New condos for Oakwood?
According to the City’s online Land Use Logbook (PDF), a Plan of Development (POD) has been submitted to construct a 33-unit condo complex called “Oakwood Heights Condos” at 3618 E Broad St. The property is zoned to allow this, though the address is within a City Old and Historic District and will require approval from CAR.
Here’s more info from an email I received from Tarisa Griffith at Community Development:
“The proposed multi-family development at the end of E. Broad Street (33 units at 3618 E Broad St) is by-right development. It is currently zoned R-53 and as far as I know, the development as proposed meets the regulations for that zoning district. The owner is required to obtain a Plan of Development (POD), as it contains over 10 dwelling units. This is an administrative approval process and does not include a period for public comment. The planner handling the POD is Ryan Ramsey. He relayed to me that the developer has applied for this approval and you may contact him for additional information. You can reach Ryan at 804.646.6348.
The property is within a City Old and Historic District and will require approval from the CAR. This is the stage of the approval process that will include public comment. The developer has applied to the CAR and I believe the project will be heard at the meeting on Tuesday, December 18, 2007. This meeting takes place in City Hall in the 5th floor conference room at 3:30 p.m. Tyler Potterfield is the Secretary to the CAR and can give you more information regarding their application. You can reach Tyler at 804.646.6364. “
Isn’t that the part of Broad Street with the deadend street? As I remember, parking was a nightmare there! I have a little econo car and it was very difficult to pull out and enter the street there.
There was a proposal a couple of years ago for a townhouse development in that spot. Fulton Hill Properties was the developer at that time. I wonder if it’s the same plan being revived. The issues that killed it the last time included lack of access by emergency vehicles, density, and parking. We need to keep an eye on this one
I believe Fulton Hill Properties is still the developer and Margaret Fruend (sp) the principle. It’s the same company that did the Hat Factory (Toad’s Place) and they are also doing the large project at the corner of 21st and Main on the Southeast corner.
I am good friends with the person who owns the last house on Marshall and would be impacted by this development, so I have seen the land that this proposal intends to turn into condos. I can not see anyway that a large development can be shoe-horned into that land and not be crap-tacular at best.
One has to wonder about the funding to build a condo development in this market. Right now, there is a flood of condos and not that many buyers or renters. So, if the plan for this gets through the city, I would expect tehe funds to quickly dry up and it to become one of those half finished “oops we’re screwed” projects.
I have heard that a lot of developers with large projects like this are financing with construction loans long after the project is finished because they can’t get a “jumbo” loan or traditional financing because of the market right now. I don’t know what the life or terms of a construction loan is, but it sounds risky.
I wonder if the developer has plans to present to any of the local neighborhood organizations/associations?
A project of this scale will greatly impact our area. Other developers (Rocketts, Echo Harbor, Nolde, St. Patrick’s, Superior Bldg., The Gables) have come to the neighborhood to present and get feedback.
I just met with Ryan Ramsey at City Hall and got a copy of the site plan. In addition to being totally inappropriate for the neighborhood and not at all in character with the existing, historic homes, the traffic flow and parking impact on existing neighbors is outrageous. They plan to provide only 35 parking spaces for 32 homes (one per unit is all that is required). That means about 30 additional cars (more if any kind of visitors or parties are going on) all parking on the end block of E. Broad and E. Marshall. They also plan to use the little alley behind our houses as a two-way thoroughfare that at least a dozen, maybe more, cars would use as their main access. Add to that all of us who live there now would have to park in our back yards if we wanted a snowball’s chance in h-ll of finding a parking spot anywhere near our homes.
The plans indicate the alley is wide enough to allow for two cars to pass each other which is not at all the case.
When I mentioned that E. Marshall St. is two narrow to allow for parking on both sides of the street in addition to two-way traffic, Ryan said that what the traffic planners might do is put up no-parking signs on one side of E. Marshall, making parking even worse for the residents of that block.
I’m entirely surprised that the developers are allowed to have such a negative impact on the surrounding homes, but unfortunately, that seems to be the case.
We are in the city. We are not entitled to parking spaces directly in front of our respective homes. People are moving up here in droves, regardless of the market. Parking is only going to get more like the Fan environs. The expectation that you deserve a spot right in front of your house is an artificial product of the widespread vacancy in the neighborhood. If you want room, buy up those vacant lots around you.
K-
This a repeat scenario of what we went through the last time this proposal was made. The plan you saw is probably a rehash of what they presented the last time. They must get buy-in from the neighborhood because it is an historic district. This is why historic districts are good.
Laura, let’s get Jim to get this on the CHA agenda for January.
Rumor has it that the GEESE are some how behind this plan…..
I am not that familiar with this development (yet), but I wonder if the developer is trying to get the POD approved before the property gets rezoned? According to the proposed zoning maps that were recently uploaded to CHPN this property would be rezoned to R-7. This new designation would prohibit the Oakwood Heights development as R-7 does not allow for multi-family dwellings. It’s odd that the POD is being submitted now considering that there hasn’t been movement on this for years. Maybe the intent here is to keep this thing alive rather than to get it built anytime soon? K…I’d love to see those plans.
