I attended a quasi-public meeting Tuesday night regarding the proposed Main Street Commons project that is slated to go in where the old Walgreen’s is at the corner of Main and Bourland.
The meeting was held at the PeoriaNEXT building (which incidentally has doors that face Main Street, but they’re all locked; all pedestrians have to walk around the back of the building — by the parking lot — to enter the building, which is symbolic of the lip-service Peoria gives to pedestrians). Pat Landes and Kimberly Smith from the Planning and Growth Department were there, along with Thomas Harrington and Shawn Luesse representing the developers, and second district council person Barbara Van Auken theoretically representing the district, although she appeared to be only representing the University East neighborhood Tuesday night.
The proposed project is due to go before the Zoning Commission on Thursday at 3:00. Here’s the information that has been submitted.
There’s a lot to like about the project. It hides most of the parking in a ground-floor garage under the building. It includes retail shops on Main and Bourland. They’ve pledged to adhere to the approved building materials outlined in the code, although they apparently haven’t decided which materials they will be using.
But there are ten variances they are requesting from the Zoning Commission, and ultimately, the City Council. Many of them are minor. A few of them are troublesome:
- Fulfilling open space requirement by demolishing a home on the corner of Bourland and Russell and leaving it as a vacant lot (albeit landscaped). (This actually involves a couple variance requests.) Instead, they should simply reduce the size of the building. This would also remove the need for another variance to approve a longer building than allowed by code. It would preserve a single-family home on the corner, thus providing a better transition to the neighborhood and removing the need for a street wall.
- Speaking of street walls, another variance requests approval for a street fence instead of a street wall. While this seems relatively innocuous, it continues a precedent trending toward removal of the street wall requirement completely. That’s not a good thing. Street walls serve several functions, one of which is to help prevent exactly what’s going on here — leaving an entire corner vacant.
- The code requires that “no window may face or direct views toward a common lot line.” The developers want this waived “to allow living room windows on the west elevation of the south building, for proposed units on the second through fifth floor, (overlooking the Jimmy John’s parking lot) to be located 7′-4″ behind the common lot line.” The concern here is that, eventually, we hope that the Jimmy Johns property will be redeveloped. It currently has a one-story building with a parking lot in front (suburban siting), so overlooking the parking lot is not a problem. But what happens when that lot is redeveloped? Will the Main Street Commons development negatively impact efforts to redevelop the Jimmy Johns property? Keep in mind that the code will require that any redevelopment of Jimmy Johns’ property be a multi-story building sited next to the street and abut the Main Street Commons property. Will this cause problems from a fire-fighting standpoint? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to the question of its impact on future development because it was disallowed by Councilperson Van Auken at the meeting; the question was “theoretical” and besides, I’m not an immediate neighbor to the project. This kind of myopic thinking (ignoring both the regional impact of projects as well as the future implications of developments) is most unfortunate from a sitting council person, but not particularly surprising.
On a positive note, it’s great to see mixed-use development being proposed for Main Street. Having residents will provide more natural surveillance of the surrounding streets, and will provide a larger market for the retail shops that will go in on the ground floor. Overall, this is the kind of development we want to see. My only caution would be to consider the unintended consequences of variances to the code; as Councilman Sandberg pointed out at the meeting, the developers already know they will get 100% occupancy, so they’re just trying to maximize profits at this point. There’s no reason they can’t meet the requirements of the code, especially on the points above. The Zoning Commission and City Council should seriously consider enforcing the code at these points for the long-term good of the city.
UPDATE: It passed the Zoning Commission with next to no deliberation. Marj Klise was the only “no” vote. One of the commissioners said that provisions in the Land Development Code were “open to interpretation” — which is to say, meaningless. That was enlightening. Another commissioner said he was all for it because of all the revenue it’s going to bring to the city at a time when the city is facing a $10 million deficit. Too bad he evidently wasn’t aware that this project has been added to the Enterprise Zone and is getting its sales and property taxes abated… and that the City is asking the state to extend the Enterprise Zone past the 2013 expiration date. This project isn’t actually going to bring any revenue into the City, but it’s going to make a whole lot of money for the developers!
