Leo-Cedarville, IN Comprehensive Plan

TOWN OF LEO - CEDARVILLE, INDIANA Comprehensive Plan

Adopted December 10, 2013

ENVISION

2 TOWN OF LEO-CEDARVILLE, INDIANA RATIO | STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP |SHREWSBERRY

Foreword & Acknowledgements

FOREWORDThe Town of Leo-Cedarville has witnessed much change since its Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 1998, both physically and administratively. The community envisions itself to be a destination with high standards for growth and quality of life. This Comprehensive Plan update is an important step toward the achievement of that vision.

Approved

Plan Commission: November 18, 2013

Town Council: December 10, 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSpecial thanks to Town staff and the citizens of Leo- Cedarville who contributed to the creation of this plan by providing their collective insight at public workshops and stakeholder interviews. Thanks also to the following:

Comprehensive Plan Steering CommitteePeggy GartonJohn ClendenenDirk SchmidtLou MohlmanMary MohlmanKatherine CassidyMike KjeergardKevin VeatchDonna HankeyMarcia SchaeferRyan DonaghyBrian ReillyGreg PeckDeb Sharpe

Town CouncilJohn Clendenen - Council PresidentTim Richards - Vice PresidentPaul SteffensKevin VeatchTed Garton

Plan CommissionLou MohlmanDonna HankeyPaul SteffensJohn ClendenenPeggy GartonBrian GerigJanice Linn

Town StaffJohn Eastes, Clerk TreasurerPeggy Garton, Town Manager

This Plan Was Prepared By:RATIO Architects, Inc.Strategic Development GroupShrewsberry and Associates

3COMPREHENSIVE PLANADOPTED DECEMBER 10, 2013

Table of Contents

NOTE:

The graphics in the Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan, including illustrative plans, cross-sections, sketches, & photographs, are intended to portray design intent and not final architecture or site design. Creative and innovative design is encouraged.

Chapter 6: Transportation Systems ......................59Goals and Strategies ...................................................................... 60Profile: Complete Streets ............................................................... 61Profile: Access Management ......................................................... 63Thoroughfare Classifications.......................................................... 64Map: Thoroughfare Plan ................................................................. 65Right-of-Way Typical Cross-Sections ............................................. 66Intersection Improvements Focus Areas ........................................ 70Profile: Roundabouts ...................................................................... 72Multimodal Transportation System Map: Plan .............................. 75Allen County Proposed Bike/Trail Plan ........................................... 76ADA Transition Plan ....................................................................... 77

Chapter 7: Public Services & Infrastructure .........79Infrastructure Summary.................................................................. 80Map: Sewer - Capacity / Expansion............................................... 81Goals and Strategies ...................................................................... 82Profile: Creating a Capital Improvement Plan ................................ 84

Chapter 8: Parks, Trails, and Open Space ...........85Vision: 5 Year Parks and Recreation Plan. ..................................... 86Map: Park Service Areas. ............................................................... 87Goals and Strategies ..................................................................... 88General Park Design Guidelines..................................................... 93Parks Funding Sources ................................................................... 95

Chapter 9: Natural Systems & Sustainability ........99Goals and Strategies ...................................................................... 101Profile: Best Management Practices (BMPs) ................................ 102Profile: Riparian Areas .................................................................... 104

Chapter 10: Implementation Strategies ...............105Implementation Matrix................................................................... 107Funding Sources and Opportunities ............................................... 117

Appendices: Supplemental Information ...............121Appendix A: Demographics, Trade, and Gap Analysis ................... 122Appendix B: Public Input Summary Maps ...................................... 132 Appendix C: Stakeholder and Workshop Meeting Results ........... 134Appendix D: Survey Results .......................................................... 148

Community Vision ................................................4

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................5Role of the Comprehensive Plan .................................................... 6Planning Mandate .......................................................................... 7How to Use This Plan ..................................................................... 7Sustainable Policies ....................................................................... 8Public Input Process Overview ....................................................... 9Relevant Plans and Documents...................................................... 10Demographic Profile ...................................................................... 10

Chapter 2: Character, Identity, and Livability .......13Map: Historic Map and Regional Context...................................... 14History and Opportunity ................................................................. 15Goals and Strategies ...................................................................... 18Profile: Gateways and Wayfinding ................................................. 19

Chapter 3: Land Use & Guided Growth ................21Profile: Ten Principles for Smart Growth ........................................ 22Goals and Strategies ...................................................................... 22Profile: Annexation ......................................................................... 23Profile: Fiscal Impact Analysis........................................................ 24Future Land Use Designations ....................................................... 26Map: Future Land Use .................................................................... 27Profile Conservation Subdivision.................................................... 31

Chapter 4: Economic Development ......................33Goals and Strategies ...................................................................... 34Profile: Benefits of a Redevelopment Commission ........................ 36Profile: Tax Increment Financing .................................................... 37Profile: Public Private Partnerships ................................................ 39Riverside Gardens East Development Potential ............................ 40Profile: Capital Improvements Plan ................................................ 41Profile: Shop Local .......................................................................... 42Profile: Indiana Main Street Program............................................. 43

Chapter 5: Downtown ..........................................45Challenge - Where is Downtown? ................................................. 46Goals and Strategies ...................................................................... 47Redevelopment Concepts............................................................... 47Profile: Main Street as a Public Place ............................................ 55Downtown Sidewalk Gap Analysis ................................................ 57


1 Introduction

Approaching Town on State Road 1.

COMMUNITY VISION In 2013, we came together as a community gathering thoughts, information, and dreams as we ENVISIONED the future of our hometown and with the help of Ratio created this new Comprehensive Plan. We have come a long way, with many demographic changes since our original plan drafted in 1996. The following comprehensive plan is used as a long range planning tool reflecting the desires and dreams of the residents and community leaders that participated in community workshops, open houses, round table focus groups, surveys, and on line community collaborative sessions. This tool will guide the community leaders regarding future growth and development, historic preservation, economic development, revitalization, community identity, branding, safety, high quality public services, and recreational services.

Leo-Cedarville is more than just a place; it’s where we live our lives, we raise our children, we work and we play.

It is never easy to predict what may happen tomorrow or next year, or even a decade from now, it is even harder if you do not dare to dream. With time our residents change, our boards change, populations change, politicians change, our economy will change, the world around us will change, but planning gives us a chance to stay on a given path during and with those changes. Planning gives us a chance to stay on the right path toward our dreams making them a reality.

“All of our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them.” --Walt Disney

It has been a pleasure working with all those that have participated in this process.I look forward to our community’s future.

Sincerely, John Clendenen Leo-Cedarville Town Council President, 2013

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


1 Introduction

“WHAT’S THE PLAN HERE?”The RATIO Team heard that question asked in many forms throughout the planning process.

“How can we grow?” “Should we grow?” “How can we grow and yet maintain everything just as we like it?”

While some people hope the town remains fundamentally unchanged, many more expressed a vague restlessness that Leo–Cedarville may be falling behind the times, or has not taken advantage of opportunities for growth. Others said that unkempt or deteriorating homes and businesses stain the town’s image.

“I’m embarrassed by how we look, compared to who we think we are,” one resident said.

There were a lot of questions about the town’s identity, or brand. Without doubt, part of that identity crisis stems from how recently Leo–Cedarville was incorporated, and how it was forged from two separate communities.

For instance, it’s hard to imagine that many of the people who work in Fort Wayne and live in upscale subdivisions on the town’s west side closely identify with Leo–Cedarville. They might not have much interest in reviving downtown.

Because of these and other challenges, the Leo–Cedarville Comprehensive Land Use plan focuses on:

• Settling questions about how important community and economic growth is to the Town

• Deciding what public investments the community is willing to make to attract that growth, and

• Building the capacity – in everything from planning to infrastructure - to respond to market demands and to attract growth.

ROLE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANThe Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan is the long-range plan for land use and development. The plan is a set of goals, policies, maps, illustrations, and implementation strategies that state how the town should grow physically, socially, and economically.

This plan establishes the framework and provides the direction for Town-elected and appointed officials and staff with which to make decisions regarding the desired location and intensity of growth, development and re-development opportunities, transportation facilities, parks, and public services. Methods to help create a healthy economic environment, actions to protect the natural environment, and cost-effective delivery of public services are also included.

As noted throughout this document, the Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide and is subject to change and interpretation by the Town Council and Plan Commission, and is always part of an ongoing planning and implementation process that should periodically be re-evaluated.


1Introduction

Planning Mandate

The Town of Leo-Cedarville’s Advisory Plan Commission serves the incorporated areas of Town.

IC 36-7-4-501 requires the development and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan to promote public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, or the general welfare and for the sake of efficiency and economy in the process of development.

By law, a community must have an adopted Comprehensive Plan in order to establish and implement Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinances, which provide the “legal teeth” (requirements, incentives, and penalties) for realizing or achieving the vision and goals contained within the Comprehensive Plan. Further, IC 36-7-4-502 states that the required minimum plan elements include:

• A statement of objectives for the future development of the jurisdiction.• A statement of policy for the land use development of the jurisdiction.• A statement of policy for the development of public ways, public places, public lands,

public structures, and public utilities.

State law allows the incorporation of more sections into a Comprehensive Plan to address issues and goals specific to the jurisdiction including but not limited to the natural environment, parks and recreation, and economic development.

HOW TO USE THIS PLANA Comprehensive Plan is a long-range planning tool reflecting the collective wishes of residents and community leaders. The Plan should be used to assist the Plan Commission, Town officials, and Town staff to ensure that development decisions are balanced with protection and conservation of natural, cultural and historic resources according to public preferences and input. The Plan Commission should use the plan as the basis for decisions when approving development or subdivision plans and when considering zoning changes. The plan may also be used by members of the development community when making decisions about future investments.

The Town Council, the Town’s legislative body, also may use the plan to assist with determining budgets, setting priorities for capital improvements and infrastructure, or in staffing decisions. The Plan should be reviewed annually and updated every five to ten years in response to land use trends, changes in population, or major events that may affect the community’s future. This will ensure the Plan and its individual elements remain relevant. Diligent monitoring and maintenance of the plan’s goals, and strategies will ensure proper guidance. The Town will need to identify a specific leader, employed by the Town and skilled in public administration and management, to lead the charge in implementing the Plan.


1 Introduction

Leo-Cedarville’s Comprehensive Plan represents a long-range initiative to guide the future of the Town in a way that reflects its particular challenges and unique characteristics. Each chapter states the goals, and strategies that address topics, influential to the success and representing the priorities of Leo-Cedarville’s residents and stakeholders. The format and presentation of goals and strategies is depicted and described below:

SUSTAINABLE POLICIES

Throughout this Comprehensive Plan small, green leaf ( ) icons have been placed next to policies considered to be environmentally sustainable. Recommendations within this plan marked by the leaf symbol may include:

• Encouragement for mixed-use, compact development• Alternative transportation methods to reduce automobile trips and encourage

healthy, walkable lifestyles• Protection of natural resources such as riparian areas, forests, water features, and air

quality• Policies that encourage resource conservation• Coordinated infrastructure decisions that ensure fiscally responsible expansion

A Goal directly supports the collective efforts and ideals of the community reflected in the Vision Statement.

Strategies

1. A Strategy provides a variety of avenues or opportunities to achieve the intent of a Goal.

Sustainability: “A balanced approach that considers people, planet, and prosperity.” - Embracing Sustainability in Community Plans. Planning Magazine, April 2010.


1Introduction

PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS OVERVIEWA variety of methods, detailed below, were used to gather community input and ensure that the Comprehensive Plan reflects a collective vision for the Town’s current and future residents.

Project Steering Committee

Approximately 15 community ambassadors participated on the steering committee throughout the process to ensure that the plan accurately reflects the true character and vision for the Town of Leo-Cedarville. Committee members represented large and small businesses, residents, Town staff, board and commission members, county economic development and planning, the development community, and others who met over the course of the 11-month project to identify strengths and weaknesses, goals and objectives, the community’s vision, and review drafts of the plan.

Key Stakeholder Interviews

Members of specific constituent groups with common vested interests (aka stakeholders) were invited to small group meetings held on March 12, 2013 to discuss their concerns and desires for Leo-Cedarville relative to the Comprehensive Plan. Stakeholders included town staff, public safety/law enforcement, utilities, county, MPO, local business, and school representatives. Approximately 20 people attended the small group meetings which consisted of a presentation on the process and information included within a comprehensive plan, and results of the demographics analysis. The small groups were then given the opportunity to speak about the community, individual areas of expertise as pertains to Leo-Cedarville, and any strengths or weaknesses that they wished to highlight. We have included the stakeholder summary in the appendix on page xx.

Public Workshops

More than 85 members of the community participated in a workshop that took place March 12, 2013. The workshop included a presentation regarding the planning process and several small group exercises.

Priorities for this plan that arose from those meetings include:• Provide more pedestrian and bicycle connectivity;• Continue to invest in expanded recreational amenities;• Strengthen identity of streetscape and façades improvements of old Leo

Downtown;• View the Cedarville Reservoir as an amenity and improve the image as

well as the quality of the body of water.

Steering committee meeting.

Stakeholder group interview discussion.


1 Introduction

Open House

A public open house held on August 29, 2013 allowed the community to review and comment on a complete draft of the Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan. Drafts were available at the Leo-Cedarville Town Hall and online in advance of the meeting to provide the opportunity for a thorough review prior to the public meeting.

RELEVANT PLANS AND DOCUMENTS This is an update to the 1998 Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan. There are several previously prepared plans that are valuable resources and include recommendations on a specific topic such as downtown development or parks. We referenced the following plans while preparing this Comprehensive Plan update.

These Plans Include: • Leo-Cedarville Five Year Park and Recreation Master Plan, 2010-2014• Leo-Cedarville Downtown Action Agenda (prepared by Hyatt Palma), 2008• Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan, 1998• Plan It Allen - Allen County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

DEMOGRAPHICS PROFILEDemographics can be useful tools in helping elected officials, community leaders, and ordinary citizens make informed decisions and to craft policies. While, these reports are only a snapshot of communities and demonstrate only a small portion of what is actually happening inside a community, the information in this report can help in the decision making process.

Most of the demographic data available to Leo-Cedarville in 2013 comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau conducts their official population census of the United States every ten years, called the decennial census. The most recent survey was taken in April 2010. The 2010 Census only collected information on population, race, age, educational attainment, relationship status, and housing. All other statistical information such as income, poverty, employment, etc. is now estimated through the American Community Survey which releases information in five-year estimates from multiple surveys.

Additional sources include the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Indiana Department of Education, and the Indiana Business Research Center. In some instances, information specifically on Leo-Cedarville was unavailable; in such cases, we collected information on Allen County instead. In every instance, we used the most up-to-date and specific data available. The full detailed demographics analysis and projections can be found in Appendix C.

“A Packed House” - March 12, 2013 public workshop with more than 85 attendees.


1Introduction

Leo-Cedarville became incorporated as a Town on January 1, 1996. Since the incorporation of the Town only two population censuses have been conducted.

Leo-Cedarville’s population jumped nearly 30 percent (821 people) between 2000 and 2010 to 3,603 persons. In 2011 Leo-Cedarville’s population had increased from the 2010 census number by .7 percent to 3,634 (STATS Indiana). Allen County as a whole, has experienced similar trends. STATS Indiana estimates an increase of .7 percent for the county. Over this same year long period the state of Indiana grew .4 percent. Allen County (including Leo-Cedarville) population is projected to increase by almost 23% by 2050. Leo-Cedarville’s population is different than Indiana in most cases. The percent of individuals in retirement (65+) is about 4 percent lower in Leo-Cedarville than in the state as a whole. As for the working age population (roughly 16 to 65), the town is 2 percent lower than the state level.

While these differences are small, Leo-Cedarville has a much younger population than the state average with the number of individuals under the age of 19 roughly 8 percent higher.

Leo-Cedarville’s current median age is 37.5. This is slightly higher than the state and Allen County’s at 36.8 and 35.8, respectively.

The percentage of Leo-Cedarville residents with at least a high school degree has increased by 3 percentage points to 96.2% since 2000. The percentage of Leo-Cedarville residents with at least a bachelor’s degree has increased over 11 percentage points to 37.4% since 2000 and has surpassed the state average increase of only a little over 3 percentage.

Leo-Cedarville’s median income has decreased from 2000 to 2011, but is still higher than the state median income. Leo-Cedarville’s median income has decreased by 29% ($19,564) since 2000 to $67,411. The pattern shown here is one that was seen around the country, with the economic downturn. Despite the downturn Leo-Cedarville’s poverty rate (6.3%) is less than half of the Allen County and state averages.

Major employers in Leo-Cedarville are education services, healthcare, and social assistance. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leo-Cedarville has a total labor force (16+) of 1,684. The number of unemployed is 118 (or 7 percent) of the total labor force. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, almost 10 percent of Leo-Cedarville’s labor force worked in town and around 90 percent worked outside of the town. All of this commuting for Leo-Cedarville residents equates to a mean travel to work time of 22 minutes, which is a minute under that of all total Indiana residents.

2007 to 2010 American Community Survey Data indicates Indiana’s median home value at $123,300 and Leo-Cedarvilles at $163,200. Similar to household income, the median home values at the town level dropped by almost 6 percent from 2000 to 2011 (due in part to the economic downturn and the bursting of the so-called “housing bubble”.) There


1 Introduction

were 1,100 housing units in Leo-Cedarville. Owner-occupied housing equates for 93% of housing and renter -occupied housing is near 7%. The Leo-Cedarville owner-occupied rate is much higher than the state average (30% above) and the renter-occupied rate is much lower than the state average (19% below).

Moreover, there is practically no vacant housing in Leo-Cedarville. This indicates that there is a high demand for housing, a high retention of residents, and a low supply of new housing.

Facts at A Glance• 2011 Population - 3,634 People• 2011 Median Age - 37.5 Years• 2011 Median Income - $67,411• 2011 Labor Force (16+ Years) - 1,684 People• 2010 Median Home Value $163,200• 2011 Housing - 93% Owner Occupied, 7% Renter Occupied (1,100 Housing Units)

Final Snapshot

Leo-Cedarville is:• A growing community which retains current residents but, that has little vacant

housing to offer prospective residents. • Leo-Cedarville has a much younger population than the state average. The projected

growth in the county population combined with the high population in the school age and middle-aged residents and a slight rise in median age demonstrates important trends that could affect growth for Leo-Cedarville.

• Leo-Cedarville is an upwardly mobile community with a higher than average educational attainment.

• Leo-Cedarville demonstrates a median income and low poverty level which indicates relative affluence when compared with Allen County and state averages.

• The bulk of Leo-Cedarville’s population works at least 20 minutes out of Town.• Leo-Cedarville’s tax base is carried primarily by owner-occupied residents and enjoys

higher than average home values coupled a strong demand for new housing. These are positive signs for future housing growth.

Leo-Cedarville demonstrates a median income and low poverty level which indicates relative affluence when compared with Allen County and state averages.

Leo Jr.-Sr. High School sign.

CHAPTER 2

CHARACTER, IDENTITY,

AND LIVABILITY


2 Character, Identity, and Livability

Leo-Cedarville was incorporated in 1996 in order to control its destiny and maintain its identity. It lies along the Cedarville Reservoir constructed in the middle of the last century and is bisected by State Route 1. Leo-Cedarville is located 6 miles north of Fort Wayne. In 2013, there are many citizens who have lived in the town for decades, and as many or more that have lived in town for 5-15 years. Most agree that maintaining and enhancing the character of the Town is important.

Some of the goals from the previous comprehensive plan related to community identity including developing a town hall, creating a community festival and outdoor meeting place and installing banners and flags downtown, and to demarcate Town entries have been accomplished. This chapter seeks to outline strategies to continue these efforts.

REGIONAL CONTEXT1876 map showing Cedarville and Hamilton (Leo Post Office).

Leo-Cedarville is located 10 Minutes from Parkview Hospital and I-69/I-469 exit 316.

Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Indiana, 1876

South Bend

Leo-CedarvilleFort Wayne

Angola

Auburn

South Bend

Indianapolis

Leo-CedarvilleFort Wayne

NTS

Allen County Public Library Allen County Public Library


2Character, Identity, and Livability

HISTORY AND OPPORTUNITYA Potawatomi village was located near what is now Leo-Cedarville in the early nineteenth century. The Potawatomi were forcibly removed to Kansas during the 1830s. Americans of European descent began to settle the area after 1833 and Cedar Creek Township was laid out within Allen County in 1837. Jacob Notestine planted the township’s first orchard in 1836 using seeds brought by John Chapman (1774-1845), better known as Johnny Appleseed.

Cedarville was platted in 1838 and was the first town in Cedar Creek Township. A post office operated at Cedarville from 1844 to 1905. St. Leo’s Catholic Church was established nearby before 1838 and a settlement developed near the church. A post office called Leo was established at this settlement in 1846. In 1849 a town called Hamilton was platted around the Leo settlement, taking its name from James Hamilton, a member of the group who filed the plat, but the town continued to be known as Leo.

Cedarville experienced growth during the mid nineteenth century but its population declined by more than half, from 113 to 50, between 1880 and 1900. Leo continued to grow during this period, reaching a population of 500 by 1900. The two towns remained small, rural communities through the middle of the twentieth century. The context of both communities was changed by the damming of the St. Joseph River to create the Centerville Reservoir. Suburban development during the late twentieth century increased the population of the area and the towns came together to incorporate as Leo-Cedarville in 1996.

Leo-Cedarville retains a handful of significant historic buildings that provide a connection to its history and contribute to the town’s distinct sense of place.

Historic buildings help to define the State Road 1 corridor in downtown Leo (above left); the Klopfenstein Building (above right) has been a major landmark of downtown Leo since its construction in 1913; view of the Klopfenstein Building in 1927 (below).

Ludwig Shoe Repair building along State Road 1 (below left) helps to define the gateway into downtown Leo; the former Leo Methodist Church was built c.1861 and moved to its present site in 1915 (below middle and right).

Allen County Public Library

Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory



These historic resources should be preserved to help maintain the community’s unique identity, authentic sense of place, and a connection to its history.

The historic core of Leo along State Road 1 contains several historic buildings that help to define the community’s character. Most notable is the W. B. & F. Klopfenstein Building (1913), the town’s most imposing historic commercial building. Other historic commercial buildings may reveal more of their unique character through appropriate rehabilitation. These include buildings at 14927 State Road 1 and 10426 Walnut Street. Historic houses at 14914 State Road 1 and 10600 Hosler Road also retain character-defining elements and could reveal more of their historic character through appropriate rehabilitation.

The Ludwig Shoe Repair Shop building at 14801 State Road 1 and the historic houses at 14805 and 14811 State Road 1 help to define the gateway into the former downtown area of Leo. Although altered, the former Leo Methodist Church (c.1861) is among the earliest remaining public buildings in Leo-Cedarville. Historic buildings outside of the town center that help to define the community’s character include the former Apostolic Church, now Harvest Fellowship, on Grabill Road the Joseph D. Schlatter House at 11107 Grabill Road, and the house at 11134 Grabill Road.

The historic Cedarville School at 12927 Elsworth Street fronts the historic Cedarville public square. Although altered, the c.1890 building retains several character-defining elements including the stone arched entrance, brick corbelling over the original window openings, and a corbelled brick cornice. Appropriate rehabilitation could reveal more of the building’s historic character and could reinforce the identity of Leo-Cedarville.

Historic open spaces are integral parts of Leo-Cedarville’s sense of place. Leo-Cedarville Park, originally the public square of Cedarville, is representative of the type of civic open

The historic Cedarville School (above) originally matched this standard Cedar Township schoolhouse design (left).Allen County Public Library



The Leo Memorial Cemetery (below left) and Leo Memorial Park (below right) are significant historic open spaces; the stone fenceposts and gateways help to define the State Road 1 corridor.

space set aside by Indiana’s nineteenth century town planners. The Cedarville school once stood on the square before it was replaced by a later building fronting the square on Elsworth Street. The park’s mature trees, playground, and community building reflect investment in public space by several generations of town residents.

The old Leo Memorial Cemetery and the later Leo Memorial Park are also significant historic open spaces. Cemeteries were regarded as park spaces during the nineteenth century and were often used for picnics and other recreational activities. The stone fence posts and gateways of the Leo Memorial Park are significant historic landscape features along the State Road 1 corridor. The old St. Leo Roman Catholic Cemetery, now known as St. Michael’s Cemetery, is another historic cemetery off Amstutz Road.

These historic resources provide a connection to Leo-Cedarville’s past, lend the community a distinct sense of place, and offer opportunities for redevelopment. Preservation, appropriate rehabilitation, and sustainable long-term use of the community’s historic resources will reinforce Leo-Cedarville’s identity and enhance its charming, small-town character.



Goal 1: Retain, enhance, and promote the “small town ” image and character of Leo – Cedarville, and support initiatives that strengthen the Town’s identity as a welcoming community.

Strategies:

1. Identify community gateways and corridors as priority areas for enhancements to the streetscape, landscaping, wayfinding signage, themed street furnishings, and defined multi-use paths.

2. Install, distinctive gateway monument signage constructed of durable materials and landscaped at major entrances to Town.

3. Provide wayfinding signage to define the edges of the “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District.”

4. Continue to build upon the summer Freedom Festival success and program similar activities for all seasons which also connect festivals and events to downtown commercial areas.

5. Bring together community organizations on a regular basis to coordinate and support community endeavors.

6. Continue to develop the Town brand as a family-oriented community (safe, walkable good parks, schools, etc.)

Goal 2: Engage in a Town-wide campaign emphasizing Leo – Cedarville as a distinct, unique community.

Strategies:

1. Install gateway signage, re-brand with the importance of the conjoined Leo – Cedarville in mind and work to connect neighborhoods both visually (through design strategies) and physically (through multi-use paths, similar materials, etc.).

2. Enhance the Town’s design standards for major street corridors to ensure consistency in branding, materials, landscaping, lighting, and other elements.

3. Landscape the SR 1/ “Leo- Cedarville Downtown District” and commercial areas.

4. Ensure the preservation, maintenance, and continued use of historic buildings and open spaces to maintain the Town’s unique character. The cemeteries are significant historic open spaces. The older cemetery was likely regarded as a park in the 19th century.

Examples of Leo-Cedarville signage (above) and branding (below).



Goal 3: Enhance the quality of life and sense of place in Leo – Cedarville through strong urban design standards for residential and commercial development.

Strategies:

1. Update the Zoning Ordinance to provide design standards that “encourage the preservation, maintenance, and continued use of the Town’s historic buildings and open spaces” especially for the two commercial districts north and south of the intersection of Leo-Grabill Road and SR. 1, as well as architectural standards for residential development.

2. Update the sign standards in the Zoning Ordinance to permit signs that are appropriate and in character in downtown zoning districts including but not limited to projecting, signs and “A” frame (sandwich board signs).

3. Enact an Unwholesome Environment Ordinance to provide a means to require property owners to clean up properties which have been identified as a nuisance, environmental, or public health hazard.

PROFILE: GATEWAYS AND WAYFINDING

Introduction

The design and location of gateway and wayfinding elements should reflect the unique aspects of a location and concisely inform travelers of their arrival and directions to attractions throughout the community.

Gateway Considerations

Community gateways can shape a person’s first impression of a town, while reflecting and strengthening the unique features and values of the community. Gateways are simply a means to designate or differentiate one area from another through distinct changes in the urban setting. Such gateway features can vary in scale or use, and can take the form of a signature building, welcome signage, unique street lighting, public art, landscaping, or similar streetscape enhancements along a prominent corridor.

Wayfinding Considerations

When considering wayfinding or directional signage, it is important to account for multiple perspectives: pedestrian vs. vehicular traffic; visitors vs. residents, etc.

Examples of gateway and wayfinding signage.



An example of proposed elements for the Town of Fairmount, IN, designed to strengthen and unify gateways and streetscapes.

This Leo-Cedarville community commercial area is disconnected in theme and scale from other commercial areas. It is also lacks pedestrian amenities.

Signs detract from corridor character.

See also Placemaking Survey Results on page 157.

CHAPTER 3

LAND USE & GUIDED GROWTH


3 Land Use and Guided Growth

P R O F I L E : T E N PRINCIPLES FOR SMART GROWTH ON THE SUBURBAN FRINGE1. Create a shared vision for the future... and stick to it

2. Identify and sustain green infrastructure

3. Remember that the right design in the wrong place is not Smart Growth

4. Protect environmental systems and conserve resources

5. Provide diverse housing types and opportunities

6. Build centers of concentrated mixed use

7. Use multiple connections to enhance mobility and circulation

8. Deliver sustainable transportation choices

9. Preserve the community’s character

10. Make it easy to do the right thing

-- Corrigan, Mary Beth, et.al. Ten Principles for Smart Growth on the Suburban Fringe. Washington D.C.: ULI- the Urban Land Institute, 2004.

This chapter provides goals and strategies to create a balanced land use pattern that best serves the needs of the community without compromising the integrity of Leo-Cedarville’s identity. Some goals in the 1998 Plan appeared conflicting such as wanting to preserve farmland and encourage growth or to attract executive housing and provide affordable housing but these can be compatible and accomplished successfully with the guidance of the plan and Future Land Use map.

Leo-Cedarville is 3.71 square miles excluding water. A majority of the Town’s land is devoted to residential development, some on roadside lots but many within newer subdivisions. There are four distinct commercial areas primarily strung out along SR 1 and one commercial strip development on Grabill Road. An important component of this Plan is to define a cohesive, connected downtown district (see Chapter 5: Downtown) .

The Town has room to grow on its fringe within its existing corporate limits but also has the opportunity to expand through annexation into the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. Like many cities and towns, Leo-Cedarville has a desire to also focus on the redevelopment and revitalization of portions of the Town that have suffered from little investment in infrastructure or buildings in decades. The Future Land Use Map on page 31, which typically has a horizon of 5-10 or even 15 years, designates land uses for broad areas and illustrates areas for potential annexation.

As described in Chapter 1: Character, Identity, & Livability, the majority of the citizens of Leo-Cedarville want to share their charming small town and are interested in growing. Space for new residents and/or businesses can be provided through annexation of parcels on the fringes of the town or through infill development. Leo-Cedarville proximity to Fort Wayne (six miles) makes it an attractive place to live for commuters seeking a friendly, small-town atmosphere. With the current favorable economic market, there are opportunities to expand and offer high-quality, housing.

INFILL DEVELOPMENT

Effectively utilizing existing resources rather than expanding outward into “undeveloped” areas is commonly referred to as “redevelopment” or “infill development”. This is an effective tool as it utilizes existing infrastructure and revitalizes vacant or underutilized lots and structures within an urban/developed area. In Leo-Cedarville, this strategy would best be applied to the existing commercial areas to create vibrant districts with a mix of commercial, institutional and residential uses and a goal to preserve or at least respect the compact, pedestrian-friendly historic development pattern. Redevelopment would only occur on properties primarily adjacent to the main thoroughfare and where owners want to participate. Proposed development is subject to review to ensure that it fits in with the existing residential and commercial properties.


3Land Use and Guided Growth

PROFILE: ANNEXATIONThere are many viable reasons for a community to consider annexation.

A town can only collect taxes within its incorporated area. Annexation assists communities in achieving a better balance between users of public services, like roads, parks and recreation, waste management, economic development efforts, and others, and those who actually pay into the taxing system that supports them.

Annexation can assist a community to manage emergency services more comprehensively by collecting them into one unit of government.

Annexation can help a community better plan for its future. Certain areas may be desirable for either focused growth or protection from development. By annexing that land, plans

can be put in place to ensure that the goals of a city or town are supported with regard to the land on a community’s edges.

Annexation can provide an effective growth management tool. Communities often implement policies that require potential municipal utility customers to agree to voluntary annexation either at the time of extension or in the future, as determined by local decision-makers.

Annexation provides a voice to residents and businesses who previously may have been outside of the incorporated limits, but were affected by policies being made within the community. By annexing them, they are given opportunities to participate in public policy and run for public office.

Source: Adapted from “Why Annex?” - City of Kokomo, http://www.cityofkokomo.org

Goal 1: Promote a sustainable, orderly balance of development and land use that secures the fiscal well-being of the Town and its tax base.

Strategies:

1. Work with utility companies to identify existing capacity and plans for future and expansion in order to determine areas in which the community can grow. Arrange land uses and note where infrastructure improvements are needed in order to facilitate the community’s vision for growth and development.

2. Require fiscal plans for new developments and require developers to pay to connect to infrastructure (sewer and water) where practicable.

