Please folks, let everyone know how you feel about what they are proposing....
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Resident Comments on what you think about the B1 rezoning...
(23 posts)-
Posted Saturday Feb 14, 2009 11:43 #
-
OK - I'll go first. I think there is a total lack of understanding about traffic flow, and what will happen to the residences on the side roads that run east-west between Deleplaine and Harlem when people are hunting parking spots. Of course, those who don't live there and have to endure frustrated parkers hunting spots and pulling into driveways to turn around don't have to care about that, or allow anyone to speak about it at their meetings. I smell a ......
Posted Saturday Feb 14, 2009 12:01 # -
My perspective on the B-1 Zoning is from that of a neighbor who lives adjacent to a property being rezoned and that of retail real estate professional involved with the leasing, development and redevelopment of more than 15 million square feet of retail space.
My view is prodevelopment. My opinion of good development for Riverside is something that creates commercial real estate assessments and sales taxes.
Overall the B-1 Zoning District is good for Riverside. It can be an excellent tool for guiding future development and rationalizing some of the existing uses along two of Riverside’s main commercial corridors – Harlem Avenue (Rt. 43) and Ogden Avenue (Rt 34).
We should be encouraging any type of use which produces sales taxes, occupancy taxes or in special cases liquor taxes as long as they are produce with a restaurant.
We should not be encouraging high density residential housing along Harlem or Ogden which puts a larger load on schools and services without any significant offset in revenue to the Village of Riverside or School Districts. The very scary thing is someone on the planning commission mentioned last Wednesday is that we should be encouraging affordable housing. WHY? I didn't move here for affordable housing and if you look at the current apartment rental rates they are very affordable even compared to Forest Park and Oak Park. Additionally, the Cook County Housing Authority has a special program whereby if you lease to a Section 8 tenant in Riverside Township you qualify for a real estate tax assessment reduction. The twisted reasoning and what it is doing to our schools is too involved to get into in this thread.
My main concern is that TAVERNS are now back in the B-1. While they would be restricted to a very small area, HOW DO THEY ADD TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE? Once the Taverns are in some village board and some planning commission in the future is going to say "We allow them here - why not allow them in some other place".
A Tavern may create additional sales and liquor taxes but at what cost? Will the taxes offset the cost of additional police requirements?
The Plan Commission members all seemed to think that their idea of a tavern could be a quiet wine bar or cozy little specialty drink place. However, even with a special use permit and public hearings the next Plan Commission and Village Board might think it is a great idea to promote drinking establishments open till 2:00 or 4:00 am. Leaving the Tavern use in the B-1 Zoning opens the door to that possibility.
A lot of the individuals promoting development point to how successful Forest Park has been with attracting businesses to Madison Street. My wife and I both grew up in Forest Park and know full well the amenities associated with having a “tavern” down the street such as noise till 3:00 am (the drunks don’t leave right at 2:00 am closing), more crime, vandalism, garbage and all kinds of really nice people urinating and vomiting in your front, side and back yards. One guy even stripped off all his clothes took a shower with our hose. If we had wanted that we could have stayed in Forest Park for a lot less money.
I encourage the development of restaurants that serve liquor as an amenity to food.
With that in mind all of Harlem Avenue and all of Ogden Avenue should be included in the boundaries. The area along Ogden Avenue from Lionel to Miller Road should be included in the revision. Ogden Avenue is one of Riverside’s prime opportunities for retail sales tax revenues.
Financial institutions, office uses, schools and other service type of tenants should be required to get a special use permit unless they show they generate sales taxes. Berwyn has a retail overlay district along Cermak Road that does this.
Parking is another major issue in attracting retailers that produce sales taxes. Planners like to promote the concept of “new urbanism” with street front entrances and parking in the rear. Retailers hate that configuration and it penalizes Riverside as a location choice if that is required by the code. Additionally, the parking requirements of the code are way under-parked. A typical retail/commercial parking code 1/1000 square feet of building. Restaurants require more parking. The new B-1 code allows for 1/400 square feet of parking. Customers in these areas will be parking all over adjacent neighborhoods. It is even worse with the residential requirements. The planners all cheer for Transit Oriented Development but most households even when taking public transportation have 2 cars.
The design criterion eliminates the possibility of any type of modern architectural style. A healthy retail environment is created by varied styles and storefronts, not some knock-off version of a Victorian street front.
