Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the regular scheduled meeting of the City of Richmond Planning Commission, Madam Secretary.

Would you give the electronic notice?

This meeting is being held in person in the fifth court conference room of City Hall.

All staff and members of the planning commission are attending the meeting in person.

Citizens may choose to participate in the meeting virtually.

All written comments that we receive 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 if representing a group.

Thank you very much.

For purposes of establishing a quorum, please call the roll.

Mr.

Poole.

Here.

Miss Greenfield?

Here.

Ms.

Ebert.

Ms.

Knight.

We'll come back.

Mr.

Pennett?

Here.

Ms.

Robertson.

Miss Roe?

Here.

Mr.

White?

Here.

And Mr.

McKenzie.

Okay, we have a quorum.

For presentation.

Uh Ms.

Knight has an illness that she's carrying for.

We have a motion to allow Ms.

Knight to participate virtually.

So we will meet any discussion.

Please call the question.

We're voting on allowing Ms.

Knight to attend virtually.

Please call the role.

Mr.

Poole.

Aye.

Miss Greenfield.

Aye.

Mr.

Pinnock.

Aye.

Miss Roe.

Aye.

Mr.

White.

Aye.

Mr.

Mr.

McKinsey.

Aye.

That motion passes.

Uh Ms.

Knight.

Commissioner Knight, welcome to the meeting.

Do you need me to give reason?

I think we did it for you.

Okay, thank you.

I took the liberty of explaining.

I appreciate it.

We hope things improve promptly.

The first uh first item is the adoption of the planning commission meeting schedule for 2026.

Do you have those dates?

Yes, and I can pull them up.

Uh you just see.

So it's the same as I'm pulling this up.

I can tell you it is that it's the same we're meeting at six o'clock on Tuesdays.

Um, and it's they're all Tuesdays with the exception of one date, just like today.

Um we will be meeting on November 2nd is what this should say, November 2nd, um, which is a Monday, as opposed to the Tuesday, November 3rd, which is election day.

And I will make that correction.

Any of the members of the commission have any questions or comments about those dates?

And we have a motion to approve the tentative 2026 planning commission meeting dates.

Okay, in discussion, please make sure if you would once we've approved this to distribute a copy of it to all the members as soon as you possibly can.

Absolutely.

Um, and I can also let you know they're all on the legislative website um proactively already.

So you can also sign them there.

All right, we vote you put out meeting in rights for them, don't you?

I will.

I'll send the teams invite later, um, because I just do one link for the whole year.

Um, but I'm gonna hold off on sending that for a little bit to avoid confusion.

Thank you.

All right.

We're gonna vote on approval of the tentative 2026 meeting dates.

Please call the roll.

Mr.

Poole.

Aye.

Ms.

Greenfield.

Aye.

Ms.

Knight.

Aye.

Mr.

Pinnock?

Aye.

Ms.

Rowe.

Aye.

Mr.

White?

Aye.

And Mr.

McKinsey.

Uh, this will be our meeting dates next year.

Mr.

Nancy, do you have a director's report?

No.

Uh, welcome to the phone.

Good.

Thank you.

Do we have requests for continuances of deletion?

Yes.

Um, first item that is we have a request for continuance for ordinance 2025-014.

It's ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 3618 Hawthorne Avenue for the purpose of a four-unit multifamily dwelling and six single-family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

Uh, this goes in tandem with the next item, which is the subdivision uh 2025 of 03, which is subdivision subdivision exception for that same property.

Um, panic paper to this case, it's a request to continue to our next, or sorry, 30-day continuance to the December 2nd meeting.

Is there a motion to continue item number two, 3618 Hawthorne Avenue to the December 2nd, 2025 meetings?

Second second, any discussion?

Oh, question, we'll see.

I know this has probably been continued a few times.

Do we know why?

There is a significant amount of ongoing negotiation and conversation between the developer and the neighborhood.

Could I state that correctly, Mr.

Becky?

It is robust conversation.

Spirited.

Very much so.

All right.

Call the question voting on continuing item number two, 3618 Hawthorne Avenue, December 2nd, 2025.

Let's call the rule.

Mr.

Poole.

Aye.

Ms.

Greenfield, aye.

Ms.

Knight.

Aye.

Mr.

Pinnock.

Aye.

Miss Rowe, aye.

Mr.

White?

Aye.

Mr.

McKenzie.

Aye.

The item will be continued just December 2nd.

And we have a similar motion for the accompanying paper for the subdivision exception of 3618 Hawthorne.

So the new discussion, call the question.

We're voting on continuing item number three, the subdivision exception for 3618.

Please call the rule.

Mr.

Poole.

Aye.

Miss Greenfield.

Aye.

Miss Knight.

Aye.

Ms.

Rowe.

Hi.

Mr.

White.

Aye.

Mr.

McKinsey.

Aye.

And that will be on the December second agenda.

And then the next item is a request to continue ordinance 2025-215.

It's a ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 1705 Commonwealth Avenue for the purpose of a space for outdoor events upon certain terms and conditions.

Indefinitely at this point, I haven't heard back from her.

All right, we're going to continue to the December 2nd.

We're not going to do a definite.

I'm a little speechless in the sense that if I heard our staff person who obviously is in direct contact with the applicant.

They want an indefinite.

I can provide a little context.

Um that was the request.

Um the suggestion that we provided to her was to pick a date in the future where she thinks she might have things settled for withdrawal, um, but we've not heard back a decision on that.

Well, whether or not this motion passes, please inform the applicant that is a high likelihood that there will be no further continuances.

So is there a motion to continue item number four?

1705 Commonwealth Avenue to December 2nd, 2025.

So move.

Discussion.

Call the question.

We're voting on continuing item 4705 Commonwealth Avenue to December 2nd, 2025.

Please call the roll.

Mr.

Poole.

Hi.

Miss Greenfield.

Ms.

Knight.

Aye.

Miss Rowe.

Hi.

Mr.

White?

All right.

All right.

That motion passes.

We will see it on the December 2nd agenda.

Please present the consent agenda.

All right.

First item on the consent agenda is ordinance 2025-227, an ordinance authorized special use of the property known as 3100 North Arthur Ashton Bar for the purpose of an electric vehicle charging station or of electric vehicle charging stations upon certain terms and conditions.

