RECENT COMMENTS
Citizens support, critique CAR at public meeting
Approximately 25 people turned out for a public hearing tonight held by the Commission for Architectural Review Taskforce to receive public input concerning the process used by CAR. Eleven citizens spoke on various issues related to CAR; all were suppotive of the need for the commission, though some asked for changes in the guidelines and the appeals process.
Here are my sketchy notes on the speakers. I’m sure that I got names wrong, please post any corrections etc in the comments below.
Jim Daab – O&H formed by residents, CAR formed to serve the residents. CAR is too wrapped up about false historicism: modern and contemporary does not preserve the character of the neighborhood. Norfolk allows blending, RVA wants differentiation. Analogy of needing 2 front tooth, CAR wanting to put in gold teeth to differentiate.
Laura Daab – led effort to establish Church Hill North Old & Historic District. Lays out that Church Hill North has many vacant lots and reiterates the text of her recent petition.
Mary Jane Hogue – of the Historic Rchmond Foundation. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Calls CAR a “a gift to the community every day” for their diligence in protecting the historic architecture. Says that HRF supports the CAR mission.
Waite Rawls – Directs museum of the Confederacy, CHA, – CAR is not aligned with the desires of the citzens. The rules do not seem consistent with neighborhood preservation. Oakwood Heights has undermined confidence in CAR and Oakwood Heights.
Chris Gunn – St.John’s resident, Fulton Hill Properties employee, – Oakwood Heights – neighborhoods should be allowed to thrive economically. Prooposes that there be a recusal when there is a financuial conflict of interest or if a CAR member lives in the district in question. Says that the process needs to be more efficient, less arbitrary.
William Kinnsly – 32nd Street resident, has renovated and describes the process of working with CAR as amiable. Has issues with the fact that it is too easy to get around CAR, complains about lax enforcement. Speaking of CAR, says that “they are doign a good job”.
Walter Dotts – guidelines no longer serve the purposes for which they were established. The guidelines are now the most pervasive threat, with the requirement for differentiation of new from old. Differentiaion has a place, but this is not why CAR was established. Shares personal experience with going befor CAR for a doorway and fence, having to put in a contemporary door & fence. “We did not buy an old house because we are fans of modern architecture.” – has suggestions that include: decouple from Federal guidelines, remove biases against traditional architecture, remove ban on salvaged materials.
Joseph Yates – architect & resident of an O&H – main issue is infill in O&H – standards are only guidelines… the change over time is part of what makes urban environments so interesting. drawing a line in time and not allowing new architecture leads to fake architecture and demishes the originals.
Burt (illegible) – architect – pattern books would lead to Disney World, CAR has a pretty good success rate over 50 years if you look at the small number of appeals, says that “on the whole we have a pretty good living document”
Colita Dobb – appreciates the benefit for having modern architecture juxtoposed with historic architecture, refers to “living among the variance”. (At this point I got distrated thinking about the new 6 packs of Legend and lost some of what was said. Sorry. – JCM). CAR should not be able to supercede zoning, this would lead to more high density and sustainable development.
Mark Franco – of Franco LaFratta – has been before CAR many times, has not had to go through the appeals process. Suprised that the legislative body is involved in the appeal process: any appeal can then be frought with political overtones.
The next meeting of the CAR Review Taskforce will be at 4PM on the 1st Thursday of November at Firestation Headquarters building (201 East Franklin Street).
it’s Burt Pinnock of BAM Architects,
thanks for the recap
The meeting last night was interesting. Very few people showed up, and I understand why. Why should the citizenry care when the task force is stacked with developers, real estate people, ex city hall employees and no one except Carneal who actually lives in an Old & Historic District?
So much for public input. One had to sign up ahead of time and was given 3 minutes to speak. There is no dialog or interaction going on between the task force and the residents. The only representation of actual neighbors from the districts was the ones who spoke to reforming the CAR. There was a young woman, a Maggie Fruend supporter, who talked about having virtually no zoning restrictions at all citywide. No height, massing, scale, setbacks – anything, and that OHD zoning overlays should always be circumvented by the basic zoning overlay. (Does that sound like a Maggie Fruend argument or what?)
People who spoke to do nothing to change the CAR were all architects (former CAR member and a city architect) and developers – big surprise!
