Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the regularly scheduled meeting City of Richmond Planning Commissioners.

This meeting is being recorded and held in person in the fifth floor conference room of City Hall. While staff and 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. In terms of establishing a quorum, would you please call the roll?

Mr. Poole?

Here.

Ms. Greenfield? Here. Ms. Hebert? Here. Ms. Knight? Here. Mr. Penix?

Here.

Ms. Robertson? Here. Ms. Rowe? Here. Mr. White?

Here.

And Mr. McKenzie?

Here. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we have minutes from September 1 to 2026. Is there a motion?

Move.

Second. Any discussion? Call the question. We're voting on approval of the minutes from September 1, 2026. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Finney.

Aye.

Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe. Aye. Ms. White. Aye. Mr. McKenzie? Aye. Motion passes. Does the manager approve?

Very much.

Mr. Director, do you have a report?

Yes, I do, sir.

Thank you. We're now going to consider continuances and deletions. And just for the folks who are here tonight, it is my understanding that the council person for the third district has asked that case number four 12.9 Overbrook Road be continued until October the 20th. The applicant, while the applicant would have been prepared to go forward tonight, they have accepted the request of the council person. So I would ask if there's a motion to continue until October 20th.

To continue to October 20th. Any discussion? You just say that the applicant has accepted to continue?

Yes, ma'am.

Any further discussion?

Voting will continue in item number 4, 12 of 9, over Grove Road to the October 20th meeting of the Planning Commission. Please call the roll.

Mr. Poole?

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield? Aye. Ms. Ebert? Aye. Ms. Knight?

Aye.

Mr. Pinnock?

Aye.

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

Aye.

Motion passes, and that item will return on October 20th.

Very much.

Please present the consent agenda.

For the consent agenda, we have one item today. It's item two, UDC 2026-13. This is the conceptual location, character, and extent review of a proposed renovation at Little John Park, located at 1401 Little John Road.

Are there any questions from members of the commission of the item that's on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I will open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak on the item on the consent agenda. Anyone online?

I am seeing no one online.

Good. Then we'll close the public hearing. We'll go back to the commission and ask if there's a motion on the consent agenda. Move approval.

Second.

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

Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Ms. Knight. Aye. Mr. Pennock.

Aye.

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

Aye.

Consent agenda has been approved.

Very good. If you would, please present the item on the regular attendance.

So we've got one item on the regular agenda now. Item three, Ordinance 2026-189 to authorize the special use of the property known as 5706 York Road for the purpose of up to eight single-family detached dwellings upon certain terms and conditions. We have our principal planner, Jonathan Brown, to give us the staff presentation. You all have a staff report in front of you, and you also have a public comment as well that was submitted just now.

Welcome, Mr. Brown. How are you tonight? I'm well, thank you.

When you're ready, please proceed.

The property is located in the West Hampton neighborhood on Newark Lane and the Granite Avenues. The property is currently at 17,859 square foot, a 4.4 acre parcel of land. three-story apartment building constructed according to city records in 1963. There's been some changes, but I thought it'd be worth going into what was originally introduced. The introduced ordinance was a request for a special use permit to authorize up to eight single-family class dwellings, which are not a permitted use within the Urban Business District. The proposed density was eight units on 0.4 acres or 20 units per acre. The existing density is 18 units on 0.4 acres or 45 units per acre. There have been some recent changes to the proposal. With the addition of six accessory dwelling units, the proposed density would be 35 units per acre.

You can see the units there circled in red to the east and to the west. The units will have different entrances.

This is a floor plan you can see here. Vehicles, two entrances, one from the main residence, one from the ADU. The city of Richmond's master plan designates the future land use for the subject property as community mixed use, which is defined as clusters of medium density walkable commercial and residential uses that provide neighborhood services to nearby residential communities, sometimes feature regional attractions. Buildings generally ranging from two to six stories based on street widths and depending on the context, and stepping down in height adjacent to residential areas as necessary. New buildings that are taller than historical buildings should step back from the Build 2 line after matching the height of the predominant cornice line of the block. Primary uses include retail, office, personal service, multifamily, residential, cultural, and open space. The proposed is secondary use, which includes single-family houses, institutional, and government.

