Recent votes by the Zoning Commission and the City Council undercut the very basis of the city’s recently-adopted Land Development Code. The controversy centers around a special use request from St. Ann’s church.
St. Ann’s church wants to build an 8,000-square-foot parish hall adjacent to their church on the south side of Peoria, 1010 S. Louisa St. In order to do that, some land has to be rezoned (to “R4” residential) and a special use permit granted (for church use), which means it had to go before the Zoning Commission. The zoning regulation for this area is the recently-adopted Land Development Code.
Land Development Code
Since this is a special use request, the Land Development Code (LDC) does not have specific guidelines. After all, the writers of the Land Development Code couldn’t possibly foresee and codify regulations for every conceivable special-use request. But what we do have are the intent statements in the document. For example, the intent statement in the LDC for R4 districts reads (4.1.1.D):
The R4 District is intended to preserve established single-family neighborhoods within the Heart of Peoria. The district is also intended to allow for new single-family houses on small lots in development patterns that mimic established portions of surrounding neighborhoods at a density not to exceed 11.62 gross dwelling units per acre.
Add to that the overall intent of the entire LDC (1.5.A and B):
The overriding intent of this development code is to implement the Heart of Peoria Plan…. New development regulations for the Heart of Peoria are necessary because the existing zoning and subdivision ordinances include provisions that work against the realization of a revitalized, pedestrian-friendly commercial areas, and the renovation and preservation of inner city neighborhoods. This development code in contrast with previous codes, focuses on the creation of mixed-use, walkable
neighborhoods.
It goes on to state some specific intentions of implementing the Heart of Peoria Plan, including, “Prohibit blank walls along the sidewalk,” “Use the scale and massing of buildings to transition between the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods,” “Promote infill development for vacant parcels that reflects the surrounding scale and character,” “Control the scale and fit of new development patterns,” and “Use the commercial corridors as a seam sewing neighborhoods together rather than a wall keeping
them apart.”
Furthermore, the specific regulations for R4 districts give some guidance as well. They include such things as, “Roof height and building profile for new buildings shall seek to be compatible with adjacent structures” (4.1.5.B.2), “The scale and mass of new homes or remodeled houses shall be compatible with adjacent houses” (4.1.5.G.1), “Building materials for new houses shall be similar to other houses on the block” (4.1.5.G.3), and “Architectural styles shall be compatible with other architectural styles on the block” (4.1.5.G.4).
Not all regulations that apply to houses can be applied to an 8,000-square-foot parish hall (e.g., porches), but it’s clear from the LDC that scale and mass, architectural styles, and building materials are all important items.
Planning and Growth
So when St. Ann’s came to the city asking for this special use and proposed a building that looks like this (click for larger view):
…naturally, Planning and Growth had some concerns. It looks like a warehouse. It’s architecturally incompatible with other structures on the block. The scale and fit of this structure is wrong for the neighborhood. So, Planning and Growth made a simple recommendation regarding this problem (Wikipedia link added):
The architecture of the parish hall shall be modified through the use of ground level windows, pilasters or other architectural features which break-up the mass of the structure into smaller visual components.
They didn’t ask them to redesign the whole building. They didn’t ask them to make the building smaller. All they asked was that some elements be added that would make the architecture and scale look and feel more compatible with the block, consistent with the LDC’s intent.
Zoning Commission
Well, that went over like a lead balloon at the Zoning Commission meeting. First, the petitioner stated that adding windows couldn’t be done because there’s too much vandalism in the area and the windows would get broken. Think about that logic for a while and how such a view, if accepted, could influence the built environment on the south side. He also stated he didn’t want “some arbitrary opinion” of what would be acceptable architecture for the building. Of course, neither does city staff — they can’t legally require something that’s “arbitrary.” Thus, they based their recommendation on the LDC, as explained above.
Several of the Zoning Commission members, however, agreed with the petitioner and questioned why the city was making architectural suggestions at all — as if form-based codes were a completely foreign concept to them. (In fact, that’s likely the case, since the most outspoken opponents of P&G’s suggestion didn’t attend any of the consultant-selection meetings, the subsequent charrettes, or the all-committee training sessions.) The Journal Star reported on the meeting, and printed these quotes:
“I’m surprised the city of Peoria is getting involved in the architectural business,” commissioner Richard Unes said. Commissioner Greg Hunziker agreed. “I don’t think we have the authority to tell them how to build their building.”
City beat reporter John Sharp went on to describe how “some were upset that it would be up to the Planning and Growth Management Department to ultimately determine if the architecture was good enough for the project to move forward.” (PJS, 11/02/2007)
These comments are representative of the discussion. Unes’s comment is especially interesting since he shouldn’t have been discussing the item at all — his company, Peoria Metro Construction, is doing the design and construction work for St. Ann’s (he did abstain from voting, at least). But I digress. These comments display a disturbing lack of understanding regarding the purpose of the LDC and the authority of the City to regulate the built environment through the use of form-based codes.
