Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're delighted to have all you folks with us. We appreciate your comments. Madam Secretary, would you give the electronic notes?

This meeting is being recorded and held in person in the fifth floor conference room of City Hall. While staff and a quorum of planning commissioners are attending the meeting in person, members of the public may choose to participate in the meeting virtually. All written comments that were received by email prior to 12 p.m. 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. In addition to verbally stating your name, individuals attending in person are asked to utilize the sheet at the podium to accurately document your name for the public record.

Thank you very much, Dr. Perry. For purposes of establishing a forum, would you please call the roll?

Mr. Poole?

Here.

Ms. Greenfield? Here. Ms. Ebert? Here. Good night. Mr. Penick?

Here.

Ms. Robertson, Ms. Rowe. Here. Mr. White.

Here.

Mr. McKenzie.

We do have a forum.

Very much.

We have minutes from August 4th of 2026. Thank you very much. Move approval.

That does.

Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of the minutes from August 4th 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Polk.

Aye.

Mr. Greenfield.

Aye.

Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Pinnock.

Aye.

Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. Webb. Aye. Okay. Those minutes have been approved.

Thank you very much. Mr. Director, do you have a report?

In front of you this evening, it's been grabbed. Great. Proposed. So I go around screen, right? Otherwise, I'll just come refresh. So keep it. after the meeting, so pay full attention. But yeah, if you have any questions or would like to schedule some time to go through it, either me or Deputy Director Pitts, just reach out, let me know.

Thank you very much. Are there continuances or deletions from the dump?

We do, we have one.

Two. One.

So the...

First item for a continuance is going to be item two. This is ordinance 2026-189. This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 5706 York Road for the purpose of up to eight single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. This is a request to continue that item to the September 1st meeting.

Is there a motion to continue item number two, 2026-189 in the September 1st meeting? Second. Any discussion? VOTING ON CONTINUANCE OF ITEM NUMBER TWO, SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026. PLEASE CALL THE RULES.

MR. POOLE. AYE. MS. GREENFIELD.

AYE.

MS. EBERT. AYE. MR. PENNINK.

AYE.

MS. ROWE. AYE. AND MR. WHITE. MOTION PASSES AND YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER.

AND THE COUNCIL PERSON FOR CASE NUMBER 2026-187 HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE UNTIL for 30 days.

Second.

Any discussion?

Any further information on this?

I think there's a number of issues that are still in discussion with neighborhood groups.

What's the 30-day period?

That is, I'm going to check so that I'm not. So we can, September 15th would be the, it's not exactly 30 days, but the second September meeting.

Would the applicant like to be heard?

Mr. Chairman.

My name is Preston Lloyd, attorney with William Smallwind, appearing on behalf of the applicant. We were not informed that we would be considering this matter Until the meeting this evening, we were prepared to proceed, would have liked the opportunity to proceed, but we understand the request from the council person that wanted these concerns to be noted for the record. Thank you for the opportunity.

You're welcome. And as you know, it is the ongoing policy of the commission in most instances to honor the request from the council person to continue. This is coming directly from her. I believe we honored that. Thank you, sir. We're voting on a motion to continue item number 2026-187 for 30 days to sub number 15, 2026. Please call the roll.

This is for 12-09 Overbrook Road. We've got Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Pennock.

Aye.

Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White. Aye. Motion passes in item 22, 2026-187, the special use permit for 1209 Overbrook Road will be continued to the September 15th meeting.

That's good. Would you please present the consent agenda? Why don't you pause for a moment? I think there will be a number of folks that will be unable.

Absolutely. Good.

Now, would you please present the consent agenda?

For the consent agenda, we have item three, ordinance 2026-173. This is an ordinance to close to public use and travel an alley in the block bounded by South Meadow Street, Appomattox Street, Hampton Street, and Powhatan Street consisting of approximately 1600 plus or minus square feet upon certain terms and conditions Item four, ordinance 2026-175 to amend and reordain ordinance number 2025-022 adopted February 24th, 2025, which authorized the special use of the property known as 1001 Barland Drive for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions to modify the plans and the terms and conditions. Item five, ordinance 2026-177 to authorize the special use of the properties known as 1800 North 27th Street and 1802 North 27th Street for the purpose of up to four single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. And to repeal ordinance number 2024-327 adopted February 10th, 2025 and all amendatory ordinances thereto. Item six, ordinance 2026-179 to authorize the special use of the property known as 4508 West Broad Street for the purpose of automobile sales and service, excluding engine replacement, transmission replacement, and collision repairs upon certain terms and conditions. Item 7, Ordinance 2026-180 to authorize the special use of the property known as 1900 Broad Rock Boulevard for the purpose of a building accessory to an automotive sales and repair facility upon certain terms and conditions. Item 8, Ordinance 2026-181 to authorize the special use of the properties known as 2410 Brook Road, 2412 Brook Road, 2412 and a half Brook Road, 2414 Brook Road and 2416 Brook Road for the purpose of no more than one multifamily dwelling upon certain terms and conditions. Item nine, ordinance 2026-182 to authorize the special use of the property known as 1501 Brooklyn Parkway for the purpose of one single family detached dwelling and one dwelling unit within an accessory structure upon certain terms and conditions. Item 10, ordinance 2026-185 to authorize the special use of the property known as 2300 Mimosa Street for the purpose of no more than two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. Item 11, Ordinance 2026-186 to authorize the special use of the property known as 2310 Mimosa Street for the purpose of up to 22 single family attached dwellings and one single family detached dwelling upon certain terms and conditions. Item 12, Ordinance 2026-188 to authorize the special use of the property known as 5729 Swanson Road for the purpose of up to three single-family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. Item 13, this is a Public Park Commission item for the Department of Transportation, the Painted Planters at the Second Street Bus Platform. Item 14, the UDC final location, character, and extent review of proposed street, sidewalk, and stormwater improvements to a section of Hay Road between Hull Street and Walmsley Boulevard. Item 15, the UDC final location character and extent review for a proposed shared use path from terminal place across Lee Street and terminating at Arthur Ashe Boulevard. And item 16, UDC final location character and extent review of a proposed stormwater sediment catchment pond in Bryan Park located nearest the existing Azalea Pond. Completes the consent agenda.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. And for clarity, the UDC cases are final, so we'll be voting on them rather than referring them.

Yes, this is the approval. Thank you.

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

Anyone online?

I'm seeing no one online.

Well, we'll close the public hearing back to the commission and ask if there's a motion on the consent agenda. Second. Any discussion? I'll call the question. We're voting approval of the consent agenda as presented. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Penning.

Aye.

Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White.

Aye.

MOTION PASSES AND THOSE ITEMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND THEN THE PUBLIC ART ITEM AND THE UDC ITEMS WILL BE APPROVED.

FIRST ITEM ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT.

So the first item on the regular agenda is going to be item 17, ordinance 2026-176, This is to amend and reordain ordinance number 76-61-59, adopted in 1976, as previously amended by ordinance number 87-273-260, adopted 1987, which authorized the special use of the real estate parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Woodlawn Avenue and Grove Avenue, fronting 152 feet on Grove Avenue and 160 feet, more or less, on Woodland Avenue for the purpose of a physician's office and general office purposes upon certain terms and conditions to modify the special use and certain terms and conditions.

And I believe you are going to present this today.

Yes, I will.

I am Shayna Trump.

I'm going to be presenting this case as the planner associated with the review of it. This is for item 17, ordinance 2026-176 at the 4312 Grove Avenue.

Lucy, that's your...

Thank you. I'm not going to go back through it, but here's the ordinance title. The very long ordinance title. It's got a history. I mean, this is what's in front of you. Also, the staff report for this case is also physically in front of you. So, in short, this is to amend the existing ordinance to include a veterinarian clinic, excluding boarding kennels. The property is currently used for general office purposes and a physician's office. However, at no point did they contemplate non-human patients, and so it requires an amendment due to the fact that they are non-human patients. The underlying zoning for this property is R5 single family residential. However, it is subject to ordinance number 7661-59 that governs the use of the property. And then the future land use is identified as residential on Enrichment 300. And here's a picture of the existing office building where the office for 4312 is located. A little bit of background, the original special use permit was approved in 1963 and the special use permit was actually for the construction of the building specifically for doctors offices. They amended it in 1976 to authorize a building addition and then they then changed the reference to physicians offices. They amended again in 1987 to include general office purposes, that's medical and non-medical. And so now we are here in 2026, and they would like to propose an amendment to include a veterinarian clinic. For community engagement, this one is actually located right in the Grovecrest Colonial Place Civic Association. However, it is so close to the border, we notified both the West Hampton Citizens Association and the Grovecrest Colonial Place Civic Association. On the right, all of the properties that are highlighted are located within 150 feet of that property, and those are properties that received public notice, legal public notice by a male. In addition to the community engagement through just noticing the applicant has been in contact with the council person and neighbors, um, as reflected in the public comment, the last page of the staff report is also, um, from the liaison for council person, Breton, who is the first district council, um, first councilman. And he has been involved in this throughout it and, uh, particularly involved with the applicant as well to move this Staff's recommendation is approval. Given its zoning history, this has pretty much functioned as a medical facility since the 60s. It was built to be a medical facility. The difference here is that it's non-human patients, specifically excluding boarding kennels. Boarding kennels would likely, you know, trigger potentially a nuisance. And so staff finds that by excluding boarding kennels, This use is completely appropriate for the parcel. And staff finds that none of the city charter criterion, as a reminder, these six minimum criterion, none of these are being violated by the proposed amendment. More than happy to go into further details. Otherwise, they're listed in the staff report. Then following my presentation, the normal course of conduct would be for the applicant to provide a presentation. The applicant has been in contact with both myself and the council person. They are unable to attend this evening due to quite a significant medical concern. And so I'm presenting on behalf of the applicant. And again, that letter is included in the rear of your staff report from council person Breton's position on moving this paper.

Thank you very much.

Please let me know if there are any additional questions.

Questions for Ms. Trump from members of the commission.

Is there an anticipated increase in traffic to the building?

There is not. It currently serves as a medical facility and it's for a veterinarian ophthalmologist, which is quite specialized. And so we do not see an impact to traffic.

Thank you. For the record, we have Robertson with us tonight.

Thank you. I apologize for being late.

Any other questions for Ms. Trump on the presentation? One second, please. Any other questions? Hearing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who needs to speak in favor of this case.

Anyone online?

Anyone online?

We do have one online, however, his hand was raised prior to this presentation. So I'm not sure if it's about this, but we can ask. Chris Ogden, you should be able to unmute your microphone and address the commission.

Oh, perfect. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. Oh, perfect. So the residents in this area are experiencing significant parking problems due to the number of businesses operating along and around.

For the record, would you? identify yourself.

Oh, my apologies. Yeah, Christopher Ogden, I live at 4401 Grove Avenue. So I live catty corner to where we're talking about.

Thank you so much for stopping to go right ahead.

