Mark-Up Draft 2 As directed from 8-23-06 Frankfort City Comprehensive Plan Meeting, September 28, 2006.

Mark-UpDraft 2

As directed from 8-23-06

Frankfort City Comprehensive PlanMeeting, September 28, 2006

2

Revisions Draft 1 --> Draft 2

1. 1 volume to 2 164 pp to 249 pp Volume I Text [118 pp] Volume II Appendices [131 pp]

3

Shift [Volume I to Volume II]

84 pp shift [164 pp to 80 pp in Volume I] Shift by Content:

– PART I Introduction: All of Indiana Code and local process of updating the comprehensive plan

– PART II Community Profile: Virtually all – PART III Growth management: Definition of Land Uses– PART VIII Economic Revitalization: All of Economic

Analysis– PART IX Access: Location & Design of thoroughfares

NOTE WELL: Issue of whether we have a Thoroughfare Plan on Slide 8

4

2. Added Sections [Vol. I]

Executive Summary [handout] – 7 pp Summary Conclusions – 18 pp

– Actions: executive and legislative

PART III – Planned Development/ Performance Zoning/ Inclusionary

Development Standards– Future Land Use Map

Thoroughfare Plan Map to PART IX Summaries of Sections added to Vol. II

5

2. Added Sections [Vol. II]

Historic [past 50 years – last Comp Plan]– Population– Dwelling units– Work Force

Forecasts [population]– 2005-2010– 2010-2015– 2015-2025– 8 scenarios + target [Frankfort till 2010, then Lebanon]

Hydrology/ Stormwater Management Plan Full graphics to Thoroughfare Plan

6

Missing Elements

1. Future Land Use Map [detailed platted]

2. Infrastructure [utility] Plan

3. Airport Plan [pending]

4. Multicultural Plan instead… a call for a Mayor’s Task Force

5. Thoroughfare Plan lacks bicycle lanes

These are presented today.

7

Draft 3

Draft 2 remains only as online version Official Plan

– “The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Frankfort, IN”– Plan for legislative and executive action – 30-50 pp– Grows from Executive Summary– 7 policy areas– Add key maps and charts– No Executive Summary, No Summary Conclusion, much smaller Intro still [e.g.,

acknowledgements in Appendices]

Technical Appendices to Comprehensive Plan– As a reference document– 150-200 pp

Executive Summary– Stapled hand-out– 10 pp– As is with Future Land Use Map, key charts, graphic cover

8

Issue of Volume II as Unofficial

If Thoroughfare Plan is Volume II [unofficial]– IC 36-7-4-502 [only 3 elements] and 503 [24 optional elements]– Thoroughfare Plan is optional under IC 36-7-4-503 (6)– Requirement for Thoroughfare Plan [all met in Vol. II]:

Location Design Priority for construction

IC 36-7-4-506[c]– After a thoroughfare plan has been included in the comprehensive plan,

thoroughfares may be located, changed widened, straightened, or vacated only in the manner indicated by the comprehensive plan

– If no manner is indicated, then must amend comprehensive plan– Propose Manner:

Plan Commission referral as initial consideration [60 days to resolve] and certification through adoption or amended adoption of Commission recommendation by City Council

City Engineer/ City Planner decide – an administrative function City Plan Commission decides NOTE: any official amendment to Comp Plan or its Thoroughfare Plan requires City Council

certification

TOC Draft 3PART I. Introduction

TOCNarrative on Planning Process + refer Appendices, Executive Summary as companion, but not official documents

pp

4

PART II. Growth ManagementAs in Executive Summary, but add problem and vision statementsKey future land use map [utility map, etc. to Appendices]Ditto below

16

PART III. Placemaking – [neighborhood map] 4PART IV. Community Living 5PART V. Community Green 4PART VI. City Beautiful 2PART VII. Economic Revitalization 8 PART VII. Access – [with Thoroughfare Plan and map] 7Total estimated pages in MS Word 50

10

Documents – frankfortonline.orgOn Library Reserve [2 copies]

