Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This meeting is being 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, citizens 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 in representing a group.

Thank you very much. For purposes of establishing a quorum, please call the roll.

Mr. Poole?

Here.

Ms. Ebert? Here. Mr. Pinnock?

Here.

Ms. Robertson? Here. Ms. Rowe? Here. Mr. White? Here. And we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we have three sets of minutes beginning with November 3rd of 2025. Is there a motion? Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion? Hearing none, I call the question. We are voting on approval of the minutes from November 3rd, 2025. Please call the vote. Mr. Falls. Aye. Steve Bird.

Abstinence. Mr. Pinnock.

Was I here?

You do not have to be.

Ms. Robertson? Aye.

Ms. Rowe? Aye. Mr. White? Aye.

The second set of minutes is for November 18th of 2025. Is there a motion? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval of the minutes. From November 18th, 2025, please call the roll.

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Pennant.

Aye.

Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. And Mr. White.

Aye.

Motion passed and both minutes are approved.

Lastly, we have the minutes from May 19th of 2026. Is there a motion? Approved.

Second.

Thank you. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on minutes May 19th, 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole?

Aye.

Ms. Ebert? Aye. Mr. Pinnock?

I'm going to absolutely abstain from that one.

Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Rowe? Aye. And Mr. White? Aye. Motion passes, and those minutes are over.

Thank you. Mr. Director, do you have a report?

Just briefly. earlier. So as we work on the third draft of code refresh, to get some working sessions on a few of the major items.

Sorry.

All right. Draft two and a draft three. And so we would be looking potentially at our next meeting on the 16th. I'm speaking to the that are started a little earlier or have some work session time to discuss those items. So we don't have to discuss it right now, but maybe work on pulling the members to see if we can extend the meeting to be able to have that discussion.

Thank you very much. Anything further? Questions for the director?

Consideration of continuances and deletions. I believe we have three.

Yeah, so the first is item four. This is the Public Art Commission item 2026-005. And this is a request to continue to the July 7th.

A motion to continue item number four, Second Street bus platform case.

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? We're voting on continuing item number four, July 7th, 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Polk?

Aye.

Ms. Ebert?

Aye. Mr. Pinnock?

Aye.

Ms. Robertson?

Aye.

Ms. Rowe? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. And Mr. McKenzie, welcome. You are voting on item four. It's a continuation. Aye.

You guys will see that again on July 7th. Item five, this is the public art work plan.

It's a presentation and they would also like to continue. They would like to continue this to June 16th.

Thank you. Second. Discussion. We'll call the question. We're voting on item number five, the 2026 public art commission work plan continued to June 16th, 2026. Please call the vote.

Mr. Poole. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Mr. Pennant. Aye. Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. And Mr. McKinsey.

Aye.

Motion passes and you guys will see that again on June 16th.

Lastly, item number 13, 3317 Rear Monument. Councilperson from that district has requested a 30-day continuance. And what's the meeting?

That will be the July 7th meeting.

There are motion to continue item number five, 3317, Rear Monument to July 7th, 2026. Any discussion? If there are none, I'll call the question. We're voting on approval. Continue with item 3317, Rear Monument Avenue to July 7th, 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole?

Aye.

Ms. Hebert? Aye. Mr. Penick?

Aye.

Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Rowe? Aye. Mr. White? Aye.

Mr. McKenzie?

Aye.

Motion passes. And item 13, ordinance 2026-093, rare monument, will be on the July 7th agenda.

Now please present the consent agenda. Thank you.

Item six, ordinance 2026-117. This is an ordinance to authorize the special use of the property known as 607 Arnold Avenue for the purpose of up to two single family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. Item seven, ordinance 2026-118 to authorize the special use of the property known as 2720 Clearfield Street for the purpose of no more than one single family detached dwelling upon certain terms and conditions. Item eight, ordinance 2026-118 119 to authorize the special use of the property known as 1710 McTavish Avenue for the purpose of a motor vehicle sales rental and service facility upon certain terms and conditions. Item nine, ordinance 2026-122 to accept a quick claim deed from the school board conveying a portion of 1461 Commerce Road consisting of approximately 8.2 plus or minus acres and to authorize the chief administrative office to act on behalf of the city in executing such deed. Item 10, ordinance 2026-123 to declare surplus and direct the sale of a portion of the city-owned real estate known as 1461 Commerce Road consisting of 8.2 plus or minus acres to city central LLC or its affiliate for approximately $4.7 million for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a mixed-use development. Item 11, ordinance 2026-124 to declare surplus and direct the sale of a portion of the city-owned real estate known as 1451 Commerce Road consisting of 4.7 plus or minus acres to City Central LLC or its affiliate for approximately $2.6 million for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a mixed-use development. That's the consent agenda.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Commission concerning any item on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who would speak in favor of or in opposition to any item on the consent agenda. One online?

I'm seeing no one online.

I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the Commission, and ask if there's a motion on the consent agenda.

Motion to approve.

Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. We're voting on items of the consent agenda. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole?

Aye.

Ms. Ebert? Aye. Mr. Penick?

Aye.

Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Rowe? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. And Mr. McKenzie? Aye. Motion passes, and the consent agenda is adopted.

Very much. We present the first items on the way.

First item on the regular agenda is item 12, ordinance 2026-120. This is a special use permit to authorize the special use of the properties known as 901 South Meadow Street, 903 South Meadow Street, 905, 907, 911, 915, 921, and 923 South Meadow Street for the purpose of up to 31 single family attached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. And we will be joined by Madison Wilson for a staff presentation.

so i'll be covering oops i'll be covering the ordinance 2026-120 uh for 923 south meadow street um So the existing conditions, it is a vacant block in the Randolph neighborhood. It's currently 32,000 square feet or three quarters of an acre. And while it is a whole block, it is already divided into eight parcels. The proposal is to build 31 single family attached dwellings, which will be 57 units per acre.

Some additional context of the area.

This is adjacent to the north of the proposal. It's mostly single family homes.

Then just south of the proposal is single family attached dwellings.

