People in glass arcades shouldn’t throw stones

David Stuckel, attorney for the Civic Center Authority, had his letter to the editor printed in the Journal Star today. He asks:

Why should Peoria taxpayers be ticked by the efforts of the Peoria Civic Center Authority to bring a new hotel to Downtown, as suggested in the Jan. 29 editorial? Because it will improve Downtown’s appearance? Create jobs and tax revenues? Attract people who spend money in the community?

No, Mr. Stuckel, it’s because the Civic Center Authority (CCA) lied to the city when they started this expansion. They told the city — in writing — “We believe [an expanded Civic Center] can be successful without an attached hotel,” and that they weren’t asking for any public funding for a hotel.

Now, less than a year later — before the mortar between the bricks is even dry — the CCA is coming back to the city with its hand out, begging for TIF status and claiming the Civic Center can’t even be solvent without a new hotel. Stuckel then has the chutzpah to ask, “Will our traditional lack of governmental foresight consign this to the woulda-coulda-shoulda trash bin?” The only lack of foresight in this equation is the CCA’s. All the city did was take them at their word.

No, Mr. Stuckel, we’re not ticked for any of the spurious reasons you gave. Peoria taxpayers are ticked because they don’t much care for extortion. They don’t much care for arrogant criticism of other hotels by an entity that has never been self-sufficient and continues to rely on heavy tax subsidies. They don’t much care for an organization that has taken their temporary HRA tax funding and treated it as a permanent entitlement.

Council should sell the Kellar Branch to Pioneer.

A couple of weeks ago, Gary Sandberg suggested the city should come up with a strategy for the Kellar Branch before the Surface Transportation Board (STB) tells the city what to do. Toward that end, the council agreed to ask staff to bring back their options and recommendations on what to do.

Well, that information is on the agenda for Tuesday night’s (2/6/07) council meeting. However, this communication from city staff omits important, germane facts that the council should be considering.

Here’s what the communication says:

Option 1 – Deferral: It is possible for the Council to defer this matter to February 13 because of the STB Continuance. Council could even continue this to February 20 if it looks as though a resolution may be reached. If this option is chosen, the Council may want to consider formally requesting positions from ClRY and PlRY for its consideration. Both have been invited to put their position in writing, but neither has done so as of February 1, 2007.

That is untrue. As I reported back in May 2006, Pioneer has had their “position” in writing since September 24, 2004. The president of Pioneer Railcorp, J. Michael Carr, explained his company’s position thus:

We are fighting this battle because Pioneer is a Peoria company, dedicated to the betterment of this community. Abandonment of the Kellar Branch would be an incredibly short-sighted move, for which this City would suffer for decades to come. We are determined not to let that happen.

This City Council has been able to put petty politics aside and make some hard decisions for the long-term benefit of Peoria. It is time to do that again. While it may not be popular with a few newspaper editors, bringing the saga of the Kellar Branch to an end is the right thing to do for the City. It will return almost a million dollars to the City immediately, and bring dividends for many years to come. I am hopeful the Council will exercise the statesmanship to act on this opportunity.

Did you catch that? They’re dedicated to the betterment of this community because they are a Peoria company. Many people forget that Pioneer is a local company (CIRY is based out of LaSalle and the Kellar Branch is the only interest they have in our area), and they also forget that its founder, Guy Brenkman, is not the President anymore — hasn’t been for years (not that it should matter, but it does to some people).

Pioneer’s offer still stands. (Read the full text here.) To put their money where their mouth is regarding commitment to the Peoria area, check out some of the things they’ve offered:

  • Purchase the Kellar Branch and western spur from the City of Peoria for $565,000, or accept a long-term lease on the lines;
  • Grant the Park District a 999-year lease on a portion of the right-of-way for the use of a trail;
  • Donate up to $100,000 in in-kind services (railcar usage, train service, equipment use, flagging and other labor services) to the Park District to assist in the construction of said trail;
  • Work with the Park District to provide for joint use of the right-of-way, including the joint use of existing bridges;
  • Provide the labor, materials and equipment to construct a trestle for the trail to traverse the section behind Versailles Garden where the track elevation has caused the Park District the most concern (the Park District estimates this item alone would cost almost $400,000);
  • Upgrade the Kellar Branch track to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) “Class I” standards;
  • Aggressively seek new business in Pioneer Park and Growth Cell Two;
  • Develop a “dinner train” as a tourist attraction for the city (similar to a successful dinner train Pioneer runs on their Gettysburg & Northern Railroad);
  • Develop, in cooperation with the city, tourist/commuter service from downtown (the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation has submitted a plan for providing this service recently);
  • Pursue the establishment of a “railroad academy” in partnership with Illinois Central College and/or other appropriate partners, to train students in train operation and maintenance, using Pioneer’s equipment and facilities; and
  • Give the city right of first refusal to repurchase the line if another entity wants to buy it from Pioneer.

