Category Archives: Zoning Commission

Zoning Commission

Zoning Commissioners apparently don’t understand rezoning process

3 Comments

At the last Zoning Commission meeting earlier this month, commissioners took an unorthodox approach to a simple request for rezoning, if the Journal Star’s description is accurate:

During its meeting Thursday [April 4], the Peoria Zoning Commission deferred a decision regarding the rezoning of 14 parcels of land located south of the Glen Hollow shopping center. The owner of the land, developer David Joseph, wants the zoning changed from single-family residential to large-scale commercial.

Joseph’s attorney said his client has no specific plans for the land along Farrelly and Glen avenues.

“We’ve got a lot of options from seriously interested tenants,” Bob Hall said. “Tenants aren’t willing to commit until such time as they have a better indication.”

Also apparently unwilling to commit until they have a better indication are commission members.

“If you’ve got tenants who want to know, you should be able to show us what you’re thinking about doing,” commissioner Tim Shea said to Hall.

Absent that, commissioners were unable to make an informed decision, according to Greg Hunziker, the group’s chairman.

“When you rezone, it’s a blanket — very broad-based,” he said. “We wanted a little more knowledge.”

It’s remarkable that many of these commissioners have been on the Zoning Commission for many years, and yet they display this profound ignorance of the rezoning process.

When you rezone a property, it doesn’t get zoned for a specific use. It gets zoned for potentially any use that is allowed under that zoning designation.

Under C2 (Large Scale Commercial) zoning, there are no less than 108 permitted uses (including new and used auto sales, auto repair, gas stations, ministorage, and convenience cash businesses). It makes no difference what plans Mr. Joseph may have for the use of this property right now. If it gets rezoned, any of those 108 permitted uses will be available to him — and to whomever he may choose to sell the property someday (subject to certain regulations and oversight, of course).

That’s why, on the Zoning Commission application, it specifically states that a site plan is not required for rezoning. The question before the Zoning Commission is not, “What tenant is Mr. Joseph pursuing for this property, and will that tenant fit well in this area?” The question is, “Is C2 zoning — and the intensity of all land uses permitted thereunder — appropriate for this area?”

The Zoning Commission is wasting the applicant’s time be requesting irrelevant and non-required information, and it’s being derelict in its duty to the residents by ignoring the larger question of whether the intensity of the proposed land use is appropriate for this section of the city.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Zoning Commission

But is it a ‘state of the art’ McDonald’s?

24 Comments

The Journal Star reports that McDonald’s wants to rebuild their Knoxville restaurant the same as their University location. But there’s a catch:

The McDonald’s proposal calls for 14 waivers from the city’s land development code on items such as reducing the parking lot’s setback from properties along Arcadia, increasing the size of a sign, allowing a drive-through window adjacent to a nearby residence and eliminating some landscaping requirements, among other things.

As such, the city’s Planning and Growth Management Department opted not to recommend approval of the McDonald’s site plan. The [zoning] commission will consider the request during a 1 p.m. meeting Thursday.

The article went on to say that the second district council member, Barbara Van Auken, was unavailable for comment. But two years ago, when Taco Bell asked for nine variances — making it completely non-compliant with the land development code (LDC) — she voted for it along with a majority of the council, even though the zoning commission and City staff recommended denial. She called it a “state of the art Taco Bell,” and said it was unfair to require a business completely rebuilding its property to comply with the LDC. (If not then, one wonders when it would ever be “fair” to enforce it.) I expect she will throw the LDC (and nearby residents) under the bus again this time, too.

Van Auken and a majority of the council have consistently voted against enforcing the LDC, continuing a pattern of development that has been detrimental to the older part of town. My suspicion is that this largely done out of ignorance — that most of the council members have never read nor understood either the Heart of Peoria Plan or the LDC. Perhaps with former Heart of Peoria commissioner Beth Akeson on the council now, she’ll be able to persuade more council members of the long-term benefits of enforcing the LDC.икони

City of Peoria, Zoning Commission

Committee begins review of sign ordinance

36 Comments

From this week’s Issues Update:

The first meeting of the Sign Review Committee was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2010. This committee was created at the request of the Zoning Commission to review key issues involving sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The 14?member Committee will meet monthly and intends to forward its recommendations to the Zoning Commission by December 2010.

I happen to be on this committee. All the meetings are open for public observation and will be posted. The first meeting was spent getting acquainted with each other, getting an overview of the current sign ordinance and the portions of it we will be reviewing (it’s not a comprehensive review — we’re just looking at some specific parts of it), and setting the meeting schedule.

