Manchester Development

[eandslee]

17 minutes ago, eandslee said:

The amphitheater passed. So did the ability to vote on a casino again this November. Virginia Business is reporting both. 

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/richmond-riverfront-amphitheater-gets-green-light/
 

Not 100% sure about the Avery Hall Development yet. I keep looking. 

[BigBobbyG]

Looks like the Avery Hall project was amended and continued. Does anyone know if that's normal given the amendments or whether it's a good or a bad sign?

 

https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6200569&GUID=20231526-4E14-4C09-BE62-7539D75CAA19&Options=&Search=

 

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

Looks like the Avery Hall project was amended and continued. Does anyone know if that's normal given the amendments or whether it's a good or a bad sign?

 

https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6200569&GUID=20231526-4E14-4C09-BE62-7539D75CAA19&Options=&Search=

 

What the eff????  No - it's not good. Not necessarily "bad" - we don't know the details of what happened and why. But it's certainly not "good". The SUP being approved and the motion adopted would have been "good" -- and this is NOT "good".

Jesus Christ... here we go again.  

@RVABizSenseMike-- do you or your colleagues know what's up with this?

Edited June 13, 2023 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

13 hours ago, Brent114 said:

The Eddy has some nice lighting…

It is  pretty visible from 95 too!

My dear friend - yet another silverware-worthy set of AWESOME photos! Even if I forget by week's end to officially present another Silver Port-a-Potty - know you've garnered yet another award for these incredible shots! Man - you're gonna need a bigger trophy case - and we thought Tom Brady had a lot of Lombardi's sitting in his man cave!  

[BigBobbyG]

22 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

What the eff????  No - it's not good. Not necessarily "bad" - we don't know the details of what happened and why. But it's certainly not "good". The SUP being approved and the motion adopted would have been "good" -- and this is NOT "good".

Jesus Christ... here we go again.  

@RVABizSenseMike-- do you or your colleagues know what's up with this?

I guess I was thinking that if the SUP is being altered to get MA on board (which is what I think happened from what we saw on that MA support document), maybe this is the standard thing? 
 

Like it’s amended, then is continued so people have time to see the changes, then it would get approved? Tbf that’s complete speculation on my part. 

I agree that I wish they would just pass it already though. 

[I miss RVA]

13 minutes ago, BigBobbyG said:

I guess I was thinking that if the SUP is being altered to get MA on board (which is what I think happened from what we saw on that MA support document), maybe this is the standard thing? 
 

Like it’s amended, then is continued so people have time to see the changes, then it would get approved? Tbf that’s complete speculation on my part. 

I agree that I wish they would just pass it already though. 

The Planning Commission already approved the SUP unanimously - which is usually a harbinger that City Council will approve the measure forwarded to it by the Planning folks. This sounds -- FEELS -- to me like the NIMBYs managed to get a foothold with someone on City Council - and knowing RVA's track record with projects that the planning department unanimously approves but the council out of left field suddenly "amends and continues" - this smells of trouble. I've seen too many proposals go off the rails and end up getting torpedoed because they end up getting bogged down in endless delays of City Council "kicking the can down the road" because the NIMBYs won't stop kvetching.

That's why I say - HERE WE GO AGAIN! I've seen this movie too damn many times - and I'm getting a bad feeling about this.

FFS, City Council - JUST EFFING APPROVE THIS DAMN THING AND LET'S GET ON WITH IT, SHALL WE???  For the love of God! 

I'm sorry gents - but this news has made for a REALLY crap-tastic start to my day.

Edited June 13, 2023 by I miss RVA

[blopp1234]

It’s possible by amending, city council just amended some of the conditions proposed by the cities Planning Division as part of the SUP process.

Doesn’t mean that the height or size of the building will change as a result and the amendments or conditions definitely wasn’t driven by NIMBYs as amendments to conditions and conditions are attached to pretty much every SUP in every municipality across the country in order to mitigate impacts to infrastructure that will occur from the site.

[Flood Zone]

Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that they just didn't get to it -- given there were two bigger, headline-grabbing items on the agenda?

[wrldcoupe4]

I just watched that portion - it seemed really administrative. I wouldn't freak out about it. Will be on the agenda in 2 weeks for adoption.

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I just watched that portion - it seemed really administrative. I wouldn't freak out about it. Will be on the agenda in 2 weeks for adoption.

I'm taking your word for it ONLY because you do tend to be our community's voice of reason, and you saw the proceedings - and I tend to trust your judgment on these things.

Just know my freakout comes from 50 years of seeing this kind of thing play out at City Hall in such a manner that projects have gotten killed more often than not when they start getting tabled, amended and continued. (There's your Occam's Razor as it has historically applied to Richmond City Council from the late '70s onward).

Edited June 13, 2023 by I miss RVA

[RVABizSenseMike]

22 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

 

@RVABizSenseMike-- do you or your colleagues know what's up with this?

Yes, it's my understanding it's an administrative thing.

