Once again, today may have been the Heart of Peoria Commission’s last meeting. On July 24, the city council will take up the issue of whether to change the commission’s status (that is, decommission it) or let it continue to meet. One question the council has is this: if the commission continues to meet, what work will it do?
That was the goal of the commission’s meetings last Friday and today: to develop a work plan to submit to the council. The top two goals the commission set were:
- Advocate and promote New Urbanism for transportation and public space.
- Assist in the implementation of the Land Development Code and Form District Codes.
On the first goal, it was recognized that the Land Development Code and Form District Codes primarily dealt with regulating private development (zoning, land use, etc.), and it was time to turn the commission’s attention to the public space. If there isn’t the public investment in “fixing the streets” (i.e., repairing deteriorating streets and sidewalks and, in doing so, improving them so that they accommodate a balance of uses — pedestrian, bicycle, mass transit, as well as automobiles), then the private development will be stunted. The commission can help facilitate progress in this area through the charrette process, education, input in the comprehensive plan, etc.
On the second goal, we also recognized that the work isn’t done yet with the form districts or the broader Land Development Code. We can work with the Planning department to develop a marketing plan for these areas, similar to what has been done on West Main with the Renaissance Park area through the efforts of the Renaissance Park Commission. We want to raise awareness of the opportunities that exist for redevelopment specifically in the form district areas but also throughout the Heart of Peoria Plan Area.
To help save staff time (and ultimately money), the commission agreed to reduce the frequency of meetings to every other month and disband its standing subcommittees. But in doing so, the commission also emphasized the importance of having the dual appointments of Heart of Peoria Commissioners on other city commissions (Planning, Traffic, Zoning Board of Approvals, etc.) as proposed in the original communication from the Mayor.
In other business, the commission also passed a resolution recommending to the city council that they deny the proposed changes to museum square and require that any future changes be in conformity with the Heart of Peoria Plan and the principles of New Urbanism. Specifically, the building mass on the block should be getting bigger, not smaller. If the museum portion needs to shrink, that’s understandable, but then part of the block should be reopened for private development, preferably mixed-use development that would include residential and retail components to keep the block busy perpetually and add more density to such a prime area of the central business district. The resolution passed by a 4-3 vote and marks the first time the commission has taken a position on the future of the former Sears block.
Well hallelujah, after four years of thinking about it, this commission finally had the gumption to take a vote. After seven meetings with the Museum Square developers when they just nodded along, now after the the developers have invested millions of $ in planning, now this commision decides to step up to the plate and take a vote. You think Peoria has developed a reputation for being unfriendly to developers in the past, wait as news of your attitude to proposals filters out into the world. Thanks HOPC, your Duany love fest has just elevated the attractiveness of the East Peoria real estate market another couple notches.
Interesting take. I would remind you that it’s the museum group that’s coming back asking for changes to their agreement with the city, not HOPC. HOPC is simply saying that, if they’re going to be changing the agreement and changing their plans anyway, now’s the time to ask them to start conforming those changes to the Heart of Peoria Plan.
We tried it their way, and it didn’t work. Now let’s go back to the plan that was developed through the charrette process and with input from a large, representative sample of Peoria’s citizens, and design the block accordingly. The museum can still have a portion of the block. But if it’s going to keep shrinking (remember, this is the second time they’ve reduced the size — it’s shrunk by over 26% since the original proposal), then there is no justification for them to continue to dominate the whole block and “put off” the retail or mixed-use component of the plan. By allowing mixed use of the block and opening a portion of the block to private development, we will be providing more opportunity for developers, not less. I don’t see how that is business unfriendly.
Besides, we’re just an advisory commission, so our vote doesn’t stop anything from happening. The council is free to reject our advice.
Seems like you might have another problem here CJ. Very surprising that Pat Sullivan did not recuse himself from this vote. Anyone else see more than just a bit of a conflict of interest here on the part of Mr. Sullivan. The type of development proposed for Museum Square would certainly have a negative impact on Mr. Sullivan’s buisness interests at the opposite end of Water Street. Especially you CJ, who was so worried about the issue of conflict of interest with young Mr. Spain a few months ago, but oh that’s right, Pat Sullivan voted with you on this issue, so I suppose the very obvious conflict of interest this time will be simply ignored on this blog. I suspect the four of you just tossed a few back at Kallaher’s after the meeting and thought no one would take notice.
