Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. Catherine
   Member

   The TOD plan states that downtown parking is used at 70% maximum, and Metra parking at 99% maximum and that commuters come from other towns to park here. Downtown parkers complain only about the maluse of existing spaces. Further, Metra does not provide funding for parking structures, even though the contemplated parking structure is intended, in part, for commuters. If we are paying for it, it should be for residents and visitors.
   Somewhere in the TOD, I cannot find it now, is why we cannot put a garage behind First American (the biggest waste of parking space downtown, IMO), but I cannot now find it. I do see that on p 2-12 there is a graph of a number of lots owned by Riverside, some or portions thereof are leased by Riverside, and that on graph 5-21, new surface parking is planned for numerous sites on Quincy and Burlington. Why not a garage there?

   I am not a fan of a garage, but I don't see how homeowners can sweat it out 23 years not knowing if their house will turn into a garage, and, yes, it will affect any resale value in the interim. Who would want to buy and settle in a house with that cloud hanging over it?

   This is not a rhetorical question. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

   Posted Thursday Dec 21, 2006 08:14 #

2. ChrisHajer
   Member

   Catherine, I was reading a copy of the TOD on the village website. It's an older copy I think, but it's nice because it's an original and not a scan so you can search and cut and paste. Here's a link to it. http://tinyurl.com/y2dr5k

   I don't recall seeing anything about WHY the bank parking cannot be used for a structure. Here is what I found in the document on page 2-18 that refers to the bank parking lot:

   The bank parking lot is of vital importance to the function of that institution. The parking lot, however, creates a large void in downtown and exposes to public view the rear building façade and parking areas of a medium density residential complex. Landscape enhancements are needed to restore a pedestrian orientation to this Quincy Street frontage. This site is envisioned as a long-term redevelopment site for mixed-use, and parking could be maintained as a function within a new structure.

   I didn't see any mention of talks or negotiation with the bank regarding parking in this version of the TOD. There was mention of discussion with St. Mary's about their parking lot on page 2-16 and 2-18:

   These sites, depicted with dashed red lines, are large surface parking lots with very little landscape interest or streetwall continuity. The site located on Burlington is a church parking lot that provides parking for parishioners on weekends, and parking for church school students on schooldays. The site located on Quincy is a bank parking lot.

   The church lot is a highly visible land use in downtown though it is not used to capacity throughout the week. Meanwhile, parking within the business district is in short supply. Although past conversations with the church regarding shared use of this parking lot have not resulted in agreement, this dialogue should be continued for the good of downtown and the Riverside community.

   Arrangements should be made whereby the Village is able to utilize the southernmost portion of the lot for shared business district parking, while the northernmost section is reserved for the church school parking. Rent and liability limitation agreements could be enacted in exchange for use of this important downtown asset. The Village may also consider partnering in the construction of significant landscape and fence screening improvements to restore a pedestrian orientation to the Burlington frontage. This site is envisioned as a long-term redevelopment site for mixed-use, and parking could be maintained as a function within a new structure.

   That's all I recall from the TOD regarding the bank parking and St. Mary's.

   Posted Saturday Dec 23, 2006 15:28 #

3. HollyMachina
   Member

   The email was sent to me today:

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: riversidenewsflash
   To: me
   Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:10 PM
   Subject: RTA Parking Study Grant Denied

   On Thursday, January 11th, the Village of Riverside received notification from the Regional Transportation Authority that its application for a 2007 Regional Technical Assistance Program grant had not been accepted. The grant would have funded a study of parking in the Central Business District. The Village staff will be evaluating other grant opportunities available to fund the parking study.

   http://tinyurl.com/27aqs7

   I encourage everyone to sign up for these email alerts. You can do it through the Village website.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 15:54 #

4. Catherine
   Member

   Chris, yes, I do not get it either re the space behind First American. Then again, at the last meeting Wiaduck dismissed the parking structure as absurd and something that wasn't going to happen, or words to that effect.

   Personally, if I had a kid at St Mary's, I wouldn't want who knows who parking near them, or perhaps on them. But that is their business and that of the relevant parents.

   Yes, I just saw that alert. Don't know whether it is good or bad. Isn't Judy Baar Topinka on that Board now. [NOT that that is relevant.]

   Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 16:24 #

5. MikeT
   Member

   I notice that the flash email on the village web site does not say why the application was denied. Anyone know why?

   And, does anyone know me why the Village was asking for this grant in the first place?

   miket

   Posted Thursday Jan 18, 2007 11:37 #

6. corbi328
   Member

   This is the grant that was mentioned by Katie Rush in one of the recent Board meetings. The grant would have funded a parking study aimed at determining whether or not there is a need for additional parking and, if so, where. The grant was denied presumably because there were other projects that were deemed more appropriate for the grant. No reason has to be given.

   Posted Thursday Jan 18, 2007 12:40 #

7. KathleenRush
   Member

   Catherine,

   There were no specific reasons provided as to why the grant was denied. It is a competitive grant program and as with grant programs, there are factors that are weighed in evaluating each submittal.

   There is no reason why the location you prefer cannot be considered for a parking structure. However, as previously stated, a parking structure is not the preferred means to address any parking challenges. The first step in the process is to make sure that the parking we have is optimized. The next is to do a study to evaluate where parking might best be placed based upon an analysis of demand (the professional study).

   The locations for the expansion of parking in the TOD study were identified by the residents who were present during the workshop. They were given the opportunity to indicate where they felt parking would best be located. It was an subjective result tempered with the physical aspects of the buildings in the CBD and where a structure might blend in and an acknowledgement that it could serve multiple purposes (commuters, apartment residents, customers, employees).
   Katy Rush, Village Manager 447-9987

   Posted Thursday Jan 18, 2007 16:32 #

8. Catherine
   Member

   Thank you KathleenRush. I'm sorry, but which workshop was that at which the parking structure was discussed. I saw a couple of workshops for taxing bodies, but that's all I recall.

   I wondered why we would put any parking structure up to serve, in part, commuters, near Metra since they do not fund parking structures.

   I was glad to hear you say in a meeting that you (plural) were looking at maximizing the use of the parking space we have, because I think if it could all be more mixed use and made to flow together as one - to the maximum extent possible - we would find we have even more than we presently experience. The First American lot is a good example of underutilization.

   Posted Thursday Jan 18, 2007 19:50 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.