Tag Archives: Heart of Peoria Plan

City Council, City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan, Heart of Peoria Plan

Lack of sidewalks used as justification for no future sidewalks

3 Comments

Residents of Peoria got an interesting insight into Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken’s thinking (and a majority of the Council, evidently) at the City Council meeting Tuesday night. An item appeared before the council in which both the Zoning Commission and staff agreed that a local land-owner, as part of an expansion project, should install a public sidewalk along Ellis Street, a street that does not currently have a sidewalk.

One of the complaints about accessibility, safety, and walkability in the City of Peoria is that many (most?) of our sidewalks are in a state of disrepair, and many streets have gaps in the sidewalks or don’t have any sidewalks at all. One of the critical success factors in the City’s comprehensive plan, which was put together with an extraordinary amount of public input, is to “Invest in Our Infrastructure & Transportation”:

This Critical Success Factor covers not only the maintenance of the public infrastructure; streets, sidewalks, sewers, utilities, etc., but also the planning of such infrastructure in a manner to allow for the greatest ease of transportation and access for pedestrians and vehicles. [emphasis added]

One of the action items under this critical success factor: “Require Sidewalks.”

So the Comprehensive Plan requires it, our ordinances require it, and staff and the Zoning Commission both recommended it. But what did the council do, at Van Auken’s request? Waive the sidewalk requirement. Why? What was the justification? According to Van Auken’s comments on the floor of the Council Tuesday night, “This street has never had sidewalks.”

That’s right. The lack of sidewalks in the past is justification for never requiring them in the future. One wonders why the project was approved at all. I mean, there has never been a building addition on Ellis, so why should we allow one to be built? Shouldn’t the status quo be maintained?

To add insult to injury, Van Auken went on to say that this area should not be regulated by the Land Development Code–a code that puts into legal effect the principles of the Heart of Peoria Plan, which itself was developed with significant input from the residents of Peoria. If this area is not fit for the Land Development Code, what area is? This is nothing less than a complete and brazen repudiation of the LDC, the HOP Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan.

As usual, the majority of the Council followed the district council representative’s request without question, voting 8-2 in favor of eviscerating all the plans to which the public contributed their time and energy. Only Gary Sandberg and Beth Akeson opposed it.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Warehouse District

Warehouse District an example of good economic development

26 Comments

In the Warehouse District, the City brought in a consultant (Farrell-Madden Associates) who met with stakeholders to develop a form-based code in keeping with the Heart of Peoria Plan. That code set specific requirements for the physical form new private development and redevelopment can take, but also loosened the restrictions on land use, allowing for a greater mixture of commercial and residential uses, as mentioned at many auctions where they have the newest porcelain signs for auctions.

The code also set out expectations for the public space within the Warehouse District — in particular the streets and sidewalks. In order to lure people back to the heart of the City, the transportation corridors would need to be improved and made more accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The City is now poised to do just that.

Private developers such as Scott Roth and Pat Sullivan are already responding to the City’s progressive investment in fixing up Washington Street, as well as the City’s establishment of a tax-increment financing (TIF) district for the area in 2006.

And that’s the way things are supposed to work. The City sinks its investment into improving public infrastructure and that makes a more favorable investment climate for private developers. There is a stark contrast between this kind of economic development and the developer welfare of the Wonderful Development. Peoria needs more of the former and none of the latter.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Streets

Main Street: Actions speak louder than words

19 Comments

According to the Journal Star’s “Word on the Street” column, Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken “wants Main to be considered a priority again.” While I welcome efforts to move Main Street back onto the priority list, I have to wonder what is meant by “priority.” The same amount of money for Main Street improvements has been budgeted in 2010 as was budgeted in 2009: $0. Lack of funding was the reason given for moving Main off the priority list in the first place back in November 2008.

The article goes on to explain that, specifically, she’d like to see additional parking and property redevelopment along the stretch from University to Methodist. “[Additional parking is] an inexpensive thing we can do on the short term and hopefully slow the traffic down, making (exceptions) for the so-called rush hours in the morning and afternoons.” I presume she’s talking about on-street parking, given that only on-street parking would have a traffic calming effect. I agree that adding parking on Main is relatively inexpensive and easy to do (plus it would make Main more pedestrian-friendly and offer easier access to businesses). But why then was it not done last year? Why did she support the addition of off-street surface lots in the West Main form district instead?

“‘I’m trying to work with all of those property owners to the maximum extent possible to redevelop that entire block and look at some of the parking issues and some (improvements) of the facades and that sort of thing,’ Van Auken added.” Great, but facade improvement and property redevelopment are private investments, not public ones. In fact, several businesses have already improved their Main Street facades. When is the city going to do its part in improving the streetscape?

