RECENT COMMENTS
Hunt Investments asks city to close alley for Cedar Street project
There will be a public hearing at the May 24 City Council meeting at 6PM to a request to close an alley “at the request of the owner of the adjacent property to the north (Hunt Investments, LLC)” as part of redevelopment of the apartments on Cedar Street:
To close, to public use and travel, a portion of an alley in the block bounded by Cedar Street, Mosby Street and Princess Anne Avenue, consisting of 702+/- feet, upon certain terms and conditions.
The proposed ordinance (PDF) clearly states that the request by Hunt Investments, LLC, would be “to add the closed portion of the alley to the larger parcel controlled by the applicant to achieve the gross square footage required by the City Code to redevelop the parcel”.
From the request (PDF):
How can this advance to public hearing so quickly? Was it heard by the planning commission or any other body?
Well, it looks like this development is going to happen in spite of the community’s disapproval.
This does seem like a Hunt’s trying to pull a fast one on us.
He’s pissed off at us for opposing his project’s tax-credit deal earlier in the year. Now he wants to build his inappropriate gulag* here no matter what.
*Go back to the earlier story to see what one neighbor referred to as a “soviet-style apartment block”.
This project as drawn just flat-out sucks. It’s a perfect compliment to the lovely Mosby Express Mart.
I’m sure council will approve this closure and encourage Hunt to build the new projects.
Wasn’t he supposed to come back to a UHCA meeting and present us with options or something? I know UHCA voted to not approve the plan as drawn but that obviously does’t matter to Hunt who’s just in it for the $$. I’m sure he doesn’t live up here so why should he care.
Council is most likely to follow the lead of the council member from that district.
Alley closures do not go through planning commission. Public works is a different department, a different set of applications and a different process altogether. No matter what you feel about the project (I’m definitiely NOT saying I favor it), any effort to impute back-door dealings or pulling-a-fast-one on this alley vacation is just a misunderstanding of the bureaucratic process and is objectively unfair.
I wonder if there is a way for the City to make these procedures less opaque. It’s so easy to jump to conclusions.
The devil is always in the details…
From the PDF download above, 2nd paragraph, letter from Hunt Investment Properties to City Dept of Public Works asking for the alley closure:
“Our need for this land is due to the fact that we are short 0.011 acres per building codes and present zoning and we need 2.0 acres. The building will consist of 65 market rent units with 49 covered parking spaces and a parking lot with 103 spaces. Total building square footage will be 41,678 sq feet.”
Rachel Flynn was cc’d on the letter.
Looks like Hunt has in no way changed it’s plans.
The request to close the alley will be heard by the Planning OCmmission on May 17th, 1:30 pm, 5th Floor Conference room. Depending on the action of the planning commission, it might be on the council agenda May 24th, or it might be deferred. Repeating, council is most likely to follow the lead of the council member from that district.
So much for the Mayor’s goal of Richmond becoming a Tier 1 city. Encouraging high-density-low-income populations to be sequestered in small areas around the city just doesn’t get us there.
Actually deconcentrating low income housing is generally considered a good thing. The point here, I think, is not whether the Hunt proposal is too dense, as much as whether it increases the percentage of LI housing in the Seventh District generally.
Here is an interesting document from the City Planning Commission to the Land Use Administration (PDF) about the closing of the alley.
Two interesting portions:
So, will the developer then be purchasing this portion of the public alley from the city, or is the land just transferred and added to the developer’s parcel?
I’m at work & can’t look up the prior thread about this property right now, but 65 market units does sound different. Wasn’t it 100+ units & all low income before?
The 1st phase of the development is planned for north of Cedar. The initial proposal was for 111 units, all low-income.
The area south of Cedar (the area with the alley that needs to be closed) is described as the 2nd phase of the project. It is proposed to be all market rate housing, no start date given.
With 111 low-income units directly across the street, who in their right mind would want to pay “market rents” to live across from that? The market will prevail and they will ALL be low-income units…ANOTHER DUMP!
Oh, I was confused. Thanks for that info John.
So, the 7.03′ by 100′ piece of city property would allow for an additional 25′ height on building(s) and city staff is not supportive of the plans for building(s) that would result if the city gave this piece of property away.
Send letters and rally all you want, the Hunt project will get the alley and will be built. Freund’s Oakwood Heights haciendas will keep the zoning she wants and it will be built.
Enjoy the view from Libby Hill while you can for it too will be obscured one day.
Our City Council and its subgroups dance to the songs played on the developer’s lyrical pipe. The developers, my friends, have money to fling at the self-serving politicians. Our city council fears none of us, for all we have are votes to fling at them. I say these things not to encourage despair but to evoke a fire of resentment and anger. Richmond is a divine city historically, geographically, and inspirationally. It is time to chase out the moneychangers so that we may all worship and live freely. Hold your councilperson accountable. Make them hear your voice and respect your vote. It has been said before, Richmond is our home and each neighborhood is but one room in that home. We are a family by geographical choice. Look out for one another. Speak up. Stand up.