9/18/2006 Adobe.pdf

Comprehensive Plan Draft 2 for printing Volume I Text

Volume II Appendices

9/18/2006 MS Word

Comprehensive Plan Draft 2Volume I Text

Volume II Appendices

9/18/2006 MS Word

Executive Summary [7 pp]

Schedule as Revised

9-28 Review Draft 2 – direct a Draft 3, intended as “final draft”

10-11

Must move to 19th or

25th

Review “Final Draft” in MS Word and with acceptance as a stakeholders’ statement

Authorize publication InDesignFormulate lobbying strategy for adoption of Plan

November Plan Commission acts to adopt Comp Plan

December City Council acts to certify Comp Plan

2007 City Council considers zoning amendments and other ordinances called for in Comp Plan

Changes in Draft 2

1. Historic Profile

2. Growth Management

Historic Profile

Trends in Frankfort Since the 1950 Comprehensive Plan

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Total Population

Labor Force

Dwelling Units

Forecast 2005-2025Frankfort for 5 Years; Lebanon for 20 Years

15

2005-2010

Population grows by 241

Dwelling Units grow by 93

16

2010-2015

Population grows by 1,200

Dwelling Units grow by 462

17

2015-2025

Population grows by 2,525

Dwelling Units grow by 971

18

2005-2025

Population growth of 3,966 [24% on 16,432] Added dwelling units of 1,525 Growth Management!!!

Another Scenario of Higher Growth

Hamilton County 11,142 pop. increase [68%]

20

3 Options [1 recommended]

1. Location-specific districts for 100% of growth area

2. Site/ subdivision plan for 100% growth area

3. 2 districts + “blank slate” + specific regulations

Future Land Use Map & Policies

Factor Guidelines

Minimum Scale 50 AC; exceptions, as ancillary to an approved development and extending the plan for that development

Districts

All planned developments: PUD [Unit, with greatest mix of uses] PRD [Residential] PCD [Commercial] PBD [Business, includes institutional – e.g., educational, community] PID [Industrial ]

SR 28 District

Landscaped buffer of 50’ on each side [landscaping guidelines TBD] no curb cuts [eliminates strip development]; only access drives or roads to planned developments Road signage allowed with design restrictions Review & apply the SR 28 Overlay District, both West and East

I 65 District PBD [with uses not to compete with Downtown]

Composition by Uses% total Developable

land

Residential20-45

Commercial Retail

5-9

Business as Commercial

Office + Institutional8-23

Industrial [Light + Heavy]

8-22

OS + Recreational + Working Landscape

30

BuffersIn general no buffers, except as Performance Zoning standards demonstrate a use impact on Residential or

Recreational by heavy industry or by traffic generated by another use

continued

Design

mixed uses, as apparent in “planned” developmentslandscaping + streetscapingart or cultural amenitiespublic spacesarchitectural reviewAll residential sites of 50 units or greater to be inclusionary development [low/moderate income 20% as fee simple and 15% as rental]

Districts Defined by % Developable Land to Primary Use; excludes OS, Rec, WL

PUDR = 40-80C = 10-60B = 10-60

NRPA standards on OS[1]

PRD65-90

NRPA standards on OS

PCD65-90

15% OS

PBD65-90

15% OS

PID80-95

15% OS

[1] National Recreation & Park Association sets standards, based on residential population generated by a development, for both developed [active recreation or other public use] and undeveloped [e.g., passive park] space. This excludes yard and setback requirements, buffers beyond the ROW, and storm water management areas and environmentally sensitive areas if not a park.

