[{"_1":2,"_121":-5,"_122":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"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","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,74,86,98,110],{"_32":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":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6426179,"mediaKeyId","5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5","parentId",5874267,"title","Planning Commission continues Jank Road mixed‑use permit after heated public hearing on convenience-store use","audioSeconds",4838,"startMs",1913000,"endMs",6751000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5&start=1913&end=6751","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5/thumbnail_1913000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6426179/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Planning-Commission-continues-Jank-Road-mixeduse-permit-after-heated-public-hearing-on-convenience-store-use","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6426179-fc0282f73c378867deed74916fdfce6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770026689&Signature=NP945TmsZrwG8IS-PYmeFtopHzXVIoik6DVdnRQqjr9MxVaCBO9Yn7-z68XjCLMbGcXH-YooJ4KBrYnEaJ-oecnGrllrQws7dzpC082wZlNR~uV5cpV64len-tJLB9O4xMiPaJ-QezZ4N8y-Pe5RjloQVhb1ZaNIMyA3VabwVzMlzNv4ExcSqsPwqydR5SWT6hspW1sEz3IHf4S7Oo370RHtsRa9B4Zd8Ye3MkZbDc9NF5LLOQ3oNjlfmoeVgnROylpMQpcFF9Hpj5GEv~UHD-pslgp2LJCpW72r79v7TFJHHVDNvUkjrm5haP5UH1qomnbImWK-61Oc9vytCOcp8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Richmond City","date","2025-10-02T00:00:00Z","article","The Richmond Planning Commission voted Feb. 20 to continue consideration of a special‑use permit for 7100 Jank Road after several hours of presentation and public comment focused on the commercial space proposed at the corner of Jank Road and High Oaks.

The permit would allow a three‑story mixed‑use building with up to 14 dwelling units and a small commercial space. The commission continued the case to its April 1 meeting at the applicant’s request so staff, the applicant and neighborhood representatives can continue negotiations on conditions that would limit certain retail activities.

The move followed a packed public hearing in which dozens of residents said the commercial space — as described by opponents — would function like another convenience or vape shop at a busy intersection across from Chippenham Hospital. Tony Dean, who identified himself as owner of the Treat Shop on Jank Road, said, “We don't need any more vape shop game machines, lottery machines.” Several speakers cited loitering, public‑safety concerns and proximity to school bus stops.

The applicant, Beau Gillette of Baker Development Resources, said the owner does not intend to open a vape shop and described three proffered conditions added after earlier community meetings: a 32‑square‑foot cap on indoor retail space for tobacco and vaping paraphernalia, a ban on string lighting in commercial windows, and a prohibition on smoking or vaping within the commercial space. “It's not the owner's attempt to create a vape shop,” Gillette told the commission.

Commissioners and staff acknowledged the applicant had added written conditions but also heard repeated concerns about skill‑game machines, sale of paraphernalia and the potential for future owners to change the retail use. Several residents showed photos and receipts from a store the owner operates on Commerce Road and said the product mix there worried them.

Planning staff noted the property's existing zoning and the Richmond 300 master plan support neighborhood‑mixed‑use development at higher intensity than what currently sits on the lot. Staff said public‑works review did not require additional traffic signal changes for the current proposal but recommended right‑of‑way improvements, sidewalks and other pedestrian infrastructure as conditions.

Commissioner discussion centered on whether additional, enforceable restrictions could be included in an SUP to prevent uses residents opposed while allowing the proposed housing. Commissioner comments asked specifically whether the applicant would proffer to exclude particular product categories and whether short‑term rentals would be limited; staff noted short‑term rental ordinance requirements would require registration and could be revoked for violations.

After the applicant requested 45 days to continue negotiations, the commission voted unanimously to continue the matter to the April 1 meeting, allowing time to negotiate additional conditions and return with revised language for the special‑use permit.

