Union Hill Old and Historic District public meeting on Thursday

If you are a Union Hill property owner and you have not received a survey card at your address of record, please attend Thursday’s meeting and speak with me or one of our guests from the City. We want to encourage as much participation as possible.

I chose Union Hill as my Studio Plan in 2006; my last year at VCU. I loved that neighborhood and all it has to offer. Though I resided in Shockoe Slip, I used to walk up to Jumpin J’s Java all the time. If I were in Richmond, attending the meeting on Thursday would have been at the top of my priorities list.

This meeting is informational and is not intended solely for proponents. All are welcome. City staff will be available, not as advocates for the proposed old and historic district, but as resources. I hope you will attend.

I hope that residents of Union Hill will attend the meeting tonight to find out more about this designation.

For me, this designation will give an added layer of protection before an historic house is demolished. And due to the great number of vacant lots in Union Hill, will help ensure that infill is done with respect to the historic character of our neighborhood. In the long run, Union Hill will be well served with this designation.

This meeting is informational and is not intended solely for proponents. All are welcome. City staff will be available, not as advocates for the proposed old and historic district, but as resources. I hope you will attend.

So if this is informational will the staff provide:

1. printed copy of an approved comprehensive plan that says that the city historic district is number one priority to cure the problems in the neighborhood
2. Schedule and budget for capital improvements in the comprehensive plan.
3. Number of houses demolished by the city in the proposed hd
4. A copy of the impact reviews for the houses demolished.
5. Boundary justification to conform to nps standards.
6. Documentation that the city’s demo has not had an adverse effect on the state/fed designations.
7. Written explanation why the city has refused/failed to enforce housing maintenance codes in the neighborhood since they were adopted.

Does anybody have any of that? And exactly what protection is that? Against demo? Where has the CAR prevented demo? When and where? Not solely for proponents? It is put on by a neighborhood group that basically said that this is what we want to do in the beginning. Presentation by city staff that recommends it will be done. But mostly for proponents that see designation as a trophy and a tool to tell others what color to use in creating a gated community. All the while the neglect continues.

Ask the city for protection from the city? Sort of like asking the arsonist to run the fire department.

Of the small group that attended the meeting, no one seemed to change their stance on Union Hill becoming O&H. If you came in favor, you left in favor. If you came opposed, you left opposed. My general impression has been that there are two benefits of a City O&H district. 1.) Older, less loved buildings will enjoy a certain degree of protection from demolition, and 2.) “appropriate” house design will be encouraged on vacant properties in the area. By “appropriate”, I was under the impression that meant something that mimics and blends with the fabric and style of the neighboring buildings. (Notice the word was mimic, not replicate).

So what houses in a City O&H district have been saved from being leveled? It wasn’t 3302 E. Marshall (as a more recent example). CAR has little to no power to stay the demolition of a building. Their decision is ultimately subordinate to the Building Commissioner. And as stated at the meeting, even if a CAR member votes to save a building, theirs is a democratic system where the majority dictates the board’s final verdict.

And what of new construction in O&H districts? Don’t most assume that a new house in a O&H district will at least resemble a style that is either “old” or “historic”? 3106 & 3108 E. Marshall don’t seem fit that description. 512 N. 28th doesn’t either although those do adhere, somewhat, to the concepts of mass and scale as laid out in the O&H guidelines. It was stated at the meeting that the guidelines allow for contemporary design. Isn’t the word “contemporary” in contrast to the words “old” or “historic”? If a contemporary design is approved then people in the neighborhood rant on that the house does not fit or is inappropriate or even ugly. It was also stated that the guidelines could be modified. One of the latest changes now allows for modern materials, such as hardiplank, but this concession hardly addresses broader concerns from those asking for an overhaul to the guidelines under which CAR operates. Proponents insist that everyone in Union Hill should support the O&H intiative, while disagreeing with the judgements of CAR members and questioning the guidelines CAR currently references. Should not these guidelines be changed to more closely reflect what the residents think BEFORE locking a neighborhood or area into such a policy?

Of the (supposed) throngs of those in favor, how many will ever have to submit a plan for CAR’s approval let alone ever have to apply for a building permit? How many have even attended a CAR meeting? I have, and I would prefer not to suffer that additional layer of bureaucracy.

last night at city council was a real demonstration of the protection provided by a city hd. sure the car has a lot to say about paint colors when the color of paint can be changed/fixed to be correct according to the experts with another color just a paint can away. they have a lot to say about remuddling an old house that can be fixed by replacing “the appropriate” detail. all of that is small stuff. what about the big stuff? if it is demolished, it is gone, not/never to be fixed. so how many houses in the state/fed union hill hd have been demolished by the city with fed funds, without impact review? the monster infill comes with the heavyweight developer to scar the neighborhood and the politicians are scrambling for crumbs from the heavyweight. is the protection real? or is it kool-aid?

