Oh, hello.

All right, it's working.

Step back a couple of minutes to make sure everyone online knows what is happening.

So okay.

So we'll start with this room.

Uh, for those participating virtually, we were having some tech technical difficulties at the beginning of the meeting.

We have a take and roll call and establish an in-person quorum.

And we are now going to be requesting, Ms.

Rowe.

I think you should be able to hear us now.

Um, you requested to participate virtually.

Could you let us know where and why you are um participating virtually today?

I am participating from home.

Because I am an old woman.

Oh my gosh.

Um, can you hear me?

Let's check that.

So much, Ms.

Rowe.

Thank you.

For a third time, I'm so sorry.

Could you repeat it one more time?

We were having technical difficulties again.

Can you hear me now?

We can, we can hear you loud and clear.

Okay.

I am participating from home because I hurt my neck.

Oh.

If you feel better.

We have a motion to allow Ms.

Road to participate virtually.

So move.

Second.

Any discussion.

Hearing none, I'll call the question.

We're voting on the motion to allow Ms.

Rowe to participate virtually.

Please call the role.

Mr.

Paul.

Miss Ebert.

Aye.

Ms.

Knight, aye.

Mr.

Pennick.

And Mr.

White?

Aye.

Motion passes.

And um Commissioner Rowe, you should be allowed to participate virtually now.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

We have minutes from June the 16th of 2026.

Is there a motion to approve?

So move.

Any discussion.

Hearing none, I'll call the question.

We're voting on approval of the minutes from June.

Please call the roll.

Mr.

Poole.

Aye.

Ms.

Greenfield.

Aye.

Miss Ebert.

Aye.

Ms.

Knight.

Aye.

Mr.

Pennick.

Aye.

Ms.

Rowe.

Abstain.

Mr.

White?

Aye.

That motion passes and those in the next area.

I hope everyone had a non-eventful evidence day weekend.

I've called number six seven.

That's all I've got for you.

Thank you.

Consideration of continuances and deletions from the agenda.

Would we have one?

We do have we have one um consideration.

It's for continuance.

It's item two, ordinance 2026-093.

This is a special use permit to authorize the special use of the property known as 3317 Rear Monument Avenue for the purpose of up to four single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

And this is a request by the applicant to continue until the August 7th planning commission meeting.

Now, just for purposes of discussing this, August 7th is the meeting that we're going to have.

Potentially.

This is the one that we would prefer to have it on.

So we meeting.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Here we have them.

Uh we have a request from the applicant to continue item number 2026 093 for the 3317 rear monument avenue to August 7th, 2026.

Do we have a motion?

So move.

Second.

Any discussion?

Well, the question we're voting on moving.

Continuing the matter of 3317 rear monument avenue to August 7th, 2026.

Please call the roll.

Mr.

Poole?

Aye.

Ms.

Greenfield.

Hi.

Ms.

Hubert.

Aye.

Ms.

Knight.

Hi.

Mr.

Pennick.

Hi.

Ms.

Rowe.

Aye.

Mr.

White.

Aye.

Motion passes and you guys will see that again on August 7th.

Would you please present the consent agenda?

The consent agenda.

We have item three, ordinance 2026-152.

This is to close to public use and travel in unimproved portion of Lafayette Street, located north of Sterling Street and south of Grove Avenue, consisting of approximately 5,159 plus or minus square feet upon certain terms and conditions.

Item 4, ordinance 2026-155 to authorize the special use of the property known as 5 North Colonial Avenue Rear for the purpose of up to six attached garages, which may be rented to persons who reside outside of the same entire block as the property upon certain terms and conditions.

Item five, ordinance 2026-156 to authorize the special use of the properties known as 5219, 5221, and 5221 and a half Euclid Avenue for the purpose of up to six single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

Item six ordinance 2026-157.

This is an ordinance to amend ordinance number 2021-018, adopted February 22nd, 2021, as previously amended by ordinance number 2022-052 adopted March 28th, 2022, which authorizes special use of the properties known as 5300 rear whole street Road, 5311 Warwick Road, 5315 Warwick Road, and 5323 Warwick Road for the purpose of up to 65 single family attached dwellings to instead authorize up to 73 single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions to modify the addresses included in the special use and terms in certain terms and conditions upon certain terms and conditions.

Item 7 ordinance 2026-161.

This is to amend ordinance number 2026-063 adopted May 11, 2026, which adopted the fiscal year 2026 to 2027 special fund budget and made appropriations pursuant thereto by transferring 480,000 from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services special fund into amend ordinance number 2026-065 adopted May 11th 2026 which accepted a program of proposed capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 and the four fiscal years thereafter adopted a capital budget for fiscal year 2026 2027 and determined a means of financing the same by appropriating 48000 of such transfer funds to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services Fire Training Facility Burn Tower Replacement Project in the capital investment opportunities category for the purpose of constructing the city's burn building to enhance the safety of fire service personnel while conducting live fire training item eight ordinance 2026-162 to declare a public necessity for and to authorize the acquisition by gift purchase condemnation or otherwise certain fees simple interest temporary construction easements and permanent easements for the public purpose of facilitating the construction of the Hobby Hill Lake Dam rehabilitation project ordinance 2026-163 to declare a public necessity for and so authorize the acquisition of the real property known as 5624 Campbell Avenue and the grant and an acceptance of certain easements relating to the acquisition of such real property for the purpose of implementing the combined sewer overflow mitigation project known as CSO-012 storage tank project.

Item 10 UDC 202607 the location character and extent review of proposed street and transportation infrastructure improvements in Shaco Valley, including Oliver Hill Way, North 18th Street, Venable Street, Mosby Street, and Lee Street.

