Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

21. Catherine
    Member

    I'm sorry, wasn't nearly all the money to buy this property borrowed from the operating and capital budgets? I still don't get the magical free parking lot concept, call me stupid. I also don't see what a Plan Commission vote has to do with trustee Shevitz.

    Government on demand, as you know Tony, is a promise of transparency of government records by their availability on the website and not through teeth-pulling FOIA requests. The scornful and incorrect use of the term is getting old, which makes me wonder if it is a slogan of the party in exile.

    I don't find this recap informative. What happened, if you really care to inform and not just score political points?

    By the way, was the CBD expanded to include those lots? That zoning used to end with the Post Office building.

    What we need is more intelligent use of the space already available for parking, in my opinion, as was said during the CBD discussions. One reason the Burlington part of CBD is so unattractive is the street view open parking area there already.

    I certainly don't want a parking lot there. You know that if an opportunity ever arose in the past, present or future to sell that lot for a handsome sum, it would have or will happen with any Board, so why pretend now that this lot was set aside for this purpose? I think it just creates false expectations for the future. I would rather see village-owned property sold for cash or used to save the Arcade building, which is surely more critical to the future attractiveness of our CBD than this proposed parking lot.

    Posted Monday Jul 13, 2009 14:15 #

22. BethZ
    Member

    If this has been discussed already, I'm sorry - I missed it. But...what about using the Riverside Foods parking lot for evening parking? We went to Grumpy's the other night, and although there were some street parking spots open, there was also a completely empty lot right across the street. This does not help during the day, but I suppose that there is more of a need for the Chew-Chew to have additional parking available (both for employees and for diners) during the dinner hours than during lunchtime.

    Posted Monday Jul 13, 2009 20:56 #

23. spatny
    Member

    I remember that one of the tenets of the TOD study, the one the previous Board voted to adopt as the Official Vision for Riverside, was to not have street visible parking lots but rather have he parking behind and consolidate the lots so that the space could be shared. If this lot is constructed one would hope it would be shielded to a great extent from the street - you already have an ocean of asphalt right across from it at St. Mary's parking lot. Having these wide open asphalt covered and striped spaces on both sides of the street will certainly define the boundary of the CBD, but will be a pretty terrible segue into the residential zone.

    Posted Monday Jul 13, 2009 21:12 #

24. Catherine
    Member

    Yes, small downtowns depend greatly on the charm of closely packed businesses. We are not going to have this obviously. It is sad to see so many potential parking spaces going to waste while we spend time contemplating even more ugliness.

    Posted Wednesday Jul 15, 2009 11:26 #

25. commonsense
    Member

    Riverside Foods has what looks like a new sign posted "Parking for Riverside Foods Customers Only." I don't remember it being posted before. Apparently they voted no in the shared parking study.

    I was not able to find a parking spot last night and had to park in the St. Mary's lot. I'm sure they will posting a sign soon too.

    Posted Thursday Jul 23, 2009 13:18 #

26. TS
    Member

    Whether or not this becomes a permanent parking lot, the space looks terrible. What is wrong with making this a temporary lot? If you ride the bike trail into Oak Brook, just under 294, a very nice gravel parking lot was installed by the nature center. Fixing the lot would be a low cost solution. Those that might think the St. Mary lot is a solution to the village's parking woes are mistaken. This is a private parking lot and needs to be treated this way, nothing to do with being an accomodating neighbor.

    Posted Thursday Jul 23, 2009 13:39 #

27. EricSundstrom
    Member

    Throughout the day,you will find at various times that all the street parking on Burlington is being used at capacity. Regardless of what people think I can see with my own eyes that there is a need on a daily basis for additional parking in the CBD.Do it at the most reasonable cost but as the Larry the Cable guy catch phrase opines "Get er done". Why? Because the lots in question will not stay vacant forever. Something, a house, a commercial property, or a parking lot will go in there. Once/If a home or a building goes up in those lots the chance of using them to aid business's in town will be gone for the forseeable future. I think Catherine is wrong saying the CBD will never have a sustainable district. We will but it will be due to a shift in population no longer expanding outward into the far flung burbs. There is a predicted pull back of populations back to the large city hubs due to increased enrgy costs and water scarcity. This will occur over decades, but thats what this is all about. Long term planning and foresight.Saying we don't need the additional parking is saying the CBD will be gone in the future.

    Posted Thursday Jul 23, 2009 14:43 #

28. TS
    Member

    The business owners in town are screaming for parking. What happens when the Village Center adds a few businesses? Parking is needed, I don't get the response from the board. The argument that it cost x dollars per space just doesn't hold up. The viallage has already bought the land. How much more would it cost to truck in gravel and put in the cement wheel stops? Not much at all.

    Posted Thursday Jul 23, 2009 14:57 #

29. KimJ
    Member

    The gravel was voted down at the last meeting, right?

    Posted Thursday Jul 23, 2009 15:03 #

30. commonsense
    Member

    Shevitz was out to block the parking lot from the day he took office. He is trying to find a way to justify selling the property.

    First he said that we have no need for a parking lot. That didn't fly, so he tried the we can't afford it angle. That didn't work, so now he's out doing a shared parking study.

    Sure, shared parking might work for a few years, but what happens when the property owners change and the new owners don't want to share their spaces? Back to square one. But hey, what does he care, he will be out of office and it will be someone else's problem.

    The Village was able to acquire a prime piece of property, perfect to accommodate our needs. Why go for short term, short sighted solution when the long term solution is right in front of you.

    Yes, the board chose to abide by the planning commission's recommendation not to amend the zoning code to accommodate a temporary parking lot. Reynolds and Sacchi voted to go ahead and blow off the Plan Commission's recommendations, but were out voted.

    If the amendment would have passed, one could put a temporary parking lot anywhere in Riverside.

    Some gravel is lovely. Lovely crushed gravel is really expensive, dusty crummy gravel is cheap.

    Posted Thursday Jul 23, 2009 15:18 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.