Meeting of planning commission to order.

Um, thank you all for being here tonight.

Um first could we start with the um public questions, please.

This meeting is being held in person in the fifth floor conference room at City Hall, while staff in a quorum of planning commissioners are attending the meeting in person.

Citizens may choose to participate in the meeting virtually.

All written comments that were received by email prior to 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.

Thank you.

Ms.

Greenfield, Stever, tonight.

Present, Mr.

Pennick, Ms.

Robertson, Miss Roe?

Yeah.

Mr.

White.

Here.

We have um Mr.

Bulldog here.

So we will move past the chair's comments and move into the approval of minutes.

Um we have two sets of minutes uh to approve.

Um hopefully everyone had a chance to look through them.

Are there any questions?

We have a motion on the October 7th minutes.

So, you call over, please.

Greenfield, aye.

Ms.

Ebert, aye.

Ms.

Knight, uh, Miss Robertson.

Aye.

Ms.

Rao.

And Mr.

White.

All right.

Motion passes and those minutes are approved.

Great.

Uh the May 5th meeting minutes.

Any questions?

Okay, so we have a motion.

Are you ready?

Secondly, I'm sorry, could you second?

Sure.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Um could you call the question, please?

Ms.

Greenfield, aye.

Ms.

Ebert?

Aye.

Miss Knight?

Ms.

Robertson.

Ums Roe?

And Mr.

White.

All right.

Motion passes and those minutes are approved.

Um Director Ron, do you have a director's report?

Uh I think the same.

Okay.

Do we have any continuances or deletions from the agenda?

No.

No.

Okay.

Could you call the consent agenda, please?

Okay.

For the consent agenda, we have item three, ordinance 2026-099.

This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 310 North 25th Street for the purpose of up to one two family attached dwelling and two dwelling units within an accessory structure upon certain terms and conditions.

Item four, ordinance 2026-100 to authorize the special use of the property known as 908 North 30th Street for the purpose of up to six single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

Item five, ordinance 2026-101 to authorize the special use of the property known as 4201 Corbin Street for the purpose of a day nursery for up to 12 children within an accessory structure upon certain terms and conditions.

Item six ordinance 2026-103 to authorize the special use of the property known as 3300 Delano Street for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

Ordinance 2026-107 to amend and reordain ordinance number 2017-073, adopted April 10th, 2017, which authorizes special use of the property known as 1117 West Franklin Street for the purpose of an expansion of an existing institutional use upon certain terms and conditions to authorize a reduction in size of an existing institutional use.

A portion of public right-of-way located south of Brooklyn Park Boulevard and east of Robin Hood Road, consisting of approximately 11,105 plus or minus square feet upon certain terms and conditions.

Item 12, ordinance 2026-112 to authorize the chief administrative officer foreign on behalf of the city of Richmond to accept accept fines in the amount of 2,0269 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and to appropriate the increase to the fiscal year 2025 to 2026 capital budget by increasing estimated revenues and the amount appropriated to the Department of Public Works Stormwater Facilities Improvement Projects and the Utilities category for the purpose of funding the Broadrock Creek Stream Restoration Project.

And item 13, UDC 2026-06.

This is the concept location character and extent review of a new Riverside Park located at 3021 Dock Street.

And I would like to note on the consent agenda that we did receive an email for item 11, ordinance 2026-109.

And that printout is in front of you guys now.

Do any members of the commission have questions on the consent agenda?

Hearing none, I will open a public hearing at this time.

If there's anyone in the public in person or online that would like to offer comments in support of the consent agenda, this is the opportunity.

We have anyone online.

Okay.

Is there someone to um oh uh well actually um this is the applicant?

So it's an unf so I've found like this for just a minute.

Um Chris, can you try one thing?

Can you try pressing spacebar while you're talking and see if that helps?

Um I'll try to.

Okay, we'll try to look, we'll come back.

Okay, Mr.

Banks, we're gonna come back to you.

Um, do you want to take the next person?

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

There we go.

Can everyone hear me okay?

My name is Andre Ross, and I'm the executive director um at Richmond Walter School regarding item number 11 ordinance 2026-109.

Uh the main uh comment that I wanted to make in support of this um Chris, um, who's on this call, as well as uh John that's in the meeting room there, and maybe some others from the Shore Park Civic Association.

Um, the part that I wanted to express is that the work that we've been doing over the last year um with outreach to receive support from the neighborhood has been um extensive.

And so I do hope that the commission can recognize and I can provide necessary uh emails and correspondence uh related to that support.

You have in front of you a letter of support that was written uh last year, as well as other adjoining neighbor um letters of support.

Uh you also have um there in the room, Lori Markham from Workham Planning, um, and just wanting to be able to, as needed, express um the level of outreach that the school has done to be able to convey prior to even bringing it forth to the commission, uh, where we were in relation to this project so wanted to be able to share that with you as it is a property that is in right in front of our 2.8 acres and finding the best way to utilize it to um uh support our school thank you thank you see if mr um banks is able to unmute so i promoted um mr banks i promoted you to a presenter so i'm hoping that now you are able to unmute yes and i appreciate that you have uh it did not click over until the previous speaker spoke so i i appreciate that uh i assume everyone is able to hear me now yeah yes sir excellent uh thank you again for for taking my my um uh my letter it uh i know i sent it in at the last minute and that's why i wanted to have an opportunity to speak just in case it didn't come through so uh i apologize if i'm summaring some of summarizing some of it um but i just wanted to express an opinion as a as a resident in the neighborhood of uh sherwood park um unfortunately um i am unable to support this resolution as written uh because i feel that it combines two distinctly separate actions that should be independently evaluated um i feel that the closure of the slip lane has been something i've always supported and i'm happy to see the waldorf school supports it as well uh closing it for a variety of reasons including uh the traffic support issues um but i'm i'm concerned about the best and possible future use and extended use thinking 10 20 years in the future and what um that property may or may not uh be in in relation to um to that corner and again i'm i'm also thinking about what could or could not be in 10 or 20 years for the diamond district or the fall line or adjacent trails and it it just kind of brings it back home to me that this is a space that um until recently we had no opportunity to do anything else with in fact in the uh applicants application which I got a chance to read a couple days ago um it it was understood that v dot maybe was looking at doing something there and only just recently and not even publicly has said that they may not do anything there but I don't know that that's the case for the city or any other entity uh so it seems like it's it's a fresh opportunity uh one that um certainly there is a proposal in front of you for something that could be done with it uh but I don't know that it's um the only opportunity that could be done with that space and so that's why I ask that um this paper be uh removed from consent agenda and at least considered as part of a regular agenda um and have additional uh components like that VDOT study or like the the official plan presented to the public so that they can weigh in generally on uh the things that are being noted um in the resolution but not publicly available uh so again I uh I ask that um this be moved off of the consent agenda uh for a variety of reasons that I I submitted earlier thank you thank you um there's been a request to move this item from consent to the regular agenda um the applicant is present uh and available to make a presentation to the will of the commission I think we have a tradition of of uh moving things the regular agenda when there's even more can you call the question piece we're voting on moving item eleven ordinance 2026-109 from the consent agenda to the regular agenda uh Miss Greenfield hi miss Iber hi Miss Knight hi Mr.

Pennick Ms.

Robertson aye Miss Rowe and Mr.

White motion passes and that item will be moved to the regular agenda uh vice chair greenfield do you you have a location that you would like it on the regular agenda um is staff prepared for the presentation uh I know the applicants here are stock prepared.

Maybe we can put it after number 14.

Uh this doesn't come from our office directly okay so um we can read to you.

Like we can go over the staff report.

If you'd like.

What are we?

Um before we bring someone up, um, let's just go ahead and put it after item 14.

Okay.

So haven't called everyone for optioning.

Is there anyone else that wanted to speak in favor of the consent?

Um agenda.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak in opposition?

Is there anyone online?

I am seeing no one else online.

Okay.

Well, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Do we have any additional questions?

We have a motion on the consent agenda.

Second.

Okay.

We're voting on the consent agenda.

She stands item 11.

Ms.

Greenfill.

Hi.

Hi.

Knight.

Hi.

Mr.

Pennick.

Hi.

Robertson.

Hi.

Sro.

Aye.

Mr.

Mike.

Hi.

And Mr.

McKenzie, we're voting on the consent.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

It is adopted.

Okay.

Why don't we go ahead and take item number 14?

And then while Scott and the applicant determine how to move forward with the case we just need to do that.

Okay.

You're prepared.

Yeah.

Okay.

The first item on the regular agenda is going to be item 14, ordinance 2026-102.

This is an ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 3415 French alley for the purpose of up to 13 attached garages upon certain terms and conditions and to repeal ordinance number 2021-325 adopted December 13th, 2021, and all a mandatory ordinances there too.

And we will be joined by Mr.

Brown with the staff presentation.

Thank you.

Property is located with the museum district neighborhood between Floyd and Wood Adams.

Properties currently vacant.

Area is currently being used.

It has private service parking.

I thought it would be useful to have some additional context about this site.

In 2021, city council approved special use permit for a two-family dwelling.

And a two and two single family dwellings for the site while building permits were filed in 2023.

Implementation of the ordinance did not advance to the construction phase.

The applicant is requesting a special use permit to authorize the construction of 13 attached garages within an R6 single family attached residential district.

While the use is permitted within the R6 zone, the garages must be accessory to dwellings within the same block.

The applicant wishes to be able to rent the garages to individuals outside of the block.

These are some elevations and the site plan.