This is a request to refer it to the July 16th UDC and to the July 23rd commission meeting item 11 UDC 2026-08 the location character and extent review of the proposed architecture for the architectural archaeological pavilion over the historic Lumpkins jail site part of the Shaco campus project located at 1500 East Franklin Street.

So the request to be referred to the July 16th 2026 urban design committee meeting and item 12 the city planning commission resolution 2026-005.

It's a resolution of the Richmond City Planning Commission approving the public art commission work plan for fiscal year 2027.

It's the consent agenda.

Thank you very much madam secretary are there any questions from members of the commission on the consent agenda.

I'll open a public hearing and I ask if there's any member of the public either present or online that wishes to speak to issues on the consent agenda.

Anyone online I am seeing no one online sorry excuse me please come forward sir.

I'm right up here to this give us your name and tell us what you'd concerned about also have drawing method together I don't know if that's okay to handout or first time this I'm concerned about number four ordinance um 2026 one five one special use of the rear of five north colonial.

That property family for 60 approximately years um and the second area of that property.

My concern is not necessarily with that garage being renovated.

I think it should be renovated.

It has kind of with the lapidated covered graffiti.

Um just falling down.

I'm more concerned about the extension of the property into the next door alley of the 40 um 40 foot um adjoining alley there for me as a member of the public and as a member of somebody in that alley.

I'm concerned about the turning radiuses and access to that alley, especially from a sanitation personnel and a fire EMS and then just the public use personnel of that alley.

Um currently I watch from my apartment every single Monday morning sanitation crews having a hard time making the turn.

They go from as you can see the top line on that drawing and they make a loop down and then go to the bottom line on the drawing going above five North Colonial Avenue, front and rear, and then turning back around.

Right now they have a very hard time making that turn as is usually if somebody's illegally parked right next to behind in that kind of area where the proposed addition is.

They really have to make three or five point turns to access sanitation.

So I just wanted to make sure that was kind of noted on the commission, and that um the board was aware of that before making that decision.

Okay, uh would you give us your name?

Uh it's Mark Kukowski.

Kowski, um are you objecting to this?

Would you like it moved to the regular agenda?

Or are you just bringing this to our attention?

I don't exactly know the difference between the two.

In order for us to more thoroughly consider your concern, we should move this to the regular agenda.

Let you make the same presentation.

You can just say what I say.

Yeah.

But uh what I'm trying to get at is you would prefer that that proposed addition.

I think it should maintain in the 40 by 40 um area that it's represented the property lines are and not encroach onto public property that is there for kind of access.

Just for clarification, the existing buildings that are in disrepair.

Yeah, are they in that same?

No, they're they are in the 40 by 40 area right there, and that's the lot that the owner has, as far as what I can tell from their plans, they're at asking for additional 18 feet of the alley from the city and then 18 by 40 foot area.

That's that orange um kind of coded area.

Did you have an opportunity to speak with the applicant about this?

Um, no, I did they approach you?

There was something posted on my door.

Um, I think we could go from the planning commission.

Other than that, did the applicant come and speak with you?

Not to me personally, no.

And is there a motion to move this item to the regular agenda?

There's a second.

Any discussion?

Uh yes, Mr.

Casey, um.

The gentleman of the program, the taking of public right away or alluded to the project encroaching into the public right away.

Did I understand that correctly?

Yeah, that's what I was that's what I thought we'll need to talk to the staff about whether they're okay.

Okay, sorry.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on the motion to take this item number four, and put it on the regular agenda.

You're not on the call of question.

We're voting on moving item number four in the regular agenda.

Although, uh, but one by one.

Okay, we'll go fast, Mr.

Poole.

Miss Greenfield, Ms.

Ever.

Hi.

It's night, and Mr.

Pennick, Miss Bro.

Hi.

Mr.

White?

Motion passes, and that item will be moved to the regular agenda.

Uh, Chair Poole, where would you like that item on the regular agenda?

Well, since he's at the pony.

Go for it.

If you will pause just for a moment so we can do the the amended consent agenda, just stay right where you are just i don't know it's just gonna make a so we now have an amended consent agenda and we have a motion to approve.

I'm assuming that the motion would continue as asked.

So we do not have a mention just yet.

Okay.

We have a motion to approval it's done it that's appending thank you any discussion all voting on the consent agenda as amended please call the word pool screen filled is emerge hippie is row aye and mr white okay motion passed and the amended consent agenda is an option very good would you please call item number four so the first item that we have on the regular agenda today is actually gonna be item four moved ordinance 2026 that's 155 this is to authorize the special use of the property known as five north colonial avenue rear for the purpose of up to six attached garages which may be rented to persons who reside outside of the same entire block as the property upon certain terms and conditions and um miss oliver is going to give us an overview of the project ahead of the applicant which will we do that we can ask Mr.

is I understand the answers to my question and Mr.

Pinock's questions your concern is the extension into the alleyway itself.

Yeah I'm fine with the proposed I think it's 14 so 12 foot height adjustment and um the area right just taking down I think it's said raised the entire building um and then rebuilt on the thing I just was more concerned on it encroaching into the alley.

And for purposes of keeping this in in uh proper order I'm gonna reserve some time after the presentation from the staff and from the applicant for you to come back if you have something further.

All right very good thank you are going back to yes sir Ms Oliver okay um I will present on behalf of the planner who's case they're unable to be here tonight so let me share I'll share this is not going to be your typical presentation but we'll get through it.

All right I'll share my screen with possibly showing our screen here the take control button that is a click up there take it with what button right there well it's literally just not showing what I'm sharing it is showing on I can see it on it just really aggregating see because you can do the like focus on content thing.

