Adams Street Study

ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 1
ADAMS STREET CORRIDOR
REVITALIZATION PLAN
DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1: Planning Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pg. 1
A. Macomb Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pg. 1
B. WIU Campus Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 3
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pg. 7
Chapter 3: Revitalization Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pg. 17
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Analysis
Appendix B: Market Assessment
Appendix C: Zoning Ordinance Revision Recommendations
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 1
CHAPTER 1: PLANNING CONTEXT
Two recenly-completed planning documents contain analysis
and recommendations that are relevant to this plan for the Adams
Street corridor. The City of Macomb Comprehensive Plan,
prepared by Teska Associates in 2007, presents a development
vision for the City and its jurisdiction. The Western Illinois
University-Macomb Campus Master Plan, prepared by Hitchcock
Design Group in conjunction with Metro Transportation Group,
Inc., was also completed in 2007. Applicable references from
these two plans to the Adams Street corridor are summarized
below.
A. MACOMB COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Section II: Community Assessment Summary
•Highlights the need to strengthen City of Macomb/WIU partnerships (p.8)
•Identifies West Adams Street as a Weakness (pp. 7/8)
“Several areas of Macomb suffer from visual disunity…West
Adams Street.. appears to be in transition from a residential to a
mixed-use local corridor, and could be enhanced to serve as a vital
pedestrian-oriented linkage between WIU and downtown.”
Adams Street between Charles Street and Lafayette Street.”
Section IV: City-Wide Plan Elements - Future Land Use
Plan
•Identifies West Adams Street as an area appropriate for additional small-scale neighborhood commercial and mixed use
(p.20)
“As a major entrance into the WIU campus, West Adams Street
has a unique role within Macomb. This area has begun to attract
some neighborhood-level commercial uses such as a coffee shop and
record store. Additional neighborhood commercial uses are encouraged for this area, along with appropriate office and service uses.
Additional high-density residential uses may also be appropriate,
particularly in second or third story space.”
Section IV: City-Wide Plan Elements - Community Facilities
and Utilities Plan
•Identifies West Adams as a key “Recreational Path” with “Landscape Enhancements” linking the downtown area to the WIU
campus and, through the campus trail system, to the northwest
quadrant of the city and the proposed La Moine River greenbelt
trail.
Section V: Special Area Plans – Northwest Neighborhood
•Identifies West Adams Street Redevelopment as an Opportunity
(p.9)
“Potential exists for student-oriented businesses that could be open
late along West Adams Street; this could serve as a pedestrianoriented commercial corridor between WIU and downtown. A
combination of commercial retail uses, higher-density residential
uses, streetscape plantings, a coordinated lighting scheme, wide
sidewalks and traffic calming would produce a lively and dynamic
street environment. It would be important to concentrate these
revitalization and redevelopment efforts in those blocks along West
•Designates West Adams Street between Lafayette and Sherman
as “Mixed Use”.
•Designates the study area south of Adams Street, east of Charles
as “High Density Residential” and the area west of Charles as
“Single Family Residential”.
•Presents West Adams Corridor Entry Concept and West Adams
Streetscape Enhancement (p. 49)
2 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 1.1: Public Facilities Map (Macomb Comprehensive Plan)
Figure 1.2: Northwest Neighborhood Plan (Macomb
Comprehensive Plan)
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 3
B. WIU MASTER PLAN
Excerpts from the WIU Master Plan that are relevant to the
Adams Street Revitalization Plan include the following:
Our Values (p.3)
•Social Responsibility
“…We will serve as a resource for and stimulus to economic, educational, cultural, environmental, and community development in
our region and well beyond it.”
Ten Principles that are basis of Campus Plan (p.4)
•Community Interface
“The plan should be helpful to and supportive of the neighborhoods and residents of adjacent municipalities and local, state and
regional planning agencies.”
Existing Conditions: Context (p.11)
•“The campus is eight blocks west of Courthouse Square – the
central business district for Macomb.”
•“Enhancing the campus’s connection to Courthouse Square,
preserving the neighborhoods around the campus, and guiding
the development of off-campus student housing are significant
Figure 1.3: Study Area Map (WIU
Master Plan)
4 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
issues that were raised during the planning process.”
•“A comprehensive wayfinding system with pronounced gateways
and enhanced signage is needed…”
Existing Conditions: Transit and B icycle Routes (p. 12)
•“The Go West bus service is extremely effective and popular….”
support for the restoration and preservation of neighborhoods
adjacent to the campus…”
•“A familiar axiom holds that great campuses are linked to great
communities; the plan concept strengthens the links between
Macomb and the University.”
•“There are very few dedicated bicycle routes around the campus or within Macomb. Western affiliates express the need for
enhanced bicycle facilities.”
Proposed Plan Concept (p. 12)
•“The plan supports a positive community interface through
Figure 1.4: WIU Gateways
(WIU Master Plan)
Figure 1.5: WIU Boulevard Walking
Routes (WIU Master Plan)
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 5
Figure 1.6: WIU Circulation
(WIU Master Plan)
6 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 1.7: WIU Master Plan
Concept (WIU Master Plan)
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 7
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
SuMMARY
most impacted by the Adams Street corridor.
Study Area Boundary
A key issue in this study is land use and zoning. As indicated
in Chapter 1, the Macomb comprehensive plan indicates the
Adams Street corridor as “Mixed Use”, with the neighborhood
to the south and east of Charles as “High Density” and that area
west of Charles as “Single Family Residential”. Figure 2.2, Zoning
indicates the current zoning of the corridor and a substantial
portion of all the area south of Adams as R-4, Multiple-Family
District.
Although the focus of the Adams Street Revitalization Plan is
those properties fronting on Adams between Lafayette and WIU,
it was decided that the study area needed to include the adjacent
neighborhood. Therefore, logical study area boundaries were
established as indicated on Figure 2.1, Study Area Boundaries. The study area extends south to the railroad tracks and Jackson
and from Lafayette to Ward Streets. This is the immediate area
Zoning
Figure 2.1: Study Area
8 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
R-4 Multiple-Family Zoning permits apartment development
at a density of from 22 to 44 dwellings per acre, depending on
the number of bedrooms in the units. R-4 does not permit
commercial or mixed-use developments and therefore is
inconsistent with the concept of Adams Street as a mixed-use
corridor. Also, R-4 zoning west of Charles south of Adams
Street is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive land use
plan. The appropriateness of current zoning in the study area is
further analyzed below.
Figure 2.2: Zoning
Existing Land Use
The existing land use in the Study Area is shown on Figure 2.3,
which also indicates current zoning.
The land use pattern in the study area reflects the historical nature
of this area as a homogeneous single-family dwelling area. Only
the two blocks fronting Adams between Johnson and Charles
Streets are almost solidly multi-family buildings. This two-block
area is a mixture of conversions or additions to older buildings
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN |9
Figure 2.3: Existing Land Use
and Zoning
10 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
as apartments, and more recently constructed apartments and
townhomes. Although a substantial portion of the area west of
Charles is zoned R-4, there is only a sprinkling of multi-family
dwellings in that area. That is not to say that the majority of
these properties are owner-occupied, as demonstrated below.
Owner/Renter Occupancy
Figure 2.4 indicates owner versus renter occupancy in the study
area, by zoning category. Roughly 75% of the structures in the
study area are renter-occupied and 25% are owner-occupied. Here we can see that the R-4 zoning boundary reflects the area
with the highest renter occupancy. The R-2 zoned areas south of
Adams have significantly fewer renter-occupied properties.
Figure 2.4: Occupancy Status
and Zoning
Building Conditions
Figure 2.5 reflects the conditions and single-family/multi-family
status of buildings in the study area. Building conditions is
based on an exterior “windshield survey”, using an “Excellent”
to a “Dilapidated” rating scale.
Here we can see evidence of a relationship between poor building
conditions and Multi-Family buildings, particularly in the
Johnson to Charles R-4 area. There are also, however, numerous
“poor” or “Dilapidated” condition single-family structures
scattered through the study area.
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 11
Figure 2.5: Building Condition
and Single-Family/Multi Family
12 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Building Conditions and Owner Occupancy
Building Conditions and Zoning
Figure 2.6 shows the relationship between building conditions
and owner versus renter occupancy.
Finally, Figure 2.7 indicates building condition by zoning district
category. While there are a few poor condition buildings in the
R-3 zoned part of the study area, most poor condition buildings
are in the R-4 areas.
Here the relationship between renter-occupied and building
condition is evident, with virtually all of the very poor condition
buildings being renter-occupied.
Figure 2.6: Building Condition and Occupancy
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 13
Figure 2. 7: Building Condition by
Zoning Districts
14 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 2.8: Street and
Sidewalk Conditions
Street and Sidewalk Conditions
Transportation System
Figure 2.8 shows the street and sidewalk segments in the
most need of repair or reconstruction. As with poor building
conditions, that portion of Adams Street between Johnson and
Charles exhibited the worst street and sidewalk infrastructure
conditions. Poor study area infrastructure is highlighted in the
attached photographs as well.
Figure 2.9, Transportation Diagram indicates the the hierarchical
street system, pedestrian linkages, potential gateway feature
locations, and relationship to downtown.
The close relationship between WIU and downtown, along with
the importance of the Adams Street corridor and Lafayette Street
as the key linkages is evident from the illustration.
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 15
Figure 2.9: Transportation
Diagram
16 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN
Revitalization Opportunity Map
$POTJEFSJOH BMM UIF FYJTUJOH DPOEJUJPOT EBUB B 3FWJUBMJ[BUJPO
0QQPSUVOJUZ .BQ XBT DSFBUFE BT 'JHVSF ćJT NBQ
summarizes possible components of a physical revitalization
QMBOGPSUIFTUVEZBSFB3FDPNNFOEFESFHVMBUPSZSFWJTJPOTBSF
treated separately in Appendix A.
This existing conditions analysis suggests the following
DPNQPOFOUTPGBSFWJUBMJ[BUJPOTUSBUFHZ
t(BUFXBZGFBUVSFFOIBODFNFOUTBU-BGBZFUUFBOE"EBNTBOEUIF
railroad crossing
t " GPDVT PO SFEFWFMPQNFOUSFWJUBMJ[BUJPO PG UIF DPNNFSDJBM
VTFTPO-BGBZFUUFGSPN"EBNTUPUIFSBJMSPBE
t ćF QPTTJCJMJUZ PG JOĕMM DPNNFSDJBM EFWFMPQNFOU PO UIF
Figure 2.10: Revitalization
Opportunity Sites
OPSUIXFTUDPSOFSPG"EBNTBOE-BGBZFUUF
t 1VCMJD 308 JNQSPWFNFOUT PO UIF XFTU TJEF PG -BGBZFUUF
Adams to across the railroad tracks.
t 4USFFU BOE TJEFXBML SFDPOTUSVDUJPO CFUXFFO -BGBZFUUF BOE
Charles
t'PDVTPOUIF$IBSMFT4USFFUJOUFSTFDUJPOBTBLFZMJOLBHFQPJOU
to the University campus
t 1PTTJCMF SFEFWFMPQNFOU PQQPSUVOJUJFT PO "EBNT CFUXFFO
Johnson and Charles
t1PTTJCMFJOĕMMSFEFWFMPQNFOUPGEJMBQJEBUFEQSPQFSUJFTTDBUUFSFE
through the neighborhood
t 3FEFWFMPQNFOU PG UIF BCBOEPOFE 1PUUFSZ JOEVTUSJBM TJUF GPS