So these master plan designates a future land use for the subject property is neighborhood mixed use.

That is, I apologize, that's the wrong map.

But it is neighborhood mixed use.

Let's just skip that.

The current zoning for this parcel is R6 single family attached residential.

As stated, the use is permitted, but the proposed garages are intended to be allowed for properties outside of the same block.

Here are the conditions.

Special use of the property shall be as up to 13 attached garages.

The permitted principal use shall be permitted to be situated outside the same entire block as the property.

The height of the special use shall not exceed one story, substantially as shown on the plans.

All building materials, elevations, and site improvements shall be as substantially shown on the plans.

Subject to the applicable regulations of Chapter 30, Article 9, Division 5 of the code of the studio of Richard.

All mechanical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened so there's not to be public or maybe the public right-of-way.

Facilities for the collection of refuge shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the director of public works.

Such facilities shall be located or screened so it's not to be able to adjacent property screens.

The owner shall make improvements within the right of way substantially a strong plan, including installation of gravel within the right-of-way of Crenshaw Alley, which improvements may be completed in one or more phases as approved by the director of staff notified local residents and the museum district association use.

Again recommends approval.

Staff finds that the proposed use is aligned with the goals of the neighborhood mixed use land use category or within the master plan category states that parking areas should be located to the rear of street-facing buildings.

Staff find that off-street parking on what is currently a vacant lot be a reasonable use for the interior of a city block.

Due to all findings on the list above, staff concludes that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting of special use permits.

That concludes my presentation.

Are there any questions?

Do any members of the commission have any questions for Mr.

Brown?

Okay, hearing none.

Um, is the applicant presenting to make an applicable presentation?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Commissioner Knight, would you like the fan?

I have one in my bag that I can.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

Uh, my name is Sid Chef.

I'm with Baker Development Resources, and I'm here to represent the property owner of 3415 Crenshaw Meuse, and this is a special use permit request.

I'd also like to request some time for a potential rebuttal should there need be one.

Property is a single lot of record in the block bound by Nansen Street, Floyd Avenue, Crenshaw Avenue, and Elwood Avenue.

The properties accessed by Crunchfall Meuse Alley and Elwood Alley, which are east-west alleys and accessible from Nancyman Street and Crenshaw Avenue.

The property is zone R6 includes approximately 9,200 square feet and contains a garage and 34 surface parking spaces, 10 of which are part of an existing easement to serve a nearby business.

In 2021, the previous owner of the property received approval for the special use permit that permitted four dwellings and 11 parking spaces.

The dwellings were two stories and approximately 20 to 25 feet in height.

Property was sold to the current owner who pursued several residential concepts, including the approved special use permit.

Even when as far as discussing potential modifications with neighbors, but in the end, they pivoted to developing the site as an accessory use after receiving feedback from the adjacent neighbors.

Attached garages are permitted by right.

However, we are requesting a special use permit to waive two sections of the ordinance so that our client could more efficiently utilize the garages and serve the neighborhood.

The first waiver is for the ability to allow individuals who might live outside of the block to utilize the garages.

The zoning ordinance allows the garages by right if they are used by owners within the block.

Each garage would be subdivided to be on their own lot for the purposes of selling or renting each individual individual garage.

The rental or sale of the garages would be prioritized to individuals that already live on the block before marking the market block.

This allows the flexibility to occupy the garages should there not be enough demand from individuals from within the block already.

The second waiver is for the height by right.

The garages could be no greater than 12 feet as measured by zoning, and we're proposing 16 feet.

The purpose of the waiver is to provide lofted storage space to provide greater utility than just covered parking.

If the SUP is approved, there would be 13 garages of varying sizes, like the previous SUP, 10 parking spaces within the easement would be retained.

The garages are not like your historic garages that you find in the neighborhood that are typically substandard in size.

These garages are larger, purposely designed for vehicles, as you can expect with a modern garage and accommodate typical household storage.

They've been intentionally designed to meet today's needs for vehicle storage, accessibility, and maneuverability.

In fact, they exceed the city's required requirements for parking maneuverability.

Setbacks would not be required by right for garages here.

However, we are proposing variable width setback that ranges from 1.4 feet to 2.4 feet in order to provide an apron to increase maneuverability and to provide a transition between the garages and the alleys.

Regarding access, the garage would generally utilize the two east-west alleys.

And we amended this request to improve the Crenshaw alley at the eastern end of the property with gravel based on discussions with the community.

Regarding utilities, the garages would only be served with electrical service.

Water and sewer service would not be provided for the property.

Regarding the exterior, the garages would be built with vertical cementitious siding to ensure durability while also being compatible with the nearby neighborhood.

While the special use permit would allow additional height to accommodate additional storage, the impact is mitigated by the overall design.

The lofted storage would be located within the pitched roof, and this allows the design to present a one-story facade at the alley, with the additional height being located more central to the site at the peak.

The garages are arranged into groups of three with a break between them to break up the massing, and additionally, plans are proposed to soften the alley scale.

Furthermore, we would be pursuing both site plan and subdivision applications.

So there will be further review and scrutiny from the city staff to ensure that all city requirements are met.

Finally, in terms of neighborhood outreach, we originally mailed out letters to all property owners within 150 feet of the property back in October 2025.

We met with neighbors on site in November 2025.

We've had numerous meetings with the museum district association's land use and zoning subcommittee to discuss the project.

And we've also fielded various calls and emails from a number of the neighbors in the area.

Throughout the entire process, we've heard comments both for and against the proposal and have had the opportunity to discuss them.

As of now, we have a position of no opposition from the museum district association.

They did, however, request a condition allowing the garages to only serve residential uses outside of the block or written confirmation from staff that it would be enforced with this intent.

We are agreeable to this either way, as this has always been the intent of the proposal.

Lastly, we do understand that as of this morning there are two layers of opposition at base file.

And with all that being said, I appreciate your time and I'm happy to answer any questions from the commission.

Thank you.

Any members of the commission have questions for the applicant.

There's going to be 13 attached garages, and then you said there's going to be 10 surface spots for one of the residents.

Yeah, so in this design right here, there's 13 attached garages.

These are the 10 existing parking spaces that are in an existing easement.

And this was also retained during the previous special use permit that Jonathan shared.

So there's going to be because there's currently 34 surface.

Even with the garages, there's going to be less parking today, and your request is by right because you want to be able to utilize this.

It's by right to request this for the SEP because you want to utilize them for folks who don't live within that block.

That's correct.

But if everyone lived in that block.

They would only have to serve the parking spaces there now.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There's no other questions for members.

Go ahead and express.

I think you said it and I.

What is the proposed material?

The proposed material, it's going to be a brick foundation, and then it's going to be hardy um lap siding, it's a vertical cementitious.

It's just durable.

It's compatible with the the existing block as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Hearing none, we'll open the um public comment period.

If there are any members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the application, we could come forward.

Do we have anybody online?

I see no one online.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak in opposition?

Is there anyone online?

We need no one online, right?

Um so we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Um, we have a motion.

I move to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Any other commissioners have any questions or comments?

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

We have a motion and a second.

Um recall the question on ordinance 2026-102.

Hi.

Isn't it?

Mr.

Pennick?

Aye.

Ms.

Robertson, aye.

Ms.

Ralph.

Hi.

Mr.

White?

Aye.

And Mr.

McKenzie.

Aye.

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

Thank you.

Um are we ready to move forward with ordinance 2026.109.

This new presentation the regular governments.

I wouldn't present item since this previously was item 11, ordinance 2026-109.

This is an ordinance to close to public use and travel a portion of public right-of-way located south of Brooklyn Park Boulevard and east of Robin Hood Road, consisting of approximately 11,105 plus or minus square feet upon certain terms and conditions.

Yeah, so I'll just say um this case.

Um this is regards to street closure.

It's a general location character and extend item um form of planning commission, which basically means uh our role here is to evaluate it in terms of conformance with the past plan.

Um and so when it looks at right-away and transportation networks, um I'll say like this specific section of right-away is not called out in any particular way.

Um, but I'll say it's also not called out in any particular way in terms of like being critical towards future infrastructure transportation.

Um I think probably the best course of action uh would be to have the applicant or we want to extend the invitation to open that up here from that request.

Um we also have staff from the Department of Public Works who we work with uh when it comes to right-of-way vacations.

So I'm Cara is here and would be able to answer any questions that the board uh may have.

Okay, um, do any members of the commission have questions for Director Baum?

Um, the applicant is present.

Um, before we bring the applicant up, um anyone like to hear from our DPW representative.

I would okay.

Same there.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the commission.

And Kara from Department of Public Works.

We have worked very closely with uh applicant.

And also with the United Parkment of transportation also.

Also, make sure that uh we covered all the bases once we put the vacational that I don't make.

From public books point of view, we have closed the slip lane two years ago because that's uh from safety point of view is not in the paper because it's connecting with the Brooklyn Park Boulevard at very acute angle, being the cyclist there and also people making left along Lamont Avenue.

They were not in favor of it.

So we close this uh slip lane.

Could you point that out, please?

The slip lane, thank you, just for reference.

I think it's like closed right here and making left to Lamont Avenue and also this.

This was mainly part of the Brooklyn Park Boulevard, the bike lane project.

So to make it safer, we have to do this to make it more like urban kind of intersection, 90 degrees, and then more high speed slip lane.

So from safety and operation point of view, this area is closed and the median is uh has to maintain by us.

But once we close this one, we can have this sidewalk connected and has the urban kind of connection with the sidewalk that can have this area connected with the sidewalk.