Property is also within the West Hampton neighborhood.

Current zoning for this parcel is UB. My apologies.

Here are the ordinance conditions. Special use of the property shall be as up to eight single family attached dwellings substantially as shown on the plans. The height and the special use shall not exceed three stories, substantially as shown on the plans. All building elevations and site burdens, including landscaping, shall be as substantially as shown on the plans. All mechanical equipment serving the property shall be located or screened so as not to be visible to any adjoining public right-of-way. Staff worked with the applicant to make sure that units four and eights substantially shown with plants, shall have front porch entrances facing York Road as at least five feet in depth and 23 feet in length. Staff felt that there was precedent for this on Libby Avenue through Special Use Permit Ordinance 2020-270. This is already built and you can see the front entrances with the additional units behind .

There will be eight residential lots, 20-foot-wide utility easements. There will also be areas for collection of refuse. We also required a 5-foot-1 public sidewalk along York Road.

see where this picture shows where there currently is no sidewalk there will be one potential map notified local residents and the west hampton citizens liby granite and westview avenues neighborhood and the west hampton merchant association of the proposed special use there has been a recent addition to your file from a neighborhood association that is claiming no contest to this application that was just received today.

Here is the recommendation.

Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the city's master plan pertaining to the community mixed-use land use category, which supports single-family dwellings and secondary use. Staff worked with the applicant to create a new development pattern upon York Road, which included shallow front yard setbacks, street-facing entrances, public right-of-way improvements, sidewalks, which are currently absent from this portion of York Road. Proposed improvements subject support objectives 4.4B and 8.1G would seek to strengthen the streetscape connections by installing pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, pathways, trails, where such infrastructure is missing, and to implement strategies to increase connectivity of the street network. Staff find that the proposed supports the primary next step within the West Hampton neighborhood node vision, which states rezone the area to allow for residential uses by right in the community mixed-use area and retain a maximum height of three storeys. Staff find that since the July 27th introduction to city council, the applicant's proposal has changed to include the option of incorporating attached accessory dwelling units on six lots, bringing the total number of proposed units to 14. ADUs are a by-right use within most residential zones throughout the city. Due to the property's current UB zone, ADUs, just as single family dwellings, are not permitted by right. Staff find that the proposed first four ADUs to be an appropriate addition to the special use given the city's current demand for housing choices. Staff concluded that the proposed ordinance condition substantially satisfied the safeguards established in the city charter concerning the granting of special use permits. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to field any questions. And the applicant is here as well to answer questions. Mr. Brown, you may vote for it.

references to the ADUs, but it didn't appear to me that it was one of the conditions of the special use permit that you read. You're right.

It is to be more recommending than it would be.

So we have language to that effect, or are we just amending this to conclude that the applicant has the right to up to six

ADUs? That's right. Some language would need to be created.

That should be part of the motion if there's a motion to approve. That's right.

We have that language. It's in the staff report, and I can pull that up if you need to see it.

That'd be wonderful if you would.

Chair Poole, can I ask a question?

Certainly.

Could you go back to the floor plan with the ADUs and just They're awfully small. I was wondering what the square footage of them is and if it does have a kitchen because I wasn't sure I could see one or kitchenette or something.

Kitchenette right here.

Okay. So there's a bedroom living space. It's like a studio. What's the square footage of that unit?

That's a good question. The advocate could probably tell you exactly the exact square footage.

I guesstimated roughly 250 square feet or less, probably.

I'm serious. I think there is this, yeah, it's very, it's in New York City.

It's a New York City luxury apartment. It's a Richmond bike park.

There are the edits, by the way, to what you're asking about. We're going to give you all an opportunity to read those.