To be fair, I believe that all the developers that I mentioned above, came to the CHA to present their projects because they had to get a variance or SUP of some kind. I also think that some of them genuinely wanted to have a neighborly relationship with us.
I think this developer has revised their plans so that they don’t need any neighborhood support. Originally, they wanted to block off/purchase the alley between Marshall and Broad for their own use. The alley will remain public access and I believe that they have reduced the density somewhat, as well as other revisions to avoid any variances.
It would be nice if the developer presented, and I believe that the CHA will invite them to the Jan. meeting, but I wouldn’t hold my breath that they will present.
i think jc has got it right. the developer is establishing “by right” condition before rezoning that could diminish the current rights. this is standard for a prudent developer that pays attention to what is going on.
jc, you can likely see the plans at dcd at the city
jc-I have several copies of the plans on hand at present and of course live at the very end of Marshall Street, directly next to the proposed 33 unit building. Email me at crystalball30(at)gmail(dot)com and I will gladly bring a copy to you and anyone else who wants one.
The way I’m reading the plans, even if we are in the city and don’t have a right to a parking spot directly in front of our house, there is currently not a lot of available parking to begin with. There are 3 houses on this section of Marshall Street and we each have 2 cars and when one of us has company over, that clogs this section of the street rapidly.
So whether or not we have a right to park in front of our house is not the issue. Adding another 33 cars to the surrounding area, complete with being unable to park on one side of the street, makes for disaterous consequences.
Parking in our backyard wouldn’t be so bad if our houses were set up for that kind of happenstance. Currently, they are not. And the alley is in no way wide enough for 2 cars to get through.\
The other problem needing to be addressed is drainage: will they make sure they lower their structures to meet those next to it so water doesn’t come into our crawl space and hang out, creating myriad mold and foundation erosion issues. How about tree loss? Currently there is a tree sitting directly in the middle of the property housing a colony of honey bees who would be destroyed in the process (pollinators are a GOOD thing!).
So if anyone would like a copy of the plans, email me at crystalball30(at)gmail(dot)com. I’m making up flyers today to attach to the plans which will be passed out this weekend.
C, i saw the plans sometime back and i thought that they sucked, (colorado condos transplanted to church hill) but i am not an adjacent property owner, without standing and busy with making a living.
there are some instances where the present “by right” gets limited based on an action (introduction of paper for rezoning without having to wait for the rezoning vote that changes by right) by a city council.
so if you are opposed, check this out
All who can attend car on Dec. 18 need to do so, enough negitivity in the meeting would at the least delay an approval. That area is part of my running route and I can’t imagine fitting a 33-unit condo on this site. What a disaster. It’s the one place I don’t have to watch constantly for cars!
I agree, I think it’s a last attempt at getting approval before rezoning.
you should try to stop the pod. if you can stop it at the car, it will give leverage to stop the pod. but still there needs to be a city council paper introduced saying rezoning. if that happens there are past court cases that could prevent approval of the pod, or issuance of a building permit.
the car needs to be called to task on considering the impact (environmental) to adjacent properties. drainage and erosion and loss of plant life is what this project is all about.
a prudent developer would get an existing building to make 33 condos instead of tearing up all of that land
And the huge building on 34th(?) and Marshall would be perfect for it and would create something out of what is now empty and just sitting there occupying space already devoid of trees and has street access already set up.
C, yea it is really amazing isnt it.
i have found that a developer will have a successful project. then they will use the template for the next project based on the successful project. even if it doesnot fit, and go with it. they end up building some dumb shit. just forcing a template, you know one size fits all. and in the end they say they lost money cause the neighborhood was bitching too much, but they got it, they built it, and walked away with a modest return on investment, complaining, and the neighborhood was left with the dumb shit
Bill, Can you tell me more about the limitation of by right zoning? Or where we can go to learn more about that? Just to be clear, the owner of the property has a right to build on her lots, but I would hope that such development would add to the community and quality of life for existing residents, not negatively impact it!
most of the time an owner can build. zoning is one factor. change the zoning designation, change the factor. course there is the time factor, a time window, from present zoning to when the city decides to start changing the zoning to fit with the big master plan.
there are a bunch of approvals of different things to comply with zoning.
say i own land and want to build something (that you oppose) that future zoning would prohibit for me. then i want to get as may approvals that i can (leading up to the building permit/construction) to keep/establish my by right.
and you want to deny me any approval.
each approval i get, you loose.
you have to define your own quality of life. assume that the revenue driven city will always go with a developer that has money and a bitchy neighbor is the peon.
got got to figure out the mechanics to fuck up the developer. check out the courthouse. look for the city/director of community development as the defendant, defending the developer. then if you see some cases there the city and developer are both the defendants you likely have got some good stuff
K i read your message again and i am guessing that you already know the process and are an advocate for the development. will the colorado condos come with chair lifts?
Bill, I didn’t get that impression, perhaps I’m naive but I thought it was an honest question.
I do like the idea of chair lifts, though!
“Just to be clear, the owner of the property has a right to build on her lots, but I would hope that such development would add to the community and quality of life for existing residents, not negatively impact it!”
