Theobald and developer Ross presented the project to downtown boosters Venture Richmond on April 9 and have been making the rounds trying to drum up support among civic groups. According to city planning staff, under a standard timeline City Council would introduce the project’s permit April 26. The Planning Commission would hear the proposal May 17 before sending it back to City Council the following week for approval.

Heather sent in some photos of the flooding yesterday morning, taken down at Dock Street around the area for which the Echo Harbor development is proposed.

The debate will likely boil over in the coming months as Echo Harbour, a proposed high-rise along the city’s eastern riverfront, is expected to be introduced for consideration by the Planning Commission and ultimately the council. [...] One of the candidates interviewed but not picked as a finalist for the commission is Mark S. Lindsey, a partner of Councilman Bruce W. Tyler in the Baskervill architectural firm. Baskervill is the project architect for Echo Harbour.

A campaign to convince City Council to give USP Echo Harbour what it wants has been underway. The developers have pointed at the money Richmond should rake in from new tax revenues. They’ve talked about the jobs their project will create. There’s nothing new about that tactic. True or false, all developers sing that same basic tune when they want special favors from governments.

It’s then up to the government, in this case City Council, to decide what is the greater good.

If the City allowed a hog farm to be established where the GRTC bus barns are now that would create jobs, too. No doubt, the promoters of such a ridiculous notion could blue sky the story of how the hog farm would impact the neighborhood.

The decision on the controversial Echo Harbour development on the James River, has also proved rewarding for some past and present members of Richmond’s City Council, as their campaign accounts have benefited from donations. Thousands of dollars, as documented on the campaign watchdog website VPAP.org, have swelled the coffers of select members of the City Council who will be making the final decision on the hotly debated project.

UPDATE: The site is examiner.com. At first it was showing as Norfolk, though now it seems to have picked up that I’m in Richmond and is branding that way. Either way, the author of the post Isaac Graves is writing from Richmond.

By far the more interesting meeting tonight will be an event organized by the Greater Jefferson Davis Area Civic Association and the Richmond Crusade for Voters that is being billed as a forum with Echo Harbour Developers.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:30 PM-8:00 PM

Southside Community Service Center
Southside Plaza
4100 Hull Street Road
Richmond, Virginia 23224

For more information please contact Civic Association President Carrie Cox at (804)743-1636

That gives the developers a little bit of leeway, but they are still about two stories over the recommendations in the downtown plan. But that isn’t stopping Echo Harbour developers from pushing forward, according to the attorney for the developers, Jim Theobald of Hirschler Fleischer. “I think some of the residents who are opposed to this case, some of them believe this is more than a guideline, but it’s not,” said Theobald. “It is not binding, it is essentially there as a planning tool. The city has the right to consider anything they want.” [...] Theobald said he expects the proposal to go before council in the fall.

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).

The folks behind the Echo Harbor proposal presented their most recent designs to the Church Hill Association tonight.

Click any of the images to view larger.

The view from Libby Hill park, including the eastern tower. When asked, the spokesperson said that they would not provide a rendering of the entire project from this perspective.

The eastern tower and part of the taller western tower, as seen from Dock Street.

Part of the taller western tower and the easter tower, as seen from the river.

Critics of the process say those remaining amendments stem from the undue influence of private landholders and developers kept alive by public officials in a position to benefit from them — such as Planning Commissioner Bob Mills and City Councilman Bruce Tyler, both architects whose firms do business with some of the landholders most upset by the master plan. [...] “The mayor makes the decision with regard to who’s in charge of community development,” Tyler says. “I would respectfully ask him to consider what she has done and respectfully ask her to leave.”

Flynn’s supporters are equally vocal, particularly among civic activists and local bloggers. Envision Richmond, a residents’ group, has formed to support passage of the new master plan and enactment of its recommendations, and the Better Housing Coalition just named Flynn Community Revitalizer of the Year at its annual community leadership awards. The incident inspired local blogger John Sarvay, who’s been following the ins and outs of the planning process, to compose a post entitled, “The Downtown Plan: Why I Love Rachel Flynn.“

The Planning Commission voted 7-2 yesterday in support of an amendment to the Downtown Master Plan that will 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”. The amendments now go to City Council for final approval.

The Planning Commission also voted unanimously in favor of a motion of intent to rezone Union Hill to reflect the request of the community that the interior of the neighborhood be zoned R-63.

Should the public allow high-rise condos in a flood plain that blocks public view of the river, the very view that led William Byrd II to name the city Richmond? The developers, Falls Church-based USP Rocketts LLC, argue in effect that we should simply ignore the downtown plan, and its attractive vision for making the river the centerpiece of a revitalized downtown, in answering that question.

