Daily Archives: November 8, 2005

Uncategorized

Council Roundup: Heart of Peoria Commission Punts

The preliminary site plan for museum square that was proposed at last week’s council meeting was approved by the council tonight with surprisingly little discussion. Van Auken, the most vocal council person tonight (Gary Sandberg was absent), expressed her disappointment that the Heart of Peoria Commission didn’t make a recommendation, but just supplied council with their comments.

I agree with her on this one. The council commissioned these people to look at the site plan and make sure it fit with the Heart of Peoria Plan and the goals of New Urbanism. Did it or didn’t it adequately do that? Do they not know the answer to that question? Are they trying to avoid responsibility? Was it just too much work to write up a recommendation, so they just copied their notes for the council? Were they too busy “appreciating the complexity of the task”?

What they gave the council was a list of eight conditions that would bring the site plan into conformance with the Heart of Peoria Plan. Next to each item, the committee rated how well the site plan met that criterion. The scores were as follows on a scale of 0-24:

1. The axis of Fulton Street must be visually received by the Museum, and the axis must be continuous, either as a street or a pedestrian passage, through the Sears Block from Wasthington Street to Water Street. Score: 7.

2. The Sears Block must contain a mix of uses complimentary to the Museum, specifically retail and residential, in order to enhance of the Sears Block and encourage the vitality Peoria’s efforts to become a city that is active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Score: 10.

3. The street frontages of the buildings of the Sears Block must be active. Water Street should have the highest level of pedestrian activity; Main and Liberty should provide support in their pedestrian connection between the Downtown and Riverfront; and Washington Street should allow a proper location for service areas while remaining pedestrian-friendly. Significant gaps in the street edge, low-laying structures, service uses and blank walls at the street edge all contribute to hostile environment unsuitable for street life. Score: 9.

4. All parking must be contained within the block in order to remove inactie deck facades from street level frontage. Score: 24.

5. Residential plots for any future private development must provide an attractive footprint size and orientation and allow for efficient layout of requisite parking facilities. Access to both Washington and Water Street is necessary; Washington is a B-grade street that will provide car and service vehicle access, while Water Street is planned to become an A-grade street offering a high quality pedestrian environment. Score: Not Applicable.

6. At a minimum, the height of the building(s) must be the equivalent of two stories in order to relate in scale to the urban fabric of downtown Peoria. Score: 24.

7. All open space must be designed to be complimentary to the urban context of the surrounding buildings and uses. Any natural areas, no matter their size, must be contained within hardscape and must be programmed to remain active during non-business hours while still facilitating the Museum’s needs. Score: 20.

8. The chosen architect of the Museum must be an acknowledged master, appropriate to the scale and importance of this civic site. Score: 24.

Total score: 118 out of 192, or 61%. Does that sound like a ringing endorsement? If you don’t include item 5, which the commission inexplicably rated “not applicable” instead of 0 (is it important or isn’t it?), then the score is 118 out of 168, or 70%.

Now, the Sears block is the crown jewel of downtown Peoria, right? And the Heart of Peoria Plan is supposed to be our blueprint for downtown renewal, right? Do you think 61% compliance with the Heart of Peoria Plan is a good precedent to set for downtown redevelopment?

Let’s call a spade a spade. The Heart of Peoria Commission didn’t do their job. They should have sent this back to the council with a recommendation to deny the site plan and continue working to conform it to the Heart of Peoria Plan. Instead, they’ve tacitly endorsed a site plan that in four out of eight areas identified as the most important design principles is significantly deficient.

In the absense of any recommendation from the Heart of Peoria Commission, the site plan passed unanimously.

City Council, Peoria Disposal Company

Council Roundup: Peoria Disposal Company

4 Comments

Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) wants to expand their landfill in Pottstown, and some Peoria residents aren’t happy about it.  But don’t complain to the city council — it’s a Peoria County decision.

Mayor Ardis explained that PDC was giving tonight’s presentation at his request as a courtesy, but that no discussion or vote would be taken since it’s not in the city’s jurisdiction. 

Brian McGinnis, attorney for PDC, explained that they would be filing the application tomorrow morning to expand the landfill.  Once it’s filed, PDC will not be able to comment publicly on it until a public hearing is held.  That hearing will happen within 90-100 days of filing, probably in February.  So, anyone who wants to speak for or against the expansion should keep an eye out for the public hearing date.