But in the meantime, are there any other questions for Mr. Brown from the Commission? Mr.

Chair, I just want to clarify, is it option? to build up to, but not a requirement. Correct. So the arrangement would be they would be pre-selling these prior to construction, and if the buyer chooses an ADU, that's how it would be developed?

Be allowed, yes. They certainly hope they're pre-sold. That'd be hard to get financing otherwise.

Any other questions for Mr. Brown?

Yes. Yes, sir. The staff had an opinion on the public comment that we received regarding. The loss of affordable housing in the site, you know, between three hundreds.

We didn't prepare a statement for that. Affordable housing is incredibly important to us. And one of the ways that we try to do that is by increasing density in the areas that are the most expensive.

Thank you.

I would add to that that this building had really reached its maximum use and end of life as far as availability. This was constructed in 1963.

Well, I was carrying newspapers at that time and watched it being built because it was in my neighborhood. Any other questions for Mr. Brown? Thank you very much. Thank you. I know the applicant is present. Would you like to make a presentation? Please come forward, and if you would, give us your name, and please, if you would, spell your last name for the record.

Thank you, Chairman Poole. Members of the Commission, my name is Greg Schron, S-H-R-O-N, with Senator Craig Holmes, the applicant. And I think it probably merits a brief discussion about the twists and turns that this project has taken under the category of affordability since we first proposed it last year, meeting with planning staff, transportation staff, and Councilman Breton. So start by saying that if you're going to pick a hard place to incorporate affordability into a new housing development, you would pick Libyan Grove. That is the most challenging real estate probably in the city in which to do it. But one of the things that Councilman Breton said to me earlier this year was, hey, are we taking away some existing affordable housing when we demolish that building and replacing it with expensive housing? I said, Yes, you can't deny that, but number one, I would sort of encourage anyone who is concerned about that building to walk through it and see the caliber of housing that is currently being provided in that building. It's not somewhere you would want your friend, your mother, or your child to live currently. And I think maybe even in a more compelling fashion, this property is going to be, as you saw in staff's presentation relative to future land use, this property is going to be rezoned to, right now it's, I believe, MX3 in the current draft of the zoning replay. And so within a matter of months when that plan gets adopted, there will be a vastly more dense by-right development option for anyone who would like to come in and develop this site than what we are proposing today with no community input, no planning commission input, and certainly no requirements for affordability of any kind. And so, you know, I tried to impress that upon Councilman Breton and he agreed, but he continued to advocate for, you know, creative ways to incorporate some measure of affordability to the project. And that's when we came up with this idea of taking what was really kind of the existing footprint and the existing floor plan configuration of these units and figuring out how to put a small suite that can serve, that can function as an ADU in the rear, adding the pathways from the public sidewalk to the rear entrances to provide separate access and private access to those units. and then giving the home buyers who will eventually own these single-family homes the option by incorporating it into the SQP language, the option of operating ADUs within the biometric boundaries of their homes. So that's what we've tried to do. The answer to the question, by the way, is there are 360 square feet. So they are very consistent with, I think somebody said New York, you know, a New York micro usage. So they are small. They would, if they, you know, to the extent that they do rent out, they would certainly be affordable and would certainly be sort of a much higher caliber of a dwelling unit than what is in the existing building. So that's kind of how we got here. We were, in fact, before we incorporated the ADU component into the design, We were initially scheduled to come before the commission a month ago in mid August, but we continue to work through that conversation with Councilman Breton and get to the design that you see here in order to have that ability for these smaller, more affordable units to be rented out within this new single family home community. So that's the backstory of the conversation around affordability, displacement, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm certainly happy to answer any follow-up questions that the commission has.

Does the commission have questions for Mr. Strong? I do, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure I understand the continuum correctly. In order to ideally reach affordability, homeowner would have to, one, choose to pay extra or build the ADU. Then they would have to decide the best use for that ADU is to rent out at a price that is affordable, say, versus a short-term rent or some other possible use.

