If you watched or attended the City Council meeting tonight, you may have heard a representative of the Catholic Diocese of Peoria give a presentation on their plans to build a new pastoral center downtown. In her presentation, she claimed that the plans were approved by the Heart of Peoria Commission.
That’s actually not true. The plans were shown to the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOP/C), and revised plans were shown to a few members of the HOP/C, but at no point did the commission take an official vote to approve or disapprove of the plans. I, as a recent appointee to the HOP/C, have never seen their plans at all, so I have no idea whether they conform with the Heart of Peoria Plan or with the proposed Land Development Code.
You may think I’m making a big deal out of nothing, and I won’t argue that, but it’s a pet peeve of mine to have the HOP/C’s name taken in vain — a pet peeve that started before I was even on the commission. This isn’t the first time it’s happened. The HOP/C’s “blessing” was invoked for Museum Square as well, even though the commission never approved that project either. The Heart of Peoria Plan has been used to justify all kinds of projects, from Museum Square to District 150’s park-siting plans, even though those projects are antithetical to the Plan.
The HOP/C has no regulatory authority, but since the City Council adopted the HOP Plan “in principle,” getting the HOP/C’s input on big projects downtown and making token changes is undertaken as an inconvenient, but politically-correct thing to do. Once they make minor tweaks based on HOP/C recommendations, they check the commission off their list and claim to have its full support.
The HOP/C is going to have to be taken more seriously if the City Council ever expects the Heart of Peoria Plan to be adopted in earnest, not just in principle.
The Catholic Diocese included the neighbors prior to plans being developed to be built — invited input, suggestions, questions, comments and concerns — a defintite step in the correct direction…
That’s good, Karrie. Like I said, I haven’t seen the plans, so maybe they’re great. Nevertheless, they did not receive HOP/C approval, and thus they shouldn’t be claiming they did.
“The HOP/C’s “blessing†was invoked for Museum Square as well, even though the commission never approved that project either.”
Hold on there sir, I recognize that you’re a recent addition to the Commission, but perhaps you should double check your sources. The Museum Square planners have appeared before the Commission 8 times to review this project and solict comments and input from the members of the Commission, that includes seven instances throughout 2005 and then the Jan 27th meeting in 2006. Perhaps you should obtain the minutes of that meeting, as well as the “Request for Council Action” from the April 04, 2006 City Council meeting in which the Council was asked to “concur with the recommendations from the Heart of Peoria Commission to approve with comment the proposed elecations of Museum Square. The HOP/C motion was passed unanimously by a voice vote of 8 to 0, and the motion by the Council to concur with the HOP/C to approve the proposed elevations of Museum Square was approved by roll call vote with 10 yeas, and no nays. The HOP/C has in fact approved the site plan proposal for the Museum Square development, if some members of that Commission have short memories, perhaps they should review this information as well.
Katmandu — I was referring to the 11/8/2005 council meeting and 11/3/2005 HOPC minutes where they made no recommendation regarding the site plans. You’re right, the HOPC did approve the elevations presented to them on 1/27/06. I was not on the commission then, but I believe the reason they approved it at that point was because it was better than what they were presented originally (which included a lot of unnecessary surface parking) and they didn’t think they would get any further concessions. I think it was a mistake to approve it, personally, but that’s water under the bridge now.
I’ve changed my original post accordingly.
Thank you. The art and spirit of compromise is a unique challenge in urban development and the Museum Square project certainly represents that situation relative to the HOP plan and commission. It’s certainly not completely in line with what was envisioned by original consultants hired by the city to develop the HOP plan. I suspect if the city had hired 100 consultants, they would have received at least 50 different plans, and who’s to judge which plan would be optimal. As an old boss used to say, “Kat, nobody’s always right, and nobody’s always wrong, and if you dont’ remember that, you’ll never make much progress on anything you’re working on.”
