RECENT COMMENTS
Help bring life back into an empty apartment building
Tom & Julie O’Kelly are seeking support of an application for a variance from the City of Richmond Board of Zoning for 520 North 26th Street. They’d like to totally renovate this former apartment-building/cornerstore into a four-unit apartment-building.
520 North 26th Street
From the letter from the O’Kellys, with a printable version available below:
March 2007
Dear Neighbor:
I would appreciate your support of our application for a variance from the City of Richmond Board of Zoning for 520 North 26th Street. As we all know, this structure is a former corner food market that included three apartments which has become deplorable, run down and has seen its better days. Our plan is to totally renovate this property into a four-unit apartment building. The property will be renovated in an historic manner that will improve the neighborhood and bring more life back to this block.
We are residents of Church Hill and very much care about this neighborhood and community. We have restored the home we live in at 614½ N. 23rd Street to its original historical beauty. We have also restored a duplex at 612 and 614 N. 23rd Street into apartment units, and are currently working on completing 510 and 512 N. 23rd Street as single-family homes. Our neighbors are pleased that our projects have improved the look of the neighborhood and returned it to its original historic appearance.
By historically renovating this structure, we will be improving the overall beauty of the area thereby increasing giving incentive for other houses on this block and in the vicinity to have a better chance of being renovated.
Please sign your name and address below acknowledging support. Your support in our efforts to revitalize the neighborhood, as always, is appreciated.
Thank You
Tom & Julie O’Kelly
This is the file to download, print, and return to support the variance.
I oppose the special exception request (Case No. 21-07) for the proposed conversion of 520 N. 26th Street to a 4 unit apartment building. The owner claims that it was a 4 unit building at one time, but it was probably illegally converted, and the grandfathering on the building has expired.
I attended the Church Hill Association zoning board meeting this Wed. to oppose this project. My only opposition to it is the density increase in the building. The owners have taken out a special exception permit request (Case No. 21-07) because the building’s nonconforming use rights have expired and the lot requirement is not met.
They want to have 2 – one bedroom apartments and 2 – two bedroom apartments. The building is appropriate as a duplex, with 2 rental units. I oppose the permit based on the density issue alone. This neighborhood needs to reduce density in multi-family, not increase it. The city’s Master Plan is clear about this. Also, the 500 block of N. 26th Street is in terrible shape right now – tons of empty lots and some appalling in-fill. It needs our stewardship!
Without the variance request, they would clearly violate the current zoning laws, and do not have the required space – the property is 3000 sq. ft., the requirement is 5,000 sq.ft. and they only have parking for 4 cars. Realistically, they could
have as many as 8-9 cars for that building – too many and not enough parking. In the future, this block will have new construction filling all the empty lots and the parking issue will be very problematic.
They showed their previous renovations on the Hill and they are nice on the exterior. I’m not attacking the owners in anyway. I’m sure they are reputable people and really do care about the neighborhood. But if they really cared, they would change their plans into a duplex. The issue is still density.
I am not anti-development. I want developers to come to the Hill, but It is really important that we are watchdogs for our community. We need to be very careful about granting variances in our neighborhood that increase density.
In addition, there are neighors on that block who originally were in favor of the project, but have withdrawn their support because they were not aware of the density increase.
My take on this is that decent rental property both introduces future homeowners to the neighborhood and brings economic diversity to the area. My first exposure to Church Hill was a 1-bedroom basement apartment on Broad Street, way before I ever considered buying a house anywhere. This kind of property, when well done, positively adds to the urban quality of the neighborhood.
it is a shame that parking is the issue that would torpedo this, though I certainly understand your concern. Is there parking allowed on Clay right there? Do the alleys there facilitate off-street parking?
I oppose any kind of parking on me.
Let me get a renovated one bedroom for 50k. 🙂
Ms. Daab – Many of your facts are incorrect. It seems to me the neighborly way to do things is to make sure you get your facts correct before posting them.
1st – According to the City records this building was a legal four unit building, consisting of a store and three apartments. You can go look at the building and see the four City gas services that are existing.
