Clare Jellick (who has a good blog of her own) reports in today’s Journal Star that plans to expand Glen Oak Zoo will be unhindered by the request to designate Glen Oak Park an historic site.
Section 16-86(d) of Peoria’s municipal code states (emphasis mine):
(d) Regulation during consideration period. From the date of filing an application until the date of a final decision by the commission, or if the commission recommends the designation, until the date of a final decision by the city council, the provisions of section 16-61 shall apply as if the subject property were designated as requested; provided, however, that this interim control shall in no case apply for more than 210 days after the application is filed. Once the area is designated as a historic district or a landmark, it shall comply with all the regulations set forth in articles I through IV of this chapter.
So, the next question is, what does section 16-61 say? Here it is:
Work on property and improvements shall be regulated as follows:
(1) Landmarks. No alterations, interior construction which affects structural members, exterior construction, removal of significant landscaping (for a shrub mass, more than 25 percent) or exterior demolition may be performed on property and improvements which have been designated under articles I through IV of this chapter as landmarks except as shall be approved by a certificate of appropriateness.
(2) Historic districts. No alterations, exterior construction, removal of significant landscaping (for a shrub mass, more than 25 percent) or exterior demolition may be performed on property and improvements located within an area which has been designated under articles I through IV of this chapter as a historical district except as shall be approved by a certificate of appropriateness.
However, Pat Landes, the city’s Director of Planning and Growth Management, tells Jellick that since the City Council approved a special use permit for the zoo expansion in June 2006, the city is going to allow construction to continue unhindered. She was pretty emphatic and definitive, reportedly saying, “The city has no plans to stop the construction of the zoo.”
Yet, according to section 16-4(c) of the municipal code (emphasis mine), “Whenever there is a conflict between the provisions of articles I through IV of [the Historic Preservation] chapter or a regulation adopted hereunder and the provisions of any other code or ordinance of the city, the more restrictive shall apply.”
It seems to me the City is breaking its own code in deference to the Park District. A plain reading of the code would indicate that the zoo expansion should be halted until the Historic Preservation Commission either approves or denies making Glen Oak Park an historic site. That the City is reluctant to enforce this temporary delay indicates, I believe, the City is unlikely to approve declaring the park an historic site either. Just a prediction.
Why? Because getting into a turf battle of this magnitude with the Park District would be expensive, acrimonious, and arguably disadvantageous for the city. Also, since the Park Board made the right final decision (from the City’s viewpoint at least) regarding the school siting issue, the City is likely to be more cooperative than they would have been otherwise.
Nevertheless, the PPD should have to go through the same process that any property owner in the city is required by ordinance to go through, otherwise through out the rules for everyone. This is the same food chain order operating procedure that is usually dished out from P&G Management. In a case in my neighborhood, replete with many questionable practices, a property owner was hung for 6-7 months with more than $100,000 tied up in building materials while P&G M worked out the messy and unethical and illegal practices of witnesses in this case before the ZBA overruled the zoning administrator’s decision. What good for the average citizen is also good for the PPD and non-profits and so on… I have lots of examples….
Right on, Karrie, PPD should be held to the same standards as everybody else.
Karrie mentioned “stewardship.†How would any of you rate the “stewardship†of Peoria’s history, be it the material culture or local architecture? Local [historical]designation means that a property has met the criteria of a local preservation ordinance. Protection of such properties falls under the auspices of the local HPC. Has the Peoria HPC become such an impotent body? Does zoo expansion necessarily mean the destruction of Glen Oak historic architecture? The historical houses of Peoria are on the National Registry, yet this does not prevent Peoria City politics from letting the houses and their contents fall into ruin.
“stewardship” of historic resources in Peoria? With the sole (and welcome) exception of City Hall (hmm…) there is no serious commitment to historic preservation in Peoria, never has been.
The Civic Center should have incorporated the Rialto Theater (as similar projects have in other cities), it didn’t. The City let the medical industry destroy historic homes in the middle of the night (or did they get a severe tongue lashing for that?) We have lost numerous other buildings over the years, but, more telling, consider this:
Madison Theater – still here but for how long?
Pere Marquette Hotel – Civic Center wants to run out of business by building tax-subsidized competition? Of course, the Civic Center demolished the Jefferson Hotel instead of incorporating it into the project.
Rock Island Depot – had thriving business in it till City killed with their ugly, ill-conceived stilt village project.
Having said that, it isn’t about individual buildings. It’s about an over-all policy. Instead of spending how-many-million on that Rec-of-a-Plex money pit, the Park Board should have been maintaining Glen Oak Park all along. Instead of spending how-many-million on streets to get people into the free lots at Northwoods Mall, while still trying to nickel and dime people to death with parking fees and tickets downtown, somebody should have thought to do something besides sing about going “downtown”.
Today, a group of thinking people want to save the Kellar Branch so we can have a trolley service through town to promote tourism and mobility. Our “public servants” are afraid to embrace the idea for fear of being ridiculed by the lunatics at the Propaganda Star (the same nut-cases that actually published an editorial opposing snow on Christmas). If the people of this area want to have a community that is more than just another collection of ugly franchised neon-signed cookie-cutter boxes surrounded by a desert of concrete, then they need to push a policy, not just a building.