So from public works point of view, it works and from VDOT point of view, the star study they are working on exit 78 boulevard exit.

This is area outside or for out of step three of their star study, and they're not proposing any improvement for farm line trail or any other trail or any other improvement in this intersection.

We did the verified with them, and uh we are comfortable that uh right now this can proceed as is and in future if there's any from six years, 10 years when we don't proposed anything and improvement and applicants said that they will work with us for any silver or any improvement.

They can work with us for reverting that part of the right-of-way back to us.

So, public works support this location.

Okay, can you type just a second?

I believe Commissioner McKenzie has a question.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, right now I know there are those sort of temporary five poles.

What is going to be the permanent structure connecting the side?

The permanent structure will be the curb all around, and I think uh part of the condition of this ordinance is vacationally they're gonna bring a site plan together, or this will be developed, and we will have more comments on the site plan that uh the curb, the sidewalk, all these things part of the parking lot, they will be reviewed and approved by public works together with the site plan review.

Thank you.

Any other members of the commission have questions?

Thank you, sir.

Don't go far in case there's additional ones.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

The applicant wants to come forward.

Thank you.

Chair Greenfield and uh members of the commission.

I'm Laurie Markham.

I am a proud parent of three um children who go to the Richmond Water School, and so I'm here in a volunteer capacity.

Um we have been working with the Department of Public Works for a little over a year um on this process to close this um portion a right way and acquire it so that the Rich and Water School would have um better pedestrian safety in the front of its campus.

Um, our ultimate plan would be to provide additional parking in this area.

Um right now, the parking is around the perimeter of the school, and for um, the school has events.

There's lots of parking uh along the street along Brooklyn Park, and then it's very kind of confusing how to get through the front door to cross this median with no sidewalk and through this sort of interstate, like design like an interstate right in front of the school.

So we would um acquire the the right-of-way from the city.

I think the the price that we would pay the city is around $100,000 for this portion of land.

Um and then we would come back through the we'd have to do an institutional master plan and then a site plan that would be reviewed by the um planning department and the planning commission, um, that would show all of those improvements um for the school.

So we were we are happy to be here this evening and grateful for the partnership with the department of public works.

Um and would ask that you recommend approval of the closure to the city council.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

I'm sorry I don't have additional um presentation material.

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

Well, so the closure of the right of way would allow for the transfer of the property to the original.

Right, but we're not we're not but we're not speaking to that.

We're speaking on the closure of the street, correct?

And the transfer to the to the adjacent property owners.

Um so the the street has technically been closed to traffic for two or three years um with temporary measures.

Um so you there you currently can't drive on it.

Well, yes, it is an advocation vote.

Okay.

Do any other members have questions for Ms.

Merkham?

May not have this information at its time.

I'm just going to know it's a little tight back there looking around.

Is the idea once you get to a market spot that you're going to do something different in this back area?

Um, no, currently our the pickup and drop off is back here, which is helpful for getting the cars off of um Brooklyn Parkway.

Um so the the rest the remainder of this would stay that sort of stay the same.

We would just have additional um parking in front of the school and have a more of an entrance on the street, um, more of a presence than we do.

Okay, thank you.

Any additional questions for the applicant or DPW?

Okay.

If we hear none at this time, um we will move to the public hearing.

This time we'll open the public hearing on ordinance number 2026-109.

Um is there any member of the public that would like to speak in favor?

The opposition of the application excuse me.

Yes, Mr.

Can I ask again to clarify what the ordinance is?

Because is it sort of Mr.

Y's question?

Is it just for the closing or is it for the closing and subsequent acquisitions?

I think we're looking for staff to answer that.

Yes.

All right, because there are conditions, I'll be reading again.

Can I, Lori Arcan?

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

So I was gonna ask if we vote um today we're voting on closure, kick starting the process, and if you satisfy each one of the markers in this process, then the transfer happens.

You don't come back to plan and convention for another we would come back for the approval of the institutional master plan amendment, which would um be required in order for us to meet the approval of the site plan condition.

So you will see us again.

Okay.

Is that into your question, Commissioner Pennett?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Because I was also a little confused myself.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, this time we've we will now open the public hearing.

Is there any member in the public that would like to speak in favor of the application?

Is there anyone online?

I am seeing no one online.

Okay, is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition?

If you could please come forward, um to the podium and announce your name, please.

Or uh one at a time, but you're welcome to come on up.

Evening.

Good evening.

My name is Lauren Stevens, and I am a member of a resident of Sherwood Park.

I live on Wake Bridge.

So it's director Vaughn, if you put that map back up, I'd like to show them a few things.

I don't have a problem with closing the slip plane.

The slip lane's been closed since August of 2023 when the bike lanes were installed.

It needs to be something needs to happen with it.

I have a problem with what discussion you just had about what happens in this ordinance.

Because as I read the ordinance, there is a paragraph in the ordinance that says that in consideration of closing that slip lane, the school will pay a hundred thousand dollars, and there is no place that says if they meet any site plan amendments or master plan updates.

It says it's going to happen concurrently.

Am I reading that wrong, Director Bach?

Um, I'll say, well, not specifically outlined in the ordinance.

If the property uh were conveyed and became part of the Waldorf School property, then the zoning of that Waldorf school property would apply to the new section that would write their boundary would be adjusted and they would have to apply by any zoning code stipulations to do any type of improvements or development on that property.

So it's two separate questions.

If you close the slip plan and you pay $100,000, you own that land.

The only question in the future becomes how do you get to use it?

Because it's an institutional piece of property, they have a master plan, they have a uh plan of development, and they'd have to amend both of those, but we all know from previous SUPs that we've dealt with that if we have the conversations about what you want to build before you acquire the property.

We have a lot more give and take going on than if you've already paid a hundred thousand dollars, you own it, and now the neighborhood has concerns, and you meet the zoning requirements, so we have very little voice.

My concern is as a pedestrian.

I walk in front of that school almost every day.

Lori and I have joked over the years about how I think up the trash on Robin Hood.

I met Mr.

Ross within the first two weeks of him coming to the club to introduce myself.

I introduced him to the Sherwood Park Civic Association.

I love the school, I want them to have the suit, but I do not want for them to institute the parking plan that they have showing us, and that would be this is the slip lane existing.

What they want to do is bring that parking lot here and exit onto Robin Hood Road, and they would exit onto Robin Hood Road within 50 feet of the intersection with Brooklyn Park Boulevard.

Where there is no crosswalk for me to walk where there is a medium, so you think about parents that are dropping off their kids come out on Robin Hood and they want to go back to the fan.

What are they going to do?

They're either going to do a U-turn on Robin Hood right there at Brooklyn Parkway, or they're going to turn left on Brooklyn Parkway, we're going to turn left into Sherwood Park and rush down Wentbridge to get back to Brooklyn to Robin Hood.

The city has a high, uh has a speed data network.

Brooklyn Parkway is a high traffic totality, whatever you call it.

It's one of the places where we're supposed to be worrying about speed and we're supposed to be worrying about traffic safety.

The red line goes right in front of the school here.

The orange line is Winbridge, the street I live on, which means that they're traveling five to ten miles an hour over the speed limit already.

You're using it as a cut through.

What happens when you have people coming out where this blue is?

They're gonna come right through my neighborhood and turn around and go back to the diamond district.

It's not safe.

Just on Friday on Endicott Road, right here.

A car exited Brooklyn Parkway, ran the yield sign on Wentbridge.

A car traveling on Wentbridge, swerved to avoid them.

Went through two fences and knocked on a post in somebody's yard where their one year old plays regularly.

If we keep building traffic flow in a high traffic safety network, it worries me too.

I only have three minutes.

Right.

So I just want to start the timer, so I'm not trying to rush you.

I understand.

There's plenty of other people that want to speak.

I just say let's have the plan.

Let's talk about the parking plan before we sell them the property.

Because I don't think it's safe for pedestrians, and I don't think that it's going to be safe for bike people either.

No, I just want to clarify.

You um I think you said it didn't have a problem with the school.

Acquiring the property, you have a problem with how they intend to use it.

That is correct.

Thank you.

And I think Commissioner McKenzie has a question.

Yep, I have two.

That was one.

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

Well, I'm speaking in my personal capacity because I did not know about this until last week.

Having said that, I have served on the Government Affairs and Safety Committee for four years, and I didn't know about this until last week.

So the community outreach has some kind of problem.

We have a meeting office, also.

Sorry, people are eight minutes.

Thank you.

You're welcome to come forward.

Sure.

You could just provide your name, please.

Uh, it's Robert Hood.

I live on uh Brooklyn Parkway.

Um basically across the street from where this proposed uh parking lot will be because the so the purchase of the slip lane will enable the construction of the park lot.

Well it'll enable the destruction of this plot of open space land and create a 34-car parking lot, which as far as I know does not exist currently anywhere in the north side.

Um, beyond those concerns, um Brooklyn Parkway is a MPS designated cultural landscape.

It is it is also part of the only original attack design of Frederick Law Olmsted.

Those unfamiliar with them, he built um Central Park, he built the uh the built more estate grounds and U.S.

Capitol grounds, and he personally designed two neighborhoods, one of them being Sherrod Park.

And Brooklyn's original design has been um adjusted to varying stents with the exception of Brooklyn Parkway.

It has remained intact since 1891, when it was originally designed to conceived, including this little pocket area here.

That was kind of his signature.

It hasn't been pocket parks, these little open space pocket parks.