2nd – Whether a duplex or 4 separate apartment units, you are still talking about the same amount of bedrooms. As a duplex one unit would be 1600 sq ft. and the layout would be such that you would have four bedrooms with two baths upstairs. The other unit would be 1300+ sq ft. consisting of 3 bedrooms. With that plan, you end up with one more bedroom than our plan. With a duplex, you could easily end up with more density. Our plan is for one and two-bedroom units that would attract a young professional clientele.
3rd – the lot size is 32 ft. by 125 feet. Multiply those figures and you get 4000 sq ft for the lot size, not the 3000 as you stated.
4th – four off street parking spaces will be provided. There is ample street parking on both sides of this building to accommodate additional cars without encroachnig on anyone else’s road frontage.
We are all about revitalization and improving the neighborhood. We care about all properties, the neighbors and our tenants. Once this building is rehabbed should anyone ever have a problem with any tenant or the building, we welcome your calls.
We restored the house next door to us, 612 & 614 N. 23rd Street, to a three-unit apartment building, two one-bedrooms and one two-bedroom. It’s been a positive experience for our tenants, the block and ourselves. We believe that rehabbing this building will improve the neighborhood that is why we are willing to invest in the revitalization of this property.
We all have made choices to live in the City. City life is about diversification.
If anyone would like further information or to receive a copy of our proposal for this property, please feel free to contact us @ 804-643-3440 or email to JewelsLLC@comcast.net
It sounds like Okelly is trying to do the right thing. Providing four off-street parking spaces should lessen any impact on future neighbors. Tenants in the building should certainly be entitled to some on-street parking.
Have you seen the quality of the historic renovations that the O’Kelly’s have done? They have taken neighborhood eyesores and have reclaimed them as historic treasures. They also live in the neighborhood and have been totally committed to the revitalization of this area.
This place was a tacky corner store and three apartments–I think a quality renovation as four apartments is a major improvement and will only help this area to blossom.
While guidelines for development are important, it is equally important to use common sense and encourage qualtiy historic restoration for the betterment of the neighborhood.
Mr. O’Kelly:
I commend you for your quality renovation work, and do think that your’e trying to do the right thing. However, there are some important points to consider.
I grant you that the building was a legal 4 unit before it lost it’s grandfathering – never said that is was or wasn’t for sure. The probelm with a lot of these older buildings is that when they were built and zoned, there were no cars around, or very few.
There is a reason why the city has taken out the grandfathering of those buildings and reduced the unit requirements. It is because parking is an issue – no off street parking. Your plan has 4 parking stalls, but I still think that parking could be problematic.
I was referring to the size of the interior of the building when I was talking about the 3,000 sq ft. Both floors are 1,496 – so not even 3,000.
Even with you 4,000 sq ft. lot size estimate, you’re still short 1,000 ft. with a 5,000 sq ft. lot requirement.
As for you having to make one of the apratents a four bedroom and the other a 3 bedroom. You don’t HAVE to do anything. Your current plans show that each unit has a living area, kitchen and bedrooms. With a duplex you could have a dining room or family room with 3 bedrooms each. That would probably be less dense than your 4 unit plan with you current plan, your 1 bedrooms could have a couple and your 2 bedrooms could have a couple and possibly a roommate.
As for diversity, there is an abundance of rental in our district. In the proposed CHN O&H alone, there is less than 50% of owner occupied properties. Rentals and apartments abound. I’m not against rentals. Jim and I rented our house up here before buying it.
Additionally, at the CHA zoning committee meeting, you were asked who your target market was for the units and the rent you would charge. l You said “young profressionals” and that the one bedrooms would rent for in the $700’s and the 2 bedrooms would rent for in the $900. Seems pricey to me, but maybe it’s market value. I just know alot of folks that would have a hard time paying that. And I know that prgrams like ACORN tend to go along with palns like yours thinking that you will be providing affordable housing and promoting diversity.
Your maximizing your profit on an investment property by having 4 units instead of 2. You can make more money on 4 units than 2. Ultimately, the property owners within 150 ft of the building will decide this issue.
I wish you no ill will at all, but I along with several others would prefer that you develop a duplex there. Whatever the outcome, I am glad that you are living in the neighborhood and are doing such nice work.
