14 Responses to “Meeting set on zoning changes for Union Hill”

1. posted by Bullwinkle at July 4, 2009 4:34 pm [#]:
   

   So was it UHCA that initiated the zoning change?

   What are the advantages of R-63 for Union Hill?

   It sounds like, in addition to allowing for development of the rowhouse style homes typical to the historic neighborhood (and already allowed under current zoning), R-63 would ALSO allow for high density multi-familly apartment complexes that are NOT in keeping with the neighborhood (and that might encourage development of low quality rental properties that would not seem be in the best interests of the neighborhood or its existing property owners).

   Also, it sounds like R-63 would allow things like CONVENIENCE STORES to be built right in amongst the homes. Seems like there is the potential for that to be very bad for crime, vandalism, loitering, home values, etc.

   This city brochure breaks down the zoning specifications.
   http://www.richmondgov.com/departments/communityDev/docs/R-Handbook_Final_Draft05-22-09.pdf

   For comparability, I believe most of Union Hill is currently zoned as R-7.

   If UHCA voted for this, I’m assuming there must be some major pros to R-63. Maybe the parking thing?

   Is there more that I am missing?

2. posted by crd at July 4, 2009 8:44 pm [#]:
   

   Bullwinkle, I am also interested in hearing what you’re missing.

   If memory serves me right, I think the Church Hill Association (CHA) went totally against the R-63 designation, but I am making the assumption that the CHA is mostly made up of older folks (like me) who live more or less either in or near the St. John’s Historic District, and have lived through having corner stores that were not so much of a walk-to destination but more of a crime destination.

   Just my take, but I think that Union Hill residents think of corner stores as coffee shops, and other good walk-to destinations,etc. – with this zoning, they are creating a good “walk-to” type of place.

   South of Broad spent so many years fighting corner stores, which, in those days, were not so great, so they don’t want to encourage them….although corner stores CAN be good. I think “corner stores” are a matter of perception….perhaps bad among those of us who had them and didn’t like them, but potentially good for those who saw Jumpin’ J’s as a good thing…

3. posted by Bullwinkle at July 5, 2009 3:25 pm [#]:
   

   If this zoning change IS seen as a good thing for the area, why not wait until Old & Historic is in place first – to protect the historic intregity of the area while allowing some coffeshops etc. in?

4. posted by UnionHill RVA at July 6, 2009 8:45 am [#]:
   

   Posts 1-3.
   As for who initiated the zoning change, as I recall, it came from City Planners who realized that there were inconsistencies in the overall zoning for the Union Hill area (regarding B2, UB and other commercial codes) and in response to property owners who kept asking to do things with their property that didn’t fit with R7 uses.

   The city Dept. of Community Development held at least 4 public meetings (all preceded by mailings to property owners) at the EDI building in 2007-09.

   Did you not attend any of those meetings at EDI with city staff?

   Those were in addition to at least 2 meetings with the UHCA.

   The R63 (along with B2/UB Jeff Ave/25th Street) zoning changes are very specific and somewhat complex. That’s why there were so many informational meetings where city staff took great pains to explain things in detail to citizens.

   As I understand it, the R63 zoning allows for corner commercial, and lightens the requirement for parking spaces on-street. It also allows for second floor residential within the same building. Yes, R63 does allow for multi-family, however, this is limited by building height, apartment density and parking requirements.

   The folks I know who live in Union Hill (after taking the time to fully understand the nuances of R63) support the change from R7 to R63.

   The point person for R63/Union Hill re-zoning is Tarissa Griffith, at City Hall, Planner Comm Dev. her boss, Brooke Harding is another person who can answer questions in detail.

5. posted by Bullwinkle at July 6, 2009 12:18 pm [#]:
   

   Thanks for all the good info. I’m hoping that some more folks who are familiar with the issues will also chime in here.

6. posted by Left of the Hill at July 7, 2009 8:52 pm [#]:
   

   The area is currently zoned R53, not R7. To understand the appeal of R63 you have to understand how it compares to R53. R63 looks a lot like certain blocks in the Fan and the Museum District. To understand R53 look no further than Jefferson Townhouses on Mosby.

7. posted by Bullwinkle at July 8, 2009 9:05 pm [#]:
   

   The notice I got in the mail says the area is currently a mix of R-7, R-53, and B-2. I think most of Union Hill is R-7.

   The flier describes the proposed R-63 as “Multi-Family Urban Residential District” and the proposed UB as “Urban Business Distrct.”

   I can’t say that I like the sounds of either of those. I don’t want no 7-11 on my corner.

8. posted by Houdoun at July 8, 2009 10:39 pm [#]:
   

   @Bullwinkle, currently there is no R-7 in Union Hill. The entirety of the interior of Union Hill is now zoned R-53 (once again, think Jefferson Townhomes). The city came to the neighborhood and proposed rezoning the majority of Union Hill to R-7 (a designation slightly more suburban than most folks wanted). They proposed small pockets of UB and R-63 along the exterior corridors.

   Because we want a primarily residential neighborhood with access to goods and services, R-63 is ideal for Union Hill. The city has held something like four public meetings (they call them charettes) and sent several mailings. The consensus of those meetings was that R-63 was a better fit for Union Hill than was R-7 and better reflected the vibrant urban community most folks want to live in. The meetings were attended by a mix of people reflecting the neighborhood. The most exciting part of the dialogue came from senior citizens who said that R-63 seemed like a return to the way the neighborhood functioned prior to the urban decay of the mid-twentieth century. Therefore, the city amended the plans.

