Echo Harbour faces more obstacles to approval
The building heights recommended by Richmond's new downtown master plan aren't the only obstacles to a proposed high-rise along the James River.
Before the Echo Harbour development can be considered by the City Council, the Department of Community Development is requiring the developers to provide new and revised technical plans and studies on various aspects of the project.
They include details about emergency vehicle access and how the buildings would not worsen flooding in the area, plus how a 60-inch sewer line that crosses the site on Dock Street would be relocated and how the project's condominiums, hotel and offices would affect water demand.
James W. Theobald, an attorney for Echo Harbour, said project officials are trying to be responsive but added that such detailed information is unnecessary for a project that, for now, is only requesting zoning approval. Such studies aren't typically required, he said, until a plan of development or building permit is filed.
"I don't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars doing detailed engineering without knowing whether I'm going to get zoning," he said.
Rachel O. Flynn, the city's director of community development, defended the requests as standard for such applications and essential to resolving serious technical matters, so the only question to be answered by the council is whether the project is appropriate for the site.
"We're the fact-finders," she said of city staffers. "If we're not even clear on the facts, then that's just sloppy work that you forward to a public body."
The city charter allows the council to approve a special-use permit, such as the one requested for Echo Harbour, only after determining that the use won't be detrimental to the "safety, health, morals and general welfare" of the community, and it won't cause traffic congestion, fire hazards and other problems.
Flynn said one of the key issues to be addressed is how Echo Harbour's buildings won't raise the site's base flood elevation. She said the developers' analysis has incorrectly compared the project's impact to levels that existed about eight years ago, before the property was cleared of industrial buildings.
She also said the sewer-line relocation has been complicated by the recent revelation of a second line on the property that will need to be moved. She added that Great Shiplock Park cannot be an option for the relocations because of a new conservation easement that further restricts use of the property.
City Councilman E. Martin Jewell, who supports Echo Harbour, said he's not sure the city is playing fair. He sees the requests for studies as a stalling tactic by Flynn's department to snag projects it doesn't like.
"These are personal interests being played out using government fiat," Jewell said.
Peter H. Chapman, the city's new deputy chief administrative officer for economic and community development, said he's still reviewing the handling of Echo Harbour but emphasized that officials want to be "facilitators of projects that are going to favorably impact people and neighborhoods."
The deficiencies of the project's application were detailed in an eight-point letter last month from a city planner to Theobald. The letter came several days before the council approved final changes to the downtown master plan, which included limiting building heights along the eastern riverfront to no more than six stories. As proposed, the tallest buildings at Echo Harbour could be 12 stories.
Theobald said the requests aren't new and added that project leaders are hoping to resolve the issues within 45 days.
"What I'm trying to provide is preliminary information to demonstrate that none of these issues are deal killers," he said.
Mayor Dwight C. Jones hasn't expressed an opinion on Echo Harbour, which was originally filed three years ago and has met opposition over its potential effects on river views from Libby Hill Park. The plan was revised this spring to reduce building heights and to concentrate the taller structures on the western side of the property.
Theobald acknowledged a rocky road for Echo Harbour given the master plan recommendations.
"The plan is a guide -- as always," he added.
Contact Will Jones at (804) 649-6911 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Still, of course it is a revenue-generating scheme. The fact that you think this is an insult shows how little you know of development. It should all be revenue generating otherwise it would be a waste or it would get shot down like the ballpark. What it is, is a chance for the city to generate some tax reveue as well! To me that is much better than a park that will be filled with vagrants and suck tax revenue for maintenance and policing from the city coffers that could actually be spent on improving the existing park on Libby Hill.
I agree that the view should be preserved, never said it shouldn’t. I think that is why in the last rendition of their plans the only tall building was way to the right and did not block the “historic” section of the view. What it did block was the view of the sewage treatment plant, which I particularly think would be beneficial.
As for being an attempt to bypass zoning, this once again shows your lack of understanding of development in the city. Almost nothing in the city actually gets rezoned like in the counties. Almost everything is developed using the Special Use Permit process. This way the city has more control over the actual conditions placed on the property. It is kind of like each development in the city getting its own zoning ordinance.