Peoria Disposal Company was founded in 1928 by the Coulter family and has been family owned ever since.  Chris Coulter, Director of Sales and Business Development, touted the company’s 100% compliance with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) inspections, earning them the Environmental Compliance Award for 12 consecutive years.  He also said that the company wants to expand because they will run out of capacity in early 2009 and they want to continue servicing their current customers.  They don’t expect any increase in annual waste receipts.

Ron Edwards, Vice President of Landfill Operations, tried to allay fears that hazardous waste at the site would infiltrate ground water, surface water, or air quality.  He explained all the treatments and precautions the landfill applies to hazardous waste.  One of the more surprising slides was the one comparing (contrasting, actually) PDC and Love Canal. 

Van Auken, once again, asked the questions on everyone’s mind:  Why are we one of only 16 communities who have this kind of disposal?  Why do other communities not want this kind of disposal in their cities?  Why should Peoria take this risk?

Later, during citizens’ requests to address the council, three people spoke out against the landfill expansion.  Dr. John McClain said his concern is not that PDC is bad company; in fact, he believes they are a good company.  However, there are things that they can’t control: accidents, natural disasters, terrorism.  He concluded, “We are accepting hazardous material that other communities do not want and our safety cannot be guaranteed.”  Of course, the usual objection from the Sierra Club was voiced.  But perhaps the most eloquent opponent of the expansion was Bill Cook who observed, “This expansion is privatizing the benefits and socializing the risks.”  That is, PDC gets all the profits while hundreds of thousands of residents shoulder the risk of potential contamination of our water supply.

Expect a battle on this one.

Received and filed.

Uncategorized

Council Roundup: Civic Center Expansion

At tonight’s city council meeting Mr. Dan Silverthorne gave an update on the Civic Center expansion construction and costs.  He’s been reading the papers and wanted to clear up some misconceptions about the changes that were made to keep things within budget. 
 
First he claimed he never had any intention of asking the council for more money, but always planned to stay within budget.  Yeah, right.  Well, I guess we can’t judge his intentions without being cynical, but I do seem to remember Dan Daly quoted in the paper as saying they may need to ask the council for more money.  So maybe Silverthorne is saying he personally never intended to ask for more money, even though other officials did.
 
Silverthorne also said that plans for more parking, a food court, and women’s restrooms are not out of the plan, as reported in the press, just “on hold.”  He believes they will somehow “find a way” to add those things back into the plan sometime over the next 22 months.  I can understand budgets being somewhat fluid, over budget on some items and under on others.  But the expansion was reportedly millions of dollars over budget requiring some major cuts.  I’m not exactly sure where he thinks that money’s going to magically reappear.
 
Councilwoman Van Auken didn’t let Silverthorne off the hook without a good tongue-lashing for cutting the very items that most impact the people who pay those HRA taxes:  food and toilets.  Go get ’em, Barbara.
 
Received and filed.

Uncategorized

Peoria Disposal Company presentation could spark controversy

I received an e-mail from a resident who is concerned about Peoria Disposal Company’s planned presentation at the city council meeting tonight.  According to the e-mail, they are going to request tripling the size of the landfill and accepting toxic waste from 15 states.
 
Anyone heard any other information on this?  I checked the city council agenda for this evening and there were no details on this presentation.
 
At a minimum, I expect there to be PDC opponents voicing their opinions during the citizens’ requests to address the council.

Uncategorized

Water buyout proponents look at regional model

The Journal Star reports that water buyout proponent Chuck Grayeb will ask the city manager at tonight’s council meeting to see if other communities would be interested in partnering with Peoria to purchase part of Illinois American Water Company from RWE AG.  Expect this request to sail through easily.
 
I wonder how far Grayeb has thought this through.  There are cerainly advantages to a regional model like he’s proposing.  Potentially, it could give the region more leverage in negotiating with RWE.  It would also give partnering cities the ability to spread out the costs of infrastructure improvements.  However, this raises some questions, too.  How would rates be set under a regional scenario?  How would a water management company be chosen?  What recourse would customers/voters have if they’re dissatisfied with their service?  (Water buyout proponents have long held that customers could simply vote council members out of office if they’re unhappy with water rates; under a regional system, it doesn’t appear that kind of recourse would be effective.)
 
Finally, and this is no small consideration, can the city of Peoria get along with other cities in a regional partnership?  Right now, the city is at odds with the county over $200,000 in booking fees for prisoners.  Imagine the contention over a $200 million asset for Peoria alone, determining how to spread out the costs of infrastructure improvements, and setting rates for the communities.
 
As city officials say, it doesn’t hurt (or cost anything) to gauge the interest of other communities.  But while they’re gauging interest, they should start considering some of these issues as well.