Oakwood Heights meeting today?

The meeting was unprofessional and (intentionally/unintentionally) lead some to believe that one of the reasons the complex was opposed, was to deny certain folks places to live in the “emerging elite” Chimborazo community.

Who are the folks who can afford a single bedroom, 800 sq ft, starting at 250k? Which I thought was the base price for her units?

The meeting was off the chain, much better than watching the Five O’ clock news. The meeting began nicely with Andy from Fulton Hill properties showing a power point on his laptop. Maggie Fruend then entered and noticed among the crowd of ten, at the time, some people who live next to the proposed project. Maggie stopped Andy’s presentation and asked the people “why are you here and then told them to leave.” A lively discussion ensued, that included Maggie saying that the meeting was “only for those that are undecided or in favor of the project.” Rick a friend of the McQuinns also started saying very loudly that the meeting wasn’t for the people who live next to the project.
It was pointed out that the flyer did not stipulate any conditions about who could or should attend. It was also brought out that the flyers were not given to those that live next to the project, only to those who lived kind of near the project, like the 900 block of 35th and the 500 block of 25th. During the loud discussion, Rick stepped out to make a few telephone calls.
Finally a young gentleman spoke up and said “look I only have a little bit of time and I actually came here to learn about this project, can we get back to the presentation.” Maggie agreeably said “yes” and started going through the project, leaving the previous presenter Andy to watch.

As the discussion went on, there were other disagreements and exceptions to points. Maggie pointed out and assured everyone that these are condos not apartments. They are priced in the upper 200 thousand and low 300 thousand dollar range and they will bring value to the community. They will bring a diverse group of people who drive hybrids and want to live in a LEED certified building, a green complex if you will.

Quietly Deloris McQuinn’s son JJ entered the back of the cafeteria. (remember Rick’s telephone call)

Olivia a lovely lady from the 900 block of 35th said she was in favor of the project. Her hopes are that a classy project like the one described by Maggie will help keep Frank Woods or others from turning the big vacant lot on 35th and Marshall in low rent, unsupervised, crime plagued, apartments. Olivia reminded us that it was just a few years ago that Frank (with Deloris McQuinn’s blessing) quietly tried to slip in a large complex and it took a lot of neighborhood effort to stop his project. Olivia has been in the neighborhood for decades, she cares strongly about its future.
A young lady raised he hand and asked, in a British accent, if she could ask a question. Maggie’s response was “what group are you here with?” The lady replied in her British lilt “I am a neighbor.” Maggie responded by asking” what country are you from?” The lady responded “England.” Maggie then described the real estate picture in England and talked about how different size buildings coexist every where in England, saying “you have castles beside cottages.” When the lady with the British accent replied “that’s not the way it is where I lived.” Maggie corrected her and said “you are wrong, it is that way.”
Shelia one of the organizers then spoke up and started talking about the Trump towers and that lady who refused to sale her house and how she now has a house that sits beside a big building. A discussion then started about compatibility and how can you claim to be green when you are up rooting trees that have been around since the War Between the States, blah blah blah…

It was at that point I left the meeting to talk with the building custodian.

I returned at 5:50pm. Shelia, kindly reminded everyone the meeting had to end by 6pm. Maggie said in her closing remarks; “I talked with Deloris right before the meeting and she told me,” ‘you know what I say to people who ask me why I support this project, I tell them it is because Margaret (Maggie) went to CAR and she did everything right’.”

There was more discussion, and side discussions, and cross discussions among attendees for the next few minutes. The meeting adjourned. JJ told someone he was heading to Chesapeake, Andy disconnected the lap top, Maggie grabbed maps, and neighbors started talking to neighbors as we all filed out. The beautiful thing is that the majority of the neighbors both opposed and for the project stayed afterwards to talk. On the sidewalk and on the steps of the beautiful Franklin Military Academy steps people talked. The wind whistled a chilly tune, the Sun slunk away to warmer, more Westerly geography, the developers left, the pseudo politicians left, but the neighbors, the neighbors they stayed. They stayed and talked. Wonderful conversation happened and although the Oakwood heights issue is still on going, assurances were made that they all would stand tall and together against sub quality development at 35th and Marshall. Everyone knowing that no matter what happens we live together, we breathe the same air, we walk the same streets, we are the same community. We are all our brothers and sisters keepers. Yes it was quite a meeting.

When the developer realized that some of the 3600 block neighbors were attending, she interrupted her own speaker to very aggressively demand that we (about 7 of us including two of our wisest & oldest neighbors) leave immediately. She stated that the “community” meeting was for supporters of the project only. Huh? Instead of respecting us as directy affected neighbors, she bashed us repeatedly and referred to our group as a “machine”, a “well organized and verbal organization that was against change”. (against change is obviously untrue) In addition, when other members of the community asked about the particular reasons we are opposed, she lied and then refused to let us speak for ourselves, repeatedly yelling at a number of people in the room, many of which are not in our “organization”. It was embarrassing and completely unprofessional to say the least. I look forward to the battle on Monday. Please come to City Hall to defend and support the historic integrity of our close-knit community.