I talked to Heart of Peoria Commissioner Beth Akeson about the Zoning Commission’s deliberation. She said that “the city has a duty to intercede when building proposals, such as the addition to St. Ann’s, are brought forward,” and that “the best cities in the country routinely influence decisions like these.”
Of course, the Zoning Commission doesn’t have any input from the Heart of Peoria Commission because, since the resignation of Chad Bixby, there has been no Heart of Peoria Commissioner assigned to the Zoning Commission. You may recall that the Committee on Commissions recommended that the Heart of Peoria Commissioners be dual-appointed to other key commissions in the city, including the Zoning Commission.
In the end, the Zoning Commission voted to approve the special use request, but specifically excluded staff’s recommendation to modify the architecture. That sent it on to the City Council, which considered the request last night.
City Council
The City Council stood by the Zoning Commission’s recommendation, but for different reasons. At-large councilman Eric Turner and first-district councilman Clyde Gulley expressed concern over the additional costs of making the building compatible with the surrounding architecture. They feared that requiring the building to look better would keep redevelopment from happening. Now think about that logic for a while. The only conclusion I can draw is that they believe any development, no matter how incompatible, is better than no development. And that belief, dear readers, is why Peoria looks the way it does.
Interestingly, no actual cost estimates were provided for consideration, nor was there any indication from the church that they would scrap their plans if the city were to require the building to look better. So these concerns were acted upon in the absence of any real facts. The council voted to approve the Zoning Commission’s recommendation with only council members Sandberg and Van Auken voting “no.”
Conclusion
In fact, it probably would cost more to make the building more compatible. No one is denying that. But no one is considering the cost of incompatible building design. Do you think home values next to this warehouse-looking structure are going to go up or down as a result of this development? Do you think the houses on Cooper are going to go up or down in value once the five-story parking deck is in their back yards? It’s not that these mixed uses can’t exist side-by-side in harmony; it’s that the form of the built structure makes all the difference. This is Form-Based Codes 101.
Commissioner Akeson said it best when she wrote to me recently, “additional cost in the short term will be outweighed by the long-term benefit of infill that contributes to the overall value of homes in the older neighborhoods. Home values are influenced by construction quality and architectural design. Inappropriate infill will reduce the value of neighborhoods. The only way to guarantee improved quality of future infill projects is to set minimum basic standards to improve quality and design.”
During the deliberation of St. Ann’s special use request, the Zoning Commission and City Council have expressed objections that undermine the purpose and goals of the Land Development Code — a code that they voted for, based on a Plan that they adopted “in principle.” Let’s hope this was an exception, and that the exception doesn’t become the rule.
What’s a little mind-boggling about this is that, to my (masters-in-theology, focus-on-liturgy) eyes, this building doesn’t meet Vatican or USCCB guidelines for churches and their outbuildings EITHER. The extra expense of making the architecture fit the neighborhood shouldn’t even be an issue; it should have been planned that way in the first place, and it should be build using top-of-the-line materials.
Are the materials local and sustainable? Does the design express local culture? (Only if local culture is “big box stores,” I think.) Is it energy-efficient, LEED-certified, and using the lowest-impact materials available? Are any of the building materials toxic? Is it using union labor?
Is it beautiful? “The church building should be beautiful. The external and internal structure of the church building should be expressive of the dignified beauty of God’s holy people who gather there and of the sacred rites they celebrate. Liturgical art and architecture reflect and announce the presence of the God who calls the community to worship and invite believers to raise their minds and hearts to the One who is the source of all beauty and truth.” (Living Stones 44.5)
Was there ANY thought other than expense put into designing this building? Based on the wide-span roof and total lack of exterior decoration, I’m going with “no.” If they’re not particularly concerned about church directives on appropriate architecture, I guess they’re not really going to be concerned with neighborhood appearance either.
(Living Stones is the controlling US document: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/livingstones.shtml It speaks primarily of actual churches but most of the (non-Mass-related) principles apply to any church-related buildings.)
I’m so sick of ugly church buildings.
This building would certainly create a lot of tagging space for local “youth”.
If this was a a”black church building” being put up in that particular place, it wouldn’t be an issue. For crying out loud, this isn’t a commercial enterprise, it’s meant to benefit the folks in that community and area. Case closed!
Looks like crap! The design pales in comparison to the palace being constructed at the old Spalding school location. Why such divergence in design?
RomanII- please email me (bethakeson@insightbb.com) perhaps we could meet for lunch? I would love to walk the neighborhood with you and talk about why now, more than ever, buildings designed like this one will do more harm than good to the future viability of this neighborhood.
The principles and the importance of good design hold regardless of race, income, or pedigree. They hold regardless of use. In fact I would argue design and the quality of building materials are even more important when resources are scarce.
Winston Churchill said “We shape our buildings, and thereafter our buildings shape us” during an impassioned plea before the House of Commons asking them to rebuild the House of Commons after it was destroyed by enemy bombing. His observation was our buildings represent who we are and what we hold most dear.