Of course. So the residents in this area are already experiencing significant parking problems due to the number of businesses operating along and around Grove Avenue. In particular, across the street is Grove Avenue Family Dentistry has a private parking lot, but its employees are apparently not permitted to use that lot for staff parking. As a result, employee vehicles are spilling onto the surrounding residential streets, including Grove Avenue, making it increasingly difficult for residents and their guests to find parking. At times, vehicles also interfere with access to residential properties. This is already a serious issue for the neighborhood. I'm concerned that adding another commercial business will make the situation substantially worse. The entire block of Woodlawn Avenue across from the dental office is currently designated as residential parking only because of the dentist office not allowing their staff to park there. So this raises an important question. Where were the employees, clients and other visitors to the proposed veterinary clinic park? I just think that there's going to be too much parking. There's going to be like overflow. Residents are already competing for limited street parking with customers and employees associated with the BP service station. And the dental office adding a veterinary clinic to this area could place an even more demand on the same limited residential parking supply. The city should carefully consider the cumulative impact of this business rather than evaluating the proposed clinic as an isolation. There's simply a limited amount of on-street parking available and the surrounding residential streets should not become overflow parking lots for nearby businesses. So basically, you know, even people like me who don't have a driveway are suffering from this. And Andrew Benson is suggesting, the only suggestion that he's given me is, hey, go ahead and spend 30 or $40,000 and get a driveway and that you'll be kind of free and clear of this whole situation where if I just get some sort of residential only parking permit, then I might be kind of,

safe from this whole situation. And that's your presentation?

Yes, sir.

Are there any questions for members of the commission?

Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming.

Thank you.

The member of the public wish to speak in opposition. And I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission. and ask if there's a motion on item number 17, 20 to 26 dash 176, for Woodlawn and Grove Avenue. Is there a motion?

Any discussion? I think this building has, it appears to have about 20 parking spaces dedicated to the building itself. As Trump reports that there's not an anticipated surge demand, and residents can and regularly do in some neighborhoods apply for resident-only parking decals for on-street parking, and I think if there's a challenge, something like that would be appropriate in this case.

Thank you, Mr. White. Anything else? Any further discussion from members of the commission? Moving on, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of item number 17, 2026-176. Follow the roll.

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Pennock.

Aye.

Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White.

Aye.

Motion passes, and that item will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval.

Thank you very much, Ms. Secretary. Would you present the next item on agenda? I'd love to.

The next item on the regular agenda is going to be item 18, ordinance 2026-178. This is an ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 1003 Baywood Court for the purpose of up to one single family detached dwelling and one two family detached dwelling upon certain terms and conditions. And Supervisor Oliver will be providing an overview of this request on behalf of us. Good evening.

Yes, for the record, I'm Allison Oliver. I am presenting on behalf of David Watson. His name is on this presentation. You will be hearing from me today. So Cheyenne already gave you the title of what we're going to be talking about today. But to help orient us, we're looking at a 14,000 square foot lot that's located on the eastern side of Baywood Court. There's currently a 1,200 square foot single family detached dwelling on the property, and there's no athlete access. The area around the property is generally residential. You can see here it's close to the Westwood community and it's about a quarter mile southwest of the Willow Lawn shopping area. What is being proposed is to split the existing lot into two lots and keep the existing single family dwelling while adding a new two family detached dwelling. Here you can see kind of what that looks like overlaid on the, it's kind of small up there, sorry, on the actual property. But you've got here, you've got the existing dwelling. I tried to light it up so you could see the house popping up in there. And then over to the south of it is where they are going to put the new two-family dwelling. Here is what the proposed elevations look like. There's actually two little porches that come off of the side here too, which I can show you in a second. And then here is the layout of that new two-family dwelling on the side. The Richmond 300 master plan designates the future land use of this property as residential, which is generally single family houses, but duplexes are also listed as a appropriate secondary use. In total, there would be three dwelling units on this lot, and I actually do not have the information, but I can give you that in a minute if you need it. Staff notified the residents within 150 feet of the property and as well as the Willow Lawn Civic Association of this request. We all received one letter of support, and we've also received one letter of awe. If approved, this ordinance is going to impose certain conditions that would limit the use of the property to one single-family detached dwelling and one two-family detached dwelling. It would require that what is built is substantially similar to the plan that they're showing in the ordinance, and then they would also legally require that the property be subdivided prior to the issuance of any building permit. Staff finds that this request is supported by the master plan's future land use designation of residential, and that it meets the minimum criterion for approval of a special use permit as outlined in the city charter. And therefore staff is recommending approval of this request. The applicant is present tonight. He does not have a presentation, but he is available to answer any questions.

Questions for Ms. Oliver from members of the commission. Are there any questions that you would like to ask of the applicant?

Hearing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak in favor of this case. In favor or?

I'm sorry, against.

Yes, ma'am. We'll get right there. Anyone online?

Seeing no one online.

If you would come on up to the podium, give us your name. And as I understand it, you're speaking in opposition.

I am.

Welcome.

Do I have to go all the way to the podium?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And would you please write down your names on that little?

I will. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

My name is Teresa Goyle. I live next door to the proposed subdivided property. It's a tiny, tiny neighborhood. It's literally just a little C with 11 houses on it. 11 Cape Cod houses that are three to four bedrooms. There are owner occupied. There's a couple of rentals. There's people of all ages and the property, the houses are generally set back a little bit from the street and they're Cape Cods. They're not that tall. So they've already expanded the house that is existing. So it's not 1200 feet now. It's 1200 feet plus a big back area and the whole back is raised and there's side area, which is whatever. It's not my property. They can do what they want. But now they want to put in the 40 feet that remain a duplex that is going to stand about 10 feet higher than any other of the 11 houses on that street. And it's going to be just this big giant box, except for the sloped roof in the front that they say makes it look like a Cape Cod. And there's going to be six bedrooms in this duplex, three in each unit. So you're going to have two properties squashed on postage stamp size lots where There can be 10 people living. And I don't know what family wants to live on a postage stamp with another postage stamp with a duplex next to it or in the duplex with another giant house next to it. But they say families are going to want to live there. But what they're really creating is what's going to be a forever rental complex with the main house and the two houses in the duplex. And they're never going to sell that. Nobody is ever going to buy a postage stamp of property with a giant house and a duplex on that. So they're not helping Richmond's rental problem. They're not making anything more affordable. They're just making sure that they're bringing in like $8,000 a month with all these properties that they've now stuck in an 11 house neighborhood. So we oppose that. And we don't think it's actually in keeping with the goals of Richmond's future planning for zoning. We are right at the edge of Westwood. neighborhood, which there's been a lot of talk about changing the character of that neighborhood. And so I think, you know, looking at all of that, it's a bad use of the property. It doesn't help Richmond. It's certainly not going to make housing more affordable by adding more expensive rentals. And they're not adding any greenery. There's no trees. They clear cut all but one tree on the property. And now there's nothing but weeds and junk trees growing on the property, which they're also not maintaining. The letter in support is not actually in support of the duplex or the house or the subdivision of the property. The letter in support in the file is in support of the couple and says that they're nice landlords at a different property in a different location. Thank you very much.

Are there questions from members of the commission for Ms. Quill?

Thank you very much for coming. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in opposition? Yes, sir. My name is Steve Her.

I live across the street from, I live at 1010 Bayward Court, which is, well, it's not directly across the street, but it's diagonally across. In addition to what she just said, I agree with everything she just said. Another thing is that there's going to be increased traffic and parking on the street. Baywood Court is a little tiny street that the city has never done any improvements on. I've been there for 30 years. There's no gutters. There's just nothing there. I mean, you just park in the mud on the side of the road. And There's, you know, nobody's, we have to call the city to get them to come out and fix the potholes. They've never done any maintenance on that road. There's weeds growing through the street. It's pretty bad. And you're going to put more people on that street by adding a duplex with, as she said, a duplex. It's bad enough they're building a new house, making the whole house bigger and all that, but now they're going to add a duplex which just is going to mess up the neighborhood. Most of the people on the street are not, are opposed to this. But there's just, there needs to be some, if they're going to do that, they need to do some road maintenance to make this road better and more apt for the services that they're going to provide. So, because there's going to be more cars there in this little tiny space and more people.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. Questions from members of the commission for Mr. Herr.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in opposition? Anyone online?

Seeing no one online.

I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission, and ask if there's a motion on item number 18, 1003, Baywood Court, item 2026-178.

Second.

Discussion? I do have questions for staff. That's okay. Please. There was comments about the road infrastructure and ability for additional density to support for the roads to support that also with the clear cutting of trees in response to any analysis that was done from a transportation standpoint. And it would be an opportunity to address the tree canopy as they should this be approved as it goes forward next phase.

I'm sorry, sir. We've closed the public hearing.

You're the applicant? Oh, I'm sorry. Please come on up.

Could staff respond or should the applicant? I'll let the applicant respond too, but I can get started. So this was reviewed by DBW. I don't see any comments specific to the right-of-way, but they did say that the sidewalk would need to be replaced. And then the other thing I'll add is, and I can share my screen really fast. Yes. That on the lands provided, as far as tree canopy goes, that's maybe what he's going to remark on, but pretty substantial landscaping shown on the plans and may well be relative to some of the plans. So if you want to add anything else.

Yeah, I was just going to say in response to some of the feedback, if you would. What's your name? Oh, yes. I'm Mark Waller. I'm the owner and applicant. In response to some of the feedback we've gotten from the community, we submitted an updated landscaping plan, which does show pre-canopy as well as privacy planting. Other submissions as well, but just wanted to answer your question on that.

Sure. And the sidewalk repair will be addressed as well, as mentioned by DPW?

I've not heard anything about sidewalk repair, but I'm happy to address that.

Yeah. Let me check the ordinance real fast. Normally we have it.

Well, I don't see it in this ordinance. We do have standard language saying that we've used before that we could put in saying that the applicant would replace and repair the sidewalk to city standards.

Would you be comfortable with that amendment?

It would just apply in front of the property.

Any other questions? One of the commenters earlier mentioned the lot for the proposed new duplex was, I think, it was 40 feet wide. Looking at the drawing, it appears to be wider than that. Do you know how the lot itself, the subdivided lot?

Yes, it is wider than that.

It's 51 feet as proposed. Looks like 51 feet in the In the rear, but on the front, perhaps larger than that.

The lot width itself, as we were told to measure, would be 51 feet for the new lot and 72 feet for this existing remaining lot.

So this is the chart you provided. This is based on where you measure the front yard from, which I believe is the setback. We have like

The only setback for measurement requirements that don't meet the code are the lot size and the lot width. And I would call out that this is sandwiched between R5, which if this was an R5, it would meet everything. Also in the new zoning, this would be RDA surrounded by RDB. And the only RDA requirement it wouldn't meet would be a lot width.

You have any questions for members of the commission?

Ms. Wallach, we appreciate you coming.

All right, we have a motion and a second discussion. Mr.

