RECENT COMMENTS
Cedar Street proposal underwhelming at UHCA
The Union Hill Civic Association declined to support a proposed development at Cedar and Mosby Streets as presented at tonights meeting.
Developer Ron Hunt and a team including architect Walter Parks presented details of the project. The 1st phase of a 2 phase project would see a 5 story building constructed north of Cedar Street. This 111 unit building would be 100% low income, and would not house students. To rent to one of the apartments, income would be capped at between $19,000-46,000/year. “Our residents will be employed”, said Hunt. The building would contain a mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments, and a fitness center available for community residents. Parks says that a comparable project is Old Manchester Plaza in 1000 block of Hull Street. The building would be committed to 15 years of being low-income housing. They hope to break ground in September.
The 2nd phase south of Cedar Street would be market rate housing. No start date is set for this due to difficulties arranging financing.
Concerns about project density and the 100% low income residency were echoed by many of the attendees. It was also shared that density can be beneficial, and that 500 new families would help support local services. A vast majority stated a preference for mixed income housing in the area, and many pointed to the nearby Jefferson Mews as an example a redevelopment that fit the scale of the neighborhood.
I swear, developers hardly mean well when it comes to the Church Hill area.
Good for Union Hill Civic Association for their insistence on lower density and mixed income housing. Jefferson Mews is a success and can be great model for other areas.
I never cease to be amazed at how some developers think a design that would be suitable for some suburban office park / apartment complex can be plopped down in the middle of the city, ignoring the existing fabric and history of an area.
This s**t should’t have even got this far in the planning phase and should have been quashed when it was first submitted.
The proposed site is a prime piece of real estate adjacent to UHO&H and with views of the Richmond Skyline. It has tremendous potential to one day become either something like Jefferson Mews – or something like Oregon Hill’s Overlook Townhouses.
This high rise, high densitiy, low income project would not only kill that dream, but also negatively impact home values, crime, and the view in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Time for a petition?
My bet is that the Church Hill Civic Association, the Union Hill Civic Association, and the Fairmount group (as well as assoiciations representing the businesses and residents of Tobacco Row and the Bottom) would unanimously oppose this thing and could provide a great vehicle for rounding up lots of signatures fast.
Where / who would be best to send a petition to for maximum impact?
@3, The property is zoned to allow this proposed scale & density.
The parcel is across the street from the new Union Hill Old & Historic District. There is no architectural oversight on this development (unless residents demand it.)
Our only recourse is to convey our concerns to elected officials (Councilperson Newbille, Mayor Jones) and city staff, CAO Byron Marshal, and Rachel Flynn.
For this project to work (use VHDA LIHTC funds) the city has to designate the land a Revitalization Zone, and approve of the project as presented last night by Developer Ron Hunt/Genesis Properties.
The deadline for the city to respond to the VHDA about the project is April 1.
Please feel free to contact Newbille, Jones, Marshal & Flynn (contact info on city website) and share your concerns.
Density is not the problem. If you want urban walkable mixed use, you need density.
This project needs two things – 1) a mixed income component both high and low, not all one type of unit/tenant, with room for students (which is what the market wants – right now no students would qualify to live here), and 2) better design with quality materials.
Also, this project is “by right” – if they get the financing, they can do it. There is no rezoning, the only planning they have to do is a plan of development, which is mostly technical review and less design review. No planning commission, no city council.
I still would like to know how much this developer plans to gain financially on this project. The same developer renovated the townhomes next door to this site yet chose to tear down the current structures at this site and erect an eye sore with quadruple the density. While density may be good for the community, I don’t feel quadrupling the density with all low income tenants to necessarily be all good. When I asked last night how much more money the developer would make on these rather than renovate the current structures, I was told that they question wasn’t appropriate. I would have to respectfully disagree with Matt on that. If this developer will make a bundle (and I’m sure he will) on this project at the expense of our neighborhood and especially those people who own homes near and around the site, I believe it to be an entirely appropriate questions. He makes a killing while those people who live around the project will see their property values decline.
