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.

If you didn’t get a chance to read it yesterday, check out Jennifer Davis’s article on the Heart of Peoria Plan in Sunday’s Journal Star. She interviewed several members of the Heart of Peoria Commission to assess how implementation of the plan has progressed and where we will be focusing in the future.

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):

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.