RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
lanny on then it happens to you...
JessOfRVA on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Updated! Guess what's happening on Mosby/Venable?
Mary on then it happens to you...
Sid on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Church Hill Startup Tackles Insurance for Freelancers
Church Hill Association meeting tonight
03/17/2009 6:50 AM by John M
Church Hill Association meeting tonight at 7PM @ St.John’s, probably to be less contentious than the last… The Friends of Chimborazo Playground has asked the CHA for funds to improve Chimborazo Park and will be up for vote tonight.
They are also voting on whether to have several areas R7(single family res.) or keep the proposed plan of R63(mixed use/appts/sm businesses). The areas are, I believe, east of the oakwood project and west of Chimborazo Blvd (I’m assuming here North of Broad, including on and around 25th St.). I welcome corrections b/c I’m not well versed in this stuff. So John, it could get contentious.
It got contentious. The biggest issue was multi-family dwellings in a single family neighborhood, and the allowance for that under R-63. The vote before the membership was to accept or reject the recommendations of the subcommittee of the Zoning Committee for CHA to propose modifications to the City plan for the area. A motion was made and approved to remove the Union Hill area from the recommendations because a separate vote had already been taken by the Union Hill Civic Association to approve the R-63 zoning area for that section of the master plan for Church Hill, with suggestions for modifications from UHCA. The final motion before the CHA membership was to reject the proposal from the subcommittee. The vote came up a tie – 23 to 23 with no abstentions. It is now going back to the City to repropose the plan to the neighborhood after meetings with the CHA members (I guess the Zoning Committee, again).
Ha! If I hadn’t left early…
See…there you go. School teachers have to go to bed early to get up early. Not like us debauched old guys!
Bill, could you explain further what the
recommendations of the subcommittee to the CHA Zoning Committee actually were? In other words, what are (or were) they proposing, including which areas, specifically? Gray suggested some areas in post #1 but I’m curious as to which exact geographic areas they wanted modified as to multi-family dwellings allowable (hope I’ve interpreted your post enough to get that correct). Thanks in advance.
My understanding is the subcommittee basically suggested everything to be R-63, multi-family. Except a line of R-7 from Marshall to Broad , from 21st to the end of Broad. ALL of south of Broad St. is to be zone multi family, R-63.
Tradition UB zoning is for the 25th and Jefferson Street.
Also was approved the $2,000 shed for new Chimborazo Park.
Actually there was far more discussed than what is noted above and the minutes will reflect that. But for FYI: $5,000 was approved (pending approval of permits and CAR) for funding the Chimbo Playground Park equipment, $1,000 for new/improved sineage for Western Overlook at end of Grace St., and $2,000 for the revision of the Church Hill Book with HRF. Also that the next membership meeting will be held North of Broad at Asbury Methodist Church, 29th and Marshall, 7PM, on 21 April 09.
EDS pretty much has it correct on the recommendations. John may have the map that was passed out that could be added to the site.
#6 “ALL of south of Broad St. is to be zone multi family, R-63.”
Are you sure that’s right? That would include Grace(behind St. John’s) and Franklin…maybe you mean Main and Cary.
And something is not right about…”Except a line of R-7 from Marshall to Broad , from 21st to the end of Broad.”
That would include corners with businesses like Church Hill Herbs, the Animal Hospital, and also apartments where people live.
I’m confused.
I sure don’t want to get in your business, but it is certainly possible to rezone without disturbing the existing SUP/CUP overlays. So a zoning might change for a commercial property, but the property use remain unaffected because of an existing SUP or be grandfathered as an existing usage.
I think the biggest issue on the rezoning was that many members did not really understand what was being proposed.Most of the study area is already zoned R53 multi-family residential.R53 allows a building height range of 35 to 60 feet, which is reduced to 35 to 48 in R63.The only other major difference is that small neighborhood business is allowed on corners in R63. It is understandable that residents fear another Oakwood Heights. The fact is that R63 would be an incentive for quality development.I would also like to point out that it does not seem fair for 46 votes to decide the fate of the entire Church Hill Study Area Why was the impending vote not mentioned on this site or the CHA website to encourage more people to attend like the previous votes on Oakwood and Shockoe Center.It appears that the fewer people that attend the more the nucleus of the CHA is able to further the ability of a small group of people to speak for all of Church Hill. This is a call for Church Hill residents who support a new dynamic to join the CHA and attend the April meeting.
