City lawyers have recommended that Margaret Freund’s property stay at its current high-density zoning designation (R-53), while the rest of the area be re-zoned for single family housing (R-8).

Opponents of the projects are rallying against the move to not rezone Freund’s property to match the rest of the immediate area.

In addition to the Public Hearing on Monday, May 17, 2010, at 1:30 PM at City Hall 5th Floor, the email also says that the rezoning will come before City Council on Monday, May 24.

A Church Hill property owner is asking the Virginia Supreme Court to hear an appeal in the case of Oakwood Heights, a 33-unit condominium development approved for a city historic district at the end of East Broad and Marshall streets. Last month, Circuit Judge T.J. Markow upheld the City Council’s decision to approve the project. David Branch, an attorney for property owner Joseph Preston Carson III, confirmed the notice of appeal this week.

The court date has been set for the appeal of City Council’s decision to overturn the decision made by The Commission of Architectural Review (CAR) regarding the proposed Oakwood Heights Development. The date is Tuesday, March 16th at 10:00 am, in Richmond’s Circuit Court at the John Marshall Court House, 400 N. 9th St.

The neighbors in the Chimborazo area would again like to thank the Church Hill Association,The Historic Richmond Foundation and A.C.O.R.N. for their support in helping protect our historic districts.The basis of our case is that we, as citizens of the city of Richmond, need to ensure that our City Council is making decisions both based on the law and on the official guidelines for our “Old and Historic Districts.”

According to a recent review of the The Virginia Public Access Project, Margaret Freund, owner of Fulton Hill Properties, has been donating and raising a lot of cash for former 7th District Councilwoman and current State Delegate, Delores McQuinn.

 
Ms. Freund is listed as the ‘Top Donor’ for Delores McQuinn for 2009 to date with contributions totaling $3,373 raised at a January 8th 2009 fundraiser. The timing of this event is interesting. McQuinn had already risen to an uncontested seat on the House of Delegates in the January 6, 2009 SPECIAL election. While it is not uncommon for people to step up and contribute to pay for campaign debts after an election, the history of campaign contributions here needs to be examined.

A brief look at Ms. Freund’s and Fulton Hill Properties history of campaign contributions show that $5,373 was donated/raised over a period of 84 days for Delores McQuinn’s run for City Council and State Delegate seat. Ms. Freund’s only other political contributions listed on the VPAP website were to Tim Kaine’s run for Lt. Governor and Governor. Those donations spanned four years from 2001-2005 and were $973 less than what was given to the McQuinn campaigns.

At a time when Ms. Freund’s Oakwood Heights condominium project was under review by the Commission for Architectural Review (CAR), one could surmise that Delores McQuinn was becoming a very important Council Person to Ms. Freund in October 2008. It appears that the subsequent ruling of CAR to reject the Oakwood Heights plan and Ms. Freund’s appeal of CAR’s decision before City Council made Delores McQuinn even more important as a State Delegate in 2009.

State Delegate, Delores McQuinn did lobby City Council members on the developers behalf. Subsequently, City Council overturned CAR’s ruling on Oakwood Heights on February 23, 2009.

The newly appointed Interim City Council 7th District representative Betty Squire specifically cited a letter from Delegate McQuinn, saying that she “chooses to defer to [McQuinn]“ when it was her time to rule on the appeal. Squire and other Council members said they voted for the development, in part, because it was endorsed by former Councilwoman Delores McQuinn. Does this chain of events ring as political pandering; satisfying the ignoble ambitions of one, over the protection of the historic fabric of the established Old & Historic areas of Richmond as a whole? You decide.

On Monday, June 15th, City Council’s decision will be challenged in Richmond Circuit Court. This Citizen is hopeful that the rule of law, blind justice if you will, overturns the decision made by City Council on February 23rd.

A guest post by Deanna Lewis. (Have something to share?)

The neighbors’ objections are primarily aesthetic. They consider the condo project insufficiently gracile, and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In some respects we might incline to agree. But that objection does not override the more salient issue at hand: The project is permitted under existing zoning, which has called for multi-family use of the site for several decades.

Neighbors have complained that the developer did not give sufficent consideration to their demands. After the City Council vote, some pledged to pursue the issue in court. Before doing so, they might want to reflect on this consideration: Why should their mere aesthetic displeasure give them veto power over someone else’s property rights?

