Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

all set ready to go evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city of richmond planning commission madam secretary would you give the electronics note

Thank you very much. For purposes of establishing a quorum, please call the roll.

Mr. Pinnock has made a request to attend Virtually, is there a motion to consider that?

Is there a motion to allow Mr. Pinnock? A motion? Do I second? Any discussion? All in favor of allowing Mr. Pinnock to attend virtually, please call the roll.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we have one set of minutes from July 21, 2026. Is there a motion to approve? Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of the minutes from July 21, 2026. Please call the roll.

Nancy, do you have a director's report? No. All right. Are there continuances of relations to consider?

Do I hear a motion to continue item number two, 3317 Rear Monument Avenue to September 1st, 2026. All right.

This is an ongoing. Attempt on the part of the applicant to satisfy concerns of the neighborhood and there are discussions going on about size of the project, location of project, those sorts of things. Any other questions or comments? We're voting on continuing item number 23317, Rear Monument Avenue. September 1, 2026. Please call the roll.

Are there any questions from the commission with respect to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I'll open public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak on any of the items on the consent agenda. I'm online.

Oh, okay. And I'll bring it back to the commission to close public hearing and ask if there is a motion on the consent agenda. And as I understand it, it's all three to be referred to the UDC for August 13th, 2026. Any discussion? I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of the consent agenda for the shifting of these three matters to the UDC for their August 13th, 2026 meeting. Please call the roll.

Could you please present the regular agenda?

You might put that a part of the record. And if you would choose, you can be excused. All right. Thank you. Sorry to lose you.

I don't have to give myself some pizza. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Roach, please proceed.

At least so. Mr. Pinnock has his hand raised.

All right. Could we go back to your slides where you made? Going back.

So all three of those would be a violation of the master plan, correct? Yes. And your final conclusion is that in its current form, it does not meet the master plan. So if we were to approve this, we would have to say that we're approving things that are not in accordance with the master plan.

To go back to the consideration, you made mention of the conceptual approval. That was in 2019. Yes. Different master plan. Completely different criteria. So the concept conditions, would not be apropos to the current master plan.

I never saw anything in the current plan that talked about the evaluation of tree enhancement and the protection of neighborhoods or the archeological protections that are required under the current master plan. Am I wrong about that?

Because one of the things in the 19 conditions was to demonstrate, which I would mean to say that it would be some sort of written document that there was consideration of street tree enhancing technology, and it's very specific about what kind of report you would get. I haven't seen that, but I'm not sure it's 100% fair to say that almost all of them have been met. And to provide a study on the purpose and design of the residual land created by the roundabout, was that under Exhibit A? Yes. What all that did was talk about one, of the circles. They did not talk about any of the others.

Thank you. would you say that consideration of archeological effects and also the protection of neighborhoods is in the current master plan? Yes. I take it the UDC considered those as well?

Didn't the 106 request further evaluations?

It's a very large document. I guess what I was getting at is you said that basically you thought the UDC thought 99% of this plan was good. I'm not going to quibble with you. There's lots of it that's good. I'm not so sure if the UDC thought all 99% was good. Would you concede that?

All right. But the distinction that Ms. Knight was asking about, and that is this being a final and the fact that it won't come back to us, but if we were to approve it with the recommended UDC conditions, we don't know what we'd be approving, do we?

I promise. I've read your staff report. I believe. And my point being, if you want them to, if you go to those conditions, the recommended conditions, you're asking them to adjust the design of the intersection at Lee and Mosby.

The Public Art Commission could handle their recommendations, I think, very easily. Future gateway signage, I think they could handle very easily. But the design of the access aisle south of the main circle, We wouldn't know what that means until that's done. So how are we going to know what this plan represents when we give it final approval without that information?

May we bring this back and not make it a final? I believe you can condition it. If it's a final, you leave the recommendations up to the applicant and the staff, and the commission's not considering what's being redone. Is there a way for us to follow the recommendations of the UDC and ask the applicant to address those issues without giving a final?

Going back to the question that As Knight mentioned to you, and that is the fact that there's been significant input from other groups that have been negative, that would be Historic Richmond Partnership for Smarter Growth, Churchill, Union Hill, Neighborhood Associations. I think there's a couple more I don't remember.

don't think they would agree with you in saying that these are minor things that need to be done, given what they've written to us in very detailed format. I think they all would agree that this plan contains a great deal of wonderful things for that area, for the streets, for the pedestrians, for the bike riders. Bike RVA is actually one of the supporters of this plan. But my point being, I don't want to make light of how you're communicating to us, but there's a lot that's still questionable about what this final plan will look like. Do you concur with that?

I just want to make sure the commission has asked Mr. Rooks all the questions that they want.

Any other questions? I just have one clarifying question. There are two recommendations of denial, one from staff and one from the UDC. So both our professional staff and our subcommittee in the agency that advises us on these issues have both recommended denial.

Just want to be able to hear you and ask you questions, because I know that there's some more questions. I'm sure there are a lot. So that's why we're here. Good evening.

What I would suggest is at this point, if there are any questions from members of the commission for you, we should probably address those now, and then also reserve the right to ask you any final questions once we hear your full presentation.

Thank you. Mr. Carroll, this is location, character, and extent. This board, this commission's only jurisdiction is for location, character, and extent. Funding is not a part of that consideration. Am I right?

When Mr. Rokes made his presentation, he made a statement that I wrote down. And what he said was that the main thrust of this entire project is moving traffic. Do you disagree with that?

Do you agree that part of this problem with respect to what was proposed in 2016 and 2019, part of the problem is that we're now dealing with an entirely different master plan?

And we are. And both staffs have said you don't.