3. Encourage the Town to conduct a study on the fiscal impact of existing land use and to identify redevelopment areas as part of an economic development plan (see Profile: Fiscal Impact Study p. 24).

4. Establish and permit densities which are favorable to the Town’s tax base and are compatible with existing development.

“The right design in the wrong place is not smart growth.” -- Project Steering Committee



PROFILE: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSISFiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) is a tool that can be used to determine the fiscal impact that a proposed development will have on the local government’s ability to provide needed infrastructure and services to that development. It compares the tax revenue generated by the proposed development with the services it will require (roads, utilities, public safety, schools, etc.) and the resulting public cost of providing those services. In this way, the local government can gauge whether the proposed development would possibly pay for itself or if it would create a fiscal strain on the community.

Fiscal Impact Analyses must be based on the most recent, accurate data.

First, operating costs (cost of public services) for each public service must be prepared. This can be done on a detailed

level by determining the cost of providing services to different land use types. The result is a series of multipliers that can represent the per-acre or per-unit cost of providing each community service.

Second, estimate the revenues that the community would collect from the proposed development considering all local taxing districts (property, school, library, parks, etc.).

Finally, compare the results. If the comparison determines that a development’s “cost” to the community will exceed the revenue, other tools like impact fees can be used to offset this condition.

It should be noted that this is an estimate only, and that it should not be used as the sole decision-making tool when a land use proposal is evaluated. It can, however, prove to be an enlightening process for local officials and the public if implemented effectively.

Goal 2: Emphasize the importance of situating appropriate land uses within certain districts as outlined on the Future land Use Map

Strategies:

1. Make clear, through stated policies and code, what the Town’s expectations are for key redevelopment and development areas. These can include context sensitive design standards and zoning codes as well as a fiscal impact analysis requirements to determine the impact on schools, utilities, municipal services, and infrastructure.

2. Use the Future Land Use Map to guide development and require new developments to conform to the Comprehensive Plan.

3. Maintain compatibility between residential and non-residential areas, specifically with respect to traffic, noise, and lighting.

4. Encourage development wherein the layout, scale and physical features respect the human scale and historical development pattern.

5. Encourage development on existing sites that are vacant or underutilized within existing commercial areas on SR 1/ Leo Road/ Center Street first. Such areas may already have sewer service and could be utilized as a “quick win” for redevelopment.

6. Strengthen policies and ordinances to encourage context sensitive development that is cognizant of natural features and the existing built environment.

“Human scale” refers to the proportional relationship of the physical environment (buildings, trees, parking lots, etc.) to human dimensions.



Existing CVS at SR 1 and Amstutz Road.

Existing SR 1 north of Hosler Rd. characterized as the “Old Leo Downtown”.

Compatible development that fills in vacant or underutilized sites (infill) is encouraged for revitalization. The use of sites serviced by existing infrastructure in already developed areas proves a winning situation for the Town, developers/business owners alike due to increased activity in areas already engaged in commercial land use and decreased infrastructure cost.



THE FUTURE LAND USE PLANThis section outlines some of the general land use patterns and the character of development or growth in the future. The designation and location of these land uses is based on a number of factors including:

• The Town’s current and future infrastructure capacities• The location and character of existing land uses and natural features• Relevant input and feedback from the general public and Steering Committee• The vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan

The Future Land Use designations take into account the character, type, associated infrastructure, and design of uses that could occur. It is important for town officials and other decision-makers to refer to the Future Land Use Map when reviewing and approving future development in Leo-Cedarville.

Rural Residential/Agricultural

Existing residential lots containing single-family housing units could also have agricultural related uses, such as stables and small-scale non-commercial food production and limited livestock production. Activities characterized as agritourism (farm trails, farmers’ markets, and roadside stands) may also be here. New lands annexed to the town without a development proposal should receive this designation.

Suburban Residential

Suburban residential is typically found in newer neighborhoods. This development pattern should provide a connected street network to adjoining neighborhoods with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Cul-de-sac streets, which do not encourage connectivity, should be minimized. New development should always be required to hook on to utility services. Conservation subdivisions are an alternative type of land development tool for use when desired suburban residential is adjacent to areas desired for conservation of sensitive habitats including wetlands and riparian areas.

See page 31 for more information on Conservation Subdivisions.

Rural Residential.

Suburban Residential (above and right).



LEGEND


Low Density Residential

Mixed-Use Downtown

Commercial

Public/Semi-public/Institutional

Park/ Conservation

Wooded Areas

Water

Flood Plain

Potential Annexation Areas

Leo - Cedarville Comprehensive Plan

Future Land Use Map

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Metea Park

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir

Cedar Creek

Nettlehorst Ditch

L-C Park

Riverside

Gardens

DNR Boat Launch

CedarvilleBoat Launch

Hosler Rd. Hosler Rd.

Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

.dR zt ut s

mA

. dR enya

W

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

.tS r et ne

C / 1R

S

. dR yal

C

. dR ztr a

whcS

Schwart

z Rd.

.dR r etl a

H

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

LEGEND


Low Density Residential

Mixed-Use Downtown

Commercial

Public/Semi-public/Institutional

Park/ Conservation

Wooded Areas

Water

Flood Plain



Future Land Use Map

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Metea Park

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir

Cedar Creek

Nettlehorst Ditch

L-C Park

Riverside

Gardens

DNR Boat Launch



Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

.dR zt ut s

mA

. dR enya

W

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

.tS r et ne

C / 1R

S

. dR yal

C

. dR ztr a

whcS

Schwart

z Rd.

.dR r etl a

H

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

NTS



Mixed - Use Downtown

This designation represents small to medium-scale commercial development with an emphasis on serving surrounding residential as well as the entire community. The “mix of use” can be vertical - in the same structure with retail below and residential or office above, or horizontal with retail, office, residential and institutional uses adjacent to each other.

Residential housing types might include small-lot urban single family as exists on the streets off of Leo Road / Center Street (Main, Walnut, Wayne) or duplexes, townhomes and multifamily that might be appropriate for the parcels east of Riverside Gardens. Civic, institutional uses and parks may also be interspersed. Mixed-use commercial is located at significant intersections or nodes with adequate visibility (enough daily traffic to support sales) and where businesses can share a pool of customers. New development should be oriented toward the street with sidewalks and street trees as pedestrian buffers. Infill development should be encouraged as long as it respects the traditional / historic scale and pattern of the neighborhood.

Any site development should maintain a grid-street network with alleys and garages in the rear of lots similar to the existing homes, have a high level of connectivity to adjacent uses, served by utilities. The visibility of this type of development sets the tone for the community image, reinforcing the need for high quality development standards for site design, building materials, landscaping, and architectural features.

Commercial

Commercial areas have some similarities to the downtown designation (retail, service, office and municipal) that serve the needs of the overall community but do not typically contain residential. These types of land uses typically are auto-oriented and located along the major arterials and at intersections such as SR 1 and at the intersection with Hosler/Grabill Road. Development should still strive for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to surrounding areas.

This type of development contributes strongly to the community’s image and sense of prosperity, and results from the need for high-quality development standards. The standards should be applicable to the site design, building materials, architectural features, pedestrian access, landscaping and signage. Controlled access (limiting curb cuts) and cross-access easements between business should be considered to mitigate potential traffic congestion.

Example of Mixed-Use Downtown development.

Commercial land use examples.



Business Park / Light Industrial

There are no lands with this designation at this time but the description establishes guidelines for the future. This designation identifies areas most suitable for larger scale businesses, contractor, research or light assembly facilities with good highway access. Sidewalks or trails should be provided and connect to nearby neighborhoods or commercial areas for the benefit of employees. Access to state-of-the-art technology such as fiber optics and other services is a key to success.

Institutional / Public/Semi-Public

Institutional uses generally include schools, and municipal facilities including Town hall, libraries, fire stations, and utility operations. New institutional facilities should be built in areas the Town is has identified as revitalization areas and can be catalysts for other development. These facilities should be designed with high quality standards and materials that reflect the Town’s desired character.

Park / Conservation

Lands with this designation encompass natural areas (woodland, riparian, wetland) as well as active and passive park lands, trails, and greenways. Passive open space include woodlands (called out with a separate symbol on the Future Land Use Map on p. 27), creek corridors, or trails and picnic areas. Active recreation includes but is not limited to public or private sports fields and courts, golf courses, or suitable areas for facilities like trails or developed community parks.

Development should be limited to or adjacent to natural areas that contribute to the ecological health of the community with areas of transition. New neighborhoods should include semi-public open space and provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Town-wide system. Expanded park space should employ best management practices (see profile, page 75) and utilize high-quality, durable, sustainable materials.

Potential Growth/Annexation Area

The Land Use map identifies some areas on the edges of Leo-Cedarville as having potential for growth within the 15 year time frame of this Comprehensive Plan. Development should not occur prior to annexation and extension of utilities and roadway improvements. Example or Park/Conservation land

uses.

Town Hall is an example Institutional/Public/Semi-Public uses.



PROFILE: CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS

Conservation Subdivisions

A Conservation Subdivision - also called cluster development - is a form or residential development that concentrates buildings on a portion of a site. A conservation subdivision may permit reduced bulk and density standards for lot size, setback, street width and other features in the designated zoning district to allow permanent preservation of environmentally-sensitive natural features or open space for residents. Open space is an integral part of conservation subdivisions and can act as a natural buffer, facilitate wildlife movement, protect watersheds and sensitive habitats, or allow for continued crop or livestock production.

What are the Advantages of Conservation Subdivisions?

Often, developers will agree to create conservation subdivisions because they allow higher densities and preserve aesthetically-pleasing natural areas. Developers are able to avoid areas of the site that cost more to develop, such as woodlands, streams, or wetlands without sacrificing the number of units they can build. The increased density can create a reduction of infrastructure, engineering, and construction costs. In addition, conservation subdivisions are sometimes easier to market and sell because of the preserved natural amenity. Homeowners can also benefit from conservation subdivisions. With flexible lot arrangements, homes can be arranged to take advantage of open space or natural views. These developments can include trails to open spaces, streams, woodlands, or similar natural areas accessible from within the development, as well as by others in the larger community.

Conservation subdivisions can also benefit farming practices. Farmland being preserved must be large enough to continue crop production in an economical and sustainable way. Continued agricultural operations could also evolve into other farming practices to produce high-value crops like vegetables, fruits, or nursery stock.

What do Conservation Subdivisions Look Like?

Conservation subdivisions enhance the preservation of natural features by grouping structures into efficient pods or linear shapes. The conservation areas within these developments can include open fields, floodplains, woodlands, wetlands, pastures, or agricultural crop fields.

Conservation subdivision example - Prairie Crossing, Illinois.



For developments that incorporate agricultural practices into the design, developers and realtors, as well as land use decision makers, should be aware of the agricultural practices and inform potential residents.

Roads within the conservation subdivisions may be narrower and uncurbed taking advantage of the adjacent roadside landscaping to filter runoff and recharge groundwater. Stormwater management may incorporate innovative natural drainage systems utilizing pre-approved Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Who Maintains Conservation Subdivision Open Space?

Usually, common open space in conservation subdivisions is held and maintained by either a homeowner’s association (for subdivisions), or the owner of the development, and in some cases, the land is dedicated to a local government or land trust to maintain as accessible conservation space.



This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 4

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


4 Economic Development

Because it’s been a relatively short time since Leo-Cedarville became incorporated, the Town is still assembling the building blocks of its economy.

Fortunately, the Town has assets to develop and promote. These include:• Booming growth along SR 1, in the Parkview area to the south and west of Town (and

creeping closer).• A wide range of available housing.• A relatively high percentage of wealthy residents with children (potential downtown

customers).• A good school system.• Some of its old “small Town charm.” • Both infill and undeveloped land available for new ventures.

On the other hand, the Town faces limitations in strengthening its economy. Some of the key challenges are:

• A property tax base where 93 percent of the tax burden is carried by homeowners (with little or no land dedicated to other uses, such as manufacturing).

• Sewer capacity problems that will make larger-scale growth impossible in the short term.

• No tax increment financing (TIF) districts or other incentives to create investment funds for downtown.

• Little experience with intentionally phased or recruited growth, beyond what the free market naturally provided in housing and the occasional new business.

During this planning process there was discussion about how to diversify the Town’s economy. Most residents did not support the idea of adding even light manufacturing within the Town limits, but even if they did the community would have to make huge investments to create - for example - a competitive business park. For that reason, most of the town’s resources should be spent developing the commercial sector.

There was also a “chicken or egg” debate about whether to encourage commercial development within existing areas first, or annex land to increase residential capacity. Start with the chicken – encouraging commercial development. Modern planning practices warn against a community trying to grow its way out of problems. New housing will increase the assessed value, but it will also require new city services.

In fact, new growth can draw attention and resources away from existing core neighborhoods and downtowns. Leo-Cedarville itself offers an example of that. The Town has grown by 30 percent since the 2000 Census, yet downtown has not experienced a booming revitalization. Investing in development of existing neighborhoods and downtown is consistent with what most people requested during focus groups and public meetings.“Old Downtown Leo”.

The Town has grown by 30 percent since the 2000 Census, yet downtown has not experienced a booming revitalization. Investing in development of existing neighborhoods and downtown is consistent with what most people requested during focus groups and public meetings.


4Economic Development

Solutions to the Town’s challenges are easier to prescribe than to follow. The Town must pick its “strategic advantages,” that is, areas where its investments have the largest probability of paying off. But an even bigger step is a community wide discussion on the investment and sacrifices that will be needed to open the door to greater growth.

The following goals and strategies lay out some of the steps for discussion.

Goal 1: Diversify the Town’s tax base. This new revenue should then be invested in improving the quality and availability of infrastructure and utilities, thus enhancing the Town’s marketability.

Strategies:

1. Investigate a downtown TIF District to allow property taxes collected from new development to be funneled back to downtown redevelopment and infrastructure improvements. This would require formation of a Redevelopment Commission.

2. Conduct a fiscal impact study to see if the population of Leo – Cedarville would support the bond required to take the steps to build a local wastewater treatment plant and to hook users up to the system and the rates required to operate said system.

3. Conduct a study of the Pioneer Water System to see if a public/private partnership can be formed to expand capacity to attract development and redevelopment opportunities.

4. Facilitate economic development by providing the infrastructure that is needed for business expansion and growth.

5. Look to strategically annex areas to improve the tax base and fund sewer, water and infrastructure improvements.

Goal 2: Attract new residents and business by marketing Leo – Cedarville as a progressive, attractive, upwardly mobile, and connected “small town.”

Strategies:

1. Use public investments (improving sidewalks, roads, etc.) to lead the way for private investment in the “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District.”

2. After making the improvements, recruit commercial businesses that will serve the needs of local residents.

3. Conduct a periodic community needs analysis – including available commercial space and amenities - and publish the results to entice businesses.

4. Tout the good school systems, small town feel, and parks to attract residents and business.

The recommendations in this Comprehensive Plan acknowledge the work of the 2008 Downtown Action Agenda by HyettPalma. However, this Plan provides a more compatible and implementable picture of what is possible based on collective citizen input from downtown and other residents.

See also Chapter 5: Downtown.



PROFILE: BENEFITS OF A R E D E V E L O P M E N T COMMISSIONA redevelopment commission could greatly help the Town in its revitalization efforts. Commissions use incentives as tools to induce development to locate or expand within the community. They are created and indirectly operated by local governments.

Commissions also address parking, roads and other infrastructure issues, since these are essential elements of business retention and development. They can create incentives such as tax abatement and tax increment finance, and are authorized to enter into contractual arrangements with private firms. Either a municipality or county can create a redevelopment commission.

According to Indiana Code (IC 36-7-14) redevelopment commissions have the power to:

• Acquire land• Disposal/lease land• Improve property• Hire employees• Contract for the construction of

public improvements• Accept grants• Levy taxes in special taxing

districts

Redevelopment commissions are often project-oriented. For example, the Valparaiso Redevelopment Commission established strategic five-year goals for beautifying a local neighborhood, increasing economic development in the downtown, and bringing high-speed rail to the city. In the City of West Lafayette, its Redevelopment Commission entered into an agreement with the Indiana Department of Commerce to obtain a certified technology park designation. Allen County’s Redevelopment Commission identified target areas for industrial development, targeted economic development areas and initiated infrastructure projects. Whatever the circumstances, a redevelopment commission must be in place to create Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts.

Redevelopment Commissions can attract investors into a community.



PROFILE: TAX INCREMENT FINANCINGTax increment financing (TIF) is a widely used economic development tool throughout Indiana. TIF districts can be found within most Indiana counties. TIF districts are created when a community targets a designated area, such as downtown or an industrial park, to invest in. It is one of the few optional revenue-raising mechanisms available to local governments.

TIF financing uses property tax revenues. When a city decides to create a TIF district they must first assess all of the properties in the district. This assessed value becomes the base rate and gets split between the original taxing bodies during the life of the TIF.

As the value of property increases due to development, the difference between the increase and the base rate (what is called the “increment”) must be put in the TIF fund. The money can be used inside the district to pay for construction of roads, sewers and other needs over a period of 20 years or more.

TIFs, which are usually governed by a redevelopment commission, provide a vehicle for local governments and the private sector to develop public-private partnerships to work on promoting economic development.

Pros and Cons

There will always be discussions regarding the pros and cons of any finance mechanism or process. Some of the positive aspects of TIFs are: flexibility, public improvements created without the use of existing property taxes and a means for a local solution for economic development (compared to diminishing federal and state support).

One argument frequently brought up opposing TIFs is that school corporations (local taxing units) will not receive any of the incremental revenue for the improved area during the life of the TIF.

An answer to that argument is that the school corporation will still receive their portion of the base assessed value of the area, so no loss to them should occur. Although they generally will not receive any of the incremental assessment, it can be argued that without TIF being used as the finance mechanism, there may not be any improvements in the area. After a bond is retired, it is quite possible that the other taxing entities (including the school corporation) will benefit from the entire assessed value from the area.



Goal 3: Recruit and retain business to enhance the business climate established by Leo – Cedarville’s existing businesses.

Strategies:

1. Explore higher-paying employment options that match local education attainment and income expectations.

2. Work to support and retain local businesses as they grow and expand their operations locally.

3. Provide an entrepreneurial climate for existing home based companies and encourage them to move operations to the “Leo–Cedarville Downtown District” if and when they expand.

4. Quality-of-life amenities translate into increased investment and higher property values.

There are approximately 152,190 people living within 10 miles. Building the right riverfront restaurant or other regional draw would help these people find their way to downtown.

Existing businesses should be supported and retained.



PROFILE: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPSThe term “public-private partnership” (PPP) traditionally refers to projects that involve the use of public resources or financing capabilities to promote local economic development. In those arrangements, the public entity typically provides some combination of tax incentives, public land or other assets, infrastructure investments or financing methods. The private entity makes capital investments, commits to providing jobs, contributes development expertise and assumes financial risk. These “partnerships” (which typically are not partnerships legally) can have short life spans covering only the construction period for the project, or longer life spans covering debt repayment or long-term operating agreements. The governing body needs to take an active role in educating the public about the costs and benefits of a proposed project.

PPPs Ideal for Local Government

There are several examples of smaller project types that are ripe for public-private partnerships. These include:• Unlocking the value of land - Local and state governments have significant real

estate holdings that are often underutilized. Particularly in areas with increasing density, these real estate holdings can be leveraged to replace aging libraries, public safety facilities, and provide parking while at the same time generating increased tax revenues from multi-use projects. Developers are also often willing to donate private land if it speeds up the delivery of needed infrastructure.

• Outsourced maintenance and operations - Often seen as the pioneer of public-private partnerships, state and local public works agencies can use PPPs to enhance performance, improve reliability and reduce costs (e.g. toll roads).

• Regulatory compliance - Some infrastructure projects are driven not just by need, but by mandate. Either development is occurring, or more commonly, new rules and regulations are requiring system upgrades that need to be accomplished quickly or else governments face stiff penalties. The public-private partnership approach can help bring about innovation to meet these challenges without the need for a permanent staff augmentation by the owner.

Quality of life amenities such as parks and trails translate into increased private investment and higher property values.

The Town owned property east of Riverside Gardens could be a potential public-private partnership site (see p.40).



TOWN HALL COMPLEX

MULTI-USEPATH

IMPROVED INTERSECTION

MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL

Destination Commercial

RIVERSIDEGARDENS

Grabill Road

Schwartz Road

RIVERSIDE GARDENS - RE-DEVELOPMENT OPTIONSSCALE 1”=60’ N

Riverside Gardens East Conceptual Development Scenarios

As part of the preparation of the comprehensive plan, the consultant team together with the steering committee and Town leadership, proposed development scenarios for the town-owned property east of Riverside Gardens. Envisioned was development that would expand parkland, space for overflow parking, and uses that would generate tax revenue for the Town including multifamily residential and mixed-use (office / Commercial). This type of development could be a public - private partnership between the Town and a developer. A primary goal is to not propose the uses or type of development that would dilute the targeted redevelopment areas discussed in Chapter 5. To that end, development on this parcel would be in the relatively distant future. Pictured below is just one example of how the site could be used.

RIVERSIDE GARDENS EAST CONCEPT

NTS

NOTE:The graphics in the Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan, including illustrative plans, cross-sections, sketches, & photographs, are intended to portray design intent and not final architecture or site design. Creative and innovative design is encouraged.



PROFILE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

What are Capital Improvements?

Capital improvements refer to major public projects such as the construction and maintenance of roads, sewers, sidewalks and municipal buildings and the acquisition of property and equipment. In short, it is public investment in the necessary infrastructure to serve current and future residents and businesses.

What is a Capital Improvement Plan?

A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a timetable identifying all planned capital improvements typically for a 5-year period of time. Year one corresponds to the operating capital budget for the next fiscal year. Years two through five outline a timetable for future projects. A municipality is not obligated to spend funds on any of the projects listed in years two through five.

A capital improvement budget is legally adopted in the operating budget. Each year Town department heads and other staff review the list of future improvements and makes minor adjustments to the plan as needed. Projects are prioritized by importance, given an approximate completion date and cost estimate, and listed with anticipated funding sources.

Importance of a CIP

A CIP is one of the most effective tools to manage growth. It gives Leo-Cedarville a clear, implementable strategy for enhancing its facilities and services. The plan also provides an effective means for matching community infrastructure needs with funding sources. With a CIP in place, the Town can decide where and when growth occurs. For instance, growth is less likely to occur in areas without infrastructure, but the CIP can also spur growth by strategically extending infrastructure. The phrase “build it and they will come” is often true in regard to infrastructure. Additional benefits of a CIP include:

• Long range financial planning• An opportunity to purchase land before prices become inflated• Implementation of long term projects in a coordinated and timely manner• Reduction of costly mistakes such as tearing up a recently resurfaced or new street to install utilities• Effective management of ratepayer/taxpayer dollars• Utilizing the CIP to guide future growth

Some potentially high growth areas may not have existing or planned (in the CIP) infrastructure. Potential developers of these areas may ask the Town of Leo-Cedarville to construct the infrastructure. When this request is denied based on the CIP, the developers may often offer to build the infrastructure. Town officials may decide to approve the proposed development if it is consistent with the goals and objectives in this Comprehensive Plan, and if the infrastructure plans pass the Town Engineer’s inspection. In this situation, the developer could agree to pay for the infrastructure, install it to Town specifications, and deed it to the Town upon completion. Town specifications for the infrastructure should reflect the future demand for capacity.



PROFILE: SHOP LOCALIn many towns, success and vitality are integrally linked to the economic health of local businesses which are the foundation of the local economy and serve the needs of residents and visitors alike. Because local owners live in the community they do business in, they are free to make decisions based on local needs rather than corporate policies handed down from decision-makers far removed. Additionally, studies have shown that independent, local owners spend more money at other local businesses creating a “multiplier effect”- money recirculates within the community rather than “leaking out” to remote corporate headquarters or a centralized purchasing department. Listed below are reasons why locally-owned businesses are good for a town’s economy and long-term sustainability.

• Buy Local - Support Yourself: Several studies have shown that when you buy from an independent, locally owned business, rather than a nationally owned businesses, significantly more of your money is used to make purchases from other local businesses and service providers, and farms. “For every $100 spent in locally owned independent stores, $68 returns to the community through taxes, payroll, and other expenditures. If you spend that in a national chain, only $43 stays here. Spend it online and nothing comes home.”

Source: http://www.the350project.net/home.html

• Support Community Groups: Non-profit organizations receive an average 250% more support from smaller locally-owned businesses than they do from national businesses.

• Keep The Community Unique: Where you shop, where you eat and have fun - all of it makes your community home. The one-of-a-kind businesses are an integral part of the distinctive character of Leo-Cedarville. Tourism also increases as visitors seek out destinations that offer them the sense of being someplace, not just anyplace.

• Reduce Environmental Impact: Locally-owned businesses can make more local purchases requiring less transportation and contributing less to sprawl, congestion, habitat loss and pollution.

• Create More Good Jobs: Small locally-owned businesses are the largest employers nationally offering jobs to residents.

• Get Better Service: Locally-owned businesses often hire people with a better understanding of the products they are selling and take more time to get to know customers.

• Invest In Community: Locally-owned businesses have owners and employees who live in the community, are less likely to leave, and are vested in the community’s future.

• Put Your Taxes To Good Use: Local businesses in town centers require comparatively little infrastructure investment and make more efficient use of public services as compared to nationally owned stores entering the community.

• Buy What You Want, Not What Someone Wants You To Buy: A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based not on a national sales plan but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.

• Encourage Local Prosperity: A growing body of economic research shows that in an increasingly homogenized world, entrepreneurs and skilled workers are more likely to invest and settle in communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character.

Source: http://www.sbnportland.org/



PROFILE: INDIANA MAIN STREET FOUR POINT APPROACH

The Indiana Main Street Four Point Approach involves:• 1. Design: Enhancing the physical appearance of the commercial district by rehabilitating historic

buildings, encouraging supportive new construction, developing sensitive design management systems and long-term planning. The look of downtown, its streets, signs, buildings and store interiors is unique to each Indiana community. Main Street’s goal is to work with all these elements to create a friendly, attractive place that will draw in visitors and businesses.

• 2. Organization: Building consensus and cooperation among the many groups and individuals involved in the revitalization process. To ensure a self-reliant, broad-based, long-lasting downtown revitalization program, the entire community must rally around the idea. Cooperation from both the public and the private sector is critical to achieve visible results. In addition, a separate staff and business solely dedicated to downtown revitalization is key to achieving long-term, large-scale results.

• 3. Promotion: Marketing the commercial district’s assets to customers, potential investors, businesses, local citizens, and visitors. To keep investors, visitors, and businesses coming downtown, Main Street must reshape the community perspective of downtown as a hub of activity. Successful downtown image campaigns, as well as promotional activities that build upon the community’s unique heritage and culture send a consistent, compelling message promoting the downtown area.

• 4. Economic Restructuring: Strengthening the district’s existing economic base while finding ways to expand it to meet new opportunities and challenges from outlying development. Main Street’s ultimate goal is to create downtowns that are economically viable. Researching the regional market and consumer trends give Main Street organizations a realistic picture of what market mix will work for their downtown. Based on their research, Main Street organizations can begin stabilizing existing businesses and recruiting new businesses to fill the gaps.

Source: http://www.in.gov/ocra/2364.htm

CHAPTER 5

DOWNTOWN


5 Downtown

Leo-Cedarville’s unique history has led to challenges for downtown revitalization. For starters, there is the question – “Where is downtown?” When the two communities merged in the 1990s, each had a central business district. As a result, commercial businesses are spread at various densities along most of SR 1.

The steering committee identified several more-or-less independent commercial spots, such as the areas around CVS pharmacy or a little further north at John Klopfenstein Furniture & Floorcovering. But the committee decided that the area with the most potential is the old Leo downtown, just north of the intersection of SR 1 and Grabill Road.

In 2008, the Town approved The Leo-Cedarville Downtown Action Agenda (DAA) by Hyett Palma, which also targeted the downtown. Some of the action items have been completed, others were fairly aggressive in proposing change. Some are still relevant today, and others may not be suitable in the new economy. For example, the 2008 plan which called for creation of a riverfront district with an outdoor restaurant, downtown housing, new leadership programs for guiding downtown development, business recruitment, quality restaurants, specialty food shops, art gallery, craft and home accessories shops was perhaps a bit ambitious. This Comprehensive Plan provides a strategy to fill in the gaps on SR 1/ Leo Road/ Center Street and Hosler/ Grabill Roads in a compatible way while maintaining the quiet residential character off of the main road. See the explanation of infill development on page 22.

The 2008 study focused exclusively on downtown, while this comprehensive land use plan takes a much broader view of everything within the Town limits. However the two reports share a few recommendations on land use issues, such as creating a Town square and moving the post office and Town Hall back downtown.

Downtown has some positive assets to build upon. For example:• There are approximately 152,190 people living within 10 miles. Building the

right riverfront dinner restaurant or other regional draw could bring these people periodically downtown.

• There are upper-income households in Leo-Cedarville, especially in the newer subdivisions west of town. For now, their shopping and dining out routines don’t include Leo-Cedarville (they go to Ft. Wayne), but they are a desirable demographic profile for many types of business.

• After the sewer and water issues are resolved, new subdivisions may greatly increase the numbers of homes that are close to downtown.

Despite these assets, the future downtown that residents desire won’t happen without investment. While there has been some new business growth, it is unlikely to continue happening on the scale or in the time frame the town wants unless direct action is taken.

That direct action will mean public investment, which could include everything from funding façade repair to repairing streets to acquiring a building to attract a desired new business.

Desirable downtown character is walkable, human scale, and inviting.

Mixed-use development is typical of historic small towns, where a mix of residential, commercial, and civic uses creates a walkable town center.


5Downtown

As alternatives were generated for this plan, there was consensus on one bold move which was to acquire the parcels and redevelop the triangular piece of land bordered by SR 1, Amstutz and Hosler Roads in order to link two prime commercial / downtown areas as shown in the graphic representation below.

THE TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT AREA

The following goals and strategies evolved from the community’s vision. Relevant strategies from the 2008 Downtown Action Agenda (DAA) are incorporated and denoted with an asterisk (*), At the March 2013 Public Workshop, the community had a chance to weigh in on the character of downtown development. See the placemaking survey results on p. 150.

The sketches contained in this Plan portray design intent for potential redevelopment areas. They reflect a collective vision and not final architecture or site design. This is not a development proposal and as such time as there is one, it would be reviewed in accordance with the Town’s standard process.

Buildings are placed to show massing and the relationship to the street, not replacement of existing development. Streetscape elements are included as part of what is desired for a vibrant downtown, but as Leo Road / Center Street is a State Highway, any improvements within the right-of-way require INDOT approval. Dozens of communities throughout Indiana have worked with INDOT to convey and include design intent for future projects. See Indiana Main Street Four

Point Approach Profile on p. 43.

The Triangle Redevelopment Area (above and left).

“The Triangle”Development Area

Way

ne R

d.

SR 1

/Cen

ter

St.

Grabill Rd.

SR 1

/Leo

Rd.

NTS

Off-Street Parking

Hosler/Grabill Rd.SR

1/L

eo R

d.

The graphics in this Plan, including illustrative plans, cross-sections, sketches, & photographs, are intended to portray design intent and not final architecture or site design. Creative and innovative design is encouraged.


5 Downtown

New development on Leo Road/SR 1 in the downtown considered incompatible in terms of historical development pattern, architectural standards and character (above) should be discouraged going forward. New development should be context sensitive and respect the historic commercial setbacks (below).

A cohesive street wall and improved streetscape can create a safe, attractive place for all users

Leo-Cedarville Downtown looking north on Leo Road/ SR 1.

The “Triangle” redevelopment area as well as “Old Downtown Leo” are identified as areas with opportunity to take advantage of economic development tools. Ideally, the market will produce desired development but many communities employ a number of techniques to catalyze desired results. Refer to Chapter 4: Economic Development for more information on redevelopment tools.

Goal 1: Commit to reinventing and rebranding Downtown Leo as the connected “Leo-Cedarville Downtown District” and make it a priority for redevelopment, investment, and community building.

Strategies:

1. Initiate cleanup of downtown. Nothing demonstrates the community’s commitment to revitalization like fixing things up. Other chapters of the plan give specific requirements on road, sidewalk and other infrastructure improvements.

2. Revive the Leo-Cedarville Downtown Revitalization Organization to utilize the resources offered through the Indiana Main Street program of the Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA).

3. Pursue downtown infrastructure and façade improvement grants offered through OCRA.

4. Relocate community services and civic facilities such as the Town Hall, fire station or post office in the downtown. *Anchors and Draws, DAA p. 14.

