RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
Lambert Landing?
03/25/2016 10:25 AM by John M
Was forwarded this image without much explanation. Looks like this is close by, maybe where the trailer park used to be down past Chimborazo… Anybody got anything?
Deets – corporate info http://www.bizapedia.com/va/LAMBERT-LANDING-LIMITED-PARTNERSHIP.html
Developer contact info – http://www.vhda.com/BusinessPartners/MFDevelopers/LIHTCProgram/LowIncome%20Housing%20Tax%20Credit%20Program/2016%20Applications-Web.pdf
Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but I’ve spoken with Saundra Hirth before relative to some of Ron Hunt’s developments (Genesis).
Lambert Landing Limited Partnership is a Virginia Domestic Limited Partnership filed on February 11, 2016. The company’s filing status is listed as 00 Active and its File Number is L021373-8.
The design to me looks like 1950s government projects.
The Registered Agent on file for this company is Saundra R Hirth and is located at 11 South 12th St Ste 403, Richmond, VA 23219-0000. The company’s principal address is 229 Huber Village Boulevard Ste 100, Westerville, OH 43081-0000.
Looks like a jail.
Where is the proposed location? Is this off Glenwood or Crestview? That inset map is so tiny I can’t really determine. And the comment about the former trailer park evidently pre-dates me…
I’m in contact with the developer to get some more concrete details. This looks like a 70 unit development, which to me seems far too big for this location. The building would front Government Road just below Chimborazo Park.
Apparently it is going to city council on Monday. I don’t know if this is for a vote or what. I really hope this doesn’t get approved with no input. Several of the units would be low income or Section 8. There are several services being provided to residents, including day care. It sounds like a project.
So on Government road? Gotcha.
It caught my eye that in he VHDA link that Knownhuman provided the Richmond section has both this 70 unit Lambert Landing plus an entry 82 unit Glenwood Ridge apartments. There is a chance that is going to a Glenwood Ridge road near Highland park. But it could be going on Glenwood near this Lambert Landing. In which case it would be a concentration of 152 units in a small area.
What an institutional looking monstrosity. Even if only a percentage of the units are low income, the whole design looks like the inner city projects from decades ago. Urban planners finally decided against designing large scale apartments for public/low income housing because it’s a failed model. It looks more like public warehousing, sterile and overbuilt. The only positive about this is the concept of on-site daycare.
It looks like a project/jail… I say no to this… anyone else?
@Cadeho
I say no right along with you…
NO!
A little research and I found the developer. The highlight of that conversation are: 20 housing voucher’d units (section 8) and 50 units at 40% to 60% of Area Median Income. A person making $25,000 to $37,000 annually can have a three bedroom apartment at this development at Government and Glenwood. This is exactly the kind of development that does not encourage income diversity in neighborhoods. These concentrated pockets of poverty are not what Richmond or the East End need.
I just checked the city’s assessor’s office and the land is still listed under “Owner: CHURCH HILL LAND LLC C/O FRANK WOOD
Mailing Address: 1603 OWNBY LANE, RICHMOND, VA 23220”
Land Description
Parcel Square Feet: 182734.2
Acreage: 4.195
Property Description 1: CHIMBORAZO VILLAGE
Property Class: 101 – R Single Family Vacant (R1-R7)
Zoning District: R-63 – Residential (Multi-family Urban)
Street Address:
401 N 35th St Richmond, VA 23223-0
Alternate Street Addresses: 3508 E Marshall St
:415 N 35th St
: 3504 E Marshall St
: 3516 E Marshall St
: 3512 E Marshall St
: 3500 E Marshall St
: 3506 E Marshall St
: 3510 E Marshall St
: 3514 E Marshall St
: 3502 E Marshall St
: 3600 E Clay St
:3601 Glenwood Ave.
Realizing this doesn’t mean the land isn’t under contract or waiting for final city approval. I thought I’d provide a little bit of info. + I also realize it doesn’t include the land where the trailer park was officially located. However, the only for sale sign I have ever seen does front Government Road. Therefore, I assume it’s for the entire plot of land including what I’ve just listed above. However, I do not see any of this land on Realtor.com for sale anymore. It was listed on Realtor.com for years all of it combined for over $1,000,000.
Hideous and sad! How depressing it would be to live in a building that looks like this. What are they thinking?
1) I thought HUD already came to the realization that apartments that are entirely low income rather than mixed income are bad for everyone.
2) in the cases where you are not doing mixed income my understanding having “defensible space” is the preferred practice. This means no common stairwells or courtyards that no one has claim on. A series of 4-plexs each with their own fenced in small yard is proven to be far better than a massive apartment building for low income/section 8 dwellers.