And then a little bit further south on South Meadow and Appomattox Street, there's some more examples of single-family attached in the vicinity. The Richmond 300 Master Plan designates this parcel as residential, which is a neighborhood consisting primarily of single-family houses on large or medium-sized lots, which are more homogenous in nature. The intensity is one to three stories. Primary uses are single family houses, accessory dwelling units, and open space. Secondary uses are duplexes, small multifamily buildings, institutional and cultural uses. The reason for the SUP, the site is in the R5 single family residential district, which does not currently allow for single family attached dwellings. because it's not a conforming use. All other zoning regulations will be considered under this umbrella of permitting single-family attached units, if that makes sense. The conditions, if approved, the special use permit would impose the following. The special use of the property shall be as up to 31 single-family attached dwellings, substantially as shown on the plans. All building elevations and site improvements, including landscaping, shall be shown on the plans. All mechanical equipment, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units serving the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any adjoining public. And there shall be no less than one off-street parking space per dwelling unit substantially as shown on the plans. And prior to the issuance of any building permit for the special use, the establishment of no more than 31 residential lots substantially to show that the plans shall be accomplished. For neighborhood participation, area residents within 150 feet of the properties were sent an official notice by mail from the city. Staff also sent civic notices to the Randolph Neighborhood Association. And in addition to that, the applicant has been in contact with Randolph, Maymont, and Bird Park residents as well. And council member Lynch has attended multiple meetings regarding the project. Staff has received both letters of support and opposition regarding the proposal. Staff recommends approval. Staff finds that the proposed use aligns with the master plan recommendations for residential land use in which single family houses aren't appropriate primary use. The proposed use of attached dwellings supports the return 300 master plans goal for housing specifically Objective 14.5, to encourage more housing types throughout the city. Staff concludes that the proposed ordinance conditions substantially satisfy the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting of special use permits. Specifically, staff finds the proposed use would not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community involved and would not create congestion in the streets and the area involved. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permits request.

And then here are some images of the project again.

And the site plan. And some floor plans. And you can go back to the site plan if that's helpful.

That's all.

Questions from members of the commission.

One question. You cited a block, a couple blocks south on South Miller Street. I think it's a block between Appomattox and Amelia. Does that conform to current zoning?

So no. So a lot of those areas are non-conforming because they were built before the newer zoning code.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Other questions?

So a follow-up to that, what is the density of those blocks per acre? So it would be 57 dwellings. Sorry, the non-conforming existing.

Oh, I'm not exactly sure.

We can calculate it while we're discussing.

Yeah, I was going to calculate it. But you can even see from this, just the aerial view, how... the density around that area is about the same.

The density is... So I'm assuming because we've seen other projects like this come through saying that the... I'm really sorry, I'm going under a little sleep right now. Traffic, cars, that stuff, is not going to be detrimental but we've also heard there's no studies done. So on what basis?

So in terms of, are you talking about traffic or just general welfare?

The finding that this is okay because it won't have a detrimental effect on increased traffic. So trying to find the exact language.

Oh, yeah. So when I was saying that, I understand that streets like Blair Street, Playbourne are pretty tight one-way streets. However, everybody on these streets does have alley access. So the idea is that we can't really use parking as a deterrent because in theory, everybody who lives on Blair, Playbourne, or has alley access around this area, by right is allowed to park in their rear. So working with that and showing that the applicant is wanting to provide some parking for these new dwelling units without parking minimums.

Okay, so I guess it's not the parking that I'm thinking of. It's someone who needs permits. One of the findings for special use permits related to traffic. Thank you, Alison. I know I'm not, you're not.

Yeah, I think it's the final. We say, so the reason we bring that up is there's six criteria at a minimum we have to meet. One of them is that it won't, and I don't know the exact, off the top of my head, and I should, because we talk about it all the time, but that it won't be detrimental to the flow of traffic.

We will not create congestion in the streets.

We'll not create congestion in the streets.

That's the word. And I'm just, wondering in general, since we don't do traffic studies for each of these, what are we basing that on?

Sure. So when we review these, we run them through all of our partner agencies. So the Department of Public Works takes a look at all of our special use permit requests. Just like other agencies, I'll say they approve or recommend, make recommendations about whether or not they support it, or like do they need certain conditions in order to like not violate the sixth criteria? Right. So they may need to provide access or maybe some offsite improvements. Um, I will say in general, if you add, um, Institute of transport engineers has trip generation manuals, give a caveat in terms of like they're generally used in suburban locations. So they might overestimate urban context. You could walk or bike transit for other trips like Meadows transit route here. Um, But in short, residential units, for the most part, are like the least traffic generators. And so they generate on average per unit about like five trips per day, where you really look at terms of like what causes congestion in streets. It's any use that's got a fuel pump, a drive-thru, a convenience store, a fast food restaurant, right? One uses that are designed like they got in and out all day. And so like, right, cars coming, going, those generate a lot. I'll say a tier down from that are things like banks, sit-down restaurants, post office, grocery store, right? Again, like there's a lot of turnover in there. But then below that, you start getting into government office, retail store. But in terms of like residential, like in the scheme of things, very low. And at the opposite end, I'll say like the fuel pump, I mean, you're talking in like hundreds of trips per day. So the X factor is much different. So although it seems like a lot of units, a gas station here would like outdo that in traffic in no time. And so I think that's just one of the things just from a general role, like there's a handful of categories that are really auto oriented. And those auto oriented ones are the ones that cause congestion in the streets. It's not residential. Can you go back a couple slides?

Forward.

I'm still just trying to find that language. I know we just saw it. I will let it go. Thank you.

It's going to be the last. It's always at the end of our find. It's going to be that. Staff concludes.

It's the last sentence of that. We would not create congestion in the streets and the area involved.

Thank you very much, Ms. Oliver.

Director, as a follow-up, the six criteria that are required for staff to

recommend approvals are considered by the staff individually on their merits. And when you said you go to the various departments in the city, does that mean also that you send special use permit paperwork to fire, public utilities, public works? And each one of those considers the issues that are of concern to their department and they report back to you before you make a recommendation.

