Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, New Urbanism

New era begins in Heart of Peoria

2 Comments

On June 15, four areas of Peoria will be the first to benefit from a new kind of zoning (some might even call it an alternative to zoning): form-based codes. The City Council last night unanimously adopted ordinances that put the new coding into place for the four form districts which are the West Main corridor, Warehouse District, Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, and Prospect Road corridor.

Form-based codes differ from our current zoning (aka “Euclidean zoning) in some significant ways. Whereas Euclidean zoning is primarily concerned about land use and only marginally concerned about design or form, form-based codes are just the opposite. Form-based codes stress limits for height, siting, and building elements, and have only a few limits on uses.

If you want to build a new building along Main street, right now you have to follow the same zoning regulations as if you were building out in a cornfield on the north side of town — setbacks from the street, surface parking requirements, etc. Just take a look at Jimmy John’s on West Main and you’ll get the idea. That’s what infill looks like under suburban zoning code.

Under the form-based codes, infill development will instead be consistent with the current built environment. For instance, on West Main street, any new buildings will have to be built up to the sidewalk and utilize nearby shared parking with other businesses or provide private parking in the rear of the building. Whereas Euclidean zoning separates land uses into residential, commercial, office, etc., form-based codes allow these uses to be mixed, thus making it possible for someone to build an apartment over their store, or to have office space above a retail business.

The council also voted to bring off the table the rest of the Land Development Code (which would apply to the Heart of Peoria Plan area outside of the four form districts) with the Heart of Peoria Commission’s recommendation for the Knoxville corridor, and a recommendation that there be a four-month transitional period following its enactment. This could come before the council as early as next month for adoption.

The transitional period would be a four-month time frame during which projects could still be approved under the old zoning ordinance if the developer can prove that he was relying on those ordinances when making plans, acquiring property, etc. That’s a reasonable request. The council often makes zoning and especially fee changes without any kind of consideration for what that would do to pending projects, so this is really a step forward.

City Council, City of Peoria, Crime, Peoria Police

The Chief’s words are so true

7 Comments

ChiefThe most interesting part of Monday’s Word on the Street column was Police Chief Settingsgaard’s e-mail to Molly Parker (no offense to J.D.). It’s the second half of the column and it lays out the Chief’s feelings about why it’s so hard to keep crime under control. It’s pretty clear that the police feel like their work is being undermined by a justice system that is just trying to keep up appearances to the public:

Prisons are overcrowded. We have to let criminals out and reduce the number coming in. Let’s not build more prisons, that would be expensive. Let’s not give shorter sentences to criminals, that could anger the public. Let’s give them sentences that are just as long but we will let them out sooner. Maybe the public will never get wise to this.

…We puzzle over why we seem to be arresting so many violent suspects yet violent crime keeps occurring.

That was never more soberly brought home than when Councilman Bob Manning was attacked by Michael Little. The situation is a little different than what the Chief was describing, but it’s the same principle. According to today’s paper, “Little has another felony case pending, an aggravated unlawful use of weapons charge stemming from a May 2006 incident at Fantasyland.” Little had shot off a firearm in the parking lot and was arrested, but of course, posted bail and has been living free for about a year now waiting for his trial.

Thanks to a court system that lets justice roll like molasses, Little was free to commit another violent crime before he was even tried for the first felony. He punched Bob Manning in the face — the thanks Manning got for stopping to help a little girl who ran into his car on her bike — then fled the scene. You would think that with now two felony indictments that Little would be behind bars, but rumor has it he posted $200 bail and is out on the streets yet again.

I’m sure Peoria police officers just love re-arresting the same criminals again and again. There is a problem with our criminal justice system. But the question is, what do we do about it?

City Council, City of Peoria

States Attorney: No conflict for Spain

14 Comments

States Attorney Kevin Lyons“States Attorney has opined,” city attorney Randy Ray wrote to me today. He was referring to the opinion on whether recently-elected city councilman Ryan Spain could serve or whether he would be violating the Public Official Prohibited Activities Act. The States Attorney says no, Spain would not be in violation of state law by serving on the council.