I appreciated you being there, CJ. I don’t believe anyone is opposed to a good development, but the devil is in the details. There are some residents, like me, who will have to live with whatever is built there and, as such, need to be sure that issues related to this development are addressed. “Can I live with it?” is not a rhetorical question for me, but is something that I- and other affected residents- need to deal with. Campustown was supposed to help solve problems in the area, but has become a problem. We don’t need to go down that road again. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right.
I was curious how this meeting went. I was out of town at another committment. It would appear that as many “public” meetings go at least in the 2nd, questions are censored, discouraged, disallowed. If you want to see things enforced regarding this, then looking to current representation will not happen, I would guess that deal has already been made. Organize your thoughts cohesively in a non emotional appeal and lobby your at large reps who are the next up for re-election and hit those district reps who do listen to neighborhood concerns outside of the blessed areas. The goal is to get the six votes you need. the need to vote now on some of these variances and concerns must outweigh the current project as is. You have to show better ways the project can co-exist with the neighborhood and better enhance, meet the needs of the community. I would also look to see what the developer is making on this project and compare to comparable projects to argue need for change to benefit area is still cost effective and business friendly. bottom line for city is how much will this property pay in taxes at X-date vs. what there is now. Think deficit mentality. Final piece of advice. vote wisely, you get what you vote for. no more no less. Good luck.
“I don’t have an answer to the question of its impact on future development because it was disallowed by Councilperson Van Auken at the meeting; the question was “theoretical” and besides, I’m not an immediate neighbor to the project.”
What a crock of s###. That’s what it is. S###. Don’t like the word? Sometimes you got to call it what it is. What is not so theoretical is that having windows overlooking Jimmi John’s will enable the owners of Main Street Commons to better block and oppose any urban redevelopment of Jimmi Johns. Having anything taller will obstruct their precious views and diminish the value that could be charged for the apartments on that side. Who wants to live in an apartment where the window opens to a brick wall? Yeah…
Barbara, what happens in University East matters greatly to ALL the neighbors on the West Bluff. You want certitudes over theoretical… fine how certain are you that none of C.J.’s, mine or anyone else’s concerns won’t come to pass. You have none. There is a reason those details are in the code and why they should not be waved. Certitudes!
The deal has already been made. You all saw a horse and pony show. Van Auken wasn’t born yesterday and you can bet she has already winked and nodded her approval. Right now she is buttering her council friends and little Spain is getting his prize basket to vote for it. She did it with Taco Bell on Knoxville, the lighted LCD screen sign off of Knoxville and about a zillion other projects. Too late to ponder. The only council person to vote against it will be Sandberg. He knows what I am writing here is true. Deals are made in the back rooms and at cocktail parties.
Just wanted to point out that this was a meeting organized by the University East Neighborhood Association for the stated purpose of making sure that all UENA residents had their questions answered about the development. I invited CJ because I know he and some of his readers have an interest in this development, and I want as much information out there as possible. I say this not to defend Barbara’s choice to not answer the question, but because it adds much needed context to the situation.
I will be voicing my opposition to having windows facing Jimmy Johns. However, I am very much in favor of the streetwall being replaced by a stone and iron panel fence. I think it makes the development visually meld into the neighborhood, rather than being walled off. More importantly, several neighbors have expressed concern about a walled off green space being just the sort of space that is used to complete illegal business transactions around here.
Thanks for reporting on this, CJ
Thanks, Theresa. Just for further clarification, all the residents were very friendly and neighborly. Also, I had no problem with giving the immediate residents first chance to ask their questions since, after all, it was their meeting. However, the question I asked was toward the end of the meeting, and no other resident had their hand up to ask a question. I’m also not sure why Barbara was leading the meeting, choosing who could and could not ask questions when it was the neighborhood association who called the meeting. Perhaps the association asked Barbara to take charge.
CJ Were you the only “public” person there? Your account puts it that way.
A few residents and propery owners showed up at a OSF meeting on ther changes it was a dog and pony show. We are looking at a “energy center” for OSF in our residental neighborhood soon if they get there way.