The committee members are, in no particular order:

  • Ron Naples (Adams Outdoor Advertising)
  • Tim Shea (Zoning Commission)
  • Bill Hardin (Hardin Signs, Inc.)
  • Mark Misselhorn (Apace Design, Zoning Commission)
  • Julie Waldschmidt (Wald-Land Corporation)
  • Mike Wiesehan (Zoning Commission)
  • Jason Fuller (Manager, Peoria Metro Centre)
  • Marjorie Klise (Zoning Commission)
  • Ed Barry (Farnsworth Group)
  • Margaret Cousin
  • Robert Powers (Historic Preservation Commission)
  • Jim Hardin (Hardin Signs, Inc.)
  • Rob Parks (Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce)
  • C. J. Summers

And the sign regulation issues we will be reviewing are:

  • Size of digital display area
  • Definition of sign area
  • Violation penalties/enforcement
  • Size of wall signs and freestanding signs
  • Multiple application of the same sign (franchise)
  • Signs for multi-family development
  • Billboard extensions
  • Inflatable signs
  • Temporary banners/signs

Something I learned at the first meeting: Peoria used to have an enforcement officer on staff who was assigned solely to zoning violations. As a result of budget cuts, that position is gone and zoning enforcement is now assigned to planners. Each planner is responsible for a defined geographical area. Enforcement is complaint-driven.

Also, the last item on the list of issues to be reviewed, temporary banners/signs, were discussed quite a bit at the first meeting. Apparently, those large banners you see on the sides of businesses or staked in the ground in front of businesses require a permit. Few businesses actually apply for a permit, however. It could be that businesses are simply unaware that these signs are regulated. Or it could be that businesses are taking advantage of lax enforcement.

The next meeting is June 22 at 10 a.m. in Suite 402 of the twin towers (456 Fulton St.) where the City’s Planning and Growth Department is located.

City Council, City of Peoria, Zoning Commission

Main Street Commons to go before Zoning Commission (UPDATED)

32 Comments

I attended a quasi-public meeting Tuesday night regarding the proposed Main Street Commons project that is slated to go in where the old Walgreen’s is at the corner of Main and Bourland.

The meeting was held at the PeoriaNEXT building (which incidentally has doors that face Main Street, but they’re all locked; all pedestrians have to walk around the back of the building — by the parking lot — to enter the building, which is symbolic of the lip-service Peoria gives to pedestrians). Pat Landes and Kimberly Smith from the Planning and Growth Department were there, along with Thomas Harrington and Shawn Luesse representing the developers, and second district council person Barbara Van Auken theoretically representing the district, although she appeared to be only representing the University East neighborhood Tuesday night.

The proposed project is due to go before the Zoning Commission on Thursday at 3:00. Here’s the information that has been submitted.

There’s a lot to like about the project. It hides most of the parking in a ground-floor garage under the building. It includes retail shops on Main and Bourland. They’ve pledged to adhere to the approved building materials outlined in the code, although they apparently haven’t decided which materials they will be using.

But there are ten variances they are requesting from the Zoning Commission, and ultimately, the City Council. Many of them are minor. A few of them are troublesome:

  • Fulfilling open space requirement by demolishing a home on the corner of Bourland and Russell and leaving it as a vacant lot (albeit landscaped). (This actually involves a couple variance requests.) Instead, they should simply reduce the size of the building. This would also remove the need for another variance to approve a longer building than allowed by code. It would preserve a single-family home on the corner, thus providing a better transition to the neighborhood and removing the need for a street wall.

  • Speaking of street walls, another variance requests approval for a street fence instead of a street wall. While this seems relatively innocuous, it continues a precedent trending toward removal of the street wall requirement completely. That’s not a good thing. Street walls serve several functions, one of which is to help prevent exactly what’s going on here — leaving an entire corner vacant.

  • The code requires that “no window may face or direct views toward a common lot line.” The developers want this waived “to allow living room windows on the west elevation of the south building, for proposed units on the second through fifth floor, (overlooking the Jimmy John’s parking lot) to be located 7′-4″ behind the common lot line.” The concern here is that, eventually, we hope that the Jimmy Johns property will be redeveloped. It currently has a one-story building with a parking lot in front (suburban siting), so overlooking the parking lot is not a problem. But what happens when that lot is redeveloped? Will the Main Street Commons development negatively impact efforts to redevelop the Jimmy Johns property? Keep in mind that the code will require that any redevelopment of Jimmy Johns’ property be a multi-story building sited next to the street and abut the Main Street Commons property. Will this cause problems from a fire-fighting standpoint? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to the question of its impact on future development because it was disallowed by Councilperson Van Auken at the meeting; the question was “theoretical” and besides, I’m not an immediate neighbor to the project. This kind of myopic thinking (ignoring both the regional impact of projects as well as the future implications of developments) is most unfortunate from a sitting council person, but not particularly surprising.