Here’s the opinion from States Attorney Kevin Lyons. Or, you can read it below by clicking the “Read the rest of this entry” link. I’ll have a wrap up of the opinion later. I don’t have time to write a summary now.

Continue reading States Attorney: No conflict for Spain →

City Council, City of Peoria

Spain to be sworn in on Tuesday

3 Comments

Ryan SpainA source tells me that city attorney Randy Ray put a note in council packets this week informing City Clerk Mary Haynes she can swear in Ryan Spain on Tuesday even though questions regarding his eligibility remain unresolved. As of Friday, Ray was still waiting for an opinion from the states attorney’s office on whether Spain’s service on the council would be prohibited under state law. Apparently, there is nothing legally prohibiting Spain from being sworn in while the matter is being investigated.

Granted, as has been pointed out numerous times, I’m no lawyer. But this course of action seems a little risky to me when you consider that violation of the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act is a felony. If I were Spain, I wouldn’t let them swear me in until the uncertainty surrounding this issue was settled. Or short of that, I would at least consult with my lawyer before agreeing to go along with the city attorney’s interpretation.

City Council, City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Exception might not be enough for Spain

10 Comments

Peoria City HallA couple astute readers of my blog have pointed out to me an exception to the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act that might be a loophole that would allow Ryan Spain to serve on the city council without violating the act. (We’re still waiting for an opinion from the state’s attorney’s office as of this writing.) The exception reads like this:

(b‑5) In addition to the above exemptions, any elected or appointed member of the governing body may provide materials, merchandise, property, services, or labor if:

A. the contract is with a person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or cooperative association in which the interested member of the governing body of the municipality, advisory panel, or commission has less than a 1% share in the ownership; and

B. the award of the contract is approved by a majority vote of the governing body of the municipality provided that any such interested member shall abstain from voting; and

C. such interested member publicly discloses the nature and extent of his interest before or during deliberations concerning the proposed award of the contract; and

D. such interested member abstains from voting on the award of the contract, though he shall be considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum.

Sounds pretty cut and dried, but in state law, things aren’t always what they seem. Just ask Bud Nystrom.

Roy “Bud” Nystrom was a city councilman in Crystal Lake, a northern suburb of Chicago, when the company he worked for put in a bid to build a Bio-Solids storage facility for the city’s new wastewater treatment plant. Even though he abstained from voting on the contract, even though the council rejected his company’s bid, and even though he only inadvertently broke the Prohibited Activities statute, Nystrom was nevertheless indicted on 10 felony counts of official misconduct and prohibited financial interest in August 1998. He later worked out a plea agreement and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “attempted interest in a contract,” according to Chicago Tribune reports from the time.

What does this have to do with the exception I quoted? Well, the above exception I quoted was passed in 1997 and took effect in January of 1998. During Nystrom’s controversy, the Chicago Tribune had this to say about it (emphasis mine):

Already the [Public Official Prohibited Activities Act] statute has been relaxed by a new law that takes effect in January. The new law says that city officials only violate state law if they engage in public contracts on behalf of publicly traded companies in which they own more than a 1 percent stake.

Even with that change, Cowlin believes the law remains unfair. He thought the [Illinois Municipal] league should take a look at amending the law further and exempt municipal officials who are employed by private companies.

Heartland Partnership, where Spain is employed, is not a publicly traded company, but a private company, just like Nystrom’s employer. If one keeps reading the statute, it does say (emphasis mine):

(e) For the purposes of this Section only, a municipal officer shall not be deemed interested if the officer is an employee of a company or owns or holds an interest of 1% or less in the municipal officer’s individual name in a company, or both, that company is involved in the transaction of business with the municipality, and that company’s stock is traded on a nationally recognized securities market….

So it doesn’t look like the “b-5” exception is going to be enough for Spain, which may explain why it’s taking so long to get an answer from City Hall; I imagine they’re working with the state’s attorney, Spain and his attorney, and Heartland Partnership to come up with a way to allow Spain to serve without violating the statute. It will be interesting to see how it all gets resolved.

