Subject: JC Zoning and RRLF inputs
From: Josi Kytle <[email-masked]>
To: Keith Oborne <[email-masked]>, Chris Granda <[email-masked]>, Virginia Clarke <[email-masked]>
Cc: Brendan O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 12:35:39 -0400

Planning Commission Leads -

I am not able to attend tonight's PC meeting. Please see the feedback on the latest documents to zoning discussions for Jolina Court. 

Today, we start our 7th month of discussions and we want to encourage a simpler approach. In the current drafts, several elements are either impractical, create barriers or will be complicated to get agreement. Whilst I understand the intentions of the clauses, each element will create hours of discussion and debate in the PC, then with the SB and then with the public. Please simplify. Separate the JC zoning from the overall town wide density bonuses. Remove the unrealistic commercial burden and match the density of the neighboring VD district. Fair, easy and encourages progress after 7 months.

Also, please provide an update on the elements for the RRLF application including timeline and the municipal commitments. On May 6th the SB approved the letter of support and we need an update. We are under deadlines from VHFA. Please provide an update to achieve zoning regulations & municipal contribution. 

Feedback on draft JC zoning and the density bonuses:

3.9.4 - Underlining density of 1/18 acre of developable land (increase from 1/15). It is disappointing that the PC continues to limit housing in one district compared to the neighboring zone that has limited or no parking. Make the zoning consistent and fair… and encourage housing. 
3.9.7.iii - Public/Neighbor Parking requirement. Again, check with your lawyers. This clause is trying to circumvent Act 47 and defines 'government overreaching’ by taking private land for public use or, worse, to give to another property owner. Its ongoing inclusion is wasting time and mismanaging expectations. And, it is not appreciated. 
6.15.3 - 400 square feet requirement. ‘Tiny Houses’ are desirable - this includes apartments. People want smaller units for a range of reasons... including costs and environmental impact. Your purposed size restriction is unnecessary and it will make these density bonuses unachievable. 
6.15.4a - Workforce housing - Your definition of workforce housing is not in line with VHFA and others leaders. VHFA defines “Workforce” or “middle-income” housing is typically defined as housing that serves households with incomes of 80%-120% AMI. If you want incentives to work, make them achievable.  
6.15.4c - Condominiums - 'Covenants will be required to prohibit use as a short-term rental.’ If a goal is to help create homeownership, why create barriers or restrictions to that ownership that is not being regulated elsewhere in Richmond?  Please note I understand and worry about the STR impact on housing and this is not an advisable or fair way to limit. It could be argued that condo owners in a high density development, like ours, are workforce or cost sensitive… so why create barriers to their home ownership versus allowing STR in single family homes in Richmond? If you want to regulate STR, do that across all homeowners in Richmond. Don’t be unfair to those needing lower housing cost or ways to subsidize.
6.15.4d - ‘True, income sensitive affordable housing - We are unlikely to use this bonus. But if you are serious about this need, increase the density incentive significantly. 2:1 is not a big enough incentive to offset the costs. The economics do not work. 

Each of the density bonuses needs significant time to flush out and get it right for Richmond overall. This will create hours of discussion and debate. We encourage you to de-couple these proposals:

Step #1: Remove JC commercial barriers and match density to the neighboring VD district. Pass these amendments alone so we can make progress. 
Step #2. Create density bonus for the entire town to encourage development that you want to incentivize. Take time to get right. 

Update on the RRLF program:

As agreed, we proceeded with the RRLF application and had to make assumptions on details that need Richmond leadership.  

45 total units was used to estimate the costs and cash flow. Therefore, based on the JC draft Zoning, we would have 40 units. If that is accurate, we will need to revise our pro forma for VHFA asap. I suspect it will make the project unviable as it was thin with 45 and had no units below 80% AMI. With less units, we will have to increase rents across the board.  
$500K of municipality contribution has been included in the pro forma. It is a placeholder and we have been clear to VHFA that there is no agreement. But we need to understand your path to finalize. Please outline. 
Timeline - We have had to provide timeline. That includes a September deadline for final zoning. That would have occupancy happening in Fall 2026 - at best case scenario. Based on this current status, that seems unrealistic. Please provide a timeline so we can confirm to VHFA. 

Good luck in the meeting. Please encourage a simpler path forward. Regardless, provide an update to the above so we can evaluate next steps.  

Regards,
Josi