JOĕMMNVMUJGBNJMZEFWFMPQNFOU
t'PDVTPOFOIBODFNFOUPG8BSE4USFFUBTBLFZHBUFXBZDPSSJEPS
to WIU.
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 17
CHAPTER 3: REVITALIZATION
CONCEPTS
This chapter will present recommended development concepts
and public investments for the Adams Street project area. These
recommendations will be presented through the following
chapter components:
•
•
•
•
•
Overall study area vision and strategy
Strategic focuses and opportunities
Adams Street public improvement recommendations
University to Downtown Linkage
Infill development design guidelines and zoning
OVERALL STUDY AREA VISION AND STRATEGY
The Macomb Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies the
important role of Adams street as a gateway entry to Western
Illinois University and as the linkage between the University and
Downtown. The land use plan component of the comprehensive
plan identifies the appropriate land use for the corridor as
“mixed-use” residential/ commercial/office. The WIU master
plan supports these recommendations. Within the context of
these local planning documents, the overall project goal for the
Adams Street Revitalization plan is:
Project Goal
“To improve the Adam’s Street Corridor as a “campus town”
environment that reinforces the campus experience and
strengthens the entire community.”
Derived from this overall project goal are several specific
objectives established to guide the specific recommended plan
actions:
Plan Objectives
1. Create a sense of place and an improved WIU experience
2. Expand the local tax base
3. Create new student attractions and features
4. Create new opportunities for university housing development,
in a broader market range
5. Decrease historic campus/community conflicts
6. Reinforce the linkage between the WIU campus and Macomb’s
traditional downtown
The success of any city revitalization plan depends ultimately
on private sector decisions – decisions on whether or not to
maintain and reinvest in existing properties and to invest in new
development opportunities. A good plan therefore identifies
those strategic public policy decisions and investments that will
create an environment that encourages private decisions that are
supportive of the plan goal and objectives. In that sense, this
plan presents a framework for public policies and investments
that will maximize desirable private investment.
It is not unusual for a major educational institution to have an
area like the Adams Street Corridor Project Area adjacent to
campus. And very often, the conditions in that adjacent area are
not what the city would like them to be. Why is this a common
situation? Certainly, very high demand for short-term rental
housing is the basic market factor at work. Additional factors
contribute, however. Students, often away from home for the
first time, tend to be “high impact” tenants and, unfortunately,
are often uncritical rental housing consumers. Because they
are usually in the community for only a short period, they tend
to have a low affiliation with the overall community. These
factors, particularly high market demand and low consumer
expectations, result in high revenue-producing rental housing
opportunities with minimum maintenance expectations. The
18 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
result is often a deteriorating residential neighborhood adjacent
to campus.
Yet, this phenomenon is not inevitable. To a certain degree,
the “law of self-fullfilling expectations” applies. If the City and
property owners do not seem to care about maintaining the
neighborhood, it should not be surprising that the students
living in the area don’t do their part to keep the neighborhood
looking nice. This downward spiral of expectations can only
be stopped and then reversed through a concerted effort by
the university and the city collaborating on implementation of
a realistic revitalization plan. This plan identifies a number of
strategic principles that underlie a realistic revitalization effort
for the Adams Street Corridor.
Strategic Principles:
1. Develop consistent with the character of Adams Street,
complementing rather than competing with Downtown
Macomb.
Any revitalization plan must recognize that, while “spot”
redevelopment may occur, the majority of the existing structures
along Adams Street will remain. Therefore the existing character
of the built environment along the corridor will remain and
should be respected with any new infill development. Also, while
new infill development may include commercial uses, those uses
should be oriented to the university student and employee and
not detract from or compete with Downtown Macomb. The
relatively small scale of any available parcels and limited number
of commercial redevelopment opportunity sites should insure
that the concern about harming the downtown with Adams
Street redevelopment is unfounded.
2. Maintain a largely residential Adams Street, punctuated by
commercial activity centers and special features.
Just as most of the existing structures along the corridor will
remain, the existing predominantly residential land use along
the corridor will not change. While much of the new infill
development should be residential, the concept of a mixed land
use where residential is combined with commercial in the same
new building is very consistent with the “campustown” concept. Mixed land use does not mean, however, conversion of existing
residential structures to commercial use.
3. Focus investment on areas that generate sustained, desirable
private market reinvestment on other properties.
Because neither the city nor the university have unlimited
funds, investments that deliver the biggest “bang for the buck”
in improving perceptions of the corridor should be sought.
Clearly, this includes investing in highly visible locations like
the Lafayette/Adams entryway area. Similarly, the Adams
St. corridor between Lafayette and Charles St., as the highest
potential pedestrian traffic area, should be the priority for
investments.
4. Increase market competition by building new, attractive
housing that induces owners of older buildings to upgrade in
order to remain competitive.
This strategy seeks to “raise the bar” of housing quality in the
project area, thereby forcing the “bottom end” housing providers
to improve their properties. This strategy of “raising the market”
can only be accomplished with new housing projects along the
corridor.
5. Create a neighborhood environment and set of expectations
that appeal to the “better angels” of a student community.
A quality public realm consisting of new sidewalk, streetscape,
pedestrian amenities, and street lighting will establish a set
of expectations quite different from those signaled by the
deteriorating public infrastructure that currently characterizes
the corridor. For example, many communities have learned that
most people will use trash cans if they are placed conveniently
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 19
in public spaces.
6. Knit the campus and downtown community together
by encouraging active transportation: transit, bicycles,
pedestrians.
College students are unique in that they are a population group
particularly open to use of transportation modes other than the
automobile. However, these alternative transportation facilities
must be available and convenient. The close proximity of the
downtown to campus underlines the potential for increased
pedestrian and bicycle use. However, this potential will not be
realized if the sidewalks are substandard, the walk unpleasant,
and the bicycle ride hazardous.
7. Respect existing businesses. Create a setting that helps them
prosper and do their business more effectively.
District revitalization efforts are rarely successful without an
“ownership group” to oversee and support the implementation
of the plan for the long term. Encouraging the formation of an
Adams Street business group or property owners group should
be considered a vital component of the revitalization plan.
10. Back up positive forces created by development strategies
with careful and effective land use and building code
regulation.
As a part of this revitalization plan, RDG conducted a thorough
review of the city’s zoning ordinance, with particular focus on
the extent to which existing regulations and zoning of the project
area support the overall goal and objectives of the plan. There is
need for significant revision to development regulations to insure
the type of development that will support the revitalization of
the project area. Detailed recommendations regarding these
revisions are included in Appendix C.
The revitalization plan should be all about supporting existing
businesses, not threatening them. Therefore, existing business
concerns, such as providing adequate parking, should be a focus
of the plan.
8. Be realistic. Focus on projects that make economic sense and
are not priced out of the market.
There clearly is a market for both housing and commercial
services stemming from the University student body and
employees. Realistic project proposals must recognize both
the limits of this market as well as the inherent difficulties in
redeveloping existing developed sites. These difficulties provide
the rationale for partnerships between the city, the university and
private developers in undertaking potential corridor projects.
9. Encourage district-wide identity and cooperation among
property owners, demonstrating that cooperation provides
greater efficiency and an improved environment.
STRATEGIC FOCUSES AND OPPORTUNITIES
20 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN
#BTFE PO UIF FYJTUJOH DPOEJUJPOT BOBMZTJT TVNNBSJ[FE JO
$IBQUFS'JHVSFJEFOUJĕFTSFDPNNFOEFELFZQSPKFDUGPDVT
BSFBT BOE QPUFOUJBM JOĕMM EFWFMPQNFOU TJUFT 'PS QVSQPTFT PG
plan presentation, these focus areas can be divided as shown on
'JHVSFJOUP
opportunities within this same subarea.
The recommended approach to public realm improvements
ćF "EBNT (BUFXBZ "SFB DPOTJTUJOH PG UIPTF QSPQFSUJFT
GSPOUJOH BMPOH UIF XFTU TJEF PG -BGBZFUUF CFUXFFO UIF SBJMSPBE
USBDLT BOE -BGBZFUUF BT XFMM BT UIBU QBSU PG UIF "EBNT 4USFFU
DPSSJEPSCFUXFFO-BGBZFUUFBOE+PIOTPO4USFFUT
ćFi.JE"EBNTw"SFBXIJDIJTUIBUQBSUPGUIF"EBNT4USFFU
corridor between Johnson and Charles Streets.
ćFi1PUUFSZ$PNNPOTwBSFBXIJDIJTUIFBDSFTJUFPGUIF
now-closed Haeger Potteries of Macomb; and
ćFi$IBOEMFS*OĕMM3FEFWFMPQNFOUwTJUFXIJDIJTQSFTFOUFE
to illustrate issues and recommendations regarding appropriate
JOĕMMEFWFMPQNFOUJOUIFSFTJEFOUJBMQPSUJPOPGUIFQSPKFDUBSFB
Figure 3.1: Focus Areas and Potential Infill Sites
Adams Gateway Area:
'JHVSF JEFOUJĕFT BMM PG UIF QVCMJD SFBMN JOWFTUNFOUT BOE
private development opportunities recommended for the Adams
Gateway subarea. Within this subarea, recommendations are
GVSUIFS EJWJEFE JOUP i-BGBZFUUF $PSSJEPSw SFDPNNFOEBUJPOT
GPS UIF -BGBZFUUF 4USFFU GSPOUBHF QSPQFSUZ BOE i(SBOU 4DIPPM
3FEFWFMPQNFOUwSFDPNNFOEBUJPOT
Lafayette Corridor:
#FDBVTF PG UIF WJTJCJMJUZ BOE NBKPS HBUFXBZ GVODUJPO PG UIF
-BGBZFUUF $PSSJEPS UIJT TVCBSFB IBT HSFBU QPUFOUJBM JNQBDU
on perceptions of the Adams Street project area and should
CF B NBKPS GPDVT PG SFWJUBMJ[BUJPO FČPSUT 'JHVSF JEFOUJĕFT
SFDPNNFOEFE QVCMJD SFBMN JNQSPWFNFOUT JO UIF -BGBZFUUF
$PSSJEPS XIJMF 'JHVSF JEFOUJĕFT QSJWBUF JOWFTUNFOU
Figure 3.2: Project Focus Areas
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 21
Figure 3.3 Adams Gateway Recommendations
22 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 3.4: Lafayette Corridor
(Public Realm)
Figure 3.5: Lafayette Corridor (Private
Reinvestment)
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN |23
an information or welcome center, and offering of the
remainder of the property for private development. The
illustration shows the current auto repair garage remaining
in a new building with paved parking. However, other
private commercial development could be considered.
• A new four-plex on the west side of the north-south alley
on the vacant property adjacent to the existing apartment
building
• A new commercial development on the south end of the
bank parking area at the northwest corner of Lafayette and
Adams Street. It appears that this area may constitute excess
parking for the bank and this would be a prime site for infill
commercial development. As illustrated, this development
should “frame” the street to provide a pedestrian-oriented
frontage on Adams Street. Parking should be located to the
west and/or north of the building.
in this subarea is to “clean up” the commercial/industrial area
just north of the railroad tracks, creating a mini-plaza dubbed