3) doesn’t the east end already have too much of these concentrated pockets of poverty. Other cities have been tearing down their projects and replacing them with mixed income. Richmond not only is not following that lead but plans to build more of what doesn’t work
4) these areas have no amenities close by and no sidewalks to get up the windy Glenwood to Chimbo market. Combine that with the prison looking architecture and tell me with a straight face this won’t be skid row
5) anybody who has a connection with a reporter for style weekly or RTD should try to get them to run a critical piece on the plans for these projects to bring light to the situation so the council knows people are against this
The land has a pond that leaches from the old city dump. the owner has some sort of deal with cynthia newbille combine the properties and the property is already zoned for 70 units
These comments were emailed to me, and while they are not my words exactly I completely agree with these statements:
1. I’m supportive of the concept of a multi-family development in this area.
2. While I’m supportive of an affordable housing component, I’m not supportive of all of the units being marketed to individuals of low to moderate income. The developer should consider renting a healthy mix of their units at market rate. Based on LIHTC, they have the option of renting a minimum of (1) 20%, or 14 of their units to residents at or below 50% of AMI or (2) 40%, or 28 of their units to residents at or below 60% of AMI. The need for decent, affordable housing is real in the East End given how hot the Church Hill market has gotten, but restricting all of the units to residents of low to moderate income is a mistake in my opinion.
3. Given that the area is zoned R-63, I strongly encourage the developer to consider viable non-residential uses for the property that are by-right in the R-63 category.
4. The developer needs to be very sensitive to the potential impacts the development could have on nearby residences, especially those facing Glenwood Ave., including light, noise, and trash issues. The development should be designed in a way to mitigate all of those impacts.
5. The developer should consider including additional materials in the facade of the building in order to create more visual interest and reduce any monotony/blandness in the deign. Details on other design features, such as various architectural elements, should be provided.
WHAT?? Is this for real? This is a huge surprise. I drive by this property every day and would have noticed if there was signage for public comments regarding upcoming change of use or development. How can they do this without more public engagement? What in the world. Very much against more Section 8 housing in that area, Ashley Oaks is steps away and isn’t CLOSE to being fully occupied. Not to mention, the design looks like a prison bloc! Horrible horrible horrible.
Has anyone called the development contact person on the VHDA doc Knownhuman linked?
No. This is just too ugly. If someone wants to build something between Chimborazo and Fulton, it needs to be way better than this is. We (Chimbo) and Fulton have too much good stuff going on that’s the result of a lot of hard work to be saddled with this monstrosity.
More on this developer:
http://www.nbc12.com/story/31475121/controversial-petersburg-development-moves-forward-despite-opposition
Design plans show the parking entrance right off Glenwood. If you’ve driven on this street, you can see what a bad idea that is. Glenwood is tiny and already gets too much traffic at high speeds. I seriously hope we get a chance to have public input. For now, I suggest we e-mail Cynthia.Newbille@Richmondgov.com and voice our concern. I’m glad I’m not the only one (as a resident of Glenwood) freaking out about this proposal.
#16 Mark Bernstein –
You say our council representative Cynthia Newbille cut a deal to allow the developer to build this thing?
Does anyone know if Newbille asked for input from the community on this project or is this just a backroom deal type of thing?
@23 ray… Newbille couldn’t give a rat’s patootie concerning anything related to the conservation of Church Hill. She is all about progress rather than preservation. A bad representative for the most historic part of Richmond.
As for this ugly and dated (not for the right reasons) design being mixed income… wouldn’t that just create animosity amongst the tenants as to who pays what and why?
@23 it’s use by right so far as I can see. There may be some city owned property (paper streets or alleyways) that will need to be closed, which require council approval.
@ #17 Jon Ondrak
You agree with the email you received about the need for low/mixed income housing in the east end of Richmond. I agree with you, but I think the low/mixed income housing should be concentrated in an area some call Sugar Bottom. There are several boarded up houses in Sugar Bottom + a ‘HUGE’ warehouse that has sat there vacant for years.
So instead of someone possibly putting high-end loft style apartments/condos in that building why don’t we as concerned citizens/neighbors push for a low/mixed income property in that warehouse? Considering everything in the bottom has been scooped up without any consideration for low-income people. It would have been grand if the developer of the condos at the corner of Franklin and Broad had put mixed income there. Don’t you agree?
Why should Chimborazo historic district be the only historic district in the east end to be supplied with low/mixed income housing?
One more question who would pay fair market value for this area meaning $1200 + a month (apartment) in the same building with people paying up to 60% below $1200 + a month? I can say I would not be willing to do it, and if you can find people willing to live in such a concentrated area with such a broad range of incomes. I will be the first to congratulate you and ask you what secret you used to accomplish such a feat.