Yeah we're just really struggling we're really struggling oh there's the gals oh no yeah who's this pretty real um oh yeah because the content's not even showing look at uh okay well let me go ahead and pull it up on here and we'll just share the screen on it oh do you want to click share well no because it's still not gonna yeah that'll work and it's showing on everybody yes okay thank you okay so you guys are gonna see what's on my screen everybody else at home can see just the map that I'm trying to share with you but that is okay.

Actually I might be able to share the click there I think I can do this okay okay okay is that happening?

I think.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Is all good.

No.

That's unmuted.

It's unmuted.

Yeah.

Okay.

Try it again.

Can you just make sure you can hear me?

Okay, that's good news.

Okay.

Sorry for the technical difficulties.

Okay.

So I pulled up here.

This is our GIS just to show you where we're talking about.

We're talking about these properties here to the rear.

On this block.

So the applicant is requesting a special use permit to authorize the construction of a six-day garage structure accessible by alley.

The new garage structure will replace an existing garage building dating back to the first half of the 20th century.

The properties located in the R6 single family attached residential district in which garages are permitted use.

However, the applicant's remote proposing a new garage structure that exceeds the maximum permitted height limit of 12 feet.

So it'll be taller than that.

And it will allow the garage space to be leasable to those who do not own or lease a principal dwelling unit on a block.

Staff's recommending approval because this proposal aligns with the master plan's recommendation for neighborhood mixed uses and garages are an appropriate accessory use in that area.

And uh staff also concludes that it meets the minimum criteria outlined in the study charter.

If approved, it would be subject to special conditions.

One of those conditions is that the special use permit is granting exclusively the use of the property, but they would still need to um they would still need to get a separate here.

I'll just read it the way it's written.

I will show you those plans.

So we're talking about this is the 40 feet of public right-of-way that's there.

They are requesting to close 18 feet here to allow for the garages to encroach in that.

And if that is not approved by GPW, this special use permit would be null and void.

It specifically outlines that the uses for six attached garages that can be to the persons residing outside of the entire block.

So with that, we would recommend approval of it.

We've received some letters of support from the public to date and then today we've heard from some other neighbors.

Yes.

So we've um and I don't want to speak on their behalf, but they have considered it, and that is going through that process right now.

I don't know where the ordinance is in the process though.

We don't know whether they would approve it or not.

Um let me stop sharing for one second, and I will read to you exactly what their comments are.

I'm just nervous.

I don't want to misrepresent anything.

I'm still sharing, aren't I?

I guess that's click sharing.

Do you have a representative from DPU here?

From DPW.

Um I don't think anybody who's came here specifically to discuss this case.

Um unless people are there.

We always love to hear from this.

Oh, do you do you want a markup for the paper?

Yeah, I'm just gonna make a general statement.

And Kara from Department of Public Works.

This request has come in for the closing of that portion of the right delay in the cage.

For this special use permit and development public works has coordinated with all city departments.

It is in the city attorney's office for an approval temp to approve to go through the console approval process.

So hopefully pretty soon, I would say if not July 27th, if not, then following in September, it will be introduced for console action.

Assuming you heard Mr.

Kukowski's concerns about turning radius, is that part of the decision process that y'all consider?

No, I have not uh looked into, I just heard about it, so it needs to be evaluated for that.

And I would be happy to sit down with uh applicant if there is any issue, but uh I have not looked into that details.

I have a thought.

I think we're premature on considering this matter.

Is there a motion?

Continue this matter.

Could could we hear from the applicant first before we make a decision?

Thank you, Mr.

Kerr.

If you will hang tight.

Is the applicant present?

Mr.

Baker.

Mark Baker Baker development resources here on behalf of the property.

This gentleman's neighbor will say they did uh contact neighbors, they presented six letters and support based on that that that outreach.

Uh so this has been, you know, we we had a conversation with staff and public works, sat down with them pre-application before even applying for this.

Uh this is an exceptionally large area right away.

You think of an alley, like the notion of 15 foot wide alleys, which is what you have adjacent to the alley on either side, right?

Is is fairly typical for the area.

Uh it's currently 40.

And so the proposal was, and again, in concert with planning staff and public works for even applied, was to reduce that to a margin that was still greater than what public works typically asked for in an alley.

So we're at over 21 feet, whereas they ask for 20 typically.

Um so we proceeded with that application.

We we recognize the concern, want to be careful who we're addressing it as well.

Um move forward is move.

It has moved through the process.

It's unfortunate that uh planning staff person's not here to speak to it.

It's unfortunate that the DPW specific reviewer was not here to speak to it, but um there was an even uh although there was a uh DPW review prior to even the application.

There was a more thorough review during the application.

It's my understanding that they even had a truck out there uh to in fact show that they could make, you know, to themselves, you know, show that they felt comfortable they can make those maneuvers.

Uh and it's it's also worth noting that to the extent that you know these maneuvers are shown.

Uh, there's only one maneuver in particular that they're showing as being close, and that's in the the corner of the area to be to be closed.

Uh, we don't we're not we're not closing that entire right-of-way.

In fact, if you could put that, could you put that uh this flat back up?

Yeah, um, but again, that was the area specific evaluation.

Um, a long process.

Uh, we had a uh a long period of review with staff, and uh that's that's an item that we're aware that they specifically that they specifically looked at.

You heard Mr.

Kukowski say that the only thing he got was a posting on his door.

So we we met I know what your normal course of conduct is.

Did you make contact with this with Mr.

Kukowski?

We always write letters to all the names, I think, right?

So we don't necessarily go out knocking on doors.

Our client as well as he lives in the block, he lives in the block.