What has CIRY offered to the area? Hmmm….. nothing. Next option from the city:

Option 2 -Sale of Kellar Branch: The City could choose to sell its ownership of the Kellar Branch which, of course, would have limited value without the Village of Peoria Heights agreeing to sell its portion of the Kellar Branch. In the past, PlRY has expressed interest in purchasing the Kellar Branch. The sale of the Kellar Branch would make the possibility of a recreational trail a more remote possibility. The sale would not require STB approval.

There are several problems with this. First, “PIRY [Pioneer] has expressed interest in purchasing the Kellar Branch.” In light of their offer, I’d say this is the understatement of 2007 so far. Also, saying that selling the branch “would make … a recreational trail a more remote possibility” is exactly the opposite of the truth. It makes it more of a possibility — a promise to cooperate, a promise to provide money and manpower, and a promise of signing a lease agreement. Not selling it and having CIRY run it would make trail usage more remote.

But the most baffling part of the comment is the first part: that owning the City’s portion of the Kellar Branch “would have limited value without the Village of Peoria Heights agreeing to sell its portion of the Kellar Branch.” If that’s true, then why did the city sell part of the line to Peoria Heights in the first place? The city bought the line in 1984, but then according to the STB, “the City subsequently transferred to the Village [of Peoria Heights] an ownership interest in the portion of the Branch located within the Village’s corporate limits.” So, is city staff saying it made a mistake in selling a portion of it?

But putting that aside, I don’t see how that is pertinent to this communication. It wouldn’t be “of little value” to the city, only to the purchaser. Is city staff suddenly concerned about Pioneer’s welfare, whether they will get their money’s worth out of the line? That’s not really the city staff’s job, is it? The line would bring over a half-million dollars into city coffers if they act on Pioneer’s standing offer. That’s of great value to the city. The city needn’t worry about Pioneer; they’ll be just fine.

Moving on to the next option:

Option 3 – Operating Agreement with CIRY: The next alternative is to enter into an operating agreement with ClRY and continue to seek involuntary discontinuance of PIRY’s STB operating authority. ClRY remains committed to making service from the West viable. They are working with the Union Pacific, over whose tracks service from the West must travel, to reduce the cost of service from the West. They are also committed to improving service from the West. ClRY believes that the Kellar Branch can be used to help finance service from the West until such time as there are sufficient users in Pioneer Park and/or Growth Cell 2 to create an economy of scale. ClRY has verbally advised us that they would spend $150,000 to improve the Kellar Branch tracks to a point north of the concrete company and would be able to, therefore, serve any user in the southern area over the old Kellar Branch. They would use excess trackage for storing piggyback rail cars and would use the money earned from this to attempt to make service from the West more viable. They are willing to address the weed problem along the tracks when it is economically feasible to do so. This and the exact placement of storage cars would have to be negotiated with CIRY. It should be noted that the largest rail user on the Kellar Branch, O’Brien Steel, would prefer to do business with ClRY rather than PIRY. ClRY is also committed to working with Carver Lumber to attempt to address their concerns with service from the West.

By it’s sheer length, we don’t have to read to the end of the communication to see which option city staff favors. The city speaks a lot of CIRY’s “commitment” to do this and that, but there is no evidence of it. Is it like their commitment to deliver cars to Carver within 24 hours of their placement for pickup (which they haven’t lived up to)? Or is it like their commitment to work with the city to discontinue service on the Kellar Branch so it could be converted to a trail (which they axed by withdrawing their discontinuance request with the STB)? Or is it like their commitment to provide service to Carver Lumber over the Kellar Branch until the western connection was built (which they never did)?

