RECENT COMMENTS
Project on 28th Street goes to CAR on Tuesday
The agenda for Tuesday’s CAR meeting includes a listing for 504-510 N 28TH ST “construct new multi-family residences. An email from Laura Daab sheds some light on the project and shares some renderings (PDF):
This is a multi family project that is going up on four single family lots. […] There is a R-53 zoning designation in place that would allow for this type of development similar to the Oakwoods condo project. […] The developer, Related Properties, LLC/Sterling Properties/Josh Bilder has not presented to the CHA or any other entity.
The developer had a similar project, except it was mixed use that he wanted to build at 600 N.28th Street and the neighbors were able to block that version of his project for the time being. The developer is getting this in before the zoning change which will be R-8. According to the assessor’s records he doesn’t own all the lots (he owns one), but we believe that he wants to get his spec project approved before he commits to buying the properties. There is still a “For Sale” sign in front of the properties.
Looks great! Nice fit for the block.
Diana:
Well, so far, you are in the minority. I have had over 20 emails from people who do not agree with you.
We are not anti-development. We are fine with multi-family (two duplexes) across the street, but this project’s massing, height, carport, 15 foot side yards and roof pattern are not in keeping with the CAR guidelines and the continuity of the character of the immediate area. There are no 15 foot side yards, 3 story buildings, four-plexes or carports on the block, let alone the extreme pitch of the roof pattern. This project is also too tall! The project is 10 feet higher than the house to it’s right and 5-7 feet higher than the house to it’s left. Also, there are going to be 5’2″ fences at the front of this property on both sides. No such fence patterns exist anywhere in the area.
The cornices match up with the house next door to the left. Even if it has four units, it looks like a single family duplex, with the high ceilings typically found desirable in the area. I think CAR is going to have a hard time understanding the objections.
I’m fine with being in the minority! Although, I think, ‘historically’, those against things do tend to have a louder voice then those in favor. Very few of my friends or acquaintances keep up with the Church Hill Peoples News and some are unaware of it so reactions either way may represent a small minority. 20 emails does not constitute a community majority.
On my block we have two three story buildings (one is mine) and 6 two story. I think we need to be more open to what is acceptable on the Hill, allow for some progress and not continue what has been in the past crippling resistance to change and differences. What I AM against is a handful of people speaking for me and others preventing responsible development. As I stated I like the design and think it’s appropriate.
I’ve got to be honest: this looks like a non-issue for CAR. The design fits in with the neighborhood and fits the zoning in place. The issues raised by the opponents have NOTHING to do with O&H and everything to do with zoning. If the neighborhood had not fought R-63 so vigorously, there might be an argument against this. You reap what you sow.
What a tremendous effort put towards showing the relationship of the new construction to old. The massing model shows how well the building volume knits with the neighboring houses. The northernmost house on the Western face of the block has a very similar scale. It is a shame that the the zoning ordinance requires a setback of fifteen feet. That is the only real flaw I see with the project. I think that the architect has done an excellent job both in the building massing and its presentation.
A blown up view of our block with the original buildings on it, circa 1960 before they were demolished. According to the CAR guidelines, if there is a physical record of what existed before, every effort should be made to reconstruct, or honor the footprint of that physical record.
Why would someone take 4 lots and build on 2 1/2 of them with a highly dense, 4 story plan that has 30 feet of 5’2” fence (two 15′ sections) running across each side of the front of the project on 28th St. creating a suburban-like fortress? This is a block of 24′ single family dupleses.
Please see the photo of original buildings. This new project does not honor the original footprint of what existed before. The original buildings on the block show a uniformity of height, massing, scaled and form. Also, the original side yard footprints.
FYI: This is designed by the firm of the chair of the CAR, who was one of two CAR members that voted in favor of the Oakwoods project. As you recall, the majority of people in the neighborhood opposed this project which is similar. ACORN, HRF and the CHA also opposed this type of developemt. That’s not exactly a few people in the hood.
