Okay, your mic is on now.

Right.

Mr.

Secretary, this meeting is called an order.

Do you mind reviewing our uh public accession instructions?

Yes.

To access the meeting via Microsoft Teams, please use the link available on the agenda or dial star sixty-seven eight oh four three one six nine four five seven and enter ID seven four two four two zero five five zero count.

Public comment will be requested in turn for each item on the agenda.

Please stay on mute during other times to reduce background noise.

If you're using a phone to access the meeting, you can use star six to mute and unmute yourself.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Uh here.

Miss Clark?

Yeah.

Mr.

Doyle?

Here.

Mr.

Ben Inmidjid?

Here.

Miss Wheelett?

Here.

Mr.

Bootsman?

Here.

Mr.

Hamlet.

Here.

You do have a quart.

Thank you.

Approval minutes.

A high level summary statement will be provided before voting on the final motion for each individual item.

The summary statement will be transmitted to the planning commission along with the motion outcome and be recorded as minutes for the record.

Thank you.

Secretary's report.

The scope of review reminder.

We have 1707 of the city charter, general location, character, extent, approval of public buildings, structures, streets, parks, etc.

And items of a specific nature that are designed by professionals such as engineers and architects are not considered general.

We have 1705 of the city charter.

And again, my beautiful rendition, just a very quick um layout of what's being proposed, street improvements along almost all of these streets, bike lane and shared use path along almost all of these streets, and the addition of three traffic circles, as well as a new section of the off-ramp for I-95.

Currently, the off-ramp for I-95 goes south onto Oliver Hillway to Broad Street.

The new section will allow you to exit from the off-ramp into a traffic circle and head up into the Mosby area and church hill without hitting Broad Street.

On the left here, we have Broad Street is the thick red line.

North is kind of sideways.

We have the Lee Street Viaduct and the Mechanicsville Turnpike or the other red lines.

And the in the center, we have the proposal of two traffic circles, as well as what I'm going to call residual land from that work, which can be green space, and we have the offering up for I-95.

And to orientate ourselves with what's happening in the neighborhood, uh, this is adjacent to the Shako Institute, but does not include the Shaco Institute.

It does include uh say some gateway areas for that.

It includes uh throughout the Shaco Valley, we've seen a lot of development.

About half of what we have approved is being constructed now, and half of it will be constructed in the future, but we are expecting a number of new residents in the Shaka Valley, and that'll be a change from industry industrial use to residential use.

We have on the bottom of the screen here the entrance to the historic district.

So the project goes up against the historic district and acts as a gateway for that.

We have the Mosby redevelopment on the bottom right.

Um, this is again somewhat of a gateway to that.

Uh, and we have the MOK school there as well, adjacent to the front area.

What's actually being proposed is the landscape plan or the intersection of Oliver Hill and Broad Street.

Currently, this is where you head to if you head off of I-95.

Uh, and I think if you're familiar with it, you know it's a pretty busy intersection.

Uh, these are vast improvements to this.

It also includes a bike lane on the south side of Oliverville and protected parking there and a protected bike lane and landscape improvements and such.

It looks much nicer.

This is what I'm calling the primary circle, and adjacent to that is the 18th street circle.

Um, right now, this is a parcel that has an old industrial use on it, and it will be in the domain and constructed for or this will be constructed on it.

You can see the new I-95 off-ramp section there to the left, goes into the main circle, which collects Oliver Hill and 18th Street from the Shokka Valley area and sends you south onto Oliver Hill to Broad Street or into Mosby Churchill area via the second traffic circle there on the right.

And throughout this, it's a little bit hard to see on this, but there is bike infrastructure all over this, um, as well as the shared use path.

This is the proposal for the Denable Street Circle.

This is the entrance to the historic district.

The historic district is located on the bottom of the screen here.

This includes a shared use path as well as a lot of um landscape improvements, as well as as well as uh an increase in the size of public space right when you enter the historic district adjacent to where the building commercial buildings are now.

It could be a potential for future outdoor seating for those buildings as well.

And this is the Lee Street Mosby Street Circle coming right off of the viaduct.

The school is in the upper right of this, and the Mosby redevelopment is in the bottom right of this picture.

Um I think I have a uh drill down in this later, so I'll get into further details.

These are the concept conditions that we have a concept that was approved in, I believe, 2019.

Um, these are the conditions.

Most of these conditions were our old standard conditions that we put on projects.

We no longer do it necessarily this way.

A lot of these are just already baked into what we receive for our finals now.

But we used to spell that out from the conditions.

Um kind of the to summarize what they say.

They are requesting a landscape plan, which we do have.

They're requesting an example of the lighting units and where they're going to be located, which is provided.

They have requested back then to maintain existing sidewalk paths throughout kind of the industrial area, which uh again, this entire project is about connectivity and make sure everywhere connects so there is a sidewalk throughout this entire project as well as bike improvements.

And the last one is provide a study on the purpose and design of the residual land created by the roundabouts.

And that's what I was referring to when I said the residual land primary roundabout earlier.

So, what does the master plan say?

To summarize, um, Richmond prioritizes the movement of people over the movement of vehicles through a safe, reliable, equitable, and sustainable transportation network.

Walking, biking, and transit options are most convenient and used for uh transportation in Richmond.

Where feasible, convert one-way streets to two-way streets, and to expand, improve and maintain on street bike networks, uh, which this project does all of those.

In addition, it speaks to implementing urban design and architecture strategies that maintain and enhance the unique character of Richmond's residential districts, utilize public art and the public realm to create work is covered up.

Oops, unique features with nodes and priority neighborhoods and develop marketing plans, including signage graphics, branding at the different nodes and priorities.

So, staff recommendation.

Uh 99% of this project, we are expanded to see it's a vast improvement.

We're taking an industrial neighborhood that's seeing a lot of residential development and making it actually a much more livable and safe space to exist in.

Uh, staff recommends not approving the current layout of the primary traffic circle, allowing the applicant to find an alternative layout and return to UDC.

And I'll show you in a second those details.

But the remaining conditions are applicant to amend plans to adjust design of the intersection at Lee Street and Mosby Street.

That's the one that comes off the lead viaduct to be more pedestrian oriented to be approved by staff.

Applicant to amend plans to add details that reflect the gateway to historic district with the traffic circle located at Venable and Mosby to be approved by staff.

Applicant to amend plans to reflect the PAC that's the art commission recommendations regarding preparation for future art installations to be approved by staff.

As you all know, this has been sent to us by the planning commission for recommendation.

We did the same thing for this to the PAC.

So we sent it through the PAC, it's next week, and they're given going to give a recommendation to the planning commission on if this plan can prepare space for art, not new art now.

It would have to be a separate line item of budget, but just to prepare space in this plan for art.

And my hope is to do that in future projects where that is applicable as well, if it works out well.

The next condition is applicant to amend plans regarding preparation of future gateway signage to be approved by staff.

And that may end up being part of the pact as well.

Next condition, applicant to amend plans to address the Shonko Institute entry points and signage needs to be approved by staff, and the applicants are already in contact with the Shaco Institute team, and they're discussing that.

And applicant to amend plans to adjust design of the access aisle, which I'll show you here in a second.

The caveat with all of these being approved by staff is that my intent is that it's relatively small changes, but if it ends up being a big change, it would come back to the UDC.

I would have to bring it back to the UDC.

So the primary recommendation of staff is to have the applicant revise this layout to better utilize the residual land.

As you can see, yeah, this is about the same size as a block elsewhere in the city.

So we are eminently domaining a block and constructing a traffic circle and landscape areas, but the remaining areas would be very difficult to use for anything other than a green space area, and even then still very difficult to access.

So the planning department feels like as a land use decision guided by the master plan in this area, which the master plan says this was a primarily residential and commercial area and fairly dense, but with the high level of living quality, um, that if we can revise the layout of this to better use the residual land, that is our recommendation.

The conceptual approval that we see received in 2019 provided that condition that we look at this residual land, uh, and that is what the recommendation is also based on.

Uh, actually, let me go back real quick.

If the current layout continues or very similar layout continues, and green space is provided in the residual land, whatever is actually done in that space, other than the original, just kind of simple plantings, like if we want it to be active park space or anything like that, would come back to UDC as a separate project.

Then the other staff recommendation for adjustment is this is the traffic circle that comes off of the Lee Street Viaduct.

This is adjacent to the most be redevelopment, but most importantly, the school site.

Uh, we feel like this should be more pedestrian oriented.

Uh, right now, even though the intersection here is pretty poorly designed and not particularly safe, it does in theory provide control crossing for all pedestrians and all sides of the street.

The layout of this traffic circle includes a pedestrian beacon, which is the stoplight version of the pedestrian beacon uh only on one leg of this, and the remaining legs are you have to wait for the traffic to go by before you can cross.

Uh, so it's not pedestrian oriented, it's still fairly car oriented.

Still a vast improvement of what's out there.

Um that is the staff recommendation.

We think in theory, we could see further pedestrian beacons, uh, but we're leaving it entirely open for the engineering team uh to take a look at that.

Regarding the historic district, um, this is an opportunity to provide kind of a gateway.

This presentable, this section of ventable on the south side of this.

Well, bottom of this screen, but the east side in reality.

Ummercial strip uh that could use some investment.

Uh so as a gateway, we feel like this opportunity for art opportunity for signage, as well as um, we're recommending that the sidewalks on the side of the historic district be brick and the sidewalks on the other side remain concrete uh to provide a visual different god, I cannot talk different.

So sorry, differentiation uh between modern development and the historic district.

Um, the applicant um is fairly receptive to this, uh, so we feel like it can be handled by staff, and then the future art science project.

And as I said earlier, we did send this to PAC.

We are identifying future art locations, not actual art.

Um, my thought is that probably a concrete pad and electrical installation on the interior of the traffic circles may be the best opportunity, but we did want to talk to the people who actually do art stuff and get their input on what can best be done with that, and that could also include welcome signage.

I'm not sure exactly how all of that budgetarily will end up, uh, but it is an opportunity we want to identify.

As I said, the Shaka Institute, the team is already working with to identify the quality of the gateways into the Shaco Institute areas, as well as a need for directional signage, all of that will be handled by the Shaco Institute project, not this project.

I just wanted the opportunity for both projects to talk to make sure we didn't preclude any opportunities for the Shaka Institute.

And the mystery access aisle, um, as we have designed the primary traffic circle, the remaining development adjacent to that needs to continue to have access.

So the applicant has designed an access aisle.

I'm just being a little bit nitpicky, it's just designed as a simplifier access, but it could be a little bit more visually appealing.

I think it an actual cold-de-sac design, even though we don't like calling sex, most other places, um, just a circular design would be a lot more visually appealing among some other like sidewalk improvements and such like that.

And that is it for my presentation.

Let me make sure I got thrown my notes.

So our recommended to summarize our recommendation with the main circle is that it does not meet the master plan and the condition for the residual land use, and our recommendation is that it be revised to better use the residual land.

It doesn't necessarily have to be entirely revised, but it needs to have a better idea of how to use the reserve residual land.

Uh the master plan recommends this area as a fairly dense area, and the master plan recommends that we remain a gridded city, and this is taking an entire block and making it a traffic circle.

I will let the applicant discuss this.

This is a lot of engineering consideration into this design.

Applicant has put in a obviously it was approved in 2019 for concept, a lot of work figuring out the different opportunities here.

And there is engineering constraints.

But we're stuck in kind of a chicken in the egg situation where we're not engineers.

We're not allowed to talk about engineering stuff.

The reason we have to do this is engineering.

So I have given y'all the enviable task of figuring that out.

And that is my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Mr.

Ripps before we hear from the applicant regarding staff conditions.

Mr.

Bootsma.

Yes.

Um regarding that access uh on mental.

Yes, that appears that lot has access on the adjoining street.

Is there a legal condition why we they need to have that?

So that lot has already been approved for development, and they've already started constructing that development.

So we've already approved it based on the existing conditions out there where there is street frontage on where the and they require that street fundage that access there.

So this access would only be for them.

Um yes.

Yeah, yeah, chicken and egg.

Any other questions?

Good morning.

Lamont Benjamin, Capital Project Administrator Public Works.

Uh thank you.

President, uh Chair of the Urban Design Committee and Vice Chair.

Um first, I like to say 2019 was the concept.

As you know, 2019 was a long time ago.

A lot has happened since 2019.

But I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the Department of Transportation and Public Work Guides for securing the funding for this project, um, which is mostly funded with smart scale.

Um, the application process is very competitive where we compete against other localities.

Um this project was scored based on safety and other factors, which um was the reason why we were selected for the funding for this project.

Um a lot has happened since 2019.

We've done a lot of coordination work um with different committees, steering committees, uh, worked with the schools, um, at public hearings, as we'll get into a little bit with our presentation.

Um, but I do want to introduce um uh design consultant, RKK, and we also brought some other uh specialists here who will be able to explain or answer any questions that you may have regarding the historic futures, um, the landscaping and things of that nature, as well as the geometrics and the reasons why we selected um the layout the way it's it's shown.

I know the first item on the agenda, which we had talked about the traffic circle and making some of the adjustment, but there are there are legitimate reasons, um, technical reasons that we'll get into for our selections for some of those um roundabouts.

But we look forward to the question, to your comments.

Our main goal and purpose here is to try to get approval to move to the next step.

Again, it's been 2019.

Here we are, seven years later, trying to get this project move to um construction.

But the first thing we have to do is establish what we'll be doing within the right-of-way.

If we could get um an approval from you to stay with within whatever we choose to do here with the right-of-way, so we can move to the right-of-way phase, it will definitely help us to move this project forward.

Um, all of the other items, such as an adjustments to uh landscaping or different things of that nature, we'll continue to work with those items.

Um, but we'll we'll get into those details more with the presentation again.

We look forward to your comments and uh we'll go ahead and get started.

Thank you.

Hi, Owen Peary with RK and K Engineers.

Um if you all have technical questions, we have an assortment of folks in the audience here that uh they can introduce themselves.

We have traffic engineer, landscape architects.

Um Karen who did all of the architect archaeological work and and NIPA type work on the project, our technical designer Dave Beal.

Our technical designer, Dave Beale.

So I just want to recognize that we have brought an assortment of folks that should be able to address any of the questions.

Go ahead, Ray.

I hate to say that we really we don't have control.

Ray, you did a great job.

I don't even need to read this slide.

Project description.

I think you went over it really well.

Go ahead.