There were a pair of amendments to the SUP regarding easements/green space to the property that were added at the Planning Commission, so that's why it had to head back to Council before being voted on for an approval/disapproval vote. I'm anticipating it'll be on the consent agenda  at Council's June 26 meeting. 

[I miss RVA]

59 minutes ago, RVABizSenseMike said:

Yes, it's my understanding it's an administrative thing.

There were a pair of amendments to the SUP regarding easements/green space to the property that were added at the Planning Commission, so that's why it had to head back to Council before being voted on for an approval/disapproval vote. I'm anticipating it'll be on the consent agenda  at Council's June 26 meeting. 

THANK YOU, @RVABizSenseMikefor the clarification!  I'm exhaling now and feel a LOT better knowing this.

Mike - I do believe that you have yet again qualified for our community's MOST prestigious award - the OFFICIAL RVA/UP "YOU DA MAN AWARD" SILVER PORT-A-POTTY trophy - which is given to community members for stepping up to the plate with key information, photos, etc., - particularly in response to a time-sensitive issue or question. You've qualified several times - and I am unfortunately way behind on getting awards out to folks (real life keeps distracting me somehow).

@Hike-- this is a very special award, given who the recipient is - would you, as the OFFICIAL Engraver of the RVA/UP community have a few minutes to do the honors?

[whw53]

Sorry my bad - I shouldn't have riled us up on the 12th - i got the same message today thru YIMBY channel - this is a standard council operating procedure. 

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, whw53 said:

Sorry my bad - I shouldn't have riled us up on the 12th - i got the same message today thru YIMBY channel - this is a standard council operating procedure. 

YIMBY channel? On Urban Planet? Or elsewhere?

[RVABizSenseMike]

22 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

THANK YOU, @RVABizSenseMikefor the clarification!  I'm exhaling now and feel a LOT better knowing this.

Mike - I do believe that you have yet again qualified for our community's MOST prestigious award - the OFFICIAL RVA/UP "YOU DA MAN AWARD" SILVER PORT-A-POTTY trophy - which is given to community members for stepping up to the plate with key information, photos, etc., - particularly in response to a time-sensitive issue or question. You've qualified several times - and I am unfortunately way behind on getting awards out to folks (real life keeps distracting me somehow).

@Hike-- this is a very special award, given who the recipient is - would you, as the OFFICIAL Engraver of the RVA/UP community have a few minutes to do the honors?

Hah, that would be an honor! I really do appreciate y'all's continued readership of RBS -- it's fun to see other folks who nerd out on local development the way we do. 

[rjp212]

On 6/5/2023 at 9:37 AM, rjp212 said:

A POD was filed for a 4-story multi-family building at 2008 Hull Street.  Could we finally be seeing development creep down Hull St?

No renderings, but here's the proposed layout.  

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, rjp212 said:

No renderings, but here's the proposed layout.  

Nice frontage along Hull Street -right to the sidewalk. A big surface parking lot, though (thankfully behind the building).

[Shakman]

Unfortunately there's still a surface lot facing two streets.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Shakman

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Shakman said:

Unfortunately there's still a surface lot facing two streets.

Agreed. I'm guessing that the cost to integrate the parking into the building likely would have kiboshed the whole project. Dunno if we have this data previously, but the detailed POD application indicates that this building is slated to have 86(ish) units.

Interesting update on the development: the POD was NOT approved as of June 18th, and it seems that the city has sent it back to the developers with requests for significantly more information, etc. Looks like the devs have a lot of homework to do on this to get it approved..

Here's the status update for the POD on the city website - and I've attached the PDF "zoning comments" letter, which was written as part of the review process, if anyone's interested in what the city is seeking from the devs. 

2008 Hull Street - POD Zoning Comments.pdf

[rjp212]

Renderings of the 90-unit Swansboro Place. 

Feels like a 60s office building, but it's great to see affordable options and continued growth down Hull Street.  

[Brent114]

It looks like that building  on Broad near Staples Mill that is slated to be rebuilt as the 7 story apartment building. 
 

I’m thrilled to see the infill but this design is pretty grim. 

[Child2021]

Southern States Silos Mixed-Use Development (constructionjournal.com)

Silo development is currently on hold.

[upzoningisgood]

How accurate is the “CJ Estimate?” $53M in hard costs seems very low

[I miss RVA]

33 minutes ago, Child2021 said:

Southern States Silos Mixed-Use Development (constructionjournal.com)

Silo development is currently on hold.

What the heck???

@wrldcoupe4- are you hearing anything on this?

@RVABizSenseMike- have you guys at RBS heard anything?

[Brent114]

The silo project never seemed real anyway.  I did allow myself to get excited when Hourigan put their silt fence up though.  Won’t let that happen again lol (of course I will). 
 

I’d like to see the silos come down (I’m over that nazi looking branding, always have been) but it isn’t a deal breaker for the neighborhood if nothing replaces it