On a positive note, it’s great to see mixed-use development being proposed for Main Street. Having residents will provide more natural surveillance of the surrounding streets, and will provide a larger market for the retail shops that will go in on the ground floor. Overall, this is the kind of development we want to see. My only caution would be to consider the unintended consequences of variances to the code; as Councilman Sandberg pointed out at the meeting, the developers already know they will get 100% occupancy, so they’re just trying to maximize profits at this point. There’s no reason they can’t meet the requirements of the code, especially on the points above. The Zoning Commission and City Council should seriously consider enforcing the code at these points for the long-term good of the city.

UPDATE: It passed the Zoning Commission with next to no deliberation. Marj Klise was the only “no” vote. One of the commissioners said that provisions in the Land Development Code were “open to interpretation” — which is to say, meaningless. That was enlightening. Another commissioner said he was all for it because of all the revenue it’s going to bring to the city at a time when the city is facing a $10 million deficit. Too bad he evidently wasn’t aware that this project has been added to the Enterprise Zone and is getting its sales and property taxes abated… and that the City is asking the state to extend the Enterprise Zone past the 2013 expiration date. This project isn’t actually going to bring any revenue into the City, but it’s going to make a whole lot of money for the developers!

City Council, City of Peoria, Zoning Commission

Zoning Commission wants to move meetings to 3 p.m.

1 Comment

The Zoning Commission is asking the City Council to move the commission’s meetings to 3 p.m. the first Thursday of each month. Since January, the commission has been meeting at 6 p.m.

This comes as no surprise. Up until January of this year, the Zoning Commission met at 1 p.m. the first Thursday of each month, and they really didn’t want to change. In fact, two commission members threatened to quit if the council changed the meeting time. Those turned out to be empty threats as no one resigned.

The purpose of changing the schedule was to allow more participation from residents who are not able to attend Zoning Commission meetings in the middle of the day because they’re working. Now, the Zoning Commission is saying that attendance is not any different than it was before, and that having the meetings earlier would save the city money in overtime/comp time pay. They offer no hard numbers.

I don’t see how a 3 p.m. meeting is going to be any easier for the first-shift working public to attend than a 1 p.m. meeting. And I would be interested to see some empirical evidence for the commission’s contention that “attendance was always based on whether the topic on the agenda was controversial or not” and that “controversial topics brought out more people whether the meetings were held in the afternoon or in the evening.”

It will be interesting to see the council’s reaction to this request.

City Council, City of Peoria, Zoning Commission

Zoning commissioners, council members skip LDC training

2 Comments

There was a big flap last November when the Zoning Commission (and subsequently the City Council) undercut the new Land Development Code (LDC) for the Heart of Peoria Plan area by approving a special use request from St. Ann’s Church against city staff’s recommendation. Staff had recommended that the architecture of the proposed building be modified to make it consistent with the intent of the LDC and, ultimately, compatible with the residential area surrounding it.

The whole situation betrayed a lack of understanding on the part of many commissioners and council members as to how the LDC works. There was confusion about exactly how to make decisions regarding zoning requests based on the code. So, as a direct result of that situation, the Planning and Growth Management Department, at the Mayor’s direction, put together a training session to help commissioners and council members gain a better understanding. They brought up Lee Einsweiler from Code Studio in Texas to give a refresher course and answer questions about recent controversial decisions. Lee was part of the team that wrote the LDC, and thus is an invaluable resource on how to use and interpret the code.

The training took place this past Saturday, January 26, from 8:30 a.m. until about 2:00 p.m. at the RiverWest Frank Campbell Community Center. The City Council and Zoning Commission were invited, along with the Planning Commission, Heart of Peoria Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, et. al. It was nice that it was opened up to everyone because it allows us all to get on the same page, is it were, regarding the code.

However, the main reason the meeting was set up was to educate the Zoning Commission and the City Council. So, who showed up from those two bodies? From the City Council: Mayor Ardis, Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken, Third District Councilman Bob Manning, and At-Large Councilmen Gary Sandberg and Ryan Spain. From the Zoning Commission: Mike Wiesehan and Marjorie Klise. That’s it. Five out of 11 council members, and two out of seven zoning commissioners.