You know, went around to all the property owners, and you know, I don't know to what extent he was able to get tucked in perhaps perhaps not, but uh again, as a result of his outreach, he got six letters of support in the neighborhood.

So I uh in the in the block.

So our typical outreach was had here.

We met with uh uh museum district association uh multiple times on it as well.

So yeah, we've definitely done at least as much as we do on other cases, but I would argue more here than cases.

The current garages that are there have been in disrepair, but they were used in the past for garages.

Yes, yeah.

So expanding them because.

Well, so I mean, you may be you're maybe we're able to recall we just had that case that came through on Shaw used, right?

And that was another case that was similar.

This area is littered with like every every every one of these captured parcels that are on interior less.

Many of those have or interior alleys rather.

Many of those have similar garage situation, but those are older garages that are commonly, yeah, they might be used, but over the years that use has been not so much for automobiles over time, right?

Because they're difficult to get into and they're difficult to even get out of your car once you get in.

So this is the idea here was to create six very well sized, and that's why you're seeing some of the support from uh adjacent property owners.

Is that the idea is that they would be able to utilize those.

The additional height um is is something that would allow for additional storage above and sort of a lofted storage space.

So these are these are designed to be something more akin to what you would get in a garage in a more modern house.

Uh so it's sort of trying to meet the needs of today's market with a garage that's that's still accessible.

So, and by the way, these meet zoning's maneuverability standards for despite the expansion in order to get in and out of the garages.

Uh, so the size of the space within the garage as well as the backup space meet the uh the dimensions that are required for the zoning.

So they're they're made to they're made to work, they're made to be function just like a garage that you'd see on the rear of a property that that had a single family dwelling on it that would have been an ally born parcel.

Right.

And see, but they have all those same attributes that we might have used elsewhere.

This is having to come, and by the way, those would probably be by right.

This is just having to come to you because it's on an interior parcel that doesn't have frontage.

Questions from Mr.

Beckford.

But it's your testimony that all of this has been reviewed as indeed.

In the process, and maneuverability is been proven to DPW to the extent that they looked at it.

Yeah, Mr.

Carras' testimony that he is waiting for the city attorney's office.

Other than that, everything else is approved.

Yeah, his testimony actually takes it a takes it a step further.

I mean, the many instances were DP, all of our cases where we're having to provide parking at the rear of the parcel, DPW reviews those as to access, right?

This one again required the special use permit because we're having to go through a process, it's not it doesn't have frontage, right?

So they they reviewed it as a part of the special use permit and they signed off on it.

So the special use perform doesn't move forward until all the reviewing agencies have signed off on it.

And if they haven't signed off on it, right, they're not making a recommendation approval, and those reviewing agencies are here saying something.

Well, that's what was curious to me because of the second caveat, so to speak, in the special use that addresses that very issue as needing to be done post approval of the that's that's the review of the closure, which requires a separate action by council.

So that's why that has to happen.

So it doesn't mean that they don't still review it from the standpoint of uh you know functionality and meeting their standards.

The special use permit still 100%.

We wouldn't go through this process if they weren't going to review the standards until afterwards, right?

Because the special use permit would have then been pursued speculatively and could be rendered you know void by virtue of some future review that's yet to take place, right?

And so, but by his testimony, that secondary review is also taking place.

So they've actually reviewed this twice.

Whereas oftentimes in garage situations, maneuverability special use permits the only review of once.

So I'd argue they've gotten to see this more often in your average special use permit.

That was what was so confusing to me because I know each individual case is its own case, but I know how you normally do things and and you and how you wouldn't bring something here.

Yeah, that's right.

So we when we're here with the special use permit, just is for future reference.

Like if we're here, and we'll go back and forth on on issues with with reviewing agencies.

We may have to revise things, but once it gets here for special use permit and staff's making a recommendation of approval, it's because all those reviewing agencies have have signed off on that.

Questions for Mr.

Baker from the other question, but to stop not looking at the comment.

Uh, I was just going to also test the um prior to uh there was an informal conversation with DPW prior to this application even coming in to see if this was even remotely in the realm of possibility because they weren't even going to pursue it if PW.

No chance of supporting if that they reviewed it probably three different.

Which confirms what Mr.

Baker was saying.

Sure.

So it's my understanding from hearing Mr.

Baker that the SUP has been assessed and CBW is part of the review process has looked at being able to the turn radius and accessibility.

Really, the only issue that DPU is looking at now is in the attorney's office to actually close the portion of the easement that has nothing to do with like accessing the alley.

Yeah, so yeah, and I can see I went to try to see if it was lined up slated for a docket yet.

If not, I can see it in the system.

Um, so it's still waiting on an introduction date, but the ordinance exists and speak by like on the attorney's office.

But that doesn't change the fact that DPW has already examined whether or not this alley could function appropriately with this extension.

Okay.

So I'm gonna open a public hearing.

Ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak in favor of this case.

Kowski, I take it you're opposed if you would come back up here and see if we can address some of your concerns and have you understand where we are in the process and anything you want to give to the commission for their consideration.

Yeah, I think.

Um thank you.

Be service on both sides, and even if you know this is kind of setting precedent for next door at the three north colonial rear.

If that gets closed, then I was concerned that um we would not be able to have access for sanitation and emergency personnel down that alleyway because you know that turn in between um three north and three um north rear and five north and five north rear is difficult in my truck in general, and so that's the same amount of um width for that they're proposing is a 21 foot and a 21 foot on either side of the thing.

And if my truck can barely make that, I was concerned that a trash truck wouldn't be able to, especially when I hear them at 8 a.m.

on a Monday morning packing up and yelling, trying to have to hit garages.

That was what my concern was, and the comment um on one thing interfering.