If this lane was acquired, it would lead to the incorporation and destruction of that park pocket park and also allow for a 30-core uh parking lot in that space.

I also agree with the traffic concerns that the previous speaker brought up and uh that's pretty much my stance on now.

Um so when this was first presented to our neighborhood association, there wasn't a clear outline or plan.

We we could be uh, and I would like to remain open-minded.

Do some development of space occupied currently by Waldorf, but never a parking lot in form of building, and definitely not the incorporation of that currently uh open pocket park space.

And I think uh we met last night in our government affairs uh committee meeting discussing these concerns that um we agreed to the idea of potential change, but never agreed to an actual plan.

So we have all genuine concerns about this project can you please come forward and copy your comments uh my name is john gass and i have a neighbor live on whippy road and last year i was president of the neighborhood association of sherwith park and as headmaster ross earlier mentioned in his preamble we have had a collaborative relationship regarding this piece of property the association and the school and indeed i am the author of a letter in support that came out last year based on a presentation that was made at one of our meetings from through Ross and it was a very preliminary presentation so we were number one very much in favor of closing the slipway think you'll hear any dissent on that but also we understood there would be a development for parking and I suppose that my question tonight and it's more of a question and statement to you is about language and the planning commission you're used to seeing graphics plans such on an architect has been 60 years doing that but we're dealing with verbiage right now and in this ordinance there's mention of 34 parking spaces and I'd like us to strike the 34 parking spaces and revisit this issue.

The reasoning is that I've done some studies on the parcel also I think the 34 parking spaces is a tight squeeze that doesn't address some of the safety concerns that we've heard today some of the aesthetic concerns that we've heard today and some of the the neighborhood concerns just about how circulation happens on that space and how much of the Brooklyn Parkway is encroached by cars.

So for that reason um there is a way that we can adjust the language I would be in favor of striking an actual number of parking spaces in this ordinance though but it's not a albatross around our necks for us to pull time any questions.

Any questions thank you sir any other member of the public president to speak in opposition at this time do we have anybody online that would like to speak in opposition me too one second see a couple hands oh my hands were going down and then hands are going up there we go okay sorry give me just one second i'm so sorry uh tara fitzpatrick you should be able to unmute your microphone now and address the commission hi all okay hi um thank you for um taking public comment on this um i have a few concerns and they kind of vary widely on this um i'm a resident um and homeowner on brooklyn parkway down the street a few blocks over um and i am a a big supporter have been a big supporter of the slip lane being closed over the years um i think that slip lanes are um technically considered car infrastructure um where that really don't support safe pedestrian um or bike access to any roadways, typically um safety around slip lanes is not very good.

So I've been a big supporter of the slip lane being closed.

As part of that, we had always hoped that the long-term goal would be that these slip lanes would be depaved and could be potential for um access to the community in some way.

And I think that there's still, this has only been a few years.

This was considered a lighter, quipper, quicker, cheaper design back in 2020, 2021 when it was installed.

So there's still sort of the opportunity and the conversation around what the future of that may look like if this parcel is created and then allowed to be purchased by the Walder of School, that takes that off of the table.

As somebody who is a uh was awarded a grant and managed a grant through VDOT, I have a lot of concerns about eminent domain in the long term, especially given the adjacent nature to the interstate.

So just because the star study doesn't indicate that there is any project or plan happening now.

A lot of these projects and plans take 10 or more years.

So there could be conversations starting now or at any point soon that would be 10 to 12 years off before we see them funded and built.

And I think we're gonna in this area specifically have a lot of shifts in our transportation because of the adjacent nature of the Diamond District and possibly with code refresh.

So it is a concern to me that we're making a decision that is a bell that we really can't unring, or that would be extremely expensive for the city to take back if they had to via eminent domain.

So, you know, there could be infrastructure that's safer for all modes of transportation users that could use this space uh more productively again, or it could be to pave for other community use.

So that's a concern of mine.

I know that um all of the adjacent parcel owners have to sign on to this, and it does look to me like part of it does come up, even if it's just an inch, up to the 1223 uh Brooklyn Parkway property.

So just wanted to, you know, confirm that that has been explored and that they are on board with that as well.

Um I believe that VCU health system is the owner of that parcel.

Um there are also environmental concerns.

Um I do professionally, and I'm speaking right now as a private citizen, but professionally I do um student active transportation safety advocacy.

And um through my work, I have to dig into a lot of different design guides and best practices and really on a school property.

Um, it's really just never a good idea to use like the property of a school for cars for a few reasons.

It takes away from educational programming opportunities, uh, but you then have to pass the right of way.

Um, and in this case, right now what we see is the one right of way at Lamont and then going back over by Wentbridge.

Would this add in?

We know that it's gonna be 34 parking spaces.

Are they adding an ingress and egress on Robin Hood Road?

Um, is it gonna be just an ingress or ingress or just an egress?

Like how how is this going to work here?

Um the wider the driveway, the less safe that it is for people outside of vehicles, specifically pedestrians and people on bicycles.

Um, and it's frankly not really in line with Richmond 300.

So I noticed that in the application and in the study from the city that they mentioned that it is in line with objective uh eight and uh part of nine.

And um that's not the case that adding parking um does not actually improve pedestrian safety all throughout the Richmond 300 document.

There are repeated references to uh limiting the number of parking lots that are built as part of our future plans and um limiting the number of driveways.

Driveways are generally just not safe.

Yeah, yes.

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

Okay, thanks 30 seconds.

A couple of more things real quick.

Uh, 30 seconds, lighting requirements uh per the city code would be um more light pollution, um, and again, impermeal impermeable surfaces are also a concern of ours as well.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Fanks.

Yes.

Uh thank you again.

Um Richmond Planning Commission for moving this to the regular agenda.

Uh, I just wanted to add one one additional note is that um I think it's it's pertinent, it should be part of this discussion in perhaps an hour to later time.

Uh, the available on street parking that is within a half a mile radius.

And I say that because those are buffered parking protected buffered bike lanes.

They function best.

They are they function best when they are filled with cars, and there are not enough residents to fill those parking spots.

In fact, the only time those parking spots in up and down Brooklyn Parkway are protected with parked cars is during events uh held at the Waldorf.

And that is actually the safest time on this street.

Uh, there's video available.

Uh, I can make it available, it's uh it's available through other channels of what traffic looks like when it drives through there and there are cars parked on the street and what it looks like now when there are no cars parked on the street.

Let me tell you that um all of our our speed issues are improved.

Uh cars actually stopping at the stop sign is improved.

Uh those those things that make an intersection tighter and safer are only helped when we use the spaces that are on the street.

And that is um that's something that uh as a resident who lives on Brooklyn Parkway, uh I actually lost the spaces in front of my in front of my uh uh unit when we did these uh these bike lanes, and I and I'm fine with that.

Uh, but I think that there's uh a real opportunity to make the street safer by actually parking on the street um if if we if we do it as a as a community.

Uh so that's the only comment that I have is that I think that we really need to understand that that parking on the street makes that street safer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

I've seen no one else online.

Hearing none, we're gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion.

And there was a request uh for maybe removing parking.

So if the advocate maybe wants to give the two-minute receivers, that I'm sorry.

Yes, I'm like this.

Um again, Lori Markham, thank you very much.

I won't um take too much time, but I do want to just clarify that the there is a condition written into the ordinance that requires us to get a site plan approval, and there is no condition around the 34 parking spaces.

That is in a in a write-up somewhere, but it is not a condition in the room it's um so there's no need to strike that language.

Um, additionally, we we are I think it there is seems to be like a lot of opposition to this paper, but I think we all have a mutual interest and keeping this piece of road, not a road.

Um, and so this the Waldorf School who's the most directly affected by it offered to pay the city or the property and to do the improvements to make it into a safer space, build the six-foot sidewalks, move the street lights, plant the street trees.

So that those are all things that that we as a neighbor are trying to do to this space.

Um if the city wanted to come and spend a bunch of money and make it a lovely city park, we would certainly be supportive of that, but we just don't see that happening in the immediate future, and the current condition is unacceptable at our front door.

And so that is why we have spent all this time trying to get to where we are today.

So, but I do think that we have a mutual, like we we are all in mutual agreement that it should not be a in the condition it is today.

So we appreciate your time considering.

So it it sounds to me like much of the comments that we've gotten today are not an opposition to the school acquiring the land.

It's out of concern for ingress and egress and uh its effect on traffic safety.

Understanding that you would have to go back and get a site plan approved.

I assume you're comfortable taking the risk that you need to meet with these uh members of the community and uh to the extent possible work to satisfy their concerns and hopes that you'll get this plan approved.

Yes.

Okay.

More than that, I I think that I heard support for closing the slip lane, but concerns over the potential for what will come next.

Um, I would like to uh thank you, Mr.

Banks.

I commute in into and home from work every day on this street, either in my car or on a bike.

And I did not read the paper as carefully as I should have.

I read the closure and the transfer and I stopped because I thought great.

I love it closed.

Um I'm sorry, we will have more conversations after there's a motion, but I'm not hearing opposition to the acquisition or the closure.

I'm hearing serious concern about what comes next and opposition to parking in front of that building, as soon as there are any other questions for Ms.

Markham at this time.

Thank you.

Okay.

We could um get a motion and a second so we can open a discussion.

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

Second.

Okay.

There's a motion and a second.

Uh let's have discussion.

Director Bonk.

Uh can I just quickly provide a point of clarity just for your discussion?

Uh one, the question about property ownership and consent came up.

So it's a weird shape right away.