Item number six, which is ordinance twenty twenty-five-229, an ordinance to authorized the special use of property known as 2111 Fairfax Avenue for the purpose of up to one single family detached dwelling and one two family detached dwelling upon certain terms and conditions.

Item number seven, ordinance 2025-230, an ordinance to authorized the special use of the property known as 2106 Red Street for the purpose of up to two up to four two family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

Item number eight, ordinance 2025-235, and ordinance to authorized the special use of the properties known as 3609 Contral Road, 3616 Control Road, 4611 Walmsley Boulevard, and 4705 Walmsley Boulevard for the purpose of up to two multifamily dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

Item number nine, ordinance 2025-241, an ordinance to authorized the special use of the properties known as 3021 East Franklin Street, 3023 East Franklin Street, and 3025 East Franklin Street for the purpose of no more than two single family attached dwellings and one multifamily dwelling upon certain terms and conditions.

Item number 10 UDC 2025-32, final location character and extent review of the proposed renovation of reconciliation plaza located at 1400 Main Street.

This has previously been forwarded to the UDC and use UDC has provided a report back.

So adoption of the consent agenda would be approving this location character and extent item.

And then similarly, item number 11 UDC 2025-33, the concept location, character, and extent review of phase one of the proposed SHACO Project North Memorial located at 1554 East Broad Street.

Again, this one has also been previously forwarded to UDC.

UDC has reported back to Planning Commission and adoption of the consent agenda with the approval of that LCE review with the recommendations.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from members of the commission?

I'll be abstaining from items uh eight, ten, and one.

Okay.

Um if there are no questions from the commission, I'll open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak with respect to any of the items on the consent agenda.

Please come forward.

Thank you, Tom.

If you come up to the podium right there, and when you get there and get settled, please give us your next one.

Your time.

Good night.

My name is Linda Woods.

Tell us which item.

Number 12.

That's the regular agenda.

That's oh, I'm sorry.

Well, this has been a good exercise.

No, a physical therapist that I have walked a lot.

Good.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent agenda?

Anyone online?

Nobody online.

Well, it's a public hearing, bring it back to the commission, and ask if there's a motion on the consent agenda.

Move to approve.

Yep.

Discussion.

And I'll call the question.

We're voting on approval of all the items on the consent agenda, including the two UDC cases with the conditions approved by the UDC.

Which called Rolling.

Mr.

Poole.

Aye.

Ms.

Greenfield.

Ms.

Knight.

Aye.

Mr.

Pinnock.

Ms.

Rowe.

Aye.

Mr.

White.

Aye.

And Mr.

McKenzie.

Aye.

Great.

Those items.

Um, the ordinances will be forwarded to city council meeting on November 10th for review.

And the UDC items are a doctor.

Very much.

Please follow the first item on the regular agenda.

All right, the first item is ordinance 2025-228, an ordinance to authorized the special use of the properties known as 1103 Carlisle Avenue and 1105 Carlisle Avenue for the purpose of up to four single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

And I Cheyenna Trump will be giving an overview of this request.

Welcome, Ms.

Trump.

Hey, Shana Trump Planer Associate.

Good evening, Commissioner Chair.

I'll be presenting on ordinance 2025-228.

This is an ordinance for 1103 and 1105 Carlisle Avenue.

This case is to authorize the special use of the properties known as 1103 Carlisle Avenue and 1105 Carlisle Avenue for the purpose up to four single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

These properties are located in the R5 single family residential district.

It's in the 7th City Council District in the Fulton neighborhood, and together the properties are about 0.32 acres.

And you can see outlined in red, those are both the properties.

You can see kind of a Google map to get a little bit of an idea.

That restaurant right there is Blue Atlas, so the Bolton neighborhood.

Oh, times up.

This is on Parallel Avenue between Union Street and Tomkin Street.

And right now it's not developed, and the corner house has a lot of growth kind of, so you can't only see, but it's to the left of that corner house.

So it's one lot over.

The R5 district requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet.

You can see on the site plan that anywhere, all of them are less than 4,000 feet, anywhere between uh 3600 and 3700, 3790 square feet, and then the required lot width in the R5 district is a minimum of 50 feet, and the four proposed lots have around 30 to 31 feet in width.

These are the elevations.

This is for two of the dwellings.

There's two dwellings that building permits have already been applied for for 1103 and 1105 that they were going to be building by right.

They would like to add two more dwellings to that.

And so these are what those two additional dwellings will look like.

The city's Richmond 300 master plan designates this as residential.

Single family detached dwellings are considered a primary use.

The surrounding areas and mixed the residential and limited commercial uses with a little bit of open space.

Staff notified the greater greater Fulton Civic Association, area residents and property owners.

We have not received any letters to date.

Here's that map showing 150 feet around the property.

All of the properties highlighted in blue would have received notice.

There's two maps because it's 1103 and 1105.

1103 kind of captures the other side of Union Street, and then 1105 captures the other side of Tompkins Street.

The special use permit would impose development conditions, including the special use of the property shall be as up to four single-family detached dwellings substantially as shown on the plans.

No less than four off-street parking spaces shall be required for the special use.

The height of the special use shall not exceed two stories, substantially shown on the plans.

All building materials, elevations, and site improvement shall be substantially shown on the plans on the chemical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way.

Staff finds that the subject property is designated as residential and a future land use map in the master plan.

Single family dwellings are identified as a primary use for this designation.

Staff also finds that the proposal includes the installation of sidewalk and the preservation of an existing street tree.

Objectives in the city, city's master plan, addressed the need to improve the pedestrian experience in Richmond neighborhoods by improving this pedestrian infrastructure.

Objective 8.1 calls for the need to require developers to construct sidewalks and street trees as part of their developments, including single-family infill developments in neighborhoods.

And this is a project, an example of a great way to do an in-built project.

Staff concludes that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting of special use permits.

Specifically, staff signs the proposed use would not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community involved and would not create congestion in the streets.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit request.

You may be asking why is this on regular if we have received no public comment?

The developer would like to propose an admitment to the ordinance.

The original site plan shows four parking spaces, one for each dwelling.

