Petition urges changes in 28th Street project

The following is in response to the petition in opposition to the proposed infill at 504 – 510 N. 28th Street and provides the applicant a public forum to reply to the petition:

This project is a by-right project in the City of Richmond and requires only a design review by the Commission of Architectural Review. A great deal of thought and analysis went into the design process for this project. The property is four existing single family lots, two of which are land locked and have no access to parking or alley services. Because of the configuration of the site, four single family homes are not feasible within the parameters of the existing zoning ordinance. The option of building a pair of attached homes was also explored but using the required setbacks and the allowable widths permitted in the ordinance resulted in inadequate units. As a result of this site analysis, it was determined that a small multi-family building, the size of a pair of attached single family homes, could meet the limitations of the site. The design team then studied architectural styles, size, scale, massing and materials found in the surrounding area and determined that, because of the nature of the site, a traditional design derived directly from the architecture of the block, was the appropriate solution.

The numbered items below are quoted directly from the petition and the responses follow:

1. The use of 15 ft. side yards: Article 4 in the Siting section of the guidelines states: New infill structures should be spaced within 20% of the average distance between existing houses on the block.

The average distance between houses on the 500 block of North 28th St. is 7ft. 2in. The 15 foot side yards constitute a 110% difference. The side yards for this project in it’s current form should be between 5 ft. 9in. and 8ft. 8in.

The side yards are governed by section 114-418.5 of Chapter 32, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Richmond, Virginia requires a minimum side yard of 15’.

2. The height of the revised project is 33ft. 1in. Article 1. States: New construction should respect the typical height of surrounding houses. The house next door is 24ft 6in. tall. That is an increase of 35%. The staff report states that the average height of the surrounding houses is 24 feet. This new structure will dwarf the houses next door. The height should be reduced to compliment the average height of the surrounding structures.

The guidelines state that new construction should respect the height of the surrounding houses. One of the unique features found in the immediate block and across the street is a variation in roof forms and heights. The proposed design is in keeping with the existing rhythm of high gables next to lower shed roofs and is approximately 6’2” below the height permitted in the zoning code and lower than the majority of the contributing structures across the street and several buildings on abutting lots or across the alley at the rear. Further, the height of the adjacent building was respected by aligning the new front fascia (edge of the roof at the gutter) with the adjacent cornice.

3. The side porches on this project protrude 3 feet from the main structure. Under New Construction, Form, #1 states: New construction should use a building form compatible with that found elsewhere on the block. Building form refers to the massing, size, symmetry, proportions, projections and roof shapes that lend identity to a structure.

The building form is a derivative primarily taken from 515 -517 N. 28th Street and 501 N. 28th Street, each of those buildings being greater than 40 feet in width. The Guidelines state that buildings more than 30 feet in width should be divided into bays. This was accomplished with the same type of window patterns as 501 N. 28th Street where the façade is divided into a three bay width with front porch and a two bay width with front porch, a direct correlation to 501 N. 28th Street.

4. The protruding side porches are a design element that is not found anywhere in the surrounding area and thus would be incompatible with forms found elsewhere on the block.

The vernacular or language of the porches is derived from typical porches in the area and side porches are prevalent in Church Hill North and in the broader Church Hill community. They can be found in original and altered states throughout the district as well as on this block and across the street. The formula or concept of the recess is stylized from the now in-filled porch pattern of the adjacent house, 502 N. 28th Street.

The porches also respond to item #2 under the heading of form in the guidelines which states, “New construction should not mimic previous architectural styles is such a way that creates a false historical appearance.” These porches are an integral amenity that enhances the quality of life for the residents of this building. The guidelines are not intended prohibit such forms, but rather to provide a guide that these items be handled in a sensitive manner. By having the porches on the secondary elevations and maintaining a direct design reference to traditional side porches, this design is one of the few revealing elements of this building that reflects that the architecture is of time and place. Additionally, the porches were seen as the only approach permitted within the zoning ordinance to reduce the required side yards at each side of the building.

5. The garage door, as seen in the drawings, is a suburban-style overhead door. This door style is incompatible in that there are no such garage doors like this that exist in the surrounding area.

There are multiples of approved garages in the district with this type of garage doors. The zoning ordinance requires parking on site and providing the parking in the garage reduces the impact of the rear parking area to three cars. Access to this garage is at the end of a dead end alley.

@2 – There is no guarantee that the City’s “schedule” of rezoning will follow the time table you describe or happen at all. This builder has a right to build now. It is extremely unreasonable to ask him to wait an unknown amount of time.

You pretty much have a model “developer” here in that he is willing to engage with you. This is a small businessman, not Centex Homes. Any impartial observer is going to find his responses reasonable.

@ Emily: “If you’re talking about outdated and shabby…..streets that look like a war zone. You’ve got it.” Where do you live, Emily?

“same old boring poorly constructed homes.” My home was built in 1855 and has stood fast ever since. It has joists like railroad ties. There’s your poor construction. I found a Civil War relic while digging a garden in the back yard. And there’s your ennui…

Even when using the qualifying words “ makes one think” it’s dangerous to make statements accusing a person or group of bias or collusion without proof. No matter what one thinks is the truth, once stated in a public forum, it’s only human nature that the accused will indeed be tempted to bias against the accuser. Sabotaging ones self and agenda.

Just build. Really we have history on the hill now we just need to fill in the lots with homes with people in them. We need the shops other wise people have to drive to get everything. People will just want to live in the county if they have to drive to get to the shops. I understand traditional construction but has anyone priced railroad ties lately. To be a community we need people willing to live there. let the people build we will keep the tradition in the building still standing and keep the pressure on the vacant home owners.

