Planning staff reviews request to convert first-floor storefronts at 725–727 South Loudoun Street to a two‑bedroom apartment

At a Sept. 2 Winchester City Planning Commission work session, planning staff presented CUP25-232, a conditional use permit request to convert the ground-floor commercial spaces at 725–727 South Loudoun Street into a single two‑bedroom apartment.

The parcel contains two side‑by‑side storefronts and a two‑story portion; staff said a rear portion of the building previously received a CUP in 2020 to convert a side entrance into a ground‑floor apartment. The current proposal would convert the remaining commercial storefront areas into one unit of nearly 2,000 square feet. Planning staff described the unit as effectively a two‑bedroom layout given the building’s “awkward floor plan.” The site plan submitted with the application shows five parking spaces on site.

Planning staff said the property is zoned B‑1, which requires a conditional use permit to change ground‑floor commercial space to residential. “The proposal is for a 2 bedroom apartment,” staff told commissioners and noted the central policy question is whether converting a storefront façade into residential use is appropriate where adjacent properties retain commercial storefronts.

Commissioners focused on three practical concerns: the storefront appearance, building‑code and habitability issues tied to large plate‑glass commercial windows and doors, and a bedroom that would face a commercial corridor. Several commissioners said they have approved ground‑floor residential in the past when the living space did not place a bedroom on the street facade, and they were reluctant to set a precedent that would allow bedrooms to face Loudoun Street’s commercial corridor.

Commissioners and staff asked for clarifying drawings. Staff said the applicant supplied an updated floor plan and that the building official had asked for additional drawings; staff will share the revised materials with the commission before the next meeting. Commissioners also requested confirmation from the building official about whether the existing storefront windows and glass doors meet residential code standards or would need to be altered for a residential conversion.

A second concern raised by commissioners was whether the submitted plan could be read as three bedrooms because of circulation and room definitions; staff noted the B‑1 ordinance would require a separate CUP provision for a three‑bedroom apartment and that the applicant did not apply for a three‑bedroom provision. Staff asked for a clearer, to‑scale plan to resolve whether the current layout counts as two or three bedrooms.

Next steps: staff said they will provide the updated drawings and a building‑code assessment to the commission ahead of the regular meeting where CUP25‑232 will be considered. No formal vote or decision on the CUP was recorded at the Sept. 2 work session.

Why it matters: The commission framed the issue as a question of balancing downtown vacancy and the desire to preserve active street‑front commercial uses. Commissioners repeatedly noted the policy tension between allowing more ground‑floor residential to address housing needs and preserving the commercial appearance of the city’s primary corridors.