There isn’t a set date for release of the survey results; however, it will be part of staff’s report to CAR in the coming weeks and is, of course, public information.

lc, i think that it is unfortunate that the city process is not working to meet the purpose/goals. i am not sure that there is a silver bullet to fix it. i am not anti hist preservation. i have to work with shpo/nps constantly and the problems there are minimal, and there is great benefit.

in the past the city had such a bad record with this type of thing, the court took away their ability to conduct impact reviews, mostly cause none were done and the whole thing was turned over to shpo for a number of years. remember when the national trust listed jackson ward in the top 10 “endangered” historic sites in the us?

the root problem seems to be the dishonesty in the city system. one thing is said and the opposite is done. save yourself the pain and just say no til they decide to (demonstrate) be honest and fix it right.

#18/Resident 522:

I guess the people of Union Hill will have to decide that for yourselves, but I would suggest that that decision be informed and well thought out.

The sky is not falling here. Yes, there are inconsistencies with infill (there are good examples of CAR approved infill up here as well), but the basic tenants of the O&H guidelines are beneficial to communities such as yours.

The Fed and State designations protect nothing. One must volunteer to take part in those programs. The O&H does provide protections.

If your community wants to have a voice in this city regarding preservation and O&H districts then you must participate. By walking away from this opportunity, your community shuts itself out of the process.

Your line of thinking is just like people who don’t vote because they think that the system is corrupt. You can only change something by taking part.

This is not a perfect system, but nothing is. What makes our country and communities great is that we are constantly striving to make it better, and we have the freedom to do that.

Union Hill has the freedom to choose whether or not they want their designation, but while you think that the O&H might take sway your rights, you might want to think about how turning away from this opportunity may also be giving away your rights to protect your neighborhood.

#20/bill3

I do know that the CAR staff establishes the boundaries for an O&H based on the State and Fed historic district boundaries in the proposed neighborhood. I was of the understanding that was done in Union Hill.

Since I’m not intimately familiar with the boundaries for the district (although they may be posted on this blog somewhere) perhaps you can explain why the boundaries don’t meet the standards.

And yes, you are right, the Council has the ultimate say over whether or not an area achieves O&H status. But, the Council and the proposed district’s Council Rep base that decision mostly on whether or not the people of the district want the designation. If the community doesn’t want it, Council won’t either. If the community wants it and fight for it, the Council will more than likely grant it.

Though these are important points that you bring up bill3, it doesn’t address my points in #19.

“If your community wants to have a voice in this city regarding preservation and O&H districts then you must participate. By walking away from this opportunity, your community shuts itself out of the process.

Your line of thinking is just like people who don’t vote because they think that the system is corrupt. You can only change something by taking part.”

and

“Union Hill has the freedom to choose whether or not they want their designation, but while you think that the O&H might take sway your rights, you might want to think about how turning away from this opportunity may also be giving away your rights to protect your neighborhood.”

Since you have spoken well of the NPS standards and like working with them, you see the value in them and I would think that you would be a great advocate for working on improving the standards and guidelines process at the city level. To say that the city guidelines have no value at all, and never have is like saying that the NPS guidelines have no value and never have. Administrators affect the process, but they don’t take away the value. If you’re outside the process, you can’t change it. Don’t wait for someone else to change it and then join up later.

#22/john_m:

Based on what you are saying, I don’t see bill’s argument. The national district was drawn when it was drawn regardless of changes that may not deem it appropriate today. The CAR is following the boundary match-up correctly.

Further, areas with several empty lots are actually considered important for inclusion in city O&H districts because it protects these areas from inappropriate infill. I believe that this is a reasonable argument despite the inconsistencies with the CAR.

hillkid, my take on it is this: the national district was drawn and then Richmond’s CAR allowed a bunch of demolition. They aren’t supposed to allow that – it’s nothing to do with a local or city regulated district. When anything happens that could adversly affect a federal O&H, they’re supposed to do an impact statement – but the city of Richmond ignores that when it comes to demolition.

I think Bill’s point is the city CAR is allowing demolition, by neglect and otherwise, and also ignoring their mandate to protect fed/state O&H districts. Granted, the fed/state districts are not as protected, and carry no weight as to infill or rehab work on existing structures – but CAR should look after them none the less, and CAR does not. Further, the city allows demo by neglect when existing codes are in force that could keep that from happening. Anyway, that’s my opinion.

#25/crd:

Bill Hartsock is correct. The CAR has nothing to do with the demolition of houses in the Fed and State Districts. They only have influence over city designated O&H’s. A recent example of saving a house from demolition in an O&H is the Maggie Fruend house on the 3600 block of E. Broad St.

#24/bill3:

I’m not sure what “club” you are referring to, but it would be great if you put some of your energies toward your concerns about the city. I think you’ve got the right stuff.

odell, not one to let the truth get in the way of a good story? the mosby block is the state/fed hd. feel free to check the dhr map. i am sure everyone will feel comfortable having you tell them what to do.

