The deconstruction of the Land Development Code continued at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Now the City is going to allow “separate, accessory parking lots in the West Main Street, Local Frontage category.” Because nothing says “pedestrian-friendly” and “urban” like large surface parking lots . . . or so City administrators in the Planning and Growth Department think. They defended the amendment by saying surface parking lots fulfill the intent of the code:
Administration of the LDC found that prohibiting separate, accessory parking lots is not consistent with the intent of the Land Development Code as stated in section 1.5:
- Create a “park-once” environment.
- Promote reuse, redevelopment and infill.
- Encourage mixed-use neighborhood main streets.
You read that right: the City is arguing that big surface parking lots are consistent with the Land Development Code, which is based on the Heart of Peoria Plan, which is based on New Urbanist principles. Somehow, I don’t think that tearing down single-family residential houses in order to construct large surface lots is the kind of “redevelopment and infill” the authors of the LDC had in mind. In fact, it goes directly against other intent statements in section 1.5, such as:
- Encourage and assist in the preservation of existing buildings and housing stock.
- Use the scale and massing of buildings to transition between the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods.
- Use the commercial corridors as a seam sewing neighborhoods together rather than a wall keeping them apart
But the change was approved in a rare 7-3 vote, with Sandberg, Jacob, and Gulley voting against it. Not so rare was the fact that only two council members spoke to the issue — Van Auken in favor, Sandberg against — before it was approved. The LDC will not be repealed all at once. It will simply be pecked away little by little until it looks no different than the old Euclidean zoning it replaced.
This is exactly the issue that we are trying to fight on Underhill Street. I appreciated the support of Sandberg, Gully and Jacob. A proposed parking lot is being foisted upon us without our knowledge or consent. Despite the speeches at last night’s meeting, this lot is not supported by affected residents or unilaterally by the neighborhood association. The vote was a blow to New Urbanism in Peoria.
I was just looking at the live camera feed coming from the new Grace Presbyterian Church. Are they following the Land Development Code or New Urbanist principles?
Just asking….
Emtronics: You know I can’t comment on that; are you just trying to be a jerk?
Looks like Avanti’s gets a little closer to expanding their Main and Univ location.
Regrettably, the intent seems to be to slowly cook the frog in warm water — same story — applied to many issues.
CJ: I don’t know why. Really. I asked a question and you accuse me of being a jerk? Really? Do you do that to everyone who asks a question? No…. Maybe there is a jerk here??
Me thinks though do protest too much, Em.
I think CJ has a long-held policy of not blogging about work. I think he may have assumed you knew about that policy. Maybe you didn’t. But your reputation for instigation (not a necessarily bad thing in the blogosphere) precedes you.
Em– Let me put it to you this way: I will not blog about my employer, and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t ask me to do so. Thank you.
oops I forgot. Sorry, didn’t know where my head was.
Why don’t you just block Emtronics comments, he/she/it is such a jerk!
Wacko — I never said Emtronics was a jerk, and I’m not banning him. He usually makes good comments.
CJ-
What kind of parking is allowable, according to the LDC?
whew! Thanks CJ. Coming from someone who logs on as “wacko” scares me anyway. And CJ, yes, I was messing with ya. Again sorry. I don’t discuss my work either over at you know where… 🙂
My only boss is the voters who elected me. But I serve all whenever possible.
I need an attorney for my claim against the city. Sandberg gave me a name but I’ve not been able to reach him. Any suggestions, email me.
Chuck Danner He loves that stuff.
I just want to reply to a post conrad made at the beginning of this particular blog. I think that it is very important to this debate that all the information is available so that people can make an opinion based on fact. First I will not hide the fact that I have signed an option to buy on my property. I firmly believe in the project and feel that it is positive with or without my lot being used.
“A proposed parking lot is being foisted upon us without our knowledge or consent”
This statement is totally incorrect. The developer had a public meeting in May with the neighborhood where a site plan was submitted to the neighborhood. The site plan clearly shows surface parking on the lots on Underhill. BVA and Pat Landis, along with those in attendance can and have varified this. UENA had a special meeting to discuss the plan that Devonshire brought to us. Conrad chose not to attend either of these meetings and it seems did not view the site plan and is now attempting to paint it as if the developer or the city is attempting to force a parking lot.
The NA has been aware of the surface parking for months, and if someone was not it is because they chose not to access the information that was available. The developer made contact numbers available to members of the NA and further the NA selected a liason, someone from UENA, to go between the NA and the developer if questions or concerns came up. I am confused as to why Mr Stinnett did not make an attempt to vocalize his concerns when the site plan was first brought to the neighborhood or if he could not attend these meetings why did he not contact someone who did so that his concerns could be voiced?
Another important fact that I think is being slightly twisted in the blog is that we are losing a large stock of “single family homes.” Of the seven properties that the developer is considering options on only two are actually owner occupied dwellings. Many of the properties that are being considered for removal are rental properties that are in anything but an acceptable or desireable condition.
I think it is also important to note that the NA demanded main st retail space and the developer is including it and with that comes the need for parking. The lots on Underhill have been placed there to provide parking to the retail space.
I would also like to stress that if my option is not acted on I will live right next door to not only the development but also the parking lot. I will live MUCH closer then Mr. Stinnett does and I am in complete support of the project. The development is much more attractive then the current properties and in my opinion will be a much greater asset to my home’s value and my quality of life then the rental homes and tenants that are there currently
You, Mr. Stephen Scanlan-Yerly, sir, are a nonconforming radical espousing views rooted in common sense. Please don’t linger; you may be asked to surrender your passport.