It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would oppose this renovation, especially considering the high quality of this renovator’s work and the care the renovator is taking to aleviate the parking impact.
I think the opposition to this quality renovation may backfire and harm the effort for a Church Hill North historic designation.
Considering there will be 4 off-street parking spaces, this sound like a good thing. They have done quality work, and the building seems like it is already pretty much set up to be four apartments.
Not all of us can afford 3,000-square-foot homes. We need to have some smaller places for people to live, too.
I know there is always a fear that these will turn into crackhead apartments. But I think if the work is done well, it will hopefully stay it in the hands of landlords that see the long-term value of maintaining the building.
Someone said:
“Is there parking allowed on Clay right there?”
Why not let the people that actually *live* on Clay Sttreet park on Clay St.? Parking is constrained enough as it is.
I asked about the parking on Clay as the building is on a corner, at both Clay *and* 26th. It seems to make sense that the residents of a corner property might park on either of these streets.
The building is actually at 26th and Leigh. I think Clay Street residents would be relatively unaffected by an extra four or five cars parking on the street at 26th and Leigh.
I completely understand both sides of this issue. On one hand, variances should be limited otherwise, the overall intent of the city’s masterplan would be worthless. These guidelines are to protect the overall interests of the community and not simply, the individual property owner. However, on the other hand, it is really tempting to permit a variance when you have an owner who is willing to enhance a distressed property and add value to the neighborhood. As it stands now, this property is a huge liability to this neighborhood–a real eyesore. It would be awesome to have this corner returned to a historically
appropriate property. The owner should justifiably receive a proper return on his investment. If it takes more units to produce the required return, I can understand the owner’s issue.
I would be more concerned that the renovation of this property is done in compliance with CAR guidelines for properties located within a historic district. Some of the in-fill homes, as Laura mentioned, are completely incompatible with the existing structures. I realize there are a few vacant homes–at present and a few empty lots…but, even with the 4 units in the building, it doesn’t look like parking would be that much of an issue considering this parcel is on a corner.
In this case, I would tend to lean toward allowing the variance provided that the structure is renovated within historic guidelines.
Each case really needs to be viewed on an individual basis with “neighbor impact” being placed high on the list of consideration.
This house behind Jumpin’ J’s is one of their current projects. It looks *very nice*, probably as good as restoration gets. In my short time of paying attention, they’ve also brough another house back from the brink on the next block up 23rd, also a great looking restoration.
I don’t see any nuance to the arguments in opposition to this building. They do great work, they live in the neighborhood, they want to convert an eyesore to a viable economic use…slam dunk. Someone needs to pick their battles a bit more carefully. An important point to remember: zoning makes for horrible planning. And we will soon have more of it!
I wholeheartedly support your plans for this building. I’ll drop the form by tonight.
When I lived on Chimbo, the house I rented from had two 2-bedroom units. Between the two units, there were 6 vehicles. The two-unit house opposite contributed 4 vehicles, as there were two couples in the house.
While I think there are people that own quite a few vehicles, it has been my experience that people generally have one vehicle, if that. I could give many examples, but it is a fact that many couples share one vehicle and many single people rent two-bedroom apartments and only have one car. Because our neighborhood is a short walk or bike ride to downtown jobs, and is on the busline–many folks don’t even have one car. With the cost of gas rising and an improved public transportation system – urban dwellers should have even a lesser desire to own a car.
This renovator is providing four off-street parking spaces, in addition to renovating a community eyesore. He has done incredible work in the neighborhood and lives right here. This historic restoration project can jumpstart that area and restore the sense of place that is so important in an historic district.
I think there is a mistaken impression that any opposition to this project going on as planned, will deny the renovation of this building. I have been in on many meetings in the neighborhood,when plans were brought by developers with the same type of requests. “Give us a variance. Let us put in more units than the zoning deems proper for the building, because we do good work, and the building is an eyesore” Usually, the neighbors oppose it, and the developer revises their plan one more appropriate to the neighborhood.
While I commend the desire to resurrect this property, it would be irresponsible not to point out th negatives of the plan.