#10 and #12:
It was obvious at last night’s meeting that a lot of people did not understand what they were voting for, yet they voted anyway. A few folks expressed their confusion publicly.
This is a big decision. Let’s make sure we know what we are “for” or “against” before we make recommendations to the city.
That said, the CHA and UHCA, New Visions, or any other organization up here does not have the final word on this. The city is seeking input from groups that could influence the re-zoning but they are not the final word.
Are we also going to continue to delineate sections of our community? NOB, SOB, UH? Who gets the zoning and who doesn’t?
Talk about a few folks doing a lot… last meeting last night spent $9,000 on different projects.
I missed the meeting last night due to work. I definitely want to know more about this R7 and R63. I’m a long time resident and business owner here on the hill and I want to know how or if this will affect me, my family, neighbors, and friends.
Over two years ago when this rezoning proposal was presented by the DCC to the community, most of NOB, SOB and UH were to be zoned R7 – residential single family/duplexes. The intention was to respect the neighborhoods original footprint. The problem with R7 is that it did not consider the corner store, which is also part of our neighborhood footprint.
Ms. Griffith from DCC mentioned that the city could come up with a zoning overlay that could be R7 that allows corner stores. I would prefer to look at this option instead of R63.
The areas affected by this change is any open land with 4000 square of space to have a multi family structure built on it. It would also allow existing corner commerical property to operate as commerical with no parking restrictions. I have spoken to my neighbors and we do not want multi family apartment buildings built in the Oakwood Chimborazo or Chimborazo area. Last night the majority of people who voted for the change were from South of Broad (or friends of Charlie’s or Frank Wood)who would not be affected by any such development. The people who would be most affected by the change should be making the decision. Charlie wants a traditional neighborhood with apartments (on his land on 26th St and the rest of Church Hill and a business in every corner commerical property). Only problem is if you saturate the community with too many of the same businesses no one benefits.
Carolyn,
What would you suggest?Is there a
way to bring everybody together. Is the parcel at 35th and Marshall the real issue here. Don,t we need to consider that today under R53 that property could legally by right be constructed as apartments.Would we all be better served by an upscale mixed use project on that site.Have we all learned nothing from the Oakwood Heights debacle? I believe that your math concerning Lot area requirements is in error.R53 allows a 60% use of a 5000 square ft.lot, which is 3000 square feet.R63 allows a 65% use of a 4000 square ft. lot, which is 2600 square feet.So, R63 is actually more restrictive.This is why people are so confused.
A couple of quick thoughts. I’ve no intention of building any apartments (as asserted by Carolyn). They’re not profitable, which is why no one is building them currently, even though its allowed by the current zoning.
Though, Carolyn was correct when she claimed that I think that a business on every corner would be wonderful. (especially a bakery!)(or a coffee shop)(or maybe a small pizza place)
I’d be happy to explain why, or just explain the zoning, in detail if anyone is interested. Please feel free to call me.
Bring on businesses on every corner — imagine a neighborhood that was really walkable.
Yes We Can
Again, if the intention is to not build apartments, but to reinstate corner store zoning then the R63 zoning is not the way to go. Let’s work on single family/duplex with corner stores zoning like the neighborhood was originally intended to be.
The city can and will make a new zoning code for this. Ms. Griffith & city is open to this.
A store on every corner is not very realistic when you consider the failure rate of retail/restaurants even in high traffic areas outside of our community. However, the market decides these things and there are plenty of other viable business uses for the corner stores such as office space, law firms, repair shops, Therapists (definitely a need!), insurance branches, etc.
Mr. Field:
At the CHA meeting you stated that R63 zoning would allow for developers to “maximize their profits.” If apartment buildings aren’t profitable, why are you pushing for the multi-family/R63 zoning?
