Category Archives: Heart of Peoria Plan

Heart of Peoria Commission given another month to live

The City Council tonight deferred action on the fate of the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) until July 24. There was a meeting tonight at 4:30 that included Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken (2nd Dist.), HOPC Chairman Bill Washkuhn, Councilman Patrick Nichting (5th Dist.), and Mayor Jim Ardis. Although an effort was made to resolve the issue in time for tonight’s meeting, they did not reach a consensus, hence the item was deferred.

Van Auken said that several ideas were discussed, but didn’t elaborate on them. I imagine the HOPC will hear about them at our next meeting which is currently scheduled for this Friday, June 22, at 8 a.m., City Hall, fourth floor.

Councilman Gary Sandberg was the lone vote against the deferral. He wants to see the Heart of Peoria Commissioners appointed to other commissions — especially the Planning Commission, which is working on the Comprehensive Plan right now — regardless of whether HOPC is retained. This deferral delays that possible action another month.

In other Heart of Peoria Plan news, I had the opportunity to talk to Nichting briefly after the council meeting tonight. I asked him what he thought of the HOP Plan. He mentioned that he had voted for it and thought it had some good ideas. But he feels that ultimately the market decides which ideas will and won’t work — that there are certain market realities we have to acknowledge. He didn’t elaborate on that idea much further.

Of course one has to take the market into consideration. Just because a city comes up with good ideas does not guarantee that entrepreneurs will flock to fulfill them. However, on the flip side, it should be pointed out that Euclidean zoning did not come about by free market forces. It was imposed by cities upon developers to give us the kind of cities we see today. So, if anyone were to argue that segregated land use and automobile-dependent city planning were the result of popular demand by developers, they’re sorely mistaken. Zoning is all about cities deciding what they want their cities to look like rather than developers having free rein. New Urbanism is, among other things, a new and improved zoning plan that’s rooted in the tried and true principles of strong city planning.

What’s the next step for the Heart of Peoria Commission?

Billy Dennis is reporting that the city is planning to de-commission the Heart of Peoria Commission and redistribute the members to other city commissions, most notably the Planning Commission. This has all come up relatively quickly, so I’m not going to have many comments on it until the HOPC meets (May 25) and we have a chance to discuss it. I will say a couple of things, though.

First, the part about putting Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) members on other commissions should be no surprise, since that was the recommendation from the city’s Committee on Commissions (item C.4.). The specific appointments to these other commissions that Billy lists on his blog are only suggested at this point, as not all commissioners have been contacted to see if they are able or willing to serve on those commissions. I have been contacted and have expressed my willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. I think dual appointments are a good idea, and infusing New Urbanism principles into these existing commissions will make them and the city stronger.

As for the HOPC being decommissioned, that’s something that needs to be discussed. I knew this idea was out there as a possibility, but I didn’t expect to see it coupled with the dual appointments as it was in the communication that Billy posted on his blog. There are a number of pros and cons to decommissioning HOPC, and I don’t know that all the ramifications have been thoroughly explored.

The idea promoted in the draft council communication would be to change HOPC from a city-appointed commission “to a private, civic commission, similar to that of Peoria City Beautiful, allowing the current and future members to meet as they wish, without Open Meeting Act regulations, to study, advocate, and take other actions as they wish related to the Heart of Peoria Plan and New Urbanism.” Another idea I’ve heard that was not listed, however, would keep the HOPC as a city commission, but have it meet more infrequently (quarterly, perhaps) to advocate for and educate on New Urbanism principles, kind of like it’s doing now.

I’m sure there will be some (ahem) spirited discussions about these ideas over the next couple of weeks. I think the dual appointments definitely need to be done because all the commissions need to have new urbanism principles represented. Whether the HOPC is decommissioned is still an open question for me. I look forward to hearing more discussion/debate on that idea.

New era begins in Heart of Peoria

On June 15, four areas of Peoria will be the first to benefit from a new kind of zoning (some might even call it an alternative to zoning): form-based codes. The City Council last night unanimously adopted ordinances that put the new coding into place for the four form districts which are the West Main corridor, Warehouse District, Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, and Prospect Road corridor.