I respect the views of Mr. Scanlan-Yerly, even if he is not in possession of all the facts in this matter. I am always in contact with others in the neighborhood and am aware of what goes on all events, even those very rare occasions when I have been unable to attend.I have been following the events of this development with keen interest. The bottom line is that the proposed Underhill lot is not wanted by affected residents. Many found out about it for the first time when they received a notice of hearing for zoning variance. Mr. Scanlan-Yerly may well continue to insist that all aspects of this development were well-communicated, but that is not the case.
I would like to point out that the UENA agreed to support the actions of affected residents, which includes Mr. Scanlan-Yerly and others who chose to sell to the developer, as well as those who choose to oppose the more intrusive aspects of this development. While I agreed to support Stephen, he also agreed to support me. While I always respect my neighbor and his opinions, I question that his motivation for speaking out now may be more fueled by his concern that the efforts of affected residents- those who choose to stay – may deprive him of a home sale, than for concern for quality of life in our neighborhood.
I’d like to ask Stephen to take off the gloves, modify his views and join me in this endeavor to modify the development to better suit everyone concerned. We all want the right development; this is not it. Let’s work together here to support something we can all live with. Stephen, I am always happy to discuss my views and actions with you offline at any time.
Conrad read the email that BVA sent to the NA. Pat Landes and her are both in agreement that the site plan that is currently on the table was the one presented to the NA at the meeting. In fact I can personally scan and email you that site plan if you would like to look at it. I do support your effort to fight the parking lot but doing it under the cover that the NA was not aware of the lot or that the developer or city is trying to pull one over on us is a flat out misrepresentation of the truth and that I do not support. I also knew you would make comment on my home sale so in response to that I did include in my post that if my option is not exercised I will be closer to both lot and development then your home is and I am completely comfortable with that.
There he goes again. . .
Conrad I sat down and thought this all through and have actually come up with a plan that would help you with the parking issue but Im worried it may be to late.
First though the developer brought the plan to the attention of the city and neighborhood in May the lots were present and that is undisputable.
“I checked with Director Landes and she confirmed that the drawings that were passed out showed both parking lots and that we specifically discussed the Underhill lot because neighbors indicated that they didn’t want access to Underhill from the lot. Consequently, Devonshire agreed to change the entrance and exit.”
There are options, or were options Im not sure thats why it may be to late, to buy basically every house on Bourland. That being said Bourland will largely be the McDonalds lot which already has surface parking, three homes that I think have options, and the development. Devonshire is already planning to build a small parking lot next to the McDonalds lot.
Bourland is currently a U off of Main St meaning that due to the diverters no traffic can enter the neighborhood off bourland except through the alley which ideally would be vacated or blocked to through traffic.
By moving the parking from Underhill to Bourland the retail space would then have parking access that would arguablly be closer to the development and very few residents would be affected due to the fact that the block will basically be taken up by the development.
The 1000 block of Frink is largly made up of apartment buildings that currently appear vacant and even if not they have surface parking all around them so it could be argued that due to the existance of surface parking there it wouldnt be unreasonable to develop more adjacent to it.
An even better option with this would also be if the U of bourland could be turned into a one way up to the light where the McDonalds is. This would mean that all traffic leaving the parking lots and the development would be forced to a traffic controled light meaning that through traffic would be at a minimum and a bulk of the traffic would be forced out onto Main St. This scenario would also be good for the walkablity concept because by having that section of Bourland a one way the lots would largly be accesible to only those chosing to go to the retail in the area. The idea is it would be to much of a hassle just to cruise through the street. McDonalds has an entrance off of Main St so the exit would then just left turn only out to Main St.
I feel and have felt that a set up such as this would be much better for the neighborhood, which is why I had already thought it out, but when it seemed that there was no complaint until now I saw no point to vocalize. Prehaps pitching a set up such as this would encourage the city to entertain other options and still get a workable project.
I would like to apologize for being so aggressive about this but I have my own frustrations to deal with regarding this project.
Stephen Scanlan-Yerly
I appreciate your dedication to what you beleive is right, Stephen. If I have offended, I apologize to you. I, too, have frustrations regarding this development and can understand where you are coming from. Your idea is interesting and I’d be open to hearing more. I also have information to share which will maybe enhance your understanding of the situation. Have a good weekend.
There is a small flaw in this plan. The entrance off of Main St., going into McDonald’s is mainly for traffic on that side of Main St.. Any traffic coming from the other direction would have to pull over into the center left turn lane that is only for the people turning left off of Main St., onto Bourland. This won’t work. It is unsafe and not planned for that type of traffic access. McDonald’s is not going to allow this as it will interfere with their business. Also if Main St., is narrowed to one lane in each direction this again will cause a problem for cars getting into McDonald’s so close to a stoplight. It isn’t going to work.
The one way idea would be an ideal situation type scenario. There is no reason though that the parking from Underhill couldnt be moved to the lots that there are options on on Bourland Ave though. Even without the one way the parking lot could still be relocated onto a block where their would be few remaining residential lots. I personally have no problem with the plan as it is now but for the sake of those that do appear to have concerns this plan might work better for them.