Tag Archives: Main Street Commons

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.

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Students complain of broken promises at Main Street Commons

17 Comments

Bradley students and nearby residents of Main Street Commons, the new student apartment complex at the corner of Main and Bourland, have something in common: disappointment.

The Bradley Scout reported earlier this month:

Last year the apartment complex was announced as a new housing option for Bradley students and many were excited about the promises of free tanning, a swimming pool, furnished apartments, private bathrooms and flat screen TVs.

Roommates Jori Lee and Shabre Jones, both juniors, said they noticed differences between what they were told and what they actually got.

“They didn’t have a lot of the things they promised,” Lee said. “We’re going to have to use our own money to buy a router for internet when it seemed like WIFI was going to be everywhere in the building.”

Nearby residents have also noticed differences between what they were told and what they actually got. For instance, the artist’s rendering of the building showed an all-brick exterior, but what was actually put up was fiber cement siding made to look like a mix of brick and lap siding. No one was expecting it to be used partially as a freshman dorm, either.

Peoria Journal Star

I thought real journalists got both sides of the story

20 Comments

I was recently taken to task by none other than Journal Star columnist Phil Luciano for a recent blog post of mine that was picked up by The Drudge Report. My blog posts are “unvetted,” unedited, and of questionable reliability. Furthermore, bloggers are scurvy individuals you’re better off not knowing. He asks, “can you call it journalism when much of it consists of unedited copy shared without any attempt to seek other sides?”

So imagine my surprise when I came across this article about Main Street Commons. In it, the journalist reports all the positives of the new project and what a boon it is to the area without ever interviewing a single resident of University East or other surrounding neighborhoods, despite their expressions of concern over some aspects of the project, including the pool that is mentioned in the article.

On the other hand, there are numerous quotes from the project developer, as well as a representative from Bradley University. But there is no mention of the fact that Bradley is an investor in the project, which would of course bias its opinion just a little. There is no mention of the slow sales of units that the developer has experienced, which was covered by the Bradley Scout over the past several months, or how that likely contributed to Bradley’s decision to turn part of the development into a freshman dorm — the first time Bradley will be allowing underclassmen to live off campus.

Indeed, the whole piece reads like a reworked press release and advertisement for the new development. I guess that’s what an edited, vetted, reliable news article looks like. It’s apparently okay to be one-sided, as long as you’re on the approved side. Or if you’re so short-staffed you can’t spare a reporter to go out and get the other side.

Bradley University

Main Street Commons to include freshman dorm

38 Comments

The Bradley Scout has been doing a good job of following the progress on Main Street Commons, the apartment building that is being erected on the site of the old Walgreen’s on Main Street, across from Campustown. The project was originally sold to neighbors as an upscale apartment building for upperclassmen, graduate students, and young professionals. They also optimistically predicted that they would have 100% of the units leased by November 1, 2010.

Well, things haven’t been going so well. In late November last year, the Scout reported that “the company hoped to have all 188 units leased by Nov. 1. Now nearly three weeks have passed since the deadline and only 40 units have been leased.” In January, the Scout postulated that the building “isn’t renting at the pace investors had hoped” because “the $659 per person rental price sticker shock is likely a culprit.”

One of the investors is none other than Bradley University. Bradley won’t say specifically how much they’ve invested in the project, but Vice President for Business Affairs Gary Anna said back in September, “The preliminary stage of the project is $12 million, and we gave less than 10 percent of that.” So they’ve invested an amount not exceeding $1.2 million.

Last month, more bad news: More than half the units were still not leased. Nevertheless, officials with the project still expressed optimism that all the units would be leased by the time the building opens. Bradley’s Vice President of Student Affairs Alan Galsky was quoted as saying, “We would like to see the whole building filled with Bradley students. If not, Main Street Commons is prepared to fill it with other students staying in the Nexus Fostering Norfolk centers such as medical students and graduate students. It is very important that students know that the building is option for them, and is a very good one, in fact.” The article continues:

Galsky said in the event that the complex is unable to fill with Bradley students, he is unsure how on-campus housing will be affected.

“By the end of the month we will know how many have decided to stay in residence halls or move off-campus,” he said. “Once those numbers are in it will be a better indication. We are hoping that freshmen and sophomores move to Main Street Commons. If enough students move out into Main Street Commons there wouldn’t be an issue [in residential halls].”

That brings us to this month, and a new “study” Bradley is undertaking:

As part of a student developmental study, Bradley has extended the opportunity to incoming freshmen to live at Main Street Commons.

