utilities, all of PDR. I called out section one zero six because they're doing their historic stuff.

They're working with DHR. And I know that they're working with Mosby Tenants Council as well. So there are a lot of hands happening, for Mosby and making sure that it's redeveloped in an appropriate fashion. This is a lot of words. And if you go back to number five, what they have to find is that they have to find that they are meeting section 30 dash four fifty six point four.

They go through this in their applicant's report, and I think that the applicant will come up and give a much more thorough thing, for this. But we find that the proposed preliminary community unit plan will adequately safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of adjoining and surrounding property. Two, will not unreasonably impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Three, will not unreasonably increase congestion in streets. Four, will not unreasonably increase public danger from fire or otherwise unreasonably affect public safety.

And five, will not diminish or impair the established values of property in the surrounding areas. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary community unit plan request. However, there is one requested amendment. I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation that they would be offering a maximum of 600,000 square feet of residential floor area. That is a requirement by code. They have to list that. Throughout the process, they have talked to us with that. Lots of things got modified, changed, and that number happened to get dropped. So that number does not appear in the text ordinance. None of the plans need to change, but staff is recommending approval with the amendment to insert the line that a maximum of 600,000 square feet of residential floor area shall be provided.

It would be in the residential density section, and it would look if you looked over the ordinance exactly like the maximum commercial floor area language. So and I know that the applicant is here with lots of people on their team to give a presentation and answer all kinds of questions, but I'm more than happy to answer questions as well.

Thank you. Does any this Commissioner Wright.

The, the staff report, lists 50% area median income limits, 80% area median income limits. But there's nothing that I can see in the paper or the staff report that talks about what income limits would be applicable here. Is it is it all people below a certain income threshold? Will there be a mix? How is the

So the applicant is proposing and if you look in the applicant's report, think they say more specifically, and they can speak to this. But the way that it reads that they submitted to us was that it's gonna be 30%, 50%, 80%, and up to market rate. So it's a range from all income levels, and I believe they can talk more about specific, like, housing related vouchers and how they place tenants. They they do they they do list in their applicants report kind of the the the scale.

I think commissioner White had a similar question.

Are there any other, commission members that have question for secretary Trump? K. Hearing none, if the applicant would like to come forward or the applicant's representative?

Good evening.

My name is Steven Smith. I'm the CEO of the Richmond Redevelopment Public Housing Authority. And I wanna say good evening formal good evening to you, madam vice chair and other members of the commission. I bring greetings to all of you from the Richmond Redevelopment and Public Housing Authority on behalf of our board of commissioners and the chair board, Eddie Jackson. We look eagerly forward to implementation and redevelopment of Mosby Court.

I wanna thank mayor Vula and his team, and president Newbill for their guidance and wise counsel as we have been moving through this process. Finally, I'd like to thank our development partner, Richmond Group, and all of its related partners as well. As it was stated, Mosby Court Mosby And South are is assigned to a total of a 106 units and currently houses approximately 97 households. The Mosby Court preliminary CUP application utilizes, we believe, the best practices in site design as prescribed by the city of Richmond planning, development, and review department. We also believe that the application is is in alignment with the mayor's map, which is a mayor action plan, and is consistent with city council's Richmond 300 plan.

So many have asked why the redevelop why this redevelopment is important? Richmond, as you all know, has some of the oldest housing stock along the entire Eastern Seaborn from Miami all the way up to New Hampshire. The three Moseley Court sites sites, Moby Moseley Court South, Moseley Court Central, and Moseley Court North, They were built between 1962 and 1970. The buildings with that, therefore, are well over 50 years old. Many of the building systems cannot be repaired and are, in fact, obsolete.

And many of the replacement parts that we find when things break down like board lifts, we can't even find them. In fact, once when one broke down, we had to go not to South Carolina, but below South Carolina, we got the last two parts that were on the shelf. HUD, as we know, over the last twenty years has consistently reduced the amount of capital funding, which can be used by public housing authorities to undertake maintenance and needed renovation of public housing sites. Resident and community engagement, my final piece. At the heart of everything we do is for the residents.

RHA is honoring its commitment to resident and community engagement along with this our developer, PRG. We've been holding community engagement meetings since 08/29/2023, meetings that have been focused on engagement. And in fact, we held a a recent meeting, in which we were work we worked diligently on what's called the Mosby, Court South Tenant Bill of Rights. And what is that? We know that ensures that residents have the right to return.