Correct. Catch me if I'm missing one. In public utilities, it's both like water and sewer and storm water, water resources. In public works, it's primarily right of way. It's also fire. And then even within PDR, it's both land use, zoning, building. But all of them make recommendations. Ultimately, You know, our staff makes the determination in terms of whether, you know, based on their advice, but I'll say 95% of the time we'll follow the recommendations in terms of what they'd say either is approved or, hey, we need some type of condition added in order to, you know, not violate those six criteria.

In total, we had 12 different agencies like this.

The reason I'm asking these questions is that the letters of opposition were so much specific in their concerns about what departments were consulted. And that's why I'm trying to expand on that a little bit. I don't normally do this. I do a lot of times talk about the six criteria, but those six criteria are used by all of the agencies to all the 12 agencies that you send them to. I just wanted to cover that because there was some very precise and I thought meaningful concerns in the letters of opposition. And I wanted to try to see if we could expand a little bit on that.

Sure. And if there ever is a case where I'll say an agency makes a recommendation and it's not clear, like we'll make sure to put that in the report. But in this case, all of the partner agencies have recommended approval as it's determined with the conditions presented.

Specifically as to fire, because there have been some specific issues that these are the fire they were consulted with respect to this as far as the ability to get their equipment in and out both the front and the alleyway yes are there any other questions from members of the commission obviously solver had a chance to so i will share my screen so i just kind of because like this is like rough on the fly

I did a rough acreage measurement. So this is the site in question. This block just north of it averages 11.25 units per acre. This plot here, this side of it is 7.69. This side's a little denser at 12.43, and then the other two are comparable to this first half there at like 7.5-ish units per acre.

Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Wilson, appreciate it.

As well, I'm just going to bring out a presentation.

I believe the applicant would like to make a presentation.

A different file form.

It's a PDF, yeah.

Yes. Thank you, Madison.

Welcome, Ms. Markham. How are you today?

I am fine. Thank you, Chairman Poole and members of the commission. I appreciate your opportunity to be here in front of you this evening. I won't cover all of the details that Madison just covered, but I did want to run through a few things, particularly around the conditions for granting of special use permits that you are held to. So here you can see the site. There's a few things I wanted to point out on this slide. One is how the site is oriented towards Meadow and the alley that tees into the site. as well as Walker Street. And I appreciate, Alison, you doing those density calculations on the fly, but I think the blocks that we are most akin to are actually the blocks to the south, where we are the same in mass in terms of single-family attached houses in the neighborhood. You've seen the site plan. So I pointed out where Walker and the alley teed into the site. And so one of the things that was important to us in the site layout was to orient the houses so that the breaks in the houses were consistent with the surrounding street network. So the first break where we will have a native plant pollinator garden will align with Walker Street. And then the break in the back of the building or the back UNITS THAT FRONT ON THE ALLEY THERE THAT WE WILL NAME FIELD WAY, WE ARE GOING TO AS A CONDITION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY PUBLIC WORKS, WE WILL REPAVE THAT ALLEY, WE'LL PUT CURB AND GUTTER ALONG THE ALLEY AND SIDEWALKS ALONG THAT ALLEY AND THOSE ARE CONDITIONS IN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE THAT WERE REQUESTED BY PUBLIC WORKS AS WELL AS THE IMPROVING THE ADA ACCESS AT ALL FOUR CORNERS AROUND THE SITE AND THE over the sidewalk entrance for our new pollinator place alley that will provide access to the rear-loaded garages for each house. So each house will have at least one off-street parking space in the rear of it, access off that new alley. So here's just a quick rendering of the houses showing the massing and the scale, the setback, the front yards, the porches. One of the things that we tried to do in the design, there are lots of this mansard style roof and we took that characteristic from the neighborhood and we think it helps reduce the scale of the buildings along Meadow and is in keeping with the neighborhood. Another thing that we heard through our public process was the importance of front porches in the neighborhood. And so we increased, initially we had more of a stoop and we've increased the size of those front porches. So we really want to have a nice front edge along Meadow that will make the rest of the neighborhood. So as far as the criteria for the granting of special use permits established by the city charter, the first criteria is that the special use permit will they were all stated in the charter is very negative that it will not do these things. So in my presentation, I've framed it more positively than the project will protect the safe, healthy morals and general welfare of the community involved. And this is, which is what staff found. So staff reviewed, not just planning stuff, but public works, utilities, fire, all of the different departments have, have found that it will meet, recommendations in the master plan and will the general welfare of the community. We will not cause congestion in the streets. In fact, we will improve the surrounding streets. As I said, we're required to improve the unnamed alley. We will name that alley. We will repaint it. We are going to do the ADA ramps. We're going to install bump outs along Meadow to slow traffic down. And we've aligned our our site plan with the surrounding street network. This is a picture of those houses just to the south that show the existing attached housing in the neighborhood and how our proposed houses have tried to mimic the design and the scale with a sort of more modern approach, maintaining that setback along the street. Additionally, this criteria talks about density and overcrowding of land. So we are not asking for a big multifamily project. We are asking for a single family attached project that will create individual lots that will be sold for home ownership. So each lot will only have one unit. We're not asking for duplexes or additional accessory dwelling units or a large multifamily building, which you know, a lot of the city's zoning districts don't even have density limitations. And we are not asking for any additional height exceptions other than a bump out for the roof, a possible roof deck, which would be an option for buyers. So we meet the 35 foot height requirements of the underlying zoning district. The city charter talks about not causing hazards from fire or other panic or dangers. Our proposal will meet all the existing fire and building codes. And we are proposing to stop installing a fire hydrant at the intersection of the existing alley. And we haven't settled on whether it will be on Blair or Winder, but that's at the request of the fire department. So we will be doing that as part of the project. Another criteria is toxic, VERY GENERALLY ABOUT POOLS AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. WE WILL BE MAINTAINING ALL OF OUR STORM WATER ON SITE PROVIDING NEW PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AS PART OF THAT. SO WE BELIEVE OUR PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE THAT WILL SUPPORT PROJECTS TO IMPROVE additional services for the city. And then we believe that we're helping adding residents to the neighborhood and to the city that will support ongoing efforts of the neighborhood associations and the Friends of Bird Park and all the good work that's being done in the surrounding area. And then the final criteria talks about adequate light and air. And we, again, we're meeting the height limitation. We're providing these front porches and we're maintaining the existing consistent setback on the meadow. And then we're very excited about these native plants and having a no grass project where we will hopefully help support the city's status. So those are the criteria that we believe we're meeting and staff, the professional staff believes we're meeting. And so we appreciate your time tonight and hope that you will find that as well. I did want to talk before I sit down a little bit about our neighborhood outreach, which has been extensive. We began conversations with individuals in the neighborhood in August of last year, so almost a year ago. We've attended... the Randolph Neighborhood Association, Bird Park Civic Association, and Friends of Bird Park meetings. We had an informal sort of open house style meeting on site where we provided breakfast and coffee or danishes, I wouldn't necessarily say breakfast, but we provided refreshments and actually had a really great turnout. We hand delivered notice for that meeting basically two blocks in all directions around

