Update on the Peoria Park District’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
It has been nearly two years now since the Peoria Park District enacted a historic preservation ordinance, but I don’t recall hearing a word about it since. I emailed Park Board President Tim Cassidy regarding the status of the ordinance, with emphasis on the restoration of Glen Oak Park’s two fenced off and deteriorating items – the iron suspension bridge and the stone fort & cannon fronting the lagoon. This is what he had to say…
“In late 2008 the Board considered PPD staff recommendations regarding repair to the cannon wall at two public meetings. I have requested those minutes and will provide upon my receipt.
It was decided that a pile and lagging wall would be constructed in front of the cannon wall to stabilize wall’s base and allow access to structure subsurface so as to be able to do a thorough examination of wall to determine what repairs and method would be required. A structural engineer is to be retained to assess extent of any foundation failure and provide recommendations for stabilization or re-building foundation and to provide cost estimates.
Placement of the pile and lagging wall was recently complete after some delay due to rainy spring and Clyde West fishing derby. Clay fill now needs to be placed which will be done within the next three weeks.
After fill placed, structural engineer will be able to begin analysis and present recommendations to Board. There is money in the 2008 budget related to the foregoing. We are in need of engineer’s findings and conclusions for further consideration of funding issues if such is needed.
As for the bridge this presents a more complex issue. Repair/renovation costs have been placed anywhere from $44,000 to $105,000 with some considered opinions that even after any such work the bridge would still not meet full pedestrian design loading weight standards and there will remain a risk of single point catastrophic failure . Quite frankly the Board has not made a final decision as to what needs to be done with the bridge in the long term given that even after substantial monetary investment, there still would not be a functional bridge. One alternative for consideration is that the bridge not be reopened for pedestrian use due to real safety concerns but continue as ornamental structure. Again, no final decisions have been made. I would certainly be open to any ideas.”
