RECENT COMMENTS
Gustavo S. on Missing this fella? Updated!
Eric S. Huffstutler on New sidewalk at Clay and 26th Streets
Eric S. Huffstutler on Missing this fella? Updated!
Eric S. Huffstutler on Old water tower is coming down
Eric S. Huffstutler on then it happens to you...
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Appeal filed on City Council’s Oakwood Heights decision
03/25/2009 3:28 PM by John M
The anticipated appeal against City Council’s decision to overturn CAR’s decision on the Oakwood Heights project has been filed. Though the appeal was filed with one individual as “Petitioner” (PDF), opponents of the project say that “the petition speaks for us all as home owners, renters and investors in this neighborhood” and that “the document […] touches strongly on the protection of the historic fabric of this community and the Old & Historic areas of Richmond.”
I was pleased that the Church Hill Association pledged $1000 towards funding this legal battle! Finally…hooray for the CHA!!
It works that CHA would be paying for both sides, since City Council is defended by the City Attorney, paid for by tax dollars.
Ron, what do you mean by CHA “paying for both sides”?
CHA donates to the appellant, and through RE taxes, pays for the city’s legal defense.
Ron, just to be clear, CHA is a neighborhood organization that is funded solely by its members and revenue from its activities. It does not receive $$$ from the City.
Are plans or any architectural details available online anywhere for the Oakwood Heights project? I’ve been following the debate for a while but I haven’t seen any renderings yet of what they want to do. I know, I should have made it to a meeting or two but…
I don’t have anything recent.
Ramzi #6, from reading the entire petition referenced in the heading of this thread in PDF format, it appears to me that there never were any final plans and specifications presented. So I guess whatever we saw here last fall (wasn’t there something on here last fall? John?) then that was it, that’s all that ever got presented, the conceptual plans. At least, that’s my interpretation of the PDF document. Read the whole thing and tell me if that’s what you understand. It’s actually one of the complaints in the appeal, the way I understand it.
Glad to her about this.
crd – that is right. No final plans were submitted, just conceptual.
Boy one more reason not to join CHA if that is how they spend their annual dues. It’s a bit disingenuous to imply that the petition speaks for the neighborhood, unless by “neighborhood” you are referring to the property owners adjacent to or within spitting distance of the Oakwood Heights project. By using the term neighborhood the quote above could be misconstrued as implying that the larger Church Hill neighborhood opposes the project, which I don’t think is a fair assessment (unless you are under the very mistaken impression that the CHA speaks for the entire Church Hill neighborhood).
Whether you like the idea of Oakwood Heights or not is not the primary issue here in my opinion. The issue is whether the City Council should arbitrarily, for obvious political reasons, overturn a well-thought out decision by architectural professionals serving the Commission for Architectural Review.
Over the past few years, every time a developer has whined to City Council about a CAR decision, they get their way.
How are we supposed to protect and enhance historic districts in Richmond if the professionals in charge are constantly overturned by politicians? Some of who, particularly in this case, are funded by developers?
Money wins in politics, which is why historical preservation should be an architectural, not a political decision.
I don’t recall the exact amount, but I think the CHA has $32,000 sitting in the bank? A thousand dollars is not that big a deal.
I know they use some of it to pre-fund the CHA Ball and X-mas Tour, but it sure does seem like a lot of money for a neighborhood non-profit group.
Post#11 … I’m a member of CHA BECAUSE of the opinion expressed in your post. I can’t let ChA have a free hand in determining what happens in my neighborhood. If I’m not a member then I don’t have a voice at all! I’m for Oakwood as are mony others, who for the most part, don’t belong to CHA. Thanks for your post and I hope others who are for more neighborhood stores, restuarants, coffee houses and yes even Oakwood Heights speak out so we know your there. Oakwood did have site plans, ones that were adjusted to all of CARS demands but in the end, and three years later CAR decided that the real issure was mass. It also would have been more just if one of the neighbors against the project from the get go did not sit on CARs board. She should have excused herself.
Isn’t this supposed to be a “high end” project that will likely attract high end professionals to Church Hill? Isn’t that good for Church Hill? What are the concerns? (and do they really outweigh the benefits)?