Martin — Ha ha! No, that was my fault. I didn’t finish giving the list of people who were there. There were lots of residents of University East Neighborhood Association. Council members Montelongo and Sandberg were there. I ran into Councilman Spain out in the hall, but I don’t think he was actually there for the meeting — I think he was at PeoriaNEXT for some other reason. And there was another resident of the Uplands there, too. There were about 25-30 people there in all.
Mahkno – Weren’t you one of Van Aukens biggest supporters?
You are misguided… I am no ‘biggest’ supporter of Van Auken.
mahko, you sure ripped on her opponent and voiced significant support for her…. where are the keys to that wayback machine…
Overall, I was very pleased with the affected residents- those who will have to live with it- who showed up to voice the legitimate concerns they had regarding the project. While no one spoke against the project, there were legitimate questions raised about traffic, noise, safety, various other quality of life concerns and how adherence to the LDC would be preferable to the various variances. I was disappointed in just how little many Zoning Commissioners seemed to know about the project and, well, about the code itself. I believe CJ knew more about the code than most of the commission, as his presentation before the commission proved. Rather than question, most seemed content to blindly follow staff recommendations. I appreciated Marge Klise’s questions and “no” vote. I wish more of her fellow commissioners would have indicated that they actually listened to the concerns of affected residents.
Now, on to the Council. Thanks for the tips, Paul. Any other support or advice would be much appreciated from anyone. This ain’t over yet.
Sour grapes Paul? **tosses Paul the keys to the wayback machine** Please take that memorable journey into the archive here and over at Pundit and elsewhere. I think you will find over the last 5 years or so that I have been quite critical of Van Auken and will continue to be so.
As to your candidate… well the choice was who was the ‘better’ candidate for the district. The best candidate for the district wasn’t running and remains yet unknown. Whatever support I might have for Van Auken over the course of the election was tepid at best. The choice came down to who would do the least harm. The harm being done by abandoning New Urbanism before its even gets started is great and a missed opportunity for this city.
Property tax and sales tax (only on building materials, right?) are only two types of revenue. The city would also be getting building permit fees and any sales tax from the retail on the first floor. Not an excuse for the project going forward necessarily, but let’s not pretend there are no benefits.
My understanding is that the enterprise zone *freezes* the taxes on the property in order to encourage development. This actually is a practice that seems to me to make complete sense. Take a piece of property that’s been vacant for several years and make sure you get the same taxes you’ve been getting for a few years and get someone else to bankroll the development? It’s a win/win, or at worst, if the development goes south, a no-lose.
Seems like a much better deal than backing the loans for big hotels. 🙂
That’s not to excuse anything going in, and I’m still concerned about what appears to be backroom dealing with developers and then rubber stamp decisions at zoning and city council after the “deal’s been cut” already–and we need much more sunlight into government at all levels. This isn’t unique to Peoria, btw, but it’d be nice if we were better than this.
Only way to stop it though is to elect better leaders. I’m with Mahkno on the BVA/Smith issue. I voted for BVA because Curphy seemed to be running on the “I’m not BVA” campaign, and I want to vote for somebody who’s inspired to change the way things are done and I didn’t see that in Curphy.
Just curious. Did the zoning commission approve the new Huck’s Plan on
Allen Road and Willow Knolls?
James & Sud — Point taken. It’s true that I was exaggerating by saying it wouldn’t bring “any” revenue into the city. Nevertheless, the enterprise zone — especially if extended — will greatly reduce the revenue that could have been realized from this project that, by the developer’s own admission, will have 100% occupancy from day one.
Tony — Yes, they approved the Huck’s plan. They spent considerably more time deliberating that one than the Main Street Commons plan.
“‘the PeoriaNEXT building…which incidentally has doors that face Main Street, but they’re all locked; all pedestrians have to walk around the back of the building — by the parking lot — to enter the building, which is symbolic of the lip-service Peoria gives to pedestrians”.
LOL! Sidewalks that lead to doors that are not doors. Has to make me ask, what’sNEXTPeoria? We are a society filled with brilliant idiots.
