Frankfort City Comprehensive Plan Meeting, August 23, 2006

Mark-UpDraft 1

As tabled from July 19

Frankfort City Comprehensive PlanMeeting, August 23, 2006

2

Documents – frankfortonline.org

7/13/2006 Adobe.pdf

Comprehensive Plan Draft 1 for printing [164 pp]

7/12/2006 MS Word

Comprehensive Plan Draft 1 [164 pp]

7/12/2006 MS Word

Survey Results [12 pp]

3

Draft 1 – July 12, 2006

4

TOC [Table of Contents] – 10 parts some rearrangement for Draft 2

PART I. Introduction– TOC– Executive Summary– Updating the Comprehensive Plan

State mandate Time Period

– Vision Statement– Planning Process– Acknowledgements

Reorganized

PART II. Community ProfileA. LocationB. ClimateC. History

D. Demographic Analysis, Forecasts & Comparisons1. Age Cohorts

2. Race3. Ethnicity

4. Education5. Forecasts

A. Frankfort City past 20 yearsB. Frankfort City past 10 yearsC. Frankfort City past 3 years

D. Clinton County past 10 yearsE. Hamilton County past 10 years

F. Lebanon City, Boone County past 3 yearsG. Lafayette City, Tippecanoe County past 3 years

H. Cohort Survival [basis: fertility rates, mortality rates, net migration]E. Socioeconomic Analysis, Forecasts & Comparisons

1. Labor Force2. Employment

3. Household Income4. Income by Industry

New to Draft 2

PART III. Growth Management

A.Managing Sprawl Brought by New Development

B. Common Sense Zoning

C. Infrastructure Placement

D. Farming Community Identification

E. Enhanced Tax Base

F. Community Identification

G. Growth Pattern[East or West?]

Land UseA. Agriculturalb. Residential

1. Core Residential2. Traditional Residential3. Multifamily Residential

C. Downtownd. Commercial

1. Neighborhood Commercial2. Community Commercial

3. Regional Commerciale. Industrial

1. Light Industrial2. Manufacturing

3. High-Tech R&DF. Public UsesG. Institutional

H. Planned DevelopmentA. Planned Unit

B. Planned ResidentialC. Planned Commercial

D. Planned Industrial

Future Land Use MapZoning Map

SR 28 West Overlay District MapExisting Land Use Map

Downtown Land Use MapIndustrial Park Land Use Map

New to Draft 2

PART IV. PlacemakingVision

A. Neighborhood IdentificationB. Reutilization of Downtown

C. Managing Sprawl Brought by New Development

PART V. Community LivingA. Abandoned SchoolsB. Neighborhood LivingC. Zoning Enforcement

D. Community CohesivenessPART VI. Community Green

A. Class Three Wind AvailabilityB. Landfill Capacity

C. Frankfort Association of Community Trails (FACT)D. Landscaping Ordinance/Storm-water Ordinance

PART VII. City BeautifulVision

A. Tree City ProgramB. Utility Lines

C. Abandoned Big-BoxD. Adopt an Entrance

PART VIII. Economic Revitalization

Economic AnalysisEconomic Condition

Economic BaseIndustry Clusters [Agglomeration Effect]

Analysis of DemandAnalysis of the Factors of Production

Economic PerformanceGrowth/ Decline of Economic Indicators

Shift-Share AnalysisOverall Economic Development Strategy

Economic Revitalization ProjectsBrownfield RedevelopmentDowntown Revitalization

SR 28 Corridor – Redesign & Adaptive Reuse

Economic Development HousingEco-Industrial Park

Bio-Refinery Industry

New to Draft 2

8

TOC - End

PART IX. AccessA. Emergency Management

B. Public TransportationC. Alternative TransportationD. Downtown Vehicular Flow

Thoroughfare PlanContext Sensitive Design

Street hierarchy1. Arterial streets

2. Collector streets3. Local streets

Regional Thoroughfare PlanPURPOSE

GOALSNational Highway System

PART X. Summary Conclusions

A. Problems, Goals & ObjectivesB. Strategies, Projects & Policies

C. Call for Planning & Development1. Community Development Plans2. Economic Development Task

Force3. Strategic Alliances and Corporate

Sponsors4. Legislation

New to Draft 2

Draft 2 Major Elements added to Draft 1Projections and GIS Mapping

8 assumptions constitute 8 scenarios [or less]Done

Future Land Use Map

Conventional zoning for existing uses

Largely planned developments for growth areas

Standards formulated for

planned developments

“performance zoning”

Started, not completed

Add Bio-Refinery strategy to Economic Revitalization Started, not completed

Executive Summary By choice, remains for the end

PART X: Summary Conclusions Done and on-line [16 pp.]

