OHNA response to latest Victory SUP

From email:

Ms. Lory Markham
Planning Department
City of Richmond
June 27, 2012

Dear Ms. Markham,

The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association (OHNA) received the revised application for the Victory Apartments Special Use Permit (SUP) for 407 S.Cherry Street and 811 Albemarle Street. Because the applicant has failed to address the neighborhood’s concerns about the density of the project and the lack of appropriate parking, OHNA urges the City staff and Planning Commission to recommend against approval of the revised plan.

In our correspondence dated April 25, 2012, in response to the original SUP application, OHNA urged the applicant to lower the density of the number of apartment units proposed for the Victory Rug building in line with the four to six units that are acceptable under the current zoning of the property. The original application proposed 18 apartment units, but the current revised application proposes 18 apartment units along with a single family dwelling. Instead of reducing the density, the applicant has actually increased the density of the project in the revised SUP, showing a disregard for the concerns of the neighborhood.

In our earlier correspondence, OHNA also pointed out that the applicant had an inadequate number of parking spaces and that the few parking spaces that he proposed were not functional. The original application proposed 18 parking spaces, but the current revised application proposes 8 parking spaces for a project with a higher density. Instead of increasing the number of parking spaces, the applicant has actually reduced by ten the number of proposed parking spaces, again showing a disregard for our neighborhood concerns.

Indeed, none of the eight parking spaces proposed in the revised SUP appear to be functional, according to the guidelines of City Ordinance Section 114-710.3:1. Dimensions of Parking Spaces. According to the ordinance, a 25 foot aisle is required for 90 degree parking spaces, with a width of 8 feet, for full sized cars. Two alleys provide the aisle space for all of the proposed parking spaces. Five of the parking spaces spaces have an aisle of 20 feet provided by the 20 foot wide alley running in the north/south direction. Three of the parking spaces have an aisle of about 10 feet provided by the 10 foot wide alley running in the east/west direction. Without the required 25 foot aisle width, there is not enough turning radius to safely maneuver into these parking spaces. Also, backing from the parking spaces into the two alleys would be precarious because of the blind corners resulting from the building at 809 Albemarle Street, the trash enclosure, and a fence. Furthermore, the parking space beside 809 Albemarle Street, a contributing structure to the Oregon Hill Historic District, must be removed if the applicant intends to apply for state and federal historic tax credits; parking cars next to historic structures is not recommended by the National Park standards.

OHNA objects to on-street parking being used to support the parking requirements for this project. The 400 block of Cherry Street is too narrow to support parking on both sides of the street. At the location of the Victory Rug building, the street is only 25′-9″ wide. The street continues to narrow as it approaches the top of the hill, where the street is only 23′-3″ wide. This width is well below the 28′ standard width for residential streets with parking on both sides of the street. It would present a serious safety concern if cars are parked on both sides of the street, because fire trucks and other emergency vehicles would be unable to travel in that block.

In response to the original SUP application, the city commented that it recommended that the applicant have one parking space per bedroom. The original application had inadequate parking with approximately one parking space for every two-and-a half bedrooms. With the revised SUP, the applicant has far fewer parking spaces along with additional bedrooms, equal to about one parking space for every four bedrooms. While we are pleased that the applicant has eliminated the primary use of the lot at 811 Albemarle Street in the R-7 zoning for parking and has eliminated the proposed curb cut from Albemarle Street onto this lot, this does not relieve the applicant from the burden of providing the necessary parking for the project.

OHNA is not impressed with the spec housing unit that is proposed for the lot at 811 Albemarle Street. The house appears to be designed with materials and trim details, such as vinyl siding and composition shingles, that are inferior to the average Oregon Hill dwelling.