on the site. We went back to the Bird Park Civic Association.

We had an informational sort of informal happy hour at a nearby project at the beginning of this year. That was more a happy hour than didn't talk a whole lot about the project, but people did come and have questions for us. Then we went back to the Randolph Neighborhood Association in April of this year, and we've had numerous meetings with individuals who have reached out to us, who have had questions or expressed concern about the project. The Bird Park Civic Association took a position of no opposition to a sort of companion paper, which is the redevelopment of the Virginia Home Building, which is not on tonight's agenda, but Um, they did not take a position on this, um, puzzle and nor did the Randolph neighborhood association. I think, um, in talking with the president, they had heard, um, support and opposition from their residents. And so they, they decided not to take a position on the. But we did have ex extensive public outreach and heard a lot of good ideas and have included them in, in the proposal. So. I think that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer questions. I do have Michael Mears, who is part of the development group here, Walter Parks, who's the architect, and Doug Vaughn, who's representing the Virginia Home, who is the owner of the property.

Before you finish up, would you like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal?

Yes. Yes, sir, I would. Thank you.

Any questions for Ms. Markham, for the members of the commission?

depending on information, if you can answer maybe your teammates, the range in size or average size of the homes.

So the homes will range from just over 1,400 square feet to 2,000 square feet. We have basically three different unit types.

You'll see on the site plan the ones on the

on the corners here are a little bit wider. They have a two-car garage. So those would be the larger units. And then there are some that are one or two in each section that are a little bit smaller. So we're trying to provide housing that will sort of meet this missing middle. They won't be market rate houses, but we think that this is a

neighborhood that will attract a lot of fires. So we're excited about it.

Questions from other members of the commission?

I have a couple.

You made reference to paving the alleyway, putting in a fire facility and some of the product that you will put in there. How does the neighborhood know that that's actually going to get done?

So there are conditions and the special use permit ordinance that lay out some of those requirements. The other, some of the other, like the landscaping, there's not a requirement that we only plant native plants, but that is a huge goal of ours. And that's something that will be reviewed through the site plan and subdivision We will have to provide landscaping in general conformance with the plan, but the one that's attached to the ordinance doesn't necessarily call out specific species.

And particularly as to the paving and other items that you've made reference to, doesn't the ordinance itself provide that you don't get a CO for any of your product until that's complete? the satisfaction of the director?

Yeah, so there's a specific ordinance section that calls out all those public improvements that we have to make to the right of ways around the project. And it does reference the director of the Department of Public Works. And so he has to be satisfied that we've met that condition in order for the zoning administrator to issue us COs.

Thank you very much. Any other questions for Ms. Markle? Thank you, and we'll reserve two minutes for rebuttal if you choose.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

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

Just come up one at a time.

I know you're back there, and I'll call on you one at a time. Yes, sir.

Good evening chairman and members of the commission happy to be here tonight to talk to you about this. I am Doug Vaughn, president of the Virginia Home and here tonight representing them as the current owner of the properties under consideration. The little home is a residence for 130 permanently disabled adults. We have occupied the property at 11 North Hampton Street for almost 100 years. and acquired the subject properties during our time in the neighborhood for possible expansion or parking to serve our needs. Several years ago, we became aware of some pressing maintenance needs at our facility at 1101 Hampton Street and began a capital campaign to address our most immediate concerns, including replacing elevators and other key infrastructure. A generous donor came for a tour of the facility and thought we could have a greater reach, including establishment of a day program. They also acknowledge how the elevators restrict the freedom of our residents and the safety of our residents. We also have congregate hallway bathrooms, which is undignified for our population as well. Anonymous benefactor ultimately gave us $25 million. which we are very grateful for and excited about. The list of benefits is too long to detail here, but possibly the biggest benefit of moving to Hanover County is to serve more people. We will increase our size by 30 residents, hopefully clearing the wait list we currently have for our services. The day program will be available for 60 people who may not be ready to live at the home yet, but it'll also provide respite for family members. We recognized early on that the proceeds from the sale of Bird Park and Meadow properties would also be necessary for us to construct a new state-of-the-art facility in Hanover. We hired Tolheimer to assist us in this process. We had numerous competitive bids during that process, and we chose Audio Partners for the disposition of those properties, and they have been a great partner to work with. The Virginia Home, again, has worked with Aldeo, and we were very touched that they wanted to honor the founder of the Virginia Home, Mary Tinsley Greenhalgh, and they're going to call the new building the Tinsley, which we're very excited about. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and address This issue and the Virginia home recommends approval for this project. We think it will be very good for the city.

Thank you. Nice questions from members of the commission. Thank you, sir. Are there any other members? Yes, sir. I think there's another gentleman in the back. What's your name, please?