Vice President of Student Affairs Alan Galsky said 40 incoming students will be allowed to live at Main Street Commons in a very supervised situation. […]

Students who choose to participate in this opportunity will sign a 12 month lease with Main Street Commons and will still be able to purchase a dining hall meal plan.

All participating students will live on the same, co-ed floor, along with a residence advisor and assistant residence advisor.

“[Students living on the floor] will have the same rules and regulations as there are in the residence halls,” Galsky said. “There will be two students to a suite and same gender roommates.”

I asked Dr. Galsky via e-mail how Bradley’s investment in Main Street Commons and the fact that the rooms there are not being leased as quickly as hoped contributed to Bradley’s decision to allow freshmen to live off-campus at Main Street Commons. He responded:

Bradley’s investment was not a factor in the decision to allow freshmen to live in Main Street Commons. Instead, the University sought to devise a study to determine if freshmen could have a “true” residential living experience in an off-campus up-scale facility under similar conditions that exist in the residence halls, including having a Resident Advisor and Assistant Resident Advisor. This study is of interest to Bradley from both a student affairs/student development perspective and an enrollment management /marketing perspective. Program and activities for freshmen will be offered, just as in the residence halls.. This is being done as a one-year developmental study, and the University intends to collect a myriad of data that will help assess the students’ satisfaction and engagement as well as the overall success of the study.

A couple of things struck me about this answer. First, I have a hard time believing that Bradley’s investment “was not a factor” in this decision. I can totally believe it was not the main factor, and certainly that it wasn’t the only factor, but not a factor at all? That’s hard to accept. Secondly, he didn’t address the second part of my question (“…and the fact that the rooms there are not being leased as quickly as hoped…”). I think it’s pretty well established from earlier reports that Bradley wants Main Street Commons to relieve crowding in the residence halls, so it seems reasonable that, in the absence of enough upperclassmen choosing to relocate there, they’re looking for other ways to get Bradley students out of on-campus housing.

The inclusion of freshmen at Main Street Commons raises a couple of other questions. One, how does this affect the ability to lease the rest of the apartments to upperclassmen and young professionals? I mean, if you’re a young professional, would you want to lease an apartment in a complex that doubles in part as a freshman dorm? I put these questions to Jennifer Dunbar, marketing and leasing director of Main Street Commons, via e-mail, but she hasn’t responded to my request for comment.

Two, how do the neighbors feel about the inclusion of freshmen in this project? I asked University East Neighborhood Association (UENA) Vice President Conrad Stinnett for his comments. He said that his chief concern is that the project keeps changing. For instance, he sent me an e-mail the UENA received this February from Thomas Harrington, one of the developers of the project, in response to their concerns. Here’s one of the questions and answers:

[Q:] The residential aspect of the project was originally presented as high scale apartments that, while marketed to students, were open to the public. We have recently heard you are implementing Bradley housing rules- same sex roommates, no kegs, Residential Assistants, Residents-only food court, etc. This sounds more like a dormitory. Has the concept changed? Are non-student residents subject to the same rules as student renters?

[A:] The concept for Main Street Commons remains as an upscale housing development targeted at the Bradley student population. As has been previously stated, all potential renters are welcome. The rules and policies that have been put into place apply to all residents equally and consistently and are different from Bradley’s.

Three months later, it appears this is no longer the case.

This is a mixed-use development, so in addition to the apartments, there is also a retail component. I talked to Harrington about the progress that has been made to get tenants for the three retail spaces that front Main Street. So far, no leases have been signed, but they’re close to securing a food use (i.e., restaurant) lease for one of the spaces.

Bradley University

Main Street Commons update from Bradley Scout

10 Comments

The Bradley Scout has been keeping an eye on the new Main Street Commons and how quickly the new student housing facility is selling leases:

More than half of the apartments at Main Street Commons have yet to be leased, but both university administration and Main Street Commons are still optimistic.

“I’m really excited about second semester,” said Jennifer Dunbar, the building’s marketing specialist and leasing agent. “We had a slow first semester. It’s hard to lease a building when you can’t give a tour.”

Of the 188 units available only 88 have been leased, which is about double the number of units that were leased in November.

…Even though Bradley is financially involved in the building, Vice President of Student Affairs Alan Galsky said he is hopeful and would be surprised if Main Street Commons isn’t completely filled by the fall.

