Category Archives: City of Peoria

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?

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Land Development Code on City Council agenda

13 Comments

UPDATE (4/11/07): Here’s an updated map of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area boundaries.

On tap Tuesday night at the City Council meeting: the long-awaited, much-anticipated Land Development Code (LDC).

What is it? The LDC is a big step toward codifying the Heart of Peoria Plan. It’s essentially new zoning laws for the Heart of Peoria Plan area (I’m using the term “zoning” in a generic sense here). In case you’re wondering what that area is, it’s the portion of Peoria within the heavy border on this illustration:

Heart of Peoria Plan Area

It covers roughly 8,000 acres of the oldest portion of Peoria. This part of town grew up in the 1800s and early 1900s when transportation was decidedly low-speed. Hence, there’s a lot of density in this part of town: houses are close together, businesses front the street, and things are generally built to pedestrian scale.

The problem is that the current zoning laws that cover this older portion of town are the same zoning laws that cover the suburban landscape of the northernmost portion of Peoria. Another way of saying this is that our zoning is “one size fits all.” But unfortunately, one size does not really fit all.

The zoning needs of north Peoria are a lot different than the zoning needs in the older parts of town. Whereas you would expect to find lots of surface parking in suburban areas and businesses set far back from the road (after all, the only access to these places is via automobile), you don’t expect this on Main street. On Main, you expect buildings to be built right up to the sidewalk, to utilize shared parking in back of the businesses or along the street, and to be pedestrian in scale.

But our “one-size-fits-all” zoning laws try to fit suburban design standards into older, urban parts of the city. Thus, we have developments like Campustown, and businesses like Jimmy Johns that set their business back 80 feet from the road with surface parking in front. This is not necessarily the fault of the developers, but rather the zoning laws that require suburban-style development without any regard for the urban character of the street. Like trying to put a round peg in a square hole, the result is, frankly, a mess.

And that’s where the Land Development Code comes in. The LDC is designed to preserve and maintain the urban character of the older parts of the city. It encourages redevelopment and infill, but with design standards that are compatible with the existing business districts and neighborhoods.

Form and use

In addition to the look, or form, of urban design, another big difference between urban and suburban zoning is in the area of permitted uses. In suburban areas, different uses are segregated: residential areas are separated from office parks, which are separated from retail areas, which are separated from industrial areas, etc. The only connections between each of these enclaves are streets, making suburbanites completely automobile-dependent.

In contrast, urban areas allow a mix of uses. Stores can have apartments above them, offices can be adjacent to or between retail shops, etc. This, coupled with the density and pedestrian scale of development, means that one’s basic needs are all within walking distance — one could conceivably live, work, and shop without having to drive (although driving is not precluded, of course).

What does that mean? It means less money spent on gasoline. It means that older people who are quite capable of living independently but can’t drive anymore don’t have to be “warehoused” in retirement homes. It means children who are old enough to go to the store unsupervised but not old enough to drive can ride their bikes to go shopping or to a movie instead of relying on someone to chauffeur them around.

But perhaps at its most basic level it means choice. Many people actually prefer to live in an urban area. In fact, the much ballyhooed “creative class” that Peoria is trying to attract likes urban living a lot, if surveys and polls are to be believed. Peoria has plenty of suburban amenities to offer, but is sorely lacking in urban living options. This is a chance to revitalize the older part of town, not by trying to mimic the suburbs which it could never do adequately anyway, but by building on its strengths.

Going forward

The Land Development Code is a big topic — too big to be discussed in just one blog post. So consider this an introduction. Today and tomorrow, I’ll be posting some follow-up posts about what the LDC has in it, what objections might come up, and of course, reaction to the city council discussion tomorrow night.

The code is such a big document, it’s unlikely that final action will be taken Tuesday night — although it could. I would expect, though, that this would span a couple of council meetings.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Park District

Johnson: Park District will sue city if HPC recommendation is approved

41 Comments

Robert JohnsonAt the Moss-Bradley candidates forum last night, current park board member and candidate for board president Robert Johnson said that if the City Council approves the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation to landmark elements of Glen Oak Park, it’s the unanimous desire of the park board to sue the City for violating the Park Board’s sovereignty.

He went on to say that preservation of the parks and its historic artifacts is the responsibility of the Park Board, and if the people don’t think the board is doing an adequate job, they can vote out the current board members.

All Park Board members are running unopposed.

Johnson also stated that the Peoria Playhouse children’s museum planned for the park would not happen if that structure were to be given historic landmark status. However, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission who was present at the meeting countered that claim, explaining that the Junior League only wanted to make minor changes to the exterior of the building, and thus landmark status would not scuttle their plans for a museum.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

1991 agreement: District 150 free from most city zoning laws

8 Comments

The Zoning Commission will be having their April meeting this Thursday, and their agenda is posted on the City’s website. One item on the agenda, however, has already been withdrawn.