I think the concerns are that it’s appearance will not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, which is a requirement in an O&H district, especially the parking and the fact that the backs of the structures will be facing the street. Also, with 33 units it’s density will be much higher than the single-family neighbors. I’m not sure but I believe someone said that the units will be around 800 sq ft each and will cost around $200-300K, and if sales do not happen the concern is that they will be changed to apartments with a more transient population base. I’d like to see more details on the project, there’s been a lot of hype on both sides but not much solid information, which is yet another problem with the whole thing.
I wonder if the city attorney will seek legal fees from the appellant if the court decides that this suit was only of nuisance value. At least the rest of us wouldn’t have to pay several hundred thousand dollars as a result of a groundless suit.
From the appeal (the link is in the article above)it appears that there are possible grounds for reversal. If the city didn’t follow the law they should be held accountable. The historic zoning overlay is there for a reason and if the city ignored it then they were wrong in their decision, especially if no specific reason was given. I don’t really know the details of what actually happened so I’m just going on what available info there is out there. I also doubt that it would be a couple hundred thousand for a few hours in court, although I think that’s what the new roundabout on 25th cost so who knows.
Hi Ramzi – The issue is a bit larger now. City Council ruling granted a “blank check” to build. The developer, or another developer if the land is ever sold, may now build with no regard to the historic nature of the area, the historic character of the surrounding homes or the codes in force that protect the entire historic district.
Hype. Interesting word with two very different meanings depending on how it is used. hype – n. defined:
1. Excessive publicity and the ensuing commotion: “The hype surrounding the murder trial”
2. Something deliberately misleading; a deception: “[He] says that there isn’t any energy crisis at all, that it’s all a hype, to maintain outrageous profits for the oil companies” Joel Oppenheimer.
Ron – You are an intelligent man. I’ve read your posts and an many, there is an underlying current of caring about this area. Groundless. Nuisance. Both, powerful words. The suit is far from groundless and or intended as a nuisance. I think of definition #2 above when I see them used in this discussion.
Council’s ruling has, in effect, removed more than a third of the 36th block of E. Broad and E. Marshall off the historic map of Richmond and it no longer exists in historic district altogether. Should that be allowed to stand?
Would you like such broad strokes to be taken on the proposed Shocko Bottom development or the proposed Echo Harbor project?
If this can happen on end of Broad St, it can happen anywhere in Richmond’s Old & Historic Districts.
Ramzi – I was responding to your #16 post before the thread was refreshed 🙂
Historic Richmond Foundation has voted to donate $2500 towards the Oakwood Heights appeal.
Post #19 Deanna … Any developer with a plan differing from the current one will have to go through CAR. Nothing in that regard has changed. Fulton’s plan design DOES fit the historic flavor of the neighborhood axcept in scale which the zoning allows.
Hi Lisa,
We will have to “agree to disagree” then. It does not fit.
First – zoning does not exist in this discussion. It is not an issue if we all agree that it is zoned for 33 – and I do concur.
The conceptual design is not in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood, it does not complement the surrounding architecture and does not adhere to the historic codes that overlay this historic district.
The Oakwood Heights design has been interesting in it’s various evolutions. In this proposed location, it fails in many respects
No disrespect intended, but your comment above is flawed:
‘Fulton’s plan design DOES fit the historic flavor of the neighborhood except in scale which the zoning allows‘,
That is akin to me stating that:
‘The 36’’ high cinder block crawl space wall and brick veneer is allowed by building codes but I propose to use gravel as the foundation in lieu of concrete’.
Building wouldn’t approve that type of a foundation because it compromises the overall structure of the house. The historic guidelines were implemented decades ago so the historic structure, the foundation, of the Old & Historic Districts of Richmond would not fall.
What ever happened to the lawsuit filed by Mr Carson?
But the CAR guidelines also say that the new construction cannot be too closely designed to look historic. The truth is that a few people fought every design element, at every stage. The CAR staff recommended in favor of the application, which was rejected partly through the efforts of a CAR member who was a neighbor, and who promptly resigned as soon as the Oakwood application was approved by Council. As to the “Massing” argument that Oakwood would be taller than surrounding buildings, that is true only if you consider the structures immediately adjacent. Go just a half block away and there are structures as tall as Oakwood.