High interest votes from tonight include YES on a conservation easement along the James River and an vote to OVERTURN CAR‘s rejection of the most recent Oakwood Heights design.

The audience seats at the council chambers were about 80% full, with 15 or so people standing along the back wall. The anti-condo folks wore green house stickers, the pro-conservation easement folks had yellow&green circles. The crowd was obviously heavily in favor of the conservation easement, with easily 90% wearing the bright circles. Maybe 40% of thecrowd had the anti-Oakwood Heights house. Interestingly, there were 3 or 4 youth with homemade signs saying “The whole community makes decisions for the 7th District” and “We (heart) Oakwood Heights”.

Procedurally, the council voted unanimously to changing the rules in advance of the the CAR debates. Each side was given 15 minutes to make their point, no matter how many people wanted to speak. For opponents of the project, there were maybe 40 people left standing when time was called.

The recently appointed City Council 7th District representative Betty Squire cited a letter from Delegate McQuinn and said that she “chooses to defer to [McQuinn]“. Voting almost unanimously in favor of the development were Squire, Jewell, Tyler, Samuels, Hilbert, Graziano, Robertson, and Conner. Trammell abstained.

• AUDIO of part of the pro/anti statements – begins with the fast-talking lawyer speaking for Fulton Hill Properties, includes Margaret Freund and others speaking for; may include some of the opposition before being cutting off.

Ord. No. 2008-306 (Patron: Mr. Hilbert) – To amend *** the Code ***
for the purpose of establishing procedures and guidelines for the
maintenance and removal of trees on City-owned property and to establish
a Shade Tree Commission. (Recommendation from Land Use, Housing
and Transportation Standing Committee to Continue to March 17,
2009 Committee meeting)

Ord. No. 2009-10 (Patrons: President Graziano, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Samuels,
Ms. Trammell and Mr. Conner) – To grant a conservation and open-space
easement on the property generally known as the James River Park
System to the Capital Region Land Conservancy, the Richmond
Recreation and Parks Foundation and the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation.

Ord. No. 2008-305 (Patron: Mayor Wilder) – To *** amend *** the Code
*** concerning burglar alarms, for the purpose of implementing a
procedure to issue alarm permits and assess charges for excessive false
alarms. (Paper to be Withdrawn at the request of Administration)

Res. No. 2009-R6 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To affirm the
decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** DGM
Properties, Inc., to construct a 33-unit condominium project on the
properties known as 3618-3626 East Broad Street and 3609-3611 East
Marshall Street ***. (Recommendation from Land Use, Housing and
Transportation Standing Committee to Strike)

Res. No. 2009-R7 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To reverse
the decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** DGM
Properties, Inc., to construct a 33-unit condominium project on the
properties known as 3618-3626 East Broad Street and 3609-3611 East
Marshall Street ***.

Res. No. 2009-R8 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To affirm the
decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** the
installation of a cast iron front yard fence and a bracketed door hood on the
property known as 2720 East Broad Street. (Recommendation from
Land Use, Housing and Transportation Standing Committee to Strike)

Res. No. 2009-R9 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To reverse
the decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** the
installation of a cast iron front yard fence and a bracketed door hood on the
property known as 2720 East Broad Street.

Two hundred or so residents turned out for the Church Hill Association meeting on Tuesday evening. The membership voted 62-44, with a handful of abstentions, against the Shockoe Center proposal. The main concern seemed to be the finances of the project, though mention was also made of the historic nature of the area of the development.

The meeting kicked off with typical but important community concerns. Newly appointed City Council 7th District representative Betty Squire stood and introduced herself. There was a discussion of proposed zoning changes across Church Hill and Union HIll. Information was shared about a proposed fee for security alarms (ordinance 2008-305), and there was a presentation from the Friends of Chimborazo Playground concerning their plans and a request for money. A representative from the 1st Precinct gave a short brief on crime in the area.

An update was given on the proposed Oakwood Heights condo development. The project, declined by CAR, recently passed the City Council’s land-use committee 3-0, and will be heading to City Council on February 23rd. The presenter said anyone opposed to the project should raise their voice and contact city council. She said that former City Council 7th District representative Delores McQuinn has apparently been working in support of the project, and has submitted several hundred signatures in favor of the project.