Form-based codes differ from our current zoning (aka “Euclidean zoning) in some significant ways. Whereas Euclidean zoning is primarily concerned about land use and only marginally concerned about design or form, form-based codes are just the opposite. Form-based codes stress limits for height, siting, and building elements, and have only a few limits on uses.

If you want to build a new building along Main street, right now you have to follow the same zoning regulations as if you were building out in a cornfield on the north side of town — setbacks from the street, surface parking requirements, etc. Just take a look at Jimmy John’s on West Main and you’ll get the idea. That’s what infill looks like under suburban zoning code.

Under the form-based codes, infill development will instead be consistent with the current built environment. For instance, on West Main street, any new buildings will have to be built up to the sidewalk and utilize nearby shared parking with other businesses or provide private parking in the rear of the building. Whereas Euclidean zoning separates land uses into residential, commercial, office, etc., form-based codes allow these uses to be mixed, thus making it possible for someone to build an apartment over their store, or to have office space above a retail business.

The council also voted to bring off the table the rest of the Land Development Code (which would apply to the Heart of Peoria Plan area outside of the four form districts) with the Heart of Peoria Commission’s recommendation for the Knoxville corridor, and a recommendation that there be a four-month transitional period following its enactment. This could come before the council as early as next month for adoption.

The transitional period would be a four-month time frame during which projects could still be approved under the old zoning ordinance if the developer can prove that he was relying on those ordinances when making plans, acquiring property, etc. That’s a reasonable request. The council often makes zoning and especially fee changes without any kind of consideration for what that would do to pending projects, so this is really a step forward.

What does the HOP Plan say about liquor stores in South Peoria?

The short answer is nothing. But since newly-elected-but-not-yet-seated school board member Linda Butler (who is a chaplain at South Side Mission) brought it up at Tuesday’s city council meeting, it’s worth looking into a little more.

Linda had lunch recently with my friend and Vice Chair of the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) Beth Akeson. Beth recently wrote a guest editorial for the Chronicle expressing concern about the proposed grocery store and (especially) truck stop on the city’s south side. What Beth told Linda, and Linda repeated at the council meeting, is that the planned development is not consistent with the Heart of Peoria Plan.

I think we need to parse that out a little bit, because there are several facets to the development. There’s a grocery store, a liquor license, a laundromat, and a truck stop.

What the Heart of Peoria Plan advocates is the reestablishment of neighborhood centers. By looking at the street grid and later doing a visual inspection of the older part of town, the design team was able to identify where little commercial centers used to be to support the surrounding neighborhoods. Here they are (click to enlarge):

HOP Neighborhood Centers

The plan recommends:

Adjust[ing] zoning code to support and encourage development (or re-development) of neighborhood-oriented mixed-use centers, each located at the center of an appropriate pedestrian shed [an area that is within easy walking distance, generally a ¼-½ mile radius, or a 5-10 minute walk; the circles on the graphic represent the pedestrian sheds].

So the argument is that this development is not consistent with the Heart of Peoria Plan because it’s not in an ideal location for a neighborhood center.

In response, I would just say that, while the Plan does indeed advocate neighborhood centers within an appropriate pedestrian shed, none of the depicted neighborhood center locations (see graphic above) cover the area where Mr. Abud is wanting to locate his grocery store. The closest ones are Adams & Western and Laramie & Krause (numbers 3 & 6 respectively on the graphic). However, neither of these cover Harrison Homes or the neighborhood that Abud would be serving.

Furthermore, considering that several of the depicted “appropriate” pedestrian sheds (Adams & Western, Adams & Garden, Water & Main, Jefferson & Camblin, Adams & Sloan — numbers 3, 9, 1, 18, and 19 on the graphic, respectively) are on the edge of neighborhoods so that nearly half of the shed is unused or otherwise non-residential, I don’t think a case can be made that having a neighborhood center at Adams & Ligonier is somehow inconsistent because it isn’t in the middle of a neighborhood.

Also, in a supplementary part of the Plan, it explicitly recommends that a public-private partnership establish community anchors in these neighborhood centers that would include a laundromat and “a neighboring cafe or bar” (emphasis added). When Duany was here explaining the Plan, he said himself that we shouldn’t be “moralistic” and should recognize that adults do drink and that a neighborhood bar is an appropriate place for adults to socialize. While the Plan is silent on whether a grocery store should sell liquor, the implication from the proposed community anchor is that liquor is not a concern of the Plan.

