Stuart Ave driveway SMACKDOWN
Got a hand-delivered flyer emblazoned with the words “PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE” yesterday:
What: A public hearing to consider revoking the driveway permit granted to 3304 Stuart Avenue
Who: Richmond City Council Land Use, Housing, and Transportation Committee
When: May 19th, 2009 @ 4pm
Where: Richmond City Hall, 900 East Broad Street, 5th floor
Seeing this driveway get constructed and a garage built just made me shake my head. Why did the person at 3304 get a driveway but no one else does? It’s not safe to have a driveway in the Museum District. Will lots of homeowners now be building driveways (which take up a lot of street space)? Will there be enough parking now?
Hopefully some folks can attend this hearing and get some answers. Also, you can write an email to those on the committee
- Doug Conner, Chairman (9th district) doug.conner@richmondgov.com
- Ellen Robertson (6th) ellen.robertson@richmondgov.com
- Charles Samuels (2nd) charles.samuels@richmondgov.com
For additional info, you can reach out to the Museum District Association Zoning Committee
Key here is “revoke” the permit these people obviously got from the city. They took the necessary steps they were supposed to take and the city approved it and now they are supposed to get rid of it because a few people have decided they do not like it? Or they are jealous because they do not have one?
Why on earth is it not safe to have a driveway in the museum district? I was unaware driveways were so dangerous, not to mention it helps all those others who do park on the street.
It’s funny no one mentions the tree that will have to be removed if this goes through.
Sam,
The people at 3304 get to have a driveway because they have the luxury of a double lot AND got the proper permits from the city to build one. The driveway/carport are tastefully done, and are well within the homeowners rights to build.
What kind of “Answers” will you be looking for at this hearing?
There are other people in the M.D. that have driveways, should they have to get rid of them and ONLY use alley access?
It seems to me like the people making a problem for 3304 have way too much time on their hands and just wish they had the great lot 3304 has!
In an urban environment, every curb cut makes the street that much more unfriendly and dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists.
Two parking spots are effectively removed from public use on the street and moved to the carport for the applicant’s private use in this case. Additionally, use of the curb cut as it is currently installed forces backing out onto a public street near a school with high volume pedestrian and automobile traffic. I feel there are valid public safety concerns here for the community.
Sam:
It may be more informative if you included the entire text of the 1st page of that flyer; could you re-post that information?
Thanks!
Why:
1) Safety Hazard to Pedestrian & Vehicular Traffic.
- Driveway is 60 feet from an intersection, opposite a High School. A busy area with children on the sidewalk, inexperienced drivers and school buses ever present, the driveway was approved without a “turnaround”; that is, one backs out into traffic. Four accidents have already occurred at this intersection in four years.
- Public Works did not follow their own safety guidelines; no traffic engineering was conducted, no consideration was given to adverse impact on the public, and there was no opportunity for public comment.
2) Deprives The Neighborhood Of Public Parking.
- The driveway, 23 feet wide at the street, eliminates at least that much public parking and grants it’s exclusive use to a single property owner. The six existing driveway encroachments in the MDA are approximately 8 feet wide, but this one is three times wider.
3) No Compelling Need / Extenuating Circumstances.
- 3304 Stuart Avenue is a double lot with ample alley access. The sole extenuating circumstance for granting street access is the presence of a large tree in the backyard. The desire to protect a tree should be a secondary consideration when public safety is at issue. property owner removed an 80-year-old magnolia from front yard to build the driveway.
4) Unacceptable and Irrevocable Precedent
- Any of the forty-or-so vacant lots in the Museum District can now enjoy similar access to the street with similar disregard to traffic and pedestrian safety, public right-of-way, or uninterrupted pedestrian sidewalks.
There are a lot of jealous people on this board!
What about the tree that will have to be removed?
You seem to have really done some research. Why did you not approach these people BEFORE all of this was done?
I think you need a driveway. Apparently this is an issue for you.
It’s their property; as long as they are not breaking any laws; I don’t see what the big deal is. I think some of the uproar may be jealousy.
Jealous? It looks like it should have Golden Arches pasted on either side of it.
Put a couple of Golden Arches on the sides and you’ve got a drive through.
If the property owner gets to drive on the sidewalk, the least the city should do is force owner to walk in traffic!
They’ll get over it.
Each property owner is are entitled to ask for anything they wish, but the city has responsibilities over and above our personal convenience to weigh in deciding whether or not to grant our wishes…in this case, the city faltered in that responsibility.
It is not the property owner’s fault for asking for this special use of public right of way, but the city’s for saying yes at the compromise of public safety to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in a busy through way proximate to a school.
What happened at the meeting?
The patron of the paper requested an additional 30 days.
[...] To many this may be old news, but I’m sure there are many out there that have a lot of thoughts about the city’s decision to uphold the permit of the street access car port on Stuart ave. (see the previous discusion prior to the md association meeting here). [...]