DOCSLIB.ORG

Sheridan, Indiana Comprehensive Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sheridan, Indiana Comprehensive Plan SHERIDAN, I NDIANA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2013 SHERIDAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Sheridan Plan Commission public hearing and adoption: 11/7/13 Sheridan Town Council adoption: 11/14/13 2 Sheridan Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Acknowledgements . 4 Chapter 2: Introduction . .6 Chapter 3: Vision and Plan Summary . .10 Chapter 4: Building Capacity . 16 Chapter 5: Community Character . 27 Chapter 6: Land Use . 36 Chapter 7: Economic Development . .58 Chapter 8: Housing . 70 Chapter 9: Natural Resources & Recreation . 82 Chapter 10: Transportation . 95 Chapter 11: Utilities . 109 Chapter 12: Implementation. 118 Chapter 13: Appendix . .138 Sheridan Comprehensive Plan 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 4 Sheridan Comprehensive Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Community ownership is key to the success of any plan. For this reason, we wish to acknowledge the participation and hard work of Sheridan’s citizens. Residents who were interviewed, attended focus groups or took part in public meetings all made valuable contributions. Thanks also to the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) for funding this planning project. Special thanks are extended to Town Councilwoman Brenda Bush for her tireless work on the plan and to the Stephenson Family Foundation and Bill and Ann Stone for their generous contributions. The steering committee was comprised of: Brenda Bush Town Council Tom Cain Building Commissioner Parvin Gillim Chamber of Commerce David Kinkead Town Council, President John Patrick Adams Township Trustee Ron Stone Community Member Craig Wallace Economic Development Commission President Members of the consulting team who facilitated the process are grateful for the opportunity to learn more about your community. Thank you! Scott Burgins, SDG Cory Daly, HWC Engineering Claire Linnemeier, SDG Rex Dillinger, HWC Engineering Sheridan Comprehensive Plan 5 INTRODUCTION 2 6 Sheridan Comprehensive Plan INTRODUCTION 2 The comprehensive plan is Sheridan’s guide to the The comprehensive plan is an advisory tool for future. It answers fundamental questions such as: the town council, plan commission, board of public works, board of zoning appeals, staff and interested What do we want to change? citizens when land use changes are proposed. These What do we want to protect? changes cover a wide range of topics such as new roads, subdivisions and commercial developments. How can a community change what it doesn’t like while protecting what it does? One method is land The plan also covers environmental issues such as use planning, which lays out the town’s priorities and sustainability and smart growth. sets goals on how to reach them. But the comprehensive plan is not the same as Decisions made without reference to a plan are zoning regulations. That more detailed level of frequently reactionary, responding only to specific guidance is reserved for ordinances adopted during short-term problems or proposals. But a long-term the zoning and subdivision control process. In many view is needed in order to keep the town from cases, though, the comprehensive plan builds the growing or shrinking simply by accident. It is vital foundation for zoning regulation changes. for decision-makers to have a shared reference point, or at least a collective set of facts. This document expresses general community agreement, as interpreted through a nine-month Other potential benefits of planning include process including steering committee meetings, directing development to areas with the capacity to interviews, visioning workshops, focus groups and support it, making sure adjacent uses are compatible public hearings. and protecting property values. The plan unfolded in stages, moving through baseline research, creating a vision for the future and setting community priorities before developing goals, strategies and ultimately an implementation plan. It is long-range in orientation – intended to reach out 15 to 20 years – but is specific enough to guide the day-to-day activities of the town’s elected and appointed officials. Sheridan Comprehensive Plan 7 2 INTRODUCTION THE PLANNING PROCESS Steering Committee Meetings: The committee In Indiana, comprehensive planning is permitted by met six times to set priorities and discuss options. the 500 Series of Title 36-7-4 of the Indiana Code. Review teams made up of committee members This law empowers towns, cities and counties to edited every chapter. adopt plans. Project Website: A website - www.sdg.us/Sheridan- Plans must be evaluated and updated as the comprehensive-plan - was used to post all of the community changes. These changes can be gradual minutes from steering committee meetings as well or sudden. Population numbers may steadily as draft chapters of the plan. increase over 25 years but a sudden loss of a major employer could cause a sharp drop within a USING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN three-year span. Or the location of a new housing For the comprehensive plan to produce results, it subdivision or a highway improvement project could must be understandable and be put into practice. quickly increase the population. The following paragraphs will assist in understanding how to use the plan. The creation of the comprehensive plan was overseen by a steering committee comprised of Topic Chapters elected officials and residents. Community outreach Topic chapters include land use, economic efforts included: development, housing, natural resources and recreation, transportation and infrastructure, and Key Stakeholder Focus Groups: Focus groups utilities. The chapters are mostly self-contained were held to gather input from representatives from economic development, downtown, housing and neighborhoods, recreation and utilities. Key Stakeholder Interviews: Representatives from utility companies, officials from county-wide organizations and others were interviewed during the process. Public Meetings: Public meetings were held to gather input about local goals. 