5. Focus targeted redevelopment to specific opportunities and areas to create a stable economic base on which the Town can catalyze new investment.

6. Once the Main Street committee is in place and clean-up is underway, start working through recommendations from The Leo-Cedarville Downtown Action Agenda. For example, recruit a riverfront restaurant.

LEO-CEDARVILLE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT

“Old Downtown Leo” has the potential to draw investment for mixed-use development with a focus on infill and redevelopment. Development should be encouraged on underutilized parcels (infill) directly adjacent to SR 1 (both Leo Road and Center Street) or within the triangle site (p. 47) . The downtown is conceptualized in the following sketches which are just one illustrative concept based on a collective vision and do not represent any proposed development.


5Downtown

Downtown Leo-Cedarville Conceptual Sketch

Grabill Rd.Hosler Rd.

SR 1/Leo R

d.

SR 1

/Cen

ter

St.

Downtown

Hosler Rd.

Focus on Infill

Key IntersectionTriangle Site

Way

ne R

d.

Grabill Rd.

SR 1

/Leo

Rd.

SR 1

/Cen

ter S

t.

NTS

View north of “Old Leo” from the SR 1/Leo Road at Hosler-Grabill Roads of a vibrant downtown with infill development, enhanced streetscape and off-street parking.

Infill and streetscape improvements create a cohesive streetwall.


5 Downtown

Streetscape enhancements including crosswalks with special pavement can improve pedestrian safety.

Conceptual view of the downtown district anchored by potential Municipal Complex.

Hosler Rd.

Potential streetscape enhancements in Downtown Leo-Cedarville.

StreetlightsBenches & Planters Street

Trees

Sidewalks

Potential Features: • A vibrant mixed-use downtown concept on the triangle

(southwest corner of SR 1 and Hosler Road, east of Wayne Road, pg. 47) connecting old downtown Leo with the commercial area south of the cemeteries.

• A focus on infill development that follows the historic streetwall within the existing downtown

• Relocate Town Hall complex with civic plaza downtown• Relocate U.S. Post Office downtown• Full service restaurant overlooking river• Housing above retail, or similar single family detached units• Appropriately-rehabilitated historic buildings• Pedestrian / bicycle path on SR 1• Fenced and landscaped edge at cemetery• Decorative streetlights• Intersection improvements at SR 1 Leo Road/Center Street

and Hosler/Grabill Road• Sidewalks and street trees• Safety improvements including crosswalks with special

paving


5Downtown

Conceptual view of the downtown district anchored by potential Municipal Complex.

Hosler Rd.

Center St. /SR 1

Grabill Rd.

Existing Leo-Cedarville downtown (above).


5 Downtown

See the Profile on Public-Private Partnership’s on page 39.

“Complete Streets” with sidewalks and on-street parking provide a safer and more attractive environment for both pedestrian and automobile traffic.

Design standards can help to maintain the community’s unique character and encourage appropriate, compatible development.

Historic houses in Downtown Leo offer close proximity to community resources and contribute to the Town’s unique sense of place.

Goal 2: Demonstrate the local government’s commitment to leading the way in the revitalization of downtown Leo-Cedarville.

Strategies

1. Convene a redevelopment commission in order to create a tax increment financing district (TIF) around downtown commercial development. This topic is also discussed in the economic development chapter.

2. Once the district is up and running, use TIF funds for targeted improvement projects, such as façade studies or infrastructure problems.

3. As funds accumulate, consider having the Town act as its own developer, such as buying properties from interested sellers and then recruiting developers, or creating public - private partnerships for new development. Redevelopment projects are likely to be concentrated in vacant and underutilized parcels on SR1 that are made available (see map on page 48).

Goal 3: Emphasize connectivity as the key to community revitalization and creation of a mixed-use “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District”.

Strategies:

1. Support the redevelopment of the (triangular) property at the southern intersection of SR 1 and Leo – Grabill Road as an integral link between the existing commercial districts.

2. Provide wayfinding signage to entice people to venture north of Grabill Rd. on SR 1. Enhance the intersection and make Downtown Leo more inviting and attractive for business through sidewalk, sign, and façade improvements. Coordinate desired improvements within the right of way with INDOT.

3. Consider enhancing and increasing the functionality of SR 1 to be a more “complete street” with sidewalks and on-street parking.

4. Extend the streetscape enhancements east and west on Leo-Grabill Road to Riverside Park and Hosler Road to the high school (intersection with Amstutz Road).

5. Add amenities to promote downtown quality of life, such as Wi-Fi, active green space or a multi-use outdoor gathering space that can be used for concerts, festivals, and other events.

6. Create design standards. While some people express concern that design standards would restrict new business growth, many communities have implemented basic requirements for construction in targeted revitalization zones. This is particularly true if the local government has led the way by investing in downtown.


5Downtown

Goal 4: Actively guide downtown revitalization efforts by utilizing public investment and public/private partnerships to promote, façade, infrastructure, and utility improvements within the “Leo- Cedarville Downtown District”.

Strategies:

1. Work to strengthen local businesses and to concentrate the redevelopment efforts on priority commercial areas adjacent to SR 1, Hosler and Grabill Road’s.

2. Provide opportunities for residents and business owners to apply for matching funds to rehabilitate commercial facades in identified downtown and corridor districts. *Personal Responsibility from DAA, p. 13.

3. Promote the idea that public/private investment will be needed to revitalize the “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District”, and that this investment will encourage business retention and growth and quality of life.

4. Connect downtown physically and visually with streetscape and façade improvements.

5. Investigate a downtown TIF District to allow property taxes collected from new development to be funneled back into downtown redevelopment and infrastructure improvements.

Matching grants for facade rehabilitation can encourage improvements to neglected historic buildings (above), highlighting the community’s unique sense of place while drawing in new businesses and investment (below).

Historic buildings are full of potential; this house in downtown Leo (left) is very similar to the rehabilitated historic house (right).


5 Downtown

ENHANCEMENTS TO CONSIDERIn addition to the new curb, gutter and sidewalk in the downtown consider adopting the guidelines and standards below that can be implemented by the owner and the Town over time.

Parking Area Edge Treatments

Screening parking areas can provide safety and comfort for pedestrians and establish a definite barrier. Screen parking areas, loading, and service facilities from residences and local streets by utilizing landscaping, walls, or buildings. Materials for screening parking can include shrubs, trees, masonry walls or decorative metal fences combined with landscaping. Encourage natural stormwater solutions such as vegetated swales and pervious pavement for parking lots where possible

Trees

Street trees are one of the most noticeable streetscape elements, because of their vertical form. They function as a unifying visual element that can complement or screen uninspired architecture. They significantly improve the quality of urban spaces by providing shade in the summer and color in the fall.

When properly located, planted, and selected from a list of trees appropriate for urban settings, trees contribute value to property. Species native to Indiana are likely to be more disease resistant and to adapt more readily to the heat, cold and water provided, thereby reducing long-term maintenance costs for replacement.

Urns and Planters

A streetscape may also be enhanced with planters. Planters should be coordinated with or complimentary to other streetscape elements. Cast stone, concrete, fiberglass, and cut stone are all acceptable materials for planters. Wood containers are often less durable and not the style choice in an urban environment. Planters should be placed with consideration of pedestrian movements. Even sidewalks with the smallest of widths can be creatively designed to include a variety of streetscape accents.

Trash Receptacles

Trash receptacles should be provided and designed to resemble or complement other streetscape elements in style, material, or color. Choose receptacles that incorporate an area to deposit commonly recycled materials as well as trash. Place receptacles at high-traffic areas such as intersections and crosswalks, or adjacent to seating at a minimum of one per block. Metal is a highly recommended material because of durability.

Details count.


5Downtown

Site Layout

Orient development towards streets and minimize setbacks on all streets to strengthen visual and physical connectivity for traffic and pedestrians.

• Encourage four-sided architecture (architectural detail and materials from the front facade extend to the other building sides) for structures that are visible from streets, residences, and businesses.

• Maintain the urban grid network in new development, especially residential areas.

Seating

Benches and seat walls are always desirable in a downtown. As redevelopment occurs, or improvements are invested in by the town or individual property owners, consider an appropriate theme for these elements to ensure compatibility.

PROFILE: MAIN STREET AS A PUBLIC PLACEThe Town’s network of streets represents the largest collection of “public places” in the community and components of public spaces and affects their success. The recommendations for streetscape improvements at the SR 1/Leo Rd - Center St. - Hosler/Grabill Rd intersection could enhance this focus area and provide a gathering place for community events.

The Town’s streets should be treated as safe and attractive public settings for all users whether motorized or non-motorized. The basic goal of all public spaces is to provide an inviting setting that attracts people. If such a place not only attracts people, but draws them back on a consistent basis, it is considered successful.

The style and placement of street furnishings has a significant impact on the function and visual quality of the urban environment. Below is a list of some amenities that can be incorporated to enhance the public setting in and around the downtown area.

• public benches and seating• landscaping and planters• street lights• sidewalk cafes• public art and/or water features• trash receptacles • lights, benches and trash receptacles

The current streetscape along SR 1 can be improved to create a more attractive Main Street environment and improve safety for all users, particularly children.


5 Downtown

Street Lighting

Vertical elements tend to provide a greater impact to the streetscape than flatwork (pavement, etc.). Street trees, building facades, and street lights are common vertical elements.

Lighting serves four primary purposes in downtown settings: • to create a perception of safety; • to establish an identity for the place or street where it is used; • to heighten the drama by focusing attention on unique architectural features; • to illuminate signage, thereby improving the wayfinding capacity within an area.

A street light improvement project should consider the following:• A fixture that caters to motorists and pedestrians and enhances the architectural

style and charm of Leo Street (SR 1). New fixtures do not have to default to period-style lighting, and the Town should choose light fixtures that suit its personality.

• The light standard (pole) should be able to accommodate banners and hanging planters.

• The electrical service to lights should be placed underground. In addition, lights should provide electrical outlets for use by vendors during festivals or to power holiday fixtures or lights.

• Lighting should be shielded to reduce light pollution into the night sky.

Gathering Spot

A public gathering space could be accommodated in a plaza or open space adjacent to a relocated Town Hall. Such a site could be used for regularly occurring family-friendly entertainment such as civic ceremonies, festivals or a farmer’s market. Events such as these could be programmed by an organization such a local Main Street organization or the Town Parks Department.

Public Art

Public art can energize an otherwise lifeless space. It is important to recognize opportunities to transform “leftover” spaces scattered throughout the downtown into attractive, public settings. The local artistic talent in the community should be harnessed to create artistic elements. Blank walls of buildings are prime candidates for murals. Sculptural pieces can be showcased on prominent corners or in public gathering spaces, or incorporated as a needed functional element (fence, bench, light, water feature, and planters).

Streetscape improvements (above) and functional art (below) help define space and provide interest to draw people to a downtown.

Public Art - Chalkboard on building in public space to promote expression.


5Downtown

Donor Recognition

There are many ways to fund improvements mentioned in this Plan. Common funding sources for streetscape amenities including new lighting fixtures, special paving accents, landscaping, benches, and waste receptacles are grants, municipal funds, corporate gifts, philanthropic donations, and fund-raising programs that allow residents and business owners to leave their mark with plaques or engravings.

Crosswalks

The most important consideration is the safety of pedestrians. Crosswalks should be highly visible to vehicular traffic, utilizing a change of pavement material or reflective paint. Signs to designate a crossing can improve awareness. These treatments can help to slow traffic, creating a safer environment for pedestrians.

Corp. Limits

Corp

. Lim

its

stimi L . pr o

C

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

stimi L . pr o

C

Existing Bike Lane

Existing Side Path

Planned Side Path

Existing Sidewalk (*Along Thoroughfare)

Planned Sidewalk(*Along Thoroughfare)

Planned Multi-use Path

Planned Greenway/Natural Trail

Park/ Conservation

Water

LEGEND


Multi-modal Plan Map

City and with Hamilton and Johnson Co.

Sidewalk Gaps Downtown Should be Filled

(Gaps - Dashed Line) Widen Bridge to Accomodate Sidewalks on Both Sides

Matea Park

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir

L-C Park

Riverside

Gardens

DNR Boat Launch


NTS

Crosswalk highlighted with special paving.

DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK GAP ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 6

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS


6 Transportation Systems

State Road 1 (Leo Road/Center Street) is the primary north-south road through Leo-Cedarville providing regional connections. It is a state road, owned, operated, and maintained by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). It is designated an Arterial in the 2013 INDOT Fort Wayne Urbanized Area Boundary Functional Classification Map and the 2008 Allen County Functional Classification Map.

This Plan focuses on increasing the functionality of SR 1, creating complete streets out of existing arterials and collectors including Hosler, Grabill, Amstutz, and extending roadways into potential development areas. The need for improvements for a community that desires to grow was the impetus for the update of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

This chapter addresses certain intersections or roadways in Leo-Cedarville which may need improvements, in the short- or long-term. However, each individual transportation project will require further study with respect to traffic counts, movements, land use type and intensity.

TOWN-WIDE TRANSPORTATION GOALS

Goal 1: Enhance safe travel on existing roads and plan for future growth while minimizing congestion.

Strategies:

1. Reserve adequate rights-of-way for future roadway improvements.

2. Define and protect new undeveloped thoroughfare corridors that will promote commerce and connectivity.

3. Discourage unnecessary use of cul-de-sacs, while promoting the use of a grid street pattern and stub streets for future connectivity.

4. Require a traffic impact analysis as part of significant new development/redevelopment and mitigate existing or potential traffic issues.

5. Conduct capacity and accident analysis at busy locations to determine the need for and scale of potential improvements to ease congestion now and in the future.

6. Coordinate with INDOT and Northeastern Indiana Regional Coordinating Council (NIRCC), I the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which administers federal funding for certain transportation projects, to obtain federal aid for transportation improvements.

See Profile: Complete Streets on page 61.


6Transportation Systems

Goal 2: Improve and maintain a balanced transportation system that provides an enhanced visual appearance and functionality of major streets (SR 1, Leo – Grabill Rd., Hosler Rd. and Amstutz Rd.) and community gateways.

Strategies:

1. Establish aesthetic design standards for major street corridors to ensure consistency in landscaping, lighting, fencing, and materials.

2. Update Town Engineering Design Standards Manual (cross-sections and standard details) to be compliant with current ADA requirements, incorporate industry best practices and consider all modes of transportation.

PROFILE: COMPLETE STREETS Current Best Management Practices in Urban Planning suggest an emphasis on embracing Complete Streets within a community.

Simply, Complete Streets are streets that are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of all ages and abilities. They are part of many communities’s healthy living initiatives. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk, or bicycle to school, shops, or work.

By adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right-of-way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists – making Leo-Cedarville a better place to live.

Source: The National and Indiana Complete Streets Coalition http://www.completestreets.org/



3. Town leaders and consulting engineers should continue contact with and coordinate with INDOT regarding the Town’s vision for SR 1 improvements. Road and streetscape related projects might include increasing road width to accommodate parking and pedestrian facilities on the west side of the road when there is redevelopment. These effort will also bring about economic success for the Town.

4. Develop an access management policy to minimize new curb cuts, combine existing drives where feasible, and locate future drives to minimize conflicts and congestion.

5. Encourage safe travel for all roadway users by calming vehicular traffic or providing a separation buffer between modes where appropriate.

6. Review and update (or create) a pavement maintenance plan for roadways, trails, and sidewalks.

7. As the Town Capital Improvement Plan is discussed, include phased improvements for existing areas in poor conditions or with no sidewalks and street lighting.

Goal 3: Promote inter-connectivity throughout the Town with the creation of a community wide network of multi-use paths.

Strategies:

1. Facilitate the construction of and prioritize pedestrian/bicycle connections to provide a cohesive network linking activities or destinations such as schools and residential areas, adjacent neighborhoods, and various recreational facilities. City of Fort Wayne Utilities is open to the possibility of a trail along the West side of the Cedarville Reservoir within the utility easement.

2. Make the phased planning and construction of the Leo – Cedarville multi-use path system a reality by acquiring required right-of-way and setting aside funding in the 5 year Capital improvements Plan.

3. Work with Fort Wayne Water Department to provide a trail within the 15-foot easement that border the Cedarville Reservoir.

4. Require developers to provide sidewalks in all new developments as well as vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent neighborhoods and schools.

See the Profile on Access Management on page 69.

To see what these communities did, visit http://nickelplatetrail.org/gallery.html

Minnetrista Trail (above) and the Virginia Creeper Trail (below).



PROFILE: ACCESS MANAGEMENT INDOT’s Access Management Guide1 defines access management as “a set of proven techniques that can help reduce traffic congestion, reduce the frequency of crashes, maintain the existing roadway capacity, and preserve investment in roads by managing the location, design and type of access to property. By preserving the flow of traffic and improving traffic safety, access management helps to encourage economic growth.”

As traffic volumes on roadways increase, the need to control access from abutting properties also increases. The primary purpose of arterials and major collectors is to move traffic from one point to another, not to provide access to individual properties. It is in the Town’s best interest to establish site development standards that minimize transportation impacts and ensures the safety and efficiency of the roadways. Some techniques to manage access include:

• Promote access via local street system vs. higher functional classes.• Use operational and safety needs to determine driveway design and regulate minimum spacing of driveways.• Establish minimum frontage requirements for newly subdivided lots and regulate the maximum number of

driveways per property frontage.• Consolidate access for adjacent properties and encourage the use of frontage roads and shared driveways

and parking.• Regulate minimum corner clearance and provide drivers suitable sight distance to execute turns smoothly

and safely.• Encourage connections (cross-access easements) between adjacent properties.• Require adequate internal circulation planning and design. • Place emphasis on managing access based on functional class of roadways and intersections• Signal spacing and placement to favor through-traffic• Remove turning vehicles from through- traffic lanes• Restrict left-turn movements with non-traversable medians • Arrange access points so that streets and driveways are immediately across from one another.• Coordinate with other affected governing agencies regarding development

Access Management Guide, Indiana Department of Transportation, 2009

Two examples of cross-access easements between different businesses which allow vehicular passage without the need for additional curb cuts to public streets (above).



THOROUGHFARE PLAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONSRoadways can fall into several classifications and within those are generally two types: urban and rural. Many of the roads in the Leo-Cedarville corporate limits would be classified as rural (characterized by no curb or gutter and side ditches), but for the purposes of this Plan and future road improvements, all road cross-sections are representative of an urban treatment (curbs, gutters, and pedestrian amenities). This allows the Town and developers to work within the same design standards. This also positions the Town to have the ability to fill in gaps between future developments in a consistent manner.

Thoroughfare Classifications• Major Arterial• Minor Arterial• Major Collector• Minor Collector• Local• Downtown *

*Downtown is not a thoroughfare classification, but describes a special condition requiring design considerations which are illustrated in the street section (see also page 75).

See street cross-sections on pages 66-69.

TABLE 1: PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS

Functional ClassificationsMinimum

ROW

Number of Moving

Lanes

Parking Lane 1

Pavement Selection

DriveLane Width

Bicycle Lane 1 & 3

Turn Lane 3

Green Space

Minimum Width 2

Sidewalk Minimum Width 1

Multi-Use Path 3 & 4

Local Street 50-60’ 2 Shared 15’ N/A N/A 5’ 5’ NA

Major or Minor Collector Street 60’ 2 N/A 11’ 5’ N/A 5’ 5’ 8-10’

*Major or Minor Arterial 80’ 2 N/A 12’ N/A 12’ 5’ 5’ NA

*Downtown Street 60’ 2 8’ 12’ Shared 12’5 N/A 5-12’ NA

1 Both sides of the roadway2 Unpaved area for landscaping, utilities, and trees3 Optional4 Paved or unpaved paths for pedestrian, bicycle, or equestrian travel in lieu of sidewalk5 Only at Intersection* SR 1 ROW Varies



Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

LEGEND


Thoroughfare Plan Map

Major Arterial

Minor Arterial

Major Collector

Proposed Major Collector

Minor Collector

Proposed Minor Collector

Local

Future Intersection Improvements

Hosler Rd.

Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d.

Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

SR1 / C

enter

St.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.Sch

wartz R

d.

Hal

ter R

d.

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

LEGEND


Thoroughfare Plan Map

Major Arterial

Minor Arterial

Major Collector

Proposed Major Collector

Minor Collector

Proposed Minor Collector

Local

Future Intersection Improvements

Hosler Rd.

Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d.

Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

SR1 / C

enter

St.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.

Schwart

z Rd.

Hal

ter R

d.

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP

NTS



Refer to the Profile: Access Management on page 63 for techniques to reduce congestion.

A 2’ clear-zone from the back of curb should be instituted as a best practice when installing streetlights and landscaping improvements to prevent damage from vehicles.

Arterials

Function: To carry high volumes of traffic relative to collectors at higher speeds significant distances for connections between regional destinations.

Design: Major and Minor Arterials should maintain a minimum right-of-way of 80 feet to accommodate the desired facilities. Access should be managed, discouraging abundant direct connections from residential and commercial uses to the roadway and encouraging cross-access easements between businesses. New curb cuts should not occur typically within 150-feet of an intersection to ensure safety.

Arterial streets within the Leo-Cedarville town limits are encouraged to include curbs, sidewalks, street trees, lighting, turn lanes, and trail or bikeway connections. On-street parking is generally discouraged, but in the case of State Road 1 which goes through the center of Town, it is encouraged to further slow traffic and enhance the pedestrian and civic experience.

Example: State Road 1 (Leo Road)

Typical Arterial Street Section



Collector Streets

Function: To carry moderate volumes of traffic moderate distances to connect with the arterial roadway network.

Design: Major and Minor Collectors should have a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet. Access is regulated, discouraging abundant direct connections from residential and commercial uses. Curb cuts should be located no closer than 75 feet from an intersection to ensure safety.

Collector streets should provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, lighting, and sufficient width so bicycles may share the roadway (multi-use paths and/or bike lanes). On-street parking may or may not be appropriate.

Example Major Collector: Amstutz Road*While there are no existing Minor Collector roads in Town, our plan proposes several Minor Collectors in the future.

Typical Collector Street Section

Bike lanes separate pedestrians and bicyclists to provide a safer experience for both users (above).



Typical Local Street Section

Local Streets

Function: To carry traffic with low volumes and speeds short distances to connect with the collector and arterial roadway network. Local roads in major subdivisions provide direct access to abutting properties. Interconnecting streets between adjacent residential developments is encouraged.

Design: Local Streets should be a minimum 50 to 60 feet right-of-way. New Local Streets within Leo-Cedarville corporate limits should provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, and on-street parking. Streetlights should be provided at least at every location where there is a turning movement. The typical cross-section on the following page visually depicts this street type.

Examples of Local Streets: Wayne Street, Trading Post Road, and Manning Street.



Opportunities may exist in the future to reconstruct the western edge of SR 1. north of Hosler to provide for appropriate pedestrian amenities as part of a redevelopment program (above).

Downtown

Function: Downtown’s (north and south of the intersection of SR 1 and Hosler/Grabill Road) livelihood depends on the ability to reinventSR 1(Leo Road/Center Street) as a place where people feel comfortable stopping, parking, and walking.

Design: Downtown Streets are should maintain the existing minimum right-of-way of 60 feet, but may vary due to existing development. Access to and from a downtown street should be regulated to the established pattern of side streets and alleys, discouraging additional direct connections from residential and commercial. Utilization of on street parking, and the network of existing alleys to provide parking behind buildings is encouraged. New buildings should abut the edge of the ROW to match existing and historic development patterns. On-street parking also provides traffic calming and enhances economic development.

Downtown streets within the Leo-Cedarville limits are encouraged to include curbs, sidewalks, street trees, decorative lighting, and on-street parking

Example: State Road 1 (Leo Road/Center Street) north and south of Hosler/Grabill Rd.

Typical Downtown Street Section



Grabill Rd.Hosler Rd.

SR 1

/Leo

Rd.

TRANSPORTATION FOCUS AREAS

Downtown Focus Area

Goal 4: Promote economic development, by creating a strong roadway corridor in the downtown area.

Strategies:

1. Coordinate with INDOT to balance the needs of through traffic and local commercial activity.

2. Work with INDOT to minimally widen SR 1 just enough to provide safe pedestrian passage connecting the two commercial areas north and south of Hosler/Grabill Road (see also Transportation Area Goal 5 on page 71) regarding recommendations for the “Triangle”. Widening and shifting could occur with the redevelopment of parcels on the west side of SR 1. Attempt to hold centerline.

3. Maintain on-street parking.

4. Ensure all sidewalks and ramps are compliant with ADA standards.

5. Provide highly visible crosswalks at the intersections which acknowledge the importance of pedestrians and cyclists.

6. Consider requesting that travel speeds be slowed to 25 miles per hour in this redeveloped commercial area to enhance pedestrian safety to schools and parks and entice visitors to local businesses.

7. Discourage additional curb cuts to arterials and major collectors with the advent of new development. Instead access should be from side streets and cross-access easements should be encouraged between developments as show in the access mananagement profile on page 63.

“Downtown Leo” depicted in orange is designated Mixed-Use Downtown on the Future Land Use Map on page 27. Revitalization efforts are focused on the SR 1 (Leo Rd./Center St. and Hosler/Grabill Road node (above).

“Downtown Leo” as it exists today (above).

Downtown

Hosler Rd.

Way

ne R

d.

SR 1

/Cen

ter

St.

Grabill Rd.

SR 1

/Leo

Rd.

NTS



“The Triangle” Development Focus Area

Goal 5: Promote redevelopment with civic uses to provide government and related services in a centralized location as well as linking the traditional downtown area with commercial uses farther south on SR 1.

Strategies:

1. As land is redeveloped, consolidate driveways and position access points to minimize traffic conflicts.

2. Improve pedestrian connectivity around the perimeter and within the triangle development. Provide strong connections between the redeveloped areas and the elementary and high schools.

3. Monitor intersections for safety or congestion problems as growth occurs. Future intersection improvements could include provision of vehicular turn lanes, widening to accommodate bike lanes, a roundabout and other options.

4. Provide bike parking facilities with all new development.

5. Prioritize filling in missing sidewalks in the downtown in accordance with the gap analysis on page 55.

Leo - Cedarville Schools Focus Area

Goal 6: Promote safe and efficient traffic flow for students, faculty, parents, and local residents using multiple modes of transportation: pedestrian, bicycle, automobiles, and buses.

Strategies:

1. Review and evaluate school pedestrian and vehicular traffic policies and procedures;

2. Conduct a study to determine whether primary ingress/egress points require any geometric or operational improvements;

3. Improve pedestrian/bicycle connectivity between neighborhoods and schools and between neighborhoods (west of schools) and Downtown (east of schools).

4. Investigate Safe Routes to Schools funding to pay for improvements.

The“Triangle” - a potential re-development opportunity.

“The Triangle”Development Area

Hosler Rd.

Way

ne R

d.

SR 1

/Cen

ter

St.

Grabill Rd.

SR 1

/

Leo

Rd.

NTS

Leo High and Leo Elementary School campuses have access, pedestrian safety, and traffic concerns (above).

Leo-CedarvilleSchools Area

Am

stut

z R

d.

Hosler Rd.SR

1/L

eo R

d.

NTS



PROFILE: ROUNDABOUTSRoundabouts are popular traffic management solutions to increase the flow of traffic at a low-speed by reducing the need for traffic to stop at an intersection. A roundabout is a circular intersection within which traffic maneuvers around the circle in a counterclockwise direction, and then turns right onto the desired street. All traffic yields to vehicles in the roundabout and left-turn movements are eliminated. Unlike a signalized intersection, vehicles generally flow and merge through the roundabout from each approaching street, and many vehicles never have to stop.

Roundabouts reduce the number of potential conflict points, compared with traditional intersections. Experience has demonstrated that vehicular crashes are significantly reduced when low-speed, single lane roundabouts replace four-way intersections.

Proper accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists in roundabouts is an important consideration that should be undertaken during the design process. Complete Streets considerations should be included in every phase of design to ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.

Well designed roundabouts should include landscaping and pedestrian amenities which create a welcoming gateway aesthetic.

Goal 7: Promote connected, pedestrian-scaled, and centered infrastructure to enhance Leo-Cedarville’s pedestrian network and access opportunities.

Strategies:

1. Pursue the acquisition of access easements along the Cedarville Reservoir, and right-of-way when practical if it supports the creation of planned pedestrian systems;

2. Coordinate with developers to build complete streets as new developments occur and when practicable close gaps in the pedestrian system. Use the street cross sections on pages 66-69 as a guide.



Pedestrian and bicycle facilities along this stretch of SR 1 are critical to the economic success of target redevelopment areas just north.

3. Encourage pedestrian scaled features such as landscaped medians, bump-outs at intersections, or on-street parking along local streets to slow traffic and increase safety for bicyclists and pedestrians;

4. Support connecting pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to existing parks, schools, residences, and businesses. Encourage the community to view pedestrian amenities as a continuous linear park which connects everything in Town.

Multi-modal Plan

When the term “Multi-modal Transportation System” is used, this speaks to all of the various components of the transportation system and follows the tenents of Complete Streets. The emphasis is to highlight those components that are non-vehicular or not personal-use/commercial vehicles. These components within the Town consist of bicycle and pedestrian multi-use paths and sidewalks.

Trails, Greenways and Sidewalk Planning

The creation of a robust, connected bicycle and pedestrian system in Leo-Cedarville is one of the Town’s top priorities. Enhanced pedestrian connectivity throughout Town includes sidewalks, multi-use paths, on-street bike lanes, and trail connections.

The plan reflects the feedback on the importance, suggested location, and type of pedestrian amenities from the Envision Leo-Cedarville Public Workshop, Ambassador/Steering Committee Meetings, from Town Staff, and surveys. Also referenced is the 2013 Allen County Proposed Bike and Trail Plan, 2008, Leo-Cedarville Five-Year Parks and Recreation Plan, and the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.

Off-street multi-use paths for cyclists, skaters, and pedestrians (above).



Classifications of Bike and Pedestrian Facilities

When planning for pedestrian infrastructure it is helpful to understand the different classifications of paths that are being utilized by many communities.

• Sidewalk – The portion of a street or highway R.O.W., beyond the curb or edge of roadway pavement, which is intended for used by pedestrians. Sidewalks are to be use by pedestrians, and small children on bicycles.

• Side Path – A shared use path located immediately adjacent and parallel to a roadway. These types of paths are to be used by recreational bicyclists and pedestrians.

• Bike Lane – A portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs. It is intended for one-way travel, usually in the same direction as the adjacent traffic lane, unless designed as a contra-flow lane. These types of facilities are to be used by road and commuter bicyclists and some recreational riders depending on their ability. No pedestrians should travel in these lanes.

• Sharrow – A lane of a traveled way that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel. These types of facilities should be used by road and commuter bicyclists only; no pedestrians should travel in these lanes.

• Multi-use Path – A bikeway physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. Multi-use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized users. Most multi-use paths are designed for two-way travel. These types of facilities are to be used by recreational bicyclists and pedestrians. However, road and commuter bicyclists may need to use these facilities if bike lanes are not possible on some streets.

• Greenway – A linear wooded or open space along waterways, utility lines, non-vehicular public right-of-ways, and natural corridors. Sidewalks, side paths, multi-use paths and natural trails can all be part of a greenway. Bike lanes and sharrows are not be considered as part of a greenway. Users of all categories may find themselves using this type of path system.

• Natural Trail – A less intrusive path utilizing materials such as crushed limestone, bark mulch, or exposed soil surface. Natural trails may restrict all types of users but may be the best solution for greenway areas considered environmentally sensitive such as around the Cedarville Reservoir. These types of facilities are for pedestrian use only.

On-street bike lanes can provide safe route of travel for cyclists. In some instances a striped-buffer as shown here, bollards, or raised dots are included between the cyclist and traffic.

Wooden boardwalks and or bridges can be utilized in situations where a multi-use path or sidewalk crosses a body of water/wetland.

Riverside path.



Corp. Limits

Corp

. Lim

its

Cor

p. L

imits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cor

p. L

imits

Pedestrian Pathways

*Use Text to Determine Correct Type

Park/ Conservation

Wooded Areas

Water

Public/Institutional

Quick Win (6-12 Months)

Mid-Term (1-5 Years)

Long-Term (6+ Years)

LEGEND



Priority

*A.

See Downtown Sidewalk Gap Analysis (Pg. 57)

*B.

New Trails are Currently Being Built at Riverside Gardens

*B.

*A.