Um that's inner and outer turn radius on that board.

Um, so you can see if it's two green lines would be the sanitation one, the farther out green line is the um stated, you know, average for a trash truck is 50 um feet turning radius.

Inner of that would be assumed eight-foot wide track truck.

So that's where the inside of the trash truck would be that was my concern and so I think I just didn't want I wanted to make sure that everything was going to be serviced in our alley and that you know we weren't gonna have this conversation once it's already built and then they're like well you know a trash truck can't get down and you know you have to move your trash cans every single Monday morning out from your property where they should be over to public books.

Given what you've heard this evening about the reviews the multiple reviews that DPW has given to this particular project do you still oppose the project I don't think like the hard proposed and serve the board I still um also don't necessarily think that the alley should be closed another 18 foot into it but um I think overall I'm still concerned about it but if the department of public works says that's okay and it's gone through uh proper review I just wanted to make my public opinion heard any questions for Mr.

Kukowski just one yes sir returning radiance operators assumptions of vehicular sizes and operations so I'm an engineer about trade so that's that's a um auto cat drawing so I made the assumptions of an eight foot standard wide vehicle which is you know height or even a trash truck and then turning radius is based off of you know department of transportation information that's readily available so that's where that came from but thank you thank you very much are there any other members of the public who we should speak in opposition close public hearing bring it back to the commission and ask if there's a motion page number four five north colonial avenue rear approval thank you any discussion may I'm satisfied with the testimony from DPW and staff that this has been that it is I'll also say that in a jacent street I own a piece of property that is exactly like this and I am very well aware of the issues I think it's now been fully vetted by the department and I'm comfortable to support this paper.

Anything further question we're voting on approval of item four five north colonial avenue call one Mr Poole Miss Greenfeld aye Miss Ebert hi is Knight Mr.

Penick hi Ms.

Rowe Mr White motion passes and that item will be recommended for the city council I do want to say to Mr Kokowski that I appreciate his concerns and your testimony and your being here tonight we thank you very much.

Next item the next item that we have is going to be item 13 ordinance 2026-153 this is to authorize the special use of the property known as 2502 fourth avenue for the purpose of a day nursery for up to 12 children upon certain terms and conditions and we are joined by um our planner Miss Wilson.

Welcome hello uh Maddie gave just one second um that's oh isn't uh no she's sharing yeah so I'm gonna have to share it with it shares oh it's not working no it's not and it's the library us it because you're plugged in is that it's just it's on the other screen.

It's the extension.

Okay.

We'll figure it out the case okay um all right.

So this is for the my name is Madison Wilson um this is for ordinance 2026-153 um uh located at uh two five oh two for your avenue um the full ordinance title is to authorize special use of the property known as 2502-4th Avenue for the purpose of a day nursery for up to 12 children upon certain terms and conditions.

It is located in the neighborhood Highland Park Southern Pip.

4200 square foot lot and 0.096 acres.

And adjacent properties are located within the same R6 zoning district.

The area is generally single family residential with some small neighborhood commercial and institutional uses present hereby.

So as said before, uh the proposal is for an in-home daycare for up to 12 children.

And the outdoor space will be 1,650 square feet.

In the rear, here are some small floor plans.

But the floor plans are to indicate the space that will be allocated to child care on the first floor, and the second floor will remain a residence.

So the area is meant to kind of maintain lower traffic in the area.

The primary uses for residential are single family homes, accessory dwelling units, and open space, and secondary uses are duplexes, small multifamily buildings, institutional cultural, and those secondary uses can be found along major streets.2, which is permitted accessory units uses uses and structures, which basically means the day nurseries are not permitted in the homes in this district by right.

The conditions are as follows.

The hours of operation for the day nursery shall be from 7 a.m.

to 5 30 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

The day nursery shall be licensed by and operated under the requirements of the Virginia Department of Education or its successor agency.

The day nursery shall be operated by the owner or occupant residing on the property.

A minimum outdoor play area of 100 square feet for each child enrolled shall be furnished on the premises, but not within the required front yard.

The outdoor play area substantially shown in the area labeled as shaded area shows portion of existing backyard to be used for child care on the plans shall be enclosed within a continuous opaque structural fence or wall not less than four feet in height, and such fence or wall shall not be located within a required front yard.

And no clay equipment or structure shall be located within the front yard or required side yard.

The staff recommendation, uh staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the city's master plan pertaining to chapter four diverse economy.

The master plan supports businesses of various sizes and impact, and this permit will allow the applicant to start a small business.

Additionally, a day nursery which serves 12 children will positively impact the growing neighborhood that surrounds the property.

As families continue to populate neighborhoods like Highland Park, another option for nearby child care is a community benefit.

Staff find that due to all the findings summarized above, uh the safeguards contained within the city charter relative to the granting of special use permits are met.

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

And then here are the plans again.

And if you need me to zoom in or anything, I can't questions for Ms.

Wilson.

I have one.

If this daycare had been operating since December of 2025, with 12 children, would that have been illegal?

Uh it wouldn't be in conformance, but they are allowed to operate up to four children with up with up to four children by rate.

You just can't exceed that number.

Thank you so much.

If the applicant present, please come forward, give us your name, make your presentation, and if there's questions from the commissions, they'll ask.

So my name is Letitia Jones.

Um I'm the child care provider located at 2502 Fourth Avenue.

Um, I recently purchased this property in January of this year.

Um, I was renting a property like right around the corner for 16 years.

Um, I've been doing it since 2010.

I was always licensed for 12 children, but when I purchased this home, um state licenses that had to go through special use permit process.

Um, so which reduced my children to four.

So I've had four children since January at this at this location.