And you showed this map earlier.

This is the project area.

I won't dwell on this unless somebody has a question for me.

Do you all interact?

Do you'll ask me as we go through this, right?

Okay.

All right.

A little bit about our project schedule.

Um Lamont said conceptual approval 2019.

Uh our plans have since been developed to 70% design.

We did about three years of archaeological work along along Oliver Hill Way, a whole lot of environmental work.

Um and as a result of that, we have uh an MOA that's executed with uh DHR, Federal Highway Administration, all the side signatures, City of Richmond.

Um and our schedule going forward.

We're going to finish the NEPA document.

I did final couple final edits on that yesterday.

Planning commission, um, hopefully get through that towards the end of summer, early fall right-of-way acquisition to begin this year.

That'll take about two years.

We have a lot of properties on this project that we need um right away from uh utility relocations will take place simultaneously to that as we get the right-of-way acquisitions done.

We we could start relocating uh overhead utilities, some of the power lines and stuff, construction, what we call construction begins.

That's the roadway construction about 2019, and we think this is about a two-year project.

Right.

Um we've had a lot of outreach on the project with public hearings, public meetings and stuff.

Um, and here's sort of what we've heard.

Safe access for all users, circulation and connectivity.

Ray, you you touched on that about all the connectivity things that are incorporated in this project, environmental sustainability, transportation options, economic development, and support the adjacent land uses, just like the um the institute that we talked about earlier.

This project, I think gives them a nice front door um to the to what's planned there.

Um of the staff recommendations that we've heard uh leading into this meeting.

Um we heard uh your comments about the main circle, and we've done a lot of engineering on that, and with the grades and everything that's going on in that area.

We we feel like we have the correct solution, even though the residual land maybe is not what you you would like.

Um that roundabout appears to us from an engineering standpoint to be in the right location with all the geometry going in, slowing down traffic, traffic comp we just feel like it is in the right position.

We start and we've looked at we've looked at eight 18 other options, probably four of them made a white paper that we did a few years ago, but um we've we've looked at tons of alternatives there, and it's just with the the grade on Venable and coming off of Oliver Hill Way, it's just really hard to slide that roundabout around and make it as drivable and workable as the location we have it.

And another thing we looked at when we did our previous white paper was we do start sliding it around.

Um, we start impacting more property.

So all of a sudden we are on two or three other parcels where where it is right now, it impacts.

Yes, it impacts that one parcel, but we stay off the other parcels that are in that area.

So from an impact standpoint, it seems to us it's a uh a pretty good solution.

Applicant to amend plans to adjust the design at intersection of Lee and Mosby to be more pedestrian oriented.

I will say one thing um to the previous comment.

Um a pedestrian in a roundabout is now waiting for cars to pass.

Cars have yielded, and the pedestrian has the right-of-way.

And and when we slow the cars down based on the geometry coming in or out of a roundabout, it sort of provides a traffic calming again.

Yeah, the first car might go, but then the others see the pedestrians.

So we believe we have roundabouts that are very allowed vehicles to see pedestrians and know they're there.

And you know, we don't want a ton of overgrowth or or landscaping to block those views, and pedestrians will have the right of way.

So we we believe that roundabout actually does provide traffic control in all directions for um for the pedestrians.

And um thing we'd like to point out is Ray said that the intersection out there is pretty huge today, and uh so what we end up with on the most exposed leg of the new roundabout, we've reduced the crossing length from 120 feet to 30.

And on the other on the other approaches, there are only one lane approaches, so you're dealing with 14, 15, 16 feet of exposure when you're in the roadway.

So we feel like it's a major, major upgrade to um the current condition that's out there today at lead.

I won't dwell on that any further unless you have any questions.

Did you hit the button yet?

All right.

We want to get those in before we build the road so it all the infrastructures there, minor costs to our project.

Um, but it'll be set up and ready to go for whatever um this group feels the right thing to do in the I mean could be landscaping in the meet in those areas, and we may need irrigation or something like that.

So we'll figure that out moving forward, and we'll work with staff and others.

Signage once again coordinated with staff.

We're gonna coordinate with staff plans uh um Shaco Institute already been in touch with those uh Jeannie and her folks, and uh we're just gonna make sure we give them appropriate front door that accommodates whatever they think the needs are there, and that's gonna come off of Oliver Hill way on the Marshall Street, and then there'll be another.

I've heard there'll be another maybe entrance somewhere else, but that's probably going to be the front door, and we will appropriately sign it and have it ready to go.

Um access aisle, Ray will look at that.

Once again, we got a lot of terrain happening in that area, but if we can make it a little softer or something, I know you don't like cul-de-sacks, but maybe we can make it look a little more like you.

I think your mind wants to see it, and um, and and we can go from there.

Uh, I don't think we need to go back through.

You hit it pretty well.

The the what came out of the conceptual meeting.

So we have two or three slides here.

I don't think we need unless you all have any questions about what Ray briefed you on.

We could probably skip through this pretty rapidly.

Go ahead, Ray.

These are all from the preliminary meeting.

And Ray outlined them pretty well earlier.

Go ahead.

That's the roundabout in question.

Ray had a great picture of it earlier.

We have there was a comment to keep that connection, and we're that's that's a no-brainer.

So we're gonna leave that in.

So somebody doesn't have to go here to there to back up to 18th street.

So at least on a temporary or in an interim condition, we're gonna leave that sidewalk alone and let that that pedestrian access route um continue to serve.

Um it's not a big lift.

Um, we have talked to the developer down here, and there's some interest to maybe incorporate some of that land.

So while there's small residual areas, maybe some of this could be combined with an adjacent property, and and maybe its use could be repurposed or or combined with something that's next door to us.

So um, if there's a vision of something besides open space, maybe something like that could be done as well.

Lighting, this is gonna be the standard lighting on the project.

We were asked to make sure we showed you the uh the lighting standard.

Um this is this is what's gonna be.

It's gonna be the um uh we call it it's the LED light.

It's it's not the gas looking thing that's down on Main Street.

It's I think the city's gone to an LED light, so that's what that's what this is gonna be.

All right.

Design evolution, as Lamont said, we've worked on this for a number of years.

Comments from DHR and the community.

We've shifted roundabouts around, we've reduced the size of roundabouts, um, and got and moved them off of the Union Hill um historic district.

Um, so we don't have any impacts there.

So we've pretty much adjusted this project so it sort of fits into the neighborhood, as you saw on the previous uh slides.

Go ahead, Rick.

Uh one of the biggest probably evolutions we had was uh shrinking the footprint of Oliver Hill Way, and so we brought the rest curb in, and our vision is this could be an easement for pedestrians, so the developer that redevelops that area maybe still can take credit for that that property area, and it doesn't become our right-of-way.

So that's being discussed with staff and others, and um, but we've got this is what it go go to the next slide, right?

Um, I think we got a pretty picture.

So this is what Oliver Hill Way is going to provide.

Uh gonna have a sidewalk.

That's the current sidewalk, pretty much doesn't change, except maybe the texture, brick instead of concrete.

Then we have a cycle track, not a cycle bicycle lane.

We're gonna have a cycle track that's a two-way, and it's gonna be separated from the vehicles by that curve you see there.

And then we're gonna turn Oliver Hillway into a two-way street from the expressway, three lanes, and everybody dashing to Broad Street.

It's gonna be traffic's gonna be calmed down, we're gonna have a median, we're gonna have street trees, we're gonna have median plantings.

Um, should be a much nicer entryway into the city from when you leave the horrors of I-95.

Um, so um uh I think uh I think this will calm people down before they get to Broad Street.

And I want to point out also um Ray, you don't have to go backwards, but Ray brought up a great point of by adding or having that lane that goes directly into the roundabout from the I-95 ramp.

There's a lot of traffic that today zooms down to Broad Street, has to go west to only go back to Union Hill on 18th Street, and we're taking like 30% of those vehicles out of that traffic circle or traffic pattern, and they're gonna be able to just go right into that first roundabout and go up into the neighborhood, go towards the most uh um okay school wherever you're headed.

So it's sort of a benefit that we're reducing the amount of vehicles that today pretty much have to go down to Broad Street and then do the loop because we have the one-way pair.

We don't have two-way streets today, so you have to go to Broad, get into that congestion to only go back to 18th Street where where you're headed to home or you know, wherever in the neighborhood.

So we think that's a benefit of those dual roundabouts that you saw on an earlier slide, but go ahead to the next one, right?

So this is what hopefully pretty close.

We're pretty good at drawing these kind of drawings up.

This is pretty close to what Oliver Hillway should look like when we're when we're done.

Uh, you can see today is on the left, tomorrow's on the right, few tomorrow's, but it's where we're headed.

We and we uh we think that'll be a much better entryway into the city.

And this is sort of aerial view of just Oliver Hill way and some of our uh landscape architecture and the sidewalks we're gonna provide and cycle track.

I could pause for a second if anybody's got any questions.

All right, go ahead.

A brief slide about the funding.

And you could see we're approximately 50 50 million dollars, and that's in about a year, a year ago's uh estimates.

So it's probably climbed a little bit from there, but that's this is a 50 million dollar job, and one of the biggest ones I've ever worked on in the city of Richmond.

It's gonna be pretty cool when it gets implemented.

Um go ahead.

I talked about outreach earlier.

We've had 34 engagements with community, um, either through announced public hearings, city council, public workshops, UDC, CPC, and sitting in conference rooms here at City Hall with stakeholders that have properties around the area.

So we've had a number of these types of outreach engagements, opportunities, and still counting.

Go ahead.

We to briefly go through.

I'll go through what we showed the public just to take like four minutes.

Design public hearing we had in November.

So connectivity.

This is all of the how we're providing connections to areas in and around our our project.

Go ahead.

Oliver Hill Way, we've already seen that.

We showed the public how that was happening, focus on the roundabouts.

That's the dual roundabout.

It's venable and 18th.

Go ahead.

This is the Roseby Street roundabout, Venable and Mosby.

And go ahead.

That's a little bit of a vision of maybe how that could look if you're looking back from Union Hill down the hill towards downvenable.

Um just a rendering of what maybe, you know, that could be art in the middle, instead of flowers or plants or whatever.

Go ahead.

And the Lee Street roundabout, which I clarified earlier about the stopping of vehicles and the fact that we've this the crossing area is way less than it is today.

And this is the um the redevelopment of the um thank you, court.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

And we also had three or four boards describing all of Karen's work for historic resources and archaeology that we've done.

Um section 106 is the section of NEPA that this falls under, or DHR has overseen all of our work.

Um facto stuff out there.

We did do some exploration, and there's more to come.

Go ahead.

Avoid and minimize.

That's what we try to do with our design to uh avoid where we can and minimize impacts to historic areas and historic features.

Um go ahead.

And where we can avoid, there's mitigation that's spelled out in the MOA that's been agreed to.

So there'll be some signage, like you see at the bottom.

This is one of the areas we worked on.

Um, but there'll be some signage.

Where's we need to sort of have some kind of recognition of the old street grid that's gonna be at Mosby and Venable that roundabout is particularly mentioned in the MOA.

So there's some stipulations that we have to um follow that's better in the MOA.

I feel like I'm just talking.

Go ahead.

Our feedback.

Um, this would these are the people that we heard from, and where whether they were commuters or residents in the area, go ahead.

And of the respondents, uh, we feel pretty.

I mean, not usually you get a 90% uh sort of acceptance rate of a project like this.

So we were pretty pleased about about what we heard from the public, and this is one of those word things that I don't know how to do, but uh that's sort of what we heard from the public as well.

You could see the complaints, traffic, speeding cars, poor safety, pumpy road.

Okay.

Um but benefits, access, protected bike lanes.

That's sort of what we're hearing from improved access, safety.

So uh I think the public sort of understood what we were trying to show them when they came to the public hearing.

Maybe uh go ahead.

Oh, and we do have some people weighing in or some groups weighing in that um have written letters or send us stuff about their support of the project.

This is from the National Association of City Transportation officials.

Go ahead.

Children's hospital Richmond.

I won't read that to you, but you can sort of see what it says.

Go ahead.

And other people we've heard from I won't go through the whole list one by one, but a pretty diverse group of folks that seem to not see they do support the project.

Go ahead.

I think hopefully I don't know, seemed like a long time, but uh hopefully I didn't bore you to death.

And here we're all here for any of your questions you might have about anything you've heard.

Thank you, Mr.

Rokes for teeing that up for us.

Thank you, Miss Barry, Miss Benjamin.

Do any committee members have questions for the applicants?

Hi Mr.

Venue completion.

Um the Mos or Mosby and Lee Street roundabout.

Um, all the talk was about protecting, you know, the the word map.

I saw protected bike pedestrian safety all over it, the goals of the master plan, and yet there's a free or a protected right turn lane on that that's basically says traffic can just bypass the roundabout.

I guess it's called a bypass lane or whatever on the Mosby Street one.

That makes the pedestrian cross and the bike uh navigation way more dangerous and difficult.

If we're if we're prior, if we're supposed to be prioritizing uh pedestrians and other means of transit over cars, why is there a bypass lane?

Chris, I will sure let you answer the traffic reason for that.

But I will say there is going to be a push button, and that lane can be stopped, uh push button.

Yes, um, so it is the one because of that reason, it's sort of free flow.

There'll be come on up, Chris.

Our traffic engineer, Chris Daly.

I'll introduce you.

Well, thanks for the question.

And uh but simply vulnerable users are peasant bikes are our focus.

However, it's always still a balance of all the modes.

We still need to get vehicles through this intersection.

It's a busy intersection, there's a lot of vehicles.

To answer your question, quite frankly, without that movement, it creates unsafe conditions north on Mosby because what you'll have is a queuing, and that queue will extend through the mid-block crossings to MLK schools.

So you'll have a queue in it's a roundabout that's not signalized.

So this is sort of like the the circle on Monument Avenue, the big circle, right?

You got two lanes coming into that, and you've got two lanes that go all the way around it.

Here you're giving somebody a free ride, they don't have to stop, and you just you just said you prioritize cars because you don't want to cue cars.

And I didn't see the franchise cars.

So saying it's a balance of all modes.

That's what I said.

And what is what will happen, what our model shows is with that massive volume southbound, especially in the AMP period because it's a yield condition entering the roundabout.

We have a single lane roundabout, which is safer for pedestrians.

It is a single lane roundabout.

So one of those lanes is entering the roundabout.

