Comments on: Protected Parkland? http://www.riversideinfo.org Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:57:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: spatny http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-52 spatny Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:21:45 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-52 At the EDC meeting on Thursday I asked Ms. Rush repeatedly what that small building and parking lot shown on the TOD study maps were, and she denied any knowledge of them, couldn't recall what they were and said she didn't remember any such building there. Later I looked at a copy of that study with one of the EDC members and sure enough, not only that small building and parking lot were right there on the map but also a much larger building where the police and fire parking lot is now. I have to say that I find many of the machinations of our Village government to be totally disingenuous. When I pointed out to Ms. Rush several days ago that the Village Center building now seems to have grown or else has changed it's look because it now has seven equal sized window openings on the second floor of the west facade instead of the six shown in the plan that has been widely circulated and which has been attached to the fence of the project by the developer, I have received no satisfactory explanation. Has this project grown even wider? Are there more apartments contained within? If there are changes to the exterior have they been approved by the appropriate committees and duly recorded with the building department? Who knows - Ms. Rush doesn't appear to, or at least won't say. At the EDC meeting on Thursday I asked Ms. Rush repeatedly what that small building and parking lot shown on the TOD study maps were, and she denied any knowledge of them, couldn’t recall what they were and said she didn’t remember any such building there. Later I looked at a copy of that study with one of the EDC members and sure enough, not only that small building and parking lot were right there on the map but also a much larger building where the police and fire parking lot is now.

I have to say that I find many of the machinations of our Village government to be totally disingenuous. When I pointed out to Ms. Rush several days ago that the Village Center building now seems to have grown or else has changed it’s look because it now has seven equal sized window openings on the second floor of the west facade instead of the six shown in the plan that has been widely circulated and which has been attached to the fence of the project by the developer, I have received no satisfactory explanation. Has this project grown even wider? Are there more apartments contained within? If there are changes to the exterior have they been approved by the appropriate committees and duly recorded with the building department? Who knows – Ms. Rush doesn’t appear to, or at least won’t say.

]]> By: spatny http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-50 spatny Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:53:07 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-50 Ms. Rush - thank you for your answers, but I must point out that you refer to Parklands and not all the open spaces in the center of town that people think are parks are in fact protected by that designation, For example, Centennial "Park" is not officially a "park." It is, in fact, still designated as an industrial site, which is presumeably the technicality that is being used to justify "exploring the possibility" of cutting some parking spaces from it. This must not happen. Similarly, the land south of the train depot is also not parkland (it used to be a lumber and coal business.) The issue of attaching it to Guthrie Park - which I'm sure would meet with favor by the vast majority of residents was raised last year at a Board meeting, but at that time I remember particularly Trustee Shields objecting to including it because "we might want to build something there." Presumeably he meant a parking lot or structure. This must not happen. On the river side of Riverside Road your TOD study shows a small building and parking lot south and east of the Swinging Bridge. Again, I think most people in the Village believe this land to be public park - it is shown in green on the Olmsted map, and as you know the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that what is green is parkland. Nothing - repeat NOTHING - should be built on that side of Riverside Road between the Town Hall and Blackhawk Grove, which is adjacent to Miller Rd. Ms. Rush – thank you for your answers, but I must point out that you refer to Parklands and not all the open spaces in the center of town that people think are parks are in fact protected by that designation, For example, Centennial “Park” is not officially a “park.” It is, in fact, still designated as an industrial site, which is presumeably the technicality that is being used to justify “exploring the possibility” of cutting some parking spaces from it. This must not happen.

Similarly, the land south of the train depot is also not parkland (it used to be a lumber and coal business.) The issue of attaching it to Guthrie Park – which I’m sure would meet with favor by the vast majority of residents was raised last year at a Board meeting, but at that time I remember particularly Trustee Shields objecting to including it because “we might want to build something there.” Presumeably he meant a parking lot or structure. This must not happen.

On the river side of Riverside Road your TOD study shows a small building and parking lot south and east of the Swinging Bridge. Again, I think most people in the Village believe this land to be public park – it is shown in green on the Olmsted map, and as you know the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that what is green is parkland. Nothing – repeat NOTHING – should be built on that side of Riverside Road between the Town Hall and Blackhawk Grove, which is adjacent to Miller Rd.