Spain controversy in the news

There have been some follow-up stories in the news that are worth mentioning. WEEK-TV interviewed Spain on their 9:00 newscast for sister station WAOE “my59”:

“I just find it very unfortunate that a particular member of the council is working to play games now as we look to get down to business,” said Spain. “So today while I was out trying to build relationship in Springfield (at the General Assembly), a member of council is looking to play games.”

I think it’s unfortunate that this is being portrayed by Spain and his supporters as just “playing games.” A more appropriate response would be, “I was unaware of that state law; I don’t believe I’m in violation of it, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure I comply with it.” Or something like that.

Spain would be smart to make friends with Gary and not treat him as an enemy just because he pointed out this state statute. Gary didn’t write the law, and he’s had to live by it — giving up business because of it — so it’s not unreasonable for him to want to make sure everyone else is abiding by it, too.

WEEK ran a follow-up story yesterday that just said Spain had met with city attorney Randy Ray, but that nothing had been resolved yet.

Yesterday’s “Word on the Street” column in the Journal Star states, “Spain’s boss Jim McConoughey says his agency is willing to do whatever needed to make sure there isn’t a problem.” That’s a very generous statement by Spain’s boss, considering it could mean the loss of $50,000 a year to his business.

Sandberg asks Lyons to retract statement

Then there’s this statement by state’s attorney Kevin Lyons that was quoted in the same article: “Lyons did note that some current City Council members have faced similar conflicts. ‘Of course, Gary Sandberg, as an architect, has had contracts and done work for people who do business with the city, and he just abstains,’ Lyons said.”

I e-mailed Gary to ask him about that statement, since it seems to contradict what he said in the comments section of my blog. In response, he copied me on an e-mail he sent to State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and the Journal Star that read:

Unless you were misquoted, I would like to know one instance and/or all the instances where any one of my clients had a contract with the City of Peoria to provide services or a product while I was doing Architectural work for that client. Your statement, if quoted correctly, is inflamatory [sic] and totally incorrect and creates a situation where I could lose my Architectural license from the State of Illinois.

If NOT quoted correctly, I would expect you to have already sent a correction to the newspaper….

I do Architectural work for clients IN the City of Peoria. I do NOT have clients that do work FOR the City of Peoria.

I haven’t checked today’s paper to see if there was a correction. It will be interested to see if anything comes of that. Whenever lawyers are involved, it’s always the same story: hurry up and wait.

City Council, Elections

City Council: Sandberg, Jacob, Irving, Gillette, Montelongo

9 Comments

In Tuesday’s general election, we’ll be picking five at-large City Council candidates to represent Peoria for the next four years. Since Chuck Grayeb and John Morris are not running for reelection, there are just three incumbents and seven newcomers vying for the five seats. In the primary election, I only endorsed three candidates: Gary Sandberg, George Jacob, and Dan Irving. I’m sticking with those candidates and adding two more: Jim Montelongo and Dan Gillette.

Gary Sandberg has a simple, consistent philosophy: city government exists to provide basic essential services in the most cost effective, efficient manner to keep taxes low. He has proven himself to vote consistently with that philosophy. He should be retained.

George Jacob was surprised when he learned that I endorsed him in the primary. It’s nice to know I’m not too predictable. In addition to what I said in my primary endorsement, there are some other things that make Jacob a good choice. He supports attracting manufacturing jobs to Peoria. Many candidates talk about the creative class and the med-tech jobs we want to attract, and those are certainly important. But we need to be a city that has jobs for everyone, and jobs in all parts of the city — not just the north end or the second district. Having good head-of-household jobs in and near the older neighborhoods (and I would say especially the south end) is as important for stabilization as dealing with crime.