The proposed change would be to add two more parking spaces, so an additional parking space for two of the dwellings.

The proposed ordinance language would change from no less than four off-street parking spaces to no less than six off-street parking spaces.

Staff has no objections to this proposed amendment.

And you can see here the original site plan that shows what's labeled at CE or construction entrance is the off-street parking.

There's four of them.

They have altered the site plan to include two additional spaces for the lots for the special use permit.

And that's their proposed change.

And the applicant, the developer, is also here to speak to the requested amendment as well.

Questions from Mr.

Trump.

Very much.

Yep.

The applicant would like to make a presentation.

Mr.

Rogazi, how are you?

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of Planning Commission.

My name is Alessandro Gatti.

I work for Baker Development Resources.

Representing the owner of 1103 and 1105 Carlisle.

Thank you, staff for the help through process.

Excellent presentation.

As noted, the property is located mid-block on the southern line of Carlisle between Union and Tompkin Street.

It consists of two undeveloped properties, 1103 and 1105 Carlisle.

Each is uh 61.6 feet in width, 7,395 square feet of lot area.

So combined, that's 123 feet of width and 14,790 square feet of total lot area.

The goal here is to permit a high quality infill consistent with the Richmond 300 plan.

That's both appropriately dense and efficient, also consistent with the uses permitted by right by the underlying zone.

Specifically, SUB would authorize a division of the property into four lots and authorized the construction of four single-family detached dwellings.

As Cheyenna noted, two homes could be constructed by right, and in fact, building permits have already been pooled.

Um, technically a request to allow two additional dwellings on the property.

The new lots would range from 30 to 31.6 feet in width and approximately 3600 to 3800 square feet in area.

The R5 zoning requires 50 feet of lot width and 6,000 square feet of lot area, which the new lots would not meet.

Therefore, the SUP is required.

All other zoning standards would be met.

Uh, when complete, each home would be two stories in height, approximately 2,000 square feet of finished floor area, include four bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms.

The floor plans have been designed to have modern kind of spacious kitchens, open design to meet the needs of today's home buyer and families.

The design utilizes the design features found in nearby homes, such as the front-facing gable, horizontal lab siding, and a full width front porch.

Uh, the SUP would authorized quality building materials for the new homes and tissue siding.

And the home designed to be compatible with the historic development pattern found throughout the neighborhood.

The proposal is consistent with the Richmond 300 plan guidance of residential and the property's proximity to the Fulton neighborhood node.

Single-family dwellings are the contemplated primary use and that future land use designation and an increase in homeownership opportunities specifically contemplated by the Richmond 300 plan and its discussion of the Fulton neighborhood node.

Finally, in terms of neighborhood outreach, we didn't mail out letters to all properties with the property owners within 150 feet back in April.

We also reached out to the Greater Fulton Civic Association at that time.

More recently, based on some discussion amongst neighbors and the council person, we did meet with the association and some neighbors uh on October 22nd regarding the proposal.

For that, we actually hand delivered flyers to the properties to make sure folks had missed our previous uh outreach, or you know, if their property landlord, if they're renting, hadn't informed them.

We wanted to make sure that they they received that notice.

Uh so we had that meeting.

Based on that meeting.

Uh we didn't hear concerns about the density and the parking.

So we have revised the site plan to show the six off-street parking spaces, and those spaces you'll notice that there was a change, and they were 90 degrees.

Now they're at a 45 degree angle.

Uh, that's in order to meet the city's maneuverability standards considering the narrow width of the alley.

So it's a one-way ten-foot wide alley.

So we put the parking spaces uh or parallel or at a 45 degree angle so that we still meet the city standards.

Um, thank you for your time, humbly asked that you recommend approval.

Um, happy to answer any questions, and I'd like to reserve some time as well.

But two minutes.

Questions for Mr.

Regotze?

I have one.

Showed us what the two new ones are gonna look like.

Are they gonna be very similar to the ones that you've already got permits for?

So we're showing uh the houses, not houses.

Yes, yes.

You're gonna they're they're slightly they have uh they both have the gable, they just have the slightly different um materials in that front kind of gable area.

Any other questions for Mr.

Rugatch?

Very much.

Open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public that wishes to speak in favor, one of the time.

Yeah, but they know the way up.

Okay, welcome to have you back.

Did you catch that we're speaking in favor of the project at this point?

We're we're starting off with those with the oh they stay right there.

Stay right there.

I just wanted to make sure.

And you're very interested.

Thank you for uh any members of the public who wish to speak in favor of this case.

Any of those who would like to speak in opposition, not sure I can talk as fast as either of those speakers, but I will try to be timely.

Um we're very patient, we'll listen.

I hope so.

First, I'd like to uh go back to the very beginning.

This is not introducing.

Oh, I pardon me.

My name is Linda Woods, same person who's here at the wrong time first again.

Um I have been living in Fulton since 1995 when my wife and I moved there and uh on Carlisle Avenue at the other end, um, but have been active in the neighborhood association, the goats at Gullies Creek, and um the resource center.

So uh we have been very, very involved.

First, I want to talk about that this uh is in accordance with the master plan.

First of all, there's the master plan's not been adopted.

If I would say that it's a work in progress, it's not been approved.

Master plan has been adopted.

The zoning has been zoning, okay.

So the issue about whether or not this is consistent, it's not consistent with the zoning.

Let's go back to the housing.

I agree that we need housing in everywhere in the city, and there are vacant lots in the Fulton area, it could accommodate additional housing, but I do suggest that it should be affordable housing, and that what's happening in Fulton is we had affordable housing in 1995, we had a wonderful community in 1995.

Our housing, my house went up from 51 9.

No, that's not the down payment, to almost $300,000.

Now, our master plan was we were gonna live there forever until we died, and we were gonna be able to afford it because we could pay off our house and we could live there, and I would say that 50 or 60 percent of our neighbors were in that situation already.

They were older.

Most of them had their houses paid for.

New families moved in, but they moved out because the schools, but the old timers, the people who've been there as long as us that I've known for 30, 35 years, are now not being able to stay there because even though it's paid off, the taxes have gone up so high that we now have in quota house payment again.

And we're both on Social Security.