Oh and CJ? It’s called investing in developers. They are the prescient sages who know PeoriasNEXT future.
sour grapes, noped, just calling a spade a spade. I am great amused that supporters are now experiencing what has been going on in the rest of the district, but most of all saddened that it has and will continue. the LDC isn’t and won’t be followed over developers’ wants in the bulk of this district. If you will recall, at the Uplands forum, she admitted to not even reading the document before passing it. Poor practice at best.
Cj, wasn’t this meeting billed as a public forum by the city? If so, then disallowing questions by the general public and referring to it as a neighborhood meeting would open some interesting liability questions for the city attorney. The bottom line to promote change is that the discussion on here needs to be held in public in front of the entire council and with sufficient numbers if you want adherence to LDC or other ordinances/laws. Variances in my opinion shoud be utilized in unusual circumstancs not as a matter practice and with a new developement, it shouldn’t really be an issue. they are starting from scratch and can design compliant projects. If the arguement is that we are stifling development, then get rid of the codes all together and let mayhem ensue. It’s not valid and other cities enforce their own rules
I was one of the non UENA neighborhood people at the Tuesday night meeting. I appreciated the line-by-line explanation of the 10 variances, especially when staff explained the 1) the LDC code that exists, 2) the intent of that piece of code and 3) what the variance request was. The problem for me that the “intent” piece was glossed over and I was left feeling not 100% confident that the intent of the code is being respected in all instances of the variance requests. For example, according to the Land Development Code, buildings are not to span more than 130 feet. By my calculations, this development will span 162 feet. Is an extra 32 feet okay? Does 162 feet of building span create a pedestrian/building scale problem? Will the next development take 162 feet as the standard and ask for a variance to build 190 foot building span which will then be granted because no one understands the reason behind the 130 foot limit? Overall it seems the variance requests for this project were minor, but I would like to see more in the way of staff educating neighbors/zoning commissioners/city council as to the reasons behind the code so we can all help each other go in the right direction.
Jennifer — The trick is to figure out what the developers and the City are not telling us.
Paul- to answer your question about the meeting, no it was not billed as a public forum by the city. In fact it wasn’t publicized at all by the city, as it was not their meeting. The meeting was organized by the neighborhood association (UENA). It was organized by our association to be an informational meeting for UENA residents. We certainly welcomed other interested people to attend, and I was glad for the turnout.
I think it is important to note here that the majority of people living in the area are supportive of the project as is and have gone so far as to express that to the city. The fact of the matter is the city is not going to stop a project of this scale just to make everyone happy. I would say that the city is responding to a lack of concern by the neighborhood by allowing the development to continue. Lack of concern by voters in affected area = voted officials having lack of concern for minor code variances.
Oh and one more thing I think needs mentioned.
The green space that is on the corner of russell and bourland is being asked for in a variance because at the first meeting with the developer the NA stated that they wanted green space but did not want the lot changed to commercial use. This means the lot would remain residential so a commercial building could not be constructed on the lot but the lot could be brought into the project envelope as green space even though it was zoned differently. The NA stated that it was their desire to have that portion of the project so the developer responded by asking for the variance. The latest “concern” over that lot being used I think is more personal then based in reason being that as a NA there was overwhelming demand for the lot being used as is being proposed. So now that the developer is giving the NA what it requested some members are turning around and saying its not what we want?
Thanks for the comments, Stephen. This being a form district, it went under a lot of scrutiny by the authors of the Land Development Code. In form districts, each street was given a physical examination, neighbors and business owners were interviewed, etc. The neighbors’ will is expressly presented in the code. Now, from what you’re telling me, the neighbors are apparently changing their minds. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it does have implications when it comes to coding. Zoning cannot be arbitrary or capricious. In other words, zoning laws have to be consistently applied. By allowing street walls to be replaced with wrought iron fences — and this will be the second time this exception is being made in the West Main corridor — you’re setting a precedent for every development. The first time you try to enforce the street wall requirement, the developer will point to all the exceptions being made and ask why he’s being unjustly required to provide something no one else is required to build. So that essentially gets stripped from the code. I’m not sure that other neighbors in the West Main form district are going to be happy about that, especially if a development goes in that they want an opaque wall to hide.