Flynn has stated to the Planning Commission that she does not intend to continue discussions with the developers of EH. She alone is driving business away from the city. She is a holdover from the Wilder administration and she needs to go. It is one thing to listen and provide assistnce to citizen groups, it is a completely different thing to blatantly side with a specific group on all matters and treat a valid applicant in such an inconsistent manner that it borders on illegal. She has crossed the line and should be removed. If she wants to be a part of a community activist group then she should not be employed by the city.
How much more time and energy will be wasted on the EH topic? We all know that City Council will never have 5 council members insensitive or naive enough to allow that view to be blocked, even if EH had something more compelling than veiled threats of REALLY ATROCIOUS M1 development to bolster their plea. This is not a nefarious plot by Rachel Flynn to stop time at the top of Libby Hill. This is not Ms. Shepherd trying to shut down any and all development. Shame on those who make such vile, ad hominem accusations. EH is a revenue-generating scheme that would deprive the citizens of Richmond of an historic view that is priceless. Its purpose is make a few more millions for a handful of multi-millionaires. It is a shame so many in the public have been duped into thinking this is anything but an attempt to bypass existing zoning and once again exercise the rich folks prerogative to bend government to their will and take whatever pleases them. To end the debate the EH folks need only to agree that their development will not block the view from Libby Hill. Why they have not heard that from city hall, I don’t know, but until that offer is made all the other talk is useless and a continuing waste of time and resources.
The Echo Harbor foot dragging by City Staff should raise the eyebrows of any potential company that wants to relocate within the City limits. If they need to move fast, they should know it could take years to get approval if it doesn’t happen to match staff’s ideas of what they consider good development.
Any landowner in the City is on notice that they should not tear anything down until the next project is approved. The Echo Harbor site had a rusting hulk of metal buildings and cranes. They were torn down. I’ll bet the owner wishes they were still there during this controversy.
Maybe we should put a motocross/ATV track there? That market segment is still under served in this area.
Jake, you are correct that PSG will not be paid by the City for the downtown master plan and they are not developers (furthest thing form it), so how do they get the money to pay Sheila Sheppard and Stewart Schwartz? They get it from fund raising, and they do their fund rasing by selling fear. Fear of development. I have never heard of them speaking in favor of a specific development. They may support a plan that calls for development, but doesn’t it seem interesting that no development ever measures up enough for them to actually support. That is b/c there is no money in them supporting a developement, only money in fighting development.
They tell people “Help fund us and we will make sure development doesn’t happen near you.“ That is basically a protection racket scheme and Rachel Flynn’s involvement with them raises a ton of questions. Is she helping them block development so that they can have “sucesses” and raise more money? I just heard they moved into new office space and are hiring more staff. Sounds like the business of fear is good right now. Stewart Schwartz has even moved down here from DC. I guess he has tapped out donors up there and is moving into more fertile ground.
Back to Flynn and Echo Harbor. An employee of the city should be answerable to ALL the taxpayers of the City, whether they be anti-growthers or developers. They all pay taxes to the city. At the very least she should act in a respectful and fair manner. Instead she even disrespects the members of the Planning Commission by being openly rude to them at meetings. If these types of studies were being required of all developments it would not be a problem, but she is using her position to promote her personal agenda. She either needs to start playing fair or she needs to go. I am sure she could probably get a nice cushy job at PSG (maybe she already has one).
Oh, and Jake67, the developers have NOT bough Echo Harbour. A developer never buys a property until they get it rezoned. Learn a little about development before you criticize it.
Jake67… As a builder in this area I’ve known Sheila Sheppard for 10 years. She’s one of the most anti-growth people we have in this area. PSG is a no-growth organization. It’s first objective is to stop development. If it can’t do that it tries to limit development as much as possible.
One look at how PSG has behaved through the Henrico County Comprehensive Plan process will tell anyone that. PSG was pushing 2,500-foot buffers along the James and Chickahominy rivers for the plan. Along the James that would have wiped out development along both sides of Route 5 for miles in east Henrico, not just along the river.
Sheppard and her anti-growth zealots are trying to stop Echo Harbour, not change it. They must be stopped. Unfortunately they have an ally in Rachel Flynn. Theobald ought to sue the city over the hoops Flynn is trying to make the Echo Harbour developers jump through. Flynn has NEVER made a development do what she’s making Echo Harbour do to just apply for a simple rezoning. All Flynn wants in the city is revitalization. She wants no development. She ran Art Dahlberg out of the city because he wanted development. She’s evil to the core when it comes to growth and she needs to be fired.