Eyebrows hit the nail on the head when she asks: Are the materials local and sustainable? Does the design express local culture? (Only if local culture is “big box stores,” I think.)
This building will not convey dignity and I am afraid it will say to future generations we, collectively as a city, did not believe behaviors would ever change and that is why we agreed to a regrettable building design with inferior materials and no windows.
I am really disappointed in both the zoning commission and the city council, but I’m especially disappointed in the Catholic Diocese of Peoria for even proposing this piece of crud.
For those who are unfamiliar with St. Ann’s, take a look at what the new parish hall will be built next to:
http://namethispeorialandmark.blogpeoria.com/2006/10/08/94/
What a shame.
Thanks, PI — Yes, by all means check out St. Ann’s church building. Take special note of all the windows:
It should be noted that the current “St. Ann’s” Church, built as St. Boniface Church, sustained extensive fire damage in the 1960’s and was rebuilt much to the old design. The old school building, which was a nice-looking, well-built building, was recently torn down, rather than being rehabed and reused as a parish hall.
Finally, Eyebrows, “I’m so sick of ugly church buildings”? How about I’m sick of ugly buildings, period? Look around. They are everywhere.
A FAILURE of leadership for the City Council and the Zoning Commission.
If there are any future city council candidates that are pro-new urbanism, out there… start taking notes.
For what it is worth… I think the New Urbanist effort in Peoria took a serious, if not lethal, hit when the city council refused to bank roll the form based code areas, after all the planning work was done. Decisions like this one (St Ann’s) are worrying.
Peoria has the opportunity to differentiate itself the them multitudes of other suburban cities out there. We pass this opportunity up at our peril.
I think the St. Ann’s priest was at the city council meeting but didn’t speak. The mayor actually congratulated him or wished him luck with the building BEFORE the vote was taken. No indication that they wouldn’t have been willing to make changes. I think the funds for this was from the parish and fundraisers (last weekend’s chicken dinner for example) – not sure how much the diocese actually kicks in to any parish project.
“Finally, Eyebrows, “I’m so sick of ugly church buildings”? How about I’m sick of ugly buildings, period?”
Well, yes, but I’m double-extra offended by ugly church buildings, because they make baby Jesus cry. And because it just cries out a real lack of respect and reverence.
“I think the funds for this was from the parish and fundraisers (last weekend’s chicken dinner for example) – not sure how much the diocese actually kicks in to any parish project.”
True. St. Mark’s is in the initial phases of fundraising for a new school and they’ve pretty much been told that they’re on their own, so my anger was misplaced. It should be with St. Ann’s, not the Diocese.
“…make baby Jesus cry”?!?
Eyebrows McGee, you have GOT to be kidding with that statement, aren’t you? Thank God I have my super-industrial barf bag available if you by some chance are NOT kidding…
Maybe this figure of speech does not have quite so much currency in other circles as it does in my own. 🙂
CJ: And ideas about — the cost difference for what was approved vs. what would be best according to the P&GM recommendations?
“Well look, I like the Christmas Jesus [baby Jesus] best, and I’m sayin grace. When you say grace, you can say it to grown up Jesus, or teenage Jesus, or bearded Jesus, or whoever you want.” – Ricky Bobby
Amen to that.
I think you’re right Eyebrows. Churches do have a special duty to produce buildings that show glory to God and feed the soul of their parishioners.
I like the Churchill quote. To produce something that is nothing short of hideous does violence to that mission, and is worse than an ordinary business doing it. Thing is, our eyes are assaulted so often it just gets really annoying.
I would venture to guess that God cares less about the building than we do and is more concerned about the people inside of it which is what we should do.
Cj,
is there any consideration for buildings going in rougher parts of town to adapt to any anticrime measures. While I think this building could put in windows and change it’s design, it is unlikely that the city is going to help resolve crime, poverty, drugs, infastructure in this part of the city any time soon. I have no idea how long neighborhoods have cried out for help down there and investment goes repeatedly to either newer or yet to be built sections of town. I watched WHOI for the past couple of nights on Jessica Wheeler’s accepting the challenge of a member of the Mayor’s commission on disabilities to spend a day doing their job in a wheel chair. It was reported no official took up the challenge so she did. Tonight’s segment focused on ramps at corners. There are over 7800 corners in Peoria. Only 387 were met newer ADA requirements and over 1700 had no sidwalks at all. Off the topic at hand, but click on the WHOI tv website and see the story if you haven’t viewed it.
Paul: And I understand that Peoria was supposed to be in compliance with the ADA ramps at corners requirement years ago (as in the late nineties). Although I am not in a wheelchair, I walk with my daughter in her stoller from our house to downtown. It is impossible to navigate some sections of our neighborhood as there are no ramps at some corners and at other corners the difference between the ramp and the street is not flush by several inches. It is dangerous. It prevents access for all who are not mobile via a vehicle.
Thats funny eyebrows, Its a reference to Talladega Nights.Will Ferrels character
Paul– I actually saw the HOI report last night on the 10:00 news before I read your comment. It was most interesting.