Is this it for 401 North 27th?

For anyone who knows me knows that this building has been my pet project ever since I found out earlier this year it was slated for demolition. I was able to abort that and push forward with the city taking various actions as well as having the Historic Richmond Foundation interested in purchasing the building to restore.

We still have to go through the CAR meeting this coming Tuesday 9/23 but from what I can see and heard, the co-owner (Walter S. York III – York Construction) just got in under the wire with some sort of “plan” for the building BUT they only provided schematics and not design details, elevations, nor material lists. That in itself may throw this to yet another later meeting… which may be what they are hoping for?

There already is a Spot Blight on this building issued and is going to Planning Commission on 10/6 will not be halted no matter what CAR decides and the city wants to save rather than tear down this building if all possible and HRF is hoping to be the first to take it over if/when it gets to that point. HRF is also hoping that there won’t be any further delays beyond Tuesday since they fear this building may not fare well with yet another winter open and exposed to the elements.

The latest construction permit is showing “pending” and that is because the owner wishes to turn this into a eat-in restaurant but zoning denied it because of the building use change and inadequate parking space for it in this location.

One thing irks me that is shown on Page 4 of the Ordinance No. 2008-201 is that it says the building is “almost 90 years old”. That was a erroneous generic date used by the assessor’s office and since been changed. This building 401 section was built in 1815 and the wooden 2702 section attached in 1859 – hence being the “oldest commercial building in Richmond”. If someone goes to this public meeting on Monday, please point that out… it makes a difference!

Eric

What’s a Spot Blight Abatement Plan?

thank ye!

I cant immagine restoring this eyesore could be even remotely cost effective. After all, it has been open to the elements for almost a year. Prior to that, it housed a crappy laundromat, and I am sure that it experienced its share of leaky pipes.

Yes, the building is very very old, but I bet there are other buildings in Richmond that are within 10 to 20 years its age that are better candidates for restoration.

Chewbacca,
Sometimes the restoration of property isn’t about being cost effective, it’s about saving part of history. Once this building is torn completely down, there’s no longer any history there accept a vacant lot or a new building.
I being the owner 403 there’s nothing more I’d like to see than this building saved.
However, the idea of a restuarant is a great concern of mine. There’s a bus-stop on the corner and parking would be a disaster. What rating would the restuarant be, four star,three,two, I am completely against the idea of a restuarant.( An upscale mkt. such as the one that used to be planned for 29th. and Broad.)
This building has cost me thousands of dollars in rental income due to it’s condition. I’ve never been able to top $1500 for rent on my house due to this building.
My main concern is that we watch every step taken to retore this great old piece of history. All four corners have been an eye sore in my opinion for more years than I’ve been in church hill. Although, I will point out when Charlie did have the sub-standard laundry, he kept the sidewalks clear of trash.
The question is what do we all want as property owners in this great block. This building could be a great introduction of what people could expect when approaching the corner.
However, I’ll say as said earlier a restuarant would be a disaster, the parking is already a problem. It would force the residents of both the 300 and 400 blocks of 27th. to possibly park blocks from their homes.
We need to fight for a proper use and for the true renovation of this great old piece of history.

I agree with Ron. The size of the property would not allow a lot of seats that would produce income enough to cover overhead. The renovation costs would be a lot less and permiting would be easier if the space was used as retail, such as a wine and cheese shop. I hear that Barrel Thief is looking in the area.

Ron, Walter York is local.

Bill,

I think that Murray and now York is using The Hill Cafe as an example of a restaurant of the same size and also on a corner. I am not sure how they were zoned but at the same time they are on Broad Street where as this is a block inward further in a residential area.

Or maybe they are looking at something along the line of Buzzy’s “ALSO” only a block away?

Has the Hill always been a restaurant unlike 401 having been a grocery store from 1815-1946 and then a Laundromat from 1947-2004?

Ron, do you still have my home email address? If so, contact me there about your concerns on 401… thanks.

Eric

There is nothing, except for its age, to distunguish it. It was never architecturally significant. It was always a box. And not even a very attractive one.

Most houses are boxes in case you hadn’t noticed. There are very few houses in the nation that are that old, and being the oldest commercial structure in Richmond makes it a one of a kind rarity, at least locally. There’s nothing that can’t be fixed on the building and it’s not something that would be ridiculously expensive to do when you compare it to the cost of building a similar new structure. If the city were to permit demolition of the building it would just be embarrassing. Here we are in a designated historic neighborhood, all kinds of tax credits and incentives available, and the city can’t come up with a better solution.

william:

Quoting Joan Crawford in “Mommy Dearest” speak volumes about who you are.

I think you are the same “william” who is an anti-preservationist that has ranted on many a thread.

You sir, are to me, “that bitch of a bearing wall” that needs to come down in order to keep a building where a building ought to be.

No more demolition!

The parking argument reminds of this story I read a few days ago: “Cities rethink wisdom of 50s-era parking standards” http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gKNDLvrYXMS6TVigz6lOgBrbMGDQD93AKCVG0

Also, regarding how the building is designed, it looked significantly better a few decades ago. See /2007/12/26/401-north-27th-street-1960s/

Does anyone have any pictures of what it looked like before that to get a better idea of how it could look if restored?

William, hillkid writes too well to be a product of RPS.

William and Chewbacca, you two are either suffering ODD and/or lacking a culture, history, arts education.