That's why we're glad to hear from you. Please, thank you very much. If you want to go ahead, which of these?

Could you make sure the Secretary has that for the record? Thank you. Ms. Rowe?

Questions for Kara or either of the two gentlemen?

In the past, when you and other city departments have come with the conceptual approval at 30%, frequently you've come at a conceptual approval at 70%. Would you do that?

Either call it 60% or 70% Z. I just recall multiple times that we've done a conceptual approval at 60 or 70, and I'm asking, can we do that tonight?

We've had more than one conceptual approval hearing on multiple projects.

I think that the staff has already done that. But I just wanted to make sure because in the past we have done 60 or 70 conceptual approvals.

On all those projects that are going, the one you're talking about that's going on consent agenda, because there is no objection from the planning staff or the UDC. That's the key. That's the key.

I'm just looking for a way to move this forward if you could accept a 70% conceptual approval. That's not going to allow me to go to the right-of-way opposition, no way.

You're not meeting the staff recommendation for the major traffic circle. And you've said you can't do it, but you're not meeting that.

They're not part of it. Staff recommends not approving this layout, allowing the applicant to find an alternative layout.

If we are looking for master plan point of view, there's no question that in many instances, your plan comports with the master plan, but there are multiple ways in which it doesn't. Our own staff is telling the staff. We have defensive risk staffing. I understand you disagree with the staff. I'm just telling you what our professional staff from PDR recommends denial.

All I can say is we've got a lot more to hear. And I'd like to hear other folks. And I'll reserve you some time at the end if you want to do a rebuttal.

Does that make any sense? Well, it's Mr. Pinnock's question, but I think that what you're saying is that your recommendation is they need an alternative layout.

That seems to be the one that the staff, I'm differentiating between the UDC, which made different recommendations, and the PDR staff that are making recommendations the recommendation not approving the current layout of two of the proposed circles. Not one, two.

I agree. That's what UDC said, but the staff report says staff has concern about two circle locations, not one, two.

Can I address that just from the engineer's perspective? Give me one sec. Poor Mr. Benson is going to have a heart attack.

You know how much I love you. I love you to death. I love you to death. But you have been in the meetings with the PDR. Yes, sir. And you haven't been able to come to a conclusion that gets our professional staff that advises us. Right. We did. And I can just leave that over and over again.

Mr. Matthews, I need to ask you a question. Sure. Your staff representative, Mr. Rooks, your staff report that's come from UDC to the CDC based on Mr. Ropes' representation that PDR staff recommends not approving the current layout.

What it means in simplistic terms is it's the commission's decision to make.

My position has been consistently over the period of time that I've been on the planning commission is that I rarely, rarely vote against a recommendation of the state. Rarely. I have in the past, but I don't do it very often. So I think it's up to us as members to take the information that's provided to us and make our own decisions about it. When I make my argument one way or the other to explain what I will or will not, and I have made up my mind.

I'm not sure what PDC is. Department of Planning. It's my understanding that Mr. Rooks represents the staff on this case, and it's his representation that that's the position of the PDR staff. That's what I understand. Mr.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Robert, an old friend of mine who used to be on the Planning Commission in Henrico County used to always tell me, staff don't vote. That's the issue. It's this commission.

I hear you 100%. But what I am saying is every vote I take at this commission is heavily influenced by the recommendation of the professional staff and always will be as long as I'm

I am. But if they weigh heavy, that's influence. You're in trouble by the point that you're making. So I think what would really be a good thing to do here is to pause with the understanding that if Tara wants to have a rebuttal at the end of this, I'm happy to have you come back in. But I think it's time to hear from the rest of the folks. Oh, Bert, I'm sorry, Mr. Penna.

Yes, sir. I don't disagree with a word you said. And I will ask if we now open a public hearing. And we'll start with any member of the public, present or online, who wishes to speak in favor of this case. Yes, ma'am, come on forward. What I'll ask you to do when you come forward is to remember, first, your name. Second, if you're representing an organization, tell us what it is. If you're here on your own, you have three minutes. If you're here representing an organization, you have five minutes. Welcome.

Thank you so much for coming. And I absolutely agree with you. Your voice does matter. Next person who wishes to speak in favor.

Please come forward and for the record, state your name.

Questions for Mr. Tindall? Thank you very much. Next person, and we speak in favor.

This gentleman's next, and then we'll go to the one on the line.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. Any questions for Mr. Sanders? Thank you so much. Is Kelsey Boyle number two?

Questions for Mr. Roche? Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming. I'm going to let you take over deciding who's next.

You had more than five minutes. You're going to need to wrap up.

Thank you very much. No one else in support?

Please come forward. Thank you. Please give us your name and let us know if you're representing a group or yourself.

Any other members of the public who wish to speak in support? or go to opposition.

Come forward, give us your name and let us know who you represent, whether it's a group or yourself.

I said I'd offer you a rebuttal if you want one. I promise you we don't feel the absolute need for one, but I promised you one, so if you want to Final moment, you can have it. Otherwise, just go forward. Your call.

Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Now I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission and ask. Are you telling me there's someone else?

You're welcome. All right. I'm back to the commission, and I would ask if there's a motion on item number six.

We have a motion is second is there discussion.

I too have been puzzled as to how I'm going to end up on this. What I go back to is the three and a half years that was commissioned and 10,000 of citizens of the city of Richmond spent on the master plan. We had our professional staff tell us that at least three major conditions of the master plan are not met. And we have our professional staff choose your words. I read the English language pretty literally and the professional staff said they were opposed or wanted to deny and our commission that advises us on these issues said they urge denial. They put the additional conditions on the ques

Any other issues for the commission? Thank you so much for your time and attention. We're adjourned.