Sounds to me that Bill was right. Seems to be an advocate for the develpment and trying to learn any and all loop holes they can.
the developer knows what needs to be done. the developer wants to know what the bitchy neighbor is going to do and project the cost to deal with the bitchy neighbor.
celeste, chair lifts come with nite lighting, lamp up the hill side. the developer will claim that the lighting will deter crime. brite lites 24/7. the soul never rests, guarantees crime.
Yesterday on the house tour a couple of people told me that the City Council would be taking some action with regard to this development at the meeting tonight. Can anyone confirm or deny this and does anyone have any more information? As far as I can tell, there is nothing about it on the Council schedule. Thanks.
I called the city clerk’s office asking for the most current agenda – was directed to their website. Do NOT see the item anywhere – not on the consent agenda and not on the regular agenda. Sorry I can’t help more than that. Perhaps the rumor was just a rumor?
Bill and Bob, I think that you’ve misinterpreted K’s comments. Earlier in the post she identifies herself as a neighbor in the immediate area who is opposed to the development. Her comment about the owner having the right to develop seem to come from her conversations with the City planner not her personal stance.
you can take any personal stance you want.
if you are opposed to a development and you play kiss ass you will end up with the development and bad breath. if you play kick ass you might be able to get enough leverage to limit the development towards you way of thinking.
if the city is already talking about right to build then the city is already in lock step with the developer.
I am roommates w/K and we both oppose development of any kind but that’s not realistic is it?
We are stating that the owner has a right to build a single dwelling unit where a purchaser will come along and live out their days, but we are not for the development as it stands for several reasons, most importantly drainage and parking not to mention the hassle when the construction starts on 2 dead end streets that end at a cliff.
The stance we need to take at the meeting is not a hostile brick wall, but a more permeable version that is able and/or willing to compromise. We have no right to tell the owner of the property next to us she cannot build anything there. Ever. However, we do have the right to determine what can be built there, right?
K has had conversations w/the City regarding her rights and to get necessary information. She has most definitely NOT been playing “kiss ass”. In her discussions, we found out the city has no right to stop her either because she is well within her right given the property in question is zoned multi-family. It is CAR that will be the final decision and that’s the meeting we will be attenting on the 18th at 3:30pm in the 5th floor conference room.
What we want and need to do is beat this, again, then apply to have the property rezoned.
So, bill, I hope this calms you down a bit.
i am sufficiently calm. the development is in your back yard, not mine and i cant remember anyone giving a damn about my back yard.
you are right you need to beat this at the car, deny concept approval. if the concept is approved you have lost something. cause the approved concept would give weight to the developers by right claim.
“then apply” is that like waiting? if you are not the owner, how would you apply? you need a rezoning paper introduced at the city council. go get someone to do that for you.
maybe you should go to the courthouse first to see what is possible and to figure out what you are willing to do.
you may want to check on the pod approval. if time goes by without action by the dir cdc, it might be automatic approval. if you do not know the date of the application then you are not paying attention
what is realistic is what you are willing and can do
The paper has to be introduced/sponsored by a council member or the mayor. When we got our O&H in CHN, Mayor Wilder was the sponsor of our paper. Not because we asked him to, but because the Mayor is always the one to introduce this type of paper (it’s just protocol). Delores wanted to introduce it, but the protocol was for the Mayor to do so.
We’re not any where near that part of the process yet. Brooke and Tarisa will have several more public meetings to garner the community’s suggestions and support. They will make the necessary adjustments (or not) to the proposed rezoning and then work on getting a paper introduced.
That probably won’t be until spring/early summer ’08, with the vote on the ordinance change being in the summer. Because this is a revision to an existing ordinance, there will not be a survey conducted of all the property owners in the proposed rezoning area (like and O&H) to calculate/tabulate the public support. There will be an opportunity for public input at all the public meetings and at the Council hearing the night of the vote.
Here are some of the issues to address at the public hearing at the CAR on the 18th.
The design facade.
The overall scale of the project (not density, but scale)
The fact that she will have to remove the two-story single family house that is on the property that she wants to put this development on. She will not be able to demolish the property, but she will have to move it. As of right now, she has not made a provision to do so.
As much as density, erosion, parking and access are important issues in this development, the CAR has no oversight regarding them. These, along with land use, are under the jurisdiction of the basic zoning, not the O&H overlay.
They are concerned with design and scale only. And the demolition/movement of any structures off the property. These are the issues that those opposing this development (is there anyone who’s for it?) need to address at the CAR hearing.
I support the development. I would clean up the area.
Joey, Having 33-66 extra people utilizing the end of Broad and Marshall along with the current residents already in place does not necessarily guarantee “cleaning up” will happen as there is a greater chance the condos will end up apartments, thus creating renters, not owners, as the condo market in Church Hill just isn’t going anyway anytime fast. Just ask those who live in Nolde Bakery.
And Bill, my housemate, K, owns the house we live in.
Laura, A notice was sent out by the city to the residents who live within 110 feet of the proposed development and it stated her intent to move said house from Broad to the lot on Marshall Street. My neighbors have been trying to buy the lot this house will be moved to on numerous occasions w/no luck. It is purported that even the developer’s aide thinks moving the house and building on these lots is a bad idea.