Chair, I believe I need to amend my motion. Just if we could amend my motion to move approval with the language to be able to address the sidewalk repairs.

So, yeah, and I guess, are you comfortable with using, if I say this, we have very typical standard we use for language and it's two city standards. And I just use that language. If we need to be specific, I think that would direct us there.

So we're now going to vote on the amended motion. Take it. There's, you would join the second. Yes. I'll call the question. We're voting on item number 18, 1003 Baywood. Please call the roll.

Just to be clear, it's ordinance 2026-178, 1003 Baywood. And the motion was to recommend approval with an amendment to include the condition that the developer must repair the sidewalk to the Department of Public Works standards. Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Penick.

Aye.

Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White. Aye. The motion passes and that item will be forwarded to City Council with the recommendation of approval with amendments.

All right. That item would be 19.

Item 19 is an ordinance 2026-184. This is an ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 3407 Lawson Street for the purpose of up to two, two family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. And we will be blessed again with Ms. Oliver's presentation.

Hello again. Once again, Alison Oliver, not David Watson, and I will give you an overview of this request. So what we are looking at is 34, 3407 Lawson. It is located midlock between 34th and 35th streets in the Swansboro West neighborhood. You can see from this aerial kind of generally where it's located just to help orient you. You've got Swansboro Elementary School about a quarter mile to the northeast. And Circle Plaza Shopping Center, which is right next to Southside Plaza to the southwest, also about a quarter mile away. The property is also located just one block off of Hull Street, where there's a variety of commercial uses along there. But otherwise, it is generally single-family residential in the surrounding area. There's also an alley serving this property in the rear. The reason we are here today is because we have a request to take an existing lot that is there and split it into two lots and place two two-family detached dwelling units on each lot. So in a total of four units. Two family detached dwellings are not permitted use in the R5 single family residential zoning district where this property currently is located. Additionally, the R5 district calls for lots of no less than 60 feet with lots having no less than 60 feet of street frontage and no less than 6,000 square feet in area, which these lots would not meet those two standards. The city's master plan designates this property as residential, which is for the future land use, which is generally single family houses. Secondary uses include duplexes and some small multifamily dwelling units. Staff notified area residents, property owners within 150 feet of this property, as well as the Swansboro West Civic Association. We received an email of opposition from the president of the civic association. But pre of this ordinance would impose on the property. They would limit the use of the property to two two-family detached dwellings. They would require that what is built to be substantially similar to the plans included in the ordinance, and they would also require that the property be legally subdivided prior to the issuance of any building permits. Staff finds that this request is supported by the master plan's future land use designation of residential, and that it meets the minimum criteria for approval of a special use permit as outlined in the city charter, and therefore we recommend approval of this request. LIKE LAST TIME WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT TONIGHT BUT HE'S NOT HE'S NOT PLANNING ON GIVING A PRESENTATION BUT WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS QUESTIONS FROM HIS OWN QUESTION TRUE AND I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS I QUALITIZED I DID I WAS ROLLING THROUGH THE STAFF REPORTS AND THE AND ARE YOU ARE THEY TAKING DOWN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE SO THAT ORIGINAL HOUSE IS ALREADY IT'S ALREADY GONE UH THEY HAD A DEMO PERMIT I THINK BACK IN MAYBE NOVEMBER DECEMBER AND MOBILE APPS IT'S STILL THERE It is. And I have, I think on my aerial, because I have, we have access to something that looks slightly, you can see it's been cleared here.

You can see it there. That's the lot. Okay.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

Any other questions for Ms. Oliver? And the applicant elects not to make a presentation at this point. Yes.

I'm going to ask if there's any member of the public

wish to speak in favor of this case? Online.

Seeing no one online.

Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak in opposition to this case? Anyone online?

I am also seeing no one online.

But we did have a letter of opposition from the neighborhood association.

Yes, a letter of opposition and they specifically noted their opposition to the demolition.

to the demolition of the building.

They were not happy with the engagement from the applicant. Any other questions? Question for the applicant. Sure. Could the applicant come forward please?

And if you would please give us your name.

Ricardo Delgado. Mr. Delgado, welcome. Mr. Pinnock has a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Delgado. Can you summarize or characterize your engagement with the neighborhood or neighborhood association in the development of this project?

So I demolished the house prior to engaging with the neighborhood association. And so, and then I received, I received that letter through the permitting process. Basically what the letter says is that I shouldn't have throw away the furniture that was inside the house.

Was the current development of the two structures part of your conversations, presentations with the neighborhood association or the community?

I believe she must have learned that from the system itself. I didn't engage with her at all prior to that, learning about that letter. And then once I did, we did communicate it through email a few times. And I explained to her what I was trying to do. And I expressed, you know, my availability to work with her in any ways possible. And I was, to an extent, never received a response until, maybe four weeks ago when she said basically the same thing. She said on her first communication.

Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Delgado from members of the commission?

Thank you very much. Thank you. Public hearing.

Back to the commission and ask if there's a motion item 19 3407 Lawson Street, a motion and a second to approve the special use permits.

I'm so sorry, sir. I do not believe there's been a motion.

Ask if there is one.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to deny the application. Second. Second. Well, I appreciate the overarching theme of adding density.

I think it's as important to do it collaboratively with our neighborhoods, our communities, our community members and stakeholders in developing this. Architecturally, personally, I sort of see something that's a bit out of character, not the two-story component of it, but other aspects of it, which I think had perhaps they were collaboratively together, they would have maybe gotten perhaps different results.

Ms. Rowe?

I was also looking at this property on Zillow, $200,000 for an 800 square foot 1920 bungalow that, you know, clearly to be livable would need a fair amount of work. A market that has you, that demands $200,000 for a house of that size that needs $100,000 to $200,000 worth of work and then is worth $200,000 is... the market is broken in this case. And that kind of structure that was there fits the neighborhood could have been rehabilitated to be more affordable than what would be going there. So that is a big part of my concern. But also, yes, that what is proposed does not meet the scale character of the neighborhood. And I'm not sure if this is Mr. Delgado's first development in the city or first special use permit, first demolition, but I think that there's lessons to be learned here that can be carried forward to the next time.

Mr. Chair, is there any wisdom in considering the possibility of offering an extension to the applicant for him to go and have a more robust engagement with community and come back. It seems to be that that's the one of the big concerns here is that it was a couple of emails and that was to one person and that was it. Perhaps there would be more support. I don't know. Maybe it might be more opposition, but we don't know because there hasn't been enough engagement.

Motion to continue is always in order, even though a motion to deny has already been made. So if that is your motion, I will say, I'll wait to see if there's a second.

Is that your motion? May I ask the applicant if that would be something that he would entertain? Absolutely. Mr. Delgado, would you entertain a continuous?

Do we get to cage match this first?

I need a second first.

That's the most thing. Can you clarify how long the continuance will be for your motion?

I would suggest a minimum of 60 days.

It sounds... so that the applicant is also here. That would be the October 20th meeting, if that is preferable.

Mr. White, it's your motion.

I move for a 60-day continuous.

Motion and a second. Now we have discussion.

I just want to comment that I agree with the issues and comments, issues raised and comments made by Commissioners Pinnock and Roe. I scratched my memory and saw the letter from the Civic Association about demolition. I don't think this was handled well, but I don't want to give, I don't, I want to give the applicants some chance to go back and try to talk to the community at minimum before denial. I'm more comfortable with a deferral.

Demolitions are touchy, and you probably should have consulted with the neighbors first, but the idea of not throwing away the stuff that was inside, bedbugs and things like that are an issue with abandoned homes, and I think that was probably appropriate.

The other?

We're voting on a motion to continue the matter for 60 days.

Please call the roll.

We're voting on a motion to continue. Ordinance item 19, ordinance 2026-184 on the special use permit at 3407 Lawson Street. And this was a motion to continue to the October 20th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Bennett?

No.

Ms. Robertson? No. And Ms. Rowe? No. That motion passes.

Oh, Mr. White.

Well, I made the motion. Thank you. All right. And that motion passes.

And you will see that all back on October 20th.

Exciting, please.

Next item we have is item 20, ordinance 2026-174. This is to authorize the conditional use of the property known as 2900 West Broad Street for the purpose of a nightclub upon certain terms and conditions. There is a staff report in front of you, and then we will be joined by Jonathan Brown, our principal planner, to give an overview of the case.

Mr. Brown, welcome. Thank you.

This property is located in the Scott's Addition neighborhood on Broad Street between North Shepherd Street, Altamont Avenue. Property is currently an 18,307 square foot, 0.14 acre of land, commercial use. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit, authorizing nightclub for hosting live music events in a restaurant establishment. Those entertainment activities, hours of operation and alcohol sales at certain times of day, and then a restaurant are considered by the zoning ordinance to be a nightclub activity. Conditional use permit is therefore required. The City's Searchman 300 Master Plan designates these parcels as destination mixed use. The land use is intended to be key gateways featuring prominent destinations such as retail, sports venues, and large employers, as well as housing and open space. The intensity, buildings typically have a minimum height of five stories. Primary uses include retail office, personal service, multifamily, cultural, and open space. Secondary uses include institutional and private. Current zoning for this parcel is TOD1. Proposed use is not permitted within the TOD1 zone without conditional use permit as prescribed.

Here are the ordinance conditions.

Pursuant to the code, property shall be a nightclub.

Operations shall be in accordance with the submitted management plan. The hours of operation shall be from 12 a.m. to 2 a.m., Thursday through Saturday, and not be open between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. daily.

Patron queuing shall occur directly adjacent to the building.

Sound control shall be according to city code. This conditional use permit shall be valid for a period of 548 calendar days after a certificate of occupancy is provided. After the 548-day period, the applicant would need to reapply for a new seating date.

Facilities for the collection of refuse shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Director of Public Works.

Staff notified local residents and the Greater Scotts Addition Association of the proposed conditional use permit. To this date, staff has received a letter of opposition from a nearby resident. Here is staff's recommendation. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the city's master plan pertaining to the destination mixed use land use category, which supports higher density mixed uses cultural activities as primary uses. Staff recognize the significant effort made by the applicant to ensure proper management of the nightclub, including specifying hours of operation, limiting events to weekend nights, limiting the total number of occupants per event, and ensuring crowd management through onsite security personnel during events. Staff find that the subject property is also located near the Scotts Edition regional node, which envisions that West Broad Street and Arthur Ashe Boulevard transform into a pair of high quality urban avenues that are safe to cross while becoming a destination in their own right for residential office retail and compatible entertainment uses. Staff finds that with the accompanying management plan, the proposed nightclub use is a compatible entertainment use in the Scotts Edition neighborhood. Therefore, for the reasons listed above, staff recommends approval of this conditional use request. That concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? Questions for Mr. Brown?

I have one.

Yes, ma'am.

Do you know what the expected maximum occupancy load is going to be for the nightclub?

THAT SHOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE CONDITION OF PRESENTATION. IS THERE PEOPLE? GOOD QUESTION.