Welcome. Thank you. Good to be here. My name is Will Wilson. I'm a chapter lead at RVA Yimby. That's yes in my backyard. I live here in the second district, right on Marshall Street. But a number of years ago, I did live in Randolph on Kemper Street, not far from the site. I've been reflecting on Randolph and some of the surrounding neighborhoods recently, stemming from a conversation at a recent zoning advisory or ZAC meeting that's part of the city's code refresh or wholesale zoning process. Topic was on starter homes, where they are, how do we create more of them? And somehow the conversation drifted over to these neighborhoods, Maymont, Randolph, some of the neighborhoods that are more accessible today and some of the neighborhoods to the north and to the west. The rather unfortunate take by a couple of the ZAC members was that that's just where these starter homes are. And indeed, today, they are more accessible. I've had a friend purchase a house there. But in the context of looking 30, 50 years out, as our zoning code tends to do, it was a little bit of a shortfall. Because the city keeps growing and there's not an infinite existing stock of starter homes in these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods must increase supply of housing to remain in that accessible character. Because the key to supplying more starter homes is straightforward. Smaller lots, smaller units facilitated by smaller lots, and more units allowed on single lots embodied in this project. Besides, people want this. According to a recent polling done by the zoning reform group in the city, homes for all our neighbors, over two-thirds, richmonders except the idea of supporting allowing denser housing types in areas today reserved only for detached housing 69 over two-thirds of richmonders and that's in exclusively detached detached areas randolph i'd argue is not exactly that even uh indeed some of the examples of the surrounding blocks um show a variety of housing types up and down meadow street looking farther back we know randolph was even a denser neighborhood before some of the some of the spot removal, clearance, some of the urban renewal associated with the downtown expressway. So I argue it's the R5 zoning that's incompatible with Randolph, not the missing middle housing proposed tonight. Thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Wilson? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

Hi, everybody. My name is Charlie Troppel. I'm a homeowner in Randolph and I'm here in support of this special use permit. My house is on Powhatan Street. My backyard goes up onto Winder and so I can see the empty lot from my backyard where this project is being considered. I love my neighbors and I want more of them. 31 market rate townhomes, while not affordable, will be more financially accessible than eight houses or even duplexes would be on this same lot. And more new housing, even at market rate, improves our neighborhood's affordability over time via the well-documented process of filtering, which I'm sure Will would be really excited to explain to anybody. The development, as we've seen, is not out of scale or out of character for our neighborhood. The 1,100 and 1,200 blocks of meadow are mostly attached houses. The 800 block is row homes with just a few spaces. feet of space in between them. Houses across the street from the proposed development are three stories. The Virginia home itself is seven stories. Townhomes can fit into all of this very naturally, especially because the developers took feedback from the Randolph Neighborhood Association and removed four story homes from their plans, bringing it more in scale with the neighborhood. I understand that some of my neighbors are concerned about parking or traffic challenges created by these 31 homes. I personally don't share those concerns, the required garages, meaning we're not talking about 60 more cars parking on the street. We're talking about somewhere between zero and 31 more cars parking on the streets. Thanks to Randolph's proximity to the city, several of my neighbors are single car households, and it stands to reason that some of our new neighbors would be too. Winder and Powhatan alone have an incredible amount of available parking, My wife and I got married in our backyard. 50 people swarmed our house on a Friday afternoon, and nobody had to go more than a block away to park their car. So does our neighborhood have space for less than 31 more cars in order to create room for 31 more families? I would argue yes. People are more important than parking spots. I would rather have greater density, greater affordability, and more people able to move to the neighborhood that I love living in. I'm sure we'll experience some growing pains, but on net, I believe this development will be good for our neighborhood and for the city. Thank you all so much for your time.

Questions from the commission. Thank you very much. Any other member of the public wish to speak in favor? Any member of the public wish to speak in opposition?

Yes, ma'am.

We do have one person who raised their hand online. I'm not sure if they raised it right before you asked about opposition.

My name is Tony Mounts. My husband and I live at 1909 Blair Street, which is one lot away from this development. I'm here tonight to oppose the special use permit for the 900 block of South Meadow Street for the following reasons. It is excessive to take a piece of property that is currently zoned for eight single family homes and tried to increase the density to 31 three-story homes. The general welfare of the community would be affected with a high density development by creating congestion in the streets, roads, and alleyways, and the already crowded streets will be overburdened. Blair Street is a narrow one-way street, and first responder vehicles currently have a hard time maneuvering down it, which we have seen ourselves on more than one occasion. where a neighbor's car was hit by a fire truck that could not get to a house that was burning down. The added vehicles would create an even more difficult situation. The makeup of the neighborhood is generally single family units with some duplexes and some multifamily buildings. The typical lot in the neighborhood is 2,000 to 6,000 square feet. 31 townhouse units on 0.75 acres is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Removing the existing trees on the lot would create a heat pocket and potentially increase the utility bills for the surrounding homes. Placing 31 units on that partial would create a great deal of water runoff, which would overburden the already overtaxed antiquated storm sewer system, and we regularly see that after a big rain back up into our streets. I received the notice of the planning commission meeting seven days beforehand and don't feel this was adequate time to mobilize the community to make an informed decision. My husband and I personally walked the neighborhood on Sunday, went to over 250 homes, didn't find one person that was in favor of this development as it stands now. Most of the people were unaware of this special use permit. And we didn't find anyone who wanted this. I've only met one neighbor in the past week that was for this. It's not an example of nimbyism. We are all for development. We would love to see some homes on that lot. We just don't want to see it overcrowded. It's too high of a density for our neighborhood.

Thank you. Members of the commission. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks for coming. The person online.

They did lower their hand. She lowered her hand. They lowered their hand.

I apologize.