Dan Irving has not let his eighth-place finish in the primary election dampen his optimism or resolve. Rather, he has campaigned even harder. It’s paid off — he picked up endorsements from Congressman LaHood, Mayor Ardis, several council members, and even the Journal Star. I have to admit, some of these endorsements caused me to briefly rethink my own endorsement of him. But based on the priority he puts on core services (fire, police) and his support for older neighborhoods (through the Heart of Peoria Plan and other initiatives), I feel confident he would make a good addition to the council and would work to move Peoria in the right direction.

Dan Gillette is the underdog in this race. He didn’t actually win in the primary, but got into the race when ninth-place finisher Charles Schierer dropped out. Gillette provides an insider’s view to the council. Having worked for the city in the public works department, it should come as no surprise that his campaign slogan is to have a “clean, safe city.” He’s familiar with the city’s budget, which means he won’t have the kind of learning curve your average new councilman has. He will be able to get right to work looking for ways to use taxpayer’s money more efficiently. And he’s clearly an essential services candidate.

I really had a hard time coming up with a fifth endorsement. I’m passionate about supporting “essential services first” candidates because I feel the city has gotten away from its core responsibilities. For their tax dollars, citizens at minimum expect — I’ll go so far as to say “deserve” — adequate fire and police protection and well-maintained infrastructure (streets, sewers, etc.). When a council continues to subsidize parking decks while simultaneously underfunding the fire department — and defends that decision — we have a serious problem.

Jim Montelongo is not what I would consider an essential-services-first candidate. But I’m endorsing him because of his strong stance on crime. It appears that this is the issue about which he’s most concerned. He’s a proponent of the “broken window theory” of police enforcement, which was successful in New York under Rudolf Giuliani. I think there’s something to be said for geographic diversity on the council, so the fact that he lives in the fourth district is a plus. I’m a little nervous about the more progressive parts of his platform (e.g., installing fiber optic lines city-wide), but I believe those ideas will be tempered by the budget realities of GASB-45 and other high-priced obstacles facing the city now.

As for the rest of the candidates, Eric Turner lost any modicum of support from me when he defended the MidTown Plaza TIF and development on WCBU’s “Lunch with the Candidates” series. Ryan Spain is passionate about economic development, which is his job at Heartland Partnership, but he lacks knowledge of and depth on the other planks in his platform. Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald would make a better school board candidate, since that is where her experience lies. Gale Thetford was the architect of the $6 garbage fee as well as the driving force behind Mid-Town Plaza; no way should she be allowed back on the council. Patti Sterling-Polk‘s platform is entirely too vague. I’m not clear what her priorities would be if elected.

Whoever you decide to vote for, I encourage you all to vote on April 17.

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections, Ray LaHood

Dan Irving picks up high-profile endorsements

12 Comments

Dan IrvingCity Council candidate Dan Irving held a press conference today to announce several endorsements of his campaign. Announcing their endorsements in person were Congressman Ray LaHood, Mayor Jim Ardis, and fifth-district councilman Patrick Nichting. Also announcing endorsements but unable to attend the news conference were third-district councilman Bob Manning and fourth-district councilman Bill Spears.

Congressman LaHood took advantage of early voting and cast his ballot this morning at 9:30. He said he was giving his support because of Irving’s business experience, involvement in the community, and his perspective as part of the “younger generation.” Ray said he was endorsing candidates for city council because he lives in Peoria, pays taxes in Peoria, and thus he cares about what happens in Peoria. LaHood disclosed that he also voted for George Jacob, Ryan Spain, Gale Thetford, and Eric Turner. LaHood voted early because he will be returning to Washington this weekend.

Mayor Ardis feels that Dan has a good background on the issues the city is facing and that he will be a good addition to the “team.” Ardis specifically mentioned that he agreed with Irving’s platform on the issues of crime (supports saturation patrols, surveillance cameras), strengthening neighborhoods, and promoting economic development. Ardis also endorses George Jacob, Ryan Spain, and Eric Turner.

Councilman Nichting believes that Irving has strong leadership skills that will “progress Peoria forward,” and generally agreed with the mayor’s reasons for endorsing him. Nichting also endorses George Jacob and Eric Turner.