If you read this thread together with the comments about vacant/blighted properties, you begin to get an undertanding why many people don’t want to build in the city, especially if the goal is middle income housing. There is no way a moderate income family can take one of tese properties and rehab it if they are in and O & H District.

Viciousness and slander is recognized for what it is, and hopefully the fine people of Church Hill won’t put up with it.

RE #11 – “There is no way a moderate income family can take one of tese properties and rehab it if they are in and O & H District.”

I beg to differ. There are lots of ways, actually. I do think that one of the problems is that people don’t educate themselves enough on what it means to “rehab” a property – what it entails from an architectural, mechanical, and aesthetic standpoint. There is a lot more involved than paint.

I think that people tend to have this impression that restoration is romantic and fun, which it can be if you know what you’re doing. But more than that, it’s super hard work with lots of obstacles and mega-management involved. These are huge operations, and/but there is financing there for them and money to be made with all of the great deals out there. Awesome pricing, and quality/condition on the front end is key. There are some gov’t incentives, too.

Folks interested just need to do the research and the math to ensure that what they are buying is a good investment. It can be complicated, but it’s not that hard, one bite at a time. Make sure that you surround yourself with experienced professionals, and you will probably be fine – that is if you decide to listen and take suggestions from those people who know what they are doing.

I’ve never seen a show teach it on HGTV, though, and I always caution buyers that sitting on their couch taking in some entertainment for a few half hours a week will not qualify them.

#16 – They can be repaired fairly easily, a good do-it-yourself project OR you can do storm windows for less than $200 – and YES, they are allowed in an O&HD.

RE #16 – I understand your perspective, and it is, unfortunately, kind of a common one. But as we see from the comments that follow yours, sometimes it just takes a little digging to get beyond the impressions that O&H are there to bleed the homeowner dry and force people out of their homes. It’s not that simple, and there are alternatives.

As a Certified Historic REALTOR who works with old homes all the time, I have seen some absolutely insane bastardizing of once-gorgeous homes. Part of me has secretly wished, just for a sec, that O&H would extend their guidelines to interiors, too. I am all for less regulation of pretty much everything, so it was only fleeting. But still, the way that these places are disrespected during the “renovation” process is off the hook sometimes – makes you wanna cry.

I am glad that there are folks out there that are in the solution of more affordable preservation because affordability and preservation are both important aspects of any old house restoration – whether someone is forcing you to do the right thing Historically or not.

The resources are available. ACORN and OHA are good places to start.

CRD – Why shouldn’t someone “wants to make money”?! What an odd statement! Is it now morally corrupt to want to make money!

We still live in a country which allows people the freedom to do what they want within the law/code. Granted – those rights are slowly diminishing but as of now those developers may still excersise poor taste.

It seems like some folks are using this as an opportunity to unfairly “poke” at Laura Daab. Let’s not confuse the issue…CAR should be made to adhere to the guidelines as written. Laura has simply pointed out the conflicts in the proposal…and, she has some very valid points. It seems like the developer has taken liberties in determining what is currently represented in the neighborhood. The architectural cues should be taken from the block that this proposed building is going to exist in. The setback, the scale, and design will look out of place on the block.

It’s OK for a developer to want to make money…It’s also OK for folks to demand CAR adhere to the standards as written… If folks have issues with the inconsistencies with CAR’s decision-making process, perhaps this is where the problem exists?

This developer has already demonstrated he can build great stuff in other Richmond neighborhoods. I believe he can, and hopefully will, do the same in Church Hill.

However, I encourage him to work with the surrounding neighbors to develop the 4 lots in a way that is harmonious to the existing homes on the block.

This kind of public vetting or “working thru the project” with neighbors is routine for developers who want to build in desireable neighborhoods.

This public vetting process has and never will drive away future developers who are serious about investing in Church Hill, Shockoe Valley, or Union Hill.

New infill projects get approved all the time (with little or no fanfare.)

Take for example, the new house at 418 N 24th Street (a small builder; they broke ground this summer and are almost finished–open house on Sunday.)

Another is the new mixed-use project (very dense with 4 stories) that will fill the 2000 block of Broad Street. It’s received a green lights from CAR and Zoning, and consturction should be underway soon.

There are many, many new infill projects (in O&HD’s) that we don’t hear about because things just go a little smoother in the public vetting process.

To have the occasional hiccup on a new project every once in a while is no big deal. It’ll get worked out, and new construction will take place on 28th Street.

For the record, I do wish the developer would re-draw the project to avoid the 15-foot side yards (which run the full length of the lot from the street to the rear property line).

One of the biggest things that defines this community is the density of the structures. This is the urban core, not the suburbs of Hanover. This is a neighborhood of adjoining or very closely side-by-side houses.

To help prevent these kind of setback discrepencies with new construction, the community has spent countless hours working with city planners to develop the R8 zoning for much of North Church Hill. The same team who worked on R63 in Union Hill is spearheading the R8; they moved it thru the Planning Commission and City Council pretty efficiently, and I believe it when they say it should be in place by the end of 1Q10.

Very simply, the siting of the N. 28th Street infil is simply out of sync with near-term R8 and the O&HD.

Josh, best of luck with your project. It sounds great! I have seen your other developed properties around Richmond, and they are singularly hands down the best.

Ms. Dabb contends there are no garage doors like the ones in the proposed project. The majority of doors need updating. That is because the doors are outdated and are manual. It is a simple issue. The city should require all residences to have modern garage doors, and eventually all modern style homes.