8 Sheridan Comprehensive Plan INTRODUCTION 2 examinations of specific issues. They include The plan also suggests changes to the zoning code research, goals and objectives. Besides making and subdivision regulations. the reader well versed in the topic, they outline years of projects for tackling problems. All of the Tips for Citizens recommendations are gathered together in the After finding your house on the future land use map, Implementation Plan. the next step is to read up on community issues that interest you. For example, consult the Land Tips for Plan Commissioners & Town Officials Use or Housing chapters. When properly applied, a comprehensive plan can make the life of the decision-maker easier. Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Community leaders can point to the research or The final word on the Town of Sheridan maps while explaining how they reached their Comprehensive Plan is that circumstances change, decision. They can refer to the input of the local and the plan should be modified to change along leaders and residents whose opinions helped shape with them. the plan’s goals. This may not mean a complete update, but every They can also ask themselves how they make year or so the plan commission, staff and others decisions without a plan. Certainly their experience should review the plan to make sure it is current. in Sheridan guides their judgment, but a group of people making decisions based on their individual It would be a poor use of the resources poured into perceptions may not lead to a shared vision of the creating a plan to let it slowly grow outdated, while town’s future. The comprehensive plan provides a the need for current planning does not. defensible, unified vision. Tips for Developers Developers typically ask for “more predictability” from decision makers in order to maximize their investments. This plan spells out the community’s preferred future; where it wants to extend infrastructure and where it wants housing, industrial and commercial development. Sheridan Comprehensive Plan 9 VISION & PLAN SUMMARY 3 10 Sheridan Comprehensive Plan VISION & PLAN SUMMARY 3 VISION AND PLAN SUMMARY Growth is coming. The third notable feature is tied to geography. Faster growth happened first in the towns closest to This chapter makes the case that Sheridan is Indianapolis, and has been moving northward. likely to experience some of the tremendous development that’s overtaking most of Hamilton Most likely Sheridan has been spared simply as County. It also spells out the town’s vision for a product of location; it is in the county’s far protecting its rural character from the downsides of northwest corner. But that is changing. While the growth. town isn’t physically closer to Indianapolis, high density urban development is moving closer to the The next chapter, Building Capacity, explains how town. Other changes, such as making U.S. 31 more the town can make investments now to prepare for streamlined, will make Sheridan seem closer to and steer opportunities as they arise. metropolitan Indianapolis. What is the evidence for growth? The following And there is no slowdown in sight. The Indiana chart is notable for a few things. The first is that Business Research Center projects that Hamilton Sheridan is one of the few Hamilton County County will continue to be the state’s fastest communities without explosive population growth. growing county until 2050, when the population will be double what it is today. So, growth is coming. How does the town want to prepare? In 2012, residents embarked on a visioning exercise to identify what they wanted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • July 1, 2019 Thru September 30, 2019 Performance B-08-DF-18-0001
    Grantee: Indiana - OCRA Grant: B-08-DF-18-0001 July 1, 2019 thru September 30, 2019 Performance Grant Number: Obligation Date: Award Date: B-08-DF-18-0001 Grantee Name: Contract End Date: Review by HUD: Indiana - OCRA Reviewed and Approved Grant Award Amount: Grant Status: QPR Contact: $67,012,966.00 Active No QPR Contact Found LOCCS Authorized Amount: Estimated PI/RL Funds: $67,012,966.00 $2,490,567.42 Total Budget: $69,503,533.42 Disasters: Declaration Number FEMA-1766-IN Narratives Disaster Damage: Recovery Needs: Public Comment: Overall This Report Period To Date Total Projected Budget from All Sources N/A $68,776,247.82 Total Budget $0.00 $68,776,247.82 Total Obligated $685,000.00 $68,788,626.33 Total Funds Drawdown $1,754,908.60 $64,368,636.50 Program Funds Drawdown $1,754,908.60 $61,628,498.35 Program Income Drawdown $0.00 $2,740,138.15 Program Income Received $6,481.18 $3,010,786.46 Total Funds Expended $1,754,908.60 $64,368,636.50 Most Impacted and Distressed Expended $0.00 $0.00 Match Contributed $0.00 $490,000.00 1 Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR) Progress Toward Required Numeric Targets Requirement Target Actual Overall Benefit Percentage (Projected) 62.54% Overall Benefit Percentage (Actual) 60.54% Minimum Non-Federal Match $0.00 $3,490,000.00 Limit on Public Services $10,051,944.90 $0.00 Limit on Admin/Planning $3,350,648.30 $2,475,496.20 Limit on Admin $0.00 $1,790,496.20 Most Impacted and Distressed Threshold (Projected) $0.00 $0.00 2 Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR) Overall Progress Narrative: IHCDA has provided project updates on open projects that are actively drawing funds; IHCDA will work toward drawing down all funds by the end of 2019 and will progress toward closeout.