Knocking down a historic structure in a historic neighborhood is insane.

Now children, calm down. Let’s keep a civil tongue over this thread and not let it end up a name calling session. Not everyone sees the building as we do and are the same people that would rather place some chrome and glass futuristic house in the middle of Church Hill rather than “restore” and “preserve”. They just don’t get the sense of pride or responsibility living in a historic neighborhood.

Yes, the building is a bit bland but wasn’t so when it was first built in 1815. It wasn’t stucco covered but had brick walls in the American Bond pattern with arched windows on both floors on both sides of the building. There wasn’t the stepped parapet roof but a regular gabled roof. In other words business buildings of that ere looked much like houses did. The bricking up of windows, the original door, adding the parapet roof facade, storefront windows, the corner entrance, and stucco were all post 1880 changes. The wooden addition was built in 1859 and pretty much still looks the same design wise.

What renovation that are going to be done will most likely be using the existing post 1880 changes rather than unfortunately retro back to the original 1815 design. yes, with the age of the building to do a complete and proper “restoration” rather than renovation would take deep pockets.

Eric

Justin, we are always open for building use suggestions. Of course the brick portion is the most “historic” at 193 years old but the wooden section is also now 149 years old. It would need to be saved some way so how would you plan to work around that if it can not be removed? I know that Patrick Murray still owns the string of small brick buildings that sit next to it and Pritchard Bros. which were built after 1905 – unless he sold those too to Walter York?

Right now it is in Walter York’s hands to proceed with valid approved plans while being looked over by the various city agencies. If he fails on any of them then it will go to the auction block but until then, we will have to wait and see.

Right now I am getting contradictory information where one person says if CAR approves the plans that would stop the spot blight process while others in the city says it won’t stop it… I need to see who is right?

Eric

Huffstutler said:

‘it isn’t about “close but no cigar” concerning the age of the
building but being THE oldest commercial building in Richmond.’

Well, as soon as we knock down that ugly piece of blight, it will no
longer BE “the oldest commercial building in Richmond”…. so no
worries, right?

Richmond, you need to get over yourselves. You’ve got no history. Give
it up. The only way this “city” will survive is by embracing
the future.

tiny, I kinda miss them too. We use to use the Laundromat when it was opened and had no idea the building was in such bad shape until it was gutted and think the new owner didn’t either. Even if they put a modernized Laundromat back in the building, I am sure it will be frequented but they are trying to move away from that.

Eric

“Richmond, you need to get over yourselves. You’ve got no history.” Is this guy serious…???

From my past experiences of being blasted, I tried to shy away from those comments but glad others spoke up this time!

Gezzz, this guy needs to wake up and see where he lives… “if” he lives in Richmond.

Come on now, a city spawned in one of the oldest counties in the state of the original Colonial Colonies and Church Hill being the oldest plated community in Richmond… as well as being the Confederate Capitol and all the history surrounding both!

Yeah right, we need to progress to ignore this clown!

Eric

I love those buildings! This was suggested earlier, and I think it would be great: a carry out/delivery only restaurant. I know they would get a lot of my dollars that now go elsewhere for mediocre ready to go or heat and eat food items. From another thread regarding lack of places that deliver in this area, one would think it would be a big succcess. Parking shouldn’t be that big of an issue, then, would it? Or should I change my name to Pollyanna?

Being the owner of 403 I am highly against a restaurant or anything accept perhaps a high-end market. Church hill in my opinion is in desperate need of a high end market such as Joe’s market.
The Market at the bottom lacks so many items, service being number one. Wouldn’t it be great to have a market, a lot of us could walk to and enjoy higher end mdse.
The only thing the mkt. in the bottom has is a fair wine dept. however, there are a lot of items offered by Ukrops, and Joes it lacks. They charge Ukrops prices, but no Ukrops service and it would be great to have a mkt. with service.
There’s also another store front in the 500 block that’s been converted to residential. Would it be so strange to have perhaps two apts. or two condos in this location. We all need to remember there are four commercial corners there together. If a business that would require a lot of parking were approved at 401, what about the other four corners. I lived in my house at 403 for three years, and parking would be a disaster for the folks of the 300 and 400 blocks. We owe it to the folks on both these blocks to remember there are four commercial corners.
I’ll say as an owner of houses here in church hill, I want to see this neighborhood to continue improving. Putting a carry-out, pizza hut, or anything below Joe’s mkt. would be a step backwards.
This is the oldest commercial building in Richmond today and it would be offensive to see a pizza hut or a fast mart there.
It deserves to be respected and taken care of and also aimed in a direction that would continue the up-swing value of church hill.
Remember for those of you living on the 400 block this building would be an introduction of the block.
I’d like to ask another question here, not about 401 but about I think 323. The other laundromat, I see demolition going on over there, but no permits. Where are the drawings for this building? What are the plans for this building as well?
The owner of this building has to follow the same rules.
Does anyone know what’s going on there?
Thanks,
Ron

Ron… you can private email me and I can give you the scoop but the quick about 325 N 27th (the other old large load laundromat) is that Sandra Murray owns it. She is the sister of Patrick Murray who owned the old building but since sold it on 9/18 to his brother-in-law and contractor Walter York.

Sandra was cited for building code violations about 325 recently which were dismissed because she fixed them and I mentioned to the DCD about construction without permits.