I have owned investment property + am co-owner of an asset management company, and I have never been able to make such a great deal with prospective tenants.
Honestly, I am not trying to be sarcastic, but it seems everytime anyone comes up with something for lower/mixed income use in the east end. The proposed area is always north of Broad if not a great distance away.
If you know of any apartment buildings at the bottom or south of Broad already aimed specifically at lower/mixed income use, please apprise me of said properties.
@26, I think we should steer the conversation back to the topic at hand, this bad idea for Government Road. If you want to debate we can do it privately, like the gentle people we are.
John Murden do you by chance have a copy of the agenda for Monday’s council meeting? And is this on it, on the consent agenda or otherwise? I’m curious, thanks.
The agenda is linked here, I don’t see anything http://chpn.net/news/2016/03/25/council-to-consider-funds-for-fitness-equipment-at-jefferson-park-date-with-dad-dinner-and-dance_49531/
This is a *terrible idea* for Government Road.
We cannot cram more people into that pocket of the East End without providing better access to services, including public transportation. There are also no sidewalks up the hill towards Chimborazo.
Such a development scenario may also require that a traffic light be put at Glenwood and Government Road, and who knows how that would work with the train tracks right there–while not an everyday occurrence, trains do regularly cross Government there and block traffic.
This situation needs a total impact evaluation, at a lot of different levels.
Thanks John for the agenda.
The WODA Group is out of Ohio and their speciality is Low Income Tax Credit Housing.
The lead man in the WODA group is Mr. Craig Patterson and his phone numbers are: 614-396-3200 and 989-464-8195.
I do not have any ownership in this property, it was the former Trailer Park.
This is nuts purely from a walk score standpoint. Study what the city of west hollywood (ca.) has done for rent control, mixed income, and senior housing (aging russian jew population). It hasn’t been without scandal (“poor” doors) but it’s a community passionate about protecting the rights of the underserved. Rent stabilization applies to buildings with >1 CO built prior to 1979. The city votes on the max rent increase each year. Great program that helps keep the community mixed. Wealthy, mid-income and poor and co-exist in close proximity with good urban planning. Build-and-they-shall-come maybe not so much.
The new developments in Manchester are mixed-income in that the developers must set aside a certain percentage of median income/low income units (low income being something like less than $31K a year, not sure of the exact threshold, but something that a young person who is working full-time but for not a lot of money could afford).
Those new developments have river views and lots of amenities, and the goal is to have that sector of housing be attainable by at least some people who might otherwise be priced out of it. The goal of mixed income/median income housing is to be able to have teachers, firemen and other lower income professionals be able to live in the community they serve. It is offset by tax credits so that developers will be committed to setting aside a percentage of total development.
This whole Glenwood/Govt Rod project sounds entirely different–high-density, with few amenities, and targeted toward gobbling up Section 8 vouchers while relying upon a static, captive community that will have little access to transportation or other services.
City council voted yes tonight for lambert landing. No comment from the public or newbil
This passed council tonight, no objections at all. So everyone here who thought it was a bad idea skipped the opportunity to say anything.
John Murden, I think that agenda you posted was just the consent agenda and did not include the regular agenda.
#34 you nailed it, this is all about Section 8 guaranteed income. Nothing more. I am thoroughly ticked off and would have gone to council had I known it was on the agenda. And our councilwoman voted for it. Hilbert abstained because he works at VHDA which is apparently involved. Everyone else voted for it. Sad state of affairs.
@7 Mars, I wish you had been louder about it going to council, since it was passed with no objection at all. It’s ALL either Section 8 or low income. Yes you are correct, this is a PROJECT. Three blocks from the Lofty – how fast will that empty out once this is occupied?!
@17 Mr. Ondrak why were you not at city council tonight?
@crd – it was the complete agenda, look again
Here’s the final agenda from last nights meeting: https://richmondva.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=451470&GUID=65F797E8-6FEA-43BA-AC77-72E1DADD92A6
Can someone clarify what was passed last night that relates to this?
I am thoroughly confused: what was passed? I don’t see anything on the agenda.
I drove by the property yesterday and it is still for sale, according to the several signs posted (are there 2 parcels that we are talking about?)
Speaking of The Lofty, seems like Margaret Freud would have been on top of this, it lowers the value, would think.
There has been ZERO public comment period, I really don’t know what is happening or how something can move forward without more input or transparency.
Am going to forward this thread to Style and the RTD, maybe a reporter can learn more.
I believe that city council “certified” the site plan as a redevelopment area so it was able to get the financing
From twitter I gather that this was entered as an expedited paper. Still trying to track down what the paper was.
Okay, Bill has it – the paper was to allow the developers to explore funding/development.
Sam Patterson says that there will be community meetings, and the project is ways down the line.