    [Show full text]
  • October 1, 2010 Thru December 31, 2010 Performance Report B-08-DF
    Grantee: State of Indiana - OCRA Grant: B-08-DF-18-0001 October 1, 2010 thru December 31, 2010 Performance Report 1 Grant Number: Obligation Date: B-08-DF-18-0001 Grantee Name: Award Date: State of Indiana - OCRA Grant Amount: Contract End Date: $67,012,966.00 Grant Status: Review by HUD: Active Reviewed and Approved QPR Contact: Kathleen Weissenberger Disasters: Declaration Number FEMA-1766-DR-IN Narratives Disaster Damage: The 2008 disasters in Indiana have been among the worst in our state¡¦s history. 82 of Indiana¡¦s 92 counties were declared as Presidential disaster areas between the three disaster periods (DR-1740, DR-1766 and DR-1795). DR-1766, the result of severe flooding in late May and early June , was clearly the most substantial with 44 counties declared as Presidential disaster areas. FEMA estimates that total IA and PA for this disaster will exceed $350 million. FEMA and the SBA received 17,844 applications for IA during DR-1766, resulting in over $127 million in assistance. The PA process is now in full swing with FEMA having 471 applicants from local and state government and an estimated 2,092 project worksheets. Currently 26 million dollars have been obligated to local governments, and PA total estimates exceed $150 million. While the estimated FEMA assistance is substantial, it will not cover the estimated recovery needs in the areas of economic and workforce development, infrastructure, and housing. The following summarizes the key unmet needs in each of these areas: Economic and Workforce Development The largest economic impact to Indiana will be in the area of agriculture where early estimates indicate that crop losses will exceed $300 million and land rehabilitation losses for activities like debris and sediment removal, levee repair and soil erosion repair will exceed $200 million.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Gary, Indiana Comprehensive Plan
    City of Gary, Indiana COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State of the City Report- DRAFT This report describes constraints and opportunities affecting land use and development in the City of Gary. It is a draft report for review and refinement by City staff. It contains the enclosed information and a series of graphic exhibits. The information will be expanded where needed and will form the basis for generating concepts, strategies, and solutions for improving the land-use mix and economic development opportunities for Gary. It will be revised and updated based on Staff feedback and incorporated into the City of Gary Comprehensive Plan final report. DRAFT FOR STAFF REVIEW Prepared for the City of Gary by: The Lakota Group S.B. Friedman & Co. RQAW Huff & Huff Blalock & Brown August 1, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS August 2008 DRAFT Table of Contents Page Section 1: Introduction…………………………………………….01 Planning Mission Planning Process Planning Organization Plan Purpose Section 2: The Community…………………..............................05 Community Context Governance Structure Community History Demographic Profile Land Use Setting Zoning Overview Section 3: Parks & Open Space………...............................31 Open Space and Natural Resources Parks Pools Lake County Parks Trails & Greenways Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Programming & Volunteer Efforts Section 4: Transportation………………………………..…….….47 Roadway Network Bus Service Rail Water Air Section 5: Utility/Infrastructure …………………………….……63 Wastewater Treatment Water Electric Gas Other Utilities i Gary Comprehensive
    [Show full text]
  • OCRA Grantee