City Council, City of Peoria, Form-Based Code

Council Roundup: Land Development Code

4 Comments

Within the Land Development Code (LDC) there are four “form districts.” Those districts are the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, the West Main Corridor, the Prospect Road Corridor, and the Warehouse District. These four areas underwent intense study and a customized form-based code was created for each district. Each area is essentially pre-planned by citizens through the charrette process and codified by the city’s consultants, Farrell Madden Associates.

Last night the City Council adopted the form-based codes for the four form districts (this includes the regulating plan and illustrative plan for each).

However, the LDC code for the rest of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area outside those form districts — i.e., the vast majority of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area — is not ready for prime time yet. The council tabled it until staff can make some revisions.

Here’s the issue. The portion of the LDC outside of the form districts (we’ll call this area a “base district” to distinguish it from a “form district”) was not subjected to the kind of intense study that the form districts were. The form districts are kind of like a new house — it’s a code built from scratch to the citizens’ specifications. The base district is like an old house with a little remodeling work done on it to bring it up to code — it’s basically our existing zoning ordinance with some modifications to make it more “new urbanist” (such as allowances for mixed use, urban setback regulations, etc.).

To continue the metaphor, the council wasn’t happy with the old house simply being brought up to code. They know we can’t afford to develop full-fledged form-based codes in all 8,000 acres of the Heart of Peoria Plan area, but they nevertheless felt the base districts did not go far enough. Specifically, the base district regulations don’t address the problems that are hindering reinvestment in older neighborhoods.

Gary Sandberg gives a good example. If you want to build a garage, the code says you can build one that is similar to other garages in your neighborhood. There’s a reason for this: you want to have some amount of consistency in your neighborhood. If everyone on your block has detached garages with alley access, you don’t want one house to have an attached garage with street access — it would be totally out of character for the neighborhood.

The problem is, you may live in a neighborhood where they used to have garages, but almost all of them have been razed, so now there are essentially no garages. Then what? Can you not have a garage? Or what if all the garages in your part of town are one-stall, and you want a two-stall garage? Are we going to make people build a one-stall garage or have to get variance to built a two-stall? The danger is that if there are too many hoops to jump through — if there are too many places for the City to tell people “no” — it discourages reinvestment.

There are also some potential conflicts with existing ordinances. Sandberg (who apparently has all city ordinances memorized) pointed out that the street ordinance prohibits private development within 100 feet of the centerline of a thoroughfare, yet the LDC allows (and in some cases requires) infill commercial development be built right up to the sidewalk. That needs to be reconciled.

I’m worried that the LDC is going to languish. It was not the intent of the council to have it languish, but we have to face reality. A major revision of the city’s comprehensive plan is coming up, and that’s the next big project on which Planning & Growth is going to focus. There’s no budget left for our consultants to revise the LDC. So staff is going to have to do the work, but when? Some council members believe staff should be able to do both. I don’t know enough about how they’re organized or what their work load is to make that determination.

But I do know that it would be a real shame and an excuse for further cynicism about local government if the LDC were left on the table too long or, worse, forgotten. Somehow this needs to stay on the front burner and get done soon before it loses momentum.

Arbor District, Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Houses fall in Arbor District

20 Comments

PeoriaIllinoisan has been keeping an eye on Maplewood, and there’s progressively less and less to look at. Bradley didn’t waste any time before starting in on the demolition. The definition of progress around here is tearing down century-old homes in a stable neighborhood to make way for a parking deck. Bradley will wither and die without this parking deck, so it’s a fair trade, they say.

Last night the City Council unanimously approved replacing the arbor at Rebecca and Main. Second district councilwoman Barbara Van Auken said that this was to show that the City is not only committed to the success of its institutions, but also committed to strong neighborhoods. I’m happy they’re getting their arbor rebuilt, but comparing this gesture to what the City allowed Bradley to do is unbalanced, to say the least. Is replacement of the arbor worth a whole block of houses plus the conversion of dozens of remaining properties to rental homes? My guess is the neighborhood would rather forget the arbor and have Maplewood back.