The continuance does not approve the project; the SUP will return to the commission for further consideration on April 1. The commission recorded the continuation by roll call: Rodney Poole, Aye; Miss Greenfield, Aye; Miss Joyhaug, Aye; Nikia Knight, Aye; Mister Pennock, Aye; Miss Robertson, Aye; Miss Roe, Aye; Mister White, Aye; Victor McKenzie, Aye.

The next hearing will give neighborhood groups and the applicant additional time to frame enforceable conditions addressing items such as vending/gaming restrictions, product limitations, operating hours and short‑term rental oversight pending the commission’s final decision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","CPC February 18 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Richmond Planning Commission voted Feb. 20 to continue consideration of a special‑use permit for 7100 Jank Road after several hours of presentation and public comment focused on the commercial space proposed at the corner of Jank Road and High Oaks.","taxTitle","Richmond City (Independent City), Virginia","taxId",5755,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":75,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":76,"_40":77,"_42":78,"_44":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6426165,"Commission approves special‑use permit for 3310 Q Street after neighborhood debate; earlier continuance request denied",5966,1126000,7092000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5&start=1126&end=7092","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5/thumbnail_1126000.jpg","/articles/6426165/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Commission-approves-specialuse-permit-for-3310-Q-Street-after-neighborhood-debate-earlier-continuance-request-denied","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6426165-b7cd4d5d65b581fe58ce0169ffa20486/orig.mp4?Expires=1770026689&Signature=YNuuW-1cxAMY-AlBDKrNK3-K3yNkj4VKYenvycfo-0F2oawacXMiBitQX1zyzGweWrk9vNwByEdrAPsUSrJVXRBOdxd8FQ9KSjgNPhig1GI13UG-P2gymnqOeB3l29F-qOkfifN~C3ZNeKW3Nx-E7Az3jMxm6xOnh5tRwnUoOK0TxJVQVU0tabaLH5MBFW3r05me7iDCtTaq96siI6pzbJZ5rBonr2sBzTw1IaWs0jN0OKGd7T--1S5fMDr~VZK1oVQjkqVT-5JBmymOH-K2dEHhUrkd9gS2XqQFjhG-uIHoBaNU8syGViioPxg~Udqjm0UrMfj7Q67hn6Ge2Sj8XA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Richmond Planning Commission on Feb. 20 approved a special‑use permit for 3310 Q Street authorizing two two‑family detached dwellings with two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), forwarding the matter to City Council with a recommendation of approval.

The case drew advocacy and scrutiny from neighborhood representatives. Mark Ohlinger of the Churchill Central Civic Association had sought a continuance prior to the hearing, saying his group had not received firm answers from the applicant about whether first‑floor units and routes would be accessible. The commission declined the early request to continue the matter and placed the item on the regular agenda so both the civic association and applicant could be heard.

Applicant representatives said they would provide larger entry doors and had revised plans to address earlier questions. Beau Gillette, representing the property owner, described the development as two abutting two‑family dwellings that would read as attached units from the street, with a mixture of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units and two ADUs at the rear. Gillette said the first‑floor units were designed with wider doors to improve accessibility and that the ADUs and main units were configured to allow future adaptive modifications if needed.

Churchill Central members raised a list of design and site‑planning concerns including continuity of window colors and trims, the limited landscaping shown on submitted plans, lack of a clear pedestrian route from rear parking to the street, and whether ADUs on rental parcels would provide outdoor amenity space. The civic association emphasized it had not received certain email responses and asked the commission to delay action to continue discussions. The commission heard those concerns but also heard from staff that the request aligned with the Richmond 300 master plan’s neighborhood‑mixed‑use designation and that staff had negotiated revisions to elevations and other details.

After discussion, the commission voted to recommend approval by roll call: Rodney Poole, Aye; Miss Greenfield, Aye; Miss Joyhaug, Aye; Miss Knight, Aye; Mister Pennock, Aye; Miss Robertson, Aye; Miss Roe, Aye; Mister White, Aye; Mister McKenzie, Aye. The staff conditions include a maximum height consistent with submitted plans, building materials and elevations substantially as shown, mechanical equipment screened from rights of way, and subdivision prior to issuance of building permits.

