[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6568227,"mediaKeyId","3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f","parentId",3206103,"title","Commission defers vote on Snead Road multifamily proposal after staff recommends denial; applicant and councilwoman seek infrastructure solution","audioSeconds",608,"startMs",5860000,"endMs",6468000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f&start=5860&end=6468","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f/thumbnail_5860000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568227/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Commission-defers-vote-on-Snead-Road-multifamily-proposal-after-staff-recommends-denial-applicant-and-councilwoman-seek-infrastructure-solution","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568227-03d37340fcba25c61b731bd41780a6b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770934647&Signature=Sie8l94h0z-xKf0tShrsylXB50-NMVoo8j3yJvmGNKLh0l-uhwaZaO2X1nXmvsjJYfnhp~zCCRJJl5hBEjGtWILnphHZiXsUA0QPuIqzIBFvEvd~ov19gOlO0JF6Fa0009sw0Ofq0T7IVIrdasGmkaB5zUNOxS0wFcIfy5jhReN6pd0CJKxEeaVIyzmXG4MhagK3BNYPCNqYBY7lbwShQZB5mln~MxaCDB3UpnIYVKYp~m52f4W5Jary4rvvoUXxB0VrUnzniWzRmuEWA60GUii2aAmPzE2nBJ6xIfngZjDYne39C7~b7XRceqfeZcaR7XoqHWJk8vo2vcOmUTAXkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Richmond City","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Planning Commission voted to defer action on a proposed multi‑family housing development on Snead Road to the June 3 meeting after a lengthy public hearing in which staff recommended denial and the applicant appealed to the city’s affordable‑housing priorities.

Jonathan Brown (staff) presented the request for a special‑use permit to allow multi‑family housing on roughly 10.5 acres in the Piney Knowles neighborhood. The applicant sought authorization for a three‑story garden‑style complex with up to 80 (and in places the staff packet references 180) units and a clubhouse, with no more than 270 parking spaces and conditions requiring new sidewalks and a crosswalk to J.L. Francis Elementary School if right‑of‑way acquisition permitted. Brown told commissioners staff recommended denial, citing inconsistency with the Richmond 300 master plan’s “Residential” designation, the site’s distance from transit and services, constrained pedestrian access, wetlands and an unusually shaped site that produces cul‑de‑sacs and dead‑end drives. Staff expressed concern that the proposal would create an abrupt and inappropriate intensification for a predominantly single‑family area and would increase car dependency and transportation costs for future residents.

Preston Lloyd, counsel for applicant Lawson Companies, argued the proposal addresses an urgent housing need in the Ninth District and said Lawson has extensive experience developing affordable housing. “Supply, supply, supply is the answer,” Lloyd told commissioners, urging the body to balance master‑plan analysis with the city’s declared housing emergency.

Ninth‑district Councilwoman Jones told the commission she has been working with the applicant and city staff and expressed concern about timing and infrastructure. She said the Ninth District already has projects in the pipeline and urged a partnership approach: Lawson offered a contribution and the city’s Department of Public Works agreed to a $100,000 feasibility study to scope improvements; DPW director described potential costs in the millions for full road, sidewalk and utility upgrades to bring Snead Road to a complete‑streets standard.

Public comment included supporters who emphasized the need for affordable units and neighbors who expressed concerns about scale, floodplain/wetland constraints, pedestrian safety and parking. Staff said it had received letters of support but still recommended denial because the plan’s intensity, layout and location did not match the city’s guidance for where higher‑density housing should be sited.

After discussion the applicant requested a 30‑day deferral to pursue further coordination with Councilwoman Jones, DPW and staff on infrastructure timing and commitments; the commission granted the deferral to the June 3 meeting by unanimous roll call vote.