690. Well, that's the applicant's letter.

There's an inside and outside. I can't see, but the total occupancy load is 691.

I guess 538 inside, 153 in close to value. Other questions from Mr. Brown? Can you speak to the

hours of operation this business has been operating under? Just regular business hours. The applicant can probably speak to that as well.

Right now it's open until 1.30 in the morning on Friday and Saturday night.

That was what I thought. I'm just curious as to why that has been the case.

Mr. Craig, can you elaborate on the city's sound control ordinance, what that means? sound control ordinance.

I'm not familiar with this. I'm sorry. I'll talk in my head.

One really quickly before we move on though, I just want to say that those numbers are directly from their CEO. That is what it is.

I know that you're not supposed to be able to hear music from nearby residents.

Can you elaborate on the measures around that?

I should have put that in my presentation, but that's something that the zoning administration enforces.

Thank you. I'll just add to that. It's zoning one part, but it's also the sound control ordinance, which is part of environmental rights is enforced by the police. And generally there's a greater expectation for quiet for the most part after 11. And so just pulling up, it's in our city code. It's generally under section 1132. And after that, we're talking about things. So there's some exemptions, right? Particular things, but restaurants, other establishments serving, this is 1137H, Basically, it cannot exceed 80 DBA between 7 and 11 p.m. unless it's adjacent to residentially zoned property, which I do not believe is it in this case. So it cannot exceed 80 DBA between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. or 75 DBA between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Okay, my last question, do you know if this property has ever been cited for violation of the town limits?

We contacted the... They gave us a listing.

I can show you that to you.

I'm not a law enforcement officer. I can't interpret this, but this was the list that they provided.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

I understand that you received this from the police department, but there are several other bars, restaurant activity types around this. Is this specific to what happened actually at Bingo Beer or within the vicinity of 2900 West Broad Street?

The vicinity.

This could have been attributable to occurrences outside of Bingo Beer.

It could have.

Okay.

Questions for Mr. Moran?

I have one more.

Yes, ma'am.

Is the live music both indoor and outdoors?

This ordinance is for outdoors. It is for outdoors. Not for outdoors. You're next.

Okay.

I misspoke. Okay. The applicant is here. They can answer a lot more questions.

I think you're going to get a lot of clarity from the applicant.

Okay. The last time they had a life, they did like a random life safety check on Bingo, like the zoning team did, they worked out compliance with all of their requirements.

Yeah, this was the city code enforcement team back in 2024, where we started doing cars, restaurants that were operating in Travers. We started in Chaco, all the way through the city, and Bingo was one.

Would you tell us again what the result was?

They were found to be compliant at the time of discussion. Operating properly below max occupancy.

No violation of the desk law. The other question is for Mr. Brown.

Thank you very much. You're welcome. Would the applicant like to speak? I suspect you would.

Please give us your name. as well.

Thank you. I'm Kate Lafayette. I'm here with Jennifer Mullen and Ross Jackson. And then we have Chris and Patrick. They're part of the bingo management team. So if you have questions, go ahead. As well. So we're here tonight for the conditional use permit. This property is located on West Broad Street in the corner of Shepherd Street and the Scott's Dish in New Bread, which is a very growing and vibrant area, which is reflective of this area being designated as destination mixed use in the Richmond 300. and the greater Scott's Edition node. This property is owned to TOD1, and so the use as a restaurant and brewery is already permitted by rights. So tonight we're here just for the nightclub use for the limited hours of 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. Thursday through Friday and limited holidays such as a New Year's Eve. Since the applicant has experience in running a restaurant, they understand that when you open to a nightclub, there are certain steps that you need to take to make sure that you keep be respectful of the neighbors, and meet neighbor compatibility. So in that management plan, there's a minimum of five security officers that are required to be on site. They have relationship with off-duty Richmond police. So there's an off-duty officer that's at the corner of Shepherd there and Broad. And the security team oversees not only the premises, but also as patrons come and go. So they're entering and exiting. So part of this duty is to direct patrons to where the pickup And drop-off is for rideshare so that they go to the appropriate rideshare drop-off for easy access for everyone, as well as pointing them to the one permitted parking lot, which is between Bingo and Kismet. And then the space is behind. There's 86 spaces that they lease for parking. There's no other parking lots in the area permitted for Bingo. The M5 Music is only indoors. So they have a designated dance floor area that shows on the floor plan. that's confined to that floor plan is attached to this ordinance as is the rest of the elements of the premises. Again, we have a management plan that comes with the CUP that controls those hours of operation, controls the occupancy and controls the security like I mentioned. This use we find to be compatible with an entertainment uh, designation, um, because, you know, people move to Scott's that are trying to walk to these locations. You know, you'll see people walking to around Scott's on Friday and Saturday evenings, as well as those that come in from outside the city to enjoy the great, um, entertainment that we have here. So we really do think it's destination, which aligns with the Richmond 300. And, um, we meet all the considerations for CUPs.

The answer to the question. Can you speak to the, uh, In reality, their posted hours of operation have been past midnight without a nightclub term.

So that's what has brought us here this evening. I'm saying that they need to get the CUP for the nightclub use because that is the DNC and the time use they can now. That's the thing.

Okay. But they're, in the meantime, still open until 1.30?

So as we said, since we have this application going forward right now in place, that they can still operate. And so it seems we're going through the process right now.

Planning staff, is that consistent with your understanding?

Yes, in terms of, I would say, making an effort to move forward with that. I would say like they're in some of these cases, I think one of the blurry aspects of the zoning ordinance where it talks about nightclubs is Um, I think it's very clear right after midnight and, um, having alcohol, um, in terms of having music and then like the space for dancing is one where sometimes can get. I'll say cross lines in terms of like a lot of restaurants still maintain like tables and chairs, but if people like end up dancing in the aisles or something like that, so like there's a little fuzziness, I think trying to clean it up, code refresh, but, um, I think we advise the applicant that would be best to obtain. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM NIGHTCLUB SO THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY DISTINCTION IN TERMS OF LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS.

THE PLANS WERE DESIGNED, THE BATHROOMS ARE MODIFIED, SO THEY'RE GIVING STEPS TO GET, YOU KNOW, IN COMPLIANCE.

QUESTIONS FROM MS. LAFAYETTE?

I'LL ANSWER MS. LAFAYETTE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN CITED FOR VIOLATION OF THE SOUND ORDINANCE.

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. the manager is here if you wanted to.

Okay. Ms. Greenfield made a, asked staff a question about the police reports and that there were other neighborhood restaurants and nightclubs. You made mention of one Kismet. That's immediately adjacent.

Yeah. So this is the 2900 block. So I think sometimes that's how it's distinguished when the police are citing or writing up the citations. And so there's gas stations at the corners, you know, on both sides of West Broad and Boulevard, as well as other bar uses on the street. So we neighbor some other knife, you know, nightlife heavy uses on the other side of Broad as well. So I'm not sure exactly where these are taking place, but it's not just this.

And the police officer you made reference to, that's in addition to the Five security officers. Yes.

So the manager is somebody that you work with too, normally on a regular basis, off-duty officers that come on a pretty regular basis to work that kind of intersection of that corner. So that way the queue stays tight to the building and doesn't block sidewalk access, as well as just providing an oversight of patrons, you know, coming and going. You know, that is kind of what is the advantage of having this operational plan, this management plan, is to have that minimum security there. And so it's not just the officer, but also security officers as well that are trained on like crowd and event management. So they have those skills.

Other questions from Ms. Lafayette?

Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll open public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak in favor of this paper. Anyone online?

I'm seeing no one online.

Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Anyone online?

I'm seeing no one online.

First public hearing. Back to the commission. And ask if there's a motion on this paper.

If I may ask the manager. Sorry to make you make a slip for one question. I can do it. I bet you can answer more than one. I'm sure you will. My name is Chris Brumfield. I've been the general manager at Bingo Beer Company since we opened in late 2018. The question symbol says 2018. Have you been cited for a violation of the sound?

We have not.

Could you give us a little, flesh out a little bit of your management program with your security officers and their interrelationship with the police department?

Absolutely. So as far as the police department goes, We coordinate with Officer Dandridge, who assigns an officer, an off-duty officer on Friday and Saturday nights when we're open after midnight. The officer's on site at 10, actually. Happens to usually be one of two normal people who we've gotten great relationships with, Officer Kendry and Officer Neufeld. We work very well and closely with that police officer. Our security staff works well with them. Our security staff monitors exits and entrances for You know, we have to secure our premises for many reasons, including ABC, obviously, as well as monitoring the line up front. We put a rope down the center of the sidewalk to keep the line close to the building. The officer is posted at the corner, which acts as a deterrent, as you might imagine, but also helps to monitor and keep the crowd pleasant. And also, although maybe not part of the job, helps a little bit of traffic to make sure that people aren't stopping, clogging up traffic as we enter and exit. Officer Neifeld hates nothing more than people blocking traffic. We also have security inside, obviously, to monitor the flow of pedestrian traffic and keep things moving smoothly. Does that answer your question?

Any other questions?

Henry's still working. He is. He's the FBI liaison now, and he just had a baby. Any other questions?

Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Second. Thank you, Rick. Any comments, discussion?

I plan to support this paper. This is an area of the city that is growing and is encouraging entertainment. It helps the growth of the city. We see not a lot of nightclubs here, I don't know that I've seen one that had five security archers plus a police officer. It's probably one of the best management plans that I've seen, and that's why I plan to participate.

Any other comments? I plan to support it as well, and I have major reservations about a lot of nightclub operators, but you don't want to get me started. But this is an area that has not experienced a great many problems from its nightlife, and they seem to have a good management plan in place.

Any further? No call to question. We're voting on approval of item number 20, 2026-174-2900, West Broad Street, for the purpose of a nightclub. He's called the roll.

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Fennec.

Aye.

Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White. Aye. That motion passes and that item will be forwarded to city council with the recommendation of approval. Thank you very much.

The next item, please.

21.

The next item on the regular agenda is going to be the last item. It's going to be item 21, ordinance 2026-183. This is an ordinance to authorize the special use of the properties known as 1101 Hampton Street, 2004 Powhatan Street, 2008 Powhatan Street, 1006, 1008, and 1010 South Meadows Street for the purpose of no more than one multifamily dwelling in a cross-street parking area on certain terms and conditions. And to repeal ordinance number 84-310-278, adopted December 17th, 1984, and all amendatory ordinances thereto. We will be joined by Madison Wilson, the planner assigned to the case. The staff report, including the traffic impact analysis provided by the applicant, is in your packet in front of you.

Welcome, Ms. Wilson.

Would you like me to wait until they come back?

I think it's probably a good idea.

Okay.

You're a bold man with a jacket.

I appreciate it. It's just a habit. I've been doing it since 1967. I've never seen something like this.

I've been doing it since 1964.

I've been doing it since 1964. I've been doing it since 1964.

I don't know what you used to do. I don't.