Um I provide quality child care for mainly all of a lot of the area children over the Holland Park area.

Um I've been doing it for 16 years.

What else?

I think um a lot of my parents are, they used to take public transportation or they're in walking distance, so parking isn't an issue because they're usually if it's if if there's a family with a car, they usually have siblings, so it's like I've never had 12 children exact.

I've always mainly had 10 at the most, maybe nine to 10.

Right now I'm saying I only have four.

I've had four since January, but could you give us your plan for pickup and drop off?

Um, my drop off time, but I only pick up from school.

I only pick up from school.

The parents pick them, they drop them off to the daycare and they pick them up.

Um drop off time is usually from 7 to like 8:30.

Pickup is like I would say 4:30 to 5:30.

Um, and how physically, how does that occur with respect to the property?

Where do the children exit?

Because the an issue that was raised was um the fact that there's a lot of traffic along.

No, it's not a lot of traffic from the daycare.

No.

Oh, they exit through the front through the front door.

Soon as you come into the property, that's the daycare space, the daycare area.

The downstairs area along with the backyard is the play area.

Um, my personal living space is upstairs.

Um state license, um, USDA certified.

Um, you you or your, I think you have one other employee.

Yes.

Well, actually, I have two, but but someone accompanies the children when they're being picked up.

Yes, yeah.

Any other questions from members of the commission?

Just to clarify.

So, if I understood you're saying that you bought this property, thinking that you could just transfer whatever.

No, I wasn't thinking I could transfer.

I knew it was a process.

Okay, but I had to disenroll a lot of my children when I got to this this property because um state license is that ahead I had to get another special use permit with this property.

Which you're bought in January.

Yes.

So from January, it's the only have four children, only license four.

Any other questions?

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate you coming.

Okay.

I'll open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak in favor.

This case.

Anyone online?

See no one online.

Is there any member of the public that wishes to speak in opposition?

Anyone online?

I am seeing no one online.

Just to ask, is Judith Wood online?

No, uh no, there is only currently one external person in line.

Two.

Ms.

Wood is the person who filed the letter today.

Raising issues that I think the applicant has addressed.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission and ask if there's a motion on 2502 Fourth Avenue special use permit to allow day care day nursery for up to 12 children.

Is there a motion?

Second.

Any discussion.

Clearly appears to me this young lady knows what she's doing, went through the proper process, even reduced the number of people in accordance with the rules, and is now asking for that to be changed by the special use permit.

I have support the paper.

Any other call the question?

We'll approval 2502 Fourth Avenue.

Mr.

Bull.

Aye.

Ms.

Greenfield.

Hi.

Ms.

Keeper.

Aye.

This night.

Aye.

Mr.

Pennick.

Aye.

Hi.

Mr.

White?

Aye.

Okay.

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

And last item.

So the last item on the agenda is uh item 14, ordinance 2026-154.

This is to authorize the special use of the property known as 1235 North 36th Street for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

And I will actually be giving the presentation on this item.

The applicant who's here as well to speak following that.

There's a fun part.

So I'll be presenting on ordinance 2026-154.

It says at 1235 North 36th Street.

This is a special use permit to authorize the property known as 1235 North 36th Street for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions.

To orient ourselves, we are in the east end of the city in the Oakwood neighborhood on North 36th Street.

And as you can see on the right, the general location of the site is where that you can kind of see that undeveloped land within that red circle.

That's obviously not the exact uh property lines, but it's generally there on an unimproved portion of North 36th Street.

Zooming in just a little bit more.

Um the property is approximately a fourth of an acre at 10,890 square feet.

Um it is currently unimproved, and the street in front of it is also unimproved.

This is pretty much exactly what it looks like.

The applicant has requested to divide the property into two lots, um, and those lots would be substandard according to the underlying zoning.

The proposal includes dividing the property into two lots um to be improved with single family detached dwellings, in addition to the subdivision and the construction of the dwellings.

They will be extending 36th street, um, the street itself as well as the sidewalk in front of the property, and then they also are planning to pave to the rear alley.

I'm gonna go back one more slide slides.

You can see at the bottom of that red thing, you can see kind of where that alley runs, and so they'd be paving from the front of the property to the back and essentially providing access to that alley.

So I did a little fancy photo for you guys.

This is essentially what they're proposing.

So extending the street to new single family detached dwelling.

However, it is located in an R5 single family zoning district, which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet and a lot width of 50 feet.

And the they are proposing to divide the property equally.

So each lot would have roughly 5,400 square feet in area and then would be 45 feet in width.

So pretty close to the underlying zoning.

In addition to the lot area and lot width, they are requesting relief from just the front yard regulation.

The other yards are in compliance.

And so the R5 district requires a 25-foot front yard, and they are proposing 15 feet.

And for some context, the property is also designated as neighborhood mixed use.

And properties within this designation are typically 1,500 to 5,000 square feet.

And so the subject property is currently greater than two times the typical amount that you would see in a neighborhood mixed use designation.

However, as you know, it's on an unimproved portion.

This is kind of an unofficial shot of the block.

You can clearly see that the property is like the second largest parcel, aside from the one directly across from it.

And so dividing the property would actually be bringing it to more in uh kind to the rest of the immediate block as well.

We also, just as a reminder, I'm not going to go through all of these.

The proposal staff finds that it meets the minimum criteria outlined in the city charter for special use permits.

Just got those check marks there, extending the street and adding two single-family detached dwellings.

It won't be detrimental to safety, health, morals, or general welfare.

It will not create congestion or hazards, overcrowding.

And this is not going to be adversely impacting anything else in the neighborhood as far as schools go, parks, water supplies.