I don’t have a dog in this show BUT I think the developer is just trying to nail down her POD and zoning and such, all for future development. I find it hard to believe she’s going to start a condo development down there in this market. Maybe in a couple of years, but not now. She’s just going to make sure that her property isn’t affected by any zoning changes in the near future. Just my two cents.
C:
I also think the CAR will not look favorably on the house being moved. They certainly will not allow it to be demolished. That’s not to say that she couldn’t do something to it behind the city’s back, but that would pretty much kill her chances of going forward with her development.
I think another way to argue against the movement of the house off the proposed development site is that it sets a very bad precedent. Allowing her to move that property in order to make room for her condo sprawl, opens the door for other property owners to move buildings and put in inappropriate development whenever they feel like it.
There are several multi-property owners in CH. Say one of them owns 5 houses in a row in an R-53 zoning area and 5 random empty lots somewhere else in the area (which is highly likely up here) and decides that it would be a good idea to move the 5 houses onto the random lots and build a 30 unit condo dwelling. Allowing Ms. Freund to play checkers with her properties could set the stage for further like action from other developers.
well C & K, there you have it, protocol, from laura the spokesman, chearleader and apologist for the car and the department of community dis-memberment. the car has a responsibility to guage the impact on historic areas, including density, development patterns, drainage, erosion, etc. but they likely will not. i am sure you are consoled that laura is against the development, but of course nothing can be done.
pod for colorado condos will evolve into hillside barrios over time adding to the diversity in the quality of life.
bill:
Are you stalking me again? Am I going to have to take out a restraining order against you?
Yes, it’s a joke.
While the site may be inappropriate in terms of traffic and the historic nature of the existing house on the property, I don’t think we should be viewing multi-family so negatively. Multi-family units (when developed responsibly) can contribute even greater diversity to an area in terms of socio-economics, which is what many neighborhoods need. Church Hill can’t just be all single-family; otherwise, the area will become un-affordable for many people. My support for this development is somewhat on the fence at this point; I just think if the neighborhood collectively chooses to oppose this development it should be strictly on the grounds of its design/historic impact and not on the possibility of renters.
“the car has a responsibility to guage the impact on historic areas, including density, development patterns, drainage, erosion, etc. but they likely will not.”
Wrong. Those issues are the responsibility/jurisdiction that falls under the basic zoning laws/ordinance, not the CAR. The CAR follows the design guidelines in making their decisions for applications. Those guidelines do not include density, parking, erosion, etc. There are other players that make decisions on these things – like it or not.
That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be of value to point out these issues at the CAR hearing. There will be people from land use there to address the POD because of the uniqueness of this project and the public’s concerns. They need to hear the public’s concerns regarding these issues.
laura maybe you should read the purpose of the hd ordinance. you cannot have a zoning ordinance like this without a purpose, that is why the purpose is written first. the car can act to meet the purpose. the car action cannot conflict with the purpose. the public does not decide, the ordinance decides. so how is it that the standards in the ordinance are based on a public poll, beauty contest. the public gets to comment, not vote. the public votes at the polls.
the typical process in richmond is that govt decides what it wants to do and picks and chooses any justification necessary to support the decision.
why are people in Church hill so against development? Why are people worried about a development that is not in their back yard?
I live right there and the area is a mess. I wish Church hill people would spend more time worried about their own house and what is in their back yard rather than worried about development that would encourage change.
I am not against development, but this seems to be a terrible location for this project. I am sick of tired of being accused of being against progress when all of our comments reflect only that we want responsible growth.
This is a good thing – I wouldn’t want to be “owned” by the developers like in some parts of Chesterfield and Henrico.
bill:
I have read many times the ordinance and particulars of O&H Overlays.
I think you need a nap and your diapers changed.
im sorry laura, i often equate reading with understanding, but i know it is not always the case.
Sec. 114-930.2. Purpose.
The purpose of creating old and historic districts is to provide a means by which the city council may recognize and protect the historic, architectural, cultural, and artistic heritage of the city. This process of historic preservation is a part of the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of community health and public safety of the city through the identification, preservation and enhancement of buildings, structures, landscapes, settings, neighborhoods, sites and features with special historic, cultural, artistic, and architectural significance. To achieve this general purpose, the city seeks to pursue the following specific purposes:
(1) The identification, designation, and protection of historic resources throughout the city.
(2) The promotion of harmony of style, form, color, proportion, texture and material between buildings of historic design and those of more modern design.
(3) The recognition and protection of appropriate settings and environments for historic districts, buildings, structures and sites.
(4) The enhancement of the quality of life for residents and the providing of attractions to visitors by preserving the historic resources of the city.
(5) The education of residents and visitors about the city’s historic resources.
(6) The incorporation of historic preservation into the permit review process of the city.
(Code 1993, § 32-930.2)
Laura,
I have seen you around church hill, been to meetings where you have been and you have your hand everywhere it shouldn’t be. It appears that you always take the opposite stance of what really needs to happen (From 22nd and Grace to 35th and Marshall) There are too many people who think like you that are holding Richmond back while the rest of Virginia is changing.