Around the corner for me on National, they built a house that has no lot.

And they want 525,000 for it.

All the other houses were around 200,000.

Well, they're not now.

And the people who can afford to live in our community can no longer live in our community.

Now I want to go back to the parking because the idea that you give people within 150.

I'll let you speak for you wrap it up though.

We've got a three-minute limit, but there's an issue about the parking.

We had a major meeting about that, and Carl Otto, who has lived there since the Civil War, um, talked about the odds, talked about the very fact that there was no way in the world you could get four cars backing into that alley.

Now I appreciate that they're now trying to do at six and move them at a diagonal.

But that's crazy.

The second issue is that there's union goes this way, Carlisle goes this way, and the next group of people who spoke at the second meeting talked about the insidiousness of all of the massive parking that's coming off of the community on the hill and the businesses that attract evening uh parties and all of that.

I mean, it's one of the atlas, so they have a lot of business.

There's a lot of opposition to this, those four houses will not fit within the neighborhood.

Everything on the other side of the street are single family, single level houses, and what's happening is when these buildings get bigger and bigger and bigger, it doesn't look like our community anymore, and it doesn't adapt to the housing we need for the people who want to and live in that community.

They're overpricing what I don't know if there's a handful in all of Fulton that have four bedrooms in it.

I you're gonna have to I just I ask you to reconsider these things and not to approve it at this point and let us think about what the needs are of our community, and I really appreciate you listening to me over and over.

Thank you.

I appreciate you letting sit there.

Any other yes, Ben?

Would you come forward?

Please give us your names.

Where you live?

Welcome.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Holly Setzer.

I also live in the Fulton Montres community.

Don't want to waste anyone's time.

I'm more or less I'm echoing everything Linda just said.

Um, where I don't specifically live on Carl, I can tell Carlisle, I can tell you driving down that street.

I drive at Tacoma, it's not a very large truck, but it is very hard to get down that street.

There's parking on both sides.

When I go to visit Linda, I have to park several houses away because there's nothing, and that's the middle of the day, that's not even with the blue atlas traffic.

Um I have no problem with the two houses being built on the lot.

I think the 50 square foot parameters and zoning is more than reasonable.

I don't think we should be doing special use permits for 30 foot square lots and jamming houses in in an area where it's already pretty congested.

Those are just my opinions on the area.

Thank you very much.

Questions from members of the commission.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in opposition?

Anyone online?

Nobody online, close the public hearing.

You're back to the commission and ask if there's a motion.

Excuse me.

Mr.

Regazzi, you have two minutes for rebuttal.

Sorry.

I'd like to follow up with a questionable in the front line.

Absolutely.

Uh question first or rebuttal first, or whichever you prefer as question.

How do you think it's gonna go?

Okay.

Knocks me a little bit about consistency with the character of the neighborhood as you presented it, given that we had the um the existing block space of Carlisle.

It has two on the southern line, which is where this uh northern line, excuse me, southern line, which is where this house is gonna go.

There are three homes on their block.

Two of those three homes are two stories and larger and finished square footage than the proposed homes.

Those were both built in 1920.

Across the street, there are homes built in the post war period, which are smaller ranchers.

So that you know, so you have a 1920.

You have homes that were built in a certain way.

In 1950, they were built in a certain way.

2020, they'll be built, but they all remain compatible.

So, thank you.

So you're saying that this is consistent with a historic character that might not be evident.

Yes, and that's also this is true for the lot sizes, um, so the on this on this uh on this specific block, all of the lots actually meet that 50 uh 50 feet uh minimum for R5, but go just outside the block, go in the larger neighborhood south of Williamsburg Road, you have 33 foot wide lots, 30 foot wide lots, 50 for that's the 14 to 1500 block of Carlisle, so it's so just a couple of lot of blocks over uh 1500, 1600 block of national, uh 1300 block of Nelworth Drive, 1200, 1300 block of Godden Street, and there are even uh lots on Apperson that are 25 feet right.

So it those are certainly kind of throughout the neighborhood, but it it is consistent with that overall uh development character.

Thank you.

Um I'll just add uh I know parking was brought up.

Uh one thing that was was said is that there is so one Carlisle is a one-way street, so there is parking on both sides of the street.

Uh the houses, both um facing Carlisle on either side have rear alleys.

So there is an opportunity for off-street parking for homeowners or neighbors who who desire we are adding it here as a benefit of the special use permit.

And part of the it was a good point.

We did have that discussion um with Carl Otto, and he kind of pointed out how the the original parking that we were shown didn't wouldn't meet the maneuverability standards because it's 90 degrees off of a 10 foot wide alley.

So you have to uh put it at a 45 degree angle in order to allow that turning radius.

Um so that's what that's the change that we have proposed.

Um there was uh maybe it's a discussion about density just generally.

Um the master plan was um approved 2019 2020.

Um a lot of the discussion in the master plan is about increasing density, um, in especially in near nodes like the fourth neighborhood node in this particular case as well.

We saw that you know the decision to add two more houses, single family detached, which are the uses that are kind of the less dense uh residential use.

So we're still keeping with the uses permitted under the R5.

You could consider that across Union Street is a large multifamily complex over 260 units, right?

So this is increasing density, creating more homeownership opportunities, but in a way that we felt certainly, and and and we could argue with the plan is consistent with the character.

Yes, by offering the six parking spaces, you're actually seating what's required, correct?

Because you know, not parking minimums in residential areas.

Yes, there are no parking minimums.

Uh correct.

So if you had two houses, you could do two houses with no parking.

Because we're doing that, we're requesting for four houses.

You know, part of SUPs are negotiation, their conversation, their opportunities to uh for the neighborhood for uh for the city to gain benefits that they wouldn't be able to get by right zoning approval.

So that includes uh as Cheyenna mentioned the sidewalk protecting the street tree, but it also goes uh for the parking as well.

Any other questions from Mr.

Ragazzi?

Thank you very much.

Now I'll close publicly there.

I ask if there's a motion from item number 12, 1103 and 1105 Carlisle Avenue.

Special use.

We need to approve.

Thank you.

Discussion.

I would just say that it's um it is like I'm familiar with this area, and we've got as uh Mr.