It’s interesting that city staff saw fit to tell the council that CIRY verbally committed $150,000 in track upgrades for the lower part of the Kellar Branch, yet they didn’t forward Pioneer’s standing written offer to upgrade all of the track to Class I standards. And how expensive is it to ride a hi-rail truck up the line and spray the weeds, anyway? They can’t do this until it’s “economically feasible”? They must not be in too good of shape financially.

It’s also interesting that they mention here that O’Brien Steel — which would be unaffected by the Kellar Branch being abandoned — prefers CIRY. But the fact that Carver Lumber — the company that is affected and continues to lose money because of the city’s actions and CIRY’s inaction on the Kellar Branch — doesn’t like CIRY and would prefer Pioneer gets cursory treatment.

Finally, the fourth option:

Option 4 – Operating Agreement with PIRY: The fourth alternative would be to enter into an operating agreement with PIRY and to voluntarily withdraw the application for involuntary discontinuance of PIRY’s rail service. PIRY has previously told the STB that they are ready, willing and able to upgrade the track so that it is usable and provide service to Pioneer Park. Any operating agreement with PIRY would also need to address the weed issue which has traditionally been addressed by having the carrier mow the weeds within fifteen feet of the centerline of the track. This alternative would create operating rights in both the ClRY and PIRY to areas in Pioneer Park. Multiple carriers on the track could create operational and safety issues as well as make the line financially less viable.

“PIRY has previously told the STB….” Yes, and the city. The silence about Pioneer’s offer is deafening. As far as “this alternative…creat[ing] operating rights [for] both the CIRY and PIRY,” that’s a matter of debate. The contract is with DOT Services, the former parent company for CIRY. CIRY now is owned by Central Illinois Railroad Holdings, LLC. The contract, as far as I know, was never transfered. Thus, CIRY may not have a contract with the city at all.

Nevertheless, their conclusion is faulty: “Multiple carriers on the track could create operational and safety issues as well as make the line financially less viable.” I always thought multiple carriers would provide competition and thus lower rates for users of the line. But given the city’s beliefs about the western spur, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the city’s conclusion. The only safety issue on the line has been allowing CIRY to operate it — in the seven years Pioneer ran the line, there was never a major safety incident; CIRY’s first try at taking lumber up the branch with insufficient locomotive power resulted in a runaway train that endangered the lives of Peoria’s citizens. Their contract should have been terminated immediately.

The only reason city staff is recommending CIRY is this:

While there has been much discussion of the possibility of co-locating a trail with rail, the Park District, the only entity with any funding to build a trail, has consistently rejected the possibility of co-locating on the trail. Because ClRY is committed to making service from the West viable and because ClRY apparently has a better working relationship with the Union Pacific, an operating agreement with ClRY would appear to be the best opportunity for the City to be in a position to use the portion of the Kellar Branch between Springdale Cemetery and Pioneer Park for a recreational trail.

I find it comical that the city believes an agreement with CIRY would “be the best opportunity” for the city to pursue its dreams of a recreational trail when it was CIRY’s poor service to Carver Lumber and withdrawal of their discontinuance request before the STB that has completely derailed (no pun intended) the conversion plan!

The council should reject city staff’s advice and take Pioneer’s offer to purchase the line. That, and only that, is the only sure way to get a trail. I know the Park District will scream bloody murder, but I guarantee you they would miraculously find grant money to make a side-by-side rail with trail scenario work, and for a lot less than $29 million. Even if they didn’t, the council would be doing the right thing for Peoria by keeping the rail line for economic development instead of tearing it out for a money-losing trail.

So much to blog about… so little time

Wow, there’s so much news on which to comment, I don’t know where to start! Why don’t you kick things off on this open thread in the meantime?

I’m working on entries for: Parental accountability, Kellar Branch options to come before the city council, Museum funding, District 150 restructuring information, Bradley’s expansion, the upcoming elections, and some other odds and ends, so stay tuned….

Ardis to continue pushing for Amtrak service

Amtrak LogoI was happy to hear Ardis say this in his State of the City address today:

I will continue to pursue having IDOT urge AMTRAK to complete a feasibility study to bring passenger rail service back to Peoria. We are the second largest municipality outside Chicago and we deserve consideration. Senator Durbin spoke in support of our feasibility study just last week in the Quad Cities and Congressman LaHood supports the study as well.