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Let’s see. I can’t get a pizza,a haircut or any therapy but I can buy all the crack, heroin, and prostitutes I want. Gee I underestimated the creepiness factor
#24 raises a good point. For speciality shops to survive they need to be in a critical mass so as people visit one they can visit the other next door. (ask the community developement these questions. this will help you to recruit the best businesses for your needs)
Some other things to think about for those who have never owned a business:
1. what kind of business is it you really want to support??
2 are you going to wholeheartedly support that business with your money. Small businesses can not buy in very large quantities therefore their prices might be somewhat higher than the local grocery store so are you going to be committed to buy from that walkable neighborhood business??
3.If you find the store owner who is willing to move to your area that provides the product you want are you going to buy from that store if you don’t like the store owner?
I have been on north 25th street for almost 10 years now. I can count on my two hands the number of people who shop here. The neighborhood for the most part thinks of Church Hill Herbs as an herb store. Think outside the box…Church Hill Herbs is and has always been a gift shop. We have tried to carry other products people have ask for but our main focus has been mainly gifts. We added the florist 5 – 6 years ago which has grown largely because of the wire services. Why do you call florists outside of Church Hill to send flowers. WE have a designer, a delivery van a driver and can deliver the same flowers Strange’s, Vogue and Tom French does. We have wire services where we can send your flowers out of town to your loved. People send flowers for birthdays, anniversaries, just because, new babies, mother’s day, valentine’s day, etc. I guess my point is, if YOU won’t support the businesses that are now in YOUR COMMUNTY are you really going to support that walkable neighborhood business?
#19. Single familyor duplex style homes would be nice that fit in with the traditional look of the neighborhood.
I’m sorry for the confusion. I don’t speak well in public (or write very well either). I get nervous and …
In a normal residential district, like R-7, the only way to increase profits is to increase density, but in R-63 you can increase profits by adding amenities. Instead of jamming another 20 houses on to the land they can put in a french cafe (with outdoor seating)(and really good coffe). R-63 gives developers the option do good things for us. Under R-7 they can only add more dwelling units.
Our problem isn’t density. We have lots of vacant lots and lots of abandon houses. Until the existing inventory of homes is occupied, adding more dwelling units, even nice houses, is only going to hurt the value of our homes. We need to create reasons for people to want to live here. (like a good bakery)
I apologize for not explaining thing very well, but I really would be happy to answer all your questions. Just call me 647-1589
#24 and don’t forget a corner art gallery.
#27 Speciality corner stores can and do work in Church Hill and the Eric Schindler Gallery is a prime example. The business was established in 1960 on 1st Street then moved to Church Hill in 1965 and has been operating ever since. Would an art gallery survive by serving neighbors only? No. You’ve got to make yourself a destination -pull people in from all over the city and counties by selling great products at a modest price. The Eric Schindler Gallery not only sells to locals but to folk as far away as California, New Jersy, New York and to patrons living in Northern Virginia, D.C., and North Carolina. People make a day of it. They ask where they should eat, get coffee. They tour historical landmarks, enjoy walks through the parks, and show great appreciation for the architecture our neighborhood offers.
I love patronizing the corner businesses in Church Hill. I enjoy chatting with the neighbors at Buzzy’s or grabbing a drink and appetizer with a friend at the local pub. I also very much appreciate having the vet just around the corner. Having all these places within walking distance reminds me of what I loved about Italy and my travels through Europe where I didn’t need to jump in a car at all.
I would love to see a bakery return to the neighborhood and speaking of bakeries, Aziza’s has the best damn cream puff period. I bet this new establishment will become a draw far and wide.
Please everyone keep me posted on this R7 and R63 stuff.
The concern I have about R63, corner stores, etc. is trying to live next to one. I live catty corner to the Blue Wheeler now and have 2 vacant corner lots on our intersection – 1 right next to my house and 1 directly across the street. I have just 1 business operating in the vacinity of my home and I don’t think I can stand much more noise. Right now, my house is vibrating from the thump-thum-thumping of some guy’s car stereo as his car idles in front of the Blue Wheeler while he is inside. If the zoning was more considerate of the homes and people that live in the community and will live next to these businesses, I would definitely support R63. But, as someone who has to get up and go to work early in the a.m., I can’t stand any more businesses operating around my home until midnight or later every night. It’s not just the Blue Wheeler either – ask the people who live near the Hill Cafe. Although I doubt they get much thump-thump-thumping… 🙂
Buzzy’s is doing OK, isn’t it? I sure hope so! I want a good bakery too! Yeah, and good pizza, and maybe like a small movie theater (second run or art), and definitely a little market! I would pay an extra dollar for a gallon of milk or some eggs within walking distance. So someone get on those things, OK?
