Subdivisions? I heard from someone that there was a relaxation on the subdivision requirement, making it easier to subdivide. I wonder if this is something to do with it?
It is not in RIverside's best interest to make it easier to do property subdivisions.
Elisa, make sure you specifically ask this question to the board. Copy and paste your question and Use the contact trustees function on this site.
tell us what the answers are to your question - after you get permission from them.
miket
Mike,
I don't know if it will make it easier to subdivide, because I don't know what the original code said. I suppose that I should make hard copies of things because they have a way of disappearing or changing after I see them. My chicken-scratch notes are not detailed enough! To be fair, the material that was given the Plan Commission after the fact included an article on McMansions -
http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.aspx?cp-documentid=418653
I don't know how the repeal in code helped that out, but again...my question speaks to the sleight of hand that I see (or don't see?!)
On January 22 - 7:30 p, the Plan Commission will consider a minor site plan amendment for the west facade. Mr. Spatny did call this to our attention. We appreciate his concern. The matter will be addressed by the Plan Commission. The Preservation Commission did revisit this matter last week and did not have any concerns about the change in the window pattern.
The Village Board did rescind sections of the Village Code to allow subdivisions. This was a topic of Village Board meetings. Two lots have proceed through the process. There are very few lots that can actually even be considered under the subdivision regulations and meet the minimum lot standards.
We continue to work out the kinks on the minutes posting. I will look into it and get the issues remedied.
Kathleen Rush
Village Manager
Katy ~ Thanks for explaining the rescinding of those sections and the purpose behind it. I am trying to see the connection, though, between the article that was presented to the Plan Commission when they were given the information about the Municipal Code. How is allowing lots to be more easily subdivided solving any potential problem with McMansions? Isn't having two houses on a lot where there was only one making our village more dense? Isn't having two houses on a lot where there was only one making it more likely that the houses would be too large for the lot size? Or maybe the article didn't have anything to do with the rescinding of the sections of the code. Could you please explain?
Katy,
Some questions on the sub division rescission.
Is this sub division rescission have to do with the B2 zone or with the other non B2 space?
Do you know how many lots would be affected by the rescission of the sub division ordinance?
miket
I just received a letter from the Village Manager in response to an FOIA request regarding any approval by the Preservation Commission and the Building Department for changes in the VC development. The change in window placement in the west facade of the VC. Ms Rush states: "Your request for records is denied because the Preservation Commission did not approve any changes and no documentation exists." What she neglects to say is that the Building Department was not even aware of this until it was pointed out to them. It is now on the agenda for the Jan. 22 Planning Commission meeting.
I wonder which would be worse on that building: more windows or more brickface? Perhaps they will claim they cannot survive financially without that extra window.
Catherine - the entire "design" is preposterous, but I wanted to point out that our process is broken down. The Building Department issued a permit based on an exterior design that was never vetted by the appropriate commission, just as they let the Library Circle be poured without a permit. Where does the buck stop? Who signs those permits? Why did a mistake there cause the rebate of more than $40,000 in fees back to the Delaplaine Crossing developer? There should be some accountability, becuase with all this "development" there could be more serious mistakes made.
Katy ~ Regarding your statement earlier "We continue to work out the kinks on the minutes posting. I will look into it and get the issues remedied. " I really hope so. When I reviewed the Plan Commission minutes to follow the discussion of the variances for 21 Herbert and the subdivision issue, I had another hard time tracking what was discussed. Examples:
There are no minutes posted for the Plan Commission from the following meetings in 2006 ~
1.) April 18
2.) Special Meeting on June 5
3.) regular meeting w/ Public Hearing on Sept. 25
4.) the Special Joint Meeting on Sept. 26 (w/ Board of Trustees, Plan Commission, Preservation Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and LAC)
5.) October 23
6.) the Special Meeting on November 7
7.) the Special Meeting on November 11
8.) November 27
Other minutes were included (1/23, 2/27, 3/23, 4/24, 6/12, 7/24, 8/28). There were minutes from several Special Meetings that were held in 2005. Is it significant that the missing minutes (according to the Agenda for each) had to do with the topics that we are asking about here? I refer to the R3 and R4 zoning areas, corner lot density, the 3 variations to zoning ordinances (concerned with lot width, lot frontage for the 21 Herbert property), the subdivision application for 315 Lionel, and the review/discussion of 21 Herbert. Why is it that all of the interesting stuff is not there? :) I look forward to reading the minutes when all of the kinks are worked out. Thank you.
two quick things:
1) I;d like to see the minutes, too. Now that we all are using the internet more, let's try to use this great vehicle to its fullest to get maximum transparency and communication.
2) since they are getting windows or bricks or some such change in, if mr mlade is reading ths, can you increase the height of the mini tower to make the cone congruent with the other towers in the center of town?
You must log in to post.