Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Turf Valley Redline (SDP 10-056)

Expand Messages
  • beengland@...
    Marc, This is what Redline should be used for MINOR MONIFICATIONS (from DPZ website). Redline process The Development Engineering Division is responsible for
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Marc, This is what Redline should be used for MINOR MONIFICATIONS (from DPZ website). Redline process

      The Development Engineering Division is responsible for the redline review process which is used when minor modifications or revisions are required for active or inactive commercial site development plans, residential site development plans, road construction plans or public water and sewer plans.

      I called the Development Engineering Division and they told me that they do 32 redlines a month! This has been turned into a fast track process that avoids any INPUT! Also Notice of the use of the Redline process can be as little as 10 days and NO posting is required. 

      The planning board is asleep on the job too......... 

      Proof of this came when I attended a Planning Board meeting on May 24th 2012, I listened to four members of the Planning Board reviewed the developers request to use a Redline process,

       

      Josh Tzuker said "Are we going to roll over like we normally do" the board chair David Grabowski replied in a nervous light hearted way "I think you will regret saying that"

       

      True to Josh's prediction they all did roll over except for Josh, thank you Josh, but the developer got what he wanted a short cut process for a large project.

       

      Brian

       



       




      From: "Marc Norman" <marcnorman@...>
      To: "Marsha' 'McLaughlin" <mmclaughlin@...>
      Cc: "Laura' 'Boone" <lboone@...>, "Kimberley' 'Flowers" <kflowers@...>, "David' 'Boellner" <dboellner@...>, "CouncilMail" <CouncilMail@...>, planningboard@...
      Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:05:00 PM
      Subject: Turf Valley Redline (SDP 10-056)

      Marsha,

       

      It’s been over a week since I first posed the questions below. There has been particular concern about DPZ’s decision to allow the “redline” addition of a six story tower.  Is this standard practice?  My understanding is that the Planning Board members were not supportive until they were told by DPZ that they had no choice but to approve this redline.  While I appreciate how busy you and your staff are, it would be most helpful if you could provide answers to our community in advance of Thursday’s Planning Board meeting.

       

      Regards,

       

      Marc

      410-418-8666

       


      From: Marc Norman [mailto:marcnorman@...]
      Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 1:16 PM
      To: 'McLaughlin, Marsha'
      Cc: 'Boone, Laura'; 'Flowers, Kimberley'; 'Boellner, David'
      Subject: RE: Planning Board Decision on Turf Valley Redline (SDP 10-056)

       

      Marsha,

       

      I was hoping you could help me get answers to these questions before the weekend.  Also, does DPZ generally consider a six story tower (12.5’ x 12.5’) to be an accessory structure that can be added to an SDP through the redline process?

       

      Thank you.

       

      Marc

       


      From: Marc Norman [mailto:marcnorman@...]
      Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 12:25 PM
      To: 'McLaughlin, Marsha'
      Cc: 'Boone, Laura'; 'Flowers, Kimberley'; 'Boellner, David'
      Subject: Planning Board Decision on Turf Valley Redline (SDP 10-056)

       

      Marsha,

       

      Can you please help me understand the status of the Planning Board’s consideration of the Turf Valley redline?  Has the application been approved?  What was the vote?  When was their decision signed?  What aspect of the redline application is scheduled to be discussed by the Planning Board on February 7 at 6:30?  Will this be a pre-meeting or on the record?  Will any agreement between Albeth residents and the developer be incorporated into the formal SDP approval?

       

      Thank you,

       

      Marc

       

       

       

    • Marc Norman 4G
      Kim, Thank you for the clarification. Regards, Marc Sent from my Verizon 4G smartphone Flowers, Kimberley wrote: Marc, DPZ decided the proposed entrance
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 7, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Kim,

        Thank you for the clarification.

        Regards,

        Marc

        Sent from my Verizon 4G smartphone




        "Flowers, Kimberley" wrote:

        Marc,

         

        DPZ decided the proposed entrance feature for Turf Valley will be added to the existing SDP using the redline revision process.  While redline revisions don’t typically get heard by the Planning Board, DPZ wants to ensure there is a forum for neighbors to provide feedback on the proposal.  The structure was initially considered a “monument”, for which the FDP places no height limit.  Since setback requirements do not explicitly address “monuments”, DPZ deems the proposed entrance feature to be a commercial structure, requiring a height limit of 120 feet and a setback of 30 feet. 

         

        At the previous Planning Board meeting, concerns related to height were addressed.  However, lighting remained a concern for the Albeth Heights community.  It is DPZ’s expectation that the lighting concerns will be addressed.   The Planning Board has not yet taken a vote on this matter.  The February 7th meeting will be on the record.  The agreement between the Albeth Heights community and the developer will be indicated on the redline document.

         

        I hope this helps.

         

        Kim

         

        From: Marc Norman <marcnorman@...>
        Date: February 5, 2013, 8:05:00 PM EST
        To: "McLaughlin, Marsha" <mmclaughlin@...>
        Cc: "Boone, Laura" <lboone@...>, "Flowers, Kimberley" <kflowers@...>, "Boellner, David" <dboellner@...>, CouncilMail <CouncilMail@...>, PlanningBoard <PlanningBoard@...>
        Subject: Turf Valley Redline (SDP 10-056)

        Marsha,

         

        It’s been over a week since I first posed the questions below. There has been particular concern about DPZ’s decision to allow the “redline” addition of a six story tower.  Is this standard practice?  My understanding is that the Planning Board members were not supportive until they were told by DPZ that they had no choice but to approve this redline.  While I appreciate how busy you and your staff are, it would be most helpful if you could provide answers to our community in advance of Thursday’s Planning Board meeting.

         

        Regards,

         

        Marc

        410-418-8666

         


        From: Marc Norman [mailto:marcnorman@...]
        Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 1:16 PM
        To: 'McLaughlin, Marsha'
        Cc: 'Boone, Laura'; 'Flowers, Kimberley'; 'Boellner, David'
        Subject: RE: Planning Board Decision on Turf Valley Redline (SDP 10-056)

         

        Marsha,

         

        I was hoping you could help me get answers to these questions before the weekend.  Also, does DPZ generally consider a six story tower (12.5’ x 12.5’) to be an accessory structure that can be added to an SDP through the redline process?

         

        Thank you.

         

        Marc

         


        From: Marc Norman [mailto:marcnorman@...]
        Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 12:25 PM
        To: 'McLaughlin, Marsha'
        Cc: 'Boone, Laura'; 'Flowers, Kimberley'; 'Boellner, David'
        Subject: Planning Board Decision on Turf Valley Redline (SDP 10-056)

         

        Marsha,

         

        Can you please help me understand the status of the Planning Board’s consideration of the Turf Valley redline?  Has the application been approved?  What was the vote?  When was their decision signed?  What aspect of the redline application is scheduled to be discussed by the Planning Board on February 7 at 6:30?  Will this be a pre-meeting or on the record?  Will any agreement between Albeth residents and the developer be incorporated into the formal SDP approval?

         

        Thank you,

         

        Marc

         

         

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.