One of the disagreements regarding the Land Development Code is over the regulations for Knoxville Avenue from Pennsylvania on the south to Virginia on the north.
The original Land Development Code (LDC), as written by the consultants based on community input, called for buildings to be set back from the road no farther than 80 feet. They could be right up to the sidewalk, but they couldn’t be set back more than 80 feet. If you’re like me and you can’t envision 80 feet easily, think of it this way: that’s enough space to put a parking lot with two rows of parking spaces and a drive aisle between them.
A local commercial real estate developer, Dave Maloof, wants there to be no maximum setback. This is understandable, considering his line of work. He wants to combine parcels and build strip malls with large surface parking lots in front. That’s what he does.
As a “compromise,” the city staff is recommending that we create a special “thoroughfare” district along Knoxville that would allow 150-foot setbacks. They essentially bought into Mr. Maloof’s contention that the lots/parcels along that stretch of Knoxville are too deep to justify the shorter setback. It was pointed out that parking could/should be put behind the businesses, but that was rejected amidst a plethora of excuses, such as, “no one will park back there,” and “retail shops can’t have two public entrances” (which is silly; they do at Grand Prairie). The Planning Commission agreed with the city staff, but the Zoning and Heart of Peoria commissions believe the maximum setback should stay at 80 feet.
I think the question is more basic. What we have to ask ourselves is, who will decide how Peoria looks? A small group of developers, or the City through community input? The Heart of Peoria Commission thinks it ought to be the City based on community input, and has said so in a letter than went to all Council representatives.
To demonstrate the negative impact large setbacks can have, Heart of Peoria commissioner Geoff Smith explained:
One of the best examples of the destructive effect that unregulated development and planning have on our local environment can be seen in the corridor of University Ave. between Forrest Hill and War Memorial Drive. This is a mean section of street space when considered in the context of the standards set forth in the Land Development Code. There is very little planting or green space in any proximity of the street edge. Traffic speeds by, and drivers have unlimited access to a huge expanse of paved parking areas immediately adjacent to the street. Pedestrians are wise to stay off what little remains of the crumbling and discontinuous sidewalks.
Another negative effect on the urban environment of areas like University Ave. is the impact that development with deep setbacks has on adjacent neighborhoods. The buildings that are pushed to the very back of the site have all of their service, delivery, trash collection, and utility areas immediately adjacent to the neighborhoods behind these developments. Garbage, odors, and other trash are just across a fence or alley from the rear of residential properties. Bright exterior lighting on buildings at night often provides direct glare to adjacent properties.
We don’t want another University street. Our city can look so much better than that. For too many years, we’ve been bending over backwards to adjust our city’s vision to developers’ visions. And what has it gotten us? Unrestrained prosperity? A city core that is considered a destination? Beautiful public places? No, no, and definitely not.
It’s time for the city to stand firm. We don’t want to turn away development, but we do want to turn away bad development. We want to turn away development that does not fit our vision for the city. We want to invite and incentivize development that does match our community vision.
There is plenty of land in suburban Peoria for cookie-cutter strip malls and seas of parking, but those aren’t the things that are going to bring people back into the heart of the city. As far as the Heart of Peoria Commission is concerned, allowing 80-foot setbacks is already a compromise of sorts. Because of less-than-ideal development that has occurred along that corridor for years, many of the businesses already have this setback, so for consistency and ease of development it seemed reasonable to the consultants to allow this pattern to continue — but not worsen.
I want to be clear that the goal here is not to frustrate developers. It is to make Peoria a beautiful place to live and work. We want to see the city revitalized. The kind of development that has taken place on University street has not accomplished that, so we want to see regulations in place that will keep bad development like that from happening elsewhere in the Heart of Peoria area. But at the same time, we want to invite developers to work within the new guidelines to bring in retail stores, business offices, and residential units that will have the form and pedestrian scale that we envision for this area.
Is that too much to ask?
It’ll be interesting to see how the discussion goes tonight on the form based codes. I know (from a previous posting) that Councilman Sandberg has been doing his homework and reading the document (some will simply vote for it without having read it— maybe right result, but wrong process). While I generally support the reduced setbacks, I’m not sure that they are appropriate everywhere. I’ve been in some great communities that utilize a more traditional strip mall approach but make it blend into the surroundings through extensive landscaping, parking lots with landscaped dividers, off-set frontage depths, well maintained sidewalks and public areas, etc.