Um, but it does not be uh parcel right to the east that's um BCU owned.

They they're not um a fronting party.

It's a tangent point that comes to it, but they are not a fronting party.

The Waldorf School is the only party um that fronts this section right away.

So they're the only one in terms of um a party that needs to sign off basically on this process.

I just want to clarify that.

Um, and then just yes, to reaffirm what this paper is and what it isn't.

So it's a closure.

In that closure, there are certain conditions that the applicant has to meet in terms of um, you know, I think one providing either relocating utilities or providing easement for utilities, things that Ms.

Markham talked about, street lights, also paying for the property, it's its value.

If those don't happen, this closure does not happen.

Um, I think the the question is, right?

Like what's going to come of the future of it.

And right now, um, as I mentioned, it would be subject to provisions of the current zoning ordinance or um whatever ordinances in place at the time and right now that would require uh application of a site plan to go through that process.

Site plan basically is a process of ensuring compliance with zoning subdivision, other departments weigh in on it, um, but it does not specifically dictate what type of land use activities would be going on or in what configuration specifically it would be going on.

Just have to right check the boxes for code when we go through and review it.

Um I just put an attorney on the spot.

I don't know in terms of one, if we could further condition the ordinance um to specifically illustrate land use, which is I'll say a little bit different because this is an LCE paper, right?

Of like seating city property, um, if that is even a possibility or not.

Um, but in but in terms of if not, then the applicant would just have to follow the rules that are in place of this point right now.

Mr.

Gibson, do you have a response to that?

I think that's a conversation we should have outside of this meeting.

Ms.

Chairman has a question of Dr.

Vaughn.

Dr.

Von, I'm looking at the staff report and it says the petitioner is the city of Richmond.

Is that then a mistake?

And that the petitioner is actually the world of school.

Um, sort of answer because it's my I wrote the staff report.

Um, the petitioners listed as city of Richmond, um, DPW gave their own R Transmital memo and they received a letter um from Lori Markham in 2025 on behalf of the Waldorf School requesting the closure, um, but the property is the city's so they're the petitioner, but working with closely with our it the request came from the so I'll say it's like the mayor's papers, like by request, the the city is the one saying look I'm petitioning to this right-of-way at bequest of an adjacent property owner.

So this uh I don't think the last right-away or alley vacation that we did, so those individuals will petition essentially DCW and so they're a letter to the director, and GPW is the one that brings forth that request for closure because it is our property.

So, can I ask a follow-up question before this when you brought this um plat up?

You mentioned that, and this is where I'm confused.

The way that the ordinance is written is it doesn't talk about any conveyance of the property to the adjacent landowner, but then it in the beginning, but then it does talk about it further on in the summary paper.

So I'm still confused as to it.

I thought this was just the vacation of this slipway, and you just I think told us that it's the vacation of this of this slipway plus the conveyance of the property to the adjacent property owner.

It is both, and I think that is the condition in the there.

So it's um section the conditions uh G on page four.

Okay, that it talks about the applicant paying the city of the sum for the right-of-way area to be closed.

It authorizes the CEO to the conditions are met.

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

I just want to make sure what we're voting on.

So it's the closing of this city property as a as a right-of-way, the slip, and authorizing the city to um sell the property to the adjacent property owner.

Yes, it does.

And uh again, and Kara from Department of Public Works.

If you're looking to page number three, the article to E, like anything, says clearly that the part of the site plan, code of Dino says so and so for the construction of the improvements on the site and the proposed right to be closer and location.

So this is a precursor of uh G, where say once it's closed, you can also have to pay under 107,792.

So they all these conditions uh have to be met within 18 months.

Site plan, the vacation and payment, and also some of these concerns came up uh for the access from Lobbinhood or that will be part of the site plan.

This it will be designed and design will be reviewed by all of us.

This ordinance does not give them a design.

So you have to come back and satisfy all the requirements.

So 34, whether it's become 20 or 30, that's a background it's listed in the uh ordinance transmitted but nothing has said anything on the ordinance itself only ordinance conditions will apply nothing in the attachment just have additional questions before you step away I just want to make any additional questions thank you sir bunk i just um is here to to reiterate it the way it is conditioned it is actually tied to being both that is if a JSON property owner does not go through with a point of development or the fees to uh acquire the property the right of way is actually not closed so it's all all tied in and I think part of that is so like there's an orcell that just doesn't get closed and then we don't value with it so it's it's tied into those things happening in terms of those conditions have to be met if none of them one of them is not met right away is not closed questions or discussion we have a motion and a second I'll call the question before we please call the question I'm I'm just going to say that I'm going to be a no on this um I'm not feeling overly confident in the the questions and the back and forth on what's covered and what's not covered and what may or may not be permitted in whatever the zoning code may be for this property at the point in time that they get ready to develop something that's not enough um protection for me it's a shame especially with this being um an area that was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted that we don't have a cultural heritage stewardship plan in place to uh potentially offer uh some level of protection or to offer a mechanism to get some level of protection for the landscaping here so I'm gonna be a no other comments or questions.

Is your voting on an ordinance 2026-109 uh miss greenfield is ebert hi is night Mr Pennick all right it's Robertson is roll no Mr.

White Mr McKenzie that motion passes and that item will be forwarded to city council with a recommendation of approval thank you.

Okay we'll move on to ordinance 2026-106 item 15 ordinance 2026-106 is an ordinance authorized a Mosby Court South redevelopment preliminary community unit plan permitting the development of a residential community of up to 500 dwelling units and up to 2500 square feet of ground floor commercial area on approximately 12.84 acres of land located at 1804 P Street in 1930 P Street upon certain terms and conditions and to repo ordinance number 1961-164-144 and all mandatory ordinances there too I will be giving the presentation on this can I printed out the packet for you guys for this because the site plan is quite large or you may not be able to see it after some And I'm giving the presentation on Mosby Court South, the preliminary community unit plan.

This is ordinance 2026-106 to authorize a Mosby Court South redevelopment preliminary community unit plan permitting the development of a residential community of up to 500 dwelling units and up to 25,000 square feet of ground floor commercial area on approximately 12.84 acres of land located at 1804 P Street and 1930 B Street upon certain terms and conditions into repeal ordinance number 1961 164 144 and all the mandatory ordinances there too.

To orient ourselves a little bit, Mosby Court is located in the East End.

Mosby South is technically in the Fairmount neighborhood, and it is in the 7th City Council District, but it is right on the line of the 6th and City, 6th and 7th City Council District.

Just to give a closer look, this the parcels that are highlighted are the Mosby South community.

And then here's just a little aerial view.

If you're familiar with Martin Luther King Junior Middle School, it is located directly across the street.

It's right off of the Lee Street Viaduct.

So if you're going towards the East End from downtown.

The community is also located within a 15-minute walk distance to Jefferson Park and then also the newly renovated Luxfield.

And then the GRTC Bus Route 5 services the bus stop at Mosby and Pea Street.

We're talking about Richmond 300.6.

This is directly from the text.

Furthermore, Mosby is designated as a priority neighborhood, and the primary next step for Mosby Court is the Mosby South.

And Mosby South is the southernmost development of Mosby Court.

So all of the areas highlighted in purple that lilac color are RHA properties that are dedicated to Mosby Court.

This preliminary community unit claim is specifically for the Mosby South community.

So Mosby Court was opened in 1962 by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority to provide additional public housing following the displacement of over 1,300 residents as a result of the mid-century 17th Street Redevelopment Project.

Mosby Court has a total of 438 dwelling units.

The community is located within its own micro node indicated by the red star.

I know there's a lot of colors up there.

Secondary uses include large multifamily buildings, retail office, personal service, institutional, cultural, and government uses.

Chapter 30 of the city's code specifies that the owner of any tract of land situated in any district, any zoning districts, and which comprises not less than 10 contiguous acres of area except for intervening intervening public streets and alleys, may submit to the planning commission a plan for the use and development of such land in a manner that does not conform in all respects with the regulations and restrictions prescribed for the district in which such track is located.

Mosby South was previously developed under another community unit plan, and the current proposal would repeal the previous ordinance for that such plan.

We are where the red star is at the preliminary stage of a community unit plan.

Preliminary community unit plans are general in nature and they must be approved by both the city planning commission and city council.

Following approval of the preliminary CUP, they will have to come back for a final community unit plan.

This can be done by code at the same time as the preliminary or separate.

They are doing it separately, and this can be the entire site or in phases.

The applicant is proposing to do the final plan in phases.

The final plan is more detailed, and it is only submitted to the city planning commission for approval.

Following approval of a final plan for one or more phases, the applicant can then submit actual construction level documents with specific details.

And so we are general entire sites currently.

The content of a preliminary community unit plan must be the following five things.

This is more of just a reference slide.

We don't have to, it's a lot of words, but it must show the maximum number of dwelling units and maximum amount of commercial and residential floor area proposed, the general character and location of all building structures and open space, the general location of all means of ingress and egress and areas for the parking and circulation of vehicles, specific features of the plan, which are intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent development, and lastly, a statement as to the manner in which such plan meets the criteria set forth in section 30-456.

So for the first one, talking about maximum number of dwelling and maximum floor area.

They are proposing as the ordinance reads, these are maximums.

So the maximum amount of dwelling units that the ordinance would allow is 500 units.

That does not mean they can do they have to do 500, they can do 480, but up to 500, they are allowed.

They can do up to 600,000 square feet of residential floor area and then up to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor area.

These are maximum.

So this may not be the exact number that you see.