Item “G” is a “public hearing on the request of Ed Barry for District 150 to…approv[e] a Special Use for a Public School…located at 2628 N Knoxville Ave, Peoria, Illinois.” If the address doesn’t ring a bell, it’s the old Social Security Administration building District 150 wants to use for an alternative school.

The item was withdrawn because, according to a 1991 intergovernmental agreement between the City of Peoria and District 150, the district doesn’t have to appear before the city’s zoning commission — in fact, the city’s zoning ordinance does not apply to the school district at all, save some minor exceptions. As the Journal Star summed up nicely on February 6, 1991:

The [school] district has agreed to adhere to zoning requirements for issues like setbacks, landscaping and building heights, but will not be required to bring its plans to the city’s Zoning Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals. Neither will it have to obtain building permits or have plans reviewed by the inspections department.

Any disagreement, as per the intergovernmental agreement, will be taken to the city manager and district superintendent for final resolution. The School Board will be responsible for public hearings.

So, rather than the City conducting the public hearing, the school district will conduct one instead. No word yet on when that will be.

I looked up the proceedings of the February 5, 1991, city council meeting to see what kind of discussion there was about this agreement. I was surprised to find that, according to the minutes, there was no discussion. The motion was made, seconded, and quietly passed unanimously.

I didn’t know anything about this agreement until today. And it appears that the city and the district had forgotten about it, too — at least temporarily — since the district applied for a special use and was on the zoning commission’s agenda for a time.

Agreement
City of Peoria, Comcast, Insight Communications

Still no franchise agreement, and now Comcast

1 Comment

TV iconSince April 2006, the City of Peoria and Insight Communications have been operating without a franchise agreement. The old 20-year agreement expired last year and negotiations for a new agreement have been going on ever since. The City isn’t saying what the holdup is, although it could be any number of things, including state and federal legislation designed to take local franchising authority away from home-rule communities like Peoria.

In the middle of all that, the news has been released that Comcast will be taking over Insight’s cable systems in Illinois, including Peoria. So what does that mean for Peoria’s on-going struggle to nail down a new franchise agreement?

City attorney Randy Ray had this to say: “There is a procedure whereby the City approves the transaction. Hopefully we can use that as leverage and get an agreement.” He didn’t elaborate on what the “procedure” is.

City Council, City of Pekin, City of Peoria

Dagit’s resignation does not signal similar action from Manning

11 Comments

Anyone in Peoria’s third district who read the Pekin Times’ or Peoria Journal Star’s story on Daryl Dagit’s resignation from the Pekin City Council may have had a sinking feeling in their stomach:

During [Monday’s council] meeting, Dagit explained the reason for his leaving. He is leaving his position at CitiFinancial, he said, and is moving to Smith Barney to work as a financial advisor. The two companies are both members of the financial services company Citigroup.

Dagit said Smith Barney policy mandates that employees not hold an elected position.

To some extent, that’s understandable. Smith Barney is a huge company, and they do bond underwriting. Municipalities issue bonds, of course, and if Smith Barney wants to underwrite those bonds, they may not be able to if one of their employees is on the council for that municipality — it would be a conflict of interest, and thus, the company loses the opportunity to gain that business.

But what does all that have to do with Peoria? Well, we have a councilman who works at the same company: Bob Manning. But don’t worry, he won’t be resigning.

I had the opportunity to talk to Bob about the situation. He explained that his circumstances are different from Dagit’s. Manning worked for the company first, got approval to run for office, then got on the council. Dagit was already on the council, then was offered a position, and giving up his council seat was a condition of employment. Dagit could have turned down the job offer and kept his seat.

Bottom line, Manning will continue to serve the residents of Peoria’s third district. And that’s good news for not only the third district, but all of Peoria.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council Roundup: Boots and Phase II

26 Comments

Besides the double-taxation outrage that was deferred for a month, there were two other notable items passed by the council tonight:

  • Boots for parking ticket scofflaws — The council passed the ordinance that would allow an immobilization device (commonly referred to as a “boot”) on a car that has five outstanding, unpaid parking tickets on it. There were two amendments made to the ordinance — one was to allow 48 hours (instead of 24) for the tickets to be paid before impounding the car after the boot is applied; the other was to send notice to scofflaws that their car will be booted if they don’t pay up via certified mail instead of just regular mail.
  • Phase II of Riverfront Stonehenge Village approved — Riverfront Village has not been successful. Every year for the past six years, on average, the city has taken $100,000 from the Central Business District TIF and used it to pay for Riverfront Village losses instead of using it to pay off the bonds of the TIF. That’s $600,000 it’s lost over six years.

