Tuesday night, the Peoria City Council decided twice not to enforce the Land Development Code (LDC). They made decisions that weren’t just minor variations to the LDC, but decisions that were a fundamental affront to the very intent of the LDC. In fact, they showed an ignorance of and contempt for the intent of the LDC. They have evidently never read the LDC nor the Heart of Peoria Plan on which it was based.
The two items on the Council’s agenda were:
- New Taco Bell. The Taco Bell restaurant at 1811 N. Knoxville is going to be rebuilt. The developer is going to tear down the building and put up a new one. This would be the perfect opportunity to bring the property into compliance with the code. Yet Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken moved to approve the developer’s request to comply with none of the LDC — to be completely non-conforming. Why? Because he’s reportedly spending $1.8 million and because she thinks there are “problems” with the LDC. That latter reason is the latest rage, don’t you know. Just declare something “broken” or “a problem” (like the Historic Preservation Ordinance, for instance) and then you can completely disregard it until it’s “fixed.” What does Van Auken think is wrong with the code? Wait till you hear.
The code calls for buildings to be built close to the street — preferably right up to the sidewalk — so that they’re more pedestrian friendly and so that they’re pushed further away from the residential neighborhoods that are behind the businesses, among other reasons. When the code was enacted, buildings that didn’t conform to the code (like Taco Bell) were grandfathered in. They could even make minor additions and renovations without having to bring the building into compliance in an attempt to be “business friendly.” But if they were to make major renovations — like tearing down and reconstructing the building — then they would have to bring it into compliance. Makes sense, right? They’re rebuilding the thing anyway, why not build it in compliance with the code? No doubt the code would have been roundly criticized if it required a building to be torn down and rebuilt (i.e., brought into compliance) whenever the owner wanted to make any minor change.
Yet Barbara Van Auken turned that reasoning on its head Tuesday night. She said the code was unfair to require major renovations to trigger full compliance, but not minor renovations. It rewards those who slap up shoddy additions, but penalizes those who want to invest $1.8 million to put up a “state-of-the-art Taco Bell,” she explained. That wasn’t her intent when she voted to enact the LDC, she said.
Thus, she voted to approve a brand new building construction that completely defies the LDC, not just in siting, but also the buffering from the neighborhood. Under the LDC, a masonry garden wall would have been required as a buffer. The Council said a repaired wooden fence was sufficient.
- Expanded pet clinic. Demanes Animal Hospital at the corner of Wisconsin and Forrest Hill has bought up four properties around it and wants to expand. They’re not tearing down their building, but instead adding on to it. However, they want to site the addition in such a way that it doesn’t conform with its current zoning, called CN (neighborhood commercial). The CN district requires that the building addition come right up to the sidewalk and that parking be put in the rear of the building. Where the existing building does not front the sidewalk, a street wall that can be as short as 3 feet tall would need to be built to establish the street edge and provide buffering.
Instead of asking for a variance from these requirements, the decision was made to do a complete end-run around the requirements by asking for the property to be rezoned CG (general commercial). There is no legal justification for rezoning this property CG, as I outlined in my letter to the Zoning Commission, which I forwarded to Third District Councilman Bob Manning as well.
You see, when you ask for a zoning change, the Zoning Commission and Council need to consider that request apart from the current use or current plans. Why? Because once the zoning is changed, it applies not just to the current owner, but any future owners. If Mr. Demanes were to decide to move his practice, or if (God-forbid) he got hit by a bus and the clinic needed to close, the next property owner could use that property for any permitted use under CG zoning, which includes such neighborhood-friendly uses as a pawn shop, oil and lube shop, and car wash. The zoning designation requested is the most intense land use designation available under the LDC. This is clearly inappropriate in a densely-populated residential neighborhood. It’s also completely contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
But the appropriateness of the zoning proper was never discussed. Instead, Mr. Manning tore a page form Ms. Van Auken’s playbook and criticized the CN requirements, saying they weren’t appropriate for this part of his district. They may be okay for Main Street (in the second district), but they’re not “one size fits all,” he said. So the Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has proven over the past 50 years to deteriorate the third district. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that the citizens found so undesirable that they wanted to change the zoning code. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has been proven to destabilize neighborhoods, not revitalize them.
The Council decided to repudiate the Land Development Code. They apparently think change will come by doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. These aren’t isolated incidents, nor are they minor variances. Beginning with St. Ann’s right after the LDC was adopted, right up to the actions Tuesday night, the Council has consistently undercut the Land Development Code at every turn.
The Heart of Peoria Plan was adopted “in principle” in 2002, but it has yet to be adopted in practice, despite having been codified in the LDC.
Forgive me for playing devil’s advocate here, but here’s a few theoretical reasons why the council was so willing to step over (or on, rather) the LDC for Taco Bell.
Taco Bell is not a pedestrian-friendly business. I know it’s putting the cart before the horse a bit to decide zoning and codes based on existing business use, but the logistics of a drive-thru lane on a building that touches the sidewalk line would be an engineering nightmare, let alone a logistical nightmare with sightlines — if the drive-thru exit would open onto Knoxville, the sightlines leaving the drive-thru would be downright dangerous. (And exiting the drive-thru onto any side street would invariably lead to complaints about cut-through traffic.) Also, with the downfall of Cub Foods on Knoxville, I’m sure the council saw the $1.8mil being invested in the neighborhood and just took what they could get.