The approval is being forwarded to City Council for final action. The commission and applicant agreed to continue working with the civic association on remaining design and landscape details while the council process proceeds.","The Planning Commission approved a special‑use permit for 3310 Q Street to allow two two‑family detached dwellings with two accessory dwelling units. Churchill Central Civic Association earlier requested a continuance citing unanswered accessibility questions; the commission moved the item from consent to the regular agenda and approved the SUP by ",{"_32":87,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":88,"_40":89,"_42":90,"_44":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6426171,"Planning staff urges economic‑development follow‑up after grocery‑store feasibility data presented",295,619000,914000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5&start=619&end=914","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5/thumbnail_619000.jpg","/articles/6426171/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Planning-staff-urges-economicdevelopment-followup-after-grocerystore-feasibility-data-presented","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6426171-778dd25b18e2a6216cce6520bcc7e5eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770026689&Signature=eA1hH3CrltCD~Y942KMylqqX2yNqLlUeijMEOhAymOx4spjixAu4Ea~dzzeCISipTu7PUbpCy-ns8Db9XjxWYQ~NMLcsaZ~SqPZzyw8QZSZ1Qt~UAm9Mwq-QpgywKQkQSWXT4YQ3pvmVZj12BejNgxYUOzkHPevJB~cYZqj15z3guL7k~pf5P00lkY02w2y0wmn8-gWm71KaPOUwuFEKHKbmsB938Co7b8t3TW~lmjPBRrKlSA8JcBR0xEQ~RDBxL62j6n0kL1WxrtlfjRyfNXGqSOxxDKQZw912kQ4HnuC7BLXQZs29acxfBHS68CKVl7BRYe9hQsbR6b23MAMEfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff on Feb. 20 briefed the Richmond Planning Commission on preliminary market analysis and outreach to economic development aimed at improving grocery‑store access in neighborhoods with limited food retail.

Planning staff told commissioners the city asked site‑selector consultants and economic‑development partners what market thresholds typically support a full‑service grocery store. Staff reported benchmarks of roughly 7,000 people per square mile within a ten‑minute drive, a median household income of about $55,000, and arterial traffic counts near 20,000 vehicles per day — figures the consultant cited as common prerequisites for chain grocers.

Staff said sample locations inside the city — including Oak Grove/Hillside and Carytown/Forest Hill trade areas — fall below one or more of those thresholds; for example, Oak Grove’s 10‑minute drive area had about 3,700 people per square mile and a median household income near $38,000, while some existing grocer trade areas showed higher incomes but lower densities.

“The data we found suggests that it is possible to support a grocery store even when not all the benchmarks are met,” Planning Director (presenting as planning staff) told the commission, urging policymakers to treat the analysis as an input for targeted retention and recruitment rather than a definitive site screen.

Commissioners asked staff to follow up with the city’s economic‑development partners and to include the topic in upcoming master‑plan updates and neighborhood roundtables. Commissioner Nikia Knight had previously requested a focused briefing on grocery standards and asked staff to arrange engagement with site selectors; the director said staff and economic development would provide additional guidance and consider potential council recommendations.

Planning staff also noted open houses and draft zoning maps tied to the city’s code‑refresh process. They invited commissioners to three upcoming community open houses and a panel discussion on housing scheduled for March.

Staff said they would circulate the underlying datasets and drive‑time analyses to commissioners and to neighborhood representatives so partners can consider targeted incentives, public‑investment approaches or zoning changes to encourage grocery recruitment or retention in neighborhoods that lack stores.

