Jump to content

Near West End


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sort of like the South Richmond thread i like having a place for those neighborhoods outside the urban core that are still within the city limits. The collection of neighborhoods west of 195 - Willow

Definitely just affecting the South side based on what I am reading.    

"Uses" meaning business and residential types rather than actual forms (height, etc.).

5 hours ago, whw53 said:

Sort of like the South Richmond thread i like having a place for those neighborhoods outside the urban core that are still within the city limits. The collection of neighborhoods west of 195 - Willow Lawn, Malvern Gardens, Westhampton, Three Chopt etc. We've seen more and more cases of infill development and i think that will continue. What prompted me here was the story this morning in BizSense about the council member led effort to throw TOD-1 zoning all along Broad from 195 to Willow Lawn. 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/09/27/city-ponders-plan-to-extend-tod-zoning-westward-along-broad-street/

Help me understand one part of this article: Katherine Jordan's proposal to apply TOD-1 with a height-overlay maintaining current height restrictions - is this intended ONLY for the south side of Broad? She's not suggesting imposing height restrictions to the north side of Broad as well, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Help me understand one part of this article: Katherine Jordan's proposal to apply TOD-1 with a height-overlay maintaining current height restrictions - is this intended ONLY for the south side of Broad? She's not suggesting imposing height restrictions to the north side of Broad as well, correct?

Definitely just affecting the South side based on what I am reading.
 

Quote

The B-5 and B-6 zonings restrict heights to five and four stories, respectively, but Jordan said the change to TOD would allow for more uses than what’s permitted in those districts.

By combining TOD with a building height restriction overlay, those same height restrictions would remain in effect while allowing more uses consistent with TOD zoning across the street, Jordan said last week while presenting the proposal to the city’s Land Use, Housing & Transportation Committee.

“When these two south side sections were zoned B-5 and B-6, the intent was to get it closer aligned with the Pulse Corridor study that council unanimously approved in 2017. We’ve worked with the planning office and feel like a TOD-1 with height overlay is actually more in keeping both with the Pulse Corridor Plan and with the goals of TOD-1 Richmond 300,” Jordan said.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Icetera said:

Definitely just affecting the South side based on what I am reading.
 

 

 

Thanks, Icetera.

That's (more or less) what I thought - but for some reason the article didn't spell out that the height restrictions would not apply to the north side of Broad. "Uses consistent with TOD zoning across the street" just didn't have enough clarity to me - (vs spelling out that this overlay would apply ONLY to one half of the street).  The article could have been written a bit more clearly to specify that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

 

Thanks, Icetera.

That's (more or less) what I thought - but for some reason the article didn't spell out that the height restrictions would not apply to the north side of Broad. "Uses consistent with TOD zoning across the street" just didn't have enough clarity to me - (vs spelling out that this overlay would apply ONLY to one half of the street).  The article could have been written a bit more clearly to specify that.

"Uses" meaning business and residential types rather than actual forms (height, etc.).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Icetera said:

"Uses" meaning business and residential types rather than actual forms (height, etc.).

Oh of course! Still - as a former journalist, I do think this fact could/should have been spelled out a bit more clearly. I get that their 'core' audience in all likelihood innately understands what's meant. I don't think it would have blown out their word-count budget for the story to include that fact. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.