Great, I'll get started. My name is Madison, Madison Wilson. We are going to discuss 1101 Hampton Street and the properties listed. As Ms. Trump said, this is to authorize special use of the properties known as 1101 Hampton Street at Dow for essentially a multifamily dwellings that contains up to 131 and also the upgrade of the next door parking lot. So we'll go over the existing conditions. Currently the building serves as a nursing home. It has been the Virginia home since I believe it was built or established. And now they are looking to sell the property so they can build a better, facilities that need more meetings. So as of right now, the applicant is looking to convert what is currently a residential use for patients is going to remain a residential use. Allocated a little different. It's in the neighborhood. It's in the Bird Park neighborhood. It's located between Powhatan and Automatic Streets along South Meadow Street. The parking lot is between Powhatan Street and Winder Street. It is a collective 82,448 square feet for almost two acres. Like I said, the current use is a nursing home. The surrounding area, this is on Hampton Street where you enter into the building where it fronts. Bird Park on the right facing south. Again, this is also Hampton Street facing north, and the Bird of Arkansas is on the left, and then this is facing some residential uses. On South Meadow is where you probably pass this building most times, without maybe even noticing it. You see the greenery there. 11-0 Hampton is on the left behind those trees, and then you'll see the residential uses on the right.

And then this is facing south with the building on the right and South Meadow, or sorry, they have a residential use on the left.

And then here's just another peak at how it looks from South Meadow on the corner of Powhatan and then on the corner of Appomattox next to those houses.

And then here's the parking lot.

So like I said, the proposal is to create a multi, multifamily dwelling with up to 131 units. That's about 69 units per acre. And update the parking lot with 66 spaces. The master plan, the future land use, designates this area as residential. However, staff would like to expand on the caveat that this is an already existing residential use that has a higher density than the future land use maybe calls for. but it does retain an existing building and does fit into our goals with the Richmond 300 to expand different types of housing types throughout the city and reuse existing buildings. So the reason they have to go through this process is because the zoning is R5 single family, which does not allow multifamily dwellings at all. So they have to go through this whole process. The ordinance conditions are as follows. The special use of the property can only be up to 131 multifamily dwelling units and 66 off streets, free motorcycle and free bicycle parking spaces will be installed. The height will not exceed seven stories. And then all elevations and site improvements, including landscaping, which will be substantially shown, including some right-of-way improvements of the sidewalk, to remove the entrance along Appomattox Street. As for neighborhood engagement, staff received a letter of non-acquisition from Bird Park Civic Association, and we sent notification to area residents with property, and the applicant has engaged with both Bird Park Association and the Randolph Neighborhood Association. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, and strategies of the master plan's targets for housing, particular objective 14.4 to increase the number of mixed-income communities along enhanced transit corridors, and objective 14.5 to encourage dense housing types throughout the city's transit corridors. The interior construction of the 131 apartments through an adaptive reuse project is a prime example of expanding diverse housing options in this growing attractive neighborhood. The applicant will expand on that, but they enlisted a traffic study as a response to neighborhood concerns about traffic, and the traffic study found that actually overall there will be less traffic overall because there's not going to be staff, there's not going to be a lot of large deliveries, and not as many visitors likely. So staff finds due to all the findings summarized above and the safeguards contained within the city charter relative to granting special use permits are met. So therefore staff recommends approval. And here is just some floor plans. This is the first floor and then floors above.

And the elevations just to show what it will look from the outside, which is pretty much the same.

And the before and after of the parking. So you'll see that they're adding some more spaces and just upgrading the parking lot to the modern standards that we have for parking lot.

Cool.

Question from Ms. Wilson Commission. Thank you very much. The applicant present wish to make a presentation. Mr. Chairman, good evening.

Again, my name is Preston Lloyd. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Williams Mullen, representing the applicant. Before I begin our presentation, may I please reserve a few moments for rebuttal after the public hearing? I would suggest that we reserve five minutes for rebuttal. Thank you, sir. So I'm pleased to introduce a few members of the team at the Virginia home, and I'll let them introduce themselves. But I also want to acknowledge a few other members of the team who are here to answer any questions that the commission may have. have the principals of audio partners who are the applicant as well as two cases that are well known to this body laurie markham with markham planning and walter parks of wpa studios and so i'd like to first allow the representatives of the virginia home just to talk a little bit about the 100 year plus history at this site and in the city because it's really that history that's grounding the opportunity that this body has today, which is to support the expansion of much-needed services that the Virginia Home has provided and will continue to provide for our region, while also enhancing availability of housing options and direct response to the Richmond 300 plan. So with that, I'll turn it over to Virginia Home.

Welcome.

Thank you. Welcome. Good evening. My name is Doug Vaughan. I'm the CEO at the Virginia Home. and in discussion with our residents, they wanted me to read a letter of support that they have written, the resident council. We are the residents of the Virginia home, and we are asking you to support the proposal sale and redevelopment of our current home into a 131 unit apartment community. For many of us, the Virginia home is more than a building. It is our home. It is where we live, where our friends are, where we celebrate birthdays and holidays, where we receive the care we need and where we have built our lives and our community. But our home was built in 1930. While the staff works every day to make it comfortable, accessible, and welcoming, the building itself was never designed for the way we live today or for the kind of care and independence we deserve. The Virginia home is building a new home designed specifically around us, our mobility, our independence, our safety, our comfort, and our ability to participate fully in our community. It will give us more accessible spaces, modern amenities, and an environment where we can continue to live with dignity and purpose. Just as importantly, it will give the staff who care for us the right environment and resources to provide the exceptional care they give us every day. The sale of our current property is an essential part of making that future possible. The proceeds will help fund construction of our new home. Even with the tremendous support from our families, friends, and community, we still have approximately 24 million to raise. The value of our current property is therefore critical to completing the project and ensuring that the Virginia home can continue to be our home for generations to come. We also understand that historic property has a future beyond us. We believe that transforming it to 131 new homes is a thoughtful way to preserve its place in the community while allowing the property to serve Richmond in a new way. But for us, this decision is about something much more personal. It is about where we live, how we live, and the kind of future we will live. So the resident council at the Virginia Home respectfully requests that you all approve this project. Thank you.

Questions for Mr. Vaughn.

Thank you.

My name is Laura Stewart and I'm serving as the chair of the board of trustees of the Virginia home. As you may know, Virginia home is a residence for 130 permanently disabled adults, and we've called 1101 Hampton street home for almost a hundred years. We're an extraordinary place. We have an amazing community. Several years ago, we became aware of some very pressing maintenance concerns. We started a capital campaign to address the most pressing issues, including replacing the elevators and several key infrastructures. We had a generous donor come and meet with Virginia Home Leadership, and they had a great meeting, a long meeting, talked about our vision for the future, the impact we have, and a greater impact that we could have. We have board minutes going back to the 1960s to have a day program for people who could benefit from our resources. Our building has elevators that are kind of scary. In the best case scenario, they're inconvenient. In the worst case scenario, they're a safety hazard. Our hall bathroom system is undignified for the residents, and it's very inconvenient for the staff. This anonymous donor ultimately gave us $25 million towards a new home We're going to have a new facility in Hanover County. We couldn't be more excited about it because renovating the current building would be terribly distressing for our residents, especially those who are sensitive to noise. We're going to recreate the wonderful things about Hampton Street and Hanover, but it's going to be bigger and better. It's going to be one story, which is tremendous for the independence of our residents, and they're all going to have semi-private bathrooms. So there will be a dignity in that, and it's going to be a lot more convenient and easier for the staff to care for them. And maybe one of the best things, the rooms are going to be a little bigger. As of right now, the residents can't have a friend to come and visit because the rooms are not big enough for more than one wheelchair. List of benefits is really too large to list, but possibly the best is that we might be able to clear our wait list. We're going to add 30 more residents and we're going to have a day program for 60 people. And so that'll be for people who might not be ready to move to the Virginia home, but their caretakers will be Glad for a little respite and also these folks can benefit from our resources. We've been very fortunate. Audeo Properties made a generous offer and they've been willing to work with us. So they're happy to be flexible with our schedule and we're very grateful for that. And as somebody who loves the Virginia home, I am most appreciative of the fact that they want to honor our founder and our history and the people who live and work at the home right now.

Thank you.