No formal action was taken; commissioners asked for a written memo from economic development outlining possible next steps.","City planning staff summarized an analysis of what market benchmarks support grocery stores and asked economic development to weigh in on recruitment and retention strategies for food retailers in underserved Richmond neighborhoods.",{"_32":99,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":100,"_40":101,"_42":102,"_44":103,"_46":104,"_48":105,"_50":106,"_52":107,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":108,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":109,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6426154,"Planning Commission recommends approval for 352‑unit Brady Street proposal despite staff concerns about industrial land‑use designation",2954,10776000,13730000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5&start=10776&end=13730","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5/thumbnail_10776000.jpg","/articles/6426154/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Planning-Commission-recommends-approval-for-352unit-Brady-Street-proposal-despite-staff-concerns-about-industrial-landuse-designation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6426154-3982f0b703dd9fce2afcee596fc5cc54/orig.mp4?Expires=1770026690&Signature=Ni0LbHOsHyGfmc364Kdl4Pxh0Fxu8QMN7qKKX0O-Kgj8laE6aeLwTTmH7z0j0Lxm~ekNj0ByTZdk3VRPXG8AzQcmER9M~RDu-D6QJM12I8PBwNsnkPcljJ7XQIA3k8B8~i5Y9o7JyljoquN33fjaBQbMSXJGS~LbQzX6UItEaH-v~zcAvDsS0r4ew0YVUiYa59cdD-lC1HwN-gOrAw3lya6tE-70x0sgNoTIPEGAvcJxf32A1ZHv~ocDmkRixtNLK2PgU0qe1eoQG5KQXwt0J4k6xHGhTqOAIlJ0AOyHBylUXZt0uHYyBxU-4KA-Kw4zri3w9NhE8p4d7LXNZmkL8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Richmond Planning Commission voted Feb. 20 to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for a proposed multifamily development at 2811 Brady Street that would create up to 352 dwelling units and public‑realm improvements, despite staff recommendations to deny the SUP because the Richmond 300 master plan designates the site for industrial use.

The applicant presented plans for a 23‑acre site in the Magnolia Industrial Center neighborhood — a property that is partly zoned m2 (heavy industrial) and partly r6 (single‑family attached). The proposal includes four multifamily buildings, a clubhouse and pool, long‑ and short‑term bicycle parking, and new public‑right‑of‑way improvements including an extension of Byrd Street and a crosswalk across Brady Court to improve pedestrian connectivity to the Highland Park neighborhood and 6‑Points micro node.

Staff recommended denial on the ground that the master plan’s industrial designation does not include residential use and that the city should preserve industrial land for employment and economic uses. Staff also noted that much of the parcel’s topography and a culverted stream present development challenges. Nevertheless, staff acknowledged that the applicant had substantially revised the layout in response to staff suggestions to prioritize walkability and place most parking to the rear of buildings.

Applicant counsel and Brownfield representatives and Elmington (developer) argued the project would deliver 60‑percent‑area‑median‑income (AMI) affordable rental units and that the site’s constraints make it unlikely to be attractive for high‑value industrial tenants. The developer said the proposal would create new street connections, improve pedestrian access to transit and the neighboring community, and include affordable units that would require city affordable‑housing performance grants to align the project’s finances.

Commission discussion focused on competing public policy goals: preserving industrial land for jobs versus meeting the city’s stated affordable‑housing production goals. Several commissioners noted the project would deliver a large number of affordable units in a location that is otherwise unlikely to attract industrial investment and stressed the importance of linkage to the city’s affordable‑housing funding apparatus.

After debate and a public comment period in which supporters urged the commission to prioritize housing and neighborhood connectivity, the commission voted to recommend approval. The motion passed by roll call; the vote will be transmitted to City Council, which will consider any associated affordability grant and final approvals.