More graphic elements

E.g., thoroughfare plan ROW cross-sections

E.g., historic population changes [past 50 years… since last comp plan

ROW Done, subject to review;

History remains

10

Draft 3 as Final Draft

Adobe InDesign replaces MS Word– Very reader-friendly– More graphical– Expanded pages

All corrections from Draft 2 from 9-16-06 Opportunity for detail mark-up by public

officials that are consistent with 9-16-06 resolutions of stakeholders

Schedule as Revised7-19 Review Draft 1 + Survey Results

Direct ICC Staff on Draft 2

Postponed

8-23 Review Draft 1 + conduct survey among stakeholder group + consider Plan of Hispanic Communities [?]

Direct ICC Staff on Draft 2

9-16 Review Draft 2 + survey results of 3 groups [general public, Hispanic, stakeholders]

10-11 Review “Final Draft” in InDesign with acceptance as a stakeholders’ statement

Formulate lobbying strategy for adoption of Plan

October Plan Commission acts on Comp Plan

November City Council acts on Comp Plan

December City Council considers zoning amendments

12

PART X: Summary Conclusions

Refer to document [16 pp.] Note Well Hispanic 7-point program relevant

to Spanish-speaking minority population [pp. 14-16]

7-Points – Spanish-Speaking Communities of Frankfort English education for adults; bi-lingual support through key governmental operations

until the success of English education Subsidized or free legal services in landlord-tenant relations, perhaps taking the

form of arbitration or mediation resolutions. Active recreational [soccer, baseball] and cultural programs aimed at the needs of

Hispanic people. The acquisition and conversion of Kyger ES and the defunct Wal-Mart as a public facility for community meeting, recreation, health care, and cultural/ art exhibitions and workshops, but inclusive of Hispanic needs, should be explored.

Seek the cooperation of existing lenders to extend credit to Hispanic households and businesses; counseling of Hispanic households and businesses in the establishment of credit, in housing management, and in business management akin to the programs of La Plaza in the Indianapolis metropolitan area; if necessary, establish Hispanic-oriented credit unions, SBA Certified Development Corporations and other institutions to finance the projects of Hispanic households and businesses.

Establishment within the City of an Ombudsperson Office to advocate for the needs, objectives and projects of various citizens, community associations and businesses. That advocacy includes an active grants procurement operation involving intergovernmental aid, and aid to private organizations, households and businesses.[1] Further, the ombudsperson may assist in procuring local programs and other resources, and in recommending to the Mayor and Council measures to remediate the problems faced by ordinary citizens and organizations.

As a multicultural bridge to establish social, recreational and cultural events that combine the Anglo and Hispanic communities of Frankfort. These events recognize the positive impact of the annual summer downtown festival in Frankfort revolving on multicultural food, entertainment and merchandizing.

Continued education and organization of Hispanic communities politically and socially in addressing these indigenous needs, toward the common good of the City, and with the aim of integrating Hispanic peoples in their multicultural neighborhoods and city.

[1] grants/ subsidies/ low cost lending, credit enhancement, etc.through public agencies and corporate foundations; available through “Resources for Indiana Communities In Housing, Community & Economic Development,” a publication of the Indiana City Corporation

14

Findings by ICC Spanish-Speaking Staff

Saddened by absence of integration, and quite self-deprecating– “Hispanic and Anglo people don’t share the use of public spaces.