Who wasn’t there? From the City Council: First District Councilman Clyde Gulley (whose entire district is under the LDC), Fourth District Councilman Bill Spears, Fifth District Councilman Pat Nichting, and At-Large Councilmen Eric Turner, Jim Montelongo, and George Jacob. Jacob in particular has been asking a lot of questions lately about the LDC, especially regarding porches and accessory structures, but he regrettably couldn’t make it to the training where he could have gotten those questions answered (he was out of town for his son’s hockey game). From the Zoning Commission: Greg Hunziker (chairman), Rich Unes (who said during the St. Ann’s discussion, “I don’t think we have the authority to tell them how to build their building”), Curt Davis, Tim Shea, and Mark Misselhorn. Shea and Misselhorn were appointed to Zoning Dec. 17 — after the St. Ann’s situation. Misselhorn was out of town on Saturday, but he’s also on the Heart of Peoria Commission and is already well-versed in the LDC.

It’s bothersome to me that so many people missed this training session. It was important. It was necessary. It was brought in specifically for the Zoning Commission and City Council. And yet look at the attendance. If this were just a one-time deal, that would be one thing. But there are some zoning commissioners who haven’t attended any of the consultant-selection meetings, the subsequent charrettes, or the all-committee training sessions. If commissioners are not available and/or willing to educate themselves on new zoning regulations, why are they on the commission? How can they adequately fulfill their duties? If council members don’t understand the LDC and don’t take advantage of training opportunities, how can they make informed votes on the council floor?

I want to commend those council members and zoning commissioners who made this training a priority. Hopefully those who didn’t attend will defer to these more informed members when questions regarding the LDC come up in the future.

City Council, City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Zoning Commission

ZC, Council votes undercut Land Development Code

23 Comments

Recent votes by the Zoning Commission and the City Council undercut the very basis of the city’s recently-adopted Land Development Code. The controversy centers around a special use request from St. Ann’s church.

St. Ann’s church wants to build an 8,000-square-foot parish hall adjacent to their church on the south side of Peoria, 1010 S. Louisa St. In order to do that, some land has to be rezoned (to “R4” residential) and a special use permit granted (for church use), which means it had to go before the Zoning Commission. The zoning regulation for this area is the recently-adopted Land Development Code.

Land Development Code

Since this is a special use request, the Land Development Code (LDC) does not have specific guidelines. After all, the writers of the Land Development Code couldn’t possibly foresee and codify regulations for every conceivable special-use request. But what we do have are the intent statements in the document. For example, the intent statement in the LDC for R4 districts reads (4.1.1.D):

The R4 District is intended to preserve established single-family neighborhoods within the Heart of Peoria. The district is also intended to allow for new single-family houses on small lots in development patterns that mimic established portions of surrounding neighborhoods at a density not to exceed 11.62 gross dwelling units per acre.

Add to that the overall intent of the entire LDC (1.5.A and B):

The overriding intent of this development code is to implement the Heart of Peoria Plan…. New development regulations for the Heart of Peoria are necessary because the existing zoning and subdivision ordinances include provisions that work against the realization of a revitalized, pedestrian-friendly commercial areas, and the renovation and preservation of inner city neighborhoods. This development code in contrast with previous codes, focuses on the creation of mixed-use, walkable
neighborhoods.

It goes on to state some specific intentions of implementing the Heart of Peoria Plan, including, “Prohibit blank walls along the sidewalk,” “Use the scale and massing of buildings to transition between the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods,” “Promote infill development for vacant parcels that reflects the surrounding scale and character,” “Control the scale and fit of new development patterns,” and “Use the commercial corridors as a seam sewing neighborhoods together rather than a wall keeping
them apart.”

Furthermore, the specific regulations for R4 districts give some guidance as well. They include such things as, “Roof height and building profile for new buildings shall seek to be compatible with adjacent structures” (4.1.5.B.2), “The scale and mass of new homes or remodeled houses shall be compatible with adjacent houses” (4.1.5.G.1), “Building materials for new houses shall be similar to other houses on the block” (4.1.5.G.3), and “Architectural styles shall be compatible with other architectural styles on the block” (4.1.5.G.4).

Not all regulations that apply to houses can be applied to an 8,000-square-foot parish hall (e.g., porches), but it’s clear from the LDC that scale and mass, architectural styles, and building materials are all important items.

Planning and Growth

So when St. Ann’s came to the city asking for this special use and proposed a building that looks like this (click for larger view):

St. Ann proposal - small view

…naturally, Planning and Growth had some concerns. It looks like a warehouse. It’s architecturally incompatible with other structures on the block. The scale and fit of this structure is wrong for the neighborhood. So, Planning and Growth made a simple recommendation regarding this problem (Wikipedia link added):

The architecture of the parish hall shall be modified through the use of ground level windows, pilasters or other architectural features which break-up the mass of the structure into smaller visual components.