Yeah, sorry I couldn't make it in person. I got stuck out at work, but I did want to speak because I have been living on the 1800 block of Claiborne since 2024, and the first time I've heard of this development was not through any of this community outreach. Even though my house is within the 150-foot distance, it's from another concerned neighbor who has left a note for all of the other neighbors around me. These plans don't read as a fully thought out idea. Like looking at it right now, there's no provisions for like trash and recycling out back. And the swallowtail plan and these thinner homes, if there's a car in the garage, there's no room to get a trash and recycling can around the car and out into the back alley. And there's nowhere for the cans to be without blocking that driveway. So they're going to go off into the neighboring properties. And there's no place for outdoor HVAC units or Amazon delivery drivers or any other of the regular things that you would see in the neighborhood, even outside of construction. There was a new house built on the 1800 block of Claiborne recently. And for weeks, there was construction blocking traffic that required every neighbor of mine and me and my roommates to back out of the street illegally. That was the only way to get around. I don't see a way in which this development would go forward without causing stormwater runoff issues, access issues, and issues with day-to-day services that people who live in a house would need. I would understand seeing a proposal for like 12 or even 15 units, but 30 units on a lot this size is... It's not... It's giving... more than this neighborhood can handle. And I don't think it was in the best interest of this neighborhood to do so.

Questions for Ms. Campbell, for members of the commission.

Thank you very much. Any other members of the public present that wish to speak in opposition? Yes, sir.

Now I'll get to the gentleman in the back. I thought they wanted to speak. Welcome. Come on up. Give us your name. Good afternoon, April Times.

My name is John Smith. I presently live at 1916 Blair. My family has had family property up here at least 70 or more years. We're speaking about parking. The streets just weren't made wide enough. Right now, Blatt Street is one way. Clayton Street is one way. Winder, you can't park on but one side of the street. By the street where they're speaking of, you can't park on but one side of the street. And it's just no parking. The area where they spoke of putting 31 units, it originally had maybe 12 to 14. And even today, We have to fight just to park in front of your house. Not even talking about emergency equipment and things coming down, which Ms. Toney spoke of, killed another cop trying to get to a fire. And the gentleman spoke of, he had more than 50 people, but I guarantee you couldn't know more than two people parking in front of this house. It's just nowhere to park up there. It's been like that for years. And most of the streets, like I said, are one way. And even one way right now, there's nowhere to park. So, you know, I've been in the brain 30 more additional units up there. It's just no way possible. We don't even have anywhere to park. And again, we have to fight just to park in front of their homes now. And the streets just weren't built wide enough. None of those streets up through there, you get two cars up and down the street at the same time. You have to park on one side. There's no parking on the other side at all. And again, for emergencies, there was a fire up there maybe a year or so ago. Fire trucks had to come around to the other street because they couldn't get to Blass Street. They had to bring hoses through the alley from another street because they couldn't get Blair Street. So, and even when they're speaking of finding the street is one way. Blair is one way. Claiborne, all those streets now are already one way. There's no way to park. And as I said, again, I've been in the neighborhood myself almost 70 years. And I've seen, you know, come and gone. And even when I came up, we might have had one person in the family may have had a car. But now you got four people in the family. Everybody has a color. So it's just very congested now. And I'm totally against it. And like I say, even right now, you can't even park. Two cars in front of your house. A lot of people do park in the back because we've had so many accidents, even on the street now. People hit and run. I've seen at least, I haven't seen after that, but maybe about five or six accidents. And they hit you and you keep on going. The streets are very, very narrow. And even gentlemen that spoke on power channels, He can tell you how narrow this street is. Two cars can't go up the street at the same time. You park on each side, can't let one car go through. And then you're sort of ducking and dodging, you know, trying to get through. And if the other person didn't let you through. But again, my name is John Smith. I live in 1916 Blair Street. I'm totally against the parking. And even down to this theft, vandalism, things such as that. And you're going to bring more and more people in that neighborhood. And if I'm not opposed to some, but 31, it's nothing. It's not going to be possible. There's no way for you to park there now. And I don't see how even emergency trucks or anything will even get up through there for that amount of people. And even the lady spoke about construction. I say if they do decide to do that, we'll do all the construction. There's going to be no way for nobody to park there or for them to do all the construction. They spoke about the junior homes. They don't know what they want to do now because they want to make those into units. So that's going to be additional people over there then. But again, I'm totally against it. I've been in that neighborhood almost 70 years. I'm 67 myself. I've been in that neighborhood almost 70 years, and I'm totally against it. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Any questions for Mr. Smith from members of the commission? Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there any other members? Yes, ma'am. Aloha.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Appreciate it. My name is Tiffany Brown.

I'm a homeowner at 1807 Blair Street. I've owned my home for about three years and three and a half now. And I personally wanted to thank the commission for hearing us out today. I really appreciate your public service and taking the time to operate this. And I also want to acknowledge what was shared by the Virginia Home. I think the work that you guys do is amazing. for the community and clearly have great resources with the community in the fundraising that you've achieved and some of the things that you have going for your building. And I just think that that's phenomenal. So with that, I do have some concerns about the information that I've heard along the way, as well as what I've heard today in terms of the safety and regulation around adding rezoning to add that many units to that lot um i like many other people in opposition i'm a very big fan of the increased density of uh the neighborhood and the ability for people to move into the neighborhood i myself had always looked forward to moving into that neighborhood as a single home first-time home buyer that was the neighborhood i wanted to purchase in and i would love for that to be more accessible to others But based on some of the layout information that was shared by some of the people in the opposition, I do have concerns and sincerely questions by some of the notes and feedback that was provided by Public Works and Fire Department, et cetera, about additional things that would need to be done for this to be a safe project because of the influx of people into the neighborhood from a volume standpoint proportionately as well as access to fire resource public works etc there were some things that came up that they would need to do in order for that to um be feasible and i think that there are still some more questions about that that i had personally um but generally speaking from a layout of the neighborhood standpoint. I heard some things that didn't feel quite right to me, whether it be a three-story townhouse when all the townhomes on Meadow are two-story, or the traffic reports that, you know, lay out some streets as two-way and some streets as one-way, but in reality, as previously mentioned, all of the access streets are one-way, which makes it, from an actual usable standpoint, which makes it very difficult for police, fire, et cetera. I actually was in an accident the first day I bought my house, trying to get off the curb and didn't even make it off the curb. It's because the street is so tight. So for the building of it, as well as the people moving into it, I would like to be on record for opposition and also just additional questions on those. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions for Ms. Brown?

