another vote on Oakwood Heights
James Hill, secretary for Committee of Architectural Review (CAR), recently sent out a letter giving notice (PDF) that on Tues.Feb.17, City Council’s Standing Committee of Land Use, Housing, and Transportation will consider an appeal of CAR’s recent denial of the most recent Oakwood Heights application. Council will vote on the issue at the Feb.23 meeting.
Condo plan makes waves in Church Hill (RTD 2/2/09)
I don’t understand the basis for all the opposition to Oakwood. It’s a very cool project being done by someone who seems to have a great track record for making something good out of eyesores in our city–long before it was fashionable. I’m all for protecting our neighborhoods from badly done developments, but this just seems like it’s a good fit for a trash-filled, over-grown dead zone.
Is the developer’s accusation that this was denied by CAR not for architectural reasons but b/c of the project density true?
I can understand the reason for an appeal if so…
Right on!
Rudy, If you have been watching and listening you should know why the neighbors are against this project. I was brought up to understand a development which over shadows the nieghboring houses and brings to much traffic is a bad plan. As for a developer who has a solid track record for making good out of eye sores??? This is a new type of project.. making good out of a blank canvas… cutting down and bull dozing the *%#@ out of the land is the being of this developers plan.
I’m definitely for the project.
Hi Rudy,
I took a long hard look at Oakwood and was torn in a couple of directions about the project. As a developer, I applaud the work the Margaret has done converting old buildings back into beautiful structures with a new purpose. She does excellent work. I applaud her as a woman in this field. Believe me, it isn’t easy.
Then I turn to this particular neighborhood. I bought my first, and will buy more, investment property here for a reason. I appreciate the history, architecture and the potential to bring this area, Church Hill, back to what it once was. As a contractor I jump through a hundred hoops to do a project right. What Oakwood proposes flies in the face of all of the guidelines set to maintain the sense of history here. The same guidelines that I, and any other builder/restorer, must follow on my next project. This development would set a new precedent. The land originally had 9 homes on it. When these house were still standing they were boarding houses and a fluke of zoning them into duplexes brought the occupancy up to over 30. The original design and scale of the land was intended for 9 homes, with front porches, with space in between and large back yards.
The people. As a business person, I listen. I’ve heard nothing but praise and appreciation for my first project here. I’ve lifted the face of a remarkable block with the most amazing people living here. Doing what I’ve done has raised their property value. Buyers look at what is around a particular house when making a purchase. I see the development as nice project but as a negative on this block. It doesn’t fit.
The “SCALE” of the development is the issue. The home owners here do not have a problem with development. Density is the word I’ve heard over and over. There is a huge central mass and the height of the street facing structures (4 stories) would dwarf the two story houses next to it.
DGM is not listening and not conforming to the historical guidelines that we must all must follow as builders in the historic district, hence the rejection. If one person tells me I have a problem, I listen… if an entire neighborhood, several historical organizations, the city’s architectural review board defer and in the end reject my idea, again and again and again and again over the course of several years… I have a problem. I am not listening.
Deanne.. well said
The developer’s allegations that CAR denied this application on the basis of zoning is false. Ms. Freund is unscrupulous about using obfuscating language like “the apparent height has been reduced to two stories.” This only means they have set the top stories back slightly, as if towering 4 stories could be “hidden!” This is not a “trash-filled dead zone,” it is 9 lots with stately mature trees which would be the backyards of 9 single family homes! There is no reason to destroy the historic pattern of development in this area creating an inevitable misfit. The only dead zone here is the abandoned “Midlo Apartments” complex one block from the site! What will this project look like in 10 years?
I would like to add my voice in support of this project.
JT, Rudy G., Lisa & Anthony,
May I ask how close you all live in relation to the proposed development?
Thea, thanks for mentioning the “Apparent height” statement. Good point. I can’t see Russia from my house (to quote an infamous Alaskan) but I would definitely be able to look right at the 3rd and 4th floors of the structure from my second floor bedroom windows.
I am four block from the proposed development and will see an increase in traffic on my block. I’m in favor of the project. The plans are attractive and a good fit in the hood. CAR’s objections are the issue of density only. Fulton Hill complied with all their demands except reduction in units.
i thought that CAR’s objection was the height of the buildings and the moving of a historic structure? The bigger picture is what signal will City Council send if it overturns CAR’s decision? This could destroy the work that many have worked for all over the city when it comes to the O&H districts. Everyone should email their councilperson on this one, whichever district you are in. If this can happen in Church Hill it can happen in The Fan, etc. Slippery slope.
I am not in favor of this project because of the density. Deanne says it well. Just because Maggie can legally put 33 units there doesn’t make it right. This has become a game of will more than anything at this point.
Unfortunately I predict that the council will back Maggie on this one. She has modified the design several times showing a “good faith” effort, however false, to conform to the needs of the community.
There are already three council people on board with Mags, I think the others will fall in line.
…except that the Fan isn’t a City O&H District.
point taken…though the overall point remains the same. If CAR’s ruling is overturned it could happen just as easily anywhere else.
CAR’s ruling on Larry Ochs’ house at 31st and Broad was overturned by Council last summer, and the sky hasn’t fallen.
What needs an overhaul is the CAR.
the old richmond disease, social polite paralysis rears its head again. i like maggie, she has done good stuff and she is important and i want to be like her so this is a good development. or maybe it is a monster, piece of shit that will scar the neighborhood for the next 60 years. but maggie has zoning rights. she has the right to fuck up the neighborhood. dont believe me? ask rachel
Lisa – RE: CAR’s objections are the issue of density only.
That statement is incorrect. Height is the biggest issue. CAR cannot rule on density. Massing, height, yes.
No one is disputing the zoning. And the neighborhood would love to see the site responsibly developed.
Meeting building codes is the responsibility of the builder in any jurisdiction. Buying into an historic district comes with the added responsibility of meeting the historic codes of that district. You don’t meet it, you do not get a permit. It happened to me on my first go around. I redesigned my building plan to conform to CAR guidelines and got the go ahead to build.
It’s not up to CAR to design the development. It’s the builders responsibility. They rule on what is presented.
I believe that the development could be kept to two stories (still using the English basements at ground level so it’s really 2 1/2) and pick up the units from the diminished height by moving the exterior fitness center and pool inside the buildings. An interior pool? Yep. An interior fitness center? Yep.
G – I agree with you. If CAR’s decision is over turned it sets a new precedent on the O&H areas of Richmond. If it is over turned without conditions, CAR is out of the picture. DGM can build as the like as long as it conforms to local building codes. They can sell the lots and the new developer can build as they like.
Hillkid – I’m not familiar with the 31st & Broad issue. I do know that this isn’t a case of disputing the wrong door, or, is that house painted a color from the historic pallet, or if you put an antique iron fence on house it may create a false representation of History. I do believe CAR has some things to overhaul. However, I am with their decision 100% on this case.
billx – I like Margaret too. I researched and respect her restoration projects very much. I believe in standing against the project “as it is proposed now” that I lost a potential friend. More so, a business ally. Both things which I never take lightly.
Which ever way the vote goes on Monday I know I was open, upfront and honest, with her, direct and said my piece.
I’m standing by that and this community. As it is designed, no, I can’t support it. If it were brought to the table again, with structures respecting the height of the surrounding homes, I think the central massing could be overlooked and she’d be approved by CAR and be the hero of this neighborhood.
If that were the case, Margaret would fine no better advocate than me.
RE: Fuck up the neighborhood – This neighborhood has been here for over 100 years. Don’t knock it, please. I’ve grown quite attached to it and the people who call it home.