Incidentally, I found out that material salvaged from those homes will be resold through Habitat for Humanity’s ReStore.

City Council, City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan

Who will decide how Peoria looks?

21 Comments

One of the disagreements regarding the Land Development Code is over the regulations for Knoxville Avenue from Pennsylvania on the south to Virginia on the north.

The original Land Development Code (LDC), as written by the consultants based on community input, called for buildings to be set back from the road no farther than 80 feet. They could be right up to the sidewalk, but they couldn’t be set back more than 80 feet. If you’re like me and you can’t envision 80 feet easily, think of it this way: that’s enough space to put a parking lot with two rows of parking spaces and a drive aisle between them.

A local commercial real estate developer, Dave Maloof, wants there to be no maximum setback. This is understandable, considering his line of work. He wants to combine parcels and build strip malls with large surface parking lots in front. That’s what he does.

As a “compromise,” the city staff is recommending that we create a special “thoroughfare” district along Knoxville that would allow 150-foot setbacks. They essentially bought into Mr. Maloof’s contention that the lots/parcels along that stretch of Knoxville are too deep to justify the shorter setback. It was pointed out that parking could/should be put behind the businesses, but that was rejected amidst a plethora of excuses, such as, “no one will park back there,” and “retail shops can’t have two public entrances” (which is silly; they do at Grand Prairie). The Planning Commission agreed with the city staff, but the Zoning and Heart of Peoria commissions believe the maximum setback should stay at 80 feet.

I think the question is more basic. What we have to ask ourselves is, who will decide how Peoria looks? A small group of developers, or the City through community input? The Heart of Peoria Commission thinks it ought to be the City based on community input, and has said so in a letter than went to all Council representatives.

To demonstrate the negative impact large setbacks can have, Heart of Peoria commissioner Geoff Smith explained:

One of the best examples of the destructive effect that unregulated development and planning have on our local environment can be seen in the corridor of University Ave. between Forrest Hill and War Memorial Drive. This is a mean section of street space when considered in the context of the standards set forth in the Land Development Code. There is very little planting or green space in any proximity of the street edge. Traffic speeds by, and drivers have unlimited access to a huge expanse of paved parking areas immediately adjacent to the street. Pedestrians are wise to stay off what little remains of the crumbling and discontinuous sidewalks.

Another negative effect on the urban environment of areas like University Ave. is the impact that development with deep setbacks has on adjacent neighborhoods. The buildings that are pushed to the very back of the site have all of their service, delivery, trash collection, and utility areas immediately adjacent to the neighborhoods behind these developments. Garbage, odors, and other trash are just across a fence or alley from the rear of residential properties. Bright exterior lighting on buildings at night often provides direct glare to adjacent properties.

We don’t want another University street. Our city can look so much better than that. For too many years, we’ve been bending over backwards to adjust our city’s vision to developers’ visions. And what has it gotten us? Unrestrained prosperity? A city core that is considered a destination? Beautiful public places? No, no, and definitely not.

It’s time for the city to stand firm. We don’t want to turn away development, but we do want to turn away bad development. We want to turn away development that does not fit our vision for the city. We want to invite and incentivize development that does match our community vision.

There is plenty of land in suburban Peoria for cookie-cutter strip malls and seas of parking, but those aren’t the things that are going to bring people back into the heart of the city. As far as the Heart of Peoria Commission is concerned, allowing 80-foot setbacks is already a compromise of sorts. Because of less-than-ideal development that has occurred along that corridor for years, many of the businesses already have this setback, so for consistency and ease of development it seemed reasonable to the consultants to allow this pattern to continue — but not worsen.

I want to be clear that the goal here is not to frustrate developers. It is to make Peoria a beautiful place to live and work. We want to see the city revitalized. The kind of development that has taken place on University street has not accomplished that, so we want to see regulations in place that will keep bad development like that from happening elsewhere in the Heart of Peoria area. But at the same time, we want to invite developers to work within the new guidelines to bring in retail stores, business offices, and residential units that will have the form and pedestrian scale that we envision for this area.

Is that too much to ask?