Tag Archives: Land Development Code

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Main Street Commons, City Council continue to flout form-based codes

15 Comments

More residential parcels will become parking lots for the Main Street Commons development following the City Council’s 8-2 vote Tuesday night. The student apartment complex at Main Street and Bourland Avenue was granted approval to add 32 more apartment units to the existing 88 units and nearly double the number of off-street parking spaces from 97 to 182.

The plan, which violates the letter and spirit of the Land Development Code, was agreed to by City staff, the Zoning Commission, and the majority of the City Council. The plan was opposed by the University East Neighborhood Association and council members Akeson and Sandberg.

And they say Peoria isn’t “business friendly.” The Zoning Commission approved the plan even though the developer stood in front of them and admitted that he didn’t respond to the neighborhood association’s request to have him explain his plan to them. Second district council member Barbara Van Auken, who is seeking reelection next spring, made the motion to approve on the Council floor in spite of opposition to the project from the neighbors she represents.

Whither the West Main Form District?

What’s especially disappointing about this latest addition to Main Street Commons’ special use permit is that this project is set in one of the City’s four form districts — areas with very specific form-based codes. Form-based codes are used to combat urban sprawl — to proscribe built environments like the very one being created by Main Street Commons. This code was put together following a long process of public involvement and the inclusion of all stakeholders in the area.

But form-based codes only work if they’re followed. In this case, certain limits within the code have been consistently overridden by the Zoning Commission and the Council to the detriment of the neighborhood.

The buildings that front Main Street, according to the code, can be up to 5 stories tall, but as you move away from Main Street and into the adjoining neighborhood, the building mass is supposed to diminish. The code permits structures to be built along Bourland (going north from Main) to be 2-3 stories high and have frontage that does not extend further than 130 feet. The structure the council is allowing will be 4 stories high and extend 200 feet. This does not sufficiently taper the building mass into the neighborhood.

Another purpose behind the limits on building mass is to provide enough room on and around the block for parking. By increasing the mass of the building, additional parking needs are generated, and that has led to the razing of houses in the adjoining neighborhood to make way for surface parking lots. As of Tuesday night, two more parcels were added for conversion to surface lots. This again violates the letter and spirit of the code. Two of the goals of the parking requirements are to “reduce fragmented, uncoordinated, inefficient, single-purpose reserved parking,” and, “avoid adverse parking impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to the form districts.” This special use does just the opposite.

The code also requires alleys, but in a subsequent vote the Council vacated the existing alleys in the block being developed by Main Street Commons.

In short, the Land Development Code was once again eviscerated, treated like it doesn’t exist. The protections for neighborhoods were overruled and a development that could have been a welcome addition and stabilizing force has instead turned into an encroaching, destabilizing force in the University East neighborhood because it’s being allowed to grow unchecked by the very public bodies that are supposed to be representing the residents of Peoria.

Salt Lake City takes a different, better approach

The very same night the Peoria City Council voted to allow houses in an urban neighborhood to be razed to make way for a surface parking lot, the City Council in Salt Lake City, Utah, banned demolishing buildings to create parking lots. Furthermore, they are considering an ordinance that “would require property owners to keep vacant buildings and houses ‘habitable’ — fit to live or work in. It would allow for demolition only after a property owner submits plans for a replacement structure and obtains a building permit.”

Why? Because they recognize that just razing buildings does not stabilize an area. Take a look on the South Side or East Bluff in Peoria. There are lots of empty lots where houses have been razed. But has that really helped the neighborhood? There are certainly some advantages to such a strategy if the property was an eyesore, safety hazard, or haven for drug dealers. But ultimately, replacing run-down structures with vacant lots (often weed-infested) and surface parking do nothing to increase property values or attract new people to the neighborhood. Urban neighborhoods with multiple missing houses look like a smile with missing teeth: not attractive.

It’s a shame more progressive policies against blight can’t be enacted — and enforced — here in Peoria. It’s a shame we don’t enforce the existing policies that residents already worked so hard to enact.

A person in the City Council gallery Tuesday, frustrated with the Council on another issue that affects a neighborhood in the third district, asked rhetorically if the City Council represents the residents or the developers. I think we all know the answer to that question.

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 Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Zoning Commission

But is it a ‘state of the art’ McDonald’s?