Still chafed by how – if Mars knew this was getting to Council days ago – this couldn’t be put on the agenda. Starting off a development like this with what seems like an intentional lack of transparency feels Very Bad.
Is this yet another Newbille hidden agenda pushing approvals through without public input first… or could care less about it, as usual? She has done it before.
John M et al – Last item on 7th district agenda tonight is “Questions, Comments & Concerns” – /2016/03/29/newbille-to-host-7th-district-meeting-tonight_49705/
You got it, Eric, and, Jon, you should be chafed about how this went down.
The lack of transparency and TRUE public input in this city is astounding. I mean, what’s the reason this paper was presented as it was other than to LIMIT PUBLIC INPUT!
Newbille’s aide Mr. Patterson may be right that the project is a ways down the line, but don’t think for a minute that the vote the developer prevailed on yesterday wasn’t a significant milestone in the project getting done.
So while the city is tearing down projects there’s gonna be a brand new project built right under our noses?? Do you understand how much crime this will breed and spill over to neighboring areas? Some clueless out of town developer has no long term interest in our city. Just wants to get his tax credits and move on. This is a complete step backward from where this area has been heading
I would have some (starter) questions to ask Newbille and the developer:
1) if Ashley Oaks townhomes right around the corner is Section 8 and can’t even maintain a half-full occupancy level, why do we need another Section 8 housing development a block away? Meaning, if we already have enough, why build more, except to line the pockets of a certain few…
2) why is this a mid-rise development, when urban planners and housing development folks have abandoned that model because they know it is terrible for low-income developments?
3) the kids who would live there will be zoned for Chimoborazo Elementary and MLK Middle–is the city required to do some kind of impact survey on how a high-density development could affect its neighborhood schools? Can they support a sudden influx of students?
I spoke with John Murden this morning and told him what we were told – this resolution was to classify the property as a rehabilitation area and needed for the financing. We were told the number of units and the workforce component, etc. but did not see the renderings that I saw here this morning (hideous). I contacted the Clerk’s office for the Informal audio to recall if they mentioned an application deadline/financing deadline or reason for expediting the resolution, but there was a glitch and the meeting did not get recorded.
@Clay, there’s a meeting tonight at the public building on 25th street tonight. I’m not sure of the correct name of the building. Them meeting is listed on this site.
I can’t make but it would be wonderful if someone could attend to report back to all of us. Thanks
Is anyone planning to go tonight?
#49 @Clay Street: where did you find vacancy rates for Ashley Oaks? Thanks.
@Juliellen, I honestly don’t have any numbers, it’s just an observation. It’s clear (at least to me) that occupancy on the eastern side of Ashley Oaks is lower than that on the western edge/Government Rd side. You can drive on Stoney Run or Jennie Scher and head towards the Henrico line and see empty townhomes with no cars and fewer people. Those apartments/townhomes closest to the cemetery seem vacant, in my opinion.
Can’t judge vacancy by parking lots…many people do not have cars. Find out the real numbers before using guesses as fact. Otherwise, you water down your argument.
@ 50 . Some time ago two of my neighbors were robbed on the sidewalk in front of their homes within seconds of each other in broad daylight. We called 911 with a full description of the suspect and the direction he was headed. The 911 operator hung up on us! Several hours later ( around 10:00 at night ) the same suspect robbed someone several blocks away. When we tried to ascertain why the police did not respond in a timely manner and why the 911 operator hung up on us we were stonewalled. We requested a copy of the recording of our 911 call, but it wasn’t available because ” there was a glitch ” and it did not get recorded.
I don’t believe this suspect was ever caught
@Juliellen totally agree! Many residents at Ashley Oaks don’t have cars! But–just take a look next time you drive by. All activity is focused on those properties closest to Wburg Rd. Lights at night are on in one half of development and not in the other more eastern end. There is enough of a difference to wonder whether those units are occupied:)
Wonder–yes. But state as fact? No. Get the facts. Please don’t spread assumptions as facts. Doesn’t help anyone.
Well, while I was out of town, it does appear that this project was given a clear green light. The property has been reclassified as a revitalization area. 70 units, 20 of them Section 8. Rent going from $675 to $850. I have emailed (no response) and left a message just now. A channel 12 reporter has requested more info as well. I am hoping they do a story. Please, please flood Newbille’s office with calls and e-mails! In the meantime, I guess I’m going to start looking for another house 🙁
@38. I was not aware I had been appointed the ipso facto representative for opposition to this project. Also, I wasn’t aware this was on the agenda.
@59. I called the manager of Ashley Oaks. They’re 100% occupied. They have no projected vacancy until mid-summer.
I heard from the broker representing the seller, the developer has pulled out of the contract negotiation.