In this rare instance, Marty Jewel is right. What we have here is Rachel Flynn carrying out her own personal agenda.
The kind of technical issues which have been brought up are simply attempts by Flynn’s staff to topple the project. JIm Theobold is correct when he states that the kind of issues raised are normally addressed after a rezoning. Ms. Flynn knows that if she were handling this case in good faith, she could address any of them as a condition of a special use permit - just has been done in hundreds of prior cases. She knows it full well. Just ask Dominion Power, among 5 dozen other cases similarly situated. It seems to be a denial of this applicant’s due process under the 14th amendment.
It appears that Flynn or staff acting at her direction are attempting to ‘deep six’ this project based upon her personal wishes. The fact is that she has previously single handedly kept this project from appearing on the agenda of the City Planning Commission, despite the applicant’s clear right to a hearing. It required years of pressure from the relatively feeble Planing Commission to ever get the case before the body.
Flynn knows that administrative resistance is the only approach which is likely to help her defeat the project, as she knows that the developer has the likely votes - hence there will be no vote if she has her way.
Watch for this - If the project does come to the full council. Flynn will call out all of her minions including the Sierra Club and a platoon of tree huggers to again try to defeat the City Council. That’s right, this is Rachel Flynn vs. City Council, as she is determined to prevail against City Council. She believes that it is her role to overrule council though she was never elected to that body.
It’s time for a vote on the project and for Flynn to either become an elected official to lawfully set policy, or for her to pack her bags. Flynn’s extreme efforts effectively threaten the sovereignty of City Council.
(For the record, this writer does not know the developer, Marty Jewel, nor Jim Theobold. It just so happens that this writer has witnessed identically subversive treatment by Flynn’s staff in prior dealings with Richmond’s Community Development Department.)
You have no clue about PSG, Really. I am a resident of the city and have been involved in Envision Richmond, which has been actively involved in helping to shape the downtown master plan, which _promotes_ development. People involved in this organization have nothing whatsoever to gain financially from it, I don’t know where you get that idea.
Have you noticed all of the adaptive re-use projects in the Bottom? Just one example of the kind of development I support. As for parks, take a look at cities with good public access to their rivers. It actually _encourages_ development and new residents to move to those cities. It’s worth the investment.
Your distorted ideas about PSG and Envision Richmond make it easy for you to dismiss them, but your caricature has nothing to do with reality.
Don’t kid yourself. The people lined up against this are the people Like Partnership for Smarter Growth (PSG). They are the same ones who were opposed to any development in Varina. They always say “We’re not against development, we just want good development.“ What they don’t tell you is to them no development is good development. Especially development where the developer actually makes a profit (that seems to be a sin). I have never seen them come out and speak in favor of a development. I wonder why? It’s because the people who run PSG make money off of other people’s fear of development. They are nothing more than glorified scam artists. They play on people’s lack of understanding of the development process for profit. They do not do this out of the goodness of their heart. And guess who goes to all their meetings. Rachel Flynn!
Guess what their big plan for this privately held land is? A city park. That’s a park the city would have to buy, build and maintain. Not an intelligent thing to do when they can’t even afford to keep up the ones they have. That money (if it exists) could go to major improvements in the city’s other parks. Meanwhile, they could require the developer to build public acces along the river and maintain it. It would most likely get done more quicly and look better if the private sector does it anyways.
All these extra requirements are just stall tactics on her part. She doesn’t require these of other developments. I am so sure buildings on this site would cause the river to flood. I guess it has nothing to do with evrything coming from up river. Why don’t you just blame the water and air quality in Richmond on this project too? It’s no wonder the city has such a hard time attracting development.
It’s not about Flynn’s “personal” agenda: it’s about changing the way things are done in Richmond, where developers are used to getting what they want, sometimes with disastrous results. Sure we need development and developers, but not at any cost. The so-called “minions” of Flynn are citizens who care about the city and want the right kind of development.
Keep in mind that: the Echo Harbor site is not zoned for what the developers want to do, so they bought the property assuming they could get a special use permit; it’s a site that has all kinds of issues that you wouldn’t find elsewhere, the central one being right on the river in a flood zone. The bar is higher here because it’s a difficult site.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement