Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the regularly scheduled meeting, city of Richmond Planning Commission. We're glad to see you all here. Secretary, would you give the electronic notice?

This meeting is being held in person in the 5th Floor Conference Room of 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.

Very much for the for for the for the

Here. Mr. McKenzie?

Here.

And we have form.

Thank very much. We have we just got some minutes. First is 08/19/2025. Is there a motion? Yes, mister Poole. Second. Any discussion? Not, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of the minutes of 08/19/2025. Please call the roll.

Mister Poole? Aye. Miss Greenfield? Aye. Miss Ebert? Upstate. Miss May? Aye. Miss Robertson? Aye. Miss Roe? Aye. Mister White? Aye. And mister McKenzie?

Aye.

Motion passes, and those minutes are Thank

We also have minutes from 04/07/2026. Is there a motion? Move to approve. No. Any discussion? Hearing none. For those questions, we're voting on approval of the minutes of 04/07/2026. Please call the vote.

Mister Polk?

Aye.

Ms. Greenfeld? Aye. Ms. Seaver? Notes. Ms. Knight? Aye. Ms. Robinson? Aye. Ms. Roe? Aye. Mr. White?

Aye.

And Mr. McKenzie? Aye. Motion passes, and those minutes are approved. Thank you.

Mister director, do you have a report for this evening? I do not. Good evening. Do you have any continuances or deletions?

No.

Would you please present the consent agenda?

The first item on the consent agenda, item three, is ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero seven five. This is an ordinance to amend and reordain ordinance number 80 dash one twenty five dash one zero seven, adopted 06/30/1980, which authorized the use of the real estate, a parcel containing 2.274 acres located on the South Side of Forest Hill Avenue, East Of Byley Road for multiple family dwelling condominium purposes and to authorize the construction of 18 townhouse condominium dwelling units for sale with accessory off street parking to allow for accessory structures and additions that are customarily incidental and clearly subordinate to the single family attached dwellings. Item four, ordinance twenty twenty six dash o eight three. This is to authorize the chief administrative officer for and on behalf of the city of Richmond to accept the funds in the amount of $10,000,369,508 dollars from the Central Virginia Transportation Authority and to amend ordinance twenty twenty five dash zero five eight adopted 05/12/2025, which accepted a program of proposed capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2025 to 2026. In the four fiscal years thereafter, adopted a capital budget for fiscal year 2025 to 2026 and determined the means of financing the same by I, establishing a new project for the Department of Public Works in the transportation federal state regional category entitled Diamond District Transportation and for infrastructure project, and two, increasing estimated revenues from the funds received from the Central Virginia Transportation Authority and the amount appropriated to the new Department of Public Works Diamond District Transportation infrastructure infrastructure project in the transportation federal state regional category by $10,000,369,508 dollars for the purpose of funding the Diamond District Transportation infrastructure project.

Item five, UDC twenty twenty six dash o five. This is the concept location, character, and extent review of Bryant Park Dam removal and stream restoration located at 4308 Hermitage Road. And item six, this is the resolution of the Richmond City Planning Commission approving a final community unit plan for the parcels known as 1300 Westwood Avenue and 1219 Palmyra Avenue to authorize the development of a field test.

Very much. Any questions from members of the commission concerning the consent agenda? I'm gonna open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public present or online who wishes to speak to matters on the consent agenda. Anyone online?

I am seeing no one online.

I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission, and ask if there's a motion on the consent agenda. Move, mister chair. Second. And a motion and a second is are there any discussion matters? Hearing none, I'll call the question regarding approval of the consent agenda. Please call the roll.

Mr. Bull? Aye. Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Ebert? Aye. Ms. Nain? Aye. Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Roe? Aye. Mr. White?

Aye.

And Mr. McKenzie?

Aye. That motion passes.

Please present the first item on the regular agenda. Right.