I am not going to comment on this specific development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

But, coming from a more theoretical viewpoint, I heard (and please correct me if I am wrong) that City Council may vote to overturn a CAR decision. Coming from a neighborhood that has often considered CAR and been browbeated about CAR, why should my neighbors and I vote for CAR if City Council can make exemptions? What good is CAR protection for historic neighborhoods if its not reliable?

Again, speaking theoretically and not specifically about this project….

I have to question the value of CAR. Seems like more trouble than its worth if it can be so easily sidestepped or overwhelmed by lawyers paid for by deep pocket developers.

G2thaP…lyrical! Thanks.

Scott – No, CAR is not more trouble than it is worth in the long run. This is a rare case.

Ron – Yes, there are remedies and checks and balances in place, as it should be. I found out that Staff and the Board are separate the hard way. Staff approved my first design “conceptually”, then it went to the Board. It was denied. Don’t think I was a happy camper. I suffered a very rare instance of being pissed. I brought back a design that pleased me and the Board and was approved. The experience was an interesting spin around my learning curve here.

Melissa B – well said. You brought up very nicely how important this little part of the world is. This country, those checks and balances started right down the street from where we are now. It was born here. It’s an amazing ability to stop, remove yourself from the business of the day and think about what has actually taken place right beneath our feet. A woman at last nights meeting referred to Church Hill as a dump and walked out of the room during Margaret’s meeting. I was shocked. That is a very short sighted view of this spot on the world indeed.

Margaret stated last night that there would be no apartments in the development.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. What new paperwork is this?

In reading this blog, I can understand the frustrations of the neighbor’s of this development. If Maggie has re-applied this for apartments then there is a whole new reason to protest the development of this area. Who is buying $250K condos these days????? The condo market is sunk more than housing market.

ron

professional staff what? the car has made themselves a convenient punching bag on some decisions, but they got this one “oakwood heights” right, in my opinion. and that is important cause this one is important setting the standard for infill in historic districts. getting into bed with the director/staff only qualifies as the worlds oldest profession.

it is way past time to run this project thru environmental impact review from shpo/nps cause it is in a state/fed hd.

and the question abt “green” building, if it is so, produce the registration documents.

a blind bat could have gotten this one right

ron, it is not a good site to develop for 33 units, so i wouldnt consider it. it might be good for 12. i would not be interested in buying something that was good for 12 and then try and force 33, you can make money with 12 without messing up the neighborhood so why do 33, just to make more money, and fu the neighborhood and then you got a project in a fu neighborhood. you did not bring value to the community, to took value away from the community. and i did not try to buy it, is that your test? i quit buying re in richmond 4 years ago. it is not a good deal. i will not build something that i would not be happy living in/around.

why dont you go and check to see what was paid for the land. you might find it was a reasonable cost for 12 and you could make good money. chances are the land was got for a whole lot less with plenty of room for money at 12. greed is good?

ron, have you been getting into maggie’s diary? it sounds to me like you pretty much spit out the same bs that her cronies do at every opportunity. it’s been explained time and time again, staff doesn’t make the decisions… the white house staff doesn’t sign bills, do they? there’s a reason that the systems were put in place the way they were: to keep money/power hungry mogul wannabes from bulldozing history to make a buck. if maggie cared about the following the same rules everyone else has to play by, she’d build up the bluff and use all of her property (not 80%) and build her little microcosm to fit the guidelines. or, she could always abandon her over-ambitious fitness center and pool, drop the price of her “affordable” condos, and keep building on the 80% that’s actually usable as it is. if she gave half a sh*t about the area/community/guidelines she would make it work. she doesn’t. all she seems interested in is her own greed and self gratification. maybe you can take off your “i heart maggie” souvenir ballcap and let some thoughts flow *from* your head, not just *into* it.

ron –

three and four story buildings are proposed next to two story houses. The guidelines say that all new construction has to honor the surrounding height and character of the neighborhood – it’s simple.

DGM’s submission did not meet the guidelines in many respects, this being one. Just because you say over and over again that you’ve “met the guidelines” doesn’t mean it’s true.

I intend to buy lots in the historic district. If the entire block I buy a lot in consisits of two story houses I can not build a four story house. I can not build a three story house.

Why do you think one developer should have that right over another?

I have read them.

What you seem to miss, or intentionally overlook, is that staff reviews, CAR makes the rulings. Have you ever run a business, managed a company? My staff would assemble what I needed and I made the decisions.

