Comments on: Green Homes Part 2: The Falls Church Erdhaus (Earth House)

By: Jon Kula, Alexandria

Jon Kula, Alexandria — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:25:21 +0000

It seems that one of the largest barriers to changing ideas about environmental efficiency are entrenched aesthetic beliefs. These fellows are operating within the limits of the law, and are being responsible regarding their building materials. A house like this is. It is this innovative spirit which drives future advances that allow Americans to move in a more sustainable direction .

You want to talk about aesthetics? Lets talk about the overgrown mansions of northern Virginia . Big does not mean beautiful … this home constitutes a return to tact, refinement, and taste.

Rethink your methods. Evolve.

By: Jonathan Smythe

Jonathan Smythe — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:32:02 +0000

Diversity of housing stock is a good thing. Lack of uniformity in front yard appearance from the street is a different thing – makes things look choppy and disconcerting as kathleen says. Looking at Mr. Maller’s code citation shows an interesting finding – “average” of the nearest front yards. Driving around the city, especially on Lincoln Ave and new houses on Grove it appears that this law was not applied (otherwise how does a new house sit in front of the neighbor houses).

Since Mr. Maller mentions the houses next to Tallwood. Exactly how is it legal to have those round driveways and have the side driveway as well? Sure looks funny with those SUV’s parked looming over Broad St.!

By: kathleen

kathleen — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:35:00 +0000

Too much diversity can make a street look choppy, visually disconcerting and unappealing. That’s simply my opinion. On the other hand, I’d never want to live in a cookie cutter subdivision!

By: Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:02:18 +0000

Hi Mr. Maller, thank you for commenting on the zoning requirements. That’s a clear explanation. You asked for whether there should be a maximum set back requirement. I would suggest that the City Council be very cautious if this is considered. As I stated above, siting the house at the rear of the lot allows for the passive solar design, which will significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to heat our home. I would encourage flexibility in the code to allow for environmentally-friendly construction such as this. I also would offer that our house, which is small by many standards today, with less than 1,500 sq. ft. of living space and on only one level (plus a full basement), would look strange if it were sitting between two tall (2 1/2 story homes) sited at the front of the lot. Eventually, when the house is complete, and the landscaping and fencing is installed, the house will be barely visible from the street. (It would not be visible from the street at all had we not encountered an underground stream, thus forcing the house to be 18″ higher to avoid water and ensure stable soil for the foundation.)

In my opinion, one of the many wonderful aspects of the City of Falls Church is the diversity throughout the community, and that includes the diversity in housing styles. From West Street to Birch Street, on and off of Grove Avenue, one can find colonials, contemporaries, cape cods, ranches, craftsman, and townhouses. That’s very appealing to us and one reason we chose to live in the City. A small, passive solar house sited at the back of a lot just adds a bit more to the diversity.

By: Dan Maller

Dan Maller — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:07:02 +0000

I am not sure what to say about substandards except that I would like to abolish them and provide for clear and simple rules to enforce zoning, which we are making progress towards, and I certainly look forward to Deliberation Day soon.

As to front setbacks, the specific description of the R districts provides only a MINIMUM front yard, and this is in 38-28(b) [which does not say anything about a MAXIMUM either]:

(3) Front yards. In any “R” district, the minimum front yard … shall be the average of the nearest front yards on either side thereof, or if there be a building on one (1) side only, then it shall be the same as the front yard for that building; provided, that no front yard shall be less than thirty (30) feet in an R-1A district and twenty-five (25) feet in an R-1B district, and that no front yard need be more than fifty (50) feet.

BTW, the clearest example of the utter neglect of this requirement is the “home” next to Tallwood on Broad Street, which is over 100′ back from the street meaning that the MINIMUM front yard should have been 50′. I guess if they followed the law they would have been able to park several more cars on their lawn, but of course the construction could not have happened then. Too bad.

Should there be a maximum? What would it mean? Should the maximum front yard be a percentage of the lot depth? Good questions, which we should look forward to resolving in the rewrite.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Mon, 25 May 2009 00:51:05 +0000

OK Mr. Maller, start on substandard lots. But if the entire code is being rewritten, someone needs to make a note to self – need to address maximum setbacks in addition to minimum. And since you are responding, please explain “average of the adjoining houses.”

By: Dan Maller

Dan Maller — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:40:14 +0000

Charlie, the zoning code limits the MINIMUM setback to the average of the adjoining houses (not less than 25 or more than 50 feet), but does not limit the MAXIMUM setback except indirectly by requiring a 30′ rear yard. There are slight differences between R-1A and R-1B, and also bonuses for building on substandard lots (OK, let’s get started on that!).

By: Stan Fendley

Stan Fendley — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:01:02 +0000

Here’s another important piece of information. Mike told me today their contractor estimates they will save $50,000-$75,000 by going green. One innovation alone, Using the excavated dirt as brick instead of trucking it away, has saved them $17,000.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:58:54 +0000

Mike: Sounds like good reasoning. What are the setbacks for your home and what are the zoning limits?

By: mike nichols

mike nichols — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:20:26 +0000

Gary’s correct – siting the house towards the back of the lot was essential for the passive solar design. If we placed the house at the front of the lot, the house next door would have blocked all of the sun. No variances were required as we are well within the zoning limits.