Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria

“Wonderful development” revealed

22 Comments

The much-ballyhooed “wonderful development” we’ve been hearing about — a new/expanded Pere Marquette hotel — has been revealed to the public, complete with pictures, in today’s paper:

Here are the specs:

  • 14-stories
  • $102 million project
  • Developed by EM Properties
  • $39.3 million of public financing “that would be financed through bonds and repaid through new revenues the project would generate” over 23 years; represents approx. 40% of total project cost
  • Full-service hotel
  • 489 rooms
  • Additional meeting, convention and banquet space
  • Under Marriott Hotel flag
  • 500-vehicle parking deck
  • Sky-bridge connects hotel to Civic Center

This project is, of course, a done deal. It’s been hammered out in the back room for weeks if not months and more than enough council members are on board now. So it’s sure to pass at the Dec. 15 meeting.

My thoughts: It’s predominantly glass and steel, which has all the charm and appeal of GEM Terrace and One Technology Plaza. The front of it is concave for no apparent reason. But the rest of it does front the street, which is good. And the parking garage includes street-level retail, which is great. On the other hand, there is a completely unnecessary sky-bridge which will mar Fulton Street for generations. This design is light years ahead of the proposed riverfront museum (thank goodness for that!), but I still think it could have been better, especially in building materials.

City of Peoria, Museum Block

Peoria deserves great places, not dead spaces

7 Comments

I’ve been reading a book by James Howard Kunstler called “The Geography of Nowhere.” Great book — you should pick it up. It was written in 1993, so I looked online for some more recent talks he’s given, and found this one (warning: contains some strong language). In that talk, he made a great observation that should be obvious to all of us: people like to inhabit great places. He shows this graphic as an example:

He explains:

It’s a good public space. It’s a place worth caring about. It’s well-defined. It is emphatically an outdoor public room. It has something that is terribly important. It has what’s called an active and permeable membrane around the edge. That’s a fancy way of saying it’s got shops, bars, bistros, destinations. Things go in and out of it — it’s permeable. The beer goes in and out, the waitresses go in and out. And that activates the center of this place and makes it a place that people want to hang out in. You know, in these places in other cultures, people just go there voluntarily because they like them. We don’t have to have a craft fair here to get people to come here. You know, you don’t have to have a Kwanzaa festival. People just go because it’s pleasurable to be there.

This should be common sense, but we’ve become so accustomed to poor public spaces that we don’t even notice them anymore. We have been conditioned to expect and accept mediocrity.

Consider some of Peoria’s public spaces: Riverfront Village, Festival Park, the area around the Civic Center. These are not places where people want to hang out. It’s not pleasurable to be in these spaces. The best the city can do is have the Park District “program” the space with festivals, carnivals, and other things that entice people to come down and visit. But go down there when there’s no program, and the space is vacant. There’s a reason for that: nobody wants to be there.

And that’s what’s wrong with this proposed public space, too:

To borrow a line from Kunstler, there’s not enough Prozac in the world to make a person feel good about being in this space. Ask yourself, honestly, if this is a place you would want to hang out with your friends. Yet, as you can see from the bird’s-eye view picture, the designers have provided ample open space for you to (theoretically) congregate. But the sad truth is that nobody wants to drive downtown (too bad they can’t live here) with their sack lunch (because there are no cafes) and stand around on a big concrete slab (because there’s no shade or bench) between two collections of blank metal walls (that have no retail draw). Museum backers tacitly admit that no one will want to come to this space, because their plan to attract people revolves totally around programming, just like Festival Park and the rest of the riverfront. There is no “active and permeable membrane around the edge” of this proposed development. And so, if it’s built, it will look just like this artist’s rendering: empty, stark, colorless, vacant, and depressing.

This would be a travesty if it were built at all, but the prospect of it being built with public funds is unconscionable. Peoria doesn’t need another tax-subsidized dead space downtown. We have enough of them. Peoria needs great places. And if taxpayers are going to contribute to a project, they deserve to get a great place for their money. If the museum folks want our tax money, they are obligated to provide something a whole lot better than what they’ve proposed. Peoria residents should demand it.