In the developer’s view, what’s important is not how use of that property fits into the overall plan to revitalize downtown, but whether it can be used in a way that maximizes revenue to the property owners. That single-mindedness led USP Rocketts’ lawyer, James Theobald, to tell the Planning Commission on April 20 that the downtown plan failed to respect private property and even amounts to a regulatory taking.

The RTD has info and a rendering on the revised Echo Harbor design:

George Ross, a principal with USP Echo Harbour, said an architectural rendering from Libby Hill shows that Echo Harbour’s average 108-foot-tall eastern building would be about as far from a historically significant bend in the river as a 150-foot-tall residential building approved but not yet developed at Rocketts Landing would be on the bend’s other side.

The rendering, by architectural firm Baskervill, does not show Echo Harbour’s bigger western building, which would average 141 feet in height. The maximum height in previous proposals was 188 feet.

Director of Community Development Rachel Flynn flatly rejected a suggestion from a planning commissioner that her staff review plan language offered by the developers for the site along the James River east of downtown. [...]

“We’ve been talking with these developers for three years,” she said of USP Rocketts. “We don’t agree.”

The commission will vote on May 4 on the final amendments.

Thank you for coming out [...] to meet with all of us last week, and for listening to everyone’s comments and concerns. What sticks with me about your comments, is that you are going to “evaluate the facts”.

I would like to offer up some facts.

Fact # 1: The parcel that is proposed for the construction of Echo Harbor and all surrounding property is not zoned for residential construction. The owners bought this property fully aware of this fact. Even if zoning was changed, the the depth of the property would only allow, under current city code, a building of under 40 feet.  Not 240 feet or even 60 feet. So even if City Council votes to change zoning you would need to give an enormous variance to allow construction of a building of any size.
 
Fact #2: This property is a federally designated floodway, not a flood zone, but a floodway, which means that it floods every time the river rises, every time it rains, like now for instance, it is a swampy mess. Federal law prohibits any structure built in a floodway from impeding the flow of the river during a flood, whatever is built on it must allow the river to flow though it without slowing the water or moving it out of the way? How could the developers do this? They proposed putting parking underneath, or building a empty riser story or two under the parking. This may not even meet the Federal requirements, but remember they can’t legally build anything over forty feet even if you change zoning to suit them. Not much of a low building can be built when you need 20 feet of nothing underneath to meet federal law.
 
Fact #3: The property itself, as stated above, is a swamp, I have spoken to several architects and they all say the same thing, it would take tens of millions of dollars to build infrastructure to support even a small building, before  beginning the building itself, not to mention moving the combined sewage overflow pipes that will cost millions more to move.
 
Fact #4: All of the above can be summed up by saying this is not a property rights issue. George Ross’s clients have no more right to put a huge condo unit on that property than I have a right to put a Wal-mart or meat processing plant on my residential lot.  They can not put an industrial enterprise there because it would be too expensive to make a profit as such for the reason stated above.
 
So, why we have to ask are the “Developers” paying for all these plans and lobbying? There is one very probable answer, they are trying to convince City Council and the people of Richmond that this is a valuable piece of property and inflate what the city will pay in compensation when the proposed parks are finally built.  Call their bluff, they are clever and Mr. Ross is just doing what he gets paid handsomely to do, but he is trying to pass off a pig’s ear as a silk purse, they have a swampy unbuildable lot and they are now trying to get you to trade them a lot of value for it or get more money than its worth from the City.
 
These are the facts, see how when confronted with the infeasibility of the original plans they have begun the bait and switch. Don’t be fooled, they are trying to direct the emphasis off the real facts, they can’t legally or financially do what they are suggesting. The City should go ahead with the Master Plan as written, create a lasting enriching park to showcase our city’s beauty and  history, and pay George Ross’s clients fair market value for a piece of swampy, unbuildable land.
 
Thank you for your time and attention in considering these facts.
 
Heather Dinkin 

The decision came despite an outpouring from residents who urged the council to keep the plan intact and river views protected. Richmond founder William Byrd II is said to have named the city after observing the James from what is now Libby Hill Park and being struck by similarities with the River Thames in the English borough of Richmond upon Thames.

“It’s as important as any view in the entire country,” said Joe Carr of Church Hill.

One amendment would designate the Echo Harbour site for future development with details to be determined. The Downtown Master Plan, adopted by the council last October, shows the site as a city park or a private development with public access to the waterfront.

James E. Ukrop, chairman of Ukrop’s Super Markets Inc. and First Market Bank, urged the city to move aggressively to buy the property and develop it as a park. “Future generations will look back and applaud our actions,” he said.

Can anyone clarify who voted for/against the measure?

