Dominion Resources: New High-rise Building Planned for Downtown

[wrldcoupe4]

Things changed. They sold their massive gas transmission business, Tom Farrell died, and COVID (hybrid work) happened. All of these things surely had an impact on the decision not to build the 2nd one at the moment. 

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

I had anticipated another crap surface lot for monthly parking.

I hear you. So we're getting a fancy, landscaped surface lot for hourly or daily parking. (or how ever long it will take these new chargers to charge up EVs)

[Flood Zone]

17 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Is it just me, or did any of y'all feel like the whole 'second tower' thing was just schtick right from the get-go? I always had a sinking feeling even when they first announced development plans that there would be no second tower.

I believed them that they planned two,  with the second being sort of dicey because it was contingent on some things, and I can also believe that COVID changed their plans. Occam's Razor. 

At any rate, I'm kind of glad Dominion didn't build a second tower. Why? Because, pardon the hot-take, their new tower is somewhere between lackluster and trash. It's stubby looking from certain vantage points, and from others  it doesn't even look finished. So not building tower two, in itself, doesn't upset me. What does upset me is that they tore down a perfectly  cromulent building for no good reason. That seems like a waste. And even assuming for the sake of argument that the building was functionally obsolete or somesuch, they tore it down almost THREE years ago -- and the area is STILL a hellscape, with travel lanes on 7th and 8th blocked off and pedestrians' ability to cross Canal impeded. That's definitely a waste. And that's before we even get into the glorified surface parking lot....

[eandslee]

…and the plot thickens (pardon the pun):

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/this-is-still-a-parking-lot-dominion-faces-pushback-on-downtown-clean-energy-park/

[Flood Zone]

So NIMBY, but good. Good NIMBY. GIMBY?

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, eandslee said:

…and the plot thickens (pardon the pun):

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/this-is-still-a-parking-lot-dominion-faces-pushback-on-downtown-clean-energy-park/

This is encouraging, to say the least! VERY VERY heartened to see that one of the more progressive, pro-growth/development groups pushing for density downtown and less car dependency is pushing back. One thing the article brings out that I didn't realize: the updated zoning regs for downtown no longer permit development of surface parking lots - and an SUP would do them no good, according to current rules and regs.

From the TV8 story:

"Dominion’s plans may not make it very far with the planning commission to begin with. The property is currently zoned B-4 — a dense commercial classification — which allows structured parking garages, but due to an ordinance amendment in 2019, no longer allows open surface parking even with a conditional use permit. That means Dominion would likely have to seek a complete rezoning of the parcel, a lengthy process open to public scrutiny. And the intended zoning would be in direct conflict with the Richmond 300 development plan adopted by the city in 2020.

I'm very glad to see that it's not just a bunch of RVA development nerds who are up in arms in decrying this proposal and calling for sticking to the city's formally adopted Master Plan that calls for HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT downtown.

No question -- at least for us - and I think for quite a few other folks -- one of the things that's the biggest burr in our saddles is the fact that this HAS to be one of THE MOST VALUABLE pieces of real estate in a ALL of downtown RVA - which is why Dominion probably would be willing to go to the grave clutching hold of it. It is a PREMIUM location - with tremendous prominence (visually and otherwise), on the edge of the Financial District (particularly since it has shifted a block or two south off of E. Main) and almost close enough to the river to be considered a "riverfront" location. This is a location that -- either in almost any other of our "peer" cities -- or even in Richmond in different - as in either 1.) more construction-friendly economic times or 2.) time where workplaces not so dramatically altered by the pandemic -- this full, square city block would be the prime location for a signature tower (or group of buildings) that would have a tremendous impact on the Richmond skyline. PLUS - the fact that the OJRP building stood there for 42 years lends to the credence of highrise, high-density development of SOME kind. At least in our minds and in the minds of many. 

[Hike]

16 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

This is encouraging, to say the least! VERY VERY heartened to see that one of the more progressive, pro-growth/development groups pushing for density downtown and less car dependency is pushing back. One thing the article brings out that I didn't realize: the updated zoning regs for downtown no longer permit development of surface parking lots - and an SUP would do them no good, according to current rules and regs.

From the TV8 story:

"Dominion’s plans may not make it very far with the planning commission to begin with. The property is currently zoned B-4 — a dense commercial classification — which allows structured parking garages, but due to an ordinance amendment in 2019, no longer allows open surface parking even with a conditional use permit. That means Dominion would likely have to seek a complete rezoning of the parcel, a lengthy process open to public scrutiny. And the intended zoning would be in direct conflict with the Richmond 300 development plan adopted by the city in 2020.

I'm very glad to see that it's not just a bunch of RVA development nerds who are up in arms in decrying this proposal and calling for sticking to the city's formally adopted Master Plan that calls for HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT downtown.