If we try to have both lanes enter the roundabout, the queues because of the yielding would extend north on Mosby and would block mid-block crossings, so pedestrians again at the two streets to the north.

So they would be would they not be blocked by cars that are moving slowly rather than cars that are moving quickly.

So the design of the roundabout, and Dave can speak to this.

It is control.

A roundabout is traffic controlled, right?

Right.

But but my question is is if if the cars are queuing up down Mosby Street to the north, ish, they would be presumably going slower.

As they will be through this correct roundabout because of the geometry that divert diverted bypass lane.

That bypass lane, they don't have to slow down.

So bypass lane, you still have to make the right turn in that lane, right?

You are moving slower.

And as somebody mentioned, there's a pedestrian hybrid beacon there, right?

So let me also bring up so there's the there's the the multi-use pass path network that is part of this.

When it comes up to uh Venable Street, it jumps onto the street as a two-way cycle track in the pavement, comes around this corner.

Now it's facing into traffic at that that's coming uh eastbound on the MLK bridge.

It then has to make a right turn and go across it.

See you understand what I'm talking about right here.

You're talking boom boom.

Yes.

If you don't have that bike lane on the other side of the street, slight a lot of cyclists are just gonna ride in traffic and they're gonna hit this roundabout and and they're gonna head back to the city across the bridge.

I do it once a week.

Now I'm gonna be dumped out in here, and I've got this merging traffic that doesn't have to slow down on the right, it's gonna be hitting that thing at 30 35 miles an hour because they don't have to slow down right now.

They slow down because there's a traffic light at a regular, you know, just a I know that intersection is a disaster, but now they have to stop at a traffic light.

Now they won't have to stop at all.

They'll be able to just take that free right, and the pedestrian path for cross in there is jagged.

You know, you cross, then you have to get to an island, and then you have to people don't walk like that though, people walk in straight lines, and so people are gonna cross and then they're gonna go straight across again.

Again, I think all the emphasis that's been put on on bikes and pedestrians, and we're gonna de-emphasize the car.

This roundabout does not do that at all.

It emphasizes the car over all other modes of transportation, and that bypass lane is the main reason that it is the main uh element that emphasizes vehicle traffic over all other modes, and I think this will I'm just for me personally.

When I come through there on a Tuesday morning at about 7 30 or so with a big group of cyclists, we we go out in the east end every every Tuesday morning.

That intersection right now is is difficult.

This will make it more dangerous, and that is not what the stated goals are, is to make this safer for for everyone.

I I appreciate that you've you shortened pedestrian crossings.

Um without I don't know, there's a that bypass lane is just a problem.

Bypass lane, I think the thing is for me, I'd agree with you on that.

That if the concern is about, and we dealt with this with uh the project in Manchester, I recall this, and like there's a concern about cars backing up down the street, right?

Well, that concern is about traffic moving slowly and uh flowing through here, right?

If it's backing up, I can't see how having that cars moving constantly makes the pedestrian crossing, which signalized or not at most we're in the down in the corner here.

I think traffic flowing there or slowing down, slowing down makes it safer.

Yeah, it makes it safer, but again, a bypass lane doesn't slow down.

It's contradictory to that.

So I think I agree entirely that that, but we'll make comments.

But appreciate your comment.

Dave, you want to speak to the geometry now.

You can't go 35 miles per hour.

I mean, there's we're just throwing out random.

So all the roundabouts on this project are designed, so the entry speed, that's the biggest thing, the entry speed.

David Beetle, by the way.

Oh yeah, David Beetle RK.

Sorry.

Um, the entry speed cannot vehicle cannot go over 25 miles an hour, 25, 26 miles an hour.

That's the goal.

So cars can't come through here and go 40 miles an hour.

They have to physically slow down to go make the turn.

Um, so I mean that that's the traffic calling Chris keeps talking about.

Can't run a red light at around about 50 miles an hour, right?

And there are pet bike facilities.

What are the marked speed limits on Mosby Street?

Isn't it 25 miles an hour now?

Okay, so they could go through at the speed limit, and we know not everybody drives the speed limit, and the recommended speed from an engineering standpoint is not always the maximum speed that somebody can go through.

People do routinely exceed those those design speeds.

Um I I don't know, I just so the the city has a hard time with this intersection.

The city has taken great lengths to reduce speeds along Mosby and calm speeds on Mosby.

A lot of infrastructure has gone into place, and there are uh programs collecting speed data.

I don't know if Andy, if you got information on that, but the speeds have been vastly reduced on Mosby already.

Any other questions?

This week.

I've got a question.

Are there any other locations in the city with that's double roundabout configuration of the main roundabout?

So again, this is this is not anything about she's talking about the dual that configuration.

Well, is this a new condition citywide, or is there anywhere else that has two roundabouts that are this close together?

Not that I don't know.

Questions about this one too.

Um, you mentioned that you had looked at a number of different designs for it.

Was there ever a design where this whole parcel was like one large circle rather than this dual circle?

Yes.

Um you talk about sort of like an oval about, yeah, or something like that.

And you combine the two together.

Um those become problematic because it's almost like going to a speedway.

And so when you're if you don't have that circumference that's slowing you down in the one roundabout, and you give somebody a straight stretch speeds increase.

That's been proven.

Uh I know there was an oval about in Baltimore, and I've driven a couple others, and they become like a little bit problematic from a from an accident standpoint, just because you you're not keeping the speeds down to where you want it.

Chris and his team have run all the analysis 40 years out of traffic growth, whatever.

And um partially because of this lane, gets a lot of the traffic out of these two roundabouts and becomes more neighborhood traffic than all the traffic trying to get to Broad Street and commuter traffic trying to get to um MCB or what used to be.

Can you clarify the comments you just gave around the oval roundabout?

Do they also apply to one large circle roundabout?

Yeah, the bigger the circle, yes.

Good point.

Like you can travel the one down on um monument that used to have the statue in the middle of it.

You can travel that way faster than you travel the little roundabout that's at the end of Dock Street.

You can picture that.

So yeah, the compactness, the how tight we can make those uh Dave has made those curves and everything, and our roundabouts helps to calm traffic and keep speeds low, which is what we want.

Yeah, uh there are um dual roundabouts like this around the state.

Sometimes you see them coming off an interstate, and there'll be a roundabout at if you've traveled maybe in the other states, there'll be a roundabout at the bottom of like two or two of the ramps, and they're pretty close together, 150, 200 feet apart.

Um, so this isn't uh an original design, it's just just taking something we've done elsewhere and and putting it here.

I've seen some in Loudon County, probably this we how did these um compare to other roundabouts that exist from a size perspective?

You mentioned the one on Dak Street, even we had a display for that.

I believe they're all in comparison to Dock Street or smaller, obviously the biggest one right here of the other two 18th Street and Veneville, I believe are less.

I think we have it on 130 feet.

I want to see Dock Street's like 145, I remember or the dock street, but they are slightly bigger than the 25th Street and the roundabout 25th and I believe they're all slightly bigger than that.

That's a little smaller, that's like 110 feet.

They're kind of between Dock Street and the nine mile like that street.

So they're more neighborhood intersection scale.

Yeah, the one the one design criteria that Dave had to make work with was since we're this close to a school with or without a school nearby.

We generally want a school bus not to have to ride up on that on this raised island, a truck truck apron, we call it.

Um it's fine if a truck gets over there and and drives on those bricks or whatever, we make that surface, but um Dave correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your design vehicle was to get a school bus without it having the tires run up on that on that little ridge.

Um, so it could stay flat in the road.

Yeah, the the city bus was the design vehicle.

So like oh, instead that can navigate the roundabouts without ever going up on the curb, but these truck aprons on the outside and inside.

That's for there were a few movements where the WB50 was required to be able to make turns.

Um, so those can utilize that, but a city bus can go right through these without ever leaving the roadway.

But WB50 is like a Pepsi delivery truck or something that size.

We so we can accommodate that, but we don't design around that.

There's only a few movements that that's required for yeah.

But you mentioned there was a comment about trying to keep that uh 18th street straight, like link it up between the the roundabout on the bottom and 18th street.

Wouldn't that create the need for a third roundabout?

Oh no, it's just a sidewalk.

It would not be right.

So the pedestrian doesn't have to go all the way to the other roundabout to get back to 18th Street.

Okay, I thought you were talking about cars.

Yeah, there's an existing sidewalk right here going up 18th Street.

So one comment we got was pedestrians are gonna take the shortest path was gonna keep people just walking through the grass instead of walking up through.

So we can easily connect this back to here.

Basically, it's it's not the grades are gonna be a little different.

Yeah, it'd be a little good.

What is pedestrian traffic like in this area?

Like when is it heavy?

How heavy is it?

Are there any pedestrian signals here?

These two roundabouts.

No cars yield for the pedestrians in the round.

I mean they don't.

Uh they should.

And many people do not stop for pedestrians.

I can't tell you.

Um, do we have pet signals up there today?

Chris, are there pit signals up there?

There's pedestrian phasing at those intersections, yes.

And the heaviest traffic, um we actually did parking study, and we could interpret what the pedestrians are doing as well when we did that.

And um a lot of people park in this neighborhood and avoid the fees to go to the VCU.

And a lot of pedestrians come out of this area and hit Broad Street or whatever to get to the hospital and and classes.

So um, I would say morning and evening, you get that that traffic, and other than that, it's a neighborhood kind of pedestrians walking to a shop or to a restaurant or something like that.

I think it's uh I mean the thing that I'm worried about when I look at this is like ship change at the hospital and a bunch of people are walking, and there's also a ton of traffic at those times of days, and we already have a big problem with pedestrian mortality in Richmond.

And I've lived here my whole life.

Nobody stops for pedestrians, unless the car in front of you does, or an out-of-towner is doing it.

It's just a really bad habit the city has.

So it does concern me not knowing where those busy nodes are in this plan.

I foresee being a potential issue.

The busiest node would be at Broad Street and Oliver Hillway.

That's where you see that there's two transit stops there.

There's a lot of pedestrian activity going up and down Broad Street, like you said, getting to VCU and back towards the neighborhood.

That's I I don't have I don't have data, but uh I've of course studied this neighborhood for about eight years now, and that seems to be where you'd find the most pedestrians.

So if you're traveling south on Oliver Hill way on a bicycle, then you cross round the roundabout and then cross over two lanes of traffic.

You know, we're just south of the U of the I-95 off ramp.

Now we're on the opposite side of Oliver Hill Way on a on the bike.

Is that correct?

So we're away from traffic.

Yeah.

Cycle track here.

And we do cross you there, and then cycle track all the way down past Broad Street.

That seemed like some pretty 90 degree angles for uh but could be through a bicyclist into the off ramp that's free flow coming off a 95.

So to avoid that, we had to get to the uh east side of Oliver Hill way.

Um took the curve of the bike ramp, excuse me for interrupting, because I think you're missing my I think you're missing the nuance of my question here.

I wonder if that curve that's at about 11 o'clock.

Yep, that's the one could be reversed.

If you're riding with Keith, um here we'll let the comment more.

I mean, it just makes it a sign.

As we said earlier, uh landscaping and minor revisions like that that don't impact right away or stuff we're still working with staff on.

So it might be nice to have infrastructure for a smoothie snack uh shack at that point too.

Cyclists, you're talking about this portion right here.

Yeah, just we can just quickly, yeah.

So Ray, point of clarification.

Um the uh there was a comment, a staff comment about showing more detail for the residual green space at this area.

Was that from the 2019 approval?

Okay, because maybe I missed it in the presentation.

I think we saw just a couple of trees.

Is there any what what's going to become of that green space?

It it looks like it's pretty.

What's the use for it?

I mean, what's it going to become?

Is it just a few trees and some grass or we don't know yet?

Um, but we're working with staff on that to resolve what those spaces become.

We've already had a couple meetings with with folks planning.

So this is a final approval, right?

Because they've already got conceptual.

So green space would be a separate project.

That'd be a separate project.

Okay.

Yes.

Any other questions for the applicant?

This camera.

Um, what during construction?

Is there a traffic plan of where things will be rerouted or how it will affect traffic?

Yes.

And we look to minimize closures and detours as much as possible.

Of course, when we're putting in a big sewer line or something, we have a big hole in the road.

Um, we'll have to get around that for a couple days or something, but there's should be no extended detours that last like a year or months or whatever.

Um trying to minimize that.

So we'll be building this under traffic pretty much.

Bike access will be maintained per city statute.

Uh we do have a full maintenance of traffic plan, TMP, transportation mobility plan.

Um, and it's because it's a grid streets, there are alternatives that reduce the detour length and time.

And that was information that we had to pull into the environmental documentation for the feds.

And to answer your earlier question, yes, the bulk of the pedestrian activity is on Oliver Hill way near 18th Street, uh or sorry, sorry, near Broad Street intersection, BCU.

That's where the cluster of activity is.

And so that's why we focused on that intersection and not a roundabout any longer.

The original concept was around about there as well.

And instead, we're designing what's called a protected intersection, which separates the pedestrians and the cyclists from the vehicles in a better way than what you see at most intersections today, um, using buffer spaces and raised uh elements.

Um the crossing distances are shorter.

Uh so it is a better design there than what is there today.

Uh, and then along Oliver Hillway, we're making much wider spaces for pedestrians, especially near the butt bus stops.

Right now, you see them today, they're all clustered in that small little now.

We're gonna have a much wider area, and then on the opposite side, we have the cycle track.

So the combinations for pets and bikes are much better through that stretch of Oliver Hill.

The other questions.

Uh, one more about um Lee and Mosby.

Do you all have accident data for that intersectionally?

Not in this presentation, but yeah, that was part of our traffic analysis uh was to investigate uh the crashes and our design is reflective of the crash patterns that not just here but throughout the entire study area.

Sure.

Uh I'm giving I'm M Cata from public books department.

Uh view point on this uh Lee and Moss B that uh especially slip length.

One thing we can consider part of the project is to put a speed table before even getting to PHB.

So that would be commonly slow down and a physical structure like that will slow down better than anything else.

So please consider that uh slowing down traffic to even the speed table.

Mr.

Carl, would you with the design team consider removing the slip lane?

This time I think uh if we did a lot of analysis, and uh Chris is uh professional engineer of sport, and uh removing the slip lane will fail the round bug.

So that's not uh operationally we can we can consider because for the safety point of view, crashing point of view, those kind of the bridge fails, it would create the more maybe crashing and also if it's backs up the pedestrians walking through the stalled cogs that may not be good for pedestrians also.