“Calhoun Garden”. This is a key pedestrian node linking
the Adams Street corridor to the downtown and therefore
emphasis should be on improving the crossing at the tracks and
enhancing pedestrian amenities from this point to Adams Street.
Recommended components of public realm improvements
include improving the north-south alley west of Lafayette for
one-way vehicular traffic and pedestrian and bicycle traffic, as
well as improved sidewalks along Lafayette.
A major “boulevard entrance” at the Adams and Lafayette
intersection is recommended, to include a raised center median
with a gateway entrance feature as well as brick pavement,
improved sidewalk sections and new street lighting. These major
public realm improvements would encourage private investment
including the following:
• Private development north of the railroad tracks. Public
acquisition of this parcel would allow creation of Calhoun
Garden, reuse of the small historic building as perhaps
Figure 3.6: Looking North along Lafayette
Following are several three-dimensional graphics illustrating
these recommended Lafayette Corridor improvements.
Figure 3.7: Adams Gateway Boulevard
24 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 3.8: Commercial Development, North side of Adams Street
Figure 3.9: Adams Street Gateway Boulevard
Grant School Redevelopment:
The Grant School proposed redevelopment concept is depicted
on the following graphics.
The 1.38 acre Grant School site represents a potential infill
redevelopment site on the Adams Street corridor, if not at
this time then at some time in the future. The redevelopment
concept proposed for the site includes townhome-type
residential development at a density consistent with the recentlyconstructed Aspen townhome project to the west, combined
with some commercial space and a small neighborhood park to
introduce some green space along this section of the corridor.
Specifics of the proposed development are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Number of apartments: 22
Residential density (entire site): 16 du/acre
Residential density (excluding park): 21du/acre
Total number of off-street parking spaces: 53
Park area: 15,000 sq. ft.
Figure 3.10: Grant School Redevelopment
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN |25
Figure 3.11: Grant School Redevelopment
Mid-Adams Redevelopment:
The Mid-Adams proposed projects involve private infill
redevelopment opportunities as well as public (city and
university) pedestrian improvements. As illustrated on Figure
3.12, Mid-Adams proposed projects include redevelopment of
a parcel at the northeast corner of Adams and Albert Streets,
redevelopment of parcels at the southeast corner of Adams and
Charles Streets, enhanced pedestrian street crossings associated
with both sites, and recommendations for private parking lot
improvements south of Adams Street.
Adams and Albert Redevelopment:
Two alternative redevelopment concepts are proposed for the
.93 acre parcel currently containing a dilapidated apartment
building on the northeast corner of Adams and Albert Streets.
The first concept is illustrated on Figure 3.12, which shows new
commercial building development with parking that is shared
by the new development and also made available to patrons of
the Adams Street Coffee business on the south side of Adams
Street. The new development and businesses on the south side
of the street are linked with a proposed enhanced pedestrian
crossing. The proposed commercial building development
represents a total of 9,200 square feet and is depicted in the three
dimensional illustration below.
The alternative development proposal for the Adams and Albert
Redevelopment parcel is use of the entire site for a parking lot in
support of area businesses. This concept is depicted on Figure
3.14 and as illustrated would provide up to a total of 94 parking
spaces. It is recommended that an enhanced pedestrian crossing
improvement be incorporated with this alternative as well and
the commercial development alternative.
26 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 3.12: Mid-Adams Recommendations
Figure 3.13: Commercial Infill (Alternative I)
Figure 3.14: Parking Lot (Alternative II)
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 27
Figure 3.15: Commercial Infill (Alternative I)
Figure 3.16: Parking Lot (Alternative II)
Aspen II and Charles Crossing:
university grounds to an improved Adams Street corridor
providing desirable commercial activities. These redevelopment
and public environment enhancement concepts are illustrated
by three-dimensional graphics below.
Proposed projects at Adams and Charles Streets are dubbed
“Aspen II” and “Charles Crossing”. These projects are illustrated
on Figure 3.17 Aspen II represents a mixed-use townhousestyle residential project with commercial space located at the
intersection. The proposed residential density reflects that in
the existing Aspen townhouse project.
The commercial space, perhaps a restaurant or cafe, is oriented
around a private mini-plaza area that mirrors a proposed
university plaza on university ground at the northwest corner
of Adams and Charles Streets. These improvements, combined
with enhanced pedestrian street crossing pavement treatment,
are called “Charles Crossing” and reflect the importance of
this location as the transition from the university pedestrian
sidewalk system to the Adams Street public sidewalk corridor. By
providing needed public open space oriented to the pedestrian,
these improvements enhance the quality of the pedestrian
environment thereby encouraging people to cross from the
28 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 3.17: Aspen II and Charles Crossing
Figure 3.18: Looking Northwest
Figure 3.19: Looking Southeast
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 29
Cooperative Residential Parking:
Finally, the Mid-Adams recommended projects depicted on
Figure 3.12 include an illustration of how cooperation between
private residential rental property owners can more efficiently
provide for off-street parking. As illustrated by Number 6 on
Figure 3.12, such cooperation can make efficient use of unused
or underused space for parking, can combine access and egress
points, and thereby can maximize parking spaces to the benefit
of all parties. The city needs to insure that zoning regulations
support and do not thwart such efforts at cooperation.
Pottery Commons:
Figure 3.20 presents a development concept for the former Haeger
Pottery site and Figure 3.23 provides proposed development
particulars. The depicted density of development, at 21.5
dwellings per acre is appropriate given the existing character
of single-family dwellings directly across Calhoun Street to the
north. This development concept is further illustrated with
three-dimensional graphics.
Figure 3.21: Looking Northeast
Figure 3.22: Looking West
Figure 3.20: Former Haeger Pottery Site Plan
30 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
Figure 3.23: Development Concept for Former Haeger Pottery Site
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 31
ADAMS STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
It is proposed that the Adams Gateway Boulevard improvement
transition at the north-south alley between Lafayette and
McArthur to a standard streetscape enhancement plan that would
extend ultimately west to Sherman Avenue. Two alternative
streetscape improvement concepts are proposed, both keeping
within the typical 48 foot right-of-way. The existing right-of-way
improvement is illustrated on Figure 3.24. The first alternative
streetscape improvement is illustrated in Graphics 3.25 and
consists of the following elements:
•
•
•
•
Four-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street
An 8 ft. parking lane on the north side of the street
5 ft. bicycle lanes on both sides of the street
Two 11 ft. vehicle driving lanes
Figure 3.25: Street Cross-Section (Alternate I)
The second alternative streetscape concept is illustrated on
Figure 3.26 and consists of widened 6 ft. sidewalks on both
sides, no on-street parking, and widened vehicle travel lanes.
Both concepts include pedestrian scaled street lighting, marked
pedestrian street crossing, landscaping and pedestrian amenities
such as benches.
Figure 3.26: Street Cross-Section (Alternate II)
Figure 3.24: Existing Roadway Section
32 | ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION plan
INFILL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES
AND ZONING
Chandler Infill Redevelopment:
Figure 3.27 identifies a possible infill residential site between
Chandler and Calhoun, east of Sherman. While these parcels
may never be combined to create a single development site, the
existing homes on the parcels are deteriorated and assembly of
such a site is certainly a possibility. The purpose of citing this
example is to illustrate the impact of current zoning density
allowances on the existing character of the neighborhood.
Although specific sites may be redeveloped in the future, there
Figure 3.27: Development
Concept for Former Haeger
Pottery Site
will still remain most of the existing structures that establish the
character of the neighborhood. That character, as illustrated by
the photos that accompany Figure 3.27, consists of small scale
single-family dwellings, many of which are one or one-and-ahalf story.
Figure 3.28 illustrates existing newer infill development at the
east end of the block where the subject infill development site
is located. This development is permitted by the current R-4
zoning and illustrates how those regulations permit development
that is both out of scale and character with existing development.
Permitting such out of character development discourages
maintenance and improvement of existing properties and
ADAM STREET CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION PLAN | 33
hastens the deterioration of the neighborhood.
Figure 3.29, 3.30 and 3.31 illustrate three alternative infill
development concepts that reflect a density and building
character much more consistent with existing and remaining
buildings on the block. Requiring infill development to be
consistent in density and character with existing homes will
encourage property owners to maintain and improve their
properties. Specific zoning ordinance revision recommendations
to accomplish this objective are included in Appendix C.
Figure 3.28: Existing Newer Infill Development
Figure 3.30: Infill Redevelopment: Attached Homes II
Figure 3.29: Infill Redevelopment: Attached Homes I
Figure 3.31: Infill Redevelopment: Attached Homes III
Adams Street Corridor Revitalization Plan
Appendices
D-R-A-F-T 9/2/09
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Analysis
Appendix B: Market Assessment
Appendix C: Zoning Ordinance Revision Recommendations
ADAMS STREET REVITALIZATION PLAN
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
This appendix presents an inventory of physical conditions of the West Adams Street area. The analysis
identifies patterns and trends that will affect the future of the neighborhood and establishes
development policies that will guide future land use decisions.
To avoid duplication, references to “Figures” in this appendix are to maps and graphics included, by the
same name, in the main report.
DISCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The West Adams Street Study includes the land north of the railroad tracks to Wheeler Street and from
Ward to Lafayette Streets, generally. The aerial photo in Figure 2.1 shows the boundary of the study
area included for evaluating existing conditions. RDG Planning & Design completed a visual survey of
properties and buildings in September and December of 2008. This analysis should provide a good
understanding of land use patterns along West Adams Street and the surrounding area.
LAND USE
Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of land uses, while Figure 2.3 shows the location of those land
uses. Residential uses account for 70% of the total development; commercial uses follow with 13%.
The remaining land consists of civic, industrial, office, vacant and public space. Each of the categories is
discussed in more detail.
Table 2.1: Land Use Distribution, Study Area
Residential
2,631,608.0
Single-family
2,060,026
Multi-family
571,581
Commercial
480,666
Office
106,188
Civic
246,585
Industrial
191,852
Vacant
113,606
Public
7,869
Total
3,778,376
Source: RDG Planning & Design
60.4
47.3
13.1
11.0
2.4
5.7
4.4
2.6
0.2
86.7
70%
13%
3%
7%
5%
3%
<1%
100%
Residential Uses