The truck-stop part of the plan is a different issue, however. I think a strong case can be made that the Plan does not conceive of a truck stop along this corridor, especially not abutting a residential neighborhood. Although there is nothing explicit about this topic, certainly the Plan is concerned with things being at a pedestrian scale and meeting the needs of people (not cars), lowering dependence on the automobile, having inspiring form/architecture, etc., and a truck stop is the antithesis of all those things and would be totally inappropriate for this location.

I think it would be a fair statement to say that the truck stop is not consistent with the Heart of Peoria Plan. But I think the laundromat and grocery store intrinsically are consistent with the Plan, even with the grocery store having a liquor license and being located at Adams & Ligonier.

Something I haven’t talked about is the form of the development. In a part of the HOP Plan that discusses interventions for the Southern Gateway Area, it states in part:

Both the buildings and the parking in the existing [Southern Gateway] plan are consistently suburban in character, where they should reflect an increasingly urban character as one approaches the downtown core. Although this approach might make it easier to attract certain kinds of development in the short run, it will ultimately limit development capabilities of the surrounding landowners, as well as giving an inappropriate character to the city’s “gateway.” The current pattern of land use along the corridor reflects the common result of the erosion of an older urban fabric by the introduction of uses that are oriented to the automobile traffic generated along this route. The result is not only visually unappealing, but detrimental to the redevelopment potential of the nearby neighborhood.

The old Miracle Mart building, which Abud is remodeling, is essentially suburban in character, with the building set back quite a ways on the property and all the parking in a front lot. One could make the case that Abud’s development should look more urban in order to better conform to the HOP Plan. However, since the building already exists and was a Miracle Mart and reportedly a Sav-A-Lot already, I don’t see how we could require someone (under our current zoning regulations) to raze the current structure and rebuild it, especially since it appears to be perfectly suited to being a neighborhood grocery as it is currently configured.

What this part of town really needs is a Form District, just like they have at Sheridan/Loucks, Prospect, West Main, and the Warehouse District. A form-based code for the Southern Gateway would give Peoria the regulatory authority to make sure development is consistent with the city’s vision for that area. Furthermore, the process of developing a form-based code requires that charrettes be held with the neighborhoods along that corridor, so they would be fully represented. I would encourage First District Councilman Clyde Gulley to work toward that goal by making sure he secures funds for this project in the next budget cycle.

This issue is now on the Heart of Peoria Commission’s agenda for a special meeting that will be held this Friday, May 11, 8:00 – 10:30 a.m. in Room 404 at Peoria City Hall. As with all HOPC meetings, this is open to the public if anyone would like to attend.

Who will decide how Peoria looks?

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?

Land Development Code on City Council agenda

UPDATE (4/11/07): Here’s an updated map of the Heart of Peoria Plan Area boundaries.

On tap Tuesday night at the City Council meeting: the long-awaited, much-anticipated Land Development Code (LDC).

What is it? The LDC is a big step toward codifying the Heart of Peoria Plan. It’s essentially new zoning laws for the Heart of Peoria Plan area (I’m using the term “zoning” in a generic sense here). In case you’re wondering what that area is, it’s the portion of Peoria within the heavy border on this illustration:

Heart of Peoria Plan Area

It covers roughly 8,000 acres of the oldest portion of Peoria. This part of town grew up in the 1800s and early 1900s when transportation was decidedly low-speed. Hence, there’s a lot of density in this part of town: houses are close together, businesses front the street, and things are generally built to pedestrian scale.

The problem is that the current zoning laws that cover this older portion of town are the same zoning laws that cover the suburban landscape of the northernmost portion of Peoria. Another way of saying this is that our zoning is “one size fits all.” But unfortunately, one size does not really fit all.

The zoning needs of north Peoria are a lot different than the zoning needs in the older parts of town. Whereas you would expect to find lots of surface parking in suburban areas and businesses set far back from the road (after all, the only access to these places is via automobile), you don’t expect this on Main street. On Main, you expect buildings to be built right up to the sidewalk, to utilize shared parking in back of the businesses or along the street, and to be pedestrian in scale.