So having a certain level of uh movability for pedestrian with speed table with uh uh uh PHB, I think that gives more control.

They they want to they should paths and cross the street and same time at least one lane the on the boat can still function.

Other one you can put it on uh speed table and THP or student for others.

I think that's the safest approach we can consider.

Any other questions?

Okay, I do want to get rid of your that the two lane entering and exiting is less safe than having the two separated lanes with a refuge island in between.

That refuge island is 10 feet, it's nice and wide for pedestrians to cross in two stages instead of if we had two lanes entering the roundabout, they're exposed to two lanes of traffic.

Now they're only exposed to one at a time.

That's what yeah.

I mean, the two is always significant.

I use the right about a dark street or carry as an example.

One lane of traffic entering that roundabout at all locations flies through.

Admittedly, peak travel times during the day.

Congestion does occur vehicular congestion does occur.

I use that as a pedestrian cyclist frequently, and I will say that traffic moving slow through there, even though it's an inconvenience to the vehicles, it's very safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Um, and then additionally, looking at the other three roundabouts that are more neighborhood scale.

I just wonder why this one being the closest to Union Hill Mosby Court, the schools, why this one isn't as compact as the the other three.

That's that's where my um my question insert lies.

Sure, and just again clarificate not that we'll labor this point, but again, this is a single lane roundabout, just like those others.

You guys are calling it you know a slip lane, a bypass lane.

We intentionally remove a lane from the roundabout so that this stays a single lane roundabout, so that you only have one exit, right?

And this notion that that this is a speedway is incorrect.

As I said before, we already have all kinds of infrastructure slowing vehicles before they even get to the roundabout, and then the nature of the design of that roundabout and the diverter island further slows as Kerr mentioned.

We can look at other measures to increase visibility, um, potentially with something vertical to again even further slow, and then we also have the PHP.

So we're doing everything we can to make this with the refuge island the safest it can be.

We understand the contextual sensitivity of the school that all went into everything that not only we're doing with this project, but separate city projects in the vicinity.

So um you say it's a single lane roundabout, yeah, but it's not on the top left to the top left is two lanes.

This is an older version of this, by the way.

I'm sorry, but Ray has a more updated version of it.

This is what seems interesting.

There's more quadrant.

That's another one.

Oh, and this striping is is slightly different now.

There's two like one entered the roundabout, one is the round.

Yeah, yeah.

This single circulating lane.

This is uh a lane that it's a two-way approach, but the way it's striped now, Ray.

I don't know.

Can you have can you pull that up?

Very slowly, it's coming.

Yeah, no, it's a good point, Pete.

That this is a slightly older version of design.

May sound like a snarky question, but why wouldn't you have the most recent one in your presentation?

Then I didn't pull the presentation.

Sorry.

The same what everybody else was thinking.

Yes.

Thank you.

Well, they'd ask to vote on things that are in front of us.

So I think this came from the public meeting.

That's why it was in this portion of the presentation, right?

Yes, public air.

Yeah.

Can you also clarify something for me?

Um you have crosswalks with bold lines.

And then there's some dashed lines as well.

What is bold versus dash?

Yeah.

If Ray can, when Ray brings it up, you'll see that this is an older sketch back at the time.

The standard for pedestrian crossings was the transverse parallel lines.

Those will now be what we call the high visibility.

It's the 24-inch blocks.

So that's better for pedestrian conspicuity as that.

So again, that's that's been revised.

Each of these crossings are those block style.

And then we also you can't see it on the screen.

It's there, trust me, but the green blocks for the separate bike crossing that you we see around the city that were elephant tracks is what they're locally.

Thank you.

So it is all high visibility markings for both crossings.

No more no further questions from Nate.

Do any other committee members have questions?

Mr.

Well, is this the most recent?

Same design, just different striping.

Same design, it's a more modern striping, current M UTCD, which's called a turbo.

So it's again, it's one circulating lane.

This is a two-lane approach, right?

But it's still the one circulating lane.

So the curb layout is the same, it's just striping it.

Yes.

Yes.

The color picture you saw is what the current design shows.

Striping has changed slightly.

So you're looking at the right curb lines, but still 34 feet.

Yep.

Yeah.

The stripe the striping may indicate other things.

It's looks and acts the same way as that as people enter it.

Right.

Because people are going to make the same movements.

They're either turning right, they're going to go to the second right, the third right, whatever.

They're still going to navigate it the same way.

And the nickname turbo do well for your argument that it's pedestrian.

It's yeah.

But I agree.

But uh, I appreciate the offer of uh speed bumps and maybe an additional uh pedestrian beacon.

I think that is something that could benefit this project.

Just keeping us on our time is 1120.

If there are no further questions, thank you to the applicants for um answering questions, making the presentation and answering our questions.

Thank you.

Okay, that brings us to public comment.

If anybody in the room would like to provide public comment, same hands.

Um please keep your, I know we will have a number of public commenters, so please keep your comments concise, maximum of three minutes per comment.

Um please approach the podium line up along here.

And if you are joining us virtually, uh we will take public comments from you.

Uh just raise your hand to indicate that you're interested in sharing comments.

So good morning.

Please introduce yourself.

All right, my name is Emily Shreer.

I'm the policy and planning manager with Bikewalk RBA at Sportsbackers.

I want to first note the positive potential of this project to calm traffic, like was said, improve safety and bring much needed infrastructure to Chaco Valley.

But because of this project stated goals are improving safe access for people of all ages and abilities.

I want to emphasize how important it is that the bike and pedestrian infrastructure elements are clear, intuitive, and well thought out.

Bike infrastructure, especially only succeeds when people are able to understand quickly how to use it.

If it's confusing, it can become difficult to navigate, and then it's less likely to be.

So with that in mind, I have three uh additional considerations specifically looking at the bike infrastructure along Mosby and then the two roundabouts on that street.

So looking at the Mosby and Lee Street Viaduct roundabout that was already mentioned.

Um cyclists riding towards a viaduct um on the proposed two-way cycle track on Mosby are expected, like was said to stop and then cross Lee Street in order to access the existing westbound bike lane on the viaduct.

Currently, like we heard, there appears to be little space for people on bikes to safely wait to make that turn.

And they're also facing traffic coming off of the bridge as well as eastbound cyclists coming off the bridge.

We recommend adding at least a bike box in that space that will just provide additional waiting area and kind of free up space also for eastbound cyclists coming off the bridge and make that turn a little safer.

Second, encourage the design team to consider whether that proposed two-way cycle track on Mosby is the safest and most intuitive design for people on bikes.

Many of NACDOs, which was mentioned, um NACTA was their recommended roundabout designs instead use one-way bike lanes on each side of the street, approaching a roundabout.

This allows for more predictable movements for people on bikes.

Coming to a roundabout, they're following the flow of traffic.

It reduces the need for bikes to cross as often, and then it reduces conflict points as well.

And then finally, throughout, it would be great to have clear wayfinding.

I don't know if that was already considered.

Those changes will make the project more intuitive, reduce conflict points, and ensure that the infrastructure can be used and enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Craig Martin, and I am one of the partners in Shaco Records, which is based out of the building at 1813 East Broad.

And I travel in a ton into the area.

And I just wanted to say that first of all, appreciate the explanation of everything.

Roundabouts are a good thing.

They are helpful and useful to the traffic patterns, in my opinion.

That area where I come and go every day is extremely dangerous.

So anything we can do to improve that, both for pedestrians but also for cyclists is important to me.

And I just want to make the comment that, you know, as part of the flow, it matters to the people.

So we're working on something called the Shaco Arts and Culture Area, basically.

And we have a lot of events that happen in that area.

So highlight one, which is coming up on August the 1st, we have 804 day, which is where we close city streets and things.

So we have a lot of people wanting to come into the area, especially on bikes to participate in what we're doing.

And so I just any way we can make that safer for them and encourage bike traffic in a way that's uh safe.

Again, my experience, I live in the museum district, and so Floyd's one of my favorite streets because it deals with uh the bikes well.

It has the roundabouts, slows everything down, and it's just a much better way to go.

So thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

Good.

I think it's still morning.

Good morning.

I'm Cyan Crump.

I'm the executive director of Historic Richmond.

We were a consulting party in the Section 106 process and have provided multiple letters, uh 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023, and attended a number of meetings relating to this project and have provided a lot of feedback.

Um, we believe there's much to appreciate with the Shaco Valley Streets project, the bike lanes, the shared use paths, two-waying certain streets, streetscape improvements, and opportunities for public art.

But we think that there is much still to work on with the design throughout this project process and project, we have seen that the priority has been given to cars.

From day one, this has been based on 2013, 2014 I-95 road studies.

And it's that information is dated at this point, and it's worth a re-look at that.

In addition to the comments on the roundabouts that the staff had in their staff report, and that you all have asked questions about during this meeting.

We're very worried about the significant widening of Oliver Hillway, um, 17th Street as it hits Broad Street.

It takes about 30 feet of developable land at this very important intersection, and it widens the pedestrian crossing for somebody walking from east to west, west to east to over 60 feet.

That road widening plus the multiple large roundabouts going up the valley, extend the highway into the city, create a sinuous suburban style road in place of the historic rectilinear grid, gives large amounts of land over to the automobile, it separates neighborhoods, it ignores the historic urban setting, and it reduces walkability.

We would like to ask again for a redesign.

We've asked for a redesign in every letter since 2018 and have seen minimal changes in this project.

The only significant change was eliminating a roundabout at Broad and Oliver Hillway, which would have taken over four city blocks.

In addition to the comments identified in the staff report, we asked that you would look at this Oliver Hillway intersection with Broad Street and whether it can be narrowed.

You do not need two right hand turn lanes designed to accommodate 18-wheel trucks at this intersection.

I would ask you also to consider moving the two way bike lanes off of Oliver Hill Way further to the west.

One of the important developments since this project was first designed was the evolution of the floodplain and the floodway going through Shaco Bottom.

And so that parcel immediately to the west that's losing 30 feet to this project is basically undevelopable now because this project takes takes the land that is outside of the floodway, floodplain, and gives it over to the road.

It also creates a lot of conflict between cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

So I would just ask you in the end to consider the amount of developable land that this project takes from the people and gives to cars and give people more of a focus.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If anybody participating online would like to provide public comment, please raise your hand.

I move that we said to staff recommendations on this project.

Okay.

We have a motion from Ms.

Clark to recommend approval with stack staff recommendations.

Do you mind pulling those recommendations up for the committee's reference?

Is there a second to Ms.

Clark's motion?

I'll second so we can discuss but Ray did not recommend.

I thought he'd right it's recommended approval and nuance.

The path forward for the staff recommendation on the primary traffic circle is to either if y'all think it wants to be amended significantly.

Pass the applicant to the draw it, continue it, or one of those deny recommended die.

Okay.

Seconded by Miss Gimmer.

Discussion.

Would you like to it's boring?

So just to clarify, we're recommending approval, but taking on recommendations.

What's that recommendations?

Yes.

May I begin?

Mr.

Business.

Um, I think I would um I would have made the opposite um uh motion that um I'd like to see this uh reconsidered and redesigned.

I think particularly since um design as noted is a almost eight years old.

Uh I don't know how many people on this board were a part of that discussion at any time.

Um, I know there's been public comments about it, and I think particularly um the representative from Historic Richmond.

Um, I really appreciate her comments um because they they echo my thoughts on this.

Um, and I think particularly um the venable to uh Oliver Hill, that double um uh roundabout.

I think it is a tremendous uh missed opportunity for us to create public space.

I think as an urban design committee, um that design, well, I think it's probably efficient for traffic flow, it's efficient for making sure that cars don't get backed up on the freeway.

Um I think it does all of those things, it may be good for pedestrians.

I think it falls short of what is good urban design.

Uh, as the comments from Historic Richmond were made that it becomes more of a suburban uh roundabout uh traffic exit from the freeway.

And I certainly would like to see uh a design which takes it.

And I think the the comments from staff about the the uh the space that's left over.

I think that's to me it says, and when when comments come from the engineering team saying, well, we're gonna look at art later, we're going to look at how to decorate this later, how these spaces are going to be used later.

I think that's poor urban design.

It may be good engineering design, but I think as an urban designer, we want to be looking at those things at the same time that we're looking at engineering for making sure that we have uh traffic combed, uh good pedestrian cycling infrastructure, all of those things together.

Um, I think there are examples of uh public circles that work.

I mean, the the Monument Avenue ones that the redesign at Allen and Monument has been, I think a success or improving from what it was before, but then it could be looked at.

But there are other examples, I think, where we're looking at public space and especially if this area is going to be growing and we're gonna be having more uh pedestrians there.

If the if by one of the illustrations said future residential development up between the two streets, that um if we're gonna have a lot of uh folks who are gonna be living between there and Broad Street and this area continues to grow.

Uh, we have an opportunity to create actual public space, which is not just sort of left over space, but it's something that's designed and begin from the beginning.

Um and so uh I think my other comments were yeah, again, the sort of lack of integration of the art and the design.

I think this could really could be uh an opportunity for us to create a really great public space and address all of those things at the same time because right now I think the engineering is driving the the engineering for driving is driving the design.

Um and then I think there are good examples of of places which I think are urban design, which are essentially traffic circles.

Anyone who was familiar with Washington, DC, DuPont Circle, Washington Circle, these are two very good public spaces which are able to uh navigate that um that balance between being uh a traffic circulator and a public space.

And I think DuPont Circle for me is one of the the premier public spaces in the entire uh country.

And I think as an urban design committee, I think we should be trying to create uh and guide uh the future public spaces of this city rather than just letting them be uh uh handed over to traffic.

That's my those are my comments on the do you think uh that entrance on the expressway into going into Broad Street and into the church hill area.

I mean that could be a really great like placemaker become welcome to our city.

Exactly.

And I think I think again, it's you know, I sit on the um commission of architectural review.

Um, and I I agree with that.

I think uh the concerns of historic Richmond and concerns of uh of folks who live in Union Hill and Church Hill, uh they want to see that character uh preserved and I think celebrated.

And I think it's an opportunity for us to celebrate that.

I mean, we have other traffic circles throughout the city that are public spaces, and I think um Church Hill has other than St.

John's, uh it it doesn't have that same sort of entrance and celebration and monumentality of it.

I think there's an opportunity for us to do it, and I think there's an opportunity to be able to do that.

