Category Archives: City Council

Council Roundup: 4 a.m. liquor licenses and living downtown

The residents at 401 Water Street want to see 4 a.m. liquor licenses go away. Their first step in that process is to force any requests for a 4 a.m. liquor license to go to the entire City Council for a vote, thus allowing residents an additional public hearing, and possibly an override of a Liquor Commission recommendation.

Currently, if a business-owner already holds a liquor license, the Liquor Commissioner (Mayor Ardis) or Deputy Liquor Commissioner (Councilman Turner) can approve a change to a subclass 1 (4 a.m.) liquor license upon recommendation from the Liquor Commission. This new proposed ordinance would require the whole City Council to approve or deny it instead.

Also speaking in favor of this plan during “Citizen Requests to Address the Council” was Sandy Fritz of the organization Citizens for Community Values. She implied that if the council continues to give out 4 a.m. liquor licenses, she may try to organize a referendum on the matter to see what Peoria residents think of the practice, and predicted that 90% would say they don’t want to see any new 4 a.m. liquor licenses approved.

My take: I hope this doesn’t get me fired at church, but I personally have no problem with the 4 a.m. liquor licenses. They’re confined to a small area of downtown, and they’ve been in place considerably longer than 401 Water has been taking tenants. It’s not like the bars all had 1 a.m. liquor licenses and then, when the residents came in, the council changed them all to 4 a.m. licenses with a stroke of the pen and an evil laugh. The residents were fully aware of the bar/liquor-license situation downtown and they chose to live there anyway.

Janice Favus, a resident of 401 Water who spoke in favor of the motion, stated that residents only want the same rights that all other Peorians have, including the right to leave her windows open on summer nights and not have a lot of noise from bars outside.

Now, in one sense, I can understand her point. If there is a major disturbance outside — crowd-control problems, fights, generally rude and obnoxious drunks leaving the bars — that’s not acceptable. But there are already laws against such behavior, and from what I’ve seen from my days playing in a band at downtown bars, those laws are enforced.

But on the other hand, with all due respect, it is totally unrealistic for Ms. Favus and her neighbors to expect downtown Peoria to be as tranquil as the suburbs at night. This isn’t beachfront property. You’re not going to hear the silted waves of the Illinois River lapping up on shore as you drift off to sleep. And nowhere did the city promise any downtown resident the right to be undisturbed if they leave their windows open at night. They’re downtown.

If we’re going to have a downtown that’s “24/7” — like the Heart of Peoria Plan calls for, and like all the consultants recommend, and like the council has been saying they want for years — that’s going to mean having places that are open late. Very late. Maybe all night. And people on the street means noise. I’m not talking about disorderly-conduct noise, but more noise than one would expect in a suburban neighborhood, or even an urban one.

When people are downtown, they’re going to be talking at normal volume, not in hushed tones. They’re going to be laughing and having a good time. Their cars are going to make noise at odd hours of the night when they come in or when they leave. There are going to be places playing music into the wee hours of the morning to attract people down there.

I’d like to call on music legend Petula Clark to give the residents of 401 Water a description of what it’s like to be “Downtown”:

When you’re alone and life is making you lonely
You can always go – downtown
When you’ve got worries, all the noise and the hurry
Seems to help, I know – downtown
Just listen to the music of the traffic in the city
Linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty
How can you lose?

The lights are much brighter there
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares
So go downtown, things’ll be great when you’re
Downtown – no finer place, for sure
Downtown – everything’s waiting for you

Don’t hang around and let your problems surround you
There are movie shows – downtown
Maybe you know some little places to go to
Where they never close – downtown
Just listen to the rhythm of a gentle bossa nova
You’ll be dancing with him too before the night is over
Happy again

The lights are much brighter there
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares
So go downtown, where all the lights are bright
Downtown – waiting for you tonight
Downtown – you’re gonna be all right now

And you may find somebody kind to help and understand you
Someone who is just like you and needs a gentle hand to
Guide them along

So maybe I’ll see you there
We can forget all our troubles, forget all our cares
So go downtown, things’ll be great when you’re
Downtown – don’t wait a minute more
Downtown – everything’s waiting for you

Noise, lights, traffic, places that never close — that’s downtown, 401 Water residents. That’s what you signed on for when you moved down there. You want to sleep with your windows open and have the robins sing you awake in the morning? Maybe downtown living isn’t for you.

Council Roundup: What’s your sign?

