OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Richmond, Virginia/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting Summary - August 14, 2026

City Council — Friday, August 14, 2026
BodyRichmond, Virginia
SessionCity Council
DateFriday, August 14, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:44:11

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:42

Y all set and ready to go.

0:45

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

0:46

Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city of Richmond Planning Commission.

0:51

Secretary, would you give the electronic note?

0:54

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

1:02

Members of the public may choose to participate in the meeting virtually.

1:05

All written comments that were received by email prior to 12 p.m.

1:08

today have been provided to the planning commissioners in advance of the meeting.

1:11

During the public comment period, speakers will be asked to limit their comments to three minutes for an individual or five minutes of representing a group.

1:21

Thank you very much.

1:26

Mr.

1:26

Poole?

1:27

Here.

1:27

Ms.

1:28

Greenfield.

1:28

Here.

1:29

Ms.

1:29

Ebert?

1:30

Here.

1:32

We'll come back to Mr.

1:32

Pennick.

1:33

Ms.

1:33

Robertson, Ms.

1:34

Rowe.

1:35

Here.

1:35

Mr.

1:36

White?

1:36

Here.

1:37

Mr.

1:37

McKenzie.

1:41

Can you come back to Mr.

1:42

Pennick as well?

1:44

Do that after the minutes or before?

1:47

We can do that now.

1:49

Mr.

1:49

Pennock has made a request to attend virtually.

1:54

Is there a motion to consider that?

1:57

Um ahead of the motion.

1:58

Mr.

1:59

Commissioner Pennick, could you please uh tell the commission where you will be participating from and um a general reason as to why yes?

2:08

I'm doing required traveling and I'm participating from New Hampshire.

2:18

Yeah, in a basement.

2:21

Is there a motion to allow Mr.

2:24

Pinnock?

2:26

Motion do I have any discussion?

2:30

Paul's question on allowing Mr.

2:32

Pinnock to attend virtually.

2:34

Please call the role.

2:36

Mr.

2:36

Poole?

2:37

Aye.

2:37

Ms.

2:37

Greenfeld?

2:38

Aye.

2:38

Ms.

2:39

Ebert?

2:39

Aye.

2:40

Ms.

2:40

Knight?

2:40

Aye.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Transportation Safety██████████████████████████████30%
Urban Design█████████████████████21%
Land Use and Zoning██████████10%
Public Engagement██████████10%
Procedural█████████9%
Public Safety██████6%
Public Works█████5%
Engineering And Infrastructure████4%
Public Finance██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting - August 14, 2026

The Richmond City Planning Commission convened on Thursday, August 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the 5th Floor Conference Room of City Hall. Chair Rodney Poole presided over the meeting, which included roll call, approval of minutes, a continuance, a consent agenda, and a major regular agenda item regarding the Shockoe Valley Streets Improvement Project. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM.

Consent Calendar

  • UDC 2026-10: Final Location, Character, and Extent review of street, sidewalk, and stormwater improvements on Hey Road (between Hull Street and Walmsley Blvd.) – Referred to the August 13, 2026 Urban Design Committee (UDC) meeting.
  • UDC 2026-11: Final review of a shared use path from Terminal Place across Leigh Street to Arthur Ashe Boulevard – Referred to the August 13, 2026 UDC meeting.
  • UDC 2026-12: Final review of a stormwater sediment catchment pond in Bryan Park (near Azalea Pond) – Referred to the August 13, 2026 UDC meeting.
  • All three items were approved unanimously as part of the consent agenda.

Continuances

  • ORD. 2026-093: Special use permit for 3317 Rear Monument Avenue (up to four single-family attached dwellings) was continued to September 1, 2026, at the applicant’s request, to address neighborhood concerns. Motion carried unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

Public comments were heard only for Regular Agenda Item 6 (Shockoe Valley Streets Improvement Project). A total of 20 speakers addressed the Commission, with 12 speaking in favor and 8 speaking in opposition or with conditions. Key speakers included:

  • Julie Trent (Just C community center): Spoke in favor, citing safety needs for youth crossing at Venable and Mosby.
  • Brandon Tenold (Bike Walk RVA): Supported the project overall but highlighted specific design concerns regarding bike lanes and roundabouts.
  • Draymond Miller (Street Smart Safety): Read a letter from wheelchair-bound resident Malika Whitaker urging approval for better sidewalks and lighting.
  • Chad Sander (RVA Rapid Transit): Supported the project for its pedestrian and transit benefits.
  • Kelsey Boyle: Supported the project as a cyclist needing safer connections.
  • Guy Roach: Supported the project but raised concerns about bus stop accessibility at Mosby Street.
  • Sera Erickson: Supported the project but urged adoption of staff/UDC conditions for safety.
  • Courtney Farrar: Supported the project, recounting near-misses while walking in the area.
  • Spencer Grice (Shockoe Partnership): Opposed the project as currently designed, arguing it prioritizes vehicles and undermines development potential.
  • Jason James: Supported the project, urging not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
  • Stephan Dupont (RVA Rapid Transit): Supported the project but raised concerns about high-speed approaches to roundabouts.
  • Tammy Mcguie (Guido Memorial Foundation): Spoke passionately in favor, emphasizing traffic safety and the need to save lives.
  • Richard Hankins (Partnership for Smarter Growth): Opposed the project, calling it a road-widening scheme out of step with current master plans.
  • Steward Schuwartz (Church Hill Association): Opposed the project, citing lack of pedestrian priority and oversized roundabouts.