We all should encourage change but be cautious. We need to look at the future of Richmond as a whole rather than looking at a small development. You can either embrace change or spend your time fighting against it. In the end you can not stop change.
I live at 3608 1/2 E. Broad. I think my area is beautiful, not a mess as joey says.
Joey you say you live in the neighborhood, I thought I knew everyone on the 36th block and on the dead end of Marshall and Broad, some how we have not met. I look forwards to meeting you.
Bill, Jim, Laura C, K, and other neighbors who have expressed thoughts and avenues of resistance thank you. The fact that this event is not in your backyards makes me appreciate your advice, input, and involvement even more.
This project will change the heartbeat of our neighborhood and of our neighbor’s neighborhood.
Let’s talk services, our hard working mailperson doesn’t get to our end of Broad St. until 5:30pm as is, his route is considered one of the hardest in the city. Lets add 33 multi family condos in the mix. Think of the burden on him. It just ain’t right.
Think of the air pollution created by these 33-66 extra cars, the oil and radiator fluid dripping from the cars. The consumer waste created from the condo occupants will be thrown into large trash bins that will become a beacon for rodents and other pests. There is your mess.
Joey, I’m guessing your plan is to speak up for the development in hopes of getting a pass to the fancy pool they are going to build. You will then use the pass to bring many of the neighborhood children into the private pool as your guest. How caring of you since there are no other pools (sans the over crowded chimbo public pool) for our kids to use. Of course you will have to keep on eye on them, as this will be a non-lifeguard equipped pool. I applaud your stealthy actions and your caring.
I did not write to argue with Joey or anyone else. I have posted because this condo building will disturb my, and my neighbors, lifestyle. Some of my neighbors have lived on the block for over 50 years. I do see this as a battle for my neighborhood. I just want to say thanks to all for talking about it. Those that are willing to go to war with us thank you. For those opposed, thank you for the tackling fuel.
My thanks and God bless you all for caring.
Garry
Joey -
Who are you really? Is Joey your real name? Are you really the developer or someone fronting for the developer? … From my viewpoint as a resident of the block in question, a brick and mortar behemoth with no historic district sensibility — with lack of buyers interested in buying condos as evidenced by the already completed condos at the west side of Church Hill (yes, condos are supposed to be purchased not rented/leased — many condo associations actually make rules against renting out condos) — makes me realize how unconcerned with the actual neighborhood this developer is — let’s face it — what’s being proposed is a big ol’ apartment complex at the end of a congested dead end street. Sad business sense and no real attachment to the city or neighborhood other than what cash the city can provide the developer’s stash. Real concern and investment in the city isn’t just about slash, cut, destroy and build for money — that’s what greed and detachment from your community is about.
Yes, bill apparently you read without understanding quite often as indicated by your muddled, negative sarcastic and misinformed opinions & posts on this site.
You obviously have no idea how papers are introduced as indicated by your ill-advised post on #33.
bill lafoon & Joey (if that’s your real name):
When was the last time you were at a public hearing and took a stand for anything positive for our community? When was the last time you volunteered for something that effected change for the better in our community? When have either of you had the integrity to identify yourselves when you attack me?
It doesn’t take balls to post on here and sit around in your shit-stained underwear attacking and takiing smarmy, clever little jabs at folks.
It takes balls to actually take a stand and then get off you ass and go out into the community and do something about it.
I don’t know who “joey” is. I have never seen or heard you at any public meetings or associations or social gatherings.
Although I know who you are Mr. Lafoon, your reputation preceeds you.
bill:
You may be right, Ms. Freund might get her way in the end because of very poor planning that happened many years ago.
You can can pontificate from your throne and tell us that you told us so. Won’t that make you feel like the big dude!
You’re always bitching about how people don’t have a life on this site, but you post more than anyone I’ve ever seen – even me. And your comments are vapid at best.
I know that you won’t have the time to show up for any public hearings or association meetings because your time is so valuable and your work schedule so full as you have so often told us. What a joke!
Your just a sad old fart Mr. Lafoon.
And Joey, hope to meet you at the next meeting you attend, if you have the integrity and balls to approach me and identify yourself.
G 2tha P
Consider this: maybe the pod is not signed off yet cause they are waiting for the car concept approval. If the concept is bad, how could the pod be good? There are few small details, windows, doors, railings, cornices, paint colors to consider in concept. Concept may be about building form, layout, scale, density and how it relates to existing conditions and the impact on existing conditions. Concept may be about purpose, so focus on purpose. The best argument will come from those closest to the development. Ask the car about their purpose. What about the protection in the purpose? What about your diminished property value? View has been a factor in property assessments. A good argument has been known to sway the car against development, not often, but it has happened.
Do not overlook the courthouse. But if you don’t want to do that you can get the code of va on line and the southeast reporter is in the circuit court law library, recently moved to the state library, juicy stuff, also look for circuit court opinions there. Or maybe find a lawyer that will let you get online free to lexus/nexus something. For light reading check out “the geography of nowhere†celeste may be a source if it is not at the library. I have a loaner copy of dewberry & davis “land development handbook†(if it is not at the library) that is sort of the bible for land developers and you might be able to find all kinds of the conflicts with the colorado condos. I have found very few developers that will follow the rules in the handbook and I am guessing that almost nobody in colorado does.
