Riverside Info » About Riverside

Village Center now on Longcommon???

(37 posts)
1 2 3 4

  1. spatny
    Member

    Back page of today's Landmark, second row, right: Burlington Realty advertises VC as "13 Longcommon." I remember a protracted debate about this including even the Post office, in which it was decided that the address was Burlington (same name as the realtor). Address has to be on the street where the entrance is, and the front of the building. If Longcommon is the front, Burlington is the side, and the building encroaches on the required setback without a variance approved. Tear it down.

    January 11, 2007

    Ms. Barbara Heinrich, Exec. Secretary
    Village of Riverside
    Via Email

    Dear Ms. Heinrich:

    I am attempting, with little success, to ascertain the following:

    1. What is the correct, legal address for this structure. I the Village Admin./Building Department aware that the developers and realtors are advertising it as "13 Longcommon." If the front of the building is Longcommon, then obviously the building is in violation of the setbacks for the side on Burlington and on the north.

    2. Are you aware that the building is now showing seven window openings in the second floor west facade where the plans that the developer and the realtors show exhibit only six. The common perspective rendering also hows only six, but in yet a still different configuration. I would like to know if the change being built into the building was registered with the building department - six windows instead of seven, and if that was formally presented and approved by the Preservation commission. I would like to see a photocopy of the documentation if this was done.

    If the units are being sold from inaccurate literature, or mis-addressed advertisements by Village realtors, is that legal? It certainly seems unethical.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Donald Spatny

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 20:04 #

  2. Catherine
    Member

    The address would be Burlington in that case. Appropriate changes would have to be made to all advertising.

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 22:26 #

  3. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Mr. Spatny, at the Preservation Committee meeting I went to, where the committee approved the plans for VC, I recall the developer or someone representing that side, when they presented the plans, it was referred to as "11 13 Longcommon" and I kept thinking "where is 1113 Longcommon"? I got over my confusion quickly.

    At another meeting, someone referred to the condo conversion at 50-58 Forest as "5058 Forest." More confusion.

    But that's interesting about the address on Longcommon, front/side of the building and the setback. This sounds similar to the issue that they had with the development at Herbert/Burlington. The village amended the ordinance (for townhomes) to allow a side yard setback on Burlington, even though that is the front of the development.

    http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2079&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1

    Interestingly, from the article, Eric Sundstrom said about the ordinance change "We were almost like a test case."

    (edit: I don't specifically remember if it was 1013, 1113 or 1115 mentioned for the VC, but it was a combination of two addresses. Similarly, it might have been 5056 or 5058 Forest for the other development. It was definitely Longcommon though for the name of the project where the VC is now.)

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 22:34 #

  4. Catherine
    Member

    Well, if setback ordinances are not to be observed, what is to stop behemoth teardowns in the outlying district? Or is this another special variance?

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 22:42 #

  5. Elisa
    Member

    I'm sorry, I hadn't read these comments when I posted in another thread. But, to continue with the thought...was this a variance or an amendment of the zoning code? According to the minutes and agendas posted on the Village web site referring to this property, there were three amendments proposed. (One regarding lot width and required yards, one for driveway requirements and one for minimum traffic aisle requirements - all proposed amendments were for multi-family, townhouse and non-residential uses.) I don't know if all three were passed, but all three amendments were proposed.

    In my mind, a variance would be special permission to go against the code. But an amendment changes the code permanently, which seems a bit much for something that was just revamped recently. Especially considering the fact that there is so much new development going on in the way of condos. If the code is completely changed, it would stand to reason that many new condo developments (and other non-residential development) could benefit from the relaxed standards.

    Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 00:13 #

  6. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Elisa, the Landmark article I referenced mentioned "The village amended the code to allow exceptions in the case of townhomes."

    http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2079&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1

    I think this development was unique in that the longer side of the development was along Burlington, but for some reason the ordinance called for that to have a side yard setback when it was clearly the front of the development. I think this one case was unique which is why they made the exception.

    Maybe I'm not recalling it correctly though. This is just what I read in the Landmark over the past six months.

    Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 00:47 #

  7. Elisa
    Member

    ChrisH,
    I don't know either. I do recall reading about the amendments in the Board Agendas which is why I went back and checked. My question in a nutshell would be for someone on the Plan Commission or for a trustee or for the Village Manager to answer which is basically what you said: is this one case unique or did they really change the zoning code? It could be that an amendment is the same thing as a variance - I don't know.

    What I am sure of is that someone knows and will pitch in with an answer! :)

    I do think it's frightening, though, that when questions are being asked about a potential conflict of interest of an elected official (which should be expected - the questioning, that is), the response is outrage at the very notion and the threat of a lawsuit in the local newspaper. Is that really necessary? I am not saying there is any wrongdoing - truly I'm not. And I don't know what he/they were alluding to, there must be a background story that wasn't written. I just think that it is normal for people to read the news and talk and speculate. That is not unusual nor is it unexpected nor wrong. (It does kind of makes me nervous about all the late-night discussions about local politics I've had sitting on my front porch with my husband and various neighbors!)

    Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 00:55 #

  8. ChrisHajer
    Member

    I found a Plan Commission official notice (something that was published in the Landmark) where they referred to 21 Herbert and the proposed amendments to three zoning ordinances:

    http://tinyurl.com/yhssdt

    This is just the notice. I didn't see any Plan Commission minutes posted on the village website, just agendas. Maybe you have to go to the village to get the minutes. But it appears what was proposed were amendments, and from the Landmark article, those amendments were approved.

    Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 01:10 #

  9. Elisa
    Member

    That's exactly what I read! Did you get from reading the Landmark that all three were approved? I saw that only the one about the driveways was approved. I don't know if the others were approved and not reported in the article. I also don't know if amendments are the same thing as variances.

    Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 01:13 #

  10. ChrisHajer
    Member

    I got that impression for two at least, the yard setback and the curb cuts. I don't know about the "minimum traffic aisle." My guess is that all three were approved as proposed.

    Also, amendments are permanent changes to the code; variances are a one time shot. These amendments are more permanent. And I just saw in that notice (I don't know if this is the exact language that was approved or not) that it wasn't just townhomes the exceptions were made for in the code (as noted in the Landmark), but for "townhouse and multi-family developments in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts."

    Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 01:19 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 3 4

Reply »

You must log in to post.