You are assuming the Council listens to community input. I would imagine if they did, we wouldn’t be getting a museum on the Riverfront.
I participated in the charette process and we will be effected by the Sheridan Triangle, if it gets going. This code can be beneficial to older neighborhood where lot sizes and other circumstances don’t let you replace what could be destroy by fire or for other reasons. I look at older neighborhoods in Chicago and St. Louis and see shops with houses and small grocery stores. One can walk up the street for about anything. It’s very convienent.
What is frustrating is that the city invests a huge amount of time and resources into plans, projects, etc. then doesn’t follow them. There have been comments made from the horseshoe about dusting off the city plan. I realize that this code vs.a plan, and will need to be followed, but still wonder. We had hoped that the changes on Sheridan would have occurred more quickly and look at Ren Park, which does seem to be stalled.
There is an old joke that says that a moose is a horse built by a committee. Hopefully some artists or architects have some say in whatever overall aesthetic choices are made. Peoria has been far too willing to let developers do whatever they want. I realize that the city wants economic development, but it creates an ugly and poorly planned place that no one wants to spend time in. City planners are crazy if they think hiring some outside aesthetic help is a waste of money.
The approach that works in communities that have developed with a certain “look”, “feel” or “character” is that they place aesthetics very high on the list of items reviewed as part of developments. Development for development sake isn’t allowed. Unfortunately this requires an elected board willing to take the heat in the present for the future good of the community. Some developers may build elsewhere if we require more than our neighbors, but the only way to control how we develop is to judiciously exercise the governmental powers we have available. Developers will build where the market dictates expansion even when reasonable development conditions are imposed on them. The WalMart in Washington is much more aesthetically pleasing than the one in Peoria…why? They exercised control over how the building looked and the company decided that the cost of compliance was within their business model. This happens in communities throughout the nation. The first thing is that the City Council needs to develop the “Peoria character” they are seeking.
The developers are not overly concerned about parking. Really they aren’t. These strip malls have way more parking than they possibly need. The reason they want the unrestricted setback is to maximise visibility from the roadway. (note.. roadway). Then they can sell/rent outlots to structures that don’t overly obstruct the view of what is behind them.
Take Sheridan village for instance. There are a couple restaurants and a small structure with little shops out in the front but generally you can view what is available in the ‘plaza’ from the road as you are driving along. The restaurants are low enough and spaced such that you can see well between them. Visibily => to higher rents. Visibility => generally means more successfull business.
Now if you had your setback up close to the road, so the argument would go, is you lessen you frontage and visibility considerably. You could still fit the same number of shops on the land, maybe even more but because you lack visibility, the desirability and success of the businesses could be hampered. Why? Because if people can’t see it from the road they won’t stop. You could put a sign up listing all the shops ‘inside’ but it is well known that the more cluttered a sign gets the less attractive and the less effective it is. The lower your rents become too.
Of course this is all self serving to the suburban style development that depends on people driving everywhere.
If you genuinely create a pedestrian favored environment (and I am not convinced that Peoria is really working toward that), then you would have people walking along rather than driving. When walking they are much more prone to explore what is ‘inside’. The developers need to think different. Imagine european like galleries. You could have a mixture of close fronted shops with a long string of galleries along the length of knoxville linking one to the other to the other with pedestrian walkways linking them over roads on the second or third floors.
Thinking different isn’t your typical developers strong point.
Thinking of wal-mart. I have an old friend from college who works for the firm that designs the wal-mart buildings. Wal-Mart has urban styled plans that they can use (in the U.S.). It may not be their preferred style but they do exist.
I remember one of them in Hamburg Germany. It had all of a dozen parking spaces (15 minutes or a ticket). It was three stories inside. The front fit right in with everything else.
Mahkno, I differ with you somewhat about developers and parking. When a developer presents plans to the city, the city determines the minimum number of spaces required to support the businesses. If the plans do not comply with the city’s standards, they will not be approved and the development will not go forward. To that extent, developers are very concerned with parking.
