Image default
Real Estate

Neighbors call for Glenwood project to match surrounding height, density

Close to 40 people turned out Monday evening to the Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club to see Mark Baker, a consultant for property owner Frank Wood, present a proposal to rezone parts of Glenwood Avenue and North 35th Street.

Wood is seeking a conditional rezoning of a 2.4 acre parcel north of Glenwood Avenue from R-5 to R-8 to allow for a higher density development. The proposal map (below) shows 30 units that would be allowed with rezoning, and a reconnected 36th Street.

[sep]

zoning map
[sep]

This is not a project yet per se, but is an attempt by Wood to lay the groundwork for a potential project. Baker said a few times that the idea is to get the zoning in place to be able to market the land to a developer. As such, Baker had a map showing the potential density, but no renderings or mention of a price point for the individual homes.

The vocal neighbors at the meeting repeatedly expressed concerns about the density and height of a potential development under R-8 zoning. The crowd expressed a strong preference for single family detached houses in a style and density more closely matching the surrounding neighborhood.

There also seemed to be a general skepticism about the process and Mr.Wood’s intentions. It was stated that Wood had previously agreed to develop detached single family homes at an earlier attempt to develop the property.

The proposal has been submitted to Planning, but has not been considered yet. It would then be sent to Council.

[sep]

glenwood parcel map
Wood owns the property highlighted above. The rezoning is being sought for the parcels marked in blue.

Related posts

Main 2525

Church Hill People's News

For Sale: $2,500,000

Church Hill People's News

Calendar alert! Update on Old Armstrong High School Site Development

Church Hill People's News
avatar
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
The Richmond Association of REALTORS® | From Jo’s Desk: Government Affairs News 10/10CadehocrdmarkLee Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jenee Johnson
Guest

Jenee Johnson liked this on Facebook.

BeautifyRVA
Guest
BeautifyRVA

Based on the scheme presented, not sure it does any of the things people would like to see given the surrounding buildings or apparent lot patterns. Can be better.

Next Friend
Guest
Next Friend

To suggest that single family attached row houses are inconsistent with greater Church Hill/Oakwood/Chimborazo is simply not accurate.

On the other hand, it’s hard to summon the energy to defend an applicant who won’t be part of the eventual development of the property. How can the neighbors get assurances about materials an finishes if this guy isn’t the one who will actually build this? The usual trade-offs with neighbors aren’t possible here.

To the neighbors of this: Start thinking about a City Old & Historic District, not the zoning.

Lee
Guest
Lee

Attached row homes and higher density are fine (as long as it’s not shockingly higher than the surrounding area). However, if the developer wants to build quantity, he should be required to build quality. With this many units, maybe they will have the economy of scale to accurately build period style row homes? (Not that something contemporary couldn’t be cool to – but it needs to be quality and have some style, no cookie cutter crap!)

mark
Guest
mark

I totally agree lee and the attached is much more green a lot of the naysayers were arguing for features that have greater carbon footprint and much more embodied energy. and puts the homes at a greater price range.we need more homes in the range being proposed.

crd
Guest
crd

@4 Mark, what price range proposed? John Murden’s explanation, above, says there wasn’t a price range mentioned. Did you get an idea of what he was proposing? I’m curious, as I think we need reasonably priced single family homes. Below is a cut and paste from John’s intro, above.

“As such, Baker had a map showing the potential density, but no renderings or mention of a price point for the individual homes.”

Cadeho
Guest
Cadeho

Wasn’t that site between 35th and 37th landfill? It would be Chelsea Village all over again…

Lee
Guest
Lee

@ CRD – I think “reasonably priced” is also vague, no offense – what did you have in mind? Personally, I think we would better off if we had more programs like down payment assistance and special loan programs to help make homes affordable for working class folks. I think “reasonably priced” will always run the risk of becoming a euphemism for “low quality”.

Not only is that not appropriate in a historic area, but I would imagine that low quality construction will likely incur more maintenance costs and is less likely to hold value or appreciate in value.

crd
Guest
crd

@7 Lee, actually I pretty much agree with you except that I don’t think lower price nec. equates with lower quality. I was thinking of houses around $350,000 more or less, didn’t mean to be vague. I’m taking this from a friend and neighbor who works at MCV and says she is constantly asked by employees there why they can’t find something in Church Hill for less than $600,000 or so.They want a house, not a condo, and it’s tough to find apparently, at least a finished product and not something that needs restoration. These are medical professionals without the… Read more »

trackback

[…] Neighbors call for Glenwood project to match surrounding height density […]