Church Hill Association Urges Residents to Speak Up On Riverfront Plan
It’s not so much about the plan but rather what isn’t in the plan. The stretch from Dock Street between Chapel Island and Rocketts Landing is not part of the plan and could have a dramatic affect on Church Hill views and quality of life. Beyond the narrow view of what’s good for Church Hill the Riverfront Plan should take a look at all of the river in RVA not just the stretch that is convenient. Much more including how to make sure your voice is heard this Monday when the city meets to adopt the Riverfront Plan from the Church Hill Association email.
The Richmond City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 2, 2012, at 1:30 pm in the 5th floor conference room of City Hall, 900 East Broad Street. This meeting will encompass adoption of the Richmond Riverfront Plan and amendment to the Master Plan and Downtown Plan for the city to incorporate the recommendations contained within the Richmond Riverfront Plan.
The plan is described in this link: Riverfront Plan. Church Hill is most adversely affected by the plan in an area which the plan does not address; a vast stretch of real estate on Dock Street between Chapel Island and Rocketts Landing.
If you wish to express your views on the plan you may address the Planning Commission during a period of public comment. You may also submit written comments to James Hill, Principal Planner, via email to: James.Hill@richmondgov.com. Mr. Hill will coordinate with the Secretary to the Planning Commission to ensure the commission members receive your remarks.
Perhaps you, like many of us in Church Hill, value this viewshed and what it represents to Richmond, “the view that named Richmond.” I therefore encourage as many residents of the city as possible attend this meeting! Please forward this message and let everyone know how vital the view of the James is to the city.
Attendance at this hearing will be crucial to establish that we, the affected residents and business, are not opposed to responsible development. And that we encourage thoughtful consideration of this historic area. Establishing green spaces and public access to the James will embolden and inspire the redefining of this long underutilized area of Richmond.
We can do this if we all pitch in and lend the benefit of our collective experiences, knowledge and wisdom.
If you need more information please do not hesitate to reach out to Eugenia Anderson-Ellis via email to: eandersonellis@gmail.com, or by calling 804.643.3915
Jon Ondrak
President | CHA
It’s always interesting, in this case & others, that the city would hold a public hearing in the middle of a work day. Makes it quite hard for the public to attend the hearing. Granted, they’ll take email but still.
Um, hello, pages 93 and 94, cover the exact section of the river. What am I missing here?
The concerning paragraph: “The balance of the site is expected to be redeveloped as a commercial mixed-use property. However, the entire parcel lies within the floodplain, and any occupiable floors must be built on structure allowing floodwaters to flow through. Conceptually, this results in two plus levels of structured parking. This plinth raises hypothetical development up out of the floodplain. Other technical constraints apply to the property, including a 92” Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) pipe, which
bisects the site lengthwise. Development cannot occur over a CSO, and so the pipe must be relocated. Emergency vehicle access and egress must be provided
to the development plinth during flood events, suggesting that either a bridge connection is provided to the adjacent hillside, with Main Street beyond, or that Dock
Street is raised for secondary access. Beyond costly technical hurdles, there is concern that floodplain development will potentially block views of the river from
surrounding hills.”
I think people were hoping it would be more of a park and less of a parking structure.
RT @chpn: Church Hill Association Urges Residents to Speak Up On Riverfront Plan http://t.co/OmSRym89 City meets this Monday, be heard. #rva
OK, well that’s very different from saying that the plan does not address the property. The plan does address the property you’re concerned with, it just does so in a way that you and others apparently don’t like. It seems the email from the Church Hill Association was not completely accurate and therefore confusing. If the CHA wants to oppose development of this property then they should say so outright, not dance around the issue.
I’m with Fred here. And others…what is your beef CHA? You’re aiming at the wrong target, you’re not being accurate or forthcoming, and you’re fear mongering.
First, the wonderful riverfront plan is not simply addressing a “section that is convenient” …that is an absurd statement for anyone who has read through the plan an understands teh goals/strategy.. Your concern about a development blocking the view is so far removed from this riverfront plan its incredible that you even raise this much of a stink in this forum.
Additionally, as another poster stated, the plan addressed it in a fair amount of detail and anyone with some common sense would say its not likely any development would happen any time soon in that location.
Lastly, this is a plan full of hypothetical ideas and recomendations. You’re creating a debate about nothing. Move on, support RVA and the Riverfront plan. When you see something of significance happening with that little section below LH Park, get involved then. Jeez, seems like you people are not happy unless you have something to whine about!
Yes, a lot of retired, semi intelligent individuals, living in CH. An influential few, with too much time on their hands, mis representing the interests of a majority and our neigborhood
I don’t support any of it. .