The concept of green space, trees, shrubbery, etc. in commercially developed areas is a good one. In practice it can be a nightmare. Scenario – a developer risked their own capital to construct a small retail center in an urban area and complied with the city’s specifications about green space.
Within 60 days after the landscaping is completed, the potted shrubs have become urinals, the trees have been vandalized and are beyond saving, and the grass has been torn up – what is the developer to do? (This is not a hypothetical situation – it happens in Peoria.) The development is now out of compliance.
Landscaping is expensive; does the developer continue to replace it (at their own expense) to satisfy the City? What are the police doing to stop the vandalism?
Don’t misunderstand – I think the HOP plan is good. But, we need a reality check here about the quality of citizenship in some of our urban areas.
I’m wondering how many of you who don’t like this style of development have stopped going to strip malls and restaurants located there? If you want to fight this–wouldn’t the best long term strategy be to put strip malls out of business because they can’t get renters anymore? Why should the city be able to tell property owners in a commercial district (or residential for that matter) what they can do with their own property provided it doesn’t interfere with that of others’ property?
I don’t personallly like strip malls. I don’t like big corporate coffee shops (I like Leaves N Beans and others like it) either. On the latter, I have stopped going to them. Probably won’t change whether Starbucks drives Leaves out of business, but it might–especially if others do the same.
If you want to get rid of strip malls, encourage those businesses you like that are there to move someplace else. Garner a concerted effort to make developers *not* want to build them. Because developers have this thing about building things that lose money–they try to avoid it at all costs.
Try convincing the developers that the people in the city don’t like strip malls. Tell Maloof that if he builds one he won’t be able to get tenants because there won’t be business, and have enough community support to back you up.
Zoning laws aside–if you can’t garner that kind of support for your idea and you aren’t willing to raise community support for a positive issue, why would developers care? Why should the city council care?
Your $$ have more influence than your vote plus the zoning board combined–especially when combined with the $$ of the rest of the city of Peoria. I’m willing to talk to you about how to raise support and to talk to the businesses involved and work with you on this–but I despise the tactic of controlling the zoning code to force businesses to act a certain way. Ethics of property rights aside–it doesn’t work. If they can make money at something they’ll just convince someone to change the code later. They have more money than you do, and will wear you out.
Convince them that something isn’t profitable–well that kind of an unwritten code will last a long time. But to convince them something isn’t profitable–you’ll have to put your spending money where your mouth is and find a lot of others to do the same.
Commercial behavoir is dictated primarily by consumer behavoir. Although consumers were rapidly purchasing and utilizing automobiles through the late-40s and early 50s, it wasn’t until the late 50s when suburban style strip center, large parking lot development took hold.
Transportation is the backbone of property development. EVERYTHING hinges on transportation. If the transportation system supports automobiles, the development will respond accordingly. If it supports walking, again, walking destinations will arise.
The struggles of the HOP are greater than just the development codes which require suburban development. This is a transportation philosphy issue. How do we want to get around? What is most convienient and what is most affordable (cost/time-effective). All answers are personal automobiles right now. Once this changes, or one of those questions has a new answer, change will begin.
Implementing this code is excpetionally important to be pro-active. Too often, the community is on its heels reacting to proposals rather than planning for proposals. This code is planning for the future and will guide the community towards a vision. Will it achieve this vision? It’s up to the elected to show full conviction to support the intents and principals of the document. When a $12 million dollar project is thrown at them, they need to ask themselves not how much tax revenue will this generate; not will this gain me more votes in the next election. The principal question is Does this project compliment and fit the vision for the City. Only after this question is answered in the affirmative should the others be asked.
This just ain’t a code. This is a lifestyle, a philosphy, a prescription to strengthen the heart of our city and prevent ills from damaging our heart.
James,
I don’t think that there can be a concerted effort that will show results by voting with dollars. The overall impact isn’t great enough to make a difference. I have no problem visiting Starbucks – if I’m going to pop $2 – $4 for a coffee then I want a good one – and Starbucks has the best.
The fact is that government has a legitimate role in regulating community growth and that includes how they look. Obviously communities with strong economic markets can exert much greater influence over developers than communities where no one wants to live. I think we fall somewhere in the middle – we can exert some influence to bring about a more cohesive development approach, but probably can’t go as far as some and impose design review on all development (commercial and residential) to any signficant degree. But I would like to see this begin to some extent.