And out of that, what is it? Six of eight, yes.

So you would have to count on it. It can go from anywhere from zero to six.

What we are committing to do, and I'm happy for this to be on the record, is to, in all six of those units, make sure that the rough ends are in place for that kitchenette. So the good news from the perspective of being able to pivot from sort of the non-ADU version to the ADU version of the design is that everything that you see in terms of the door, the bathroom, full bath, everything is there. as part of the standard configuration. So the only thing that happens, and we are also putting in the rear, the access walkways and stoops, et cetera, access to those doors. So the only thing that has to happen in terms of a modification on the interior of that unit is there's a small piece of wall that closes off with a lockable door in it. And then the cabinetry and appliances get added in the kitchen. And as I discussed it with West Hampton Civic Association when we spoke last week, even if home buyer A choose not to put it in initially, it's a very, very simple retrofit, extremely simple retrofit going forward if they decide to do it in the future or if they sell it to home buyer B down the line and that person wants to do it. Now, that doesn't change the accuracy of what you said, right? There has to be, what we're not doing here is we're not saying to home buyers, you have to operate an ADU out of the ground floor of your house. We're saying we are giving you under the ordinance that is permitting the development of this site. We are giving you the ability to operate an ADU. And as far as what it would rent for, of course, that's going to be determined by the market. My understanding of the market is that a studio size unit like that would be naturally affordable. And it's the kind of strategy that has been successful in bringing naturally affordable housing to expensive real estate submarkets is make them compact and therefore it naturally drives down the price.

That was the thinking. Yeah, I understand those structural components, but at the end

is giving the homeowners the option and the ability to operate that accessory. That's fundamentally what we're doing.

Yeah. Okay. Other questions for Mr. Strong? Yes, sir.

And actually back to staff, maybe I misunderstood. Was there a second letter from West Hampton?

We received them. My understanding is there's one only. Today. Today. Today. No opposition?

No support and no opposition. And do we have that?

Yeah. Do you want me to share the screen real quick? I have it pulled up. It is on the agenda. It's not in, if you're clicking on the virtual agenda, it's not within the public comment file. It's its own file, kind of how we do with civic associations. Okay.

Um, the one that I'm, that's a separate blank. I apologize. She's the wrong official mayoral president. No, it's the right one. He scared me for a second. Neither supports nor opposes the SUP request dated 9-13. That's the one. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. They sent it in like not like late last night. That's to clarify, I guess.

Thank you.

Received during working hours today.

Understood. Thank you.

Does anyone else want me to share it still or? Okay.

Any other questions for Mr. Strong? Thank you very much. I will ask. I will open a public hearing and ask if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak in favor of this paper.

Anyone online?

I'm seeing no one online.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak in opposition? Mayor Lamb, come forward. Give us your name, and if you would, please spell your last name.