Carolyn makes a good point about supporting businesses. There was a good bakery at 25th and Marshall, but couldn’t make a go of it.
The Metro Bakery…best bread and I bought it almost everyday.
I think the bakery could have survived…something else made them close their doors. And since then, the neighborhood has grown and gone through major changes…I think the hill could support a bakery especially one with good real bread.
But yes, I completely agree -support neighborhood businesses.
I don’t think the bakery closed for financial reasons. As I recall the owner used the “N” word to disparage a group of his customers to their faces. Apparently it wasn’t a viable business strategy.
I ditto #33. The bakery moved to Carytown and did very well until he sold and they relocated to St. Louis. And while we’re at it let’s talk about Je’s. Je’s was a good restaurant and she couldn’t make a go of it. John Sanchez has to sell $1.00 tacos & burgers to keep open, and that may not be enough.
Someone mentioned nowhere to get a hair cut. I can name at least two places on the Hill to get a haircut and and several just below the Hill. Just because they are owned by African Americans doesn’t mean they don’t cut white hair. Stylez near the Market just shut down, I assume for lack of business or under-capitalization. There are also several places to get milk and eggs on the Hill as well as pretty good selection of beers. For one, the Family Market comes to mind. They also have a good selection of wines.
So it seems that folks on this thread are wishing for things up here that we already have or did have, but they couldn’t make a go of it because the locals wouldn’t patronize them.
They moved to Carytown…. the bakery
Bob, please don’t confuse a bad business owner with a lack of demand for the commodities offered.
The bakery you refer to (prior to Church Hill Animal Hospital, which now occupies the space,) had wonderful baked goods, but the guy who ran the place was, uh, well, i don’t think i can say this politely, so I’ll just blurt it out: a hate-filled, paranoid, ass.
He absolutely hated people. And couldn’t find anyone willing to put up with his personality to work at the front counter to take care of business. The baker simply had so many awful encounters with customers that folks like myself just couldn’t countenance going back, no matter how tasty the cakes were.
I think a bakery would flourish on Church Hill…as long as its run by someone who can “play well with others”.
Bob, #33, glad you remember that, actually it was Church Hill Bakery run by Michelle and Michael Siri-Beyzak. They were run out, I won’t go into detail but it was racist. They moved to Carytown and became Metro Bakery where they enjoyed a good run and would still be today, except she worked for Wachovia (Michael ran the bakery). She got transferred to St. Louis last year, their last day open in Carytown was Ash Wednesday of last year. Michael was hoping to open another bakery in their new town.
I’d like to think that we’ve at least moved past the incidents that caused them to close down in Church Hill…hopefully we have.
And I agree, Carolyn does make a good point that we need to support local businesses. She’s having a tough time; I ordered flowers from her last month when I needed them for a funeral.
Charlie,
Under the current zoning, you cannot “Jam” 20 house into anywhere. You can build 20 houses on 20 lots. You are proposing a zoning that allows developers to “Jam” more units into lots originally intended for single family homes. If you don’t think we need more building, why are you proposing it be allowed.
I have lived in the Church Hill North area for going on 16 years. As more and more folks moved in, more businesses opened. Some of them closed because the neighbors just didn’t patronize them. You keep saying you want a pizza place you can walk to. It’s an easy walk from your house to Davinci’s. How many times have you been there?
At this time, much of this area is designated R-53- Multi-family. When the city proposed the zoning changes, they said they wanted to have the zoning reflect how the neighborhoods have naturally developed, because the current zoning was viewed as inappropriate. This area has always been single family and duplex homes with corner stores. I think that the zoning should allow those corner stores, but not force multi-family housing into those areas. I think the city should be asked to create a new zoning category allowing single family and duplex homes, along with corner store,commercial.
