RECENT COMMENTS
New mixed-use on 28th Street?
In what would be the first of its kind to be built in Church Hill in quite some time, there is a proposal for a new mixed-use cornerstore on the vacant lot at 600 North 28th Street.
The project is noteworthy, too, for being outside of a major commercial corridor AND being in the Church Hill North City Old and Historic District.
Laura Daab has sent details from a meeting held last week between the developers and neighbors of the area. The developers are seeking a Specual Use Permit to build mixed-use in a R7 zone, a request to which neighbors present at meeting had no complaint.
Concerns were voiced about height and the unsecured “carport” at the back of the property. Current guidelines say that new construction “should respect the typical height of surrounding houses and commercial structures” and “should have the same number of stories as the majority of structures on the block”. The proposed structure also a partially visble roof deck visble from the right of way, with which some may take issue.
The presentation Mixed Use – North 28th Street provides further context for the building.
The lot previously held a storefront with an apartment above which burned almost exactly 2 years ago.
This is a really interesting project. It’s really noteworthy that people remain interested in investing here even though the economy is sputtering.
One great take-away from the waterfront development meeting that the City and Acorn were promoting earlier this week is that when a new project is proposed, neighbors may be better served by asking “how can I get what I want” out of the proposal instead of an immediate “no”.
Design aesthetics look to be well researched. I’m happy we are seeing mixed-use development proposals in our urban neighborhood- especially on corner lots. Best of luck to all those involved.
Height, massing and scale concerns. There are also concerns about the set-back and depth of the building and the height is about 12 feet taller than anything on the block.
The new proposed structure is nothing like the previous structure that occupied the property before it burned down. There is a physical record of what existed, but according to guidelines, new structures do not need to follow previous structure design. Guidlelines require rehabs/renovations and additions to have a physical record of what previously existed in order for replication of structures. Seems contradictory to me. I think that since there is a physical record of the previous building that some consideration should be taken to what was there before in replacing the structure.
I am all for developing this property as a mixed use development. That follows the original use of the property. I’m also glad that the developer asked to meet with the neighbors before going to zoning and CAR. He obviously wants to do the right thing. I’m sure some compromises can be made.
From a personal standpoint, the height of the structure does not seem contradictory or excessive. It’s a 2.5 half floor building, only slightly taller than the existing dwelling units nearby. This structure acts as a bookend to the block, meaning a taller building is more acceptable in this circumstance. I’m willing to bet that this building would conform to most of the standards in the R-63 zoning district that is under consideration the immediate area.
Some of the fenestration seems a little awkward to me, but again, that is a personal preference. All in all, looks like an exciting proposal and I hope it the project moves forward.
Can’t remember what is on the block now, but it looks a little out of character to me in the sketch, but again can’t remember that block. I do agree wholeheartedly that mixed use again, esp on corners would be great. I see several corner places in process that appear to be gone to housing only. I personally think that is a shame.
phss no wonder why richmond doesn’t have any tall buildings
Isn’t there a zoning meeting coming up where they are trying to change the areas zoning to strictly residential? I assume this project is outside of that area but builder beware, that cornerstore may be an apartment by the time you’re through. Personally, I’m all for mixed-use development, it’s what makes a city thrive.
#4:
“I’m willing to bet that this building would conform to most of the standards in the R-63 zoning district that is under consideration the immediate area.”
First of all, the R-63 is not in place yet, and the developer is seeking an SUP because it is currently zoned R7. Secondly, this is in an OHD and it does not conform with the current guidelines. “should respect the typical height of surrounding houses and commercial structures†and “should have the same number of stories as the majority of structures on the blockâ€. OHD zoning carries the weight of the law andis a part of city code as much as the basic overlay, currently R7.
#5: “Can’t remember what is on the block now, but it looks a little out of character to me in the sketch”
Yes, it is.
I have no quarrel with mixed use in our neighborhood, and height along commercial corridors is less of an issue. However, this is on a fairly quiet residential block and what stood there before was a two story building, not a three story building. People around this have a problem with the height and scale of this structure, not with the proposed use.
This was also a main issue with the Oakwoods. The CHA, ACORN, HRF and the majority of folks in the neighborhood opposed the Oakwoods with height and scale being some of the main problems. I have already heard from several neighbors with this concern about this project.
I don’t think that the neighbors in this case are being unreasonable. We welcome the development with some concessions, and developers always start out with designs that are going to be scaled down. They know that they will have to do some bargaining.
Drawings can also be deceiving. There really isn’t a good rendering of how this building really looks compared to all the structures on the block. Also, things look a lot different in drawings than they do in real life.
Another neighbor’s concern:
“I would also pay particular attention to the alt mechanical location (page 12). They could possibly place air handling units on that flat roof portion facing east leigh street. They don’t show this in the elevation view on page 13 but just imagine three boxes at that flat roof location.”
#7:
Yes there is a public meeting on July 30th 6:00 pm at the EDI for residents in CHNOHD, Chimborazo OHD and northern parts of St John’s OHD. It will be public charette for residents to decide on zoning for their areas. I sent john_m the info and hopefully he will post shortly.
It is not yet decided that the area will be strictly residential, but it’s on the table as is strictly R63, a combo of both or a hybrid of both.
I plan on coming. I know my business is coming up on it’s 50th anniversary on Church Hill and my family for three generations has paid dearly to keep it commercial.
I got the notice in the mail and I’m not sure what is going on or what people are trying to do but I know I didn’t work all these years to lose my ability to retire or to pass on to my children my business.
I didn’t think mechanical units were subject to historic district regulations?
If so, every vent pipe, electric meter, kitchen exhaust and AC unit in the area would be non-compliant.
#11:
Would you consider it good design to have three large air conditioning units visible on a roof from a public right of way? Most developers try to obscure these elements for aesthetic reasons.
#11:
I believe that any existing business that is zoned commercial at the moment is “grandfathered” in, so I don’t think that your business is in danger. You won’t have your commercial zoning status yanked out from under you if the zoning does change.
Our block and across the street is all businesses/restaurant/retail, rentals, and offices with the exception of several residential buildings…So why are we on the map for zoning changes? None of us in this area have a problem with eachother. Matter fact, our block is peaceful and the mixed use gives us both space from eachother and places to mingle.
#14:
You’ll have to ask the Dept. of Community Dev. The city determined the boundaries over two years ago.
The Blue Wheeler comes to mind as a nice example of a mixed use structure (without the cigarette ads plastered on the face) http://www.flickr.com/photos/syluncer/3107553724/sizes/o/
A long continuous structure like this could eliminate the need for the extra height and would be in keeping with the neighborhood. It would b a strong corner anchor. The back of the building (not facing the street) could be stepped in a few feet to accomodate placement of the exterior mechanicals and keep them out of the public view.
Ramzi and gray, it’s cool dudes. The zoning change would not affect existing uses, so the art joint is safe. You would be grandfathered. You just wouldn’t be able to convert to a carwash. Dig?
#17, thanks. I called Tarisa Moran of the Planning and Preservation Division Department of Community Development at (804)646-6308 and she explained everything.
re Vista – it may not affect existing businesses but it does affect property owners. If a property were to lose a business tenant, another one could not take it’s place which may translate into a loss of income. Downgrading a property from commercial to residential translates into a drop in property value.