A former CAR member who helped write the guidelines as they stand now, and a developer from Maggie Fruend’s firm also spoke. The former CAR member, of course, praised the guidelines. He also said that Pattern Books are Disneyland. Does he know that much of the original housing stock in our OHD’s were built using pattern books? Hmmm. Maggie Freund’s employee wanted less restriction in OHD’s and for the CAR to be more developer “Fruendly.”(sorry, couldn’t resist). There was also an architect who works for the city that doesn’t want any changes to the CAR, or guidelines. One has to wonder if most of these folks were plants from the powers that be.
Another interesting note: ACORN representation was noticeably silent, while the HRF director gave some kind of Girl Scout speech about how great the CAR is. She actually said that the CAR guidelines should never be changed. It would be nice if special interest organizations actually gave a speech of some substance, instead of the “brochure” speech that they dig out for occasions like this.
Both HRF director and ACORN directors were present a year and a half ago when a group of about 20 of us met with then Councilpersons Pantele and McQuinn to discuss reform of the CAR-specifically changing the passage under Form in New Construction, Article 2. Both directors from ACORN and HRF were in agreement with the need for change back then. They too, thought that the infill going up in our OHD’s was inappropriate and that there was a need to reform the CAR, but have since either done a 180, or have buried their head in the sand.
The 180 from both groups came at the same time that City Council was sued over the Oakwoods project. Both groups helped fund the lawsuit. The wagons have circled to protect the CAR because all these groups are aligned with each other in that they rely on the tax credit programs derived from the DIS standards/CAR guidelines to stay alive. They are afraid that Tyler and the task force are going to either eliminate the CAR or take away their power. By the way, there are several CAR members who are connected to ACORN and the HRF. The preservation community is very incestuous, as are developers.
Another note: The only question from the task force to the public was addressed to a contractor/developer who got up and spoke about how to better handle the appeals process. The task force seemed very interested in that, which leads me to conclude (as I have always done) that this task force is a direct result of the lawsuit filed against them regarding the Oakwoods. I think that the goal here is to figure out how to “fix” the CAR so that Council won’t be bothered by them anymore. I believe that this may be the only intent of this task force.
To all of you who support my petition: you need to get mad, really mad. For the 100 people who showed up at the CAR forum I organized in June – you need to get mad too.
There will be one more “public hearing” before this whole thing wraps up. I don’t know how that will take shape, but if any of you out there really want to fight the good fight you’ve got to show up. Signing a petition is not enough. Show up, be heard!
Perhaps HRF and “ACORN” knew better than to dignify your personal campaign for disneyworld church hill with a response.
Kudos to HRF for supporting CAR and to the Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods to saving our historic neighborhoods one dilapidated house at a time.
False historicism for selfish aesthetic reasons (or for any reason) is an insult to our historic neighborhoods.
I’m glad you were listening to what I had to say Laura. To clarify for you: “Richmond is getting ready to undergo some major changes. With talk of the High Speed rail on the horizon, our City needs to begin carving the path for sustainable development now before the influx of people and business begins. Urban density is a huge factor in sustainability, and one that Richmond needs to embrace. The people that built this City knew that the areas that have become part of our Old and Historic districts would be the centers of urban development. That is why much of the zoning throughout the Old and Historic districts, which dates back to the beginning of zoning ordinances in Richmond, allows for multi-family and mixed use building. CAR should not be able to supersede zoning guidelines and property owner’s rights on issues of scale and density. The way the system is set up now, CAR has the ability to command that that new buildings in our Old and Historic districts are limited in size and massing to that of the existing structures on adjacent plats, despite the fact that zoning allows for larger structures. This discrepancy needs to be clarified, and done so in a way that encourages sustainable development and logical density.”
It is vital that Richmond support and encourage sustainable development through tools like the Commission of Architectural Review. I think the Commission needs to be more focused on how we can be responsible in both preserving AND building our history. I am sorry if you disagree, but I care a lot more about the future my children will have than the fact that there will be another condominium unit in the neighborhood someday. I absolutely see the necessity for zoning, as well as overlays for Old and Historic districts. I have an immense respect for Richmond’s history, and I want it to be enjoyed by many generations to come.