L

Q

Q

Q

Q

M

L

L

L

M

Q

L

M

M

M

L L

M

M

M

M

M

Pedestrian Bridge Needed

Leo HighSchool

Leo Elementary

School

Soccer

Fields

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir

Leo -Cedarville Park

RiversideGardens

Hurshtown

Reservoir

DNR Boat Launch


Metea Park

Cedar Creek

Nettlehorst Ditch

Hosler Rd.

Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d.

Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

SR1 / C

enter

St.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.Sch

wartz R

d.

Hal

ter R

d.

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

Corp. Limits

Corp

. Lim

its

Cor

p. L

imits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cor

p. L

imits

Pedestrian Pathways

*Use Text to Determine Correct Type

Park/ Conservation

Wooded Areas

Water

Public/Institutional

Quick Win (6-12 Months)

Mid-Term (1-5 Years)

Long-Term (6+ Years)

LEGEND



Priority

*A.

See Downtown Sidewalk Gap Analysis (Pg. 57)

*B.

New Trails are Currently Being Built at Riverside Gardens

*B.

*A.

L

Q

Q

Q

Q

M

L

L

L

M

Q

L

M

M

M

L L

M

M

M

M

M

Pedestrian Bridge Needed

Leo HighSchool

Leo Elementary

School

Soccer

Fields

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir


RiversideGardens

Hurshtown

Reservoir

DNR Boat Launch


Metea Park

Cedar Creek

Nettlehorst Ditch

Hosler Rd.

Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d.

Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

SR1 / C

enter

St.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.

Schwart

z Rd.

Hal

ter R

d.

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

NTS

MULTI-MODAL PLAN MAP



SR 37

I 69

E US 24

US 24 E

US 30 E

US 33

SR 3

I 469

US 27 S

BASS RD

MO

RGAN

RD

SR 1

01 S

LORT

IE R

D

US 30 W

SR 1

DAWKINS RD

HOFFMAN RD

STAT

E LI

NE R

D S

HOAGLAND RD

EHLE RD

MIN

NICH

RD

EDGERTON RD

CARROLL RD

HOUK

RD

NOTESTINE RD

HAND

RD

HOWE RD

FRANKE RD

SR 14 W

BARKLEY RD

WINCHESTER RD

BULL RAPIDS RD

SLUSHER RD

FLATROCK RD

CUBA

RD

DOTY RD

LINCOLN HWY E

HAMILTON RD W

SR 205

US 24 W

COOK RD W

ROTH

RD

THIE

LE R

D

RORICK RD

TONK

EL R

D

RUPE

RT R

D

SOUTH COUNTY LINE RD E

AUBU

RN R

D

O D

AY R

D

SAM

PSO

N RD

S

ARCOLA RD

GAR CREEK RD

RICKER RD

PAULDING RD E

TRIER RD

GRO

TRIA

N RD

PAGE RD

HATHAWAY RD

SR 1

S

LEO RD

COVERDALE RD

BRUICK RD

COVINGTON RD

SCHWARTZ RD

DUPONT RD W

LEESBURG RD

LIM

A R

D

SHOAFF RD W

WASHINGTON CENTER RD W

GUS

TIN

RD

INDIANAPOLIS RD

WAP

PES

RD

SOUTH COUNTY LINE RD W

IRVING RD

BREMER RD

ENGLE RD

ANTWERP RD

ST JOE RD

TILL RD W

HURSH RD

ALLE

N RD

EBY RD

EMAN

UEL

RD

MOELLER RD

WALLEN RD W

REED RD

SPRINGFIELD CENTER RD

GARMAN RD

RIDER RD

RYAN RD S

ST JOE CENTER RD

WHEELO

CK RD

FACK

LER

RD

COLD

WAT

ER R

D

THIMLER RD

CALHOUN ST S

CLAY

TON

RD

MAPLES RD

WEBSTER RD S

KRESS RD

KNOUSE RD

HOSLER RD

HARPER RD

FEIG

HNER

RD

SR 1

01 N

LOWER HUNTINGTON RD

WHI

TTER

N RD

AMST

UTZ

RD

NORTH COUNTY LINE RD E

GRE

EN R

D

BRUN

SON

RD

SEILER RD

ARDM

ORE

AVE

SCHLATTER RD

STAT

E LI

NE R

D N

PARENT RD

TILLMAN RD E

HILL

EGAS

RD

FIGEL RD

MAYSVILLE R

D

ABOITE CENTER RD

BUTT

RD

FLAU

GH

RD

WORDEN RD

FRIT

Z RD

SMITH RD

WAYNE TRACE

SAMPSO

N RD N

FOG

EL R

D

FAIR

FIEL

D AV

E

FELG

ER R

D

JOHN

SON

RD

OXFORD ST

SR 930 W

ERNST RD

MEY

ER R

D

ADAM

S CE

NTER

RD

DOYLE RD S

FLUTTER RD

MO

ORE

RD

BETH

EL R

D

WINTERS RD

CONN

ERS

RD

LANDIN RD

YOHNE RD

WELLS ST

POPP RD

COM

ER R

D

LIBERTY MILLS RD

MONROEVILLE RD

MCCOMB RD

DARLING RD

PLEASANT CENTER RD W

PRIN

E RD

TAYLOR ST

YODER RD E

ROUSSEY RD S

HESS

EN C

ASSE

L RD

ROBERTS R

D

WES

LEY

CHAP

EL R

D

GREENWELL RD

MIL

L RD

CLINTON ST S

ANTHONY BLVD S

FISHER RD

BOG

ER R

D

HOLLOPETER RD

MILA

N CENTER RD

YODER RD W

GRABILL RD

EME

RD

WOODS RD

MAIN ST W

FERGUSON RD W

STATE BLVD W

ZUBR

ICK

RD

HADL

EY R

D

WILSO

N RD

FAHL

SING

RD

SNYD

ER R

D

LAKE AVE

BECK

ER R

D

HULL

RD

KILL

IAN

RD

DIEBOLD RD

DUNT

ON

RD

CARRIER RD

SPEN

CER

VILL

E RD

BLUF

FTO

N RD

HOM

ESTE

AD R

D

SPRING ST

MAUMEE CENTER RD

NORTH COUNTY LINE RD

WEBSTER RD N

GUMP RD E

BUTLER RD

AIRPORT EXPRESSWAY

SCIPIO RD

SIMON RD

PUFF

RD

SHER

MAN

BLV

D

WITMER RD

WES

T HA

MIL

TON

RD

ROSE AVE

HARRISON ST S

WALLEN RD E

WOODBURN RD

COLISEUM BLVD W

DICK

E RD

COLISEUM BLVD E

RIVER RD

CLIN

TON

ST N

CHAPMAN RD

BRO

BST

RD N

POE

RD

MAS

SILO

N RD

HILDEBRAND RD

BRYIE RD

HUG

UENA

RD R

D

HURSHTOWN RD

ROHRBACH RD

ROTHMAN RD

NELSON RD

LAHMEYER RD

EVARD RD

MAD

DEN

RD

STELLHORN RD

PARN

ELL

AVE

STAH

LHUT

RD

NEW HAVEN AVE

WES

T RD

PION RD

ROUS

SEY

RD N

EMEN

HISE

R RD

HANN

A ST

S

GRABER RD

GRI

FFIN

RD

LOCH

NER

RD

DEVA

LL R

D

VALE

NTIN

E RD

MULDOON RD

FOOTE RD

BRO

ADW

AY S

T

BRAN

STRA

TOR

RD

THOMPSON RD

WAYNE ST E

DECATUR RD

HARB

ER R

D

SOLO

N RD

LAFAYETTE ST S

HOBSO

N RD

TERN

ET R

D

BAER

RD

REDDING DR

ANTHONY BLVD N

HEFFELFINGER RD

GET

Z RD

PETTIT AVE E

WASHINGTON BLVD E

SUMMIT ST

WARD RD

TILE MILL RD

FERGUSON RD E

PARROTT RD

LAM

LIE

RD

DUGLAY RD

GOSHEN RD

UNION CHAPEL RD

LUTZ

RD

GIRARD RD

LUDWIG RD W

GIESKING RD

ADAIR RD

DAVIS RD

GROMEAUX RD

GERIG RD

HALEY RD

FREE

MAN

ST

DOEHRMAN RD

LEWIS ST E

DEAN RD

MCA

RDLE

RD

WATTERSON RD

BERRY ST E

MCD

UFFE

E RD

DUPONT RD E

BISHOP RD

LAFAYETTE CENTER RD

NOYE

R RD

BAIRD RD

COOK RD E

GORE RD

MCN

ABB

RD

VIBE

RG R

D

ELLI

SON

RD

FRAZ

IER

RD

ROW

E RD

ROHMAN RD

AMBE

R RD

SCO

TT R

D

BERTHAUD RD N

YELLOW RIVER RDNORTH RIVER RD

JEFF

ERSON B

LVD

KELL

RD

SR 930 E

CALIFORNIA RD W

COLISEUM

BLVD N

CASTLEMAN RD

ABOI

TE R

D

RAY

RD

KNOLL RD

TAYLOR RD

MAUMEE AVE

HARD

ISTY

RD

MCKINNIE AVE

DUNKELBERG RD

GOSHEN AVE

St M

ARYS

AVE

MILLER RD

WES

T CO

UNTY

LIN

E RD

N

MAYHEW

RD

NUTTMAN AVE

RYAN RD N

BALDWIN RD

BERT

HAUD

RD

S

CEDAR CANYONS RD E

MAR

ION

CENT

ER R

D

KNAP

P RD

BRO

WN

RD

CAMPBELL RD

RAPP

RD

CHAN

EY R

D

DAW

SON

RD

BAKER RD

LEY RD

MARKEL RD

METTERT RD

DALMAN RD

BOSTICK RD

STATE ST

SPY

RUN

AVE

BRINDLE RD

BERN

ING

RD

PLATTER RD

MAR

TIN

RD

CRAWFORD RD

MAIN ST

KINN

ERK

RD

WES

T CO

UNTY

LIN

E RD

S

HUST

ED R

D

HATCH RD

RICHARD RD

DODANE RD

SPY

RUN

EXT

HART

ZELL

RD

TYLE

R AV

E

CLAY ST

BRO

OKL

YN A

VE

HAMM RD

THIRD ST

SCHA

FFER

RD

BOER

GER

RD

GUMP RD W

GRISAMER RD

MAPLECREST RD

HANA

UER

RD

BRO

BST

RD S

STOPHER RD

RUDISILL BLVD E

WAYNE ST W

ROSSWORM RD

EGG

EMAN

RD

BRANNING RD

AIRP

ORT

DR

TRAMMEL RD

HAZELETT RD

VANCE AVE LONG

RD

GO

EGLEIN RD

SCHEUMAN RD

CHAS

E RD

VAND

ERLY

RD

TREN

TMAN

RD

DOUGLASS RD

GERARDO

T RD

VANDOLAH RD

SANDPOINT RD

HARR

IS R

D

SOUD

ER R

D

FERGUSON RD

CEDAR CANYONS RD W

INDUSTRIAL RD

HUNTER ST

OLD MILL RD

STATE BLVD E

PULV

ER R

D

CORB

IN R

D

KLO

PFEN

STEI

N RD

LEXINGTON AVE

WER

LING

RD

PETTIT AVE W

BROOKS RD

DAFFORN RD

TILL RD E

BLACK RD

JEFFERSON BLVD W

RUDISILL BLVD W

SELM

A RD

HAYDEN ST

VAN

ZILE

RD

RIVER RUN RD

WES

T CO

UNTY

LIN

E RD

COLE RD

FOG

WEL

L PK

WY

WASHINGTON BLVD W

HARMAR ST

OLD SR 3

KRO

EMER

RD

2ND ST

COUN

TY L

INE

RD W

CRESCENT AVE

WYBURN RD

BARNETT RD

LIND

ENW

OO

D AV

E N

OLD MAUMEE RD

SIM

MER

RD

RUNN

ION

AVE

SAINT JOE BLVD

FRANCIS ST

OLD

TRA

IL R

D

COLUMBIA AVE

REPP RD

HALTER RD

WALLACE ST E

AETNA RD

PONTIAC ST E

HYNDMAN RD

HART

MAN

RD

BLUECAST RD

MAL

COLM

RD

YOUNG

RD

HARVEY RD

VAN BUREN ST

BEIN

EKE

RD

MO

NROE ST S

WINTER ST

ST JOE RIVER DR

ROEM

KE R

D

RAILROAD ST

PAIN

TER

RD

LEHMAN RD

PROGRESS RD

OLD LEO RD

CREIGHTON AVE W

FRONT ST

SUPERIOR ST W

FITCH RD E

BELL RD

BUET

ER A

VE

WATER ST

COLI

SEUM

BLV

D S

WITT

E RD

UNKNOWN

3BRO

BST

RD N

PINEDALE RD

SHORDON RD

ESTE

LLA

AVE

LINDEN RD

HAMILTON RD E

THO

MAS

RD

N

WEBSTER ST

SPEE

DWAY

DR

E US 24 RAMP C

E US 24 RAMP A

SHOAFF RD E

THIEME DR

KAMMEYER RD

DOYLE RD N

HARR

ISO

N ST

N

KELL

ER R

D

ILLINOIS RD

MO

RTO

N RD

HAEMAN RD

PEMBERTO

N DR

DENN

IS R

D

FERNHILL AVE E

BRUSH COLLEG

E RD

BRANDON RD

PLEASANT CENTER RD E

LINCOLN HWY W

SOUTH ST W

ASHT

ON

RD

THOM

AS RD S

CREIGHTON AVE E

PORTAGE BLVD

WASHINGTON CENTER RD E

PONTIAC ST W

FITCH RD W

ASHER DR

BUESCHING RD

EVERSON RD

HETRICK RDOHIO ST

SOMERS RD

CENT

RAL

DR

RACQUET DR W

PAULDING RD W

AMERICAN WAY

WOOD LN

BESANCON RD

TWIN OAKS DR

CADI

LLAC

DR

TILLMAN RD W

TOM WORRELL RD

US 24 W

EWIN

G S

T

HOLMES ST

MO

UREY

ST

LUDWIG RD E

FOREST AVE W

BERTHA ST

COLLINS RD

CALHOUN ST N

DEFO

REST

AVE

LAVINA ST

HART

ZELL

RD

LIM

A R

D

JEFFERSON BLVD

FELG

ER R

D

ROUSSEY RD N

IRVI

NG R

D

MEY

ER R

D

KRESS RD

SOUTH COUNTY LINE RD E

SR 1

01 S

FACKLER RD

HOBSO

N RD

ANTH

ONY

BLV

D S

LAFAYETTE ST S

WOODBURN RD

BROADWAY ST


NORTH COUNTY LINE RD

ERNST RD

PAULDING RD E

SR 1

BRAN

STRA

TOR

RD

US 24 W

BRUSH COLLEG

E RD

US 30 E

FACKLER RD

TAYLOR RD

WINTERS RD

WAYNE TRACE

COM

ER R

D

BUTT RD

I 469

FERGUSON RD

ZUBR

ICK

RD

COOK RD W

LEESBURG RD

ABO

ITE

RD

LAFAYETTE CENTER RD

MAPLES RD

YODER RD W

US 27 S

COVINGTON RD

SMIT

H RD

JOHN

SON

RD

LAFAYETTE ST S

ILLINOIS RD

SMITH RD

FERGUSON RD E

SR 3

LAFA

YETT

E ST

S

I 69

STATE BLVD W

SMIT

H RD

BLUF

FTO

N RD

YELLOW RIVER RD

HOBSO

N RD

FLATROCK RD

RUDISILL BLVD E

WEBSTER RD N

HOAGLAND RD

SOUTH COUNTY LINE RD W

BERTHAUD RD S

BRO

BST

RD N

KILL

IAN

RD

MAPLES RD

HART

ZELL

RD

ANTHONY BLVD S

LOCH

NER

RD

WINTERS RD

HOFFMAN RD

TREN

TMAN

RD

WILSO

N RD

ANTWERP RD

PRIN

E RD

COLDW

ATER RD

MO

RTO

N RD

E US 24

BUTT

RD

E US 24 RAMP A

WAYNE TRACE

SCIPIO RD

MAPLES RD

HOLLOPETER RD

CRAWFORD RD

MAIN ST

GRIFFIN RD

MAR

ION

CENT

ER R

D

LEO RD

UNION CHAPEL RD

HANNA ST S

LAFAYETTE CENTER RD

CLIN

TON

ST N

KINN

ERK

RD

AIRPORT EXPRESSWAY

LUDWIG RD W

FLATROCK RD

MCD

UFFE

E RD


LOCH

NER

RD

MOELLER RD

GRABILL RD


GUMP RD W

MONROEVILLE RD

SANDPOINT RD

HALT

ER R

D

WINTERS RD

HURSHTOWN RD

WES

T CO

UNTY

LIN

E RD

BARKLEY RD

SPRINGFIELD CENTER RD

LAFAYETTE ST S

LEO

RD

HAMILTON RD W

SMIT

H RD

ZUBR

ICK

RD

US 24 E

SCIPIO RD

ANTH

ONY

BLV

D S

HOM

ESTE

AD R

D

THOMPSON RD

SR 3

GER

ARDO

T RD

SCO

TT R

D

TILLMAN RD E

HARB

ER R

D

WATER ST

NORTH RIVER RD

WES

T HA

MIL

TON

RD

BRYIE RD

PAULDING RD E

WARD RD

VANCE AVE

FELG

ER R

D

STAT

E LI

NE R

D N

YOUNG

RD

WES

T CO

UNTY

LIN

E RD

KRO

EMER

RD

NOTESTINE RD

GOSHEN RD

LEESBURG RD

MAUMEE CENTER RD

COLISEUM

BLVD N

ROBERTS R

D

TREN

TMAN

RD

LINCOLN HWY E

PAULDING RD E

PARENT RD

MCCOMB RD

MAD

DEN

RD

HARRISON ST S

SR 1

01 N

PARENT RD

WINTERS RD

SNYD

ER R

D

SCHWARTZ RD

CAMPBELL RD

PONTIAC ST E

ProposedBike and Trail

Plan

Proposed Trails Plan

Existing Trail

Existing Trail - Potential reroute along Lake Ave

Planned Trail

Proposed Trail

Alternate Proposed Trail

Proposed On-Street Plan

Existing Bike Lane

Proposed Bike Lane

Proposed Wide Outside Lane

Existing Shoulder Lane

Proposed Shoulder Lane

Existing Bike Route

Proposed Bike Route

Other Map Features

Parks

River

Railroad

Produced by NIRCC3/13

4

2013 Allen County Proposed Bike and Trail Plan

The 2013 Allen County Proposed Bike and Trail Plan includes an overall map for greenways and trails within Allen County. The relevant portions of this plan are referenced below. This in conjunction with community input and previous plans helped inform the Town’s multi-modal plan.

LEGEND

2013 Allen County

Proposed Bike and Trail Plan

Existing Trail

Proposed Trail

Existing Shoulder Lane

Proposed Shoulder Lane

Parks

River

NTS



AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLANSAn ADA Transition Plan is a set of goals, methods and procedures to bring the public agency’s facilities into compliance with ADA. These facilities include all buildings and public right-of-ways. ADA Transition Plans have been a requirement of public agencies since the codification of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, although transition plans were a requirement for some entities through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Code of Federal Regulations 28 CFR 35.101 to 190 details these requirements, which govern public entities with more than 50 employees. Transition Plans were originally to be completed in 1992 for these public agencies, per the original Act, although new emphasis on the needs and requirements of this legislation appear to be prevalent. The Town should actively consider and review the requirements of the Act and move to incorporate these into annual street programs and new improvement projects.

Many publications have been compiled detailing methods for compliance. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s “ADA Transition Plans: A Guide to Best Management Practices” 4 is a good resource.

The above guide gives the following steps for initializing a Transition Plan for facilities in the right-of-way:

• Designate an ADA Coordinator,• Provide notice to the public about ADA requirements,• Establish a grievance procedure,• Develop internal design standards, specifications, and details,• Assign personnel for the development of a Transition Plan and completing it,• Approve a schedule and budget for the Transition Plan, and• Monitor the progress on the implementation of the Transition Plan.1

• The above guide also lists specific suggested elements for a Transition Plan:• Develop a list of physical barriers in the agency’s facilities that limit accessibility of

individuals with disabilities (self-evaluation),• Include a detailed description of the methods to remove these barriers and make the

facilities accessible,• Prioritize a schedule for taking the necessary steps,• Name the official responsible for implementation,• Plan a schedule for providing curb ramps, and• Record the opportunity given to the disability community and other interested parties

to participate in the development of the plan.

1 ADA Transition Plans: A Guide to Best Management Practices, The National Academies, National Academy of Sciences, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Jacobs Engineering Group, Baltimore, MD, May 2009

Making all public facilities including public sidewalks handicap accessible in accordance with the ADA is an important part of promoting complete streets in a community.



It should be noted that periodic updates to the Plan are required in order that on-going compliance is continued. Self-evaluation checklists are available to assist in the plan development.

Although local funding is generally to be programmed as a part of planned projects, other sources are available as well. These include federal funding through the MPO using many of their standard programs, such as: the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Railway–Highway Crossing Program, Recreational Trail Program, the Safe Routes to School Program, State & Community Traffic Safety Program, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program. Another good resource for the Transition Plan is the web page “Questions and Answers About ADA/Section 504” at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada_sect504qa.htm#q1

CHAPTER 7

PUBLIC SERVICES

AND INFRASTRUCTURE


7 Public Services and Infrastructure

The extension, upgrade, and maintenance of a community’s infrastructure serves as the most significant factor in determining the extent and location of local growth and development. Community infrastructure includes not only utilities such as drinking water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer but also roadways and public services such as fire and police protection.

Drinking water, sanitary/wastewater, and storm water infrastructure play a critical role in the community by providing a safe and reliable water supply, contributing to increased fire protection, improved drainage/flood conditions, removal of environmental pollution, providing opportunities for increased development density and providing for an overall improvement of the quality of life compared to those areas that don’t offer these utilities. These public infrastructure elements are typically buried utilities with centralized processing facilities.

Public sanitary/wastewater infrastructure is critical to providing the opportunity for development density that is consistent with residential neighborhoods, commercial areas in urban settings. Further, these public infrastructure elements are typically built with a useful life of 20-50 years, and it’s not uncommon for sewer lines to be in service as long as 100-years after they were initially installed. As a result, proper planning for public infrastructure is critical to the optimization and cost effectiveness of the utility.

Planning is an important consideration for public services so that they keep pace with and anticipate development to lessen the burden on existing ratepayers/taxpayers. Also, one of the best ways a community has for directing growth is through the provision of their public infrastructure. Therefore, it is imperative that decisions regarding land use development are made in concert with decisions for providing public services.

At this time, Leo-Cedarville does not own or operate its utilities and has limited influence over planned expansions, extensions or capacity increases.

Sanitary/Wastewater Infrastructure Summary

The Leo-Cedarville Regional Sewer District (RSD) is a privately-owned entity that provides sanitary sewer and wastewater conveyance infrastructure. Per an agreement with the City of Fort Wayne, RSD conveys wastewater to the City’s treatment facility for processing.

There are challenges with the current arrangement including a lack of capacity and infrastructure extension to accommodate the community’s desired vision for sustainable growth. Master planning for the community and long range master planning for the utility have not been well coordinated and communicated. The comprehensive plan process has resulted in an increased awareness of the vital role wastewater infrastructure plays within the community and how vital it is that sharing and communication between the utility provider and the Town increase. Many municipalities own their own utilities allowing them the ability to control or influence their destiny.


7Public Services and Infrastructure

LEGEND

Water

Floodplain


Sewer Opportunity Areas - In Town

Sewer Opportunity Areas - Out Of Town


Sewer Opportunities Map

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

1.

Gravity Sanitary Sewer

Connection Available

2.



3.


Connection Available4.



5.

New Pump Station

Required

11.

New Pump Station

Required

6.

Gravity Sanitary Sewer Extension Required

10.

Gravity Sanitary Sewer Extension In Connection

With #5 Required

7.


9.

Possible Gravity Sanitary Sewer Extension Required

8.


11.

New Pump Station

Required


Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d.

Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir

SR

1 / C

ente

r St.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.

Schwart

z Rd.

Hal

ter R

d.

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

LEGEND

Water

Floodplain


Sewer Opportunity Areas - In Town

Sewer Opportunity Areas - Out Of Town


Sewer Opportunities Map

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

1.



2.



3.


Connection Available4.



5.

New Pump Station

Required

11.

New Pump Station

Required

6.


10.

Gravity Sanitary Sewer Extension In Connection

With #5 Required

7.


9.

Possible Gravity Sanitary Sewer Extension Required

8.


11.

New Pump Station

Required


Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d.

Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir

SR

1 / C

ente

r St.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.

Schwart

z Rd.

Hal

ter R

d.

Gerig Rd.

Union Chapel Rd.

NTS

SEWER OPPORTUNITIES MAP



The map on page 81 provides information related to sewer locations and availability of sewer capacity as provided by the Town’s consulting engineer and staff.

Drinking Water Infrastructure Summary

Pioneer Water owns and operates the drinking water system that is services approximately 1/3 the area of the Town. The utility serves approximately 440 customers, has their own water filtration processing plant, with small diameter water mains and a 200,000-gallon elevated water storage tank. Conversations with officials at Pioneer Water indicate that expansion of capacity is desired by the utility, but a master plan or growth plan have not been prepared. Without a plan, the costs for expansion are unknown and potential customers/ developers are reluctant to enter into agreements without clearly seeing the benefits. Developers, who need predictability, may be left to seek their own water sources for drinking water and fire protection.

Stormwater Infrastructure Summary

The Town adopted a basic stormwater ordinance in 2004. The Town has a series of roadside ditches, wetland areas, streams, and a nearby reservoir that provides the primary method of natural drainage for Leo-Cedarville. These natural drainage areas are supplemented with varying degrees of stormwater infrastructure aided by coarse soil types that enhance the effectiveness of stormwater percolation into the ground. The Stormwater Ordinance should be updated to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP) that are commonly being used in many communities to mitigate and reduce stormwater runoff. See the Profile on page 102.

Goal 1: Ensure the quality and availability of infrastructure/utility capacity is compatible with the Community’s vision and meets demand in an efficient and cost effect manner.

Strategies:

1. Develop a stormwater master plan that analyzes existing conditions, addresses future development locations and densities, reviews environmental resources, and recommends creative approaches and alternative drainage solutions, and funding options. Sustainable infrastructure concepts continue to be embraced throughout Indiana where they provide a cost benefit. This stormwater master plan should be incorporated into the Town’s GIS mapping. In addition the Town may want to for a stormwater utility to implement improvements and provide managerial, technical, and financial services.


7Public Services and Infrastructure

2. The Town should continue to work with the Leo-Cedarville Regional Sewer District (RSD) to communicate the Town’s long range vision and planned growth areas as identified in the Future Land Use Plan on page 27. The RSD should work with the town to meet their customer’s wastewater/sewer infrastructure requirements now and in the future. The Town, as a primary customer, should request that the RSD develop a utility master plan that forecasts future development locations, densities, capacity, etc. The wastewater master plan should include a review of existing conditions, potential land uses, environmental factors, evaluation of infrastructure alternatives, cost estimates, phasing and funding recommendations.

3. The Town should continue to encourage Pioneer Water Company to develop a master plan based on the Future Land Use Map on page 27, that forecasts future development locations, density, capacity, storage requirements, as well hydrant/flow availability for fire protection. The study should include customer surveys that seek to understand existing homeowner willingness to hook on to a public water supply, if it were available. The master plan should include recommendations for cost effective service extensions, incremental capacity improvements, and improvements to water availability for firefighting.

4. The Town should coordinate the utility plans with both the Future Land Use and Thoroughfare Plans as a baseline for future transportation and utility projects. This is considered a sustainable and more economical way to plan a community. A Capital Improvement Plan is a way to pursue long-term infrastructure projects in phases and in a way that fits with the overall master plan.

5. Work with the sewer and water utilities to connect those on failing septic systems and wells to ensure the health and safety of the public.

6. If the Town is hampered in the implementation of the goals developed and supported by the community as part of this Comprehensive Plan process, the Town may want to consider establishing its own municipal utilities in order to move forward.

Goal 2: Conduct annual public service assessments when completing a Capital Projects Plan update to determine if there is a need for public investment in new community facilities, public and emergency services, and infrastructure.

Strategies:

1. Conduct a feasibility study to determine the impact of relocating Town Hall and other

Town services in the downtown.

2. Plan to acquire land to relocate a new fire station to be located in the western part of

Town possibly on a parcel near the northeast corner of Hosler and Amstutz Roads.

3. Examine fire hydrant availability to maximize protection. A new small-town fire station.



PROFILE: CREATING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

What are Capital Improvements?

Capital improvements include major projects identified as a community need for the safety and quality of life of its citizens. The most common projects usually involve construction of roads, municipal building/facility, acquisition of real property or equipment.

For the purpose of this Comprehensive Plan, the capital improvement projects include, but are not limited to construction of:

• streets, sidewalks/ trails • sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water lines, treatment plants, lift stations• public buildings (libraries, town halls, materials storage)• acquisition of fire trucks, police cars, plows

What is a Capital Improvement Plan?

Typically a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five-year timetable or schedule identifying the planned capital improvements to be made over a period of time. The improvements are prioritized as to importance, giving an approximate date that they should be completed, and estimates for the costs of each project and anticipated funding sources. It begins with a five-year projected schedule. As each year closes, minor adjustments to the next four years are made as necessary and a fifth year is once again added. This ensures that the Capital Improvement Plan will always project five years worth of identified projects.

How Can you Manage Growth with a CIP?

A Capital Improvement Plan is one of the most effective means to manage growth in a community. With a CIP in place, the community can best sculpt or manage where and when growth occurs within the town. For instance, if primary infrastructure is never extended to an area, growth is less likely to occur. On the contrary, where growth is desired, a municipality can extend its infrastructure in order to proactively attract builders. However, infrastructure alone does not always attract a new development. Extending infrastructure without a phased plan for growth can dilute opportunities and result in vast quantities of public investment that may sit idle for many years. Municipal- owned water and sewer are the most critical infrastructure elements for steering growth in a community. These two services are generally required for all new development.

Whether extending infrastructure in advance of development as a public investment or approving private infrastructure investments, all infrastructure must be built to the specifications of the Town and be deeded over to the Town upon completion. Further, standards for sizing of the lines should be adequate to accommodate future capacity in areas expected to have a high growth potential or desired for large-scale development like industrial or light industrial.

CHAPTER 8

PARKS, TRAILS,

AND OPEN SPACE


8 Parks, Trails, and Open Space

Parks

Leo-Cedarville is proud of its park system. In 2009 the Parks Department, seeking direction and funding, surveyed the public to ascertain their desires for the local parks system, and in 2010, the Town adopted the 2010-2014 Parks Master Plan. Recommendations contained within that document continued to respond to the actions suggested in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation chapter.

Riverside Gardens is a jewel on the east bank of the St. Joseph River carved from the relocation of Schwartz Road in 1998. Close to downtown, it fulfills one of the goals of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan and all but erases the park land deficit identified in the Park Master Plan. According to park service standards for neighborhood, community and regional parks, Leo-Cedarville would be considered well-served by the facilities identified in the adjacent map graphic.

Besides Riverside Gardens, there are three boat launches, a 3-mile trail and the former town square, Cedarville Park. Cedarville Park contains a regionally known unique wooden playground (Imagination Station) in addition to the park pavilion and basketball courts.

Not all facilities that provide room to recreate are owned by or lie wholly within the Town, but are still important. Metea County Park lies partially within the town’s corporate limits. It provides space for passive recreation, hiking, bird watching and fishing. Also, the Town has a joint use agreement with East Allen County School District to use the fields at the southeast corner of Halter and Hosler Roads. Other schools and churches in town at times also have recreational playground equipment.

Trails

One of the top three wishes expressed by residents of Leo-Cedarville, not only during the public process for this plan but during others as well, is the desire for connecting sidewalks, multiuse paths and trails and greenways along the streets, reservoir and creeks.

2013 SURVEY RESULTSSince the public was surveyed about parks in 2008 for the Parks Master Plan, there has been significant population growth, and so a new non-scientific survey was offered as part of this comprehensive plan process from late June to early July in 2013. The survey attempted to see if there was a change in attitude toward park development, acquisition, use or maintenance or funding on the part of the town. The results are summarized below but detailed responses can be found in Appendix D.

Almost 90% of the survey respondents were between the ages of 25 and 55 and almost 60% had 2-3 children living at home. Surveys confirmed the frequent use of walking paths and desire for more. See table on page 89.