LC, where is the “spin” coming from? To me, it looks like here on CHPN, we are having a good, healthy discussion (albiet differing viewpoints) about City Old & Historic Districts.

bill3, the map I was referring to shows the area on Mosby Street of non-contributing properties, and thus it is not included in the National Register. The map can be found at this web address: http://www.churchhillphoto.com/uh_map.jpg

I have a complete copy of the Union Hill National Register nomination, and don’t see the descrepancy you are referring too. Can you name the blocks you’re concerned with?

Also, bill3, I have enough respect for my fellow Union Hill neighbors to know they will make up their own minds on this proposed district, regardless of my position.

And since you seem to be concerned about truth, has your primary residence changed to Union Hill? If not, I’m happy you think enough of our neighborhood to renovate and own property here.

But let’s get everything out in the open, shall we? You have not always seen eye-to-eye with CAR and the Historic Preservation staff on your previous projects, have you? But in the end, you got those structures built, and I hope, satisfied your clients and contributed to your livelyhood.

Believe it or not, I can empathize with you, because I had my own “go before CAR” experience a couple weeks ago. No, they didn’t roll over and say yes to everything I asked. It’s kinda like college…if your school is known for the “easy A” or the “gift C” then your diploma is of little or no value.

CAR/City Staff do not exist simply to “slow you down” or be a burden to one’s ability to profit from construction.

Many Union Hill residents are willing to sacrifice some of our own conveniences (with respect for changes to our home exteriors) for a greater good: a voice in new infill.

Whoa… where did I mention “the huge number of demolitions”? You may have inferred something, but I simply posed a question as to how many buildings have been saved in O&H districts. Enlighten me. There is a previous concession that the O&H district may have saved the house on the 3600 block of E. Marshall. The building on 3302 E. Marshall was not protected from being demolished (Chimborazo Park O&H district). On 09/14/08, CHPN had a thread about houses slated for demolition… “6 Houses to Soon be Demolished”. Let’s revisit some of those just north of the Chimbo O&H:

523 N. 33rd- demo permit (expired 07/09/2008); Alter-Heavy Remodeling (issued 02/09/2009)

526 N. 33rd- demo permit (pending/issued 10/02/2008); Alter.-Light Remodeling (issued 12/02/2008)

414 Chimborazo Blvd- No permits issued (for demo or construction)

418 Chimborazo Blvd- demo permit (expired 08/07/2008)

These seemed to have survived the wrecking ball without the protection of an O&H status. Again, I will mention that CAR’s ruling on stopping a demolition is subordinate to the Building Commissioner.

Admittedly, Hillkid shows equal zeal for CAR and O&H districts not seen since Laura Daab’s campaigning for Church Hill North.

Spin… just on CHPN, there is more than one reoccurence of the word “many” when referring to proponents of the O&H district. There are just as “many” in opposition, but because they are not as vocal, they may not be recognized. Literature for Union HIll becoming an O&H does have factual info, but only enough to support the initiative. Sharing all the information, good and bad, might be counterproductive to the effort. Then again, it should be assumed that any interested person would do their own research to find out as much as they could.

How many proponents will ever apply for a building permit or give a presentation to CAR? I would guess a small number. How many have gone to a CAR meeting just to witness the proceedings? I’ll guess even fewer. Props to Elaine for going through that process. This experience will give her insight that others will not have. But saying that “many Union Hill residents are willing to sacrifice some of our conveniences… for a greater good” is questionable when neighbors (proponents) share ideas for improvements to their property and then follow with a statement that such improvements better be completed before the O&H status takes effect. Takes away from their level of commitment.

As far as using the O&H guidelines as a mechanism to review and influence the design and materials of future in-fill illustrates that an O&H district facilitates a group telling an individual what or how their property should look. Opening a design and building process to criticism from people that do not live near. People that are not your neighbors.

Results from the proposed Union Hill O&H District Survey:
70% of owners did not respond.
18% of owners support the historic district
10% of owners oppose
2% returned a blank card

Of those who did respond:
59% support
32% oppose
9% blank

So, out of 656 surveys, only 117 owners surveyed actively support the historic district in Church Hill.

You can obtain a copy of the survey results and a map showing how properties voted by emailing T. Tyler Potterfield at Thomas.Potterfield@Richmondgov.com

The department of community development’s staff report available here: http://www.churchhillphoto.com/Union_Hill_Draft_1.PDF
states that “Typically, it is expected that approx. 70% of those responding to the survey by the stipulated deadline should vote for the designation in order for zoning overlay to be effective for the neighborhood.”

CAR will hold a public hearing on May 14, 2009, 6:00 PM in council chambers at City Hall (900 E. Broad St., 2nd-floor). All interested parties are encouraged to attend.

I don’t think that 18% is enough of a majority