Caterpillar, City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Sears block may remain parking lot until 2010

30 Comments

There are a couple of items regarding the Sears block on the City Council’s agenda for Tuesday night, Dec. 9.

The first one is a six-month deadline extension of the Museum Block Redevelopment Agreement. The original redevelopment agreement was signed way back in 2004, and the deadline for the agreement was December 2006. Each year since then, the deadlines have been pushed back as the council waited for the museum group to get the funds they needed; there was always one more avenue that was sure to bring in the money. Each attempt to secure the needed funding has failed.

The latest plan is to ask Peorians in the midst of a recession to voluntarily raise sales taxes on themselves via referendum to pay for the construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed museum. The county board will be discussing this ballot question soon, even as Caterpillar contractors are being laid off, and other local bodies (such as the school board) are realizing dramatically lower tax revenues due to the current economic climate. Could the museum folks and our elected officials from the city and county be any more out of touch? Why are they continuing to pursue this?

No doubt there will be a fourth amendment on the agenda for June 2009 after this latest plan fails and all the players look for a way to get that tax money anyway by circumventing the voters (anyone want to take bets that they’ll be asking the Public Building Commission for the money?). That seems to be the M. O. of our “public servants” these days.

Even if the museum project folds up after June, we’re still going to have a big parking lot on the Sears block because the council will also be approving an agreement to extend Caterpillar’s lease of the block for use as a parking lot until December 31, 2009. Why not extend it only until June 30, just like the redevelopment agreement? Under this parking plan, the city would potentially be unable to pursue other development projects for this block until 2010.

Both of these items are on the consent agenda, which means there will be no discussion on them unless a council member asks for them to be voted on separately.

City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC

HOPC votes to disband

4 Comments

At the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting this morning, commissioners in attendance voted 5-2 to disband. Voting in favor were Chairman Bill Washkuhn and Commissioners Henry Lawrence, Mark Misselhorn, Julie Waldschmidt, and Geoff Smith. Voting against were Vice Chair Beth Akeson and me. Commissioner Nancy Biggins was undecided and did not vote. Commissioners Dick Schwebel and Joe Richey were unable to attend the meeting.

The vote was technically a recommendation to dissolve the commission. That recommendation goes to the City Council as they will have the final say on whether to disband the commission or not. Planning and Growth Director Pat Landes informed the commission that the council will consider our request at their December 15 meeting, which starts at 5 p.m.

Included in the recommendation is a request that all commissioners be appointed to another city commission if they aren’t already. Those who are not currently dual appointed are Akeson, Waldschmidt, Washkuhn, and me. However, Waldschmidt lives in East Peoria and Washkuhn lives in Peoria Heights, so they would be ineligible for most other commission appointments.

There’s a possibility that a private advocacy group could be established to take up the mantle of a disbanded Heart of Peoria Commission. I’ll let you know if anything develops.

City Council, City of Peoria, Streets

A few questions about capital funding projects

15 Comments

The Journal Star reports today:

Five large-scale and expensive capital works projects were excluded from the city’s 2009 budget…. Each project will likely be considered for possible inclusion in a future bond issue, if the city decides to borrow money in order to complete them in the near future.

The five projects, including the Sheridan Triangle, are the following: City Hall restoration, reconstruction of roads within the WeaverRidge subdivision, stabilization of a stream bank between Holly Hedges and Devereux drives, and improvements along Main Street in the West Bluff.

…The council is expected to meet in January to discuss the possibility of a bond issue to help pay for these major capital projects.

First Question: Are we just playing a shell game here with the budget? Is the council simply delaying decisions on capital projects so they can say they have a balanced budget for 2009? If they amend the budget in January to include some or all of these capital projects, where will the money come from to pay on these bonds? Won’t they either have to raise taxes/fees or have an unbalanced budget?

Second Question: Why the heck is “reconstruction of roads within the WeaverRidge subdivision” one of the five top projects vying for capital funding? Are these the worst streets we have in Peoria? The ones in most need of repair? Or are they important thoroughfares that need to be improved in order to incentivize private business development? Or are they really old streets that have been neglected for far too long? No, no, no, and no. So, what is the reason?