So I would hesitate to approve this, although you know, if it again, if it was just simply a matter of uh improving public safety and traffic flow and all the things, it's marvelous.

It's fine.

Uh, I think these are all great, but but again, it's uh urban design.

So I guess this is a question of procedure because this design has essentially received well has received conceptual approval that's coming to final, and because of the time gap, it's a whole new whole new committee.

Um denying it, sending it back to the conceptual level.

Is that even something that's within our ability to do?

So the two staff recommendations that are basically like we want to see changes to the plants are for the the main circle and circle beside the school or the main circle, the avenue uh like the bureaucratic way to approach it, is that the concept asked for a study on the residual land?

They have provided a study of the residual land.

It doesn't specify what study means.

Um you are not agreeing with the outcome of that study.

The concept set up the ability to give comments on that, and then on the circle beside the school, um that circle now that we're final, we're looking at the final details, right?

So that is the master plan consideration.

That's what some of your conditions are about anyway.

You've got conditions in there about making it more pedestrian.

Does there anybody have any other objections to any other part of it other than the sliplane and on Mosby?

Uh I I think that the um Hamlet here the handling of pedestrians and bicycles at the school roundabout is really disjointed and asks for people to move in ways and on bicycles to move in ways that they don't.

This is also the big big one as well, works that way.

And um who cares if it's makes travel by vehicle, private vehicle enrichment harder.

Get out of your car, right?

Public transit, you're in the city, right?

And so I would say that this sort of dismissal of other through the design, the dismissal of other forms of or lower priority of other forms of transportation really needs to be considered because long term should we drive around in our cars?

But maybe that's maybe there's uh something to go for this statement that people will stop for you.

Cars will stop for you when you're in the crosswalk, just never happened.

But you know, it's just on the news that we're renamed in the section of Clay Street in front of the Valentine after Bill Martin.

They didn't stop for him, and he was in a crosswalk.

There's been too much of that happening lately.

So I that comment really is insulting.

Um, so I and we heard similar comments on the Mayo Bridge thing.

So I think there's an it, there's there's an issue with the traffic engineering profession that is still hyper focused on cars and does the bare minimum that they have to for other modes of transportation.

It's still a still a car engineering business.

So yeah, that that concept just I think it's I think for urban design, it should be the concept.

It's flipped on its head because I think it's a concept where it feels like the design is designed for cars to maximize efficiency of moving cars, even if they're moving slowly, they're maximizing that and accommodating pedestrian rather than maximizing pedestrian and civic um experience and then accommodating cars.

I think as urban design, that's that's what the primary thing of urban design should be.

We should accommodate and allow for the reality that a lot of people use our cars, but we should be preferring to be able to say and and making it also easier for them to transfer into to take a car or a bike or walking transit.

We have a motion on the floor to approve with the staff conditions, which are staff conditions are could we see those again?

Yes, and the staff conditions do not include anything related to the primary circle because our recommendation not to have that current design, right?

In terms of process, rejecting that primary circle allow doesn't allow them to move forward to the right-of-way stage.

I can't remember.

I'm sorry what the first person called that, but anyway, so if we reject that primary circle, it holds the timeline in the same way that asking them to study all of them do in theory.

No, our recommendation was the planning question either way, yeah.

But I mean, like in terms of their their process, like the project timeline.

I mean, are we making a recommendation that gets forwarded to the planning?

Yes, yes, and then the planning commission votes, yes, yeah.

So they can older dupe something I'm pretty clear on that.

I've been under the committee for a long time.

Um if the planning commission takes a recommendation from UC, and that recommendation is denial, continual or withdrawal, the whole project would not move forward because the planet is.

Even if it's just the primary circle, yes, as it's currently set up in one project and has not been split up to it's not separate.

And sorry, one other question is this it looks like we've got a two-year time frame until construction starts.

Are we at another ballpark consideration where whatever we say doesn't matter anyway because they've got their shovels the next morning?

As staff has set up its recommendations, it's staff report basis on how we found our find founder findings.

Um we have based it on the master plan and the controllable things that the planning commission and UDC can do through 17 or 70 city chart uh specifics on how the designs are recommendations, but the general idea of the design, if it is recommended for change or whatever, is controllable according to the city charter by the planning commission and our I mean I'm I'm torn uh because I I agree with your comments about urban design and the need to prioritize that.

I mean, I'm I'm torn uh because I I agree with your comments about urban design and the need to prioritize that.

I also empathize with the design team that was given a task to engineer this thing, and they've done a really good job doing what they were asked to do.

It's just not what we are asking them to do, but we're six years into the project.

I provide a little bit of clarity maybe for that.

Uh as we know, this project has been going on for six years.

The source of funding is related to transportation things.

So doing kind of above and beyond things is difficult.

However, this project has gone on for six years, and if an additional project needed to go at the same time to do these extra things, it could have been done.

But it was not the recommendation of the original approval to do that.

They ticked it off to the final.

So that's my I'm gonna make a recommendation for just kind of get a pulse on how everybody's feeling.

So we we had conceptual review that happened before anybody on this committee began serving on the committee.

Um it's a dated conceptual review.

We have some clarity that needs to be worked out with regard to two of the traffic circles to the roundabouts, the first one and the fourth one, the one by the highway, the one by the school.

Is it in our best interest as committee to continue it to give the design team since this is the final approval and we haven't seen the final designs?

We talked about what could be included in the final designs.

Um, should we consider continuing recommending continuance to give the design team an opportunity to finalize the details, maybe reroute some of the pedestrian cyclists infrastructure, maybe um consider improvements to the slip lane at the roundabout at the school, if not ultimately ultimately removing it.

If we do a continuance, it doesn't go to the planning commission, then it waits until it comes back here to go to the planning.

Our recommendation would be the continuance and planning commission would have to disagree with the continuance.

My recommendation if we do do a continuance, unless the applicant states otherwise, it probably would take more than a month to get through some of the work, unless it's just very simple work, uh, depending on what y'all decide what it should be.

If that is the case, um the applicant has to agree to a continuance uh or agree to withdraw.

So, like when Kara said they could do uh speed humps entering the slip lane, that kind of falls under your recommended condition number one, right?

Yes, so we wouldn't need to make that a separate condition.

That could just be something for that, or to put like an additional set of controls for the pedestrian beacon at the second crosswalk.

Um so if we vote on the positively on the motion that's on the floor that has these conditions, then Ray manages meeting those conditions through the plan review process.

I feel like a denial or a continuance here is going to go to the planning commission and they're just going to approve it.

Uh my sense is an approval with conditions as a better chance of getting approved by the planning commission with those same conditions.

And then we can get we can achieve a lot of what the concerns that we have as a committee versus taking a stand here and then having the planning commission just overrule completely, and then we get nothing of what we asked for.

So it depends on what y'all want.

If y'all want significant change, I would recommend denial or withdrawal.

That's what I'm hearing about all the change.

That's what I'm hearing about those two main roundabouts is major changes.

And I'd have a hard time voting positively for a major without a major change to that to that part of this project.

I have no problem with the rest of it.

If there was a way to be separable and be able to say, listen, I think the rest of it just needs tweaks.

But I this particular uh is a significant problem.

And I mean, if we can recommend that they um I know they probably have some bureaucratic reason why they have to have it as one application for funding-wise and whatnot, but as far as I'm concerned, that those things are separable for what I would be willing to recommend, and I would not want to go on record saying I approve this as it is, uh, whether or not it's overruled by planning commission or not, I would want my objection to be known.

I think the specifics of what we're asking to change are numerous.

Our staff recommendations would be a very long list.

This we can um I certainly agree with Mr.

Bootsmith's sentiment.

I my challenge to that though, is that there's I don't think it's right to push them into buying more parcels and taking more.

I don't think you need parcel, though.

I don't I don't know that the recommendations, the the ways to change the design though, are possible without taking more private property.

Um I'm not sure that that's necessarily true without having seen alternatives.

So that's that's my thing is that I just I see I see an alternative.

And again, that's the idea that the public space is residual is robbing me the wrong way.

I mean that yeah, and as you know, as a as an urban designer, uh and someone who again I'm on historic, uh I'm concerned with historic things, I'm concerned about um making something that is uh a meaningful piece of public property.

And I think the thing is I think treating this as a residual means that any property you know to the north of here, which is going to be future developed is going to just it's going to continue to just be residual space, it's not gonna actually be a public space, and I think we have again a missed opportunity there.

Yeah, that again, and I think it's the the situation is that you know the plans were made six years ago, reviewed here six years ago, situation has changed.

Personalities have changed.

Umpinions of people in the city, I think have changed in the six years.

Um, I think also, you know, it's just like what Mike Tyson says, you know, everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth, you know.

But this is a six years later sort of plan.

So I again I would just want my objections being noted.

You know, if the planning commission decides to put pass this so be it, but I'm I'm not concerned with that.

Concerned with you know representing again my seat on this board is from from car and uh feeling of wanting to preserve the character of the city.

I think this concerning uh preserving and extending and improving that character, that's what I would want to see.

Is it possible?

Um I mean I'm I'm with you, and I think we all got burned on the monument avenue denial out of principle, and it got approved without any recommendations that we would have given to at least make it marginally more acceptable.

Um when we've had infrastructure projects before that are kind of missing the human scale design thinking, we've done a subcommittee to work with the applicant to make sure that there's like a direct conversation because to be completely honest, the scale of this is so large, even on the plan views.

We're staying out at a scale like way farther than we ever do per these submissions.

Normally we're looking like really tight in where exactly are the trees, where exactly are the lights very and so I would feel more comfortable continuing it, having one or two committee members meet with the applicant and you to talk about the urban design priorities of the project and then have them make a recommendation to the group.

Yeah, I'm happy to work with it.

I mean, Alex is sitting here, you can tell you how many times certain projects on car come in front of us, they come in from and they're just single buildings, they come in six, seven times.

I don't think it's asking too much for for the city to be able to do that to recommend it to our you know, as representatives of the of the people in the city to to ask for us to work with on that.

I would draw my motion and amend it to create that yes, absolutely.

Yeah, yeah, I think that we recommend to admit so you're still recommending approval with staff conditions, adding a condition to create a committee that will work with.

Yes, to help the design.

Yeah, second that yeah, sure uh how that'll work physically if we recommend approval committees to make recommendation.

I guess we I guess we need to understand the kind of continuation what the problem is.

Is the problem where the locations of the trees are, or is the problem the actual design of the primary?

I mean it's a problem with design.

I mean, to come off the interstate, you're entering Richmond and you're in a roundabout with green space that's nothing really, it could be weedy.

I mean, it could be a beautiful thing, but it could end up being just weed lots to come into the city.

It doesn't make sense.

It's not if it's a big picture question, I'd strongly recommend withdrawal.

If we continue it, uh the applicant needs to agree, but we could continue it to three months and we'll just continue continuing because it could take a certain amount of time.

I would prefer just from the administrative point uh withdrawal or recommended to that.

If they withdraw, can we still ask them to meet with representatives from the UDC?

We can ask.

Um, we can add that wouldn't necessarily like administrative way to like the hook to make that happen.

Um, also I think this big picture, they should just bring it back to the four days.

I guess I'm just I'm pushing for that just because that like they were not hired to do good urban design.

And so it would be good to have a happy head who's only thinking about urban design change.

I mean, I'm presuming a lot of things, and forgive me if I'm wrong about that, but just based on what we've seen, it doesn't look like they were hired as urban design necessarily from a human scale.

It's just not in the scope, yeah.

Just not there, it's not what they were asked to do.

And I would recommend denial as a job.

I would support that and the administration can let you know how to address the concerns.

We were designed, but our ambition is to have influence the urban design in development center city.

So I think it should actually not allow something that isn't good urban design to go through.

We have to revise the motion.

We haven't officially admitted the motion yet.

Um clarify if we were to create a committee.

Well if we were to clarify it, or if we were to create a committee, subcommittee of UDC members that were tasked with working with the design team to address these staff conditions.

You're suggesting that that would not be possible given the scope of things that need to be addressed.

The scheme can be very difficult, and I'm not sure exactly what the applicant would get out of it.

It wouldn't just be better just to get the full UC review significantly changes.

Good morning.

Uh and Kara from public thoughts.

Great discussion.

And uh report we've got emotion.

I would like to state a few things that uh this project is at a very critical stage.

Doesn't mean that uh we are pushing community and publicly created for what they plan to do that they have to do uh 33 million dollars federal funds.

We were notified that uh it needs to go in an outer phase, so we start applying the properties for show, and uh we used this stage that uh the direction that UDC and planning commission both they set it up back in 2019, really on us aid conditions, we are just all eight conditions, we agree with all the conditions, and uh yes, some of these one of the condition uh uh like you mentioned that uh public space, it was one of the conditions on the original, and it's still the same.

We met with parks, we met with planning department, and we do agree that uh the leftover space we need to make it highest and best use.

We asked for economic development portfolio, given that be a whole construction or development for next uh just a parcel who is developing, or it will reach public space.

Public books is open, and we want to do what the best is, and uh for that reason we asked plank department, tell us what you need because that's for the master plan point of view, we don't have your needs.

We have not planners, and you guide us, and they say that we can have a separate uh initiative with parks planning and us to come up with how that uh leftover space, whether it's towards the east on the 18th state or the north, or some leftover on the south side of it.

Yeah, we can develop a public space.

Soon after that uh condition put it in, previous uh director, Mr.

Olinger.

He worked with us about uh three, four months.

He came up with a nice plan.

He said, I like to see this thing.

We shared with the new administration.

Uh said that this is the previous director.

He said that the parts point of view, this would be all great amenities.

I said, sure.

Let's use that and have a separate uh approval on that part because part of the scope of this transportation project is do what we suppose you do for transportation purposes, but the leftover thing, we still can continue, and we will rather say in the middle of uh round box, a gateway sign in future that will come back again by gateway committee, art committee, or this one public space committee.

We are totally open on that.

We agree with all six conditions that uh is put it in.

We are okay with that.

We're gonna implement all six.

Eight before six now.

I think as applicant, we can ask that uh the continuous will impact our project and funding both.

I don't think it's a favor of city of Richmond.

It's creating putting a lot of risk, and we all should look into it.

My suggestion is that you send it to Planning Commission with the I would really ask for it approval with the right uh additional condition on top of six, and one of the condition we may not have a comfort level is uh moving the two roundabouts on Maine and 18th Street next to each other, because that we need to get into start acquiring the right of acquisition within the next couple of months or so.

