VILLAGE OF FRANKFORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AUGUST 16, 2004
PREPARED BY TESKA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table of Contents
PART 1 – INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Section I
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
ƒ History
ƒ Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan
ƒ Elements of the Comprehensive Plan
ƒ Planning Methodology
Section II
Demographic & Economic Trends
…………………………………………………… 13
ƒ Population Trends & Forecasts
ƒ Household Size & Income
ƒ Economic Trends
ƒ Favorable Business Climate
Section III
Frankfort Market Analysis ………………………………………………………………… 23
ƒ Retail Service Possibilities
ƒ A Downtown Mixed Use Market
ƒ Lifestyle Center
ƒ Commercial Development Centers
ƒ Economic Impact of Commercial Development
ƒ Employment & Business Opportunities
Section IV
Circulation & Transportation …………………..………………………………………… 39
ƒ Existing Transportation System
ƒ Transportation Issues
ƒ Recommendations from the Transportation Master Plan
Section V
Community Facilities & Utilities Plan ………..………………………………………… 45
ƒ Civic Buildings
ƒ Recreational Facilities
ƒ Community Facilities
ƒ Schools
ƒ Utilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 2 – PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Section VI
Goals, Objectives & Policy Statements ………………………………………………… 55
ƒ Goals
ƒ Objectives & Policy Statements
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
1
Section VII
Framework Plan ………………………………..…………………………………………… 67
ƒ Elements of the Framework Plan
ƒ Commercial Development Centers
ƒ Employment/Business Opportunities
ƒ Mixed Use Opportunities
ƒ Principal Open Space Opportunities
ƒ Residential Growth Opportunities
ƒ Transitional Residential Opportunities
ƒ Focal Point/Gateway Opportunities
ƒ Transportation Network
Section VIII
Future Land Use Plan ……………………………………………………………………… 81
ƒ Land Use Designations
ƒ Future Land Use Areas
ƒ Future Land Use Capacity Analysis
ƒ The Historic Downtown District
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 3 – IMPLEMENTATION
Section IX
Design & Development Guidelines …………………………….……………………… 99
ƒ Applications
ƒ Design & Development Review Process
ƒ Design & Development Guidelines
Section X
Special Area Plans ……………………………………..……………………………………111
ƒ Special Area 1: Route 30 Mixed Use/Lifestyle Center
ƒ Special Area 2: Historic Downtown District
ƒ Special Area 3: Route 45/Laraway Road Development Area
Section XI
Action Plan …………………………………..………….……………………………………139
ƒ Plan Implementation
ƒ Annexation Policy
ƒ Monitoring & Updating the Comprehensive Plan
ƒ Implementation Action Plan
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
2
Part 1
Introduction & Background
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
3
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
4
Section I. Introduction
HISTORY
Frankfort’s past is rich with a history that is based on the honesty and hard work of many
generations. Research of Frankfort has found that a great emphasis has always been placed upon
Frankfort’s rich heritage and sound land use planning. First inhabited by Native Americans,
including the Pottawatomie, Sac and Fox tribes, Frankfort was used as a conduit between the Des
Plaines and St. Joseph Rivers. Originally, the area was part of the Virginia Territory before the
French signed a treaty with Manitoqua, the Pottawatomie Chief, for land in the Prestwick area.
The first pioneers came to Frankfort in the early 1830’s by means of the Des Plaines River from the
southwest and by wagon from the east along the Sauk Trail, a roadway that still exists today.
William Rice, the first non-native settler, made a permanent settlement in Frankfort in 1831. While
the first pioneers, coming mainly from the New England Colonies, were mostly of English and
Scottish descent, German settlers made the Village of Frankfort a reality.
Later in the 1840’s German Settlers migrated from the Pennsylvania area to Frankfort. They had
fled harsh conditions in their homeland by coming to America and proved to be very industrious
and experienced farmers as they soon bought most of the fertile farm land from the “Yankees”, who
were more inclined to provide services for local needs. Establishing both ownership and pride in
the area, the German settlers implemented the first system of resident concern for local lands,
which has been maintained ever since.
In 1850, Frankfort Township was named by Frederick Chapel after his native city, Frankfurt-AmMain, Germany. A few years later in 1855, the Joliet and Northern Indiana Railroad, later known
as the Michigan Central Railroad, built a line through an area that is presently the Historic District
of the Village. Sherman Bowen, an officer of the rail line, owned eighty acres and named the
surrounding area Frankfort Station. On this he laid out a plat for commercial and residential
development, beginning the strong tradition of planning solid developments within Frankfort.
In 1879, the Village of Frankfort was incorporated, dropped the word Station from its name, and
elected John McDonald as the first Village President. Along with the establishment of the
government, among the first undertakings of the newly formed administration was the institution of
land use policies. Early plats that were recorded indicated a traditional grid pattern with residential
uses surrounding the business district and railroad line and additional land provided for schools
and public open spaces.
For the first part of its existence, Frankfort was a small farming town created and maintained by its
settlers. After establishing a government, Frankfort continued to grow comfortably, always one step
ahead of development, to what it is today. Located on the urban fringe of Chicago, Frankfort has
slowly transitioned into an attractive and well-planned suburban community dedicated to its
residents and 1890’s heritage, thanks mainly to the careful planning and dedication of its ancestors.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
5
PURPOSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This Comprehensive Plan is an update to the Village of Frankfort’s 1996 Plan. Although this
updated Comprehensive Plan includes revised policies and guidelines for the Village, it maintains
the integrity of the 1996 Plan. The Plan reflects the community’s hopes and beliefs on how
Frankfort should develop, while building upon all of the Village’s existing specific plans, including
the capital improvement, transportation, water resource management, economic development,
utility and bicycle master plans.
The intention of this Plan is to set a vision for the future but be flexible enough to take advantage of
opportunities as they arise. The Village recognizes that this Plan is a fluid document that is
continually impacted by development pressures. Therefore the Village will periodically review,
evaluate and revise the Plan as deemed necessary.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish a policy framework for future decisions
regarding growth and development in the Village. This Policy Framework will serve as a bridge
between current land use decisions and the community’s ideal future land use. Through effective
planning methods described in this Plan, Frankfort will ensure that its investment of resources will
be coordinated with short- and long-range projects, thereby maximizing opportunities to meet the
Village’s goals and objectives.
ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This report is divided into three parts to facilitate its review. All background and supporting
information is provided in Part 1. Part 2 documents the driving goals and policies of the Village
and sets forth the framework from which the general development plan is derived. Finally, Part 3
provides more detailed analysis of design recommendations, specific site development concepts
and an Action Plan which provides direction for the implementation of the plan. Frankfort will
utilize these elements to evaluate the merits of future development proposals. In addition to the
three parts of this document, a supplemental document is available (from the Village) that details
additional background information utilized in developing the plan. The following items may be
found in the “Background Information” binder:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Key Interview Summaries
Results of Community Survey
Results of Visual Preference Survey
Environmental Characteristics
Future Land Use Capacity Analysis Tables for Alternative Future Land Use Plan
District Boundary Maps (Fire, School, Park and Library Districts)
The analyses and survey results described below provided the basis for reviewing and updating the
Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. An updated version of
the Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements (Part 2, Section VI) not only sets the long-range vision
for the Village but also provides the basis for updating other elements of the 1996 Comprehensive
Plan, including:
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
6
ƒ
Section IV includes descriptions of Circulation & Transportation in Frankfort and provides
recommendations that will ensure that the transportation system will continue to function
effectively and efficiently as the Village grows and develops.
ƒ
Section V includes the Community Facilities & Utilities Plan, which describes the current
ability of existing civic buildings, recreational and community facilities, public institutions,
and utilities to accommodate growth. The Village has also planned for the expansion and
improvement of certain community facilities and utilities to anticipate future growth and
development.
ƒ
Section VII includes the Framework Plan, which establishes the basic planning and
development principles that will guide the future growth and development of Frankfort.
The Framework Plan provides a conceptual vision for the development of the Village.
More specifically, the Framework Plan conceptually defines a physical layout of how the
Village will provide for economic development, residential growth, open space and other
opportunities.
ƒ
Section VIII includes the Future Land Plan, which recommends specific land uses for
specific sites throughout the Village. The Future Land Use Plan is a product of the
Framework Plan and reflects the Village’s Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements.
New elements have also been added to the Comprehensive Plan, including:
ƒ
Section IX lists the Design & Development Guidelines that define the standards by which
new developments will be evaluated to preserve and enhance the high quality of Frankfort’s
physical character. Preservation of high quality character helps ensure the long-term vitality
of Frankfort’s neighborhoods, commercial districts, and business districts.
ƒ
Section X includes Special Area Plans for three distinct areas in the Village. Based on site
location and unique development opportunities, the northeast corner of the Route 30/Route
45 intersection, the Historic Downtown District, and the Route 45/Laraway Road
intersection are identified as special areas that each have the potential to create unique
focal points within the community. The Village developed conceptual site plans for the
special areas to demonstrate some of the Village’s ideas for the creative development
potential of these sites. It is recognized that these concept plans will not dictate the precise
design or layout of the area, however the plans are used to communicate several design
principles to be incorporated when development is proposed.
The final section of the updated Comprehensive Plan defines the Action Plan (Section XI) that
identifies the specific actions and time frames to aid the execution of the recommendations
contained in this Plan.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
7
PLANNING METHODOLOGY
For purposes of directing the Comprehensive Plan, the Village established the Comprehensive Plan
Committee (CPC), which included the Mayor, Board of Trustees, Village Plan Commissioners and
planning staff. The CPC met on an as-needed basis to discuss and evaluate the progress of the
planning process to update the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The CPC reviewed consultant reports
and recommendations and provided direction on policies, guidelines, and an overall vision for
sensible growth and development of the Village.
Data Collection & Analysis
Commencing the planning process, the consultant conducted a variety of studies, including a series
of interviews with various community leaders, an analysis of Village demographic and economic
trends, and analyses of the Village’s existing conditions, including land use, identification of
environmental features, to build an accurate and thorough understanding of the community’s
unique characteristics and help guide the comprehensive planning process. The analysis of
Demographic and Economic Trends is located in Part 1, Section II of this Plan. Summaries of the
interviews and existing land use analysis are located in the “Background Information” Binder.
In addition, the consultant analyzed current economic conditions and development trends in
Frankfort and the surrounding area to create an accurate profile of the present local market and
make projections for the Village’s future economic development. The Frankfort Market Analysis is
located in Part 1, Section III.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
8
Community Survey
To better understand the community’s views toward the future growth and development of
Frankfort, the Village administered a Community Survey to all Village residents in Spring 2003.
With a 24% response rate, the majority of respondents demonstrated the following characteristics:
slightly more females than males; nearly two-thirds were 46 years or older; a majority lived in
single-family housing (84%) and owned their residence (97%); and approximately 58% earned an
annual household income in the $50,000 - $150,000 range. A small percentage (11%) of
households earn below $50,000, while at the other end of the spectrum, 22% of households earn
over $150,000. Complete tabulations of the survey results are included in the “Background
Information” Binder. A summary of the survey results is provided below.
The results of the community survey shed light on the type of community the Village of Frankfort is
today and wishes to be in the future. Although various interpretations can be made from the survey
results, there are some conclusions that are more obvious than others. Understanding the statistical
limitations, the survey still provided general guidance to the Comprehensive Plan Committee,
including areas of concern regardless of existing conditions.
Frankfort residents generally view the Village as having a good quality of life, which may be
partially attributed to the quality of schools, size of the community, high standards for commercial
architecture, and Frankfort’s strong sense of place. The Village’s strong sense of place is reflected
in the quality of Village services, community events, and local features such as bike trails and the
historic district. Despite having an overall good quality of life, not all of the Village’s characteristics
are viewed favorably by residents. For instance, many residents perceive high taxes, water quality,
and the lack of shopping opportunities as negative characteristics. Steady development near the
Village and the south suburban region as a whole has also contributed to the less desirable aspects
of the Village such as rapid growth and traffic congestion. Understanding the importance of these
criticisms provides valuable information regarding future land use decisions and growth policies.
Despite the steady growth of the south suburban region, Frankfort is still primarily a single-family
residential community, evidenced by the fact that only about 13% of the Village’s total land use
area is covered by non-residential uses. However, a majority of residents feel that the current mix
of land uses should be changed to foster more development of quality commercial, industrial, and
open space uses. The surveys indicate support for a decrease in residential development and an
increase in development of non-residential uses.
Increasing commercial and industrial development also helps to alleviate some of the perceived
negative characteristics of the Village. For instance, diversification of the Village tax base not only
helps alleviate the burden of taxes on residents but also provides more shopping opportunities for
residents, which was identified as a future need for the community. In addition, approximately
82% of responding Village residents indicated that they spent 50% or less of their retail spending
dollar in Frankfort. Diversification of the Village tax base would allow local businesses to capture a
greater percentage of residents’ spending dollar, thereby providing additional revenue that may
assist the Village in maintaining the level of public services Frankfort’s residents expect and in turn
reduce residential tax burdens.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
9
The surveys indicated that residents strongly support encouraging medium retail centers and family
restaurants. Residents, however, also discouraged developments such as large retail centers, fast
food restaurants, and motels/hotels. Unfortunately, the surveys did not specify the types and
quality of stores that should comprise medium and large retailers. In addition, the fast food
industry includes medium- to high-end businesses such as Corner Bakery and Panera Bread to go
along with its more typical businesses such as McDonald’s and KFC. However, interviews with key
community members indicated that high quality development and products are very important to
the people of Frankfort, regardless of size. Further analysis is required to better identify what these
opinions translate to in terms of types of stores and the scales at which they are built.
The desire for high quality developments reflects the Village’s desire to maintain an upscale image
for the community. To maintain its upscale image, the Village places great importance on
upholding high standards for commercial architecture. The surveys indicated that residents believe
these high standards should also be reflected by other development characteristics such as
landscaping, size of structure, site lighting and layout, signage, and types of stores. Proximity to
residential uses and minimizing traffic impacts are not necessarily related to quality, but
nevertheless are considered important to residents.
In addition to encouraging quality retail developments, the surveys also indicated that residents
support office parks and light industrial parks. These types of uses not only diversify the Village tax
base but also provide employment opportunities for residents.
Design characteristics and types of developments contribute to the maintenance of an upscale
image for the Village. The location of developments also has an impact on maintaining Frankfort’s
desired image. The survey indicates that residents prefer developments that offer convenience
services and serve daily needs to be located within the Village. For instance, residents prefer that
antique/specialty/gift stores, medical clinics, book stores, bakeries, clothing stores, and small
hardware stores locate in the Village.
On the other hand, the surveys also indicate developments that offer goods and services that are
not needed on a regular basis should be located outside the Village. Auto dealers and furniture
stores fall within this category. In addition, developments that require large areas were also
preferred to be relegated to properties outside the Village. Large home improvement stores,
warehouse club stores and discount stores typically need large spaces to showcase their goods and
provide storage for inventory. Once again, although the service is not conclusive, there appears to
be a concern for the type of product and the size or appearance of the store.
Similar to the lack of definition given to the elements that characterize high quality developments
and products, the survey did not clearly specify the types and sizes of developments when
assessing their preferred locations. For example, a majority of the surveys indicated that grocery
stores and entertainment developments should be located outside the Village rather than within.
Unfortunately, there is no indication as to the types of grocery stores (Jewel vs. a local grocer) or
types of entertainment venues (multiplex cinemas vs. a community amphitheater). Also, residents
preferred that clothing stores locate within the Village but the survey did not specify the types of
clothing stores (Ann Taylor vs. a locally owned store). The types and sizes of these kinds of
developments will need to be further evaluated during the planning process.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
10
The results from the economic development portion of the survey reflect Frankfort’s desire to
maintain an upscale image. Economic development policies that encourage stores with high
quality products are important to residents.
There was a discrepancy regarding preferences for
size of retail centers that may be partly attributed to the survey’s lack of clear specifications of type
and scale of developments. Residents may be able to give a better assessment of their desires once
the type and scale of developments are more clearly specified.
Despite this discrepancy, other economic development indices more accurately reflect the desires
of the community. Residents supported policies that encourage new industrial developments and
office complexes, which reflect residents’ desire to increase industrial development. Residents also
supported increasing retail development in the historic district, lending support to the need to
provide more shopping opportunities. Despite the desire to increase shopping opportunities and
diversify the tax base, residents did not place much importance on policies that encouraged the
development of large retail centers (with or without anchors) or stores with low cost products. The
lack of support for stores with low cost products again reflects the desire for the Village to maintain
a high quality image.
Although the surveys indicated that residents wish to increase the amount of non-residential
developments in the Village, residential development is still welcome. For the most part, residents
wish to encourage mainly single-family homes on a minimum of 15,000 square foot lots. Senior
housing and cluster developments were also supported, however only on a limited basis. More
affordable housing options such as attached housing (e.g. duplexes and townhomes) and multifamily housing (e.g. apartments and condos) were considered to be lower priority.
In summary, the results of the survey indicate that residents wish to maintain an upscale image for
Frankfort while enhancing the Village’s quality of life. The survey asked residents to prioritize
items that would improve or maintain the Village’s quality of life. Residents identified items for
higher priority such as revitalizing the historic district and preserving open space, which will
directly improve the Village’s image. Revitalizing the historic district and attracting retail business
also help to diversify the Village tax base and create more shopping opportunities for the
community. Controlling traffic congestion was indicated as a high priority item, which reflects the
Village’s concern of rapid growth negatively affecting Frankfort’s character. The lowest priority
item was providing a range of housing choices, which reflects the residents’ desire to encourage
more single-family homes, rather than alternative housing options such as attached and multi-family
housing.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
11
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
12
Section II. Demographic & Economic Trends
Planning for the growth and development of Frankfort requires an assessment of the current and
future demographic conditions in the Village. Population trends will have a significant impact on
long-range growth and development, particularly influencing the Village’s land uses and the
policies that govern them. Demographic trends also have a strong impact on the economic
development of the Village.
POPULATION TRENDS & FORECASTS
Both national and local trends that resulted in population shifts away from urban areas to suburban
and rural areas on the edges of metropolitan areas will continue to exert growth pressures on
communities like Frankfort. There are a number of reasons for this popular growth trend. People
choose to leave the pollution, congestion and crime of large urban areas, with decentralization of
business also being a factor. There has been a wide-spread tendency for companies to situate new
facilities away from the cities and in wide open areas principally seeking more cost effective land
choices. Effectively managing the opportunities and impacts of these trends will continue to have
an impact on Frankfort’s future growth and development.
Frankfort is part of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) of Northeastern Illinois
surrounding Chicago. The SMSA has been the site of rapid growth and development in the recent
past. Will County has shown rapid growth (second fastest growing County in Illinois) and Frankfort
anticipates similar growth pressure over the next several years.
An analysis of past and present trends is necessary to forecast future population growth for
Frankfort. Most population forecasts prepared in the 1960’s and 1970 have projected far greater
growth than actually took place. The forecasts did not anticipate the deep recession in the late
1970’s and early 1980’s. These forecasts also did not foresee the rapid drop in employment in
major metropolitan industries such as steel production. To forecast the future populations for the
Village, two different scenarios were developed.
One scenario examines the proposed third airport and extension of I-355, as it would have a major
impact on development, and hence and the rate of growth within the Village. These projects are
currently under study by the State of Illinois and the Tollway Authority. If either is constructed, the
rate of growth will accelerate. Careful study of alternative construction schedules will need
continual analysis to assess each project’s impact on local growth rates. The other scenario
considers the likely growth pattern without the impact of the proposed third airport and related
transportation improvements.
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) provides population growth forecasts for the
metropolitan region. Forecasts completed by NIPC for the year 2030 are incorporated in this Plan.
NIPC projections for Frankfort include the potential impact of a third airport, and the alternate
scenario that an airport is not built.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
13
POPULATION GROWTH
The chart below shows Frankfort’s actual population growth from 1970 to 2000 and includes future
population projections through 2030 as forecasted by NIPC. From 1970 to 1990, Frankfort’s
population more than tripled, rising from 2,325 residents to 7,180 residents. Between 1990 and
2000, Frankfort experienced significant population growth increasing its population from 7,180 to
10,391 residents, which translates to a 44.7% growth rate. By the year 2010, NIPC projects a
population of about 20,691 residents for Frankfort, translating to an 82.6% growth rate between
2000 and 2010, which is almost double the growth rate for the previous decade (1990-2000). This
continuing increase in Frankfort’s rate of growth is expected to persist over the next several years.
By the year 2020, NIPC projects Frankfort’s population to increase to 35,552 residents, assuming
that the third Chicago regional airport is constructed, or 30,990 residents if the third airport is not
constructed. Under either scenario, the projected 2020 population for Frankfort essentially triples
the Village’s 2000 population. NIPC projects Frankfort’s population to rise to 67,218 residents by
the year 2030. Although these population figures provided by NIPC are only estimates, the Village
must plan accordingly to provide for its growing population. Whether population growth is
moderate or accelerated, Frankfort must ensure that it provides sufficient municipal resources (i.e.
water and sewer service), maintains efficient road and public infrastructure, and provides adequate
residential, shopping, employment and recreational opportunities for its residents.
Population
Frankfort Population 1970 - 2030
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
67,218
30,990
35,552
20,691
2,325
4,357
7,180
10,391
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
ORD
2020
SSA
2030
Year
Source: NIPC
Notes: The 2020 ORD population projection is the existing, improved airports alternative. The
2020 SSA population projection is the south suburban airport alternative. NIPC did not specify
whether or not it accounted for airport alternatives for the 2030 population projection.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
14
Population Growth of Frankfort & Neighboring
Communities, 1990 - 2010
35,000
30,315
Population
30,000
25,000
20,691
20,000
15,000
10,000
10,391
7,180
18,713
14,583
17,771
1990
2000
9,627
2010
6,128
5,000
0
Frankfort
Mokena
New Lenox
Source: NIPC
When evaluating growth projections, examination of the recent growth of similar communities can
be an important measure or check on the likelihood of similar trends. The chart above compares
the growth rates of Frankfort and two of its neighboring communities (Mokena and New Lenox)
between 1990 and 2000, and includes projected populations for 2010. Each community
experienced increases in population and growth is expected to continue over the next several
years. Although this graph provides insight into the general increase in population of Frankfort in
comparison to its neighboring communities, the chart only tells part of the story of Frankfort’s
population growth. The results from this chart, combined with the information provided in the
chart on the next page, will provide a more informative perspective of Frankfort’s past and
anticipated population growth.
The table below lists the NIPC population projections for Frankfort, Mokena, New Lenox, and Will
County from 1990-2030. As described previously, Frankfort is currently experiencing moderate
population growth, which is expected to continue through 2020. From 2020-2030, Frankfort’s
population is expected to
increase significantly from
Population of Frankfort, Neighboring Communities
30,990 to 67,218 residents.