Public Works Director Dave Barber was also interviewed for the article. Notably, the paper said he “estimates it will cost $12 million” to make “a considerable impact on Main.” The figure includes the cost to “reduce the street’s lanes, landscape it and make it more pedestrian friendly.” In November 2008, the estimate for this same work was $10 million. So the estimated costs have risen 20% in 14 months. The longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes.

I appreciate the pro-revitalizing-Main-Street rhetoric, but frankly I’m tired of talk. All we’ve done is talk for seven years. Let’s see some action. Let’s see some money appropriated for it. Let’s see an RFP go out to perform the work. And don’t tell me we don’t have the money. Any city that can afford to give $39.3 million to a hotel developer (downtown Marriott), lease its prime real estate for $1 per year for 99 years (Sears block), tear up its railroad infrastructure (Kellar Branch), and turn its industrial park into a greenfield for low-wage big-box stores (Pioneer Park) obviously has money to burn.

When it comes to priorities in Peoria, actions speak much louder than words.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

LDC continues to go unenforced by Council

15 Comments

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.

Radio

Smart City Radio

2 Comments

Awhile back, my friend Beth Akeson told me about a public radio show called Smart City. It’s not broadcast on our local public radio affiliates (although I’ve recently put in a request for it at WCBU), but it is available on the internet:


Join host Carol Coletta for a look at the trends and ideas shaping our cities. Only on public radio.

As you can see, the synopsis/tag-line for the show is, “Join host Carol Coletta for a look at the trends and ideas shaping our cities.” It’s an interview show, so there are always interesting guests with thought-provoking points of view. Throw it on your iPod and take a listen — I think you’ll find it interesting.

I’m hooked. I’ve been putting past shows on my mp3 player and listening to them in the car. Especially interesting to me recently is an interview she did with Heywood Sanders called “Are Convention Centers a Silver Bullet?” and her interview with Andres Duany, who put together the Heart of Peoria Plan in 2002.

I think all civic-center-expansion and convention-hotel supporters should listen to the Heywood Sanders interview. His points are worth consideration.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Journal Star reveals “wonderful development”

38 Comments

Kudos to the Journal Star for ferreting out information on the “wonderful development” we keep hearing about from the city:

The proposed project would include a new hotel bearing a nationally known flag on the same block with the Hotel Pere Marquette, which would be renovated, sources said.

Sources said the project is spearheaded by local developer Gary Matthews, whose work includes multiple commercial projects in East Peoria, including the Riverside Center and GEM Terrace….

Sources said a feasibility study has been completed for the proposed project and that it was positive. They did not say, however, who did the study.

Matthews and his partners reportedly met with Peoria City Council members two at a time – to avoid having a majority of a quorum and violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act – in recent months to explain the proposal’s basics.

The project, sources said, calls for renovation of the Hotel Pere Marquette, which Matthews and his partners would acquire from current owners Innco Hospitality of Kansas City, Kan., a parking deck, a new pool and spa area.

The two hotels would be connected to the Peoria Civic Center via an elevated skywalk crossing Fulton Street, a document the newspaper obtained shows. Sacred Heart Church would be left untouched.

The hotel construction would require demolition of Big Al’s and adjoining businesses.

A new hotel in Peoria will be good for the economy and certainly good for convention business at the Civic Center. But as with anything, the devil is in the details. Some of those details that concern me are:

  • Design — What will the new hotel look like? Will it conform to the Land Development Code? Take a look at GEM Terrace in East Peoria and tell me there isn’t reason for concern here.
  • Big Al’s — Why the need to bend over backward for this business? In the past when a “wonderful opportunity” came along, the city simply took the property via eminent domain. Think Eagle’s Cleaners, or Midtown Plaza. Here, the city is helping facilitate a move to Hamilton Blvd. apparently in violation of the adult use ordinance, necessitating a change in that ordinance to make it legal. Why not take the property and let Al’s find new digs someplace that conforms to existing ordinances, like any every other business?
  • The skyway — The skyway will take pedestrians off the street. That’s what skyways are designed to do. Unfortunately, this is in direct contradiction to downtown revitalization plans (e.g., the Heart of Peoria Plan) which are designed to put more pedestrians on the street. And then there are the aesthetic issues of putting a skyway across Fulton.
  • The City’s role — What is the city’s role in all of this? What taxpayer funds, if any, will be expended? Surely there will be some — if nothing else, the connection to the Civic Center will require some modification of the Civic Center to receive the skyway traffic. Did the city pay for or help pay for the feasibility study? Since this is part of the City’s Hospitality Improvement Zone (HIZ), what incentives will this project be getting? These are things that should be discussed openly because they are public issues.
City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Streets, West Bluff

Van Auken abandons Main Street improvements

21 Comments

According to our neighborhood newsletter, second-district councilperson Barbara Van Auken is not going to ask for any funding for Main Street improvements in 2009:

The proposed changes to Main Street are estimated to be in the order of $10 million. Barbara Van Auken (our City Council representative) will not support inclusion of changes to Main Street in Peoria’s 2009 budget, citing the need to do further study of the project, as well as more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city for next year’s capital budget.