No question -- at least for us - and I think for quite a few other folks -- one of the things that's the biggest burr in our saddles is the fact that this HAS to be one of THE MOST VALUABLE pieces of real estate in a ALL of downtown RVA - which is why Dominion probably would be willing to go to the grave clutching hold of it. It is a PREMIUM location - with tremendous prominence (visually and otherwise), on the edge of the Financial District (particularly since it has shifted a block or two south off of E. Main) and almost close enough to the river to be considered a "riverfront" location. This is a location that -- either in almost any other of our "peer" cities -- or even in Richmond in different - as in either 1.) more construction-friendly economic times or 2.) time where workplaces not so dramatically altered by the pandemic -- this full, square city block would be the prime location for a signature tower (or group of buildings) that would have a tremendous impact on the Richmond skyline. PLUS - the fact that the OJRP building stood there for 42 years lends to the credence of highrise, high-density development of SOME kind. At least in our minds and in the minds of many. 

Dominion isn’t dumb, I wonder what they’re doing here, this seems like a chess match of some sort they’re engaged in. They had to know this or at least their architect, Baskervil, should have known and relayed the zoning to them, if not, it looks bad if neither of them knew. 

[I miss RVA]

7 minutes ago, Hike said:

Dominion isn’t dumb, I wonder what they’re doing here, this seems like a chess match of some sort they’re engaged in. They had to know this or at least their architect, Baskervil, should have known and relayed the zoning to them, if not, it looks bad if neither of them knew. 

That was my thought as soon as I read it in the story. Dominion HAS to have known. Like you said - they aren't dumb. Neither is Baskervil. So it does make me wonder exactly what kind of cat-and-mouse game they're up to.

[wrldcoupe4]

It is interesting. 
https://rva.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/City of Richmond - Zoning Ordinance - July 2020.pdf

reading through B4 ( starting on pg 104), it does seem that Partnership for smarter growth has a point. 
 

“[NOTE: Parking areas and parking lots were removed as a principal use by Ord. No. 2017-219 on February 27, 2017.]”

I think Dominion would say this is what they are doing with the solar panels though:

“(30) Public utilities installations, equipment buildings and passenger terminals for public transportation, including servicing of motor vehicles used in connection therewith when such servicing is conducted within a completely enclosed building, provided that no passenger terminal shall be located on a transitional site;”

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by wrldcoupe4

[I miss RVA]

10 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

It is interesting. 
https://rva.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/City of Richmond - Zoning Ordinance - July 2020.pdf

reading through B4 ( starting on pg 104), it does seem that Partnership for smarter growth has a point. 
 

“[NOTE: Parking areas and parking lots were removed as a principal use by Ord. No. 2017-219 on February 27, 2017.]”

Very interesting, no? 

@wrldcoupe4- in your professional opinion, what's your take on this particular twist in the plot?

@upzoningisgood- I'd love to know your thoughts on this as well.

Edited October 22, 2022 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

2 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Very interesting, no? 

@wrldcoupe4- in your professional opinion, what's your take on this particular twist in the plot?

@upzoningisgood- I'd love to know your thoughts on this as well.

See my updated post. I’m not a zoning expert but seems like they can do this. 

[I miss RVA]

2 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

See my updated post. I’m not a zoning expert but seems like they can do this. 

What about the language of "completely enclosed building"? That seems to run counter to what Dominion is planning.

[wrldcoupe4]

I think that is only for the servicing of motor vehicles. Is charging servicing or is a mechanic servicing?

[I miss RVA]

9 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I think that is only for the servicing of motor vehicles. Is charging servicing or is a mechanic servicing?

Gas stations were referred to for eons as "service stations" - even if the motorist only stopped to have some gas pumped into the car. Does servicing require personnel to perform the act? Or is "self-service" still technically "servicing"? 

It's a valid and good question.

Based on the provision you cited, do you think that Dominion's counter argument to any pushback (since this kind of development obviously flies directly in the face of what the city is trying to accomplish with downtown in the Richmond 300 plan) would be that they could claim a "by-right" to develop this surface parking lot? (And landscaping and modern eco-friendly language aside, that's ALL this is - a damn surface parking lot.)

[Hike]

If I’m understanding the conversation about zoning correctly, it sounds like Dominion may try to argue that their proposal meets the criteria. Although it’s loosely met and isn’t what was intended but could be interpreted that way and therefore allowed, going for the gray area argument.

 It may have been mentioned here already, I thought this was interesting, just saw it on RVA Reddit. The lot is now assessed at 10 million, the removed building was assessed at 45 million, saving them $540,000 in taxes every year, which makes their demo a tax reduction, which reminded me, they’re not dumb. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Hike

[Brent114]

The alternative to this proposal is a gravel lot.  Dominion doesn’t have to sell and they don’t have to build.   There’s no signature tower waiting  in the wings.    Even if there were, it won’t get built in the next 10-15 years.   Look at how long it took CoStar to start building (enter  the market, grow, plan, build). 
 