I have to agree with Laura Daab on this one. She made some valid points that make sense. Also shows “Tyler and friends, as politics as usual. The only way to stop it, or at best, air some of the Citys dirty laundry, is to heed her request, and get involved.
I think there a good number of valid points on both sides. When I enclosed my second floor porch, I was told to make it “less historic”. I did. It looks OK, but it was not my first choice.
I will disagree on one point. I don’t the founding fathers had a clue about what “future commerce” was. The primary mode of transportation was by horse. There’s no way they could have envisioned what today would have been like. In those days, no one in their right minds would ride a horse 10 miles to pick up a sack of sugar or food.
RE: # 19
They also travelled by foot.
If we are smart about developing, encouraging Inclusionary housing and multi-use buildings that could include (on the street level) a bakery, a dry cleaner, a sweet shop, deli/butcher, cafes, etc. you wont need your car as much. Church Hill had all of that at one time. It sustained itself and put money back in the community. It can happen again.
Hopefully the Church Hill Market is headed for that type of a re-birth; a grocery/dei with 3 apartments above. I’d gladly walk several blocks up and back with my provisions, saying hi to all the neighbors and the dogs walking their people along the way.
OOPS! # 6
Excellent comments from #7 as well. the million dollar question in planning is; What kind of Development is appropriate in a historic district? Or do we want the big developers to take over?
#6 -Being instructed to make a Libby Hill area property (I’m making assumptions based on your handle) look “less historic” is absolutely disgraceful! Regulating infill is one thing, but modernizing the appearance of an antebellum structure defeats the very purpose of Old & Historic District zoning. “False historicism” provisions are a cancer on Old & Historic Districts.
#7 There are no plans for a market at what was known as ‘the Corner Market’ location. There will be 1500 sq.ft. of commercial space for rent when they finish the rehab. It may end up being retail or offices.
#3:
You have chosen an interesting moniker, “JDRockefeller.” That’s the very same family that funded/restored Colonial Williamsburg, you know, the place that you, and others like you, love to refer to as false historicism (your favorite phrase). LOL!
Definition:
Historicism: chiefly derogatory (in artistic and architectural context), excessive regard for past styles.
So, “false” historicism would not have an excessive regard for past styles, because it’s false – not true.
Your bunch really needs to get your inflammatory rhetoric correct.
I would rather have an informed sense of history than no sense of history which is what the CAR is mandating right now with approval of structure that have “no discernible architectural style.”
“No discernible architectural style” is a direct quote from a CAR staff report in which a CAR member instructs an applicant on what is acceptable new construction.
Your argument is fallacious and indefensible. I would suggest that it is YOUR group that is the self appointed “taste police.”
#3:
Forgot this in my last post. Did you not read the part of #2 that talks about the directors of the HRF and ACORN attending a meeting where they were supporting changes to the CAR guidelines and protesting the inappropriate infill taking place in our OHD’s? Explain why they did this and then with no explanation to our group or myself, turn completely in the opposite direction. Did the boards of both groups “slap their hands” and mandate that they lock-step with anything the CAR desires?
I do think that ACORN does some good as does the HRF but reneging on a position, just for political reasons, is a cop out and an indefensible compromise.
#4:
You said, “The people that built this City knew that the areas that have become part of our Old and Historic districts would be the centers of urban development. That is why much of the zoning throughout the Old and Historic districts, which dates back to the beginning of zoning ordinances in Richmond, allows for multi-family and mixed use building. CAR should not be able to supersede zoning guidelines and property owner’s rights on issues of scale and density.”
First of all, Church Hill is not an urban core, and an urban core is more suitable to the type of density and development you advocate. Church Hill is, and was, a residential community of single family homes and duplexes with corner businesses with living space above. Any apartments or buildings that are larger than duplexes came somewhat later in Church Hill’s development and are still fairly uncommon here. There is some adaptive reuse such as the Boulder and Nolde, some four plexes and some chopped up larger homes.