When Hispanics arrive, the Anglos leave.”– Fatalistic [“nothing will change to make our lives better”]– “afraid”

Emphasis on social service needs [contrast to stakeholder interests]

– Legal services– Health care– Family counseling/ abuse/ day care– Financial counseling– Public transportation– More and better jobs [‘like Lebanon”]

15

Population Forecasting

Based on Alternate Assumptions of Change Past 20 Years 2025– Frankfort 18,000– Clinton [not Howard] County 16,200– Lebanon 20,400– Lafayette 21,500– Hamilton County 36,800

16

Frankfort Current Population

Maps Key Current Population Population Growth (1=10) Population Decline (1=10)

18

Population drops by 227

Frankfort Population 2010

19


Population grows by 2,352

20


Population drop by 506

22


Population remains the same

23


Population grows by 838

24


Population drops by 1,206

26



27



28



30



31



32



34



35



36



Graphics on ROW’s for Thoroughfare Plan + Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances

Residential Street + Feeder Street

– ASHTO New Standards [adopted by NJ as RSIS]

– Strictly subdivision streets

– Small variance with the graphics to follow

Curb to Curb > Feeder Residential

No On-Street Parking

2 Travel Lanes

10+10 = 20’

20’

One-side parking

2 travel lanes

10+10+8 = 28’

26’

Two-side parking

2 travel lanes

10+10+8+8 = 36’

32’

28’

38

Local Residential Street Standards

Residential Street

39

Local Residential Street Standards

Residential Feeder

40

Local Resident Street Standards

Access Street

41

Local Non- Resident Street Standards

Option A

42


Option B

43


Option C

44


Option D

45

Neighborhood Collector Street Standards

Option A

46

Neighborhood Collector Street Standards

Option B

47

Major Collectors

Option A

48

Major Collectors

Option B

49

Major Collectors

Option C

50

Minor Arterials

Option A

51

Minor Arterials

Option B

52

Minor Arterials

Option C

53

Major Arterial

Option A

54

Major Arterial

Option B

55

Standards

Planned Development– PUD– PRD– PCD– PID

Performance Zoning

56

Performance

Broad or Narrow range of uses

Intensities and some uses conditioned on “performance”

Performance = Impact on neighboring properties neighborhood city as a whole

Evaluation of impacts [positive and negative] constitutes a “grade” [e.g., 75 of 100]

Very sophisticated

While traditional zoning specifies allowable land uses in each district, performance zoning specifies standards of land use intensity that are acceptable in each district. Performance zoning focuses on the performance of the parcel and how it impacts adjacent lands and public facilities, not on the use of the land. This gives municipalities and developers more flexibility in designing projects, because the use of a property is not restricted as long as the impacts to the surrounding land are not negative (as defined in the specific regulation).

ZONING

57

Performance Standards

Performance Zoning Model Ordinance Bucks County, Pennsylvania

Natural Resource Protection Standards Open Space & Recreational Standards [NRPA] Architectural Design Standards Community Facilities and Associated Cost Responsibilities Fiscal Impact e.g.,

– Offsite infrastructure– School District Costs

Other Public Amenities e.g.,– Art– Mixed Use [commercial and residential]– Non-gated [public access]– TOD [transit]

Example [Passing Score = 70?]

Factor [8, or more?] Max Points

Conformance to height/ bulk/ setback/ parking standards of ordinances

25

Open Space [passive/ active with facilities] 10

Energy efficiency and sustainability 10

Architectural Design 5

Art and Public Amenities 5

Affordable Set-Aside 15

Off-site Improvements [Capital Costs Avoided] 20

Residential Needs in Neighborhood Retail + Jobs and Income Generated

10

59

Applications for PUDs

The PUD philosophy can be used for residential, commercial, and even industrial developments.

Essentially a “planned unit” with mixed uses = – campus setting for industrial– antithesis of strip commercial and integration with

other uses [office, residential lofts, etc.]– “planned communities” for residential

60

Possible Requirements

The city can require that developers:– Incorporate greenspace– Create and/or maintain roadways for the

development– Plan for water runoff– Have a mixed income housing (for residential

developments)

61

Possible Benefits

Higher standards for development, with emphasis on planned communities

Greater opportunity for developers to create attractive and inviting developments.

More opportunities for the city to allow for construction projects that might not have been possible under more traditional regulations.

Frankfort City Comprehensive Plan Meeting, August 23, 2006

Documents

Transcript of Frankfort City Comprehensive Plan Meeting, August 23, 2006