I’m going to be taking the train to Minnesota next month, and it sure would be great if I didn’t have to drive to Normal to catch it.

Rethinking the “Peoria Promise”

DIstrict 150 Promise?

Mayor Jim Ardis delivered his “State of the City” address today (the transcript is available on the City of Peoria website), and he had a big announcement to make about the “Peoria Promise” initiative:

Last year, at this State of the City address, I asked our city to dream big dreams and consider a program called Peoria Promise. Based on a similar program in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and recently successfully emulated elsewhere, Peoria Promise would enable any student graduating from Peoria Public Schools to be eligible for a college scholarship. Today, I am excited to announce the first step in Peoria Promise – a guarantee that eligible high school graduates qualify for up to 100% tuition while working towards a degree or certificate at Illinois Central College.

We are very fortunate to have Illinois Central College in our community, and they have
been extraordinarily helpful to us on this project. I’ll touch on a few of the details, and
there will be more information available through ICC to all who are interested.

  • Peoria Promise is offered to City of Peoria residents who graduate from one of the following high schools: Manual, Central, Woodruff, Richwoods, Dunlap, Limestone and Peoria Alternative. Tuition will be provided based on a sliding scale determined by how long the student attended Peoria Public schools. Those attending all 12 years receive 100% funding. This is based on the philosophy that those children and families who reside in the City the longest and attend the public schools the longest should reap the greatest benefit.
  • Peoria Promise will begin funding the tuition scholarships with the high school graduating class of 2008.
  • Applications will be made on-line at ICC’s website during January through March of each year.
  • Students must have a minimum two point zero grade point average following each semester at ICC to maintain eligibility.
  • In addition, Peoria Promise will pay tuition at other community colleges for students who choose programs not offered at ICC.

As Ardis said, this is a program inspired by the Kalamazoo Promise, on which I have done some research in the past (here , here and here).

The two biggest benefits of Kalamazoo’s program are:

  1. First and foremost, it rewards kids who stay in school and graduate by giving them a free college education (in Kalamazoo’s plan, they provide a free four-year education at a state school for kids who went to Kalamazoo public schools K-12).
  2. But secondly, it provides an incentive for people to move back into the school boundaries, thus increasing the student population (which gets them more federal and state funding) and pushing up housing sales/property values in the city.

The thing that makes Peoria, and thus Ardis’s plan, different from Kalamazoo’s is that Kalamazoo has just one public school district that, as far as I can tell, is coterminous with the city’s boundaries. In Peoria, you can live within the city limits and attend one of three public school districts: Peoria, Dunlap, or Limestone. In fact, Ardis notes elsewhere in his speech that 70% of Dunlap school students live in Peoria.

The problem is that District 150 is the one public school district in Peoria that really needs this Peoria Promise program more than any other. That’s the district that is losing enrollment. That’s the district that serves the older neighborhoods in town that desperately need building up. I don’t believe Dunlap is having any trouble attracting residents to live within its district boundaries or getting kids to graduate from its schools; nor do the families who live in the north end have trouble affording ICC.

Th mayor’s plan will provide the first (and arguably most important) benefit to District 150 — i.e., rewarding those kids who stay in school and graduate. So, I’m not saying the plan is bad. However, it will not provide the second big benefit: drawing people back into its school boundaries. It won’t do anything to even-out the “haves and have-nots” divide in this community between those who can afford to live in Dunlap schools’ district versus those who can’t. It won’t attract anyone to move into District 150 boundaries who wouldn’t have moved into those boundaries anyway.

Thus, I’m rethinking the “Peoria Promise” as the mayor has outlined it. I think what Peoria needs instead is a “District 150 Promise” — a program based on the Kalamazoo Promise, but only for District 150. Some may argue that Ardis is the mayor of the whole city, and thus he can’t discriminate in favor of one school district. But he’s already “discriminating” (if you will) against students who go to private, parochial, or home schools. What’s the difference?

Besides, he’s not looking for public funding for this initiative, but private funding. Someone with a million dollars to invest in our community could stipulate that it be used only toward those within District 150’s boundaries.

So that’s my challenge. Let’s put this educational investment where it’s needed most.