But our “one-size-fits-all” zoning laws try to fit suburban design standards into older, urban parts of the city. Thus, we have developments like Campustown, and businesses like Jimmy Johns that set their business back 80 feet from the road with surface parking in front. This is not necessarily the fault of the developers, but rather the zoning laws that require suburban-style development without any regard for the urban character of the street. Like trying to put a round peg in a square hole, the result is, frankly, a mess.

And that’s where the Land Development Code comes in. The LDC is designed to preserve and maintain the urban character of the older parts of the city. It encourages redevelopment and infill, but with design standards that are compatible with the existing business districts and neighborhoods.

Form and use

In addition to the look, or form, of urban design, another big difference between urban and suburban zoning is in the area of permitted uses. In suburban areas, different uses are segregated: residential areas are separated from office parks, which are separated from retail areas, which are separated from industrial areas, etc. The only connections between each of these enclaves are streets, making suburbanites completely automobile-dependent.

In contrast, urban areas allow a mix of uses. Stores can have apartments above them, offices can be adjacent to or between retail shops, etc. This, coupled with the density and pedestrian scale of development, means that one’s basic needs are all within walking distance — one could conceivably live, work, and shop without having to drive (although driving is not precluded, of course).

What does that mean? It means less money spent on gasoline. It means that older people who are quite capable of living independently but can’t drive anymore don’t have to be “warehoused” in retirement homes. It means children who are old enough to go to the store unsupervised but not old enough to drive can ride their bikes to go shopping or to a movie instead of relying on someone to chauffeur them around.

But perhaps at its most basic level it means choice. Many people actually prefer to live in an urban area. In fact, the much ballyhooed “creative class” that Peoria is trying to attract likes urban living a lot, if surveys and polls are to be believed. Peoria has plenty of suburban amenities to offer, but is sorely lacking in urban living options. This is a chance to revitalize the older part of town, not by trying to mimic the suburbs which it could never do adequately anyway, but by building on its strengths.

Going forward

The Land Development Code is a big topic — too big to be discussed in just one blog post. So consider this an introduction. Today and tomorrow, I’ll be posting some follow-up posts about what the LDC has in it, what objections might come up, and of course, reaction to the city council discussion tomorrow night.

The code is such a big document, it’s unlikely that final action will be taken Tuesday night — although it could. I would expect, though, that this would span a couple of council meetings.

Guest Editorial: Peoria Riverfront Museum

First, a special thanks to CJ for the opportunity to submit this piece and explore the potential of the Peoria Riverfront Museum.

As a 30-year resident of Peoria — where my children were born and grew up — I am very interested in how my city faces the future. So when the museum project came on the horizon, I wanted to find out just how this will “play in Peoria.” After much research, I am a firm supporter of the new museum. I believe communities are largely defined by how well they preserve their heritage, promote and present the arts, stretch young minds and imaginations, and celebrate human achievement.

The Peoria Riverfront Museum will do all of those things in a unique way — known as the Delta concept. Through the Delta concept, museum visitors will learn about history, art, science and achievement in a way that puts it all in a shared context.

While one-dimensional museums present an isolated view, the Delta concept will blend and merge many views so that the visitor learns about more than just a single historic event or piece of artwork. They will be able to understand the many factors that influenced the historic figure or artist as they made their decisions or created their painting.

Museums are, first and foremost, about education. Lakeview Museum has been a magnificent resource to this community for arts and sciences education. By joining with its other partners—Peoria Historical Society, Illinois High School Association, African American Hall of Fame and the Peoria Regional Museum Society — the education component of the new museum will explode. In one setting, thousands of people will be able to explore hundreds of subjects in a depth and scope normally found only in museums in much larger cities.

The education component is particularly important for our children who are struggling in school. It is no secret that the core of our community is going through difficult times. Those factors affect and impact on children’s abilities to stay focused in school. All children can benefit from the stimulation and sense of wonder that comes from visiting museums. I am hopeful that there will be a special emphasis to bring in children who are having a difficult time in school—perhaps through after school or weekend programs sponsored by businesses—to help spark their interest in education. The community as a whole will benefit.