24 Comments

The Journal Star reports that McDonald’s wants to rebuild their Knoxville restaurant the same as their University location. But there’s a catch:

The McDonald’s proposal calls for 14 waivers from the city’s land development code on items such as reducing the parking lot’s setback from properties along Arcadia, increasing the size of a sign, allowing a drive-through window adjacent to a nearby residence and eliminating some landscaping requirements, among other things.

As such, the city’s Planning and Growth Management Department opted not to recommend approval of the McDonald’s site plan. The [zoning] commission will consider the request during a 1 p.m. meeting Thursday.

The article went on to say that the second district council member, Barbara Van Auken, was unavailable for comment. But two years ago, when Taco Bell asked for nine variances — making it completely non-compliant with the land development code (LDC) — she voted for it along with a majority of the council, even though the zoning commission and City staff recommended denial. She called it a “state of the art Taco Bell,” and said it was unfair to require a business completely rebuilding its property to comply with the LDC. (If not then, one wonders when it would ever be “fair” to enforce it.) I expect she will throw the LDC (and nearby residents) under the bus again this time, too.

Van Auken and a majority of the council have consistently voted against enforcing the LDC, continuing a pattern of development that has been detrimental to the older part of town. My suspicion is that this largely done out of ignorance — that most of the council members have never read nor understood either the Heart of Peoria Plan or the LDC. Perhaps with former Heart of Peoria commissioner Beth Akeson on the council now, she’ll be able to persuade more council members of the long-term benefits of enforcing the LDC.икони

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Dismantling the LDC one piece at a time

26 Comments

The deconstruction of the Land Development Code continued at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Now the City is going to allow “separate, accessory parking lots in the West Main Street, Local Frontage category.” Because nothing says “pedestrian-friendly” and “urban” like large surface parking lots . . . or so City administrators in the Planning and Growth Department think. They defended the amendment by saying surface parking lots fulfill the intent of the code:

Administration of the LDC found that prohibiting separate, accessory parking lots is not consistent with the intent of the Land Development Code as stated in section 1.5:

  1. Create a “park-once” environment.
  2. Promote reuse, redevelopment and infill.
  3. Encourage mixed-use neighborhood main streets.

You read that right: the City is arguing that big surface parking lots are consistent with the Land Development Code, which is based on the Heart of Peoria Plan, which is based on New Urbanist principles. Somehow, I don’t think that tearing down single-family residential houses in order to construct large surface lots is the kind of “redevelopment and infill” the authors of the LDC had in mind. In fact, it goes directly against other intent statements in section 1.5, such as:

  • Encourage and assist in the preservation of existing buildings and housing stock.
  • Use the scale and massing of buildings to transition between the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods.
  • Use the commercial corridors as a seam sewing neighborhoods together rather than a wall keeping them apart

But the change was approved in a rare 7-3 vote, with Sandberg, Jacob, and Gulley voting against it. Not so rare was the fact that only two council members spoke to the issue — Van Auken in favor, Sandberg against — before it was approved. The LDC will not be repealed all at once. It will simply be pecked away little by little until it looks no different than the old Euclidean zoning it replaced.

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.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, HOPC, New Urbanism

LDC misunderstood by developers

6 Comments

Attorney Bob Hall thinks the Land Development Code “certainly has a lot of bugs,” according to today’s Journal Star. But it doesn’t really. It just has a lot of things he or the developer he represents either doesn’t like or doesn’t understand, which is typical regardless of what zoning regulations are in place.

Still, some comments made by Mr. Hall deserve a response.

Hall said the reason [council deferred approving a variance for 741 W. Main] was because other requirements within the code were preventing the redevelopment from occurring.

One of those requirements focuses on the size of awnings required along Main Street. Hall said the zoning requirements maintain that an awning six-feet horizontally would have to go up.

“It would probably stretch out into Main Street,” he said.

Not quite. I went out today and measured. From the front of the building to the curb, it’s seven feet. A six-foot awning would do exactly what it’s supposed to do — cover the sidewalk to within a foot of the street. Awnings have a purpose, and it’s not to be merely decorative. They provide shade and shelter for pedestrians and patrons, as well as additional signage for the business. They’re also not required; the code simply says when you have them, they have to be a certain size. In any event, there’s nothing about the awning requirement that should be “preventing the redevelopment from occurring,” other than the developer just not liking it.