For number two and number three, we're talking about general location of building structures and open spaces, and then general location of parking and circulation of vehicles.

And it's in your packet if you can't see it distinctly, but this is the site plan, the overall site plan for all of Mosby, all of Mosby's south.

And you can see that this depicts the general location of all of the buildings, the street grid and alleyways.

So it does two and three, kind of giving you a general layout for the site.

Four and five, they must specify features of the plan which are intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent development.

And they also have to have a statement as to the manner in which such plan meets the criteria set forth in section 30-456.4.

These are things that you would find in the applicant's report that they submitted, and the staff report reviews that and specifies why staff feels that they have proven that this is compatible with adjacent development, as well as that they're meeting that criteria.

And the applicant is here to give a more thorough presentation about everything, but I'll go over kind of just high-level overview staff findings, talking about compatibility with the existing neighborhood.

There are four really key things: site layout, building typology, density, and then collaboration.

So for site layout, um, the arrow is kind of small when you can see they are reinstating 19th Street.

So they are reconnecting the street grid.

Um 19th Street is currently not a through road like that.

So they are redoing the street grid.

And if you remember the neighborhood mixed use category, specifies that this is one of the most important things with new development is reinstating or incorporating a new street grid, extended street.

Additionally, they have those features that we talked about on major mixed use streets.

Mosby is the major mixed-use street.

They've got buildings up to the street there.

Um they're showing street trees, sidewalk improvements, all of the vehicles are moving behind the buildings.

No fronts of the buildings are opening to parking areas.

There is on-street parking, but it's not opening up onto a parking lot.

So all of the parking is in the rear, buildings are to the street.

And so it's pretty much exactly what you would see in a neighborhood mixed-use land use.

Additionally, talking about site layout and being compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, you can see the tallest building there, up to five stories on that corner that is closest to MLK that is on Mosby Street.

So the major mixed use street, they're keeping most of the density along Mosby Street.

And then you can kind of see that normal transit where they're stepping down to two-level townhomes closest to the existing residential area.

Building typology, Richmond, especially the East End is known.

We have a ton of different types of housing in the East End.

And so they're proposing a few different types of buildings.

You've got two-story townhomes, you have stacked flats, and then you also have the walk-up buildings here.

And then the most dense, what you saw on the corner is going to be that five-story mixed-use building.

This building typology is the only one on site that is proposed mixed use, and that is where the ground floor commercial will be located.

So at that corner of Mosby and U.

When we talk about density, currently, this is a jump in density.

This is a great jump in density.

Currently, Mosby has about eight units per acre.

That is in line with our residential land use category.

Just for reference, when we talk eight to 10 units per acre, this is located on Mosby Street, neighborhood mixed use designation.

So 39 units per acre is very similar to what you see throughout Churchill, sometimes even more in the surrounding neighborhood.

And in addition to the density when talking about how quickly people are going to be moving in, they're going to be phasing development.

So you're not going to see this overnight increase in density.

You're not going to see a 300% increase of people on the site in a year.

It's going to be this is a multi-year project.

And so the density will be incremental.

Lastly, talking about collaboration, this is not an extensive list at all, but just like some of the names that come to my head, everyone is kind of looking at this.

There are so many stakeholders.

RHA and their the applicant that they had run the preliminary community unit plan.

They have been out in the neighborhood, they've been with the city, they're talking to public works, public utilities, all of PDR.

I called out Section 106 because they're doing their historic stuff.

They're working with DHR.

I know that they're working with the Mosby Tenants Council as well.

So there are a lot of hands happening for Mosby and making sure that it's redeveloped in appropriate fashion.

This is a lot of words.

And if you go back to number five, what they have to find is that they have to find that they are meeting Section 30-456.4.

They go through this in their applicant's report, and I think that the applicant will come up and give a much more thorough thing for this, but we find that the proposed preliminary community unit plan will adequately safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of adjoining and surrounding property.

Two will not unreasonably impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.

Three, will not unreasonably increase congestion in streets.

Four, will not unreasonably increase public danger from fire or otherwise unreasonably affect public safety.

And five, will not diminish or impair the established values of property in the surrounding areas.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary community unit plan request.

However, there is one requested amendment.

I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation that they would be offering a maximum of 600,000 square feet of residential floor area.

That is a requirement by code.

They have to list that throughout the process.

They have talked to us with that.

Lots of things got modified, changed, and that number happened to get dropped.

So that number does not appear in the text ordinance.

None of the plans need to change.

But staff is recommending approval with the amendment to insert the line that a maximum of 600,000 square feet of residential floor area shall be provided.

It would be in the residential density section, and it would look if you looked over the ordinance exactly like the maximum commercial floor area language.

So and I know that the applicant is here with lots of people on their team to give a presentation and answer all kinds of questions, but I'm more than happy to answer questions as well.

Thank you.

So Ms.

Commissioner Reich.

The um the staff report uh lists uh 50 percent area median income limits, 80% area income limits.

Uh, but there's nothing that I can see in the paper or the staff report that talks about what income limits would be applicable here.

Um, is it is it all people below a certain income threshold?

Will there be a mix?

How is that so the applicant is proposing?

Um, if you look in the applicants report, I think they say more specifically.

Um, and they can speak to this, but the way that it reads that they submitted to us was that it's going to be 30%, 50%, 80%, and up to mark hearing.

Um, so it's a range from all income levels, um, and I believe they can talk more about specific like housing related vouchers and how they place tenants.

Um they they do they they do list in their applicant's report kind of the this the scale.

I think Commissioner White had a similar question.

Is there any other um commission members that have questions for Secretary Trump?

Okay, hearing none.

If the applicant would like to come forward or the applicants representative, good evening.

My name is Stephen Hut Smith.

I'm the CEO of the Richmond Redevelopment Public Housing Authority, and I want to say good evening, formal good evening to you, Madam Vice Chair and other members of the commission.

Um, I bring greetings to all of you from the Richmond Redevelopment and Public Housing Authority on behalf of our board of commissioners and the chair board, Eddie Jackson.

We look even forward to an implementation and redevelopment of Mosby Court.

I want to thank Mayor Vula and his team and President Newbell for their guidance and wise counsel as we have been moving through this process.

Finally, I'd like to thank our development partner, um, Richmond Group and all of its related partners as well.

As it was stated, Mosby Court uh Motor South is a citizen total of 106 units, currently housed an approximately 97 households.

The Mosby Court preliminary CUP application utilizes we believe the best practices and site design as prescribed by the City of Richmond Planning Development and Review Department.

We also believe that the application is uh is in alignment with the mayor's map, which is the mayor's action plan, and is consistent with city council's um Richmond 300 uh plan.

So many have asked why do we develop why this redevelopment is important?

Richmond, as you all know, has some of the oldest uh housing stock uh along the entire east from Seaborne from Miami all the way up to New Hampshire.

The three Mosby Court sites, sites mostly court south, mostly court central, and most of the court north.

They were built between 1962 and 1970.

The buildings that therefore are well over 50 years old.

Many of the building systems cannot be repaired and are in fact obsolete.

And many of the replacement parts that we find when things break down like borders, we can't even find them.

In fact, once one broke down, we had to go not to South Carolina, but below South Carolina, we got the last two parts that were on the shelf.

But as we know, the last 20 years has consistently reduced the amount of capital funding, which can be used by public housing authorities to undertake maintenance and needed renovation of public housing sites.

Resident and community engagement.

My final piece.

At the heart of everything we do is for the residents.

RHA is honoring its commitment to resident and community engagement, along with our developer PRG.

We've been holding community engagement meetings since August 29th of 2023.

Meetings that have been focused on uh engagement.

And in fact, we held a recent meeting uh in which we were working we work diligently on what's called the Mosby uh court south tenant bill of rights.

And what is that?

We know that ensures that residents have the right to return.

I want to give a special thanks to uh Miss uh Patricia Wilford, the president Mosby Tenant Council and other uh Mosby Council uh members, also, Ms.

Marilyn Oz, the president of the Richmond tenant organization, the TR uh RTO, and all of the RTO members for the ongoing engagement and work and support of their fellow residents.

In fact, we had a vote just recently on the uh Mosby Court Tenant Bill of Rights, and it was unanimously voted.

So I really want to thank them for their engagement and diligence.

RHA and our developer uh TRG will continue to hold these engagement meetings in the community throughout the redevelopment process.

For these reasons, I've stated and for our residents who deserve housing that is not obsolete.

I respectfully ask for your approval of the Mosbury Court preliminary, a community unit plan application.

I'm happy to take any granular questions and I might call up uh our partners, the Timmins group to join me in some of those answers.

Thank you, Commissioner White.

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

Yes, I have Miss Uh Miss uh Cheryl Hampton.

I haven't forgotten you're my senior vice president.

You will come up, please.

Uh we have we have played uh paid uh specific attention uh to the income limits.

We recognize that at most of our public housing sites, public housing res home between 13 and uh 12 and 13,000.

So we are very specific because in this particular development, come up, please.

We are guaranteeing a one-for-one replacement of development.

Can you answer the questions, please about income?

Thank you, uh, Madam Vice Chair and to all commissioners.

Uh, to your question, Commissioner White.

We know you, but if you could just I'm sorry, Cheryl Hampton, Senior Vice President for Real Estate and Community Development with RRHA.

There are a range of incomes because we're following our HUD principle on having mixed income communities.

They go from zero to 30%.

How do we make that happen?

That's deeply affordable.