In fact, it's actually enhancing the public right-of-way.

So I would say that it's doing more.

And then of course, it's not going to be interfering with any adequate light or air.

In addition to satisfying the minimum criteria, there are the proposed ordinance conditions, which includes that the special use of the property shall be as up to two single family detached dwellings and one single family.

Oh goodness, two single family detached dwellings.

I have no idea where that condition came from.

Please ignore that.

Sorry, I'm going to pause to make sure that is not.

That is, I would like to correct both this presentation as well as the staff report.

There's a drafting error.

This is a copy and paste error.

This is not for two single-family detached dwellings and one single family detached that sentence is going to make sense.

It's the two single-family detached dwellings.

No off-street parking shall be required for the special use.

And then all site improvements shall be substantially shown on the plans.

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

And prior to the issuance of a building permit for the special use, the establishment of no more than two residential lots substantially shown on the plans shall be accomplished by obtaining the necessary approvals from the city and recording the appropriate flats and deeds among the land records of the clerk of the circuit court of the city of Richmond.

And we talked briefly about it, but the owner shall make improvements within the right-of-way, including without limitation, the extension of the pavement and sidewalk along that portion of North 36th Street, shown and labeled as approximately 102 feet extend of pavement and the installation of pavement along that portion of Canapa Street shown and labeled as proposed pavement tie to rear alley, substantially as shown on the plans, which improvements may be completed in one or more phases as approved by the director of public works.

Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the city's master plan and that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit as it is written in the ordinance for two single family detached dwellings.

And not the drafting era that's listed in the staff report at that.

Questions from Ms.

Trump.

Just one.

I wasn't clear.

Is the paved area that connects 36 to the alley attended for public use?

Is it?

It will be it will be dedicated public right away.

Um is that it could be dedicated public right away.

Could be the street's not extended yet.

And so public works has worked with them and they'd like it dedicated public right away.

So it likely will be, but okay.

Any other questions from members of the commission?

Wait, you'll oh I'm gonna let you have okay.

Well, officer.

And tell us about your project and how much engagement you have with your neighbor.

Good morning.

My name is John Carlos, and I'm representing uh my final taller masses, which is the honor of the property, uh, expressing as well in case there are any questions uh regarding the engagement.

So, mostly with with the original process of the Syria Association and all the departments, but not with the neighborhood uh of the neighbors.

Okay, questions for Mr.

Carls.

Thank you very much.

I'll open a public hearing to ask if there's any member of the public who would think online.

I am not currently seeing anyone online.

Now, young lady, would you like to come up and address your question?

You can come to the podium and give us your name.

We'd love to hear what you have to say.

Is that a real concern?

I don't understand.

Good afternoon, my name is Mary Fitzgerald, and I live at 1233.

And I had some concerns because I don't understand rezoning, and the sun was attached to my fence and my yard.

And I wanted to know what was going on, so that's why I came here.

So, what do you mean by re-zoning?

Start with this is what's called a special use permit.

It is a particular ordinance that applies only to this property, and it travels with the land.

So, in other words, with this gentleman, you'll get a special that special use permit is approved by city council.

You will be able to build two houses there in accordance with the plans that he submitted, and he has to follow all the rules that are in the ordinance itself, which the twin ms.

Trump presented.

So it's not a rezoning, it's a special use permit, which is a specific ordinance that applies to this property and this property only.

And what's in the ordinance itself controls what that person can do with that property?

This is like a little slither lane with the property because the creek used to be there.

And the land is the field in, so they tried to make a street, but the people rejected it.

So it's like a little slither lane there.

So and it the letter that I received said wasn't large enough to build two family units on it.

So I don't know how they're gonna do that, but it's up to them.

I just wanted to know was it was my lane interfering with it?

It's right next door, you know, right up on me.

If they do, you need to come back and tell us, but they have no authority to interfere with your land.

Thank you.

That's all I needed to know.

You welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I meant to ask, are there any questions for Ms.

Fitzgerald from all the members of the commission?

Thank you, ma'am.

Any other members of the public wish to speak in opposition?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

Name Andre Fitzgerald.

Mr.

Fitzgerald.

Thank you.

How's everybody?

Well, are you released?

I am her son.

Now I've been living on I lived on 36th Street.

All my life.

I'm 59 years old.

I will unspare property with three people.

And I've looked at my last three or four years of the houses popping up in spaces where there used to be yards.

Now they're out.

Now this wants to be disturbed.

I want to know what's the purpose.

How does it benefit anybody in that neighborhood and put two more houses in that space?

You say it doesn't disturb anything.

There's an ecosystem that goes on there.

There's an ecosystem that happens there.

You start tearing down that stuff, you destroy that ecosystem.

There are already wild animals running in different yards now in the neighborhood.

I don't see the benefit of this to the neighborhood.

I don't see the benefit to the neighbors.

I don't see the benefit of this to my mother.

I saw that sign attached to her yard when I came over.

I took it off.

Because you have whoever did it, had no right to put a sign on her yard, her property saying, Oh, we're going to do something here.

You put it where you're going to do something that you don't mess with her property, her territory.

And I don't trust this establishment, whatever you're doing, whatever you're building, that you won't infringe on her property line.

Cause I tell you what, I will be watching.

And when it happens, I will be up here to shut you down.

I will be where you are to shut you down.

I don't all the spaces in Richmond, all the dilapidated properties in Richmond.

Why this one?

This one's undisturbed, it has been undisturbed since I've been a child.

I'm a grown man now.

And now you want to come disturbing to put up what?

This is the new thing in Richmond to just build properties everywhere with no care.

You're gonna put what?

Extend the sidewalk, and you said it's not gonna cause a problem.