I've provided you a copy of my remarks, but I also would say I would be happy to offer some thoughts as well to what Mr. Schron has presented, some counter thoughts on that as well. I'll start with my remarks. I'll summarize them and hopefully keep it brief for y'all. It's like a short meeting tonight, so great. Here's the crux of the matter. There are 18 one and two bedroom apartments that have provided affordable housing options in the Libyan Grove area since 1963. I was born in 55, so I don't think that building's passed its useful life, but I have those thoughts. According to Zillow, rents in the neighborhood or rents. These apartments rent from 900 to $1,200 a month, that range. So what's going to happen is 18 households are going to be displaced. For what? Eight $1.3 million townhouses. I've often heard Ms. Robertson speak to the rule of 300. Well, the rule of 300, or 30% rule, rather. The 30% rule says you need... household income of an annual household income of $300,000 to afford one of these townhouses. Okay. So this was SUP result net loss of 10 dwellings and the removal of affordable housing inventory in the neighborhood. I did a Zillow search. There are only two units, rental units within the entire 23226 zip code that rent that I found for under $1,500 a month. Okay. So to keep moving forward, I think the concern here is, you know, the city talks in Richmond 300 about inclusive housing. It talks about housing choices in all neighborhoods and also trying to make sure that we do not have involuntary displacement. And I also want to point out that there's zoning compliant alternatives for this site, okay, in the current UB business district zoning. Imagine this building, right, that's been redeveloped, renovated, ground floor, you've got commercial spaces, you've got terraces, sidewalk seating, all those kinds of things that could be done then you could have second and third floor as envisioned by the ub district and mixed use apartments above so people could live in their neighborhoods that they work here and not need a car um so over the past two years like like many of you i've attended over fresh meetings i've attended sac meetings i participated in visioning sessions, not once, not once have I heard anybody say, we need more million dollar homes, right? Haven't heard it, okay? So, and not once have I heard anybody say, we need fewer units, fewer dwelling units in the city. So this is totally contrary to the goals of Richmond 300, the stated goals of Richmond 300, and that vision. So, you know, there are alternatives. I went to a economic development zoning panel discussion that PDR held last November. And in that, Angie Rogers, Director of Economic Development, stated, our greatest need in Richmond is affordable apartments. And yet we're going to tear down 18 affordable apartments. In June of this year, Mayor Vula and council member Robertson's internet Richmond anti-displacement week to address the real concerns of involuntary displacement. And I'll just close with the statement from the article, the Richmond business article that you see right there. It was part of the announcement of this project and this gentleman, Wally Smith, who was a resident said, I currently live in this building and work at one of the bars on Grove. Many people who live here and work in the West Hampton area and do not have cars to transport ourselves elsewhere. I imagine most of us will lose our jobs. I've lived here for three years and it's devastating to remember all the memories made here only to realize that my basement apartment will turn into a two car garage. families live here. More than 25 people will be replaced by four empty nesters who more than likely already have bought other places to live. The worst part is that this article is the only way I was informed of this news. Our landlord and his management team have not said a word about this to any of his residents. I feel incredibly betrayed and disrespected. What do we say to Mr. Smith and the other folks that are going to be displaced and that are going to lose their homes. I urge you to be true to the vision and goals of Richmond 300 and the master plan and do not recommend this project for approval. There are alternatives.

Thank you.

Are there questions from members of the board for Mr. Fairlant?

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Always good to see you. Are there any members of Other members of the public who wish to speak in opposition?

Anyone online?

No one online.

No one other.

Unless closed public hearing, bring it back to the commission and ask if there's a motion on item number three, 5706 York Road. Before I ask staff to follow up.

Yes. Please.

Is there a motion? I move to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Now you may have. This is a question for staff. So in co-refresh, it certainly goes through. Does this become a by and right development?

Second.

Take your time.

Take all the time you need to get it right. I'm really serious.

Just for the record, this is not official until City Council says it's official. So things are still subject to change. So this parcel is proposed to be an MX3 district in Code Refresh. It does allow for various types of residential units. So without like specifically I could get the setbacks and coverage, this would be an allowed development. In fact, I think the applicant is correct when he probably could get additional density than is being proposed here.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, any further discussion, Ms. Robertson?

I'm not sure if I'm clear as to whether or not The carrot housing has already been demolished, or is it currently there? Is this a renovation?

It's still there.

Is this a renovation? The carrot.

The carrot.

What's the condition of the carrot?

I defer to the applicant or the staff. I haven't been there. There's a CO complex.

The building exists currently. The building, the apartment building on the property exists currently and is habitable, suitable for occupation. The developer, this proposal would contemplate demolishing the existing structure that's there and replacing with the new structures on the plan.

But I am understanding you to say that the existing structure is there and it is occupied.

That is correct. To my knowledge, it is occupied.

I just walk by that a couple of times a week in the neighborhood. I walk by it a couple of times a week. It is occupied. There are folks there, as the applicant said, that it's not in the best condition, external or internal, but they do have occupants there. Excuse me.

Discussion? Yes, ma'am.