This has everything to do with OHD’s, and the propsosed zoning for our block is not R-63, but R-8 which is single family duplex that allows for corner stores. Fighting the blanketed R-63 was the right thing, and the community has spoken.
The building’s massing and scale dwarf the house next to at 502, and the carport element has already been denied by CAR on another project that the developer proposed.
There is an infill project at 516 N. 28th going before the CAR on Tues that is really a good fit for the block. There are also two double houses that have been CAR approved for 600 Block of N. 28th St. that would fit nicely in these lots as well.
Diana: agree with you on a number of fronts…progress is good for the greater Church Hill area. Although this infill project may be good, I understand Laura’s concern. Let me explain, the overall scale of the proposed building (front) does seem to overpower the buildings on either side. It’s significantly higher (due to the roof pitch) than the neighboring buildings–although, the cornices appear to be at a consistent height. The 2 buildings on your block are not necessarily 3 stories, they are 2-story homes with English basements. Furthermore, most of the buildings on your block are very consistent in height and massing. They blend harmoniously with one another. They have similar details, fenestration, and most have low-pitched roofs that are not a prominent feature from the street. To better highlight this example, there is a house across from yours with butter-yellow trim. This house looks somewhat out-of-place on the block when viewed as a whole. This is largely due to the roof design and scale–and it’s just a few feet shorter than the neighboring properties. But, it helps that the set-back from the street is consistent with the other buildings. The house is fine as it stands alone but when introduced in the mix with other properties…is not the best choice for the block. this appears to be Laura’s point. In a block with (mostly) regular setbacks, the stepped setbacks that will be created when this building is erected will look odd. The front-facing, high-pitched roof, will also feel strange on the block. The overall design is at most, very utilitarian looking. Some modest embellishment would seem to help it blend with the surrounding buildings. Is this the best design choice for this location? It’s a challenge but really one that should be reviewed. This should be viewed as an opportunity to do the right thing for this block. There are ways that the developer can accomplish the same goals, amenities desired, and still achieve budget restrictions.
Post #9 True my house is not a legitimate 3 story … except in height. My English basement is only one foot below grade at the front and I have 10 foot ceilings so the aggregate height exceeds any other home on the block. Before the church next to me was build there were several much smaller houses. That is not unusual since some earlier building on the Hill sometimes tower over later ones. Looking at the pictures of nearby houses provided by the developer there are similar pitched roofs and height differences in the area.
As for #7s “As you recall, the majority of people in the neighborhood opposed this project which is similar. ACORN, HRF and the CHA also opposed this type of development. That’s not exactly a few people in the hood.” I would suggest to you that most people have chosen not to belong to a civic association, who did not vote and many of both thought Oakwood was a good plan. CHA does not speak for all of Church Hill.
I just wanted to voice my opinion and now that I have I will leave it to others to continue the discussion.
Another central point to my argument is that there is a physical record of what was on this block and every effort in preservation and protection should endeavor to honor that record when it exists. This project ignores the documentary evidence.
The arguments around Williamsburg would not exists if there was photography in the 18th Century to give preservationists the correct documentation to restore the Colonial section. However, Colonial Williamsburg is starting to document buildings digitally based on drawings and plans from the original town. Tourist can now view these digital images to see some of the original footprint that existed.
It is irresponsible and wrong to ignore photographic documentation when replacing buildings in Old & Historic Districts.
Post #7 do the CAR guidelines actually say?
“if there is a physical record of what existed before, every effort should be made to reconstruct, or honor the footprint of that physical record.”
I can’t find it in the book, i’d appreciate your help finding it.
Call me dumb, but one post mentions a four story tall building. The rendering shows a two story building with a crawlspace and gabled roof.
Is this the correct rendering?
I don’t think being 10′ taller than the adjacent building is a big deal. Given the sideyards, the 10′ won’t be that big of a deal.