You her, Miss Trump, say it's not gonna be a problem.

You don't know how much traffic comes down that block now, just come down and turn around and go back out.

People don't even live there.

You extend that, that just means more traffic coming down there, turning around and going back out.

So to say it's not going to harm anything unless you live in that neighborhood, you don't know.

Your research can't tell you that.

Uh sir.

I'm just curious, uh, because you're I don't dispute that there was a sign put on your mom's property.

I understand that, but there's also a citywide rezoning going on.

So I'm wondering if it's opposed to make it okay.

No, my that's not my question, sir.

But there's a there's campaigns out there, and people are placing signs to raise awareness.

Was it a blue sign or was it uh it was a blue sign?

Okay, thank you.

And I cut it off because they had no right to do that to her property.

That's making it like her property's being rezoned.

I just wanted to understand, sir.

If it was a blue sign that the city could have posted to make someone aware, or if it was part of an external campaign and someone put it there by mistake.

I was curious.

What do you want to say?

Which means if you come back here and look at it, like, oh, we're gonna get this property right here too.

And that's not the case.

I'm making sure that's not the case.

No, I understand that.

I just wanted some clarification.

Thank you.

Glad I can clarify that for you.

The other questions for Mr.

Fitzgerald.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate you coming.

You welcome.

And I will be watching.

Any other members of the public wish to speak in opposition?

Anyone online?

I do want to make the pump.

Um please come forward, give us your name.

We'd be glad to hear forward.

I mean, this is the plan, and um I'm concerned about that property.

Um, the 1235 property, because I do recall that there was some tombstones on that property.

So I'm concerned that there may be some burials under that ground that have not been that's going to be dug up.

So I don't know how how surveyed the land has been looked into to find out what was on that property prior, but I'm not sure that you can build on a grave.

Is that right?

There are very specific and strict rules with respect to any burial sites within the city of richmond, and if they're discovered, they must immediately stop and address those rules that are in the state code and the city ordinances.

But until that happens, or unless you have some specific items to present to us that show us that there are gravesites there then it will be a part of the process as they begin their construction but if they discover that there are remains andor indications of burials there they have to immediately stop and address that issue by state code and city code.

So my other concern is the congestion area because now I do have noticed that that is a date end area they built two houses on the opposite street they I'm assuming they had special use permission to build houses two houses on the opposite side but they did not extend the sidewalk out they did not pave the street there and now it's just a big turnaround where actually the block is getting too full with homes and cars and there's not enough room for anyone to make any turnarounds.

So they're running into cars it's it's very congested and so that's my concern with putting two more houses on the opposite side again then there's no more space for turning around and parking it's it it's actually getting very congested are they of their plans to extend that street all the way through to the next street in the near future that's not a part of the special use permit promo proposal that's before this commission so that's my concern it's just getting it's very congested.

I think I understand there's a proposal to at the end of the street connected back to the alley if you want to go into the alley from the end of the street you could but not to no plan to extend the street.

So you're saying the houses that are being proposed to put there they're going to be able to access the homes through the alley I don't know is that what you're saying.

The plan shows two houses at the end of the street there's uh a new alleyway to connect to the then existing alley opposite side of the yes opposite from Mrs.

house would you like me to share to I can share it short again because it is getting quite congested in that neighborhood with cars and ramp and so I'm I'm I'm gonna try to zoom in um so this is 36th actual live shop of the property it can but I I won't be able to show you the proposed improvements but I can just show you the property.

So are you seeing right here you know right along this side there's proposing to be yes so this they'll extend 36th street and then they'll be taking the pavement and connecting it back to the alley.

Please if we would one person at a time okay so like I said it is because this is you can see right here.

Okay sorry sorry I'm sorry no problem it's on a midway and from that there we go there is it's very congested these are the two houses that they put on the opposite side over there and all of this is just congested it's just people are just coming trying to make a turnaround.

And so two more houses added that's four vehicles where there's real tight parking issues and more congestion.

And I did notice that on property I saw that they had started um tearing down the the woods that were there and they they did dent per fence.

And did some damage to her property while they were tearing down those woods but again I'm just concerned about number one that there are some graves that are that are under there and then big congestion in that area.

So that's why I'm opposing thank you.

Any other questions for members of the commission.

Anyone else wish to speak in opposition oh we have your first name for the record.

It is Inga Brown.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to speak in opposition no one online and ask there's a motion on item number 14 1235 North 36th Street permit for two single family detached dwellings.

There are motion approval second second any discussion hearing none I'll call the question we're voting on item number 14 1235 North 36th Street two single family detached dwellings please call the role.

Mr Poole Miss Greenfield Miss Ebert Ms Knight Mr Penick Ms Rowe Mr White aye that motion passes and that item will be forwarded to city council with a recommendation of approval.

Thank you very much.

Is there a council action update I do have one so haven't seen you guys in a while it's been almost a month.

City council last met on June 22nd um there were four special use permit ordinances that were adopted that includes the Tuxedo Boulevard case if anyone's been following that it's been a little while and then um one right of weight ordinance was adopted and then um there were two new um there was one new special use permit introduced and referred to the 21st and then there was an amendment introduced and referred to the 21st as well the updates I have for you and you made mention of a number of papers being introduced would that be on the second meeting in August?

Yes so if you are planning on going on vacation in August please try to let us know ahead of time we are expecting quite a large docket for at least the second August meeting um and there are a number of items that may be on the first August meeting so just if you're planning on taking vacation over the summer try to let us know so we can I would hate to not have a quorum and there'd be 30 cases on the agenda.

I would hate for there to be 30 all right anything else we are adjourned and thank you very much.

Please be careful on your ways out.