There is also work going on at 2709 E Marshall (the blue brick building) which was leased out by Sandra to a young couple opening up a bicycle shop there and they do have permits for what they are doing thus far.

I only mentioned a Pizza Hut because there is a need for a pizza delivery that serves Church Hill but not advocating it. There is a general consensus that the building would be better used as a “retail” shop of some sort with lower traffic rather than a eat-in restaurant.

Again, I am thinking the owner is comparing the Hill Cafe which is on a corner and also surrounded by residents and wonder how they get by with the parking situation? Or were laws passed that changed the requirements since they opened?

I don’t think the building is zoned to be converted to all residential.. it is a commercial business building.

I will check in again about 325.

On a side note… I also wonder if anyone has seen any work done by Walter York to know what we will be looking at quality wise? He has had a contractor license since 2006 and no registered complaints but on the other hand, has he done any extensive work? And even if he gets this building a dressed up and shiny, it is still in the middle of the other 3 corners that aren’t.

Eric

I would have no need for a high-end Trader Joe’s style store, but if the buyer thinks it can make a profit, I have no objections. One thing that is clear, however, is that we have no more room for failing businesses in the Hill. Let’s all hope someone does buy this space, restores it, and opens a commercially viable business.

I know people want to see a high end market, but I like the idea of a corner store. Ever since Quickcheck at 27th and Broad, and Chimbo market at 29th and Broad closed, I have to drive to the Market if I need sugar, all purpose flour, or some other random staple if I am cooking. And I do not usually use high end staples like that. And the Hill Cafe did open before the requirement of parking spaces, and as someone affected by that I would not wish that on anyone.

I wouldn’t mind a corner store along the lines of “Shields Market” across from Joe’s Inn in the Fan. They carry staples, sugar, etc minus the dirt, mice scurrying across aisles, and the worms I remember finding in the Mac&Cheese I bought from the Quickcheck. I do remember though the family working there being exceptional sweet and warm to our family.

Okay – I feel like I need to premise this with the fact that I’m not trying to be smart-aleky. I’m just asking because I have been curious before, and maybe I’m feeling a little brave tonight. 🙂

Folks who are worried about being able to park near their homes: Have you considered parking behind your house? Is there space? Seems like that might be preferable, anyway. This, of course, assumes there is a large enough yard – which I realize is a big assumption when I really have no idea.

My off-street parking rocks, and I guess I was just wondering why you had chosen not to go that route, if it might be available.

Correct, we do not have open ended “alleys” behind our houses on the 300 and 400 block of N 27th (they dead end or are short and narrow dirt paths) and many have closed in their yards years ago or too small for an auto to fit so no real options with that. Others are land locked all together.

Also, it is not an option with the city concerning the 401 building’s parking dilemma to use residential parking for the other 8 needed spaces but they have to come up with basically off-street parking within 300 feet of the building. Those are the newer zoning laws.

Eric

I, too, really miss my corner store, which was the Chimborazo Market, now in perpetual “hold” as the Church Hill Market. I need a corner store that sell staples, as well. I would patronize such a store up to 5 times a week.

However, a high-end store that selling gourmet cheese and other expensive items – I would probably frequent that type of store only once a month, if that often.

The Planning Commission hearing was yesterday (10/6/2008) but now rescheduled in 2-weeks due to some inaccuracies cited by an attendee over Gantt charts covering “stabilization” done to the building – or ‘so-called’ stabilization… yeah right.

You have anchors reaming due to walls twisting, cracks that run from ground to roof and getting wider, a roof that is also twisting, the back wall that was rebuilt a couple years back is falling apart already due to incorrect mortar used so needs rebuilt (not sure if they will make them?) and the corner was “patched” that had a crack wide enough to reach into the building, and the wooden section is only 2 walls propped up with wood lean-to’s. A blind person can see that the entire building is unstable and needs major restorative work, not a quick patch of cracks and a coat of paint slapped on it.

Eric

You want zombies? Try Venable and Pink.

Eric, I have had the exact same experience with McQuinn’s office and Patterson. It was on two different occasions regarding two separate issues. I was merely hoping my experiences were anomalies. I apologize for straying from the thread, but thought others may wish to know you aren’t the only one who has gotten the same treatment.

It looks like the Spot Blight Abatement Ordinance is on the agenda, again, for City Council Meeting on Nov. 24th (this Monday) Ordinance No. 2008-201, and 2008-202. Is there going to be a vote this time?

I will check and find the outcome. It seems to be a never ending circle concerning this building.

Eric

Eric, you have got to stop making stuff up. The “hold-up” had nothing to do with CAR or parking. It had nothing to do with anything Mr. York had done. There was an administrative problem with the wording of the ordinance. The delay in the adoption of the ordinance had no effect on the schedule proposed in the ordinance.

Also Charles, I received the following information from James “Jim” Hill, Senior Planner at C.A.R. through various emails as well as a copy of the letter sent to Walter York on 9/24.

