RECENT COMMENTS
Dueling petitions on Echo Harbor?
Together We Stand, as part of their effort “to help make the Richmond Region the best possible place in the world to live, work and visit”, has a petition online showing support of the effort to preserve the view that named RIchmond. Reminiscent of the battle over Oakwood Heights, word has it that something of a counter-petition is being circulated in support of the proposed Echo Harbor development. All of this may come to a head Monday at the City Council meeting…
At the heart of the debate embodied by the dueling petitions is the ongoing conflict over Echo Harbor. The amendments as approved by the Planning Commission “allow buildings along the river to be a little taller than is currently allowed, but which is still approximately 2 stories shorter than the most recent Echo Harbor proposal. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously in stating that the city ‘had the power to preserve river views, specifically including the Libby Hill Park view, by limiting the height and mass of buildings”. (full list of amendments adopted by the City Planning Commission on May 4, 2009 PDF)
Monday evening City Council will vote on Ordinance 2009-117, “to approve an amendment to the Master Plan for the City of Richmond […] to adopt additional amendments” previously approved by the City Planning Commission. Adoption of these amendment will allow for implementation to begin on the Downtown Master Plan; a no vote will again reset the clock on the process and open the door to further changes to the document.
There has also been discussion about removing wording from one of the amendments (“the Character Area designation”), a change as described by ACORN would “negate” the Downtown Master Plan and which would be in “direct conflict with what Richmonders supported for the Downtown Master Plan”.
ACORN is supporting a vote by council in favor of passing the amendments as approved by the City Planning Commission, saying that, “any further amendment to the Downtown Master Plan will diminish the original intent of the Plan, which calls for a Riverfront with public access and protects significant sections while allowing for well- managed, strategically placed development”. The counter-petition, if it is as described, contains language in favor of wording favorable to the Echo Harbor proposal, citing the development as a benefit to the community (creation of jobs, increased tax base).
TWS has abandoned its stated mission and has a political agenda of it’s own. Too bad, because it complicates supporting their non-partisan community service work.
Political agendas aside, focus on the petition. You are either for, or against, Echo Harbor.
Is that how it works?
Perhaps the better question to ask is, “Shouldn’t that be the way it works?”
If you could share your opinion on how TWS has abandonded their mission statement I’d appreciate the education. I’m not familiar with them outside of this petition.
anyone have a copy of the counter petition? ran into a guy who had literally know idea what he was asking people to sign, but he would not give me a copy of said petition.
Deanna, they do a lot of good community work, but check out their website.
As to Echo Harbor, I haven’t made up my mind.
As far as electronic petitions are concerned, I think they are a lot of horse hockey.
I meant to include this
Together We Stand.
A search for the petition yielded nothing. If there is one, it will most likely be emailed and collected in person as was the Oakwood Heights petition. I’m looking forward to the theatrics.
I found this drawing of the Thames from Richmond Hill.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28057/28057-h/28057-h.htm#image0238c
Read the text below the drawing. An interesting perspective albeit 101 years old. Why, it could be today.
“Of Richmond Park, and the view from Richmond Terrace, and the departed glories of Richmond’s palace which was the palace of Sheen, what should be said? How should the beauty of the view from the Terrace be measured?”
I do not think that they would have approved of Echo Harbour back then.
Paul – on your blog you point out the negatives that exist along the river. Why even ponder losing what beauty remains? Why contribute to that?
Thanks for the TWC link – I’ll check it out.
I treasure the James River and the Park. I look at it every day and I could point out the positives all day long. It is because I value the positives that I oppose this initiative. I think it is bad for Richmond and bad for the park.
I thought the PhotoShopping of the banner photo at the top of the page was excellent. It’s nice how one can, with the click of a few buttons, make things disappear.
I halfway expected to see Pocahontas rowing her canoe up the river.
The great work on the downtown master plan has become entangled, perhaps fatally, with the various opinions on Echo Harbour. May I suggest that the master plan ought to be about something bigger than the architectural style and location of one development. Under any permutation of the DMP, the developers have a right to develop the property. They can develop it under the M2 zoning, which it currently holds. Whether the DMP lists the property as “Suitable for Development” or Suitable for Open Spaces” does not change that right. None of the amendments before council change that right. No petitions change that right.