]]> By: Kathleen F. Rush http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-42 Kathleen F. Rush Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:17:22 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-42 Anonymous 2 The Village received an Illinois Transportation Enhancement Grant (ITEP) to improve the grounds of Centennial Plaza, East Avenue and Pine Avenue in front of the train depot. This is an IDOT grant that will be completed in three phases. We have engaged our engineer to complete phase I and II. We are just starting design and no decision has been made regarding any additional parking. The opportunity has been raised and will be explored through design concepts. We have found alternative designs are easier to review than to forgo an opportunity and have hindsight planning kick in later. The aspect will be thoroughly discussed at the Village Board level with input from the Preservation Commission. The LAC will also have input on the landscape improvements. The Water Reservoir (rectangular building)which was located at the SW corner was removed last year as a part of the decommissioning. At that time, there was a suggestion made that maybe we should consider some parking as a trade-off as the access road will be removed and additional green space created unifying the park area. I hope this explains the current status and how the process will work. Katy Rush Anonymous 2

The Village received an Illinois Transportation Enhancement Grant (ITEP) to improve the grounds of Centennial Plaza, East Avenue and Pine Avenue in front of the train depot. This is an IDOT grant that will be completed in three phases. We have engaged our engineer to complete phase I and II. We are just starting design and no decision has been made regarding any additional parking. The opportunity has been raised and will be explored through design concepts. We have found alternative designs are easier to review than to forgo an opportunity and have hindsight planning kick in later. The aspect will be thoroughly discussed at the Village Board level with input from the Preservation Commission. The LAC will also have input on the landscape improvements.

The Water Reservoir (rectangular building)which was located at the SW corner was removed last year as a part of the decommissioning. At that time, there was a suggestion made that maybe we should consider some parking as a trade-off as the access road will be removed and additional green space created unifying the park area. I hope this explains the current status and how the process will work.

Katy Rush

]]> By: Anonymous 2 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Anonymous 2 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:39:33 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-40 Ms. Rush, There is a plan to re-landscape the Centennial park (it already has started around the museum). I heard that on the west side part of the park will be turned into parking. In other words: a part of the green area will be carved out to be paved over for parking spots. Is it true? If it is, how is it possible? Thanks, Anonymous 2 P.S. Whatever the differences between our ways of thinking - it is really decent of you to take time to discuss things on this forum. It is appreciated. Ms. Rush,
There is a plan to re-landscape the Centennial park (it already has started around the museum). I heard that on the west side part of the park will be turned into parking. In other words: a part of the green area will be carved out to be paved over for parking spots. Is it true? If it is, how is it possible?
Thanks,
Anonymous 2
P.S. Whatever the differences between our ways of thinking – it is really decent of you to take time to discuss things on this forum. It is appreciated.

]]> By: http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:53:53 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-37 Thank you Ms Rush.  That is a great relief.  I thought I read in the TOD that the 1913 structure was considered inadequate and needed to be replaced.  Also, the riverside improvements were not enumerated.   I read in the paper that some Trustees were baffled by some of the opposition.  Perhaps you would find it worthwhile to receive questions and add the answers to the FAQ section.  I read in the paper they wanted to educate the public further.  I think perhaps some drawings of what is had in mind would constitute that "plan" that was also found curious.   Best regards. Thank you Ms Rush.  That is a great relief.  I thought I read in the TOD that the 1913 structure was considered inadequate and needed to be replaced.  Also, the riverside improvements were not enumerated.
 
I read in the paper that some Trustees were baffled by some of the opposition.  Perhaps you would find it worthwhile to receive questions and add the answers to the FAQ section.  I read in the paper they wanted to educate the public further.  I think perhaps some drawings of what is had in mind would constitute that “plan” that was also found curious.
 
Best regards.

]]> By: Kathleen F. Rush http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Kathleen F. Rush Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:16:11 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-35 The Village has no intention of building any structure in Swan Pond beyond stormwater management and repair of the structures that are already existing. I will be certain to request the Board consider a stronger policy statement when the Board revisits this in a few months. The Board recognizes the absolute need to preserve this resource. There are no new buildings planned for Centennial. The SW well house is presently under rehabilitation with grant dollars to become the historic museum's exhibit space. The Parks and Rec will be opening their rehabilitated new office and program space in early January. There is a report/plan for the Historic Water Tower that provides that a visitor's center would ultimately be a part of this existing space when it becomes the Museum, but that is not contemplated as we need the location at present for the Parks and Rec operations. I believe a copy of that report, done around 2000 by Antunovich Associates, is in the library. The Village has no intention of building any structure in Swan Pond beyond stormwater management and repair of the structures that are already existing. I will be certain to request the Board consider a stronger policy statement when the Board revisits this in a few months. The Board recognizes the absolute need to preserve this resource.