So surprising, probably no one I'm going to be a no on this. I think that it's a failing of the Planning Commission that there are no renters. And I'm sorry, I'm making an assumption. Is anyone here a renter? Until last year. That's more recently than most folks. I also was looking for apartments last year. And I can tell you that, yes, the condition of some of the things that people are charging $1,000 or more for is horrible. But I would argue useful life on this building. And wouldn't it be great if there was, if they were encouraged or made to maintain it better? But The fact is, and we heard it twice tonight and it's wrong, density does not create affordability on its own. The best that density, creating additional density with no other supporting programs, no other incentives, no subsidies can do is flatten the curve and keep things from getting unaffordable less quickly. True affordability at this point can only happen with some level of subsidy. So I am just in full agreement that removing even potentially unsightly apartments that are currently affordable and housing people to put in $1.3 million homes fully agree that no one is saying we need more one and a half million dollar homes. And I'm saying one and a half million dollars because we know it's going to take years before these are actually built and then the market will have changed and they'll be more expensive. And this is not what the city of Richmond needs.

Yes, sir.

I'm surprised that I would just pull on what I mentioned earlier. I struggle with the notion of affordability on this project, even with the ADUs just There's no requirement. There's no one for the abuse. And then two, it's very dependent on the home buyer if that is the best use for them in their situation.

So the notion that this is true affordability just falls flat. Further discussion.

Yes, ma'am. I'm struggling with everything that Commissioner Rowe and McKenzie have raised. I mean, just because this unit is not in the best shape doesn't mean it should be demolished, but the owner of the building, that's their plan. They're going to do it. They have the right to take it down. They have the right to no longer rent. So, you know, some point these units will be lost. Yes, they're going to get replaced with much higher priced homes, but the ADU is still not solving that affordability issue. So I'm really struggling with with this case. I don't think you're going to see affordable rents in this area. That doesn't mean that we should strive to have that included in some way, shape, or form. But I am struggling with the notion that we're losing these affordable units. That owner could just decide he's demolishing it tomorrow, and then those units are gone. At a minimum, maybe we get an option for these ADUs. I'd be curious what the rest of the Commission feels.

Short comment. I am in agreement with commissioner row. I think it comes down to, for me, the position of the commission law, what you say is true. And by right, you know, something like this or more dense may be done. And at that price point, again, I think the intent of everything we've put forth to Richmond 300 and beyond is the what is on this site today. And I think the comment from the current inhabitant of this spoke volumes that I am working class in this neighborhood, I live and work in this neighborhood, and this is how I can afford to live and work in this neighborhood. And that is the goal I think that we have set forth in terms of how we want to see affordability work and inclusive housing work across the city. So it would seem to be a step that was to vote in favor of this. I intend to.

Question. We talk about the condition, but to the staff knowledge, has there ever been any code violations done in regards to this property?

In the meantime, may I ask a question of the applicant? Does the applicant own the property or have an option to purchase?

Just for the record, restate your name, Mr. Schron.

Sure. Greg Schron with Center Creek Homes. We have a contract to purchase the property currently. And the reality is that there haven't been 18 people living in the building for a very long time because the current owners have been emptying out the apartments with the intent of selling the property for redevelopment. And I'm struck by the conversation in that I would have imagined that the Planning Commission would have liked to have had a say in what was going to be done on this site and to make sure that there was some possibility for folks to operate affordable dwelling units within the homes, as opposed to what will happen if this project is not, if this SCP is not approved, is that the property owners will sell the property to another developer, potentially contingent on the closing date of after the zoning ordinance is updated or is adopted, excuse me. And then that other developer will come and build whatever he wants without consulting with the community, without consulting with the councilman, without consulting with the planning commission. And the chances of, again, because of the reality of the economics of this neighborhood, the chances of getting any measure of affordability effectively go to zero. So I would have thought that the Planning Commission would have sort of jumped at the chance to have a say in the design, have a say in the use on this site, and have a say in trying to introduce at least the option of having these small and naturally affordable units. developed, I'm not sure what the motivation would be for just letting this sort of go to the market next year when the zoning will allow somebody to put $12 million houses without asking anyone for permission.