Residential uses makes up 70% of the property in the study area.

Single-Family. Single-family uses make up about 78% of the residential property in area. A majority
of the single-family houses are one or two story structures with detached garages.

Multi-family. Multi-family uses make up about 22% of the property area. A majority of the
properties are located on the eastern part of the study area. Aspen Apartments, a two-story
development fronting Adams Street, is one of the newer multi-family projects located along Adams
Street. Across the street is an older high-density development operated by Aschinger Properties.
Two new multi-family structures were built at Adams and Johnson Streets by Freetly & Hunziker
Properties. Several other apartments are located throughout the neighborhood.

Conversions. Multi-family uses include apartment buildings. However, there is a significant trend of
single-family homes being converted to multi-family dwellings.
Commercial and Office Uses

Highway Corridors. Commercial and office uses follow Lafayette and Jackson Streets, by and large.
Uses along Lafayette include a gas station, auto service, music shop and moving supplies. Uses
along Jefferson Street include Dairy Queen, coffee shop, car wash and small retail stores.

West Adams Street. Some commercial uses exist along West Adams Street. These include singlefamily dwellings converted to commercial uses and two smaller strip-like buildings. The Phoenix and
Adams Street Coffee are examples of single family conversion. Closer to the University are two
small strip-like centers where Sarge’s Bookstore, Chapman’s Book & Supply, and International
Sandwich Shop are located. Limited parking is available off-street and on-street parking for all of
these businesses.

Neighborhood. Culligan’s Water Supply is the only commercial use within context the residential
neighborhood. Its proximity to the railroad tracks makes it an amenable use in its location.
However, the business does not serve the surrounding neighborhood.
Industrial Uses

Haeger Property. Haeger Potteries owns a four-acre site located between the railroad tracks and
Calhoun Street. The property has remained vacant since Haeger relocated away from Macomb.
Several schematic designs have been discussed for the reuse of the site including a Fine Arts Studio
for WIU and multi-family housing.
Civic Uses

Western Illinois University. Western Illinois University campus was excluded from the area
calculations. However, the Alumni House and university parking along Adams Street were included.

Other. The churches and the Bridgeway Occupational Resource Center are other civic uses found in
the neighborhood.
Public Uses

Grant Elementary School. The School District has discontinued using this facility as an elementary
school and now operates the facility for its Project Insight program. Information available to officials
suggests that the program could be relocated, and that the site could be redeveloped for an
alternative use.

Parks and Open Spaces. The study area does not have any parks or reserved open spaces.
HOUSING CONDITIONS
Building evaluations are based on the exterior condition of the structure only. The evaluation considers
the condition of the foundation, exterior walls, roof structure, roof material, facia and eaves, chimney,
porches and steps, window and doors, painting and downspouts. The survey is general, intended only
to suggest patterns of rehabilitation needs.
Figure 2.5 Building Condition/Land Use identifies the location and condition of each building unit, as well
as residential use type. Structures were placed in one of the following categories:

Excellent. A new residence with no discernible deficiencies.

Good. A well-maintained structure with three or fewer minor non-structural deficiencies.

Fair. A structurally-sound residence with minor structural deficiencies

Poor. A structure with one major deficiency and minor non-structural needs. Typically, these
structures are deteriorating, and show evidence of substantial rehabilitation needs.

Dilapidated. A residence that appears to be too deteriorated for feasible rehabilitation.
Table 2.3: Building Condition Survey
SingleCondition
Family
2
Excellent
117
Good
88
Fair
26
Poor
4
Dilapidated
237
Source: RDG Planning & Design, 2008
% of
Total
0.8%
49.4%
37.1%
11.0%
1.7%
100.0%
Multifamily
5
15
18
18
0
56
% of
Total
8.9%
26.8%
32.1%
32.1%
0.0%
100.0%
Total
% of
Total
7
132
106
44
4
293
2.39%
45.05%
36.18%
15.02%
1.37%
100.0%
General Analysis

The survey includes 293 housing structures. Of those, 237 are single-family dwellings and 56 are
multi-family. Over 50% of the total housing supply is in fair to poor condition, representing a
significant need for rehabilitation.

Half of the single-family properties are in fair to poor condition. Some of these units have been
remodeled inside. However, the survey did not consider improvements or renovation to interior
spaces

About 64% of the multi-family properties are in fair to poor condition. None of the buildings are
perceived dilapidated or beyond repair, yet they require significant rehabilitation.

The presence of a single deteriorated house on a block can affect the willingness of other property
owners on a block to reinvest in their property. On the other hand, rehabilitating a poor structure
or replacing it with a new house often encourages other owners to respond in kind.

Property owners may be deterred to improve the façade of their building, fearing that their property
valuation may increase, resulting in higher taxes.

A higher concentrated of poorly rated buildings are located near Adams Street between Charles and
Johnson Streets.
Housing and Occupancy
Figure 2.6 Condition & Renter-Occupied shows current housing conditions and property that is renteroccupied. Occupancy is determined by reviewing assessor’s information for tax exemption. Properties
that did not receive a tax exemption status in 2007 and had a dwelling unit were considered renteroccupied.

Approximately 76% of the housing is renter-occupied. Owner-occupied units are clustered
between Calhoun and Carroll Streets. Otherwise, most of the residential properties are renteroccupied.

The conditions of approximately 57% of renter-occupied structures were classified to be fair,
poor or dilapidated.

Adams Street alone has 50 properties that are renter-occupied. About 70% of these structures
are in fair or poor condition.
Table 2.5 Housing and Occupancy along Adams Street
Excellent
3
6.0%
Good
12
24.0%
Fair
22
44.0%
Poor
13
26.0%
Dilapidated
0
0.0%
50
100.0%
Housing and Zoning
Figure 2.7 Condition & Zoning shows housing conditions and current zoning boundaries.

Single-family Dwellings. Zone R4 has 132 single-family houses. Half of the single-family homes
in Zone R4 are in fair or poor condition. Zone R3 has 85 single-family homes. Unlike homes in
R4, homes in Zone R3 tend to exhibit better ratings. Nearly 62% of the structures are rated as
good to excellent.

Multi-family Dwellings. Zone R4 has 31 multi-family structures. About 67% of these are in fair
to poor condition.

M District. Fourteen homes exist in Zones M1 (light manufacturing) and M2 (general
manufacturing). These designations are reserved for property adjacent to highways and along
the railroad track. About 86% of these units are in fair or poor condition. One pocket of M2
includes 4 single-family structures and no industrial uses. In fact, the surrounding property is
Zoned R3 and R4, which makes the present classification peculiar. Various instances of singlefamily structures appear in Zone M1. Each property should be evaluated for its appropriate
designation. Recommendations for amending the zoning map are identified later in the policies
section of this document.

This analysis speculates that a property’s zoning classification may be somewhat linked to the
private owner’s level of investment into their property. Properties in more intensive zoning
classifications exhibit a lower evaluation than buildings in less intensive classifications.
Table 2.5 Housing Conditions in Zones R3 and R4, Single-family
Zone
Condition
R3
R4
Excellent
1
1.2%
1
Good
52
61.2%
64
Fair
23
27.1%
51
Poor
7
8.2%
14
Dilapidated
2
2.4%
2
Total
85
132
Table 2.5 Housing Conditions in Zones R3 and R4, Multi-family
Zone
Condition
R3
R4
Excellent
0
0.0%
4
Good
3
50.0%
6
Fair
2
33.3%
5
Poor
1
16.7%
16
Dilapidated
0
0.0%
0
0.8%
48.5%
38.6%
10.6%
1.5%
12.9%
19.4%
16.1%
51.6%
0.0%
6
31
TRANSPORTATION
The study area is rich with transportation services, having a strong street grid, pedestrian paths, railroad
access and bus transit. Figure 2.9, Transportation Diagram depicts some of these transportation
facilities. Adams Street is the principle route through the neighborhood, connecting Western Illinois
University (WIU) to Highway 67 (Lafayette Street), while Ward Street provides a direct link between WIU
and Highway 136 (Jackson Street). Figure 2.8, Street & Sidewalk Conditions indicates right-of-way
infrastructure conditions from a cursory visual inspection.
Streets

Adams Street. This street is unassuming, yet it is the main connection between the University and
community. The condition of the street is in moderate to poor condition, which influences the
public’s perception of the neighborhood’s health. Stop signs at Layfayette, Charles and Ward
Streets manage movement at intersections effectively. The street between Charles and Johnson
Streets needs to be replaced, along with curbs.

Neighborhood. Street segments throughout the neighborhood require repairs. Cracking and
potholes are evident. Chandler Street between Sherman and Clay Streets is in very poor condition.

One-way traffic. The grid system is relatively continuous in the district, but breaks down near the
railroad tracks. One-way streets become more prevalent near the crossings.

Streetscape. Typical streetscape elements are absent for the most part along West Adams Street.
The entrances to WIU have stamped concrete drives, large landscaped areas, and ornamental
lighting.

Public Rights-of-Way. Along Adams Street, the dimension of the public rights-of-way (ROW) changes
at Charles Street from 46’ west of the intersection to 54’east of the intersection.
Sidewalks and Trails

Adams Street. Sidewalks along Adams Street are narrow and abut the curb. Occasionally walkways
are obstructed, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. These sidewalks, particularly between
Charles and Johnson Streets, need repairing. Sections are cracked, obliterated or have heaved. The
missing segment between Ward and Sherman Streets forces pedestrians to walk in the street or
stomp a path through the property.

Neighborhood. Sidewalks throughout the neighborhood have occasional gaps or damaged
segments. This is problematic for students walking to campus or for families pushing strollers.
Where sidewalks exist, they are generally in good condition.