Our association has made it clear that we do not want these apartments to be rented to VCU students. So the neighborhood was particularly dismayed to read in the application that “All sidewalks to be brick to match adjacent VCU construction …”

OHNA has made a sincere effort to work with the developer on this project. We have suggested that renting the units to the elderly would relieve approximately half of the parking requirement while alleviating the neighborhood’s concern that the units will be rented to students. We have suggested that larger units would be more easily converted to condominiums in the future and would require fewer parking spaces. Instead, the developer has chosen to disregard the community’s concerns and disregard the city’s parking and zoning requirements.

In the years preceding and including 2002, the City devoted much time and many resources toward developing an appropriate zoning designation for the Oregon Hill Historic District. The result was R7, a code that was focused primarily on single family housing and embraced wholeheartedly by a community and City Staff/Administration. OHNA considers itself open minded and flexible to reasonable new development within the neighborhood. We have collaborated with such past projects as The Overlook with Steve Middleton and continue to work to better the neighborhood with projects such as the former Synergeo building with developer Nolen Blackwood, proving our commitment to reasonable development.

All projects are judged on their individual circumstances for SUP support. Should a project merit exception, it must exhibit unique and exceptional resources to qualify for relief from certain relevant legal restrictions. For example, if a parcel has a great deal of private parking available or large area of land to accommodate extra density, then we would certainly consider that rationale in our decision. However, in the case of the Victory Apartments, the developer has not made his case for exception and, in fact, was advised by OHNA before closing on the property of the inherent limitations on developing this parcel, including what was acceptable by the community in terms of density and parking requirements.

We respectfully request that Victory LLC be limited to the existing laws and be restricted to the initial ruling of four to six units of two or three maximum bedrooms per unit for its multifamily development with the hope of future single family conversion. This is the appropriate approach and density for our neighborhood.

Again, we encourage the City staff and City Planning Commission to reject the revised SUP as submitted.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hancock

OHNA, President

195 Traffic Alert

From City’s Department of Public Works:

Lane Closure – I-195 at the 9th Street overpass

WHO: City of Richmond Department of Public Works

WHAT: Lane Closure

WHEN: Sunday, July 1 through Wednesday, August 8

WHERE: I-195 at the 9th Street overpass

BACKGROUND: One eastbound and one westbound lane of I-195 will be closed during ongoing structural rehabilitation of the 9th Street Bridge, RMA Plaza Bridge and the Kanawha Plaza Bridge.

Drip…Drip…

Correspondent of the Day in the Times Dispatch:

Water rates target smaller users

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

You ran two Op/Ed columns on Richmond’s water rates. The column by Gloria LeRose, “Water’s worth the cost and effort,” explains that the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) does a needed job protecting our water quality, and what it spends to do so is worth it.

An earlier column by Scott Burger, “City proposes outrageous water rates,” relates to the amount of service charge DPU has in its rate structure, which results in a lower volumetric charge, which in turn discourages conserving water.

While both of these are valid concerns, the main issue with a high service charge is the inequality of cost for small consumers. Someone using 3 to 5 ccfs (1 ccf = 100 cubic feet) of water per month ends up paying about 79 percent of his total bill for service charge, while someone using 100 ccfs per month pays only about 11 percent. The purpose of the service charge is to recover certain fixed costs and should be recovered proportionally based on the amount each consumer uses. Lowering the service charge requires increasing the volumetric rate to compensate for the reduced revenue. There would be no less money for the DPU. There would be no lost revenue.

I raised this issue in 2006 with the DPU after a study recommended reducing the service charge. At that time the DPU indicated it agreed the service charge was disproportionate to the small user and planned to gradually reduce it and increase the volumetric rates. The DPU needs to renew this plan.

Robert Bedell.

Richmond.

Recognition for Officer Nathanson

Although there were no crimes in Oregon Hill on today’s Richmond Police report, there was recognition and congratulations for Officer Jonathon Nathanson, who has done a lot of work in the Fourth Precinct and Oregon Hill in particular.

