30 Responses to “development proposal for 1903 East Marshall”

1. posted by shewantstoparty at June 20, 2007 6:01 pm :
   

   Yeah. Sure.

   Here’s my prediction.

   We’ll see plans drawn up, and then either such vocal protests from the surrounding citizens that the developers give up and move on, or construction will begin and then the developers will either run out of money or run into trouble with the city and bail.

   Either way, there won’t be any development.

2. posted by phriendlyjaime at June 20, 2007 6:45 pm :
   

   I just moved to Princess Anne Ave, and I am very disappointed by this news. Hopefully, the plans won’t go through. I called Council woman Delores McQuinn and expressed my concern, and I hope other do the same.

   Oh, and this is my first post here. This is a great neighborhood to call home, and I am thrilled to be here. :)

3. posted by archie bunker at June 21, 2007 8:57 am :
   

   Better than a vacant lot, but can than find tennants?

4. posted by Bill Conkle at June 21, 2007 9:12 am :
   

   The Friends of Jefferson Park will meet at 7pm on Monday, June 25th at the Bandstand at the top of Jefferson Park. We will hear about the development proposed at the base of the park, to include an explanation of the new B6 zoning. Feel free to bring a cold drink and a folding chair. If it is just too hot, we will move the meeting indoors to a nearby location. Consider joining the Friends of Jefferson Park- there are no membership dues- just a pledge to stay active in maintaining and enhancing our neighborhood park.

   Bill Conkle, Friends of Jefferson Park

5. posted by jc at June 21, 2007 9:13 am :
   

   The foot of Jefferson Park is about to be transformed. NCB12 did a story on the plans to renovate the Cold Storage blocks. Plans include 400 apartments and several restaurants, including a brew pub. Demolition work should start in the next few months and the project should be complete by April 2009.

6. posted by Jaime at June 21, 2007 9:14 am :
   

   Hmmm. I commented on this last night, and it looks like my comment was removed.

   It was my first time commenting, so perhaps I was unaware of a rule for this site.

   Regardless, I will be at the meeting, expressing my supreme disappointment with this plan. I called my city council person about this and left a message. I don’t know if it will halp, but it is worth a shot.

7. posted by Max at June 21, 2007 9:38 am :
   

   1) were the “blue prints” above drawn on on a coctail napkin or what? and 2) How the heck does the developer hope to rent these new places when there is already a surplus of downtown living spaces. Rennovation/development should happen, but not without serious questions being answered.

8. posted by Celeste at June 21, 2007 10:08 am :
   

   Just curious, does anyone know who the developer(s) is/are?

   And to jc - the Cold Storage blocks aren’t quite in the same block of East Marshall, I think they’re west by a block or so and north, too…are they going to be tied into this development for the 1900 block of East Marshall Street? I missed the story on channel 12.

   And finally, to Bill Conkle - perhaps after your meeting on Monday you could post here with more info? Thanks!

9. posted by hill at June 21, 2007 10:49 am :
   

   The Cold Storage may be the more interesting question. The (crude) diagram for 1903 shows the roofline below the hill, so the view appears to be minimally impacted. This could be a non-issue.

   But it would be interesting to see how many buildings are going to be flat-out demolished in the Cold Storage area and how many are going to be rehabbed. The roundhouse by the tunnel is so cool, I hope they keep that at least.

10. posted by New developments sprouting around the city « Urban Richmond? at June 21, 2007 11:01 am :
    

    [...] A mixed-use building on a 1 acre vacant lot at the foot of Jefferson Hill Park. Plans call for retail, office, residential, parking, and a roof-top terrace and pool. [via chpn.net] [...]

11. posted by john_m at June 21, 2007 4:28 pm :
    

    Jaime - As a 1st time poster, your comment was automatically held for moderation. I get *amazing* amounts of spam comments. You should be good to go now.

    And in general, the few times that I’ve deleted comments, I’ve contacted the commenter and explained why.

    Welcome to the area and the site!

12. posted by josh at June 21, 2007 5:06 pm :
    

    Seems like some new light industry would do more for the local community than a bunch of new, expensive housing. The city gets plenty of tax revenue already, what we really need are more good jobs, not just construction work.

13. posted by hmmm at June 21, 2007 5:11 pm :
    

    The renderings make the project look very institutional. Since the development is in the Shockoe Valley Old & Historic District, it would be nice if they did some more interesting modern things to it.

    For example, the lofts over on E. Franklin and Broad have taken an old warehouse and added some new, terraced, cascading roof lines to it. Really cool.