WIU Campus. The WIU campus provides a system of interlinking pathways that meander from
building to building and to all intersections along West Adams Street.

Community Trail System. The study area is not included in an overall trail system for the City.
Railroad

Freight and Passenger Trains. The Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad defines the southern edge
of the study area. The lines transport both freight and passengers. Approximately 20 to 30 freight
trains use the line daily, while Amtrak’s Illinois Zephyr route provides daily service between Quincy
and Chicago’s Union Station. Also, Amtrak provides service to Los Angeles.

Crossings. Several at-grade crossings are located in the study area. Controlled intersections are at
Jackson Street and Lafayette Street. Uncontrolled intersections are at Carroll, Johnson and
McArthur Streets. The presence of the railroad tracks has created awkward traffic patterns near the
railroad, causing the need for some one-way streets.
Bus Transit (Go West)

GoWest is a public transit service available to anyone in the community. Financial support for the
system is provided by WIU student fees and property taxes. No fees are required for individual
rides. All neighborhood residents are located within three blocks of a transit stop. Six routes pass
through the study, which five follows West Adams Street and one follows West Jackson Street.
Bicycle Routes

Bicyclists do not have any dedicated space. Riders often use the street east of Charles Street and
use the sidewalk west Charles Street.
Parking

On-street parking. Parking is limited along Adams Street. On-street parking is prohibited west of
Charles Street, however east of Charles parking is permitted on the south-side. East of McArthur
Street, parking is permitted on both-sides. Throughout the neighborhood, parking is permitted on
the south and west sides of the street.