& Will County, 1990 - 2030
New Lenox is expected to
experience similar population
2020
2020
growth
trends;
however
Place
1990
2000
2010
ORD
SSA
2030
Mokena is expected to see a
Frankfort
7,180
10,391
20,691 30,990 35,552
67,218
deceleration in its population
Mokena
6,128
14,583
18,713 22,843 23,204
27,065
growth, primarily due to
New Lenox
9,627
17,771
30,315 42,858 43,664 101,725
limited land availability for
Will County 357,313 502,266 620,156 738,046 822,743 1,107,778
growth. Will County as a
whole is expected to grow at
Source: NIPC
a steady yet moderate rate.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
15
Population Change
Population Change in Frankfort, Neighboring
Communities & Will County, 1990 - 2010
160.0%
140.0%
120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
138.0%
99.1%
84.6%
1990-2000
70.6%
44.7%
28.3%
Frankfort
Mokena
40.6%
2000-2010
23.5%
New Lenox Will County
Source: NIPC
The chart shown above compares Frankfort’s population changes during two different time frames,
1990-2000 and 2002-2010. Frankfort experienced a 44.7% population change from 1990-2000
and is anticipated to experience a 99.1% population change from 2000-2010. Mokena and New
Lenox experienced higher population changes than Frankfort from 1990-2000 but are projected to
experience lower population changes from 2000-2010. These trends appear to be consistent with
NIPC projections that indicate higher population growth anticipated for Frankfort relative to its
neighboring communities.
The Village’s high quality of life fuels opportunities to both retain and attract families to Frankfort,
which contributes to the anticipated population growth. Other factors that will ensure growth well
into the future are the emerging economic development opportunities of the Lincoln-Way area,
accessibility to major interstate highways, quality school districts, solid and upscale commercial
development that is emerging, the availability of land and almost unlimited ability to expand to the
south. However, the Village has a proven track record of controlling growth, which is attributed to
its historic dedication to sensible land use planning and the Village’s high standards of
development. Controlled growth has been effective in keeping Frankfort’s population growth at a
moderate pace. The goals, objectives and policies outlined in this Plan ensure that the Village will
continue to maintain its controlled growth development pattern to provide a well-planned
community for its residents.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
16
POPULATION BY AGE
The first table below shows the population distribution of Frankfort by age in 2000. The median
age in Frankfort has risen from 35 years in 1990 to 40 years in 2000. This increase can be partially
attributed to a decrease in population of the 18-34 age cohort and an increase in population of the
45-64 age cohort. In particular, the 18-34 age cohort decreased from 20.3% as a percentage of the
total population in 1990 to 13.9% in 2000. The 35-44 age cohort also decreased. Conversely, the
45-64 age cohort increased from 24.4% in 1990 to 30.1% in 2000. The 65+ age cohort also
increased slightly. The 0-17 age cohort remained fairly constant from 1990-2000. The second
table below shows these same population distributions dissolved into five broader age cohorts.
Frankfort Population by Age 1990-2000
Age
Cohort
0 to 4
5 to 13
14 to 17
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
1990
2000
Population 1990 Percent of Population 2000 Percent of
by Age
Total Population
by Age
Total Population
485
6.4%
581
5.6%
1,089
14.3%
1,564
15.1%
502
6.6%
750
7.2%
739
9.7%
635
6.1%
811
10.6%
805
7.8%
1,359
17.8%
1,758
16.9%
1,239
16.3%
1,931
18.6%
620
8.1%
1,201
11.6%
421
5.5%
654
6.3%
250
3.3%
379
3.7%
104
1.4%
147
1.3%
While these trends indicate that
Frankfort as a community is
getting older, this does not
necessarily mean Frankfort will
continue to age. The composition
younger families moving into new
developments will continue to be
the dominate form of new
housing. Even though the 18-34
age cohort decreased from 19902000, young families are attracted
by the high quality of living in
Frankfort and establish homes
here, thus offsetting the lower
representation of the 18-34 age
cohort in the future.
Frankfort Population by Age Cohorts 1990-2000
To meet the needs of young
families establishing themselves in
1990
2000
Frankfort, the Village will need to
Age
Population 1990 Percent of Population 2000 Percent of
ensure that it provides the types of
Cohort
by Age
Total Population
by Age
Total Population
services and opportunities that
0 to 17
2,076
27.2%
2,895
27.9%
attract young families, such as
18 to 34
1,550
20.3%
1,440
13.9%
discount shopping, family dining,
35 to 44
1,359
17.8%
1,758
16.9%
45 to 64
1,859
24.4%
3,132
30.1%
quality housing, an exemplary
65+
775
10.2%
1180
11.4%
school
system,
recreational
opportunities,
and
local
Source: Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions service
employment opportunities.
In
addition to attracting young families to Frankfort, the composition of the community is becoming
increasingly comprised of older residents, particularly those within the 45-64 age cohort. Just as
the Village will need to provide services and opportunities that accommodate young families,
Frankfort will also need to ensure it provides the types of services and opportunities that cater to
older residents. Since older residents typically have more disposable income as a result of having
less dependants (i.e. children living at home), they generally have interest in a variety of
entertainment and dining options and recreational activities. Although the Village does not
necessarily have to aim developments to accommodate a specific age group, the Village will need
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
17
to be cognizant of the variety of developments it approves for the community to ensure that
residents of all ages have access to opportunities that meet their needs and interests.
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
The average household size in the United States has been declining over the past several decades.
Smaller households have been attributed to lower birth rates, delays in marriage, and an increasing
quantity of “empty nester” households as the large Baby Boom generation ages. As shown in the
table below, the average number of persons per household in Frankfort decreased from 3.23 in
1990 to 3.04 in 2000, which, based on the changes in Frankfort’s age distribution, suggests an
increase in older families with less children living at home. Similar decreasing trends occurred in
Orland Park and Tinley Park while increasing trends occurred in Mokena and New Lenox. Will
County as a whole experienced a decrease from 3.06 to 3.00 during the same time period.
By the year 2020, NIPC anticipates the average household size in Frankfort will remain fairly steady
at 3.03. Mokena, New Lenox, and Will County as a whole are all expected to experience an
additional decrease in household size between 2000 and 2020. On the other hand, Orland Park
1990 Population
1990 Households
1990 Average Person
per Household
Frankfort
7,180
2,221
Average Household Size
Mokena
New Lenox Orland Park
6,128
9,627
35,720
2,041
3,313
12,096
Tinley Park
37,121
12,678
Will County
357,313
116,933
3.23
3.00
2.91
2.95
2.93
3.06
2000 Population
2000 Households
2000 Average Person
per Household
10,391
3,418
14,583
4,703
17,771
5,853
51,077
18,675
48,401
17,478
502,266
167,542
3.04
3.10
3.04
2.74
2.77
3.00
2020 Population (ORD)
2020 Households
2020 Average Person
per Household
30,990
10,214
22,843
8,109
42,858
15,444
68,820
24,605
72,867
25,768
738,046
256,826
3.03
2.82
2.78
2.80
2.83
2.87
Source: U.S. Census (1990-2000); Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (2020).
Notes: NIPC prepared two sets of 2020 population projections for the region. One assumes the improvement of
O’Hare Airport (ORD), and the other assumes the construction of a third regional airport tin the south suburban area
(SSA).
and Tinley Park are expected to experience an increase in household size during the same time
period. Although the 2020 projections are merely estimated forecasts, the projections seem
reasonable for Frankfort based on the notion that Frankfort’s high quality of life will continue to
attract young families which will, in turn, offset any significant amount of people moving out of
Frankfort. Regardless of whether the average household size in Frankfort remains stable or
fluctuates, the Village will continue to monitor average household size to ensure that any
significant fluctuation will be addressed accordingly.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
18
As noted previously, the decrease in average household size in Frankfort may indicate an increase
in older families with less children living at home. Less children living at home would normally
have an impact on local school enrollments, but the amount of school-aged children from the
influx of young families moving into Frankfort offsets any significant decrease in school enrollment.
As shown by the table below, the total number of school children increased significantly from
1990-2000, with the amount of preprimary school children more than doubling in that time frame.
Frankfort’s school enrollments are growing significantly, indicating a need to consider additional
school facilities as current facilities reach capacity. The future land use capacity analysis in the
Background Information Binder provides insight into future school enrollments in Frankfort and the
anticipated land area needed to provide sufficient space for additional school facilities.
School Enrollment in Frankfort, 1990 - 2000
School
Preprimary School
Elementary & High School (Grades 1-12)
All Schools
1990
208
1,320
1,528
2000
460
2,248
2,708
Change
252
928
1,180
%
Change
121.2%
70.3%
77.2%
Source: U.S. Census.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
19
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Frankfort’s median household income increased from $60,956 in 1990 to $82,413 in 2000 and
then to $102,125 only two years later, which correlates to a 68% increase from 1990-2002. By
2007, median household income in Frankfort is projected to reach $103,134. As shown by the
graph below, surrounding communities have experienced similar median income trends and
experienced significant growth in their respective household income levels. Per capita income in
Frankfort has also increased significantly, rising from $21,088 in 1990 to $32,437 in 2000, which is
a 54% increase. These income trends translate to an increase in spending power for Frankfort
residents and within the larger market area.
Median Household Income
Median Household Income for Frankfort & Neighboring
Communities, 1990 - 2007
$120,000
$100,000
1990
$80,000
2000
$60,000
2002
$40,000
2007
$20,000
$0
Frankfort
New Lenox
Mokena
Source: Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions service
For a more telling comparison, total annual household income levels can be grouped into three
cohorts: (1) households earning $100,000 or more, (2) households earning between $50,000 and
$100,000, and (3) households earning $50,000 or less. The two tables shown on the next page
indicate the change in total household income levels from 1990 to 2000. The percentage of total
households in Frankfort earning $100,000 or more has almost doubled from 18.9% in 1990 to
36.3% in 2000. On the other hand, the percentage of total households earning $50,000 or less has
decreased from 40.3% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2000. In the middle, the percentage of total
households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 decreased slightly from 40.8% in 1990 to
38.0% in 2000. The increase in household earnings over $100,000 enhances the attractiveness of
this particular market segment to retailers offering higher quality goods and services typically
associated withy upscale shopping centers or “lifestyle” centers as well as other larger format retail
chains.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
20
Frankfort Household Income Levels 1990-2000
Total Working Population
1990 Population
by Income Level
133
119
215
458
580
356
254
179
2,294
Income Level
$0 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 +
1990 Population
by Income Level
925
936
433
Income Level
$0 - $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 +
1990 Percent of
Total Total
Households
5.8%
5.2%
9.4%
19.9%
25.2%
15.5%
11.0%
7.8%
1990 Percent of
Total Total
Households
40.3%
40.8%
18.9%
2000 Population
by Income Level
149
171
223
320
613
664
709
511
3,360
2000 Population
by Income Level
863
1277
1220
2000 Percent of
Total Total
Households
4.4%
5.0%
6.5%
9.4%
17.9%
19.4%
20.7%
14.9%
2000 Percent of
Total Total
Households
25.7%
38.0%
36.3%
Source: Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions service
These household income trends have an impact on the future economic development of Frankfort.
The Frankfort community as a whole has significantly greater spending power today than it
possessed in 1990. With relatively more disposable income than previous years, the community
needs to provide commercial opportunities to capture the spending dollars generated locally to
strengthen the Village tax base. The Village community survey indicated a preference to purchase
goods and services within the community for convenience and to support the local Village
economy.
Although Frankfort offers the community a variety of stores and businesses from which to purchase
goods and services, Frankfort has great opportunities to provide more high quality stores and
businesses that would not only offer the community even more variety of goods and services within
close proximity, but also boost the Village tax base and strengthen its overall economic
development. The market analysis presented later in this section provides greater insight into
various economic development opportunities for the Village.
ECONOMIC TRENDS
Frankfort’s steady population growth over the past several decades has been accompanied by
significant development opportunities. Although the Village is located a few miles south of I-80
and west of I-57, high traffic counts along major transportation corridors such as Route 30 and
Route 45 have helped Frankfort create a favorable climate for business and development.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
21
Availability of vacant property along these two commercial corridors has created a very attractive
development scenario for quality commercial developers.
FAVORABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE
The favorable business climate in Frankfort can be attributed to several factors. High yet steady
growth rates at the Village and County levels provide the population density to support a growing
base of commercial uses and businesses. High income levels also provide the spending capacity of
residents to support businesses offering those desired goods and services. In fact, the average
household income in Frankfort rose by 45% between 1990 and 2002, increasing from $70,870 in
1990 to $102,555 in 2002. Furthermore, about 74% of the Village’s households earned $50,000
or more in 2002, compared to just 60% in 1990. Over 50% of the Village’s households earned
$100,000 or more in 2002, compared to only 19% in 2002. As noted earlier, spending power in
Frankfort has increased significantly over the past decade.
Aside from the proximity to the two major interstates and the high traffic counts along Route 30 and
Route 45, other major roads in Frankfort such as Laraway Road, Wolf Road, and Harlem Avenue
are steadily developing into regional arterial roads with the capacity to support high traffic levels
and increased business development. The potential for a Metra commuter rail station in the Village
also enhances Frankfort’s position as a place to work, shop and do business.
Will County development policies also have an influence on Frankfort’s favorable business climate.
Due to state authorized assessment practices, commercial property taxes in Will County are nearly
50% lower than Cook County property taxes, providing a cost advantage to property owners that is
subsequently passed on to tenants at lower rents.
Frankfort’s community character has a strong influence on its favorable business climate as well.
About 63% of current residents moved to Frankfort between 1990 and 2002, highlighting the
Village as a desirable place to live. Frankfort also has a strong sense of place, which is greatly
attributed to the historic and quaint character of Downtown Frankfort with its high quality specialty
shops and image as a natural urban village.
Current development trends have also created a healthy environment for businesses to locate in
Frankfort. Laraway Road is steadily establishing itself as a major corridor in Frankfort with many
established industrial uses and business parks with significant potential for expansion. Harlem
Avenue is also establishing itself as a major transportation corridor and providing a significant
economic development opportunity for future growth. The Manheim Business Park has already
broken ground along Harlem Avenue and it has the potential to have other business neighbors
along the corridor in the future.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
22
Section III. Frankfort Market Analysis
RETAIL SERVICE POSSIBILITIES
Frankfort has four types of retail and service development possibilities:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mixed-use centers (Downtown Frankfort and the potential Lifestyle Center),
Neighborhood centers,
Commercial corridors, and
Community centers.
The success of each of these development models depends on the strength of the surrounding
markets and the center’s ability to connect to those markets. Although Frankfort’s stores and
services in these clusters share many customers, they each also have a distinct natural customer
base, their primary trade area. Retail businesses draw 50-80% of their customers from a primary
trade area determined by physical and psychological characteristics of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Physical features that constrain or expand a trade area include access to major
roadways, edges caused by water, large rail yards or vast tracts of vacant land, and nearby
competition. Psychological factors include a sense of affiliation (e.g., that is my dry cleaner, my
coffee shop, or my town), perception of safety, and confidence in the quality of the merchandise
selection offered by stores in the area.
Convenience oriented neighborhood centers and community centers, like the development
anchored by Dominick’s on Route 45, rely primarily on proximity, the population within a short
drive, for their primary trade area. Regional centers have a tougher challenge in attracting a
primary market because they must combine the appeal of convenience with the demands for high
volumes to support rapidly growing national businesses. Throughout the United States, vintage
downtowns like Frankfort’s rely on charm and this sense of affiliation to attract their primary
customers. These variations in the identification of a primary trade area determine how each area
is to be tenanted and marketed. Frankfort’s vintage downtown must have unique businesses and
attractions that lead to repeat visits. These are reasons to linger. The neighborhood convenience
centers need to offer easy access and quick service that allows customers to get their errands done
before their groceries spoil. The regional center must have both. The complementary nature of
each center’s focus makes the total offering within the study area necessary to best serve the
residents of Frankfort. The key to successful coexistence for all clusters is understanding how to
tenant, market and develop to strengthen each focus.
A DOWNTOWN MIXED USE MARKET
As an attractive, historic town center, Downtown Frankfort has always been a source of pride for
the residents and a special destination for the surrounding communities’ residents. As Frankfort has
grown, additional retail districts have been added offering needed services to the residents and
competition for the Downtown. The keys to Downtown Frankfort’s future viability are identifying
the right competitive position within the local market while maintaining its status as a regional
attraction. The chart shown on the next page reveals how national demographic projection
services describe characteristics of the market near Downtown Frankfort.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
23
Market Characteristics near
Downtown Frankfort
Population 2002
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
Median Age Total Population
Household Income 2002
Average Household Income
Median Household Income
Business Summary 2002
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Consumer Expenditures 2002
Food And Beverages
Food At Home
Food Away From Home
Total Retail Expenditures
Housing Units 2002
% Owner-Occupied
Frankfort
0.5 Miles:
Downtown
5 Minutes:
Downtown
20 Minutes:
Downtown
11,016
3,662
2.93
41
1,735
611
2.6
45
10,254
3,533
2.95
40
214,810
75,510
2.83
37
$102,555
$102,125
$82,787
$86,356
$98,149
$100,947
$78,536
$80,583
5,668
568
1,387
138
6,244
636
78,590
7,035
$42,578,074
$24,956,530
$15,131,384
$107,974,070
$6,135,662
$3,594,513
$2,179,437
$15,579,278
$39,852,240
$23,363,729
$14,156,731
$101,093,262
$729,804,150
$429,576,390
$257,791,140
$1,845,539,910
90.16%
89.68%
90.24%
85.66%
Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
Tanglewood
Tanglewood Park
Park
30)
Hwy 30)
US Hwy
30(W US
Hwy 30(W
US Hwy
US
LLaa
(NN
455
y
y
Hww
UUSS
30)
Hwy 30)
US Hwy
30(W US
Hwy 30(W
US Hwy
US
H
US
US H
))
RRdd
ggee
aann
r
G
G
The information in the chart above
reveals that, today, only 15% of
Frankfort’s residents live within an easy
half mile walk of downtown while over
10,000 customers are within a 5minute drive and over 200,000 people
live a reasonable 20-minute drive from
the downtown’s shopping services.
ele
le Bingham
Bingham Memorial
Memorial Park
Park
St
ska St
Nebraska
W
W Ne
Park
Park
Frankfort
Frankfort village
village
Pedestrian Geography Associated with
Downtown Frankfort
er
er Rd
Rd
LLaa
G
Grr
aan
ggee
RRdd
))
Park
Park
The map shown to the left illustrates
the pedestrian geography associated
with Downtown Frankfort. The inner
and outer rings represent walk radii of
0.5-mile and 1-mile, respectively. The
map shown on the next page illustrates
the drive-time geography associated
with Downtown Frankfort. The inner
ring describes the 5-minute drive time
with the outer ring showing the 20minute drive time.
Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
24
Oak Forest city
M
Markham
arkham city
city
Orland
Orland Park
Park village
village
20-minute
Drive-Time
Lockport
Lockport city
city
Orland
Orland Hills
Hills village
village
Phoenixvillage
Phoenix
villag
Harvey city
city
Harvey
Hazel
Hazel Crest
Crest village
village
Tinley
Tinley Park
Park village
village
Fairmont
Fairmont CDP
CDP
yy))
wa
llw
TTool
ttaattee
Trrii S
Goodings
Goodings Grove
Grove CDP
CDP
S
57 S
II 57
E
80 E
II 80
W
I 8800 W
East Hazel
Th
Th
Country
Country Club
Club Hills
Hills city
city
Homewood
Homewood village
village
G
G
Flossmoor
Flossmoor village
village
M
Mokena
okena village
village
Ingalls
Ingalls Park
Park CDP
CDP
Preston
Preston Heights
Heights CDP
CDP
Frankfort
Frankfort Square
Square CDP
CDP
Olympia
Olympia Fields
Fields village
village
M
Matteson
atteson village
village
Chicago
Chicago
New
New Lenox
Lenoxvillage
village
Frankfort
Frankfort village
village
Richton
Richton Park
Park village
village
Park
Park Forest
Forest village
village
5-minute
Drive-Time
II 57
57 N
N
S
St
University
University Park
Park village
village
C
C
M
Manhattan
anhattan village
village
Drive-Time Geography
Associated with
Downtown Frankfort
II 55
77
SS
M
Monee
onee village
village
Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
To understand how future development can be designed to better support the Downtown business
environment, Frankfort looked for models in the strong downtowns of fully developed, upscale
communities in the Chicago region. It is useful to examine market conditions surrounding these
communities for guidance in developing policies that are most likely to result in future success for
Downtown Frankfort.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
25
Pedestrian Market
Population 2002
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
Median Age Total Population
Household Income 2002
Average Household Income
Median Household Income
Business Summary 2002
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Consumer Expenditures 2002
Food Away From Home
Total Retail Expenditures
Housing Units 2002
% Owner-Occupied
0.5
Miles: 0.5
Miles: 0.5
Miles: 0.5
Miles:
Frankfort
Hinsdale
Glen Ellyn
Flossmoor
1,735
611
2.6
45
3,175
1,036
2.98
38
4,253
1,748
2.44
38
2,440
971
2.71
42
$82,787
$86,356
$241,815
$100,336
$105,429
$85,649
$119,485
$96,415
1,387
138
3,952
513
2,553
387
1,023
105
$2,179,437 $7,615,636 $7,317,128 $4,472,426
$15,579,278 $54,592,020 $52,551,872 $31,957,552
89.7%
72.7%
69.4%
90.2%
Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
Pedestrian & Convenience Markets
As the first chart on the next page reveals, Downtown Frankfort businesses currently have a much
smaller resident pedestrian market to draw upon than successful downtowns like Hinsdale and
Glen Ellyn. Those communities also have large pedestrian employment bases that offer the critical
daytime population to support their thriving restaurants. It is important to note that these residential
and office densities have been accomplished without a decline in incomes or an increase in the age
of the nearby residents. The impact of these market conditions on local businesses is significant.
As an example, consider that restaurant spending is two to three times higher in these comparison
communities. The result is that similarly run businesses in the higher population communities have
higher sales and/or there are more restaurants offering greater variety in the higher density
locations. It is also important to note that these comparison communities also have a downtown
commuter rail station that recent Metra research reports adds a 10 to 15% sales bonus. For
Downtown Frankfort to achieve the same strength and vibrancy of these communities, it will need
to exceed the population and employment densities of these communities since it lacks this
commuter market.
These trends continue in the more auto-oriented convenience market, which is shown in the chart
below.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
26
Convenience Market
Population 2002
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
Median Age Total Population
Household Income 2002
Average Household Income
Median Household Income
Business Summary 2002
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Consumer Expenditures 2002
Food Away From Home
Total Retail Expenditures
Housing Units 2002
% Owner-Occupied
5
Minutes: 5
Minutes: 5
Minutes: 5
Minutes:
Frankfort
Hinsdale
Glen Ellyn
Flossmoor
10,254
3,533
2.95
40
66,315
24,241
2.69
40
75,018
27,194
2.64
35
48,764
18,168
2.68
40
$98,149
$100,947
$140,883
$97,601
$88,406
$79,844
$80,689
$71,822
6,244
636
55,509
4,543
33,065
3,304
21,890
1,996
$14,156,731
$101,093,262
$123,047,316
$879,511,962
$100,509,024
$718,057,570
$62,715,936
$449,167,464
90.2%
80.3%
69.3%
84.7%
Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
Again, Downtown Frankfort has a much smaller base of residential and office customers to draw
upon and the magnitude of that difference has increased. Note also that there is a significant
amount of rental housing near the downtowns of the comparison communities.