Gazzi said we've got houses from multiple different areas um constructed in that area, and to I think to try to define the character of that neighborhood as one or the other or modern or 1920s or nineteen fifties.

It allows for a diversity of architectural options and uh these look perfectly nice to me.

Any further discussion?

There's a discussion, and we'll vote on item number 12, 1103 and 1105 Carlisle Avenue.

Please call the road.

Mr.

Poole.

Miss Greenfield, Ms.

Knight.

Aye.

Mr.

Pinnock?

Aye.

Ms.

Roe.

Hi.

Mr.

White?

Aye.

Mr.

McKenzie?

No.

And one more try.

Ms.

Knight.

Oh, I did not realize we had our CAO on.

All right.

Mr.

Donald.

We probably need to do this.

Voting in favor and also walking downstairs.

Yeah.

Then we're gonna allow you to participate.

Yeah, I'll be there in two minutes.

So I was saying voting in favor, uh, voting yes, but also will be present in about two minutes.

Could we have a motion to allow Mr.

Donald to move?

Oh we got a motion, second.

All in favor, we're all aye.

Aye.

Mr.

Donald can now vote his position.

Okay.

Put that in the vote.

We had her phone.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Donald.

All right.

And I'm voting yes.

Voting yes.

We're registering you as a yes vote.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you.

I'll try it one more time.

Ms.

Knight.

I don't know if we're making.

Very good.

All right.

Would you present the next item on regular agenda?

Yes.

All right.

The next item is ordinance 2025-231, an ordinance authorized special use of the property notice 3219 Tuxedo Boulevard for the purpose of up to five single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

While uh Madison Wilson's going to give you a presentation while she's getting set up, I'm going to pass this out.

This was I forgot to add this to the public comment online, but it was passed out at the last meeting, but we did not actually end up folding.

But it's a petition on this uh request.

And Alexis will help me if I pass it out to you guys.

Very much.

Thank you.

I want to make sure everybody got it.

We mean walk.

Thank you.

Okay.

Welcome.

All right.

When you're ready.

Sure, you don't need to proceed.

Everyone, uh my name is Madison Wilson.

Uh, this is for ordinance number 2025-231.

Uh 3219 Tuxedo Boulevard.

Uh, here's a site map of the property.

It's in the uh Creighton neighborhood and is a 12,500 square foot loss.

And the current use is a single family detached dwelling.

Uh the applicant seeks to divide uh the property into five lots to build five single family detached dwellings.

The lots do not currently meet the zoning requirements of the R5 district concerning lot area, width, and yards.

Therefore, a special use permit is required.

Here are the existing conditions.

This is to the left of that house.

This is to the right, this is the lot.

And then across the street.

Parcels are generally between 1500 and 5,000 square feet.

Primary uses are single family houses, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, small multifamily buildings, and open space.

And secondary uses are large multifamily buildings, retail office, personal service, institutional cultural, and government.

The ordinance conditions are the special use of the property shall be as up to five single family detached dwellings, substantially as shown on the plans.

All mechanical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way.

The height of the special use shall not exceed two stories.

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

And prior to the issuance of a building permit for the special use of the establishment of up to five residential lots of delegation of the two split right away, substantially shown on plans shall be accomplished by obtaining the necessary approvals from the city and recording the appropriate plats and deeds among the land records of the clerk of the circuit court of the city of Richmond.

Um surrounding area is adjacent properties are also in the R5 district and to the north of the property is R53 multifamily residential.

The immediate area is generally single family.

The density of the proposed use is five units upon 0.287 acres or 17.4 acres per acre.

Sorry, 17.4 units per acre.

And staff notified area residents and property owners.

There's no civic association and staff has received one letter of opposition and also the petition.

Staff has reviewed the application and finds the proposal is generally consistent with the designation, which supports single family developments in higher density.

Staff finds that this proposal will add housing opportunities in the Creighton neighborhood, which is designated as priority as a priority neighborhood in the Richmond 300 master plan.

That concludes that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting of special use permits.

Specifically, staff finds that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community involved and would not create congestion in the streets in the area vault.

Therefore, staff recommends approval for the special use permit.

And here are the elevations and floor plans.

Do you want me to do this one?

Yes.

Questions from member of the commission for Ms.

Wilson.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Wilson.

And the applicant is also here.

Present wish to make a presentation.

Good evening, members of the planning commission.

My name is Mike Boone, so I'm the applicant for the special use permit here.

Our goal with this proposal is provide high quality housing that fits within the revisions of the Richmond 300 plan.

The homes are designed to reflect Richmond's historic urban pattern with narrow 25 foot lots, 19 foot wide homes with porches throughout, thoughtful setbacks, modern construction that complements the existing streetscape.

They are single family, and we'll appeal to first-time homebuyer, small families, and neighbors who want to invest in their own community.

Our uh plan meets all zoning, building and design requirements.

Proposal has already received the conditional approval from land use, zoning, building review, and right-of-way management, includes sidewalk improvements, curb and gutter upgrades, and a rear alley easement for parking and trash collection as the neighborhood continues to get developed.

Um so we're dedicating 16 foot right away off the back of the lot for that.

Stormwater management is an improvement uh and uh an important concern and will be fully addressed in the engineering phase.

No permits will be issued until stormwater systems and all infrastructure plans are reviewed and approved under today's strict codes.

So including our our main goal here is to really provide affordable housing.

These houses will not be uh any higher than 400,000.

Um, and so that's a that's a strong need we see in the Crane neighborhood.

Thank you.

Um can you talk about your efforts to um engage the community in your application?

Yeah, so uh we didn't do much.

This is our first time doing it to be honest with you.

Um I didn't know there was a whatever you guys just got.

So, have you got a copy of this?

No, Mr.

Donald.

So would you be interested in engaging the community?

Absolutely.

We may not uh agree even after engaging them, but not doing so at all, you know, is likely not fair.

Well, I can't speak for the commission, but I think from my seat, I think not having community engagement is something that we will frown upon.

And if you're willing to do so, then I would you know ask for that to occur before the committee considers and again I'm speaking on my behalf, not the rest of the team here, but I would ask that community input be garnered even if they don't necessarily agree.