I've got one. Please. You mentioned... some of the city departments expressing concerns of things that would have to be overcome. Can you be specific on that?

Yes. There was mention on things that the fire department, as well as the department of public works needed to have put in place in order for this project to move forward as 31 unit homes. And I would love to know a little bit more about what they requested needing to be done in order for this to be deemed as like the six points of safety or whatever the standard was.

Absolutely. I can speak to that. Okay, sure, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions for Ms. Brantley? Thank you so much for coming.

Thank you.

Do you want to speak? Yes. Please come on up. Welcome. Thank you.

Chris Rogers, I live at 811 South Meadows Street, and I never received any notice except on Sunday from a paper that was printed and handwritten on my mailbox. There was no notification this was happening. Me and my partner were actually looking at one point as to purchase that property. And we got stonewalled several times trying to figure out just who to talk to. We finally figured out it was Virginia Home. But then at that point, we realized there was just some corporation that we couldn't get anywhere with because they were going to hold out for more money. Regardless, that's not what we're here. But that street, Winder, is literally too small. I mean, literally, I have a Prius, and some days I cannot get in the alley, go down Winder to get in the alleyway to where I park in back of my house. It's just too small. And I know we, as a community, we have to have, we have to hear everyone's voices. And if we have 31 units, those voices and those new units are going to have more power with zoning. And I have a fear that it's going to come back and be rezoned, that you can't park on certain areas of those one-way streets. There's inevitably going to be children. There's inevitably going to be pets. There's going to be a lot more congestion, there's gonna be a lot more, I don't wanna say fighting for parking, but I've had people literally like block the alleyway parking and you can't get anywhere. So you have to go two blocks down, go down the street, come back up the back street and come down the center alley just for me to get into my parking area. And I do, I mean, a lot of the points that people have made earlier I do agree, I'm not for or against the project at this point. I am against the project at the density they're looking for. I do want new people. I do want new homes. I do want the ability for things to expand and grow. But at the same time, I don't think building 31 units in that lot is going to actually further growth, you're going to get locked in. The housing collapse of 2008, people aren't moving like they used to. Older homeowners are staying where they are. Homes are not becoming available for new people to move in, younger people to move in. And I feel with 31, if they're priced at where I'm assuming they're going to be priced at, they're not available for new home buyers. first time home buyers. And somebody had mentioned, you know, they could be, they would be happy with 12, 15. You know, if there's a, if there's a plan that could, you know, cut back at the number 31, I'd be okay with 15 to 18, better homes, more price for first time home buyers. It's just, I don't think that neighborhood, some of the houses have sold recently for way more than they, they, were bought, purchased for. One home sold like three times what they purchased it for. And it was not worth that. Roger, you need to wrap it up there. And I mean, I've been there for 20 years. So I have seen a lot of changes, but I have a lot of apprehension about 31 units there.

Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Rogers from members of commission? Thank you, sir.

Any other member of the public wish? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Welcome.

Thank you, sir. My name is Chris Walsh. I live at 821 South Meadow Street adjacent to the property. And I, in agreement with my neighbors about the congestion, I don't think any of us are against the developers developing it. I think that it's traffic. My car has been hit three times on Blair Street because there's so much traffic down there. So much congestion. And as developers, I don't know what you can do about that. Maybe nothing. But if there's some way, and maybe it is reducing the density, which I think is what I'm hearing my neighbors say, I don't know if that's financially viable for you. But if that can be done, reducing the density, I feel like there'd be at least some nod to the neighborhood. Thank you.

Questions for Mr. Walsh, and thank you very much for coming. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Any other member of the public wish to speak in opposition? Anyone online? Yes.

Okay. Boz, you should be able to unmute your microphone now and address the commission.

Dawshin, would you unmute and tell us what you'd like us to hear? We can always try the sometimes if you hit spacebar, Mr. Boshen.

And if that doesn't work, we have one other attempt.

Yeah.

If that helps at all. Hi. There it goes. Sorry. I don't know what happened. It wasn't turning on. Welcome. Thank you. I don't want to take up too much of your time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'm a resident of the first district, but my children have attended Randolph Community Center. And I've been through the Randolph neighborhood numerous times on my bike and familiar with these streets and the layout here. I would echo what other residents have said in terms of the narrowness and concerns about blockage. I would just point to the master plan and the plan density for this block and also recognizing that we're in the middle of the code refresh. So if we're looking at a proposed density, 57 units an acre, is that ideal for what we want? I understand it's a special use and you can submit anything you want. But at six times what the master plan prescribes, I think that's fairly excessive. And I would ask that we really review this against the merits and the master plan that we've all agreed on. Additionally, I have concerns about construction I think that I respect the Planning Commission for reviewing what would become law through the ordinance, but I also would just stress that as a resident and a homeowner, and for renters as well, that construction poses significant challenges, can be a stressor, can add to safety concerns, as well as fire and theft. I don't know if the applicant is planning to build all these units at once or in phases. But if it's a phased approach, this could take years and impact the neighborhood negatively for quite a bit of time. I would ask if there's not a memorandum of understanding with the applicant that the neighborhood consider that and the planning commission do what it can to help enable it to protect the residents who are in place. I've heard numerous concerns about regular deliveries being delivered, people walking their dogs. So I would say from the work and street permits, and that side of the house that we really take those concerns at heart. If people have mobility issues that they can park near their residence, if they have medications being delivered, all the regular things that occur in life. Additionally, I would say, is this necessary at this point if it was held by the Virginia Home for quite a bit of time and the neighborhood did seem to continue to grow despite vacancy and blight? Is this necessary now or could it not wait till after the code refresh and the city has weighed in on what the vision is for this area? Those are my main things. I don't want to take up too much more of your time, but those are my main concerns.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Bosham from members of the commission? Thank you very much. Anyone else online?

There's no one else online.

Anyone else in the public here that wishes to speak? I'm opposed to public hearing, bring it back. Excuse me, Ms. Markham, would you like to exercise your two minutes of rebuttal?