Destination Market
One of Downtown Frankfort’s traditional strengths has been its destination drawing power. With
regionally famous restaurants like Die Bier Stube and Steakhouse, customers had an image of
Downtown Frankfort as a place “worth the trip.” Although the loss of Die Bier Stube has certainly
hurt that image, the work currently being done to add a new, top tier restaurant promises to renew
the regional interest in Frankfort’s Downtown. However, as the chart below reveals, the regional
market still contains fewer customers than similar markets in comparison communities.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
27
Destination Market
Population 2002
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
Median Age Total Population
Household Income 2002
Average Household Income
Median Household Income
Business Summary 2002
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Consumer Expenditures 2002
Food Away From Home
Total Retail Expenditures
Housing Units 2002
% Owner-Occupied
20
Minutes: 20
Minutes: 20
Minutes: 20
Minutes:
Frankfort
Hinsdale
Glen Ellyn
Flossmoor
214,810
75,510
2.83
37
915,510
341,879
2.64
37
767,882
276,585
2.73
36
551,001
197,196
2.77
35
$78,536
$80,583
$76,509
$67,290
$86,034
$80,916
$58,768
$51,217
78,590
7,035
599,111
40,071
538,401
36,981
216,635
16,129
$257,791,140
$1,136,405,796 $1,004,280,135 $546,430,116
$1,845,539,910 $8,111,079,275 $7,159,955,895 $3,916,509,756
85.66%
69.86%
73.23%
71.40%
Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
Although rapid growth in Will County promises to significantly increase this regional population, it
is unlikely that Downtown Frankfort will ever draw on markets the size of a Hinsdale or Glen Ellyn
that are much more accessible to areas with urban residential densities. It is also important to note
that the magnitude of the difference between Frankfort and the comparison communities is even
greater for employees than for residents. Since the spending of employees is not included in the
consumer expenditures, it can be assumed that the comparative strength of the current markets in
the comparison communities is even greater than the residential spending alone would indicate.
Again, the employment will increase but Frankfort may not ever reach the densities associated with
the multi story offices in the comparison communities other than Flossmoor.
This examination of Frankfort’s downtown and those of communities that established vibrant
downtowns as they grew suggests that there must be careful management of the land uses
surrounding Downtown Frankfort if it is to be a vibrant center for the community. Challenges like
the loss of Die Bier Stube are opportunities to replace a single story structure with a denser building
that adds to the market’s spending power. Effective design standards will need to be enforced to fit
new construction into the historic fabric. The need to add employees suggests that infill buildings,
like Die Bier Stube site, should provide retail/restaurant space on the ground floor and office on
upper stories because it would be difficult to provide enough equity residences to have quality
units above an isolated site. Larger sites, one acre plus, offer the opportunity to create planned,
mixed use environments where street frontage is two or three stories with ground floor retail and
upper story office. Additional residential buildings of moderate density on the site can offer high
quality equity residential units.
By using NIPC standards from their “Paint the Town Project” to predict future population and
employment, the chart below shows the amount of development that would be needed within ½
mile of Downtown Frankfort to match the densities of comparison communities.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
28
These are challenging goals that will require exceptional design to fit necessary development into
the traditional neighborhoods surrounding the downtown. The key is finding quality developers
who bring the quality tenants that will convince the community to support denser development in
close proximity to the downtown.
COMPARING THE RESIDENTIAL & EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES WITHIN ½ MILE OF
DOWNTOWN FRANKFORT AND THE DOWNTOWNS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES
Population Difference from Frankfort
Additional Residential Units
Additional Residential Acres
Employee Difference from Frankfort
Additional Commercial Square Feet
Additional Commercial Acres
Hinsdale
1,440
686
28.6
2,565
833,625
46.9
Glen Ellyn
2,518
1199
50.0
1,166
378,950
21.3
Flossmoor
705
336
14.0
NA
NA
NA
Source: Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions, NIPC Paint
Chip Catalogue: Moderate Density Attached Multi Family and Low Density Office Building,
BDI
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
29
LIFESTYLE CENTER
Nationally the retail cluster model that is currently attracting investor interest is the unanchored,
open air shopping centers known as “Lifestyle Centers.” This concept is replacing regional malls
like Orland Square. These “Lifestyle Centers” are typically built in areas experiencing rapid,
upscale residential growth. The successful Chicago region prototype is “Deer Park Town Center”.
The chart below compares the market at the site identified on the Framework Plan Map (in Section
VII of this Plan) with the Deer Park site two years after the center’s grand opening.
COMPARISON OF MARKETS WITHIN A 5- AND 20-MINUTE DRIVE TO A
POTENTIAL FRANKFORT LIFESTYLE CENTER & DEER PARK CENTER
Basic Variables 2002
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
Median
Age
Total
Population
Household Income 2002
Median Household Income
Average
Household
Income
Income $75,000 +
Business Summary 2002
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Consumer
Expenditures
2002
Total Retail Expenditures
Housing Units 2002
% Owner-Occupied
5 Minutes:
Frankfort
Lifestyle Center
Site
20
Minutes:
Frankfort
Lifestyle Center
Site
5 Minutes:
Deer
Park 20 Minutes:
Lifestyle
Deer Park
Center
Lifestyle Center
18,303
5,897
3.08
283,366
100,050
2.82
21,737
7,095
3.07
406,723
149,393
2.71
37
37
36
37
$101,826
$77,593
$108,814
$85,451
$95,022
3,907
$77,399
51,526
$123,884
4,879
$98,318
82,714
8,059
836
101,152
8,897
9,417
840
230,329
16,304
$165,180,867
$2,416,107,450 $238,278,480 $4,233,947,013
92.43%
84.05%
84.39%
76.26%
Demographic data © 2002 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions
Note the similarity in demographics between the 5-minute drive times for each location. Recalling
that it would be at least three years before a lifestyle center in Frankfort reached the stage
represented by the Deer Park demographics, it is easy to see that continued development in
Frankfort will increase both the population and income levels. The increased income will happen
because the incomes of new home buyers will match the significantly higher prices associated with
Frankfort’s new construction when compared to the value of existing homes. With this growing
population of high income families, the local population will become even more like the
population surrounding Deer Park Town Center.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
30
There are important long-term implications for Frankfort in attracting a lifestyle center. First, the
revenue implications are significant. The Deer Park Town Center has achieved national renown for
its reputed $600 in sales per square foot. That is over 2 times the national average for sales per
square foot in all retail development categories. A sixty acre lifestyle development would contain
about 500,000 square feet of store space and, if as successful as Deer Park, could generate up to
$300 million in sales. The municipal sales tax under that scenario would be $3 million. Even at
sales per square foot closer to national medians, a Frankfort lifestyle center would add more than
$1.5 million to the Village’s annual revenue. If Frankfort were to attract such a development, this
sales tax revenue would allow the community to keep the Village portion of residential property
taxes low. The increased property value also would generate school-supporting property taxes
without adding children, offering additional protection from property tax increases.
Because the identified site is within one-mile of Downtown Frankfort it offers a unique opportunity
to stimulate development beneficial to downtown. With proper site and traffic planning and
continuing cooperation between the developers and the downtown support organization, the two
destinations can be complementary. The high rents of the lifestyle center prevent uses ideal for
Downtown Frankfort like antique stores and entertainment-oriented dining from choosing that
location. Still, these uses and the lifestyle center tenants share a customer base that will choose to
travel a greater distance because Frankfort offers both shopping center types.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
Frankfort’s Framework Plan identifies three types of commercial development clusters:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Neighborhood Level Centers,
Community Level Centers, and
Regional Level Centers.
From the consumer perspective, the difference between these centers is the visit frequency.
Neighborhood Level Centers may be visited daily by nearby residents dropping children at day care
or grabbing quick consumables like milk, community centers are visited once or twice a week for
groceries, and regional centers are visited approximately monthly or bi-monthly for clothing or
home improvement items. In an ideal situation, each resident has appropriate access to all three
types of centers. It is also ideal that each center’s boundaries do not overlap. However,
competitive retail practices lead businesses to desire being close to competition so consumers can
be easily attracted from competitors. When too many stores in a category adopt this competitive
strategy, there are “winners” and “losers” as occurred in the Chicago regional market when Target
beat K-Mart; Home Depot beat Builder’s Square and Best Buy beat Fretters and Silo. The result can
be vacant “big boxes” that are difficult to re-tenant. Those vacancies can quickly lend an air of
decline to a commercial district that actually has adequate nearby populations and traffic counts.
By controlling the approval of overly duplicative centers, Frankfort will minimize the possibility of
development that exceeds the buying power necessary to sustain them. The sites discussed below
and identified in the Framework Plan are limited to prevent overbuilding and the resulting
vacancies.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
31
NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL CENTERS
In keeping with the definition of Neighborhood Level Centers, the chart shown below documents
the existing market conditions at the centers identified in the Framework Plan.
EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS – NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL CENTERS
1 mile:
STEGER RD
1 mile: S
& US HWY 80TH AVE &
45, US HWY 30,
1 mile: W
LARAWAY
1 mile: W
RD & NEBRASKA
PFEIFFER
ST & US
RD,
HWY 45,
1 mile:
1 mile: W WOLF RD &
LARAWAY
W
RD & US LARAWAY
HWY 45,
RD,
Population 2003
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
Total Population Median Age
816
366
2.53
46.5
6,489
1,999
3.25
34
464
146
3.03
42.9
6,500
2,156
2.93
41.8
2,009
698
2.84
41.2
1,979
586
3.25
37.5
Household Income 2003
Median Household Income
Household Average Income
Income $ 75,000 - $99,999
Income $100,000 - $124,999
Income $125,000 - $149,999
Income $150,000 - $199,999
Income $200,000 +
$57,466
$83,298
38
37
19
20
25
$79,849
$82,864
489
334
151
100
41
$95,400
$105,645
34
32
16
11
5
$80,510
$98,401
411
299
163
160
147
$77,211
$108,135
87
87
49
59
75
$104,355
$138,725
91
92
56
72
90
373
34
898
143
1,258
103
2,413
242
688
63
439
57
Business Summary 2003 Employees
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Demographic data © 2003 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions.
Traffic Count data © 2003 by GDT. All rights reserved.
As a market reaches a population of 5,000 or more, the neighborhood center has a good possibility
of success. These centers generally require 1-1/2 to 2 acres at a signalized intersection. Another
important factor is easy access, for example sidewalks and bicycle trails, from the surrounding
neighborhood.
As the map shown on the next page illustrates, there is an adequate number of existing and
planned neighborhood level centers, with certain areas having overlapping markets. Three centers
are shown along Route 45 at the intersections of Nebraska Street, Laraway Road, and Steger Road.
Two others are shown along Laraway Road at the intersections of Wolf Road and Pfeiffer Road. A
sixth center is shown at the intersection of Rout 30 and 80th Avenue. The apparent “hole” in the
map’s center reflects the intent of the Framework Plan to provide for business and industrial uses in
that area. Employees frequent neighborhood centers near their residences.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
32
NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL CENTERS
W
WL
cis Rd
Francis
Saintt Fran
W Sain
W
Rd
Wolf Rd
Wol
EE LLiin
inncooln
ln
ln H
Hw
wyy))
Rd)
heim Rd)
Hwy 45(Mannheim
US Hwy
US
EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS – NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL CENTERS IN FRANKFORT
U
US H
Hw
wy 3300
(LLin
inccoln
ln H
Hwyy))
Frankfort Square
US Hwy
US
Hwy 30(Lincoln
30(Lincoln
Cook
Cook County
County
W Sa
Sauk
uk Tr
Trll
-New
-NewLenox
Lenox
Sauk
Sauk Trl
Trl
Frankfort
S Center Rd
Center
Center Rd
Rd Center
Center Rd
Rd
Will
Will
County
Will County
S Harlem Ave
Frankfort
Frankfort
Map © 2003 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions.
COMMUNITY LEVEL CENTERS
The fresh, upscale grocery stores anchoring today’s community center need to do at least $200,000
per week for annual sales of $10.4 million. Consequently, developers seek markets where grocery
spending is estimated to be at least that amount. The timing of full development of the Community
Level Centers identified in the Framework Plan is contingent on population spending to at least
120% of that level in an unduplicated market. The amount in excess is to cover grocery spending
in convenience markets and warehouse stores. The chart shown on the next page illustrates the
current status of the 5-minute drive times at the identified sites.
Although the chart seems to reveal a stronger market potential than necessary demand for groceryanchored centers, there is significant overlap in the five minute drive times documented by this
chart, which reduces the market potential. The map shown on the next page shows the community
level centers described in the Framework Plan. Two centers are shown along Route 45 at the
intersections of La Porte Road and Route 30. A third center is shown at the intersection of Sauk
Trail and Harlem Avenue.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
33
EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS – COMMUNITY LEVEL CENTERS
5 Minutes:
La Porte &
Route 45
5 Minutes: 5 Minutes:
Route 30 & Sauk Trail &
Harlem
Route 45
Basic Variables 2003
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
Total Population Median Age
22,194
7,281
3.04
37.9
20,000
6,442
3.07
38
12,662
4,418
2.85
37.9
Household Income 2003
Median Household Income
Household Average Income
Income $ 75,000 - $99,999
Income $100,000 - $124,999
Income $125,000 - $149,999
Income $150,000 - $199,999
Income $200,000 +
$80,388
$89,464
1,624
1,092
538
467
303
$82,629
$96,199
1,398
981
500
454
360
$62,302
$78,213
726
529
233
156
106
10,394
1,027
9,028
917
3,493
349
Business Summary 2003
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Demographic data © 2003 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions.
Traffic Count data © 2003 by GDT. All rights reserved.
Tinley
Tinley Park
Park
Rd
is Rd
Francis
Saint Franc
W Saint
W
Rd
Vollmer Rd
W
W Vollmer
17031830004
17031830004
17031830004
17031830003
17031830003
W Sa
W
Sauk
uk Tr
Trll
S Center
Center R
S
45(Mann
Hwy 45(Mann
US
US Hwy
17031830002
17031830002
17031830002
Richton
Richton Park
Park
G
Govv
eernn
oorrs
HHww
yy
17197883505
17197883505
17197883505
17197883505
Center
Center Rd
Rd
17197883504
17197883504
17197883504
M
Matteson
atteson
17031830006
17031830006
17031830006
E Nebraska St
Frankfort
Frankfort
Ridgeland Ave
17197883503
17197883503
17197883503
17197883503
Hwy)
30(Lincoln Hwy)
Hwy 30(Lincoln
US Hwy
US
II 5577
SS
USS H
Hw
wyy 3300
(LLin
((L
inccoln
ln H
Hw
wyy))
Ave
Crawford Ave
Crawford
Frankfort
Frankfort Square
Square
Rd
Vollmer Rd
Vollmer
O
Olyy
mpp
m
iann
ia
W
Waay
M
Mokena
okena
Ave
80thAve
SS 80th
Fr
Fran
ancis
cis Rd
17031829901
17031829901
17031829901
183r
183r
Ave)
50(Cicero Ave)
Hwy 50(Cicero
State Hwy
State
17197883502
17197883502
17197883501
17197883501
17197883501
W
00 W
II 88
I 57 S
St
191st St
191st
119911stt SS W
St
191st St
tt W 191st
183rd
183rd St
St
Central
Central Park
Park Ave
Ave
St
183rd St
183rd
183rd
183rd St
St
17031825505
17031825505 Country
Country Club
Club Hills
Hill
Ave)
rlem Ave)
43(Harlem
Hwy 43(Ha
State Hwy
State
St
191st
191st St
Ave
h Ave
th
I 80 W
Ave
h Ave
th
Ave
104th Ave
104th
Ave
th
th Ave
Rd
Wolf Rd
Wolf
uu
Soo
66((
y
USS H
Hw
wyy 4455
(L
(Laa G
Gra
rann
COMMUNITY LEVEL CENTERS
171978836
1719788360
171978836
Map © 2003 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
34
REGIONAL LEVEL CENTERS
In addition to the possibility presented by the previously discussed Lifestyle Center, Frankfort has
the opportunity to offer more traditional regional shopping because it is outside of the shadow cast
by the concentrations along Route 45 in Orland Park and Route 30 in Matteson. Regional
development has begun at Wolf Road and Route 30, and could continue along the entire length of
Route 30 and Route 45. The challenge is preventing over-development that could lead to future
hard-to-fill vacancies. The market characteristics of this regional site are shown in the chart below.
The map shown on the next page identifies the 5 and 20 minute drive times from the recent
development.
EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS
REGIONAL LEVEL CENTERS
15 Minutes:
Route 30 &
Wolf
15 Minutes:
Route 30 &
Harlem
212,145
451,732
71,747
159,644
Population 2003
Total Population
Total Households
Average Household Size
2.93
2.8
37
37.2
Total Population Median Age
Household Income 2003
Median Household Income
$70,206
$59,011
Household Average Income
$81,134
$70,650
Income $ 75,000 - $99,999
13,567
25,470
Income $100,000 - $124,999
8,704
15,175
Income $125,000 - $149,999
4,223
7,130
Income $150,000 - $199,999
3,674
6,128
Income $200,000 +
2,663
4,846
66,244
176,406
6,558
15,590
Business Summary 2003
Total Employees
Total Establishments
Demographic data © 2003 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions.
Traffic Count data © 2003 by GDT. All rights reserved.
Given that retailers like to concentrate their development near the competition, every addition of a
retail category, for example a home improvement center like Home Depot or a value oriented
department store like Kohl’s, increases the pressure to allow additional regional level development
by competitors from that category. Therefore, it is important to limit large format retail to right
sized areas that insure that, after a competitive shake out causes large vacant boxes; new large
format concepts or competitors must reuse those spaces rather that build on another available site.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
35
Posen
Posen
M
Midlothian
idlothian
Goodings Grove
Orland
Orland Park
Park
D
D
Phoenix
Phoenix
Harvey
Harvey
Oak
Oak Forest
Forest
M
Markham
arkham
So
So
Orland
Orland Hills
Hills
Lockport
Lockport
East Hazel
Hazel Crest
Crest
Hazel Crest East
Thornto
Thornto
Country
Country Club
Club Hills
Hills
Homewood
Homewood
Tinley
Tinley Park
Park
Fairmont
Fairmont
E
80 E
II 80
S
57 S
II 57
l
REGIONAL LEVEL CENTERS
W
W
II 8800
Glenw
Glenw
Flossmoor
Flossmoor
M
Mokena
okena
Ingalls
Ingalls Park
Park
Frankfort
Frankfort Square
Square
Olympia
Olympia Fields
Fields
M
Matteson
atteson
Preston
Preston Heights
Heights
Chicago
Chicago Heigh
Heig
Frankfort
Frankfort
New
New Lenox
Lenox
Richton
Richton Park
Park Park Forest
Will
Will
County
Will County
South
South Chicago
Chicag
II 57
57 N
N
Steger
University
University Park
Park
Crete
Crete
M
Manhattan
anhattan
I 55
77 S
M
Monee
onee
Map © 2003 by Experian/Applied Geographic Solutions.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Analyzing the 2002 Illinois Department of Revenue sales taxes reported by businesses located in
Frankfort reveals that Frankfort businesses have retail sales of nearly $325 million or about 300% of
the community’s 2002 retail spending potential of $108 million. As mentioned previously the
potential lifestyle center could add as much as $ 3 million in additional sales tax and the approved
development at Wolf Road and Route 30 could generate as much as $1 million. Although
significant population growth is anticipated in Frankfort, these developments would insure that
Frankfort remains a significant regional retail sales tax attractor.
EMPLOYMENT & BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
It is important to realize that the significant commercial development discussed above will provide
many employment opportunities. The existing development along Laraway Road east of Route 45
is and will continue to be another important source of local employment. Local employment is
important as Frankfort grows because it will offer opportunities for both heads of the household and
younger family members to work close to home.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
36
As outlined by the Framework Plan, Frankfort also has the potential for a business park at Laraway
Road/Sauk Trail and Harlem Avenue. That site offers multi-modal employee and customer access
via both I-80 and I-57 plus rail on the EJ & E line where there is potential for future commuter
access. Additionally, the regionally significant extension of I-355 and the South Suburban Airport
will enhance the attractiveness of access to this site. It is expected that this business park will offer
the owners and presidents of small- to mid-size companies a location to relocate their businesses
closer to their homes. Research has shown that executives seek new locations near their homes.
With Frankfort’s focus on upscale, executive home development, it is natural to reserve sites for
small corporate headquarters to house staffs of 100 employees or less in individual buildings on
sites of one to five acres. This highly accessible business park location provides an attractive
natural setting near the forest preserves and buffered from the residential areas of Frankfort.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
37
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
38
Section IV. Circulation & Transportation
The Village adopted a Transportation Master Plan, prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., in
November 1996. Recommendations from the Transportation Master Plan have been incorporated
into this document. The following is a general statement with respect to current transportation
conditions, identified problem areas and policy direction.
Transportation systems, natural features and land use determine the physical form of a community.
The transportation system makes it possible to carry out different activities in locations that are
suited to the needs of the particular activity. One result of the transportation system found in the
United States has been the specialization of various activities into certain areas. The transportation
system has also made it possible for workers to live in Frankfort, while working in more congested
and polluted areas.
The effects of the transportation system, however, have not all been beneficial. The scattered
pattern of development called “urban sprawl” is a result of an enhanced transportation system. It is
difficult to provide economical and efficient governmental services for sprawl development
because of the distance from sewer, water, utilities and roads. Urban development requires urban
services that can best be provided by logically expanding existing Village services.
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Frankfort, as part of the Chicago Metropolitan Area, is served by several modes of transportation
including roads, railways and airports. The major component of Frankfort’s transportation system is
its network of roadways. The following is an assessment of the existing transportation system in the
Village of Frankfort.
ROADWAY SYSTEM
The roadway system consists of four categories: interstates, arterial streets, collector streets, and
local access streets. Arterial streets are comprised of regional arterials and community arterials
while collector streets are comprised of major collectors and neighborhood collectors. These four
categories of roads provide access from the Village to the Chicagoland area and surrounding rural
areas. These categories are controlled and regulated by various governmental agencies that control
funding, construction, and maintenance of the roadways.
Interstates
Frankfort lies south of Interstate 80 and west of Interstate 57. I-80 runs east to west
approximately two miles north of the Village. Access to I-80 is available via La Grange
Road (Route 45) and Harlem Avenue (U.S. 43). I-57 runs north to south less than three
miles east of Frankfort. Access to I-57 is provided via Lincoln Highway (Route 30) and
Laraway Road/Sauk Trail.
The freeway system connects Frankfort to major destination points such as Chicago, Joliet
and the entire United States. Both Interstates are heavily traveled and are capable of
carrying large volumes of traffic.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
39
The Illinois Department of Transportation and Tollway Authority are currently studying the
feasibility of constructing an extension of I-355 through the Frankfort area. This extension
would likely be located between the Villages of Frankfort and New Lenox, and connect to I57 south of Manhattan-Monee Road. This new interstate would most likely have new
interchanges south of Frankfort, at Route 45, and at 80th Avenue, Laraway Road and/or
Center Road. The potential I-355 extension would provide direct access to the proposed
third regional airport planned just east of I-57.
The Village will continue to play a leadership role in the alignment decision for this tollway
extension, as the impact of the location on land use and economic development will be
significant. The long-range plan identifies the preferred alignment supported by the Village.
Arterial Streets
There are several arterial routes in the Frankfort area. These arterials provide connections
between Frankfort and its surrounding communities as well as connections to other
arterials. Arterials are often used as a means of determining boundaries of neighborhoods,
land uses, districts and corporate limits.
The Frankfort area contains six arterial roads: U.S. Route 45, U.S. Route 30, Laraway Road,
Wolf Road, U.S. Route 43 (Harlem Avenue), and St. Francis Road. All six roads extend
beyond the Village limits and carry long haul and inter-regional commercial trips. They
also serve as access points for the regional transportation network. Harlem Avenue and
U.S. Route 45 provide access to Interstate 80, while Route 30 provides access to Interstates
80 and 57. Laraway Road/Sauk Trail also provides access to Interstate 57. Route 45
provides north-south access through the center of the Village while Route 30 provides eastwest access. Wolf Road can be considered as an arterial or collector street, providing northsouth access on the western edge of the planning area. St. Francis Road provides an eastwest link between Route 45 and Route 43.