Good luck and make sure you have fun
wait wait – Bill, I’m not a SOURCE, but in the past I’ve been to known to be your researcher! G 2tha P please keep that in mind, LOL! (And please keep Bill’s last comment in mind too, have fun!)
Bill, what the “hell is the geography of nowhere”?! Seriously I don’t own it, or at least I don’t think I do!
For all who don’t follow this chain of thought, apparently the original plans for these condos were from an architect in Colorado, hence ‘colorad condos’ is now the nickname. Hmm, will geese be allowed on the chair lifts?! I hope so!
My bad, sorry about the typos. Should have been what the hell is “the geography of nowhere” and “colorado condos”. Sorry.
bill:
Time for you to catch up here. If you knew anything about this process at all, you would know that the CAR approval is required before the POD approval.
All of us who are going have known this all along.
Time for you to start paying attention.
Do you even know what the hell you are talking about half the time?
Your friend Celeste doesn’t even know what the hell you’re talking about!
celeste, your yankee cousin’s friend wrote it and you took my copy after about an hour discussion of it with your cousin, maybe you were concentrating on the wine
laura, switching medication?
if it is light reading, found in a library, what could it be?
bill:
Cut the shit. Call me at 649-1913.
hey, if everyone could quit taking shots at each other for a few minutes I’d like to know if anyone wants to get together or is planning to get together this weekend for a ‘lets get a unified statement” meeting. I live on the end of Marshall and plan on going to the meeting on Tuesday but I want to make sure that my voice is heard in an the most effective way.
Thanks for the tips Laura, but I’m not sure I understand how scale and density aren’t related and relavant to this meeting? Again, I just want to present my argument against this developement at this stage of the game appropriately.
By the way, I believe Fulton Hill properties owns the Chimb School on 34th and is planning on turning those into condos as well, so those of you that think that should be developed instead of the end of the street, well, it will happen eventually. When I purchased my home from Fulton Hill properties 3 years ago I was told that there would be developement at the end of the street, but the size and scale was nothing compared to what Margaret is trying to push through now. We were lead to believe that it would be something that fit into the neighborhood, a small number of condos, townhouses or single family homes. She didn’t even bother to inform my neighbor (who has since moved) that there would be any developement next to her house.
I have been told by Margaret that basically if she didn’t get her way, there are plenty of less scrupulous developers she could sell the property to that would throw up a bunch of crap. She’s not going to play nicely and will develop this property without consideration to it’s appropriatness for the entire neighborhood. 15 “condos” in 14,000 sq feet isn’t promoting multi family living, its a dorm.
Our end of the street is quiet, safe and a pleasant place to live. I realize that something will come to fill the space at the end of my street, but in this market and in this neighborhood, why not try and blend in? I drove around after I received the letter about the meeting and counted the homes and condos for sale or rent and took notice of what was currently under construction and not on the market yet…between 36th and 25th on Marshall, Broad and Grace there are 12 condos for lease (not including whatever is still left at Nolde) and three for sale, 18 houses for sale and 12 houses for rent, not to mentoion the 15 to 20 houses and apartments that are under construction.
Developement in inevitable. Let’s just force any developers in the area to do it responsibly.
Please let me know if anyone is planning on getting together this weekend for a planning meeting. Contact me at mlsdesign00@hotmail.com
Pardon any spelling errors, my house is cold and its late!
For everyone that LIVES in the neighborhood, then you should be well aware of the crack house, transients, drug dealers, and vagrents that congregate on that block. Honestly do you believe that the development would not clean up the area. For those who do not live there take a drive by this weekend after midnight.
And those of us who LIVE on the actual block, right next to the proposed development area, don’t think it will clean it up in the way you are speaking of. In fact, we believe it will cause more mess.
Having 3 homeowners on the end of Marshall Street has already cleaned it up significantly in the past 3 years, just ask mls as she was the only homeowner on the block at that time.
People have their cars broken into on a regular basis on the 36th block of Broad Street but, again, just because an extra 60 people live in the area doesn’t mean that will stop. It could very well mean there will be 60 more cars to get broken in to.
And to add more fuel to the fire: renters have a tendency to not care too much for their dwelling nor others around it. They don’t take pride in their homes because it’s not theirs and who can blame them?
Then, who’s to say the developer who will most certainly end up renting the “condos” out will be a diligent landlord? Look around Church Hill; slumlords abound (I used to have one).
So while you may think 33 condo units will “clean up” the area, I think the eventual renters won’t.
Hi All,
Laura, thank you so much for your advice! I would recommend that everyone look at the design guidelines for historic districts – preserving the character of our neighborhood is what this is all about, no? The guidelines can be found on the following web page (the third bullet down – it’s a big pdf file). Specifically, check out page 41 (i’ve copied some pertinent information below).
Laura, the POD indicates that there will be 2-way traffic through the alley. This is literally not possible. Utility poles and property lines negate the use of this alley as a two-way thoroughfare. Also, two blocks towards the end of E. Marshall as well as 36th between Broad and E. Marshall would see a lot more traffic – and would probably have parking limited to one side of the street only. As it is, two cars cannot pass each other safely when cars are parked on both sides of the road.