Adams Outdoor Advertising would like to put up billboards that change their message every six seconds. Right now, the zoning ordinance only allows billboard messages to change no more than once every hour. The Zoning Commission wanted to defer the request until March 1, 2007 — after the form-based codes are completed — because of staffing issues. The council thought that was too long to make a business wait for a hearing on this issue, so a recommendation will probably come back in December instead.

Electronic BillboardMy take: I’m not sure what kind of sign Adams Outdoor Advertising has in mind, but from the discussion on the council tonight I get the impression that it’s an electronic billboard similar to Proctor Hospital’s relatively new sign at their Knoxville entrance, or the Civic Center’s sign at the corner of Jefferson and Kumpf, or this generic one above that I found on the internet. Can you imagine billboards like that all around the city?

Councilman Spears half-joked that putting up such billboards around the city would eliminate the need for streetlights given the amount of light that would be emitted. Councilman Grayeb suggested writing into any new zoning ordinance a limit to how bright such signs can be. Not a bad idea. Although, I’d be just as happy if they outlawed all of them. Electronic billboards are a terrible source of light pollution and energy waste, and do we really want drivers — already distracted by their cell phones and other gadgets — having one more thing to arrest their interest while they’re supposed to be driving? I mean, we don’t allow television screens in the front seats of vehicles for this very reason; how are electronic billboards different, or any less of a distraction?

Council Roundup: Ferrell-Madden presentation leads to questions on group living, one-way streets

The City Council had two big questions for Ferrell-Madden and Associates after their presentation at Tuesday’s council meeting:

  1. Group Living — As stated in a previous post, the new Land Development Code includes general provisions for all of the Heart of Peoria, and specific form-based codes for the four “form districts,” namely, the Prospect Road Corridor, Sheridan-Loucks Triangle, Renaissance Park (or West Main corridor), and the Warehouse District. Within these form districts, there are stricter standards for the form of the building (i.e., the facade, how it fronts the street, etc.), but the use of the building is relaxed.

    For example, under our current zoning laws, any kind of residential group living (more than three unrelated persons living in the same house) is restricted; you have to get a special use permit to legally have a household so constituted. But under the form-based codes, such arrangements are allowed by right, without having to get a special use permit.

    What’s wrong with that? Well, one potential problem is right over in the West Main corridor — by Bradley. It sets up a situation where one side of the street may require a special use permit to allow, say, 4 or 5 Bradley students to share a house, but the other side of the street would allow that use without a permit. This can lead to inequities for landlords and headaches for neighbors who want to have tighter controls on that particular type of use.

    From the way the council was talking, expect there to be a revision to that part of the code.

  2. One-way streets — Ferrell-Madden made it very clear that there are two issues critical to the success of the form districts: (a) implementation of the form-based codes (the Land Development Code, or LDC), and (b) “fixing the streets.” We’ve already talked about the LDC. By “fixing the streets,” they mean slowing down the traffic to make them more pedestrian-friendly by widening the sidewalks, putting in street trees, and converting one-way streets to two-way.

    Councilman Sandberg specifically singled out Adams, Jefferson, and Washington streets and asked Ferrell-Madden what would happen if the council did nothing to improve these streets (including conversion to two-way on Adams and Jefferson), yet still implemented the LDC. Answer: very little. Private developers would not want to invest money in a business that would front a street that is unsafe or perceived as unsafe. There might be some investment on cross streets where there is less traffic, but overall the initiative would be unsuccessful.

    There’s a part that the public sector has to play and a part for the private sector. The council can’t put businesses in there form districts, obviously. All they can do is provide the infrastructure that will make it attractive to developers — and part of that infrastructure is streets. Streets that are “fixed” in the public’s eyes, and will lead customers to the doors of new businesses that open in these form districts.

Any neighborhood groups or other organizations that would like to have a presentation can contact the Planning & Growth department at City Hall to schedule one. They want to get as much public input as possible before putting a final version of the LDC before the council for enactment. Formal public hearings will be held Nov. 8, 29, and Dec. 6.

City Council to get form-based code presentation tonight

If you missed last night’s meeting at the Gateway building (you can read about that meeting in the Journal Star today) and you want to know more about the proposed form-based codes for the Heart of Peoria, watch the City Council meeting tonight at 6:15 on Insight cable channel 22 (or head downtown to see it live on the fourth floor of City Hall). Ferrell-Madden and Associates will be presenting the new “Land Development Code,” as it’s called now, to the council early in the evening’s proceedings.

The whole idea of this new code is to recognize that zoning needs in the older, urban part of town are different than zoning needs in the suburban part of town. Right now, we just have one zoning ordinance that applies to the whole city, and it’s based on suburban standards (e.g., strictly separating residential and commercial uses of land, extensive parking requirements, fast arterial streets, large setbacks for buildings, etc.).