Off-street parking. All off-street parking is private. Businesses along Adams Street report that their
lots are full and need additional parking.
ADAMS STREET REVITALIZATION PLAN
Appendix B: Market Assessment
Houseal Lavigne Associates
The Adams Street study area is uniquely positioned within the Macomb market in that it is situated
between two large activity generators, the Downtown and the Campus of Western Illinois University. In
that commercial development linking the two areas is limited, opportunity may exist to provide
development that would serve the student population, while creating connectivity between the two
areas. This would not only have a positive impact on the study area but the community as a whole.
The potential for retail uses in the study area is assessed by examining the existing retail mix competitive
market conditions, and demand. Defining the commercial market potential of a study area such as
Adams Street involves examining the opportunities available to those residents (including students) that
reside within the study area as well as the potential for the study area to capture a proportionate share
of the competitive market. In other words, (1) where do local and school year residents shop? (2) Is the
area easily accessible from surrounding areas? (3) Is the market under or over supplied in terms of retail
space and in what categories? (4) Is there sufficient demand in the competitive market to support
development in the study area?
The retail market area was broken down into five, ten and fifteen minute drive times in order to better
reflect consumer behavior and the potential for the Adams Street area. Given the context in which this
market and comparable markets function, the five and ten minute drive times are the focus of this
analysis.
In further analyzing the competitive market area and general retail site characteristics, specific retailing
categories were assessed. Consumer expenditure data for the market area was analyzed in order to
determine where market demand exceeded supply.
Typically, retailing in an area similar to that of Adams Street, will serve the immediate neighborhood or
those households within a five to ten minute drive at most. In addition the student population is more
inclined to patronize stores within close proximity to the campus. While Lafayette (Route 67) and
Jackson (Route 136) are major corridors, they are located on the fringes of the study area. Dependent
upon demand, future large scale commercial development including additional big box would most likely
occur in those locations. Rather than focus on redevelopment of the same type of uses this analysis
focuses on those uses that are missing, underrepresented and/or those that fill a particular niche.
Maps depicting the distance covered by those drive times are displayed on the following pages. Graphic
representation of household incomes and changes from 2008 to 2013 follow each map.
1
Drive Time Map
2
To assess the potential for retail development the analysis compares projected spending by market area
households to the existing supply of retail space. This provides an indication of “surplus” or leakage for
each retail category. Simply put, a surplus indicates that there is at least enough space to accommodate
demand and leakage indicates that demand exceeds supply and consumers are spending dollars outside
of the market area.
A determination as to whether there is enough leakage to support additional retail space is made by
applying the “gap” amount to an average sales per square foot. If the resulting square footage is within
the range of the typical retail format of a given type of retailer, a preliminary conclusion can be made
that the market can support additional development in that particular category. For example, if it is
determined that there is a “gap” in consumer expenditures of $1 million in a store type that averages
$200 per square foot in sales revenue, then it can be preliminarily concluded that the market is
underserved by approximately 50,000 square feet in that particular category. If the average store for
that category is 50,000 square feet, then the market indications are that there is support for one more
store. If the average store size is 10,000 square feet, the market could potentially support five more
stores. However if the gap indicates support for an additional 20,000 square feet and the average store
size is 50,000 square feet, there is not enough demand to support an additional store..
It is important to distinguish between support in the market and development potential of a specific site
or location. The availability of sites, the number of stores that the market will support, the number of
projects actively pursuing tenants and similar issues can effect whether market potential translates to
development potential.
Generally the market area within a five to ten minute drive of the Adams Street study area is well served
in all retailing categories including grocery stores. Consumer expenditure data within a five minute drive
indicates potential expenditures not including food and drink of $89,938,308 with total supply of
$147,424,540 indicative of a market surplus of $57,486,232. Factoring in food and drinking
establishments indicates consumer expenditures of $105,403,901 with a supply amount of
$175,369,548; a surplus of $ 69,965,647.
Within a ten minute drive retail demand excluding food and drink is estimated at $116,290,702 with
supply at $178,838,205 a surplus of $62,547,503. With food and drink categories added in, total
expenditures rise to $135,975,513 with supply of $208,299,740, a surplus of $72,324,227.
The ten minute drive time was analyzed in greater detail because it more closely relates to the likely
pattern for the area. Five minute travel time would be more consistent with convenience and immediate
neighborhood retail. As shown on the drive time map, the ten minute travel time extends an
approximately three mile radius. This travel time and radius would be consistent with neighborhood
oriented retail. A closer examination of the supply and demand data within this area indicates that,
while there is an overall surplus of eating and drinking establishments there is an estimated gap in fullserve restaurants of approximately 16,000 square feet. Dependent upon restaurant format, this would
indicate demand for three to five 3,000 to 5,000 square foot restaurants. Full-service restaurants can
function as activity generators when combined with small retailers and service providers. Examples may
include restaurants such as Chili’s, Olive Garden or similar sized or themed local establishments.
3
Despite an apparent lack of opportunity in the other retail categories, the creation of a clustering of
restaurants within close proximity to one another can create opportunities for growth. New tenants
within the study area would likely be locally-owned, independent retailers. National tenants are not
likely, to gravitate to the study area in the near future given the limited existing demand and low traffic
counts in some areas.
It is not anticipated that there will be a significant demand for office space within the study area.
However, professional and medical space may occupy some locations and second floor above retail. The
potential exists for a bank and limited professional and/or medical space. Professional office space may
include attorneys, financial advisors/investment firms, and real estate offices.
Activity generators such as the recent West Central Illinois Arts Center relocation can be catalytic in
facilitating collateral development and other uses. If properly positioned, the Arts Center can
potentially attract other similar uses that could gravitate toward or into the study area.
Population and Household Growth
Population and household growth is not anticipated to be significant over the next five years. The
population within a five minute drive of the intersection of Adams and Charles Streets (for purposes of
analysis) is projected to decrease by 59 households by the year 2013. The area within a ten minute
drive of the intersection is projected to decrease by 70 households. These figures would represent a
loss of approximately 0.9% in both market areas. Demographic figures are typically presented as a
graphic, however, this form of presentation would not be useful given the small scale of anticipated
change. Table 1 presents summary demographic data for both market areas.
Although significant changes in the total number of households within the five and ten minute market
areas are not anticipated, the income profile of households is projected to change. As indicated in
Charts 1 and 2, the number of households earning less than $50,000 annually are projected to decrease
while the number of households earning more than $50,000 are projected to increase. Between 2008
and 2013, the overall median household income for the five and ten minute market areas is projected to
increase by 10.0% and 11.6% respectively.
While an increase in households would be a more positive indicator on which to build, the fact that
householder incomes are rising does provide some positive foundation for future development.
4
Chart 1
Chart 2
5
Additional Influences
A key aspect of the redevelopment and future success of commercial uses in the Adams street area goes
beyond market dynamics and influences.
The implementation of streetscape enhancements and improvements along Adams Street will help to
maximize market potential. While market capacity for new development can be quantified; current and
potential business owners, investors, and home buyers/renters also need to see physical changes and
indications of reinvestment. As improvements are made a message is delivered that this in fact a good
investment and the City is committed to the area.
Equally, the implementation and use of development tools and incentives will likely be necessary to
facilitate initial development. While infill development and rehabilitation of existing businesses and
storefronts may continue, a larger catalytic project typically requires Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and
other City assistance where possible. This includes the potential assemblage and acquisition of property
and infrastructure improvements. Subsequent redevelopment opportunities that are spawned from the
initial investment will then be self sustaining and not likely to need assistance.
Potential Development Program
The economic impact of a university on the local economy can be significant. However, maximizing that
opportunity is dependent upon a collaborative partnership between the school and the City. The most
successful university towns are built on the symbiotic relationship between the school and municipality.
Ideally the City and university should work together to identify sites in which the school can position
activity generating uses within close proximity to locations that could support commercial development.
In some cases this may require property acquisition or municipal assistance with site rehabilitation. The
mutual benefit exists in the potential for the City to increase its commercial base and for the school to
have additional uses catering to students.
While the Downtown does feed off the University, there are uses that cater primarily to a student
population that might be served closer to the school. There are 13,000 students with discretionary
income that, but not for the opportunity, might circulate those dollars back into the Macomb economy.
Uses may include small delis, diners, coffee shops, ice cream parlors, unique clothing stores, gift shops,
copy centers and similar uses. It is important to note that the types of businesses that would occupy
space would not be likely to afford market rate rent or sale prices within a new development. However,
through the use of economic development incentives such as TIF or land cost write-downs, the City can
assist in keeping development cost down, which in turn reduces the rental or sale prices required to
support the development.
The Downtown functions as the commercial core of the market area. The Downtown represents
approximately 60% of the commercial development within a ten minute drive of the Adams Street
corridor and 70% within a five minute drive. In that context, the importance of maintaining a strong
downtown cannot be overstated. The continued vitality of the Downtown will help to serve as a catalyst
for other new development and redevelopment of existing structures. It is important, however, that