The first item on the regular agenda is ordinance twenty twenty six dash o seven three. This is an ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 1215 North 29th Street for the purpose of up to one two family detached dwelling and one dwelling unit within an accessory building upon certain terms and conditions. And Jonathan Brown will be giving us a presentation on that.

Mister Brown, thank you. Are you here? Working.

This is ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero seven three for 1215 North 29th, the special use permit. The property is located in the Churchill North neighborhood on North 29th Street between S And R Streets. Property is currently a 3,960 square foot or point one zero acre unimproved parcel of land. Here are some images of the existing context. Across the street at 1216 North 29th is some new townhomes.

Also across the street is 1207 North 29th is a new affordable multifamily development. And on the same block at 1204 North 30th Street, it was a twenty seventeen s and p for for two family attached dwellings. The applicant is requesting a special use permit to authorize up to one two family detached dwelling and one dwelling unit within an accessory building within an R 6 single family attached residential district. Accessory dwellings are not a permitted use within the R 6 district when combined with the two family dwelling on the same parcel, which is purposely. See some of the this is the it's small, but you can see here the site plan.

The unit in the rear on the alleyway and unit a facing street, which appears as a single family, but it's actually a two family. City's master plan designates a future land use for the subject property as neighborhood mixed use, which is defined as existing or newly high highly walkable urban neighborhoods that are predominantly residential within a small but group of percentage of parcels providing retail, office, personal services, and institutional uses. Building heights are generally two to four stories. Buildings taller than four stories may be found along major streets. Parcels are generally between 1,505,000 square feet.

Primary uses include single family houses, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, small multifamily buildings, typically between three to 10 units and open space. Secondary uses include large multifamily buildings, retail office, personal service, institutional, cultural and government. The current zoning for this property is r six single family attached residential. And, again, the special needs permits due to the fact that you accessory dwelling units are permitted on properties with existing two family. Here are the conditions.

Special use of the property shall be as up to one two family detached dwelling and one dwelling unit within accessory buildings substantially as shown on the plans. The height of special you use shall not exceed two stories. All building materials, elevations, and site improvements shall be substantially as shown in the plans. All mechanical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from adjoining public right away. In terms of neighborhood participation, staff notified adjacent property owners of the application.

To this day, staff has received letters of opposition from nearby residents. Here's staff's recommendation. Staff find that the the proposed use aligns with the master plan recommendations for neighborhood mixed use land uses and is considered a primary use. While functioning as a duplex, the units appear in the public realm as a single family dwelling. Staff concludes that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting of special use permits, Specifically, staff finds that the proposed views would not be detrimental to the job welfare of the community involved, not great congestion to meet streets in the area, so the airport staff recommends approval of the request.

That concludes my presentation. Are there any questions?

Questions for mister Brown from members of the commission. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I believe the applicant is present representative.

Yes. Have any questions, but I am abstaining. It's okay.

I'm sorry. This is abstaining or must not.

Good evening. Good evening, mister chairman. Under the conditions, my name is Alessandro Vegaci, Bank of Development Resources. I'm representing the property owner of 1215 North 29th Street. His family has owned this property for over fifty years.

This is a parcel located on the East side of North 29th Street between R And S Streets. It's a legal lot of record. It's vacant, and the access is provided to the rear by means of a North South alley. The goal here is to permit a high quality infill that's consistent with the Richmond 300 plan, being appropriately dense and efficient, consistent with the uses permitted by Wright, and respectful to the historic development pattern and predominant character of the area. Specifically, the proposal permit one single excuse me, one two family detached dwelling, which fronts 29th Street and one accessory dwelling unit towards the rear of the property.

The reason for the request, as Jonathan Brown mentioned, is that while the r six zoning permits the two family use and the lot is a legal lot of record, the lot area and RIF requirements are not met in this development contemplates an ADU, which is not permitted by the underlying zoning in conjunction with the two family use. The proposal is consistent with the Richmond 300 plan guidance of neighborhood mixed use, which describes this land use designation as existing or new highly walkable urban neighborhoods that are predominantly residential and contemplate single, two family, and small multifamily dwellings as primary uses. When complete, the two family dwelling would be two stories in height and configured as flats. Each unit would be about 1,100 square feet with three bedrooms, three bathrooms. The exterior design is a traditional Italianate style, consistent in character with the surrounding neighborhood and includes a single entrance to appear as a single family dwelling from the street.