If council approves the SUP and the associated affordable‑housing grant, the developer will be required to complete right‑of‑way improvements and transfer completed infrastructure to the city as a condition of final certificates of occupancy.","The commission recommended approval to City Council for a proposed 352‑unit multifamily complex at 2811 Brady Street; staff recommended denial because the Richmond 300 master plan designates the site as industrial, but commissioners weighed housing need and negotiated site changes with the developer.",{"_32":111,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":112,"_40":113,"_42":114,"_44":45,"_46":115,"_48":116,"_50":117,"_52":118,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":119,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":120,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6426146,"Votes at a glance: Richmond Planning Commission actions, Feb. 20 meeting",6269,482000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5&start=482&end=6751","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5874267-d06ed983012556d22b581cb3408fa0e5/thumbnail_482000.jpg","/articles/6426146/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Votes-at-a-glance-Richmond-Planning-Commission-actions-Feb-20-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6426146-bf1aa0e0985ca0c2fabd9af79a66faa5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770026690&Signature=iB~ockzRfpzw-n-PN4FIIDPBMkDB~p3fo7DmCXkri~ahGKysfk3VzhO7Srkce8irUdKu~T9KaZPix-ZGLzqs0Ml1d8ZmvUUK6-SCbmkEM7WBPNFaJyXRstOAbQUjlLk2qRchpCQ54eEY7bSvLqCGwZezveYbY~hC~6KyQPkf0VF9ROpzUmkzrHYZjzMSNhjdEsFfIHSaPR076LnlGaDjwDQAV2VDXAVucn4Ul66kK8SQVQvx~bbfI0r-4LMH2soBOYs7tLjbO24jQCNOXDRhMjPOFY1yZC9AWPPdQFUcuyB~uqDrGvP50WZKOQw5JCdN9hIKExv6Y8Ey7kK8~mChtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Richmond Planning Commission recorded the following formal actions Feb. 20:

- Election of officers: The commission elected Rodney Poole as chair and retained Miss Greenfield as vice chair. Roll call: Poole, Greenfield, Joyhaug, Knight, Pennock, Robertson, Roe, White and McKenzie — all voted Aye. (Motion passed.)

- Appointments: Nikia Knight was appointed as the commission’s PlanRVA representative; Victor McKenzie was nominated and approved as the commission’s UDC representative. Both were approved by roll call (unanimous Ayes).

- Consent Agenda Referral: UDC 2025‑05 (Browns Island improvement plan) — the commission voted to forward the conceptual review to the Urban Design Committee for further study (unanimous roll call Ayes).

- 7100 Jank Road (Ordinance 2024‑312) — After a long public hearing focused on the proposed commercial use, the commission voted unanimously to continue the special‑use permit on the applicant’s request to the April 1 meeting for additional negotiation on enforceable conditions.

- 1001 Barland Drive (Ordinance 2025‑022) — The commission approved the special‑use permit for up to two single‑family detached dwellings (roll call: unanimous with one recorded No in earlier roll calls for a different item, see minutes); the item advanced to City Council.

- 3310 Q Street (Ordinance 2025‑023) — The commission approved a special‑use permit to allow two two‑family detached dwellings with two accessory dwelling units and will forward the recommendation to City Council (roll call: unanimous Ayes).

- 2811 Brady Street (Ordinance 2025‑024) — The commission recommended approval of a 352‑unit multifamily project and will forward the SUP and associated conditions, including right‑of‑way improvements and pedestrian connectivity, to City Council for consideration (roll call: unanimous Ayes).

Roll calls are recorded in the meeting minutes for each item. Several items were forwarded to City Council for final action; the 7100 Jank Road SUP was continued for further negotiation.","A compact roundup of formal votes taken by the Richmond Planning Commission on Feb. 20, including officer elections, committee appointments, referrals, and planning decisions forwarded to City Council.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission continues Jank Road mixed‑use permit after heated public hearing on convenience-store use

Commission approves special‑use permit for 3310 Q Street after neighborhood debate; earlier continuance request denied

Planning staff urges economic‑development follow‑up after grocery‑store feasibility data presented

Planning Commission recommends approval for 352‑unit Brady Street proposal despite staff concerns about industrial land‑use designation

Votes at a glance: Richmond Planning Commission actions, Feb. 20 meeting