I also found it very interesting that, when asked had he studied whether or not the development would be as successful if the towers were say, 3 or 2 stories tall, the developer had no idea. He never even thought of doing thing any other way. Hasn’t studies the effects on the traffic, etc.
Additionally, it was very nice to see Don Coleman there but I have to wonder where Newbille was. Since she supposedly lives in this area I would think she would be interested in hearing more about what’s being planned for the neighborhood and what her constituents think about the proposal…
HOUDON SAYS: If this issue matters to you (and it should), then plan to attend tonight’s meeting. The City has indicated it will take the recommendation of the neighbors assembled tonight!
If you sit at home, don’t waste your time complaining on this site tomorrow.
SO HOUDON: who at the city has given this authority for recommendations? mayor whats-his-name? the council? rachel?
if you have been taking to vhda did they tell you about a required land swap for the project? did they tell you about closing cedar st? what did jim chandler (343-5786) at vhda have to say about it?
We have spoken to Jim Chandler and it was he who told us that the project, as proposed, was generally disfavored by VHDA because of the unit mix. VHDA discourages projects with such a large percentage of LIHTC units; in this case 100%.
Yes, we are aware of the land “swap,” but that appears to be a mere technical procedure and certainly no impediment to a by-right development. The two entities that own the adjoining properties involved in the “swap” are controlled by Ron Hunt. According to him, all that is required is to simply deed a portion over to the other entity.
As for the authority for the City’s recommendation to VHDA, that comes from our earlier request from information. The project prospectus indicates that CAO Byron Marshall will have the ultimate authority to make the recommendation, although I believe it will go through Peter Chapman’s office, as well.
Forgive me, please, for being uninformed here, but there’s something I don’t understand. I’m addressing this mostly to Bill and/or Houdon, since they both seem knowledgable but if anyone else chimes in that’s okay by me.
If VHDA ‘generally disfavors’ this project, why would they approve financing? I understand that it goes against their wishes – what I don’t understand is why they don’t disapprove it with the comment that it concentrates low income units too much, or contains a too large percentage of them. Is VHDA required to approve financing when they control the purse strings?
Also, Bill refers to closing of Cedar Street – aren’t there specific rules around closing a public street? Seem to recall that the Jefferson had to prove that closing Adams St. enhanced their business and didn’t hurt anyone else…
Sorry, I can’t help it:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/
It sounds like, if VHDA disapproves, then they could still build, but would lose the incentive to make it 100% low income… which would probably change things a lot for the better…
I doubt they would still build if they lost the incentive on the low-income. Would be too costly and they wouldn’t make nearly enought $$. It all boils down to the money!
Houdon…love the site. It’s a hoot.
What is the deal with the volume of apartment developments in the Bottom/Downtown? As if there wasn’t a parking problem to begin with. And where are all these people coming from anyway? Thinking of the traffic congestion makes me nervous all by itself.
#10 crd – The application for the project has been submitted to VHDA; it has not been approved. The project will be awarded points based on a variety of criteria, and will be ranked along with the other applications. The tax credits will be awarded to those applications that are ranked highest in their respective categories.
Financing does not come from VHDA. Actual financing comes from investors who want the tax credits. VHDA has those tax credits. There was a time when banks and investors needed to show losses, but those days are gone–they have their own losses. Used to be that if you were awarded tax credits, you were golden for financing. Now its a bit harder to make the deals work.
UHCA’s letter following last night’s meeting:
March 18, 2010
Mr. Byron Marshall
Chief Administrative Officer
City of Richmond
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Re: Proposed Development of 1900 Cedar Street in Union Hill
Dear Mr. Marshall:
Union Hill has worked hard these past several decades to claw its way back from a neighborhood riddled with rampant drug use, high crime, a 70 percent vacancy rate, and the devastating mass exodus of families and resident homeowners. Thanks to the substantial support and financial investment of the City of Richmond, Union Hill has made an astounding come back.