Another issue that has been put forth by some is the use of such a large space for just two buildings, the museum and Caterpillar Visitor’s Center, and how that fits in with the Heart of Peoria Plan and its emphasis on what is known as New Urbanism.

First, it should be mentioned that the museum planners originally received two-thirds of the space for the museum, with the remainder being retained by the city for possible retail development. Caterpillar then stepped forward and asked for the other one-third for the visitor’s center, which was granted by the City Council with full knowledge of the general space utilization and overall footprint of the two buildings.

As a general comment, I support New Urbanism as it applies to new development; it makes a lot of sense. Upon doing research regarding New Urbanism I found that the proposed use of the space fits in well with New Urbanism principles. Rather than criticize the approach, New Urbanism proponents should be using it as a shining example.

First, the riverfront area should be defined as a neighborhood, or even a district in New Urbanism lingo. A neighborhood consists of mixed uses for apartments, homes, shops and offices, while a district has a more defined use but should retain the principles of neighborhoods where possible. One could consider the riverfront more of an entertainment district than a neighborhood.

But for these purposes, let’s consider it a neighborhood. In New Urbanism, a neighborhood has a public space at its center which is no more than a five or 10 minute walk for all of those in the neighborhood. The Charter for the Congress For New Urbanism says, “Civic buildings and public gathering spaces require important sites to reinforce community identity and the culture of democracy. They deserve distinctive form, because their role is different from that of other buildings and places that constitute the fabric of the city.”

Adreas Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyber, the inspiration for Peoria’s New Urbanism efforts through the Heart of Peoria Plan, put it this way, “Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities (emphais added).”

And finally, the Heart of Peoria: Implementation Charrette Report and Master Plan produced by Farrell Madden Associates with Urban Advisors in May of 2006 suggests creating new outdoor civic spaces and providing new outdoor public spaces, people places, squares and civic greens. The report focuses on the Warehouse District, Sheridan Triangle and Prospect Rd., but did not look at the museum block. It did make a brief reference to “reclaiming” the Peoria riverfront for all of its citizens through walkways, displays of public art, access to the water, etc., all of which were in place at the time the report was prepared.

If you consider the area from the RiverPlex to WTVP and from the river to Washington St. a neighborhood, then the new museum is clearly the center of the neighborhood and the open space there meets all of the recommendations cited above for gathering places, people spaces, community meetings, education, cultural activities and so forth.

The use of the outdoor museum space as a gathering place is the very definition of what New Urbanism recommends for the center of a neighborhood. Other aspects of a neighborhood already exist, including a variety of housing options, shops and offices, all with entrances right off the street. There are many entertainment venues as well.

Consider a bright spring day with people enjoying the outdoor space at the museum, perhaps playing a game of chess with giant chess pieces, playing hopscotch, watching street performers or enjoying lunch or coffee at an outdoor café. Children are creating giant bubbles while another group listens to a storyteller. This is what gathering places and people spaces are all about, and they just don’t exist without some kind of driving force such as a museum.

The only reference I find in the Heart of Peoria Report and Master Plan to the museum block is a rendering that shows seven buildings in the space, six of which I believe are to represent separate buildings for the various museum partners and one is designated for retail space.

This approach is so ill-advised that it really doesn’t deserve comment. Clearly the report producers did not understand the museum’s vision of creating a Delta concept, nor did they have any grasp of or give any consideration to the cost of building, maintaining and staffing six different museums. Increasing the density of the block eliminates the center of the neighborhood and is actually in conflict with New Urbanism principles.

There are many other aspects of the project that have been challenged at one time or another: the cost; the need; who supports and controls the project; the potential use of tax credits for funding; will be a tourism draw; and, of course, the name. I hope the planners don’t listen too much to all the naysayers and give up and I hope delays are minimized so that increasing costs don’t result in a downsized museum.

There is a great deal of work yet to be done and few final decisions have been made. As with most projects of this magnitude there surely will be changes and compromises in the future. But when the doors open, I will be at the head of the line and I’m sure I’ll be joined by thousands of other central Illinoisans who will be proud of the result and proud of all the people who worked so hard to make the Peoria Riverfront Museum a reality.