As long as the rules are fair and consistently applied to all developers, the playing field is even and whatever level of control we impose has a chance of success.
How many empty store fronts do we already have in the various shopping centers? Do we really need more? The city will whore itself out to developers out of fear they will go some where else then we are left with half empty strip malls. Empty store fronts do not revitalize a neighborhood.
So it isn’t possible to put the store front closer to the road and allow an entrance/exit from the from to the parking lot in the back? Several stores could share a rear parking lot and entrance/exit.
As I read it, James has two points: (1) he feels zoning/coding is an infringement on private property rights and that market forces should win the day on the form of development, and (2) he thinks that any zoning/coding laws will be overridden anyway if a developer throws enough money at the council.
I’ll start with his second point first. He may very well be right, unfortunately. The council has not very often said “no” to a developer, if enough money was involved, although they did most notably with the Galleria Mall that Cullinan wanted to build with huge public investment. The council said no, and lo and behold, we got the Shoppes at Grand Prairie with comparatively little public investment. The council will be tested again, and if they give in and override the HOP Plan even after it has been codified, then I guess we’ll have to just all throw up our hands.
As for the first point, all I can say is, “sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” (“so to use your own as not to injure another”). This has been the judicially established justification for zoning laws for decades. Form-based codes are just another type of zoning, and they are predicated on the same principle.
CJ:
I recommend reading Bastiat’s _The Law_ written during the 19th century bloodless socialist revolution in France. You can get a review I wrote at http://problemsareforsolving.blogpeoria.com/2006/05/20/the-law/ and you can read it for free on line at http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf
You see, if form based codes (not safety codes, but what things look like) are OK to put into the zoning laws–then you prove the conundrum. Who, then, should say what those codes are? You only produce a power struggle where they go this way and that depending on who is loudest or who votes most or who has the most money . . . .
Once you start using the law to control behavior rather than punish injustice you write yourself into a corner where it becomes a game of seeking power so it is *your* standards of behavior that the government should control. I am not talking about clear right and wrong (nobody, even the most ardent libertarian, thinks murder should be legalized as far as I know) but what is matter of preference cannot be legislated without producing exactly this battle.
The two issues you distilled from my comment are correct–and it is the second issue that proves that over-restrictive zoning laws are a bad idea. Let the property *owner* do as he wishes with his property–provided he doesn’t infringe upon the rights or safety of another. But how University St. looks or doesn’t look isn’t a right that belongs to you or me just because we have to drive on it. Unless of course you want to help me buy up all the property and turn it into something else. 🙂
Thanks for the discussion.
Well I think I will buy a house next to Lansberry’s, put up the largest LCD you can buy, and broadcast pr0n 24/7. Let the property owner do as he wishes indeed !
The house next door to me is for sale, albeit about $20k overpriced, Mahkno.
While I would deplore your actions, I have the ability to put up a privacy fence (which I have in the back yard). And while I will debate vehemently the ethics of what you’re suggesting doing, provided that LCD is not showing in the front of your house where it would be a clear violation of the rights of others to be free from such filth I don’t see an argument why the government should interfere.
We live in Illinois. We all know the glorious history of how many people stopped abusing alcohol when it was made illegal and how wonderfully prohibition just worked to convince everyone that rum was evil, right?
While I firmly believe that drunkenness is deplorable and sinful, making alcohol illegal doesn’t attack the real problem.
You see, the real problem here is that some people are no very good neighbors. They don’t care what goes on around them and they don’t care what we think about what they do. That hasn’t always been the case and I have some ideas about how we might work back towards better neighborhoods *without* restrictive zoning laws, but I’m not sure you’d agree with what I think is a good neighborhood.
Hence why restrictive zoning laws are fascist methods of controlling the actions of other people to suit out desires. The issue becomes who ever is in power at the time becomes that controller and thus instead of working together in neighborhoods for long term positive solutions we concern ourselves with maintaining the seat of power so that it’s *our* opinions that matter.
