Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission defers 180‑unit Snead Road multifamily proposal amid staff concerns over master‑plan fit and infrastructure
Summary
A developer’s request for a special‑use permit to build up to 180 multifamily units on roughly 10.5 acres in Piney Knolls drew a detailed staff recommendation for denial. Commissioners voted to defer the item 30 days to allow further coordination on infrastructure and neighborhood concerns.
The Planning Commission agreed to defer a special‑use permit hearing for a proposed 180‑unit multifamily development on Snead Road after staff concluded the application conflicted with multiple goals in the Richmond 300 master plan and raised infrastructure, environmental and walkability concerns.
Staff recommended denial, finding the proposed buildings and 17 units‑per‑acre density were inconsistent with the master plan’s ‘‘residential’’ designation and the plan’s guidance on where multifamily should be located. Staff cited several specific concerns: the site is not on a designated arterial that the plan identifies as appropriate for increased residential intensity; the proposal would create a sharp density jump relative to surrounding single‑family lots; the site is largely car‑dependent and lacks sidewalks and frequent transit; wetlands and environmental constraints force an irregular street layout and dead‑end streets; and a large share of the site would be occupied by surface parking, reducing walkability.
Applicant Lawson Companies and counsel argued the proposal responds to a pressing local need for affordable housing, highlighted the developer’s experience with low‑income tax‑credit projects and said they have adjusted plans in response to staff comments (relocating the clubhouse, enhancing pedestrian boardwalks and preserving wetland buffers). The applicant also offered to construct sidewalks and a crosswalk to nearby Veil Francis Elementary School if the city acquires the necessary right‑of‑way; the Department of Public Works indicated it would study the feasibility and the director pledged $100,000 for a feasibility analysis. The applicant asked for a 30‑day deferral to work with the district councilmember and staff on infrastructure solutions. Councilmember Jones, who represents the Ninth District, opposed moving forward without concrete commitments for infrastructure and safety improvements and emphasized long‑running disinvestment in the area.
Commission action: The commission voted to continue the matter to June 3 to allow further coordination between the developer, Department of Public Works, PDR and the district councilmember. Commissioners said the item raises important questions about balancing urgent affordable‑housing needs against master‑plan objectives and the city’s ability to provide right of way, sidewalks and other infrastructure.
Next steps: The applicant and city staff will pursue a short timetable for assessing right‑of‑way acquisition, sidewalk feasibility and potential CIP prioritization; commissioners asked for clear conditions and timelines to be presented when the item returns.