Also, Hall said there is no requirement for a street wall or any decorative fencing at newer developments at nearby properties, such as the Peoria NEXT Innovation Center.

“Newer” developments to be sure, but approved before approval of the Land Development Code took effect. Had the LDC been in place when those projects were approved, they would have had to follow the same guidelines.

But [Hall] said he has other clients wanting to redevelop in the city’s older neighborhoods and that the code’s detailed specifics are causing problems. For instance, Hall said Knoxville Avenue – where one of the developments is to occur – “should not have been included” as part of the land development code, which highlights the principles of New Urbanism to make older neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly.

“Knoxville is a thoroughfare,” Hall said. “New Urbanism is for neighborhood stuff.”

These statements illustrate the need for education, something the Heart of Peoria Commission was working on when it was unceremoniously disbanded. New Urbanism is not just about making older parts of town more walkable, nor is it restricted only to neighborhoods. The principles of New Urbanism were only applied to the older parts of Peoria because those were the bounds set by the city council for the Heart of Peoria Plan project. New Urbanism is a comprehensive philosophy of town planning that covers private and public space, commercial and residential areas, streets and thoroughfares. In fact, all these things have to work in concert with each other to create great places; it’s the dis-integration of these things that has caused many of our urban (and suburban) problems.

The Land Development Code is going to get challenges like this until developers understand the purpose behind it, adapt to it, and hopefully embrace it. It’s incumbent upon the Planning and Growth Department to provide this education and to defend the code — within reason, of course.

And here, I should mention that I’m not saying the code cannot ever be questioned. But challenges to the code must be made in context with the intent of the code. The street wall requirement, for example, was worth taking under consideration. There was some disagreement over where that requirement in the code came from — Ferrell-Madden claimed it was the architectural review committee that insisted on it, but one of the members of that committee claims it was Ferrell-Madden’s decision to include it. Ultimately, the ad hoc group that is reviewing the form-based code portion of the LDC, with input from Ferrell-Madden, decided to modify this provision, but only because such revisions could be done while still fulfilling the code’s intent.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission votes against temporary LDC changes

4 Comments

The city’s Planning and Growth Department is spearheading an effort to review the portion of the Land Development Code (LDC) that deals with form-based code districts “to determine if all the regulations are performing as anticipated and to ensure compatible development which meets the purpose statements of the code.” Toward that end, they have done two things:

  1. Established an LDC Review Committee. The LDC Committee is comprised of two representatives from the Heart of Peoria Commission, Zoning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. I’m one of the two representatives from HOPC. So far, we’ve had two meetings. No decisions have been made yet, but we’ve discussed street wall and parking setback requirements and worked on crafting definitions for “change of use” and “expansion of use.”

  2. Requested the City Council temporarily amend the LDC while the LDC Review Committee completes its work. This is on Tuesday’s agenda. Basically, they want to make it easier for projects in a form district to get an exception from the regulations. Currently, any exceptions to the regulations must go through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA’s decision is final; any appeals have to go through circuit court. Planning and Growth is requesting instead that any exceptions be handled as a special use request; that would require the City Council’s approval. Again, this request is just for a six-month period — long enough for the committee to complete its work.

During the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting Friday morning (which wasn’t attended by any media, incidentally), that second point was one of the topics of discussion.

Some commissioners felt the temporary LDC change was a good idea. They argued, like Planning and Growth, that the LDC Review Committee’s recommendations “could include rewriting of certain regulations or removal of them after a determination that they may be too extensive.” Hence, exceptions during this time should be able to be made legislatively (through the council) rather than judicially (through the ZBA). The applicant would still have to make their case either way; it would only change which body has the final say.

Others, like me, were skeptical. I didn’t hear a compelling reason why this change was necessary. First of all, there don’t appear to be a rash of requests before the ZBA (in fact, their last regular meeting was cancelled because they didn’t have a single case). Secondly, the issues that are being reviewed by the committee are limited in scope, so there’s no need to change the exceptions procedure for all form district regulations. Others pointed out that exceptions made under this proposed temporary change could set a bad precedent.

The Heart of Peoria Commission was split on the issue. A motion in favor of the temporary change failed 3-4. That was followed by a motion to make no changes to the exception process while the commission completes its work; that motion passed 4-3.