http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Discussion Forum for Riverside Illinois en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:39:49 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/latest-parking-lot-plan#post-13406 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:02:00 +0000 EricSundstrom 13406@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>A parking study done in the middle of the summer, over a short period of time ,is not truly comprehensive nor a true indicator of parking needs in the CBD ( to me at least). Once the economy is back in full swing ,with the Arcade &#38; VC buildings being finished and hopefully rented out, there WILL be a need for additional parking. The vacant lots on Burlington should be used for parking as was the original intent for their purchase. Sticking to a talking point from an old election platform, in the face of true need, is idiotic at best. Lets hope the gentlemen of the RCA can see their way to reason. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/latest-parking-lot-plan#post-13396 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:23:08 +0000 JohnM 13396@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Almost exactly a year ago today, pursuant to the "Shevitz Parking Study," the Village Board authorized a Resolution to authorize the Village Manager to negotiate and execute a lease of agreement with the Riverside Masonic Temple for public use of their private parking, on the west side of their building at 40 Forest Avenue.</p> <p>Since we're clearly not getting anything resembling parking on the Burlington lots, I wonder what's up with the discussions with the Masons. Did I miss the resolution of this, or are we still talking to them? </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/parking-lot-on-burlington/page/14#post-11464 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:39:14 +0000 chrisrobling 11464@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I keep meaning to note that the Village apparentlky levelled to lots and then covered them with one of those bio-mixes that seeds and fertilizes. The two look cared for and considerably better than they did. Thanks to whomever. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/burlington-boardwalk/page/2#post-11405 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:58:14 +0000 spatny 11405@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Cafe Europa - Vienna. Better with planters. Only needs to be in front of Chew Chew and Grumpy's - just three spaces lost.</p> <p>There's a good pic here.</p> <p><a href="http://tupalo.com/en/vienna/cafe-europa" rel="nofollow">http://tupalo.com/en/vienna/cafe-europa</a> </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/burlington-boardwalk/page/2#post-11404 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:50:49 +0000 spatny 11404@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>The idea is to have the tables on the present sidewalk, up against the restaurant, and have the sidewalk meander outward around them. The planters keep the sidewalk space protected from traffic. You don't want people walking between the present restaurant space and the outdoor tables. This way, you merely have to set up the planters to block the new sidewalk space, on the current street, from the cars. The sidewalk as is is not that wide that it can comfortably accommodate both tables, seating and pedestrians. You only need to leave about 4-5 feet of street space inboard of the planters, and just ramp the curbs at each end. The street becomes wider. Pedestrians and bicycles are outboard of the tables. Then, if you need to dig something up in the street there is nothing to destroy. Commonsense. (pardon the pun.)</p> <p>Here's one in Highland Park.<br /> <a href="http://www.cafecentral.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cafecentral.net/</a> </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/burlington-boardwalk/page/2#post-11403 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:15:30 +0000 Kelly 11403@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>While I also see the benefit in the movable planter idea, I think I'd feel safer sitting in the street behind a brick wall. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/burlington-boardwalk/page/2#post-11402 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:46:02 +0000 anonymous 11402@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I agree. Try it out with movable planters. See how it works. The "what if" scenario comes to my mind too, I hate to say. Permanent and at what cost? There have been so many businesses to come and go in Riverside. I know that Scott has invested a lot of money in his new restaurant but we are in very tense times. Try it, we may like it. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/burlington-boardwalk#post-11401 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:39:01 +0000 CuriousResident 11401@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I like the idea of trying out a "low cost temporary experiment" versus an "all or nothing/built for posterity" approach.</p> <p>That way we can learn for sure the impact of it and simply revert it back (at low loss) if the trade offs are deemed not worth it. And if it works out, we can "upgrade" the build level the following year. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/burlington-boardwalk#post-11400 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:30:29 +0000 Kelly 11400@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>It seems that Shevitz wants to move forward with the boardwalk. While I agree with many of the points made, I’m afraid he and the board will “what-if” this idea into oblivion.</p> <p>The lack of parking seems to be the re-occurring theme and an impediment to progress around here. I don’t mean to keep harping on the Burlington Lots -- I love the green space, but if the lack of parking is holding us back, why not embrace the solution? </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/burlington-boardwalk#post-11399 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:16:37 +0000 Kelly 11399@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Here is the reply from Mark Shevitz:</p> <blockquote><p>I support the concept of a boardwalk on Burlington. I think it would be great for the businesses in that section of the CBD, and nice for residents as well. I think slowing down traffic is a good idea, too. In some ways, it takes advantage of the fact that our CBD is not as heavily trafficked as, say LaGrange.</p> <p>There are a few issues that need to get sorted out before we can make an informed decision about how to proceed on this:</p> <p>1. How will it be paid for? An SSA for the condo building that the bump-out would be a part of? Should the village taxpayers pay for it? A mix of both? Initial estimates for this have run from $50,000 (Scott Zimmer) to $200,000 (Greg Koch, our Director of Public Works).</p> <p>2. Would this bump-out be leased to businesses that want/use it? Given to businesses? Who would carry the liability insurance, especially if alcohol is being served in a public area and waitstaff is walking across a sidewalk to serve patrons?</p> <p>3. I believe that Chief Weitzel has expressed concerns about bumping out a seating area into a active roadway, even with speed bumps. Issues around safety would need to be more closely looked at, as well as any related insurance issues that might result from this. </p> <p>4. Doug Pollack pointed out that the bump-out would remove seven parking spots from the street, and street parking is significantly more valuable than off-street parking. Doug warned the EDC that he has seen businesses fail because of losing a few spots from in front of their business. The bump-out would eliminate all street parking in front of at least four businesses in our CBD.</p> <p>5. If the village does this for the businesses on the 30 block of Burlington, what happens when, say, the Village Center asks the village to do something similar for them? Or other businesses ask the same thing? How do we keep from losing more street parking and incurring more costs to the taxpayers in order to build more bump-outs? How many bump-outs are too many in the CBD?</p> <p>6. Is everyone in the CBD for this? For example, is Riverside Foods okay with having a speed bump out in the street in front of the driveway to their parking lot? I don't know - no one has asked them as far as I know. I have heard from one of the condo owners in the 33/36 E. Burlington building (the one that the bump-out is supposed to cover) and they have told me that no one had asked them about their opinion of it. </p> <p>7. Are there other things that we would not be able to do in the CBD if we move forward with this bump-out? Would this preclude us from doing other types of upgrades to the Burlington business corridor? </p> <p>And there may be other considerations that we need to keep in mind as we work on an answer as to whether to proceed on this or not. </p> <p>Again, I think in theory this is a great idea that would enhance the CBD. I love it as an idea. Until we know what it costs, how it will be paid for, how it affects the overall CBD, and even whether it would bring significant incremental business to places like Grumpy's and Chew Chew, I don't think we're in a position to say "yes, let's move ahead with this." I think it's important to ask questions like the ones above before making significant investments of time, money and resources in projects. For too long, I think we've been in the habit of spending first and asking questions later. Peter is working on a process for getting answers to questions like these, and I suspect the Board will be discussing this and other options for enhancing the CBD in the coming weeks.</p> <p>So here's my question for you: how do you think that the bump-out should be funded? Let's say that it costs $150,000. What percent should the businesses that are using it pay for building it, and what portion should the village pay? And given the financial situation of the village, how should the village portion be funded? </p></blockquote>