23

Summary Future Land Use

Extension of conventional zoning in built-up areas All planned developments in growth area [10,585 ac] 2 location-specific districts

PBD at SR 28 and I 65 OS [park, working landscapes, environmental protection]

Remaining land uses as “floating zones” regulated by zoning

OS = 30% outside planned developments + on-site requirements [15% plus higher in residential]

Estimate 44-47% OS in growth area UGB enforced by County outside of Frankfort City

limits

24

Build-Out for Annexed Area Demonstrating Open Space

Scenario 1: Minimum Residential and Commercial / Maximum Other Uses

Scenario 2: Maximum Residential and Commercial / Minimum Other Uses

Land Use OS Total   Land Use OS Total

OS 100% 30%   OS 100% 30%

PRD 30% 20%   PRD 30% 45%

PCD 15% 5%   PCD 15% 9%

PBD 15% 23%   PBD 15% 8%

PID 15% 22%   PID 15% 8%

PUD 30%     PUD 30%  

Total 44% 100%   Total 47% 100%

25

Demonstrated in Acres

Scenario 1 In Acres   Scenario 2 In Acres

OS 3,176 3,176   OS 3,176 3,176

PRD 635 2,117   PRD 1,429 4,763

PCD 79 529   PCD 143 953

PBD 365 2,435   PBD 127 847

PID 349 2,329   PID 127 847

PUD - -   PUD - -

Total 4,604 10,585   Total 5,001 10,585

26

Density in Units/ AcreResidential in DU’sNon-Residential in SF based on FARBased on “Net Developable” Acreage [Gross-OS]

Scenario 1 Density in Units / Acre   Scenario 2 Density in Units / Acre

Units/ AC Net Buildable

Acres   Units/ AC Net Buildable

Acres

PRD 4 1,482   PRD 4 3,334

PCD 10,000 450   PCD 10,000 810

PBD 40,000 2,069   PBD 40,000 720

PID 15,000 1,979   PID 15,000 720

PUD - -   PUD - -

Total   5,981   Total   5,584

27

Calculated Build-Out

Scenario 1 Build-Out in DU's, SF   Scenario 2 Build-Out in DU's, SF

Units NBA   OS Units NBA

PRD 5,928 1,482   PRD 13,337 3,334

PCD 4,498,625 450   PCD 8,097,525 810

PBD 82,774,700 2,069   PBD 28,791,200 720

PID 29,690,925 1,979   PID 10,796,700 720

PUD - -   PUD - -

Total   5,981   Total   5,584

NOTES: OS in PRD, PUD estimate only; zoning requires NRPA standards based on residential population generated for both developed [active recreation] and undeveloped [passive park] space. Density set at net developable acreage [Gross - OS]. For inclusionary residential developments there would be a density bonus of 50%. The FAR for nonresidential uses varies 0.25 - 1.0, depending on height and building envelope.

Performance Zoning

Factor Max Points

Conformance to use, height/ bulk/ setback/ open space/ parking standards of ordinances 25

Quality and quantity of public spaces [recreation, cultural, civic] 5

Environmental impact 5

Energy efficiency and sustainability 5

Transit-oriented 5

Architectural Design 5

Art and Public Amenities 5

Affordable Housing Set-Aside 15

Off-site Improvements [Capital Costs Avoided] and fiscal impact on operating budget 15

Residential Needs in Neighborhood Retail + Jobs and Income Generated 15

Minimum score for entitlement = 75 [?]

Alternate is full discretion of Planning Commission as to points

Missing Maps Draft 2

1. Bicycle Paths in Thoroughfare Plan

2. Utilities3. Hydrology [stormwater]4. Airport Development Plan5. Future Land Use Map

Bike Paths in Thoroughfare Plan

31

Bicycle Transportation Policies

Connect to greenways and parks Means for lockable parking 6’ lanes and marked [solid white line + logo] Motor vehicular speed and Buffers

– 25 MPH in built-up areas– 40 MPH outside– > 40, then protective buffer

Accessible by bus [front rack] Promote offices/ industries/ retail as “bicyclist-friendly”

– Portland, OR, provision of lockers and showers Frankfort as a “Cool City”

Hypothetical Build-Out at Minimum [20%] residential and maximum other uses – Not a Future Land Use Map

OS = protecting stream bed, noise buffer near airport, SR 28 buffer, and park [need prime agric lands]

PBD = concentrated at key intersection [SR 28 / I 65] PRD = mostly adjoining Jeffersonville PCD = proximate to PRD’s NOTE WELL: OS understated in that each planned

development has an OS requirement

Hypothetical Build-Out at Maximum [45%] residential and minimum other uses – Not a Future Land Use Map