I guess we may as well just pitch the Land Development Code. It doesn’t appear that city commissions have any interest in actually enforcing it.
The Zoning Board of Appeals met Thursday to consider the case of 819 E. Fairoaks (corner of Fairoaks and Illinois). You may recall that the builder of this house submitted one plan to the city, then built something completely different. Specifically, the attached garage was supposed to be set back 6 feet from longest plane of the street side facade, but instead it was built 12 feet in front of the facade, a difference of 18 feet. This puts it out of compliance with the Land Development Code, and it means the house is not consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. Nevertheless, on a 4-3 vote, a variance was granted. The City could appeal the decision to circuit court; that possibility is under review according to Planning & Growth staff.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the ZBA meeting on Thursday, but I did listen to a recording of it. The builder (and his representative) employed what I’m going to start calling “the Bradley defense.” He said that it was an “honest mistake.” You see, the original plan he submitted to the city wasn’t compliant, so he made several changes, and the revised plan was approved. But then — whoops! — doggone it if he didn’t accidentally give the original plans to the excavator.
To compound matters, when the city inspector came out for a footings inspection, he signed off on the project. I caught up with City Inspections Manager John Kunski this past Tuesday and asked him how that happened. According to Kunski, the policy is that the builder is supposed to have a copy of the city-approved plan on-site. When the builder is ready for the footings inspection, he calls the city, and a city inspector (who’s usually out in the field) goes directly to the site to inspect it — he doesn’t have time to go back to the office to get copies of the site plan. In this case, the builder did not have the plans on-site, and the inspector didn’t have the site plan either; but in an effort to be customer-friendly, he signed off on it anyway because everything else was in order. Kunski said he’s strictly enforcing the policy now.
After that, I talked to at-large councilman Gary Sandberg, who used to be over the Inspections Department himself before he became a councilman. He said that there’s no need for the inspector to go directly to the site when called. The builder is supposed to give 24-hours notice — plenty of time for the inspector to gather all the site plans of the properties he will be inspecting before heading out to the site.
At the ZBA meeting, however, it was explained that enforcing the site plan was a secondary concern of the building inspections department. The primary concern is that the site is prepared properly so that whatever is built will be safe and stable. Ultimately, however, even the builder acknowledged that, while the city’s miscue compounded the problem, the builder was ultimately responsible for the error in construction.
So, now the house is almost all built. What to do? Of course the builder wants a variance. His basic argument is that this house is better than what was there before, and the neighbors approve of the house as is. The house “improves the character of the neighborhood” and it would be too costly to correct the mistake. He went on and on about how all the neighbors were thanking him for making the neighborhood so much better, and how grateful they were that he got rid of that rundown house that was there. It was “a simple mistake,” he said, adding, “just like Bradley.”
I should mention that the builder is not actually going to live in the house or the neighborhood. He bought the property and built the home just to turn around and sell it again, and hopefully make a little money on the deal. That would explain why he might not have noticed or cared that the contractor was building it wrong.
Judging from the recording, it sounds like the ZBA made its decision in favor of the variance based on the argument that this new house is better than what was there before (reportedly a rundown house everyone was pleased to see razed).
So, I guess that’s the new standard. We didn’t really need to spend all that time and money in charrettes, consultants, experts, etc., writing a complicated, legally-defensible zoning code based on the Heart of Peoria Plan. Really, all we needed was what I like to call the “Unwritten Development Code for Older Neighborhoods”:
Unwritten Development Code for Older Neighborhoods:
(based on decisions by Zoning and ZBA commissions)
Build whatever the heck you want. We’re desperate, and we’re willing to sell out whatever ideals we have if you’ll just build something… anything… please!! We’re begging you!
Last November, the Zoning Commission and the City Council voted to disregard the LDC for some development next to St. Ann’s Church. Now the ZBA has shown they’re willing to toss it aside as well. Bradley’s parking deck issue was a little different (not a design issue like St. Ann’s and the Fairoaks house; it was self-reported and compensated for with an improved pedestrian streetscape). Nevertheless, it was an exception to the LDC, and it’s already being invoked as a precedent to justify non-compliance.
The exception is becoming the rule.
Attention Jim Ardis, City Council, and Peoria Citizens:
CITY STAFF GOT THIS ONE RIGHT- We, on the other hand, blew it!
Peoria is NOT going to get better by wishing and hope’in, and praying. We need leadership. We must have people in decision making positions who understand how their collective decisions shape our city’s future.
CJ posted my comment of December 30th as a guest editorial on January 1, 2008.
http://peoriachronicle.com/2008/01/01/
I wrote “…The best cities drive the market by laying out their vision and getting it built. They do not take what ever is brought before them.