I think the sideyards should be smaller with denser development, but if the requirement is 15′ and they don’t won’t to go SUP or zoning appeal, you can hardly blame them for not wanting to have to deal with the Planning Department’s arbitrary rulings. Who wants to deal with those headaches?
I just wish we could stop looking/living in the past and move forward. This is nitpicking at its best.
Laura,
Do you have renderings you can share for 516 N. 29th Street? I’m curious to see what they intend on building on that lot.
Agreed with 12. It seems the argument that this is like Oakwood Heights is tenuous. Four units is not Oakwood.
Churchill is not Williamsburg, and let’s face it, not all of the old houses look that great. Thank goodness there are enough existing houses to preserve the flavor of the past. However, there are multi-family units in every historic neighborhood, (Monument Avenue, Fan, West of the Boulevard, Ginter Park,etc)and housing should reflect the changing needs of the neighborhood. Many objections on this project reflect the zoning restrictions put forth by the City. This has been designed by one of the best in town. With a few cosmetic changes, this could surely work. After all, we need some housing for our future medical students.
Post #9…I haven’t noticed an English basement on that house. Am I missing something? Just curious.
there does seem to be an english basement in the projected house on 28th st if that’s what you mean. Does not show on the front.
it’s nice to see a tasteful, well-designed infill project being planned for this parcel. it compliments the existing historic architecture without wholly mimicking it. here’s to hoping this is approved and that more quality infill projects will be proposed for other vacant lots in the area.
I agree wholly with rockett88. We should embrace this project. It is a beautiful design that will greatly enhance 28th street. I used to live nearby, and would consider relocation again on 28th street.
This project was deferred by the CAR with a quorum of 5 members voting tonight. What that means is that the plan was rejected with recommendations. They will not have to go through the application process again but will have to come back to CAR with changes based on recommendations made by the CAR. It’s the same as a denial, but without going through the entire application process again.
The concerns were:
height
number of stories (yes, there are four floors to this project. The fourth floor is “ghosted” in the plans. No wonder you didn’t see them, but they are there; look harder.)
15’side yards
the open parking area/carport
the “juliet” balconies
roof materials
fences acting as a “fortress” in the front
#14: I do not have the renderings in a pdf to share, but it is a two story Italianate style single family home similar to those found elsewhere on the block. If you are interested, go down to the CAR office and look it up.
#16: Plenty of housing for medical students – there is an oncologist next door and a dental student across the street. Both of them opposed the project in its current form.
#11:
According to the CAR Guidelines under New Construction/Storefront Facades, 1. “The applicant should research the design of the original building or early changes. If no documentary evidence exists to aid in cornice and sidewalk, design a new storefront consisting of elements
compatible with surrounding historic structures.” The above map is documentary evidence of previous buildings that are to be replaced. In keeping
with the philosophy of the above guideline, some consideration should be taken to what was there before when replacing these structures.
Obtaining a variance for side yards to reflect the original footprint of the lots would satisfy the guidelines. The CAR has many times argued with applicants that documentary evidence needs to be considered in the application process. Ask them.
I looked at the plans again and there is indeed a walk out basement to the rear, but not four floors I can see. Nor are there four rows of windows anywhere.
I assume they are taking advantage of a sloping site to get the basement level.
I do agree the roof should be changed to metal, and shouldn’t be asphalt.
I’d like to see it wider and closer to the property line, but if it complies with zoning, if I were the owner, I would rather not attempt a variance.
The fence at the front could be lower, made from iron or picketed to make it more open.
I still have no concerns about the height.
I agree with some of the post here in wanting change or progress. There are two questions I have 1. What about 512 N. 28th. St., that house isn’t in keeping w/ the historic look of the neighborhood. 2. There’s a house in the 2800 block of Clay street, it looks like a house from the suburbs. The house is currently on the market for sale, and it has a concrete driveway.
Where were the complaints about these two properties. It seems to me that CAR picks their battles for people who really have money to better our neighborhood.
Personally, I hate both of the houses pointed out in my posting.