That kind of zoning just doesn’t work for the older part of town where density is so high that they often can’t meet the extensive parking requirements without tearing down buildings to put in parking decks or large surface lots, where buildings and neighborhoods were designed for mixed uses of land (corner grocery stores, residential apartments above commercial shops, etc.), and where businesses are supposed to front the street, coming right up to the sidewalk.

In addition to these general provisions for maintaining the character of older neighborhoods and commercial districts, the Land Development Code also includes additional, highly-detailed provisions for four specific “form districts”: the Sheridan-Loucks Triangle, the Prospect Road Corridor, the West Main Street Corridor (Renaissance Park), and the Warehouse District. These provisions are tailored to these individual areas, taking into account their unique features and needs. The time it takes to develop such a detailed code for these areas makes it impossible to do this for all 8,000 acres of the Heart of Peoria all at once; but more form districts will be added over time.

As mentioned before, this is not coming before the council for adoption tonight. There will be an intense public hearing process over the next month or so, and hopefully the code, with revisions, will come before the council for adoption sometime in December.

Form-based codes are back on the agenda

There’s a new Land Development Code soon to be proposed to the City Council, but first it needs to go through a rigorous public hearing. To kick things off, Ferrell-Madden and Associates will be holding an informational meeting at the Gateway Building downtown at 7:30 p.m. They will also be making a presentation to the City Council at their regular Tuesday meeting.

The Land Development Code is basically the Heart of Peoria Plan codified into Peoria’s zoning ordinance. There will be many presentations over the next couple of months — to developers, to commissioners (zoning, planning & growth, Heart of Peoria, Ren Park), and to the public, to try to get constructive input that will strengthen the code before it goes before the City Council for adoption.

It wasn’t “zoo money”

The Journal Star’s headline this morning is a bit misleading. It reads, “Zoo money switched to demolition.” It was actually street improvement money that was switched to demolition:

The City Council took $100,000 once slated to help create a grander entrance to the new zoo and instead voted to use it to demolish vacant problem properties.

The council voted unanimously Tuesday to move the money since 3rd District Councilman Bob Manning said there are no longer plans for a grand entrance in lower Glen Oak Park. Manning, who represents the park and the Glen Oak Zoo area, said the money is needed for demolitions.

There were preliminary plans to update the Glen Oak Park entrance at the corner of Abingdon Abington and Perry streets to make it a “grand entrance” to the zoo. Manning set aside $100,000 to help in that effort by updating the city’s portion of the intersection, perhaps putting in a roundabout.

But when the zoo scrapped plans to put a “grand entrance” there, it freed up that $100,000 to be spent on a higher priority elsewhere. Manning recommended, and the council approved, spending that money on demolition of condemned properties instead.

So, I understand the headline, but it certainly gives the wrong impression. It makes it sound like the city is taking money away from the zoo, which is not the case. It was never “zoo money.”

Council not about to take fees off the books

Remember those underground storage vaults and pedestrian walkways that “encroach on the public way” downtown that was the subject of some controversy a couple months ago?

Well, there was some follow-up on that at last night’s council meeting. At the council’s request, staff reviewed the ordinance that charges fees for encroachments and gave the council some choices on what to do. They could (a) keep the current ordinance and fee structure, (b) keep the ordinance and modify the fee structure (to reflect inflation over the past 30 years), or (c) keep the ordinance but eliminate the permit fees.

The city, desperate for money, chose option (b) with little discussion or disagreement (although Mayor Ardis and Councilman Nichting voted against it). These updated permit fees are estimated to bring in over $100,000 per year into city coffers.

What happens now is city staff has to do an inventory of all the underground vaults in downtown and notify those businesses that they are going to start collecting permit fees on them again. Since these fees haven’t been collected since the early 1980s, the city’s records are woefully out of date and incomplete.

My take: This was the right decision. The city has been contemplating new public safety fees and raising property taxes because they are so short on funds, so collecting fees that are already on the books is a no-brainer. City staff should never have stopped collecting these fees in the first place, since they never received council authorization to do so. The council ought to enforce the ordinances they already have to raise money before they raise taxes or create new fees.

More budget talks tonight

The Peoria City Council will not have a regular business meeting tonight, but rather a special meeting starting at 5:00 to continue discussing departmental budgets. However, there are a couple of unfinished business items on the agenda (health care coverage and janitorial services).