I want to give a special thanks to miss Patricia Wilford, the president, Mosby tenant council, and other Mosby council members. Also, miss Marilyn Oates, the president of the Richmond tenant organization, the t r RTO, and all of the RTO members for their ongoing engagement and work and support of their fellow residents. In fact, we had a vote just recently on the, Mosby Court tenant bill of rights, and it was unanimously voted. So I really want to thank them for their engagement and diligence. RHA and our developer, TRG, will continue to hold these engagement meetings and the community throughout their re redevelopment process.

For these reasons, I've stated and for our residents who deserve housing that is not obsolete, I respectfully ask for your approval of the most required preliminary community unit plan application. I'm happy to take any granular questions, and I might call up our partners, the Timmins Group, to join me in some of those answers.

Thank you. Mister White?

Could you speak to my income limits question that I asked the city staff?

Yes. I have miss miss Carol Hampton. I I have nothing to gotten you. My senior vice president, if

you will come up, please.

We have we have played paid specific attention to the income limits. We recognize that in most of our public housing sites, public housing rents are between 13 and 12 and $13,000. So we are very specific because in this particular development come up, please. We are guaranteeing a one for one replacement in this development. Can you answer the questions, please, about income?

Thank you, madam vice chair and to all commissioners. To your question, commissioner White We know you, but if you could just

I'm sorry.

Cheryl Hampton, senior vice president for real estate and community development with RRHA. There are a range of incomes because we're following our HUD principle on having mixed income communities. They go from zero to 30%. How do we make that happen? That's deeply affordable. We have vouchers for that to take place. 30 to 60, Lodec. We have low income housing tax credits, which are at that fifty and sixty, but can go up to 80. So from zero to 80% is our range of incomes.

Okay.

You do have a percentage breakdown of of the income limits?

Yes. I can share that with you. And and I'm gonna do it by phases, sir, if I may. Of course. Phase one, this has let me get all my information here. Phase one has approximately a 172. Of that 170, they are I'm sorry. A 170 total units. 43 of those units are deeply affordable. They have vouchers attached to them.

Phase two is 177 units, and it has 44 deeply affordable. Phase three is 131 total units with 33 units being deeply affordable. Our remaining units out of each of those are from 50 to 80%. So that's how that works.

Thank you.

Yes. If I heard correctly, there's a 106 current units, mostly south and 97 are occupied. About three. Now in phase one, you got about 43 or at the 30% income level. How many of that 97 will be moving in phase one?

So of those 43, it depend number one, it depends on their income, but 43 is deeply affordable. So our relocation will also be phased. We are doing one for one replacement, but it is over three phases. It has to take place on each of the phases, and that's why we have deeply affordable and then anywhere from 50 to 80%.

Okay. So in phase one of the 97, how many will be?

If we have 43, you could probably take that, but it also depends on their eligibility for the vouchers. There are three ways they can so they all will they will temporarily relocate. They choose to return, should they choose to return, and then we phase that out. Okay? However, they have three relocation options.

They can transfer to another public housing site permanently, if they don't choose. They can get one of these, vouchers and come back temporarily, and there are different types of vouchers. And then they can, also find permanent housing off-site should they choose. We use a preference form and work with each of the residents and their household to determine their needs and their wishes. Okay.

I'm sorry. One more. I apologize.

Yes, sir.

Do not

let you need it.

So am I incorrect in my, at least, presumption that the existing Mosby Court South is a project based section eight and not individual vouchers?

No. Currently, it is all right now public housing. So there is no voucher needed there. We would be switching what we call platforms to a voucher platform.

And you're confident that there are enough funded vouchers out there to satisfy the needs of the families who are gonna need them?

We make application to HUD. We make application to HUD for approval of the project and the vouchers.

Okay.

And they base that on our occupancy.

Okay. Right.

And I may say there's a distinction between the normal vouchers that we have, which we seek funding. In any redevelopment throughout the country, when you do a demolition and redevelopment and you apply for tenant protection vouchers, those are guaranteed. Those are the separate funding stream.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Just more questions? K. Is, is there anybody else you I see you have a team here. Were they here just for support in case we had additional questions or did

here because there's more than I. If you ask more granular questions, I was gonna call them up.

Okay.

I wanna thank you all for allowing me to present.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. You. No other questions or comments from the members of the commission at this time? We can open a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in support of ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero six?

Do we have anybody online?

I am seeing no one online. K.