Where is CAR for 401 N. 27th. St. the owner there has painted one of the store fronts facing Marshall st. pink. And when if ever is this building ever going to be finished.
What connections does the owner of this property have downtown. It sits there year after year with very little progress.
The 400 block of 27th. St is beautiful, but everyone is greeted by this eyesore.
They see this run-down building, and it makes it very difficult for anyone on that block to sell or rent any of their properties.
One of the things here that concerns me is that a small number of people have elected themselves the taste police especially when projects are in close proximity to them. Because their willing to spend the time and energy they have way too much say. They mostly speak for themselves and not the larger community. This is not a healthy situation. It is reminiscent of CHA’s concentration on the St. John’s district but has a loud enough voice that pretends to speak for all of Church Hill. This is why there has been a need for new civic associations to be created. One of the newest civic associations is Church Hill Central Civic Association. CHCCA. Its area includes all of Church Hill. All are welcome. They have a meeting on the 14th of December at EDI at 7. This is an open, inclusive, social association that will contribute positively to the area.
Hello neighbors,
I would like to extend an invitation to the enitre Church Hill Community. On December 9th 2009 from 5:30pm-6:30pm a Forum Of Discussion will be held at 1901 West Cary Street at the offices of Johannas Design Group. This will be an informational format, where the project will be presented to the community. Questions about the project will be answered. My request is that, if you have issues they not be taken up at the forum but sent in an email either to me at josh.bilder@gmail.com or my architects Dave Johannas at dave@johannasdesign.com or Andy Scudder at andy@johannasdesign.com. I hope to see you there.
Also I want to say that I really enjoy reading the CHPN. I check it daily as a news source for not only Church Hill but for Richmond at-large.
This project appears to have been dumped. 504-510 N. 28th Street are back on the market.
Laura,
Any reasoning as to why?
#27:
Anyone’s guess. Could be that the developer didn’t get all of his paperwork in order prior to the zoning change, so he does not have grandfathering rights to build under the R-53 zoning that he got CAR approval for. Could be that he couldn’t get the financing, or he realized that this was not a viable project – ROI. He also owns the empty lot at 600 N 28th and might be setting his energy/resources on that project. The design he submitted to CAR last year was denied, so he will have to come in with a new design for that project, which will be some kind of corner mixed use under the R-63 zoning.
Laura,
This project has not been ‘dumped’. I don’t ‘dump’ projects. You know nothing about me or my business. And if you dont stop putting false information about me on the internet and chruch hill at large im going to consider it grounds for a lawsuit. Ive had enough of it and Im tired of it.
#24:
You said, “One of the things here that concerns me is that a small number of people have elected themselves the taste police especially when projects are in close proximity to them. Because their willing to spend the time and energy they have way too much say.”
People who live within 150 feet of a proposed project that has to go under review hearings that involve public comment/feedback have to be legally notified when the project will have a substantial impact on an area. It’s part of the review process and a property owner’s right to voice their concerns when they feel that their property and community will be negatively impacted.
This project had over 40 people voice their concerns – all of whom lived within a few blocks of this. Civic associations should take this into account when they weigh in on any development in their community.
During the zoning change process, the Church Hill Central Association made no effort at all to hear the concerns of the folks in the T-section regarding their opposition to R-63. Over 100 people voiced their concerns with 70 or more from the T-zone and the remainder within a block or so of the rezoning.
There were 3 people in the T-zone that voiced their support of R-63 and the CHCCA chose to ignore the 70 (let alone the whole 100) in favor of the 3. I don’t call that inclusive, welcoming or community building however you want to slice it. As a matter of fact, in early meetings of the formation of the north civic groups, individuals from the CHCCA expressed how important it was to support what the residents of the community want and to defer to the majority desire. That has not, and did not happen.
On the other hand, the CHA did support the R-8 zoning and deferred to the residents of the T-zone in support of what they wanted. The same happened with the Church Hill North Civic Association.
That’s just how Diana rolls….that’s all.