The meeting then moved onto the big draw for the evening: yay or nay on Shockoe Center, with much discussion about how to get there. A proposal to Not Vote at this meeting was voted down, and then there was a short discussion on whether or not to support Shockoe Center based on the information at hand. The membership voted 62-44, with a handful of abstentations against the Shockoe Center proposal. The main concern seemed to be the finances of the project, though mention was also made of the historic nature of the area of the development.

While the discussion was more civilized than much of the recent online dialogue, the evening did generate a hint of scandal: there were allegations that some of the evening’s new members had their dues paid by the developer or another interested party and had pledged to vote in favor of the development.

Though skewing older, wealthier, and whiter than the more broad “Church Hill”, the Church Hill Association has traditionally been taken as a bellwether for the opinion of area. It will be interesting to see if the other civic associations in the area reflect similar divisions. The Shockoe Bottom Neighborhood Association has voted in favor of the development, other special interest groups have come out both in favor and against the issue, and a recent poll on this site indicated strong support in area.

The folks at Fulton Hill Properties have made available the new drawings for the proposed Oakwood Heights condo project (72.8MB PDF) prior to their upcoming CAR presentation on Tuesday.

Oakwood Heights

First up were Kristen Heckman and Pam Jones of Fulton Hill Properties speaking on the proposed Oakwood Heights development. The project has been put into the hands of new architects out of Charlottesville, Hays and Ewing. The speakers presented a description of their rough working design, the final version of which should be ready by June.

Hechman offers that the redesign aims to address the concerns of the neighborhood. In contrast to the earlier proposal, the new design does not require a retaining wall and so less disturbs the site. There will be a public plaza at end of alley at bluff. Parking is still contained within project, but the traffic flow should now be more consistent with that of a typical city block. The site will incorporate rain gardens and storm water management towards being self-sustaining.

The plan is still at the same density, just over 30 units. In addition, FHP would still like to move the house at 3626 East Broad Street, calling it “not structurally sound”. Representatives from the community voiced concerns about the compatability and density of the project.

Comment below or directly to Fulton Hill Properties at oakwood@fultonhillproperties.com.

Other Issues / Upcoming

• BHC wants to develop at Beckstoffer’s. A community meeting on this will be announced soon.
• Master Gardening programming at EDI. To help residents. To be voted on in the next couple of weeks. There will be 50 slots available. “Will be a model for the city.”
• Rezoning Thur May 22nd @ EDI 6PM, Dept. of Comunity Development. Present zoning allows for development not consistent with master plan.

• Lumpkins Slave Jail 2nd Phase – June 3 10:30AM

Community Concerns

• It sounds like there are some hellacious little kids running around 35rd Street, throwing rocks at peoples’ dogs and at older ladies’ doors.
• McQinn: “I am not in support of closing Bellevue. I am a supportor of community schools.”
• Folks are saying that the Mt.Carmel Baptist Church building is for sale for $1.5-2.5 million.
• There used to be community events in Chimborazo Park like gospel choirs. What can we do to bring back more comunity events?
• Utilities don’t seem to be properly fixing the roads that they tear up.

Each of the smaller issues on the agenda were given their time and considered. The Memorial Child Guidance Clinic would like to add a sign to their building (aka “the old WRVA building”). The commission asked questions about potential scarring of this unique building and the color of the pole. Another applicant would like to add a 2-story addition to the back of a house; this was their 3rd time in front of CAR on this project. The issues raised included slope of roof, architectural details, all in relation to the original house and the forms of other structures in the area. A previously unpainted brick house in Carver had been painted (in violation of the City O&H guidelines) and then sold, and the new owner has to deal with this in trying to fix up their house.

The room filled up during this — 40+ people were in the seats when the Oakwood Heights project came up for discussion, though there were still a few empty seats. A camera man and reporter for channel 8 came in a few minutes before the most high profile applicant got up to speak, and stayed for the bulk of the architect’s presentation but left a good while before the community was able to put forth any questions or comments and before the commission reached any decision.