    Nevertheless, based on the City Manager’s projections, the new three-story office building that developer Mike Wisdom wants to erect on the stilted concrete pad will make that deficit disappear. I’ll believe it when I see it. Projections don’t mean much — the original project was supposed to break even, not lose $100,000 per year. We’ll see if these new projections are any more accurate than the last ones.

    One thing they’re going to do is apparently build a new pedestrian walkway that will take visitors right down to the new museum square. Considering how much money the museum project hasn’t raised, this walkway could be our own personal “bridge to nowhere.”

Update (3/28): A couple of things about the Riverfront Village project. If I could wave a magic wand, I would get rid of it as it’s currently configured. I’m not philosophically opposed to having development along the riverfront, but I think you should be able to actually see the river and enjoy the river view from said development, that it should be pedestrian-friendly, and it should be aesthetically pleasing. But, considering the monstrosity we know as Riverfront Village is already there and we can’t feasibly tear it down, we should take this lemon and try to make lemonade if we can. Perhaps this “Phase II” is a way to do that.

Regarding the pedestrian walkway, it’s come to my attention that my post made it sound like I was saying it would span Water street and the train tracks — no, no, it doesn’t do that. It’s just that it’s supposed to “connect” (the City’s word) with Museum Square eventually. Essentially what it does is provide access to the concrete pad from the Water Street side so you don’t have to walk around to the river side to get up to the businesses on top. It’s hard to argue that this wouldn’t be an improvement. But the council communication made it sound like the purpose was to poise it for connection with Museum Square, which seemed like a spurious use of city money.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria County

City needs to tell County Board we’re sick of double taxation

10 Comments

On November 6, 1996, the Journal Star reported, “Peoria County voters approved a quarter-cent public safety sales tax Tuesday to pay for jail and warning siren improvements. With 96 percent of precincts in, the measure had 61 percent of the vote. The tally was 37,194 for the tariff and 24,047 against.” The tax went into effect January 1, 1998, and was expected to generate $3.3 million every year.

I wonder how many of those voters would have voted for that tax if they knew then what we know now: it apparently only applies to that part of Peoria County outside the City of Peoria’s corporate limits.

The City Council tonight deferred for one month a request to purchase a new Outdoor Warning System control system for $160,008.15. Why wouldn’t this system be paid for by the County out of that public safety tax? That’s what the City Council would like to know. According to City staff, the county won’t pay for it because the County Administrator said they won’t.

That’s right. Even though the City has almost 62% of the County’s population (112,907 City residents out of 182,328 total residents for the County), and we’re all paying the .25% County Public Safety Tax every time we buy any general merchandise in the City, the County thinks they shouldn’t have to use that revenue to purchase a new control system for our warning sirens, even though we live in Peoria County — even though that was the stated purpose of the tax when it was approved by the voters.

So, all of us City dwellers are already paying for warning sirens, but that money is only being spent by the County Board outside our city limits. Thus, we’re being asked to pay $160K more for the same service within our city limits!

Frankly, that’s an outrage. The City of Peoria is part of Peoria County, and we should be getting the services we’re paying for. We’re not. And it’s not just the warning sirens.

Remember the other thing the public safety tax was supposed to pay for? Warning siren improvements and…. A new county jail. Right. And in addition to City of Peoria residents paying the public safety tax for that, Peoria Police have to pay the County a booking fee of $20 for every inmate they want to house in that jail — the jail that we helped pay for! This last came up in the summer of 2005 when Randy Oliver suggested the City stop paying said fee. Well, we’re still paying it.

Enough is enough. Either city residents should get to stop paying the public safety tax, or we should get some benefit from it. But the current system is broken.

I encourage all of my readers to contact their County Board representative — or all the County Board members, if you want — and ask them to start providing the City the services it deserves for the money we’re paying in sales taxes for public safety. Here is a link to the County Board members and their contact information.

City Council, City of Peoria

City wants to give parking ticket scofflaws the boot

9 Comments

Boot Car ImmobilizerParking scofflaws beware, you may find your car immobilized if the city passes a new ordinance Tuesday night.

City Manager Randy Oliver is requesting that the City Council pass an ordinance that would allow a car immobilization device commonly known as a “boot” (an example is pictured at right) to be attached to a vehicle that has five or more outstanding unpaid parking tickets. Oliver believes parking ticket collection will be improved by this policy.

I agree. There’s really no good excuse for a person to have five or more unpaid parking tickets. If you’re going to have parking laws, they should be enforced. I don’t think there’s any doubt that this would be plenty of incentive for someone to finally pay what they owe to the city.