So we are out of that timeline, and especially for what we are doing it here, it's based on the solid engineering, but a transportation engineer should do not for just uh the vehicles, but also for multimodal, and that's all being addressed here.

And if we do that, moving the circle back this way, impacting I-95 circle 95 ramp and the moving further and then create more loving property impact, moving this way, that already approved the uh development that's under construction right now.

I think uh we are fixed on those kind of things.

So my suggestion is that good condition within that framework that we have, even for the two circles and for other locations, like a speed hump for speed table for that one.

Sure, we will consider that operational point of view within the fixed parameter that we shown to you today.

Any additional operational improvements, we can do it, and as long as you don't uh put it back again to another UTC meeting, another planning commission meeting, because we're gonna go to planning commission next uh uh whenever it is next month or so after tax meeting and ask that please please consider that looking into risk, looking at that, but still want to address some of the additional comments you have from uh operational point of view within the parameter as long as we can start purchasing the right of way and properties.

That's very critical.

So please request from applicant is not delay, not continuous, and uh not having a subcommittee, but give us your direction.

What else you need as operational point of view, and we will go through planning commission.

If they ask the same thing, we can work with the planning department for staff approval and staff.

We have very no 70% plan states, 90%, 100% will be 2028, two years.

We can do a lot of the operational fixing, other kind of thing, even public space, gateway, though you kind of and surely we will because we're not gonna leave this major gateway to the city of Richmond as is, and that's uh I think for y'all together as a UTC.

We should consider please looking into the project.

Would you be okay if we were to create a committee, which be okay?

I think that's adding a more time and that's adding more uh another uh month or two on that one.

I would suggest that uh if there's any kind of things that you wanted to see as a part of yourself and yourself, let us work with the staff.

Staff is very playing department.

It says most of these approved by staff.

I mean, that's excellent.

So is that a no?

I mean, I will suggest not, please, because to me, looking into the project, let us work with the staff and us uh if they can still bring it back to you.

I think I think is the the I can speak for myself, but that seems like the rest of this board has a problem uh with that design in its essence of its design.

And I think that is an issue, and I think I don't think there's anyone here who's not willing to work with you to achieve all of the goals that you have, and I understand that um a project when you've been working on it for six years, uh, there is a certain sort of sense of like this is we've been going down this road, but again, I don't know what was the last time this was in front of this committee.

We can only we can only address what's in front of us.

And the thing is that I think my feeling is is like I understand that time and these things cause delays and they cause funding issues.

I personally would have liked to have seen this a year ago then if that was the case if that the time constraints that are there.

Um, because um for me it in its essence, I think it's um it's a non-starter for me that the the way that's designed right now.

All of the details of the other parts of the project, I'm 100% you know, behind it with the conditions and whatnot, but I think just urban design-wise, it's it's failing in that.

And I'd love to be able to work with you to do it.

But if it's a matter of where you're saying what you can't do that, we have my opinion is I don't think it's responsible for us to take a major piece of public infrastructure and public space and just allow it just to be said, oh well, we have to do it this way.

I don't personally believe that everything is a fate accomplish.

And again, I want to be able to work with, I would want to be able to work with people to come up with something that works for us.

But if it's your prerogative to overrule this committee, then that's disappointing.

But that's my opinion.

No, I no, but it I think I think it sounds as if it is it is that you'd like to work with planning commission over the objections of this.

I apologize if you take uh that with my intent is not that public intent is always work with the committees, yeah, and work with the commissions and everybody so still is the same.

The only thing we are seeing that well, we're working together as long as the major features stay the same, but the cycle track here, cycle track there within the parameter, or the public space, those kind of things we can accomplish that.

No, I think I don't think anyone's objecting to any of those problems, but the major feature of it is the thing that's the objection.

So let's just look at this from a from a strictly a governance perspective, right?

Do a design, come for a conceptual review, the conceptual review is reviewed, it is uh approved, or it was it was denied.

It was approved, it was approved with conditions, and the can the conditions did not state those two roundabouts need to be rethought.

So they've moved on, and now we have a set second set of conditions that that the staff thinks is appropriate going back to undo something that was approved conceptually without conditions, those two roundabouts, I think is is bad governance.

And I'm not gonna say that you're just in favor of bad design, then no, I'm not in favor of favor of bad design, but it may be that that is there is no other way to do this and accomplish the traffic goals, which are established in the funding of this project.

So we could make a recommendation to deny, maybe the planning commission agrees with it, and then we spend months and months and we come back with essentially the same design.

So Ray, from a traffic from a you always read the the charge of this committee, which is um items of a specific nature that are designed by professionals such as engineers and architects are not considered general the traffic pattern of this, does that fall into that category, or does that fall into location character and extent?

So it's primary circles, the hinge there for approval or disapproval is that conditioned from the concept on how is the residual space to be used, right?

So if the proposal y'all don't like how the residual space is being used, that's how staff is set up that discussion.

Um then you can look at things from like a master plan perspective.

You know, we're we're not looking at the individual things, we're not looking at necessarily exactly where all the bike lanes are going, but that like what is being done from a big picture.

You know, we the planning commission does also control the and the domain of plant and how it's being used.

Um have a good instance.

Um so there is that as well.

But it's afternoon now.

We've got been at this for two hours, so we've got motion still on the floor, yes, to approve per conditions.

For conditions, that's been seconded.

Yes, and it has or has not been amended, has not been has not been amended.

control the and the domain of plant and how it's being used um have a good instance um so there is that as well but it's afternoon now we've got been at this for two hours so we've got motion still on the floor yes to approve per conditions for conditions that's been seconded yes and it has it has or has not been amended has not been has not been amended and if if we're taking staff's recommendations for conditions none of those address the primary circle so which he recommended not a right staff that's the uh absolutely you represent all all the people who know everything i think i understand like the delay in working with the subcommittee is you i think the expectation that you would have to do that process and then go to planning commission which is what's logical however the initial 2019 condition was not satisfied the residual space was not addressed it is still not addressed that cannot be approved as is I think we can recommend the right of way i i would recommend the right of way only if i were guaranteed that the process over the next two years to get to 90 cds is working with not just staff either you hire a consultant you work with the subcommittee but someone who can guarantee that the urban design guidelines that you ignored last time are satisfied i i would say that first that uh i really respect knowledge and the qualification of the udc back in 2019 they were all capable people and they've given us reaction both planning commission and u dc i still respect and the qualification and knowledge to all of you we thank you for that now the like mr order you said that uh 2019 reaction is set and this is what we are after 70 which major part of the what we could not come earlier was because of uh leap and especially a lot of archaeological cultural those kind of things we have to keep digging to see that where DHR can approve us and DHR once they signed last year then only we could start looking into two 60 70 percent that's one of the reasons we it took us a little longer because we did not cut any corner on the uh environmental part of it is this more so sensitive area this area we want to be at the highest level and that's why it's delayed but now keeping the same line but the direction they're given to us back in 2019 and meeting this and if there's one item is that just open space and as long open space uh we are totally from now to two years when 100% plants are developed we'll kind of work with all of you and uh people in department as long the location of the two round bouts can stay and they don't create move and create another property impact anytime you move out of an additional property impact it goes back again into UDC and planning commission because you cannot make any changes even one square foot if once uh you are okay with the acquisition of right of way so it is that critical I want to merge your needs with open space gateway in from now to next two years.

Yes we can as long you give us clearance on the right of way for the design feature this property you can proceed cycling sidewalk those within that space we are all with you I'll do a point for sort of sure um traditional committee situations um comments are addressed to the chair so that we avoid kind of a back and forth and kind of a uh jusatory that that is fine so as you as you know we we approach cases projects in the most constructive way possible reviewing the staff conditions there are a lot of amendments recommended of course you could work with Ray and the planning staff to address those conditions I think I I feel like it is in the city's best interest for a subset of committee members to assist with that going forward um just to provide that unique perspective that we we have you know we have a wide variety of expertise on this committee and this particular project touches on history and transportation largely and so I think it's in everybody's best interest if we want to move this project forward in a constructive manner with the conditions that staff have recommended I think the committee is is a necessity some of the things what you said that like the how the the pack will pack not going to come up next week a lot that hey here is our you're gonna put it in it will be additional PAC meetings for public space yes there will be additional public when we three department parks planning and us we work together we have to come back for the space for the with the UDC and UDC will have total control on that hey I don't want this way I don't want that way as long you allow us a major feature to go forward for the right of way point of view property impact property purchase point of view that yes we're gonna come back to you for the public space and even gateway gateway will not be designed or agreed upon until you guys UDC and planning commission give us a clearness hey this is the gateway can go up there and we will come back on that together with the team with the planning department I hear you I think between now and that time though there are some details in the plans that were presented to the committee today that need a little bit of fine tuning and I think that's where the the staff in the committee could assist

That's yes, we're gonna come back to you for the public space.

And even get the gateway will not be designed or agreed upon until you guys UDC and planning commission give us a clearness.

Hey, this is the gateway can go up there, and we will come back on that together with the team with the planning department.

I hear you.

I think between now and that time though, there are some details in the plans that were presented to the committee today that need a little bit of fine-tuning.

And I think that's where the staff and the committee could assist.

But uh is that outside of kind of the big picture of the primary circle, like the commission and the smaller things.

I see it more aligning with the conditions that you laid out uh within and we we talked about it, we heard from members of the public.

There are some some issues with the two roundabouts, the one nearest the highway, the one nearest the schools that really need to be sorted out.

I mean, you we we talked you you mentioned a few ideas.

So I think if we could get clarity on some of those things, maybe realigning the you know, the the cycle track, the bike links.

I think that would be as as a resident of the city as the chair of this committee, it would make me feel comfortable having representation from this committee working collaborative collaboratively with you and the design team on those solutions.

So we can all of these things will require us to come back to UDC.

None of these can be approved uh by administration either public book planning department without coming through these six to UDC PAC and Planning Commission for those purposes, and we're gonna include we're gonna have work together on that.

So, but the project transportation project, if that can proceed while we still sort out those in two years, but once we start delaying down, and that will keep impacting our uh schedule that we committed, and I think this uh we just got the notice from last uh months that the risk on the losing some of the money.

We said that let us work together.

And I think I like and request.

I'm not gonna say that uh any other way, but it's a request, sheer quest.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Carams.

Question or yeah, revisit again.

We have motion.

Um it's been seconded by Miss Gemmer.

It's a motion to recommend approval with staff conditions.

So we have discussed secretary.

We need to see that we should be asked on a committee, right?

Yeah, maybe take a question.

Okay, it doesn't have to be certainly it was coordinates the snack trade.

Sorry.

I just um you just you decided I was just reviewing the motion that is on the floor that has been seconded.

Yeah, did we add the we've not amended it in any way?

I feel strongly that having the subcommittee in which we've had a numerous other projects, it's not a long drawn-out process.

It would be beneficial to fine-tune this very important entrance to our city.

I concurvising your I mention it.

My feeling is that having representation from a historical standpoint as well as a transportation standpoint would be important when selecting the committee members.

I agree, and it usually works very efficiently to add that uh and then to have a subcommittee from this committee experts that know about these things to just fine-tune it, make it the best it could be, and what's another month or two months?

So if the committee is related to the positions about what I'm gonna call the smaller stuff, the art, the signage, uh and stuff like that.

The timing of the art and signage is probably years, not months.

Uh so that's why I was like staff should handle that.

You alternatively can say you can change staff to UBC, like it can come back, uh, maybe in like a final form, or uh, even if you did want to uh like a uh that they can inform you once the plans have been made.

The art will have to go to PAC, and probably the signage will have to go signage might even come back here.

Um the other stuff, but you can change that to UDC, um, but I don't think we'll have any answers and probably less than six months.

Question Can the uh subcommittee that's helping with this also include members of uh historic Richmond and uh backwalk arguing in our time.

Can we start if we want to do that?

My recommendation is just to do it at a UDC hearing, so bringing it back to the UDC invite their commentary, invite their commentary to something, yeah.

So like the signage and stuff is not what I necessarily think at subcommittee needs to work on.

I think it's the bike.

Um like we have multiple bikers on here, and none of you seem thrilled.

Neither was the public comment thrilled with the bike and then the public space at the primary weight.

Um, like planning, not what's your hardscape, what's the sign look like?

Just can we make sure this is planned in a way that when you work with park and come back in two years with the plan for the park design, it's not bad because they were locked in too.

That brings up a point I was going to make when y'all were getting ready.

Um, the recommendations from historic group chain mic bike walk RVA, I believe, was the organization.

I was not aware of those, and they seem good, and I would recommend including that as conditions onto your motion.

If that's something that you would like to do, I broke those down.

Yeah, through it is um, so I I am getting to it.

If it's not, let's move this tree five foot, whatever, bring it back to the UC.

Recommend denial withdrawal or continues with with a committee yes, anyways with the committee.

Okay, if if y'all want the main traffic circle to change in any significant way, I'm recommending denial withdrawal.

I don't think the committee and the time frame will fit those changes.

If it's the smaller stuff, I think we can do the committee and the conditions.

It's the big picture of two of those roundabouts.

Yeah, I think it's character.

It's it's extent locational extent.

It really is.

I've started saying all three because they overlap so much.

Yep.

I'm gonna I'm gonna regret saying this.

Is there a chance that if they lose the funding, this project just doesn't happen?

Yes.

I can't say this project has changed over the years from the original smart scale application, so it is possible to change, but we've already changed it so much, it's it started becoming somewhat embarrassing to continue to change it.

Um so that that's not ideal, but our job is not to deal with the intricacies of the funding.

So any of that, our job is to decide is this good on the master planter.

I withdraw my motion.

I would move to deny got a motion to recommend denial.

Is there a second?

Second, seconded by Mr.

Hamden.

So before y'all vote, you now I've I've created the ability for y'all to be able to communicate what you want to communicate to the planning commission to base your denial on so that you're represented at the planning commission.

Uh so you can instruct me whatever you want me to write for the staff to put with what I'll include uh urban planning design based on recommendations from either a subcommittee from UDC to include Richmond Bikewalk RVA simple.

So to do the committee with the added members, we'll have to motion it, correct?

Yes, uh, you and the second would have to agree to change the motion.

I agree to agree to change it with that second with your own changes.

You might review the conditions of the denial, the recommendation for denial, Mr.

Secretary.

So if we deny for the justification, yes, yeah.