I hear what you’re saying, Kat, and I agree that no one can expect the Duany Plan to be implemented exactly as proposed. But the decision to dedicate the whole block to the museum means lots of lost tax revenues and private development for the city. The only “compromise” that I can see the museum group made is that they removed the surface parking — but they still insisted they needed it, so they just put it underground which increased the costs by a few million dollars. Then they tried to blame those additional costs on the HOP/C, as if the commission recommended they put the parking underground (which I know for a fact they didn’t). So, I don’t see much good-faith compromising going on with that project. It’s a bad plan, in my opinion, and the lack of donations is an indication that others feel the same way.
KAT,
“The art and spirit of compromise?”
I think it might be fair to say that the museum “group” has done very little in the way of compromise. The museum group has done a poor job of planning this museum from the start, and they have done an even poorer job of presenting these plans to all those concerned. They seemed to have developed a knack for misleading the public quite well.
CJ: What’s the alternative to the museum? It’s still not too late since no construction has started. I say let’s revisit the whole thing. Hopefully there is more going on than a $300,000 water fountain, but doesn’t seem to be. If Cat won’t build their visitor center without the museum, so be it. I hear the Cat center will be just like the John Deere visitor center, which is a joke–10 or 12 restored pieces of equipment and a promotional movie. The best thing about it is their gift shop. Time for Peorians to stand up and be heard instead of having the museum and Cat visitor center shoved down our throats.
I agree that the HOP/C did not recommend that the Museum Square development include underground parking, all they did was give input to the developers that they were much opposed to the site plan including any surface parking (although I do not believe they ever actually took a vote on that specific issue). No, they left it up to the developers to figure out where to put the parking if it wasn’t going to be on the surface. Some on the commission suggested that there was sufficient parking already in the near vicinity of the block. However, I can’t imagine any other developers presenting plans for a $100 million + investment and being told that they should go ahead with the investment without a corresponding parking plan. Those developers would walk out the door and never give another thought to investing in that community.
Kat — Please see my post, “Cat Logic: If we have too much, then we need more.”
I’m very familiar with that post, I disagreed with your position and premise then and my perspective on the issue is still that $100 million investors ought to be allowed to incorporate their own parking plan to maximize the protection of their investment.
What it boils down to is Cat wants to have parking for its VIPS, etc. who they will wine and dine at their “visitor center”. Can’t make big time dealers walk a few blocks.
Kat: So, you think every business downtown should have its own private parking deck/lot? That it would be too risky to rely on shared parking? I don’t believe the ballpark has a private lot, does it? How many millions was that?
Observer: Or even across the street! 🙂
But investors that want to provide parking should have the option. If they don’t and want to gamble on the parking availability on street or in existing decks so be it. But this is a case where the developer is willing to provide it (although I believe there is some City money being spent on it – either in the construction or operation). Better to have too much than too little – as long as it doesn’t negatively impact the layout/look of the project.
And what “project” would that be? This museum/visitor center is already a waste of economic space. Lets waste a little more with new parking lots, etc.
Of course, with the hundreds of thousands of people visiting the museum each year[as projected by the museum group], how can we go wrong? Heck, lets turn the entire river front into a parking lot!
I almost forgot. Can we really blame the Catholic Diocese of Peo? I mean who do they have as a role model in this city; Peoria Park Dist, Dist 150, all the Republicans…?
On Downtown Museum,
Right on Scott, “waste of economic space” is right. However, I do believe the Cat visitor center would draw well (more than the museum ever will) just becuase there are euthusiasts, and they may well visit. Also, this center would PAY PROPERTY TAXES. A big difference from, USING PROPERTY TAXES. Let CAT build another “skywalk” from their existing parking deck for VIP’s, and dealers.
Let’s be honest, when friends / family visit us from “out of town”, where do we want to take them? A Cheifs game, Rivermen game, the old mall, the new mall? My point is, fun things. I don’t think anyone who ever comes here to visit would care about a Peoria Muesuem. Why point it in the middle of an important part of downtown? A place that people can actually walk to their places of work, and downtown workers could shop at?
This is what needs to be developed down there. Put some condos, a Trader Joe’s, more restraunts, and watch people flock down there. It’s got to have an urban, dense, vibe. Put the museum in the Warehouse District, in an revitalized warehouse.
This is a seven acre site (I believe there are 8 downtown) rendering of something people would visit:
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/bym/img/apr06/tannery2041606.jpg