Third Question: Why aren’t improvements to Washington, Adams, and/or Jefferson streets included on this list? There are developers waiting to turn old warehouses into loft apartments and condos, which will get more people living downtown, revitalizing the area and creating a market for more retail in our central business district. But the city is continuing to drag its feet here. Why? Are they really committed to downtown revitalization or aren’t they?

City Council, City of Peoria

New distance requirements for “convenience cash” stores

5 Comments

The Peoria City Council on Tuesday approved a new ordinance limiting how close “convenience cash” stores can be to each other and residentially-zoned areas:

With a 10-1 vote, the council endorsed an ordinance that restricts new businesses from locating closer than 1,500 feet from each other or any residentially zoned property.

Any changes to allow for a cash store to locate closer than the 1,500 feet restriction will require a special permit granted with approval from the City Council.

The ordinance is designed to keep cash stores from clustering the way they have along University Street between War Memorial Drive and Forrest Hill Avenue, and to keep them from driving down residential property values. At-large councilman Gary Sandberg questioned whether the cash stores drive down values, or if they move into areas where property values are already depressed. He argued that cash stores are a symptom of a bigger problem, not the cause of the problem, and that the council should be looking for and dealing with root causes.

City Council, City of Peoria, History

Historic Duroc building doomed

27 Comments

The Peoria City Council denied historic preservation for the AMVETS building, 237 NE Monroe, at tonight’s council meeting. First district councilman Clyde Gulley moved to deny the request, seconded by at-large councilman Eric Turner. The vote was 9-1 in favor of Gulley’s motion to not landmark the building (Councilman Sandberg voted against; Councilman Jacob abstained).

This was no surprise. AMVETS members started lobbying the council before the Historic Preservation Commission even heard the case or made a recommendation, so the vote was practically preordained. Several council members spoke to the issue.

  • “It’s not pro-business or pro-development,” Councilman Turner said about the historic preservation process.
  • Second district council member Barbara Van Auken concurred, but said historic preservation should be pro-business and pro-development and certainly can be; thus, she reported that she has asked Planning and Growth director Pat Landes to look at how historic preservation is handled in other communities.
  • Fifth district council member Pat Nichting gave his time to AMVETS Post 64 Commander Richard Mitchell to address the council. Mr. Mitchell is opposed to historic preservation for this building because it impedes his organization from selling it to Riverside Community Church, which wants to demolish it. Find more info on the building maintenance and facilities services here.
  • At-large councilman Gary Sandberg cited the Easton mansion as an example of a building where a previous owner did not want historic preservation, but was ultimately preserved and is now a beautiful, well-preserved building with a successful business (Converse Marketing) housed in it. He also argued that the item before the council is whether this building meets the standard for historic preservation; it does, and therefore should be landmarked. He also mentioned that, in response to concerns over economic development, not landmarking this building will not give any economic advantage to the city, since it will most likely be sold to a non-profit organization, which is going to raze it.
  • Fourth district councilman Bill Spears doesn’t want to vote against a veterans organization.
  • Mayor Jim Ardis stated his frustration with the last-minute nature of this situation. He also stated that there’s no independent arbiter to determine whether a building is historic or not. This was a curious statement, as I thought that was why we had a Historic Preservation Commission. What is their role if not to be just such an independent arbiter? Ardis also stated that non-profit organizations such as churches improve the area and make it more conducive to economic development, even though they don’t provide economic development themselves.

Les Kenyon was given the privilege of the floor and spoke in favor of landmarking the building, but his pleas were all for naught. The council voted against landmarking this building, not on the merits of whether the building is historic or not, but on the circumstances surrounding the application.

So, Peoria will soon lose yet another historic building. But we can put big pictures of it in the new history museum we’re going to build downtown once that sales tax referendum is passed. Eventually, a museum is the only place you’ll be able to see any historic architecture in Peoria.

City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Ardis to run for second term

7 Comments

From a press release:

Mayor Jim Ardis announced today that he intends to file nominating petitions for another term as Mayor. With solid support from his family, Mayor Ardis is committed to continuing his focus on providing a strong environment for business, maintaining an intense focus on crime and supporting strong neighborhoods with an emphasis on education.

Mayor Ardis will hold a press conference in the coming weeks to outline his re-election platform.