Basically what I’m saying is this. The code is there for a reason. It protects not only the immediate neighbors, but also the other neighbors in the form based code area. Exceptions of course must be made for truly exceptional circumstances. But there is no reason the developer couldn’t have met the code here. There was no exceptional circumstance that demanded departure from the code. The developer simply didn’t want to follow it. If he had followed the code, he wouldn’t have needed to go before the zoning commission at all. You think the developer has the best interests of the neighborhood in mind because he was willing to grant neighbors’ request regarding the corner lot zoning. While I don’t want to prejudge his motives, I think you need to admit the possibility that it doesn’t matter to him how that corner lot is zoned as long as he is able to maximize his dwelling units to get the rent he wants. In other words, it may have been a token gesture in order for him to get what he wanted in the first place. Frankly, he’s not making a big concession here, regardless.
One more thing. While some of the variances are seemingly minor, building a larger structure than is allowed is not minor. Bigger buildings require more parking and they generate more traffic. This is just one development. Imagine if every other development up and down Main were allowed to overbuild, and what affect that would have on the neighborhoods behind.
I understand the NA’s desire for a quality development and their desire not to frighten developers away by being too rigid. But at the same time, you have to think long-term and big-picture. What are the unintended consequences of too much latitude given to developers?
I think the most enthusiastic supporters of the development “as-is” are those who have accepted buy-out options, with the next level being those who live far enough away that they don’t have to deal with it. The majority of those who will have to live with any development- affected residents- have some very real concerns, as the turn-out at the Zoning Commission demonstrated. I believe there is a tacit fear- among residents and some City folk- that the developer will take his ball and go home if the City denies the variances. I don’t think that is the case. The “worst” that will happen is that the developer will put their code-compliant Plan B into place. When presented with the option of an empty building vs. the current plan, I’m sure most would support it. However, current plan vs. code-compliant plan is, I think, a different story.
If this development is such a shoe in for occupancy, the developer is going nowhere. Developers are desperate for any sort of income these days.
Oh I completely understand code, zoning etc… I work in construction. I am very familiar with all aspects of the site plan, propsels construction material etc…. for projects such as this. I fully agree that the developer does not have the best interests of the neighborhood in mind and honestly its not really their job to. The developer is trying to make the most cost effective development that appeases the majority and the city and at this point I think that has happened. At the public meeting there was far from an outcry against the project and in fact most of the NA is seemingly ready to welcome it with open arms. The plan as is will only be close to two residential lots one of which is owned by Conrad the other is I believe owned by Perry Tait which causes me a little confusion being that the residents at the zoning meeting claimed to own it? Either way the development as is inpacts very few residents and the city is on board so the developer has done its job. You cant please everybody all the time.
“honestly its not really their job to”
Unfortunately this mercenary attitude gives developers a very bad name. I think a great many people would disagree. We all have a responsibility to do what is best for the community no matter how humble or endowed our circumstances.
I think that the developer in this case could make the arguement that the project they are proposing is much better for the neighborhood then the current situation. Better is very subject to interpretation and individual. I think that having a grocery store that is more expensive but locally owned is better; on the other hand my neighbor would argue that a better solution would be a Kroger at campustown. Its not the developers job to decide what is or is not good or better for a neighborhood, they are trying to make money. Why do bars, check to cash places, pawn shops etc….all end up in areas with higher rates of poverty. Do you think that these businesses care about the community or the individual. Developers do not take an oath to only try to make communities better and develop projects that are both profitable and socially responsible. Ask the share holders at Wal Mart if they sleep easy at night knowing family owned grocery and convenience stores are turning into a thing of the past. Do you think that Applebees or TGI Fridays fret and stew that the placement of one of their locations will drive out three family restuarants? Does Lowes check to make sure that the placement of one of their locations will not drive out every hardware store in a fifteen mile radius? Developers should not be the ones to decide what is or is not good or positive for a community because they are in the business to make money plain and simple. The job of the community is to act as a check and balance system for developers so that they only are allowed to build projects that are positive for the community. In this case the outcry against the development has been very minimal and from a very small precentage of the community and because of this our elected officials have not demanded the developer to change their plans.