Category Archives: Cherry Street

City Council Approves Victory Rug SUP

Posted on by
1

From Times Dispatch article:

After a brief, final flaring of tension between a neighborhood group and a developer, the City Council also unanimously approved a special-use permit that will allow the transformation of the former Victory Carpet Cleaning building at 407 S. Cherry St. into a dozen apartments.
The overhaul of the 123-year-old, three-story brick building by developer Guy Blundon was the subject of a “long, arduous set of negotiations” with neighbors, Blundon told the council Monday night.
“We have made a lot of concessions, and I think we will have a wonderful project,” Blundon said, adding that he was “dumbfounded” by last-minute criticism from Todd Woodson, executive director of the Oregon Hill Home Improvement Council and treasurer of the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association.
Residents were successful in getting Blundon to reduce the number of proposed units by half and agree to not rent to Virginia Commonwealth University students, except married couples or military veterans.
However, Woodson said he only got the final wording of the agreement Sunday, which will allow VCU students who are older than 25 to be tenants. He considered that a breach of the “gentlemen’s agreement” between Blundon and the neighborhood. Blundon said he arrived at the final language after talks with his lawyer about discrimination concerns.
Woodson said the neighborhood association was supporting the special-use permit request with “extreme reservation.”
“Like the James River hawk that graces our environs, we will be watching every move,” Woodson said.

Victory Not Delayed?

Posted on by
5

Oregon Hill residents are once again left wondering what is happening in City Hall.

From latest letter:

Dear Ms. Markam and Mr. Ebinger,

The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association requests a postponement of the Victory Apt. SUP Ordinance No. 2012-200 scheduled hearing at the City Planning Commission on December 3, 2012. This postponement is necessary because two of the plans attached and referenced in the Victory Apartment Special Use Permit Ordinance No. 2012-200 are not the latest revisions that were required by the Planning Department and because the property was not posted properly per the requirements of city code Section 114-1050.5 (4).

The wrong plans have been attached to the ordinance: the latest revised Cover and A1.00 sheets of the Victory Apt. SUP are dated 10/22/12, but an earlier, incorrect version dated 9/21/12 are attached to the Victory Apt. SUP Ordinance No. 2012-200. The correct 10/22/12 revisions of the Cover and A1.00 sheets are attached to this e-mail. (Please see attachments: “Cover-SUP.PDF” and “A1.00-SUP.PDF”).

We received these 10/22/12 revisions of the Cover and A1.00 sheets as attachments to the Oct. 23rd e-mail from Mr. Ebinger below, and we were assured in the e-mail below that these revised plans would be attached to the Ordinance: “Updated plan sheets were recently provided and have been attached. The property lines for the Victory Rug Building have been modified to exclude the alley in common on Sheet A1.00 and the area of the alley in common has been excluded from the Site Data on the Cover Sheet.”

The incorrect sheet A1.00 dated 9/21/12 mistakenly shows the property line of the Victory building encroaching upon the property of the adjacent owner at 411 S. Cherry Street, as shown in the land survey of the property. (Please see attachment: “Plat of 411 S. Cherry Street.jpg”).

Unfortunately, the incorrect Cover and A1.00 sheets dated 9/21/12 are attached to the Ordinance No. 2012-200 that is being advertised and distributed by the City Clerk’s office: http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/clerkstracking/getPDF.asp?NO=2012-200

There are substantial differences in these two versions of the plans. The incorrect 9/21/12 version of the Cover sheet notes the wrong square footage for the Site Area, Paved Area, Open Space and Usable Open Space. The incorrect 9/21/12 version of the A1.00 sheet indicates the wrong location of the property line to the south of the Victory Rug building. This error results in a 1,405 sq. ft. difference in the “Usable Open Space” available in the plan. The Planning Commission hearing scheduled for December 3, 2012 must be postponed so that the correct Cover and A1.00 sheets may be attached and referenced in the Ordinance No. 2012-200, with ample time for public review of the correct documents.

In addition, the property was not posted properly in accordance with city code Section 114-1050.5(4). The sign posted on the lot at 811 Albemarle Street is made of plastic, whereas city code Section 114-1050.5 (4) requires that, “The sign(s) shall be of wood or metal material … ” Also, much of the lettering on the sign posted at 407 S. Cherry is considerably smaller than the 3 inch letter size required by city code Section 114-1050.5 (4): “… with black lettering at least three inches in height … ” In fact, the majority of the letters on the sign posted at 407 S. Cherry are 1-1/4 inch in height, which is less than half the required size. (Please see attachments: “Sign with small lettering at 407 Cherry St.jpg” and “Plastic sign at 811 Albemarle St.jpg”).

