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.

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.

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)

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.

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”.