Do we

have anybody in the audience that would like to speak in opposition? Is there anybody online who would like to speak in opposition?

I am seeing no one on the planet.

Okay. Well, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. As we know, this is just a preliminary plan in front of us. We won't have an opportunity to see it again, but we can certainly if there's any other questions or comments.

What's granular question, please?

I'm sorry. I noticed in the ordinance that exterior building materials includes vinyl siding. It also obviously includes brick brick veneer, stones, cementitious siding, and wood. I just wanna go on the record saying that I personally don't think vinyl siding at this level of density should be permitted. I also have a question on the building height in the ordinance.

I love the site plan. I love the fact that the density is closest as you're going in towards the city, and then it steps down towards existing residential housing. But the building height for the CUP says new building shall exceed the lesser of five stories, so 60 feet in height. And so it doesn't speak at all to the stepping down and having the more townhouse like structures as you get closer to, you know, existing residential housing. And I'm just wondering if, in theory, then all the buildings could actually be I thought this might, if I'm reading it correct.

You answered this question? So

for the first question about the vinyl siding, we do have the standard language that it has to be a certain thickness. I will throw it out there as this is not a secretary. This is the planner who's presenting. If you wanted to add an additional condition that that vinyls that vinyl siding shall not be permitted, staff did suggest approval with an amendment, which means that the text will need to be amended as well if you guys would like it to be. And so if you would like to propose removing the vinyl siding, that is that is something and then that you could consider.

And then as well, as far as building height goes, they will not be able to do those those high rises all over the site. The preliminary plan has to show the general location. Included in that site plan are the the the height of that building. So three or four stories, they are locked. Those plans become attached to the ordinance.

And so that site plan that you're seeing that identifies that building on the corner as an elevator building and those buildings to the east as townhomes, they have to be that way. There is a condition in the ordinance that specifies that the mix of and I I don't know the I can find it. The mix of buildings may change, but the mix of that corner building is not permitted to change. And that would be here we go. The section two, maximum residential density.

It says, notwithstanding anything in the preliminary plan to the contrary, each multifamily dwelling on the property shall be permitted to be either a walk up or elevator building. And that's for the multi like, for the multifamily. Think that should answer the question. Essentially, the site plan is attached to it. It says, generally, as shown on the site plan, the height of the buildings will remain where it is on the site plan.

And one last question. Sorry. Minimum open space in the ordinance item number six doesn't give any minimum square footage or anything. I noticed the site plan shows a community center building, which looks like would be the only sort of open space available on the plan given the layout of the other buildings. Just curious what the intention of that community center would be since we just built a state of the art lux field community center for the for the greater neighborhood.

I I think the applicant could speak to that, and I will say their applicant's report does talk about their the potential innovation center and things like that. So I would say they they should speak to that.

You can just pronounce your name.

Right. Steven S. With the NCO. There's some read around the housing authority. I believe the building you're referring to is what's called the innovation center. Can you please can you talk about that?

Hi. Yes. I'm Eric Mahring from Hooker Young Architects Engineers. We actually have kind of two spaces planned right now. The the the community space if

you wanna pull up the

the site plan again.

The community building is more for resident amenities, leasing office. We currently have a fitness center, lounge space, library, all the stuff that really doesn't exist on the site now. It's all more for residents. That would be this space here that would go with that, you know, open resident open space as well, playground. I think we talked about a little dog park in there. That would be more resident focused green space. I think we had other plans where we had larger green spaces in them, and we kind of went more towards density than creating more big open green space. In the in the larger building too, the commercial space, we have planned to have an innovation center, more of a public facing space for the neighborhood or the city at large.

Thank you. Does

that answer your question? Yeah.

We've just yet are there any additional questions for the applicant this year?

Made my opposition to Vinyl. I'll leave it up to the rest of the commissioners if you wanna oppose it or not, please, to

you guys.

So can they speak to Donald as to how much you know, several different materials that are being used. Yeah.

I think

that was just a blanket list of materials that usually the city accepts. I mean, we don't we're not planning to use vinyl now. We obviously haven't haven't done our full construction drawings construction budget. We'll have to go through Virginia Housing, and Virginia Housing has pretty specific requirements for brick and Hardie. Anyways, most of the projects that we've done with TRG have been a combination of brick and Hardie.

Right. So that means in some and substance, we're not wedded to. Sure.

No questions for the applicant? Thank you.

We have

oh, yeah. Sorry.