    Grantee: Indiana - OCRA Grant: B-08-DF-18-0001 January 1, 2019 thru March 31, 2019 Performance Report 1 Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR) Grant Number: Obligation Date: Award Date: B-08-DF-18-0001 Grantee Name: Contract End Date: Review by HUD: Indiana - OCRA Submitted - Await for Review Grant Award Amount: Grant Status: QPR Contact: $67,012,966.00 Active No QPR Contact Found LOCCS Authorized Amount: Estimated PI/RL Funds: $67,012,966.00 $2,490,567.42 Total Budget: $69,503,533.42 Disasters: Declaration Number FEMA-1766-IN Narratives Disaster Damage: Recovery Needs: Public Comment: Overall This Report Period To Date Total Projected Budget from All Sources N/A $68,793,626.33 Total Budget $0.00 $68,793,626.33 Total Obligated $0.00 $68,108,626.33 Total Funds Drawdown $1,650,841.11 $61,000,365.61 Program Funds Drawdown $1,920.26 $58,260,227.46 Program Income Drawdown $1,648,920.85 $2,740,138.15 Program Income Received $356,955.63 $2,847,523.05 Total Funds Expended $2,653,382.33 $61,000,365.61 Most Impacted and Distressed Expended $0.00 $0.00 Match Contributed $0.00 $0.00 2 Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR) Progress Toward Required Numeric Targets Requirement Target Actual Overall Benefit Percentage (Projected) 62.57% Overall Benefit Percentage (Actual) 58.72% Minimum Non-Federal Match $0.00 $3,000,000.00 Limit on Public Services $10,051,944.90 $0.00 Limit on Admin/Planning $3,350,648.30 $1,710,587.60 Limit on Admin $0.00 $1,710,587.60 Most Impacted and Distressed Threshold (Projected) $0.00 $0.00 Overall Progress Narrative: Currently OCRA does not have any open grants on this allocation however, IHCDA does and updates have been made the the progress narratives of those projects.
    [Show full text]
  • OCRA Grantee
    Grantee: State of Indiana - OCRA Grant: B-08-DF-18-0001 October 1, 2011 thru December 31, 2011 Performance Report 1 Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR) Grant Number: Obligation Date: Award Date: B-08-DF-18-0001 Grantee Name: Contract End Date: Review by HUD: State of Indiana - OCRA Reviewed and Approved Grant Amount: Grant Status: QPR Contact: $67,012,966.00 Active Kathleen Weissenberger Estimated PI/RL Funds: $0.00 Total Budget: $67,012,966.00 Disasters: Declaration Number No Disasters Found Narratives Disaster Damage: The 2008 disasters in Indiana have been among the worst in our state¡¦s history. 82 of Indiana¡¦s 92 counties were declared as Presidential disaster areas between the three disaster periods (DR-1740, DR-1766 and DR-1795). DR-1766, the result of severe flooding in late May and early June , was clearly the most substantial with 44 counties declared as Presidential disaster areas. FEMA estimates that total IA and PA for this disaster will exceed $350 million. FEMA and the SBA received 17,844 applications for IA during DR-1766, resulting in over $127 million in assistance. The PA process is now in full swing with FEMA having 471 applicants from local and state government and an estimated 2,092 project worksheets. Currently 26 million dollars have been obligated to local governments, and PA total estimates exceed $150 million. While the estimated FEMA assistance is substantial, it will not cover the estimated recovery needs in the areas of economic and workforce development, infrastructure, and housing. The following summarizes the key unmet needs in each of these areas: Economic and Workforce Development The largest economic impact to Indiana will be in the area of agriculture where early estimates indicate that crop losses will exceed $300 million and land rehabilitation losses for activities like debris and sediment removal, levee repair and soil erosion repair will exceed $200 million.
