Planning & Dev. Review
Re: Food Truck Court
Dear Honorable Mayor,
About the same time as the Art 180 Project controversy, “food trucks” began the widely publicized activity of selling products in the Virginia Historical Society parking lot. The property is zoned R-6 – Residential (Single Family Attached), which does not list the activity as an allowed use.
Read the rest of this entry »
….The murals that would sit in a historic district required the approval of the Richmond Commission of Architectural Review, which granted permission for nine of them….The murals that would sit in a historic district required the approval of the Richmond Commission of Architectural Review, which granted permission for nine of them…. timesdispatch.com
Commission of Architectural Review denies application for rear porch roof. Paper Number: 2012-R18.
As of 21 March 2012, no minutes for the Commission of Architectural Review have been posted since October 2011.
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 USARe: 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,
Copy: Council, Liaisons, Press
1 Attached file| 9.3M
….While all these things are happening, at least on paper, “the city still needs visionary leadership,” Sarvay says. And if Olinger intends to remain in an advisory role, who’s going to step up? …. styleweekly.com
Phrases like “a concept of one river and one city in a single system” and “this is the Central Park of your city” were tossed around as architects from Hargreaves Associates presented an update on the Richmond Riverfront Plan to the City of Richmond Planning Commission Tuesday….The commission members all agreed that “what we need is leadership to carry this through” and that “governance means leadership.” richmond.com
How the region should grow and where it should grow was the gist of Friday’s meeting at the Williams Mullen law firm ….attended by 200 planning, real estate, transportation and land-use experts….Thomas A. Silvestri [head of the Richmond Media Group, which includes the Richmond Times-Dispatch], who was the opening speaker….Transportation and infrastructure will be the focus of the next discussion…..Realty Check cities have included Los Angeles; Washington; Baltimore; Charleston, S.C.; Seattle; and Phoenix, Ariz. The one for the Richmond region will be sometime next year…. timesdispatch.com
….most of the residents were not familiar with the plan and have very strong concerns about both road concepts being proposed….could very well inhibit the revitalization of Fulton, Shockoe Bottom and the Central Business District….barrier between Church Hill and access to the river would be significant…. chpn.net