“I am cautiously optimistic the building will fill up,” he said. “We would like to see the whole building filled with Bradley students. If not, Main Street Commons is prepared to fill it with other students in the area such as medical students and graduate students.”

Main Street Commons is the multi-story apartment building being constructed on the site of the old Walgreens on West Main Street.

Bradley University

Bradley’s investment in Main Street Commons could be over $1M

1 Comment

Bradley isn’t saying exactly how much they invested in Main Street Commons, but they are saying this, from the Bradley University Scout:

Vice President for Business Affairs Gary Anna said Main Street Commons construction had been delayed due to the struggling economy, but Bradley had a hand in funding the first phase of building. “We took a piece of our endowment that had been set aside,” he said. “The preliminary stage of the project is $12 million, and we gave less than 10 percent of that. The money is not coming from a source that would construct a building on campus or for equipment for labs, so we’re not shortchanging the students. There is a return on our end that will go back to the endowment.”

Less than 10% of $12 million is any amount up to $1,199,999.99.

City of Peoria, General News

Main Street Commons update (UPDATED 2x)

12 Comments

Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken has just forwarded me the promised press release from Devonshire Group regarding the proposed Main Street Commons development. I’ll comment on it later. For now, here it is in full:

New Student Housing and Retail Development
Begins Construction in Peoria

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Shawn Luesse
Tel: 217-403-3300
Cell: 217-840-3823
Email: shawnl@devonshire-realty.com

Devonshire Group and Oxbow Development will begin construction this summer of Main Street Commons, a 184-bed mixed-use complex at the northwest corner of Main and Bourland in Peoria. The two-phase student housing project will offer such amenities as a multi-layered security system, concierge service, 8,000 square feet of retail lease space, a swimming pool, tanning facilities and a 24-hour fitness center. Enhancing the options available to Bradley University students, Main Street Commons will open late summer 2011 with availability for the 2011-2012 academic year.

Main Street Commons is being developed by Oxbow Development and Devonshire Group. Oxbow Development, based in the Quad Cities, has extensive experience with projects similar to Main Street Commons having developed several student focused living communities on and near campus’ throughout the Midwest. Oxbow managing member Ben Eastep states, “I am excited to partner with Devonshire on this venture. We are proud to bring a first class product to Bradley University.”

Devonshire Group, based in Champaign, utilizes their Single Source Solutions approach encompassing real estate development services including civil engineering, mechanical, electrical, structural and environmental engineering, title services, and architectural services. Devonshire’s expertise and services along with Oxbow’s experience with student housing, combine to offer an upscale option for Bradley University students.

Bradley University, a strong supporter of the project, continues to experience strong enrollments which include expectations for another large freshman class for the fall 2010 semester. Main Street Commons will allow Bradley University to offer their students the modern, attractive, upscale housing and amenities today’s students expect from a high quality, well respected and competitive University. Bradley University President Joanne Glasser, who is committed to providing Bradley students with the best possible educational and living environment, states, “Universities that continually enroll and appreciate outstanding students and that offer a complete, enriched educational experience, understand the importance of supporting quality of life options for students. Bradley is delighted with the Main Street Commons project and its outstanding features. We know our students, faculty and staff will find Main Street Commons a welcome addition to the area.”

Area residents are also excited about the project. Golda Ewalt, who lives in the neighborhood, states “The new apartments will bring more people to our neighborhood making the area more vibrant. More people may attract more business such as restaurants. This is exactly the movement I am looking forward to seeing. The new development makes this a better place to live.”

Throughout the planning process Oxbow Development and Devonshire Group have worked closely with City of Peoria officials and Bradley University as well as local investors and Marine Bank. “I’m delighted by this significant investment on Main Street and the much-needed quality housing it will bring to Bradley University students, while enhancing the older neighborhoods that surround the project.” states Council Member Barbara Van Auken.

Equity for the project was provided by a consortium of investors primarily in the Peoria, Bloomington and Champaign area. Financing for the project is provided by Marine Bank.

Main Street Commons will be available for leasing for the 2011 fall semester and is considered Bradley University approved housing for Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors and Graduate Students. Please contact Oxbow Development for leasing information at (563) 441-3055, email info@liveatmain.com or on the web www.liveatmain.com. Leasing information for the retail space can be obtained from Thomas Harrington, III at (309) 692-7707 or tt@cbcdr.com.

UPDATE: According to Shawn Luesse, “Phase 1 is the south building on Main Street. Phase 2 is the north building on Bourland Avenue. Phase 2 is planned to start at the conclusion of phase 1 construction.” The swimming pool and pool house are part of Phase 2.