The original zoning from the 1920’s calls for single family/duplexes, some limited multifamily and corner stores in a residential setting. The neighborhood’s organic development has stayed fairly true to this. I’m sure you are aware of the proposed zoning changes that the city wants to implement for our area, including the land that Ms. Fruend wants to develop. What the city wants to do is eliminate the spot zoning that currently exists, and replace it with sustainable zoning that fits the original footprint of the community. To this purpose, Mr. Hardin and staff recommend R-7 (single family duplex) for most of the proposed area and some corner store mixed use in selected areas. I believe that this is the correct zoning for the area, and support their proposed plan.
As for the CAR superseding zoning – OHD’s are an overlay to the basic zoning. They work in tandem and are not mutually exclusive. As much as you want them to be, they are not and should not be. Chimborazo OHD’s protections are there for a reason and preserving mass and scale is paramount to that protection. When one chooses to buy property in an OHD, they have to expect to give up some property rights in order to preserve the district. Our districts ARE sustainable and have been for generations past and will be for your children’s generation. The original density in CH was single family duplex and mixed use corner stores. The city wishes it to remain so, most neighbors wish it to remain so, and I believe that type of zoning will prevail.
I don’t agree with your position, but I appreciate the conversation. Thanks for a civil discussion.
As one who was involved in the process of setting up the CAR Task Force, I have a little understanding of the reasoning behind the establishment. In no particular order, we saw a CAR member who was an neighbor/opponent of an applicant and who used her position on CAR to block a project otherwsie recommended by staff. Clearly a conflict that should have not been permitted. Second, we saw a majority of CAR attemptiong to use guidelines to over-ride a city ordinance, the zoning ordinance. That clearly disturbed some. Third, we saw CAR use the “false historicism” issue to force a developer into a design that does not fit the neighborhood, because the orginial plans looked too much like the rest of the neighborhood.
A previous member of city council took the position that only residents of O&H Districts should be appointed to CAR. I think you could make the argument exactly the opposite.
Deanna, I notice that you used the term “Inclusionary housing.” That usually means low or low moderate income. What are the chances of that in an O&H District?
Ron,
After all of these back and forth conversations between us via this forum how about if you finally commit to sitting down over a cup of coffee with me? To sweeten the pot… I’ll buy 🙂
Here is my email – deanna@deannalewis4council.com and my Meet & Greet schedule – http://www.deannalewis4council.com/meetgreet.html – it’s being added to every day and I’m out talking to people in the 7th so grab me quickly. I’m available from 6:00am to 11:00pm.
Yes, I use the term “Inclusionary housing” but more importantly I believe in it. The chances of that in the O&H depend on who is being an advocate for that change in development. Regarding the 7th district, it has the remarkable combination of salvageable building inventory and vacant land capacity in established neighborhoods to make this program work very effectively here and grow a diverse “Urban Gentrification” based community if done right.
“we saw a CAR member who was an neighbor/opponent of an applicant and who used her position on CAR to block a project otherwsie recommended by staff. Clearly a conflict that should have not been permitted.”
The same could be said about a particular council person using his influence for big development projects whose Company has a major investment in. Amending, changing laws for personal gain.
“Amending, changing laws for personal gain.”
Oh, and Department heads.
#17. I agree.
#18. Done by mayor with no involvement of Council.
The impression I get (and the the view from Oregon Hill) is that CAR will not protect historic Richmond neighborhoods from big developers (and VCU) and threfore there is little benefit in it for residents, just headaches.
#19. Not totally true; there was a thread prior, can’t locate it right now, regarding the firing and or investigation of Rachael Flynn.
#15/Ron:
So many things in your post that I want to address.
You say that you were a part setting up the task force. Does that mean that you were involved in the selection? If so:
1. Since you are disclosing this information, I’d like to know who you are. Full name please.
2. What are your qualifications for setting up and selecting the task force? Why were you chosen to help? Do you work for the city, or what is your relationship with the Council subcommittee in charge of the task force process?
3. What was the criteria/methodology for selecting the task force members. What relationships do they have to the Council subcommittee overseeing this task force and process?
4. Do you live or own property in an OHD? Do yo live in the City of Richmond? Are you involved in preservation on any level? Development? Architecture?
I find a lot of your other comments very disturbing in ways that have nothing to do with whether or not the CAR should be reformed. Your comments are uninformed, and really sound like a regurgitation of false arguments put forth by equally uninformed people. Some of whom are on Council.