Thank you for the opportunity.

I just wanted to clarify a few items that the committee had questions about. The fire department, we will provide additional hydrant. that will serve the property of fire hydrant. So not just serve this property, but also the rest of the neighborhood. And we will, for public works, there's a specific condition in the ordinance that requires us to make improvements to the surrounding right of ways, including the existing alley and sidewalks and ADA ramps surrounding the properties. I'd also be happy to answer any questions or clarify anything for the commission if you.

Are you aware of any uh, outstanding, uh, issues to be resolved with various city departments beyond what's in your plan.

Um, no, I mean, we went through an extensive review process, um, through the special use permit application where, um, you know, you submit it, everybody reviews it, they provide comments for you. Um, we revised plans based on those comments and, and resubmit it. So we've, we've been through, um, several rounds of that as well as making, um, changes to the plans based on feedback from the neighborhood meetings we've been having. So we're not aware of anything that would cause major changes to the plans at this point.

Do you have a memorandum of understanding with the neighborhood concerning construction hours and things of that nature?

So we don't have that. This is the first time that has come up as a major concern, which is completely understandable. We are going to phase the project. So we will build them at five houses, five houses, five houses, eight houses, eight houses at a time. So we're not going to come in and build them all at once. So we will have a lot of area on site itself for staging for at least the first four phases. By that point, the Virginia home will have completed their facility in Hanover. and hopefully we will have closed on that property. And they have a large parking lot across the street that we will also be able to use for staging of construction or parking for workers.

Will there be a work and street permit?

We will not be closing Meadows Street for the extended period of construction. There will be a short, maybe... week-to-week period where we will have to make utility cuts in Meadow. And so there will be some work in street permits for that work, but that is not, you know, like a year-long project. What I was getting at is a construction fence blocking a... We don't think we'll need to close any part of Meadow because we have enough room on site.

You have enough room in the right-of-ways to put the street trees that you're showing on the plans?

Yes, so we'll provide street trees along Meadow, Blair, and Winder, and then we'll provide landscaping along the new alley.

I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am.

I was just going to say someone who spoke mentioned where trash cans would be stored and outside air conditioning units.

So the HVAC units will be on the roof, and there's a parapet to bring them from view, which is a requirement of the ordinance. The trash cans will be city superintendents. Just like other houses in the neighborhood and garages, they'll pull them out on trash day and then pull them back in after they've dumped. But they will all be along the new alley, which will be a private alley, the pollinator place alley. And there is enough room for a car in those garages.

have recently completed another project that has similar size units and it has worked very well in that project one more question 57 units per acre is a fairly high density for this particular neighborhood and i think in my mind the dilemma is if you were to do less units they would probably be sold at a higher price point because obviously, you know, you would have to be able to make up for the costs of developing the site. So I'm assuming, and maybe wrongfully, and this is why I'm asking, that the greater number of units would allow you to serve a lower household income.

That is exactly our goal, is that these are sort of the missing middle where they're not the subsidized housing, and they're not the million-dollar townhouses. They would be targeted towards families or first-time homebuyers, and maybe some step-down empty nesters.

Can you give us, just when you say missing the middle, are you talking... If it's unsubsidized, are you talking at 120% of the area median income and up to market or, you know, I'm just trying to get a sense of what you think missing metal means to you.

So these houses, our target is to sell them in the high 400s to low 600s.

So I'm probably right that it's probably above 120% AMI up to sort of the bottom of the more luxury market area.

And you're correct in your statement that if we were to do less houses, it's the same amount of infrastructure work. And so that cost spreading it over 31 houses allows the houses to be marketed at a lower price point.

Any other questions for Ms. Mark? Thank you very much.

Thank you. I appreciate your time this evening.

Close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission and ask if there's a motion. Item number 12, 901, 923, South Medford. Are you going to say something?

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify the density because I just was looking at it and it wasn't making sense to me that 31 units on 0.75 acres would be 57. It is not. It's 41 units per acre. Just clarifying.

all right so the staff report the staff report has a calculation error 41. i just have one other item i think on density is you know zoning does allow for accessory dwelling units by right and so in terms of existing density there's also ongoing density so in terms of potential for density in the area I'm not familiar with the existing, but that is potentially for some of the parcels around there to be able to add those. So that could potentially raise the numbers from what's existing today. So the proposal is more, but I think just in terms of some of the numbers we discussed that's existing, but also in future in terms of incremental development, there is possibility for some additional units in that neighborhood.

But there are no ADUs proposed in this project.

Any other questions?

Yes, ma'am. I don't have a question. I know there was a lot of conversations about the parking, which I know is not a consideration of how we think about things, but they have that concern. So there are garages in each one, but right now, the neighborhood, do they predominantly have off-street parking?

Do you have that?

Sorry. It's totally destruction.

No, sir.

Yeah, okay. I can do a quick little aerial work.

So he's here. Yeah, sure.

Yeah, let's share the just what it looks like. And we because I think I don't know how people use their property, obviously. All right. This is the parcel we're looking at. And so here's like the surrounding area. There's an alley here. I can, I mean, see a couple of, I don't know why Google, but it's really areas now.

So except for buildings.

All right, so we're still waiting for a motion. I'll move to approve.

I'll second it.

Now, discussion. I hear everybody, the people who are concerned about parking, and I acknowledge it was 2 o'clock in the afternoon on a Tuesday when I went by there, but I didn't see a lot of cars parked on Meadow or on Blair Street. I don't know about Winder. I don't think I went down Winder, but it looks like a lot of parking available in the middle of the afternoon. I'll stipulate it was the middle of the afternoon.

I think it's a good looking set of buildings.

I'll second that in saying that I totally understand the concerns that the community has, but I think in a spirit of INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREASING INCREAS

I think that it is too much density on this lot. It is good to know that it's not more than six times the density, but it is more than five times the density. That's not a gentle increase, especially when you are looking at the single family detached homes, one story across the street. That's a really big difference. I am very much in favor of