I do agree with you about the zoning change though – that’s what variances are for. Also, are the four adjacent properties also zoned CN? The (admittedly old 2005) zoning map I have shows only the two corners of Wisconsin/Forrest Hill zoned commercial (and interestingly enough, general commercial at that).
It’s a shame though. By and large I feel that zoning is bunk, but I instead prefer a form-based code to determine how neighborhoods should function. (Case in point: until the advent of mixed-use zoning not too long ago, buildings had to be either all commercial or all residential. That may work out in Richlands or Dunlap, but if you’re trying to build a vibrant downtown core, it’s hard without both places to live and work/play.)
It’s a shame that apparently in Peoria, neither land-use strategy works.
It’s better here.
It would be interesting to see if there are a high number of accidents coming out of drive-thrus for restaurants that do go to the sidewalk. One that pops into my mind is the KFC on Western Ave.
I know that I have never seen an accident there, but it would be interesting to see if they have a higher number of accidents based on their apparent adherence to the LDC code.
The Taco Bell parcel is zoned CG, which allows for a setback of up to 80 feet. If sight-lines were an issue, that could be accommodated. Traffic accident stats are a red herring.
Taco Bell is not pedestrian-friendly because we haven’t insisted that it be so. If you drive down Knoxville in this area of town you will see that there are lots of pedestrians and transit riders who would benefit from the development being more pedestrian-oriented. But instead, we’re going to continue to allow the development — even new development — to be entirely automobile-oriented, then no doubt wring our hands over the hollowing out of the urban core.
Re: Demanes. If you click on the link to my letter to the zoning commission, it lists what all the surrounding properties are zoned.
Look a Taco Bell & a KFC with NO drive through.
http://nikolasschiller.com/images/taco_bell_overcharges_vegetarians.jpg
laws are for “little people”, not the City Council.
Besides, the council thinks we need more fast food joints.
I’m not a real big fan of parking behind buildings at night.
Zoning in Peoria is not to control what gets built, but is in place to control who does the development. Those with the connections on the council are allowed to take an end run around the rules. Those with no connections will find the council more than willing to beat them over the head with the rules book.
I would rather have the building closer to the residential area than the parking lot with the noise from the cars and lot lights.
If this was in a downtown residential area I could see it but it is on Knoxville and Knoxville is what it is.
Why is this such a supprise? I went to meeting and help with plans, it was a waste of time and paper. I think the City does window dressing as to neighborhood issues. Plans look good but don’t enforce them once adopted. I expect another plannig session to “fix” the neighborhoods again. All the $$$ and time spent is such a pitty.
A 2,900 sf fast food restaurant that is going to cost $1,800,000.00 is $620.6895 per square foot. You just got to wonder how they can sell tacos for $0.79 a piece or how anyone with an IQ over room temperature could embrace such unreasonable numbers. Of course that $1,800,000.00 price tag came from the same silver tongued lawyer that convinced an earlier Council that 43% of the sales for Cubs across the street would come from outside Peoria and from as far away as 50 miles. Shameful excuse for critical thinking, but the beat goes on and it’s better here. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Those homes on east side of Linn Street were home owner occupied residences until the Knoxville Ave. Commercial uses were allowed to invade their back yards in the 50 and 60’s with no buffering/landscaping, then they were allowed to have drive ups, again along the single family zoned area. They’ve since become investor owned rental properties and the CIty Council hasn’t yet figured out just why that happens. It’s just easiler to blame the landlords …………………………..
Peoriafan — If the building is moved closer to the street and away from the residences in back, then the drive-through lane is moved away from the residences as well. The parking would be separated/buffered from the homes by a masonry wall. You get a lot more sound deadening and light blocking with masonry than you do with a rickety old fence. The LDC provides a much nicer solution than the Council’s. Under the Council’s solution, both the building and the cars are closer to the residences and there’s less buffering! It’s a lose-lose for older neighborhoods.
Bulls Eye, Michael. As for Gary, I question whether said earlier council was convinced of such nonsense, or simply chose to “believe” it so they could vote the way they wanted to?
The fact that someone would consider a fast food restaurant/business/chain with a drive thru “pedestrian unfriendly” by nature, and thinks that placing such a structure up to the sidewalk would be “a logistical and engineering nightmare”pretty much sums up the lack of vision that is seriously hampering any sort of progressive urban development in this city.
I moved here from the north side of Chicago last summer – the logistical nightmare that you are describing seems to function there just fine. Fast food chains are built up along the sidewalk, and yes, they have drive thrus. This is the rule rather than the exception in urban areas throughout the country. Never in a million years would it have occurred to me that someone in Peoria would find such a simple, workable proposal untenable – when it seems to be a no brainer elsewhere. Could someone please explain this to me?
Inertia. Local builders like doing things the same way. Business owners are put off by what’s new and unfamiliar. And if they can save even a few bucks, they will hem and haw about pout about it, knowing someone on the council will listen and cave.
Frankly, I don’t give New Urbanism the credit that C.J. and Gary Sandberg do. I think they have convinced themselves it’s a miracle sure.
But it is the law of the land. It SHOULD be the rules EVERYBODY follows, not just those who are spending million of dollars, or those who have a council member’s ear.