UPDATE 2: Shawn Luesse told me via e-mail earlier this week that “Phase 2 [of the project] is planned to start at the conclusion of phase 1 construction.” But what do I read in the Journal Star Thursday morning?

Phase two still is considered “proposed.”

Luesse said based on “certain parameters,” including occupancy rates, that phase two, which includes the second three-story building, swimming pool and additional off-street parking, could be completed within a year after the first phase is completed.

Well, that’s a horse of a different color. In other words, Phase 2 might not get built at all. It all depends on “certain parameters,” “including occupancy rates.”

City of Peoria

Old Walgreens still sits vacant

12 Comments

It was about eleven months ago that Devonshire Group from Champaign was given a number of variances to the West Main Form District code so they could redevelop the old Walgreens on Main into student apartments. The project was to be called Main Street Commons, but to date, no work has been done on the site from all outward appearances.

I wrote to the Devonshire Group representatives Thomas Harrington and Shawn Luesse (who made presentations to the neighbors last year) asking for an update on their plans over a week ago. No response. I wrote to Second District Council Representative Barbara Van Auken, and she told me she was meeting with them on Wednesday, June 23. After the meeting, she declined to tell me what they discussed, but said they would be issuing a press release “shortly.” As soon as I receive it, I’ll post it.

I also wrote to Pat Landes, the City’s Planning & Growth Director, to ask what she knew about the situation. “All I know is that there is a closing scheduled for this month and the project would be built in phases,” she said. Hmmm…. A closing? That would most likely mean they are acquiring additional property. If so, it makes me wonder what parcels they’re adding to the project. I think it’s safe to assume they’re waiting until after this closing to issue the press release.

As for building the development in phases, that’s a new wrinkle. I wonder how that would be accomplished. The building pictured above is supposed to have parking underground, retail on the first floor, and residential on the upper floors. Perhaps the plan will be to build only a couple stories initially, and then add more stories in the future.

Hopefully the forthcoming press release will explain everything.

City of Peoria, Economic Development

Enterprise Zone answers raise more questions

2 Comments

Back in May, Peoria’s Economic Development director Craig Hullinger asked District 150 to be a part of the Enterprise Zone for the Main Street Commons project, and I wrote this post in response. Craig, who is a really nice guy and very communicative, wrote me and we had an interesting e-mail exchange. He asked me if he could post it on his blog (did I mention he’s very communicative?), and I said that was fine with me, so here it is. I’m not sure why his post is dated September of 2008 because we didn’t have our discussion until just the last couple of months. Perhaps he just updated an old post.

Anyway, I was rereading it today, and now I have some more questions. For example, Craig says:

Any development is risky. The safest developments are on undeveloped land (green grass sites). It is easier to buy a large tract of land. Less likely to have costly environmental problems hidden underground. Urban redevelopment is always more difficult. It is harder to assemble the land – usually multiple owners. Older areas have more poverty and crime.

I think you can see that this is true by comparing the level of development in the suburban areas of Peoria versus the older areas. More development takes place in new areas. It is always a struggle to get investment in older areas. We try to equalize the difference between new and old with incentives.

Now look at this map of the current Enterprise Zone:

EZ map 2 28 09

Notice the big red area up in the far north part of town? Up there where there are green grass sites? Where it is easier to buy a large tract of land? Where it is less likely to have costly environmental problems hidden underground? Up where they, in short, need no incentives?

Why is the Enterprise Zone up there?

And furthermore, doesn’t that just step all over the theory of “equaliz[ing] the difference between new and old with incentives”? If a developer can get the same incentives up where there’s a green field, doesn’t that kind of “equalization” work against redeveloping the older parts of town?

One more question, for the record. Craig said:

There is a good market. We hired the premier market research firm, Tracy Cross, to assess the market for new close into downtown housing. They said the market was strong, for creative class young professionals, but that renters lead the urban renaissance, and that the rents had to be about $1.00 a square foot. It is hard to build a quality brick building that will rent for that rate without incentives.

So, we can expect this development to be a “quality brick building” now that these incentives are in place? And that rents will be competitive? So noted. I’ll be referring back to this post when the construction materials are made public. When I asked at the public meeting what materials would be used, I was told they hadn’t decided yet.

City Council, City of Peoria, Zoning Commission

Main Street Commons to go before Zoning Commission (UPDATED)

32 Comments

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!