The density factor is not just a matter of parking. I have spoken to several city polce officers, and none seemed too keen on the idea. When you chop up buildings and make them mutli-unit, invariably, down the road, there are problems. While the current owners may very well have “good” tenants, we cannot guarantee the the integrity of future owners. If you’ve ever been over towards Chimborozo and seen the “commerce” being conducted, you know the results of dividing up properties into multi-unit buildings.
The city has a plan in place that calls for less density. Many of the developement problems I see come from the cuty straying from that plan.
I think our neighborhood would be best served by encouraging the O’Kellys to continue their good work, but with a lower density approach
So in the final analysis we are talking about two vehicles (probability of six vehicles, minus four for the off-street parking). All on a corner lot with 157 feet of street frontage. Sounds like there’s plenty of room for the O’Kelly’s plan to me.
This whole thing smells more like a turf war than anything else.
I really need to ask, why is the final analysis about 2 parking spaces, when the point I brought up was the connection between high density properties, and crime. There is a connection, and that point really needs to be addressed. As I said earlier, it would be irresponsible for that not to be a point of discussion. I don’t see in any way how the term “turf war” has any relevance to the debate.
I also would like to bring up another point, that I have’t seen mentioned here. After doing some investigation, I have found out that the O’Kellys, who are the people wanting to evelope this property, do not won the building yet, and are not the ones applying for the variance. The application was made by the current owner ( I believe his name is Effram Briggs- forgive me if I have that wrong). I asked a few people about this, and they said the O’Kellys have a contract on the building. The current owner of this building s the one responsible for this property being such a blight on the neighborhood. Is it wise to grant to this person, even under the assumption that the building will be sold to responsible people. Real estate contracts fall through everyday. Granting a variance under these circumstnaces could be giving a slum lord permission to conduct business as usual.
Rubberneck – It comes down to the parking because that is the only (however slightly) articulate argument anyone has put forth, and the answer is that in this case the effect on neighborhood will be negligable.
You are (hopefully unknowingly) perpetuating some misinformation about the variance process. Purchasers with contracts apply for and get variances all the time. It is perfectly above-board, and not just because it is a universal practice. If the contract purchasers applied for the variance, then they’ll be the ones to get it. NOT the current owner.
Second of all, you must not have read the note above that the apartments will not be rented at “slum” rental rates. Drive by the renovators’ other properties and see if you think they contribute to a Chimbo Market atmosphere there. Saying that the renovations might be slums “one day” is such a stretch that it is silly, frankly. Try that one in front of any reasonable board and see how far it gets you. A four unit building on Monument Avenue might be a slum one day.
Ultimately, it would be most responsible to be fully informed on the variance application process and to see the applicant’s other work before launching into public advocacy against the renovator.
This renovation is a slam dunk as someone else so elegantly and accurately put it above.
You may be right on that fact, however the name listed by the city as the person applying for the variance is not O’Kelly, it is Briggs. I have seen the agenda for the zoning meeting.
Second, while the rents they are charging are not slum rates, they are not Momument Av rates either. And if the landlords have trouble filling the apartments, the rents will go down.
The units are very small units that do not conform to the cities codes. these type of units are more suseptable to decline. You need to have some forsight. There is a reason that Richmond’s Master plan calls for DECREASING density.
I firmly believe it is possible for that building to be renovated with less density, and still have it be a profitable business venture. I am all for these folks making a living, but maximum density for maximum profit is not good for the neighboorhood.
The people questioning this project are not trying to keep these “nice people who do good work” from doing something positive in the area. They are expressing very valid concerns about the long term effects of such development. I for one become wary when someone say something is a slam dunk. I’ve see too many basketball games hwre the player goes for the dunk, only to have the ball ricochet off the rim and the player lands on his butt.
Thanks for all of the support we received. Our proposal was approved and we will be moving forward with renovating 520 N. 26th Street.
Tom & Julie O’Kelly
Jewels General Contractor
804-643-3440
I’d like to thank everyone for quality of this conversation. Folks have been informative and passionate, without this turning ugly or personal.
Tom & Julie:
I wish you the all the best with your renovation!
I cant wait for the before and after pics. I am glad the Okellys get to work some of their Irish magic!
Good job