Category Archives: government

4th Precinct MPACT Meeting – This THURSDAY

Posted on by
Reply

From announcement:

MPACT MONTHLY MEETING
on
THURSDAY, April 19, 2012 @ 6PM
at
Linwood Holton Elementary School (1600 West Laburnum Ave.)

Please join MPACT on Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 6PM as our Department of Planning and Development Review will be present to discuss major corridor revitalizations projects that will be taking place in your community.

NOTE: CAPS and the Richmond Police Department will ‘kick-off’ the meeting!

Zane Robinson
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

‘Watchdog’ C. Wayne Taylor Holds His Bite On 2nd Street Connector

Posted on by
4

I have written before about how C. Wayne Taylor has taken on City Hall on the 2nd Street Connector and Special Use Permit Issues. Here’s the latest:

April 12, 2012

The Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Honorable Members of Council,

On March 15th 2012 I requested certain information from Councilor Tyler regarding the proposed 2nd Street connector. He said he would give me a response by the end of the week. On April 2nd I send an email to Councilor Tyler advising him that I had not received anything. As of this evening, I still have not received any of the information I requested.

The citizens of Richmond are being denied a meaningful voice in the political process if you do not give them the relevant information. Will you please take the appropriate action to obtain and make public the information I requested.

Sincerely yours,

C. Wayne Taylor
www.CityHallReview.com

Attachments: Copies of the emails are included below.

Links: http://cityhallreview.com/tag/2nd-street-connector/

Copy: Liaisons, Planning Commission via Secretary, Press, Interested Citizens

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: C WAYNE TAYLOR
To: Bruce Tyler
Cc: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 4:41 AM
Subject: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Mr. Tyler,

I have not received the information.

C. Wayne Taylor

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Tyler, Bruce W. – Council Member”
To: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

Mr. Taylor:

I will give you a response this week.

Bruce W. Tyler

1st District Councilman
City of Richmond

City Council
900 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219

cell: 804.357.6007
fax: 804.343.0909

From: C WAYNE TAYLOR [mailto:cwaynetaylor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thu 3/15/2012 4:16 PM
To: Tyler, Bruce W. – Council Member
Cc: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Subject: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

March 15, 2012

VIA EMAIL TO: Bruce.Tyler@Richmondgov.com
The Honorable Bruce Tyler
City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Honorable Council Member,

The proposed 2nd Street connector would cause a major change in the character of the area. I think it is very important to fully understand the proposal and the various factors involved.

As you know, the administration has not been transparent in this matter. Economic Development even tried to charge me for copies of the documents discuss with city council.

Therefore, I request that you help insure that citizens have all the facts. Will you please provide or obtain answers to the following for the public and me:

1. Has an elevation rendering of the proposed crossing of the historic canal been presented to council?

2. Has a perspective rendering of the proposed connector been presented to council?

3. What is the acreage of the land that is proposed to be conveyed to the city west of the connector?

4. Why does the Planning Commission letter state that the area on both sides of the connector will be privately owned?

5. Why is there a proposed parcel boundary down the middle of the historic canal?

6. What is the acreage of the land that the city is providing for stormwater detention.

7. Does the stormwater detention facility essentially block access of city land to Tredegar Street?

8. Does the parking area connect to Tredegar Street or the connector?

9. How many parking spaces are gained or lost?

10. Does the city have the right to require that the connector be put on the Tredegar Ironworks parcel under alternative B-3 of the 1995 agreement?

11. Does alternative B-3 provide better topography to cross the historic canal and provide more clearance for boats.

12. Why was the connector project assigned to Development rather than Planning?

13. Has Planning been prohibited from commenting to citizens about the connector?

14. Has the planning director issued an analysis of the pros and cons of a connector?

15. Has the city traffic engineer issued a report on the connector?

16. Who prepared the traffic analysis report?

17. Has part of the traffic analysis report been redacted?

18. Is it correct that the connector is not shown on the Downtown Master Plan?

19. What elements of the connector are not consistent with the Downtown Plan and UDC Guidelines.

20. Why were the trees cut down after the Planning Commission reviewed the connector concept plan?

21. What happens if the city requires clearance over the historic canal and refuses to pay the cost?

I believe the following is correct:

22. Road construction grading will cut into the profile of the historic canal.

23. The stormwater detention facility will cut into the profile of the historic canal.

24. Water flowed in the historic canal until about 1970.

25. Slave labor was used to construct the historic canal.

26. An 1880 bridge was built over the unused canal in a traditional arched style.

27. The historic canal is on the National Register of Historic Places.

28. The top executive at Dominion Resources received total compensation of $16.9 million in 2010.

I have attached copies of the documents that the Jones Administration attempted to charge me to have.