And if you believe that there's time to do that, I would offer that up uh as a next step.

Yeah, I'd be happy to do that.

Yeah, I mean I know there's a few new constructions on the street already.

Uh a lot of can't give an exact number, but I know several of the lots are are similar in size, but we'd be happy to talk to the community about it.

Well Mr.

Bernard, just as an example, the previous case, the developer had engaged with the neighborhood on two specific occasions, and they got good input from the neighborhood.

So I take that you would be willing to uh request that the commission continue this matter so that you could have an opportunity to meet with the neighbors, yeah.

Uh 30 or 60 days.

Uh 30 days.

Can you get your meetings together in that amount of time?

Because this is uh it's in the 7th district.

Uh you've got a very active council person in there.

It's sometimes difficult to get the council person involved that quickly, and I would urge you to do that if so.

What's three meetings from now?

December, I think.

Uh December 16th.

You consider a continuance to December 16th.

Yes, sir.

That'd be great.

Do I hear a motion to continue this matter?

Oh, well, just I'm sorry, Mr.

Do we want to make sure that the public didn't want to have that we want to hold a public hearing or we're gonna go ahead and continue it?

I'm just last time we didn't want a public hearing and we continue.

I got a little upset.

So for those that are here to speak, should we do it?

Would you pause for a moment?

Yeah.

If you would, Mr.

Boone.

I'll we'll bring you back up.

Sure.

Yeah, absolutely.

I ask to the members of the public who would like to speak on this matter.

What we're doing is we're continuing it so that the developer will have a chance to come to your neighborhood, speak directly with you, and engage the city council person.

Do you still prefer to have your comments heard now?

Or would you want to wait till we come back to actually vote on this?

We're online.

I don't know if there's a significant number of people on this petition.

Do we have them online?

Somebody has raised their hand here.

So Michael, um, you would like to speak.

Michael, if you have the ability to unmute yourself, what I'm asking is would a continuance until the December 17th meeting to allow you to have time to meet with the developer and your council person if you choose so that you can let your opposition be known directly to the developer.

Or would you prefer to be heard tonight?

Sorry, yeah, can you all hear me?

Hear you fine.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, that's fine the way.

Yeah, I just um everyone else in the neighborhood is kind of senior and not really with technology.

So I'm just trying to represent everybody.

But yeah, I think that's okay to wait for after the outreach, because there was none so far.

So and just be assured that you and all of the other persons who are interested in this case will be given a a similar opportunity to speak at that meeting.

But we want you to have the opportunity to meet with the developer.

You've got a developer that's got a thoughtful plan, but unfortunately he didn't realize he had a responsibility to get with the neighbors and talk about this.

So if we if you have no objection, then I'm gonna move forward on the continuance of this matter.

Sure, yeah, that's fine.

I my only real comment was that it's just uh very it's a lot a lot of properties on one on one lot.

So I think that's why everyone's worried.

So I don't know if that'll factor into the developers' outreach, but yeah, I'm fine to wait to the next uh meeting.

Just just so you'll understand, that issue is one of the six criteria of special use permit.

So it clearly does have an impact on the case, and it's one that you might want to talk to the developer about.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I look forward to hearing from them.

Very good.

So we have a motion to continue this matter until December 16th.

I have a question for staff.

Is it the staff question now or after the motion?

Well, I think we should ask now.

Okay.

Um, this is the second meeting in the last couple of months or second applicant in the last couple of months.

I guess I'll say that it has stated that they didn't know they were supposed to engage with the neighborhood.

And while there may not be a requirement to do so, I am wondering what kind of guidance staff gives to applicants on special use permits in terms of engaging.

Maybe that'd be most important.

I always think of this.

We always inform them it's very uh important to the process, and so sometimes it's surprising to us when applicant coming in and say they haven't done no way, it's one of the first that is.

And if that got lost in translation somehow, I can take ownership of that, but I usually in my first if there's no civic association attached to the property, I tell them that you should still be a flyer or something, or or talk to the next reviewer at the very least, or something.

But and it is honestly my assumption that you're telling them to do so, but thank you for me.

I mean, this this started this this.

It started about a year ago, so I got you know, yeah, which is true.

Do we do anything like workshops for you know interested developers and parties that might share you know what that means?

I could imagine well being in the seat as somebody who developed and been a new person entering in and not understanding what happens.

Someone tells you to communicate, you know, with a community or engagement.

I don't know if these.

I mean, I'd I know now, but you know, I wasn't in the early stages, not sure on how to do that or exactly what best practices are.

Do we provide workshops, open houses and things of that nature that might be open?

I think we did something similar last year late to winter where you find the development committee to come around and talk to us, and we've created a lot of uh an open door policy and PDM where we have a open to everybody to let them have.

I don't have like a regular schedule of like no many open houses.

I mean, just what's it?

Yeah, okay.

You have to know okay.

But I should know we're gonna have more.

Second.

What was our who made the motion?

So, thank you.

All right, 35.

So, uh Mr.

Poole.

Hi.

Miss Greenfield.

Hi, Mr.

Donald.

Ms.

Knight.

Hi.

Mr.

Pinnock.

Hi.

Mr.

White and Mr.

McKenzie.

That motion passes.

We'll see this on the December 16th agenda.

There it is.

Well, the next item on the 14th.

Right.

Um, the last item of the night is UDC 2025-17, the final location character, an extent review of a proposed bridge replacement over the Manchester Canal located along Bull Street between the Mayo Bridge and Brander Street.

And Ray Rose is here to give you an overview of this readwest.

Good evening.

Uh, how are you?

Not too tired with that today.

I'll pull up the presentation, and this is Urban Design Committee Secretary Ray Brooks.

So this is the application for a replacement of a bridge on Hole Street between Whole Street uh in Manchester and the Mayo Bridge.

Uh, it is a fairly small bridge, it goes over the Manchester Canal.

Uh, as you are driving over it, you may not even notice that it is there.

Um, but here's a representation of its location, and you can see the mayor bridge there to the north whole street.

I call it downtown Manchester Hall Street uh to the south, and then we have some uh apartment developments to the east and west.

Here's a street view, so you can see what is out there now, current conditions, and this is looking back toward Manchester.