At the C.A.R. meeting of 9/23 the plans were approved with stipulations of changes that were needed and to return and present them. That never happened. He did not submit anything for the October meeting so was given another opportunity on 10/31 to submit changes for the November meeting and failed again and so as far as I know the C.A.R. plans have NOT been approved (finalized). An excerpt about the “conceptual” approval from the letter sent 9/24 to Walter York follows:

” RE: 401 N 27TH ST

Application No. 08-129

Dear Applicant:

At the September 23, 2008 meeting of the Commission of Architectural Review, the review of your application for a Certificate of Appropriateness resulted in the following action: Conceptual Approval. Specifically the Commission approved the application in concept with the strong recommendation that the building retain its original footprint and wanting to see particular attention given to the side stair when the applicant returns for final approval. ”

Eric

Sorry, wonder if CMU means Concrete and Masonry Units? If so would that be referring to the detached row of buildings built after 1905 that sit between 401 and Pritchard Bros and currently house the barber shops? If so, that may work for the parking situation but not sure if you can get 12 spaces from that?

Thoughts? Clarification? If CMU means that I had no idea this was happening and a new kink to this whole debacle.

Eric

UnionHill RVA

Do you like standing in the rain trying to unload a car load of groceries or packages? Or running a block to your car in a suit during a downpour or on ice slicks? How about getting animals out of the car and to the house? Some times if you don’t get your spot in front of the house you end up having to park a block away and sometimes around the block. An uncomfortable feeling for someone who has had no less than 5 vehicles broken into and stolen from the front of their house. And of course there is the issue of being able to safely walk to ones house if handicapped.

I side with those who believe that when you pay personal property taxes on a house “and” you are responsible for the sidewalk and parking area in front of your house then you should also be able to park in it.

Eric

eric, i don’t relish any of the inconveniences or annoyances you describe in post #76. and all that stuff happens to me regularly (i live on a popular block.)

however, i don’t believe any of the aforementioned inconveniences entitle me, or anyone else, to a parking space in front of my house. and that’s regardless of whether i or anyone else is a property owner/tax payer (i am a property owner).

next time ya gotta unload groceries/pets/furniture, etc, just double park and put your flashers on. i do it all the time. just pretend you’re a nah-yawker and “go urban.”

c-i-t-y

Those are your own personal opinions and I respect that. But when you live on a block you should get along with all of your neighbors and respect them, not be a pest. That said, I do remember living as a kid in Jacksonville, FL where you had your house number painted on the curb and that was “your” spot and could call to have anyone in it towed away. As for all of your other examples… I had to laugh because I also remember when I first moved to Richmond I was living at Kings Crossing in the West End. At that time it was “the” place to move to and had a waiting list but also at that time they had a booklet of guidelines which included – no backing into parking spaces, no opening of your car hood, no toys in the front yard, and among other things but one I am sure you will enjoy – no raising of your venetian blinds. They had to remain “uniform” and down! Oh well…

Unionill RVA – I do double park but I also think how many times I would like to just simply leave it there until the person coming out is pinned in and has to ask me to move. But that brings me back to courtesy on the block. Most everyone on ours are long timers and know each other and also know their cars and don’t park in each other’s spots. But you can see my point as well. If the city requires you to keep the “public” sidewalk and curbside maintained as part of your property as a homeowner, shouldn’t you be granted that space to park? How many times have I seen people walking their dogs just let them defecate next to a tree in front of our house and not pick up after them (which by law they are responsible)? How pleasant is it for us having to pass by it or get into a car next to it, or even accidentally step in it in the dark? We have to clean it up because that is “our” responsible space? Again… Courtesy.

But that is getting off track about 401 a bit. If you run a high traffic business you should be required to have off-street parking and not use “residential” parking hence Walter York needing to find space. With on street parking comes not only inconvenience but also noise, littering, even personal risk. That building was built during an era when there were a lot of local corner stores that people “walked” to or took a bus or trolley and did not drive everywhere they went. And people only had “one” car per family – if that which made the corner stores even more popular. But when indoor malls became the rage in the 1960s-70s, that killed most of the mom and pop businesses and these buildings became either vacant, torn down, or repurposed. The Laundromat was perfect as a low traffic enterprise and had set hours but even now that too has become a thing of the past.

I also think that the city is looking at Church Hill doing like the Fan and have residential permit parking stickers which will help.

As for the CMU question, I did not get a straight answer from Tyler Potterfield yesterday other than it refers to some sort of cinder block construction built in 1950 between the wooden section and the row of storefronts along Marshall. Honestly I have not seen that but it eludes to them not tearing down those poorly maintained buildings also owned by Walter York to make way for parking leaving the parking problem situation problem intact.

Eric

Eric’s points about parking are a great example of the divergent worldviews in this neighborhood. Eric brings a suburban frame of reference to this discussion. Others have a distinctly urban reference.

Eric, I’m sorry to say that under the suburban zoning you apparently advocate, the structure you are trying to save at 401 N 27th will have no economic value. No one will be able to afford to properly renovate it if they can’t in turn rent it to a high traffic commercial tenant like a restaurant.

Our neighborhood can’t thrive as a suburb, folks. It needs corner stores, restaurants and traffic. I know many people have enjoyed the quiet escape up here for many years, but Change is Coming. As long abandoned houses, businesses and parking lots in and around the neighborhood come back to life, there is going to be more traffic here, whether by car, foot, bike, bus or streetcar.

Maybe this belongs on a different thread….

“also think that the city is looking at Church Hill doing like the Fan and have residential permit parking stickers which will help.”

I think this is a terrible idea. Has anyone else heard anything at all like this?

A property owner is liable for accidents which occur on their property. Read your insurance policy. You do not own the sidewalk or the street. The City owns the public right of way. Note the word “public”. So, Eric, before you hyperventilate over not being able to monopolize the area in front of your house, just remember that there are streets that have “No Parking” signs in front of people’s houses, but you don’t hear them complain. They just deal with it.