These six arterials provide the framework of the Village’s local street system. As the Village
grows, they will have to be improved and widened to carry larger traffic volumes. These
improvements are the responsibility of the Illinois Department of Transportation, Will
County Highway Department, Frankfort Township, and the Village of Frankfort.
Collector Streets
A collector street is defined as a roadway that connects local streets to arterial streets,
distributing traffic with minimal interruption. Collector streets are similar to local streets,
yet may include turning lanes and signalized intersections when they meet arterial streets.
Some roads in the Village are classified as collector streets. These roads have a widened
right-of-way to allow proper roadway characteristics to develop. These collectors provide
access within the Village as well as from one community to another. Some examples of
these are listed on the next page.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
40
Examples of collector streets:
•
La Porte Road from U.S. Route 45 to Wolf Road
•
Sauk Trail east from Center Road to Harlem Avenue
•
Center Road south of Nebraska Street
•
Nebraska Street from Center to Route 45
Local Access Streets
Of the nearly 100 miles of streets in the Village of Frankfort, the majority are local access
streets. These streets usually have speed limits of 25 miles per hour and carry only local
traffic through residential areas. The Township roads around Frankfort are also considered
local access streets.
BIKE TRAILS
Frankfort has several existing and planned bike trails as noted in the Transportation Master Plan.
These trails will be interconnected to the Old Plank Road Trail. Many are funded through grants
awarded to the Village from state and federal programs. Other trails are constructed by developers
of residential subdivisions. The Village has developed a Bike Trail Master Plan, which guides
future bike trail planning and assists in the prioritization of funds for trail development.
RAIL SERVICE
Presently, one rail line runs through the Village of Frankfort. The Elgin Joliet and Eastern (EJ&E)
Railway, traveling east west just north of Laraway Road, ships freight through the Village. The
railway has a spur near Center Road to provide access to the Tenneco Plastics Company.
Commuter train stations are located just north of the Village in the Villages of Mokena and Tinley
Park. These stations terminate in the south side of downtown Chicago. The commuter trains run
from the collar communities to the Chicago Loop providing transportation to and from work for
many residents of the Village. The Hickory Creek Station at I-80 and Route 45 provides convenient
access for the main part of the Village, while stations at Mokena’s Downtown, 80th Avenue, and
other locations in Tinley Park provide access for the eastern part of the Village. Village residents
can also drive east to the Metra Electric Line, which ends, on the east side of downtown Chicago.
Frankfort commuters often choose their station for service depending on their downtown
destination.
There is potential for Frankfort to have its own commuter train station located along the EJ&E
Railway west of Center Road. Funding, property characteristics, and availability of resources need
to be evaluated to determine the feasibility of this potential station.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
41
AIR SERVICE
Frankfort has an airport located at the south end of town. The primary traffic at this facility is local
flights for small business and personal aircraft.
O’Hare Airport provides convenient national and international service. Most major airlines have
flights that leave from O’Hare, providing non-stop flights to points throughout the United States and
the world. Midway Airport, located approximately 19 miles northeast of Frankfort, also provides
access to numerous commercial passenger flights.
The Federal Aviation Administration is currently considering the development of a third regional
airport southeast of the Village and east of I-57. This new airport would relieve the increasing
traffic currently experienced at both O’Hare and Midway Airports. The new facility would be built
in phases starting with two runways and eventually be built out to seven runways. The total site
would be several times the size of O’Hare with a large buffer area to help mitigate any effects of
noise from the incoming flights.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
The severity of a transportation problem is relative to the population’s perception. Traffic delays
that are intolerable in Frankfort may be acceptable in Joliet and commonplace in Chicago. This,
however, does not mean that Frankfort should ignore traffic problems on the grounds that they are
less severe than elsewhere. This section summarizes some areas of Frankfort’s transportation
system where improvements may be possible.
Discontinuous Street Network
As Frankfort developed, streets were added to the original plat. Sometimes these new
streets were extensions of existing streets and intersected with other streets, while others did
not line up or conform to the existing pattern. Today, there is a street network that, by
design, is not continuous both through and around Village, however has been connected by
neighborhood and major collector streets.
The roads located at the border of Frankfort and Green Garden Townships are not aligned.
In particular, the misalignments of 104th Avenue, 88th Avenue, 80th Avenue, Harlem
Avenue, and Ridgeland Avenue at Steger Road will need to be corrected when these areas
are developed.
Inadequate Capacity
Capacity is determined by several factors, including pavement width and right-of-way
width. Route 45 and Route 30 are carrying increasing amounts of traffic. The Village must
work with the Illinois Department of Transportation to ensure that these roads are widened
and improved as needed. The intersection of these two major roads will need to be
carefully planned and developed to permit full turning lanes with minimal impact to the
appearance of the area.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
42
Public Transportation
The need for public transportation is based in part on the number of persons who cannot or
prefer not to drive. Senior citizens, children and physically handicapped persons are prime
users of public transportation.
Small villages like Frankfort seldom have public
transportation because it is not economically feasible.
Public transportation always requires public subsidies. If the Village determines that public
transportation is a priority, the Village could work with PACE to improve service with small
demand response buses. The lift equipped, 12 to 15-passenger vehicle would pick people
up at their homes and deliver them to their destinations within the Village or the
surrounding countryside. The vehicle could be dispatched directly using a car telephone.
The bus could also make one or two rush hour trips to nearby employers.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
The Transportation Master Plan recommends a network of existing and new roadways based on the
conditions of the current street system, projected traffic volumes, and preferred geometric design
standards. Generally, Frankfort is well served by a network of north-south and east-west streets,
providing multiple routes for traffic and lessening the potential that any one road will become
overwhelmed. The Transportation Master Plan proposes the addition of the following new
roadway segments to improve the existing grid system:
ƒ
Extension of Pfeiffer Road north to St. Francis Road with an east-west connection to
Colorado Avenue;
ƒ
Extension of Nebraska Street to Wolf Road on the west to intersect with Marilyn Way and to
Pfeiffer Road on the east.
In addition to improving the existing transportation network, the plan also provides design
guidelines for the dimensions and physical features of roads such as right-of-way, pavement widths,
intersection control, sight distance, traffic calming, bicycle routes, and truck routes.
The Transportation Master Plan also recommends the following improvement projects for the
proposed future roadway network:
ƒ
Widen Route 45 from Colorado Avenue to Laraway Road to provide six through lanes plus
right- and left-turn lanes;
ƒ
Widen Route 45 south of Laraway Road to provide four through lanes plus turn lanes;
ƒ
Widen Laraway Road to four lanes;
ƒ
Widen Wolf Road to four lanes north of Laraway Road;
ƒ
Widen Harlem Avenue north of Route 30 to six lanes; widen the segment between Route
30 and Laraway Road to four lanes;
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
43
ƒ
Widen Route 30 to six through lanes;
ƒ
Extend Nebraska Street from Pfeiffer Road to Wolf Road;
ƒ
Extend Pfeiffer Road north to St. Francis Road with an east-west connection to Colorado
Avenue;
ƒ
Realign Harlem Avenue and the north-south collectors (104th Avenue, 88th Avenue, 80th
Avenue, and Ridgeland Avenue) at Steger Road.
These improvement projects and the location of new signalized intersections are shown on Figure 7
of the Transportation Master Plan.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
44
Section V. Community Facilities & Utilities Plan
Municipal facilities of any community are a function of its size. Frankfort requires fewer facilities
than larger municipalities might require to provide municipal services. However, as indicated
earlier in the Plan, the Village anticipates that continued growth will occur in Frankfort. Thus, new
growth will require new and/or expanded municipal services, which will translate into additional
space and personnel. This section presents a description of existing facilities and an analysis of
updated future needs assessments for the community’s facilities.
Listed below are Frankfort’s public facilities and a brief assessment of future needs for each.
CIVIC BUILDINGS
Frankfort area governments have a mix of modern and historical buildings.
Village Hall
The Village presently maintains its administrative services at a new Village Hall building
located at 432 West Nebraska Street. Village Hall currently houses the department offices
for Administration, Community Development, Building, Public Works, and Utilities and
offers general administrative services. The old Police Station, located in a historic building
downtown (Heritage Hall), is currently being used for meeting rooms.
Police Department
The Frankfort Police Department recently moved from a historic downtown building into a
new facility just west of the intersection of Route 45 and Lincolnway Lane.
The Police
Department offers a variety of crime prevention and community policing programs. The
911 emergency response program is handled by Will County but Frankfort has its own
dispatch service with the Villages of Mokena and New Lenox.
Fire District
The Frankfort Fire Protection District is housed in modern facilities, which are divided
among three existing stations. The Fire District also plans to establish three new substations in the near future with the long-term goal to establish eight total sub-stations within
the next 20 years. Potential sites for the three new sub-stations include the intersection of
Harlem Avenue/Steger Road, east of the intersection of Route 45/La Porte Road, and near
the intersection of Scheer Road/EJ&E railroad. The Fire District provides both fire and
rescue and currently serves a 50 square mile area around the Village, which includes all of
Frankfort, parts of Mokena, and Green Garden Township.
Other Buildings
The Frankfort Public Library building was recently constructed at the southeast corner of
Route 30 and Pfeiffer Road. The Post Office is located just south of the southeast corner of
Route 30 and Elsner Road. Overall, Village structures are in good condition.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
45
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Facility plans for Parks and Recreation areas are developed separately by the Frankfort Park District
and Frankfort Square Park District. This plan adopts and incorporates the recommendations of
those plans, and suggests further possible alternatives and expansions.
The Village will aggressively develop bike and pedestrian paths throughout the community. The
Old Plank Road Trail is the east-west backbone of the system, providing a connection to the historic
downtown, many parks, the library and many residential areas. The Trail can also be used to ride
to Lincoln Mall or the Metra Electric Commuter line. Connections to the trail are envisioned within
½-mile of all residences. Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Village plans to
update the existing Bicycle Trail Master Plan, which will further detail the locations of future trails
and trail connections.
The Village has identified an opportunity to provide a recreational path along a pipeline right-ofway, running east-west between Steger Road and Stuenkel Road in Green Garden Township.
Similar to the way the Old Plank Road Trail serves the recreational needs of residents living in the
central part of Frankfort, an additional path along the pipeline right-of-way would provide
recreational opportunities for Frankfort’s southern planning area (south of Steger Road), and
eventually function as a loop system for Frankfort residents as the north-south connections are
completed. The Village’s desire to establish equestrian residential estates in this southern growth
area also provides credence to the notion of adding a recreational path along the pipeline right-ofway.
The Village will continue to take advantage of floodplain areas by preserving them as open spaces
and utilizing them as linkages between parks and recreation areas, particularly with the future
growth and development of Frankfort’s southern planning area. As part of the Village’s growth
management strategy, the Village plans to provide a continuous greenway system throughout the
community, preserving floodplain areas, wetlands, and other sensitive environmental features, and
also creating a network of connected parks and recreation areas.
There is significant floodplain along Hickory Creek between Route 45 and Route 30 that provides
various recreation opportunities (and an attractive entryway into the Village). The Village will
continue to work with the Will County Forest Preserve Districts to lead the development of a
greenway system along the Hickory Creek, of which a portion is already in forest preserve. The
continuous greenway system described above will include the Hickory Creek and its floodplain.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Heritage Hall
Heritage Hall is the former home of the Frankfort Police Department but still serves as a
senior center and houses Village board rooms on the second floor. By promoting the
building as an anchor for the west side of the Historic Downtown District, the highest and
best use of the building is to strengthen a commercial and pedestrian-oriented downtown.
The Village is currently marketing Heritage Hall for a potential restaurant use.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
46
Park District Community Center
Originally built in 1925 as the Frankfort School building, the Founders Center is home to
the Village’s new Community Center and Park District offices. The Founders Center houses
the administrative office, five meeting rooms/classrooms, a gymnasium, dance studio,
kitchen and large banquet room. The Frankfort Park District also uses the Founders Center
to hold many of its recreation programs including youth and adult arts and crafts classes,
adult exercise programs, youth basketball and volleyball, cooking classes, teen dances and
several special community events.
SCHOOLS
Frankfort is presently served by the following three school districts:
•
Frankfort School District #157C
Existing schools in the district include Grand Prairie School (grades K-3), Chelsea School
(grades 4-5), and Hickory Creek Middle School (grades 6-8). A new school (grades 6-8) is
scheduled to open in 2006 at 116th Avenue and Laraway Road.
•
Summit Hill School District #161
Includes Frankfort Square School, Indian Trail School, Hilda Walker School, Ann Rutledge
School, Rogus School, Arbury Hills School, and Summit Hill Junior High School.
•
Lincoln-Way Community High School District #210
Includes Lincoln-Way East and Central Campus.
School District 157-C has secured property to support new growth. A future school site is located
south of Laraway Road on the east side of Pfeiffer Road.
UTILITIES
In addition to the services and amenities provided by the community facilities described above, the
Village maintains and provides the utility infrastructure, which is comprised of the sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, and potable water systems. Each utility is described below.
Sanitary Sewer Systems
The Village’s Facilities Planning Report provides guidance for continued expansion of
sanitary sewer service in response to planned growth of the community. The sanitary sewer
system presently consists of three wastewater treatment plants (North, West, and Regional
plants). The Village plans to upgrade the North plant in 2005 and the Regional plant in
2006.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
47
The recent amendment to the Facility Planning Area (F.P.A.) provides the Village with the
ability to serve its southern growth area to Dralle Road. New sewer facilities in the
southern growth area include trunk extensions located along or in the vicinity of Jackson
Creek, Prairie Creek, and the west branch of Hickory Creek.
Presently there are no major barriers to providing sewer service to areas within Frankfort’s
existing and future F.P.A. Areas located east of Harlem Avenue are serviced by the Cook
County Municipal Water Reclamation District.
Storm Water System
A separate stormwater sewer system handles surface run-off using a system of storm sewer
structures and detention ponds. Seasonal changes in water table levels, ground saturation,
and melted snow have an impact on the sewer system. The Village’s Design Standards
provide guidance on managing stormwater run-off.
Water Distribution System
The Village’s water distribution atlas provides an overview for the operation of the water
system. The water system presently consists of 8 wells, 3 water towers, and 1 standpipe.
Collectively, the water system operates with storage and supply capacities of 3.7 million
gallons and 7.6 millions gallons per day, respectively. The Village’s 5-year plan for the
water system calls for provision of a ninth well and a 1 million gallon storage tank. The
Village is currently installing an iron removal system to address water quality issues. Also,
the Village plans to expand water service into Cook County.
Water Resource Management Plan
The Village administers a Water Resource Management Plan that identifies, evaluates,
maintains, and protects Frankfort’s various waterways and environmentally sensitive areas.
Frankfort’s variety of lakes, ponds, streams, creeks, wetlands, ravines, and drainage ways
not only comprise the Village’s general landscape but also help convey stormwater run-off
for the community. These waterway areas are located on both developed and undeveloped
properties. Developed and urbanized properties require periodic inspections to ensure
existing structures are maintained. Undeveloped properties provide opportunities to
maintain their respective natural characteristics and incorporate protective measures to
assure water quality.
The Water Resource Management Plan focuses on providing recommendations for
incorporating waterways into new developments or maintaining waterways as they exist
today. The plan’s recommendations cover a variety of waterways which are divided into
the following subcategories: (A) Lakes and Ponds, (B) Streams and Creeks, (C) Drainage
Ways, (D) Wetlands, and (E) Storm Water Sewer System.
For properties planned for development, the plan recommends that waterway areas be
incorporated in development plans to assure their preservation and to minimize any
negative impact. As an advocate of smart growth and sensible development, Frankfort
believes that natural elements of the local environment are important to the Village’s quality
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
48
of life. Frankfort views smart growth as occurring when development is economically
viable and includes the preservation of open space, natural resources, and protection of
indigenous species.
The plan also is a tool for the Village to assist the allocation of funds to sustain proper
resource management. An effective financial strategy assures the appropriate amounts of
funds and manpower are allocated to provide management services such as clearing ditches
and streams, providing stream bank stabilization, raising public awareness through
publication and education, and annually inspecting the community’s waterways.
Electricity Service
ComEd is the current provider of electricity to the Village and operates a main substation
located south of the Old Plank Road Trail and east of Pfeiffer Road. Although overhead
power lines currently serve many existing neighborhoods and developments, underground
power lines are required for new developments in the Village.
Telecommunications
Given the competitive nature of economic development in the south region of the Chicago
metropolitan area, providing for high quality and easily accessible telecommunications
services will distinguish certain communities from others, making them more desirable
places to establish businesses. Jones Lang LaSalle, a global real estate firm, conducted a
recent survey of technology companies and found that company executives ranked the
availability of internet infrastructure in the top list of variables in their decisions to locate
their businesses. The development and access to digital telecommunications infrastructure -- the “fifth utility” --- should be an important element of Frankfort’s long-term economic
development plan. A solid telecommunications infrastructure would also serve residences
as well.
In response to resident needs and demands of an expanding telecommunications industry,
the Village’s policy is to require the co-location of telecommunication devices on
municipally owner property as a revenue enhance for other Village services, and to recoup
some of the cost incurred to reduce the visual impact on residential areas, through lease
fees charged to companies The Village utilizes the revenue stream from telecommunication
leases for public benefits such maintenance of public facilities, bike trails, and landscape
enhancements.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
49
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
50
Insert the Community Facilities & Utilities Plan Map
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
51
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
52
Part 2
Planning & Development Policies
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
53
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
54
Section VI. Goals, Objectives & Policy Statements
The Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements presented in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan were
updated to more accurately reflect Frankfort’s long-range vision for the community, particularly as
the Village grows at a high growth rate and faces greater development pressures. Proposed
revisions were based on information solicited and obtained through a variety of sources, including:
key person interviews, community survey results, interviews with Village staff and department
heads, and other documents supplied by the Village. The updated set of Goals, Objectives and
Policy Statements presented below serve as a foundation for updating other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan and form the basic policy direction for elements of this Plan.
Goals: Expressions of values; a representation of a desired ideal condition. A
reflection of the desires of the community for its future.
Objectives: More specific than goals, representative of an expanded description of
a particular aspect of a goal; a more precise, desired situation.
Policies: General procedures and planning principles which may be used as
guidelines to achieve stated objectives.
The Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements section continues to serve as an important component
of the long-range plan. Many policy statements will continue to be valid in the future, even if the
Village chooses to modify specific plan proposals. The Village of Frankfort established the
following goal statements, which are followed by several categories of objectives and policies that
will guide the Village toward realizing the stated goals.
GOALS
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Preserve and protect the high quality and low-density single-family residential identity
of Frankfort and its “quality of life”
Protect the aesthetic appearance of the Village
Protect current and future property values
Preserve Frankfort’s rich history and heritage
Increase the amount of open space and establish a greenway system throughout
Frankfort
Protect environmentally sensitive areas
Provide for a planned and orderly expansion of the Village
Protect Frankfort’s Historic District and encourage redevelopment opportunities
Strengthen and diversify the local tax base and stabilize individual tax burdens
Provide and maintain adequate transportation and public infrastructure systems
Provide residents with the best possible public safety services
Promote positive relations between Frankfort and its neighboring communities and
service districts
Reduce reliance on the automobile
Encourage local airport service
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
55
OBJECTIVES & POLICY STATEMENTS
These goals are supplemented by objectives and policy statements, which are separated into the
following categories:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
General Community & Growth Management
Cultural/Historical Facilities
Housing & Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation System
Capital Improvements/Infrastructure
Recreation & Open Space
Public Safety
Public Facilities & Services
GENERAL COMMUNITY & GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Located in a rapidly developing area in Northeastern Will County, a general objective of the
comprehensive plan is to optimize development of Frankfort in relation to its surroundings, to the
best advantage of its residents.
Objective: Establish high standards of development
.
Policies:
ƒ Encourage a comprehensive approach to site design;
ƒ
Revise, adopt and enforce desirable and realistic development standards to implement
the Village’s long-range plans;
ƒ
Encourage development of land that is adequately drained and has adequate soil
bearing capacity.
Objective: Maintain a rational relationship between land uses to reduce the incidence of
conflict
Policies:
ƒ Provide adequate amounts of land in a variety of locations suitable for each type of land
use, allowing for anticipated growth based on development forecasts;
ƒ
Adhere as closely as possible to the land use pattern outlined in the Future Land Use
Plan Map;
ƒ
Monitor zoning and subdivision regulations to ensure consistency between available
zoning capacity and the Village’s desired population density and land coverage goals;
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
56
ƒ
Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with regard to use, function, and appearance.
When necessary, coordinate with adjoining municipalities, Will and Cook Counties,
and other units of government to address conflicts;
ƒ
Locate high traffic uses adjacent to major transportation networks.
Objective: Review all proposed developments within 1.5 miles of Village boundaries
.
Policies:
ƒ Establish and maintain jurisdictional and planning boundaries with neighboring
communities;
ƒ
Utilize all applicable Village development codes to evaluate proposals;
ƒ
Transmit review decisions to the appropriate governmental bodies;
ƒ
Take all steps necessary to ensure the Village’s decisions prevail;
ƒ
Formally object to any project that attempts to bypass the 1.5-mile review process.
Objective: Annex contiguous lands through annexation agreements
Objective: Assign priority to those developments that the Village can most economically serve,
and/or those that contribute to Frankfort’s physical, social, and economic development
Policies:
ƒ Appropriately assess the impact of all new development proposals;
ƒ
Review and revise when necessary the impact fee structures and methodologies with
respect to adjacent communities, population trends, adequacy of existing infrastructure
and its maintenance and operation, etc.
CULTURAL/HISTORIC FACILITIES
From the days German settlers migrated to the area and established a strong sense of land
ownership and pride in the 1840’s, Frankfort’s rich history has always played an influential role in
the growth and development of the Village. To ensure that Frankfort’s history and heritage remain
strong influential elements to the planning and development of the Village, the Village established
the following policies.
Objective: Maintain and promote historic landmarks, sites, and districts
.
Policies:
ƒ Promote higher densities and a mix of uses in and around the Historic District;
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
57
ƒ
Maintain and enhance the appearance of downtown Frankfort through the use of an
enhanced streetscape, walks, green space, landscaping, and consistency in color,
texture, and building materials.
Objective: Preserve the historic character of the Historic District
Policies:
ƒ Provide members of Village and County historic preservation commissions clear
guidelines for decision-making;
ƒ
Establish and maintain aesthetic review guidelines for the Historic District;
ƒ
Maintain the implementation of the 1890’s Theme Committee and its review authority
with respect to maintaining the architectural integrity of the Historic District;
ƒ
Create financing mechanisms to encourage the preservation of existing structures.
Objective: Expand the marketability of Frankfort’s historic and cultural resources
Policies:
ƒ Incorporate the Village’s German heritage into local festivals, celebrations, and other
events/activities;
ƒ
Capitalize on the historical significance of local roadways such as Nebraska Street,
Lincoln Highway, and Sauk Trail;
ƒ
Encourage and support the redevelopment of the Historic District;
ƒ
Promote commercial and specialty commercial users to locate and/or expand in the
Historic District;
ƒ
Enhance way-finding signage throughout the central business district to identify key sites
of interest and direct visitors to other commercial centers throughout the Village;
ƒ
Maintain the special designation of the Historical Preservation District for the
downtown area, so as to make it financially feasible for a redevelopment effort.