Kudos to Officer Jonathan Nathanson who was named Fourth Precinct’s Officer of the Month for May! Officer Nathanson is still racking up the arrests – 42 for the month–and taking the calls – responding to 48! He’s also initiated more than 70 encounters just from his own observation while patrolling his assigned area. Officer Nathanson also seized two firearms and illegal narcotics last month; wrote 55 incident-based reports, conducted 16 field interviews and did more than 60 hours of bike patrol!

He was also selected to conduct DUI selective enforcement, resulting in numerous DUI arrests. Somehow, he still manages to find time to mentor a recruit from the 107th class and work with the Homeless Outreach Program with the Daily Planet and Richmond Behavioral Health Authority. Officer Nathanson is an all-around great officer and that’s why he’s been a frequent flier for Fourth Precinct’s Officer of the Month honors. Congratulations!

Latest Draft of Richmond Riverfront Plan

Yesterday, the City’s Planning and Development Review announced and released “the Final Draft of the Richmond Riverfront Plan” (click here for large PDF).

Pages 26 to 29, the part of the Plan that deals with “Tredegar Green”, seem most applicable to Oregon Hill. I did not see anything about moving the Confederate White House.

The proposed 2nd Street Connector road is still in the plan, although many questions have still not been answered. More on this soon.

Cherry Street Re-Connection?

I posted on this before, but new, conflicting information is still coming in.
Neighbors now say that they have heard this new ‘utility road’ from Riverside Park to where S. Cherry Street ends will be permanent.

In fact, Cherry Street used to be fully connected, as it looks on this old map:

Rumor is that neighbors as well as the City’s Parks and Rec Department are concerned by the lack of communication and what this road building is doing to create erosion behind Holly Street Playground.

Residents at the end of S. Cherry Street are also concerned about what this could mean for their enclave in the City, including the historic John Miller house which can be seen now from a new vantage point.

Concern Grows About Ord. 2012-74

C. Wayne Taylor has more City government news to share:

Ordinance 2012-74 is scheduled to go before Richmond City Council on June 11th. The ordinance would give the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) additional authority to grant exceptions to the city’s zoning regulations.

The ordinance was discussed at the Council’s informal meeting held on May 29th. Councilor Samuels stated that he was getting many phone calls about the ordinance. The administration was pushing very hard for Council to adopt the ordinance without delay.

The administration kept the preparation of the ordinance a secret and did not tell the Planning Commission about it until the Commission was asked to initiate a code amendment. One commissioner is recorded in the minutes as surprised by the request.

The administration gave the Planning Commission false and misleading information. For instance, the Commission was told that it takes 4 to 6 months to get a Special Use Permit approved by City Council. The actual time is closer to 2 months. Another example: the Commission was told that the BZA cannot grant a variance under the existing standard except under very extraordinary circumstances. Actually, about 20% of the BZA approvals are for variances.

The administration repeated the “4 to 6 month” claim to City Council on May 29th. The administration also told Council that the ordinance does nothing more than expand on existing provisions. In fact, it adds several totally new subsections.

The administration repeatedly told Council that the changes are no big deal. New sub-section 17 in the proposed ordinance gives the BZA control over building heights. The BZA would be given authority to allow a building of any height in all but a few districts. Given that the BZA approved 90% of the requests it considered it 2011, one should expect most requests for additional building height will be approved. (City Council approved a 160′ tall building at the Dominion Resources site along the riverfront. The BZA would certainly refer to that.)

The Council agreed to Mr. Samuels request for a delay. Mr. Samuels wants the administration to attend a neighborhood association meeting to address citizens’ concerns.

A brief summary of the May 29th meeting can be seen by clicking here.

Re-Connecting Cherry Street to Riverside Park?

What is the City doing?

I suspect they are just creating a service alley before they figure out what they will do with 816 Riverside Park, but could this be part of a larger plan to reconnect Cherry Street with Riverside Parkway? Who has the skinny? Anybody, Historic Richmond?

Update: According to nearby neighbors, this relates to the larger plumbing work that is being done throughout the neighborhood.