This isn’t a parking lot anymore than WaWa is a parking lot.  Trying to claim it is a parking lot is a more tenuous position than claiming it is not. 

[Hike]

37 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

The alternative to this proposal is a gravel lot.  Dominion doesn’t have to sell and they don’t have to build.   There’s no signature tower waiting  in the wings.    Even if there were, it won’t get built in the next 10-15 years.   Look at how long it took CoStar to start building (enter  the market, grow, plan, build). 
 

This isn’t a parking lot anymore than WaWa is a parking lot.  Trying to claim it is a parking lot is a more tenuous position than claiming it is not. 

I’d rather have the proposed than a gravel lot. It does make me question which one would be developed sooner, if and when it could get developed, a gravel lot or a pricey park charging station. The latter makes me think it may be this for quite a long time and Dominion has no interest in selling or building anything for the foreseeable future. Also, I bet there’s some tax reducing by adding electric charging stations.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Hike

[whw53]

Well a simple SUP will cover it if there is any issue. they probably won't bother rezoning but process is similar in that at some point city council must sign off on it.

This is normal - we often see renderings of projects before some of those land use steps needed to move the project forward have been filed. Think Avery Hall.

Difference really boils down to what planning commission will recommend. Beyond zoning you have to look at the future land use reccomendations in the master plan for a given area. That is how these cases are justified.

in some of those other cases the proposed built product substantially conforms to the master plan and the entitlement is really just ironing out a detail. Here however we have a case in which IF the use does not conform to B4 then it may be denied in that entitlement process- it certainly does not fit the larger neighborhood vision as outlined in the master plan for downtown. Planning staff can refer to that in their report to commission / council.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
 

Edited October 22, 2022 by whw53

[Flood Zone]

I’d rather have this than a gravel lot, yes. I’d also rather be punched once than stabbed multiple times. 

[Hike]

1 hour ago, Flood Zone said:

I’d rather have this than a gravel lot, yes. I’d also rather be punched once than stabbed multiple times. 

That’s funny, I’d like to think I can remember this to use again, but I know myself, and I won’t.

[upzoningisgood]

@I miss RVA

I’m not familiar enough with the exact particulars of RVA zoning to be confident in my take on this issue 

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Hike said:

That’s funny, I’d like to think I can remember this to use again, but I know myself, and I won’t.

I have to admit that I started thinking in terms of - "Do I want this or a gravel lot? Let's just say, that if Mike Tyson were to deck me, I suppose I'd rather have one tooth knocked out than two." 

@Brent114-- you know I love you, brother, but I gotta respectfully disagree. This thing they wanna saddle us with ain't nothing more than -- okay - a GLORIFIED -- parking lot. I'll agree it's not JUST a parking lot. It'll have pretty landscaping and EV chargers! MAZAL TOV!!! Unfortunately, elevating this thing from the level of "parking lot" to "glorified parking lot" just means we're gonna be stuck with the damn thing for a HELL of a lot longer than we want it there (and for most of us, even just ONE DAY of it being there is one day too many!)

Say, Maybe if they get the Thalhimer folks on board, they could put a nine-hole miniature-golf course around the perimeter - so folks could crank up a round of Putt Putt whilst waiting for their cars to charge up! 

Edited October 23, 2022 by I miss RVA

[plain]

I like the idea of a charging lot. What I don't like is such a lot on THAT block (or anywhere in the Financial District for that matter).

 

If Dominion isn't going to build something significant there, they need to sell it. Even if the buyer builds something as lame as the Locks "Tower", it would still be infinitely better than what Dominion is currently proposing.

[I miss RVA]

42 minutes ago, plain said:

I like the idea of a charging lot. What I don't like is such a lot on THAT block (or anywhere in the Financial District for that matter).

EXACTLY!!! THANK YOU!!! 

THAT, I think is the crux of the argument right there. I'm 100% with you - I like the idea of having EV charging places. Just not in the form of a wide-open surface lot. And, in particular, as you said, not on THAT block! Not in the Financial District. Not in City Center. IF it was integrated into some kind of multi-level structure and was a component of a much larger high-density development, I'd have no problem with having tons of EV charging stations downtown. Just not in this form in this location.

[ancientcarpenter]

11 hours ago, upzoningisgood said:

@I miss RVA

I’m not familiar enough with the exact particulars of RVA zoning to be confident in my take on this issue 

 

I'm a bit confused. Are you referring to the Dominion property lot or the stabbing and punching metaphor? Because yes.