Email response from the Mayor

 Attached is the email I received from Mayor Rachford regarding my request for the email the Mrs Thomas went on record at the next planning and zoning meeting saying she did not appreciate.  For the privacy of the person who sent the original email to the mayor, I have X'ed out their name. 

 I will stand by earlier comments that I have made in saying that the city of Alexandria's planning and zoning regulations need a giant overhaul.  As witnessed by the email sent by the Mayor to Mr Jewell, the chairman of the P&Z board, once a parcel is zoned "highway commercial" the residents near it have absolutely no say in the process from start to finish.  They cannot get there hands on any copies submitted to the P&Z board before they are made public, which is only after they have been approved.  Residents cannot ask questions of the developer or P&Z board members to maybe point out things that have not been previously mentioned or discussed.  In addition to the residents not having a voice, our city council is left completely out of the process and cannot say one way or the other if they are in favor or if they disapprove of a proposed development for fear of being sued. 

If the present system has let the P&Z board, the members of city council, and the residents of Alexandria get railroaded into allowing developments that they do not approve of, isn't it time for a change?

I will be presenting a detailed outline of my proposed changes to the system at an upcoming city council meeting.

__________________________________________________________________________________

 fromBill Rachford brachford@alexandriaky.org

to volffas <volffas@gmail.com> cc Michael Duncan <MDuncan@zslaw.com>, John Jewell <jewelljr@fuse.net> date Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM subject FW: I was referred to you by Mr. Graus and Mr. Hart mailed-by alexandriaky.org

Mr. Schabell, copy of me email per your request.

Bill

From: Bill Rachford
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:33 PM
To: 'John Jewell'
Subject: FW: I was referred to you by Mr. Graus and Mr. Hart

John, FYI.  Please review Mr. XXXX’s email.  We can address the safety issues, etc and the zoning of a retailer in the front of his subdivision.  We can always request a traffic study from the state for a yes or no vote on traffic flow.  

However, we do need to remind the members of P&Z about the responsibilities of their office.  I think he is correct, the vote should have been 7-0 in favor.  They need to vote with the law and not their sympathy for folks who don’t want a retail store in their neighborhood (which was approved at the very outset of the project).  The last thing we need is another lawsuit like the Speedway case.  I know this case is significantly different since there were no variances in question and the developer has agreed to go above and beyond the call of duty in landscaping, etc.  I don’t have everyone’s email address at my fingertips so I ask that you forward this to your members.  I will be out of town rest of this week but will be in next Monday. 

Thanks,

Bill 

From: XXXX
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:03 PM
To: Bill Rachford
Cc: sgraus@alexandriaky.org; dhart@alexandriaky.org
Subject: I was referred to you by Mr. Graus and Mr. Hart

Mayor Rachford,

I would first like to thank Mr. Graus and Mr. Hart for speaking with my family last evening near the end of the Planning and Zoning meeting.  I would also like to thank them for passing on my concern with the communication from the Alexandria City Building.  It was very disheartening to find out at the meeting I would not be able to ask questions after I had called the city building on Monday to ask questions and was told that I would not be able to speak with anyone Monday but needed to attend the meeting on Tuesday to voice my concern.

Concern:   Dollar General building a store at the front of SummerLake Subdivision using the entrance of SummerLake for their business traffic.

Issues: Safety, Traffic, Home Value

I believe my neighbors have gone into detail about each of these I will not waste your time in having to read the same complaints over and over.  However, I am still very confused about what happened at the Meeting last night.  The gentleman who ran the meeting had a very caviler attitude about the whole process giving the impression that he and the city members present where of the attitude, "we don't live in the Subdivision so we don't care - lets get this over with."  I don't believe all of the members of the board had that same attitude as several asked legitimate questions concerning the development.  He made a big point in the beginning of the meeting to go over the two types of meetings.  He specifically stated the meeting being held last night was to make the decision of whether or not the plans were in adherence to code and could be approved.  He went on further to explain it would be against the law for he or anyone else present to vote for or against the plans based on personal belief and not whether or not the plans were legally valid plans.  

Based on the explanation given at the meeting it was concerning that the vote was not 7-0 one way or the other.  Due to the information given at the beginning of the meeting it sounded as though the plans either passed inspection and would be approved (the reason we were not able to speak) or they did not pass inspection and would be disapproved (what happened the first time the plans were submitted).  I and the majority of my neighbors are very confused and can't figure out if the 3 who voted against the plans broke the law or the 4 or voted for the plans broke the law.  A 3-4 vote seems to imply 3 members felt the plans did not pass inspection.

Clearly in a government setting with city police present if someone had broken the law there should have been other actions taken last night.  By no one being arrested it would imply that the information given at the beginning was misinterpreted, wrong, misleading, or something of the like.  I am not accusing either side of the vote of breaking the law, but I am still puzzled as to how the vote should be interpreted based on the information given at the meeting. 

I think part of the concern of residents is there doesn't seem to be many answers for the questions other than "We can't do anything about it, its the law."

I ask, if you have not already done so to review the film of the meeting last night. 

Please let me know the following so I can inform my neighbors:

1) I will not ask about what specifically will be done about general safety/traffic as that was in a basic form addressed last night.  As a neighborhood we do not feel the answer given (completely safe no expectation of added danger) is accurate.

2) What will happen if the store is built, a traffic study is done, study shows a light is needed, but the state will not allow another light due to the distance between the Subdivision and Lickert?  It was stated last night that a reasonable traffic study could not be done until the store is open.  Can a traffic study be done now to see how close it would be to needing a traffic light?  The Subdivision is substantially larger than it was just a few years ago.  If a study now shows that just a few more cars would push the need for a traffic light - the Subdivision has plans for around a 100 or more additional homes which I would think the future traffic of the Subdivision would need to be taken into account as well. 

3) Are there any plans by the city to help battle the drop in Home Value this will bring? 

4) How the voting works: Do the voters have discretion or not? If the issue is as black and white as do the plans meet the requirements to be approved why wasn't the vote 7-0 one way or the other? 

5) What is the driving force behind approving this store in this location?  I am against any retailer using the space and sharing the entrance to our Subdivision.   I personally would not like a retailer at the top of the street but if they had their own entrance and exit to 27 and there was no road connecting the Subdivision to the parking lot I don't know that there would be nearly as many people upset.

There is commercial property directly across the highway off of old 27, Sharky's and K&M both are already there.

Last: From the City Website

My interests as Mayor are:

   1) Keeping Alexandria a safe place in which to live and work;
   2) Maintaining a fiscally sound municipality while keeping our taxes low;
   3) Properly managing our upcoming growth and prosperity.
   4) Consistently enforcing our ordinances.
   5) Improving the physical apearance of our city.

I will find it hard to believe 1,2,3,4, and 5 if SummerLake is forced to share their entrance with a retailer. 

Thank You,

XXXX   XXXXXXX