President Bush visits Peoria

President George W. BushPresident George W. Bush visited Peoria this morning, stopping by Sterling Family Restaurant for breakfast before heading over to Caterpillar in East Peoria to give a “State of the Economy” speech at Caterpillar’s building SS.

There have been a lot of “presidential sightings” all morning: people who were in the restaurant and actually got to meet the President, people who were near the restaurant who saw the President drive by in his limousine and wave, people like me who saw Air Force One fly overhead, and many others. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more stories for some time to come.

I don’t care what party, if any, you belong to, there’s something exciting about getting a visit from the President of the United States. The office deserves honor and respect, even if you don’t agree with the politics of the office holder or don’t personally like him. It’s pretty much impossible to find a Presidential candidate with whom you will agree on everything. I certainly don’t agree with President Bush on all of his policies (e.g., free trade). But I still consider it an honor to have him visit our city.

The Journal Star has posted the text of the President’s speech here. And you can hear his speech here:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/President-Bush-Peoria-01302007.mp3]

Trolley service proposed for Kellar Branch line

Gomaco Trolley in PortlandWhile the Recreational Trail Advocates are stepping up their efforts to get the Kellar Branch rail line converted to a hiking/biking trail, there is another plan on the table that calls for keeping the rail line for passenger service.

Sharon Deckard, President of the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation, has put together a proposal for offering commuter and tourist trolley service along the Kellar Branch. The service would provide transportation from downtown, through shopping areas such as Junction City and Peoria Heights, and up through Pioneer Park to a proposed “park and ride” station. A trolley would be used from the Gomaco Trolley Company which builds replicas of historic trolley cars, but with modern train technology. They could build a replica of one of Peoria’s old street cars or an Illinois Traction interurban. (Of course, the new cars would be self-propelled, so no need to restring electric wires for power.)

Deckard has personally delivered her proposal to each Peoria City Council member and the Mayor of Peoria Heights. You can see her full proposal here: Trolley-Proposal-Full.pdf (warning: large file! 8.8 MB PDF).

If you don’t want to download the large PDF file, here is the main text of the proposal:

Using what we already have to benefit
TODAY and TOMORROW

All across the country cities are finding the need to go to commuter rail. This is a service that allows them to come from their suburban bedroom communities into the city to their jobs and businesses.

The stop and go commute, parking problems, fuel emissions in the air and a host of other things including the most important “time”, is causing these cities to install commuter rail. This ranges from park n rides to full length light rail through larger downtowns.

They are finding that providing this access to their cities is encouraging residents and businesses alike to relocate near these amenities.

The biggest problem in establishing this program for commuters is that they find it cost prohibitive and it takes many years to accomplish it. They have to buy the land, clear it, install the tracks and buy the equipment, as well as run it so that it is beneficial to itself and the community.

We, here in Peoria are way ahead of the game. We have the rail, in place and waiting. We have eliminated 90% of the cost before we start.

Peoria is a very unique community in that it has a complete ring road of trackage around the entire city. There are eight railroads that currently serve Peoria. This gives a foot in the door to numerous benefits for this community.

|inline

Bradley’s expansion plan in pictures!

Today, I’m pleased to be able to share with you pictures I received in digital format (JPG) from Bradley’s new institutional plan. They include aerial views, elevations, and other interesting information. Take a look and tell me what you think (hover over image for description; click to enlarge):

Campus Plan -  Context Campus Plan - Boundaries Campus Plan - Facilities

Aerial View - Campus Facilities Plan Campus Plan - Parking Campus Plan - Green/Open Spaces

Enlarged Campus Plan - Construction Staging Enlarged Campus Landscaping / Lighting Plan Proposed Intersection Study

Arena / Rec Center / Parking Deck Elevations Arena / Rec Center Elevations Parking Deck Elevations

Partial Site Section Typical Site Lighting Fixture

And, just in case you missed it in the last two posts, here’s the intro and key elements in PDF format.

Posting will be light

Plates SpinningI’ve got a lot of plates spinning today, but you guys always come up with such interesting topics, please feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss whatever you’d like. I have some interesting Kellar Branch news to share. Hopefully I’ll be able to get it posted tonight sometime. Also, I’ve posted the Introduction and Key Elements of Bradley’s new Institutional Plan. You can link to it from my previous post now, or just click here.

Happy Monday, everyone!