Mayor L. Douglas Wilder wants to build and operate a public marina on the property. Council has refused to approve the marina. The council is expected to vote tonight on whether to buy the adjacent Lehigh property for about $2 million, and retains the power “to determine later how much of the 1.6-acre property would be set aside for public park, and what could be resold to a private developer”.

The mayor has accused council members Pantele, Tyler, and McQuinn of conflicts of interest for accepting campaign contributions from the developers and others involved with Echo Harbour.

The developers are proposing 250 condominium units to be built in two 350′ wide buildings, (in a stair-step configuration), separated by a 275′ view corridor. These structures are to be placed atop a 3 level of parking garage, all of which would be setback 50′ from the river. Following the Q&A session “¦a motion was made, seconded, and universally approved. It stated: “The Church Hill Association opposes the development as proposed and recommends no rezoning other than RF-1 with its 60 foot height limit.”

“As you consider your decisions about to be made on the riverfront . . . please balance the long-term benefit to our city vs. the short-term gains. [...] By investing in the marina and park site, you will not only create more public access to the river, you will also not lose the magnificent view of the river from Libby Hill (one of our city’s most valuable assets).”

[via]

I’ve received a few forwarded emails on this, here are slightly edited versions of the messages:

This is our strongest opportunity to speak out in favor of the 7 principles of the master plan. Developers, VCU and other state entities are opposed to the plan and they will be there with their big guns; this is OUR shot at taking back OUR city, to point out to the powers that be that this is the peoples’ vision for our city, a vision built out of committment and dedication. I was amazed at how many people showed up and participated in this process.

Bring a friend and be prepared to speak. It is our opportunity to let the leadership know our vision for our city. It is time that they hear from us how important the river and its natural beauty are to this city and that it is our historic buildings and urban landscape that make us special.

[...]

The City of Richmond released the updated Downtown Master Plan on Monday 11/17 during an informal work session of the Planning Commission. The Master Plan represents Richmond’s future, and we hope we can count on your assistance in getting it approved. Here’s what you can do to help:

1. Take a look at the updated Master Plan online.
2. Take note if you approve of any of the plan’s recommendations.

   For example, the plan recommends a riverfront park along the James below Libby Hill Park in order to preserve the historic panoramic viewshed. The plan also stresses the value of our historic buildings in order to preserve the community character of “Virginia’s Downtown” (and supports the idea of an Architect of the Commonwealth state-level position to help make recommendations for state-owned structures). Other good ideas include a street tree campaign to increase Richmond’s tree canopy, as well as showcasing the James River and its environs as our “great, wet Central Park.” All of these ideas would contribute to a stronger, richer Downtown.

3. If you’re in favor of particular elements of the plan (or the plan as a whole), please send an email message of support to Brooke Hardin in the City’s Community Development department at Brooke.Hardin@RichmondGov.com.
4. If you are able to show your support in person, please attend the first public hearing on the plan at the City Planning Commission meeting on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 6:30 pm in the 5th floor conference room in City Hall.

   The more participation, the better. Above all, remember that the vision presented here reflects what the consultants heard from the general public at the weeklong planning process in July of this year. This is still very much a draft, and your input is very important. Planning Commission — and the Richmond City Council — will want to hear from you.

A fairly large crowd from around the area turned out Saturday morning for 7th District Council Representative and Vice President Delores McQuinn’s Town Hall Meeting at the United House of Prayer (926 Chimborazo Boulevard). The meeting began amidst murmered chatter about the previous night’s events at city hall…

After a welcome from Representative McQuinn, first up was City Assessor James Hester speaking on the role of the City Assessor’s office in an attempt to get ahead of the yearly crunch that happens early in the year. The core responsibility of the Assessor’s Office is to assess the value of a property as of a certain day. This is based on general changes in the market and the physical condition of the property. Towards this end, they are in the field year-round checking on the physical data. Once the assessment value is determined by the office, the Department of Finance actually does the billing. To talk about how the value was determines, contact the Assesor’s Office. To discuss the billing, contact the Finance Department. The tax rate, which actually determines what a resident pays as their tax, is determined by the City Council.

Next to present was City Auditor Umesh Dalal. Dalal explained that his 12-person office is tasked to ensure that there is proper accounting in city offices and that the city is in compliance with laws and policies. He stated that the maximum benefit comes from reviews of efficiency and effectiveness among city programs, looking for fraud, waste, and abuse.