    O&H new design is encouraged to add some modern elements to the structure as long as the scale, materials and setbacks compliment the surrounding buildings.

    I’d like to see some more detailed drawings, but at first glance this development looks like a prison out of a George Raft movie.

14. posted by 522 at June 22, 2007 9:33 am :
    

    As long as it doesn’t block the view from the park (it would have to be a pretty tall building to do that…) go for it.

    What would you rather see driving to your neighborhood?

    A nice multiuse area with retail and entertainment space with some apartments or an weed covered, broken asphault empty lot?

    The area is improving and growing. That cannot be stopped, whether some people want it or not. What we need to do is make sure that growth suits the area.

    They sure could put alot worse things down there…

15. posted by tiny at June 22, 2007 10:23 am :
    

    The Cold Storage building in its current state attracks bums and drug addicts (I know - I encountered a couple while exploring the area!) And it reeks of urine. This has got to be better. Although, I hope the keep the “Cold Storage” logo on the building like John Sanchez has done with his restaurant.

16. posted by Jaime at June 22, 2007 1:43 pm :
    

    Thanks John! We have met before, at the Richmond blog con fab. Great to be here in the Hill.

    I disagree that they should just go for it. Why can’t we have something else built that is pretty, and that contributes to the community and the economy? Furthermore, what kind of housing will this be? The building diagram, as crude as it is, certainly doesn’t make me think that it will be any better looking than a gravel filled abandoned lot. I also don’t enjoy that a public park is going to become a backyard to a building. I have lived her for less than a month, but I am already impressed at the seemingly common sense manners and bahvior many park goers exhibit, and I worry that a new building, full of apartment dwellers new to the area, might not “get it”.

17. posted by maryanne at June 23, 2007 2:09 am :
    

    jamie,
    why would anyone renting the apartments be less likely to ‘get it’ than anyone else living in church hill? i usually read comments posted here at chpn that offer more than ample proof that many church hill homeowners don’t ‘get it’ either. hopefully you will not equate neighborhood problems with the apartment residents. that would just be too silly.

18. posted by phriendlyjaime at June 23, 2007 9:11 am :
    

    That’s certainly not what I meant, maryanne. However, a large influx of brand new residents as opposed to 2 or 3 people moving onto a street is different.

19. posted by phriendlyjaime at June 23, 2007 9:13 am :
    

    sorry, jaime and phriendlyjaime are the same person. I decided to go ahead and use my blogger name.

20. posted by maryanne at June 23, 2007 7:36 pm :
    

    true! true! sorry for being ugly - i guess i have just come across too many church hill residents that blame renters and lower-income groups for neighborhood problems (crime, vandalism, blight, etc.) the people to blame are the absentee landlords, real-estate ‘investors’ (that renovate and flip homes to make a quick profit), and complacent residents who are good at complaining but bad at contributing to the well-being of all church hill residents). the ‘flippers’, absentee landlords are the ones we should be holding accountable.

21. posted by bill at June 24, 2007 12:31 pm :
    

    i am confused by the term development proposal. the proposal is for rezoning and there is nothing to bind approval of the building sketch as a condition of rezoning.

    what seems significant to me is that typically in this neighborhood the zoning goes from m1 to b5 to accommodate development. this one is different going from m1 to b6.

    the shockoe bottom study and plan recommended a comprehensive planning strategy to protect existing and historic features so that new development (especially on the vacant lots) would fit into context of the neighborhood.

    mcquinn submitted a paper at council for the city to study a “design overlay” (not a city historic district) as a strategy to meet some of the needs documented in the shockoe bottom study. That study was never done. city planning staff said the community objected but there is no record of any public meeting about the overlay district.

    somehow now the city staff has created a new zoning classification the b6 and has twisted the arm of the owner at 1903 e marshall to ask for zoning from m1 to b6, not b5 which is typical.

    the 1903 east marshall owner should be entitled to rezoning, just like everyone else in similar circumstances.

    in fact the rezoning needs to be comprehensive so that all of the m1 goes to b or ro uses like the adopted shockoe bottom master plan says.

    mcquinn needs to say why she let the design overlay study in shockoe bottom die at the hands of the city planning gestapo.

22. posted by Brad at June 27, 2007 10:39 am :
    

    I say go for it!! The more development the better!! The more people there are with disposable income living in Church Hill and the Bottom the more restaurants and services our neighborhoods will support. Build, build, build!!! (but of course in a style that supports and honors the historic character of our community). I just hope no one shows the developer or future condo buyers photos of the landslide that buried cars and filled Marshall Street and the 1903 property with mud during Gaston. And when is someone going to develop that huge waste of land that is the parking lot behind McDonalds??