Thank you for indulging that. It's important, as I said, to ground the application of what's proposed with what's occurred, because this is a historic building and it's had a presence in this community for the better part of a century, as you've heard described. Allison, I may enlist your assistance in advancing the slides. So people, please move ahead. So you've heard a little bit about what happens there. 130 residents served by 260 plus staff with daily deliveries, visitors and volunteers. There's a lot happening in this space today. It's very active. And we see the residents of the Virginia home out and about taking advantage of this amazing resource that they have at their doorstep, which is Bird Park. You can advance, please. and not to mention the historic character of the existing Art Deco building. As you heard, they're relocating to Hanover, and so we're about to have a vacant mothballed building, unless there's an opportunity to think about what the next hundred years could look like in this location. It may no longer be responding to Virginians living with physical disabilities, because that's what the Virginia Home is going to continue to do at their new location, but the city has another major priority, which is the creation of new housing. And so we're instead going to pivot and allow it to respond to that need. Oh, sorry, back one slide. To mention, you heard Laura describe the selection of Audeo partners. Virginia Home did conduct an RFP. They evaluated what is the highest and best use for that next chapter. And they specifically, after a thoughtful process, a deliberative process, they selected this applicant because they believe that best responded to the character of the historic building, that they could do the density that they were proposing within that existing structure, taking advantage of not having to add anything new, but really repurposing what was already there. And so it was through that competitive process that yielded the application that you have before you. Can you please advance the slide? So this is not a question that is typically asked of this Commission. Do you like something that is an undeveloped property or do you like something new that's being proposed? It's something that has been very robust and active in an existing urban context that's being reimagined in a new way. And so as we look at the alignment with the Richmond 300 plan, that's a little bit of a different lens. It's a different question. It's not new development. It's instead looking at what is it today and how can that be repurposed while also meeting many of the goals that are defined in the Richmond 300 plan. And we believe, like the Virginia Homes Discernment Committee did, that the adaptive reuse for housing is the most responsible stewardship of both the building and the neighborhood. And that's why we ask your support of this application. Please advance. And of course, you're very familiar with the housing affordability mandate. City Council and the mayor declared our housing crisis. It has to be an important grounding element of every new housing proposal that's proposed. which is how do we respond to that need and where are the most important and most appropriate places for new housing density to go? Here you have a location that's already providing a significant amount of density, albeit a different context and a very urban character with existing infrastructure, wonderful park amenities, transit lines right on their doorstep. And so for all these reasons, we believe that this is the perfect alignment with what's proposed. If you'll continue. Again, you're very familiar with the policy mandates. I want to embellish upon this other than saying adaptive reuse is one of the least disruptive and most resource efficient ways of trying to respond to our housing prices and taking advantage of an existing historic asset that can now be repurposed for a new life. We'll continue. So let's talk about why this site is so specifically well-suited for housing. It's 131 units proposed, as you've heard, within the existing seven-story building. There will be no new construction expanding the envelope. It's all occurring within the existing footprint. There won't be a change in impervious coverage, and there won't be any new shadows or impacts on lighter air, which of course is one of the charter criteria that you're required to think about. Transit access, very important. There's a stop at Meadow in Colorado, a few short blocks from the site. with 17 hours of daily service provided by GRTC. The frequency is about every 45 minutes, which connects residents to the Carytown Corridor, VCU, Monroe Park, and downtown Richmond. It's very walkable, as mentioned. It's an easy walk to the fan, to Carytown, as well as to, of course, Burke Park right on the doorstep. And it's also, it provides, it enhances the an existing park asset. It provides an opportunity for more people to take advantage of the park without providing traffic, without having to worry about additional cars coming into the park, which again aligns with many of the Richmond 300 goals. We'll advance, please. Here's the map located, as I've said, on the right-hand side of the Bird Park area. You see the two lakes with the star in the center of the map, just southwest of Meadow. We'll advance, please. So what are the proposed special uses to be specific? It is multifamily with no more than 131 units. We're proposing a unit mix of 79 one bedrooms, 14 two bedrooms, two baths, eight two bed, two bath lofts, and two two bed, two bath with den units, as well as 28 studio units. That's approximately 110,000 square feet. Again, seven stories, not changing the envelope. It'll have amenities that include mailroom, library, lounge, patio, garden, fitness movie room, yoga room, grilling terrace, and bike storage. Of course, fully amenitized, which is what current residents are demanding. It will have 66 off-street parking spaces, as well as the existing grid infrastructure that currently exists in the vicinity of the property. The SUP will request the repeal of the existing special use that authorizes what the Virginia Home currently does so that when that use ends, the current SEP authorizing that use will no longer be effective. It would be superseded by what's before you today. Next slide, please. Just a very quick comparison side by side of the current use from a resident standpoint, rather comparable 130 residents currently to approximately 165 to 200 and 165 bedrooms. Currently, 260 staff, which will no longer be a component of the proposed use. That's approximately 200 plus people regularly on site at any time in comparison to the residents and their guests, which will be an overall net reduction from the current use. Parking supply, 44 spaces in adjacent parking areas are provided today. That will be increased to 66, comprised of 61 in the lot plus five drop-off spaces. As was mentioned, we did engage Timmins. A representative of Timmins is here. We'll talk a little bit about the study that they conducted. Their analysis indicated that in the AM peak hour, there were approximately 118 trips currently, which will be reduced substantially to 59 trips under the proposed use, given the expected IT manual calibration there. And then in the PM, 133 trips during the peak hour in comparison to 70 under the proposed use. We see that that's a net reduction of approximately half based on the current use profile that occurs at the property today. Next slide, please. Again, more on the site context. It just shows the transect as you move from the existing Randolph neighborhood into Burke Park. This is a unique building. There's not another one that has this kind of density, but of course, it's unique from a historic standpoint, and that's going to create a unique sense of place And it helps to further diversify the housing that's available in this particular corner of the city while not putting a new burden on infrastructure or traffic or water. Next slide, please. These are the existing conditions. Many of them have been mentioned. You also have a few views from the various vantage points, and we'll show you some of the conceptual elevations from these same perspectives. Next slide, please. Again, more on the existing zoning and land use, which has been described. As a note, I believe this body is aware, but it's worth repeating, that the zoning ordinance requires no parking for multifamily currently. So the 66 off-street spaces that are being provided will be legally binding because they're included as a condition, even though if this had been a buy-right project that did conform to the buy-right, regulations, zoning district regulations, there would be no corresponding off-street parking requirement. Next slide, please. In performance with the Richmond 300 master plan, I'll thank staff for their very detailed presentation. We agree that that was a wonderful summary of its alignment. We appreciate their recommendation of support. You'll see a number of other ones here. Preserving and increasing housing in the city is the central grounding element that will assist this commission in justifying a finding that this is fully consistent with the Richmond 300 plan. Next slide, please. Transportation and traffic. There's been a lot of discussion about this, and we spent a lot of time talking with neighbors, providing site tours, and this is something that, no surprise, there have been questions about this impact. And so that was part of the reason that we engaged tenants to create a professional engineered understanding of what the traffic impacts will be. The existing numbers I've already shared, but the three shift operation of the existing Virginia home creates concentrated bursts that change at first. So there's a cadence to when there are higher traffic utilization in the neighborhood that's going to be evened out by the residential use. And so by transitioning from more of an institutional nursing home oriented use to a residential use, that's actually going to have a lesser impact beyond just the peak hours. And we were pleased to see that borne out in the data. Also, deliveries, very substantial delivery traffic and cadence to the use today, that will not be a component of the proposed use when it's converted to multifamily residential. And again, we have representatives of Timmons who can speak to the methodology that was used, but it is standard methodology that was then also provided to the Department of Public Works Transportation Division and representatives of that division are also here should the Commission have questions based on their review. Next slide. This is at a glance what was previously shared, just giving you a visual representation of the navy blue being the current use versus traffic impacts from the proposed use and the lighter teal. You can see if we're looking at AM peak, it's about a 50% reduction. PM peak, 47% reduction. and a full 100% reduction in the large commercial vehicles and deliveries. Next slide. So again, to reiterate, this is a net reduction. It's also providing housing with no new infrastructure need that's generated by the residential component that's being placed here because there's an existing residential use. And so that makes it uniquely well-suited in comparison to Greenfield residential developments that this body may consider because the infrastructure is already being utilized. It doesn't require any new parks, no new traffic improvements to mitigate the impact. It's 131 units without that public burden. Next slide. We've described the conceptual site plan, just a few additional call-outs. There's an additional outdoor amenity space described the 61 parking spaces and five drop-off spaces. There will be an EV charging station, motorcycle parking, which is required by the SEP condition. Existing fencing will remain, landscaping per buffer requirements. Trees on South Meadow will be protected, sidewalk reconstructed, and there will be additional parking identified in the vicinity as described on street. Next slide. So this is the conceptual plan. If this looks familiar, it's because that's exactly what's there. If you were to look at Google Maps, there's no change to the existing footprint. Next slide. But there will be some upgrades to the facades. The steps and ramps on the south of the elevation that you're seeing here will remain, but as part of development, this will be a full adaptive reuse of the existing structure. There's no partial demolition that's occurring. If there's square footage that can be used for housing, it will be put to use as housing as the new proposal suggests. And so there will be additional engagement because you'll have units that are closer to the street front on Powhatan. It creates eyes on the street, pedestrian activity, further alignment . Next slide. These are the elevations from the east at Meadow and from the west, which provides an alley slash grilling area Again, increasing the pedestrian activity and engagement and will provide additional opportunities for ingress and egress from the building. Next slide. Staff reviewed the terms and conditions. They're again reiterated here. I'll point out what's not included in the SEP. It doesn't authorize any commercial. It's not proposing any new restaurant, bar, retail, no short-term rentals. There's no building expansion, as you've heard, no additional height, no additional stories. There won't be any encroachment into the existing public park that remains in its current condition. There won't be any change to the public rights of way beyond their existing form. And there won't be any overnight parking permitted on Lake Road, which the SUP wouldn't have the legal authority to grant in any case. Next slide, please. A brief summary of what's been a very extensive over a year engagement with neighbors. It sits on the, The line between two well-established civic neighborhoods, the Randolph Association and Bird Park, and there's been extensive outreach. There have been tours. There's been door-to-door lit drops and extensive discussions through virtual meetings convened by the council person and neighborhood meetings facilitated by those civic associations. It's yielded a lot of conversation, and we believe that that's really enhanced the visibility that the public has on what's proposed. Next slide. We've heard a lot of positive feedback. We've heard some concerns. Those concerns have been things that we've talked about in our presentation, the traffic potential speeding on South Meadow. Initial open house feedback from the homes on Meadow and the vicinity indicated that the 10 to 12 proposed added unit entrances on Meadow were concerning. They were worried that that was going to then displace existing street parking that was occurring. And so the applicant team said, we're going to take or off-street parking, and we're gonna make that dedicated for the residents of the units that face on Meadow in order to directly respond to the fear that their existing on-street parking would be displaced. So there's been a very diligent and intentional effort to try to hear concerns from the neighborhood to respond to those concerns, and that's enhanced the application that you have before you. Next slide. We've also heard from city staff, many of whom are representatives of the reviewing agencies are here this evening. Those have led to meaningful improvements to the application, and we're delighted to have the full endorsement of staff as presented in Ms. Wilson's report. Next slide. Finally, very important for this body to understand and be able to endorse each of the six SUP criteria which are before you. I won't read each of them, but we've addressed elements of each of those six criteria. and believe that this body has full ability to endorse this application and recommend approval as being fully within the recommendations of the city charter criteria. Briefly summarized, the most compelling reasons are that council's declared housing crisis requires that this body and city council deploy all necessary tools for increasing the supply of housing. It's a transit serve location. Council has endorsed greater density along transit corridors 131 UNITS, ZERO NEW PUBLIC BURDENS, NET TRAFFIC REDUCTION, ADDITIONAL OFF STREET PARKING THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BEING VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED, AND THE PRESERVATION OF A BEAUTIFUL ART DECO LANDMARK, WHICH BY THE WAY WILL ALSO HELP FACILITATE THE MISSION OF A NEARLY CENTURY-OLD NONPROFIT IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS OUR ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE. This is all subject to the timeline being driven by the Virginia Home, and we're grateful to have the opportunity to collaborate and support with their projects. And that concludes our presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have following the public hearing.

Questions from the Commission for Mr. Lloyd.

Can you explain again when you say there's 115 dedicated parking spaces where they are on-site and off-site?

So the... The key is that there will be 61 parking spaces that are provided in the parking lot plus five drop-off spaces. The other is an assessment of the existing street infrastructure that's available within the blocks surrounding the property that would also support the residential density provided. Dedicated probably isn't the appropriate word because they are within the public right of way. But as you know, there are districts in the city, Scott's Addition being one, where prior to the elimination of the off-street parking requirement, the city encouraged within, if there was a grid, and if there was existing public parking that was being utilized, that that was then allowed to be counted toward the ultimate parking delivery of a particular use. And so we use that as a rough rule of thumb. While that's not dedicated necessarily, it does help support the notion that because that infrastructure is present, it won't create an undue burden on existing parking in the vicinity of the site.

So it's not necessarily dedicated, but the assessment of on-street parking is available to accommodate the number of potential residents.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Just one minute.

Mr. Deloy.

Thank you.

Sir.

Any further presentation you wish to make other than the rebuttal? Yes. And I'll open the public hearing and ask if there's members of the public that wish to speak in favor of this matter.