As part of the request, we've conditioned quality building materials, including some ambitious lap siding. The rear ADU would also be two stories in height, containing one bedroom and one bathroom unit on the 2nd Floor, with the 1st Floor devoted to a garage that would provide two off street parking spaces. I finally, I just wanna spend a little bit of time on the neighborhood outreach, and revisions since I've seen some of the public comment that's come in. I think there's some confusion about the request. This SUP was originally applied for on 03/19/2024, so over two years ago.

At the time, we sent out letters to all property owners within a 150 feet. This was back in April. We met with the Churchill Central Civic Association in August. And the original SEP proposal, which was still consistent with the comprehensive plan guidance and had been signed off by all city reviewing agencies, was for two duplexes on the property. During our initial community engagement, both in meeting with the owner of the adjacent property at 1217 North 29th Street on-site as well as with meeting with the Churchill Central Civic Association, we heard concerns relative to the density, the lot coverage, and it being kind of a foreign lot layout to have two duplexes on a property as had originally been presented.

Based on that feedback, again, despite consistency with the comprehensive plan, the owner had a desire to address the community concerns, and we revised the proposal to its current iteration. So the proposal now has a lot coverage of 39%, which is significantly below the 55% threshold for the underlying R6 zoning, providing a larger backyard more in line with the adjacent homes. We've reduced the density in terms of units, four to three, and also in terms of bedrooms by 42%, so almost half, and while managing to retain two off street parking spaces, which are not required on buy right development. Additionally, we increased the setbacks at the rear of the northern property line to nine feet to help protect an existing tree that straddles the property line. Lastly, I also want to add that after making the wholesale revisions, we did present the revised proposal to the Churchill Central Civic Association again in February.

Our revisions were well received. Some folks actually wanted more density. At that meeting, we did receive some additional comments in regards to adding some additional landscaping on the front porch, adding an additional window on the left elevation of the garage. The owner is more than happy to add these items at the building permit stage. We do not want to delay this paper since we've been at this for over two years, but we are happy to commit to adding those two items at the building permit stage as the plans will remain substantially as shown per the ordinance language. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I'd also like to reserve a little time for rebuttal.

Few minutes. Perfect. Any questions from members of the commission for mister Bragazzi? Thank you very much. Public hearing, and I ask if there's any member in the public present or online who wish to speak in favor of this paper.

Online. Member of the public present or online who wish to speak in opposition to this paper?

Seeing no one online. No one online.

Because we have two or three letters. And I'm a close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission, and ask if there's a motion on ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero seventy three.

Move through.

Second. Any discussion?

I think this is exactly the kind of gentle density we wanna see on these kinds of lots, and I'm sorry that it took them two years to get here.

Yeah. I'm very supportive of this paper and very thankful they will save the beautiful old hackberry tree. Anything further? I'm a call with question. Voting on approval. Special use permit 1215 North 29th Street. Please call the order.

Mister Bull? Aye. Miss Greenfield? Aye. Miss Sievert? Aye. Miss Robertson? Aye.

Miss

Roe? Aye. Mister White? Aye. Mister McKenzie? Aye. Miss Knight, you're abstaining. Correct? Same. Perfect. And I can prepare you. I'm standing for the next one too. Sorry. It's

okay. Alright.

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

Much good to present. Next item on the regular agenda.

Next item on the regular agenda is ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero seven four to authorize the special use of the property known as 101 Gordon Avenue for the purpose of a multifamily dwelling containing up to 120 dwelling units upon certain terms and conditions and to repeal ordinance number 85 dash three sixteen dash 86 dash one adopted 01/13/1986 and all amendatory ordinances thereto. We will be welcomed again by Jonathan Brown.

