Advisory Council Notes Date: November 13, 2019, 4 P.M. Location: Main Library, 101 E. Franklin St

Members Present: Mr. Rodney Poole, Chair Mr. Max Hepp-Buchanan, Vice-Chair Mr. Burt Pinnock, Vice-Chair Ms. Mayda Colón Ms. Cyane Crump Ms. LaToya Gray Mr. Bernard Harkless Ms. Ashley Hawkins Ms. Joyce Knight Mr. T. Preston Lloyd Ms. Louise Lockett Gordon Ms. Monica Lozano Mr. Jer’Mykeal McCoy Mr. Damian Pitt Ms. Olivya Wilson Ms. Meredith Weiss Mr. Ted Ukrop

Members Absent: Mr. Jonathan Bibbs Ms. Jennifer Mullen Ms. Kendra Norrell Ms. Gray O’Dwyer

Staff Present: Mr. Mark Olinger, Director of Department of Planning and

Development Review (PDR) Ms. Kimberly Chen, PDR Mr. William Palmquist, PDR Ms. Maritza Pechin, AECOM/PDR Ms. Marianne Pitts, PDR Ms. Emily Routman, PDR

4:07 PM Call to Order Mr. Poole called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. Mr. Poole thanked the Advisory Council (AC) and audience for attending. He alerted the public to two opportunities for public comment. He noted that the next meeting of the Advisory Council is December 11, 2019. He noted that the AC is scheduled to meet on the second Wednesday of the month from January through June 2020. Ms. Pechin stated that the meetings may end before June.

Richmond 300: A Guide for Growth Page 2

Mr. Poole asked for comments on the September 11, 2019, Meeting Notes. No corrections or edits were presented by the AC. Director’s Report Mr. Olinger had nothing to share for the Director’s Report. Public Comment #1 Mr. Charles Pool, an Oregon Hill resident and member of the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association, made a presentation regarding concerns with the proposed future land use designation for the Oregon Hill neighborhood (see attached presentation). Mr. Pool stated that the future land use designation should be Medium Density Residential with a 35’ height limit as that is consistent with the form and uses in the historic neighborhood. He noted that the proposed Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation is not appropriate in a neighborhood zoned R-7 that is 90% residential. He stated that an eight (8) story building which may be allowed under the Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation is too tall for the neighborhood which consists of primarily 2-story structures.

Mr. Pitt asked if the height limit was Mr. Pool’s only concern and if he had other concerns with Neighborhood Mixed-Use. Mr. Pool responded that the neighborhood is only 10% mixed-use and that should not be used as a reason to designate the whole neighborhood as mixed-use. Mr. Pool stated he also has concerns about future zone changes and Special Use Permits (SUPs).

Mr. Pitt stated that the intention of this land use designation is not to allow 8 stories in the middle of the neighborhood. He noted that Church Hill and the Fan are also designated Neighborhood Mixed-Use. Mr. Pitt asked if Mr. Pool thought Oregon Hill is more like the West End which has the Medium Density Residential Land Use designation. Mr. Pool responded that the plan has reduced the number of categories and that Medium Density Residential is the best fit from the limited number of categories.

Ms. Crump asked Mr. Olinger what he thought would be the appropriate zoning category for Neighborhood Mixed-Use. Mr. Olinger responded that he does not know but that there will not be a singular zoning district for Neighborhood Mixed-Use. Mr. Olinger noted that there are neighborhoods that have a mix of uses today, and there are places where a taller building may be appropriate in the context of the district.

Mr. Pitt stated that Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a neighborhood with a mix of uses and that R-7 may be appropriate zoning.

Ms. Crump stated that the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association (OHNA) has been discussing an overlay district that could address the design of new buildings. Mr. Olinger stated that the overlay district OHNA is discussing only addresses

Richmond 300: A Guide for Growth Page 3

demolitions. Mr. Pool stated that the neighborhood is fully built out so the primary concern is the demolition of structures.

Mr. Pinnock asked if Mr. Pool would be supportive of Neighborhood Mixed-Use if there was a 35’ height limit. Mr. Pool responded no as the neighborhood is a residential not mixed-use neighborhood. Mr. Pinnock stated the intent is to capture the dynamic of the neighborhood, and Mr. Pool responded why make the exception the rule.

Mr. Poole thanked Mr. Pool and OHNA for their comments.

Mr. Scott Burger, an Oregon Hill resident, echoed Mr. Pool’s comments noting that the historic fabric of the neighborhood should be respected.