The common law on which our bill of rights is based assumes the rights of individual property owners. And while I may not like it if you park six junky cars in your back yard–I don’t believe that using the law to force you to move them is just or in keeping with the liberty on which this nation is founded.
Oh the LCD would be clearly visible to your house and the road to maximise discomfort. Seeing as you are certain of the prevalance of property rights and rights in general then surely you won’t complain. I am sure the content could be adjusted to skirt whatever laws someone would try to enforce.
I hope you understand I am not wholely serious but offer it up as an example.
But James, what if the actions of that undesirable neighbor reduce the value of your property by 50%? Are you ok with that? If you buy a half million dollar home and then a few months later a cash store moves in next door, liquor store a few doors down, traffic increases manyfold on your road, plunging your home value to half, is that not a concern for you?
I think for most reasonable people it IS.
Recognize that commercial property owners are less concerned about the valuation of the realestate and more concerned about its revenue generation capacity. A homeowner is almost certainly concerned about property valuation. So to should the city be concerned with valuation, considering it gets a huge portion of its taxes based on property taxes.
Zoning provides a means to manage and stabilize the wealth that is invested in realestate versus other economic interests.
People do live close to and on Knoxville. What goes on there has vital impact on their prosperity.
“provided that LCD is not showing in the front of your house where it would be a clear violation of the rights of others to be free from such filth I don’t see an argument why the government should interfere” but the front yard is his property as much as the back is. Even in the back yard he could just keep raising the screen up and you would have to keep building extensions on to the top of your fence to try to block it out. Where would it end? I want my community to be protected from slash and burn developers as much as jerky neighbors. There are good developers and bad just like in neighbors.
Mahkno:
you wrote, “But James, what if the actions of that undesirable neighbor reduce the value of your property by 50%? Are you ok with that? If you buy a half million dollar home and then a few months later a cash store moves in next door, liquor store a few doors down, traffic increases manyfold on your road, plunging your home value to half, is that not a concern for you?
I think for most reasonable people it IS.
Recognize that commercial property owners are less concerned about the valuation of the realestate and more concerned about its revenue generation capacity. A homeowner is almost certainly concerned about property valuation. So to should the city be concerned with valuation, considering it gets a huge portion of its taxes based on property taxes.
Zoning provides a means to manage and stabilize the wealth that is invested in realestate versus other economic interests.
People do live close to and on Knoxville. What goes on there has vital impact on their prosperity. ”
Where does this end, then? And how is it the government’s job to guard personal prosperity? And how can the equally guard everyone’s personal prosperity?
Of course they can’t. If a developer decides my house is worth $600,000 (almost 10x what I paid) so he can put up a cash store, isn’t my personal prosperity best served by them letting me sell it to him for that use? But that might devalue my neighbor’s house. But if there are going to be stores at all, won’t that devalue somebody’s property?
There is no way to equally guard everyone’s property value. So the government then, by interfering with the market, guards *some* property values. But whose? How do they justly make that decision. And of course every involvement costs someone else’s liberty.
I live on a street that doesn’t go through. I chose that neighborhood BECAUSE of the street. People who want to live in residential neighborhoods are best served by working together to make those neighborhoods quiet and residential.
But once you start looking at real estate as an investment rather than a place to live, all of a sudden the rules change. It no longer becomes a market influence, or it becomes a different market, and some one (I can’t recommend highly enough that you read Bastiat’s book that I linked to) then tries to use the law to make sure that it’s HIS investment that is most sound and someone else tries the opposite–until we’re trying to balance who plunders whom.
Oh, and accusing me of being unreasonable may be a way to win an argument, but I’m actually trying to have a discussion here. Convince me that I’m wrong–don’t just talk to me about what’s in your best interests or my best interests.
Liberty is about being free. The more we restrict liberty (including property rights) the less free we are. And freedom necessarily means being free to be stupid, a bad neighbor (to a point), and all kinds of other things.
So convince me I’m wrong. Convince me that there is a legitimate way for the government to “manage and stabilize” the real estate market without infringing upon the liberty of ordinary citizens, or that the stable real estate investment for some is worth the abbreviation of liberty for all. I’m willing to listen to arguments, but you’ll need to build one based on more than my selfish interests (or yours) because that doesn’t work–because somebody gets hurt, or more likely everybody gets hurt.