Thank you for your attention,

C. Wayne Taylor
www.CityHallReview.com

Copy: Council, Liaisons, Press

City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force to hold meeting Thursday

Posted on by
1

From City announcement:

All residents are invited and encouraged to attend

WHAT The Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force will hold a meeting. The purpose of the Task Force is to make recommendations to Richmond City Council with regard to enhancing mass transit in the Metro-Richmond area and the efficiency and effectiveness of the GRTC Transit System. The meeting is free and open to the public and all residents are invited and encouraged to attend.

WHEN Thursday, April 12, 2012
4:00-6:00 p.m.

WHERE Richmond Department of Economic Development
Richmond Main Street Station – 3rd Floor Conference Room
1500 East Main Street; Richmond, Virginia 23219
(PARKING: Free parking is available on the west side of the building by using the Franklin Street Entrance and using the lot below the Interstate. When facing the Train Station from the Franklin Street Entrance, make a right and park towards the Clock Tower end. When facing the building from the parking lot, the entrance door to the Richmond Department of Economic Development is located on the right of the building.)

WHO Members of the Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force

CONTACT For more information, please contact Councilman Bruce W. Tyler, Richmond City Council, West End 1st District, at 804.357.6007; or bruce.tyler@richmondgov.com.

Background ____________________________________________________________________________

Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force
Richmond City Council established the Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force on September 27, 2010 by Richmond City Council Ordinance No. 2010-173-166.

The objective of the Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force is to provide a report to Council within in a year of its first meeting which recommends the following:

1. Any legislation, plans, policies, and programs that promote efficient mass transit in the city;

2. Economic development, economic growth, employment and tourism strategies that include public transportation; and,

3. Public relations and education programs to increase public use of mass transit.

4. The Task Force shall also work with interested private organizations to improve the service and efficiency of the GRTC.

Citizen Watch Dog Takes On The City’s Special Use Permit (SUP) Process

Posted on by
1

C. Wayne Taylor, who has been doing a lot of digging’ on behalf of the neighborhood, recently sent this missive:

PLANNING COMMISSION

To the Honorable Council of the City of Richmond, Virginia
April 3, 2012

At its meeting of April 2, 2012, the Planning Commission voted (7-0) to APPROVE of:

Resolution of Intent:

To Amend the Zoning Ordinance Special Exception Provisions for the Purpose of
Reducing Reliance on the Special Use Process. All Council Districts

Summary dates:
Proposed Council paper introduction: April 23, 2012
Proposed Planning Commission public hearing: May 21,2012
Proposed City Council public hearing: May 29,2012

I recommend that all of you who are interested in sound land use policies for the city make sure you understand this proposal. While the title of the resolution sounds as if the proposal would move the city toward a more rules-based system, it would actual give the Board of Zoning Appeals broader authority to waive existing zoning and subdivision rules.

You should note that the BZA members are appoint the circuit court and can only be removed by the circuit court. Decisions of the BZA are not reviewable by City Council. The only course of action to challenge a BZA waiver would be a circuit court suit.

In my view, this is a very bad proposal. Richmond City Council is the only municipality in the Commonwealth of Virginia that has been given the authority to grant a special use permit that waives zoning and subdivision rules for a property owner. Over the years, City Council has granted thousands of waivers. As a result, the city has thousands of sets of rules for properties in the city and has failed to follow sound land use planning practices. The proposed ordinance perpetuates this situation and moves the process further from the citizens.