We have closed the public hearing, but we've had someone come forth, at this time. So unless there's any objection from the commission, I'd like to give that member an opportunity to speak.

And should I've been were having technical difficulties, and I've been

So true.

Having back and forth with them.

Yes. So I think it's and, again, I think it's appropriate, but if that's okay with the commission, go ahead. Okay. Yeah.

Mister Olinger, you should be able to unmute now and address the commission.

It's ready. Mister Olinger, can you hear us? I think it's star six to unmute. Mister Olinger, can you try star six to unmute? I will also tell you that the letter that you have

in your packet on the agenda is from Mr. Olinger.

Do you have any other suggestions for filling your email to upper Thomas? So he was struggling with the computer, so that's why he's on the phone.

And the only thing I'm seeing is start six should work,

and we should've we gave did we give permission?

Do want me to

get a remark on the

Oh, no. It's gotta be phone number?

It's gonna be the phone number. Okay. Mister Olinger, are you not able to unmute yourself from your phone or your computer? I'll go ahead and do the make a presenter thing. Just Yeah. We're gonna helps. Sometimes

it does.

Right. K. Mister Olinger, you've been given, presenter privileges, so you should be able to Open the circle here so that you can move this on.

It's it's either pretty pretty detailed. Pretty detailed.

I just wanna confirm.

I agree. Circle leader, I understand we can't you're having some technical difficulties, and we've done everything on our end to offer the option for for the ability for you to sign on. So the commission is acknowledging your detailed letter. Everyone is aware that you submitted it. So with that, I'm going to close the public hearing. Okay. Gonna close the public hearing, bring it back to the, commission. We could, get a motion, properly before us, and that way, we can continue any additional discussions.

Just interject one thing. Please. Just Just wanna emphasize that, I think as secretary Trump presented, the preliminary plan is, like, the bigger deal when it comes to a community unit plan. So with that, staff has recommended a text amendment condition. But if there are particular things that you would like to do as part of your motion or part of the discussion, doing it now is important because this process goes to both us and city council.

And and then final plan is really just kind of, like, implementing everything. So this is your chance if you want to say something to announce because when the final plan comes through, it's basically just implementing preliminary or master plan. So I think the other conditions that were discussed, if those could just be clear in the motion so that we're clear, then our recommendation does.

Thank you for that clarification. So there are additional items that you want to see addressed with your amendments. I think we should maybe address those now so that they can be captured appropriately within the motion. Do you have any additional other than, the clarifying language for the maximum, square footage for residential four?

I mean, I would recommend whoever makes the motion to strike final signing. I I would encourage a a greener inner parking field while I applaud the applicants use of the buffers and the green space along the public right of ways. I fear what may actually become massive. Asphalt parking lots on the inner.

That's it for me. Additional items, we'd like to see addressed? Questions?

I think it's fantastic. They got a mix of income. I think we've had, large segments of our city kind of walled off from everybody else for too long, and I think it'll be great to have different differences amongst neighbors.

I'll just I mean, I've, you know, I had the benefit of a presentation last week on this too, and I I do see that, now you're looking at pretty much thirty, thirty, 30, you know, very low income, adequate to replace more than what units are currently there at that income level. Having scale of income levels is a great thing to build into a community because their families at 30% area median income, which we strive to get them to 60% area of medium income, they could still move within the same community and still be at home. You know, there's a wonderful beautiful school right across the street that provides great opportunity for families to do to not only have a great community but a school within that community as well. When we get the final plans, there are really challenges as it relates to traffic on that corridor in front of the scheme, which I would not put the weight totally on the development for that. But I think the city engineer, traffic engineering really need to look at it.

Some of the things that we've done there that I'm not sure are the best for a high pedestrian residential area, but if there's a lot of traffic that moves through that area. But I think those are things that they should really pay close attention to from a traffic perspective. Green space, one of the questions that I did ask was, you know, how much green space are we building in to make sure that we are not that we're planting enough trees and we're building off shade and, you know, that lots of kids have comfortable places to play, which would be something we'd like to pay pay a lot of attention, which is included in this preliminary plan that's before us. You know, we haven't drilled down to the details until you get to the final, but the provision for all of that is spelled out. And based on the presentation that I got last week and the proposed recommendations of amendments, I would motion for us to

approve this. With the amendments. Yes.

Do we have a second? Second. Any further discussion?