And uh we have provided a condition that their uh application and the project will coordinate with ongoing whole street improvements.

Uh, these are examples of some of the items that'll be placed out there, and they will be using the Manchester lights as the whole street improvement project moves forward.

A little hard to see up here, uh, but this is the existing bridge.

It is 65 feet wide and it has a 50 foot drive aisle.

It is two lanes in each direction for car traffic, uh, so that puts it at about 12 foot wide lanes, and the proposal is to reduce the size of the lanes uh to I believe about 11 feet.

Um, and we get much larger sidewalks as well than what is out there now on the bridge.

And this in this picture, the top is the bridge section.

The bottom is the section leading up to the bridge.

There's a site plan.

The scient color is the layout of the bridge.

The project does include improvements on either side to the sidewalk as well as to the street.

Here's a 3D rendering.

See the panels too there, the design there.

They are providing a neighborhood name, Manchester.

That is something that's in the master plan that's encouraged.

The seals that you see on either side are optional.

The city is going to have to decide if they want to put a seal on there and then maybe on the seal change in the future.

But they're going to work on that.

Two lanes in either direction.

The bridge, once they construct it, is proposed to be two lanes in either direction.

But in the future, once Mayo Bridge is completed, the proposal is to match the Mayo Bridge configuration with one traffic lane in either direction, a buffer, and a bike lane and your sidewalk.

Project highlights include bridge replacement with a good design aesthetic.

This is a very, very old bridge, definitely needs replacing.

This is uh includes neighborhood branding, which is promoted by the master plan and it invests in a historically undervested area, especially for infrastructure, and it continues to work on pedestrian connections in a very important location.

Thus, staff recommends that the urban design committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve with conditions.

Staff recommended that any street lights replaced in conjunction with this project be replaced with the Manchester style street lights.

The project continue to appropriately address the transition from Mayo Bridge to the Whole Street Commercial Corridor.

Excuse me, that any new or replaced sidewalk provided a connection to an existing parking lot that's adjacent to the bridge that's not currently connected by a sidewalk.

That any chain link fence replaced by this project's funding be painted matte black where appropriate, and that the applicant continue to coordinate any street, including in this project.

Sorry, there's a box covering up where I'm reading.

Just work with city staff on that, and they recommended that the project match future travel lane configuration of the mayor bridge and the whole street corridor once those conditions are completed.

That concludes my presentation.

Questions from Mr.

Rokes.

I have one.

You have recommendations.

There's five, or there's a number two, and then there's the new recommendations, which also has a number two.

How do they correlate with one another?

For the purpose of this presentation on this, I couldn't put them all in one page, but for this page are the ones that staff recommended to the UDC, and then this page was the ones that UDC added to what staff proposed.

So it appears to me that your new number two more clearly states that you're gonna match up the lanes with the new Mayo bridge.

Is that really the intent?

Yes.

That seems to be the largest part of the controversy about this project.

Yes.

And so has it been decided that the Mayo bridge will have two lanes?

I'll have to leave it up to the applicant to discuss that.

They know more about that project than I do.

Any other questions for Mr.

Rokes?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I assume the applicant is uh DPW who is not represented here this evening.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Would you like to come forward?

Give us your name and welcome, sir.

Good evening.

Mr.

Chairman and members of Banner Commission, uh Lamont Benjamin, Capital Project Administrator.

Tonight we come for you to present the uh final plans for the mail bridge, but not rail bridge, I'm sorry.

Host three bridge under Manchester Canal or Manchester Canal.

Um, you had a question about Mail Bridge and whether it's going to be two lane or not.

Yeah, because it the recommendations that were coming from UDC were addressing what I thought was the major concern from the neighborhood, and that is that the confusion that may arise from having four lanes go into two lanes.

Is that the what's the plan for Mayo in the future, as best as you know?

So, as best as I know, right now, the plan for Mayo is two lanes, one lanes direction.

And you'll see from our presentation, which um the presenters here virtually, he'll be presenting their plans to you as far as the concept of the typical that the state has for Mayo Bridge.

Um, right now, plans that we have for whole street bridge over the canal will be matching the existing four lanes, but once the construction of mail bridge is in place, it'll be restricted to match the existing mail bridge.

And do you have someone that wants to make a further presentation?

Yes, we do have someone online who will be making a presentation.

Any questions for Mr.

Benjamin?

Thank you very much.

Hello, can you all hear me?

Sir, please proceed.

Please introduce yourself.

Thank you.

My name is Jeremy Schlossel.

I am the project manager for Whitman Record and Associates for the bridge replacement on the whole street project.

And I appreciate the opportunity to present um virtually as I had a scheduled out-of-town meeting that I'm out of town.

So thank you, Chairman and committee.

Um, as uh Lamont was talking about, we're going to present to you today on the uh the bridge replacement.

So here are the same five staff recommendations that uh Mr.

Rokes just presented, and I'll talk about how we're going to incorporate these into the project itself.

So our goal is to keep the infrastructure safe safe, and we need to provide connectivity along here.

This bridge is a hundred and four years old, and we want to remove the poor condition from the city inventory and enhance safety and mobility.

As we presented, the project is located just south of the South Flood Wall Gate, is located generally in the red box right here, bordered by East First Street and Manchester Road, and this is the area of a lot of activity for this future development is concerned.

The existing bridge is approximately 66 feet wide with a travel lane width that is 50 feet, and is located on US Route 360, part of the national highway system, and sees about 17,000 vehicles per day.

Back in 2005, we did some emergency repairs due to the condition of the foundation as represented on these photos here, and then you can see the repair which is on the right photo.

This is pictures from the most recent bridge safety inspection showing significant concrete deterioration and cracking around the bridge area, and the lower left photo is showing a water line, which will be part of the replacement project.

So the proposed bridge is gonna be about 62 feet long.

It will be slightly reduced from the original 66 feet to be 63 feet wide, and we are reducing the travel lanes from 50 to 44 feet, but we are increasing the sidewalk on the bridge to eight and a half feet from the original six and a half feet.

It will be a single span bridge, meaning there will be no pier in the middle of the canal, and it'll be made out of structural steel.

We will be using the Manchester Light to be consistent with the corridor.