HOUSING & RESIDENTIAL
Historically, most housing in Frankfort is single-family. The planning area is located in a sector of
the metropolitan area where rapid expansion is predicted. With an anticipated demand for new
housing, the Village has established the following objectives and policies for Frankfort.
Objective: Retain the predominant homeownership character of Frankfort
Policy:
ƒ If appropriate, create rehabilitation assistance programs for designated areas.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
58
Objective: Preserve and enhance the single-family housing character of the Village of Frankfort
Policies:
ƒ Prevent the intrusion of incompatible non-residential and multi-family residential uses
into single-family neighborhoods;
ƒ
Encourage the construction of upscale attached and detached single-family housing that
is attractive to executive and professional households;
ƒ
Maintain the historic, traditional residences in Frankfort while encouraging new types of
residential development that are compatible with existing development;
ƒ
Prevent high concentrations of attached units within the community and specifically
within any one-site location.
Objective: Encourage a variety of site designs and housing types that meet Village goals
Policies:
ƒ Manage the development and construction of attached single-family housing in the
planning area to strike a proper balance between attached and detached housing;
ƒ
Promote low density, high quality townhouses in specifically designated areas;
ƒ
Encourage the construction of townhomes at or near a single-family density, as an
alternative to single-family uses;
ƒ
Promote innovative site planning utilizing the PUD concept.
COMMERCIAL
Located in the rapidly developing Southwest Chicago Metropolitan Area, the Village has prioritized
expansion and diversification of its tax base by the following objectives and policies.
Objective: Promote commercial projects utilizing a comprehensive design approach
Policies:
ƒ Prioritize projects designed in a park or campus-like setting;
ƒ
Maintain a pedestrian-oriented environment in commercial areas;
ƒ
Require road connections throughout commercial areas to limit turning movements on
main roads;
ƒ
Encourage compatible commercial land uses within shopping plazas, particularly
outlots;
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
59
ƒ
Encourage consistency of design, emphasizing an importance to provide unique, nonprototypical architecture and high quality landscape amenities.
Objective: Discourage “spot” or “strip” commercial development along major roadways
Policies:
ƒ Zone sites suitable for commercial uses at optimum locations;
ƒ
Direct “convenience-type” shopping facilities to be located within larger PUDs.
Objective:
Provide an adequate framework for the future expansion of commercial
development that is oriented to major highways.
INDUSTRIAL
The industrial potential of the Village is enhance by the Village’s accessibility to the regional road
system, to rail service and proximity to existing Chicago airports, as well as the planned third
airport and Interstate 355 extension. The proximity of the Frankfort Industrial Park to the third
airport and to the planned Interstate 355 connection to the airport will accelerate industrial
development. With these factors considered, following are the established Industrial objectives and
policies.
Objective: Encourage new and diverse light industrial or office research parks
Policies:
ƒ Define land with proximity to the EJ&E Railroad, Laraway Road, the proposed I-355
interchange of Illinois Route 45, and the regional road network as being suitable for
industrial uses, as indicated on the framework and future land use maps;
ƒ
New industrial areas shall be served with adequate public utilities and infrastructure;
ƒ
Improve development performance standards to promote industrial growth;
ƒ
Require high quality site design utilizing landscaping and “green spaces” as site
amenities;
ƒ
Utilize a targeted marketing and review process to insure “high quality” development
that fits with Frankfort’s plan and image.
Objective: Promote established industrial areas
Policy:
ƒ Establish a strong business retention program.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
60
Objective: Minimize the impact of industrial land uses to residential areas
Policies:
ƒ Encourage creative site designs utilizing the PUD concept;
ƒ
Encourage the development of industrial property in a park or campus like setting;
ƒ
Establish new development and construction standards that promote high quality
buildings and industrial sites.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The major street system within the Village planning area is comprised of six regional thoroughfares;
Route 30, Laraway Road, Route 45, Harlem Avenue, Wolf Road and St. Francis Road. As the
region continues to grow, these roads will carry higher volumes of traffic, resulting in higher
congestion. To ensure a local road system with arterial roads that distribute local traffic into the
community, but do not facilitate intrusion of regional traffic into the community, the Village has
established the following objectives and procedures.
Objective: Design a variety of transit choices to provide safe, convenient, and efficient travel
within and around the community
Policies:
ƒ Provide a cohesive transit network consisting of the street and sidewalk system, bike
trails, commuter railroad, and air service;
ƒ
Maintain a current transportation plan and bicycle trail master plan that addresses
growth in the area;
ƒ
Require developers to integrate relevant components of the bicycle trail master plan into
their developments.
Objective: Improve the efficiency of the major street system in the planning area
Policies:
ƒ Create safer residential neighborhoods through a street system that separates throughtraffic and local traffic;
ƒ
Route through-traffic to major arterial roads to minimize adverse impact on land use and
local traffic flows;
ƒ
Limit the number of curb cuts and driveways along major arterial and collector roads;
ƒ
Control access to sites and improve signalization or signage at intersections;
ƒ
Require developers to dedicate and improve all streets in newly developing areas and
expand the local collector street system within one-mile section lines;
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
61
ƒ
Work with other units of government to increase the traffic capacities of Route 45 & 30,
Laraway Road, Wolf Road, Pfeiffer Road, Steger Road, Ridgeland Avenue;
ƒ
Work with other units of government and IDOT so as to effectively site the proposed
interstate extension (I-355 South of I-80 to the planned Peotone airport);
ƒ
Prohibit the installation of streets that are not logical extensions of the existing road
system.
Objective: Promote efficiency and economy in operations of the transit systems
Policy:
ƒ Implement a systematic street improvement and maintenance program.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/INFRASTRUCTURE
With great pressure for development due to proximity of the expanding Southwest Chicago
Metropolitan Area, Frankfort’s potential for development to “leap-frog” is great. Due to the cost
and difficulty of delivery of services for this type of development, the Village discourages this
development pattern. It is essential and most economical for infrastructure in the developing areas
to be provided by extending the existing systems, wherever feasible. To direct and match desired
types of development with desired locations, the Village assumes a key role in the provision of
infrastructure by observing the following objectives and policies.
Objective: Provide sewer and water facilities for those lands that can be economically served
by the Village
Policies
ƒ Require the extension of water and sanitary sewer infrastructure with new development;
ƒ
Promote “recapture” agreements for service extensions;
ƒ
Facilitate a new water source with water quality comparable to Lake Michigan;
ƒ
Promote regional solutions to the wastewater treatment capacity issue.
Objective: Develop a comprehensive regional storm water management system
Policies:
ƒ Construct a system of structures to control storm water runoff from development into a
system of land and water recreational facilities;
ƒ
Require the construction of new storm drainage and detention facilities with all new
residential, commercial, and industrial development;
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
62
ƒ
Ensure that all new subdivisions provide storm drainage facilities that meet the Village’s
ordinance prior to plan approval;
ƒ
Continue liaison relationship with the Will County stormwater committee and its
regulations.
Objective: Maintain a system of public buildings, which can be used as service centers to the
Planning Area, in a centralized location when possible
Policies:
ƒ Prepare a public buildings plan to provide efficient and sufficient facilities to serve the
planning area. This plan will serve as an adjunct to this Comprehensive Plan;
ƒ
Provide adequate accommodations for governmental and other official activities based
on anticipated growth and development patterns in conformance with a public
buildings plan;
ƒ
Maintain public buildings in an attractive condition so as to enhance the appearance of
the community and promote civic pride;
ƒ
Provide adequate, conveniently located off-street parking for all public uses, wherever
necessary.
Objective: Investigate opportunities to develop a system of fiber optic cable that will allow the
Village to market itself as a leader along the technical highway.
Policies:
ƒ Coordinate networking information systems with the library and school districts;
ƒ
Work with public utilities and telecommunication companies to coordinate the
installation of fiber optic cable in the Frankfort area.
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
There are four recreational/open space districts whose jurisdictional boundaries are located within
the planning area. Intergovernmental cooperation is essential between the Village, the Park
Districts, and the Will County Forest Preserve District to affect ample park and open space
provision. These bodies should develop Intergovernmental Agreements to implement a balanced
recreational network.
These agreements should recognize area standards for parkland donation at the rate of 10 acres per
1000 residents. In addition, they should provide significant acreage as open undeveloped space. A
number of flood plains and wetlands exist in the planning area. These areas can be designated and
held as permanent opens space. Likewise, storm water run-off can be held via retention lakes and
developed for recreation uses. To implement these ideas, the following objectives and policies are
established.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
63
Objective: Promote lands for conservation, recreation and open space
Policies:
ƒ Adopt and enforce development controls that encourage conservation of natural
resources;
ƒ
Adopt regulations that provide incentives for conservation of environmentally sensitive
properties;
ƒ
Prohibit development in wetlands and flood hazard areas.
Objective: Utilize and enforce guidelines established by the water resources management plan
Objective: Establish a greenway system throughout the Village
Policy:
ƒ Incorporate wetland and flood hazard areas into a greenway system of open spaces.
Objective: Provide a wide range of active and passive parks and recreational land for all
citizens
Objective: Connect and expand upon the local and regional pedestrian and bicycle trail
systems
Policy:
ƒ Establish access to the regional trail system within .5-miles of every residence.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Objective: Encourage cooperative relationships between local police and fire protection services
and the various municipal, county, and state jurisdictions
Fire Protection
Fire protection services are provided to the Village of Frankfort and its planning area by a
number of governmental bodies under the direction of the Frankfort Fire Protection District by
the means of automatic aid agreement, mutual aid agreements and task force agreements.
Those included within the list of agreements for response with Frankfort FPD are: Mokena FPD,
Manhattan FPD, New Lenox FPD, Monee FPD, Peotone FPD, Richton Park FD, and University
Park FD.
Policies:
ƒ Provide a single coordinated fire protection system;
ƒ
Resolve the differences of fire codes by utilizing one (1) code and establishing standard
policies and practices;
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
64
ƒ
Provide public infrastructure (roads, water lines) in a manner to promote efficient fire
protection access and service;
ƒ
Locate fire stations by population and geographical standards determined by the Fire
District in cooperation with the Village;
ƒ
Promote fire suppression systems to include residential sprinkler systems.
Police Service
As the boundaries of the Village are extended, the Village adds additional thoroughfares. Some
of these thoroughfares are “policed” by other jurisdictions, in particular, the Will County
Sheriff’s Police. Coordination of these various departments and jurisdictions is essential for
quality police services.
As the population of the Village increases, police resources and services must likewise increase.
The Village embraces new technologies in an effort to provide the best possible police services.
Policies:
ƒ Provide a comprehensive system of effective and efficient police services;
ƒ
Expand the joint Lincoln-Way Communication Center;
ƒ
Provide joint services wherever possible;
ƒ
Create mutual aid agreements among bordering communities, the Village and other
policing units.
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
The planning area is served by multiple public buildings and service districts, such as fire, school,
library, and park. The Village of Frankfort and its service districts will require expansion of existing
facilities as well as construction of new facilities to meet the needs of anticipated growth in the
planning area. The extent and timing of growth presents challenges for the Village and its service
districts to continue providing adequate public facilities and services. To assist in outpacing
inevitable change, the following objectives and policies are established.
Objective: Assist the various school districts in facilitating an overall facility plan
Policies:
ƒ Locate school facilities so that they are easily accessible to the maximum number of
students and minimize the impact to the transportation network;
ƒ
Facilitate an adequate number of classrooms and accessory facilities to serve each
school area in accordance with State school standards;
ƒ
Encourage school facilities to be used for multi-use purposes; including parks,
recreation centers, and community meeting places.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
65
Objective: Support and promote the Frankfort Intergovernmental Planning Consortium (FIPC)
and its mission to foster positive intergovernmental relations
Objective: Encourage data-sharing with other agencies
Objective: Facilitate a superior library system to efficiently and conveniently service all parts of
the planning area
Policies:
ƒ Locate future library facilities so as to serve the general population conveniently;
ƒ
Facilitate adequately sized facilities in accordance with applicable library standards.
Objective: Promote the location of institutions of higher education within the Village
Policy:
ƒ Encourage colleges to locate within the Village; and/or offer extension courses for the
residents of Frankfort.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
66
Section VII. Framework Plan
The Framework Plan is a planning tool that outlines the planning and development principles that
not only guide the Village’s future growth and development but also provide the basis for the Land
Use Plan. The Framework Plan is also the expression of the essential planning and development
principles that will help create the foundation for more detailed land use and design guidelines for
sub-areas of the community that will follow.
These principles are the basic organizational elements that must be in place in order for the Village
to be successful in achieving its goals and objectives. While the precise details of the Land Use
Plan may vary over time and as development dictates, the principles outlined in the Framework
Plan should be maintained invariably and provide the solid foundation from which subsequent land
use or development policy changes are evaluated.
The Framework Plan is primarily based on the results from the “Building The Vision” community
participation exercise conducted at the Visioning Workshop on June 18, 2003. In general, the
exercise allowed workshop participants to create a vision for the future growth and development of
Frankfort. The Framework Plan is also based on the existing layout of land uses, current
development trends, analysis of market conditions affecting Frankfort, and current zoning
designations as well as information solicited and obtained through a variety of sources including:
key person interviews, community survey results, interviews with Village staff and department
heads, and other documents supplied by the Village.
ELEMENTS OF THE FRAMEWORK PLAN
The primary elements of the Framework Plan are organized in the following manner:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Commercial Development Centers
Employment/Business Opportunities
Transitional Residential Opportunities
Mixed Use Opportunities
Principal Open Space Opportunities
Residential Growth Opportunities
Focal Point/Gateway Opportunities
Transportation Network
A more in-depth description of each element of the Framework Plan is provided below. Two
Framework Plan Maps are shown. The Framework Plan Map on pages 71 depicts the framework
elements and excludes the potential I-355 extension and third Chicago regional airport proposal.
The alternative Framework Plan Map on page 72 includes the potential I-355 extension and third
Chicago regional airport and considers their impact on future land uses.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
67
Commercial Development Centers
Commercial development centers are defined as the optimal locations for commercial development
within the Village. Generally located at major road intersections and along major road corridors,
these development centers provide the greatest potential to support the types of future commercial
development that were perceived as desirable by residents and Village officials. Commercial
development centers not only help increase the Village commercial tax base but also provide a
variety of places for residents and visitors to purchase goods and access services.
To more easily distinguish the differences between the size of commercial developments and the
goods and services they offer, the following hierarchy of commercial development centers was
established:
Level #1: Neighborhood Level Center
A Neighborhood Level Center generally provides goods and services that local residents need
on a regular basis. Convenience stores, pharmacies, laundry services, and day-care centers are
examples of neighborhood-level businesses. Typically serving a radius of one to two miles, the
goods and services offered by a Neighborhood Level Center satisfy the needs of the immediate
neighborhood in which the commercial uses are located. Since Neighborhood Level Centers
serve neighborhoods within a 1-2 mile radius, they typically locate along major roads such as
Route 30, Route 45, Laraway Road, Steger Road, and Wolf Road, which provide access to
many neighborhoods in the Village.
On the Framework Plan Map, Neighborhood Level Centers are located at the following
locations:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Intersection of Route 30 and 80th Avenue
Intersection of Route 45 and Nebraska Street
Intersection of Wolf Road and the Laraway Road
Intersection of Route 45 and Steger Road
Intersection of Pfeiffer Road and Laraway Road
Intersection of Harlem Avenue and Steger Road
Level #2: Community Level Center
A Community Level Center serves a larger market than the neighborhood-level center with a
market radius of three to five miles. The types of commercial developments that characterize
the Community Level Center typically support the entire Village by providing large-scale anchor
stores such as grocery stores with smaller supporting businesses. Large-scale anchors may
include (but are not limited to) supermarkets such as Jewel or Dominick’s, bookstores such as
Borders and Barnes & Noble, or home product stores such as Ace Hardware. Small supporting
businesses have a wide range including small restaurants, home and gardening stores, clothing
stores, and private offices (e.g. dentists, optometrists, etc.). Since Community Level Centers
serve the entire Village, they are typically located along major roads such as Route 30, Route
45, and Harlem Avenue to provide maximum access to all residents.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
68
On the Framework Plan Map, Community Level Centers are located at the following locations:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Intersection of Route 45 and La Porte Road
Intersection of Route 45 and Route 30
Intersection of Route 45 and Laraway Road
Intersection of Harlem Avenue and Sauk Trail
Level #3: Regional Level Center
A Regional Level Center supports larger commercial developments that focus on serving the
Village as well as surrounding communities. Serving a market radius of five miles or more, a
Regional Level Center typically attracts two or more large-scale anchor stores and supporting
businesses. Although Regional and Community Level Centers are somewhat similar in terms of
the types of commercial uses they offer, a Regional Level Center provides a greater number of
stores due to the wider market radius it serves. Since Regional Level Centers serve many
surrounding communities, these centers are typically located along major roads such as Route
30 and Route 45 in Frankfort. Route 30 and Route 45 have direct access to Interstate 57 and
Interstate 80, respectively, which are major expressways that serve the greater southern Chicago
land region.
On the Framework Plan Map, Regional Level Centers are located at the following locations:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Intersection of Wolf Road and Route 30
Intersection of Harlem Avenue and Route 30
Intersection of Route 45 and Baker/Stuenkel Road (under the assumption that the
potential I-355 extension and/or the third Chicago regional airport are approved)
For a balanced market, it is important to achieve a healthy mix of the three types of commercial
centers. Physical conditions and economic factors --- most notably supply and demand,
proximity to major roads, availability and size of land, and surrounding land uses --- have the
most significant influence on determining the locations of each type of commercial center.
Employment/Business Opportunities
Frankfort has become an attractive place for office and industrial developments to locate,
particularly due to the Village’s large undeveloped land parcels and educated employment base.
Many office and industrial developments already call Frankfort home. The Manheim Business Park
is currently under construction at the northeast corner of Harlem Avenue and Route 30. The ITCO
Corporate Park is also located along Harlem Avenue just north of the EJ&E railroad. In addition, a
variety of office and industrial uses have already begun to populate the Laraway Road corridor
between Route 45 and Pfeiffer Road. Despite Frankfort’s distance from major expressways such as
I-80 to the north and I-57 to the east, the Village has evidently attracted a good share of office and
industrial developments.
The Village has the capability to attract even more office and industrial developments as the
existing base of developments continually grows, provides great opportunities for employment, and
creates a healthy business environment. The objective of these areas is to provide economic
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
69
development opportunities for high quality corporate office, distribution and limited manufacturing
businesses that are compatible with the upscale image of Frankfort.
The Framework Plan Map identifies two major Employment/Business Opportunities for the Village
with a potential third opportunity under the assumption that the potential I-355 extension and/or
third Chicago regional airport are approved.
ƒ
Along Laraway Road. The existing office and industrial uses along Laraway Road act as an
incubator for a healthy and vibrant environment for more Employment/Business Opportunities.
This Employment/ Business Opportunity area is roughly bounded by the EJ&E railroad to the
north, Pfeiffer Road to the east, Steger Road to the south, and Route 45 to the west.
ƒ
At the intersection of Harlem Avenue and Sauk Trail. The existing ITCO Corporate Park and
the Manheim Business Park, currently under-construction, have formed the foundation for a
strong employment and business environment along Harlem Avenue. The intersection of
Harlem Avenue and Sauk Trail presents itself as a prime location for an Employment/Business
Opportunity, particularly due to its proximity to and connection with the proposed
Employment/Business Opportunity along Laraway Road.
Although these two
Employment/Business Opportunities are connected by Laraway Road, the Sauk Trail Forest
Preserve and the existing flood plain provides a natural division to help create two separate
Employment/Business Opportunities with their own distinct characters.
ƒ
At the potential I-355 extension/interchange at Route 45. If the I-355 extension is approved
and intersects Route 45 within Frankfort’s 1-1/2 mile planning area, the area around the I-355
interchange at Route 45 provides a significant opportunity for employment and business.
Direct access to the I-355 extension would increase the opportunity for non-residents to work in
Frankfort. Direct access to a regional highway is an important location requirement for office
and industrial businesses to move goods and people easily. An Employment/Business
Opportunity at the interchange coupled with a Regional Level Commercial Center would create
a great opportunity for residents and visitors to shop and work. Approval of the proposed third
Chicago regional airport would make this opportunity even more attractive.
Mixed Use Opportunities
A Mixed Use Opportunity allows for a specific area in the Village to develop into a unique area
defined by a variety of different land uses and clustering of activities, organized in a unified
development that exemplifies high quality design in unique, non-signature or otherwise nonprototypical building architecture, landscape plantings, pedestrian spaces and accessibility.
(WOW- BIG SENTENCE)Emphasis is made on “place-making” through the creative arrangement of
buildings, parking areas, plazas for gathering, and pedestrian walkways that unify the project. A
mixed-use area typically pertains to the development of a tract of land or structure with two or
more different land uses such as, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, public, or
entertainment in a compact form. The Framework Plan Map identifies two Mixed Use
Opportunities:
ƒ
“Lifestyle Center” Opportunity. A primary component of a lifestyle center project is typically
comprised of a series of upscale retail shops, specialty services, and restaurants typically
arranged in an open-air “town center” environment. Landscaping and smaller-sized parking
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
70
areas help create a more pedestrian-friendly development. Depending on the size of the
project site, other complimentary uses may include a health club, theater, conference center,
condominiums, attached single-family housing, large-scale retail, and offices. The Framework
Plan Map reflects the desires of the Village to establish a lifestyle center on the undeveloped
parcels located along the north side of Route 30 just east of Route 45. The pedestrian-friendly
environment of a potential lifestyle center at this location permits a pedestrian link to the even
more pedestrian-friendly Village Center (see below). Due to the types of goods and services
offered by a lifestyle center, a Community Level Commercial Center is also located at this
intersection.
ƒ
Village Center. The Village Center is different than the “Lifestyle Center” Mixed Use
Opportunity in that it already exists. As the defining feature of the Village Center, Frankfort’s
Downtown Historic District is pedestrian-friendly and is home to a historic housing stock, small
specialty retail shops, municipal buildings and services, and recreational opportunities.
Although the Village Center is one of Frankfort’s most established areas, the Village has worked
to enhance it by expanding the H-1 District, recognizing White Street as the link to Route 45,
preserving and improving the housing stock, providing more commercial businesses and
recreational opportunities, and building upon the unique character that presently defines the
downtown area. Continuation of the distinct signage system and attracting additional small
specialty retail shops and restaurants are two additional methods to enhance the Village Center.
Principal Open Space Opportunities
The conservation and protection of sensitive environmental features such as floodplains, creeks,
and wetlands are important to help maintain the natural elements of the Village, including wildlife
habitats, aquifer recharge areas, and stormwater detention capacity. The importance of these
natural areas is recognized by the Village’s Water Resource Management Plan that establishes
standards to ensure their protection. The numerous environmental corridors formed by these
environmental features provide the Village with opportunities to extend multi-use recreational paths
and connection between existing and potential parks and open spaces.
These opportunities are an essential part of the Village’s growth management strategy to preserve
the Village’s natural resources, and create a system of open spaces that will provide the relief in the
pattern of urban development necessary to create a healthy balance between the density of
development and natural environment. Open spaces can also be used to establish buffers or
transitions between residential and non-residential developments.
As depicted on the Framework Plan Map, the Principal Open Space Opportunities are shown as
extensive greenway corridors that form a continuous circuit connecting the region’s three forest
preserves and some of the Village’s existing parks. The regional Old Plank Road Trail is also
connected to the system of Principal Open Space Opportunities. In addition, a pipeline right-ofway located between Steger Road and Stuenkel Road provides an opportunity for an open space
corridor for recreation and equestrian activities.