There are no new buildings planned for Centennial. The SW well house is presently under rehabilitation with grant dollars to become the historic museum’s exhibit space. The Parks and Rec will be opening their rehabilitated new office and program space in early January.

There is a report/plan for the Historic Water Tower that provides that a visitor’s center would ultimately be a part of this existing space when it becomes the Museum, but that is not contemplated as we need the location at present for the Parks and Rec operations. I believe a copy of that report, done around 2000 by Antunovich Associates, is in the library.

]]> By: http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:48:07 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-30 Ms Rush,   Yes, thank you for your time.  We await an answer as to what are the "riverside improvements" contemplated at Swan Pond down to the river and whether they include public structures.    I would also object to a new public structure at the Water Tower to make a Visitor's Center and believe rehabbing the 1913 structure there would be a vastly preferable option.     Ms Rush,
 
Yes, thank you for your time.  We await an answer as to what are the “riverside improvements” contemplated at Swan Pond down to the river and whether they include public structures. 
 
I would also object to a new public structure at the Water Tower to make a Visitor’s Center and believe rehabbing the 1913 structure there would be a vastly preferable option.
 
 

]]> By: Kim Jacobs http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Kim Jacobs Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:17:44 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-28 Ms. Rush, Thank you so much for taking the time to answer these questions. You stated above “No Village park areas will be developed into residential or commercial uses.” Which leaves open the availability for the "public use" option. In many communities, "public use" has been defined as a museum, police station, library, community center and even parking structures. Is it possible to add in the redevelopment plan language that NO structure will be built upon public land for ANY use, even that deemed for "public" use. Thanks so much. Kim Jacobs Ms. Rush,

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer these questions.

You stated above
“No Village park areas will be developed into residential or commercial uses.”

Which leaves open the availability for the “public use” option.

In many communities, “public use” has been defined as a museum, police station, library, community center and even parking structures.

Is it possible to add in the redevelopment plan language that NO structure will be built upon public land for ANY use, even that deemed for “public” use.

Thanks so much.

Kim Jacobs

]]> By: Catherine Love http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Catherine Love Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:41:53 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-27 Thank you Ms Rush. My concern was rather that the Village would develop or construct a building on Swan Pond/Park. Is there any plan for that? Yes, it is certainly beautiful and the widest open space in town. Thank you Ms Rush. My concern was rather that the Village would develop or construct a building on Swan Pond/Park. Is there any plan for that?

Yes, it is certainly beautiful and the widest open space in town.

]]> By: Kathleen F. Rush http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Kathleen F. Rush Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:40:26 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/protected-parkland/#comment-26 Ms. Love and Anonymous, On page 13 of the draft redevelopment plan, there is a statement "No Village park areas will be developed into resiential or commercial uses." This is an absolute statement included in the plan by the Village Board to address the concerns raised initially that there was some inappropriate use implemented. The improvements contemplated for Swan pond would include a storm water management system to include river bank stabilization and riverfront improvements. The park area is used for soccer and other outdoor activities. It is a beautiful feature of the community, but when water persists on the surface subsequent to the River level being reduced, it results in a less than desireable condition for many weeks. The Village Engineer was previously employed by the US Army Corp. He has not raised any issues about a potential repair of the WPA wall, but I am sure if and when we ever get to funding and completing that project, the Village will be heavily involved and consulting with the IDNR and the US ACofE. These entities will ensure that we will not do anything inappropriate that will result in issues that affect water quality. Ms. Love and Anonymous,

On page 13 of the draft redevelopment plan, there is a statement “No Village park areas will be developed into resiential or commercial uses.” This is an absolute statement included in the plan by the Village Board to address the concerns raised initially that there was some inappropriate use implemented. The improvements contemplated for Swan pond would include a storm water management system to include river bank stabilization and riverfront improvements. The park area is used for soccer and other outdoor activities. It is a beautiful feature of the community, but when water persists on the surface subsequent to the River level being reduced, it results in a less than desireable condition for many weeks.

The Village Engineer was previously employed by the US Army Corp. He has not raised any issues about a potential repair of the WPA wall, but I am sure if and when we ever get to funding and completing that project, the Village will be heavily involved and consulting with the IDNR and the US ACofE. These entities will ensure that we will not do anything inappropriate that will result in issues that affect water quality.

]]>