Lastly, regarding historic districts – one of the hallmarks of historic areas versus new development is mature trees. The proposed development would necessitate the demolition of every mature tree on the property (and immediately off the property as large trees on the slope would have to come down to accomodate the retaining wall). Also, several large trees lining the alley will also need to be removed to accomodate two-way traffic (in addition to moving utility poles).
Although mature tree preservation, traffic flow and impact on quality of life are not mentioned in the CAR design handbook or apparently in the POD, is it worth mentioning given that one of the purposes of historic designations (see Bill’s posting #50) is to promote “the enhancement of the quality of life for residents and the providing of attractions to visitors by preserving the historic resources of the city.”
As to the comment that our block is filled with “crackheads drug dealers and transients”, that is completely ridiculous. We have a wonderful block in a wonderful neighborhood – sure it could use new development in areas, but at a scale and design appropriate to the character of the historic district. And Bill I am certainly not ‘pro development’. I love living next to the vacant lots. But I recognize that the owner has a right to develop. I knew that a home would likely be built next to mine when I bought the house. However, one of the reasons I purchased a home in a historic district was that I felt confident that new development would add to the beauty and character of our neighborhood, rather than detract from it. What is the value of a historic district designation if it allows for completely inappropriate and harmful development? There are plenty of examples of historic, condominum style multi-family housing units in our neighborhood that are beautiful and appropriate. This is not one of them.
As for the recommendation to buy the lots – I would jump on it if they were for sale! Lastly, regarding the ‘we don’t have a right to park in front of our house comment’. What about anywhere near our house? Like within 4 or 5 blocks? Parking isn’t that bad in the Fan (or so I hear). The parking pressure this development would place on neighbors withing 2 or 3 blocks of this development is absurd. Especially since huges swaths of parking spaces will need to be eliminated to accomodate extra parking. I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to be concerned!
Note guidelines from the CAR handbook for new construction in historic districts that are relevant to this development:
HEIGHT, WIDTH, PROPORTION & MASSING
1. New construction should respect the typical height of surrounding
houses and commercial structures. [note the new construction is 3 stories]
2. New structures should have the same number of stories as the
majority of structures on the block. [note above]
3. New construction should respect the vertical orientation typical of
commercial and residential properties in historic districts. New designs
that call for wide massing of more than 30 feet should be broken up by
bays.
4. Typical massing patterns throughout City historic districts are simple
and block-like; therefore, new structures should avoid the use of
staggered setbacks, towers or elaborate balconies.
http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/communityDev/histpres.aspx
Hi Again,
I just talked to Ryan Ramsey over at City Planning and the developers have submitted new site designs. I’m going over to get a copy today.
We’ll try to post a pdf of the plans on this website if possible – and will be passing out the new plans to the neighbors.
The new plans don’t look promising as its a completely modern structure they want to build. Lots of metal is involved complete w/balconies. The units are staggered and every single tree that now exists will have to come down.
We’ll be passing these out this evening or tomorrow morning and would like to have an official meeting Monday evening at our house. Please let us know if you are interested in attending or seeing the plans for yourself as we intend to pass out the plans for 2 blocks (150 copies).
Thanks!
Reputation to SSDrawers, Pot Kettle Black
I just talked with Tyler Potterfield and learned that because the developer has submitted completely new plans, the CAR meeting on 12/18 will focus soley on moving the existing house on E. Broad St. This is a first request of it’s kind to CAR. The handbook notes that before moving a historic house the owner should “Determine whether or not the proposed relocation is the only practical means for saving the building or structure from demolition. Property owners should explore every option available prior to concluding that relocation is the best way to preserve the building.”
There is an obvious practical means for saving the building – that is to build new development appropriate to the historic neighborhood layout and original property site plan. Specifically, houses similar in size and layout to the home they want to move.
Tyler also said that there will likely be several meetings about this property and that the public can show up at 4 PM next Tuesday, rather than 3:30 PM. (City Hall 5th Floor Conference Room)
The plans are scanned an online, though I’m not sure if these are the most recent (in the above comment). Click here to see them larger…
bitchy neighbor has got the developer on the run. congratulations. now the developer wants to find out if the bitchy neighbor can hit a moving target. good luck and have fun.
is there a specific address on east broad street? house number?
Hi C & K:
Thanks so much for dropping off the plans and your updates.
We went down to get the plans today also and were told the same as you, that for now, the CAR is only going to address the movement of the house. They will deal with the design in Jan.
Still really important for us all to show up.
Also ran into Historic Richmond Foundation folks at City Hall and they will be there to oppose the project.
Again, as I said in post #41, a good argument is that this house movement sets a bad precedent.
And yes, mls and K, all the stuff your saying is very important in an O&H and it’s worth mentioning.
Am I the apologist, cheerleader, spokesperson for the CAR? No. But, I’ve been to many CAR hearings and spoken to them many times about exactly these issues and I know density, parking, etc. are decided by the planning commission (and I’ve been to a few of those meetings too) and land use/basic zoning. Ask Tyler about CAR voting parameters.