This chapter proposes goals and strategies to meet the challenges for new facilities that will facilitate wellness and enjoyment in the community.


8Parks, Trails, and Open Space

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cor

p. L

imits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cedar Creek

Nettlehorst Ditch

Regional Park - 15 Mile Radius Service

Community Park - 3 Mile Radius Service

Neighborhood Park - 1/4 Mile Radius Service

Conservation

Wooded Areas

Water

*While conservation areas are present they are not public and do not count towards park service inventory.

LEGEND


Park Service Area Map

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir


RiversideGardens

Soccer Fields

*School Owned

DNR Boat Launch


Metea Park


Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d. Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.Sch

wartz R

d.

Hal

ter R

d.H

alte

r Rd.

Gerig Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

SR1 / C

enter

St.

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cor

p. L

imits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Corp. Limits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cor

p. L

imits

Cedar Creek

Nettlehorst Ditch

Regional Park - 15 Mile Radius Service

Community Park - 3 Mile Radius Service

Neighborhood Park - 1/4 Mile Radius Service

Conservation

Wooded Areas

Water

*While conservation areas are present they are not public and do not count towards park service inventory.

LEGEND


Park Service Area Map

Ceda

rville

Res

ervo

ir


RiversideGardens

Soccer Fields

*School Owned

DNR Boat Launch


Metea Park


Grabill Rd.

Schlatter Rd.

Hursh Rd.

Witmer Rd.

Am

stut

z R

d. Way

ne R

d.

Ew

ing

Rd.

Cla

y R

d.

Sch

war

tz R

d.

Schwart

z Rd.

Hal

ter R

d.H

alte

r Rd.

Gerig Rd.

SR1

/ Leo

Rd.

SR1 / C

enter

St.

NTS

PARK SERVICE AREAS MAP



See also the Concept Sketch on page 40 which illustrates the development potential for the town-owned hilltop property east of Riverside Gardens.

Goal 1: Continue to expand and enhance Leo – Cedarville’s parks, trails, and open space opportunities for the enjoyment of both residents and visitors.

Strategies:

1. Work to connect all parks, neighborhoods, the downtown district and schools with a multi-use path system.

2. The Cedarville Reservoir should be viewed as an open space amenity which should be appreciated for what it is. Dredging to create a deeper channel that is not for shipping is likely cost prohibitive and ecologically destructive.

3. Create a continuous pathway / linear park that follows the banks of the reservoir as much as possible and connects to other multi-use paths and sidewalks within the City of Fort Wayne 15-foot access easement. Where an easement cannot be acquired, divert path onto existing street right-of-way.

4. Consider the use of the Leo Memorial Park cemeteries as open spaces of cultural and historical value and as habitat for wildlife. Pursue improvements including fencing, sidewalks, and landscaping that promote the protection, beautification, and respectful use of these civic spaces.

5. Increase the density of tree planting at Riverside Gardens so that it will grow into a mature landscaped park.

6. Provide at grade-level street crossings, provide highly-visible crosswalks, including pedestrian-scale lighting, reflective pavement markings, and variations in color and texture.

7. Create overflow parking with permeable surface for Riverside Gardens on site to the east. Ensure that how parking is sited does not conflict for future development goals for the hilltop site.

8. Ensure that the Subdivision Control Ordinance requires all new development of a certain size to provide open space / a park/ a plaza as part of the site to enhance livability for new and existing residents.

Goal 2: Continue to provide programming for parks and open space.

Strategies:

1. Continue to incrementally build Riverside Gardens and the amenities (seating, bollard lighting, public art) within.

Cemeteries can provide peaceful places to walk and observe nature. The photo illustrates an edge that could be created adjacent to the cemetery.



2. Investigate and apply for various grants for park development through the State of Indiana and private foundations.

3. Consider a four-season community center with pool in town or across from Riverside Gardens that can be used for recreational programming by the YMCA and can be leased out for community and private events.

4. Enhance recreation services for all ages from pre-school to senior citizens.

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Mor

e ac

cess

ible

pla

yeq

uipm

ent.

Mor

e w

alki

ngtra

ils/p

aths

.

Mor

ebe

nche

s/sh

elte

rs/g

ath

erin

g ar

eas.

Mor

e yo

uth

prog

ram

s/ac

tiviti

es.

Mor

e ad

ult

prog

ram

s/ac

tiviti

es.

A n

ew a

men

ity:

Ska

tepa

rk

A n

ew a

men

ity: D

ogP

ark

A n

ew a

men

ity:

Com

mun

ity G

arde

n

I would like to see the parks department add the following items (check all that apply):

Survey conducted June-July 2013.

Preparing for Movie Night at Riverside Gardens.



TABLE 4: RECREATIONAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Facility Type Description Service Area Radius

Size Criteria

Mini-Park Addresses isolated or unique recreational needs

1/4 mile or less in residential setting 2,500sf-1ac

Neighborhood Park

Recreational and social focus of the neighborhood 1/4 mile - 1/2 mile 5+ acres;

5-10ac ideal

School Park Neighborhood, community and sports park combined varies varies

Community ParkMeets community based recreation needs as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.

2+ neighborhoods; 1/2mile-3 mile 30-50 acres

Large Urban ParkMeets community based recreation needs as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.

Entire Community 50+ acres; 75+ ac ideal

Sports Complex Programmed athletic fields and associated facilities varies

25+ ac; 40-80ac

ideal

Natural Resource Areas

Preservation of significant natural resources, remnant landscapes, open space and visual aesthetics/buffering

varies varies

Park Trails (bike trails/lanes, park, equestrian, etc.)

Multipurpose trails located within greenways and parks that connect park systems; can be hard- or soft-surface trails

Greenways: 50’ width min.; 1/4 mi.

service

Other: varies

varies

Riverside Gardens “Summer Sleepover”.



During the summer of 2013, the Town of Leo-Cedarville began construction on additional improvements to Riverside Gardens. These improvements include a nature playground, splash park, enhanced trails, and a sand volleyball court

All photos: Precedent images for Riverside Garden Park facilities.



CEDARVILLE RESERVOIRThe reservoir / lake is probably the greatest amenity that Leo-Cedarville has to offer, though it is a well-kept secret. The reservoir should not just be thought of as a drinking water source, but also as an economic development tool and recreational amenity.

The flow of the St. Joseph River and water levels controlled by the City of Ft. Wayne is a desirable body of water that most communities do not possess. Though there is much private development ringing the reservoir, there is a 15-foot wide easement at the top of bank that other communities have used to provide a public access trail such as that illustrated below.

Issues• Current lack of easements and agreements from private property owners• Community should work with the County to coordinate efforts to gain easements

both in and adjacent to Town

Long-Term Recommendations• Create access points on the town-owned properties along the creek• Acquire easements/ROW’s a minimum of 25-feet wide from property owners along

the creek to provide trail and allow for maintenance and erosion prevention

Process to work with Fort Wayne Water Department for Trail Easement• Contact the City of Fort Wayne,Planning & Design Services/Water Resources

Department, Program Manager for Dam Rehabilitation/Safety.• After making the above contact speak with the City of Fort Wayne,Planning &

Design Services/Water Resources Department, Land Acquisition Specialist

State and Regional Trail Linkages• State Trail Planning: IDNR Division of Outdoor Recreation• Regional Planning: Greenways Manager, City of Fort Wayne

See page 75 in the Transportation chapter for information on regional trail planning and the multi-modal map.

8-10’

25’Trail users reminded to respect adjoining private property



GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ALL PARKSIn order to ensure an accessible, user-friendly park system, the following guidelines have been created for future park and recreational facility development. To ensure compliance with local, state, and federal accessibility requirements, consider contacting an accessibility consultant when planning for new park facilities.

• Sidewalks and pathways should be a minimum of four feet (4’) wide, with at least one five feet (5’) wide accessible route

• Multiuse trails should be a minimum of eight feet (8’) wide • Materials for pathways should be constructed of accessible materials that meet the

path’s intent. For example, along streets, concrete sidewalks should be installed. In natural areas with varied slope and dense vegetation, crushed, compacted aggregate or engineered wood fiber may be most suitable. Paths through park and open space areas could consist of asphalt or other hard surface to facilitate wheels on skates, strollers, coolers, etc.

• Safety surfaces at play structures should consist of fire retardant engineered wood fiber

• Additional padding or cushions should be installed under equipment with fall potential (swings, ropes, climbing walls, etc.)

• Drinking fountains should be available and accessible• When designing planting elements, strive to utilize native plants which are more

suitable to Indiana’s temperatures and weather patterns, and often require less maintenance to thrive

• Plan for a comprehensive lighting scheme that accounts for area-wide as well as site specific lighting.

• Bollard lights can be used to illuminate pathways• Field lighting should have a limit on length of use and a time for “lights

out”, possibly different for weeknights and weekends• All lighting fixtures, whether security, pedestrian, or vehicular, should

adhere to “Dark Sky” standards. Limits should be set for spill onto adjacent properties, especially residential property, and all fixtures should be directed downward to reduce light pollution (full cutoff)

• Consider making a commitment to accessibility compliance of existing facilities (restrooms, entrances, etc.), such as identifying a specific small percentage of budget allocation per year.

The Leo-Cedarville Park Pavilion



Survey conducted June-July 2013.See Appendix D for Full Survey Results.

POTENTIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIESMany funding opportunities exist for parks, playgrounds, recreation programs, naturalization, land acquisition, education, and similar uses. They can be categorized as:

• Municipal bonds• Sales taxes• Development impact fees/land donation requirements• User and entrance fees• Creative partnerships (with private and public entities)• Donations• In-kind, service, products, and land• Bequests• Tax write-offs• Corporate donations• Naming rights• Product sales (hats, t-shirts, etc.)• Grants (Federal, State, foundation, non-profit, etc.)

Responses to the June/July 2013 survey indicate the methods the community supports to pay for improvements. In another question, the majority said they were willing to pay small tax increases or user fees for specified improvements.

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%

Yes

, sm

all i

ncre

ase

in p

rogr

am fe

es.

Yes

, sm

all i

ncre

ase

in s

helte

r

rese

rvat

ion

fee.

Yes

, sm

all a

nnua

lto

wn

park

use

r tax

.

No,

I am

not

will

ing

to p

ay fo

r

impr

ovem

ents

.

No,

I ca

n’t a

fford

to

pay

for p

arks

.

Are you willing to pay for improvements in the Leo - Cedarville’s Parks using any of the following methods? (check all that apply)

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%

Yes

, sm

all i

ncre

ase

in p

rogr

am fe

es.

Yes

, sm

all i

ncre

ase

in s

helte

r

rese

rvat

ion

fee.

Yes

, sm

all a

nnua

lto

wn

park

use

r tax

.

No,

I am

not

will

ing

to p

ay fo

r

impr

ovem

ents

.

No,

I ca

n’t a

fford

to

pay

for p

arks

.




Funding at the State Level

The Bicentennial Nature Trust • 402 W. Washington St., Executive Office, Room W-256, Indianapolis, IN 46204• The primary Intent of BNT is property protection/acquisition that will become part of

the public trust for all Hoosiers to enjoy. Project types eligible for funding under the BNT include the acquisition of property for conservation. Public/private partnerships are encouraged.

• The maximum amount of money from BNT for any single project proposal is $300,000. Projects will have a 1:1 match. So for every dollar requested from BNT there will be at least one dollar of non-BNT fund match within the project.

• The Project Committee meets quarterly to consider project proposals and deadlines for submission of project proposals are: February 1, May 1, August 1, and November 1.

IDNR - Division of Outdoor Recreation

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)• Since 1965, the LWCF program has been instrumental in land protection and outdoor

recreation development. On the national level, it acquires land for the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the USDA Forest Service. It also benefits state and local governments by providing 50%/50% matching reimbursement grants for outdoor recreation and park land acquisition and facility development.

• The minimum grant amount is $10,000 with a maximum award of $200,000. The applicant must be a town, city, township, or county park and recreation board established by ordinance under current Indiana Code, (IC.36-10-3 or IC 36-10-4), and that park board must have a current IDNR-OR approved five-year park and recreation master plan on file.

• Possible projects include: Acquiring park or natural area; Picnic areas; Sports and playfields, such as playgrounds, ballfields, court facilities and golf courses; Water oriented facilities for boating, swimming, and access to lakes, rivers and streams; Natural areas and interpretive facilities; Campgrounds; Fishing and hunting areas; Winter sports facilities; Amphitheaters and bandstands; Parks adjacent to schools for mutual use; Outdoor natural habitat zoo facilities; Roads, restrooms, utilities, park maintenance buildings; or Nature Centers

Recreational Trails Program (RTP)• The Recreational Trails Program (RTP), is part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the

21st Century (MAP-21) funding. It is a matching assistance program, funded through the Federal Highway Administration, that provides funding for the acquisition and/or development of multi-use recreational trail projects. Both motorized and non-motorized projects may qualify for assistance. It represents a portion of the federal motor fuel excise tax paid by users of off-road recreational vehicles.

• All units of government and agencies incorporated as not-for-profit corporations are



eligible to participate.• The minimum grant amount is $10,000 with a maximum award of $150,000. The

project sponsor will not receive a cash grant at the time of project approval. Instead, the sponsor must pay the bills and then be reimbursed for a maximum of 80% of the expenses incurred for the project according to the terms of the project agreement. Reimbursement is not permitted for work that takes place prior to project approval. At the time of application the project sponsor must have at least 20% of the total project cost available. The local share may include tax sources, bond issues, Community Development Funds, Farmers Home Administration Loans, or force account contributions. The donated value of land, cash, labor, equipment and materials may also be used.

• Projects will be eligible if they provide public access to trails. Funds from RTP can be used for: Development and rehabilitation of trailside, trailhead facilities, and trail linkages; Construction of multi-use trails; Acquisition of easement or property for trails; Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to 5% of State’s funds); Providing stream and river access sites; Construction of bridges, boardwalks and crossings; Signage; or Building of sanitary facilities and other support facilities (e.g., water fountains, etc.).

The IDNR-OR Shooting Range Program / Wildlife Restoration• The DNR Shooting Range Grant Program offers assistance to all units of government,

and agencies incorporated as 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporations open to the public at least 20 hours per month, for the development of rifle, handgun, shotgun, and archery facilities available to the public. The intent of this program is to train the public, hunter education, and to provide additional safe places for target practice.

• The Shooting Range program will provide 75% matching reimbursing assistance for eligible projects. The sponsor must pay the bills and be reimbursed for a maximum of 75% of the expenses incurred for the project according to the terms of the project agreement. Applicants may request a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $100,000. Land acquisition is not eligible for reimbursement or local match contribution under this program.

• Eligible projects include: Development of backstops; Target holders; Field courses; Classrooms; Sanitary facilities; Accessible pathways

Indiana Heritage Trust (IHT)• The Indiana General Assembly created the Indiana Heritage Trust in 1992 for the

sole purpose of buying public natural areas from willing sellers. It is funded by the sale of Environmental license plates, general appropriations, and contributions from corporations, foundations, and individuals. Representative projects include the purchase of properties that have examples of outstanding natural or cultural features, and provide areas for conservation, recreation, and restoration of native biological diversity. Since the beginning of the program, the trust has acquired more than 50,000 acres.



IDNR - Division of Forestry• Community Forestry Grant Programs• Forest Management Cost Share Programs

IDNR - Fish and Wildlife• Lake & River Enhancement (LARE) Program• Indiana Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and

Dance (IAHPERD) - Programming grants

Opportunities at the Federal Level

Corporation for National and Community Service• AmeriCorps provides support to nonprofits, faith-based and community organizations,

and public agencies committed to meeting critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment. Helps in identifying programs and volunteers for community service projects.

The Small Grants Program (US Fish & Wildlife Service)• A competitive, matching grants program that supports public-private partnerships

carrying out projects in the United States that further the goals of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (Act). These projects must involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetlands-associated migratory birds.

• This program supports the same type of projects and adheres to the same selection criteria and administrative guidelines as the U.S. Standard Grants Program. However, project activities are usually smaller in scope and involve fewer project dollars. Grant requests may not exceed $75,000, and funding priority is given to grantees or partners new to the Act’s Grants Program.

National Park Service• Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program• The mission of the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program (RTCA)

is to assist community-led natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation initiatives. RTCA staff provide guidance to communities so they can conserve waterways, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways.

• Historic Preservation Grants• National Park Foundation• Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) - FHA



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)• Environmental Education Grants• Brownfields Grants and Funding

Non-Profit National Funding Providers• America the Beautiful Fund• American Hiking Society - National Trails Fund• American Rivers• Defenders of Wildlife• Garfield Foundation• Tony Hawk Foundation• Turner Foundation, Inc.• Ball Brothers Foundation

Corporate Foundations• Alcoa Foundation• Lowe’s Charitable and Educational Foundation• Nike, Inc. Community Programs• Walmart Foundation• SIA (Subaru of Indiana Automotive) Foundation• Vectren Foundation

CHAPTER 9

NATURAL SYSTEMS & SUSTAINABILITY


INTRODUCTIONThe Town of Leo-Cedarville’s commitment to recycling is evident and in full display atop the hill east of Riverside Gardens. Besides recycling, the town also composts. This chapter addresses other ways to maintain an ecologically healthy environment which contributes to economic health by reducing long-term energy costs and demands on utilities and infrastructure. These protections and sustainable measures are made all the more important by the presence of the St. Joseph’s River / Cedarville Reservoir, previously identified as one of the greatest amenities in town. Some commonly used terms are discussed below.

Wellhead Protection Plan

The Wellhead Protection Program was initiated in the State of Indiana in 1996. The purpose of the program was to protect ground water drinking supplies from pollution. Pioneer Water has a Wellhead Protection Plan.

Sustainable SolutionsBest Management Practices (BMPs) are methods used to reduce the amount and pollutants in storm water runoff and slow the flow throughout communities. The success of BMPs can be dependent on soil conditions at the site. BMPs such as rain gardens or bio-retention that incorporate indigenous plant material are stormwater solutions that can also be an aesthetically pleasing amenity.

Pervious Pavement

The use of pervious pavement can promote natural infiltration of some stormwater runoff, decreasing the load on a stormwater infrastructure system. These materials can also reduce the need for sand and salt to melt winter snow because the warmer ground temperatures (compared to colder air temperatures) are able to radiate through the paving material and can expedite snow-melt.

Recycling

Leo-Cedarville has a community recycling facility at Riverside Gardens which accepts several recyclables including glass, many plastics, steel, yard waste. This facility is available to all residents of Town.

Non-Point Source Pollution

These types of contaminants that are difficult to trace to a specific pollution source, such as a pipe or smoke stack. Non-point source pollutants that affect water quality often include agricultural activities such as poorly located or managed animal feeding operations; overgrazing; plowing too often or at the wrong time; and improper, excessive, or poorly timed application of pesticides, irrigation water, and fertilizer.

Concrete pavers set in stone are drain stormwater runoff.

Natural Systems and Sustainability9

Decals on inlets or curbs increase awareness that whatever runs off into the inlets drains to a local water source.


Goal 1: Enhance the health and appearance of the natural and built environment by taking proactive steps towards identifying assets and mitigating problem areas.

Strategies:

1. Identify brownfields that exist in Leo-Cedarville that might impact water quality. Brownfield sites may also be good candidates for remediation and redevelopment based on available funding programs.

2. Conduct an annual review of commercial properties to identify hazards and take steps towards improvements.

Goal 2: Protect and enhance the quality of natural areas and water within the Town.

Strategies:

1. Work with the City of Fort Wayne to identify opportunities to mitigate erosion by stabilizing the banks of the Cedarville Reservoir with native riparian edge plants and erosion control best management practices.

2. Provide education materials to surrounding property owners regarding the negative impacts of agricultural runoff into the Reservoir.

3. Discourage development and grading within 75 feet from the top of bank of the reservoir.

4. Incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and green infrastructure such as vegetated swales, shared detention facilities, rain gardens, and pervious pavement into the Town’s Stormwater, Zoning, and Subdivision Control Ordinances.

5. Protect and enhance water quality in the St. Joseph River by buffering development and promoting low-impact agricultural operations.

6. Coordinate with the county health department to monitor existing septic systems near the end of their useful life to determine the need to connect to nearby sanitary sewer. Consider technologies such as pop-ups valves that allow a property owner to monitor the condition of their septic system.

7. Emphasize access to the reservoirs as an amenity.

Curbside raingarden.

Natural Systems and Sustainability 9


Natural Systems and Sustainability9

PROFILE: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) FOR STORMWATER TREATMENT

What are some alternatives to retention ponds for stormwater collection and treatment?The use of constructed wetlands and bioswales can be beneficial not only for wastewater, but also for the treatment of stormwater runoff for existing properties and developing residential subdivisions, business, and industry. Some of the benefits of integrating BMPs into new development projects include:• They can be less expensive to install as well as to

maintain.• They can be self-healing.• People have a strong preference for living in

healthy natural environments. • People want to be able to access the natural

environment in which they live, and stormwater management facilities have the potential to become spectacular components of parks.

• They are more readily permitted by regulatory agencies.

• Communities and corporations can project a progressive environmentally-friendly image.

• They encourage better integration of the built and natural environments.

• They can be built to facilitate the control of geese.• There is a reduced liability for wet ponds with

extended shallow water shelves.

There are also some issues to consider when utilizing constructed wetlands:• The types of plant materials used: native vs.

ornamental• The natural elements will need to be maintained

From the top: parking lot bioswale, permeable pavement, and streetside raingarden


Goal 3: Support and promote environmentally responsible initiatives.

Strategies:

1. Encourage sustainable site development and building practices. Municipal and large-scale commercial and industrial development should lead the way. Key elements to consider include appropriate site selection, design, and development practices that minimize grading and retain existing natural features (which provide climate regulation, clean air and water, and improved quality of life).

2. Continue to support recycling, composting, and other environmentally responsible activities in Leo - Cedarville through methods such as public awareness campaigns and educational workshops.

3. Relocate the recycling facility away from the visible hilltop site overlooking Riverside Gardens and the Reservoir to another centrally located and easily accessible location in town, perhaps as part of a municipal complex, school, or commercial parking lot.

4. Implement energy conservation measures at Town facilities or public institutions to lead by example.

Natural Systems and Sustainability 9


Natural Systems and Sustainability9PROFILE: RIPARIAN AREAS

What is a Riparian Area?

Riparian areas are also known as streamside forests. They are the wooded areas along rivers and streams. These areas are a complex ecosystem vital to the protection of stream and river water quality. These areas include some of the richest varieties of plants and animals in most regions.

Why are Riparian Areas Important?

Land along waterways has significant ecological and aesthetic value that enhances the natural environment of a community. The presence of riparian areas also adds value to properties with water access, as they are often prime locations for development. Many communities depend upon local rivers and streams for recreation, drinking water, and natural resource areas. The trees provide shade which regulates water temperatures. The loss of riparian areas along such waterways is a major cause of decreases in water quality and loss of wildlife habitat.

How are Riparian Areas Identified?

Healthy riparian areas are typically composed of large trees, woody understory trees and shrubs, and smaller flowers, grasses, and groundcover. Well maintained and managed riparian areas are able to influence the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the stream by:

• Providing food, shelter and natural linkages for a wide variety of plant and animal communities.

• Shading and cooling the stream to enhance aquatic habitats.

• Filtering sediments and pollutants, preventing them from entering the stream or waterway.

• Stabilizing river banks and reducing bank erosion.• Providing flood control

Who Regulates Riparian Areas?

In Indiana, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources has the authority to regulate riparian areas for water quality purposes. Often times, local governments (County Surveyor) may regulate, to some extent, development or encroachment to riparian areas through planning and zoning controls.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) states the ideal riparian area includes three zones for management in which development should be restricted. These zones, listed in sequence from the edge of the stream, are as follows:

Undisturbed Forest - This zone is adjacent to the stream and is ideally 15’ in width. Removal of vegetation is not permitted.

Managed Forest - This zone is ideally 60’ in width and harvesting of older vegetation is encouraged to support better filtering/removal of nutrients through younger, faster growing vegetation. Grass is not a substitute for the younger, faster growing plants. The runoff over grass is rapid, allowing no time for filtering.

Runoff Control - This zone is ideally 20’ and may be pastured, farmed for hay or mowed for recreational purposes. Pesticides and other chemicals should not be used within these zones in riparian areas.

CHAPTER 10

IMPLEMENTATION


Implementation10

IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIESSeveral different agencies have been assigned to the “Action Items” previously listed in this Plan in order to provide more direct guidance for implementation. Agencies are broken into Lead Agencies and Supporting or Coordinating Agencies.

Lead Agencies:

TC Leo-Cedarville Town Council/Town Staff

PC Leo-Cedarville Plan Commission/BZA

RDC Leo-Cedarville Redevelopment Commission

PK Leo-Cedarville Parks Board

LE Law Enforcement/Public Safety/Sheriff

LM Local Merchants/Chamber of Commerce

U Utility Companies

Supporting or Coordinating Agencies:

ACHW Allen County Highway Dept.

ACHD Allen County Health Dept.

ACS Allen County Surveyor

ACP Allen County Parks

SC East Allen County School Corporation

IDEM Indiana Dept. of Environmental

Management

IDNR Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources

MPO Northern Indiana Regional Coordinating Council/Indiana Dept. of Transportation

LF Leo-Cedarville Foundation

Time Frame

The following action items have been assigned approximate time frames for the implementation of each action item. The time frames, which may vary based on economic development influences and numerous other factors, are:

Quick Wins / Opportunities

Projects that could be undertaken immediately and/or implemented within 6-12 months of the Comprehensive Plan’s adoption.

Mid-Term Opportunities

Projects that could be initiated within 1-5 years of the Comprehensive Plan’s adoption.

Long-Term Opportunities

Projects that could be undertaken within 6-10+ years of the Comprehensive Plan’s adoption.

Ongoing Opportunities

Projects that may require initial studies to determine their feasibility or may depend on other work prior to implementation. Such projects may also be implemented in a series of incremental steps involving numerous agencies or departments. These recommendations may go beyond the time frame of this Comprehensive Plan.


Implementation Matrix

RecommendationsImplementation

AgencyTime Frame

Ch.2: Character and Identity (Pg. 18)

Identify community gateways and corridors as priority areas for enhancements to the streetscape, landscaping, wayfinding signage, themed street furnishings, and defined multi-use paths. G1

RC, TC Medium

Install, distinctive gateway monument signage constructed of durable materials and landscaped at major entrances to Town. G1

TC, LM Medium

Provide wayfinding signage to define the edges of the “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District”. G1

RC,LM Medium

Continue to build upon the summer Freedom Festival and program similar activities for all seasons which also connect festivals and events to downtown commercial areas. G1

LC,LM,PK Ongoing

Bring together community organizations on a regular basis to coordinate and support community endeavors. G1

LM Ongoing

Continue to develop the Town brand as a family-oriented community (safe, walkable good parks, schools, etc.). G1

LM Ongoing

Install district signage, re-branding with the importance of the conjoined Leo – Cedarville in mind and work to connect neighborhoods both visually (through design strategies) and physically (through multi-use paths, similar materials, etc.). G2

LM, TC Medium

Maintain and enhance the Town’s design standards for major street corridors to ensure consistency in branding, materials, landscaping, lighting, and other elements. G2

PC,TC Medium

Landscape the SR. 1/ “Leo- Cedarville Downtown District” and commercial areas. G2

RC, PK Medium

Ensure the preservation, maintenance, and continued use of historic buildings and open spaces to maintain the Town’s unique character. The cemeteries are significant historic open spaces. The older cemetery was likely regarded as a park in the 19th century. G2

TC, PC, LC, LM Medium

Update the Zoning Ordinance to provide design standards that “encourage the preservation, maintenance, and continued use of the Town’s historic buildings and open spaces” especially for the two commercial districts north and south of the intersection of Leo-Grabill Road and SR 1 , as well as architectural standards for residential development. G3

PC, TC Quick Win

Update the sign standards in the Zoning Ordinance to permit signs that are appropriate and in character in downtown zoning districts including but not limited to projecting, signs and “A” frame (sandwich board signs). G3

PC,TC Quick Win

Enact an Unwholesome Environment Ordinance to provide a means to require property owners to clean up properties which have been identified as a nuisance, environmental or public health hazard. G3

TC, ACHD, LE, IDEM

Ongoing

10Implementation




AgencyTime Frame

Ch.3: Land Use & Guided Growth (Pg. 22)

Overlay utility providers service areas, existing capacity and plans for future expansion in order to determine areas in which the community can grow. G1

RDC, TC, U Quick Win

Require fiscal plans for new developments and require developers to pay to connect to infrastructure (sewer and water) where practicable. G1

PC, TC, U Medium

Encourage the Town to conduct a study on the fiscal impact of existing land use and to identify redevelopment areas as part of an economic development plan. G1

RDC, TC, U Quick Win

Establish and permit densities which are favorable to the Town’s tax base through a Ordinance update. G1

PC, TC Quick Win

Make clear, through stated policies and code, what the Town’s expectations are for key redevelopment and development areas. These can include design standards and zoning codes which de-emphasize businesses that are not a good fit in certain districts. G2

PC, TC, RDC,

LMOngoing

Use the Future Land Use Map to guide development and encourage new developments to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. G2

PC, TC Ongoing

Maintain compatibility between residential and non-residential areas, specifically with respect to traffic, noise, and lighting. G2

PC, RDC Ongoing

Encourage development wherein the layout, scale and physical features respect the human scale. G2

PC, RDC Ongoing

Develop on existing sites that are vacant or underutilized within platted areas of the older part of Town. Such areas may already have sewer service and could be utilized as a “quick win” for redevelopment. G2

RDC Ongoing

Strengthen policies and ordinances to encourage context sensitive development that is cognizant of natural features and the existing built environment. G2

IDNR, PK Quick Win

Ch.4: Economic Development (Pg. 34)

Investigate a downtown TIF District to allow property taxes collected from new development to be funneled back to downtown redevelopment and infrastructure improvements. This would require formation of a Redevelopment Commission. G1

RDC, TC Quick Win

Conduct a fiscal impact study to see if the population of Leo – Cedarville would support the bond required to take the steps to build a local wastewater treatment plant and to hook users up to the system and the rates required to operate said system. G1

TC Quick Win

Implementation10




AgencyTime Frame

Conduct a study of the Pioneer Water System to see if a public/private partnership can be formed to expand capacity to entice development and redevelopment opportunities. G1

TC, RDC Quick Win

Facilitate economic development by providing the infrastructure that is needed for business expansion and growth. G1

TC, RDC, U Medium

Look to strategically annex areas to improve the tax base and fund sewer, water and infrastructure improvements. G1

TC Medium

Use public investments (improving sidewalks, roads, etc.) to lead the way for private investment in the “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District.” G2

TC, RDC, PK Medium

After making the improvements, recruit commercial businesses that will serve the needs of local residents. G2

TC, RDC, LC Medium

Conduct a periodic community needs analysis – including available commercial space and amenities - and publish the results to entice businesses. G2

LC, LM Quick Win

Tout the good school systems, small town feel, and parks to attract residents and business. G2

TC, LC Ongoing

Explore higher-paying employment options that match local education attainment and income expectations. G3

TC Medium

Work to support and retain local businesses as they grow and expand their operations locally. G3

LC, TC Ongoing

Provide an entrepreneurial climate for existing home based companies and encourage them to move operations to the “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District” if and when they expand. G3

LC Ongoing

Ch.5: Downtown (Pg. 47)

Initiate cleanup of downtown. Nothing demonstrates the community’s commitment to revitalization like fixing things up. Other chapters of the plan give specific requirements on road, sidewalk and other infrastructure improvements. G1

LC, TC, PK Quick Win

Revive the Leo-Cedarville Downtown Revitalization Partnership and utilize the resources offered through the Indiana Main Street program at the IN Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA). G1

LC Quick Win

Pursue downtown infrastructure and façade improvement grants G1 LC, RDC, LCF Quick Win

Relocate community services and civic facilities such as the Town Hall, fire station or post office in the downtown. *Anchors and Draws, DAA p. 14. G1

TC, LC, RDC Long

Focus targeted redevelopment to specific opportunities and areas to create a stable economic base on which the Town can catalyze new investment. G1

RDC, TC Medium

10Implementation




AgencyTime Frame

Once the Main Street committee is in place and clean-up is underway, start working through recommendations from The Leo-Cedarville Downtown Action Agenda. For example, recruit a riverfront restaurant. G1