In addition to the greenway corridors shown on the Framework Plan Map, the Future Land Use
Plan Map (shown in the next section) depicts other Open Space Opportunities in the form of future
parks and open spaces. Considered as a whole, these Open Space Opportunities will form a
network of various types of open spaces ensuring a high quality of life in Frankfort by linking
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
71
residential neighborhoods to other uses within the Village and providing enjoyment of the natural
assets of the community.
Open spaces consist of linear greenway corridors, natural area preserves, and parks. Some open
spaces may serve many overlapping purposes. Greenway corridors allow for a system of pedestrian
and bike trails to provide an alternative means of transportation. Open spaces used primarily for
recreational purposes will enhance the park system administered by Frankfort’s park districts.
Open spaces reserved for passive enjoyment will contribute to the environmental quality of the
Village by allowing wildlife to move between open spaces. These natural areas will also help bring
people in touch with nature, which will build an awareness and appreciation of the environment.
The system of open spaces will also be a major visual element adding to the community’s aesthetic
quality by connecting the region’s three forest preserves and the Village’s attractive and expanding
park system. Thus, the comprehensive nature of the Open Space Opportunities shown on the
Framework Plan and Future Land Use Plan Maps fulfill a number of important objectives in the
Village’s efforts to enhance its quality-of-life and plan for the future of the community.
The development of the open space network is based on a number of physical conditions within
the Village planning area that influence the location of the various types of open spaces. These
physical conditions are addressed below:
Wetlands, Woodlands and Floodplains
These environmentally sensitive areas provide the first and most important part of the open
space system because of their importance to wildlife preservation and stormwater
management. In the case of wetlands and floodplains, these areas also carry significant
regulatory controls that limit development, thereby providing community open spaces
without direct cost to the Village. The Village considers open spaces and greenways
located adjacent or through these areas a high priority. In the case of woodlands, no such
regulatory controls exist outside of the Village tree preservation ordinance. Since
woodlands are of high environmental and aesthetic value, the Village will need to place
reasonable limits on development of these natural areas and preserve them in instances
where they can be combined with other types of open spaces such as parks and greenways.
Surface Water Areas
These areas are typically covered by water all year and include lakes, streams, and open
water portions of wetlands. As attractive features of the landscape, surface water areas
provide both amenity value as well as important environmental functions. The wildlife and
diversity of open water habitats add interest to the passive or active recreation experience.
Areas adjacent to streams or intermittent drainage ways, because of the linear character,
make particularly good locations for greenways due to their potential interconnectivity and
linkage to other types of open spaces.
Public Open Space Areas
These areas include properties owned or managed by the Village of Frankfort, Frankfort
Park District, Frankfort Square Park District, and Will County Forest Preserve. This plan
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
72
adopts and incorporates the recommendations of these agencies, and suggests further
possible alternatives and expansions. Proposed open spaces that are consistent with the
master plans of other open space agencies, and the plans of adjacent municipalities, should
be given a high priority. Currently, 120 acres are devoted to 13 parks, with 45 more acres
planned for future parks. Using a conservative estimate of population based on the buildout of the community according to the Future Land Use Plan, there remains an open space
deficit over the long term of approximately 300 acres to meet the recreation needs of the
community. This demand will be satisfied through a combination of park sites, including
tot lots, small neighborhood parks, and larger Village-wide parks, such as Commissioner’s
Park and Main Park.
Other Location Criteria
In addition to the physical conditions noted above, location decisions for open spaces may
be influenced by proximity to other significant man-made features including schools,
churches, municipal buildings or other cultural/civic uses, sites of historic or architectural
interest, existing trails and other transportation facilities such as a commuter rail station.
Economic factors and land ownership patterns, including price, single or multiple owners,
size of available parcels, and the presence of existing public utility easements/rights-of-way
could also have a significant impact on location decisions.
Using the above criteria, the Village has established general locations for potential future park
and open spaces to meet the future need of the community. (See Future Land Use Plan Map)
Residential Growth Opportunities
As the Village continues to grow, it will prioritize new residential developments within Frankfort’s
core area to ensure that the Village maximizes its existing developable land and resources. The
Village’s primary residential growth opportunity is the area south of Steger Road. As depicted on
the Framework Plan Map, Steger Road is defined as the “Suburban/Countryside Transition” area in
which the existing suburban character of the Village is maintained north of Steger Road while a
countryside character is maintained south of the road.
This Residential Growth Opportunity Area should maintain the Village’s general trend of building
single-family developments. Since this area is presently on the outer fringe of Frankfort’s 1-1/2 mile
planning area, large estate lots and lower density subdivisions are the most likely type of
developments suitable for this area. “Conservation design” is highly recommended to create
unique residential neighborhoods and incorporate the substantial amount of floodplains that
characterize the area south of Steger Road.
The guiding principle for utilizing “conservation design” or establishing “open space communities”
is the promotion of single-family residential development that integrates existing open space and
conserves natural site amenities and corridors. Common elements of design include the clustering
of homes on reduced size lots, minimized road widths, an interconnected and integrated road
system, innovative subdivision layouts organized around open spaces, and path and trailway
connections.
Key principles in the design of “open space communities” include the following:
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
73
ƒ
Open space detention areas should be designed and situated to serve as focal points which
are accessible for recreational purposes by all residents;
ƒ
Site plans/layouts should organize and arrange dwelling units so that they are adjacent to or
near open space;
ƒ
Whenever and wherever feasible, open space should be linked into a continuous greenway.
Under the concept of “open space communities,” the same number of homes that would be
constructed under a conventional development plan (typically as single-family-detached
units) are grouped more closely together on down-sized houselots, with the remaining area
of the parcel left as permanently preserved open space. The undeveloped portion of the
parcel are either managed by a homeowner's association, deeded to the Village or a land
trust, or retained by the original owner who has surrendered (sold) all of the development
rights.
The large residential lots and smaller clustered lots surrounded by open space also provide the
opportunity for establishing equestrian estate properties that could provide a unique character to
Frankfort’s southern growth area.
Transitional Residential Opportunities
Transitional Residential Opportunities will typically include smaller lot single family homes (both
attached and detached) and will primarily serve as a land use buffer between existing single family
neighborhoods and non-residential land uses. Primarily due to the more intensive nature of these
housing types, smaller lot residential uses such as townhomes, condominiums, and, in some cases,
senior and assisted living facilities are commonly used as a transition between larger lot residential
properties from non-residential uses. Although it is not ideal to place any type of residential use
directly adjacent to a non-residential use, landscaping techniques and creative site planning can
help provide an attractive and effective buffering system between the two different uses.
In some cases, a Transitional Residential Opportunity may involve a transition between distinct
residential neighborhoods. For instance, the Framework Plan Map depicts a Transitional
Residential Opportunity between the residential neighborhood and historic commercial uses in the
Downtown Historic District and the more suburban residential neighborhoods east of 92nd Avenue.
The properties within this Transitional Residential Opportunity provide an opportunity for
improvements and most are currently located within an unincorporated part of the Village.
Improved residential properties within this Transitional Residential Opportunity would help
preserve the historic character of the homes and commercial uses in the Downtown Historic
District from the suburban residential neighborhoods east of 92nd Street.
Focal Point/Gateway Opportunities
The Framework Plan Map identifies eight Focal Point/Gateway Opportunities at the following major
road intersections that define entrances into the Village:
ƒ
ƒ
Intersection of Route 45 and La Porte Road
Intersection of Wolf Road and Route 30
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
74
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Intersection of Route 45 and Old Frankfort Way (to the Historic Downtown District)
Intersection of Route 45 and Nebraska Street (to Historic Downtown District)
Intersection of Route 45 and Steger Road
Intersection of Harlem Avenue and Route 30
Intersection of Harlem Avenue and Laraway Road/Sauk Trail
Intersection of Harlem Avenue and Steger Road
The design and arrangement of uses at these Focal Point/Gateway Opportunities should be
carefully considered to ensure that each focal point/gateway creates a memorable and unique entry
into Frankfort. The following design elements may help define the character of each focal
point/gateway:
ƒ
Landscaping. Distinctive accent plantings should be provided to enhance the visual
appearance of the focal point/gateway.
ƒ
Medians. Where feasible, new landscaped road medians could be provided within existing
right-of-ways to enhance the visual appeal of the road.
ƒ
Entry Sign. A distinctive entry sign provides a means to formally announce the entrance into
the Village. The entry sign can be coupled with landscaping features to create a visual identity
to the focal point/gateway.
ƒ
Lighting. Special or unique lighting fixtures could be provided to highlight each focal
point/gateway feature. Lighting can range from street lighting to accent lights for the entry sign.
Transportation Network
The transportation network that serves Frankfort provides adequate routes between various
locations throughout the Village. Route 45 is the primary north-south arterial road with a direct link
to I-80 to the north. Route 30 is the primary east-west arterial road with a centrally located
intersection with Route 45 and a direct link to I-57 to the east. Laraway Road, St. Francis Road,
Wolf Road, and Harlem Avenue are four other major arterial roads that serve the Village. A third
interstate highway, the potential I-355 extension, would provide even greater transportation access
and opportunities if it is approved. New improvements to the transportation network include the
proposed extension of Pfeiffer Road north to St. Francis Road to enhance the north-south access in
the northeastern quadrant of the Village and the extension of Nebraska Street from Wolf Road to
Pfeiffer Road.
Frankfort is also served by non-vehicular transportation ways, most notably the Old Plank Road
Trail. Old Plank Road Trail, which extends in an east-west direction, is a regional recreation path
and is one of Frankfort’s most prominent amenities. The Village also offers other recreation paths
in the community and continues to plan for new ones, including a potential recreational path along
the pipeline right-of-way located between Steger Road and Stuenkel Road. The Principal Open
Space Opportunities depicted on the Framework Plan Map provides a great opportunity to create a
fully linked system of recreation paths connecting the region’s three forest preserves and some of
the Village’s parks and open spaces.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
75
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
76
Insert the Framework Plan Map (Alternative 1)
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
77
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
78
Insert the Framework Plan Map (Alternative 2)
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
79
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
80
Section VIII. Future Land Use Plan
The future land use recommendations for Frankfort are illustrated on the Future Land Use Plan
Map. The recommendations reflect the Village’s desired physical layout outlined in Section VI
(Goals, Objectives, and Policy Statements) and Section VII (Framework Plan). The map shows a
logical expansion of residential land around all sides of the Village and infill development around
existing neighborhoods. Commercial land remains centered along the major transportation
corridors (Route 45 & 30) and around existing commercial areas, with some new areas
recommended along the evolving commercial corridors of Harlem Avenue and Laraway and Wolf
Roads. A major expansion of the industrial and business park areas are proposed along Laraway
Road, between Route 45 and Pfeiffer Road. Additional business park opportunities are shown east
of Harlem Avenue. Floodplain and wetland areas are primarily designated for environmental
conservation and, in some cases, identified as recreation and open space providing a “greenbelt”
around the community.
The Future Land Use Plan Map is a guide and is not intended to indicate precise boundaries
between uses. These uses could vary, depending on how a specific proposal relates to existing
uses and to the plan. The Village will give fair consideration to proposals for land development
that vary from the plan. If the proposal will enhance the Village, Frankfort may amend the Future
Land Use Plan Map to approve the proposed use.
Two Future Land Use Plan Maps are shown. The Future Land Use Plan Map depicts the future land
use recommendations for the Village excluding the potential I-355 extension and third Chicago
regional airport. The alternative Future Land Use Plan Map includes the potential I-355 extension
and third Chicago regional airport and considers their impact on future land uses. The exact timing
and location of these two major developments are not yet firm, and this alternative map must, of
course, be amended as those developments change.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The following land use descriptions indicate the intent of the Village with regard to all land uses
recommended and depicted on the Future Land Use maps:
ƒ
Estate Residential: Land devoted to detached single family residential use at densities no greater
than two (2) dwelling units per net acre. This land use designation is generally assigned to land
designated with the ER (Estate Residential-1 du/ac) and R1 (Single Family Residential-2 du/ac)
zoning classifications.
ƒ
Single Family Detached Residential: Land use devoted to detached single family residential use
on lots greater than or equal to 15,000 square feet. This land use designation is generally
assigned to land designated with the R2 (Single Family Residential) zoning classification.
ƒ
Single Family Attached Residential: Land devoted to attached single family residential use
which encourages comprehensive site and architectural design. This land use designation is
generally assigned to land designated with the R3 (Two Family Residential) and R4 (Multiple
Family Residential) zoning classifications.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
81
ƒ
Future Residential Growth Area: One of the most important functions of urbanizing
communities, such as Frankfort, is its ability to provide a full range of public services. The
Future Residential Growth Area, which is located on the southern edge of the Village’s
planning area between Stuenkel Road and Dralle Road, consists of land outside the corporate
limits of the Village which will be served by the extension of public utilities. These areas shall
serve as “holding areas” with the specific purpose of reserving lands in strategic locations for
future large lot residential development. These areas are not expected to be needed to
accommodate growth over the next ten years but should be protected from incompatible
development. Large residential lots in the Future Residential Growth Area would provide
ample space for equestrian estates. Equestrian estates fit in well with the “conservation design”
approach to low density residential development, particularly with the notion of establishing
“open space communities” that integrate existing open space and conserve natural amenities
such as floodplains in the design of residential developments. Although the clustering of homes
is a common element in conservation design, providing equestrian estates would not only
integrate existing open spaces in residential design but also create a unique character to the
Future Residential Growth Area.
ƒ
Future Growth Area: The Future Growth Area, which is located on the southern edge of the
Village’s planning area south of Dralle Road to Bruns Road, between Ridgeland Avenue and
Scheer Road, is similar to the Future Residential Growth Area in that they both consist of land
outside the corporate limits of the Village which will be served by the extension of public
utilities. The Future Growth Area shall serve as “holding areas” with the specific purpose of
reserving lands in strategic locations for a variety of appropriate and compatible developments.
The location of the Future Growth Area away from central Frankfort makes these areas most
suitable for low density residential development and the preservation of natural amenities. The
residential land use guidelines described above should be respected to ensure sensible
residential development on the southern edge of Frankfort. Conserving natural amenities and
providing open space opportunities should also adhere to the guidelines set in the Framework
Plan. In addition to residential development and open space opportunities, the Future Growth
Area provides opportunities for commercial, business park, and industrial uses, particularly
along Route 45 and Harlem Avenue and near the I-57 interchange at Manhattan-Monee Road.
As Frankfort grows and develops in the Future Growth Area, the Village should conduct a
market analysis of the Future Growth Area to determine the most appropriate uses for the area.
Similar to the arrangement of future land uses for central Frankfort, the Village must also ensure
that all future land uses are compatible with each other and respect the natural character of the
landscape.
ƒ
General Commercial: Land devoted to commercial use predominantly of a retail or service
nature. While these areas are primarily for the sale of goods or provisions of commercial
services, they may include smaller corporate office uses as well. This land use designation does
not include commercial uses in the Village’s Downtown Historic District.
ƒ
Historic Commercial/Residential: Land devoted to commercial uses with ancillary residential
uses located within the Village’s Downtown Historic District area. The lots in the residential
area are typically smaller than currently allowed under Village ordinance, and the commercial
uses are small in scale, and provide unique services and specialty goods that enhance the
distinct character of the Downtown Historic District.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
82
ƒ
Business Parks: Land devoted to administrative offices, research and development, and light
industrial uses on lots greater than one-half (1/2) acre. These accommodate the larger office,
limited manufacturing and distribution uses. Comprehensive site planning is encouraged as a
means to provide a unified development in a well landscaped, campus-like setting.
ƒ
Industrial: Land devoted to limited industrial manufacturing, warehousing and assembly uses.
Industrial uses, particularly those that rely on trucks for delivery and shipping services, is
required to have access from major roads to avoid burdening traffic in residential
neighborhoods. All industrial uses are required to have well-designed, attractive buildings and
include landscaped buffers from adjacent uses.
ƒ
Mixed-Use: Land devoted to a mix of land uses that creates a denser cluster of activities through
the use of unique development and design standards. A mixed-use area typically pertains to the
development of a tract of land or structure with two or more different land uses such as, but not
limited to, residential, office, retail, public, or entertainment in a compact form.
ƒ
Public Institutional & Utility: Land devoted to government, public utility or other public
governing bodies. This land use designation also includes schools and churches.
ƒ
Parks & Open Space: Land devoted to public open spaces or other recreational space which is
not used for development purposes.
ƒ
Environmental Conservation Areas: Land devoted to the conservation of sensitive
environmental features such as floodplains, creeks and wetlands. In some cases, recreation and
open space opportunities may be provided in these conservation areas to create a continuous
“greenbelt” around the Village.
Open Space Opportunities: Conceptual areas anticipated for open space opportunities such as
parks and recreational areas. When combined with the Environmental Conservation Areas
described above and the extensive greenway corridors shown in the Framework Plan Map, these
Open Space Opportunities will form a network of open spaces providing a variety of recreational
opportunities that serve as connections between residential neighborhoods and other destinations
within the Village.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
83
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
84
Insert the Future Land Use Plan Map
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
85
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
86
Insert the Future Land Use Plan Map (Future Growth Area)
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
87
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
88
FUTURE LAND USE AREAS
The table below summarizes the land area coverage of the future land uses depicted on the Future
Land Use Plan Maps. As depicted on the primary Future Land Use Plan map, total residential land
uses comprise about 60% of total land area, with Single Family Detached Residential uses making
up the greatest percentage of all land uses (23.8%). Out of all non-residential land uses,
Environmental Conservation areas comprise the most land area at 11.8% with Business Parks
(8.2%)and Parks & Open Space (7.1%) following second and third, respectively. General
Commercial was fourth highest at 4.8%.
FUTURE LAND USE AREAS
Primary & Alternative Plans
Land Use
Estate Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
Single Family Attached Residential
Future Residential Growth Opportunity
General Commercial
Historic Commercial
Business Parks
Industrial
Mixed Use
Public Institutional & Utility
Parks & Open Space
Environmental Conservation
Right-Of-Way
Total Land Area
Primary Plan
Area (acres) percent of total
4,382.1
19.0%
5,474.5
23.8%
602.0
2.6%
3,298.6
14.3%
1,112.6
4.8%
53.7
0.2%
1,888.7
8.2%
671.1
2.9%
181.2
0.8%
541.9
2.4%
1,635.2
7.1%
2,717.4
11.8%
479.5
2.1%
23,038.5
100.0%
Alternative Plan
Area (acres) percent of total
3,239.9
14.1%
5,474.5
23.8%
602.0
2.6%
2,355.2
10.2%
1,704.9
7.4%
53.7
0.2%
3,154.1
13.7%
671.1
2.9%
181.2
0.8%
541.9
2.4%
1,635.2
7.1%
2,911.1
12.6%
513.7
2.2%
23,038.5
100.0%
Notes: The Primary Plan excludes the potential I-355 extension and third Chicago regional Airport. The Alternative Plan
includes both developments. The Future Growth Areas are not included in the future land use area calculations.
The Alternative Future Land Use Plan considers the I-355 extension and the third Chicago regional
airport. Total residential land uses decreased to about 51% but still comprise the majority of all
land area with single Family Detached Residential uses still representing the majority of all land
uses (23.8%). Business Parks (13.7%) replace Environmental Conservation (12.6%) as the largest
non-residential land area. General Commercial (7.4%) and Parks & Open Space (7.1%) were the
third and fourth highest, respectively.
The composition of land uses in both Future Land Use Plan Map alternatives demonstrates that
Frankfort will continue to maintain its predominantly single family residential character that will
preserve its current quality of life into the future. The relatively high percentage of Environmental
Conservation areas also indicates that the Village plans to continue its preservation of natural areas
and open spaces. In addition, both alternative plans demonstrate a healthy balance between
commercial and business parks/industrial areas, which will help strengthen and diversify the local
tax base. Overall, the right mix of land uses will enhance the Village’s high quality of life by
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
89
making Frankfort an attractive community in which to find a variety of residential, shopping,
employment, and recreational opportunities.
FUTURE LAND USE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
To determine the amount of land needed to accommodate future parks and schools, a “low” and
“high” estimate was calculated to account for a range in anticipated residential densities for each of
the four residential land use categories. For example, the Estate Residential category generally
includes properties zoned as ER (Estate Residential) or R-1 (Single Family Residential), which have
gross densities ranging from 0.8 du/ac to 1.5 du/ac. In the table below, a range of values based on
the range of gross densities was used in the calculation of land areas for future parks and schools.
The “low” value is considered to be conservative while the “high” value is considered to be a
maximum projection. The two tables below depict the residential land use capacity analysis for the
primary Future Land Use Plan (excluding the I-355 extension and the third Chicago regional airport)
under the assumption that the Village develops fully according to the plan. For the sake of
discussion, this section will refer to data for the primary Future Land Use Plan. The future land use
capacity analysis tables for the alternative Future Land Use Plan (including the I-355 extension and
the third Chicago regional airport) are located in the “Background Information” Binder. (Note: The
table below indicated gross population densities consistent with the definitions for the future land
use categories above. Calculation for expected population and estimated demand for parks and
schools takes into account land dedicated to public roads)
The population projection utilizes a ratio of 2.99 persons per household which was the average
household size in Frankfort per the 2000 U.S. Census. Estimates for school children is based on the
Illinois School Consulting Service/Associated Municipal Consultants 1966 data and the Park area
projections are based on National Park Association recommended standard of 10 acres per 1,000
population (Note: Frankfort’s park standard is currently 5.5 acres per 1,000 population).
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Future Land Use Plan - Primary Plan (Excludes Potential I-355 Extension and third Chicago airport)
Land Use
Classification
Estate Residential
Single Family Detached Res
Single Family Attached Res
Future Res Growth Opportunity
Total Residential:
Future Gross
Acres
(approx.)
4,382
5,475
602
3,299
13,757
Percent
of Total
Future Res
31.9%
39.8%
4.4%
24.0%
100.0%
Residential Density
Total Population
(du/ac)
Total Dwelling Units
Generated
(low)
(high)
(low)
(high)
(low)
(high)
0.80
1.5
3,506
6,573
10,447 19,588
1.5
1.7
8,212
9,307
24,471 27,73
45,830
1.7
3.25
1,023
1,957
3,050
0.80
1.5
2,639
4,948
7,864
14,745
15,237
22,784
45,832 67,897
-
Park Acres Total Elementary School Total Junior High
Total High School
Required
Aged Children
School Aged Children
Aged Children
Land Use
Classification
(low) (high)
(low)
(high)
(low)
(high)
(low)
(high)
Estate Residential
104
196
1,858
3,484
1,045
1,959
1,262
2,366
245
277
4,352
4,933
2,447
2,773
2,956
3,350
Single Family Detached Res
30
58
239
458
59
113
60
115
Single Family Attached Res
147
1,399
2,622
786
1,474
950
1,781
Future Res Growth Opportunity 79
458
679
7,848
11,497
4,338
6,320
5,229
7,613
Total Residential:
Notes:
Estimates for school age population based upon Illinois School Consulting Service/Associated Municipal Consultants, Inc. 1996 data
Average household size in Frankfort is 2.98 persons per household (2000 U.S.Census)
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
90
Future Parks
The table above shows that 13,757 acres of future residential land uses will generate a population
ranging between 45,832 and 67,897 residents. Furthermore, the table estimates that the Village
will need between 458 acres (conservative estimate) and 679 acres (generous estimate) of land for
future parks to accommodate the recreational needs of residents. Using the conservative estimate,
the projected population of 45,832 residents will require 458 acres of park space. The Frankfort
Park District currently has 120 acres of existing parks with 45 acres planned in the near future. This
leaves a balance of 293 acres to meet the projected park area requirements for future populations.