Signage – no post or pylon type signage should be allowed. Many communities including Oak Brook and Hinsdale do quite nicely with only allowing tasteful monument signs. L.E.D and reader board signs should also be prohibited along with any projecting signs. Signage should be based on building frontage along main street. Having it based on lot frontage could end up with an oversized sign. Signage width should not exceed 80 percent of the building frontage. All signage including window signage should be done with printer or professionally done. No hand painted signs.
Lastly, to my knowledge a cost/benefit analysis has never been done as to how much condo/multifamily development costs the existing tax payers. How much of a burden is place on village services, school district, county health facilities. Residential density costs more. Commercial density pays more taxes off setting existing residents tax bills.
If condominiums are allowed in the B-1 zoning district there should be an ordinance that not more than 20 to 25% of the building can be investor owned or rentals. Most communities in the Chicago area including Hillside and Schaumburg have this restriction. Additionally, they also require a one (1%) escrow held for 1 year on condominium conversions to cover defects in construction.
Some of the members of the village board have said this zoning exercise was merely to remedy what has been wrong in the past and bring it into alignment with the B-2. Why don't we use zoning the way it was intended? To attract the type of development that is both beneficial and wanted by the community?
Michael Flight
Posted Sunday Feb 15, 2009 11:24 # -
I think the concept that a restaurant would have to work its way up from no liquor license to beer & wine only to (maybe if the Village President thinks it is OK) a full bar license, as was discussed at the last Board meeting, would scare off any business faced with building out a spot. You can't operate that way in a competitive environment, which is what the Harlem corridor is. Parking will always be a problem on a highly trafficked State Route. It will be very difficult if not impossible to get curb breaks for driveways to serve rear parking, and if you do get them it destroys the urban streetscape this plan is supposed to favor. It seems that all the emphasis is being aimed at attracting some bigger establishment to the Harlem/Ogden site. Pity the poor neighbors if that would turn out to be some venue with entertainment or even a bar like Brixies or a Bar/Restaurant like Irish Times (which is a nice place.) I have a classmate that lived for 48 years in Riverside on Deleplaine and Olmsted and now has a big rancher on an acre of land in Oakbrook. Unfortunately, it is right behind the Drake's parking lot and they have had plenty of noise even there. We can't ask the people that bought homes in Riverside because they wante a tranquil environment and not overly crowded schools for their kids to accept this kind of planning. This is an established community with a long history of being peaceful and quiet, and most of the recent developmental moves undertaken are not going in that direction. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to save a little soap.
Posted Sunday Feb 15, 2009 11:46 # -
Maybe we could have a place like this at Harlem/Ogden. Check out the matchbox bit at the end...
But it would definitely need a liquor license, not just beer & wine...
Posted Sunday Feb 15, 2009 13:12 # -
A place like this with a good floor show would be great for the florists business...
Enjoy...
Posted Sunday Feb 15, 2009 13:20 # -
I am alarmed to learn that taverns are back in. How did this happen and in what area?
No, as to nightclubs, they don't make 'em like they used to: they are not civilized and glamorous any more, nor were they ever on tourist nights Friday and Saturday.
I agree the people near Harlem will have strangers parking on their streets, now it sounds like drunk ones, unless they are signed permit parking only. No parking planning, per usual sounds like.
As to multi-unit condos, well, a new school will need to be built first if things continue as they have been. You are correct there has been no study of the strain on municipal services, nor any study ever of traffic flow problems created by such buildings.
I have never perceived that the interest was in providing residents the services they wanted, but rather in generating tax revenue. This was demonstrated by a trustee proposing the referendum question whether we should allow first floor residences in the CBD when it is well-known people want businesses.
I feel sorry for the people who live near Harlem and near Ogden. I think it is divisive and wrong to ruin their property values and quality of life, to regard them as acceptable collateral damage. It is obvious that no one who is offering them up would likewise offer up their own homes for such treatment.
Fortunately, no one will be building anything for a long time to come.
Posted Monday Feb 16, 2009 07:38 # -
requesting just a quick answer here...
flight said--the Cook County Housing Authority has a special program whereby if you lease to a Section 8 tenant in Riverside Township you qualify for a real estate tax assessment reduction
I assume that this statute is not a special case for Riverside only, but for any town in the county. That is, Riverside is not singled out. Correct?
Posted Monday Feb 16, 2009 10:43 # -
Correct.
Posted Monday Feb 16, 2009 20:13 # -
Where is the place where taverns are now going to be allowed? Didn't the Board just say a couple of weeks ago that there would be NO taverns?
Posted Monday Feb 16, 2009 22:23 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.