The City Auditor’s Office has performed several audits since Dalal’s arrival, with a look at the Richmond City Public Schools occuring soon after he arrived. From looking at the Richmond Public Schools numbers, it was determined that RPS spending per student is some 20+ percent higher than surrounding school systems. Dalal stated that, astonishingly, per student technology spending is higher in Richmond than in Henrico but that a much lower percentage is actually spent on the students. Also: more ongoing audits of RPS; have also audited administration (calling the Fleet Services “mismanaged”, no other way to put it); recent audit of Richmond Behavioral Health Authority (RBHA). Fraud hotline: (804) 646-5697 or Richmond Fraud Squad.

Next was a presentation of recent 1st Precinct crime stats from 1st Precinct Executive Officer Jeff McKenney. He began by thanking the crowd for turning out and emphasizing the importance of community involvement. The 7th district is about 2/3rds of 1st precinct; for both this is the 3rd consecutive year of crime being down. As you know, citywide in July & August robberies went up (there were 19 robberies in 7th district in August, for instance). In response, the police initiated a targeted initiative which resulted in there bieng only 3 robberies and 7 arrests for robbery in September. Homocide is down for the year, which is in contrast to the national trends. The clearance rate on homocides is 20-30% higher than national average.

Voting at Precinct 703 has been moved from the Boys & Girls Club based on ADA issues with the Boys & Girls Club. A representative gave a quick overview of new voting machines that can be carried out to car to help ensure than seniors are able to vote without having to go into the building to vote.

George Ross, representative of the firms working on the Echo Harbor project, gave a prentation on the development that they are working to build on the currently vacant industrial site. They’ve been working for almost 2 years towards getting the 200 unit river front condos bult. They showed plans that have been “redesigned to accommodate community concerns”. The buildings are 80 to 180 feet in height, with an average height of 150-160 feet. Ross spent some time talking about the benefits of the project: many of the units would be garden-roofed, an extension of canal-walk/river walk, improvements to Shiplock Park, plans to use condo fees to help maintain area. He cited studies that show that the condos would be expected to send 6x the money back to city what the city would need to spend on sevices. I had to leave during this presentation; I have no idea what happened after this…

When I had to leave, presentions were still on the agenda for Bill Axsell speaking about Rocketts Landing, a look at Elected vs. Appoointed School Board, and time for open community concerns.

Next meeting is scheduled for Octobe 25th, 2007, at 6:30PM @ The Neighborhood Resource Center in Fulton Hill.

From the story:

“The objective was to move the buildings as far away from the other end of the property as possible and step them down in height so that we in no way obstruct the so-called historic view,” said Echo Harbour’s George Ross.

The developers have submitted the plans to the city for review.

See also: a historic view (1/18/07)

A presentation was made by Joe Slay of Slay Public Relations. Echo Harbor’s proposed location is at 3011 and 3021 Dock Street and will be 2 18-story buildings to house 260 condo units, a health club(open for membership to the public), and 5-star restauraunt.

The Echo Harbor project is requesting a special use permit for the land they own, currently zoned “M-2″ for heavy industrial use. They want to change the zoning to RF-2, which is riverfront mixed-residential use. The project principals are:. USP Development, LLC (didn’t catch the guy’s name); Baskervill (Bob Tierney); KEnbridge Construction/R3Development (George Ross); Shockoe Properties(Mark Merhidge, who will manage the proposed properties); and Slay Public Relations/Martin Agency.

The key points the Echo Harbor Group made regarding the project were:

• no contribution requested from the city
• a direct $215 mill investment in the city in a part of town that is currently not developed
• $3mill estimated net in tax revenue for the city projected, based on study done by private consulting firm – they said they will make this study public via the mayor’s office)
• the site that will be developed is designated as a “Brownfield”
• the development will make the river more accessible – boat slips, river access from the N, E and W – currently only accessible from the South.
• will donate land to the city and will extend the canal walk from 17th street to the proposed development site.
• site will include portion of the Capital Bike Trail that will connect RVA to Williamsburg

Concerns were expressed by by residents (of which our diligent note-taker was only able to get a partial account):

• Martha Kent – requested access to feasibilty studies
• gentleman who lives on libby hill terrace – expressed concern about height of proposed builidings, blocking view of river
• female resident asked if jobs will be created for local residents
• Eugenia Ellis – expressed concern over developing totally untouched part of the riverfront and environmental impact of doing so

DISCUSS: This proposed development might not be the best possible thing for city residents, but could be the lesser evil considering the fact that the site is zoned for industrial development that could sit right on the river bank instead of 300 feet back; could be a great deal taller than the proposed 18 story buildings; will be developed in environmentally ‘sensitive’ way using some environmental-impact consulting firm.

It is my understanding that the Echo Harbor Development is seeking a Special Use Permit to exceed the height limit currently set. There may be other issues involved as well. Detractors of the development on Dock Street have described the project as “just about the last straw for destroying the view that gave Richmond it’s name. ” Come on down and find out what this is all about.