They didn’t ask them to redesign the whole building. They didn’t ask them to make the building smaller. All they asked was that some elements be added that would make the architecture and scale look and feel more compatible with the block, consistent with the LDC’s intent.

Zoning Commission

Well, that went over like a lead balloon at the Zoning Commission meeting. First, the petitioner stated that adding windows couldn’t be done because there’s too much vandalism in the area and the windows would get broken. Think about that logic for a while and how such a view, if accepted, could influence the built environment on the south side. He also stated he didn’t want “some arbitrary opinion” of what would be acceptable architecture for the building. Of course, neither does city staff — they can’t legally require something that’s “arbitrary.” Thus, they based their recommendation on the LDC, as explained above.

Several of the Zoning Commission members, however, agreed with the petitioner and questioned why the city was making architectural suggestions at all — as if form-based codes were a completely foreign concept to them. (In fact, that’s likely the case, since the most outspoken opponents of P&G’s suggestion didn’t attend any of the consultant-selection meetings, the subsequent charrettes, or the all-committee training sessions.) The Journal Star reported on the meeting, and printed these quotes:

“I’m surprised the city of Peoria is getting involved in the architectural business,” commissioner Richard Unes said. Commissioner Greg Hunziker agreed. “I don’t think we have the authority to tell them how to build their building.”

City beat reporter John Sharp went on to describe how “some were upset that it would be up to the Planning and Growth Management Department to ultimately determine if the architecture was good enough for the project to move forward.” (PJS, 11/02/2007)

These comments are representative of the discussion. Unes’s comment is especially interesting since he shouldn’t have been discussing the item at all — his company, Peoria Metro Construction, is doing the design and construction work for St. Ann’s (he did abstain from voting, at least). But I digress. These comments display a disturbing lack of understanding regarding the purpose of the LDC and the authority of the City to regulate the built environment through the use of form-based codes.

I talked to Heart of Peoria Commissioner Beth Akeson about the Zoning Commission’s deliberation. She said that “the city has a duty to intercede when building proposals, such as the addition to St. Ann’s, are brought forward,” and that “the best cities in the country routinely influence decisions like these.”

Of course, the Zoning Commission doesn’t have any input from the Heart of Peoria Commission because, since the resignation of Chad Bixby, there has been no Heart of Peoria Commissioner assigned to the Zoning Commission. You may recall that the Committee on Commissions recommended that the Heart of Peoria Commissioners be dual-appointed to other key commissions in the city, including the Zoning Commission.

In the end, the Zoning Commission voted to approve the special use request, but specifically excluded staff’s recommendation to modify the architecture. That sent it on to the City Council, which considered the request last night.

City Council

The City Council stood by the Zoning Commission’s recommendation, but for different reasons. At-large councilman Eric Turner and first-district councilman Clyde Gulley expressed concern over the additional costs of making the building compatible with the surrounding architecture. They feared that requiring the building to look better would keep redevelopment from happening. Now think about that logic for a while. The only conclusion I can draw is that they believe any development, no matter how incompatible, is better than no development. And that belief, dear readers, is why Peoria looks the way it does.

Interestingly, no actual cost estimates were provided for consideration, nor was there any indication from the church that they would scrap their plans if the city were to require the building to look better. So these concerns were acted upon in the absence of any real facts. The council voted to approve the Zoning Commission’s recommendation with only council members Sandberg and Van Auken voting “no.”

Conclusion

In fact, it probably would cost more to make the building more compatible. No one is denying that. But no one is considering the cost of incompatible building design. Do you think home values next to this warehouse-looking structure are going to go up or down as a result of this development? Do you think the houses on Cooper are going to go up or down in value once the five-story parking deck is in their back yards? It’s not that these mixed uses can’t exist side-by-side in harmony; it’s that the form of the built structure makes all the difference. This is Form-Based Codes 101.

Commissioner Akeson said it best when she wrote to me recently, “additional cost in the short term will be outweighed by the long-term benefit of infill that contributes to the overall value of homes in the older neighborhoods. Home values are influenced by construction quality and architectural design. Inappropriate infill will reduce the value of neighborhoods. The only way to guarantee improved quality of future infill projects is to set minimum basic standards to improve quality and design.”

During the deliberation of St. Ann’s special use request, the Zoning Commission and City Council have expressed objections that undermine the purpose and goals of the Land Development Code — a code that they voted for, based on a Plan that they adopted “in principle.” Let’s hope this was an exception, and that the exception doesn’t become the rule.