We fear that the applicant’s non-compliance with the technical requirements of the city code regarding posting of the property may impact the community attendance at the Planning Commission. We request that both of the signs be corrected and be re-posted for the required two week period.

Additionally, we have received correspondence from residents confused by the fact that the City Council Agenda for November 26, 2012 still lists the ordinance as being heard at that session.

In summary, we request a postponement of the Planning Commission hearing scheduled December 3, 2012 for Ordinance 2012-200. The correct, revised Cover and A1.00 sheets dated 10/22/12 must be attached to the Ordinance as promised by city staff, with adequate time for public review, and the signage must be correctly posted on the property per city code.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let us know as soon as possible when the Ordinance 2012-200 has been rescheduled.

Sincerely,

Charles Todd Woodson, Treasurer
Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association, inc

Survey of Cherry Street (What Now, Victory Rug?)

Posted on by
4

The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association (OHNA) has repeatedly pointed out that the 400 block of S. Cherry is too narrow to support parking on both sides of the street as proposed by the Victory Apartments Special Use Permit application. The VDOT minimum standard is 28 feet for a residential street with parking on both sides. This land survey definitely shows that the street is too narrow for parking on both sides of the street, narrowing from 26.41 feet at the Victory Rug building to 23.23 feet at the top of the hill.

OHNA Expresses Strong Opposition To Victory Rug SUP

Posted on by
2

From email:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM: Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association

RE: Proposed Victory Apartment Special Use Permit application

DATE: October 6, 2012

RICHMOND: The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association (OHNA) has voted to strongly oppose the excessive density and lack of off-street parking for the proposed Victory Apartments at
407 S. Cherry Street. The current proposal is a 29 bedroom development in 18 apartments and one townhouse, with only 8 off-street parking spaces. This far exceeds that 6 units that
would be permitted under the current zoning.

“This proposal is a non-starter,” said OHNA President Jennifer Hancock. “Oregon Hill already has a tight parking situation because of our proximity to VCU, and the excessive density and lack of off-street parking of this development would exacerbate an already serious problem.”

The developer has rejected OHNA’s proposal for elderly housing in the old Victory Rug building that would need only half the off-street parking. The developer has also rejected OHNA’s proposal for a neighborhood-friendly business use of the building. “The developer has rejected every reasonable suggestion of the neighborhood association,” said Hancock.

OHNA has expressed particular concern over the city planning department’s misapplication of Riverfront District zoning regulations to the project to allow on-street parking to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements. Oregon Hill is not in the Riverfront District, and residents claim that they have been denied due process by the city.

The neighborhood expects the Special Use Permit to be soon brought to vote by the City Planning Commission. Over 113 of the nearby Oregon Hill residents have written letters of opposition to the proposed Victory Apartments SUP.

Contacts:
Jennifer Hancock, OHNA President
bookzen at comcast.net

Todd Woodson, OHNA Treasurer
candylandmusic at earthlink.net

For more background on this issue, please click here.

New Letter On Victory Rug Proposal

Posted on by
3

The saga continues…

Mr. Mark Olinger, Director
Planning and Development Review
5th Floor, City Hall
900 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219

July 28, 2012

Dear Mr. Olinger,

The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association (OHNA), a neighborhood association lawfully incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia since 2001, has received the July 13, 2012 comment letter from the city staff regarding the Victory Apartments Special Use Permit (SUP) application for 407 S. Cherry Street and 811 Albemarle Street. Its contents were discussed by our membership in a meeting on July 24, 2012. We are troubled by the disregard of various ordinances and regulations of the City and Commonwealth by certain city agencies included in the response. These city agencies are ignoring or misapplying city zoning ordinances in order to make the current proposal for development of the Victory Rug Cleaning building work. The developer proposes a density three to four times what would be permitted under the current zoning, and this would result in a public safety and access risk if the project is allowed to rely on on-street parking on both sides of the 400 block of South Cherry at Victory Rug.