The departments who will be discussing their budgets tonight are Legal, Inspections, City Manager’s Office, Clerk’s Office, and Treasurer’s Office. Not exactly a hot time in the old town tonight.

Did Hinton act without authority?

As many commenters have pointed out, there seems to be a controversy brewing over how District 150’s counterproposal was handled, especially by the district, but to some extent by the city.

First, the Journal Star reported on Friday that “Hinton told [school] board members about the proposals before he delivered them [to Mayor Ardis], but they all declined comment Thursday. Many said they looked at a draft document and didn’t feel comfortable discussing it.”

As one of my readers pointed out, “Final authority for all matters concerning the District lies with the Board of Education,” according to District 150’s Board of Education Policy Manual. So one wonders why Hinton is giving the board a draft document, then presenting it to the city as the school board’s official counterproposal before the board even has a chance to discuss it.

One story I heard through the grapevine (so this is all hearsay) is that Clare Jellick of the Journal Star actually got a copy of the district’s counterproposal on Wednesday (no one will admit to leaking it), and so Hinton hurriedly delivered it to the city on Thursday afternoon. Supposedly he didn’t want city officials to learn about it by reading it in the paper Friday morning. But that just sounds odd to me, for some reason. Hinton’s been around a while. Surely he knows he could have just told Jellick that it was a “work in progress” and said he couldn’t comment on it until the board had a chance to discuss it, right? It’s not like this guy has never worked with the media before.

There seem to be two possibilities: (1) Hinton acted completely on his own in presenting this draft document to Mayor Ardis, in which case the board could declare the proposal void and come up with a new, board-approved proposal to present to the city; or (2) the board approved this document, but not in a public forum — in which case I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the Open Meetings Act — and Hinton accidentally acted on it before the board legally approved it. Either way, one would think Hinton would get some sort of reprimand for acting without authority.

Moving on to the city…. On Friday, the Journal Star said, “Councilman Bob Manning said internal talks [on the proposal from District 150] likely won’t start until next week.” But then, at 11 a.m. Friday, there was a press conference where the Mayor and Councilman Manning announced the city was rejecting the offer and would not offer any further counterproposals. That was a quick change of plans.

“First District Councilman Clyde Gulley said he didn’t understand why the City Council didn’t discuss the proposals Thursday night, when it was already gathered for a budget meeting,” the Journal Star reported today.

Now, I personally don’t see this as being that big of a deal. This is a third-district issue and up to Manning’s discretion if he wants to pursue it further. It’s never been brought before the council, and there’s no law saying Manning has to pursue this or get council approval to abandon the idea. The $500,000 Manning was proposing giving to the school for land acquisition would have come out of money earmarked for third-district projects, but had not been formally proposed to the council yet. If Manning decides to drop the issue and not bring a proposal before the council for a vote, then that’s his prerogative.

Based on the proposal he received, I’m sure Manning saw no other option than to end negotiations. The district’s counterproposal wasn’t any different than what they’ve been pursuing all along; one would be hard-pressed to find any kind of compromise in their counteroffer. The district essentially asked for three times as much money as they were offered by the city and a larger site. Manning had already offered all the money he had to offer, so he has no wiggle room to come back with a counteroffer on funding.

Worse, the district knows full well that the city has only been pursuing this explicitly because they don’t want the new school built at Glen Oak Park. So why is one of the counteroffers from the district to give the city the old Glen Oak building in exchange for $500,000 for property acquisition at the park site? Talk about a slap in the face! Hello — if the city were willing to consider putting the school in the park, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. How could Manning conclude anything other than that the district isn’t really interested in trying to find a workable solution?

Hotel “crisis” shouldn’t have been surprise

John Morris was nice enough to come up to me during Tuesday’s city council meeting and compliment me on my blog. In return, I think it’s only fair that I point out Mr. Morris’s excellent observation that same night regarding the Civic Center hotel study.

Many people (council members, the Journal Star, and even I, myself) have expressed surprise over this hotel “crisis” that seems to have been sprung on us after the $55 million Civic Center expansion is almost completed. But Morris claims it shouldn’t have come as any surprise, at least to those on the council.

He referenced the “Peoria Civic Center Masterplan Analysis” study which was done in August 2002 (before the expansion was approved) by C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. I didn’t read feasibility studies on this stuff until I started blogging, which was only Spring 2005, so I’d never read this particular report. I was shocked. I’m going to quote heavily, so brace yourselves. It said (emphasis mine):

Despite the available occupancy in downtown hotels, Peoria is actually poorly positioned from an inventory standpoint to handle the needs of additional demand generators for three reasons; product quality, proximity of room inventory, and available room block. To effectively service a convention center and add value to the convention sales effort a hotel property must typically must be located within ten blocks (or reasonable walking distance) of a center, the property must be willing to commit approximately 60 percent of its room inventory to the convention center room block, and the hotel must offer a quality room product.

