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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

cyber-stalker

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.

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…

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)

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

Cut the shit. Call me at 649-1913.

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!

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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)

I have read many times the ordinance and particulars of O&H Overlays.

I think you need a nap and your diapers changed.

This is a good thing – I wouldn’t want to be “owned” by the developers like in some parts of Chesterfield and Henrico.

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.

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.

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.

Are you stalking me again? Am I going to have to take out a restraining order against you?

Yes, it’s a joke.

pod for colorado condos will evolve into hillside barrios over time adding to the diversity in the quality of life.

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.

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.

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.

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.