Big house proves too big a decision

By Seth Rosen

Published: May 5, 2008

Faced with two equally compelling and cogent arguments, city councilors on Monday settled on a third option: Do nothing.
Councilors, by a 4-1 vote, held off on deciding whether a 6,000-square-foot house is too large for the north downtown neighborhood.
A group of neighbors on Second Street Northeast were appealing the approval of the house by Charlottesville’s architectural board, arguing that it would dwarf surrounding homes that average 2,000 square feet.
The majority of councilors said they hoped the architectural board, neighbors and property owners could find common ground on the size of the house and its relationship to the street so that all parties would be pleased in the end. Councilors instructed the architectural board to have another crack at the project, possibly as early as next month.
“I would like to see it go back for further review,” Councilor Julian Taliaferro said. “My personal opinion is that the scale and mass concerns me a little … so I’d like to send it back for further refinements.”
Mark and Barbara Fried, prominent developers who live in Crozet, are looking to build a two-story house with an accessory apartment and a basement-level garage on their Second Street Northeast property. The total size of the house would be 8,500 square feet, of which 6,000 is considered livable space.
Neighbors argue that the house is far bigger than surrounding homes and would alter the character of the street.
“The proposed building is, in simple English, too big for our neighborhood,” said Fred Schneider, who lives nearby.
The architectural board, which has to vet all new construction and renovations in Charlottesville’s historic districts, endorsed the house by a 6-1 vote in March.
“We debated the concerns that were expressed and we are sympathetic to both sides,” said Fred Wolf, a member of the board. “Ultimately, though, we decided that this project did in fact, obviously, meet the requirements.”
The owners of the site insist that the house fits in with adjacent buildings, pointing out that a four-unit condo building next door is about the same size.
“Our argument is the specific standards are met,” said David J. Toscano, who represents the Frieds and serves in the House of Delegates. “This fits into the general scope of the neighborhood.”
The Frieds have altered the house to assuage the architectural board’s concerns. They have moved the garage from the front of the house to the back, changed the windows and roof, and added a front porch and garden to improve the property’s streetscape.
“We have really tried hard to harmonize the building with the site and the neighborhood,” said Allison Ewing, the project’s architect.
Neighbors said that though the changes were a positive step, they did not address the fundamental concern, which is not development itself but the sheer mass of the proposed house.
“To a person, the [neighbors] all support urban infill,” Kristen Suokko, a neighbor, told councilors. “They support green construction and they support architectural diversity. But not to the exclusion of the life and the character of the neighborhood.”
The house is designed to be a model of energy efficiency, sporting solar panels, a green roof, geothermal heating pumps and other environmentally friendly amenities. Despite its size, the house’s carbon footprint would be smaller than most, if not all, other houses in the neighborhood.
David Brown was the one councilor to vote against deferral.
“Philosophically, I feel like the City Council needs to be careful about overturning decisions by the [architectural board],” he said.
Other councilors, however, said that they wanted the board to look at the plans once more and find a way to improve the house’s orientation on the street.
“To me, the biggest issue has to do with the relationship to the street and the pedestrian experience,” Mayor Dave Norris said.