Tyler Potterfield gave an overview of both the land and houses currently in the area and the issues at hand. There are two items being proposed related to this project, the relocation of the house at 3626 East Broad Street and the construction of the 33 condominiums. He declared the initial concern to be the new construction. On that, it was deemed appropriate to finish out the block, and that the proposed density is allowed by the current zoning code. Another issue is materials and fenestration. Potterfield had specific recommendations concerning details of the project, including removal of the below-grade wells as incongruous with the neighborhood and suggestions about the materials use along the more public facades of the building. On new construction, Pottefield stated that staff recomendation of a denial due to not enough of a response to the issues raised at the last meeting.

With regards to the relocation of the house at 3626 East Broad Street, relocation is to be considered as an alternate to demolition. It sounds like they have to consider demolition first, but I was a little unclear here as to what the thought process was or what the final suggestion or finding turned out to be.

Speaking for the proposed Oakwood Heights condomium development, architect Spencer Dryser of Baskerville Architects gave an overview what appeared to be the same design as presented at last week’s CHA meeting, though there seemed to be more renderings of the buildings in the context of the existing houses and more detailed views of the units and facades. Stepping through the presentation and taking questions from the commission, the intent seemed to be to show that the new building fit with the scale and mass of the neighboring structures.

Issues raised by the commision include the potential for increased use of the alley, confusion about the traffic flow, materials and color use, and the sunken front yards. One of the commision menbers described the design as containing “many deal breakers”.

David Cooley, “at great personal and potentially tremendous professional risk” (said with some humor), stood to speak in favor of the project, to “speak in favor of development”. Cooley described the design as apparently within mass/scale/height requirements of the district, and said that the “design complements but does not copy” the existing housing. He went on to state, also, that the developers have responsibilities to the immediate neighbors which they seem to have disregarded. He would like “to see more neighbors, more people up here”. The neighbors and the neighborhood should be brought on board. Called on both the developer and the neighborhood to make concessions to each other.

Margaret Freund, the developer, stood to speak. “We have made a lot of concessions”: the buildings are lower than allowable height, they have reduced sellable square feet. She went on to say that “people moving into the nighborhood will be good for the neighborhood”, and that they will both carry through on the project and eventually win over the neighors.

Opposed: Bill Lafoon spoke in opposition to relocation of 3626 East Broad Street, a contributing structure in the Chimborazo National Historic District, “merely for the convenience” of the the applicant.

Bo Fairlamb, of the Neighbors for Compatible Development, speaking for friends and neighbors from the 3600 blocks of East Broad Street and East Marshall, said: there are rights, but there is also an obligtion to compatability. The alley will have traffic all day long. Every mature tree on the site will have to be removed. The facade and sunken front yards are incompatible. Jefferson Mews is an example of larger scale new development that matches the scale of the neighborhood, maintains the relationship to the streets, and which managed to save existing houses. He proposes restoring to the historic pattern of development, and showed the same detail of the 1925 Sanborn map that Potterfield showed. “Being part of the neighborhood starts with working with the neighbors.”

Other folks spoke, all in favor of new neighbors but concerned about:

• the proposed density and traffic,
• the demolition or relocation of 3626 East Broad Street,
• the change on feel at the street level,
• the loss of the mature trees, and
• the lack of concern by the developer for the concerns of the neighbors.

The commission then discussed the presentations. One member led of by stating that they felt that relocation (of 3626 East Broad Street) is not warranted. Another said that the design itself, for a modern design, is too “machine” modern for the neighborhood. The amount of grading necessary is of concern. The design is not compatible with the existing block (“compatability is the operative word here”).

I may have better images from the presentation coming. I will post them in the comments if I can get anything.

This particular piece of the meeting began with Ryan Ramsey presenting an update on the status of the POD. He stated that they’d seen no definitive materials or colors for the elevations. The POD is “pretty good”, though, as far as zoning goes; there are some outstanding issues with permits and public works, uses of/plans for for alley. The Fire Deptartment is ok with access. Lacking definitative comments, transportation seems to be ok. The area is zoned R-53.

Tyler Potterfield then spoke to the criteria/guidelines for moving the lonely house on Broad Street. He stated that this was possibly the first relocation request the commission has received, and that the criteria seems to be met. Matt Elmes, chair of the CAR, pointed out that moving the house removes last example of original vernacular at the end of the block, pointing out that Jefferson Mews worked around existing houses.