That’s not to say that telling them your concerns about all of that is a waste of time. It’s not. We’re humans, not machines. This isn’t a mechanical process. The reason why the guidelines are called guidelines is because they are a map to work from. That’s why the CAR is in place and made up of many qualified individuals that have extensive knowledge of O&H’s, preservation, architecture and planning. Otherwise, they could just have some policy wonk churning out decisions on this stuff – although I’m sure bill probably thinks that the board is that.
mls:
Scale and density are two different things. Scale is structural and density is occupancy. I agree that it’s too dense, but the CAR deals with structural/architectural issues, and I would agree with K’s post about the scale being inappropriate. Looking at the plans, it appears to me that the 3 stories that were mentioned occurs at the ravine side of the property exposing an English basement, keeping it at a two story from the ground up. Tyler told me that the height meets the requirements, however I think the breadth/width of the project is too large. I don’t know what CAR thinks about the width.
It’s official: Freund’s company will be at the CHA Jan. meeting to present, sans Freund. Also, Tarisa Griffith and Brooke Hardin will be there to present the proposed changes to the zoning in our area.
Should be juicy!
The plans john_m posted have been revised a little. The pool has been moved to the north bldg. of the complex and a few more parking spots were created. Also a little juggling with one unit I believe.
sayingitsimply:
cyber-stalker
Some new scans are up.
Those are hideous.
Oh just wait til you see the rest (click on the image) as it only gets worse the more you see of it.
Mind you, these would look nice somewhere where they fit it more, but as it stands, these look nothing like anything that is currently in Church Hill.
Personally, I don’t think they would look nice anywhere. If you see the the color renderings, they look like cheap military or married student housing. The facade materials are hardi plank and hardi panels, which are approved materials mixed with galvalume metal – very industrial. And, drawings tend to make things look better.
The ravine is very misrepresented in the drawings. If the property ends up looking like the drawings, they would have to import tons and tons of earth to flatten out this area, and that probably isn’t going to happen.
The aesthetics of this thing are all wrong for our area. The only 19th century elements that are incorporated into the design are the shed roof lines and the attempt at a row house look.
The stairs have open risers and the the railings are steel cable rails, like you would see in a factory.
Come one Ms. Freund, you can do better than that!
These things could end up like the Midlo Apartments in 10 – 15 years.
like i have said before I am for the development but not for the condos to look like that.
I still believe that if condos were developed at the end of broad and marshall to fit into the nieghborhood it would change this whole area. We should encourage the condos so that chuch hill will be complete from 22nd to 36th as a whole.
I have a question about another property.
A huge, ugly home is being built on two lots at 500 and 502 N. 32nd Street. It looks like someone plucked this thing straight out of a cookie-cutter, golf-course community. It doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood at all. Would they have needed a variance to build on two lots? Also, if I live on the same block, would I have been notified beforehand if a variance was needed? As far as I can tell, building permits were only issued for 500 N. 32nd St.
[...] buildings (that are not Oakwood Heights…) that have come up in conversation recently: the languishing renovation at 401 North 27th [...]
J, I think it’s actually only on one lot. The side yard to the right of it is probably 502 N. 32nd. However, to be sure, give a call to the building inspector’s office, I’ve found them to be really helpful so far (of course, I’m not a developer or builder so I don’t get caught up in red tape!)
I called the inspector earlier this summer about another house elsewhere which had absolutely no permits at all, and the inspector stopped work until proper permits were applied for and work was inspected (someone I knew was particularly concerned about electrical work not being inspected which could lead to fires later on). Unfortunately I’ve left at work the specific name & number of the inspector I spoke to and I’m home right now but the numbers in the phone book are 646-6955 and 646-6419 – sorry I can’t be more specific. You may have to have some patience and may have to leave a message on voice mail. Best times to call are early morning before they head out for field inspections.
BTW I agree it’s butt ugly!
500 Block of N. 32nd is not in an Old & Historic District so there are no guidelines in place for design of the house. They can build pretty much whatever style house they want to there within the limits of the basic zoning laws which are very non-restrictive.
Take a look at the 2800 block of E. Leigh Street and you will see another example of a house being built that looks like what your describing. It was built before we got our O&H in place. It looks like it belongs in Brandermill.
[...] traffic issues. A bitch session and opposition-panning is ongoing in the comments section of the CHPN article about the project (85 comments as of 12/16, 11 [...]
[...] The Commission of Architectural Review monthly board meeting will be held Tuesday, December 18 at 3:30PM, 5th Floor Conference Room, City Hall. On the agenda is discussion of the controversial proposed Oakwood Heights condo development. [...]
[...] smaller issues were discussed and resolved or not, and then last on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed Oakwood Heights condo development. The commitee was being asked to consider 2 things today: to review the relocation of the lone [...]
Why not talk directly to the developer and make some suggestions that you feel would benefit and upgrade the community?
Hi me,
I do believe, with what I have gathered over the past year here, that the developer has never been open to these suggestions or dialogues. The neighborhood has tried to reach her. It’s hard to do when no one wants to listen.