23. posted by bill at June 27, 2007 1:32 pm :
    

    brad, what kind of development do you want on the parking lot site around mcd’s

24. posted by Bob Stokes at June 27, 2007 4:48 pm :
    

    Am I right in remembering that this lot was once an elementary school (not from my school days, but from a picture I once saw)? The bad news for our friends who live in the county and work at MCV or the state is that their days of free parking on these surface streets may be over. These developments, while mostly supportable seem to cry out for some master plan for the Bottom. I guess the city wants another big lot returned to the tax rolls for obvious reasons, but the questions about traffic and surface street improvements (and park slope improvements) seems unanswered.

25. posted by bill at June 27, 2007 9:40 pm :
    

    yes the site was once an elementary school. jefferson school and the principal was known as “the rabbi” due to the jewish community. the school closed in 1929 and sent the students to bellevue.

    the master plan for shockoe bottom was done 1997-2001 and the only result has been the city adoption of the b-6 zoning classification. that b-6 classification has zero impact on the recommendations in the shockoe bottom master plan.

    the answers to any questions are obvious for the vacant lots in the bottom. the council and city staff continue to fall over for developers like 2 dollar whores (cause they are 2 dollar whores)

26. posted by archie bunker at June 28, 2007 9:26 am :
    

    I won’t argue with the categorizaion of the council, but on this topic, I have no problem with them engaging in ’solicitation’ of developers, because it is an area that sorely needs to be developed.

    Of course, I stil demand (but do not expect) that our council members keep the best interests of the city and their consituents in mind and that they do not profit personally through inappropriate ‘campaign contributions’ and such.

27. posted by john_m at July 3, 2007 5:26 pm :
    

    A slightly edited-for-context email sent out after the last Friends of Jefferson Park meeting:

    Well, the short answer is NO, we were not successful in getting the Planning Commission to recommend a proffer regarding the building height be added to the rezoning of 1903. E. Marshall St.

    Two new surveys show that a 50ft tall building could be 10 feet lower than the top edge of Jefferson Park. But that all depends on how the height of the building is measured and that height can vary based on the design of the roof.

    Yes, a roof line (or part of a roof) could rise higher than the park if the Commission of Architectural Review/CAR doesn’t intercede. The CAR will see plans for whatever is built at 1903 E. Marshall since it lies within the Shockoe Bottom/Valley Old and Historic District.

    The rezoning of 1903 E. Marshall comes before City Council on the Regular Agenda this coming Monday 7-9-07. See agenda attached. It’s item #19. Any citizen may comment on the proposed re-zoning to B6. Likewise, any citizen can request for a proffer for stronger wording on the height (B6 allows a 50ft tall structure.)

    At yesterday’s Planning Commission meeting, the property owner spoke and showed the same model he showed [Friends of Jefferson Park] last week. They also introduced a new survey that looks in line with this survey of the area (PDF). If CAR is conscientious (and we, as a community, stay on top of this project) a responsible developer could very easily create a structure that doesn’t rise above the top of the park. Or, an irresponsible developer could create a structure which rises above the top edge of the park and creates a barrier to our views of Shockoe Bottom, Manchester and the tree line of the James River/Canal.

    The Planning Commission voted in favor of the re-zoning and seemed content with CAR oversight and the zoning ordinance’s height limit at 50ft. However, no one in the room (neither staff nor the commissioners, knew if CAR could make a ruling based on height alone.)

    There was much discussion among commissioners of how the building’s roof would look from the park (air conditioning units on the roof, antennas, etc.) This, too, would presumably fall under the purview of CAR.

    There is still one more venue to get voices heard on this: CITY COUNCIL MTG, 7-9-07.

28. posted by frank at July 3, 2007 9:50 pm :
    

    Sorry, Zoning controls height not CAR, you lose, the developer wins & makes extra millions on your view. call your council person tell her you want a height restriction. Council woman Delores McQuinn 222-1574

29. posted by New Condos? Not in Church Hill’s backyard « Urban Richmond~ at December 18, 2007 10:42 am :
    

    [...] Some vocal church hill residents have opposed Echo Harbor on the riverfront, a development below Jefferson Park on Marshall St., and challenged the density of the St. Patrick’s School condo [...]

30. posted by Bill Hartsock at July 3, 2008 11:52 am :
    

    Has anyone heard what happened to this project? We figured that once the zoning was approved that the developer would just sit on it and resell when the economy improved. That may take awhile!

Leave a Comment