That’s right. After all the time, money, and effort that has been expended for these improvements over the past six years, now, at the 11th hour, our city councilperson is evidently going to abandon the project.

Let’s review. Main Street is one of four form districts in Peoria (the others being the Warehouse District, Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, and Prospect Road Corridor). A form district is a small part of the Heart of Peoria Plan area that the City singled out for more intensive coding known as a “form-based code.” The idea was to focus resources on these areas, then spread out from there to revitalize the rest of the Heart of Peoria Plan area over time.

Main Street is starting to see some significant private investment. The old Walgreens was recently purchased and a new mixed-use development is underway. The businesses adjacent to the Costume Trunk are replacing their facade. One World recently expanded with the departure of Lagron Miller.

But at least one established business — Running Central — is getting impatient for improvements to be made to Main Street. In the past, the new owner has stated that if changes aren’t made, he’s going to move the business to Junction City.

You can’t blame him. The city seems to be stuck in “analysis paralysis” when it comes to changing the streetscape on Main. Consider the studies: The Heart of Peoria Plan (2002); Wallace Roberts & Todd Med-Tech/Ren Park study (2004); Farrell-Madden form-based code study (2006); Hansen traffic study (2008). All of these studies in one way or another said we need to “fix the streets” — i.e., make them more pedestrian-friendly, slow the traffic down, provide on-street parking for businesses, etc. — and so far, no road improvements have materialized.

Van Auken’s pronouncement that she won’t even try to get funding for this important project in 2009 is disappointing to say the least. After six years and four studies on this project, what’s it going to take to get some follow-through from the city?

In fairness, some progress has been made in other areas: specifically, the form-based code and broader Land Development Code have been enacted. But that’s only half of what’s needed to make these form districts a success. The LDC and form-based codes regulate the private space. But in order for these districts to thrive, there absolutely must be improvement to the public space as well.

Public improvements have been noticeably absent from the form districts so far. Attempts to make Adams and Jefferson street two-way in the Warehouse District has met with opposition from Caterpillar. Efforts to narrow Washington street to make it more pedestrian-friendly has met with opposition from IDOT and first district councilman Clyde Gulley, who is in the trucking business and likes having Washington be a high-speed truck route. The Prospect Road corridor hasn’t even been talked about the last two years.

The most promising area is the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, where yet another study has recently been done to look at specific ways to improve the streetscape. Whether that effort will get funded remains to be seen. I’m not sure whether Van Auken considers it one of those “more pressing priorities” for the City’s capital budget, or if it will also get the axe.

Finally, let’s quickly talk about Van Auken’s reasons for abandoning the Main Street project.

  • “The proposed changes to Main Street are estimated to be in the order of $10 million.” — Assuming that estimate is correct, yeah, that’s a lot of money. But of course it can and should be phased over several years, not spent all at once. That’s the way it is with all large road projects. Speaking of which, does anyone think that the fifth district councilman will not ask for funding for widening Northmoor Road or extending Pioneer Parkway in 2009 due to “more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city”?

  • “…citing the need to do further study of the project…” — I think we’ve already established that there’s been plenty of study. Anyone wanting more study at this point is simply looking for different conclusions.

  • “…as well as more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city for next year’s capital budget.” — Why is the Main Street project not a “pressing priority”? We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying it and countless hours getting public input on it. There’s even a grassroots organization (Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff) that has sprung up to try and push this project along. There’s no governmental or judicial agency standing in the way of it. It’s part of the city’s plan for revitalizing the older parts of town. What are these unspecified “more pressing priorities”? Implementing a new logo? Continuing to subsidize downtown parking?

I would also point out that these improvements to Main Street have quite a bit of popular support in the second district (although there are some who are opposed, of course). Neighborhood organizations, the West Bluff Council, and businesses along Main are pretty enthusiastic about seeing these changes made. I wonder how all those people will feel about Van Auken putting the kibosh on those improvements right before she’s up for reelection.