Um what I was thinking was you know, we we y'all adequately address like if it's not denied that planning commission, we lose all of the conditions.

I would recommend what what you just said, in addition to if approved, we recommend the following conditions, which are those from staff, those from the one you added like um bike walking slower.

That sounds correct.

Thank you.

Okay, so the justification.

So justification for denial is based on the primary circle.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

I would say overall prioritization of vehicular traffic over other modes of transportation within an urban development.

And uh that you know future development, future urban development, and I think it negatively impacts that um all of that and then the statement as such, we are recommended of the study of the residual land from concept is the is the hook of that right.

Is there some language about being a having a committee with Richmond bike block RDA members?

Perhaps members of the UDC commission.

No, perhaps um, so we'll attach this one that language to be in there.

Yes, look at wherever you want it.

I don't I'm not sure if we can attach that condition to a denial, so it could just be a recommendation that before it comes back before the UDC that a small committee is coming.

We invite their recommendations and and invite the invite their comments, yeah.

I think that's fine.

All right, let me read back.

Yes, please.

Okay.

Uh UDC recommends denial of the application based on relation to the primary traffic circles, a prioritization of vehicular traffic over pedestrian traffic, the absence of placemaking at a human scale at a primary entrance to the city, a negative impact to future uh urban development, we recommend denial of the residual land study from the conceptual approval in 2019.

We recommend that prior to the return to the UDC, a small committee is convened with the public input from those two organizations prior to the return for uh any future approvals.

And then if this is quotes, if the planning commission ends up approving this application, we recommend the inclusion of the staff recommended conditions in addition to the recommendations from bikework RBA and historic.

Thank you.

Okay.

So you are still allowed to discuss, or you can uh have the rule called please.

All right, uh a vote, yes, is a vote to deny this application.

Um yes, yes, that passes as in denial.

Thank you.

That brings us to the second item on the regular agenda.

Yes.

And before we receive that you pulled up, is it one of the things that you're talking about?

F zero eight location characteristics in review of the proposed architecture for the act archaeological pavilion over the historic Lumpkins jail site part of the Shaco campus project located at fifteen hundred East Franklin Street.

I'm gonna need one more minute when my laptop side is logging on the meeting.

Is there a roundabout uh on the side?

Well, we log right.

As a member of the planning person, I was very interested in in your comment and your direction.

And so thank you.

This is a final application for the Lumpins jail architectural site.

This is just the architecture, not the site plane.

The side plane will come back in the future.

The work related to the site plan related stuff is very difficult with all of the floodplain issues and utility underground issues and such.

The applicant will sure get further details on that.

But we do have the architecture before us.

Uh you may remember, I believe it was earlier this year, maybe it was last year.

Uh, we saw the concept for the larger Shako Institute project and a concept for this specific site for the Lumpur jail.

On the screen is the location where it is now.

Uh, on the screen toward the bottom is Main Street Station, or the top is broad street, and toward the left is I ninety-five, and you may remember maybe two or three years ago.

We reviewed the bridge under Broad Street right here at this location.

Um, that allows pedestrian access between north and south of Institute campus.

I do want to note uh on some level.

This project will exist in the current conditions for some period of time.

So our review is both what does this look like now today in this parking lot, as well as what does this look like in the future larger shacko project.

So get into more detail.

But this is a proposal for the architecture now.

In the in the front of this building is the outline of Lumpkin's jail, which is actually below grade, below this location.

And the purpose of this pavilion is to allow access to that archaeological site.

So it goes under and goes under.

These are some of the materials we have several different brick kinds, um, some darker materials, steel concrete, and some mesh.

Here's a front flat elevation.

Here is a uh more faster elevation.

And the Richmond 300 goals are to integrate history, culture, and art to enhance public open space, which staff is recommending this does pretty successfully without seeing the site stuff.

Uh, and additionally preserved culture, history, and archaeological significant buildings, which this does as well.

Uh staff recommends to the UDC.

This is uh one other question that staff has given y'all to figure out uh to determine if the proposed architecture meets what was expected from the conceptual approval.

Other than that, staff does not recommend any conditions.

Here are on the top is what's being proposed today, and on the bottom is what was approved in the concept.

So staff is recommending y'all look at this and decide if this is what y'all were looking for when you approved the concept.

That's it.

I'm gonna Genie Weller, City of Richmond.

Now in general since I've been with the city now 35 years and worked on this concept since 2001.

In 2001, it became apparent that Lumpkins Jail archaeological site was likely some format under the grade shown here.

It was on the main street station property, that's why it landed in my inbox.

I'm from Richmond, never knew the history, and I sought it pretty hard.

So shocked, I decided to go to the slave trail commission and offer to be a project manager to get words in the ground to get these stories and truths told.

Since 2001, and I'm not the first to have worked on this concept, many came before me, but the project started to have many partners, obviously the Richmond Slave Trail Commission who spearheaded this with the alliance to conserve old Richmond neighborhoods, and back then the Department of Historic Resources.

City Council, City Richmond, Department of Permits and Inspections of Late and Utilities has helped us so well to get the engineering straight.

Humwaltha Virginia is a partner, they've given us about 13 and a half million dollars towards this.

FEMA's been a partner in listening, and we'll talk about floodplain in a minute.

BDOT is a partner as they are also part of the team to make sure that Lumpkin's jail right next to the tow of Anani 5 is feasible project, and so far it is, and the Federal Transportation Administration who bought and bought the land for the city with the grants that we accumulated from Main Street Station.

So there is a heavy federal interest in Main Street Station.

We'll touch on that in just a moment.

2006, we hired uh James River archaeology team, an RFP.

Matt Laird, their archaeologist studied where Lumpkins owned parcel sandmore maps insurance maps, only at 13 and a half thousand dollars to do test pits.

He nailed the location of Lumpkin's Jail, which this is an incredible image to show you.

What this shows me.

So when you imagine Lumpkin's jail selling selling people, and the other over 60 sites in the bottom.

Oh no, I always thought of it as kind of hidden activity.

This was right in the middle of the bottom, day to day, walking right by.

So this shows Lumpkin's Jail and its compound in an image from 1865.

So that's in your packet.

Um, we thought that was pretty significant.

It's part of everyday life.

So in 2006, it was like they found Pompeii.

The entire cobblestone terrace was there.

2008, we got got more money.

DHR, state of Virginia, uh, City of Richmond funded it.

It was about 150,000, and it exposed a lot of the complex that we could um expose, part of it's under 95.

And the Sony magazine, you can Google it when you go home.

If you're real interested, is 2008 did a nice article and coverage.

They didn't put it in the article, but they did stake that while they were here that this is likely the most important archaeological find in the United States in the last 50 years.

It's one of those places that it happened here, and there's no disputing that that site exists.

The site is extremely complicated.

Um is so telling.

Back in the day when we were studying this and studying this, we did not have an identified flood way, Chaco Bottom.

The blue is the floodplain.

We're all familiar with that.

It kind of grows and shrinks with studies.

This gray is a floodway.

That's somewhere the water's coming in an 8,000 acre watershed.

Whether you like it or not, this tunnel's a choke point, broad street, tunnel, main street station.

And we had to make certain that the pavilion above grade is this volume, or it's now tweaked to spec.

Can't put volumes in a flood way.

Hence one of the changes from the conceptual that we came to, and it had part of the Lumpkin's jail structure sticking up.

And we we can't do that now.

Another wonderful thing the project has done is geolocate ground penetrating radar with Basketball's archaeological archaeologist and military grade.

Um ground penetrating radar, which we didn't have in 2008, 9, 10.

It's amazing, they nailed the rectangle where Lumpkin's jail is located, so grade 12 to 14 feet underground.

We weren't allowed to locate it then in 2008 because it is under the water table.

So this project and Bert will talk about this.

It creates a bathtub to protect this asset, creates a flood wall around it to protect the asset.

This complicated everything.

Typically, you're not allowed to occupy under the floodplain, but we've been working with David Alley.

This will have limited occupants, docent led, and we've been working with the um department of emergency management for the city, and we're going to figure out how we're going to do shut down the building when there is a storm event if you have any questions on how.

So um FEMA has established a map showing this new floodway, and that has been adopted in 2025 in the middle of our design.

So things have morphed and changed and reacted to, but we do believe in the design that we have now reflects all of the engineering complications that uh exist before us, including its adjacency to I95.

The reason FEMA changed the flood way, floodplain established a floodway in Chaco Bottom, really has nothing to do with Richmond specifically.

When we had over 1500-year storm events in around 2014, 15, 16, FEMA had been using historical old rain information and data.

They studied the entire nation back then and put out the new flood identification insurance maps.

Um people reacted to them, and then they became a regulatory document in 2025, kind of in the middle of our so can explain some of the changes.

I think that the new design, the revised design sense conceptual, is even better at storytelling as part of the story is told on facade on the face of the structure.

But thank you for your time.

And I'm gonna like to introduce um Bert Pennett, who's worked with the Slave Show Commission and myself and many others.

Since you were, but thank you for your consideration and uh thank you, Miss Williver.

Well, thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Bert Pennerco, a principal architect with Baskerville.

And um, if I could get you to go back to our two comparison images page, the uh concept in the yes, yes, sir.

And while I was doing that, we've laid out up here one um physical model, scale model of the pavilion above ground partial model of the elevation as it's uh evolved, and then a series of material choices.

I'll call them primary material choices.

I'll go through.

So um Virginia noted what was um originally approved.

I'll say started out with a smaller footprint, um, and you know, slightly skewed orientation from where it is now.

Two impacting factors were the uh determination that in essence the coefficient of friction of the surface in the floodway as it exists right now, cannot change.

So let me about to drop down in the weeds, we mean what is grass or paving as the remaining grass or paving, not weeds, not six-inch curve kind of thing.

The other is then the reorientation or the exact orientation relative to where we thought the archaeological deposits were, which pivoted the pavilion and then kicked some of it into that floodway, and so we started to uh rework that.

And so we started to uh rework that.

Also, we had some programmatic editions.

For example, we did not have what called a full wayside station within the building, which is just basically a series of bathrooms and support functions, only for the facility, but more and large for because this is now uh part, well, has always been part of the slave trail path.

And so imagine if you will, which is a very popular patent, it will be used even when the facility or the building is closed by people doing the trail.

I think those are the major components that led to somewhat of the redesign.

Now, from an architectural standpoint, what you were looking at previously, this datum line is basically the flood line, right?

So assuming a flood happens, we basically have a flood wall surrounding this thing, and all the apertures into it are flood doors or floodproof windows or whatever that and then it was a sort of an open grill above it.

Another evolution has been as we've been working not only with our archaeological team but other archaeological experts from as far away as England on what is the best way to preserve the architect.

It's been in wet soil since almost 1865, but uh it's been down there for a while, and so the the question of once it's exposed, does it need to be enclosed, like a glass enclosure?

You would imagine something is or just need to be fully opened to breathe, and and the answer lies somewhere in between that.

So this pavilion also is going to want to have sufficient airflow to keep it at a temperate level because it is the it's a basement level, and keep air moving.

So it's wanting to have really more open space than what was here.

So that's all of those sort of led us to this.

The conversation was are we misthinking how this pavilion evolves?

Now that we cannot interpret this out into the landscape, which is out here in the footprint, and we have to sort of pull it back some.

So it won't always be accessible.

How do we begin to interpret literally the story into the building?

So that even the casual passerby will want to be able to engage this pavilion.

How do we begin to?

You know, we're architects and we love metaphors, never met a metaphor we didn't like.

How do we begin to articulate that in just the masonry as something that comes from dark the light or solid to open?

Those are really sort of the moves that that got us to where we are here.

Now there's a um now we can stay on this.

This we see a lot.

Um you talked about too, sort of um knowing the history of what people have been told or recounted or narrated over time.

What we wanted to do was introduce into the facade one the accounts of people who actually witnessed what happened here in the bottom.

Air Crow came in the 1850s, maybe 1860s, uh, was an English painter, and he recounts um seeing a broadside, a banner, a sign for an impending sale of 15 men, women, and children.

Those are his words that we wanted to incorporate here.

Um sorry, I call it my notes.

I can't see it on screen.

Thank you.

Frederica Bremer, thank you.

Frederica Bremer, also who I think is a Norwegian novelist who was visiting Richmond, describes the interior base of um a jail, the floor, the shackles that are connected to the floor.

That's here, so people can read her words.

Charles Emory Stevens probably wrote the most comprehensive book on the history of Anthony Burns, and in that book is recounted from witness first hand eye witness, the roughly six by six room that Burns was held in in the top floor of the jail, and it was such that there was a window because there was a young girl, believed to be Lunco's daughter from the house.

You could see him in the jail.

Did it happen here?

Yeah, and they told us how it happened and what it looked like and what it felt like.

But we wanted to bring that power to the facade and to the public space without having to go into the building.

Um, and then the last thing I'll note is then as part of the site work, and I know the site work is separate, but this sort of piece, this interpretation of the footprint of the jail that is very important.

Because again, because we know the size, because we know the description of it.

We also have a physical description of Anthony Burns himself.

So imagine if you will, and I'll account to about my size, about my waist.

The imprint of meeling in this space would be cast in bronze, just within that cell scale, real size, real place.

This is where it happened.

This is where it happened.

Will Scribner, who maybe most of you don't know, uh, who actually sat on Planning Commission for a long time from SMBW, one of the founders there, used to say, you know, the what's people don't realize is that what we have here is miles wide of history and miles deep.

So that's that's um quite changed.

And I'm I'm gonna stop there and let you ask because you only have been here about 20 minutes.

This is kind of a joint question.

Is the hardscape design part of the site or part of the building?

Part of the site, really.

So I mean, the the ledger around kind of ends, but I did want to just point out what the intent is here with the footprint, and it will be in the sitescape submission when we get there.

So why did you take the wood away from the conceptual design to the final?

A little invite, it seems to be the bottom design is more inviting.

So this is is uh it was actually terracotta house one for a maintenance.

So as you can even see with the masonry materials I have here, terracotta colors comes in ranges.

So those were terracotta tiles.

Um the wood software was probably a metal wood socket.

Now I will say the fact that as you can see here, this is internally lit for this rendering, gives it certainly that warmth kind of thing.

The color range for the underside of this socket, I think will be similar.

There won't be wood like, but where we are using the idea of wood more intentionally, I would say um less sort of like a finish all over the place.

There is a reflection space inside the building that um will have its wood components.

