rvafun100 t1_j2ybz6n wrote on January 4, 2023 at 8:18 PM

Reply to comment by airquotesNotAtWork in Your City Is the Most Livable in America, Until We Publish This Article About It by ValancourtB

Cheap and massive 5/1s are what corporate ‘developers’ are focused on because they have the highest margins and arguably lead to the most housing units/density in the shortest amount of time. However, the development of high-end townhomes is in fact happening in the areas listed above (and many not mentioned and even many more in the pipeline). They are not illegal by any means, and zoning laws are not preventing them from being built as so many falsely state…have a look at the 2600 block of Kensington Ave as just one example.

airquotesNotAtWork t1_j2ylih9 wrote on January 4, 2023 at 9:16 PM

Do you mean 3100 block of Kensington? Either way it’s a good illustration of what I’m talking about. These five townhomes are only permitted via a special use permit that had to be approved by council because of, among other things, the setbacks for the townhomes are less than what the lost is zoned for (R-6) allows. see here for the special use permit. see the R-6 zoning code for yards and setbacks here

These should have been able to have been built by right, or even something higher density like one or two of the 6-plexes that exist across the street. Instead the developer had to go to the mayor and council for a variance to build these. This is unnecessary cost and uncertainty for zero benefit. They could have by right built one to ~three homes no problem based on current zoning no variance needed.

As a different example, six stand alone single family houses in my neighborhood (on moss side between the church and ladies mile road) met their zoning requirements no problem and were built in a few months time from property transfer and demo of the old building to people moving in the new homes. These are $600k homes, R-3 zoned six of them on ~one acre. It should and could have been something higher density but the zoning didn’t allow it. Because that was easiest and quickest it was what was built, no approval from council on any zoning variation needed as was the case on Kensington.

If you don’t allow density by right then the default is that single family homes get built. The developer in Kensington went out of their way for that, the one on moss side did not. One got 5 homes on a ~quarter acre and the other 6 on ~an acre. We should be encouraging the former and not the latter

rvafun100 t1_j2ynwwg wrote on January 4, 2023 at 9:30 PM

Nope I meant the exact block I noted. And if you need more examples there are plenty in Carver, Jackson Ward, and Church Hill too. Zoning laws are there for a reason, most non-transplants do not want our neighborhoods or city overrun with these grand visions of ugly high density buildings going up by “right”. That would be an absolute nightmare

airquotesNotAtWork t1_j2yvxv5 wrote on January 4, 2023 at 10:20 PM

There are higher density buildings that aren’t ugly and they can and have been built even here in Richmond e.g. 541 N 2nd st & the Canopy at Ginter Park. It is plainly illegal to build them in much of the district or city. And for what it’s worth, that Ginter development was by right and still had appeals by the neighborhood that delayed the project. By right doesn’t mean everything goes but it allows more variation in what is possible in most cases. The 2600 Kensington block ($600k townhomes in 2016 for what it’s worth) were also by right because they happened to be in a multi family district (R-48). And 2601 still needed a variance for yard size just to meet the style of adjacent lots!