Again to my question. This is a dialogue. I replied to your, “Read the Planning staff reports”.

Why do you think one developer should have that right over another?

Excerpts taken from the Old & Historic Districts of Richmond Virginia, Handbook & Design Review Guidelines:

Pg 40
FORM:
Item 1. .New construction should use a building form compatible with that found elsewhere on the block. Building form refers to the specific combination of massing, size, symmetry, proportions, projections and roof shapes that lend identity to a structure. Building form is greatly influenced by the architectural style of a given structure.
• No 4-story (3+ English basement) homes on this block
• One home on this block has an English basement and it is 3 stories total
• No 4-story (3+ English basement) homes occur in the rear or off the alley of the existing homes in the neighborhood

HEIGHT, WIDTH, PROPORTION & MASSING:

1. New construction should respect the typical height of surrounding houses & commercial structures.
2. New structures should have the same number of stories as the majority of the block.
• For both – the majority of the houses on this block and surrounding blocks are 2 story w/ flat roofs.

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.
• Elevator towers appear to exceed the 35’ max height.
• Elaborate balconies as well as walkways (concealed by a “vegetated screen”) occur and are visible from the public right of way

Pg. 64
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Parking Lots:
1. Parking lots should be broken up as much as possible with interior landscaped island and should be well screened from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties.
• Parking lots seem to be broken up with interior landscaping but are not well screened from the public right-of-way and remain in full view of adjacent properties.

Pg. 5 Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic structures and new construction in historic districts

Item 10. New construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
• Introduction of 2 curb cuts to allow access in and out of the development, creating 3 parking areas at the sides of the buildings and placing large buildings where back yards once existed all impair the historic property and environment. I would think the 1925 Sanborn map illustrates the original intent and establishes the historic development of the block.

Pg. 40 (now page 42, minor changes were made to the guidelines in summer of 2008)
SITING:
The relationship between a structure planned for construction and the parcel of land on which it is situated is important.

• with the pattern of development in this historic neighborhood.
• It neither respects, nor enhances the existing neighborhood.

Item 3. New construction should face the most prominent street bordering the site.
• The interior structures do not

Excerpts from the Richmond Master Plan:
Pg. 20 – Vision Goals
Housing & Neighborhood Goals
•Development in Richmond will be sensitive to the scale & design of existing neighborhoods.
Community Character Goals
•The architectural & historic character of Richmond will be preserved & enhanced.

Pg 101 – Neighborhoods & Housing
Existing Neighborhoods
•Strength, maintain and protect existing neighborhoods from the adverse effects of traffic & incompatible land use.
•Locate and design higher density residential development in a manner that prevents adverse affects on the character of lower density residential areas.

Pg. 166 –
Guiding Land Use Principals
•Infill development of like density and use is appropriate.
•Existing historic preservation design controls should be maintained and where neighborhood support exists, new design controls should be encouraged to preserve existing historic neighborhoods from inappropriate development or design.

Thea… no, I think that they are pretty clear. Indeed, those are some of the guidelines that I must abide by when I build in this Historic District. Thanks for the addition of the master plan information.

If I have to meet these requirements to obtain a “Certificate of Appropriateness” in the Historic District order to build why should DGM Properties be granted an exception?

Ron – awaiting your reply. Why do you think one developer should have that right over another?

I’ve commented on the “houses for the 2100 block of Broad” thread regarding the contradictions that the CAR makes in their review process.

Besides Deanna, I would like to ask the other opposition to the Oakwood project if they support the CAR’s decision to allow the buildings at 21st and Broad. I don’t think you can and stand by your argument.

The buildings at 2100 block violate the same guidelines that the CAR is trying to uphold for the Oakwoods project.

That is why there is a group of people seeking changes in the CAR and the guidelines so that these inconsistencies stop occurring.

hi me

the rezoning is being held up to let a select few, slip under the radar. it seems tough going under the chpn radar these days. public policy planning 101, reward your friends, punish your enemies. that is the mantra of city planning. public policy planning 202 go with the money side cause you can’t make money on the no money side, and of course you always look better on the money side

#33:

Hillkid is referring to his group on the thread below advocating for changes in CAR and guidelines. /2008/06/01/a-proposal-to-revisit-new-construction-in-oldhistoric-districts/ .

I think hillkid and I came to an agreement…um… understanding 🙂 see 13, 14, & 16

/2009/02/20/houses-for-the-2100-block-of-broad-street/#comments

Thea,
I think we can stand behind the concept of O & H standards, only if we are able to over-rule CAR when it appears they apply the standards incorrectly. The idea that CAR is above review is dangerous.
Deanna,
If you knew Rachel, you would know that nothing pressures her. Ask Doug Wilder.

You would not violate a confidential conversation by simply stating your thoughts concerning why she changed her mind. Why do you suppose she did?