City Council, City of Peoria

No “wonderful development” on agenda for Tuesday

2 Comments

Of course it could be revised on Friday, but as of today there is no “wonderful development” on the agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting. However, there are some other interesting items:

  • AMVETS building landmark status: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted in favor of preserving the AMVETS building (formerly United Duroc building), but the city council informally voted against it when they were polled by the AMVETS before the issue even went to the HPC. So now it’s really a muddled mess. If the council votes for landmark status, the AMVETS will feel disenfranchised as property owners because it will make their building harder to sell. If the council votes against landmark status, it marginalizes the HPC and sets up a precedent of bypassing them altogether. Oh, and it will mean the loss of another historic building, but that’s nothing new. Peoria never has much cared for preservation. I predict the council will not landmark the building, and it will be torn down before the end of the year. The lesson to take away: don’t wait until the last minute to request historic designation.

  • Convenience loan restrictions: The moratorium is about to expire on any new so-called convenience loan establishments from opening. The city has done some research on possible restrictions to keep such establishments from clustering the way they have along University between War Memorial and Forrest Hill. Their recommendation:

    a. Permitting the use of Convenience Cash Businesses, as permitted and/or special uses only in the B1, CG, C1, and C2 zoning districts (Currently permitted in these districts plus 01, 02, and CN).

    b. Distance requirements of a 1500 foot radius from other Convenience Cash businesses (Note that the City has an inventory of 1,681 parcels with appropriate base zoning {B1, CG, C1, and C2}. Of that inventory, 61% or 1026 parcels meet the distance requirements and could be developed with new convenience cash businesses {Map 2}).

    c. If the distance requirements cannot be met business owners would have the option of obtaining Special Use approval.

    The Zoning Commission had some slightly different suggestions, such as requiring the convenience loan establishment to be 1500 feet away from any residential-zoned district, which would leave only two parcels in all of Peoria where a new loan place could locate. No doubt there will be no small amount of discussion on the council floor before a vote is taken on this one.

  • 4 a.m. liquor license area expansion: Most bars in the area have to close at 2 a.m. But there’s a small area downtown where you can get a special subclass of license allowing you to stay open until 4 a.m. The council is considering a pretty major expansion of that area — one that will include the Warehouse District and extend all the way to South Street. Here’s a map of the current license area and the proposed addition:

    This would include the Club Apollo and Excalibur nightclubs. Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard is in favor of the expansion, and the Liquor Commission approved it 5-0. It looks like a shoo-in for approval by the council, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few citizens who ask for the privilege of the floor to try to persuade the council against it.

There will also be more discussion on the 2009 budget. You see the proposed budget by visiting the PeoriaBudget.com website.

City of Peoria, Streets

The Main Street circle game

29 Comments

The Journal Star has article today on why Councilmember Van Auken is abandoning plans to improve Main Street:

“We don’t have anything in the budget this year because it’s a ‘maintenance budget,’ ” 2nd District City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken said Tuesday.

Van Auken said she anticipates in 2009 for more discussions to occur among city officials and neighborhood leaders within the West Bluff Council on how to handle improvements along Main. She said it could be several years before any physical changes along the busy street occur.

That should be “several more years.” This has been pursued ever since the Heart of Peoria Plan was completed in 2002, so we’re at six years, four consultants/studies and counting. But by all means, let’s spend another year discussing it. Maybe someone will say something different.

“I think our goal would be to have each of the neighborhoods in the West Bluff come forward with their ideas on what they would like to see in terms of traffic flow and patterns,” Van Auken said.

Again? How many times will we be going through this exercise? I would submit that the city has gotten more public/neighborhood input on this project than any other road project in the history of Peoria. We’ve had charrettes, we’ve had public meetings, we’ve talked as neighborhood associations and submitted the results of our discussions to the West Bluff Council, and on and on and on. How many more times (years?) are we going to rehash this thing?

The council on Dec. 9 will simply be asked to vote on whether to receive and file the Hanson study, which was completed several months ago.

By 2010 when this is reconsidered, we’ll of course need to do another study with another consultant, which will then get received and filed, and we’ll go round and round and round in the circle game….