Charlie, at the CHA meeting you said we need this R-63 zoning so that developers can , and I quote you. “MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS.” Charlie, I am a business man, and believe me, I am all about making a profit. But not “maximizing profits” at the expense of my neighborhood, by “jamming” multi- family apartment buildings into lots meant for single family homes. There are several locations in the area where there are adjoining single family lots that could be developed for apartment buildings. This would be inappropriate for this historic neighborhood.
I am not saying that pockets of R-63 wouldn’t work in the area, and , again, I am all for the corner store. But to promote the rezoning the entire Church Hill north and Union Hill area for multi-family , so developers can “JAM” more units into a project, and justify that because you want to, as you said at the CHA meeting, “walk to the corner and get pizza from a big hipped woman with an accent” is just plain wrong.
This process of rezoning has been going on for quite awhile now (perhaps a year or more). I went to more than one of those meetings. At the time, R-63 was the “new” alternative zoning to the current R-7 and R-53. Union Hill residents believed that the “new” R-63 was the best available compromise between R-7 (basically all residental) and R-53 (allowing too much density). R-63 fit right in the middle with an attractive option for businesses on block corners, an option that could be lost under the other zonings. Saying that we need no more corner businesses because no one patronizes the ones here already is just splitting hairs for the sake of arguement.
Big question is… after all this time and discussion with City Staff on the rezoning of this portion of the East End, why all the controversy now? Why wasn’t there more participation before, like that of the Union Hill folks?
The reason for the controversy is that, the original city proposal suggested the R-63 zoning for a few pockets of the area, and the majority of the area R-7. This new recommendation says the entire residential make up Church Hill North and Union Hill should be zoned R-63 multi-family. That is just not right for the neighborhood. At the early public meetings the city held on this matter, many people suggested that it would be nice to have the corner stores. I don’t recall anybody say, they thought the whole neighborhood should be R-63.
As I said earlier, the cities original intent was to establish zoning that reflects how the neighborhood has developed. This neighborhood has always been predominantly single family and duplex houses, with a sprinkling of corner stores. It should be zoned to reflect that.
just to make myself clearer to Resident522,
The problem is not with the corner store, it is multifamily zoning in a single family neighborhood.
#31-I know that It’s not much consolation,but since the Blue Wheeler changed hands the new owners have tried to better control that corner.The 32nd and Marshall corner has been the focus of law enforcement because of a history of drug activity,gangs, and violence.It has seen drastic change compared to 5 years ago.The absentee property owners should be encouraged to remove the cigarette advertising and do some imaging changes to the buildings exterior.As for the thump- thump-thump I get angry everytime I hear it. It used to be accompanied by bang-bang-bang.
By the way,I believe Blue Wheeler may be for sale. What an opportunity to eliminate the nuisance factor and transform this site into a corner business more in tune with the surrounding area.
There’s DaVinci’s on 25th St. that has great pizza. I think there’s a bakery on 25th where Tasti Bake used to be. I haven’t been there because I make my own baked goods, but for those wanting a bakery in the neighorhood, it’s an option.
This process of rezoning Church Hill and Union Hill has been going on for awhile now (a year or more). I attended three of the public presentations myself. City Staff mentioned R-63 (which at the time was a new and mildly tested type of zoning). R-63 should be roughly the middle ground between the R-7 and the R-53. The R-63 zoning allows for single family, duplexes, and multi-family construction (like R-53) but with less density than R-53. The R-63 also allows for corner businesses and minimum setbacks instead of maximum setbacks. This translates into storefronts closer to sidewalks thus creating areas more attractive to pedestrian traffic.
The arguement that we need no more business space on the block corners because no one supports existing businesses is splitting hairs. R-63 would allow for future businesses to meet zoning, where under current zoning or R-7 the opportunity for a store or shop could revert to residential use unless the property continually conducts business at its location. I plan on asking Charlie Field if this perception is even close to being accurate.
Why all the controversy now? Union Hillers were there at the same time as everyone else interested. And Union Hill has already made a decision based on the available information.
Oops, reposted thinking my computer malfunction of earlier kept my comments from being posted.
Apologies
No one I have talked to knew about the CHA “subcommittee” until recently. There were no postings of the subcommittee members appointment in the CHA newsletter or on the CHA website.