I know CJ tried to have a day of positive thoughts, and I was the sole party pooper, but Peoria is not being lead by people who understand how to right this ship and sadly, I do not think the voters appreciate this either.
Just ask yourself this question: When people hear the name Peoria what exactly do you want them to think of first?
I’ll bet a million dollars it is not Big Als, strip malls, cookie cutter subdivisions, a failing school system, or mediocre anything. Then why do we allow bad decisions to continue? Why do we continue to repeat the errors of the past? Are we a city full of idiots?
Peoria needs quality leadership…we need elected and appointed officials who KNOW how to do the right thing, in the right way, and for the right reasons.
Perhaps we could all read or re-read Aristotle for a start.
Heart of Peoria Plan, is Dead. It is DOA. Long live a new study, charretts and more money spent (Ha!). It had support from some people but not COP support. At 3-0 it struck out.
Come to Peoria, where you can experience the same ole same ole that is in every other same ole suburban sprawling, tax dollar wasting city. Nothing special. Whatever was special is being fretted away. Can we get another strip mall please?
Peoria is going to be slow to the future again.
The following article primarily is about the poor but there is the underlying story which is the rejuvenating of inner cities. People DO WANT to live in the inner cities:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ac41d96-01e0-11dd-a323-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Cha Ching! Cha Ching! I wonder whose cash register were ringing before this decision was made?
Congratulations, kcdad, you finally made an intelligent comment. Of course, with a record of 3-0, they are going to have a hard time enforcing the LDC with anybody now, with or without any “cha ching”
Exactly how much did the city spend developing the LCD? Just curious as to how much was wasted on a plan that’s essentially going to sit on a shelf somewhere. I think the city owes taxpayers a refund.
Well it’s L D C. Not LCD. So there goes the refund.
Oh my gosh, they actually want transparency…in Sarasota that is…
For a view of how easy developers have it in Peoria- check out this clip:
http://sarasota.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1476&meta_id=1064
of the city of Sarasota’s review (March 21, 2008) of the Leiter/Buck proposed development in Sarasota. (yes this is Leiter of Peoria, and most likely Alexis Khazzam is involved too)
Rather good television don’t you agree? Peoria needs to recognize the 21st century is here!
And by the way, Sarasota only has 55,000 people and they expect more-go figure
Original George: I can’t get to your link. I get an error message. Is there another way to navigate to it?
http://sarasota.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1476
Mouse: Is my comment intelligent because it conforms to your thinking, or because you conform to it?
The Sarasota video is AMAZING. It should retitled… “let’s watch a city get ripped off”
Pause the clip when you get to the third column and go full screen. We are going to lower the price of everything and increase the cost to the city… notice how the 17% figure (cost to the city) remains the same even as the 100% (total cost) figure decreases…
And you claim these are the same guys doing it to us?
The reason I posted a link to the Sarasota City Commission (their City Council) review of this particular development proposal is two fold:
First, if you watch all four hours, you will see the contrast between Peoria and places similar to Sarasota, Florida. When projects are brought forward Sarasotans expect developers to get it right- no matter how long it takes or how much perceived hardship there is. They say …”Sarasota is not like going to Burger King where you get it your way” In this case, the developers are receiving land from the city and the city is determined to get the project built on their terms. They will not simply rubber stamp proposals and grant variances at the developers whim.
Think of how Peoria has negotiated with Maloof, Cullinan, Wald-Land, Mike Wisdom, the Museum Group, David Joseph, Bradley, both hospitals, the Diocese etc. We wonder why the results are less than stellar- yielding compromise and mediocrity.
Second, the developer is from Peoria. Yes, this flies in the face of the notion that if we (in Peoria) make it too difficult for developers they will flee to places that make it easier for them. Flee they might, but not necessarily to places without development standards and controls. In this case, the developer appears to be attracted to Sarasota because they can see Sarasota has a growing market for hotels, restaurants, retail, and residences.
Ask yourself how do you think that has happened? And please don’t use the sun and beach excuse. I can give you other examples of places without year round sun that get a better outcome and as a result become a better place.
You can see Sarasota leadership understands they will have one pass at building projects such as this one, and they don’t want to make compromises that will diminish the outcome. They have a vision and they are going to get it built.
Watch all four hours and then study some of the documentation and the subsequent communication between the attorneys. We could use a dose of this type of civic determination, wouldn’t you agree?
And to Mahkno- the Financial Times article was a good read – thanks for the post.
to answer your question, kcdad, neither. Its about thoughtful debate. There are a wide variety of views posted on this blog. I agree with some, and disagree with others, but most are thoughtful, and I concede that those I disagree with often have some valid points. I respect those people, even if I don’t agree with them. Those that blindly repeat nonsense they’ve heard or read, or are intellectually dishonest don’t deserve any respect.