We have vouchers for that to take place, 30 to 60, late, we have low income housing tax credits, which are at that 50 and 60, but can go up to 80.

So from zero to 80 percent is our range of incomes.

Okay, you do have a uh percentage breakdown of the income limits.

Yes, I can share that with you, and and I'm gonna do it by phases, sir.

If I may, of course.

Uh phase one, let me get all my information here.

Phase one has approximately a hundred and seventy two of that 170, they are sorry, 170 total units.

43 of those units are deeply affordable.

They have vouchers attached to them.

Phase two is 177 units, and it has 44 deeply affordable.

Phase three is 131 total units with 33 units being deeply affordable.

Our remaining units out of each of those are from 50 to 80 percent.

So that's how that works.

Thank you.

Yes, um, if I heard correctly, there's a hundred and six current units, uh, mostly south, and 97 are occupied about rent.

Now in phase one, you got about 43 or at the 30 percent income level.

How many of that 97 will be moving in phase one?

So of those 43, it depends number one, it depends on their income, but 43 is deeply affordable.

So our relocation will also be phased.

We are doing one-for-one replacement, but it is over three phases.

It has to take place on each of the phases, and that's why we have deeply affordable, and then anywhere from 50 to 80 percent.

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

If we have 43, you could probably take that, but it also depends on their eligibility for the vouchers.

There are three ways they can say all will they will temporarily relocate, they choose to return, should they choose to return, and then we phase that out.

Okay, however, they have three relocation options.

They can transfer to another public housing site permanently.

So choose, they can get one of these um vouchers and come back temporarily, and they're different types of vouchers, and then they can um also find permanent housing off site, should they choose?

We use a preference form and work with each of the residents and their household to determine their needs and their wishes, okay.

I'm sorry, one more, I apologize.

Yes, sir.

Um, so um I incorrect in my uh at least presumption that the existing Mosby Court South is a project-based Section A and not individual vouchers.

No, currently it is all right now public housing.

So there is no voucher needed there.

We would be switching what we call platforms to a voucher platform.

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

We make application, but we make application to HUD for approval of the project and the vouchers, okay, and they base that on our occupancy.

Okay, right.

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

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, is uh is there anybody else you?

I see you have a team here.

Were they here just for support in case we had additional questions?

They were here because they're smaller than I, and if you ask more granular questions, I was gonna call them up.

Okay, I want to thank you all for allowing me to present.

Thank you, sir.

No other questions or comments from the members of the commission at the time.

We can open a public hearing.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak?

Um, in support of ordinance 2026-106.

We have anybody online?

I am seeing no one online.

Do you have anybody in the audience that would like to speak in opposition?

Is there anybody online would like to speak in opposition?

I am seeing no one online.

Okay.

Well, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Um, as we know, this is just a preliminary um plan in front of us.

We will have an opportunity to see it again.

But we can certainly, there's any other questions, comments.

It's granular question.

I'm sorry.

I noticed in the ordinance that it exterior building materials includes vinyl siding.

Um also obviously includes um brick, brick veneer, stone, cement tissue sliding and wood.

Um I just want to go on the record saying that I personally don't think vinyl siding at this level of density should be permitted.

Um I also have a question on the building height in the ordinance.

Um I love the site plan.

I love the fact that the density is closest as you're going in towards the city, and then it steps down towards existing residential housing.

But the building height for the CUP says no building shall exceed the lesser of five stories, so 60 feet in height.

And so it doesn't speak at all to the stepping down and having the uh more townhouse like structures as you get closer to uh the existing residential housing.

Um, and I'm just wondering if in theory, then all the buildings could actually be that we're some height if I'm reading it correctly.

Um so for the first question about the vinyl siding, um, we do have the standard language that it has to be a certain thickness.

I will throw it out there as this is not a secretary, this is the planner is presenting.

Um, if you wanted to add an additional condition that that vinyl that vinyl sighting shall not even be permitted, um staff did suggest approval with an amendment, which means that the text will need to be amended as well if you guys would like it to be.

Um, and so if you would like to propose removing the vinyl siding, that is um that is something and then that you could consider and then as well, um, as far as building height goes, they will not be able to do those high rises all over the site.

The preliminary plan has to show the general location.

Included in that site plan are the the height of that building.

So three or four stories.

Um they are locked, those plans become attached to the ordinance.

And so that site plan that you're seeing that identifies that building on the corner as an elevator building and those buildings to the east as townhomes.

They have to be that way.

Um there is a condition in the ordinance that specifies that the mix of, and I don't know that I can find it, the mix of buildings may change, but the mix of that corner building is not permitted to change.

Um, and that would be here we go.

Um the section two maximum residential density.

It says, notwithstanding anything in the preliminary plan to the contrary, each multifamily dwelling on the property shall be permitted to be either a walk-up or elevator building, and that's for the multi-like for the multifamily.

I think that should answer the question.

Essentially, the site plan is attached to it.

It says generally as shown on the site plan, the height of the buildings will remain where it is on the site plan.

And one last question.

Sorry, um, minimum open space um in the ordinance item number six, doesn't give any minimum um square footage or anything.

I noticed the site plan shows a community center building, um, which looks like would be the only sort of open space uh available on the plan, giving the layout of the other buildings.

Just curious um what the intention of that community center would be since we just built a state of the art luxe field community center for the for the greater neighborhood.

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

So I would say they should speak to that.

Maybe we'll just draw it.

So you could just announce your name.

Stephen that's when we get CEO.

There's a reader over the housing authority.

I believe the building you're referring to is what's called the innovation center.

Please can you go up and talk about that?

I guess I'm Eric Maring from October Young Architects Engineers.

Um, we actually have kind of two spaces planned right now that the the community space if you want to pull up the site again.

The community building is more for resident amenities, leasing office.

We currently have a fitness center lounge space library all the stuff that really doesn't exist on the site now it's all more for residents that would be this space here that would go with that you know resident open space as well playground I think we talked about a whole dog park in there um that would be more resident focused green space I think we had other plans where we had larger green spaces in them and we kind of went more towards density then creating more big open green space in the in the larger building too um the commercial space we have planned kind of an innovation center um more of a public facing space um for the neighborhood of the city at large thank you to answer your question yeah we've just got yeah are there any additional questions by the applicant this here made my opposition to but I'll leave it up to the rest of the commissioners if you want to oppose it or not if you guys can so can they speak to vinyl as to how much there's several different materials that are being used.

Yeah I think that was just a blanket list of materials that usually the city accepts I mean we don't we're not planning to use vinyl now i mean we we obviously hasn't haven't done our full construction drawings construction budget uh we'll have to go through Virginia housing and virginia housing is pretty specific requirements for brick and hardy anyways most of the projects that we've done with with TRG have been a combination of brick and hardy right so that means in some and substance we're not wedded to sure personal questions for the applicant thank you we have yeah sorry we have closed the public hearing but we've had someone come forth um at this time so unless there's any objection from the commission I'd like to give that member an opportunity to speak and should I but they were having technical difficulties and I've been so having back and forth with them.

Yeah so I think it's again I think it's appropriate but if that's okay with the commission go ahead okay Mr Ollinger you should be able to unmute now and address the commission.

Can you hear us?

Oh I think it's star six unmute.

Mr.

can you try star six to unmute I will also tell you that the letter that you have in your packet on the agenda is from uh Mr.

Do you have any other suggestions for um being able to offer comments um so he was struggling with the computer so that's why he's on the um and the only thing I'm seeing a star six should work and we should have we gave did we get to make a remote oh no I think it's the phone number it's gonna be the photo okay yeah are you if not able to unmute yourself from your phone or your computer I'll go ahead and do the make a presenter thing just sometimes it does okay.

Okay Mr Olinger uh you've been given uh presenter privileges so you should be able to send okay what's that circle in here so that you can move this on the letter pretty pretty detailed with detail just more confirmed.

Sir Oranger, I understand we can't you're having some technical difficulties and we've done everything on our end to offer the option for the ability for you to sign on.

So the commission is acknowledging your detailed letter.

Everyone is aware that you submitted it.

So with that, I'm going to close the public hearing.

Okay.

I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the uh commission.

We could uh get a motion um properly before us, and that way we can continue any additional discussion.

Let's interject one thing.

Please um just want to emphasize that.

Uh I think Secretary Trump presented the preliminary plan is like the bigger deal when it comes to a community unit plan.

So with that, um staff has recommended a text amendment condition, but if there are particular things that you would like to do as part of your motion or part of the discussion, um doing it now is important because this process goes to both us and city council.

Um and then final plan is really just kind of like implementing everything.

So this is your chance if you want to say something, do it now.

Um, because when the final plan comes through, it's basically just implementing uh preliminary or master plan, but not from the so I think the other conditions that were discussed.

Um if those could just be clear in the motion, but that were clearer than our recommendation.

Thank you for that, Clarendon Bigson.

So there are additional items that you want to see addressed um through amendments.

I think we should maybe address those now so that they can be captured appropriately within the motion.

Do you have any additional other than um the clarifying language for the maximum uh square footage for residential floor?

Um, I mean I would recommend whoever makes a motion to strike final signing.

I um would encourage um a greener inner parking field while I apply the applicants use of the buffers in the green space along the public right-of-ways.

I fear what may actually become massive.

That's good for me.

I think it's fantastic, they got a mix of income.

We've had um large segments of our city kind of walled off from everybody else for too long, and I think it'll be great to have different differences amongst neighbors.

I'll just comment I've you know, I had the benefit of a presentation last week on this too, and I do see that now you're looking at pretty much 30 30 30, you know, very low income.