In response, Spenser Dryser (of Baskerville Architects), speaking for the applicant, replied that “it’s not infill if it is the last house left”. He said that they’d considered end-capping the development with the house, but “once it is moved, it is moved”. He described moving the house to the next block as filling a hole and allowing for a new construction that can more readily meet CAR guidelines.

Tyler Potterfield introduced the more complex issue, the new contruction of the condos, asking “Is the proposal compatible with neighborhood? How is this to be interpreted?” The proposal is of a development of attached housing, but at a higher density (allowed by current zoning), and a detached affect can be attained.

Spencer Dryser & (guy whose name I did not get) from Fulton Hill Properties spoke to new construction: parking is under structures, off of Broad and Marshall; trash and parking pushed back under structures; scale, height, massing to match neighborhood; trying to foster density but to mask, set up as rowhouses; looking at sustaintable issues, as model for fitting and being low use on resources (parking, run-off).

This was followed by a process of wrangling to make sense of the elevations, clarification questions about grade and fences and yards.

Matt Elmes pointed out that it would be helpful to see more detail than presented (for widows, handrails, materials). This was echoed later, with CAR members saying that final approval would be very difficult without a more specific materials list; need more materials descriptions, more elevations; show building in context of street; maybe a model. It sounded like they may not be able to provide even a conceptual approval with out more detail, more views related to context.

The floor was then opened up for public comment. One person, Frank Wood, stood in favor of the development. Wood identified hinself as the man that sold the property to Margaret. He declared that the house to be moved is not significant, and had seen dubious renovation “about 20 years ago”. He owns property adjacent, and sees the development as a bonus.

The bulk of the rest of the room indicated that they were opposed to the development:

• Neighbors for Compatible Development; spoke to traffic, curb cuts, the development in much detail; neighbors feel cut out of the process; need to maintain historic integrity.
• It sets a bad precedent to be moving houses around. (ELMES: We consider every case individually, do not set precent).
• Jim Daab, president of the CHA: Until 2 weeks ago, neighborhood association had no idea that this was in the works. Every other develpoment has tried to meet beforehand, “people in the neighborhood feel like they are being railroaded”.
• People on the block have had the same landscape for 50 years.
• They are asking for 4 new driveway cuts? also — the house that could be moved is an identical “sister” house to the 4 across the street. Again, the developer has not tried to work with the neighborhood. Parking *will* be a problem.
• What was the original intent of the CAR guidelines? Respect historic layout, as this is what original infrastructire was designed for. You can not overlook the macrodetail of the layout of the community. Can we all put condos in our backyards? Developer has abused the process…
• The city’s Master Plan calls for single family housing in the area. The current zoning is archaic, and the developer is taking advantage of the “stale zoning” in trying to get this approved before the zoning changes.

After public discussion closed, the CAR board discussed the issues amongst themselves, with much of the discussion being focussed on the moving of the house. Individual members declared that they have issues with the project’s density and appropriateness; others have no issues with the hight/density and stand by the current zoning. The design itself, it’s lack of detail, and perceived vehicular-centric design were at issue.

Fulton Hill Properties, the developer for the proposed 33-unit Oakwood Heights condo complex located at 3618-3628 E. Broad (in the Chimborazo Old & Historic District) has submitted an application for a design review of the project, along with an application to move a two-story single family home from the site to a site on East Marshall (also within the Chimborazo O&H District).

There’s some speculation on where the application will be heard on the CAR Agenda. It was originally slated to be heard last, however, the CAR had moved the application to be first when the developer submitted a new design on the 13th. The new design was not submitted with enough time for CAR to review the design, therefore that review was then removed from the agenda leaving just the application for movement of the house.

Monday morning, however, the developer withdrew the new plans and resubmitted the original plans, putting the design review back on the docket. Because both applications will be heard, the position of where they end up on the agenda may change back to being last again. In either case, all interested parties should arrive by 4PM just in case.

The concerns of the development include, but aren’t limited to:

• the design, colors and materials of the project.
• the mass/scale/height.
• the appropriateness/necessity to re-locate the two-story single family home.
• the appropriateness of this project in an Old & Historic District.
• the impact this project will have on the historic character/integrity of Chimborazo O&H District and it’s environs.

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.