Bradley submits expansion plans to City

Bradley University submitted its new institutional plan to the City on Thursday (1/25). Since I was downtown yesterday for a meeting anyway, I stopped by the Planning & Growth department to take a look at it. It’s a comb-bound collection of mostly artistic renderings of the physical changes the University wants to make to their campus. I was able to get a copy of their introduction and key elements — the only textual part of the plan — but the illustrations will have to wait until they’re released in PDF format because they’re too large and detailed to photocopy well. (Here’s a copy of the Introduction and Key Elements in PDF format.)

An open meeting has been scheduled for the public to review and discuss Bradley’s expansion plans Monday, February 5, at 6:00 p.m. in the Marty Theater (lower level of the Michel Center).

There are just a few observations I’d like to make after my initial view of the plan.

First, the university states their reasons for expansion in their introduction thus:

This plan represents a 10-15 year view of proposed physical changes to Bradley University’s campus facilities. These proposed changes evidence the university’s commitment to maintaining and improving its competitiveness in the upper echelon set of universities in the region and the country. These changes are not intended to facilitate undergraduate enrollment growth; the university does not have plans to grow its undergraduate enrollments or curriculum. Rather, Bradley’s services and programs require improved infrastructure support.

This was a little surprising to me because I was somehow under the impression that they were trying to grow enrollment-wise. It turns out that they are just wanting to upgrade their infrastructure to provide better facilities for their current enrollment levels and stay more competitive with similar universities.

Under their “Key Elements of the Plan” section, they have this to say about the arena they are planning to replace Robertson Memorial Fieldhouse:

It is believed that both this facility and the parking facility have been designed with consideration for New Urbanism architectural concepts given their proximity to Main St.

I would be interested to hear more about this particular aspect. To my knowledge, the Heart of Peoria Commission has never looked at or been asked to look at Bradley’s plans or comment on how well they conform to the principles of New Urbanism or the Heart of Peoria Plan. But I’ve only been on the Commission a short time, so I’ll have to check on that.

That said, they are correct that by building the proposed arena up to the sidewalk along Main street, they are in that sense following the principles of New Urbanism. They’ve also chosen to use pre-cast concrete made to look like limestone as their building façade for both the arena and the parking deck so they will blend with the existing architecture. This is durable and reflects a sense of permanence, which is desired in an urban environment. And while there’s only so much one can do with a parking deck, they’ve tried to make it look as nice and blended with surrounding architecture as possible.

However, a five-story parking deck right across the alley from single-family homes is not exactly the kind of form that’s desired in New Urbanism or in form-based coding. Setting aside the reasons for its location for a moment, a structure of that size would be better placed further into the campus’s interior or, if placed on the perimeter, it would be better placed along an arterial road like University where it fits better with the surrounding commercial context.

But, of course, the purpose of the parking deck is to provide parking primarily for the arena, recreational center, and new student housing, so it needs to be close to those structures. I think it would be better placed between the arena and recreational center on the east side of Maplewood behind (or possibly around) Morgan Hall. Right now that is designed to be another quad to the rear of Bradley Hall. Moving the parking deck there would make it equidistant from the three structures it’s primarily designed to serve and would keep it further away from the Arbor District. It would also relieve the necessity of razing all the houses on Maplewood — only those that need to be removed to make space for the new student housing would need to be torn down.

My last observation is about this part of their plan:

With the proposed campus changes, vacation of both Maplewood Ave. and Glenwood Ave. from Bradley Ave. to Main St. is requested.

The reason they want to vacate these streets and have the university take over maintenance of them is so they can terminate them at the newly-envisioned quad behind Bradley Hall. Essentially these two through-streets would become four dead-end streets. This is possibly my biggest concern about their plan. This will significantly limit the ability to get around and through Bradley’s campus and put more strain on the other streets.

If Glenwood and Maplewood are terminated, the only street that passes completely through campus will be Elmwood. Elmwood, while still a through-street, is essentially the university’s front parking lot. Through traffic will be more likely to use University to the east of campus or Cooper/Rebecca to the west of campus, meaning in the latter case that more traffic will be funneled through the Arbor District. More traffic on University means that an already busy street will get even busier, making it that much more unfriendly to pedestrians.

The next step is for the Zoning Committee to review the plan over the next few weeks and then make a recommendation to the City Council, which will make the final decision on approval.