I would say I will vote for it with the amendments, but I I would it would be my personal preference to leave, the prohibition of vinyl to VHDA that I think as a city, at some point, we gotta decide are we for affordable housing not. And if we're going to preclude certain building materials as a matter of practice, it is going to make housing more expensive, especially at deeply affordable levels. And, but I I will support it with the events.

I don't know enough about LITECH funding in BHDA. I I'm personally okay with vinyl. My first house was vinyl, and it's much easier and cheaper to maintain than my already. But I understand quality concerns. But I just don't wanna put us in a position to where the HCA could come back and say that they want this option and then be taking it out as long as staff feels comfortable that it would create a conflict with BHDA down the road. They have a minimum standard,

not this Okay. No. Okay. Yeah. I agree with mister White as it relates to you know, affordability is affordability. It's a tough thing. Very tough. We couldn't do this 30% housing if we didn't have housing vouchers. And your question is relates to whether or there are adequate housing vouchers there. And we are struggling really, really hard to build affordable housing at 60% area median income, mostly in the house.

And we have to be mindful of that. But I'm motioning that the amendments has been presented.

I have a motion and a second. There's no further discussion. We'll call the question.

Guys are voting on item 15 ordinance twenty twenty six dash one zero six, and this is to include the amendments as well to remove the vinyl siding as a permitted material as well as including the maximum residential form area in the text ordinance.

And encouraging a greener inner parking field.

Miss Greenfield? Aye. Miss Ebert? Aye. Miss Knight? Aye. Mister Penich?

Aye.

Miss Robertson?

Aye. Miss

Robe? Aye. Mister White?

Aye.

And mister Bikutzey?

Aye.

Motion passes, and that item will be forwarded to city council with the recommendation of approval, and you will see them back for final plans.

Okay. Item 16, presentation on different.

Meeting. Alright. Last item is gonna be item 16. This is a presentation, on integrating Richmond Connects into the Richmond 300 master plan, and we are joined by deputy director Pitts to provide a presentation.

Is the

hand up, mister Olinger's? Yes.

I'll

I'll put it.

Rather, you have trouble getting in the garage?

Yep. No. That's why I was late. I was it was closed,

and my back wasn't working. Cool.

I would let Kevin or someone else staff know in case you need to do that.

I couldn't get into the parking garage earlier, and so that's why I was behind a few. My badge wasn't working to open up the gate. Normally, it does. But

I'm not aware of any council action to of you. So

Okay. I

will, yeah, chat.

Well, councilwoman, is there any have there been conversations?

Charged with that. Guess I'll call the mayor. Don't

know. I'll ask senior.

Welcome. It's deputy director with the planning department. I'm here to do a brief presentation to give you a heads up on a, amendment to the master plan that's gonna be to Regarding Richmond Connects, as you remember back in December, I was discussing some of the amendments that are forthcoming, and one of those was the Richmond Connects strategic plan that has already gone through city council. Richmond Connects, as you know, is the citywide multimodal plan. It's built upon the work of Richmond three hundred and RVA Green.

Also, they started with a equity plan, the path path to equity policy guide that helped inform the work that they did with the Richmond Connect strategic plan, which document multimodal plan that had a lot of transportation planning projects in addition to strategies. They had an action plan, which was a list of priority project and also, a scenario planning document that they're working on more longer range scenario planning up to twenty fifty. All of this helps inform capital improvement, their maintenance program, and also how we get some regional funding. Additionally, what's really important to having in the master plan, how we evaluate and look at development of projects and how, so having it in the master plan helps with all of that. This was an infographic provided to me by, DPW that I've been struggling with how to present on, so, hopefully, that all makes sense to you all.

So, again, so why do we need this transportation plan? What is it supposed to do? Identify those project, provide those strategies need to improve the transportation system. The code requires us to have a transportation plan that includes that infrastructure within the plan, and Richmond Connects is that plan. And it's important for us to and how we incorporate that into the master plan. If you remember, the projects began in 2022, and it was done with a lot of community engagement. It was an engagement focused planning effort. Over 20,000 Richmonders were involved in that process. So a lot of the city was involved in coming up with these strategies and the plan and what the logics would be Yes. The plan.

So they just turned Richmonders looked at what the need would be, said what were the most important needs, and ranked the projects. And it was also really data driven as well as talking with the community to come up with what what the projects are. So 2013 was the first for the original rich not the original, but of the I guess it was the first Richmond Connects transportation plan. 2020 was Richmond 300 was adopted, and one of the recommendations out of Richmond 300 was we need to amend Richmond Connects. Richmond Connects was adopted by city council in 2024 as the city's multimodal plan.