Today we are a vibrant, wholly integrated, mixed-income community where students live next to attorneys who live next to working single mothers who live next to trades people and small business owners. That is the essence of our vision for Union Hill and it is true to our historic roots as a traditionally integrated, working class neighborhood with origins dating to the close of the Revolution. At that time, we were an exciting experiment in urban living and we are again. No other neighborhood in the City has our mix of people, energy, and affordable, historic housing stock in such close proximity to Downtown.
That is why we urge you to oppose the current plan of Genesis Homes Manager, LLC to construct a five-story, 111 unit development using 100% Low Income Housing Tax Credits from the Virginia Housing Development Authority as its first phase of a two-phase plan.
The residents of Union Hill voted unanimously to oppose this project, not because we are opposed to low-income residents or increased density: we want greater density and mixed income development. What we do not want is a return to the failed urban planning models visited on our neighborhood throughout the mid-twentieth century. This project, as proposed, lacks the mixed-income character of responsible development, is out of scale to and context with existing uses, and fails to provide badly needed access to goods and services in our community.
As a community, we have consistently endorsed policies that encourage responsible, appropriately scaled development that provides access to housing, goods and services for our residents at every stage of life. We look forward to the opportunity to work with Genesis Homes Manager to find a positive solution to both its development needs and the needs of Union Hill. Fortunately, we do not have to look far to find success stories that have achieved similar goals. As we pointed out at last night’s meeting, Jefferson Mews borders our neighborhood and is zoned identically to the Cedar Street property. Thanks to community input and a neighborhood-minded developer, that project successfully combines elements of home ownership, rental units, and affordable housing in a way that has positively impacted the surrounding neighborhood.
Please consider us eager partners in welcoming responsible development and in shaping the positive future of our neighborhood. We want to continue the great advances made in our neighborhood, thanks to the investments of the City of Richmond. We hope you share our view that this project, as proposed, is a long way from accomplishing either and that the presentation received by our association last night is just the beginning of a community dialogue with Genesis Homes Manager, LLC.
Respectfully yours,
Matthew A. Conrad
Union Hill Civic Association
Houdon @ 11: um, interesting? link, but not sure how helpful (or even pertinent) your introduction of the race card is to this discussion.
Nice letter, Matt. Will it have more impact with loads of signatures? Please post instructions on how the community can sign as a show of support.
Re: race card comment. You could be right. Who knows.
Re: crime because of income. I find that the thought of some one who makes between $19,000 to $46,000 a year would be more like ly to commit crime then someone who make more is absolutely ridiculous. With the proximity to downtown it allows for a young prof or newly married coulpe to afford home ownership versus renting.
I agree that the developer should have worked a little bit harder at making the project fit the location.
I have plans to develop 7 properties in the same area but can not get financing. I wish they would look around the neighborhood and see how it is developing and base their design off that.
Jason #20, wrote “With the proximity to downtown it allows for a young prof or newly married couple to afford home ownership versus renting.”
This is totally rental property. No ownership involved, except for the developer.
Anyone have an update on this? My understanding is that the letter of approval for develop did not go out. Does anyone know for a fact whether he was awarded the tax credits or not and what his plans for the property are now?
The letter did not go out. Look for a different version of this to popup again in May or June, with a lower concentration of low-income, maybe a more neighborhood-friendly zoning.
NEW UPDATE: The developer wants the city to give them this piece of land from the alley in order to meet a minimum number of square feet to build a four story building – please attend the May 24 meeting and defeat and don’t the developers ruin our neighborhood.
http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/clerkstracking/getPDF.asp?NO=2010-103
I’ve given the alley close request it’s own post.
Union Hill has welcomed high density into their neighborhood with R-63, yet they don’t want “that kind” of high density across the street from them.
What a joke. Can’t have it both ways however you argue it. R-63 would allow for this “project” dressed up in a different outfit.
Mixed income (high/low) housing projects? Dream on.