    [Show full text]
  • January 1, 2011 Thru March 31, 2011 Performance Report B-08-DF-18
    Grantee: State of Indiana - OCRA Grant: B-08-DF-18-0001 January 1, 2011 thru March 31, 2011 Performance Report 1 Grant Number: Obligation Date: B-08-DF-18-0001 Grantee Name: Award Date: State of Indiana - OCRA Grant Amount: Contract End Date: $67,012,966.00 Grant Status: Review by HUD: Active Reviewed and Approved QPR Contact: Kathleen Weissenberger Disasters: Declaration Number FEMA-1766-DR-IN Narratives Disaster Damage: The 2008 disasters in Indiana have been among the worst in our state¡¦s history. 82 of Indiana¡¦s 92 counties were declared as Presidential disaster areas between the three disaster periods (DR-1740, DR-1766 and DR-1795). DR-1766, the result of severe flooding in late May and early June , was clearly the most substantial with 44 counties declared as Presidential disaster areas. FEMA estimates that total IA and PA for this disaster will exceed $350 million. FEMA and the SBA received 17,844 applications for IA during DR-1766, resulting in over $127 million in assistance. The PA process is now in full swing with FEMA having 471 applicants from local and state government and an estimated 2,092 project worksheets. Currently 26 million dollars have been obligated to local governments, and PA total estimates exceed $150 million. While the estimated FEMA assistance is substantial, it will not cover the estimated recovery needs in the areas of economic and workforce development, infrastructure, and housing. The following summarizes the key unmet needs in each of these areas: Economic and Workforce Development The largest economic impact to Indiana will be in the area of agriculture where early estimates indicate that crop losses will exceed $300 million and land rehabilitation losses for activities like debris and sediment removal, levee repair and soil erosion repair will exceed $200 million.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Indiana - OCRA Grant: B-08-DF-18-0001 July 1, 2011 Thru September 30, 2011 Performance Report
    Grantee: State of Indiana - OCRA Grant: B-08-DF-18-0001 July 1, 2011 thru September 30, 2011 Performance Report 1 Grant Number: Obligation Date: B-08-DF-18-0001 Grantee Name: Award Date: State of Indiana - OCRA Grant Amount: Contract End Date: $67,012,966.00 Grant Status: Review by HUD: Active Reviewed and Approved QPR Contact: Kathleen Weissenberger Disasters: Declaration Number FEMA-1766-DR-IN Narratives Disaster Damage: The 2008 disasters in Indiana have been among the worst in our state¡¦s history. 82 of Indiana¡¦s 92 counties were declared as Presidential disaster areas between the three disaster periods (DR-1740, DR-1766 and DR-1795). DR-1766, the result of severe flooding in late May and early June , was clearly the most substantial with 44 counties declared as Presidential disaster areas. FEMA estimates that total IA and PA for this disaster will exceed $350 million. FEMA and the SBA received 17,844 applications for IA during DR-1766, resulting in over $127 million in assistance. The PA process is now in full swing with FEMA having 471 applicants from local and state government and an estimated 2,092 project worksheets. Currently 26 million dollars have been obligated to local governments, and PA total estimates exceed $150 million. While the estimated FEMA assistance is substantial, it will not cover the estimated recovery needs in the areas of economic and workforce development, infrastructure, and housing. The following summarizes the key unmet needs in each of these areas: Economic and Workforce Development The largest economic impact to Indiana will be in the area of agriculture where early estimates indicate that crop losses will exceed $300 million and land rehabilitation losses for activities like debris and sediment removal, levee repair and soil erosion repair will exceed $200 million.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calumet Region Historical Guide
    I TEDS! DETROIT H ^- ^Z^fir~ 5-,^. f I S R A I! HICAGO ' 1 < .' CALUMET DISTRICT .... The Red Man came and saw and pitched his tent amid Nature's dunelands. Ah! who shall write the epic story of the heretofore unwritten drama that was there unfolded . the fierce hatreds, and strug- gles fraught with tragedy; the sublime pas- sions of love, the long periods of peace, where in his native poetic eloquence, he conversed with earth and sky, dreaming great dreams, looking up at the brilliant stars, his classic bronze features fanned by the soft-scented breath of the Indian summer? . The buzz of machines, the whirl of wheels, and the rush . of steam everywhere fill the air The Red Man of the Calumet has vanished engulfed and forgotten in the march of civilization. Father John Baptiste deVille THE CALUMET REGION HISTORICAL GUIDE Containing the early history of the region as well as the contemporary scene within the cities of Gary, Hammond, East Chicago Indiana and (including Harbor) , Whiting Compiled by the WORKERS OF THE WRITERS' PROGRAM OF THE WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION in the State of Indiana Sponsored by THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GARY and THE GARY COMMERCIAL CLUB and CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CARMAN PRINTING CO. 1939 Copyright, 1939 By the Board of Education of Gary, Indiana FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY JOHN M. CARMODY, ADMINISTRATOR WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION F. C. HARRINGTON, COMMISSIONER FLORENCE KERR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JOHN K. JENNINGS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR INDIANA GORDON F. BRIGGS, SUPERVISOR OF INDIANA WRITERS' PROJECT Printed in the United States of America To the governor of Indiana, M.
    [Show full text]