At that time, we did not adopt it. We did not amend the master plan. It was just adopted by city council as the multimodal plan for the city. So now we're working here just to get it incorporated into the master plan appropriately as we're taking this look back at what important things we need to do as we're looking at the master plan five years later.

So how are how are

we amending the master plan for Richmond Connects? We're looking at what maps in the existing master plan need to be amended. In the master plan, we have a greenways and on street bike facilities map. So talks about greenways, which are eight foot a minimum eight foot wide paved pathways throughout the city. So there's some lines. Because Richmond Connects took inspiration from Richmond March, a lot of the lines were already there. There's some additional lines that we're adding that were based on rich that are within Richmond Connects that we're putting on this now, in the master plan. And, additionally, enhanced transit. So there's one enhanced transit. Enhanced transit are transit lines that we're envisioning in the future more frequent.

So, ideally, every 10 minutes, minimally every 15 minutes hoping, and longer hours of operation. So there's an additional line, the 14, that goes to Hermitage that was included in Richmond Connects that wasn't in the master plan. So as amending the master plan was including several more greenways and bike lanes and the one additional enhanced transit line. These are the two maps I have later on kinda pops out at you which specific lines are gonna be a demo. In addition to updating these maps, we're gonna put the whole plan in the appendix.

These are a large document, 400 page documents that go into a lot of details about exactly what these projects are. In addition to having the bikeways and the enhanced transit, there's sidewalk improvements that are recommended. There's the lighter, quicker, cheaper, which I know you've all have seen that you've approved the location character extend projects. Those are all within those documents as well. There are strategies that are a lot of them are very similar to Richmond 300, but some additional transportation related strategies incorporating that as an appendix as a part of the master plan as well reference.

So as we're looking at those, better quicker cheaper projects, it's a part of the master plan document. On a sec, come back with the official resolution to amend the master plan in June, and then it'll go through council to be adopted within the master plan. Many of you were probably on planning commission when you saw this last. So right before it was adopted by council, it came before planning commission. So you'll be familiar with a lot of the projects that were Just really quickly, I will send this to you in detail because it's gonna be impossible to see.

But these are these are what's in Richmond 300 in terms of bikeways and green greenways. And so sorry.

I'm gonna go back. These are

the new lines that were a part of Richmond Connects. So you'll see some additional greenways, bike lanes that Richmond Connects had that weren't in the master plan. Useful. And when we're looking at projects rather than staff having to look at two documents, everything's within the master plan document evaluating, looking at a project off

of Cherokee at the

the green waste there. And if it needs to be incorporated as a part of the development project, it's gonna show up in the master plan of when we make it. I can provide you with a link to a different Mhmm. Slide. Easier for you to see the difference between the two documents and what we're adding based on the additional Richmond Connects. In addition, really, the only changes is a refinement of how the North South BRT is going through downtown, and then this is where the 14 was added as an enhanced transit. It was aiming for it to get more frequency on the fourteenth, so it falls under

the category of transit.

That's a quick overview of the plans for incorporating Richmond Connects into the master plan. If you want any more details on Richmond Connects, you can get Dorona when we're, next time to provide a lot of the details of that 400 page. So there was a question for miss Pitts? Would the commission like Dorona to be here at the next meeting for more detail, or are we feeling comfortable with this? Not everyone is is on the first time this came through. But Okay. Cool. Pretty good. Okay. So this is just a presentation.

We don't normally, open a public hearing, but I know if chairman Poole were here, that

would

be his that would be his choice. So I wanna honor that. Is there any member of the public?

It's okay. You don't have to do what a previous administration did. You've you've been changed. Like, okay.

You know, I gotta keep mister Poole's no rules. Is there any member of the public that would like to offer comments? Is there anyone online? See no one

online. Okay. Yeah.

There is no additional comments. We will move to the last item on the agenda, council action update and upcoming items.

So city council last met on May 11. Four new special use permits were introduced and referred to the June 2 CPC meeting. Additionally, you guys will be seeing the rear monument case come back that was continued for, administrative reasons. And then Tuxedo Boulevard is still hanging out at city council. And then you also there were four special use permits that were adopted at city council, and then the seventeen o five Commonwealth Lavender Hill special use permit was denied by council. And those are the the updates and upcoming items.

Are there any questions? Additional comments? Okay. Hearing none, then we are adjourned.