RDC, LC Medium

Convene a redevelopment commission in order to create a tax increment financing district (TIF) around downtown. This topic is also discussed in the economic development chapter. G2

RDC, TC Quick Win

Once the district is up and running, use TIF funds for targeted improvement projects, such as façade studies or infrastructure problems. G2

RDC Medium

As funds accumulate, consider having the Town act as its own developer, such as buying properties to lure developers or creating public –private partnerships for new development. G2

RDC, TC, MPO Medium

Support the redevelopment of the (triangular) property at the southern intersection of SR 1 and Leo – Grabill Road as an integral link between the existing commercial districts. G3

RDC, TC, MPO Medium

Provide wayfinding signage to entice people to venture north of Grabill Rd. on SR 1. Enhance the intersection and make Downtown Leo more inviting and attractive for business through sidewalk and façade improvements. G3

LC, LF Medium

Consider enhancing and increasing the functionality of SR 1 to be a more “complete street” with sidewalks and on-street parking. G3

TC, RDC, MPO Medium

Extend the streetscape enhancements east and west on Leo-Grabill Road to Riverside Park and Hosler Road to the high school (intersection with Amstutz Road). G3

TC Medium

Add amenities to promote downtown quality of life, such as Wi-Fi, active green space or a multi-use outdoor gathering space that can be used for concerts, festivals, and other events. G3

TC, LC, PK, LF Ongoing

Create design standards. While some people express concern that design standards would restrict new business growth, many communities have implemented basic requirements for construction in targeted revitalization zones. This is particularly true if the local government has led the way by investing in downtown. G3

PC, TC Medium

Work to strengthen local businesses and to concentrate the redevelopment efforts on priority downtown district areas. G4

RDC, LC Ongoing

Provide opportunities for residents and business owners to apply for matching funds to rehabilitate commercial facades in identified downtown and corridor districts. *Personal Responsibility from DAA, p. 13. G4

TC, RDC Medium

Implementation10




AgencyTime Frame

Promote the idea that public/private investment will be needed to revitalize the “Leo – Cedarville Downtown District”, and that this investment will encourage business growth and quality of life. G4

LC, RDC Ongoing

The Downtown identity needs to be strengthened and connected by streetscape and façade improvements and infill development to connect the old Leo Downtown to the other commercial areas throughout Town. G4

RDC, TC, MPO Medium/Long

Investigate a downtown TIF District to allow property taxes collected from new development to be funneled back to downtown redevelopment and infrastructure improvements. G4

RDC Medium

Ch.6: Transportation Systems (Pg. 60)

Reserve adequate rights-of-way for future roadway improvements. G1 TC, PC, MPO Ongoing

Define and protect new undeveloped thoroughfare corridors that will promote commerce and connectivity. G1

TC, PC, MPO Ongoing

Discourage unnecessary use of cul-de-sacs, while promoting the use of a grid street pattern and stub streets for future connectivity. G1

TC, PC Ongoing

Require a traffic impact analysis as part of significant new development/redevelopment and mitigate existing or potential traffic issues. G1

TC, PC, LE Quick Win

Conduct capacity and collision analysis at busy locations to determine the need for and scale of potential improvements to ease congestion now and in the future. G1

TC, LE, MPO Medium

Work with Northeastern Indiana Regional Coordinating Council (NIRCC), the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which administers federal funding for certain transportation projects, to obtain federal aid for transportation improvements. G1

TC, ACHW Medium

Establish aesthetic design standards for major street corridors to ensure consistency in landscaping, lighting etc. G2

TC, MPO, ACHW Medium

Update Town Engineering Design Standards Manual (cross-sections and standard details) to be compliant with current ADA requirements, incorporate industry best practices and consider all modes of transportation. G2

TC, ACHW Quick Win

Develop an access management policy to minimize new curb cuts, combine existing drives where feasible, and locate future drives to minimize conflicts and congestion. G2

TC, MPO, ACHW Quick Win

Encourage safe travel for all roadway users by calming vehicular traffic or providing a separation buffer between modes where appropriate. G2

TC, ACHW, MPO Ongoing

10Implementation




AgencyTime Frame

Review and update (or create) a pavement maintenance plan for roadways, trails, and sidewalks. G2

TC, PK Quick Win

As the Town Capital Improvement Plan is discussed, include phased improvements for existing areas in poor conditions or with no sidewalks and street lighting. G2

TC Quick Win

Facilitate the construction of and prioritize pedestrian/bicycle connections to provide a cohesive network linking activities or destinations such as schools and residential areas, adjacent neighborhoods, and various recreational facilities. City of Fort Wayne Utilities is open to the possibility of a trail along the West side of the Cedarville Reservoir within the utility easement. G3

TC, PK, U, MPO Medium

Make the phased planning and construction of the Leo – Cedarville multi-use path system a reality by acquiring required right-of-way and setting aside funding in the 5 year Capital improvements Plan. G3

TC, PK Medium

Work with Fort Wayne Water Department to provide a trail within the 15-foot easement that border the Cedarville Reservoir. G3

TC, PK, MPO Medium

Require developers to provide sidewalks in all new developments as well as vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent neighborhoods and schools. G3

PC, TC Ongoing

Ch.6: Transportation Systems - Transportation Focus Areas (Pg. 70)

Coordinate with the MPO and INDOT to balance the needs of through traffic and local commercial activity. G1

TC Ongoing

Work with the MPO and INDOT to widen SR 1 to provide safe pedestrian passage connecting the two commercial areas north and south of Hosler/Grabill Road (see also Transportation Area Goal 2 regarding recommendations for the “Triangle”. Widening and shifting of the centerline could occur with the redevelopment of parcels on the west side of SR 1 downtown. G1

TC, RDC Long Term

Maintain on-street parking. G1 TC Ongoing

Ensure all sidewalks and ramps are compliant with ADA standards. G1

TC Quick Win

Provide highly visible crosswalks at the intersections which acknowledge the importance of pedestrians and cyclists. G1

TC Quick Win

Consider requesting that travel speeds be slowed to 25 miles per hour in the downtown redeveloped commercial area to enhance pedestrian safety to schools and parks and entice visitors to local businesses. G1

TC Medium

Discourage additional curb cuts to arterials and major collectors with the advent of new development. Instead access should be from side streets and cross-access easements should be encouraged between developments as shown in the illustration below. G1

PC Ongoing

Implementation10




AgencyTime Frame

As land is redeveloped, consolidate driveways and position access points to minimize traffic conflicts. G2

PC Ongoing

Improve pedestrian connectivity around the perimeter and within the triangle development. Provide strong connections between the redeveloped areas and the elementary and high schools. G2

SC, RDC, TC Ongoing

Monitor intersections for safety or congestion problems as growth occurs. Future intersection improvements could include provision of vehicular turn lanes, widening to accommodate bike lanes, a roundabout and other options. G2

TC Ongoing

Provide bike parking facilities with all new development. G2 PC Ongoing

Review and evaluate school pedestrian and vehicular traffic policies and procedures. G3

TC, SC, LF Quick Win

Conduct a study to determine whether primary ingress/egress points require any geometric or operational improvements. G3

TC Quick Win

Improve pedestrian/bicycle connectivity between neighborhoods and schools and between neighborhoods (west of schools) and Downtown (east of schools). G3

TC Ongoing

Investigate Safe-Routes to Schools funding to pay for improvements. G3

TC, MPO, SC Quick Win

Pursue the acquisition of access easements along the Cedarville Reservoir, and R.O.W. when practicable if it supports the creation of planned pedestrian systems. G4

TC, PK, MPO, ACHW

Ongoing

Coordinate with developers to build complete streets as new developments occur and when practicable connect gaps that may exist accordance with the street cross sections. G4

PC Ongoing

Encourage pedestrian scaled features such as landscaped medians, bump-outs at intersections, or on-street parking along local streets to slow traffic and increase safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. G4

PC Ongoing

Support connecting pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to existing parks, schools, residences, and businesses. Encourage the community to view pedestrian amenities as a linear park which connects everything through Town. G4

TC, PK Ongoing

10Implementation




AgencyTime Frame

Ch.7: Public Services & Infrastructure (Pg. 82)

Develop a stormwater master plan that analyzes existing conditions, addresses future development locations and densities, reviews environmental resources, and recommends creative approaches and alternative drainage solutions, and funding options. This stormwater master plan should be incorporated into the Town’s GIS mapping. In addition the Town may want to for a stormwater utility to implement improvements and provide managerial, technical, and financial services. G1

TC Quick Win

The Town should continue to work with the Leo-Cedarville Regional Sewer District (RSD) to communicate the Town’s long range vision and planned growth areas as identified in the Future Land Use Plan on page 27. The Town, as a primary customer, should request that the RSD develop a utility master plan that forecasts future development locations, densities, capacity, etc. The wastewater master plan should include a review of existing conditions, potential land uses, environmental factors, evaluation of infrastructure alternatives, cost estimates, phasing and funding recommendations. G1

TC, U Quick Win

The Town should continue to encourage Pioneer Water Company to develop a master plan based on the Future Land Use Map on page 27, that forecasts future development locations, density, capacity, storage requirements, as well hydrant/flow availability for fire protection. The master plan should include recommendations for cost effective service extensions, incremental capacity improvements, and improvements to water availability for firefighting. G1

TC, U Quick Win

The Town should coordinate the utility plans with both the Future Land Use and Thoroughfare Plans as a baseline for future transportation and utility projects. This is considered a sustainable and more economical way to plan a community. A Capital Improvement Plan is a way to pursue long-term infrastructure projects in phases and in a way that fits with the overall master plan. G1

TC Medium

Work with the sewer and water utilities to connect those on failing septic systems and wells to ensure the health and safety of the public. G1

TC, U Medium

If the Town is hampered in the implementation of the goals developed and supported by the community as part of this Comprehensive Plan process, the Town may want to consider establishing its own municipal utilities in order to move forward. G1

TC Long Term

Implementation10




AgencyTime Frame

Conduct a feasibility study to determine the impact of relocating Town Hall and other town services in the downtown.

TC Quick Win

Plan to acquire land to relocate a new fire station to be located in the western part of town possibly on a parcel near the northeast corner of Hosler and Amstutz Roads.

TC, LE, RDC Long Term

Examine fire hydrant availability to maximize protection. TC, U, LE Quick Win

Ch.8: Parks, Trails, and Open Space (Pg. 87)

Work to connect all parks, neighborhoods, the downtown district and schools with a multi-use path system. G1

TC, PK Ongoing

The Cedarville Reservoir should be viewed as an open space amenity which should be appreciated for what it is. Dredging to create a deeper channel that is not for shipping is likely cost prohibitive and ecologically destructive. G1

TC Ongoing

Create a continuous pathway / linear park that follows the banks of the reservoir as much as possible and connects to other multi-use paths and sidewalks within the City of Fort Wayne 15’ access easement. G1

TC, PK, MPO, U Medium

Consider the use of the Leo Memorial Park cemeteries as open spaces of cultural and historical value and as habitat for wildlife. Pursue improvements including fencing, sidewalks, and landscaping that promote the protection, beautification, and respectful use of these civic spaces. G1

TC, PK Medium

Increase the density of tree planting at Riverside Gardens so that it will grow into a mature landscaped park. G1

PK Quick Win

Provide at grade-level street crossings, provide highly-visible crosswalks, including pedestrian-scale lighting, reflective pavement markings, and variations in color and texture. G1

TC, RDC, LC Medium

Create overflow parking with permeable surface for Riverside Gardens on site to the east. Ensure that how parking is sited does not conflict for future development goals for the hilltop site. G1

TC, PK Quick Win

Ensure that the Subdivision Control Ordinance requires all new development of a certain size to provide open space / a park/ a plaza as part of the site to enhance livability for new and existing residents. G1

TC, PC Medium

Continue to incrementally build Riverside Gardens and the amenities (seating, bollard lighting, public art) within. G2

PK, TC Ongoing

The Subdivision Control Ordinance and Construction Standards Manual should be updated according to the recommendations of this Thoroughfare Plan. G2

PC, TC Medium

10Implementation




AgencyTime Frame

Ch.9: Natural Systems & Sustainability (Pg. 101)

Identify brownfields that exist in Leo-Cedarville that might impact water quality. Brownfield sites may also be good candidates for remediation and redevelopment based on available funding programs. G1

TC, IDEM, MPO Quick Win

Conduct an annual review of commercial properties to identify hazards and take steps towards improvements. G1

TC, IDEM Ongoing

Work with the City of Fort Wayne to identify opportunities to mitigate erosion by stabilizing the banks of the Cedarville Reservoir with native riparian edge plants and erosion control best management practices. G2

TC, MPO, PK, U Medium

Provide education materials to surrounding property owners regarding the negative impacts of agricultural runoff into the Reservoir. G2

TC Quick Win

Discourage development and grading within 75 feet from the top of bank of the reservoir. G2

TC, PC Ongoing

Incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and green infrastructure such as vegetated swales, shared detention facilities, rain gardens, and pervious pavement into the Town’s Stormwater, Zoning, and Subdivision Control Ordinances. G2

PC, TC Medium

Protect and enhance water quality in the St. Joseph River by buffering development and promoting low-impact agricultural operations. G2

TC, PC, MPO Medium

Coordinate with the county health department to monitor existing septic systems near the end of their useful life to determine the need to connect to nearby sanitary sewer. Consider technologies such as pop-ups valves that allow a property owner to monitor the condition of their septic system. G2

TC, ACHD, IDEM Ongoing

Emphasize access to the reservoirs as an amenity. G2 TC, PK Ongoing

Encourage sustainable site development and building practices. Municipal and large-scale commercial and industrial development should lead the way. Key elements to consider include appropriate site selection, design, and development practices that minimize grading and retain existing natural features (which provide climate regulation, clean air and water, and improved quality of life). G3

TC, PC Ongoing

Continue to support recycling, composting, and other environmentally responsible activities in Leo - Cedarville through methods such as public awareness campaigns and educational workshops. G3

TC, PK Ongoing

Implementation10




AgencyTime Frame

Relocate the recycling facility away from the visible hilltop site overlooking Riverside Gardens and the Reservoir to another centrally located and easily accessible location in Town, perhaps as part of a municipal complex, school, or commercial parking lot. G3

TC, PK, SC Medium

Implement energy conservation measures at Town facilities or public institutions to lead by example. G3

TC Quick Win

Below are potential funding sources for a variety of project types including community facilities, streetscape design implementation, and historic preservation/restoration. In addition to the ones listed below, there is a Toolbox Guide to Development Funds, an online directory maintained at Ball State University. The database is updated regularly and includes a grants, loans, tax programs, and incentives available in the state of Indiana to local units of government and similar organizations. You can search our entire database of programs and find the information you need to connect you to the project that best fits your needs. Some programs available in 2013 include

• Indiana Development Authority’s Brownfields Grants for hazardous material cleanup; e.g.former gas station sites• Brownfields Low Interest Loans• Community Facilities (Grant) - Fire station, Town Hall

The Toolbox Guide to Development Funds is available at http://cms.bsu.edu/About/AdministrativeOffices/BBC/Resources/ToolboxGuide.aspx

Water and Waste Disposal Grants

The Water and Waste Disposal Grant program provides grant assistance to public bodies, non-profit corporations, and special use districts, which are unable to finance needed projects with other lenders at rates and terms, which result in reasonable user rates and charges. Grants are made available for projects funded by Rural Development to keep user charges at a reasonable level. The need for grants must be supported by the median household income of the project service area, a documented health hazard, and user rates and charges as compared to similar systems. Eligible projects include construction of new water systems, rehabilitation and/or expansion of water production, treatment and distribution, and waste water collection and treatment. Eligible applicants include unincorporated rural areas, incorporated towns up to a population of 10,000, public bodies, non-profit corporations, Indian tribes and special use districts. Applications are accepted throughout the year and may be obtained and filed at any USDA Rural Development Area Office.

Recreational Trails Program

The Recreational Trails Program is a matching assistance program that provides funding for the acquisition and/or development of multi-use recreational trail projects. The RTP funding represents a portion of the revenue by the Federal Highway Trust Fund from the federal motor fuel excise tax paid by users of off-road recreational vehicles.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

10Implementation


The program is administered by the IN Department of Natural Resources, Division of Outdoor Recreation on behalf of US DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Eligible applicants at all units of government and agencies incorporated as not-for-profit corporations. Must provide public access to trails, both motorized and non-motorized multi-use recreational trail projects, development and rehabilitation of trailside, trailhead facilities, and trail linkages, construction of multi-use trails, acquisition of easement or property for trails, operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails, providing stream and river access sites, construction of bridges, boardwalks, and crossings, signage, building of sanitary facilities and other support facilities (e.g. water fountains, etc.)

All facilities must be universally designed to accommodate all people regardless of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap. Applicants may request grant amounts ranging from a minimum of $10,000 up to a maximum of $150,000. Applications are available online or from the Division of Outdoor Recreation. Applications are due by May 1.

Transportation Alternatives Program

Check with INDOT regarding its TAP program procedures.

Community Transformation Grants

Healthy living, food, wellness, active transportation

Not for Profit Organizations• Alliance for Community Trees (ACTrees) • Home Depot Foundation• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Indiana Safe Routes to School Program

According to the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) website:

The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program empowers communities to make walking and bicycling to schools safe and routine for school children. Walking and bicycling to school was once a part of everyday life. In 1969, about half of all students walked or bicycled to school. Today, fewer than 15% of all school trips are made by walking or bicycling, while more than half of all children arrive at school by car. Parents often say traffic danger, distance and lack of sidewalks and paths are the reasons why their children don’t bike or walk to school.

Reimbursements are available for a wide variety of activities that encourage children to walk and bicycle safely to school:

• School route travel plans• Various enforcement actions to enhance walking and biking• Walking or bicycling route evaluations• Walk and bike to school promotional materials• Safe walking and bicycling education• “Walking school bus” programs• “Bicycle train” programs• Designation of remote drop-off sites• Crossing guard training and equipment• Mobile equipment like flashers, barriers to control traffic, stop/yield signs, etc.

Implementation10


Eligible construction projects within two miles of the school include:• Sidewalks• Crosswalks• Count-down pedestrian signals• Curb ramps• On-street bike lanes• Shared use paths• Bicycle parking and racks• Safe route signage• Pavement markings• Traffic calming and speed reduction• Traffic diverters to control vehicle movement• Pedestrian crossing flashers• Permanent speed feedback signs

Communities that are accepted for the program are eligible for reimbursable infrastructure project funding of up to $250,000, and non-infrastructure project funding of up to $75,000. Between 10% - 30% of the project funding must be used for encouragement, education, enforcement and other non-infrastructure activities to increase safe biking and walking to school.

Indiana Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology (DHPA)

Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) - Local governments and non-profit organizations can apply to the Division for financial assistance to maintain, restore, and document historic properties. The Division, through the State Historic Preservation Review Board, awards matching grants of federal funding each January.

Indiana Landmarks

Statewide Revolving Loan Fund – Non-profit preservation organizations outside Marion County can borrow money from this fund to purchase and restore historic properties. The agreement signed when one of these buildings is resold must contain covenants that will protect the building’s future. These low-interest loans generally must be matched with local funding.

Indiana Preservation Grants Fund – Community preservation groups can apply to Indiana Landmarks for matching grants for a variety of uses, including conducting membership drives, producing promotional materials, and paying fees for architectural or preservation consulting. The money from this fund may not be used to fund actual construction.

10Implementation


Community Focus Fund

This program of the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) may be used to fund historic preservation projects, and tax incentives are available for the restoration of historic facades in the case of commercial structures.

Unless historic properties are placed on a local, state or national register of historic properties, there are no restrictions on the use, rehabilitation or demolition of such properties above applicable building code requirements and any land use controls that may be imposed in the future. Planning grants are available from OCRA to develop an historic preservation program and the administrative capacity for historic preservation such as an inventory of historic places. In addition, historic preservation education grants are available through the Indiana Humanities Council, and the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana also has the Indiana Preservation Grants Fund and the Statewide Revolving Loan Fund to assist nonprofit preservation entities to save significant endangered historic structures.

Community Development Block Grant Program

Administered by the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs and provides funding opportunities for economic development.

Sidewalk and Pavement Reconstruction Grants

A variety of programs are potential funding sources for sidewalk replacement and reconstruction of curbsand pavement, including the OCRA Community Focus Fund grants for downtown revitalization (grants up to $500,000), the Transportation Enhancement Program administered by INDOT under the Federal Surface Transportation Program (grants up to $1,000,000 with a 20% local match), and the Federal Surface Transportation Program Group IV grant funds administered by INDOT (grants up to $2,500,000 with a 20 percent local match).

Joint Use Agreements

Joint use is a way to increase opportunities for children and adults to be more physically active. It refers to two or more entities- usually a school and a city or private organization- sharing indoor and outdoor spaces like gymnasiums, athletic fields and playgrounds. The concept is simple: share resources to keep costs down and communities healthy. Examples of spaces to share for recreation include community centers outdoor playgrounds, parks, gyms, and pools. For more information: http://www.jointuse.org/

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs)

Community Supported Agriculture consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community’s farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production. Can be incorporated into concepts for Farmer’s Market. For more information: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubsLcsa/csa.shmtl

Implementation10

Appendix A: Complete Demographic Analysis, Trade Area, Gap Analysis

Appendix B: Public Input Summary Maps

Appendix C: Stakeholder & Workshop Meeting Results

Appendix D: Park and Placemaking Survey Results

APPENDIX


Population

Leo-Cedarville became incorporated as a town on January 1, 1996. Since the incorporation of the town only two population censuses have been conducted. Figure 1 (on pervious page) shows the U.S. Census counts of Leo-Cedarville Population going back to 2000. From census data, Leo-Cedarville saw upward population change close to 30 percent. This increase resulted in an 821 gain in Leo-Cedarville’s population.

Figure 1: Leo-Cedarville Population (2000-2010)

The most recent information from STATS Indiana estimates that Leo-Cedarville’s population increased by .7 percent up to a population of 3,634 from 2010 to 2011. Allen County as a whole, has experienced similar trends. STATS Indiana estimates an increase of .7 percent for the county. Over this same year long period the state of Indiana grew .4 percent.

Figure 2. Allen County: Population Projection (2010-2050)

Source: STATS Indiana; Indiana Business Research Center


2,782

3,603

2000 2010

Figure 1. Leo-Cedarville Population (2000-2010)

355,329 367,731

379,731 391,546

402,134 411,342 419,573 427,452 435,559

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050




2,782

3,603

2000 2010


355,329 367,731

379,731 391,546

402,134 411,342 419,573 427,452 435,559

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050




2,782

3,603

2000 2010


355,329 367,731

379,731 391,546

402,134 411,342 419,573 427,452 435,559

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050




2,782

3,603

2000 2010


355,329 367,731

379,731 391,546

402,134 411,342 419,573 427,452 435,559

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050


LEO-CEDARVILLE DEMOGRAPHICS

A Appendix




2,782

3,603

2000 2010


355,329 367,731

379,731 391,546

402,134 411,342 419,573 427,452 435,559

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050


STATS Indiana also publishes county-level population projections using a statistical model that extrapolates future growth based on the age and sex of the population, fertility, mortality, and migration rate. Figure 2 shows these projection rates for Allen County. The county’s projections indicate a continued increase of population. Indiana is expected to grow by about 15 percent while Allen County is expected to grow by almost 23 percent.

Age

Figure 3 compares the proportion of Indiana’s population (represented by the red bars) with the proportion of Leo-Cedarville’s population (represented by the blue bars) falling into different age groups.

Leo-Cedarville’s population is different than Indiana in most cases. The percent of individuals in retirement (65+) is about 4 percent lower in Leo-Cedarville than in the state as a whole. As for the working age population (roughly 16 to 65), the town is 2 percent lower than the state level. While these differences are small, Leo-Cedarville compared to the state has a much younger population with the number of individuals under the age of 19 roughly 8 percent higher. Figure 3 shows that while there are a small percentage of individuals that are living in retirement (65+) there is quite a jump in middle-aged individuals (35-44). However, there is a large decline in younger adults (20-34).

Figure 3. Age Distribution

Town-level data is unavailable for projected age statistics; however, Figure 4 shows STATS Indiana’s estimates of future median ages in Allen County and Indiana up to 2050. These projections should give an approximate sense of how the population as a whole is aging.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Source: STATS Indiana

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Und

er 5

5 to

9

10

to 1

4

15

to 1

9

20

to 2

4

25

to 3

4

35

to 4

4

45

to 5

4

55

to 5

9

60

to 6

4

65

to 7

4

75

to 8

4

85

and

over


Indiana Leo-Cedarville

35.3 35.9

36.3 36.7

37.2 37.4 37.6 37.6 37.7

37 37.5

38.1 38.5

38.8 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Figure 4. Median Age Projections

Allen County Indiana



0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Und

er 5

5 to

9

10

to 1

4

15

to 1

9

20

to 2

4

25

to 3

4

35

to 4

4

45

to 5

4

55

to 5

9

60

to 6

4

65

to 7

4

75

to 8

4

85

and

over



35.3 35.9

36.3 36.7

37.2 37.4 37.6 37.6 37.7

37 37.5

38.1 38.5

38.8 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050



AAppendix


(Note: the median age in a population is the “middle” age, where half of the population is younger and half of the population older). Allen County and Indiana’s median projected age is expected to increase until 2050. However, Allen County’s median projected age is expected to remain lower than the state average.

According to the most recent data released by the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5 –year Estimates, Leo-Cedarville’s current median age is 37.5. This is slightly higher than the state and Allen County at 36.8 and 35.8, respectively. The possible cause for Leo-Cedarville’s higher median age is a lower percentage of younger adults between 20-34 years (Figure 3). The projected growth in the county population (Figure 2) combined with the high population in the school age and middle-aged cohorts (Figure 3) and a slight rise in median age demonstrates important trends that could affect growth for Leo-Cedarville.


School Enrollment

Figure 5 shows enrollment statistics from the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) over the past seven years for Leo-Cedarville schools. Leo-Cedarville does not have an independent school district, so younger residents attend schools in the East Allen County School District. The data comprises three schools: Cedarville Elementary [K-3], Leo Elementary [4-6], and Leo Junior/Senior High [6-12]. During this seven-year period overall enrollment has increased by 400 students (or 15.2 percent) since 2005.



0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Und

er 5

5 to

9

10

to 1

4

15

to 1

9

20

to 2

4

25

to 3

4

35

to 4

4

45

to 5

4

55

to 5

9

60

to 6

4

65

to 7

4

75

to 8

4

85

and

over



35.3 35.9

36.3 36.7

37.2 37.4 37.6 37.6 37.7

37 37.5

38.1 38.5

38.8 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050





0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Und

er 5

5 to

9

10

to 1

4

15

to 1

9

20

to 2

4

25

to 3

4

35

to 4

4

45

to 5

4

55

to 5

9

60

to 6

4

65

to 7

4

75

to 8

4

85

and

over



35.3 35.9

36.3 36.7

37.2 37.4 37.6 37.6 37.7

37 37.5

38.1 38.5

38.8 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050



A Appendix


Figure 5: Leo-Cedarville Schools: Total Enrollment

Educational Attainment

Figures 6a and 6b (both on the following page) compare Leo-Cedarville’s level of educational attainment to statewide averages. Figure 6a graphs data obtained from the Census Bureau’s five-year American Community Survey estimates (2007-2011). It shows that a larger proportion of residents in Leo-Cedarville have attained a college degree than compared to the state as a whole. Figure 6b shows the educational attainment by minimum degree type (high school versus bachelor’s degree) from 2000 to 2011. A trend at both the town and state level shows an increase in the proportion of high school and college graduates in the population since 2000. The percentage of Leo-Cedarville residents with at least a high school diploma (or equivalent) has increased by almost 3 percentage points since 2000. However, the percentage of Leo-Cedarville residents with at least a bachelor’s degree has increased over 11 percentage points since 2000 and has surpassed the state average increase of only a little over 3 percentage points.

Figure 6a. Educational Attainment (2007-2011)

Source: Indiana Department of Education

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

2,229

2,349 2,335 2,371 2,367

2,447

2,629

2,000

2,100

2,200

2,300

2,400

2,500

2,600

2,700

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Figure 5. Leo-Cedarville Schools: Total Enrollment

4.2%

9.1%

35.8

%

20.6

%

7.5%

14.6

%

8.1%

0.3%

3.5%

27.2

%

22.1

%

9.5%

24.4

%

13.0

%

Less thanHigh School

High School(No Diploma)

High School Some College(No Degree)

Associate's Bachelor's Graduate





2,229

2,349 2,335 2,371 2,367

2,447

2,629

2,000

2,100

2,200

2,300

2,400

2,500

2,600

2,700

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012


4.2%

9.1%

35.8

%

20.6

%

7.5%

14.6

%

8.1%

0.3%

3.5%

27.2

%

22.1

%

9.5%

24.4

%

13.0

%









2,229

2,349 2,335 2,371 2,367

2,447

2,629

2,000

2,100

2,200

2,300

2,400

2,500

2,600

2,700

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012


4.2%

9.1%

35.8

%

20.6

%

7.5%

14.6

%

8.1%

0.3%

3.5%

27.2

%

22.1

%

9.5%

24.4

%

13.0

%







AAppendix


Figure 6b. Educational Attainment (2000-2007)

Finally, Figure 7 shows the graduation rates by four year cohorts for Indiana and Leo-Cedarville Junior/Senior High School for the 2006-2007 through the 2011-2012 school years. According to the Indiana Department of Education, every school year since 2006-2007 the four year cohort graduation rates for Leo-Cedarville have consistently exceeded Indiana’s graduation rates. Leo-Cedarville has experienced an increase in graduation rates of almost 2 percentage points since the 2006-2007 school year.

Figure 7. Four Year Cohort Graduation Rates

Sources: STATS Indiana; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates


82.1

%

87%

19.4

%

22.7

%

93.5

%

96.2

%

26.0

%

37.4

%

2000 2007-2011 2000 2007-2011

High School Graduate or Higher Bachelor's Degree or Higher

Figure 6b. Education Attainment (2000-2011)


78.4

%

79.7

%

83.3

%

85.9

%

87.1

%

88.1

%

93.9

%

90.4

%

94.0

%

97.0

%

98.3

%

95.5

%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012


Indiana Leo Junior/Senior High



82.1

%

87%

19.4

%

22.7

%

93.5

%

96.2

%

26.0

%

37.4

%

2000 2007-2011 2000 2007-2011




78.4

%

79.7

%

83.3

%

85.9

%

87.1

%

88.1

%

93.9

%

90.4

%

94.0

%

97.0

%

98.3

%

95.5

%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012





82.1

%

87%

19.4

%

22.7

%

93.5

%

96.2

%

26.0

%

37.4

%

2000 2007-2011 2000 2007-2011



Indiana Leo-Cedarville78

.4%

79.7

%

83.3

%

85.9

%

87.1

%

88.1

%

93.9

%

90.4

%

94.0

%

97.0

%

98.3

%

95.5

%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012





82.1

%

87%

19.4

%

22.7

%

93.5

%

96.2

%

26.0

%

37.4

%

2000 2007-2011 2000 2007-2011




78.4

%

79.7

%

83.3

%

85.9

%

87.1

%

88.1

%

93.9

%

90.4

%

94.0

%

97.0

%

98.3

%

95.5

%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012



A Appendix


Poverty

A brief note on poverty rates: Poverty rates track the percentage of individuals who are at or below the poverty threshold (or poverty line). The poverty threshold is an income amount determined by the Census Bureau as necessary for a family of a given size to meet its minimum basic needs. While adjustments are made according to the size and age of family members, the same thresholds are used throughout the United States and do not vary geographically. This means that they do not take differences in the cost of living between different regions into account, which in turn means that they could potentially over- or under-estimate the number of people living in poverty in a particular area.

Figure 8 shows the percentage of individuals falling below the poverty threshold in Leo-Cedarville, Allen County, and Indiana for over a two-decade period. A similarity in the poverty rates was an increase in all three areas between 2000 and 2007-2012 as a result of the widespread economic downturn. Leo-Cedarville’s poverty rate increased over 5 percentage points from 2000 to 2007-2011, which was higher than the state or county. However, the town has managed to keep poverty rates lower than Indiana or Allen County, which remain comparable.