There are walkways at the archaeological level, the surface that you're walking on is intended to be wood, as the floor of the excuse me of the jail would have been.

So it's reduced but more intentional, but the tone probably won't be very disseminant.

But we're not presenting, we'll bring back also what the site is the lighting.

So the lighting approach is that much like I talked about the brick because the darkness are rising by the ground, the light will still intend to come from the ground plane too.

So the perimeter edge at this lip is where the light source will start.

And then interior will have more curated than just the blaze of light, but it will be lit.

I think the uh brick work and those images are so powerful and that you know what it is.

Um, do you mind going to the views?

I just want you have a really good section showing how it interacts with main street.

And I was just wondering, like right now we're kind of seeing the view of it, uh, like to see what the building is.

And I was wondering if you have any renderings in here that are the view either from 95 or like kind of uh that's actually a good question.

So from 95.

I I will say there really isn't much of a view, pretty much, because then it's part, and Jean pointed out so part of the uh work in this is negotiation with sort of the Department of Historic Research was on the view shed of Main Street Station.

So there's sort of an intention of keeping it low.

Now, as you come around, if you're coming if you're going north on 95, there's a point where you come around just to the clock tower, and you can actually look straight down into the site.

So that glowing little footprint would be there.

Yeah, yeah.

So supplement what did you say, Genie Woolliver again?

City Richmond.

Um, I didn't elaborate upon this when I said there's federal interest in Main Street Station, but in part of your submission, we worked tirelessly on this.

You cannot, we're the stewards of Main Street Station.

We have 925 million dollars of federal interest.

We have an obligation that we will maintain a national two National Historic Landmarks, headhouse and the train shed are separate on the Department of Interiors list.

You cannot block the view shift of the main street station or optically compete with it, meaning 10,000 foot gummy bears in front of the white house.

You're not allowed to optically compete with the National Historic Plum.

That's part of the limitation of the project.

So we did show you why it is at the height that it is.

Now we can still be sued by anyone that said you took my view shed away.

That's how it works, but we've intentionally shown something that won't, but your point.

So we'll come back with a lighting plan.

Just my words, but the light at the bottom.

You know how wonderful Main Street station was lighting is so important.

I love the fact that it comes from this scene, and you'll see the details later once we work out coefficient coefficient friction issues with DPU on flood way.

That's why it's not in front of you quite yet.

So we're gonna do a few things.

That light that emanates from the bottom is to me the light that shines on the hidden very truths, and light is a metaphor as well.

I'm standing at the main street station, and I see these words in these brick images versus this.

My intrigue is much greater now.

What happened here?

And as a visitor main street station, there's 150,000 people parked in these parking lots every year.

They're going to know that there's something behind the walls that might be of interest, more so nothing against this design than this one.

We want to tell untold untold truths and tell the Richmond history and our evolution as a country.

And I think this personally does it better than that.

And is this really the only view that C is where you can get as much activity from sideline?

Yes, this one because of the main trip station public.

As you you will approach from sort of the Franklin Street direction from the south at grade here.

So this brick mural wraps that corner, and then from a signage standpoint, um we are working on what this thing is named, uh part of the branding work, not necessarily architecture work, is how we then call it the naming architecture, not only for the pavilion, but for all the future pieces on the site and and all of that.

So that's ongoing work as well.

And this is from the mural that is the brand of the slave trail, which is his mural, right?

It's taken from that mural.

Yes, could I want you to elaborate on that and the font creation per yeah?

Okay, so wait, let me oh, let me uh from your previous case.

So wait, let me oh, let me uh from your previous case.

Uh, I just wonder so yes, we're working both with the Shaco Institute, which has interest in Wayfying in the public right away, and then the access point at Oliver Hillway and Marshall to the Shaco, what we call the Shaco campus, the Shaco project.

So there's sort of two parts to working with Shaco Streets and with this.

So um I'm gonna call these both of these placeholder meals.

This one is inspired by the quote from Eric Rowe talking about the broad side that showed 15 men, women, children to come for sale.

The current mark for the Richmond slave trail is a black and white image of um, I'm gonna call them ghostly figures, cop uh of a cobble chain together.

The idea here is that moving from here to where there is the perception of nameless faceless masses of people involved in this peculiar institution we call sleep that are witnessed by Eric Crow and others and talked about.

So I don't think it'd be exactly the slave trail mark.

Well, then the mural that is the slave trail brand.

Oh is the inspiration.

Yes, yes, that's sorry, and that is actually one of Eric Rose's drawings and paintings going south, yes.

So as you move across in uh um this going from sort of the nameless.

The last one is is a quote by Miss Nellie Gray from the 1930s Writers Project, Federal Writers Project, slave narratives created, where she recounts as in I think it was in her 80s at the time, uh being a three-year-old, sold from the blog in Richmond Regina.

Her words is documented.

So that image is a representation, will be a representation of a child.

I was removed from sort of the broad nameless to the very unique specific.

Um off of the font, and this is from this is from former or under the development.

Yeah, this shows a little bit better, some of the lighting considered for the perforation of a brick like this.

So it does definitely warm the building up versus what you don't see as far as light behind it shows.

And then trace seals.

Yeah, trace seals is a um black typographer uh out of Maryland.

I think the only sort of runs its own sort of type type found something, but working with him, um there is a Shaco project font that we have developed as specific sort of for this project for this brand.

It is inspired by actually a broad side from um Richmond Planet, sort of the over newspapers called Black Power.

And then when you look at it and you see sort of the geometry of that image of that font, um then that was the inspiration for him to create the Shackleton project font, which is what we will use for the site and Yallanton.

Last question I brought the thoughts on up is um I can I'll stay here as long as y'all want you.

Um uh you mentioned uh Ray that this is for approval for today and the future, and this is definitely future.

Um, what are we considering for the today?

What I meant was whatever is constructed, we have to remember that it's in a parking lot now for maybe even five years or whatever, and then after that, it's in a campus.

So that's where the site approval comes in, the separate site approval, right?

More or less.

Well, if I may, because we presented the master plan of a couple of years ago, I can't remember, which which outlines the major components of the of the Shaco project, and then at time we agree that as each one comes to find out, we will come back for you.

And so for this is for just the final this building for this plan, apart from any other part that was the landscape or hardscapes or site lighting that were in the master plan because those will continue to come to you in bits and pieces, not bits and pieces, but another.

Not bits and pieces, but in order.

I think my purpose is saying that is to say if we need to rely on site stuff to communicate whatever needs to be communicated.

That's gonna come in the future.

So if we want something communicated, it needs to be through the architecture, if that is the case.

We'll see a separate site plan submitted at a later date.

It'll show the temporary temporary condition of the site before the full yes, the site is developed.

Okay.

Materials question.

Uh what is our omega symbol there?

Oh, sorry.

Yeah.

So where will the um to the mesh?

You have a roof sample too.

If yeah, yeah, that rendering the sort of policy one.

That yep.

So um there are elements of of this building, including sort of uh, I'll call it a door shroud where the flood door is, which is um a blackened metal.

But more importantly, um we have created where the two windows would have been in the attic windows into this this building that are small, and the intent is that you know, Phoenix handcraft.

Yeah, so uh they they produce this for us, but somebody like that would produce what would have been the barred windows, and we're looking for something that is tactile.

And is that is that the that's that piece?

What is the galvanized galvanized mesh?

Am I seeing it in this red green?

No, um, you're kind of seeing it, the light reflecting off of it thing, and it is um right now intended to be as non-bare as possible.

Yes, it's burnt screen.

Sorry, missed that part.

Thank you.

Do you want to ask a question just for my curiosity?

Um starting in the institute under the train shed, or are people meeting the docent in this building?

So the the operational layout of how this is gonna work hasn't been completely developed, but what we imagine given that we have the institute and this building that will be the first phases would would love it to be imagine if you'd go online says I would like to get a ticket to do the institute and the pavilion or the just the institute or just the pavilion.

So somehow within that operational sphere, they are conducting these these these tours or visits.

So I think to what I want to tell you guys to make sure there's maybe two users to this.

People who go inside, but then people who come up to the building and can't go inside.

Not I shouldn't say it that way.

Yeah, well, no, but that's we'd have to take further steps to go inside.

And the slave trail itself will also have some way of finding a tour docent slave trail heads under construction now and improvements too.

Is this meant to be the sorry?

Is this meant to be the northern terminus of the slave trail experience?

No, no, just isn't today either.

No, it goes to the burn the memory, right?

It goes to the first asking depth actually apply to just uh feet away from the East Marshall Street, which will that be part of that.

Well, that's we're not part of the Rich Lowski threw that out.

You said I would love for this to become a lot of people.

It can be the trail can be whatever it expands and needs to be.

It should be something that's referenced in the material for people.

And so if I could, it was a high level of sort of just way, way up to this shackled project.

So when we sort of imagine this in terms of all the parts and pieces of you know, the slave trail, the Shaco Hill African Burying Ground, the Winfrey Cottage, the East Marshall Street World Project, even the bearing ground in the University of Richmond, all of that tells us a history of story.

It's all part and personal and the the first African Baptist church on the corner there in college.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you, Scott.

I do two things.

Um, one is to are you going to consider having like a QR code?

So if I'm walking the slave trail and I walk up, I don't have time to get a ticket for docent, but I could actually have something downloaded to my phone.

I hear a little narrated story.

So separate project, but obviously related is the development of the Richmond Slave Trail website, right?

And then what whatever comes out of that as the way for users to engage with it, whether it's QR technology or geolocated technology or whatever it is, is what we will adopt for all of these sites.

I don't know what the answer is, but you the yes, but nothing just kind of like on an environmental way.

Is there a way that you have a really big sloped roof that would be great for capturing rainwater?

I don't know if you have envisioning any plantings around it or any green stuff from this that could be used for irrigation.

The green stuff so the plugway line is right there.

And basically, as it exists today in terms of asphalt and parking and all of that in terms of surface finish, it's pretty much how it has to exist.

So I think seeing an extensive landscape around this isn't going to happen.

Your point is there's something else to do with captured rainwater off the large slope group, which is about 6,000 square feet of route.

Not insignificant.

Um I will take that under advisement as a condition of a room approval.

Sorry, I did say one last question, but just to raise point are there portals where you can, if the building is closed that you can peek in.

So the I think the the language here will just say something see what Anthony Burns on kind of thing, and you'll be able to look in the air.

Now Reverend Mick Campbell, if he were here, or would he would talk about the juxtaposition of having Lumpan Seals here and Thomas Jefferson's capital up on the mountain up on the hill?

And then at the time, you know, the typology of the site is change.

You probably have been able to see it.

They would have been able to look down and see this.

So we imagine as part of the exhibit work.

There would be a story where you look into this and see the capital.

Yeah, thank you.

Every day.

These are this is such a powerful in your packet as well.

It was online for the ECL.

Any other questions?

No, but I have a I think I need for the record to state that I formerly worked with Basketball.

It's been six years since I was there.

Okay.

You formally work with formally work with formally too on occasion.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Pennick.

Yep, well over.

And thank you all for your service.

It's a dedicated idea.

I see any hands or any movement to the podium.

Would anybody online like to provide public comment?

Please raise your virtual hand.

Not seeing any hands.

Mr.

Secretary, public comment is closed.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve by from Mr.

Van Anwegen.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Miss Clark.

Discussion.

It's a great project.

I think the new design looks better than the old design.

I really do.

I love it.

I've bird, I spent so long looking at this stuff going.

I gotta have a really good comment for the UTC or a question.

And I don't, it's just it's it's really well done.

I would love to criticize it so much.

I think forward to seeing the detail at the portals through the uh gable roof through the brick wall, how that all works with the galvanized mesh there.

Exciting.

Hopefully, oh go ahead, Clark.

Well, I was gonna say hopefully this kicks off momentum for the other uh phases of this site because I think let's see in the master plan.

This right now, this is just sort of a mass site when you drive by Richmond.

Oh, this is Richmond.

This is going to be such a this is what Richmond's going to be identified by as people who drive through that, you know, instead of metal recycling and parking decks.

That's what they're gonna remember.

Yeah, I thought that you and the team that put into it, it's admirable.

It really is.

Thank you for your commitment over the years.

Any any other discussion?

I just I think the question was does it um match the character of the concept?

And I think it does like much better, even if like the concept, and then this is how you do the concepts, which is a perfect example of concepts of thank you guys.

I think it would be really really really uh planning commission sees that um rendering rather than the one that we were keying off of today that makes things in the background look really dark.

I don't know why we so this was the long large states from view that rendering just doesn't capture it, right?

It was a yeah, you had yeah, I should want that up.

We have a lighter too.

You've slipped that's in there, yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

There's an additional one.

You asked to be slipped.

Yep, that isn't there.

That's in the vote.

Thank you.

This one is yes, but the other one it does looks a little bit more like what would have it does, and without having the line combining from behind, it's like presentation bullshit.

It's slightly okay.

That greens that won't be here, right?

Oh, the song of green for training green for friction coefficient.

Oh my god, we become the experts at that recommended because you said the like oh the warehouse metaphor is quite real because what this place works is a warehouse became the right and solid.

So there is an intentionality in some of this, and I appreciate it.

Yeah, I have a clarification to like right in front of where you have the roof line, and you in the hardscape.

Did you have an outline of the actual size of the room?

Yes, so people and you'll have a figure there so people can get a sense of the human.

There will be just go ahead and embarrass me.

You can imagine what if I were in wet sand and I were doing this with cycles on my hands, would that imprint look like the intent is to cast something like that in bronze that'll be sent into the commals right in the room?

So it won't be like a human figure, but you will understand that there is a imprint.

Um approval motion to recommend approval to the planning commission that has been seconded.

Any additional discussion called the boot?

No, please call the move, Mr.

Secretary.

Yes, is a vote to approve.

Clark, yes.

Yes, yeah.

Yes, yes.

Yes, yeah.

Yes, motion passes.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to other business.

Um, which is our UDC guidelines update, which is focused.

This meeting is focused on parks.

I do want to hold the committee.

Do we want to postpone that to the next meeting?

Yes, yeah, is that exactly motion to postpone?

I'm a little bit second.

Uh motion to postpone the consideration of the park section graph to the next meeting of the urban design committee.

Um second all in favor, just a favor.

We have a motion for adjournment.

Second and by please give us all the same floods.

Uh thank you.

Very good.

I like the break.

It used to be a company hall.

Virginia bring