Diocese takes the name of HOP/C in vain

If you watched or attended the City Council meeting tonight, you may have heard a representative of the Catholic Diocese of Peoria give a presentation on their plans to build a new pastoral center downtown. In her presentation, she claimed that the plans were approved by the Heart of Peoria Commission.

That’s actually not true. The plans were shown to the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOP/C), and revised plans were shown to a few members of the HOP/C, but at no point did the commission take an official vote to approve or disapprove of the plans. I, as a recent appointee to the HOP/C, have never seen their plans at all, so I have no idea whether they conform with the Heart of Peoria Plan or with the proposed Land Development Code.

You may think I’m making a big deal out of nothing, and I won’t argue that, but it’s a pet peeve of mine to have the HOP/C’s name taken in vain — a pet peeve that started before I was even on the commission. This isn’t the first time it’s happened. The HOP/C’s “blessing” was invoked for Museum Square as well, even though the commission never approved that project either. The Heart of Peoria Plan has been used to justify all kinds of projects, from Museum Square to District 150’s park-siting plans, even though those projects are antithetical to the Plan.

The HOP/C has no regulatory authority, but since the City Council adopted the HOP Plan “in principle,” getting the HOP/C’s input on big projects downtown and making token changes is undertaken as an inconvenient, but politically-correct thing to do. Once they make minor tweaks based on HOP/C recommendations, they check the commission off their list and claim to have its full support.

The HOP/C is going to have to be taken more seriously if the City Council ever expects the Heart of Peoria Plan to be adopted in earnest, not just in principle.

New LDC needs more than lip service paid to bikes

I mentioned before that I went on record supporting bicycle lanes and required bike racks at the last public hearing for the proposed Land Development Code for the Heart of Peoria area. I was encouraged to also present my concerns in writing during the public hearing process, so I’ve now done that as well. Here is the text of my letter to the Planning and Zoning commissions:

Please enter this letter into the record at the public hearing on 29 November 2006 identified as “A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY INCLUDING AN ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN, REGULATING PLAN, AND CHARRETTE REPORT FOR THE HEART OF PEORIA PLAN AREA.”

I have two requests for modification to the proposed Land Development Code as outlined below:

1. Include bicycle lanes in examples of street transects.

Section 6.7.1 of the proposed Land Development Code states (emphasis mine), “INTENT: The streets within the Form Districts are intended to balance the needs of all types of traffic—auto, bicycle, and pedestrian—to maximize mobility and convenience for all the citizens and users of the respective districts.” However, in the pages that follow, none of the streetspace examples or specifications show bicycle lanes.

While I recognize that not all urban thoroughfares will include bicycle lanes, such lanes should be incorporated whenever it is feasible to accommodate multimodal travel and ensure the safety of cyclists on busy roadways. Thus, it would be prudent to include in the Land Development Code examples of how bike lanes could be integrated into street design. The following graphics, reprinted from an Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, are provided as examples of what I’m proposing for inclusion:

Transect example

Bike Lane example

2. Include bicycle racks in parking requirements for businesses.

Section 6.1.4(F)(8) states that one of the goals of the parking requirements is to “incorporate convenient bicycle parking.” However, sections 6.2 through 6.5 do not specifically require parking facilities for bicycles, such as bike racks. There are many references to “vehicle parking,” but “vehicle” is not defined in section 11, and I would argue that “vehicle” is popularly understood to mean a motorized vehicle, not a bicycle.

Thus, I suggest that in sections 6.2 through 6.5, under each of the Siting requirements, subheading “Garage and Parking,” language be inserted such as “a number of off-street bicycle parking spaces shall be provided equal to the greater of two (2) spaces total or five (5) percent of the automobile parking space requirement.” The numbers and percentages may need to be adjusted; this is just an example of the type of language that would be appropriate to ensure adequate bicycle parking. For an example of bicycle parking requirements in another community, Denver’s regulations can be read on-line at http://massbike.org/bikelaw/~denver.htm.

While I have referenced just the form districts in my letter, I also think it would be a good idea to incorporate these ideas into the entire Heart of Peoria area.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

I’d like to say that I discovered these omissions with my own keen observational skills, but that would be untrue. They were actually brought to my attention by Mahkno and Bernie Goitein (independent of each other), so my thanks to them.

Note: The graphics I included are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication “Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities,” available online here.