A key outstanding issue is whether the city can coordinate right‑of‑way acquisition and CIP funding in a timeframe that aligns with the applicant’s financing and tax‑credit cycles. Staff flagged the site’s wetlands and irregular lot geometry as constraints that limit ideal street‑grid connectivity and pedestrian access. The deferral instructs the applicant and city departments to pursue a feasibility path and return to the commission with clearer infrastructure commitments or revised plans.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Richmond City - Planning Commission on 2025-05-06 6:00 PM - To access the meeting via Microsoft Teams: https://tinyurl.com/Richmond-CPC-2025 - May 06, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission deferred action on a Lawson Companies multifamily proposal on Snead Road to June 3 after staff urged denial for inconsistency with Richmond 300 and commissioners asked the applicant and city departments to pursue an infrastructure path forward.","taxTitle","Richmond City (Independent City), Virginia","taxId",5755,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568228,"Planning commission backs conveyance of city surplus land to Eden Village for tiny‑home community; council to negotiate terms",1968,3862000,5830000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f&start=3862&end=5830","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f/thumbnail_3862000.jpg","/articles/6568228/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Planning-commission-backs-conveyance-of-city-surplus-land-to-Eden-Village-for-tinyhome-community-council-to-negotiate-terms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568228-714f11c6727e43aeac15ed118d3a8d42/orig.mp4?Expires=1770934647&Signature=i3LwLiVHJnTZLMPHnB5h536wYnFD~32anjrx6ecNzhCTWiuy7fzkT3aB8XcuGjoOPIa0GbWxMPTrGJT-HvoTV6LcOiYZQy9okAtzmX9ir~6Eh48a4blbjlMsBDMpfHZIMm2xba~KTKytHoVrPOds0xtRYUWq2OFPtYJQaC2vccr6M7tmUc47Cup7MPrCHtGvoPufCgf26LVU589esXwFb02ieDZy55g0E5s3tRPasRQlkJHqH3dvhAmhhWg~NmA48pKtYciJDk9n5rU56vb70ZPujJ7BrpZVxSCn4LstPHZ6cBL9QxtdbxvFvYqk-H3NgaQ6uIJ9xiho3Yn4wBrZaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council authorize a nominal conveyance of city‑owned land at 1501 and portions of 1601 Bridal (Fendall) Avenue to Eden Village of Richmond Inc., a local affiliate of the Eden Village model of tiny‑home communities, to facilitate construction of permanent affordable housing for people exiting homelessness.

Steve Artis, senior policy adviser to the chief administrative officer, told commissioners the proposal would convey roughly 3.05 acres (1501 Bridal) and up to 2.62 acres (1601 Bridal) for a nominal price of $100. The property is surplus and largely vacant, assessed at about $299,000; Eden Village is seeking federal grant support and needed a specific parcel to meet a May 22 application deadline for a Federal Home Loan Bank grant of up to $1.2 million. Artis said the project is anticipated to be more than $5 million and that Eden Village would be responsible for all site mitigation and development costs.

Eden Village founder Kathy (Kathy Ritter) described the model as a licensed community of roughly 30 tiny homes (about 400 square feet each) with a community center providing wraparound services, on‑site case management and a gated entry system. “We’re not a shelter. It’s permanent housing for the homeless,” she said, describing support services, community teams assigned to residents, and low monthly rents in the model.

Councilmember Gibson asked about ambiguous language in the draft ordinance and whether the sale would include enforceable reverter or specific income targeting. Artis and legal counsel clarified the conveyance ordinance directs the administration to negotiate a sale “for the purpose of facilitating the construction of permanent affordable housing for homeless and low to moderate income individuals and associated parking.” Artis said terms and enforcement (including reverter language, project timelines and affordability targets) would be built into a sales agreement and would come back to the commission and council as part of the special‑use permit and development approvals. He described a draft nonbinding term sheet and said the city would include timelines (for example, four years to start development and five years to complete) and reversion clauses in a final agreement if council requests them.

Public comment included multiple speakers supporting the project, who said the model provides on‑site services and a permanent housing pathway for people living in encampments and tents. After discussion and clarification by legal counsel about the scope of the conveyance ordinance, the commission voted to forward the conveyance to City Council with a recommendation for approval.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting: the draft project contemplated roughly 30–40 tiny homes aimed primarily at people exiting homelessness (many units targeted at 30% area median income), with up to 12 additional units possibly targeted at higher AMI bands; Eden Village must secure outside financing and grants and would be responsible for site mitigation costs; a conveyance would be followed by a separate special‑use permit and development agreement to set enforceable terms.","Commission recommended selling two surplus city parcels for nominal consideration to Eden Village of Richmond Inc. for a proposed tiny‑home community for people exiting homelessness; commissioners and the council member sought clearer conditions tying sale to financing and project targets.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568229,"Planning commission clears removal of reserve notation from Oxford Terrace plats, despite water resources concerns",796,3054000,3850000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f&start=3054&end=3850","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f/thumbnail_3054000.jpg","/articles/6568229/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Planning-commission-clears-removal-of-reserve-notation-from-Oxford-Terrace-plats-despite-water-resources-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568229-d6fb4e184e76a26585e025dde33f53d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770934647&Signature=SVZQeu~vXWNXwtMBYHL--IgYMhQ5a4wmcCxNJzMbvYflFGJ2hMR8dQnRtSoah9ncJvqFqV47coRDKaPLswiK9t7Olva2vHy7hocp9c5p6t4QIYKxZN~mm2xi0NTqKoYw6t7oDKJFZGdCqohlvz6OhtWK-D8mVStWBjowNVEWk5IbDbTtD7s66OgH7D8yJQ7f-spYCVilWlCo7F4dC1JIxJY1UeFg1EK-XOXzEW5D8m1weKOe5mVcyD1HDcJBYs24wFYoeldDsrm-IsOsHMqGAWivkBRVKz2qBSRDggc1hqqa1y20ayCeGskZtKLCoxErjLQjPBkqwtuJipoo8jR~zQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council remove a recorded “reserve” notation from plats affecting parcels in the Oxford Edition Terrace subdivision, a technical step that would allow applicants to pursue development permits.

