Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 907 Morton Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond approves 907 Morton Street redevelopment over neighborhood objections, 3-1 vote
Summary
Despite public opposition citing traffic, parking and neighborhood compatibility, the City Commission approved a development agreement and replat for 907 Morton Street after staff-suggested revisions; the motion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Alex BeMent opposed.
The Richmond City Commission approved Ordinance No. 2025-17 and a related development agreement for 907 Morton Street (Manor Estates of Aubreyopolis) at its Jan. 20 meeting, voting 3-1. The applicant was present and staff circulated a revised resolution reflecting the commission’s requested changes.
The city attorney summarized key revisions to the development agreement: removal of references to large and small covered parking structures (leaving the main house, carriage house and pool house), a requirement that existing parking spaces and driveways be maintained in compliance with city regulations, a stabilization definition that requires at least six of eight units to be occupied under minimum one-year leases with completion of renovations and occupancy of at least one unit by the owner or designated property manager, and minor typographical corrections.
Public commenters, including Rosemary Buddeke and Susan Knight, had earlier urged the commission to reject the project, raising concerns about the intensity of the proposed use, the number of residential units, traffic circulation, parking availability, drainage, infrastructure capacity and compatibility with surrounding properties. Buddeke emphasized preserving neighborhood character and cautioned against setting a precedent; Knight, a real estate broker, cited historic-preservation considerations and potential long-term impacts on property values.
During the commission discussion Commissioner Alex BeMent said eight residential units were too many for the site and opposed the project. Other commissioners acknowledged a preference for single-family use but noted the property had been vacant for about five years and deteriorating; those commissioners said redevelopment was preferable to continued decline and that no viable alternative had been presented. The applicant confirmed parking complies with city standards and agreed to work with staff on canopy repairs or removal as needed.
The motion to approve the ordinance and development agreement passed 3-1 with Commissioner BeMent opposed. The commission approved the development agreement as modified and redistributed. The decision concludes the commission’s action on this application; staff will monitor compliance with the agreement’s stabilization and parking provisions.