Mike Banta…

I was hoping this thread would stay focused on 401 but has gotten sidetracked . Your question is somewhat related to 401 by means of parking and yes, I posted this once before about zoning looking into having Church Hill like the Fan with restricted parking.

On 7/23 and 7/24 Tarisa Griffith in zoning along with follow-ups with Steven Bergin in charge said this:

” As we discussed in the last public meeting on the rezoning study, many people have informed us that residential parking is an issue for your neighborhood. At that meeting we discussed the possibility of creating a resident permit parking sticker system, similar to the one used by the Fan residents. That can help to alleviate these issues to some extent.

Steve Bergin, Parking Supervisor, with the Dept. of Public Works (DPW) is in charge of that program. ”

Eric

Get.

Over.

It.

Winston… I am only using “examples” and what is the best way than to start in your own back yard. Would you would have rather me use you as an example instead? Of course not. But people on this thread just don’t realize the responsibilities or care which in turn impact others and “others” are the ones justified in voicing their concerns.

who cares?…. Get over what? There are viable issues on the table here that impact those on our block and can impact yours too if the shoe was on the other foot. Ever heard of the old adage “the squeaky wheel gets the oil” ? Things don’t happen on their own you know and you have to step on a few toes sometimes to get things done. What seems trivial to you is important to others and I am sure I am not alone on that.

Eric

The “injury” claims may be an overstatement but can verify the following which I am sure is a reasoning for public safety:

Sec. 90-42. Duty to remove snow from paved sidewalks.

(a) It shall be the duty of every occupant of any land or premises abutting upon any paved sidewalk and the duty of the owner of any unoccupied land or premises abutting upon any paved sidewalk to remove and clear away or cause to be removed and cleared away the snow from the paved sidewalk abutting such land or premises, in such manner as not to obstruct the passage of water in the gutters, within six hours after the snow ceases to fall. If snow ceases to fall during the night, removal of snow from the sidewalk before 11:00 a.m. the following morning shall be deemed compliance with this section.

(b) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor and, in addition thereto, shall be responsible for the cost of abating the violation. Any abatement costs incurred by the city may be assessed against the owner or other responsible party and collected in the same manner as city taxes.

(c) The criminal penalties provided by this section shall not apply to any person who is physically disabled or who is age 65 years or older.

(Code 1993, § 25-23)

Other aspects:

Sec. 38-154. Weeds and other vegetation.

(a) It shall be a misdemeanor for any person who owns or occupies property within the city to permit any grass, plant, bushes, weeds or any other vegetation 12 inches high or over, other than trees, shrubbery, agricultural plants, garden vegetables, flowers or ornamental plants, to exist on such property.

(b) It shall be a misdemeanor for any person who owns or occupies property within the city to permit the existence on such property of any live or dead hedge, shrub, tree or other vegetation, any part of which extends or protrudes into any street, sidewalk, public right-of-way, grass strip or alley so as to obstruct or impede or threaten the safe and orderly movement of persons or vehicles.

(c) It shall be a misdemeanor for any person who owns or occupies property within the city to permit any grass, plants, bushes, weeds or any other vegetation 12 inches high or over, other than trees, shrubbery, agricultural plants, garden vegetables, flowers or ornamental plants, to exist on any sidewalk, public right-of-way, or grass strip adjacent to such property or unimproved street or alley (to the centerline of such unimproved street or alley).

(d) It shall be a misdemeanor for any person who owns or occupies property within the city to fail to remove fallen trees, detached limbs, or branches, the accumulation of which is offensive, unwholesome, and unsightly.

(Code 1993, § 19-54)

I found these tidbits of ordinances also interesting. How many people follow them… should fines start being issued?

Sec. 102-243. Parking violations; written notices; issuance of warrant or summons; penalty for noncompliance.

(Code 1993, § 28-223; Ord. No. 2003-303-261, § 1, 9-22-2003; Ord. No. 2004-297-289, § 3, 11-8-2004; Ord. No. 2005-303-259, § 1, 11-28-2005)

2) Fine of $40.00.

a. Parking in any location in violation of section 102-222, to include the following places:

1. On a sidewalk.

2. In front of a public or private driveway.

3. Within an intersection.

4. Within 15 feet of a fire hydrant.

5. On a crosswalk.

6. Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.

7. In front of a ramp leading to the crosswalk at an intersection or located at any other point along a curb, constructed for use of handicapped persons.

8. Within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing beacon, stop sign or traffic control signal located at the side of a roadway.

9. Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within 30 feet of points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless a different length is indicated by official signs or markings.

(How many people violate #4 and #6 above making it dangerous for others to go through an intersection? There is more of the above codes but these are only a few)

I know, this seems petty but just driving my point across and think I have so let’s continue with the 401 issues at hand (even if parking is one aspect).

Eric

How does it work? Would I get towed without a permit or get a ticket? Would everyone have to apply for a permit or risk facing a penalty?

The homeowners would have to pay for the stickers (I believe are $25 each) allowing you to park in the area. You can also purchase visitor placecards for $35 each.

Visitors without a placecard including patrons of businesses can park in the area between 7am and 9pm for 1-hour only or be ticketed. And if their vehicle is there before 7am or after 9pm it can be towed.

If you have a party or function and see a need of extra parking you would have to call it into to the parking commission and get a special permit from them.