any future development outside of the Downtown, serves to complement rather than compete with
existing uses. In that the University can help to drive demand, those uses should be geared more toward
6
serving the students as highlighted in the preceding discussion. The Downtown should continue to
function as the center point of activity for the entire City .
While there may be sites available throughout the study area, the best chance to build synergy and
allow catalytic projects to facilitate other development, is for the City to work to encourage initial
development within an area that provides linkages of key sites, such as the Downtown and Western
Illinois University.
7
Table 1
Consumer Spending Profile - 5 Minute Drive-Time
Demand
(Retail Potential)
Supply
(Retail Sales)
$21,195,295
$18,626,072
$1,293,495
$1,275,728
$9,389,591
$7,201,022
$404,912
$1,783,657
$11,805,704
$11,425,050
$888,583
-$507,929
39,352
38,084
2,962
-1,693
Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores
Furniture Stores
Home Furnishings Stores
$2,250,371
$1,680,883
$569,488
$3,316,353
$1,583,899
$1,732,454
-$1,065,982
$96,984
-$1,162,966
-3,553
323
-3,877
Electronics & Appliance Stores
$2,757,996
$4,297,061
-$1,539,065
-5,130
Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores
Building Material and Supplies Dealers
Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores
$3,123,217
$2,456,255
$666,962
$3,701,496
$3,230,532
$470,964
-$578,279
-$774,277
$195,998
-1,928
-2,581
653
Food & Beverage Stores
Grocery Stores
Specialty Food Stores
Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
$18,513,163
$17,325,336
$62,237
$1,125,590
$29,191,656
$25,511,087
$180,326
$3,500,243
-$10,678,493
-$8,185,751
-$118,089
-$2,374,653
-35,595
-27,286
-394
-7,916
Health & Personal Care Stores
$1,784,688
$6,858,072
-$5,073,384
-16,911
$12,260,011
$20,195,246
-$7,935,235
-26,451
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Clothing Stores
Shoe Stores
Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
$2,219,212
$1,757,350
$167,168
$294,694
$3,530,583
$2,363,718
$562,494
$604,371
-$1,311,371
-$606,368
-$395,326
-$309,677
-4,371
-2,021
-1,318
-1,032
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores
Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instrument Stores
Book, Periodical, and Music Stores
$1,002,153
$658,438
$343,715
$2,061,563
$1,083,743
$977,820
-$1,059,410
-$425,305
-$634,105
-3,531
-1,418
-2,114
$16,377,130
$13,868,627
$2,508,503
$22,895,162
$18,707,740
$4,187,422
-$6,518,032
-$4,839,113
-$1,678,919
-21,727
-16,130
-5,596
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Florists (NAICS 4531)
Office Supplies, Stationery, and Gift Stores
Used Merchandise Stores
Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers
$1,592,682
$278,152
$462,026
$212,541
$639,963
$4,386,747
$2,696,834
$787,796
$427,852
$474,265
-$2,794,065
-$2,418,682
-$325,770
-$215,311
$165,698
-9,314
-8,062
-1,086
-718
552
Nonstore Retailers
Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
Vending Machine Operators
Direct Selling Establishments
$6,862,390
$0
$1,243,661
$5,618,729
$37,601,010
$0
$4,191,109
$33,409,901
-$30,738,620
$0
-$2,947,448
-$27,791,172
-102,462
0
-9,825
-92,637
Food Services & Drinking Places
Full-Service Restaurants
Limited-Service Eating Places
Special Food Services
Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages
$15,465,593
$11,637,371
$2,691,396
$411,289
$725,537
$27,945,008
$9,580,689
$11,730,790
$2,888,929
$3,744,600
-$12,479,415
$2,056,682
-$9,039,394
-$2,477,640
-$3,019,063
-41,598
6,856
-30,131
-8,259
-10,064
Industry Group
Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers
Automobile Dealers
Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
Auto Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores
Gasoline Stations
General Merchandise Stores
Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts.
Other General Merchandise Stores
Retail Gap Potential*
* Potential is based on average annual sales of $300 per square foot
Source: ESRI Business Analyst and Houseal Lavigne Associates
8
Consumer Spending Profile - 10 Minute Drive-Time
Demand
(Retail Potential)
Supply
(Retail Sales)
Retail Gap
Potential*
$27,674,373
$24,249,954
$1,781,283
$1,643,136
$23,005,643
$20,413,096
$404,912
$2,187,635
$4,668,730
$3,836,858
$1,376,371
-$544,499
15,562
12,790
4,588
-1,815
Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores
Furniture Stores
Home Furnishings Stores
$2,953,908
$2,194,898
$759,010
$3,454,166
$1,716,093
$1,738,073
-$500,258
$478,805
-$979,063
-1,668
1,596
-3,264
Electronics & Appliance Stores
$3,508,270
$4,546,279
-$1,038,009
-3,460
Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores
Building Material and Supplies Dealers
Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores
$4,287,604
$3,386,340
$901,264
$5,522,850
$3,655,385
$1,867,465
-$1,235,246
-$269,045
-$966,201
-4,117
-897
-3,221
Food & Beverage Stores
Grocery Stores
Specialty Food Stores
Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
$23,752,013
$22,258,662
$79,876
$1,413,475
$34,925,038
$31,075,689
$349,106
$3,500,243
-$11,173,025
-$8,817,027
-$269,230
-$2,086,768
-37,243
-29,390
-897
-6,956
Health & Personal Care Stores
$2,333,481
$7,247,105
-$4,913,624
-16,379
Gasoline Stations
$15,715,613
$23,018,200
-$7,302,587
-24,342
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Clothing Stores
Shoe Stores
Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
$2,824,552
$2,229,684
$210,001
$384,867
$3,955,395
$2,655,300
$695,724
$604,371
-$1,130,843
-$425,616
-$485,723
-$219,504
-3,769
-1,419
-1,619
-732
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores
Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instrument Stores
Book, Periodical, and Music Stores
$1,255,536
$838,684
$416,852
$2,243,875
$1,266,055
$977,820
-$988,339
-$427,371
-$560,968
-3,294
-1,425
-1,870
General Merchandise Stores
Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts.
Other General Merchandise Stores
$21,065,915
$17,835,787
$3,230,128
$28,456,317
$23,150,141
$5,306,176
-$7,390,402
-$5,314,354
-$2,076,048
-24,635
-17,715
-6,920
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Florists (NAICS 4531)
Office Supplies, Stationery, and Gift Stores
Used Merchandise Stores
Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers
$2,085,342
$384,024
$598,728
$271,976
$830,614
$4,478,856
$2,696,834
$795,960
$442,462
$543,600
-$2,393,514
-$2,312,810
-$197,232
-$170,486
$287,014
-7,978
-7,709
-657
-568
957
Nonstore Retailers
Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
Vending Machine Operators
Direct Selling Establishments
$8,834,095
$0
$1,593,721
$7,240,374
$37,984,481
$0
$4,191,109
$33,793,372
-$29,150,386
$0
-$2,597,388
-$26,552,998
-97,168
0
-8,658
-88,510
Food Services & Drinking Places
Full-Service Restaurants
Limited-Service Eating Places
Special Food Services
Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages
$19,684,811
$14,814,664
$3,430,844
$524,026
$915,277
$29,461,535
$9,967,720
$12,828,154
$2,910,256
$3,755,405
-$9,776,724
$4,846,944
-$9,397,310
-$2,386,230
-$2,840,128
-32,589
16,156
-31,324
-7,954
-9,467
Industry Group
Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers
Automobile Dealers
Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
Auto Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores
* Potential is based on average annual sales of $300 per square foot
Source: ESRI Business Analyst and Houseal Lavigne Associates
9
ADAMS STREET REVITALIZATION PLAN
Appendix C: Recommended Zoning Ordinance Revisions
The following represents a summary of the zoning ordinance issues and recommended revisions to
resolve those issues. These recommendations have been presented to Macomb officials and the public
during the course of the planning project.
1. Correct the Definition of “Single-Family Attached”
Typically, the definition of “Single-Family Attached” describes a side-by-side, two-unit structure.
For some reason, Macomb’s definition includes up to 4-unit row houses or townhomes. This is
inconsistent with the intent of the R-3 Two-Family Residence District, where single-family
attached are permitted. This provision for rowhouses should be dropped from the definition of
Single-Family Attached.
2. Limit the Adams Street Overlay District to properties fronting on Adams Street
Because of the desire to promote mixed-use development including both commercial and
residential uses, restrict the ASO to frontage properties on Adams Street. The remainder of the
currently-zoned R-4 district, with the exception of the Haeger Property, should be zoned to a
new R-3A (see 4.A. below). Lafayette frontage properties should be zoned to B-1 (fixed: see
below).
3. Simplify Density Provisions in R-4 Multiple Family District
The permitted maximum density in R-4 is controlled by the Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit
limits in Appendix B Bulk Matrix. Currently the R-4 requirements vary by the number of
bedrooms in the unit as follows:
1 Bedroom:
2 Bedroom:
3 Bedroom:
1,000 sq. ft./unit = 43.6 units per acre
1,700 sq. ft./unit = 25.6 units per acre
2,000 sq. ft./unit = 21.8 units per acre
This system overly complicates the analysis of permitted density and adds very little to the
control of the impacts of density in neighborhoods. It is true that the number of bedrooms in a
college housing area can directly impact the parking needs on the property. However, the
parking requirements in Macomb’s zoning ordinance are already tied to the number of
bedrooms in the unit, so that the reference to bedrooms can and should be dropped in the
density provisions. See next point for recommended density.
4. Need for Additional Multi-family Districts
With the deletion of 4-unit rowhouses from R-3, there is only one district in the community that
allows multiple-family dwellings. That is VERY unusual and makes it difficult to rezone for lower
intensity townhouses or small apartment buildings because the neighbors face the possibility of
full R-4 density build out. A good range of multi-family regulations in Macomb should include
the following:
A. A new “R-3A Limited Multi-family” District.
This district would be intended to encourage infill development in older residential areas in a
manner compatible with existing single-family uses. Up to 4-unit-per-building row houses or
apartment buildings would be permitted at a maximum density of 3,000 sq. ft. per unit, or 14.5
dwelling units per acre. Design guidelines should require the infill development be compatible
with existing single-family dwellings.
This new R-3A District would be appropriate in the currently-zoned R-4 areas away from the
Adams Street corridor frontage properties (See 5.A. below).
B. A new “R-4 Medium Density Multi-family” District.
This would replace the current R-4 district and allow apartments or townhomes at a maximum
density of 1850 sq. ft. per unit, or about 23.5 dwelling units per acre. This density would allow
three-story walkup apartment buildings at a density that will provide for some open space so
that the development is not “all building and concrete”.
C. A new “R-5 High Density Multi-family” District
There are likely some apartments/condos, dormitories, or senior high-rises that exceed the R-3
density and should be provided for in the code. A new “R-5 High Density Multi-family” district
should allow multiple-family dwellings at a density (“by right”) of up to 1,100 sq. ft. per unit, or
about 39.8 units per acre. This district should also allow a density, by Special Permit, of up to
850 sq. ft. per unit, or about 52 units per acre. As an example of the need for this district, a
recent proposal for the Haeger Pottery Factory site exceeded the current R-4 density and would
have required this zoning category if it was to proceed.
5. Consider Design Standards in R-3A District to insure compatibility with remaining single-family
structures
As indicated above, a rezoning of the Adams Street Project Area, off the Adams Street corridor,
from R-4 to a new R-3A will provide for a more compatible land use mix with infill development.
While the permitted density is important, the character of the development is equally important
if the infill development is to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. In addition to the
standard Bulk Regulations (minimum yard setbacks, maximum height), it is recommended that
Macomb consider new design guidelines to insure compatibility of infill development. The three
major guidelines to consider are:


Orientation of front of unit to the street
Roof shape (gable)

Meet average setbacks within adjacent several properties
6. Adams Street Overlay District.
The following are the key issues related to establishing an Adams Street Overlay District
consistent with the Revitalization Plan:
A. Applicable Area
As indicated above, it is recommended that the ASO be limited to properties fronting on Adams
St.
B. Permitted Uses
The ASO should be defined as a “mixed-use” district permitting combinations of multi-family
residential, office, and pedestrian-scaled commercial uses (retail and services). Restaurants and
cafes should be permitted, although bars should not, given the tight relationship to residential
uses.
There should be a requirement that any conversion of existing residential structures to
commercial use first secure a Special Permit. Such conversions are not the intent of “mixeduse” areas and should be discouraged generally.
C. Permitted Residential Density
It is recommended that the proposed new R-4 density of 23.5 dwellings per acre be permitted
“by right” in the Overlay District. Higher density, perhaps up to 29 dwellings per acre (1,500 sq.
ft. per unit) should be allowed by Special Permit. These densities will allow typical mixed-use
projects such as those proposed in the plan to be feasible for development. Setting the
permitted density too low will not allow projects to be profitable for developers.
D. Design Guidelines
It is recommended that the following design guidelines be considered for application in the
Adams Street Overlay District:
- “Build-To” front setback line or front yard garden/plaza
- Façade architectural materials
- Parking lot location to be to side or rear of building (not in front)
- Encourage outdoor eating spaces
- Signage: Limit signs to “Downtown” provisions. No pole signs. Monument signs permitted.
E. Floor Area Ratio
Recommend de-emphasis of FAR as a development regulator in ASO.
F. Review Process
Recommend that bulk regulations and design standards be considered as “guidelines”. If a
proposal meets the guidelines, there would be an administrative review only. If a developer
wished to vary the guidelines, they would proceed as a Special Use Permit to the Plan and
Zoning Commission and City Council.
7. Fix the B-1 Local Shopping District
The B-1District is intended to be a small scale, pedestrian-oriented “neighborhood” commercial
district. The B-1 is currently not used, primarily because there is a mismatch between the intent
of the district and the uses permitted. The permitted uses are in some cases very limited and in
others overly permissive. For example, Art Supplies and Framing Shops, which would be a good
use in a pedestrian-scaled commercial district, are not permitted while grocery stores are
permitted without restrictions on size. Typical new grocery stores can be over 70,000 sq. ft.,
clearly too large a scale for a “neighborhood” shopping area.
To fix the B-1, the City needs to re-evaluate the permitted uses as listed in the Appendix A. Use
Matrix and insure consistency between permitted uses and the intent of the district. Several
uses, such as Retail, Groceries and Food Sales, and Offices need to be categorized by scale (total
square footage), so that only the smaller scale uses appropriate to a neighborhood shopping
district are allowed in B-1. RDG can provide a model of such a classification system for these
uses.
8. Rezone M-1 and M-2 areas in project areas
There are “historical” industrially zoned subareas in the Adams Street Project Area that no
longer reflect either the current use on the site nor the designated land use on the
comprehensive plan. These areas should be rezoned to appropriate residential or commercial
classifications base on the land use plan.