This balance of 293 acres can be divided among a variety of park sites, including tot lots, small
neighborhood parks, and larger Village-wide parks such as Commissioner’s Park and Main Park.
Undeveloped spaces dedicated as open space by developers (but not necessarily owned by the
park district) may also be included in this 293 acre calculation. The Open Space Opportunities
depicted on the Future Land Use Plan Map represent potential locations of these parks.
Future Schools
Using the same example above, the projected population of 45,832 residents will produce 7,848
elementary school aged children, 4,338 junior high school age children, and 5,229 high school age
children. Given the significant increase in school age population, it is evident that the Village will
need to work with the local school districts to establish additional schools to accommodate the
projected number of school children, particularly for the school district south of Steger Road.
Although new schools will be built as population growth warrants, it is imperative for the Village
and school districts to reserve adequate land to accommodate new school properties. Frankfort
School District 157-C has acquired two parcels for future school sites, with construction begun on
the 40 acre site at the northwest corner of Laraway Road/116th Ave. and another 35 acre parcel
located south of Laraway Road along the east side of Pfeiffer Road. In anticipation of future school
populations, Lincoln-Way School District (District 210) has acquired over 150 acres for three (3)
different sites within the District. The School Board is currently planning for a referendum in 2004
for the construction of one or more new
school campuses.
Peotone School
PROJECTED SCHOOL LAND AREAS
District #207-U recently completed a
Future Land Use Plan - Primary Plan
new high school campus which is
quickly reaching capacity. The District
Total Junior High
Total Elementary
Total High School
successfully passed a referendum in
School Acres
School Acres
Acres
Spring 2004 for operating expenses for
(low)
(high)
(low)
(high)
(low)
(high)
the 2004-2005 school year.
230
83
121
105
152
157
The table above lists the projected land area needed for school sites to accommodate the number
of school children projected from the capacity analysis. Total land area requirements will vary
depending upon the current capacity of existing facilities and boundaries between different school
districts. The greatest demands will be placed on school districts serving the area south of Steger
Road, as these areas are not constrained by boundaries of other communities or intergovernmental
boundary agreements, and has the most developable land.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
91
THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
Given the distinct character of the Historic Downtown District, this Plan identifies several unique
elements of the downtown area that warrant further description. A separate Future Land Use map
was developed for the Historic Downtown District to show these unique elements which includes
residential conversions along White Street, restaurant opportunities, and parking opportunities.
Each element is described in greater detail below.
ƒ
Residential Conversions. A residential conversion refers to the renovation of a residential
unit to accommodate a new use (e.g. retail, office, etc). Residential conversions typically
help redevelop an old or vacant site or make the buildings more compatible with adjacent
uses. In the case of Downtown Frankfort, residential conversions allow the Village to
convert some of its historic homes, particularly along White Street, for retail uses which
would help accommodate the growth of commercial and office uses downtown. By
encouraging conversions of historic homes along White Street, the Village would be able to
preserve the historic character along White Street while enhancing downtown commercial
opportunities. In order to retain the purpose prescribed by the H-1 Historic Zoning District,
any property that is renovated for residential conversion shall maintain its H-1 designation.
ƒ
Restaurant Opportunities. The Historic Downtown District offers a variety of destinations
such as specialty retail stores, locally owned businesses, small offices, residential homes,
civic buildings, and recreational areas. Although the downtown area is a distinct place to
visit for residents and visitors alike, it is imperative that the Village preserve the unique
character of its downtown by maintaining the viability of the existing uses as well as
enhancing them with new compatible uses. One such example is introducing a few
restaurants in the Historic Downtown District to create new destinations for residents and
non-residents visiting the downtown area.
The Village may wish to explore the option of establishing a restaurant similar to the former
Die Bier Stube Restaurant which attracted patrons from beyond Village limits. Such a
“destination” restaurant would not only attract out-of-town customers, but also would have
the potential to encourage customers to peruse other downtown shops and amenities before
or after their dining excursion. The vacant police station at Hickory and Kansas Street offers
an opportunity for such a “destination” restaurant. The Village is currently marketing the
property for restaurant leases.
In addition to the old Village Hall property, two other sites shown on the Historic
Downtown District Future Land Use map are depicted as recommended locations for
restaurant opportunities. The Village may wish to pursue these restaurant opportunities to
not only provide a variety of dining options, but also create a downtown lifestyle that
encourages visitors to dine and then stay a bit longer to explore the rest of the Historic
Downtown District.
ƒ
Parking Opportunities. As the Village strengthens the Historic Downtown District by
establishing new restaurants and attracting other new businesses, the need to provide
sufficient parking opportunities for visitors is essential. Two public parking lots currently
serve the downtown area. One is located east of White Street adjacent to the Prairie Park
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
92
and the other is located at Breidert Green. There are also opportunities for on-street parking.
Parking needs are often an issue of perception. Although a parking study would provide an
accurate assessment of “supply and demand”, the current relationship between parking
needs and supply is working successfully. The Historic Downtown District Future Land Use
map indicates two potential sites for future parking opportunities. These sites were
determined on a location basis and not based on a formal parking study.
Although not visually shown on the Historic Downtown District Future Land Use map, the Village
is encouraged to limit the amount of 1st floor office uses. Maintaining a predominately retail 1st floor
use ensures that pedestrians are provided direct access to stores from the sidewalk and businesses
are provided window space for displays. Sidewalk sales and outdoor dining options are two other
benefits of keeping retail uses at ground level. Office and residential uses as second floor uses are
not only compatible with the 1st floor retail uses, but provide necessary fiscal support and
additional patronage for the retail uses.
Limiting the amount of office uses in the downtown area allows the Village to minimize the amount
of non-revenue generating uses that locate in the Historic Downtown District. The encouragement
of a mixed use character in the Historic Downtown District maximizes the economic viability of
the downtown area. The Village may wish to investigate a revision to the Village Zoning
Ordinance to reflect a limitation of office uses in the Historic District.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
93
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
94
Insert the Future Land Use Plan Map for the Historic Downtown District
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
95
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
96
Part 3
Implementation
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
97
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
98
Section IX. Design & Development Guidelines
The Design and Development Guidelines presented are intended to establish standards whereby
new development will be evaluated to ensure that the high quality character of the Village is
maintained and enhanced. The application of the guidelines will also contribute to the long-term
vitality of Frankfort’s neighborhoods, commercial districts, and business areas by enhancing their
physical appearance. By conserving and creating a high quality environment with an inviting
image, the Village will not only create attractive use districts through sensible development and
design, but it will also enhance its high quality of life and experience a renewed vitality.
The Design and Development Guidelines described herein are intended as tools for
communicating the design intent for future development, rehabilitation, and redevelopment efforts,
and should be used in evaluating proposals. The goal is to create an attractive and distinct
community with an appealing atmosphere that reflects harmony and continuity in development and
design. The Village should ensure that all new developments in Frankfort follow the Design and
Development Guidelines in order to produce a unified community that promotes a harmonious
integration of multiple uses, cultivates a pedestrian-friendly environment, fosters civic pride and
ownership, and promotes a sense of place specific to Frankfort. The purpose of the Design and
Development Guidelines is not to dictate a specific design and development plan for the Village,
but rather establish a set of guiding principles and identify elements of design and development that
should be encouraged in Frankfort.
APPLICATIONS
As presented, the Design and Development Guidelines are intended to supplement the
development standards of the Village Zoning Ordinance and are not intended to be all-inclusive.
Other techniques or standards adopted by the Village may be used to satisfy the intent of the
requirements.
DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
Design and development review is a process intended to ensure that both new development and
redevelopment efforts enhance the visual quality and identity of the Village. The process helps
establish architectural and landscape principles and Design and Development Guidelines that
respect existing development trends, avoid adherence to a rigid style, and promote sensitive
rehabilitation of older buildings.
Although design and development review is related to building and zoning codes, each act in
different capacities during the development or redevelopment of properties. Building and zoning
codes regulate the use of property and set standards for building height, setback, and parking.
Design and development review, however, works to ensure that new construction, renovation, and
redevelopment efforts are compatible with the character of Frankfort.
Through development review, Village officials work together with builders, developers, and
property owners to protect identified community values through attention to simple design
principles.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
99
BENEFITS
Through the use of the Design and Development Guidelines, the Village, residents, property and
business owners, and visitors stand to benefit. Identified benefits include the following:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Protecting and strengthening investment in the Village and its developments;
Attracting business to the Village
Creating an environment friendly to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists;
Creating a positive community image;
Developing visually appealing and functional buildings;
Facilitating quality redevelopment of old assets;
Enhancing the community and its potential for the future;
Acting as a catalyst for facilitating sensible development and growth management.
DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The guidelines that follow are elements of site and building design that should be encouraged or
discouraged to ensure quality developments and enhance the physical elements of the Village. The
Village of Frankfort Design and Development Guidelines are arranged to address the following:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Site Design and Building Orientation
Architectural Design
Building Materials and Color
Landscape Design and Screening
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation and Access
Parking Configuration
Signs
Building and Site Lighting
Preparation of the Design and Development Guidelines was partly based on the results of the
Visual Preference Survey, which was conducted during the Visioning Workshop, to determine a
consensus on various design and development elements relating to residential, commercial, and
industrial developments. The Village Zoning Ordinance also provides guidance in preparing the
guidelines.
These guidelines are primarily intended as a reference to assist the property owner, designer, and/or
developer in understanding Frankfort’s goals and objectives for high quality development
throughout the Village. Furthermore, such guidelines compliment existing Codes, Ordinances, and
regulations already established and adopted by the Village of Frankfort.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
100
SITE DESIGN & BUILDING ORIENTATION
The following site planning guidelines primarily address the site plan of a development proposal
The guideline address the location of buildings and site features such as parking lots, open space,
and service areas. Thoughtful site planning can minimize a project’s impact on its neighbors,
increase the quality of the streetscape, and enhance a user’s experience of the site.
Commercial and Industrial Uses
ƒ
Orient all free-standing singular-use buildings towards the front setback line within a welllandscaped green area. Loading areas, drive-up windows, and parking areas are to be located
to the side or rear of the site.
ƒ
Ensure the design of a development, including the arrangement and placement of building and
site amenities, is created with a “human scale” and oriented to the pedestrian. Placement of
buildings close together oriented towards public areas help create attractive and safe areas for
pedestrians.
ƒ
Coordinate structures and on-site circulation systems to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts
and provide cross-access to adjacent properties.
Residential Neighborhoods
Integrate the site plan and extension of streets of all residential developments with the surrounding
neighborhood. Respect the established street network, environmental features, lot arrangements,
and building patterns (e.g. building materials, orientation, etc.) in proposed site designs. Avoid
separating a residential development from the rest of the neighborhood through the use of fences,
walls, or parking lots.
ƒ
Orient residential buildings toward the street with the main entrance having a more dominating
presence than the garage. Facing the main entrance along the street helps strengthen the
residential character of the streetscape and create a sense of neighborhood among residents.
ƒ
Locate garages and parking areas to the side or rear of the residential building to minimize their
visual impact on the site.
ƒ
Ensure that all residential developments have safe and close access to open space, which may
include parks, tot lots/playgrounds, and passive open spaces.
ƒ
Preserve existing natural features such as wetlands, creeks, trees, hedgerows and other
vegetation and incorporated, whenever possible, into site designs.
ƒ
Provide landscaping elements such as street trees, planters, flower beds, berms, and hedge rows
along the street and at neighborhood entryways to enhance the attractiveness of the
neighborhood. Plant materials that add color and form and that will complement the scale of
the residential buildings at maturity are recommended.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
101
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Common architectural guidelines and design elements applied throughout the Village will help
establish an attractive, unified visual image for the community. While the following guidelines
apply to all proposed new developments, renovations, and redevelopment efforts, architectural
innovation is encouraged within this framework.
Commercial and Industrial Uses
ƒ
Require non-signature or otherwise non-prototypical architecture of all commercial structures.
ƒ
Require all sides of buildings to be equally attractive. Incorporate architectural details such as
texture, pattern, color, and building form used on the front facade into all visible building
facades.
ƒ
Vary building massing to create a logical hierarchy of building forms; to break up long expanses
of facade; to create shade and shadow; and to create a “human scale” for each development.
ƒ
Create a horizontal emphasis through the use of trim, adding awnings, eaves, windows, and
architectural ornamentation, use of complementary colors, and landscape materials to break up
large, dominate structures.
ƒ
Create a human scale through the use of building massing form, as well as the use of
architectural elements such as colonnades, canopies, walkways, street-level display windows,
accent lighting, and a variety of building materials. The incorporation of site design features,
such as benches, planting beds, brick pavers, fountains, water features, bicycle racks, etc.,
around the building exterior will further reinforce human scale.
ƒ
Incorporate offsets and jogs into the roofline at the top of the structure to reduce the monotony
of an uninterrupted roof plane. Avoid long, uninterrupted wall or roof planes.
ƒ
Integrate signs, lighting, utilities and services into the building design.
ƒ
Provide appropriate proportions of transparent glass in the front entryway facing the street of
commercial building facades to promote visibility between the street and building interiors.
ƒ
Ensure window patterns are compatible with those in adjoining buildings, and that windows,
doors, eaves, and parapets are proportional and relate to one another.
ƒ
Require that each building or storefront have a clearly defined, highly visible entrance.
ƒ
The scale of buildings should be carefully related to adjacent or planned pedestrian areas and
other structures.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
102
Residential Neighborhoods (excluding Single Family Residential)
ƒ
Provide some form of usable exterior living space with multiple-family buildings and attached
single family residential developments in order to provide a sense of relief from the density of
multifamily living. Acceptable examples include courtyards, patios, and porches.
ƒ
Vary structure design and eliminate repetitive patterns in tract developments in order to avoid
an undesirable and monotonous streetscape.
ƒ
Develop human scaled structures reflective of traditional neighborhoods in order to avoid
overwhelming or dominating surrounding structures.
ƒ
Use the scale and proportion suggested by adjacent buildings in order to ensure that new
construction creates a unified streetscape.
ƒ
Choose a mix of materials on the facades of structures and garage doors that will work
harmoniously with adjacent materials.
ƒ
Use construction materials that are suitable with those used in neighboring buildings and do
not stand out in contrast to the rest.
ƒ
Break up facades in multifamily structures to give the appearance of a collection of smaller
structures. Balconies, setbacks and projections accomplish this.
ƒ
Design multifamily units to be individually identifiable to avoid monotony.
ƒ
Avoid long, unbroken facades and box-like forms for multifamily structures.
ƒ
Encourage vertical and horizontal articulation for sloped roofs.
ƒ
Design roof lines to be representative of the design and scale of the structure and surrounding
dwellings.
ƒ
Design accessory structures to be architecturally compatible with main structure, especially
where visible from the street.
ƒ
Orient garage away from the public right-of-way in order to conceal or minimize visual impact.
ƒ
Locate the garage at rear of lot or orient the garage door away from the street to avoid
dominating the façade.
ƒ
Encourage private access drives as a desirable way to hide individual garages for multifamily
structures.
ƒ
Encourage varied garage placements in order to avoid a monotonous streetscape.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
103
BUILDING MATERIALS & COLOR
Building materials and color are important elements that often dictate the aesthetic and physical
quality of a development. In order to assure the overall quality of development desired for the
Village, the following guidelines should be followed.
Commercial and Industrial Uses
ƒ
Use high quality exterior materials. Encourage the use of brick, wood, limestone, other native
stone, and tinted/textured concrete for commercial and industrial uses. Utilize Dry-vit, EIFS and
similar products for accent purposes only. Prohibit the use of smooth-faced concrete block, or
pre-fabricated steel panels as the predominant exterior building material.
ƒ
Permit dissimilar materials when incorporating other characteristics such as scale, form,
architectural detailing and color to make the building compatible with the area. For example,
concrete is often used on brick buildings to accentuate window trims or the division of multiple
floors.
ƒ
Consider life cycle and low maintenance requirements when selecting materials. For instance,
materials with integral color are generally recommended over materials that require painting.
ƒ
Require low reflectance, subtle, neutral, or earth tone façade colors. Prohibit the use of high
intensity, metallic, black, or fluorescent colors.
ƒ
Use care when selecting bright colors for building trim and other details/accents. Create
harmony with the overall color palette of the design. Discourage signature design elements or
colors. Prohibit neon tubing as an accent material.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN & SCREENING
Landscaping can be a visible indicator of quality development, and is particularly important to
passing motorists in commercial and industrial areas. Landscaping should be used as an
opportunity to visually tie an entire development together by screening parking or service areas,
accenting entryways, enhancing the appearance of buildings, buffering automobile traffic, creating
an attractive, shaded environment along street edges, parking interiors, and pedestrian
walkways/facilities, defining circulation for vehicles and pedestrians, and providing attractive
design elements of purely aesthetic function.
ƒ
Define entrances to buildings and parking lots, define the edges of various land uses, provide
transitions between neighboring properties (buffering), and provide screening for loading and
equipment areas.
ƒ
Ensure that landscaping is in scale with adjacent structures and of appropriate size at
installation and maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.
ƒ
Use raised planting surfaces, depressed walks, or curbs to protect landscaping from vehicular
and pedestrian encroachment.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
104
ƒ
Provide extensive landscaped areas and open spaces in office, industrial, and intensive
commercial areas to reduce the visual intensity of these developments.
ƒ
Visibility at drive and/or parking aisle intersections may not be obstructed by landscaping.
ƒ
Plant parking lots in order to minimize their presence and enhance their appearance. Locate
landscaping in a manner that provides visual relief, shading of the lot, green areas, and
screening, while ensuring that the lines-of-site are maintained, both at the time of planting and
at plant maturity. Encourage consolidated, large landscaped areas to break down the negative
visual negative impact of large asphalt areas.
ƒ
Parking lot screening from public rights-of-way and pedestrian walkways is required.
Encourage enclosed parking facilities to reduce the visual impact to the public right-of-way,
thereby enhancing views of Frankfort’s high quality architecture.
ƒ
Landscaped islands within parking lots are must improve the appearance of the site and the
overall on-site vehicular circulation patterns.
ƒ
Screen trash enclosures, HVAC equipment, utility boxes, meters, and loading/service areas
from adjacent properties, public rights-of-way, parking areas and pedestrian walkways.
ƒ
Construct a solid wall using the same material as the principle building in order to screen trash
enclosures. Locate trash enclosures towards the rear of the site, unless it can be determined
that a location within a side yard is more appropriate to the functioning of the establishment.
Under no circumstances is it permitted in a front yard.
ƒ
Use a parapet wall to screen roof equipment.
ƒ
Screen all other utility equipment and service areas with landscape material and/or fencing,
equal in height or taller than the equipment being screened.
PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE & VEHICULAR CIRCULATION & ACCESS
These guidelines are intended to provide improved circulation and reduced vehicular traffic conflict
by ensuring that circulation and access patterns create an integrated transportation network for
pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles.
ƒ
Provide convenient and attractive pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between all
areas including residential, retail/business, and recreational uses.
ƒ
Minimize the frequency of driveways and other access points in order to avoid conflicts with
other traffic patterns.
ƒ
Provide vehicular connections from a development site to adjoining streets, driveways, or other
circulation systems on adjoining sites.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
105
ƒ
Incorporate amenities and site furnishings such as water fountains, news racks, benches, trash
and recycling receptacles, way-finding signs, and bicycle parking facilities along pedestrian and
bicycle paths.
ƒ
Provide an internal pedestrian walkway from the perimeter public sidewalk to the principal
customer entrance. Distinguish this walkway from driving surfaces through the use of special
pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and the attractiveness of the
walkways.
ƒ
Provide clearly delineated pedestrian circulation paths from parking areas to building entries.
ƒ
Provide sidewalks along the length of any façade abutting designated parking areas.
ƒ
Enhance opportunities for bicycle/pedestrian mobility through site design strategies and
bicycle/pedestrian access ways that seek to shorten walking distances and increase accessibility
between uses.
ƒ
Incorporate bike racks or bike parking into all site designs, unless it can be determined that
such needs are adequately addressed on adjacent sites or along the public right-of-way.
ƒ
Provide bike paths and bike connections or link with other existing or proposed paths that
connect to the Old Plank Road Trail where appropriate.
ƒ
Ensure that the number and location of entrances for new developments are consistent with the
existing or planned design of major streets such as Route 30, Route 45, Laraway Road, and
Harlem Avenue. The specific locations of entrances are largely dependent upon the following
factors:
•
The location of existing or planned median breaks;
•
Separation requirements between the entrance and major intersections;
•
Separation requirements between other entrances;
•
The need to provide shared access with other sites;
•
The need to align with previously approved or constructed access points on the opposite
side of the street;
•
The minimum number of entrances needed to move traffic onto and off the site safely and
efficiently.
ƒ
Design entrance drives to provide efficient ingress and egress to the site free from parking
spaces backing into the drive.
ƒ
Encourage common driveways that provide vehicular access to more than one site.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
106
ƒ
Encourage shared parking between adjacent businesses and/or developments wherever
practical.
PARKING CONFIGURATION
Quality development areas provide a variety of convenient parking choices consistent with the
scale of the development, the location, and the types of businesses. A quality place allows flexible
parking arrangements such as on-street parking and shared parking to minimize an over supply of
parking. Large blocks/strips of uninterrupted parking detract from the appearance of a development
area and create a confusing and sometimes hazardous environment for both motorists and
pedestrians. Parking should not dominate the perceived image of a development, either from the
right-of-way or the interior experience of the pedestrian. Landscape and hardscape design elements
may serve to break up the interior experience into a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
ƒ
Discourage parking in the front yard setback for lots fronting directly on the street.
ƒ
Require increased landscaping and buffering to screen parking fields when it occurs in the front
yard of properties fronting the street.
ƒ
Separate parking aisles from vehicle circulation routes whenever possible.
ƒ
Require similar direction of travel and parking bays to reduce conflict where parking areas are
connected.
ƒ
Encourage the location of parking access points, whether located on front or side streets as far
as possible from street intersections so that adequate stacking room is provided. Limit the
number of access points to the minimum amount necessary to provide adequate circulation.
ƒ
Divide parking areas designed to accommodate a significant number of vehicles into a series of
connected smaller lots or “districts”. This is principally applicable to strip developments or
multiple tenants developments that share a common parking area.
ƒ
Separate parking areas from structures by a raised concrete walkway, landscaped strip, or
preferably both. Avoid arrangements where parking spaces directly abut structures.
ƒ
Use an opaque wall, landscaping, or combination of walls, berms, and landscaping material to
screen any parking at the entry periphery. Changing the grade of the parking lot from existing
street elevations may aid in obscuring views of automobiles while promoting views of
architectural elements of the on-site structure(s).
SIGNS
Signs are a key element to the overall image and character of a commercial or industrial area. The
types of signage that are typically associated with large commercial transportation corridors include
wall-mounted signs, site-specific monument, and directional signage of all shapes and sizes. The
Village should consider some of these types of signage and incorporate them into a signage
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
107
program that creates an environment that provides adequate information and way-finding assistance
without creating visual clutter or dominating the overall image of an area.