9. posted by UnionHill RVA at July 8, 2009 11:22 pm [#]:
   

   Post 7. Most of Union Hill is R53, not R7. There is a mix of B2 and UB along Jefferson and 25th. UB is actually a more neighborhood-friendly zoning category than B2 which is way more intense in terms of uses and parking requirements.

   You’ll have a much better understanding of the allowed uses for R63 and UB if you go to the city’s website and download the actual text of the zoning ordinances. The prospect of a 7-11 is pretty unrealistic without a SUP.

   Tarissa Moran (formerly Griffith) is the accessible city planner who can answer your questions about both R63 & R63. Look her up on the city website and email/call her if you have a detailed question.

10. posted by Bullwinkle at July 9, 2009 9:17 am [#]:
    

    Thanks for all the great info. folks.

    However, the notice I received from the city does state clearly that Union Hill currently includes R-7 zoning. I’m not making that up. Do you think the city made an error on their public notice?

    Also, the city flier I alluded to earlier in the thread actually shows a photo of existing Union Hill homes on 23rd Street as THE example of what R-7 looks like. (Check it out for yourself if you like on page 9 of http://www.richmondgov.com/departments/communityDev/docs/R-Handbook_Final_Draft05-22-09.pdf)

    Knowning that Jefferson Townhomes is R-53 is helpful in terms of getting some sense of what it R-53 really looks like, but Jefferson Townhomes is not technically a part of Union Hill and does not look like anything in Union Hill. Do you have an example of R-53 properties actually within Union Hill?

    #9 – you say a 7-11 is unrealistic without a SUP. What’s a SUP? The city flier I’ve linked to above specifically states that R-63 IS FOR convenience stores, laundromats, adult care centers, nurseries, ATM machines, video rental stores, beverage stores, etc. If we go to zoning that permits those things, why shouldn’t we expect to see them start popping up here?

11. posted by elaine odell at July 20, 2009 4:12 pm [#]:
    

    Earlier this afternoon, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to support the Rezoning Ordinance for Union Hill.

    City Planner Tarissa Moran presented a re-cap the collaborative two-year process with Comm. Dev. staff and citizens. Union Hill residents Matt Conrad, Bill Conkle and I spoke in favor of the proposed ordinances.

    Next stop: City Council, Monday, July 27.

12. posted by Lora at July 20, 2009 6:47 pm [#]:
    

    Bullwinkle, a small sliver of Union Hill, the strip of the western side of N.25th Street from M STreet to P Street, is zoned R-7. Other than a short stretch of Mosby Street near Venable and along Jefferson Avenue (currently zoned b-2), the rest of Union Hill is zoned R-53.

    To get a good idea of what R-7 development in Union Hill looks like, visit the 800 block of Jessamine and take a look at the double house that was built there about three years ago; also check out the three houses built at about the same time on the 800 block of 24th. The builder of these houses adhered to the letter of the R-7 zoning ordinance: a MINIMUM 15-foot setback, with curb-cuts for off-street parking for the houses on Jessamine. All the other houses on both blocks, built before the zoning ordinance was originally enacted in 1942, sit much closer to the street, most of them right on the sidewalk.

    One of the beauties of R-63 is that it allows a MAXIMUM setback of 15 feet, making it much easier to build new houses that are more in keeping with older development patterns (closer to the sidewalk, anyway).

13. posted by crd at July 20, 2009 7:28 pm [#]:
    

    Lora, can you speak to the infill on 28th Street (it’s a different thread)? In looking at the drawings, I thought there appeared to be no set back at all. If the previous building there that burned also was built to the sidewalk, would the new infill need to have a set back? Or could they build right to the sidewalk, under current zoning, just because the previous building did that?

    I thought that, if a building was demolished, for whatever reason, under R7 the new building had to have a minimum 15 foot setback.

    Also, I think Bullwinkle has a good point – if the R63 zoning allows it, wouldn’t one reasonably expect to see more 7/11 stores, video rentals, ATMs, etc. with the R63 zoning? Although I thought they spelled out art galleries, and didn’t specify things like beverage stores….I’m interested because where I live now is within half a block of Broad Street that comes under the R63 proposal.

    Bullwinkle, an SUP is a Special Use Permit. It’s what a developer goes for when they are trying to build something that does not comply with current zoning. There are arguments both ways as to whether SUPs should exist, and this post of mine would get really long if I tried to go into both sides.

14. posted by elaine odell at July 20, 2009 7:45 pm [#]:
    

    Bullwinkle, the old Master Plan for the city recommended that most of Union Hill’s R53 lots change to R7.

    As many of us have stated in this thread, nearly all of Union Hill’s existing residential lots are now zoned as R53, even though the city master plan (developed about 10 years ago) recommends changing them to R7.

    Examples of R53 abound. Simply go to the city’s website,and plug in nearly any Union Hill residential address and click on the “Full Report”. Scroll down and look at the “Zoning Code”. You’ll see R53 on nearly all residential properties. Above that, you’ll see “Planned Land Use” and that reflects the old Master Plan.

    FYI, an SUP is a Special Use Permit. One reason a 7-11 wouldn’t happen is because they feature parking spaces at the front entrance, with curb cuts, and big setbacks. By design, a 7-11 wouldn’t fit within R63 because it encourages heavy vehicular traffic.

    The above uses/business types you describe are ok in R63 (along with others that are neighborhood-oriented) as long as they don’t encourage heavy vehicular traffic at the street/sidewalk like suburban style versions of those businesses.

    Union Hill citizens who participated in the planning meettings in ‘07 and ‘08 learned that R63 takes in some aspects of ‘form-based’ zoning…which is why we want it in the first place. It allows us to have the conveniences of neighborhood businesses we can walk to, without requiring massive suburban parking lots out front.

Share a Comment