Presentations & Discussion Process Update Ms. Pechin shared a brief update on the engagement statistics from Community Consultation #2:

• Engaged 1,509 individuals via: # Forums held: 7.5 (219 people) # Sharing Sessions held: 20 (145 people) # 5-min pitches at other people's meetings: 35 (1,137 people)

• Collected 1,469 comments and surveys # Activity Center surveys completed: 1,006 # Emails/letters received: 30 # Comments on the interactive maps: 426

Activity Centers Discussion Mr. Olinger introduced the activity center discussion. He noted that large parts of the city will not change over the next 20 years. He stated that with these activity centers, there is the opportunity to look at how new neighborhoods can be created and where there can be a gathering spot in South Richmond. He asked the AC if these areas make sense as areas on which to be making investment and policy decisions. Mr. Pitt stated that he does not care about what they are called. He commented that the circles may be confusing and that maybe points or stars would be more appropriate. He commented that there should be fewer centers if the goal is to have small area plans at these locations in the future. Ms. Pechin asked if Mr. Pitt thought the centers that do not need additional investment should be removed. Mr. Pitt stated that if the idea is to prioritize and direct investment then not all centers are needed. Mr. Poole stated he likes the idea of using stars but asked if there would be different size stars. Mr. Pitt responded yes.

Richmond 300: A Guide for Growth Page 4

Mr. Poole asked if the intent is to identify 4 to 5 that are achievable or 20 that are existing. Ms. Hawkins asked if the plan is only focusing on the not-established and emerging. Mr. Olinger noted that there are things to look at in the established centers. He noted in the not established and emerging centers that maybe all the commercial will not stay commercial. He stated that rezonings will signal to the market that the city wants change. He noted that after the future land use was changed to the Libbie/Patterson area the zoning was never updated. Ms. Crump recommended that micro centers be removed. Mr. Pitt responded that he thought micro centers should be noted to show where commercial in Neighborhood Mixed-Use is appropriate. Ms. Crump asked if the intent was to concentrate change at micro centers. Mr. Hepp-Buchanan noted that what was most interesting are the not established and emerging centers. He recommended removing the established centers, then the activity center map would be a potential growth map. Ms. Lozano noted that there are vacancies in parts of the established centers including Downtown. Mr. Hepp-Buchanan recommended smaller circles within the Downtown center. Mr. Lloyd asked how these centers will be operationalized. He questioned how they will be used in the review of a SUP or rezoning. Ms. Pitts responded that the strategies refer back to the centers. Ms. Pechin noted the centers are more about connections and the use of City property. Ms. Lozano stated she likes the idea of dots and connecting parts of the city. Mr. Pinnock noted that they should be more than dots. Mr. Lloyd stated the plan needs to be a blueprint for property owners and needs to be specific. Ms. Crump asked if there is a conflict in strategies how will this be applied. Ms. Lozano noted that this is an opportunity for investment heat map. Mr. Pinnock stated that from an economic development standpoint, there are too many large centers (Scott’s Addition, Downtown, Stony Point, and Southside Plaza) that would compete with each other. Ms. Gray stated that she has concerns with using the term not established in minority neighborhoods. Mr. McCoy stated that there needs to be a conversation about equity in regard to transportation and who develops in the city.

Richmond 300: A Guide for Growth Page 5

Ms. Hawkins asked if the term “not established” is problematic. Ms. Gray responded yes, that it implies that the area does not meet a standard. Ms. Lozano recommended removing all the categories. Mr. Pinnock asked if any new nodes have been created. Ms. Pechin responded only Greater Scott’s Addition. Mr. Pinnock recommended identifying the centers that exist and the ones that can be enhanced. Mr. Lloyd stated that these need to actually mean something. Mr. Pitt stated if there is not a functional difference in the categories, then they are not needed. Mr. Poole stated there needs to be a focus on the Midlothian and Hull Street corridors. Mr. Olinger stated that there are 7 centers on Hull Street. He noted the intent is to focus energy on these points rather than the entire corridor. Mr. Pitt recommended making the land use along Jefferson Davis and other corridors Nodal Mixed-Use to encourage transit oriented development. Mr. Olinger stated that maybe some micro centers can be removed, but some are the centers of the neighborhoods. Mr. Pinnock recommended not removing all the micro centers but remove the emerging and not established ones. Ms. Pechin noted that on Hull Street, these centers are potentially future bus rapid transit stops. Mr. Lloyd stated that the centers need to relate back to policy. Ms. Lozano asked how the centers relate to parks and if there are park centers. Ms. Pechin responded that it was on a different map. Ms. Wilson asked why Chippenham Hospital was a center. Mr. Olinger responded that there is the potential to build upon the existing hospital and medical office. Ms. Wilson responded that the reason she asked is that the Veteran’s Administration (VA) Hospital is not noted as a center. Mr. Olinger asked if there could be a way to better connect the VA Hospital to Southside Plaza. Ms. Pechin noted that the VA Hospital has no spillover effect and turns its back on the surrounding community. Public Comment #2 There was no additional public comment. Adjournment

Mr. Poole adjourned the meeting at 5:47 pm.