It is our belief that the lives and property of the inhabitants of the Oregon Hill neighborhood will incur dangerous risks should the SUP be granted with the noncompliant features that are included in the July 13, 2012 city commentary on the proposed project. We request that all applicable laws, parking ordinances and regulations be enforced as written. The R-7 zoning would allow 4-6 apartments in the Victory Rug building, and require a minimum of one off-street parking space for each unit in the development.

Please provide answers why the following regulations were disregarded:

1). In our correspondence dated June 27, 2012, we emphasized that none of the eight off-street parking spaces proposed for the SUP have the required 25 foot aisle width needed for 90 degree parking spaces for full sized vehicles as required in City Ordinance Section 114-710.3:1. Please explain why the July 13, 2012 city comment letter did not disqualify the proposed SUP’s planned 8 off-street parking spaces because they do not have the 25’ aisle width as required by law.

2). In our correspondence dated June 27, 2012, we stated that OHNA objects to on-street parking being used to satisfy the off-street parking required under the relevant city ordinance. Our residential neighborhood has serious parking problems because of Oregon Hill’s proximity to VCU; yet the city comment letter of July 13, 2012 cites the “methodology specified in the Zoning Ordinance for RF-1 or RF-2 districts, in which on-street parking spaces provided within portions of the public right-of-way abutting the street frontage of the property shall be credited as though they were off-street parking spaces located on the premises.” Oregon Hill is not within the RF-1 or RF-2 zoning districts, and even if the property was in the RF zoning district, the staff misapplied Sec. 114-710.2:3 by allowing three 22 foot parking spaces (66 feet in total) abutting the 45 foot street frontage of the Victory Rug building, and by attributing an equal number of parking spaces on the opposite side of the street – not abutting the building’s street frontage. Since the Oregon Hill neighborhood is not within the Riverfront 1 or Riverfront 2 (RF-1or RF-2) zoning districts, we must insist on knowing why staff is arbitrarily applying the parking and zoning “methodology” of another district to our district, which is within the R-7 zoning.

3). In our correspondence dated June 27, 2012, we brought to staff’s attention that the 400 block of Cherry Street is too narrow to safely support parking on both sides of the street at the location of the Victory Rug building, where the street is 25’-9” wide and narrows to 23’-3” wide at it’s intersection with Albemarle Street. The width of the 400 block of Cherry is significantly less than the VDOT minimum 28’ width design standard for residential streets with parallel parking on both sides of the street. We also pointed out that emergency vehicles would be unable to pass if vehicles were parked on both sides of the street, and that buses routinely park on the west side of the block to visit Hollywood Cemetery. We are dismayed that the city comment letter of July 13, 2012 states that, “… Cherry St. and Laurel St. between Spring St. and Idlewood Ave. are one-way streets with allowable parking on both sides of the street…” and allows the parking spaces on both sides of the 400 block of Cherry to satisfy the parking requirements of the Victory Apartment project. Since the 400 block of Cherry at the Victory Rug building is too narrow to safely park vehicles on both sides of the street and allow emergency access, please explain why the city commentary allows on-street parking on both sides of the street.

4). The city devoted much energy on developing the appropriate R-7 zoning designation for the Oregon Hill Historic District. This is exactly the type of development that should be guided by the existing zoning regulations in the best interest of the community. Under the R-7 zoning, 4-6 units would be permitted in the Victory Rug building. Against firm, united, and reasonable neighborhood objection, the developer continues to propose an excessive density which is 3 to 4 times the number of units allowed under the current zoning. No mention of the existing R-7 zoning is found in the city comment letter of July 13, 2012. OHNA would like to know why the city planning staff is not taking into consideration density permitted under the R-7 zoning, which the community has relied upon to help preserve the historic and residential character of the Oregon Hill Historic District since 2002.

Please note that our neighborhood association, as well as the immediate neighbors of the Victory Rug building, is overwhelmingly in favor of the responsible development of this parcel as permitted under the R-7 zoning. We are, and always have been, in full support of the R-7 zoning. We request an opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience and we will look forward to your response to the questions presented in this letter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hancock,
OHNA, President

Cc:
Art Tate, Fire and Emergency Services
Channel 6 News
Channel 8 News
Channel 12 News
Chief of Staff of the Mayor’s Office
City Attorney
Honorable Betsy Carr
Honorable Mayor of the City of Richmond
Honorable Richmond City Council Members
Honorable Richmond City Planning Commission Members
Richmond Free Press
Richmond Times Dispatch
StyleWeekly
Thomas Flynn, City Traffic Engineer
WRIR