Figure 8. Individual Poverty Rates

Another measure of relative affluence or poverty of an area is the number of students who receive free or reduced lunches in public schools. The percentage of students receiving this aid in Indiana and Leo-Cedarville Schools (Cedarville Elementary [K-3], Leo Elementary [4-6], and Leo Junior/Senior High [6-12]) for two school years 2005-2006 and 2011-2012 are shown in Figure 9. As was suggested by the poverty figures above, Leo-Cedarville fares much better than the state, only increasing by almost 8 percentage points in free lunches and 2 percentage points in reduced lunches. The state only saw a slight increase in reduced lunches by less than half of a percentage point (less than Leo-Cedarville for that time span), but a much larger increase at an almost 12 percentage point jump for students receiving a free lunch.

Figure 9. Students on Free or Reduced Lunch

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates


9.5%

14.1

%

9.1%

13.4

%

1.2%

6.3%

2000 2007-2011


Indiana Allen County Leo-Cedarville

28.2

%

40.0

%

4.3%

11.9

%

7.9%

8.2%

2.6%

4.6%

2005-2006 2011-2012 2005-2006 2011-2012

Indiana Schools Leo-Cedarville Schools


Free Reduced



9.5%

14.1

%

9.1%

13.4

%

1.2%

6.3%

2000 2007-2011



28.2

%

40.0

%

4.3%

11.9

%

7.9%

8.2%

2.6%

4.6%

2005-2006 2011-2012 2005-2006 2011-2012



Free Reduced

AAppendix


Income

Figure 10 shows the change in median household income in Leo-Cedarville and Indiana from 2000 to 2011 in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars. The pattern shown here is one that was seen around the country, with the economic downturn. In Leo-Cedarville’s case, the real median household income declined by $19,654 (or almost 29 percent). While the rest of the state has seen a $5,905 (or almost 12 percent) decline in real median household income.

Figure 10. Median Household Income (Inflation-adjusted*)

Employment



9.5%

14.1

%

9.1%

13.4

%

1.2%

6.3%

2000 2007-2011



28.2

%

40.0

%

4.3%

11.9

%

7.9%

8.2%

2.6%

4.6%

2005-2006 2011-2012 2005-2006 2011-2012



Free Reduced

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2000); 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates *In 2011 dollars. Calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI Inflation Calculator


$54,

298

$48

,393

$87,

065

$67

,411

2000 2007-2011



0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%

Figure 11. Employment by Industry (2007-2011)




$54,

298

$48

,393

$87,

065

$67

,411

2000 2007-2011



0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%





$54,

298

$48

,393

$87,

065

$67

,411

2000 2007-2011



0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%



A Appendix


Figure 11 shows that the major industries in Leo-Cedarville are manufacturing, education services, healthcare, and social assistance. Manufacturing employs as much as a quarter of Leo-Cedarville residents, which is six percent higher than the state. The next largest industries include retail, finance/insurance, and administrative services, which collectively employ a little over another quarter of Leo-Cedarville workers.

According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leo-Cedarville has a total labor force (16+) of 1,684. The number of unemployed is 118 (or 7 percent) of the total labor force.

Figure 11. Employment By Industry (2007-2011)

Commuting

Figure 12 shows the number of persons who live in Allen County but work outside the county, compared to the number of persons who live elsewhere but work in Allen County. In each of the years shown, there are consistently more persons living outside of the county (or state) but commute in to Allen County for work, which means that Allen County is a net importer of labor.

Around 28 percent of incoming workers to Allen County come from Whitley County (4,382). Others come to work from counties such as Huntington (3,067), Wells County (3,005), DeKalb County (2,904), and Noble County (2,271).

According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, almost 10 percent of Leo-Cedarville’s labor force worked in town and around 90 percent worked outside of the town.



$54,

298

$48

,393

$87,

065

$67

,411

2000 2007-2011



0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%



AAppendix


According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, all of this commuting for Leo-Cedarville residents equates to a mean travel to work time of 22 minutes, which is a minute under that of all total Indiana residents.

Figure 12. Commuting Trends in Allen County

Housing

Figure 13 shows the median, inflation-adjusted home values for both Indiana and Leo-Cedarville from 2000 to 2011. Similar to household income, the median home values at the town level dropped by almost 6 percent from 2000 to 2011 (due in part to the economic downturn and the bursting of the so-called “housing bubble”.) However, the state experienced a .09 percent increase in the same time period.

According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, there were 1,100 housing units in Leo-Cedarville. Figure 14 shows the percentage of these units that are owner-occupied, renter-occupied, and vacant. It should be noted that the proportion of owner-occupied units is much higher in Leo-Cedarville than in the state. Rental units in Leo-Cedarville account for a very small percentage of housing units, and no housing units are vacant (unlike the state level at 11 percent) according to estimates.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year Estimate

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates *In 2011 dollars. Calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI Inflation Calculator


11,

883

9,9

02

14,

367

9,9

22

10,

259

27,

856

24,

599

24,

489

23,

462

23,

429

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


# of people who live in Allen County but work outside the county

# of people who live in another county (or state) but work in Allen County

$12

3,18

1

$12

3,30

0

$17

2,16

6

$16

3,20

0

2000 2007-2011

Figure 13. Median Home Values (Inflation-adjusted*)


11.3

%

63.0

%

25.6

%

0.0%

93.2

%

6.8%

Vacant Owner-occupied Renter-occupied

Figure 14. Indiana and Leo-Cedarville Housing Distribution





11,

883

9,9

02

14,

367

9,9

22

10,

259

27,

856

24,

599

24,

489

23,

462

23,

429

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010




$12

3,18

1

$12

3,30

0

$17

2,16

6

$16

3,20

0

2000 2007-2011



11.3

%

63.0

%

25.6

%

0.0%

93.2

%

6.8%




A Appendix


Figure 13. Median Home Values (Inflation-adjusted)





11,

883

9,9

02

14,

367

9,9

22

10,

259

27,

856

24,

599

24,

489

23,

462

23,

429

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010




$12

3,18

1

$12

3,30

0

$17

2,16

6

$16

3,20

0

2000 2007-2011



11.3

%

63.0

%

25.6

%

0.0%

93.2

%

6.8%







11,

883

9,9

02

14,

367

9,9

22

10,

259

27,

856

24,

599

24,

489

23,

462

23,

429

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010




$12

3,18

1

$12

3,30

0

$17

2,16

6

$16

3,20

0

2000 2007-2011


Indiana Leo-Cedarville11

.3%

63.0

%

25.6

%

0.0%

93.2

%

6.8%




AAppendix


B Appendix

PUBLIC INPUT GRAPHIC SUMMARY

Fire House Site

Traffic Issues at Peak Hours

CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

CEDARVILLERESERVOIR

GRABILL RD

HOSLER RD

LEO

RD

LEO RD

CLAY ST

SCH

WA

RTZ R

D

UNION CHAPEL RD

LEO RD

SCHLATTER RD

AM

STUTZ R

D

ALEX WARNER DITCH

GERIG RD

HURSCH RD

HA

LTER R

D

LEO-CEDARVILLE, INCOMPREHENSIVE PLANFEBRUARY 2013

Good location for Riverside Restaurant

Downtown Needs Face Lift

Traffic In Morning

Another Park or Social Gathering Space

Glass Restaurant Overlooking River/ Car Lot

Improve Old Downtown SR 1 Corri-

Riverside Freedom Fest

Unsightly Business

Centrally Located

Open Air Mall

Triangle causes traffic issues

Riverside Gardens

Downtown Makes You Different Than Everyone Else!

Cedars

Better Usage of Water views

Waterfront Development

Bike/ Jogging Trail along lake

Hometown Feel

New Indot Bridge (Ped also?)

Pedestrian Connection to Leo high school

Widen Major Road

Walk Along the River

River

Town ParkImagination

Staton 1Pavilion

?

Row ?

Sell ?

Road Improvements - Top Priority

School Growth

Sewer


BAppendix

WORKSHOP GRAPHIC SUMMARY

SR 1

PAG

E

HOSLER

SCHLATTER

GRABILLAM

STU

TZ

WITMER

GERIG

SC

HW

AR

TZ

HA

LTE

R

HURSH

SO

UD

ER

KLO

PFE

NS

TEIN

EW

ING

HA

RD

ISTY

LOC

HN

ER

UNION CHAPEL

MAIN

BOBCAT

BIRKY

BLACK

SETTLERS

WALNUT

LIO

NS

WAY

NE

CLA

Y

CH

ER

RY

LAKE

VIEW

PEARL

CE

DA

R

RIO VISTA

BAY HEIGHTS

DONALD

FLIN

T C

RE

EK

BAYSHORE

BIRC

H

ELS

WO

RTH

IVANS

LAG

OO

N

LOU ANN

BAYV

IEW

ALTA VISTA

WASHINGTON

MA

NN

ING

LEO

RUNNING DEER

POPLAR CREEK

BA

RO

NE

SS

PIONEER

SPRINGFIELD CENTER

MIC

HA

EL

MULTIROSE SHORELINE

WH

ISP

ER

ING

TRADING POST

DU

NLA

P

RIVERDALE

LAKE SHORE

NORR

KEY

METEA VALLEY

MIR

AC

LE

PAIN

TER

RID

GE

CR

ES

T

WHITETAIL

JAM

ES

SAINT JOE

ELVINA

RIVER VIEW

RE

SE

RV

OIR

STUCKEY

CO

VE

RE

D W

AG

ON

CEDAR CREST

LAU

RE

L R

IDG

E

MA

RS

HA

OLD UNION CHAPEL

SUN

RIS

E

MARKHAM

BLACK WOLF

NUGGET

BROAD AXE

BLA

CK

SM

ITH

BEU

LAH

RO

LLIN

G O

AK

S

AM

STU

TZ R

D A

CC

ES

S

WIL

D M

EA

DO

W

BEAR CREEK

MO

CC

ASIN

TRAPPERS

YELLOW FEATHER

SAINT JOSEPH

PAGE RD ACCESS

BAKERS MILL

RED CLOUD

BUTTERNUT

HOMESTEAD RIDGE

BRENT

NEUHOUSERM

AIN

ST

AC

CE

SS

HA

LTE

R

BAYSHORE

LAK

EV

IEW

CEDAR

ELS

WO

RTH

MA

IN

MANNING

ENVISION LEO-CEDARVILLE, IN

Workshop Graphic Notes: COMPOSITE WORKSHOP MAPPING RESULTS

Union Chapel and Oak Grove

Possible Annexation

Corporate Boundary

Possible Annexation

Gateway

Gateway

Gateway

Gateway

Problem Areas

Potential Annexation

Business Districts/Gateways

Development Opportunities

Preservation/Open Space Park

Public

Multi Use Path Location

NTSN

School Soccer Fields/Future Middle School

Riverside Gardens

Leo - Cedarville Park

Town Boat Launch

Cedarville Reservoir

Former Dumping Site

Former Dumping Site

Erosion

Beautification Needed

Recycling Area

Traffic Traffic


Dredging and Shoreline Remediation Needed

Hydrants Needed

Traffic

Leo High

Town HallUSPS

Leo Elementary

Leo Downtown District

Commercial District

Commercial District

Commercial District

Quarry

Legend:

Possible Annexation to include Metea Park and Cedarville Elementary School

Metea Park

Cedarville Elementary School

Vacant Buildings


Gateway


C Appendix

WORKSHOP MEETING SUMMARY

W o r k s h o p M e e t i n g S u m m a r y

RATIO Architects, Inc.

RATIOarchitects.com

Architecture

Preservation

Interior Design

Landscape Architecture

Urban Planning & Design

Graphic Design

107 South Pennsylvania Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3684 317.633.4040 f: 317.633.4153

Indianapolis, IN Champaign, IL Raleigh, NC Chicago, IL

Project: Leo – Cedarville Comprehensive Plan

RATIO Project No.: 13002.00

Date/Time: March 12, 2013

Purpose: Envision Leo – Cedarville Workshop Summary

Held at: Leo High School

Participants: See Attached

On March 12, 2013 there was a public workshop entitled Envision Leo – Cedarville at the Leo – High School cafeteria/auditorium. Approximately 80 residents, community ambassadors, stakeholders and local business owners attended this workshop. Peggy Garton, Leo – Cedarville Town Manager welcomed the public to the meeting and introduced Jackie Turner from RATIO to the public. Jackie then updated the attendees on the schedule and gave a presentation on pertinent aspects of a comprehensive plan. Aaron Kowalski from RATIO, Scott Burgins from Strategic Development Group and Paul Vincent from Shrewsbury Engineering were also in attendance. Using a PowerPoint to convey information, Jackie presented key examples of elements within a comprehensive plan. The presentation highlights are summarized below;

• Jackie Turner gave the first portion of the presentation to the groups; o Firm experience on comprehensive, area and downtown plans within communities large and small

within Indiana. o The project schedule which outlines the milestones and dates of completion for the plan. o A review of previous planning efforts. o An explanation of the Community Collaborate site. o An explanation of model goals. o An explanation of planning trends within a comprehensive plan. o The presentation then shifted to community issues. This community has seen a 125% growth in

population over the last 10 years. That shows that this community has changed quite a bit since the previous comprehensive plan was adopted. The presentation also delved into changing demographics, changing transportation corridors, the need for an identifiable Town Center, spawning developer interest and community relationships with the county and surrounding communities.

o The presentation then delved into downtown character needs, existing conditions and an explanation that development and design standards are needed.

o Corridor and thoroughfare planning may be an important component of the plan. o Waterfront planning may also be important due to the reservoir/St. Joseph River which traverses

through Town. o Multi-modal transportation strategies and the benefits they providing connectivity and

beautification within a community. o An explanation that as part of this plan we will review public facilities and services and provide

potential strategies to improve/strengthen such. o Park master planning may also be an integral part of a comprehensive planning effort. A separate

5 Year Parks and Recreation Master Plan may also be important to a community because it qualifies one to apply for certain parks grants through the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

o This comprehensive plan will also include implementation strategies to assist in the realization of the Town’s strategic vision. This implementation schedule will help Town officials establish priorities and should be evaluated annually.


CAppendixLeo – Cedarville Draft Comprehensive Plan Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 2 March 12, 2013

• Scott Burgins then reviewed the demographics of the community;

o It’s important to note that Leo - Cedarville has a young population with young families. o Leo – Cedarville also has a high level of educational attainment. o Leo – Cedarville has much lower poverty rates than the state and county averages. o The recession has taken a toll on all incomes both state wide and in Leo – Cedarville. However Leo

– Cedarville’s Median Household Income is still nearly $20,000.00 higher than the state average. This suggests an affluent and upwardly mobile young population. This is a good position to be in.

o Home values in Leo – Cedarville are also $40,000.00 higher than the state average. Also a good indicator of a healthy community. Homes in the community are 93% owner occupied which is nearly 30% higher than the state average.

o Leo – Cedarville is a highly residential “bedroom community” for nearby Fort Wayne. The tax base in Leo – Cedarville is nearly fully supported by residential property taxes. It is important that going forward this community seeks opportunities to balance tax rates and bring in development from ancillary areas near I-69. Leo – Cedarville is 92% Residential, 6% Commercial, and 2% Agricultural. Property tax caps have limited local revenue sources thus making it especially important to balance the tax base.

Each workshop attendee was given a Community Values Survey to complete. The results of that survey will be available for public review and comment. Each table was provided a large scale map of Leo-Cedarville and markers and residents were asked to first engage in a land use mapping activity. Each table of attendees mapped problem areas, areas the Town could investigate annexing, potential business growth and development areas, and areas that should be preserved either because of quality natural features or to provide for future open space/parkland. Attendees were then asked to engage in a transportation mapping activity on the same map. Each table mapped casual linkages and needed linkages for bike and pedestrians. One representative from each table spent a few minutes highlighting the findings. Overwhelmingly the public focused on three key items;

• Pedestrian connectivity through a multi-use path should be a top priority of the Town. • The Downtown identity needs to be strengthened and connected by streetscape and façade improvements

and infill development to connect the old Leo Downtown to the other commercial areas throughout Town. • The Cedarville Reservoir should be viewed as an amenity and steps should be taken to improve the image

as well as the quality of the body of water. Results from the mapping activity will be available for public review and comment in a composite map format. Lastly workshop attendees were asked to engage in a Downtown Visual Preference Survey. Each attendee was given one dot and was asked to rate whether or not they prefer the character and style of a traditional downtown or a more contemporary downtown. Residents overwhelmingly chose the traditional downtown style and character as appropriate for the community. Any additions or corrections to this summary should be submitted in writing to RATIO Architects, Inc., within ten (10) days of receipt. Otherwise, this summary stands as correct. Respectfully submitted, Aaron J. Kowalski,


C Appendix

KICKOFF MEETING SUMMARY

M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y


RATIOarchitects.com

Architecture

Preservation

Interior Design



Graphic Design



Project: Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan


Date/Time: February 5, 2013, 11:00am

Purpose: Project Kickoff with staff and council members

Participants: Peggy Garton, John Clendenen, Jackie Turner (RATIO), Scott Burgins (SDG), Paul Vincent (Shrewsberry),

Kevin Veatch, Paul Steffens, John Eastes

The RATIO team was warmly welcomed at the park pavilion on a snowy day. The team met with the Peg Garton, the town manager and John Clendenen, president of the council, to discuss a variety of topics. Other Council members joined us for a lunch time discussion. After lunch, Peg and John provided a guided tour of the town. The information provided needed background before the steering committee in the evening. A summary of the steering committee meeting will be posted separately. The discussions are arranged by topic below. Riverside Gardens

Riverside Gardens is the new park on the east banks of the reservoir. The town has constructed a portion of the planned improvements. It is being constructed with a matching grant, $200k has been provided by the Town.

Cedarville Reservoir

The reservoir is a narrow body of water full of snags. It has limited recreational boating use like the ski tournaments it used to host. The Town would like to work with the Army Corp of Engineers and IDNR to remove some of the snags and to discuss use of the 15’ easement that rings the reservoir for pedestrian/bike access.

The reservoir property is being maintained by Fort Wayne for potable raw water storage. Use of the 15-ft setback/easement would involve coordination with the City.

Boardwalk and dock area improvements are desired.

Downtown Leo-Cedarville has at least 3 downtowns and 2 other commercial areas. All are struggling and do not portray the vibrant

image the town desires. Getting liquor licenses to encourage the development of a tavern or sit-down restaurant was previously and issue but

now there is an enabling ordinance. John Klopfenstein made a $1 million investment in his business Plan should address redevelopment and incentives for moving undesirable businesses away from SR 1 There is a local chamber of commerce, but it’s become primarily a “social club”.

Multimodal issues The town is committed to adding trails and sidewalks that connect neighborhoods, downtowns, parks and schools. INDOT is redoing a bridge on SR 1 and the town wants the bridge to include pedestrian access. The town is considering

providing a separate parallel pedestrian bridge if INDOT does not. Investigate providing pedestrian/bike access on or adjacent to the 15’ easement owned by the City of Ft. Wayne around Town to provide Sidewalk Plan to team Traffic congestion near high school needs to be solved (roundabout at Holzer and Amstutz, secondary exit to State Road

1)? Ordinance Issues

Need a better way to address conversion of residential buildings to commercial uses but still maintain neighborhood compatibility

Burdensome sign ordinance


CAppendix

Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan Kick-Off Meeting Page 2 February 5, 2013 Organizational Issues

Need to investigate the effects of Allen County eliminating public hearings. They review building permits. How would L-C be able to influence decisions? What would be new working relationship?

There is no chamber of commerce, business group or person charged with economic development Utilities and Infrastructure

Have planned and mapped stormwater utilities – owned by the Town The L-C Regional Sewer District is privately owned. It is a 30 year old system. Will have additional capacity when new

lift station comes on line in 2014. Want the Comp Plan to be a foundation for a 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan Plan should address locations for a maintenance facility, fire department, recycling/ yard waste drop-off. Some consideration may be given for buying the water utility that serves the town. A multi-use municipal building is desired, perhaps with a community center, swimming pool, connectivity to parks.

Economic Issues

Hospital will be expanding in 5 years. Growth is north. Grabill competes for business and has a tourist economy based on Amish heritage Water as a recreational, tourism resource is sorely underutilized

Schools

There are 2 elementary schools, 1 intermediate, 1 junior high and 1 high school in L-C. They are under different district jurisdictions.

The town thinks there would be support by existing and new residents to become their own consolidated district Top Reasons to Choose to Live in L-C

Property values Schools Small town feel

Best quote “We’re at the dawn of an amazing thing that will cause us (L-C) to be a destination”! Any additions or corrections to this summary should be submitted in writing to RATIO Architects, Inc., within ten (10) days of receipt. Otherwise, this summary stands as correct. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Turner, AICP, LEED AP Senior Planner cc: Meeting Attendees (see summary header)

RATIO Architects, Inc. project file


C Appendix

AMBASSADOR/STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY

A m b a s s a d o r / S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g S u m m a r y


RATIOarchitects.com

Architecture

Preservation

Interior Design



Graphic Design





Meeting Specifics: April 29, 2013 – Ambassador Meeting Summary

May 8, 2013 – Conference Call/ May 7, 2013 Ambassador Meeting Summary

Held at: Leo Town Hall/ RATIO

Participants: See Attached

On April 29, 2013 The RATIO team presented draft Goals and Strategies for the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Jackie Turner from RATIO greeted and updated the attendees on the schedule and gave a presentation on the Draft Goals and Strategies and some enhanced demographics data. Scott Burgins from Strategic Development Group and Paul Vincent and Jill Palmer from Shrewsbury Engineering were also in attendance. The presentation highlights are summarized below.

o The project schedule which outlines the milestones and dates of completion for the plan. o A conversation on understanding community goals. o Making the case for improvements that support the community’s vision. o A discussion on Character and Identity – Small Town Vs. Bedroom Community. o A discussion on the branding of the community. o Land use discussion focusing on growth and potential areas for annexation. o Economic Development goals and strategies were discussed. o Downtown goals and strategies were discussed. o Development opportunities were discussed. o Redevelopment opportunities were discussed. o Quick wins to improve the community image and character were discussed. o Discussion on open space and ecology as pertains to the Cedarville Reservoir. o Discussion on corridor and thoroughfare planning (roads, intersection improvements and

pedestrian amenities). o Discussion on public services, schools, and infrastructure needs and potential approaches. o Questions from the community. o An updated look at economic development and demographics.

We have summarized the meeting comments below by topic. These comments reflect the views of Town staff, elected officials and ambassadors. Growth and Annexation

A town that stops growing is a town that will die. Ambassadors wanted to see growth and diversify the tax base, but like the character that

exists today. They do not want to lose that if growth occurs. The comment was made that the Town need’s to double its population. An eventual goal could be for the Town to control its own school system. This is a long

term goal. People believe the schools will increase in students if the sewer moratorium is lifted and

new subdivisions can be developed. Leo has private sewer and water at this point. The Town does not control either amenity.

When developing an annexation plan the Town needs to make utility availability clear on a map.


CAppendixMeeting Summary 05/10/2013

Branding and Identity Town should undertake a branding campaign, carry that brand forward, and reinforce it

throughout the community (our latest discussions center around branding the Town as “LEO” and dropping Cedarville).

People believe the schools will increase in students if the sewer moratorium is lifted and new subdivisions can be developed.

Development/Infrastructure Leo has private sewer and water at this point. The Town does not control either amenity. A sewer and water master plan is needed. When developing an annexation plan the Town needs to reference a sewer and water

master plan. The Town needs a clear map identifying areas that can be served by water and sewer currently and those that need infrastructure investments to provide availability. It is also important to identify what infrastructure is needed where, estimated costs, and procedures to achieve enhanced availability.

It is also important to identify impacts, costs, and procedures required if sewer infrastructure is located within 300’ of properties.

Pioneer Water was constructed to serve the needs of a development and not the entire Town. The Town needs to work with Pioneer to see if enhancements/expansions can provide greater service.

If Pioneer Water is not able to be enhanced/expanded in a cost effective and functional fashion, the Town needs to consider its options (Fort Wayne Water/purchasing Pioneer Water/forming a municipal water utility). The City of Fort Wayne has approached Leo – Cedarville about providing water.

The Ambassadors support shifting the roundabout to the southwest, adding an alternative exit (out) for the high school, and that the Ratio team should analyze the option of just widening Hosler Rd.

Economic Development The Comprehensive Plan should study annexation possibility north and west for

manufacturing near I-69 and the Industrial Business Park. The Ambassadors like the downtown ideas that were presented e.g. redevelopment of the

triangle and moving Town Hall downtown.

Natural Resources/Environment

The Ambassadors indicated that they do not support the dredging of the reservoir, but do support cleaning it up (during the yearly draining).

On May 7, 2013 Town Staff, Officials and Ambassadors met to discuss the prior meeting and to fully digest the Goals and Strategies as presented in order to give the RATIO team some guidance on what direction to pursue. On May 8, 2013 Peggy Garton, Town Staff and Jackie Turner and Aaron Kowalski, RATIO met via teleconference to discuss the results of that meeting. We have summarized the meeting comments below by topic. These comments reflect the views of Town staff, elected officials and ambassadors. Branding and Identity


C Appendix

Meeting Summary 05/10/2013

















The Ambassadors had a conversation about branding and the direction the Town wishes to pursue. The preferred branding is “LEO”. Leo is simple, short, easy to maintain and authentic. We will reference the Town as Leo from now on.

The Ambassadors want to leave the hyphenated Leo – Cedarville in the past. Beautification and gateway signage are considered “quick wins”. Branding and

materials should be consistent on all signage and other Town improvements. The Ambassadors spent some time discussing the notion of “small town” versus a

“bedroom community”. The consensus is that “you sleep in a bedroom community and you spend money in a small town”. The “small town” image is supported by the community and should be emphasized. “Small town – home town” is another positive image to embrace.

Another positive image evocative of a small town is that it is walkable. This is something the Ambassadors wish to emphasize the in the plan.

Policies/Ordinances

The Ambassadors are agreeable to updates and tweaks to Town Ordinances. We discussed that for the most part the Town Ordinances are in pretty good shape.

One thing that could be helpful is to tighten up ordinances to provide for a consistent and charming architecture style throughout the downtown and other districts to encourage quality investment.

Growth and Annexation

The Ambassadors did not have a problem with annexing provided that it is conducted for the right reason following Future Land Use guidelines and a logical fiscal plan with a clear directive.

There was much discussion on the “chicken or egg” idiom as pertains to development. Should the Town encourage commercial development within existing areas in Town or annexation to increase residential capacity?

Should the directive be to grow the Town to support commercial or to grow commercial to support the Town. Economic Development Analysis needs to help pave a clear path.

If additional utilities can be provided how much housing should be encouraged to support the schools, Town, and tax base?

What price point of homes (1% residential property tax cap) will sustain the schools and municipal services?

Annex Matea Lakes and install infrastructure (pump station) needed to spur residential investment.

Redevelopment Commission

The concern was raised that by creating a Redevelopment Commission (RDC) the Town may expose itself to corruption and unsustainable Tax Increment Financing/Tax Abatement situations. The RATIO team needs to work to provide examples of communities in Indiana that have successfully leveraged those tools for a positive end.

Ambassadors have concerns on how to implement a redevelopment plan. The RATIO team will include an implementation plan which focuses on quick wins.

Economic Development

The RATIO team should glean information from the existing Hyett Palma Plan when making economic development recommendations for downtown.

The Town is interested in public/private partnerships. Downtown Revitalization should be a quick win.


CAppendix


















Schools are losing students. Town needs to get a handle on development moratorium and encourage residential homes to be constructed to balance the age of students in the system. People are not moving in because there are not homes available, people are not moving out because they like the community. Schools will start losing tax dollars if this is not resolved.

Development/Infrastructure

All conversations come back to getting a handle on water and sewer needs! A working map of available sewer capacity locations and a map of areas currently

serviced by sewer were acquired from Schnelker Engineering. We have attached scans of those two documents to the end of this summary. We will roll this into a larger utility and infrastructure inventory map. This will prove a useful overlay that will help inform the Future Land Use Map.

The Town is engaged in conversations with a group to study Pioneer Water and the options the Town might pursue to ensure enhanced coverage.

Fort Wayne has approved the Town for an additional 25% sewer capacity. However how does the Town leverage that and increase it over time to support the goal of doubling the population?

Ambassadors are open to the idea of the Town serving as the developer to spur the revitalization of downtown (triangular property) and/or the development of the Town property at Riverside Gardens (the hill where the recycling center is located) for a municipal complex. RATIO team will look for examples from other similar communities.

Ambassadors want municipal and other services near downtown. Some other wishes include finding a permanent home for recycling, yard waste collection and the Town Public Works Dept.

Take an inventory on the land that the Town owns. An Ambassador mentioned that a key barrier for INDOT for future projects along SR 1 in the Town

is ROW. It is hard for INDOT to justify acquiring very costly ROW for projects that have a minimal/modest benefit to capacity and/or safety; and therefore it might be advantageous for the Town to work with INDOT to acquire the necessary ROW for future projects and remove this significant barrier.

The Ambassadors do not think that industrial development portrays the desired community image/brand and comes with a negative image.

The Ambassadors support medical support and information technology development. Supporting the Parkview development (medical support service commercial development). Some specific uses include laser eye, physical therapy, and medical supplies.

Find a good location for a future fire station on the western side of Town (stations exist in Grabill and on Tonkel Rd). Services and response time are good. Most of calls occur in Leo. If growth occurs a fire station may be needed.

The Matea Lakes subdivision (on hold) was not opened due to a new pump station being needed. This could be a quick win for development if a pump station could be funded.

Any additions or corrections to this summary should be submitted in writing to RATIO Architects, Inc., within ten (10) days of receipt. Otherwise, this combined summary stands as correct. RATIO team: Please review this prior to our conference call next week. Please let me know if you have questions. I will be preparing a Draft Vision and Table of Contents.


Respectfully submitted, Aaron J. Kowalski, Urban Planning/Landscape Architectural Graduate cc: Steering committee, file


C Appendix




RATIOarchitects.com

Architecture

Preservation

Interior Design



Graphic Design





Meeting Specifics: May 21, 2013 – Ambassador Meeting Summary

Held at: Leo Town Hall

Participants: Peggy Garton, John Clendenen, Dirk Schmidt, Lou Mohlman, Mary Mohlman, Katherine Cassidy, Mike Kjeergard, Kevin Veatch, Donna Hankey, Marcia Schaefer, Ryan Donaghy

Jackie Turner of RATIO began the meeting with a schedule update. The project is proceeding as planned and making its targeted milestones. She then presented a PowerPoint which items on which the committee had attained consensus and items that still needed to be discussed. The PowerPoint and this meeting summary are posted to www.CommunityCollaborate.com. Following the PowerPoint, the group gathered around several maps illustrating potential land use, annexation, transportation routes and proposed improvement projects. Comments made over the course of 2 hours are included below. Consensus items

• The town wants to grow its population • The near term (0-5 years) annexation areas are to the north and west of the town limits; long range

annexation includes areas just east of the river along Schwartz Road and southwest the intersection of SR 1 and Old Union Chapel.

• The committee supports redevelopment of the “Leo Triangle” formed by Hosler, SR 1 and Wayne Street. This would require formation of a Redevelopment Commission if the Town were to undertake this project.

• The committee is less enchanted with the idea of a roundabout at Hosler and Amstutz but would like to include one at Grabill and Schwartz.

• The lack of control over the provision of wastewater treatment is the biggest hurdle impeding growth in the community. The Town needs a clear map identifying areas that can be served by water and sewer currently and those that need infrastructure investments to provide availability.

• The plan should answer the question as to what is the process for the town to get water from Ft. Wayne to provide for its citizens.

• There is continued support to just use the name Leo. There is a process outlined in state statute for changing a name.

• Connectivity remains of primary importance.

Comments • The road widening alternative at Hosler and Amstutz needs to include vehicular, continuous pedestrian and

bike facilities overlain onto a map that shows existing r-o-w. • Attendees suggested that Hosler be designated a minor arterial west of SR 1 (Leo road) as it is towards

Grabill and that it include a center turn lane with a bike lane and sidewalks. • Decorative street lighting is desired from Matea Lakes to the Riverside Gardens on Hosler and on SR 1 from

just south of Klopfensteins to just north of downtown Leo. • Recommend that the Subdivision Control Ordinance be updated to require a streetlight on subdivision streets

wherever a turning movement occurs • Consider a stoplight at Amstutz and Hosler that will become a flashing light during non-peak hours. • Provide a wider sidewalk across bridge on Grabill Road to increase safety. • Ensure that Leo trails connect to regional trail from Ft. Wayne to Auburn


CAppendixMeeting Summary May 21, 2013

• Is the goal to add 800 new homes enough? Still to Do

• Provide draft future land use map to all committee members so they can be ambassadors sharing concepts with other residents and businesses

• The RATIO team needs to work to provide examples of communities in Indiana that have successfully leveraged those tools for a positive end.

