Public hearing opened on Richards Avenue elderly housing project; commission pauses decision after public comment and TMP request

The Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing on a combined zone‑map amendment and special permit for properties at 127, 131 and 135 Richards Avenue to complete a previously approved elderly‑housing project.

Attorney Adam Blank presented for RVCV LLC and Mary Grace Vona. The application asks to rezone 127 from CD‑2 and both 131 and 135 from CD‑1M into CD‑1S (the district that permits elderly housing by special permit), and to add three units on a newly-acquired lot so the completed campus would total 16 elderly housing units. Blank said the parcels were planned from the outset in the approved design and the extra lot “fits seamlessly” with the earlier 13‑unit plan; the developer said the project will provide housekeeping, caregiving and meal services, exterior maintenance and other supportive services for residents.

Consultants said the stormwater design will include an underground gallery of concrete retention units (increased from the earlier design to offset the three new units) and will achieve a net decrease in peak runoff rates to the 5‑Mile River. Landscape plans show added buffer plantings and a continuous streetscape with street trees and evergreen screening. Staff reported sign-offs from building, fire and health (initial) departments; modest WPCA and DPW comments were listed as conditions and TMP requested replacement of a short asphalt sidewalk with concrete and installation of a mid‑block crosswalk with ADA ramps and rapid‑flashing beacons at a nearby intersection.

Two members of the public spoke. Kathleen Ravey (9 Riverwalk Lane), who lives across the river, asked for a clear explanation of stormwater runoff and erosion protections, saying “I get flooded” and asking how runoff would be controlled. Tanner Thompson, speaking as a member of the Bike/Walk Commission, said the crosswalk TMP requested would be “quite a bit more valuable” to future residents and local walkability, even if it is located slightly north of the proposed buildings.

Commissioners and staff discussed TMP’s requests and the sequence of approvals. TMP’s recommended crosswalk and concrete sidewalk were described as a longstanding city need unrelated to the applicant’s addition; the applicant said it would be unfair to require a large off-site sidewalk/crosswalk expense where the city had recently repaved Richards Avenue and installed asphalt walkway sections. Commissioners asked the applicant to engage TMP and provide cost estimates; several commissioners said they were inclined to seek a partnership approach rather than ask the applicant to fully fund a mid‑block crossing.

After public comment and discussion the commission agreed to keep the public hearing record open and continue the matter to the next meeting so TMP, DPW and the applicant can meet and present clarifications including estimated costs and possible alternatives. No final vote was taken.