I have been told that the subcomittee was “appointed” by the Zoning Committee Chair, however, I can’t confirm that. I have also been informed that the subcommitte acted independently of the zoning committee and was not made up of zoning committee members. Why not? Why the hell does the CHA have a zoning committee if they are not going to be utilized for something like this?
The subcommittee has two members that have a stake in getting the R63. One is a developer and the other a corner store owner that can’t get their SUP. I am hoping that there were others on the committee who balanced out the group so that this doesn’t look as biased and corrupt as it seems.
Why is it that the speakers at the meeting did not identify themselves as the subcommittee and own the fact that the map they presented was their work and NOT the city’s recommendation? This proposal was completely misrepresented, thus the confusion by membership. In fact there were Board members of the CHA that vocalized how confused they were by the presentation.
On another note, why did the presenters get up and leave directly after their presentation? Make’s one think that they are only there for the price of $20 to push an agenda that they have a lot to personally gain from without some of them even living in the area.
This is a bamboozle people, pure and simple!
Let’s be a little more careful how we select our subcommittees from now on, and have some more transparency within the organization.
I also feel that the board member who also serves as the president of the Union Hill Association should have abstained from voting on this issue. He did not, he voted for the R63. He also asked that Union Hill be taken out of the proposal because it has already been voted on by them.
Seems like the UHCA want to be separate from the CHA, but loves to get money and support from the CHA when they want it. You can’t have it both ways.
Corrupt Richmond politics, even at the grass roots level.
Tranparency. I am all for it. how about some diversity and less hypocrisy. Are there minutes available. It’s still $25 a
vote no matter how you cut it. Sad. Patrick Henry is turning over in his grave
I think we should definately leave the door open for future businesses. This is what makes city living so great. I have been pretty sore about the closing of my corner store (Chimborazo Market) on 29th and Broad.
The membership is open to all who attend.Join , attend, vote….then you have the right to complain. Every year it seems like pulling teeth to find folks willing to take on the postions of running the organization. Either folks are burned out from years of donating time or they don’t care and rather complain on blogs.
No, EDS, every resident has a right to complain, whether it be in the form of CHA, UHCA, or just a call to your local representative. We are all community and all of our opinions count – not just the CHA’s.
Wow. How about that venom and bile coming from 28th Street? So much for John Johnson’s vision of cooperative, joint endeavors between civic associations in the area. Perhaps an apology is due.
The only monetary contributions accepted from the CHA was the one for the Union Hill Historic District Initative. UHHDI and the Union Hill Civic Association mutually agreed to remain seperate entities.
#56:
Is part of John Johnson’s vision to not take a stand on the zoning that greatly affects our neighborhood? He declined to vote the other night.
Was a similar contribution given to the Initiative from the UHCA?
tiny… yes.. everyone can complain, but if you don’t try to be part of a solution. It is hard to listen to the armchair quarter backs.
So when are you going to offer that apology?
#58:
I definitely plan on being part of the solution, as do my friends and neighbors.
#59:
“vision of cooperative, joint endeavors between civic associations in the area”
If this is your argument, then why didn’t the UHCA consult with the CHA before they decided to vote on a zoning overlay that affects both our communities? The CHA was willing to include Union Hill, but UHCA declined.
Cooperation and joint endeavors go both ways, and the CHA definitely has fulfilled it’s obligations in that regard.
I’ve got an idea. Only citizens that live in the Church Hill rezoning study area get to vote.Deal? or no Deal?
(Hey kushumpeng/raggamuffin/kushumpeng – pick a name and stick with it, otherwise the dialogue gets disjointed. thanks.)
#53 Me Too
#54 so,let me get this straight a President should cast a tiebreaker vote at St Johns Church He votes no then the zoning chair shows up late and votes yes. It’s a tie. What a Buzzkill
No. 37 – Stylez did not close, it moved. It is now right next to Ferguson’s in the building on the corner of 25th and Franklin. The owner, Jason, is a Church Hill resident and is really good!
#64 As I recall the Zoning Chair, and incidentily the Vice President of the CHA, didn’t even show up for the meeting. As this is a very important zoning issue for the neighborhood, where was she?