• Overlay the Schnelker Engineering sewer infrastructure inventory map over the proposed draft Future Land Use Map.

• Continue conversation with private water providers. • Provide illustrative urban and rural cross-sections based on desired facilities. • Provide precedent images and photos for streetscape, downtown architecture and site furnishings to help

committee members visualize concepts. • Include images of different housing types (Fishers cottages, townhomes) • Committee members should review and provide written comments on the Goals and Strategies handout from

the 4/29 meeting. • Map TIF District boundary

Next Meeting

• Mini charrette for hilltop site • Review draft survey addressing parks, open space and trails to distribute at Freedom Festival • RATIO will provide images/photos to illustrate proposed types of development and improvements •

Any additions or corrections to this summary should be submitted in writing to RATIO Architects, Inc., within ten (10) days of receipt. Otherwise, this combined summary stands as correct. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Turner, AICP, LEED AP Senior Planner cc: Steering committee, file


C Appendix




RATIOarchitects.com

Architecture

Preservation

Interior Design



Graphic Design





Meeting Specifics: June 19, 2013 – Ambassador Meeting Summary

Held at: Leo – Cedarville Town Hall

Participants: Peggy Garton, John Clendenen, Dirk Schmidt, Mike Kjeergard, Kevin Veatch, Donna Hankey, Marcia Schaefer, Ryan Donaghy, Greg Peck, Deb Sharpe

Jackie Turner and Aaron Kowalski of RATIO led the June 19, 2013 Ambassador/Steering Committee meeting. At the meeting we met with Town staff, elected officials, and ambassadors to review the progress on the DRAFT Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan. The project is proceeding as planned and making its targeted milestones. The PowerPoint, Placemaking Preference Boards, Parks and Placemaking Survey, and this meeting summary are posted to www.CommunityCollaborate.com. Jackie and Aaron presented a PowerPoint of the following:

A review of the DRAFT Composite Map (which includes land use, thoroughfare plan, natural features/parks, flood plain, corporate boundaries, annexation opportunities, and sewer expansion opportunities), the DRAFT Future Land Use Map, and the DRAFT Thoroughfare Plan Map.

As an extension of the Thoroughfare Plan discussion we also presented typical street sections and gathered feedback from the group on road widths, pedestrian amenities, and required right-of-way.

Graphic examples of roundabouts, and infrastructure/amenities that can make them pedestrian friendly. Graphic examples of bike lanes, multiuse path and boardwalks that might be appropriate to the community. Graphic examples of gateway treatments including signage and how this can help define place, scale and

encourage investment. Sewer expansion opportunities and the infrastructure and policy decisions that are needed to provide for that

expansion. As an example, we looked at a site and provided some rough cost estimates that give an indication of the investment needed to complete such a task.

Continuing on the subject of investments we also looked at the Town-owned property (Hilltop Site) across the street from Riverside Gardens and the Old Downtown Leo area as investment/redevelopment opportunities. We explained the concepts which represented one alternative of how the sites could develop and gathered community feedback with a planning exercise designed to map out the future of those areas. We also showed examples of improving downtown districts, mixed-use and multi-family building types, and municipal complexes from similar sized communities.

Previewed and gathered feedback on visual preference boards of new development and site amenities the Town wishes to use at the upcoming Freedom Festival to hear from the public. Similarly a parks questionnaire that will be passed out at the festival and made available through electronic sources.

Following the PowerPoint, we split the ambassadors into two groups. One group focused on a community activity to engage in a community based master planning activity for the Hilltop/Riverside Gardens site and the other focused gathering feedback on the 3-D model and Placemaking Boards. The groups then switched after approximately 30 minutes. We will incorporate comments and send a revised master plan for the Hilltop/Riverside Gardens site send to the group. Comments made during the meeting are included below.


CAppendixMeeting Summary June 19, 2013

General Comments Regarding the composite Map, this information will all work together to help guide the future of growth in the

community Despite all the land use and development planning, the priority should be working to first improve the sewer

and water situation in the Town. There are wetland/flood areas in and around the Pioneer Village neighborhood. The half ROW is 24’ from the centerline of SR. 1 in front of the Barber Shop Downtown. We will verify ROW

when revising the street cross-sections. Intersection improvements such as roundabouts or lane additions were discussed in (especially at Amstutz

and Hosler, SR.1/Leo and Hosler and Schwartz and Grabill. Further study will need to be completed as development occurs in the future to determine what type of intersection improvement will work best at each intersection. There will be a discussion of alternatives in the comp plan. Roundabouts can be designed to be attractive, provide a gateway into Town, and provide safe pedestrian infrastructure.

People want trails and pedestrian infrastructure and any development should strive to connect as much as possible. It also was noted that the wooden boardwalk structure might be appropriate over Cedar Creek at SR 1 and/or along the American Legion property.

Downtown Leo-Cedarville (SR.1 and Hosler)

The location of the future Town Hall was discussed. In one group, the preference was that the Town Hall be located in Downtown Leo-Cedarville. The other group considered the location as part of the Hilltop/Riverside Gardens Site.

Parking should be shown in the rear for Town Hall and that alley access and signage on the back door should be permitted.

On-street parking, street lights, a decorative fence around the cemetery on the east side of SR.1, sidewalks, brick crosswalks/intersection, and a focus generally on getting people to slow down and patronize Downtown is important.

The Town must make known to INDOT that they want to shift SR.1 west towards the Triangle property if and when redevelopment occurs, in order to secure a wider ROW in the opposite side of SR.1 for the type of pedestrian infrastructure the Town sees as appropriate.

The low hedge along Hosler north of the cemetery was not preferred. The fence as shown on the east side of SR.1 was a preferred treatment.

The Ambassadors liked the idea of improving/sprucing up the look and feel of buildings Downtown, but added that it is important to not just improve the façade without ensuring the structure itself is viable. Some existing buildings Downtown are not viable for improvements. New or owners may want consider replacing with new buildings of appropriate design, scale, and orientation for a traditional Downtown.

Multi-family Downtown, in close proximity to the school could be a good thing. Many young people cannot afford a house, or don’t have the time and energy to take care of one. We should focus our energy on high quality, non-subsidized townhomes/condos/apartments. People also are interested in the notion of bringing back live-work situations Downtown.

Placemaking Boards

Ambassadors felt that most of the photos on the placemaking boards were appropriate in character, style, and scale for the community.

Specifically referencing lighting, people preferred the more traditional types of street lighting with signage and hanging baskets. Also, they liked the existing banner signage.

The Town should maintain a consistent style for site furnishings throughout. For instance, if benches are black metal, so should be signage and garbage cans.

Wayfinding signage is a good way to entice people to venture to a revitalized Downtown and go north of Hosler Rd. on SR. 1 provided other improvements are made as well.


C Appendix Meeting Summary June 19, 2013

Gateway signage is needed as well as on the southern entrance to Town on Schwartz Rd. The existing gateway signage is well maintained, but may need to be replaced if the Town eventually rebrands as Leo.

A two story scale with a more traditional look would be most appropriate Downtown when asked about mixed-use.

Multi-family residential could be a good thing, especially in the triangle site or on the Hilltop/Riverside Gardens property. Some of the housing was too contemporary or “flat.”

Lastly feedback from a larger audience will be sought online, and at the upcoming Freedom Fest. Hilltop/Riverside Gardens

A phased approach towards development is envisioned, and many agree that this property is a valuable

public amenity (an extension of Riverside Gardens and a strategic investment for the Town). Some of the suggestions for the property from the group include the following.

o A community center located on the site which includes enough space for wedding receptions (in response to the growing number of weddings held in Riverside Gardens), a public hall available to rent for graduations, birthdays, community meetings, a potential YMCA, and community/educational opportunities. This should be designed and built in such a way to be a revenue generator for the Town Parks Dept.

o Overflow parking for Riverside Gardens should continue to be provided on this property. o A planned unit development (PUD) might be an appropriate zoning for this site. This may include

townhomes and other multi-family residential a Town Hall, Community Center, and Public Works Facility. Conversely, others thought that the site should be an extension of Riverside Gardens and should only be developed with public amenities such as a community center. Others believe the Town should hold onto the property until that perfect use is found and not be hasty to develop it. All agree that owning the property is a good investment.

o Potential future uses discussed: A community pool. There is a need identified for an indoor/outdoor community pool for

the High School swim team and others to use. A seasonal hockey rink. The High School has a hockey team. a sledding hill on the southeastern portion of the property.

o The Town may want to consider acquiring the property to the east side of the southern portion of the site to connect this property with Souder Rd. This would provide secondary access for a Town maintenance/Public Works facility and salt storage, compost yard waste/mulch, etc.

o The Town does not own the parcel at the southeast corner of Schwartz and Grabill Roads. The property should be designated as commercial or mixed use to facilitate the town’s goals. /destination type use for this property.

o Ambassadors floated the idea of a restaurant with a rooftop deck, a canoe launch, and an ice cream shop either on this corner or south on the Town owned property.

Any additions or corrections to this summary should be submitted in writing to RATIO Architects, Inc., within ten (10) days of receipt. Otherwise, this combined summary stands as correct. Respectfully submitted, Aaron Kowalski, Urban Planning, Landscape Architectural Graduate. cc: Steering committee, file


CAppendixSanitary Sewer Sizing EstimationSanitary Sewer Sizing EstimationSanitary Sewer Sizing EstimationSanitary Sewer Sizing Estimation Shrewsberry & Associates, LLCShrewsberry & Associates, LLCShrewsberry & Associates, LLCShrewsberry & Associates, LLC

Area 5 "New Pump Station Required"Area 5 "New Pump Station Required"Area 5 "New Pump Station Required"Area 5 "New Pump Station Required"

Pre-Layout / Pre-Design Capital Cost EstimatePre-Layout / Pre-Design Capital Cost EstimatePre-Layout / Pre-Design Capital Cost EstimatePre-Layout / Pre-Design Capital Cost Estimate

Number Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Extended Price

18-inch gravity sewer, native backfill, complete LF 7000 $60 $420,000

28-inch gravity sewer, engineered backfill, complete LF 500 $90 $45,000

3Manhole, 4-ft diameter, with casting & cover, complete EA 20 $2,400 $48,000

4 6-inch sanitary lateral, complete LF 3500 $25 $87,500

5250-gpm Lift/Pump Station, complete LS 1 $40,000 $40,000

6 6-inch forcemain, complete LF 6000 $30 $180,000

7Erosion Control / Seeding / Restoration LS 1 $50,000 $50,000

8Mobilization, Demobilization, Bonds, Insurance, etc. LS 1 $43,525 $43,525

Sub-Total of Construction Costs $914,025

Construction Contingency (10%) $91,403

Summary of Construction Costs $1,005,428

Soft Costs @ 25% (Engineer, Survey, Accounting, Legal, etc.) $251,357TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,256,784

S:\Technical References\Engineering\Water Resources\Design Guides Calc Sheets\Calculation Tools and Spreadsheets\Standardized Calc Sheets

SANITARY SEWER COST ESTIMATE


Response Percent

Response Count

3.1% 23.1% 2

31.3% 2034.4% 2223.4% 153.1% 21.6% 1

642

2013 Parks and Placemaking Questionnaire - Leo - Cedarville Comprehensive Plan Update

26-35

answered question

Answer Options

46-55

19-25

Over 65

What is your age?

36-45

skipped question

Under 18

56-65

Under 18

19-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

Over 65

0.0% 20.0% 40.0%

What is your age?

LEO-CEDARVILLE 2013 PARKS AND PLACEMAKING SURVEY

Graph Depicting Age of Respondents(pictured above)

Question 1

D Appendix


Response Percent

Response Count

19.0% 1214.3% 958.7% 377.9% 5

633skipped question

Number of children living in your household?

Four or More Children

None

answered question


Two to Three Children

Answer Options

One Child

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

None

One Child

Two toThree

Children

Four orMore

Children

Number of children living in your household?

Response Percent

Response Count

4.8% 39.5% 69.5% 6

42.9% 2723.8% 159.5% 6

633

1

6 or More


3

skipped question

Answer Options

5

2

answered question

How many people currently live in your household?

4

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 or More

How many people currently live in your household?

Question 2

Question 3

DAppendix


5-7 Times Per Week

2-4 Times Per Week

One Time Per Week

Less Than Once Per

MonthNever

Yes the Town

Should Provide

Response Count

6 7 5 9 28 15 607 15 8 18 12 20 646 8 5 12 27 11 614 10 7 14 22 14 604 7 8 25 14 10 582 2 3 9 38 17 592 2 1 2 47 9 586 10 7 8 26 16 611 1 7 27 22 14 601 0 1 18 38 14 614 14 12 13 16 20 62

642


Fitness/Rehabilitation

Walking Dog

skipped question

Answer Options

Nature Observation

Reunion/Event/Party

Walking/Hiking/Jogging

Skateboarding

answered question

How often do you engage in the following activities at Leo - Cedarville’s Parks?

Bicycling

Picnic

Court/Field Sports

Canoe/Kayak

Playground

5-7 Times Per Week

2-4 Times Per Week

One Time Per Week

Less Than Once Per

MonthNever

Yes the Town

Should Provide

Response Count

6 7 5 9 28 15 607 15 8 18 12 20 646 8 5 12 27 11 614 10 7 14 22 14 604 7 8 25 14 10 582 2 3 9 38 17 592 2 1 2 47 9 586 10 7 8 26 16 611 1 7 27 22 14 601 0 1 18 38 14 614 14 12 13 16 20 62

642


Fitness/Rehabilitation

Walking Dog

skipped question

Answer Options

Nature Observation

Reunion/Event/Party

Walking/Hiking/Jogging

Skateboarding

answered question


Bicycling

Picnic

Court/Field Sports

Canoe/Kayak

Playground

Question 4

05

101520253035404550


Do you fee the Town should providefacillities/programming for thatactivity?(Check if Yes)

Never

Less Than Once Per Month

One Time Per Week

2-4 Times Per Week

5-7 Times Per Week

D Appendix


Question 5

Response Percent

Response Count

26.7% 453.3% 840.0% 626.7% 4

91551

Number Other (please specify) Categories1 no2 no3 no4 None5 play park has poor site lines and makes it hard to keep track of children.6 No bike paths7 Lack of mulch on Riverside park trail - used to really enjoy this walk.8 I live out of town now, but I love the parks when I come visit family!9 Need trails to connect to parks

skipped question

Do any of these physical barriers restrict or prevent your using the parks or programs?

Sense of safety.

Physical access to the park or its equipment.

answered question


Parks are too far away.

Answer Options

Other (please specify)

Lack of accessible parking.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Physical access to thepark or its equipment.

Lack of accessibleparking.

Parks are too faraway.

Sense of safety.

Do any of these physical barriers restrict or prevent your using the parks or programs?

DAppendix


Response Percent

Response Count

30.9% 1765.5% 3640.0% 2243.6% 2425.5% 149.1% 5

36.4% 2036.4% 20

5511


More benches/shelters/gathering areas.

A new amenity: Community Garden

Answer Options

More adult programs/activities.

skipped question

More walking trails/paths.

A new amenity: Dog Park


More youth programs/activities.

answered question

More accessible play equipment.

A new amenity: Skatepark

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Mor

e ac

cess

ible

pla

yeq

uipm

ent.

Mor

e w

alki

ngtra

ils/p

aths

.

Mor

ebe

nche

s/sh

elte

rs/g

ath

erin

g ar

eas.

Mor

e yo

uth

prog

ram

s/ac

tiviti

es.

Mor

e ad

ult

prog

ram

s/ac

tiviti

es.

A n

ew a

men

ity:

Ska

tepa

rk

A n

ew a

men

ity: D

ogP

ark

A n

ew a

men

ity:

Com

mun

ity G

arde

n


Question 6

D Appendix


Response Count

311749

Number Response Text1 dependes on the investment2 Archery Area3 kickball games, boxball, more basketball hoops/courts4 YMCA - Across from Riverside Gardens5 splash park,6 Sports, crafts,7 Please add a community pool!!8 Basketball courts9 Movie night is an awesome idea! Food trucks for ice cream or popcorn (kettle corn)

10 Splash pad11 affordable year round sports12 programs in the parks (variety)13 soccer14 youth fitness - for teens15 soccer program, football program. Same as harlan does16 volleyball league, hockey17 organized crafts, sports

If you would like more youth programs/facilities what would they be?

Answer Options

answered questionskipped question

Question 7

Question 8

Response Count

131353

Number Response Text

1 Archery Area2 bootcamp, yoga, fitness programs3 YMCA - Across from Riverside Gardens4 classes5 crafts, classes6 Please add a community pool!!7 Basketball courts8 programs in the park (variety)...love the upcoming free yoga9 much like the Allen County Parks offerings

10 not sure11 senior citizen activities12 adult softball league13 exercise, natural-birds etc

If you would like more adult programs/facilities what would they be?

Answer Options


DAppendix


Response Percent

Response Count

37.0% 1739.1% 1819.6% 934.8% 1615.2% 76.5% 3

10.9% 54620


Yes, small annual town park user tax.

skipped question

Yes, small increase in program fees.

improvements.


reservation fee.

answered question

Answer Options

No, I am not willing to pay for

Yes, small increase in shelter

No, I can’t afford to pay for parks.

Yes

Maybe

Depends on theinvestment

No

Don’t use parks

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%

Would you like Leo - Cedarville to invest more money in the parks?

Response Percent

Response Count

44.3% 2711.5% 731.1% 1913.1% 80.0% 0

615skipped question

Would you like Leo - Cedarville to invest more money in the parks?

No

Yes

answered question


Depends on the investment

Answer Options

Don’t use parks

Maybe

Question 9

Question 10

D Appendix


Yes

Maybe

Depends onthe

improvements

No

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%

Are you willing to pay new taxes or user fees to help pay for improvements in Leo - Cedarville’s Parks?

Response Percent

Response Count

18.8% 916.7% 843.8% 2120.8% 10

4818


No

Yes

skipped question


Depends on the improvements

Answer Options

answered question

Maybe

Yes

Maybe

Depends onthe

improvements

No

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%


Question 11

DAppendix


Response Count

232343


1

Didn't know of the personal owned businesses in Leo. Maybe some sort of area business flyer disributed to homes off old Leo/ from tonkel to clay ...

2 no3 splash pad will be fantastic

4I think our parks are putting Leo Cederville on the map which is a wonderful thing.

5when I come home I want to stay home muti-family housing options Saxony!

6

As I travel down to Indy and other larger cities, I'm jealous of their sidewalks and parks. It seems that their community has sidewalks throughout and I see runners and bikers using these regularly. We don't even have sidewalks the length of Amstutz by the highschool. I would think that a sidewalk from the schools (elem & high school) to Cedarville Park and Metea Park would be beneficial, even to the soccer fields on Hosler.

7 Like to see a YMCA come to our area.

8Maintain variety so that all ages have something more for them - not just everything for little kids/grade school age.

9Would love to see an outdoor community pool. Would also love more trails/paths for walking and riding bikes.

10 Please add a community pool!!

11

We need more basketball courts. For adults and kids. The imagination station parks court is always so crowded and there is no place for kids to play or for adults to shoot around.

12Trails along the creek / river - metea park has awesome trails but only a couple of them and would love to have more to go and explore

13 It would be great to have a dog park!

14

I like the Imagination Station. Awesome that it was built with volunteer labor! Lighting - address "light pollution". Lightposts that

send light horizontal are almost useless as they blind the human eye while illuminating an area. Down directional lighting is most appropriate. The lightposts in neighboring Grabill look nice during the daytime, and are almost useless at night.

2013 Parks and Placemaking Questionnaire - Leo - Cedarville Comprehensive Plan Update Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for Leo - Cedarville’s Parks? Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you like:

Answer Options


Response Count

232343


1

Didn't know of the personal owned businesses in Leo. Maybe some sort of area business flyer disributed to homes off old Leo/ from tonkel to clay ...

2 no3 splash pad will be fantastic

4I think our parks are putting Leo Cederville on the map which is a wonderful thing.

5when I come home I want to stay home muti-family housing options Saxony!

6

As I travel down to Indy and other larger cities, I'm jealous of their sidewalks and parks. It seems that their community has sidewalks throughout and I see runners and bikers using these regularly. We don't even have sidewalks the length of Amstutz by the highschool. I would think that a sidewalk from the schools (elem & high school) to Cedarville Park and Metea Park would be beneficial, even to the soccer fields on Hosler.

7 Like to see a YMCA come to our area.

8Maintain variety so that all ages have something more for them - not just everything for little kids/grade school age.

9Would love to see an outdoor community pool. Would also love more trails/paths for walking and riding bikes.

10 Please add a community pool!!

11

We need more basketball courts. For adults and kids. The imagination station parks court is always so crowded and there is no place for kids to play or for adults to shoot around.

12Trails along the creek / river - metea park has awesome trails but only a couple of them and would love to have more to go and explore

13 It would be great to have a dog park!

14

I like the Imagination Station. Awesome that it was built with volunteer labor! Lighting - address "light pollution". Lightposts that

send light horizontal are almost useless as they blind the human eye while illuminating an area. Down directional lighting is most appropriate. The lightposts in neighboring Grabill look nice during the daytime, and are almost useless at night.

2013 Parks and Placemaking Questionnaire - Leo - Cedarville Comprehensive Plan Update Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for Leo - Cedarville’s Parks? Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you like:

Answer Options


15Our children love the parks and we welcome any new additions.Bring on splash pads...

16 Would love to see a playground at Riverside Park :)

17

I feel mulch is not the best idea for parks such as Leo park, especially when you are wearing sandals or your kids and get stabbed non stop. Also a splash pad would be really neat and some kind of nature trail.

18 Tennis courts!

19

I feel advancement for Leo in the above areas would be super....depending on the interest I am sure there has to be a fee somewhere....not sure another tax is the way to go. Thanks for all you do

20You're doing a great job increasing the use of the parks! I am anxious to see what else can be done!

21

a community pool - I would LOVE to have one of these and would pay a monthly or yearly fee for access to this. Our community (Pioneer Village) does not have one

22

Need sidewalks throughout the town to connect each beautiful area we have.....even downtown, though that area is not beautiful. We also need a restaurant on the river, a nice restaurant with a liquor license.

23 Bigger boat launch.

Question 12

D Appendix


Question 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rating Average

3 3 2 1 4 6 6 8 5.483 2 3 1 2 5 10 7 5.64

10 7 2 5 4 5 0 0 3.031 3 4 5 4 3 4 9 5.360 3 4 7 9 5 3 2 4.792 6 4 5 5 5 3 3 4.42

11 5 9 0 2 2 2 2 3.033 4 5 9 3 2 5 2 4.24


Lighting Type 3

Lighting Type 8

Answer Options

Lighting Type 5

skipped question

Lighting Type 2

Lighting Type 7

Please select rank your prefered lighting types for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 8 - Least Favorite):

Lighting Type 4

answered question

Lighting Type 1

Lighting Type 6

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Lighting Type 1

Lighting Type 2

Lighting Type 3

Lighting Type 4

Lighting Type 5

Lighting Type 6

Lighting Type 7

Lighting Type 8

Please select rank your prefered lighting types for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 8 - Least

Favorite):

Lighting Type 2 is Most Popular

DAppendix


Question 14

Question 15

Signage Type 2 is Most Popular

1 2 3 Rating AverageResponse

Count21 13 0 1.38 3412 15 7 1.85 341 6 27 2.76 34

3432skipped question

Bench Type 2

Please rank your favorite type of furninshing/bench for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 3 - Least Favorite):

answered question

Bench Type 1


Bench Type 3

Answer Options

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Bench Type1

Bench Type2

Bench Type3

Please rank your favorite type of furninshing/bench for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 3 - Least

Favorite):Bench Type 3 is Most Popular

1 2 3 4 Rating AverageResponse

Count7 14 8 3 2.22 323 8 13 8 2.81 32

13 5 6 8 2.28 329 5 5 13 2.69 32

3234

2. Please rank your favorite type of wayfinding signage for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 4 - Least Favorite):

Signage Type 4

Signage Type 1

skipped question


Signage Type 3

Answer Options

answered question

Signage Type 2

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

SignageType 1

SignageType 2

SignageType 3

SignageType 4

2. Please rank your favorite type of wayfinding signage for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 4 - Least

Favorite):

D Appendix


Question 16

Gateway Signage Type 3 is Most Popular

1 2 3 Rating AverageResponse

Count8 18 6 1.94 32

20 7 5 1.53 324 7 21 2.53 32


Gateway Type 2

2. Please rank your favorite type of gateway signage for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 3 - Least Favorite):

answered question

Gateway Type 1


Gateway Type 3

Answer Options

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Gateway Type 1

Gateway Type 2

Gateway Type 3

2. Please rank your favorite type of gateway signage for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 3 - Least

Favorite):

DAppendix


Question 17Building Style 9 is Most Popular

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Rating

AverageResponse

Count3 5 1 1 4 3 0 1 5 6 5.90 294 4 5 1 2 3 3 1 2 4 5.03 294 4 4 6 3 4 1 0 1 2 4.24 291 1 2 4 5 4 4 7 0 1 5.79 294 5 5 1 7 3 1 3 0 0 4.03 296 1 2 1 3 8 7 0 1 0 4.79 295 4 2 5 1 1 7 4 0 0 4.52 290 3 2 5 2 3 0 10 4 0 6.07 290 1 2 1 1 0 4 2 13 5 7.86 292 1 4 4 1 0 2 1 3 11 6.76 29


Please rank your favorite style of downtown/mixed-use commercial buildings for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 10 - Least Favorite):

Building Style 4

Building Style 9

Building Style 1

Building Style 6

answered question


Building Style 3

Building Style 8

Answer Options

Building Style 5

Building Style 10

Building Style 2

Building Style 7

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

Building Style 1

Building Style 3

Building Style 5

Building Style 7

Building Style 9

Please rank your favorite style of downtown/mixed-use commercial buildings for Downtown Leo - Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 10 - Least

Favorite):

D Appendix


Question 18

Building Style 12 is Most Popular

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4 6 3 1 2 4 2 2 0 1 0 17 4 5 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 03 1 5 3 5 1 1 2 2 0 1 21 4 1 8 4 4 1 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 1 6 5 3 3 1 3 2 27 2 1 0 3 5 2 3 0 2 1 01 0 5 0 0 2 11 2 5 0 0 01 2 1 4 0 0 1 11 2 2 1 11 4 0 0 1 0 2 1 13 2 2 01 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 10 3 10 0 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 3 13 20 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 16

Style 2

Style 7

Please rank your favorite style of multi-family residential buildings that might be appropriate in Leo - Cedarville Least Favorite):

Style 12

Style 4

Style 9

Style 1

skipp

Style 6


Style 11

Style 3

Style 8

Answer Options

answer

Style 5

Style 10

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Style 1

Style 3

Style 5

Style 7

Style 9

Style 11

Please rank your favorite style of multi-family residential buildings that might be appropriate in Leo -

Cedarville (Rank: 1 - Favorite, 12 - Least Favorite):

DAppendix


Leo-Cedarville, YMCA, & PARKVIEW Recreation Survey The Town Park’s Department, YMCA, and Parkview are seeking your input to gather information regarding the recreation and special needs

of the community. We are hopeful that this information will bring recreation and community based wellness to our hometown. Please take a moment to fill out this survey, and return it to the Town Hall by mailing it to P.O. Box 408, Leo Indiana, 46765, or by dropping it

in to our mail slot located next to the Town Hall door, located at 13909 Pony Express Run, same street as the Leo-Post office. Thank you. 105 Surveys collected ( 9 from newspaper/ 8 from survey monkey/ 88 from back pack surveys)

What are the strengths and challenges that most accurately define the community?

This question led to confusion, as many staed that they did not know how to answer, “strength or challenge” It may not be a good data.

Health 28 Crime 10 Education 54

Recreation 52

Employment 26 Other

14________________________________

What are the most pressing challenges and concerns of you and your family? (Check all that apply)

This question was not included on the survey monkey .

Health 33 Crime 11 Education 49

Recreation 46

Employment 17 Other

6_______________________________

What types of programs are you or your family currently involved in?

Child Care 18 Day Camp 14 Preschool/Pre-K Education 24 Health and Fitness 41 Social Clubs 28 Volunteer Service 38 Youth Sports 54

None 13 Other 16

________________________________

What kinds of programs would you like to see in the community?

Child Care 14 Day Camp/Summer Recreation 36 Childhood / Youth Obesity

Prevention 11 Organized Family Activities 52 Stress Management 17 Nutrition Education/Healthy Eating

25 Financial Education 16

Preschool/Pre-K Education 9 Safe Place for Teens 52 Senior Social Activities 16 Volunteer Opportunities 24 Youth Sports 39 Teen Intramural Programs 27 Other___11___________________

_____

What barriers prevent you and your family from participating in recreation programs?

Cost 33 Location 42 Transportation 12 Time 47

Other 2________________________________

What services, activities, and resources are needed to encourage your family’s participation in recreation programs?

D Appendix


Financial Assistance 21 Convenience of Location 67 Other _____16____________________________

What community services do you and your family use most? (Check all that apply)

Church/Faith Based 66 YMCA 11 Public Parks and Recreation 62 School Based Programs 48

Other 14________________________________

What kind of contribution (time, talent, money) can you provide to enhance your community’s recreation offerings?

Volunteering 71 Financial Contribution 19 Donate Space 1 Share Specific Skills 20 Collaboration 19 Other 1________________________________

Would you utilize a school based provider for routine physicals and minor illness care?__59_yes__35_no Would you be likely to use a community based wellness screening program? __57_yes_33__no Do you feel that you have adequate access to a physician for preventative health care? This question was not included on the survey monkey. monkey._82__yes__3_no Do you feel you have access to see a physician when you or a family member is ill?_98__yes__3_no

What time of the day is ideal for you to see a health care provider?__ _answers attached______

Thank you for your time! The following are the answers “written” by the customer in the portion of the survey that says “other”.

Written answers: Question # 1

DAppendix


Other: family, strength, small town character, we have a great school system, would love it more if we could have our own school system, I think we could support it., overcrowding in k-3 is a problem, safe place, tight knit community, strong community feel, schools, park, Saint Joe River, family friendly, keep businesses open later, appearance of how well kept, community, government Question #2 Other: No concerns as of now, school academic performance roll in community, love Leo, finances, more classrooms and teachers in k-3 school, no real significant issues, childcare State road one, finance, taxes, traffic, using Fort Wayne services nothing local Question #3 Other: Leo Jr. Soccer league, Church, scouts Youth group, dance, bible study Scouting, 4H, Development of Leo, school events Question #4 Other: Biking, trails, yoga, community center, natatorium, “I lived in Indianapolis for a while and the parks department offered free aerobics four nights a week. It was a great and the turnout was fantastic. I would be thrilled to see something like that.” nearby YMCA, theatre group, outdoor pool. Question # 5 Other: Old age, lack of organized activities Question # 6 Other: Time, time program is offered, information on the recreation programs, weekends/evenings, awareness marketing, time, cost, transportation, time things are available, senior programs, user friendly, use of the river, biking, hiking, fishing, free Question # 7 Other: Dance NY Style,\ Studio, Anytime Fitness, Library, Town Sponsored Events, YMCA at DuPont but too crowded and too costly, Spiece Sports, Youth Sports Leagues, community Programs Question #8 Other: Finances are limited, depends on what you are talking about. Question #9: What time is ideal for you to see a health care provider? The following are the answers that were written in (number of answers in red):

D Appendix


Morning 7 Afternoon 9 Evening 10 Anytime 2 After school 6 A.m. two days a week 2 Depends on who needs to go in the household and what else is going on. 1 7 a.m. 4 8 a.m. 1 10 a.m. 1 11 a.m. 1 3 p.m. 4 4 p.m. 2 7 p.m. 7 8 a.m. till 5 p.m. 4 Varies 3 During school hours 2 Weekends 1 Flexible 1 Early evening 1 Other various comments written in: Name a park after or in honor of the women who created Cedarville Park. Yeah for the “Shlie’s (new doctor’s in town). Not covered by insurance. Nice having Shlie’s in Town.

Children weigh in on what is good in Leo-Cedarville!

DAppendix

Architecture

Preservation

Interior Design


Urban Design & Planning

Graphic Design

Indianapolis, IndianaChampaign, IllinoisRaleigh, North CarolinaChicago, Illinois

RATIOarchitects.comIn partnership with smdp, LLC

Leo-Cedarville, IN Comprehensive Plan

Documents

Transcript of Leo-Cedarville, IN Comprehensive Plan