Yes, sir, please come forward. Welcome. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Charlie Trokel. I am a homeowner on Powhatan Street on the block that meets with Meadow, so directly across Meadow from this proposed development. I want to thank you all for being here this evening and taking the time to hear us out. I'm in support of this development, and I had a lot of really cool points planned about how awesome I think adaptive reuse is, but the gentleman from Williams Mullen stole a lot of those points. So I'll just plus one that, and I'll instead mention that right now the rental market in Randolph is largely controlled by investors that are interested in coming in, scoping the sort of naturally affordable housing that exists in Randolph, smaller lots, smaller homes, some older and in need of minor to major repairs. These investors have cash reserves that no first-time home buyer would, and so they're able to buy up that property, turn it around, and lease it for much more than what the mortgage on that property would be. My wife and I were very lucky to buy from somebody we knew in Randolph. And if we hadn't done that, we probably wouldn't be in the house that we're in today. I think creating competition for these investor landlords in Randolph, in Bird Park, and in the Maymont neighborhood is a huge benefit to our neighborhood, to the affordability of the area. And just generally sort of like breaking this cycle of, naturally occurring affordable housing in the neighborhood being bought up and then rented back to Richmonders instead of allowing folks like me to get a foothold and start really investing in the city that we love and care about. So I think this is a really unique opportunity. I think that more housing and more neighbors is going to be a benefit to all of these neighborhoods for a lot of great reasons that were covered in the previous presentation. I asked you to support this permit. Thank you so much for your time.

Questions for Mr. Turkle from the commission.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate you coming.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in favor of this matter?

I'll ask if there are any members of the public who wish to speak in opposition. Yes, ma'am.

Please come forward. Give us your name. Welcome.

First, I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for your time this evening and listening to us. I'd also like to state I am not in opposition of the redevelopment of the Virginia.

Give us your name.

Sorry, Tony Mounts. I live at 1909 Blair Street and I'm a homeowner in the Randolph neighborhood. I'm about a block and a half from the Virginia home. Again, I'm not in opposition of redevelopment. I think we've always known that structure at some point could be redeveloped. I'd love to see 131 apartments in there. I just want it done the right way. We as a neighborhood have many concerns still. And so I am asking you guys to vote no on the special use permit. The developers have met extensively with Bird Park neighbors. There's been a lot less information shared with the Randolph neighborhood. And if you know Meadow Street, Meadow Street is the divider between the Randolph neighborhood and Bird Park neighborhood. So they have really concentrated on the Bird Park neighborhood. We have many questions now that the SUP has been introduced into legislation. We have a lot of questions. We would like another meeting with the developers to have answered. We just want that more community engagement. As the SUP as it's currently proposed does not meet the city charter's own six criteria for approval, as far as I can see. The following are examples of its failure. The development will be detrimental to the safety of the neighborhood by increasing traffic, congestion, and parking requirements. And I do understand that the traffic report says there are 260 employees of the Virginia home currently. Anybody that lives on Meadow Street knows that many, many of them take public transportation to get to work. They are not driving cars into the neighborhood. They are not seeking parking in the neighborhood. Anyone that lives right along there will tell you there is always a group of people from the Virginia home at the bus stops on Meadow Street. So when they say that 260 employees will no longer be coming to work, that is a fact. It is not a fact that they all drive there and require parking and cause congestion in our neighborhood. That is just not true. We are looking at going from 131 disabled people living in the building now to possibly over 250 people in that building. If you look at these two bedrooms, two baths, there's a very good possibility there could be four people in each of those apartments. You're looking at two bedrooms, two baths with a den. Those dens make great third bedrooms in these units. So we are looking at the possibility of having 250 people living in that building, not the current 130 that are in there now. It's going to cause more traffic in Bird Park. Bird Park is a wonderful place for our neighborhood. We use it regularly. Everybody in the neighborhood is over there. And by forcing people to now park on the roads in Bird Park, it's going to limit the number of people from outside our neighborhood that can come in and use it. That parking will be taken up. There is already a problem in Bird Park with people hanging out in the park at night. We have residents of our neighborhood that go over there and patrol it because the city is not doing their job patrolling that neighborhood, that park. and keeping it safe for us. We need the Planning Commission to consider the safety and needs of the Randolph and Bird Park neighborhoods and vote no on the approval of this SUP as it is currently written. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Questions for Ms. Miles from the Commission?

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you.

I'm Claire Guthrie-Gastaniaga. I live at 1127 South Meadow, which is at the corner of Meadow and Appomattox, and I've lived there for 22 years. I wanted to start by drawing a parallel to what we heard from Mr. Delgado tonight, because The first meeting I went to in Randolph, which is on October 25th, which is on their timeline of engagement, the developers came and said to us, hello, we're developing the Virginia home. We got hired to do that. And we're here to tell you what we're going to do. And it was as if the demolition had already occurred. And they were just telling us they were going to build the two houses on the lot. And most of the timeline that they've laid out for you concerns conversations around 900 South Meadow, which has already been through here, as opposed to this particular development. You have a copy of a letter that I sent to Stephanie Lynch. And frankly, my request for you tonight would be for one of your members to make a motion to continue this because the first date on their timeline for something happening is 2027. So needing to have this happen right now, this moment, doesn't seem as urgent to me as it may to them. And so I would respectfully request that you continue this to allow us to address some of the things that Tony raised and also raised in my letter. I mean, there have been conversations where people have spoken about affordable units being reserved in this facility, but there's nothing in the special use permit that says anything about there being any proportion of affordable units. You know, in the faith and housing law that passed that goes to effect in January, if folks wanted to do something like this, they'd have to reserve 60% of the units for affordable housing. So, and there have been discussions in the public meetings that have been suggested that there are going to be affordable units. In terms of congestion, I looked at the traffic report. Now, look, the traffic report was delivered on July 27th. And your own people wrote an email yesterday that said they hadn't had a chance to review it yet. That's another reason why there should be a continuance. Mr. Mobe says, we haven't seen it. We didn't see it. It was not provided directly to us and we haven't had a chance to review it. So there should be a continuance on that ground alone. But think about this, you know, Tony's exactly correct. 131 units will house somewhere between 175 and 210 units What is the realistic expectation? And could a peak capacity be at 320 to 350? The cars, 130 to 180 cars, but 53 of those cars are theoretically going to park in the park, which they've now said is not going to be 24-7 parking. So where do those 53 cars go when they want to reside overnight in the building? If you look at the current traffic, you know, you look at the Timmons report, You start out by reading that it says there's parking on both sides of Meadow. It's not parking on both sides of Meadow. So how does that raise questions about the veracity or the reliability of everything else they say? And then I'm thinking about real life, guys. How many of you get a delivery from FedEx once a day? A lot of us. Some of us twice a day. There are going to be 130, not 130 people living there with a few big delivery trucks coming to deliver things you know, during the day. There are going to be 200 people living in the building getting FedEx deliveries, getting deliveries from Grubhub, getting deliveries, you know, pretty much 24-7. And none of that is in the Timmons traffic assessment. The other thing that's absolutely true is when Pulse went in, our neighborhood went from bus service every 15 minutes on Meadow and Allen. Between Meadow and Allen, I could get on a bus anywhere. every 15 minutes. After Pulse, it's now 45 minutes. How many of you think you're going to wait outside for a bus to go get a quart of milk that's going to only come once every 45 minutes? And so those 200 people are going to be getting out and getting into their cars and going to get a quart of milk and coming back much more frequently than those big delivery trucks that come once a day, twice a week, whatever. And so the whole... idea about wrap it up i understand i'm giving you extra time mr chairman i appreciate that but how much time did they have to present their side and and i i understand your three-minute rule but i'm going to give you five minutes because i've given them that for rebuttal right you not only gave them a half hour to present you're going to give them five minutes to rebut but you're going to tell me i can have three minutes please okay But I think the reality is if you, and having lived on Meadow all that time, the report that there've only been five accidents on Meadow, I've seen at least five in front of my house alone in 22 years. And certainly it is frequent that people lose their rear view mirrors, their side mirrors. And I've had two rear end collisions on my corner at Meadow and Appomattox, parked cars alone. If they're going to develop that and put Meadow facing units, they need to have a bump in. They need to provide a bump in because otherwise those facing units, when the FedEx truck comes, they're going to pull up on the sidewalk and create a traffic hazard and a safety hazard. So on all of the provisions that you're supposed to be thinking about, congestion, traffic safety, overcrowding and undue population, enjoying the park, which those 53 parkers are going to cause an issue in the park. And all of those concerns that you're supposed to consider as the criterion, there isn't one of them that right now, this proposal, the way it's written fully meets in our view. And so we would strongly request and encourage you to move to continue this to a later meeting. There's not a rush. We don't have to rush to judgment. We can have some additional conversations about how to do this right. There isn't anybody in the neighborhood I've met with who is against the development. What they're against is doing it wrong and doing it insensitively.

Thank you. Questions from the commission?

Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming. Next member of the public. Next member. Welcome. Good evening.

My name is Robin Fleby. I'm a resident of Bird Park. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all tonight regarding the special use permits for the Virginia Hall. I want to begin by saying I do support thoughtful development and recognize that Richmond needs additional housing and new housing options. But I also believe that development must be appropriate for the neighborhoods in which it occurs and the process must give citizens confidence that the city is carefully evaluating the impact of these projects. I support the development with caveats. There needs to be more defined parking and the units to be built facing Meadow must have setbacks and bump-ins as was just stated. The study commissioned by the developer Timmons suggests no parking issues, but DPW, and I have a email from Doug Marbury, I'd like to submit with permission. contradicts that, says he hasn't even seen it, and there are some specifics in the email that define concerns that they do have. As it relates to the amount of cars, I think there's some concern about how many that really could be with the small amount of defined parking spaces. Already discussed is people are going to be making trips to go to grocery stores, movies, out to dinner, People are going to be coming and going all day and night, unlike the residents that currently live there. This lot is currently zoned MX-7 and code refresh, but there is no mixed use in the development as it's currently designed. I think a thoughtful way to handle minimizing some car trips would be maybe to have a small grocery store like a stop-in in the lobby that the residents could use and even maybe some of the neighborhood. We can build housing without abandoning thoughtful planning. I want to be very clear. I do not oppose the development. Richmond absolutely needs new and different types of housing, but increasing the number of units should not be the only measure of successful development. We need to ask, can the streets safely accommodate the additional residents and vehicles? Is there adequate emergency access? Is the amount of parking appropriate for the density? Are setbacks in building placement compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? Is sufficient green space? What happens to the existing canopy? These are all things that Richmond 300 defines that we all should be looking at. If we fail to ask these questions, we run the risk of solving one problem while creating several others. Richmond's historic neighborhoods are one of the things that make the city special. They're part of what attracts residents, visitors, and investment to Richmond. We should be adding housing while protecting the qualities that make people want to live here. I respectfully request that you delay and look at this more thoughtfully and in depth with the neighbors and reconfigure the parking. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you.

Just for clarity. Yes, sir. Mr. Lawry's letter is part of the record.

Oh, okay. I didn't know what it is. I just want to make sure. Because it didn't specifically say that earlier.