Katmandu- do yourself a favor and get the facts:
#1. The Heart of Peoria Plan is a plan written by the firm DPZ and the information they used to write the plan was based on their observations of Peoria’s built environment and feedback from Peoria citizens. Believe it on not but some of us have a clear vision for the future. Please get a copy and read it becasue you will learn that the citizens do not want the Museum block to be developed as proposed by CAT and the Museum group! Doesn’t the lack of funding support prove that?
#2.Conflict-of-interest:
There is less conflict-of-interest today than there was when the commission was first appointed by Mayor Ransburg. The most conflicted was the original Chairman, Ron Budzinski; who at the time was the President of the architectural firm, PSA , now PSA/Dewberry.
One can imagine he controlled the conversations with CAT and the Museum Group(and the Civic Center)because he did not want to jeopardize PSA’s role as the local firm in charge. J.P. O’Brien, the Co-Chair at the time, also did not want to step on Cat’s toes or cause any discomfort for the Museum group. And therefore since you are so insightful about conflicts you must be wondering about how much business O’Brien Steel was doing with CAT at the time? I hope so, since you seem so infuriated by conflict-of-interest.
Now this is most likely old news to you, but just incase you didn’t know, PSA designed the renovation for 401 Water Street which is owned by another original Heart of Peoria Commissioner, Kert Huber. Kert Huber did not want to cause CAT or the Museum Group any angst because he, along with Mike Wisdom, expect $$$ reward will come their way with what they think is a successful Museum strategy as in the current plan. They are also good buddies with the two most important people at CAT ( snicker, snicker), Mr. Henry Hollings and Mr. Tim Elder. Just ask the two of them and they will tell you. Their nicknames at CAT: FIGJAM 2 and 3.
Now I have nothing against everyone getting rich on the Museum deal. If done well it will be good for city coffers and good for the city- but if you use Wisdom’s past history as a barometer- it’s doubtful. Since you are so “well informed” you know Wisdom is responsible for the eye-sore otherwise known as the platform with the ever so popular (not) restaurants like the gone for good DAMONS (BARF) and the dreadful Joe’s Crab Shack!
Yes, those were the good old days with the good old boys.
Now, I could go on and on about the other “original” commissioners-and I’ll agree most of them had conflicts. They have since stepped aside one by one. They vanished once they were confident the commission wouldn’t be upsetting their personal apple carts. Too much work with too little pay- as in no pay. You got it. All of the Heart of Peoria Commission work is voluntary. Today at least you have a group who really seem to care about the future of the city. And yes, some of them have conflicts, but I would bet money any day on Pat Sullivan. At least he puts his money where his mouth is, he gives back big time, his building is at least interesting and guess what? He did it without any city handouts!!!
Without knowing who you are- I wonder if you even come close to doing what he has done- nope you haven’t becasue no one has come close- just follow my comments with an example of a great project that didn’t use city funding to help. Name one! You won’t be able to.
Ask yourself if you were going to take a group of out-of-towners out for a casual lunch would you choose Joe’s Crab Shack or Kelleher’s? The answer is most likely Kelleher’s and even though it isn’t the best-it is better than the other pittiful restaurant choices we have in Peoria.
In conclusion- if they were down at Kelleher’s after the vote I wouldn’t blame them for “tossing a few back” you have to drink to get through a day spent in City Hall. Case closed.
Kelleher’s is an excellent restaurant, IMHO.
Red Zin, another excellent place to eat, might be considered a bit higher-tone that Kelleher’s.
Of course, I’m happy eating from a pushcart.
(That drives Sullivan NUTS).
Cj and his fellow HOPC marauders need to step up their advocacy for New Urbanism. Use the bully pulpit you have (and I hope the Council won’t yank out from under you). The continued development in our region following conventional use-based principles is doing nothing for Peoria other than making us look like everyone else. Follow-the-herd development does little to improve our lives.
SA
Kat — What conflict of interest? What competition? Is Sullivan planning on opening a competing museum on Water street? The museum removed most of its food service section. They also delayed indefinitely the 15,000 square feet of retail space along Water. Sounds like that plan would have been a dream come true for Sullivan — no competition at all! Plus, the museum itself wouldn’t be opening until 2011 (at least).
Instead, Sullivan is suggesting opening up the former Sears block to immediate private development for retail, restaurant, and/or residential uses. I would submit that this is far more risky for him because it could result in more competition.
I think you’ve somehow gotten the idea that the HOP Plan would kill the museum. It wouldn’t. It would allow there to be a museum and a whole lot more. Why would anyone want to restrict all that urban real estate to only one use? How narrow-minded.
Are we still talking about a museum? The vote was 4-3 in favor of res? Who are the three wieners? Is there anyone out there that really knows anything about MUSEUMS?