And as mentioned, we'll have architectural gateway parapet, and we have only one temporary construction easement located on the southeast corner, which is where those tractor trailers you can see parked with if you drive through the corridor.

Here is the same overview via overview map that Mr.

Rokes presented, showing the cyan colors, showing the bridge limits, and the gray representing the approximate length of the highway improvements.

Here is an elevation view of the proposed branding with the word Manchester in there, and we are currently showing the city seal.

As mentioned, we can discuss what type of emblem, if any, to be placed in that location.

We are going to be using what is commonly referred to in our industry as a church rail, but as opposed to having an opening, like you see in many locations, it will be a solid wall to replicate the existing parapet, which is out there, and that's a section view on the left of existing and on the right, showing what it will look like in the future.

Excuse me.

During the sequence of construction, and I apologize for not labeling on here which direction is going to be performed first, but the existing bridge is at the top image right here.

The second one, which is stage one, that the left view will be constructed first.

This will be the western side.

Traffic will be pushed to the eastern side, and then we will push traffic to the western side to construct the eastern half of the bridge.

And there will be a period of time where we have to have only single lane heading south as we finalize the construction of the barrier and sidewalk along the western face to then have the final configuration of the bridge located on the lower right.

Sorry, I have a tickle my throat.

To be consistent with the Manchester Canal, sorry, Manchester, sorry, Whole Street streetscape project.

We have worked with them, and the lights that you see here will be the Manchester Light.

These are represented by the blue circles right here, and then some trees are being installed.

This is adjacent to the flood wall access viewing points.

This is a view from the existing conditions showing here.

And then this is showing the a rendering of what the proposed bridge will look like with the architectural finish that's on there.

Here's a lower level street view of the current conditions, and this is a lower level rendering.

Currently, here is our project schedule.

We had our first virtual public meeting back in the 2022, and we presented to UDC and to the CPC in 2023.

We had a public hearing in 2025 in March, and a subsequent public input meeting in August of 2025, and last month we presented to UDC, and we are currently here on this October to November final CPC.

Utility relocation is ongoing out there, working with Dominion, Verizon, and some other communication companies.

We have one right-of-way easement, which we will need, which is a very small access to the southeast corner property.

The NEPA configuration or NEPA project documents are completed, and I think they're about to be posted on the city website.

Our plan is to advertise in early 2026 because this project is does need to be completed prior to the Mayo Bridge project that will be forthcoming.

Currently the budget is about 10.8 million dollars with 2.6 to engineering, about 200,000 to right away and eight million dollars for construction, and it's fully funded between state of good repair money and revenue sharing money.

So as far as our public outreach and input that we received to between the various meetings, the project is meeting expectations, we'll have a positive impact.

Bike lanes are desired, and I'll present on that in just a second.

One comment was to fill in the Manchester Canal, but due to the historic designation, that was not feasible.

The lighting, they did not want to contribute to the light pollution.

However, we are following the streetscape plan that's along Hull Street to be consistent along the corridor.

And all these lights will stop at the flood wall gate as the Mayo Bridge will be a different area which will be coordinated in a future project.

People liked the signage that was out there and some people had identified additional trail connectivity to the flood wall trail which goes parallel to the James River, but that was outside the scope of this particular project.

We are having ongoing coordination with the Hall Street Streetscape project as mentioned with the Mayo Island Park itself and then the purple represents the Mayo Bridge which is a design build project which the uh VDOT is taking over but again our project has to be complete prior to this project taking place.

So Mayo Bridge project just to bring everybody into the loop uh Mayo Bridge is gonna be replacing that bridge there's two current lanes on the bridge.

There's proposed one lane it will be approximately 66 feet wide which is similar in width to the whole street bridge replacement.

The estimated construction is to begin in 2028 and completed in 2031 that is based on the VDOT website currently there's currently a funding deficit which the VDOT is working with again emphasizing our bridge has to be completed before the Mayo bridge can be worked on as managed by VDOT.

So here is a typical section that is on the VDOT website showing what a the concept is currently for the Mayo bridge showing two eleven foot lanes that are out there with some bike lanes and I will address this further in just a second with our project so here is a potential after the Mayo bridge is completed that we can match the same two eleven foot travel lanes with a six foot bike lane but we'll have an additional foot of buffer I'm gonna scroll back you can see they had a four foot buffer on Mayo and we're showing a five foot buffer so we'll be this has the ability to match anything that Mayo could represent in the future in regards to the access or the bike lane we've worked with the fire marshal's uh office and they do not want any flexible delineators or hard barrier located between here just because of access and they want don't want to have to run over anything in the future so that's been coordinated with them.

So here is a rendering showing the proposed future potential concept showing the two lanes with a bike lane along the corridor and here's from the ground level shot also showing the six foot bike lane the five foot barrier or five foot painted stripe and the travel way the Mayo island park is currently ongoing and is to convert the Mayo island into a park.

Construction is supposed to begin this fall and we are coordinating with that and the fact that they are currently showing four lanes of traffic on Mayo Bridge which maintains the same four lane corridor going across the Mayo bridge into the Manchester area along Hull Street and then as mentioned the Hull Street Streetscape that is working from the flood wall all the way through commerce and that is supposed to begin in 2026 fully funded and again this should be completed prior to the Mayo bridge to avoid construction overlap.

So our recommendation is to build the whole street bridge over the Manchester Canal per the current alignment and following the UDC recommendations and then in the future we have the ability to change the lane configuration through paint striping to match whatever is approved with Mayo Bridge.

That concludes my presentation questions for members of the commission.

Thank you very much appreciate your being present thank you.

Public hearing ask if there's any member of the public to wish to speak with respect to item number 14, final location character and extent the Manchester Canal Bridge.

The member of the public online.

It's a public hearing bringing back to the commission and ask is there a motion on item number 14?

Motion to approve.

Any discussion?

I think the presentation really helped me understand this a great deal better because I know that there was quite a bit of controversy with the transition from two to four lanes.

Much improved as far as information for us is concerned.

Please call the role.

We're voting on approval of item number fourteen, final location character and extent.

Please call the role.

I can make sure it has.

How do we give us a h do we give us a hug