For the Peoria Civic Center, there are four hotel properties that have the potential to meet these criteria – the 288-room Hotel Pere Marquette, the 327-room Holiday Inn City Center, the 110-room Mark Twain, and the 108-room Staybridge Suites. At this time, however, the Staybridge chooses not to participate in the convention center room block, which removes it from consideration in the convention center package. The remaining three properties have a total inventory of 725 rooms, but none is located proximate the convention center. At two blocks, the Pere Marquette is the closest property, however, the property needs improvements in its quality. Given that Peoria is a cold-weather market, any distance beyond two blocks adds infinitely to the challenge of selling the center during winter months.

Under the assumption that 60 percent of the 725-room inventory in the three hotels is available, downtown Peoria can only offer a room block of 435 rooms. Even if the room block commitment is increased to 70 percent, only 507 rooms are available in the nearby properties. The lack of available rooms and their distance of many of the rooms from the PCC, means that many meeting planners and tradeshow promoters bypass Peoria as potential destination for their events, which translates directly into lost economic activity in the market.

Later in the report, they added (again, emphasis mine):

The Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau tracks “lost” convention and meeting business. These are groups that that looked at the city, but ultimately decided to stage their events in another market because the PCC was either too small, the hotel room inventory in downtown Peoria was insufficient or not of the quality preferred by meeting planners, or other factors.

And, just to drive the point home, the Johnson report lists the responses from a survey of Illinois meeting planners on how they perceive Peoria as a place to hold events. One of the findings (emphasis mine):

When asked for suggestions with regard to improvements that could be introduced into downtown Peoria that would make the city a more attractive market, a common response was the need of a hotel to be connected to the convention center large enough to hold a group our size.

I keep quoting this stuff to point out that it wasn’t some isolated statement buried in the report. It came up over and over and over again. Under “Implications for Peoria,” toward the end of the report, they mention again, “as the city improves its downtown offerings and induces additional demand into the market, it must also improve its hotel offerings.”

But was it “critical” back in 2002? Yes — it even uses that exact word: “Critical the success of convention centers is the availability of proximate hotel rooms.” And look at this specific recommendation and see if it doesn’t sound familiar (emphasis mine):

…comparable facilities have a proximate hotel inventory (within three blocks) ranging from 700 to 1,000 hotel rooms, while the Peoria Civic Center has only the Pere Marquette’s 288 rooms nearby. With the recommended expanded and renovated facilities, Peoria will need a larger, higher-quality hotel package. In order to not only be competitive, but to accommodate more and larger groups, Peoria should consider:

  • Connecting the Hotel Pere Marquette to the Peoria Civic Center via walkway, as is the case in many cities in the US….
  • Inducing the development of an additional three-star hotel, such as the under-construction Hilton Garden Inn adjacent to the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center in Louisville, Kentucky. …The City can help induce this development by providing a site, rebating property taxes, or any number of incentives.
  • Promoting the upgrade of the existing hotel room stock in the city….

So, what’s my point? The Civic Center Authority and the City Council knew that this hotel deal was an integral part of the Civic Center expansion and that it was likely to need public funding. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone who read the report. Nevertheless, the Civic Center tried to make the city believe that it could overcome that hurdle without adding to the $55 million price tag (see my previous post). That was wishful thinking at best, calculated deception at worst. Considering what was already known about how much comparable cities were spending to lure hotels to their areas, the city and Civic Center were naive if they thought Peoria could lure a hotel without any incentives.

So what do we do now? I recommend the city wait. Don’t react to this as if you have to build a new hotel tomorrow or the sky will fall. The Civic Center Authority told the council back in 2004, “We believe [the Civic Center expansion] can be successful without an attached hotel,” and did not request any public funding for a new hotel. I say, hold them to their word. What’s changed in the last two years? Nothing. They should be required to make a go of it without a penny more of public funding, just like they requested before this project started. It would be interesting to see what happens. It’s not like we can’t induce a hotel to locate here in the future if necessary.

The Holiday Inn will be under new management soon and is going to be undergoing renovations. Once the Civic Center expansion is done, presumably there will be some increase in the number of events, which will translate into more demand for hotel rooms. Let’s see what the free market does for a while. We might be surprised.