Mr. Strong, you made mention of the fact that the current owner is emptying things out. Do you have any knowledge of how many remaining residents there are in these 18 units?

There were, as of about six months ago, Mr. Chairman, I know that there, I believe there were 12 left and they were not renewing leases. So my guess is that it's something south of that right now. I don't have any updated information on that.

In your discussions with the current owner, has the current owner told you that he will not renew the leases?

I can't say for sure. That seemed to be what was happening. I don't remember him saying specifically. The contract that we have to purchase the property is contingent upon getting the special use permit. And it's contemplated that we would close on the property within 30 days of obtaining the special use permit. So what was explained to me by the broker who's involved in the deal was that they were just letting leases expire and not renewing it so that there were fewer people to effectively have to force out of the building after the time of the closing.

Other questions for Mr. Strong? Yes.

It's not so much a question, but you brought another project before us on growth? Correct. Okay. Probably you'll bring another one.

be for us i would like to i didn't love the attitude of some of your comments okay well i apologize for that and i would uh i'd welcome the opportunity to sit down with you one-on-one and um see what i can do to do better next time yes yes ma'am would the applicant be interested in a deferral to maybe have some further discussion on the

affordability and the issues that were raised tonight and try to bring something back? Or is this what you feel is where the project stays?

Well, I mean, I guess my preference would be to try to get the commission's recommendation for approval tonight. If that's not going to be possible, then we certainly will go back to the drawing board if necessary. I don't know what the best mechanism for that is.

The problem is we don't vote till we vote. And you have to read and make a decision that's based on what you believe is in your best interest. I think that Ms. Greenfield is giving you the opportunity to make that choice.

Right. Mr. Chairman, if the vote goes forward tonight and the Commission does not vote to recommend approval, What are then the options that I as an applicant have to bring a revised design back to the commission?

I'm going to ask staff to confirm that what I'm about to say is correct. The case will be forwarded to the council with the recommendation, whatever the vote is, regardless of whether it's a vote to approve or a vote not to approve. So you get to go to council. But if it is voted down at the council level, I believe you'd have to wait at least a year before you can present any other project that you can present. Any other buyer can present whatever they want. So you would be the only person that would be limited.

I think it also has to do with what the proposal is, like what you presented. Sure. A substantially similar request.

Would be for a year. Okay.

Okay. So then the question is to me whether I want to request a continuance? Yes, sir. I guess I would like to request a continuance. Yes.

Do I hear a motion to continue? So moved. Second. Discussion? How long would we continue it for? I would suggest that we continue it to the October 20th meeting. The October 6th meeting has 26 items on it. I wouldn't be impressed.

That being said, I thought this meeting was going to be very long and contagious, and then you get here and things are good.

Well, I do have a comment that It really doesn't have anything to do with the motion to continue. But I want to thank Ms. Rowe for raising what I think is a very important issue, and that is density does not equal affordability. That's an issue that we need to address and consider because I think this commission is fully committed to affordable housing and has shown that over and over again. And the desire to produce affordable housing is a goal that I think we should all work towards. But just having density is not going to provide affordable housing. The County of Henrico is providing incentives for affordable housing. They have a fund for it and it's happening in the County of Henrico. This gentleman has a project that that's happening on. So, Ms. Rowe is absolutely right, and I applaud her raising that issue. I will tell you that I am going to vote in favor of the motion to continue, but I thought it was important to raise the issue. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. I want to get my answer about the cold violations, but do you have an answer?