That is how the Fan is supposed to be set up.

I’d like to way in here as well- No single person owns a street, especially a specific piece of a street in front of their house. We ALL own the street. Our streets are public property and therefore public utilities. Its a shared resource.

I agree with g 100%- Get rid of the crazy parking requirements for restaurants and shops (commercial/retail) uses and lets act like we live in the City for a change. I firmly believe in the form based code the City is attempting to implement and it will have a very positive impact on the current archaic code we currently use.

It wasn’t on Tarisa’s agenda but Steven Bergin’s… did you read the last sentence in post #88?

The only up side to the decals I can see is that it would lighten up outsider’s from parking in your areas on the street. But hey, wait a minute… isn’t that what we are trying to accomplish here with the parking situation? To sidetrack businesses from invading and overtaking the spaces meant for residents on that street (or anyone’s street)?

I would think that would be a plus to elderly and at risk people because they can park closer to their house. Isn’t that one aspect of my argument anyway?

I also heard from the parking / zoning today and they reiterated that Walter York still has to come up with the additional spaces as presented to him. If he chooses to tear down the storefronts along Marshall to make way for them, I understand that property would not need rezoned for it.

AND… I saw that there was a building permit applied for concerning 2706 E. Marshall St – one of those storefronts that currently houses a shady barber shop. Manhattan Taxicab wants to open their office there but here we go again. Can’t figure out how they can park any cabs along the street when they can’t park patrons at a proposed restaurant so…???

Eric

Eric, Your run-on sentences and twisted logic leave me breathless!

Eric- I strongly disagree with your ability to determine business do not have a purpose on block corners throughout a viable neighborhood in the 21st century. Buzzy’s? Patrick Henry? HIll Cafe? Church Hill Herbs? Church Hill Veterinarian? Eldoe’s Pharmacy? Ca Pasa? Go to any vibrant urban community in the world- even the US, and you will find a corner store of all types thriving. It has nothing to do with being realistic or unrealistic. Some business owners like to live and work in the same community and make a good living serving the neighborhood in which they live. Although you may think they are not thriving most entrepreneurs find small neighborhood stores/store fronts/offices the exact size and investment that need to get started.

I agree if a developer or landowner feels a corner store would be better used as residential they should do what they want with it. But, I think we should encourage the development of small businesses that follow neighborhood guidelines and zoning laws, participate in our neighborhood association, and contribute to our neighborhood economy.

Please no parking permits…

JT… look at where most of your example businesses are… on Broad Street. When you get off of the beaten path – further into the residential area, that is when you loose traffic flow and customers.

And besides, I may be off the mark hence my comments but any time someone mentions “urban” I think of low income housing projects in Detroit and Chicago and what surrounds them. If your definition of urban is different, please explain your views.

Eric

Curious… how do the businesses within densley populated residential areas handle parking within Georgetown? And are their businesses dotted like within Church Hill with houses on either side of them but more concentrated like in the Fan with rows of businesses? Just using them as a reference point.

Myself, I moved here because I wanted an urban environment. I wanted city life, not suburban life and that was one of my driving forces when I purchased my home.

I don’t think I am alone. I am sure not everyone has the same motivation as I had, but I think you may find a lot of folks that moved here because they really wanted a city environment over the burbs.

#115 “p.s.–I think parking permits are a bad idea–where I live is three blocks from any of the above retail–close enough for me to walk but far enough that people don’t park over here just to go over there. I have a feeling that most people just don’t have to face the problem of having people who don’t live on the block parking on their block.”

That is the whole NIMBY mentality. This thread has gotten snarky to Eric with no regard for his concerns or the immediate neighbors.

There was a code violation concerning the “main entrance” of that section. It had to be braced up and when they did it, took out the window fillers and put the barricade to keep out people. It was to have been done by 1/4/2009. No “construction” yet.

Eric

Thanks for the update, they were back in there today clearing debris.

Post #121: “If the city thought anything about this unique one of a kind historic building, it would and could have stepped in and placed a lien against it years ago and then took charge of restoring it properly to preserve and restore. It has taken a nonchalant attitude towards it which is sad.”

Eric, it’s not just this building that the city is being nonchalant about. CAR has legislation behind it that enables it to, in essence, take the building if they deem it a contributing structure. The only time I can remember this happening up here in my 20+ years here was when 11 1/2 North 29th Street was in danger. The legislation isn’t particularly complicated but I’m not sure if I remember all of it; basically, they DO have the ability to take title, although I don’t think the city actually takes title. They offer it for sale at what is deemed market rate, and a non-profit takes title having paid that market rate. I think HRF tried to do something with 401 last year, but I don’t remember what happened.

Eric,
I have a question to you about all your crying on the parking situation. The house you live in is wider than most on the block b/c it’s only one room deep. Therefore, it gives you a very large backyard. And the short (wide) alley behind my house leads right into your backyard. Two parking spaces could very easily be added to your yard.
You and your partner could just put a gate in place of the fence and add parking. Your house is very shallow and not deep as all the others on the block.
Your house along with one other house on the block have the ability to have off street parking.
Also in reference to some of the residents being students, I assume you’re talking about my tenants. You don’t own the street in front of your house therefore, they have a right to park anywhere they’d like. My taxes are always paid on my house, and the house is also well maintained. It doesn’t appear to be rental property, it’s kept painted and all exterior repairs are always done. We even keep the shrubs in front and back of the house clipped for the neighbors.
My house is the one that’s nextdoor to this shell, and the shell has cost me thousands of dollars in rental income.
The first quetion, I always get from everyone who views my house is “what’s going on nextdoor?”.
Maybe this blog is a little harsh, but I am very offended by your statement about my tenant’s parking. My house doesn’t have a large enough backyard for off street parking, but your house does have that ability.
Thanks

Update on the Walter York properties.