Is the city GIVING this property to Hunt? How can this happen? I take it Hunt wants to close the alley for good then and take over that property?
g2thap – paragraph 2. Point very well stated and taken.
“Richmond is our home and each neighborhood is but one room in that home. We are a family by geographical choice. Look out for one another. Speak up. Stand up.”…. amen to that sentiment. To that I add:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. – Margaret Mead
The east end has the highest number of public housing units in the city. Looks like the upper east end in being targeted for more of the same and low-income housing.
SEW – No, the City wont give it away. The alley is owned by the city for the use of it’s citizens as a public right of way. The city would sell that part of the alley to Hunt at what they feel the fair market value would be.
From the text above and the drawing it appears that they will be shaving a bit off the existing alley (not closing it) to meet the acreage requirement to build.
R-63 would allow for this same type of gulag, yet Union Hill asked for this zoning for it’s entire neighborhood.
When it comes to zoning, one has to look at the worst case scenario allowed within it’s classification, not the best case. Unfortunately, UH looked lovingly at R-63 in it’s best case, Utopian, scenario and they are lamenting that they didn’t ask for R-8. Looks hypocritical to oppose the Hunt project across the street from them. What happened to your battle cry for diversity and affordable housing?
I guess UH is just as NIMBY as everyone else. Go cry in your beer UH!
Why all the hostility Observer/22?
If this property were zoned R63, it would look a lot different than the current drawing, which was done to fit R53 (current zoning).
Note that the minimum lot square footage for a multifamily building is 2200sqft for R53, and 4000sqft for R63. That’s almost twice as much lot square footage required per apartment.
If the lot were R63, it would mean a smaller parking lot (and probably hidden from street view) and fewer apartments due to the higher square-footage requirement.
And I sure do hope it’s affordable housing, market rate seems appropriate for this location. And if there were some low income units mixed in (just like in the large warehouse renovations in the Bottom) that would be fine, too, imo. Currently, the Jeff. Townhomes have section 8 occupants, and they’re fine neighbors.
This is the right project for this location. The developers have a record of success in this city and a good reputation.
30 Below: How can you say it’s the right prohject for this location? Do you live over there? I doubt it. I don’t either but I think it’s unattractive, it’s overly dense (especially with section 8). Of course they say phase II will not include section 8, however, I’m sure no one will want to pay full price for that living next to section 8 so it too will become section 8. Not to mention the added traffic that the developers have not even considered… Richt for that location indeed!
@SEW, I think 30 Below is trolling. He couldn’t be more wrong about the reputation part:
http://www.nohintonstreetrezoning.com/pdfs/letters/dpittman-102109-short.pdf
Capital Gal,
I have been following this discussion and feel I should point out some errors in your post. I am looking at the city’s zoning comparison charts for these zonings. Both R53 and R63 have a minimum of 2200 sg ft lot size. That minimum is for single family or duplex structures, which are allowed in both zonings. For R53 there is a minimum of 1250sq ft per unit for multi-family ( or 5000 sq ft for 4 units). In R63 that minimum is only 1000 sq ft. That comes out to 20% less lot size per unit in R63. The R53 also calls for a 15 Ft side yard for multi family, where the R63 only calls for a 5 Ft side yard. The R63 allows for much more density that the R53. While I am a proponent of R8 in most of the neighborhood, the R63 is a fine zoning for the 25th street and Nine Mile corridors, I don’t think that R63 is appropriate for our residential streets.
I feel that if people here are going to make a judgement on the appropriateness of these zoning categories, they should be aware that the R63 is the most dense of any proposed. They should also be aware that the R63 would allow up a 48 ft high building on corner lots. if you want to see what a 48ft tall building looks like, take a walk down to 21st and Main, and look at the project being built on the North West corner. Then decide if you would like that at the end of your block.
If you or anyone else would like to contact me about this, please do so.
Jim Daab
cell # 221 3803 jim@mysterydinner.com
Those opposed to this project might want to consider comments #5 and #8.
we must remember these alleyways were taken as right of ways when the lands were subdivided at some point in the past and we have been returning those alleys back to the propertty owners in church hill when no longer needed .more stagnation in our comunity will not change the over 100 vacant scabovers that seem to be begining to be restored and rebuilt . not repainted and refinanced .stagnation , bogs things down and stinks ,if used as a means to and end ,peace
It’s far too early in the day to be hitting the bottle so hard…WTF was that?
@Jim, that’s simply incorrect. The minimum parcel size for multi-family in R-63 is 4,000 sq ft. Then you get one unit per 1000 sq ft. It is very reasonable. For instance your lot (3717 sq ft) could not be used for multi-family.