Catherine, what makes you think taverns *are* going to be allowed, other than Spatny's video suggestions?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Resident Comments on what you think about the B1 rezoning...
(23 posts)-
Posted Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 07:37 #
-
Just these 3 paragraphs from Flight's post:
"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."
Posted Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 09:27 # -
Chris, Taverns were put back in in the last joint session between the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees held last Wednesday.
Idic5, Riverside Township along with several other higher income townships in Cook County
-
are singled out
for this tax treatment. It is not every township that qualify for the reduction. Riverside, Lyons, Schaumburg and Barrington and a select few others are on the list.
What is wrong with the concept is that a Section 8 tenant has the majority of their rent paid by the Cook County Housing Authority - which gets most of the funding from the Federal Government. Why should an owner of an investment property get a tax break when the rent is guaranteed by the federal government? The latest spending binge aside, that is a better credit risk than anyone posting on this board. The assessment should actually be
-
HIGHER
because the rent is guaranteed. Also, the townships they target, except for areas of downtown Chicago, pay more taxes and higher assessments than the remainder of Cook County. If the program is supported by the county does it make sense to reduce the assessments in main areas that support the county?
Posted Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 09:40 # -
Chris/Mike - fear not, our Village President and his minions are looking out for us and any new establishment wanting a license will have to "earn its spurs". This was another one of those deals where you need to listen closely to every word as things change 180 degrees in the course of a meeting. Deal, deal, deal...
Posted Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 10:04 # -
Nonsense. Calvetti's is already violating the noise ordinance. The other night my husband could hear from the train platform what he said sounded like karaoke Alanis Morissette. That is sound more than 50 feet from its source. That's fine for those that live in the CBD and expect a "happening" lifestyle, apparently. Somehow I don't think the folks who live behind Harlem signed up for that.
If they are allowing a tavern zone subject to the discretion of the board or president, they are allowing a tavern zone as Flight said. So, which is it?
Posted Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 10:26 # -
That's interesting, because we were told at the Board meeting that in order for a licensed establishment to have live entertainment they need to have a public hearing, and pay a $1000. fee, EVERYTIME. Is it possible that our ever vigilant admin and police do not enforce this? What is this world coming to...
Posted Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 11:37 # -
If it was karaoke - there was NO desire to inquire further - it likely does not qualify as entertainment, any more than patrons singing 100 bottles of beer on the wall. Indeed, they should have paid their neighbors to listen to it.
The noise problem remains. NIMBY.
Posted Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 11:51 # -
My present understanding is that as of the last meeting, "taverns" must include a significant kitchen and must serve food, and will not be permitted adjacent to residential areas, effectively leaving Burlington and Harlem and the northerly part of Harlem the two possible locations, and that all this will be written into law. This strikes me as something that will satisfy everyone.
If anyone hears a change on this, please post.
Posted Thursday Feb 19, 2009 16:45 # -
Latest Landmark on the B1 zoning
http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=4730&TM=48515.13
3/10/2009 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
Riverside trustees compromise on B1
Taverns, 4-story buildings in, but restrictedBy BOB UPHUES
EditorA month after considering dropping taverns and four-story buildings from a proposed revision of the B1 commercial zoning code, Riverside's village trustees voted 4-2 on March 3 to allow both as special uses in certain circumstances on Harlem Avenue and East Burlington Street.
...
Posted Wednesday Mar 11, 2009 12:29 # -
The Board did not compromise. Planning Commission wanted bars. They didn't get them. The places have to build kitchens and serve food. No one objected to that. I don't know why Uphues insists on editorializing on this issue when he is supposed to be reporting on it.
Posted Wednesday Mar 11, 2009 13:00 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.