Yes. There's one instance, TPU red-tagged it. There's a leaking range valve so it got a property maintenance uh notice but that is the only code case that we have on it when was that give a date ish it was uh recently um it was in march of this year thank you so follow up thank you very much um

I just want to follow up your comments as it relates to density and affordability. I think that's a real issue that is not being resolved. I don't think that we have a definition that has been approved by council as what is affordable housing. And it is based on that 30% of income and it also indicates the every immediate income that we consider as families that we are supporting and certainly incomes for affordable housing still with the 30% of their income in housing. Some people would say 35 if it's single family home ownership. The question of density and its relationship to affordability is really more aligned with demand and supply. So when the demand, when the supply is greater than the demand, which does answer a question of density, the affordability, the cost factors changes. It's just like buying bulk anything else, right? When there is a increase in the number of houses, it does have a direct impact on the cost, competitive costs as it relates to housing. But I do think that we have confused people in general of thinking that increase in density is automatic affordability. The affordable housing that we are talking about, which I really feel Mr. Chair, and I'm only emphasizing this because somebody besides what Ordinance Council has passed to define it, needs to be able to clearly articulate what the city needs when it says affordable housing. And right now we're confusing that tremendously. Even with this development, we talked about increasing, and I want to commend, for the work that he's done to do everything he possibly can to provide affordable housing within this development. And he's done a lot of work to do that. And I, even though I see the option that is available, because it's not a condition of the SUP, it is simply an option. it appears it could be an option that increases the cost of each one of the homes because you've got the extra infrastructure built in for the kitchen and those kinds of things. So without it being a condition of the orders, I just don't want us to give illusions of affordability versus actual affordability built in. I'm very concerned about because I believe that's the conversation that we've had throughout the zoning process, density and affordability being confused as being something of the same. I appreciate your comments as it relates to that and Ms. Rowe as well, but I do think Mr. Chair, it would be wise for the commissioner as well as city council and others to make sure that we are clear what the definition of those things are when we speak to them in the future.

Any further comments on the motion to continue?

My comment is not on the motion to continue, but it is still in line with what we've been talking about. Because I think, I mean, I totally agree with the conversation about, you know, the use of affordable. And as we're looking at this project, the reality is, is that we're putting more units on the ground. But in one of the most expensive districts, And I can probably, as the one who does so, can guesstimate that most people who do purchase this property are not going to be using the ADU for that purpose. And so then we didn't really accomplish, I can't see us really accomplishing much. I think that's what everyone's trying to say. And so that is my position on this project.

I think it's good for the applicant to hear all of this.

So I'm going to call the question. We're voting on a motion to continue. Last comment to the applicant. Sure. Can you just move the bathroom to the wall so that it's an open, flexible space, which would be more consistent with like a studio apartment? Okay.

All done. Ditto. Okay.

We're voting on a motion to continue this item to October 20th.

Please call the roll. I did, it did happen quite quickly. I didn't catch the second in the, who made the motion for the continuance in the second. Thank you. It happened backwards.

Okay. Mr. Poole.

Aye.

Ms. Greenfield. Aye. Ms. Ebert. Aye. Snipe.

Aye.

Mr. Penick.

Aye.

Ms. Robertson. Aye. Ms. Rowe.

Aye.

He may come back with 40 affordable units. Yeah, right.

Okay, no.

Mr. White? Aye. Mr. McKenzie? Aye. Motion passes and you'll be heard again on October 20th.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. Council action update.

Yes. was your meeting it was a very long meeting i do have an update um the october 6 agenda is going to be quite loaded um 20 new special use permits were introduced and referred to the six that includes a couple of amendments um one rezoning and then there were five general location character extent items introduced and referred to the october 6th meeting so you've already got 26 items on that agenda And then there were a number of items that were continued at council that are still hanging out. And then there are, how many were adopted? There were nine special use permits that were adopted. And that does continue just because it was contentious. That does include 1101 Hampton Street, the former Virginia home that was- That was passed. That was passed, yeah. Something had passed.

Any other questions from members of the commission? Any other items that any commissioner wishes to raise? Hearing none, my thanks, we're adjourned.

I'll be virtual.

I'll be I have a word commitment. This