I believe part of the brouhaha is the while the current zoning does allow development of the property within its guidelines, the guidelines for the zoning do allow the development that Echo Harbor is proposing. The do not have the right to build the development within the current zoning.
They want council to change the zoning so they can move forward. Many of us oppose that change.
If I were there, i would vote against the Special Use Permit, as well. I just get inordinately exercised over factual mis-statements, people thinking you can do land use by petition, etc. It was a mistake to build the DMP around opposition to EH; it’s a mistake to build support for EH around amendments to the DMP. It ought to be bigger than that.
The residential and mixed use zoning proposed for Echo Harbor is a less intensive use than the current industrial zoning for the Echo Harbor site, so the argument that it’s not zoned for its proposed use is somewhat misleading. A broad and well-accepted land use concept is that less-intensive uses will usually be accepted by zoning authorities. Again, the current by-right zoning for Echo Harbor is not “picturesque overgrown lot”, but Industrial zoning.
Not trying to taking a side, just pointing out the problem with the “not zoned for this” argument.
neighbor,
please expand. how is it misleading to say that the current property is NOT zoned for the proposed development. not only is it not zoned for residential, EH is requesting a height variance to allow them the requisite number of units to make a profit (this height requirement coming from the fact that the property sits in a flood plain and the first floor or two cannot be used for residential units, only parking, etc). i am not accusing you of taking sides, i am just trying to understand you a little better. i understand that residential is “less intensive” than industrial, but what about the height variance, regardless of how “intensive” the use.
I believe M2 permits a much higher building than the proposed SUP. I have been told as much as 200′ under the M2.
David is right in post 16.
It seems like you are thinking of zoning categories as cubby holes, or a block game where only one thing fits in one category. Actually zoning is more like a heirarchy of uses graded by intensity with most intense at the top (industrial), grading down (commercial, mixed use, dense residential, less dense residential) until you get down to least intensive (agricultural and conservation land). So if a property is zoned something intensive, typically you can do anything at the level it’s zoned and below.
I’m sure there are many exceptions, but this is the broad concept.
thanks for the explanation. so EH could build an industrial complex, etc at 200 ft on the site. anything else and they need a special use permit?
That may be true within same-use zones, but moving from industrial to residential is a little trickier, especially high-density residential which requires a lot more infrastructure (utilities, parking, access roads, etc.).
From the zoning ordinance:
Sec. 114-454.6. Height.
In the M-2 heavy industrial district, no building or structure shall exceed 45 feet in height, provided that additional height shall be permitted, except for sign structures, when all portions of a building or structure over 45 feet in height are set back from side and rear lot lines a minimum of one foot for each two feet of height in excess of 45 feet and provided, further, that no portion of a building or structure shall penetrate an inclined plane originating at the centerline of an abutting street and extending over the lot at an inclination of one foot horizontal for each three feet vertical.
It takes a little work, but if interested, anyone can go to the city website, http://www.richmondgov.com, then select Departments, then Community Development. Ultimately you can get to the city zoning designations, and read what is permitted in each zoning category. It’s intricate, but not difficult. But underlying any land use decision in Virginia is a very firm Supreme Court precedent that you cannot deny a landowner a reasonable use of his property. You cannot say to an owner, “you can do nothing with your land”, unless you are prepared to condemn the land, and pay a fair market value.
David, #21, I understand what you are saying but I believe that some rules such as the Chesapeake Bay wetlands protection act allow gov’t to say ‘you can do nothing with your land’ and it has not, to my knowledge, been construed as a ‘taking’ where the gov’t has to pay fair market value for restricting the use.
I think, and I am prepared to be wrong, that even in the case of environmental regulations, there are limits on government action. If, for instance, I am prepared to mitigate, protect wetlands, prevent runoff, etc, I may still be able to develop the property in a ChesBay area. But I agree with your thrust.
The city is not saying they can do nothing with the land. EH is entitled to do only what it is zoned for, M-2 at up to 45 ft without a special permit, and they must meet any federal and local regulations, for example 30 feet of open story for the floodway they are in. They have admitted that they can’t build anything profitable at that height, they should have thought it through before they overpaid for the property. They city can deny any special permit at long as it is not for a capricious reason, protecting the viewshed and concern for public safety in the event of flood are reasonable reasons for denying a special use permit.
During the flood of 1771 the water was 45 feet above flood stage at this site.
The city may want to study the devastation to this area. It will happen again.