Leo Manti of the Department of Planning and Development explained the item as a narrowly drawn action: removal of a recorded reserve notation on plats for parcels addressing 3700 East Weyburn Road, 3601 Sherbrook Road and a portion of 3717 Sherbrook Road. Manti said the removal does not exempt the properties from city development reviews or permit requirements and noted state law permits removal where records do not indicate the original reason for the reserve.

The applicants — brothers‑in‑law Daniel Miller and Charles Shancy — said their request was intended only to clear the recorded notation and allow the permit review process to proceed.

Janae Prevost White, Water Resources, Department of Public Utilities, told commissioners that while the reserve removal is a plat technicality, development near Rattlesnake Creek carries environmental risks. “The stream is Rattlesnake Creek, and it is already impaired,” she said. Prevost White said the parcels sit less than 200 feet from the creek; removing tree cover and developing near the creek could increase runoff and worsen downstream conditions despite required mitigation. She said the city is investing in stream restoration for Rattlesnake Creek and urged caution.

Commissioners noted the narrow scope of the vote; the action under consideration does not authorize any building permits. Two separate motions (one for each plat/cluster) carried unanimously and the commission forwarded both matters to City Council with a recommendation for approval.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting: staff said there were no records explaining why the reserve notation was placed, and that state code allows removal where no supporting record exists; water resources staff warned of nearby wetlands, floodplain and a short distance (under 200 feet) to Rattlesnake Creek; and the applicant reported a denied building permit that prompted the request.

Both items will be transmitted to City Council with a recommendation for approval.","The commission voted unanimously to recommend removing a long‑standing 'reserve' notation from two subdivision plats so property owners can seek development permits; water resources staff warned of nearby impaired stream impacts but said permit reviews would remain in place.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568230,"Richmond planning commission continues special‑use request for 3122 Second Avenue after heated neighborhood opposition",1923,1045000,2968000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f&start=1045&end=2968","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f/thumbnail_1045000.jpg","/articles/6568230/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Richmond-planning-commission-continues-specialuse-request-for-3122-Second-Avenue-after-heated-neighborhood-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568230-b939f6689fae666797b6bfdc6f961bf5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770934647&Signature=htw9A~uUChQ2iaL1v5TFtEg2U7KcyQhQxw0teAg~zErteb9ZB9mjdMS2hIABBTwaAIm3LgY89Vkzgoqd4A~oUddE2-CMsv2FpShB4gobtnONKP6DPK-Vxvxy584DOfO7EQBRmhk~KKapT6R9DaADSY~61xSp4pIbndaJ3X7bo7KkRfmwcXPsa5zERDZtsDUYZHTP-mrWtfJLGgRC9JSw~97rvOuXgcmtYILNQ5U7nykkv4PXQS1eLTyEUEbTm6bb22QcgD4iuZu5H7Ccdp~MhHKBc6jkBltnGaKr~NC3IxnWgm~uriSqHoSFEZLRDLr0ItoLogqHKKxWaKyuJWWk-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Richmond Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to continue consideration of a special‑use permit for 3122 Second Avenue after residents and several commissioners raised concerns about density, safety and lack of community outreach.

The proposal would reconfigure a 14,700‑square‑foot lot in the North Highland Park neighborhood to create up to three single‑family detached homes and two single‑family attached (duplex) homes, while retaining the existing single‑family dwelling. David Watson, city staff presenting the case, described the site, underlying R‑6 zoning and the reasons the developer requested a special‑use permit related to lot area and lot width requirements.

Residents pressed the commission in a public hearing. “This proposed shift to a high density, large‑scale development is simply not in line with the character or capacity of this block,” said Kaylee Glass, a neighbor at 3125 Second Avenue. Several speakers cited recent nearby developments, on‑street parking pressure, crime and a recent shooting near the block to argue the area cannot absorb additional units. Tamara Barker and Darian Sistrunk, neighbors who also spoke in opposition, said the property has been poorly maintained for years and said they fear quick build‑and‑flip projects that leave long‑term maintenance problems.

The property owner, who identified himself as the owner but did not provide a full name during the hearing, told the commission he had purchased the lot around late 2022 or early 2023 and that he intends to develop and maintain the buildings. Asked whether he would remove the two rear lots to reduce density, he said, “I will not.” He later agreed to meet neighbors and said he would “reach out to the community” before the next hearing.

Commissioners expressed frustration that neighborhood outreach had not occurred before the hearing. Commissioner Pennock asked whether the applicant would reconsider the layout; when told the owner was unwilling to alter the proposal, commissioners moved to give the applicant time to meet neighbors. The commission approved a motion to continue the item to the June 3 meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to meet with the neighborhood and provide additional information.