Discussion Items

Regular Agenda Item 6 – UDC 2026-07: Shockoe Valley Streets Improvement Project The project proposes multimodal transportation improvements along Oliver Hill Way, North 18th Street, Venable Street, Mosby Street, and Leigh Street, including two-way street conversions, new sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and four modern roundabouts. The project is approximately 70% designed and has a total budget of nearly $50 million, with federal and state funding at risk of deallocation if not advanced promptly.

Staff and UDC Position: The Urban Design Committee recommended denial, citing three master plan concerns: (1) the main roundabout’s layout creates residual land that is difficult to activate; (2) pedestrian safety issues at the Lee Street/Mosby roundabout near MLK Middle School; (3) the project prioritizes vehicle movement over pedestrian needs. Planning staff (PDR) recommended not approving the current layout, urging reconsideration of the main roundabout to create usable green space.

Applicant Response: The Department of Public Works (M. Kara, O. Thierry, C. Daly) and engineering team argued that the roundabouts are necessary for traffic calming and cannot be relocated due to engineering constraints (grade, interstate ramp). They noted that the project has undergone extensive Section 106 review, public hearings (90% approval in November 2025), and meets Richmond 300 goals. They committed to addressing UDC conditions, including adding a speed table, pedestrian hybrid beacon, and working with PDR on gateway treatments.

Commission Deliberation:

  • Commissioner Greenfield supported the project, noting its community engagement and need for investment.
  • Commissioner Robertson expressed confidence in city staff to address concerns.
  • Commissioner Mckenzie supported the project, recognizing staff responsiveness.
  • Commissioner Rowe supported overall but expressed procedural concerns about the 7-year gap since conceptual approval.
  • Chair Poole opposed, stating the project does not meet the current Richmond 300 Master Plan, which prioritizes people over vehicles.
  • Commissioner Knight initially questioned the disconnect between staff recommendations and applicant claims, but after hearing engineering justifications and the risk of losing funding, she supported approval.
  • Commissioner Pennock supported, satisfied with the applicant’s explanations for the two contested roundabouts.
  • Commissioner White recused himself due to a property conflict.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to Approve: Made by Commissioner Greenfield, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, to approve UDC 2026-07 as presented, notwithstanding the Urban Design Committee’s recommendation of denial. The motion included the integration of the "Leigh St Roundabout / Pedestrian Safety" exhibit (page 14 of the presentation) and attachment to the record. It also incorporated the UDC’s eight conditions, with the applicant acknowledging they could address most conditions during the next design phase.
  • Vote: 7 in favor (Commissioners Pinnock, Robertson, Greenfield, Mckenzie, Rowe, Alternate Ebert, Knight), 1 opposed (Chair Poole), 1 recused (Commissioner White). Motion carried.
  • Next Steps: The approval authorizes the project to proceed to right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. The applicant will continue to refine design details with staff, including pedestrian safety enhancements at the Lee Street/Mosby roundabout and gateway treatments. Any further appeals would go to City Council.

Meeting Transcript

Y all set and ready to go. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city of Richmond Planning Commission. Secretary, would you give the electronic note? This meeting is being recorded and held in person in the fifth floor conference room of City Hall while staff and a quorum of planning commissioners are attending the meeting in person. Members of the public may choose to participate in the meeting virtually. All written comments that were received by email prior to 12 p.m. today have been provided to the planning commissioners in advance of the meeting. During the public comment period, speakers will be asked to limit their comments to three minutes for an individual or five minutes of representing a group. Thank you very much. Mr. Poole? Here. Ms. Greenfield. Here. Ms. Ebert? Here. We'll come back to Mr. Pennick. Ms. Robertson, Ms. Rowe. Here. Mr. White? Here. Mr. McKenzie. Can you come back to Mr. Pennick as well? Do that after the minutes or before? We can do that now. Mr. Pennock has made a request to attend virtually. Is there a motion to consider that? Um ahead of the motion. Mr. Commissioner Pennick, could you please uh tell the commission where you will be participating from and um a general reason as to why yes? I'm doing required traveling and I'm participating from New Hampshire. Yeah, in a basement. Is there a motion to allow Mr. Pinnock? Motion do I have any discussion? Paul's question on allowing Mr. Pinnock to attend virtually. Please call the role. Mr. Poole?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com