Um adequate to replace more than what units are currently there at that income level.

Um having scale of income levels is a great thing to bill into a community because if families at 30% area medium income, um, which we strive to get them to 60% area medium income, they could still move within the same community and still be at home.

Um, you know, there's a wonderfully beautiful part um school right across the street that provides great opportunity for families to not only have a green community, but a school within that community as well.

Um when we get the final plans, there are really challenges as it relates to traffic on that quarter in front of the school.

Um, which I would not put the weight totally on the development for that, but I think the city is a traffic engine and really need to look at uh some of the things that we've done there that I'm not sure are the best for uh a high pedestrian residential area and if there's a lot of traffic that moves through that area.

Um but I think also things that we should really pay close attention to from traffic perspective.

Um green space.

Uh one of the questions that I did ask was you know how much green space are we building in to make sure that we are not that we're planting enough trees and we're building off shade and you know that lots of kids have comfortable places to play, um, which would be something we would like to pay pay a lot of attention, which is included in this um preliminary uh plan this before us.

Um, we haven't drilled down to the details until you get to the final, but the provision for all of that is spelled out and based on the presentation that I got last week and the proposed recommendations uh of amendments.

I would motion for us to approve this with the amendments, yes.

Can we have a second?

Okay.

Any further discussion?

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

I don't know enough about lie tech funding in VHDA.

Um, I personally okay with vinyl.

My first house was vinyl, and it's much easier, cheaper to maintain the minority, but I understand uh quality things are um, but uh I just don't want to put us in a position to where the HCA could come back and say that they want this option and then be taking it out, um, as long as staff feels comfortable that we can create a conflict with um PHDA down the road, they have a minimum standard, not this out.

Okay, yeah, I agree with Mr.

White.

This relates to, you know, affordability is affordability, it's a tough thing.

Very tough.

Uh we couldn't do this 30% housing if we didn't have housing gouges.

And your question is relates to whether or not there are adequate housing vouchers there, and we are struggling really hard to build affordable housing at 60 percent area median income, less less 30, and um, we have to be mindful of that.

But I'm motioning with the amendments as imposing it.

We have a motion and a second.

There's no further discussion.

We'll call the question.

And this is to include the amendments as well to remove the vinyl sighting as a permitted material, as well as including the maximum residential floor area in the text ordinance, and encouraging a greener inner parking field.

Uh Ms.

Greenfield.

Hi.

Ms.

Ebert, hi.

Snight, aye.

Mr.

Pennick, aye, Miss Robertson, aye.

Ms.

Rowe, uh Mr.

White, and Mr.

McKinsey.

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

Okay, item 16.

Presentation on Richmond, certain years.

No, it is, it is like the each phase.

Yeah, it's first phase with a five years.

I think that's no no.

Is this meeting?

Not yet, but for public.

Okay.

This item is going to be item 16.

This is a presentation um on integrating Richmond Connects into the Richmond 300 master plan.

And we are joined by Deputy Director Pitts to provide a presentation.

Is the hand up, Mr.

Oldner's?

Yes, I'll put it.

So I think you have trouble getting in the goal.

Um, that's why I was like, I was just closed in my back.

Oh, we've got Kevin or um someone at stock note, case you need to get back to the um I couldn't get into the parking garage earlier.

And so that's why I was behind a few.

My badge wasn't working to open up the gate.

Normally it does, but I'm not aware of any council action to both of you.

So, um I will um yeah, well, council woman.

Is there anything?

Have there been conversations?

Um, I'll call the mayor.

Welcome.

It's uh deputy director with the planning department.

I'm here to do a brief presentation and give you a heads up on a um amendment to the master plan that's gonna be to you uh regarding Richmond Connects.

Um, as you remember back in December, I was discussing some of them amendments and a report coming, and one of those uh was the Richmond Connect strategic plan that has already gone through city council.

Richmond Connects, as you know, is the citywise multimodal plan.

It's built upon the work of Richmond 300 and RVA Green.

Also they started with an equity plan, the path uh path to equity policy guide that helped inform the work that they did for the Richmond Connect strategic plan, which is indoctrinated multimodal plan that had a lot of transportation planning projects in addition to strategies.

They had an action plan, which was a list of priority projects and also um a scenario planning documents where they're working on more longer range scenario planning up to 2050.

All of this helps inform capital improvement, their maintenance program, and also how we get some regional funding.

Additionally, which's really important for having in the master plan, how we evaluate and look at development of projects and how um so having it in the master plan helps with all of that.

This was an infographic provided to me by uh DPW that I've been struggling with how to present on.

So hopefully that all makes sense to you all.

Um so again, so why do we need this transportation plan?

What is it supposed to do?

Identify those projects, provide their strategies need to improve the transportation system.

The code requires us to have a transportation plan that includes that infrastructure within the plan.

Enrichment connects is that plan.

And it's important for us to how we incorporate that into the master plan.

Um if you remember, the project began in 2022, and it was done with a lot of community engagement.

It was an engagement-focused planning effort, over 20,000 Richmonders were involved in that process.

So a lot of the city was involved in coming up with these strategies and the plan and uh uh what the projects would be.

The plan.

So they just Richmonders looked at what the need would be, said what uh were the most important needs, and rank the projects.

Um and it was also really data-driven as well as talking with the community to come up with what the projects are.

So 2013 was the first for the original.

Not the original, but of the, I guess it was the first Richmond Connect's transportation plan.

Um 2020 was Richmond 300 was adopted, and one of the recommendations out of Richmond 300 was we need to amend Richmond Connects.

Um Richmond Connects was adopted by city council in 2024 as the city's multimodal plan.

At that time, we did not adopt it.

We did not amend the master plan, it was just adopted by city council as the multimodal plan for the city.

And so now we're working here just to get it incorporated into the master plan appropriately as we're taking this look back at what important things we need to do as we're looking at the master plan five years later.

So how are how are we amending the master plan for Richmond Connects?

We're looking at what maps in the existing master plan need to be mended.

In the master plan we have a greenways and on street bike facilities map so it talks about greenways which are eight foot a minimum eight foot wide pave pathways throughout the city.

So there's some lines because Richmond Connects took inspiration from Richmond 300 a lot of the lines were already there's some additional lines that we're adding that were based on rich that are within Richmond Connects that we're putting on this in the master plan.

And additionally enhanced transit so there's one enhanced transit enhanced transit our transit lines that we're envisioning in the future more frequent.

So ideally every 10 minutes minimally every 15 minutes hoping in a longer hours of operation so there's an additional line the 14 that goes up Hermitage that was included in Richmond Connects that wasn't in the master plan.

So as amending the master plan was including several more greenways and bike planes and the one additional enhanced transit line these are the two maps I have later on kind of pops out at you which specific lines are going to be adopted.

In addition to updating these maps um we're going to put the whole plan in the appendix these are a large document 400 page documents that go into a lot of details about exactly what these projects are in addition to having the bikeways and the enhanced transit there's sidewalk improvements that are recommended there's the lighter quicker cheaper which I know you've all seen that you've approved the location character extent projects those are all within those documents as well their strategies that are a lot of them are very similar to Richmond 300 but some additional transportation related strategies incorporating that as an appendix as a part of the master plan as well reference so as we're looking at those um under quicker cheaper projects um it's a part of the master plan document is like come back with the official resolution to amend the master plan in June and then it'll go through council to be adopted within the master plan.

Many of you were probably on planning commission when you saw this last so right before it was adopted by council it came before planning commission so be familiar with a lot of the projects um that were a process as well just really quickly I will um send this to you in detail because it's going to be impossible to see but these are um these are what's in Richmond 300 in terms of bikeways and green um greenways and so um sorry move it back these are the new lines that were a part of Richmond Connects so you'll see some additional greenways and bike lanes that Richmond Connects had that weren't in the master plan useful in when we're looking at projects rather than staff having to look at two documents everything's within the master plan document evaluating um looking at a project off of Cherokee um the the greenways there and if it needs to be incorporated as a part of the development project it's going to show up in the master plan that when we make it spend um so I can provide you with a link to a easier for you to see the difference between the two documents and what we're adding based on the addition of Richmond Connects addition um really the only changes is a little refinement of how the North South BRT is going through downtown and then um this is where the 14 was added as an enhanced transit was aiming for to get more um frequency on the 14 so it falls under the back category okay that's right that's a quick overview of the plan for incorporating Richmond Connects into the master plan if you want any more details on Richmond Connects we can get Darona when we're um next time to provide a lot of the details of the 400 page is anyone questions for Ms.

Pitts would the commission like Darona to be here at the next meeting for more detail or are we feeling comfortable with this not everyone is on the first time this came through but okay well pretty good okay so this is just a presentation we don't normally um open a public hearing but I know if chairman fool were here that would be his that would be his choice so I want to honor that um is there any member of the public it's okay you don't have to do what a previous administration did you've been trying to gotta keep Mr.

Pool's rules um is there any member of the public that would like to offer comments is there anyone online okay yeah um there is no additional comments we will move to the last item on the agenda council action update and upcoming items so city council last met on may 11th um four new special use permits were introduced and referred to the June 2nd CPC meeting additionally you guys will be seeing the rear monument case come back that was continued for um administrative reasons and then tuxedo boulevard is still hanging out at city council um and you also there were four um special use permits that were adopted at city council and then the 1705 commonwealth lavender hill special use permit was denied uh by council and those are the the updates and upcoming items.

There are any questions additional comments okay hearing none then we are adjourned