Also, after the president of the Union Hill Civic Association asked for the amendment to not include the Union Hill area in the CHA vote, in return for his not voting on the CHA proposal, he still voted!! Is this a conflict of interest? or is his word not worth anthing?
I also do not recall hearing anything about this vote in the CHA newsletter, other than, in the minutes from the February meeting, that the information would be posted to the website and included in the newsletter prior to the meeting, which it wasn’t. Issues of this gravity to the neighborhood should be announced to the membership in advance.
I also agree with EDS #14 that the majority of the votes concerning expenditure of funds were excessive and were not previously published in the newsletter, in accordance with the bylaws(Artile V11 #2) and any expenditure over $999.99, other than the funds for the Chimborazo Playground (not Park) are non-binding.
I also do not recall hearing what the Board’ position was on any of these issues. I can only assume (and we all know what that means) that the board was in favor of all of these (Zoning and Financial) issues. I look forward to the minutes of the March Board meeting in the next newsletter and suggets that the Board look at and follow the Bylaws in the future.
Incidentally, concerning what I believe was the original intent of this thread, why is there a need to include multi-family in a zoning which the majority of proponents seem to believe only requires just a need for corner commercial? The Master Plan shows, and the the historical development of the area in question supports, that this is a predominantly single family/duplex neighborhood. Why not develop a zoning which allows corner stores with the R7 type zoning, instead of injecting the multifamily into the equation?
#66 How long might it take for the City to develop the zoning?
When it comes time to retire, could a corner store business owner be able to sell his property as commercial property under R7 zoning? Or would it revert to residential?
From how I read the ordinace, the property is grandfathered for two years. After that, it downzones to the prevailing classification if it is not used or vacant.
One of the problems with R-7 is it can cost $20,000 or more for someone who buys a long vacant corner commercial building to hire a lawyer for the necessary hearing and city hall bureaucractic navigation to reinstate grandfathering for that corner store.
R-63 mirrors the traditional pattern of development in the neighborhood. I don’t know how someone can look at all the english basements, duplexes and small early 20th century apartment buildings and say greater church hill is “just” a single family home neighborhood.
Also, the corner stores… sure, folks hate the Blue Wheeler, but the home buyers of the future want services they can walk too. Maybe no one can start anything now in the middle of the recession, but this thing isn’t going to last forever. It’s short-sighted to quash R-63 because of the Blue Wheeler.
Park funding canceled and set for re-vote on April 21 – Despite a “yes” vote for park funding at the last CHA meeting, our funding has been made “null and void”. Even though the Friends of Chimborazo published a grant request in the last CHA newsletter, the CHA’s bylaws require them to publish an announcement of upcoming votes for funding requests of more than $1,000 to membership. We have asked the CHA to include this announcement in next month’s newsletter and reprint our funding request. The park funding request comes up for vote again at the next CHA membership meeting.
So, please renew your membership or become a new member of the CHA and vote on Tuesday, April 21, 7pm at Asbury Methodist Church at 29th & Marshall St.
Neighbor.
R-7 is for single family AND duplex. R-63 call for increased multi-family, which is not how the neighborhood has developed. That is why I oppose the wholesale conversion to R-63. I do agree with you, however, that we would be all served with more corner stores, and I think the city should develop and new urban residential zoning category, that includes corner stores within a single family and duplex neighbor. That is the traditional mix in this area, and it I should be encouraged.
Jim, agree with you. How we request this new zoning?
I totally agree with #72. People be careful what you wish for with R63, and understand the full scope of it because once it’s implemented, there could be problems and no tools for recourse. Lessons should have been learned with Oakwood, and even the Blue Wheeler.
Since the CHA professes to have a sphere of influence that reaches Oakwood Cemetery and East to Union Hill why not have a meeting at the 31st Street Church to inform and encourage citizen participation. Also, maybe some people don’t have $25. Can they still vote? It’s tough down here on the plantation.Some R63 may be a socioeconomic bailout. Concerning the Blue Wheeler; They are from Yemen. They can’t totally control what happens on the street.They all live within a couple of blocks of the store.We need enforcement of a noise ordinance. I shop there everyday.
Correction, I meant West to Union Hill, East to Kings Retreat.Can’t a brother get a Lapdance?