I submit that the fair and wise course of action is to have a set of rules that apply to everyone the way it is in all other municipalities. The city should stop granting special use permits. Unfortunately, this would require a charter amendment by the General Assembly. In the meantime, we appear poised to move further away from a rule-based system.

Please make sure you understand the immediate and long-term repercussions of this proposed ordinance. If you are concerned, please forward this information to your friends.

C. Wayne Taylor

1. Planning Commission “Letters” with notice of adopted resolution.
2. Planning Commission Agenda with full text of draft ordinance.
3. Code of Virginia § 15.2-2309. Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals.

Read more on his blog at CityHallReview.com

Oregon Hill Parkway Closed Tomorrow

Posted on by
Reply

From the City press release:

Street Closure – Oregon Hill Parkway
Traffic Advisory
Richmond, Virginia
Mayor Dwight C. Jones
For Immediate Release
March 30, 2012
For more information, contact:
Sharon North – (804) 646-5607

Street Closure – Oregon Hill Parkway

WHO: City of Richmond Department of Public Works

WHAT: Street Closure

WHEN: Wednesday, April 4, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

WHERE: Oregon Hill Parkway between Pine Street and Laurel Street.

BACKGROUND: Oregon Hill Parkway between Pine Street and Laurel Street will be closed during structural rehabilitation to the pedestrian bridge.
###

Personally, I am very excited to see things happen with the new pedestrian bridge.

New Pine Street Connector Plans (May Include Street Renaming)

Posted on by
5

The good news that emerged this week was that the controversial 2nd Street Connector proposal has been withdrawn due to strong citizen opposition. The bad news was that the alternative Spring Street connector idea has been rejected as well.

What may be seen as even worse news is that Dominion Resources is now proposing that South Pine Street be turned into their connector road. Coming off Idlewood, the street direction would be reversed from it’s current northerly flow and instead would be one-way south towards Dominion’s riverside headquarters. The street would then replace the Overlook and terminate instead with a ramp and bridge going directly to the upper floor of Dominion’s parking deck. Because it’s so very important for Dominion employees to be able to get in and out of work (and the City) quickly, the speed limit would be raised to 45 mph, and a new traffic signal light would be put in place at Holly Street and Pine Street (at Dominion’s expense, of course).

Continue reading →

Mayor’s Budget Discussion at the Va. War Memorial On Wednesday

Posted on by
3

Paraphrasing City announcement:

The only MPACT sponsored Community Conversation with Mayor Jones regarding the City Budget is scheduled to take place at the Virginia War Memorial on Wednesday, March 28th at 6:30PM.

Let your voices be heard regarding the City Budget, Capitol Improvements, and other projects and issues that concern Precinct 4. Feel free to contact Hope Cousin, ETRP/MPACT Coordinator for the City of Richmond/Dept. of Public Works (Hope.Cousin at Richmondgov.com) if you have any questions.

Spring Street Connector?

Posted on by
4

Laurel Street neighbor Tommy Birchett continues to ask some good questions in reference to the proposed 2nd Street connector.

His latest:

What if they built a Spring St connector instead?

Newmarket could donate land at the bottom of their hill above Tredagar and they could connect Spring through to 5th st.

No disruption to canal

No steep incline

Direct connection to west meadvaco from 2nd st

Seems like it would be better for traffic

Just a thought for an alternative proposal.

In fact, this question actually goes back farther to 1991 when Ethyl was given permission to destroy the architecturally significant 2nd Street Bridge. It should be noted that Oregon Hill residents spoke against this demolition. What’s even more interesting is that according to a 1991 Richmond News Leader article, Ethyl received permission to demolish the 2nd Street bridge on the grounds that Spring Street would be extended to increase access to the river.

Local public watchdog C. Wayne Taylor shared the thought. In investigating the question, he discovered that the city entered into a deal with Ethyl (NewMarket) to remove a planned Spring Street extension from the master plan. In exchange, Ethyl agreed to provide land and partial funding for street improvements in other areas. Part of that agreement is that if the city ever extends Spring Street, the city has to pay for the other land and give back the partial funding. In other words, Ethyl may have bought protection against having to fulfill their earlier promise to extend Spring Street.