Development closer to approval
Overshadowed by the recent furor over, um, other things, City Council gave a tentative nod to the much-debated Cowardin/Semmes development (referred to as City View Towers, Manchester on the James, among others). The SUP vote will go before council as a whole at its June 9 session, a meeting which will doubtless see a sizable turnout from Springhill and Woodland Heights residents
I can’t help but comment on the irony of the two important events that occurred in City Hall this past Monday night, both of which will fundamentally alter southside Richmond forever. On the 17th floor that evening, concerned residents of the City packed several rooms to participate in, and ultimately hear, the school board’s decision as to whether or not to approve the Patrick Henry School Initiative’s application for a charter school. Although this school will be open to all children in the City, the actual building is located in the southside neighborhood of Woodland Heights. Simultaneously on the fifth floor, a small group of concerned residents representing three southside Civic Associations and more than 650 City taxpayers argued the people’s case against the proposed Manchester on the James development before the Planning Commission. This massive 4 storey, 200-unit apartment complex is to be built at the intersection of Cowardin Avenue and Riverside Drive in the tiny, southside neighborhood of Springhill.
While I strongly believe that the Patrick Henry Charter School will ultimately enhance our great City, I could not voice my support for it that night, because I was one of the small group of residents representing my neighborhood, Woodland Heights, at the Planning Commission meeting. So, you can imagine how elated I was to learn later that night that the school board had approved the charter! Although the Initiative’s application was not entirely complete, the school board approved it conditionally. As Chairman Braxton stated, “The application is not perfect, but it’s good”… “I don’t want perfection to be the enemy of progress.” So, the Patrick Henry School Initiative will be spending the next three months hammering out the last details of the school’s charter.
I wish I could say the same for Crosland, the developer for the Manchester on the James project. But in stark contrast to the school board, the Planning Commission approved the project based upon nothing more than a few conceptual drawings, which lacked a scale, a key, and even a north arrow. The residents, not the City’s staff, demanded a complete set of plans so that the proposed project could be reviewed in its entirety before the issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for its construction. The residents, not the City staff, took the time to evaluate the proposed project against the six criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of an SUP. The residents, not the City’s staff, argued that the proposed project contradicts all that the City’s Master Plan envisions for the Old South Planning District. But unlike the school board vote, this one was unanimous, with all of the Planning Commission supporting the project because they had already done so once before.
I want to applaud the school board not only for extending this opportunity to the children of Richmond, but for ensuring that due process is followed. To the Planning Commission, and all on the Land Use Committee—excepting Ms. Robertson who abstained from yesterday’s vote—, I can only say “shame on you.” As all school-age children know, two wrongs do not make a right. The Manchester on the James project will kill the Old and Historic neighborhood of Springhill, and at the very least the City should have required the developer to lay out in detail exactly how he is going to do it.
A large part of the success with the Patrick Henry Charter was the email campaign that was launched. We heard from several school board members that they their inboxes were overwhelmed with emails in support of the school and it made a difference. (By the way, they’ve kindly asked for a stop to the emails and a chance to catch up on what they have already received.)
I urge anyone opposed to this apartment complex to write members of city council. However, if you write Marty Jewel, be sure to cc another member as Marty is probably going to be pretty quick with his delete button.
Sigh…. Marty Marty Marty….
The first time you elect a bad council member, it’s his fault. The second time, it’s yours.
I have to disagree with some of the comments about the Manchester on the James development. It looks to me, from the ordinance introduced before council, that there is a complete package of information, including height limitations, building surfaces, etc. I think there are some real questions to address about traffic and parking, but this does not look like a bad development. With rents for an efficiency starting at $900 a month, I don’t think we are looking at low income housing. Everyone ought to give a vote of thanks to the Johnsons from Spring Hill. They have done a great job of identifying issues and making their case.
David- I agree, Marty is up for reelection this fall and we CANNOT have him seated again. His vote to allow the S&K Mini Mart at Bainbridge and Semmes to sell 40′s after 10pm sealed the deal for me. He clearly has no interest in supporting Springhill or Woodland Heights. I look forward to voting against him in the fall. The incompetence cannot continue.
A council member does not have to agree totally with every citizen (an impossibility). He does have to listen; he has to solicit information, consider communiy goals and then make the best choice possible. Of course, Marty is the council member who voted against tightening drunk driving laws because drunks needed a car just like every one else.