As you know the three brick business fronts behind 401 also belong to York and the middle (2706 E Marshall) was supposed to become an office for Manhattan Taxicabs. Of course I made sure everyone that was needed to be involved were including Planning, Codes, and Zoning. It appears they did not complete their needed repairs for use change and bringing it up to code and were occupying the office illegally so when they were approached yesterday, the tenants asked for their permit money back and are moving out.

Now we are still working on 401 as Walter York has not fulfilled his schedule dates on the building and things are in the works now… Stay tuned.

Ron,

All of these rant doesn’t belong here buy FYI… I pay half the mortgage and have life rights so in essence it is mine too. Unlike your partner giving you yours. As for the wing, jobs are in the balance as with many so it wasn’t feasible to buy right now. As for the assessment, all you have to do is go and look on the City’s website and see how much it went up.

The fence was done that way because of how the trees straddle property lines and we spoke with the owner of 405 when we did it but also the fence at 407-1/2 is over a foot into our property line during the days when we spoke and were doing a good deed so they didn’t have to move their shed.

The tree was cut some time ago but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that it compromised it and it has been a couple of years ago when it split.

Concerning your tenants… I shouldn’t have to confront you on them – you should screen who you put in the house but obviously you only care about the bottom line and how much you can haul in.

Get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers.

And you know how to email me too “off of the forum” and I asked you to so before but you never did. If you have a rebuttal of this, please email me and keep the conversation of this thread focused on 401.

Eric (my real name)

Back on track and a more sane note…

Engineering plans have been reviewed and approved giving way for the owner to obtain permits to begin construction. At this juncture all he will do is develop a “shell” for future use of the 1st floor that originally was going to be a restaurant (zoning and other issues prevailed). And will only develop a single 2nd floor apartment for now.

Historical accuracy is still an issue and I have contacted several people that should be concerned and waiting on responses.

On a side note Ron…

Don’t you feel that larger trees have benefits over saplings? That they save on heating and cooling bills by providing shade in the summer and wind breaks in the winter?

And to be fair, yes, we had thought about taking down at least 2 trees – one because it is in poor condition, one because it has no benefit and is being crowded, and part of one other because of the precariously angled 60+ foot long branch hanging over the property at a 30 degree angle that could split off any time. But all cost $$$ – between $700 to $1,300 per tree to be exact. If you have that kind of disposable cash – bring it on and we will create off-street parking.

So true. Ours was the highest increase on the block. Some stayed the same, some went up $30k to $60k or so, and a couple went down (401 and 404 – both abandoned and still waiting for reconstruction). Ron was one of the lower increases of $19k.

Heck, the girl who moved into our wing bought it on December 19th and her assessment jumped $29k

Ours went up $98,700 so you might as well say $100k.

Eric

Hey, you were the one who started it… and you do have my email as it hasn’t changed since 1999.

We know quite well the horrors with 405 since we were personally harassed in the street by them, didn’t dare sit outside on our own property, had no less than 5 cars stolen or broken in to, and of course saw all of the dealings going on. We tried to buy Stan Smith’s house outright and our frineds offered way more than it was worth – up to $200k but he wouldn’t budge! Of course after he died his son sold it to Spencer for far less that Stan could have gotten on our offers.

But the neighborhood has changed and so have the neighbors so why haven’t you come back after the mess in 405 moved out?

Eric,
Are you really serious, me come back?
I’d have to live nextdoor to whatever does end up in that shell if anything ever does. Secondly, I live in a much grander house now with a park view.
If I do move again, it’ll be to the west end. My partner has had to have heart valve surgery in the last two years, and just two months ago had another heart attack.
Having two businesses to run and with his health not being what it used to be.
I would most likely move closer to him.
I like it out by CCV or U of R area, but I don’t know. My house is barely large enough for my business, and it’s much larger than the one there on 27th. street.
Plus I have the vacant lot nextdoor that I bought with the house, and Ron Renmark helped me design a beautiful English garden.
I do like that house a lot, and as you know I had started designing a beautiful courtyard prior to moving out.
Those bad people also tormented me, they used to beat against my house. I lived alone, you had someone living with you.
There’s not much chance of me ever coming back to live there, it’ll most likely remain rental for a long time to come.
However, I did want to say two things, I don’t have your email anymore, and you started it by talking about my tenants.
I hadn’t a clue as to which ones you were even mentioning. There’s been great tenants in that house for years now.
The very first group years ago did cause a lot of trouble. Think of what my house looked like after they moved out.
It was a nightmare.
Anyway, I have no desire to argue with you. All I pointed out was that you along with 405 do have the possibility of off street parking.
I don’t want anything other than a Strawberry street market there, what a grand thought?
It’s nice clean and not very expensive.
And the traffic it did generate would only be temporary, not one to two hours at a time.
Have a good day,later

Ron,

The three brick business fronts that sit behind 401 are also owned by Walter York. The Barber Shop (or whatever they ran out of it) was never open “legit” and never saw anyone coming in or out except the manager. The middle shop (2706 E. Marshall) was being worked on to open up as an office for Manhattan Taxicab but they did not bring the building up to code and was occupying it without clear permits so when an inspector came by after I brought this to their attention, the tenants asked for their permit money back and moved out. Or at least I think they did because there is a chained bicycle still in front of it?

As for 401… The engineering plans have been approved and believe also the architectural ones through C.A.R. so now it is up to Walter York to do something with the building before it collapse. I know there is a meeting of the minds with a couple of people tomorrow over the building and may have something to post on that afterwards? But do know that what will be done if it ever flies, is to simply create a shell on the 1st floor to have a business open up there later and a single apartment on the 2nd floor. There will be an entrance stairs going to the second floor between it and 403 but there were some issues in the past about it being “closed in” and too small for code. Think that design has been corrected.

A restaurant would be a bad idea considering competition near by, the small footprint, parking issues, noise, trash, etc… A small local market would work and go with what the building was originally built for.

The arrest was last month as I remember and the neighbors watched it happen and told us about it.

I don’t wish to argue either and sorry to hear about H.

Eric

Yes, they laid a cinder block perimeter base for wall foundations but stopped due to the weather. The back (north) wall is only supported in mid air by lean-to struts and has shifted due to the weight. Though they were doing that, I haven’t noticed any new building permits posted?

The 2706 E Marshall St. building is also still occupied and I am now getting the runaround from the city about what is going on when I was last told they were moving out and the building wasn’t up to code?

Needless to say I am not happy at all that the city in any of its capacities, didn’t take a special interest in this singularly unique building and oversaw its proper restoration rather than letting someone do “whatever” they want to it. The city had plenty of opportunities available but never acted on them.

Also, thought this was supposed to have come up on the March 3rd City Council agenda?

Eric

April 6, 2009

Just wanted to post an update even though I am still waiting on some answers to questions to help clarify the status of things happening…

There was a change of staff at the CDC and Art Dahlberg was replaced with Ray Abbasi. And of course Delores McQuinn has a temporary replacement with Betty Squire.

Back in late January, myself and another concerned party met with city officials at the site to discuss the plans and what is or wasn’t being done. The owner missed deadline after deadline and a list was presented along with a copy of the blueprints. It was suggested that everyone involved should get together in one room to discuss the building and have everyone on the same page – that would include planning, zoning, inspectors, C.A.R., the owner, architect, city council, myself and the other concerned party. This never happened.

Next, I understand that zoning was holding up building permits because of the lack of parking required for the change of use from a laundromat to restaurant. The owner could never resolve this problem and there may have been other issues like demographics and finances so they decided to scrap the restaurant, only fix up a shell for a future business and work on the single family apartment instead which changed the need for the parking and freed up the permit.

Construction started on the wooden section and over time it was said that the original walls would be salvaged and incorporated in the restoration but they were in very poor condition. A wall footing was laid but failed 2 inspections Рyet they continued building on top of them and all but part of the fa̤ade was demolished and reconstructed with new walls destroying historic aspects. Then there are C.A.R. issues.

The C.A.R. approved plans done by Charles Field but the storefront proposed to open the wooden section back up is “modern” and doesn’t reflect the 1850s design. This goes against what they have been preaching about “false historicism”… their adding a modern front that never existed to a historic building.

The CDC states the building is still under spot blight and has to be brought up to city council yet Ray Abbasi seems to thing else wise and looks to be sidestepping all of this and trying to find out why but haven’t received a clear answer.

While work is being done on the wooden section, nothing is being done on the older brick portion as of this date. And the wooden section butts up against the back wall which was replaced in 2004 and is crumbling. The head inspector even made mention about the wall falling down due to incorrect mortar used yet they allow it to stand.

That is the latest… a bunch of contradictions and people either not working together or being ignored and/or having rank pulled. And while Betty Squire was all for being on top of this situation, she too has fallen silent.

Ron, you are correct. The buildings that sit on the even side of E. Marshall behind 401 are all owned by the same person as 401 – Walter Sylvester York, III. The buildings across the street including the bicycle shop are all owned by Sandra Mirray. Of course Sandra is the sister to Patrick Murry, the previous owner of 401 and the buildings along Marshall and is the brother-in-law to Walter York… keeping it in the family.

Though Walter York is supposed to be a contractor I have yet to see any work he has done nor find any permits issued to him for any other buildings in Richmond.

Eric

Also Ron, I would check the brick on your 403 property especially between it and 401. I see a wooden section rotted and bricks getting ready to fall down around the chimney base as well as that raccoon hole still there on the other side. I am sure construction will loosen things up more.

And your tenants are going to get into a bunch of trouble with us and neighbors on the block. They have loud parties on the weekends that last onwards to early morning hours keeping people awake and throwing bottles and trash everywhere – including our property. The neighbors have called the police and we will too about the noise and do so every weekend until they observe the midnight silence ordinance. I would tell you direct but you seem to have deleted my email address?

Eric,
You know my address, and my phone number is listed in the phone book.
Ron

Does anyone know anything about the progress on this property. I’ve noticed the contractors work about one 1/2 day a month, and the windows are not regulation. The second floor windows are not exactly like what was there before the new ones were installed.
Is the owner ever going to finish the buliding.
Thanks,

You go Eric! We know whose ass we have to kick!