This was discussed here when the vote was going down last week and now the RTD is covering the debate as well.

Council members Kathy C. Graziano and Ellen F. Robertson supported Crosland’s request for $4.5 million in bonds even though they had voted against its special-use permit. They said they wouldn’t undermine a project that had previously been blessed by a majority of the council.

The Recovery Zone bonds cannot be used to finance apartment projects, but Crosland said it would use the bonds to finance a parking deck at Manchester on the James. Johnson said that’s an awfully fine hair to split for an out-of-town developer. With an initial $8.8 million in bonds and about $22 million in requests, the city should direct its limited allocation to other, less-controversial projects, he said.

“This is to build a parking deck for apartments for a business that’s located in North Carolina,” Johnson said. “All that money is going to be going back to North Carolina. We think this is kind of a short-term deal” in terms of stimulating the local economy.

Another interesting tidbit is, normally Crosland would have until June to request a building permit or it would lose approval for Manchester on the James but the 2009 General Assembly approved a law that keeps various zoning approvals, including special-use permits, valid through July 1, 2014.

From Greg Johnson of the Springhill neighborhood:

Dear Richmond Neighbors,
We in the Old and Historic Neighborhood of Springhill request your assistance in opposition to the Manchester on the James development project. The property owner, Floyd “Pat†Patterson, is attempting to get a Special Use Permit to allow Charlotte, North Carolina developer Crosland, to build a massive 200 unit rental apartment complex at the very edge of our historic neighborhood. Although, the project is actually 15 feet outside of the historic district we feel that the enormous size of the structure, the increased traffic congestion and the 50% increase in population density will have a detrimental effect on our community. Springhill is a tiny neighborhood only three blocks wide and four blocks deep.

We feel this is of particular interest to both historic districts and all other neighborhoods, as this apartment complex is being constructed on just over 2 acres. A density of 100 units and 150 cars per acre. There are many one, two and three acre lots in Richmond, and Springhill agrees they should be developed, but developed responsibly and with great consideration of the existing neighborhood fabric. Our established neighborhoods are too fragile to be subjugated to massive development encroachments which are improperly sited and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood features.

On Monday June 9, 2008, City Council will vote for or against the project. The City of Richmond’s Department of Community Development and our own Councilperson, Marty Jewell, are in favor of the project and will not lend us their support. We are working in concert with the Foresthill and Woodland Heights neighborhood associations, who also oppose the project, to recruit people to attend the City Council Meeting. We have also embarked on a letter writing campaign and a petition that has garnered over 800 signatures.

We would request that you pass along this notice and attend the City Council meeting on Monday June 9, 2008 at 6:00pm in City Council Chambers, 2nd floor 900 East Broad Street. We have been told the only way to stop the adoption of this ordinance, is to have a great citizen turnout. If you are unable to attend, please write or call your Councilperson or the President of Council. Below I have included their contact information. If you have any questions, feel free to call or email me.

Thank you and hope to see you at City Council on Monday, June 9.

The T-D asks if the Springhill/Semmes development is a “good fit or sore thumb.” Unsurprisingly, the line seems to be pretty much split between residents on one side and city officials & developers on the other.

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

On Monday March 24, City Council will consider the amended Special Use Permit for the controversial Springhill development that has gone by various names (Manchester on the James, City View Towers, etc). The Springhill Neighborhood would love to see a full house that evening, and encourage all with concerns about increased rentals and traffic to attend.

This was mentioned by Ben in a comment to another post, but I thought it was worth bringing up to the front:

The amendment to the SUP (Special Use Permit) will be voted on by City Council on Monday at 6pm. The developer has fundamentally changed the nature of the project (footprint, building height, size of units etc.). There is an excellent chance that if this is approved it will lead to many unfortunate consequences (traffic, lower property values, etc.). If anyone is interested in learning more about this they can go to the Springhill neighborhood association site at http://mysite.verizon.net/leapday92. Your last and only chance to express how you feel about this is to be at the city council meeting at 6pm on Monday, whether you’re for or against it.

We wrote back in November about the condo project intended for the foot of the Lee Bridge, specifically that the inaccurately named Manchester on the James had shrunk from a 17-story high rise to 4 stories. Today’s T-D takes a further look at the project and residents’ concerns.

Some residents in the South Richmond neighborhood remain concerned, saying they fear the developer’s decision to remove the term “condominium” and trim the size of units from 800 square feet to 650 square feet will make for renter and not owner-occupied residences. Plans call for up to 200 units.

The developer maintains that sale rather than rental is the goal, that the units will not be targeted towards students, and that the buildings will have a more traditional exterior to fit better with the neighborhood.