It is.

Thank you very much.

Any other member of the public wish to speak in opposition? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Welcome.

Hello, thank you. My name is Robin Chandler and I live on Walker Street, one and a half blocks from Virginia.

Lived there for 29 years. I'm not opposed to the development, but I'm opposed to the SUP in its current form. And I would like for a continuous.

Questions from Ms. Chandler. Thank you very much. Does the member of the public wish to speak in opposition?

Anyone online?

I am seeing no one online currently.

You have five minutes for rebuttals. Then some time for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much the opportunity to present this case in the third nature that we have, because we've heard these good faith concerns that have been raised by the community. And they're the right questions to be asked. And in connection with any land use application, we have to rely on the professional expertise of our reviewing agencies to be able to vet what are the public impacts. We believe that we've provided ample opportunity for those agencies to review traffic impacts, parking impacts, impacts on safety, infrastructure, and whether this density is going to pose an undue burden on the existing residents. who very rightly have asked the right questions about whether this will ultimately have a undue impact on their community. But we believe that after that thorough analysis and after the engagement that's occurred, we can answer that question definitively. This is the right amount of density in the right place because of the existing infrastructure that's there, because of the existing park assets, the transit, the other things that will help allow this density to help respond to the housing crisis that's so acute and that we're struggling to produce adequate units in response to. A few factual things that I do feel compelled to point out. One, the current Virginia Home receives, it has a commercial kitchen that it operates. It receives Cisco tractor trailer deliveries in order to adequately supply that kitchen. These are the nature of the deliveries that will no longer consume. Small box trucks delivering FedEx, Amazon, that's a very different kind of impact. And we would submit nowhere close to the same kind of transportation impact on adjoining adjacent residents. Secondly, the issue of affordability was raised. We have intentionally not talked about the affordability commitment at this time, because as this body is aware, the city of Richmond does not currently have the legislative authority from the general assembly in order to impose minimum commitments for affordable housing. And yet it is fully anticipated that this project we'll take advantage of many of the tools that the city of Richmond is currently offering in order to incentivize the delivery of that affordability. And we look forward to bringing those applications forward to be reviewed if this project is ultimately approved from a land use standpoint. So we can't talk about the affordability commitments today because the city doesn't have that authority yet. We understand it's coming, but for the time being, we're willing to say that we absolutely intend to take advantage of the city's toolbox growing toolbox of affordability tools in order to help respond to that need. So with that, I'll conclude our presentation and welcome any questions.

Thank you. Questions for Ms. Deloy. Yes, ma'am.

So the large delivery trucks that we're talking about right now, do they park on the street to make their deliveries or do they pull down that alley that will be turned into the grilling area?

Doug, I wonder if I could lean on you for some of the operational questions about how food service deliveries occur at the facility today.

So we currently have a loading dock on Palatine, and that's where the large delivery trucks deliver items.

Are they parked on the street, or they pull into the property?

They back in, but partially out in the street. Those questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cowan.

Post public hearing, back to the question and asking if there is a motion.

Before we go there, Mr. Chair, I just need to point out, while I am proud that Baskerville is architected the original building, Baskerville is also currently the architect for the new Virginia home in Hanover County that has a direct benefit related to the sale of the sprawl. I don't believe that there is a conflict. Very good.

Unless Mr. Gibson says otherwise.

given that disclosure as required by the statute thank you very much i move for approval for the motion of second do we have discussion i i think it is um it's a attractive iconic building that is worth saving it is uh historic and i i I acknowledge the concerns about parking and I can't say that parking will not evolve because of this project, it very well might, but I don't think anybody wants 100 plus thousand square foot building in the middle of a residential neighborhood to go vacant and dark for a generation.

I'm comfortable with the application with the traffic study from Timmons. I agree with Commissioner White. I'm very pleased to see the building preserved and the potential for affordable options should the land use application go forward.

Other members?

I will say that The timeline of the engagement from this group to the neighborhood is well over approaching two years. The presentation that they've made with respect to their proposal is astoundingly good for an iconic building that's been there since 1931 that we need to preserve in an area of the city that is crying for more density in a manner in which folks different than are being used using the property now. The Virginia home has been a part of the Richmond community for as long as I've known, as long as I've been here. The occupants of that building are significantly different than the occupants that will come to new apartments, totally different use. But it's also important for Virginia Home to continue their absolutely wonderful community service that they bring to the Richmond area. It's just phenomenal. I've had family members as part of that community. This is the right place. It's the right group to develop it. And they've really spent a lot of time listening to the neighborhood. I think this is the right project for this and we'd like to support this paper. Anything further?

I'd like to say to the neighbors, I hear your traffic concerns. I hear you and I validate you. I think that when you look at this area to think about where else you would possibly put parking without a structure, you would end up with unintended consequences that would impact other structures in this neighborhood that you probably don't want impacted. As for FedEx trucks, if there's some way to signage, I don't know how much the developers can do for that or if the city can do something, but no one likes that. For me, a project like this checks all of my boxes. It is not only retaining a historic structure, but it's utilizing historic tax credits to make sure that it's done in an appropriate way. There is thoughtful consideration of the affordability aspect, not simply stating that an increase in density will create affordability. And I hope that this will long-term benefit the neighborhood. And one of the reasons that we are not going to continue it necessarily, the Virginia home needs to know that the sale is moving forward so that they can move forward with their plans. So there's a domino effect in moldings.

I want to acknowledge as well the concern as it relates to the community and parking and the size of the streets and their concern as it relates to that. I appreciate the study that have been done to address those concerns. hopefully the community will have an opportunity to look at those more closely as well. It's a little painful to see the Virginia Home move to Henrico. I mean, we are in desperate need. We'll continue to provide housing of this choice in the city of Richmond, and I would like to hope that in the future the city will work very hard with with owners of these types of properties and provide this valuable services to see every wheel we can to continue to provide that type of housing in the city. I do feel like that's a loss to the city itself. And I do hope that that's something. I think the other thing that comes up and it's come up with almost many many, even when it's just single family, we're adding two more homes. Parking seems to be a major, major issue and concern for community residents when they come in and the city's decision as it relates to no parking for me raises some concerns that perhaps we need to at least do an assessment of that evaluation of the impact of that policy and whether or not that's something we need to go back. I think that it adds opportunities for development and the reason why the city has passed such a policy. But at some time, I do think it's important that we assess the impact of that policy. But the number of times that we get that question about parking, it warrants us being in any position to feed back to the community that what what you perceive as an impact is true, or at least give them some accuracy of the impact system. I'd like to put out there for the benefit of the administration and city council take into it. I would hate to see this beautiful building set vacant for 20 years, many of our wonderful buildings. And at that point, the deterioration is so great that is very difficult to restore. And I think it's very creative of the developer to see the opportunity to increase the number of units within the footprint of the existing building and to provide a variety of sizes of units which is also very appealing to me because it provides opportunities to families as well as single occupancy residents. So I look forward to supporting this, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Robertson. Any other comments from members of the Commission?

Yeah, I would also like to say that I plan to support this paper. I do want to just put something out for planning staff to consider because I do hear the Randolph residents and I think, you know, our current policies of, you know, engaging the residents from the neighborhood where the building is located, even though, um, we should be looking at a broader, um, radius around the building. It sounds to me like a lot of the Randolph, um, residents who live literally at like a block adjoining this were not really engaged as well as they should have been because of our policies of engaging the neighborhood association in which the building is located with kind of blinders that it sits on a street that divides it with another neighborhood. And I would just put out to planning staff that perhaps we can look at that policy and procedure and maybe think a little bit broadly that there's no such thing as that magic line when you live in an area. So I just want to put that out there. And I thought long and hard about the parking issues. I live downtown, a lot of people park on street, and it's common even if you have structured parking in an apartment complex, a lot of people will still park on street. If there's negative activity at sometimes in Bird Park, I actually think more people parking in and around the park might actually make the park a little safer. And the only thing that I wish we could maybe talk about, I don't know if this is going to site plan or does not need site plan because it's existing. they're doing a few things to the onsite parking lot. Would that require site plan review?

So it does not because what they're doing is they're only restriping the parking lot. And so we actually, while they are increasing the number of spaces by 10%, so that would normally trigger it. We exempted it in this ordinance specifically.

That's why I wasn't sure. That's why I was just asking. But like I said, I agree with Councilwoman Robertson, the opportunity to save such a historic structure. And I think the staff memo was incorrect. It says 161 units in your staff memo, but the ordinance is 131, is that correct?

131 is correct.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

And to clarify just for, because the community's here, that was brought up, the property notices that were distributed to the 150 feet that are legally required has the correct number of units and the correct proposed density.

Staff report two, it was just the O&R memo that had the typo. Okay.

Yeah.

And I believe, and I'll just double check that because this is close, we usually will say they're on the side of liberally notifying. So I do believe we notified Joel Thrandoff and Bert Parks and as part of this as well, but to be determined to notify Bowen Civic Association for this.

Okay, I mean, so like I said, it just sounded like a number of the Randolph residents heard about the other Meadow Street development of the lots that were owned, but not necessarily got a full group briefing on this particular project.

Anything further? A question we're building on the proposal.

Item number 2026-183, 1101 Hanson Street and the rest of the addresses.

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Pennock.

Aye.

Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White.

Aye.

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

Thank you very much. Do we have a council action update?

Um, not necessarily a council action update, just sort of a reminder on city council did take the recess in August. Um, we are approaching the end of summer. You all will have pretty light agendas for September 1st and 15th. Um, we are expecting quite a lot of items to be approved, denied action taken on items, um, on the first city council meeting in September on the 14th. We are also expecting a very, very long list of introductions. And so at our September 15th meeting, September 1st, September 15th, we should have that list. Council meets on the 14th. So on the 15th, I'll give you that update. And then please, I know these are coming up, attendance. Just let Chair Poole know and myself, especially with heavy dockets. So happy end of summer.

I would just interject, probably to Chair Poole and Vice Chair Greenfield, as we have later, first and 15th discussions of you're serving one or both for some time to discuss a refresh strategy. I think that's an excellent idea.

I think it's a wonderful idea. And would that be structured with you making a presentation?

We can discuss how you'd like to do it, if you'd like to do it like last time. Go ahead and hear some things or you just want to open some questions. Yeah, I think it's just important to really One, get understanding of what's changed, computer three, understanding of the document total, and just have the ability to ask questions.

Do you have a preference of the first or the 15th? Because I'm going to recommend that each of the commission members read this wonderful document, make notes, and send questions to the director so he can explain those things to us, either on the first or the 15th. Do you have a preference?

You want to, like, I'll say preemptively start on the first. That way, if there's things that hang over, we can cut to 15.

Hangover, what a great word for this. All right, so I would encourage each member to do as much of the study in this as you can, so that we can ask the directors specific questions with respect to any issues that we have with respect to COVID. With that, thank you all very much for your attention and time tonight. Thanks to the members of the staff that's really attended and thank you very much for being here.