Brown, they're working you hard tonight. Yes, sir. Okay.

This property is located in the Manchester neighborhood on Gordon Avenue and Danebert Street. Property is currently 67,518 square foot or 1.5 acre parcel of land approved with a commercial building constructed according to city records in 2005. In terms of the existing context, you can see here there's a surface parking lot on the property, a quite large surface parking lot that takes up most of the property currently. Just beyond that on Bainbridge Street is a mixed use development, apartment building with 49 units. Across the street on Bainbridge at 1510 Bainbridge Street are 24 units multifamily.

I thought it needed a little bit more context, so I created a graphic showing you when we think about the Richmond 300, Bainbridge Street's really one of the streets that sticks out to us showing, like, what's possible and how we can achieve the goals within the plan. You you can see the red multifamily interspersed with two family, single family dwellings, commercial uses. Some of the lots aren't developed yet, but The applicant is requesting a special use permit to authorize the construction of a multifamily residential building in the R 63 multifamily urban residential district. The proposed development does not comply with several applicable standards in the R 63 such as minimum lot area, minimum width, open space, building height, building facade administration, etcetera. Special use permit is therefore required to authorize this request.

You can see on the site plan, staff worked with the applicant on a site design to get the building pulled up to the street and the parking in the rear. There was two entrances and egresses to the parking lot. We reduced it down to one. The city's master plan designates a future land use for the subject property as neighborhood mixed use, which is defined as existing or new highly walkable urban neighborhoods that are predominantly residential with a small but critical percentage of parcels providing retail office person service institutional uses. Buildings heights are generally generally two to four stories.

Billings taller than four stories may be found along major streets. Versals are generally between 1,405,000 square feet. Primary uses include single family houses, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, small multifamily buildings, typically three to 10 units, and open space. Secondary uses include large multifamily buildings, 10 plus units, retail office, personal service, institutional, cultural, and government. Current zoning for this property is R six single family attached.

You can see near whole street is mostly B 5. There is some R 8 to the north, but a very large area of R 63, which accounts for the diversity of use within this area. Here are the conditions. The special use of the property shall be as a multifamily dwelling containing up to a 120 dwelling units substantially as shown in the plans. Height of the special use shall not exceed five stories.

All site improvements, including landscaping, shall be substantially as shown in the plans. All mechanical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from the adjoining public right away. Facilities for the collection of refuse shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the director of public works. There's a lot of text here, but it's basically stating that the condition for the dedication of sidewalk expansion along West 15th Streets is included in this ordinance. Also, owner shall make improvements within the right of way substantially shown the plans, including without limitation, the installation of new sidewalk along Coordinate Avenue, installation of street trees in the vacant existing tree wells along Coordin And Bainbridge Streets, which improvements may be completed in one or more phases as approved by the director of public works.

Staff notified residents and the Manchester Alliance of the proposed special use. To this date, two letters of support and one letter of opposition has been received. Staff find that the proposed use at new five story multifamily building with off street parking to be well aligned to the goals of the neighborhood mixed use land use category within the master plan. Characteristics found within the proposed that align with neighborhood mixed use included expansion of a unified street wall, appropriate setbacks, maintaining the existing street grade, building orientation, and rear parking. MAP also find that the request is supported by objectives 15.1 a and 15.1 f, which call for an increase in the number of Richmonders living in a development pattern that encourages density and reduces dependency on single occupancy vehicles, increases the use of mass and active transportation options.

The proposed is directly located on a designated GRTC high frequency route in one block from the recently chosen route for an additional bus rapid transit whole system expansion. Staff further find that the proposal increases the market for future and current walkable destinations. The city's walk score map scores this area as between 70 to 89, which is variable. Staff find that the proposed use is located on Gordon Avenue, a designated major mixed use street. Sign elements of major mixed use streets found within the proposed plan include sidewalk improvements, building orientation, rear parking, and additional street trees.

Staff find that due to all findings summarized above, the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting special use permits. Staff find that since ordinance introduction to city council on May 23, the applicant has requested the inclusion of an additional site plan showing improvements to the site to accommodate fire department vehicles. This sheet entitled buyer access markup is recommended by staff to be included in the proposed ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request for the special use permit, repeal of ordinance number 85 dash three sixteen dash 86 dash one, an inclusion of sheet titled fire access markup drawn by Kimley Horn and dated 04/14/2026. And here is that markup.

Concludes my presentation. I believe that the applicant is here to also make a statement.

Questions from members of the commission for mister Brown. Thank you very much. You're welcome. May the applicant come forward? Give us your name. Welcome. Glad to see you back. Put us back up at the podium? Yes, please. Alright. Thank you, Jonathan. You're welcome. Presentation.

Thank you,

chair and commissioners. Appreciate you letting us come up here and

speak for a quick minute.

My name is Will Allen. I work with Harper Associates. And together with Eric, we represent the applicant. One thing that came up in our graphic that I wanted to make a change on as part of the relief that we had been asking for well, let me back up real quick. So from inception, we're always kind of caught between the crosshairs of do we just rezone this to B5 because it really feels like B5 or do we put an SUP on it?

We kind of went back and forth on that a few times. We ultimately landed on the SUP and we could kind of carbon, custom fit it for what we needed to do, which we feel really good about at this point. But one item that we had on the building facade fenestrations, the underlying district R63, we're getting some relief on that 1st Floor glazing requirement. And in our graphic, it mentions a 35% minimum. And we are asking, we'd like to ask tonight to have that revert to, it's right here, the text you probably can't read, but the intent was really for it to be the the b five glazing requirement, and it's put here at 35 in the b five.

You can correct me if I'm wrong. It's 30%. And then we add in there some minimums for the composition of the siding to include a minimum of 25% brick veneer and a minimum of 25% cementitious siding.

Secretary, is there any change in that regard cause a problem moving this forward to to the council?

For council, no. Because they already are requesting the fire access markup, we have to amend the ordinance as well. So it could just be put in the ordinance. It would be up to you if you liked that idea.

It's requesting that that amendment be a part of the paper as well. Yes, sir.

May I ask a question? Absolutely.

If I recall, mister Brown said that a lot of

you joining areas are u b five, so they're essentially asking for standards that are in place today in the community just to replicate that on there.

Yeah. Some some of the area. Not all.

Not all. But but a a portion

of it. So they're not asking for anything that's out of character with the community. It's more fitting with parts of the community. Thank you.

Any other questions for mister Allen? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Come back and see us. I was gonna say if

there's any, yeah, we've got rebuttals of any

We'll reserve two minutes in the event you choose to exercise that. Gonna open a public hearing and ask if there's any members of the public that wishes to speak in favor, miss Page. No one.

Seeing no one online.

Any member of the public who wishes to speak in opposition either here or online? Who's here? Anybody online?

Seeing no one online.

Then I will close public hearings, bring it back to the commission, and ask if there's a motion to approve or a motion.

Approve with the amendment as requested.

There's two amendments. Two amendments.

Your honor.

Yes. Second. Or, I guess, give me a second. Second? I take it yours was a second.

Well, yeah, I think Elizabeth beat me to it. Right.

Okay. Commissioner Wright.

Any further discussion?

As I'm standing, and it doesn't have to do with this case particularly, but I know we talk about, public outreach. And when we have these larger units that carry a larger footprint when it comes to the public outreach, I know I think we brought this up before. Is there a way to ensure that we actually are getting the community, like, the actual surrounding neighbors? Because I think the footprint increases when you have or decreases when you have a smaller prod I mean, a larger project.

I think two things we're trying to do on that. The first is through the actual physical notice and the signage in the property, but also the applicant themselves are highly encouraged to to be able to lead to that

if you like. We've we've had extensive conversations. We've we've got sorry. Sorry.

Since you you didn't introduce yourself, please, if you would. Eric Smith,

the team of associates. To speak to that point, we had extensive conversations with not only the Manchester Alliance, but all adjacent property owners. And we hosted that meeting at Studio 23 and those that were unable to attend, I personally met them at the new coffee shop that's in the multifamily building right here. This is Studio 23? Yeah.

So one of the support letters is Kate and Ashley from Studio 23. I met with every single owner that launched this street. Maybe a few came from this street, but we thought it was extremely important to get neighborhood buy in given that it was gonna change from, you know, old office medical office to a five story multifamily building. The feedback that we got was they were very, focused on Solar panel. Well, there was a solar panel question, just based on the the height.

But iLine site from Bainbridge into their backyards. And so, you know, we we talked about the, the greener that will be planted and to mitigate the ability for people to see from Bainbridge into their backyards. And for temporary fix because we've knocked down the fence that was kind of dilapidated, we put a temporary construction fence up there to to appease those concerns. That was one of the questions that we got in committee meeting. So it's important to us to talk to adjacent owners and we made sure we did that.

I said it wasn't specific to this. It was But

but I assure you that staff makes every effort to make sure that engagement is robust because these larger projects deserve that. And I agree with your your point, not only for this, but for all of those cases like this that have a larger number of units. But it also speaks to the fact that the master plan has encouraged us to have more density, more affordable housing, and I think this particular paper meets that. Any other comments or questions?

Thank you, commissioner Nay.

If you want more information on how we do the property notices or, like, the actual radius of it,

we can also email you. Yeah.

I think what she's more interested in is how the encouragement for the applicant to physically engage with the neighborhoods and the neighbors themselves. I think that's really what she was more after. And I I think you do that when you meet with the applicants. These guys happen to be professionals that do this on a regular basis, and I know they're they know how important it is. But, the staff is encouraging all applicants to do that, particularly when you've got a larger number of units like this.

And this developer team has been extremely sensitive to the to the community, the local guys, and you know? So they're part of the community. Yeah.

Appreciate that.

Well, I keep inviting them back. They're good. They're good. Anything further? We're voting on approval of special use permit at 101 Gordon Avenue. Please call the roll.

Mister Pulte?

Aye.

Miss Greenfield? Aye. Miss Ebert? Aye. Miss Robertson?

Aye.

Miss Roe? Aye. Mister White?

Aye.

Mister McKenzie?

Aye.

And miss Faint is abstaining. That motion passes,

and that item will be recommended to city council for approval.

With two amendments.

With the two amendments.

Council action update.

Yes. So city council last met on the thirteenth. There were three new special use permits that were introduced. You'll see those on your May 5 agenda. And then there's a couple still hanging out. North 18th Street, that was the conditional use permit from last time. 1705 Commonwealth, that's Lavender Hill. And then Tuxedo Boulevard is also still hanging out at council. And then there were two special use permits that were adopted.

Those are all the upcoming items as well?

Yep. Just three.

Is there anything further?

Yeah. I am. I changed my trip plans.

And I'm gonna miss the

I won't be in next meeting.

I'm gonna miss the May 19

meeting. You won't be here, doctor. Be here. I can take it virtually, but I won't be here. Neither will I. It's the Air City visit.

Oh, and I'm gonna miss the How

many people docket review.

How many people 26. Mister director, I'm gonna miss the docket review on May 26.

How many are you missing for? May 19. It's May 5. Okay.

May 5. Anyone else?

Remember the fifth.

Not going to be here. Phoenix? Not going to

be here. No yes to Phoenix? That's the fifth.

Yes. That's the fifth. Be. Hope you and you and me. Okay. Thank you. I thought we were all talking about the nineteenth.

I was getting nervous.

I will be calling you all on May 5.

You do not tell me you won't be here.

I can't do it first.

Anything further from any member of the commission? We're adjourned. We're doing alright tonight, evening.

Mister Pool, before you get around, you

have I have a I have to sign that resolution. Well know I know.