While I have had my differences with the CAR member that you mention above, I see no conflict of interest in her being able to vote on the outcome of the Oakwoods project anymore than any other member of the CAR. She does not own, nor does she live in Chimborazo OHD. She lives in St. John’s OHD. In fact, said member has less of a conflict because she does not make her livelihood directly, or indirectly from OHD’s and most of the CAR members do. Most are architects, real estate agents, developers, contractors or tax credit consultants. All of these members make their living from projects they work on in these districts. There is only one member who currently does not. Don’t you think that it is hard to be objective around decisions that you make when your livelihood is attached to them – even indirectly?
I think that CAR members should live in OHD’s and be knowledgeable in their duties without making their living directly or indirectly in the districts where their decision can affect their income. That’s a tough order and not easy to answer.
The CAR staff never has card blanche on matters that fo before the CAR membership for approval. Staff make recommendations and nothing more. The CAR members have overridden or modified staff decision many, many times. There is nothing unethical or wrong with that procedure. The planning commission does the same thing, as does City Council and other city entities with decision making authority.
The CAR did not override any zoning ordinance in their decision on the Oakwoods. They were enforcing the OHD ordinance which works in duality with the basic zoning ordinance – the two cannot be separated or ruled on without the other. Ms. Fruend’s project violated the standards of the CAR around massing and scale. NOT density, but massing and scale – period. The CAR was correct in their decision. Unfortunately, the CAR et. al. arguing the case before Council, did a pretty lousy job – especially the $7,000 lawyer who stumbled around for 7-10 minutes at the poduim. I understand all the work that they put into their defense, and I was at some of those meetings, but in the end, they did not present a solid argument – and it was there.
To say that there should be no member of the CAR living in an OHD is ridiculous. It’s just as ridiculous not having any task force members or Council members who live in OHD’s involved in working on the CAR task force, save one, Mr. Carneal. It’s like saying that no member of Council should live in the district they represent – no senator or congressman should live in the State they represent.
Since you seem to have a seat at the table with the Council subcommittee and the task force, please pass this thread along. I am sending other correspondence, but they should see this thread.
Scott Burger:
What would you and Oregon Hill like to see from the CAR, or any entity that would protect your neighborhood?
For starters, how about enough power to keep VCU in check?
I would also like to see CAR be in a position to challenge City Council decisions more. I am not asking CAR to supercede zoning but I do think they should have a voice to speak in favor of zoning protection. We have had too many cases where City Council “SUPs” (Special Use Permits) AGAINST the neighborhood’s zoning and wishes in favor of large, inappropriate development.
#24/Scott:
I hear you about VCU, but, as I understand it, all of VCU’s projects fall under state regulations/owned land. CAR currently has no power in that regard, unfortunately. That’s not to say that you and your neighbors shouldn’t come to the CAR task force’s next public hearing and voice your opinions, because maybe that could change. I know you came to the forum at the Firehouse and your comments were much appreciated by me and others.
And, yes, I agree with you about favoring large development,etc.
CAR, car car.once again a meeting that only those in the know attended. i liveover in union hill and my neighborhood does not want CAR in their lives. CAR is an exclusionary group that has no conception about how ordinary people live their lives.this is why the meetings are only attended by uptight bourgeoise. CAR appeals to neighbors who are only trying to narc out people who cant afford to fix their houses according to convoluted regulations that are twisted up by power tripping yuppies whose real motivation seems to be accruing a personal power base. sit in on one of these hysterical circle jerks and watch CAR members clap at each others slightest utterance. in the middle of the worst recession ever this organisation seeks to add another layer of expense to people who are having trouble paying everyday expenses. dave johannas himself admitted at the firehouse theater meeting that CAR regulation implementation is followed by a low income family exodus from the neighborhood. isay its a causal relationship, johannas says its only a correlation. heres CARs dirty little secret….they love old houses, just not the poor folk who live in them.in other words…thanks for taking care of our historical stock. now get out.buddycorbett
Buddy Corbett is totally on point. Am in 100% agreement.
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/116-4/Heuer.pdf
Tad Heuer raises some good points about local historic districts, particularly those in traditionally working class neighborhoods. Some of his suggestions are worth considering.
Buddy, I too live in Union Hill and definitely want CAR in my life.