The continuation was unanimous. The motion to continue was made and seconded on the floor and carried by roll call vote of all commissioners present.

If the applicant returns without evidence of neighborhood outreach, one commissioner warned the body would consider denial on return.

Clarifying details provided at the hearing included the owner’s statement that he purchased the parcel around late 2022/early 2023 and the staff note that the site is designated Neighborhood Mixed Use in the Richmond 300 master plan. Staff reported one email of formal objection had been received in advance of the meeting.

The case will return to the commission on June 3; the owner said he could accept a four‑week continuance to meet with neighbors before the commission reconvenes.","The commission continued consideration of a special‑use permit for redevelopment at 3122 Second Avenue after residents raised safety, density and outreach concerns. The applicant declined to modify the plan; the case was continued to June 3 at the applicant's offer to meet the neighborhood.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568226,"Planning commission recommends approval of special‑use permit for 418 Hunt Avenue infill dwelling",940,6465000,7405000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f&start=6465&end=7405","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206103-7ef9661dca5a8a7c33f89ea8f3a15e1f/thumbnail_6465000.jpg","/articles/6568226/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Planning-commission-recommends-approval-of-specialuse-permit-for-418-Hunt-Avenue-infill-dwelling","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568226-48acabd88434edffaa2d590079ecd717/orig.mp4?Expires=1770934647&Signature=f0OWVn51dZu-zrFexAK5NJ5wvvqyHDLV1C8SunYxjsMTZQQFo6gb2JoBLkxgpn3yLj~vLenYNwizPl8Z15I2YFLvQlgYMEFbfDIIOtLn7JoPKAvLlRT6u3Mro5YU7YQsSLhHP6XCTkakbIfkpiD8fQJsOk~CliC7vIYI~jlA30kXipyQqKdHUwxleq5w6nc1wP6gBse02EtRz3psdUCuPI9ESRNAIkvdhk4eQtiZrpjKMBKvhSkx3XSYbS5fmK0JXlyDYY-6Sfhrps6gVg29d1nZwmSHkQ3dgv0N8qyzIaooU1m1PdEAtf1TYoQCSwFC52q3iN0luCodu13CD7AusA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a special‑use permit to allow up to one new single‑family detached dwelling at 418 Hunt Avenue, where an existing two‑family converted dwelling will be retained.

Staff presented the request noting the lot would be subdivided into historic subdivision lots that do not meet current R‑5 minimum lot‑area and lot‑width standards, which is the basis for the special‑use application. Staff’s recommendation was approval because the proposed development is consistent with the Richmond 300 master plan designation of Residential and the plan’s specification that single‑family dwellings are an appropriate primary use.

Applicant representative Alessandro Regazzi said the new house would be approximately 1,500 square feet, two stories, include a full‑width front porch and two off‑street parking spaces although the R‑5 district usually sets a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum for lots and 50‑foot minimum width. Regazzi said the lots are original subdivision lots and that most homes on the block are similar in scale; he noted utility and construction reviews would still apply to manage stormwater.

Neighbors spoke in opposition during the public hearing, citing multiple recent infill projects on the block, stormwater and flooding concerns, limited street parking and loss of light and privacy from new two‑story houses placed close to existing smaller homes. Councilmember Gibson and multiple residents told commissioners the block has experienced a rapid succession of approvals for two‑story infill and urged caution about continuing that pattern without broader infrastructure work. One resident who lives at the duplex adjacent to the site noted the presentation image did not show a now‑constructed concrete foundation on the neighboring lot, which she said misrepresented current conditions.

Regazzi told commissioners that public utilities and water resources had reviewed the proposal and that final construction permitting would address stormwater concerns. The commission adopted a motion to forward the special‑use permit to City Council with a recommendation for approval by unanimous roll call vote.

Clarifying details recorded: staff said the proposed lot division would reconstitute two original 30‑foot subdivision lots (combined 60 foot width), the applicant will provide two off‑street parking spaces for the new home and final stormwater control will be decided during construction permitting reviews.","The commission voted unanimously to forward a special‑use permit approving creation of a new single‑family lot and a retained duplex at 418 Hunt Avenue; neighbors raised stormwater, parking and shade/scale concerns during public comment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission defers vote on Snead Road multifamily proposal after staff recommends denial; applicant and councilwoman seek infrastructure solution

Planning commission backs conveyance of city surplus land to Eden Village for tiny‑home community; council to negotiate terms

Planning commission clears removal of reserve notation from Oxford Terrace plats, despite water resources concerns

Richmond planning commission continues special‑use request for 3122 Second Avenue after heated neighborhood opposition

Planning commission recommends approval of special‑use permit for 418 Hunt Avenue infill dwelling