The shape, size, and scale of signs are indeed some of the most important features because they
have the most visual impact on the appearance of a corridor. Therefore, types of materials and sitespecific features, such as monuments, have a significant influence on building a high-quality
character for a corridor. The guidelines below outline measures that will help prevent visual clutter
and foster a strong community image.
ƒ
Require that signs are of scale and proportion in design and form a visual relationship to the
building and surroundings. Avoid applying signs to walls or windows in a way that may cause
interference with architectural details or disrupt the rhythm of the columns and fenestration.
Use signs of a size, location and design that does not obscure a building’s important
architectural details or overwhelm the architectural elements of the facade or building.
ƒ
Choose signage that is highly compatible and consistent with the building and site design
relative to color, material, placement, and forms used, and is in compliance with the Village’s
Sign Ordinance.
ƒ
Signs typically vary in size, vertical location, typeface, and color scheme. Require each sign
within a commercial or industrial area to be compatible with adjoining premises to ensure that
it does not compete for attention.
ƒ
Create visual continuity and quality development by limiting freestanding signs to ground or
monument signs designed with consistent design elements, such as a base material, height, and
lettering style. Pylon or pole signs within the corridor are prohibited.
ƒ
Require high quality, durable sign materials. All freestanding monument signs must have a
base and frame of masonry material complementary to the materials on the primary building
with which the sign is associated.
ƒ
Limit the number of colors. Encourage background colors that match the building color (or
neutral), and light graphics on a dark background.
ƒ
Encourage the use of flood lights attached on gooseneck fixtures from the top of the roof or top
of the sign, wall-wash lights mounted behind opaque sign letters or elements, and up-lights
mounted in an open area beneath the sign on wall-mounted signs.
ƒ
Encourage ground-lit monument signs. Prohibit high-intensity sign lights, back-lit box signs, or
the excessive external illumination of any sign.
ƒ
Prohibit flashing signs and signs that incorporate any type of movement, either in design or
display.
ƒ
Provide information simply and legibly with signs (wall signs, three dimensional words or
letters). The message should be clearly conveyed. Avoid complex type faces. Use the
minimum amount of graphic elements necessary to convey the sign’s primary message.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
108
BUILDING & SITE LIGHTING
Lighting has a significant influence on the appearance, sense of safety, and image of a
development. When applied, the following guidelines will enhance the sense of site continuity
and contribute to a pleasant, orderly development.
ƒ
Use lighting to provide illumination for the security and safety of on-site areas such as parking,
loading, shipping and receiving, pathways, and work areas.
ƒ
Allow building-mounted light fixtures for aesthetic and safety purposes only. They must direct
light upward or downward. Use lighting to highlight architectural features and create visual
interest.
ƒ
Code prohibits lighting that shines outward toward adjoining properties or street right(s)-of-way.
ƒ
Encourage parking lot light poles/fixtures of the same style, height, color, and intensity of
lighting throughout a development area. Varying styles of fixtures may be permitted if it is
demonstrated that the styles are compatible with and contribute to the overall lighting theme for
the area.
ƒ
Use cut-off lights wherever possible. In cases where globe lights are used, they should be of a
minimum height and intensity so as to minimize off-site glare.
ƒ
Maintain a pedestrian scale by mounting lighting units at minimal heights. Orient lighting
units at minimal heights when located adjacent to residential neighborhoods to distribute light
away from, not towards, residents.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
109
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
110
Section X. Special Area Plans
The development of the following special area
concept plans is primarily based on the theory
of place making, which is underscored by an
understanding that there is a certain “value”
added to a development when it is able to
distinguish itself from other developments in a
positive manner. The concepts and design
considerations presented promote the creation
of aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly
environments with enhanced architectural
quality that unifies the development site.
Combined with increased pedestrian activity
opportunities and the incorporation of site
amenities such as open spaces, plazas, and
other common and accessible features, the
prescribed concepts encourage the creation of
a distinct place with its own unique style, which ultimately makes it a desirable destination to visit
and revisit.
As highlighted on the map shown above, three areas of the Village have been selected for more
detailed analysis and recommendations due to the significance they have in the Village’s long-term
economic development, and because of the impact they have in defining the image of the
community. These three areas are:
1. Route 30 Mixed Use/Lifestyle Center
2. Historic Downtown District
3. Route 45/Laraway Road Development Area
The development concepts for these three special areas will serve to help better define the most
appropriate types and character of development for each area. The following descriptions are
written to complement the Design and Development Guidelines section of this plan, as well as
offer more detail than the concepts identified in the Village-wide Framework Plan and Future Land
Use Plans.
It is important to emphasize that the three Special Area Plans are only conceptual and are meant
to illustrate design and development principles. The conceptual site plans for each special area
describe the principal land uses, building and parking configurations, traffic circulation, density,
pedestrian oriented public and private spaces, site design and landscape design principles that
serve as the guiding planning principles for future design and development studies and
negotiations. These guidelines permit the Village to establish clear objectives for the special areas
without limiting other creative design or land use options in the future. The Special Area Plans are
not an inflexible statement of a specific development scheme that must be strictly adhered to. They
are examples of possible approaches that satisfy the planning principles set forth.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
111
SPECIAL AREA 1: ROUTE 30 MIXED USE/LIFESTYLE CENTER
With its location at the intersection of the Village’s busiest thoroughfares, and just north of
Frankfort’s downtown area, the area situated at the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 30
and Route 45 is a prime location for a high quality development that provides a mix of commercial
and office uses as well as housing options in the heart of the community. A “lifestyle center”
embodies such a development with its integrated mix of uses that accommodate an array of users in
a high quality environment reflecting the Village’s overall high quality character. Designed as a
mixed use complex, a lifestyle center exemplifies a comfortable multi-dimensional environment for
retail, business, civic, entertainment, and residential uses.
Mixed use developments such as lifestyle centers provide communities with the opportunity to
strengthen existing village centers or creating new ones to support an expanding suburban
population by offering the ambience and social aspects of traditional downtowns combined with
the quality housing, neighborhoods, recreation and open space opportunities that come with
suburban life. Providing decentralized shopping opportunities in mixed use suburban centers
proves even more important as more affluent income groups disperse more widely.
Mixed use developments strengthen the market for and economic performance of all uses within
the development in that they are mutually supportive and more successful than if they were
freestanding. Mixed use developments also provide joint and shared market opportunities and are
helpful to the owner during periods of cyclical demand for a particular use. In addition, these
developments provide lifestyle choices for an increasing number of people seeking to “downsize”
by moving from their single-family home into higher density housing in or near attractive village
centers that provide opportunities for entertainment and daily convenience needs.
Current national trends point to communities that are either renovating existing centers or building
new ones by making them more architecturally appealing, pedestrian friendly, and turning them
into mixed use community centers. Overall, the aim of this new trend is to diversify and create
more reasons for people to visit --- add enough complementary, traffic-generating uses (i.e. daycare,
playcare, senior citizen and teenage centers, civic uses, offices, housing, hotels, etc.) to achieve a
mixed use synergy needed to create a “Main Street” atmosphere.
The area located northeast of the intersection of Route 30 and Route 45 is an optimal spot for a
mixed use/lifestyle center due to its large continuous stretch of undeveloped land, its frontage along
and access to Route 30 and Route 45, and its central location within the Village. However, the
proximity to the Historic Downtown District points to the importance of creating a development
that does not compete with the shopping and entertainment options in the downtown area. With
creative site planning and design standards, developing a mixed use/lifestyle center in the core of
the Village can yield a development that is distinct from the downtown area but also has unifying
elements that tie the two areas together without overshadowing each other.
The following narrative provides insight into the existing conditions that currently characterize the
proposed site for the mixed use/lifestyle center development, the development market
opportunities presented by the development, and the development plan and site design guidelines
that will provide the foundation for a successfully planned and designed development.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
112
Existing Conditions
Most of the properties at the intersection of Route 30 and Route 45 are already developed with the
exception of the large stretch of undeveloped parcels east of the Enrico’s parcel along Route 30,
which has been targeted for a lifestyle center. The properties located at this high profile
intersection include a bank, a car dealership, gas station and restaurant with ancillary retail uses.
While there have been recent improvements to some of these properties at this intersection, there
remains opportunity for redevelopment especially for the properties located at the northeast corner
of the intersection. Some of the existing structures surrounding the intersection have been
impacted by the widening of Route 30 and may need to redevelop or seek lot consolidation
possibilities to keep them current with today’s development trends.
East of the intersection, approximately 700’, along the north side of Route 30 there is over 130
acres of vacant property. It is this group of undeveloped properties that provides an optimal
location for a lifestyle center. Adjacent land uses, the existing road network, and sensitive
environmental features (most notably Hickory Creek and its floodplain) will help determine the
physical layout of the site. Local market conditions and the desires of the community will help
determine the types of uses that will locate at the site.
Development Market Opportunities
The development of a major regional shopping destination is always a careful match between the
perceived quality of a market and site availability. The Framework Plan identifies the land
northeast of the intersection of Route 30 and Route 45 as a potential location for a “lifestyle center”,
which is the type of shopping development that requires this careful management of the match
between site and market potential. In planning for this area, it is not only necessary to reserve the
land for the actual development, it is important to allow for expansion and to establish a buffer of
supporting compatible uses. Compatible uses may include relatively dense housing and offices.
Currently, lifestyle centers consist of 400,000 to 600,000 square feet of store space on sites ranging
from 45 to 70 acres. Adjacent supporting uses should command as much nearby acreage as
possible to make the lifestyle center as successful as possible. A surrounding 50 acre business park
development would provide approximately 2,200 employees to the customer base that would
support the lifestyle center. Another 200 acres developed as upscale, condominiums and
townhomes could add 4,000 to 5,000 residents who would also support the center. With
landscaping and other public enhancements, this development needs a total area of at least 300
acres. Any additional land could be used to add more residential developments and thereby larger
populations of potential shoppers or to add amenities like hotels and theaters that would add to the
desirability and vitality of the site.
It is important to phase the uses in a project of this scale to ensure that each component achieves
success as quickly as possible. Since retail development typically follows residential growth, it
would be optimal to begin with the residential development and add the lifestyle center
concurrently with a second phase of residential development. The final phase would be the
establishment of the office uses since they are typically more attractive when shopping and dining
amenities are available. A project of this size and scope would be expected to build out over a 5
to 10 year period. Additional uses like hotels and theaters would be project options that would be
added if the initial phases are successful.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
113
Development Plan & Site Design Guidelines
Elements of Successful Suburban Retail Centers
Across the country communities and developers are finding that the conventional approach to
designing strip centers and the “over-retailing” of primary roads has resulted in a pattern of
development that is not sustainable. To address this problem, the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a
nationally recognized real estate research organization, brought together experts to analyze trends
and establish guidelines. In the ULI publication entitled Ten Principles for Reinventing America’s
Suburban Strips, several principles and recommendations presented below helped form the basis
for the conceptual site plan of the mixed use/lifestyle center development at Route 30:
ƒ
Respond to changing consumer preferences such as the growing interest in streetfront retail
uses in pedestrian-friendly environments.
ƒ
Adapt to emerging lifestyles such as the growing interest in mixing residential and retail
uses in well-designed environments.
ƒ
Provide a sense of community by providing public gathering spaces and a more livable
environment with more convenience in day-to-day life.
ƒ
Scale retail-zoned land to reflect a realistic assessment of the size, strength, and character of
the market.
ƒ
Stimulate new forms of mixed use and pedestrian-oriented retail development on retailzoned land.
ƒ
Reserve some land typically reserved for retail for housing, office, recreational and open
space opportunities.
ƒ
Limit opportunities for predatory behavior of competing big box developments that
undermine the vitality of existing businesses.
ƒ
Use key intersections to create a core of development that is a unique point of reference
and a node of intense activity.
ƒ
Consolidate driveways and interconnect parcels to allow vehicular and pedestrian
movement without going out onto the arterial road.
ƒ
Design intersections and access points that simplify and coordinate signal sequences and
minimize congestion.
ƒ
Encourage shared parking among adjacent uses.
ƒ
Provide parking in a carefully designed landscape.
ƒ
Design attractive gateways into the development.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
114
ƒ
Arrange the diverse land uses in a manner that encourages walking and discourages driving
for short errands and trips.
Conceptual Site Plan
Two conceptual Site Plans of the proposed Route 30 Mixed Use/Lifestyle Center are shown on
pages 104 and 105. As illustrated on the plans, the mixed use/lifestyle center development concept
can encompass up to 242 total acres and include the following components:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lifestyle Center: between 380,000 and 500,000 square feet of retail uses with
restaurants primarily fronting Route 30 and general retail uses located along a “Main
Street” corridor
Townhomes and Condominiums: various densities up to 335 units with rear-loaded or
underground parking
Senior Housing: up to 20 acres of independent and dependent senior housing
Office Park Campus: 16 office lots with potential for a 3-story hotel
Large –Scale Campus: approximately 270,000 square feet of retail uses
The proposal to locate a “lifestyle” retail center near the northeast corner of Route 30 and Route 45
is consistent with the community’s desire to create an attractive, high quality image at this central
location in Frankfort. Although ”Large –Scale” retailers desire similar locations, the decision to
reserve the corner site for a lifestyle center will confine the more aggressive pursuit of the larger
retailers to a location further east of the intersection. A location either adjacent to the lifestyle
center or separated by office uses as depicted in scenario A, provides an appropriate and
marketable location for over 270,000 square feet of large – scale retail space and avoid the
congestion at the Route 30/Route 45 intersection. The future Pfeiffer Road extension to Route 30
will also help alleviate some of that traffic from Route 30.
The benefit of the residential component of the mixed use development provides the opportunity
for residents living in the townhomes and condominiums to be within walking and biking distance
of shopping opportunities at the lifestyle center as well as employment opportunities at the office
park. The walkability aspect presented by the central location of the residential component in
Scenario A creates a pedestrian-friendly environment. In addition, the residential component
enhances the viability of retail business offered by both the lifestyle center and the large-scale retail
campus by adding to the pedestrian market. In scenario B, the proximity of office uses to shopping
opportunities provides pedestrian opportunities as well.
Access, circulation and parking are three key elements that helped shape the design of the mixed
use development north of Route 30. Entrances into the mixed use development are intended to
align with existing roads along the south side of Route 30 to create continuous coordinated access
into the development. IDOT requires a minimum distance of 1,300 feet between signalized
intersections along a Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) such as Route 30. In the case that a
signalized intersection is not feasible, the entrance/exit to the mixed use development shall be
designated right-in/right-out.
Entrances into the lifestyle center from Route 30 lead into “corridors” with visual and physical
connections to the lifestyle center’s two “commons” areas. The two lifestyle center commons in
both scenarios provide visual and physical anchors to the pedestrian-friendly access road in
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
115
between the retail buildings to create a pedestrian-friendly “Main Street” atmosphere. In scenario A,
this “Main Street” corridor within the lifestyle center terminates at the residential neighborhood
commons that is strategically framed by the townhomes and condominiums integrating both
developments. In addition to the “Main Street” corridor, a continuous access road within the
development allows a visitor or resident to travel from one side of the development to the other
without having to get back onto Route 30. The future extension of Pfeiffer Road provides an
alternative access road leading into the mixed use development for visitors coming from Route 30
as well as residents visiting from the neighborhoods to the north. In Scenario B, the proximity of
the larger retailer to the lifestyle center, provides a “critical mass” often considered necessary in
attracting some of the smaller upscale retailers in a lifestyle center. Although access is provided
between the two retail areas, the “Main Street” image is distinct and separate from the larger retail
campus.
A proposed realignment of White Street is another significant point of access that provides the
opportunity to link the mixed use/lifestyle center development with the Village’s Historic
Downtown District. White Street presently runs in a straight north-south direction connecting the
Route 30/Route 45 intersection with Nebraska Street in the downtown core. A realignment of
White Street would provide not only a physical connection between the north and south sides of
Route 30 but also a visual connection with unifying landscaping features and architectural elements
on both sides of Route 30. As dictated by the IDOT standard for signalized intersections along a
SRA, the entrance into the mixed use development at the White Street realignment shall be
designated as right-in/right-out since the distance between the Route 30/Route 45 intersection and
the White Street realignment is less than the required 1,300 feet. However, due to the significance
of the White Street realignment connecting the Historic Downtown District to the mixed use
development, the Village may choose to work with IDOT to establish a signal at this important
intersection.
It will be important to not let the parking fields in either scenario dominate the development. The
use of attractive structures designed with compatible architecture to screen parking areas along with
significant setbacks from Route 30 and 45 and landscaped buffers will all serve to minimize the
impact of large areas of asphalt.
Phasing
Due to the multiple land owners holding the properties upon which the potential mixed
use/lifestyle center development would be built, appropriate phasing of the entire development is
imperative to ensure that the pieces of the overall project successfully merge to form a unified and
cohesive development while adequately satisfying the needs of all parties involved. Successful
development of the mixed use area north of Route 30 hinges upon two essential factors: (1)
establishing a single master plan for the lifestyle center and residential components (ideally
managed by a single developer), and (2) appropriate phasing of the overall development.
Establishing a single master plan for the various uses proposed in both scenarios ensures that the
two components are developed with each other in mind. In other words, rather than developing
each component as its own separate project, the objective is to have one developer create a single
master plan for the various uses in such a way that they relate to each other as part of a larger
integrated project.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
116
Due to the current attractive housing market it is anticipated that the demand for residential
development will occur ahead of the retail component for the mixed use center. In addition, the
property owners of the approximately 9 acres at the northeast corner of Route 30 and 45 currently
have a proposal under Village review. These initial phases would likely be followed by the
development of the rest of the mixed use development in conjunction with a second phase of
residential development. Once these components are fully developed and the shopping and dining
amenities are well-established, the office park campus is most likely to follow. Although the larger
retail users can be phased in at any time, it may be necessary to develop it simultaneously with the
initial phase to satisfy current desires for big box developments along Route 30 and provide the
necessary critical mass for the lifestyle center.
Site Design Guidelines
Although multiple land ownerships will segment the development of the lifestyle center into
phases, it is imperative to create a set of uniform design criteria to ensure that the fully constructed
lifestyle center will have a unified and cohesive appearance. The following site design guidelines
provide a set of general design standards that should be enforced during the development of the
mixed use/lifestyle center. Adherence to these site design guidelines will ensure that the mixed
use/lifestyle center development is designed at the highest quality expected by the Village.
Access, Parking and Circulation
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Access for the lifestyle center should be limited to one access point off of Route 45.
Access off of Route 30 should be limited to a minimum to ensure the least number of curb
cuts with signalized intersections spaced at a minimum of 1,200 feet.
Wherever and whenever feasible, all newly proposed access points must be aligned with
existing and/or proposed access points.
A realignment of White Street should be considered to provide a physical and visual
connection between the lifestyle center and the Historic Downtown District.
All proposed access points for non-residential uses that do not align with existing or
proposed points of access, are permitted to serve only “right-in and right-out” access, unless
it can be determined that full access will not impede traffic and development in the area.
Shared parking is encouraged between neighboring uses.
Wherever and whenever feasible, vehicular and pedestrian cross access should occur
between adjacent uses.
Interconnected sidewalks must be provided for all uses and, when feasible, should connect
to existing sidewalks.
Architecture & Site Design
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
All structures proposed to be located along Route 30 should be oriented with their primary
entrances facing the central, shared parking field.
Buildings should be designed and oriented so as to frame the primary entrances to the
associated parking fields.
Building façades fronting Route 30 should be well-designed with appropriate use of
windows, building materials, architectural features, signage, and landscaping regardless of
the location of the primary entrance.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
117
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
If applicable, all proposed banks should orient their drive-through service lanes behind the
principle building, minimizing views from principal roads.
Drive-thru service lanes should be oriented away from principal streets whenever possible.
All restaurants should relate to the primary street with parking provided behind or to the
side of the structure.
All structures should be similar in style, design and architecture; however, it should not be
so similar as to create monotony.
A wide, interconnected sidewalk network should be encouraged for all uses.
Parking areas shall be limited in size with interconnections provided. Landscaped islands
shall be aggregated to provide distinct parking areas rather than large open parking
expanses.
A potential realignment of White Street should provide landscaping features and
architectural elements on both sides of Route 30 to provide both a physical and a visual
connection between the lifestyle center and the Historic Downtown District.
Outdoor seating, plazas, courtyards, and green spaces are encouraged to increase
opportunities for social gatherings and to foster activity and create an attractive, lively
environment.
All materials and colors should match or complement the ones adorning other adjacent
structures and uses.
All structures should be designed to incorporate landscaping features and open space.
Where feasible, detention should be shared among surrounding uses, and should be
designed as attractive amenities incorporating best management principles, including the
use of native prairie plants to enhance water quality. Wet bottom ponds are preferred.
Setbacks & Landscaping
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
A minimum fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way containing a landscaped buffer must
be provided along Route 30 and Route 45 for commercial development sites.
A minimum one hundred (100) foot setback from the right-of-way containing a landscaped
buffer must be provided along Route 30 for office parks.
A minimum sixty (60) foot setback from the right-of-way containing a landscaped buffer
must be provided along Route 30 for residential structures.
Enhanced landscaping and berm treatments must be provided between incompatible
proposed and existing uses.
All principle access lanes for large-scale developments must contain a landscaped median.
Street trees must be provided for all development proposals.
All areas proposed to accommodate parking must provide landscaped islands and trees.
All areas proposed as detention must contain landscaping along the periphery.
The design of landscaped areas should appear natural and be maintained in its natural
condition. Native plant material shall dominate the plant selection. The use of bio-swales,
previous pavement and other progressive storm water techniques shall be encouraged.
Open Space/Natural Areas
ƒ
ƒ
Site layouts and building orientations must respect existing site conditions.
Whenever possible, existing tree masses and tree lines should be maintained with any
proposed development to preserve and protect the local natural environment as well as to
enhance the buffer between adjacent uses
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
118
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Open space -- either natural or man-made (such a plazas, outdoor seating areas, etc) -should be incorporated into all proposed uses.
Proposed detention areas should be designed as to serve both functional and aesthetic
purposes and should incorporate best management principles, including the use of native
prairie plants to enhance water quality. Wet bottom ponds are preferred to provide
potential recreation opportunities.
All delineated floodplains and wetlands must be preserved and protected from adverse
impacts of proposed developments.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
119
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
120
Insert the Conceptual Site Plan Alternative #1 for the Route 30 Mixed Use/Lifestyle Center
Development
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
121
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
122
Insert the Conceptual Site Plan Alternative #2 for the Route 30 Mixed Use/Lifestyle Center
Development
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
123
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
124
SPECIAL AREA 2: HISTORIC DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
The Historic Downtown District is one of the most defining features of the community. As
identified on the Framework Plan, the Historic Downtown District is viewed as Frankfort’s Village
Center and will continue to provide a variety of mixed use opportunities. Presently, the Historic
Downtown District provides a true mix of uses including residential, commercial, office,
recreational, and civic uses. Designating the downtown area as Frankfort’s Village Center helps
ensure that the present mixed use character of the Historic Downtown District will be maintained.
The role of the Historic Downtown District as one of Frankfort’s primary focal points will also be
preserved.
Existing Conditions
As depicted on the Village Zoning District Map, parts of the Historic Downtown District run along
White Street; however, the majority of the district is primarily concentrated in an area bounded by
Elwood Street on the north, White Street on the east, Nebraska Street on the south, and Hickory
Street on the west. The Historic Downtown District is fairly established with unique street signage,
historic retail stores, and a mix of other uses including residential, office, civic, and other
commercial uses. However, as the Village continues to develop and redevelop, the importance of
the Historic Downtown District remains the same but its role as a mixed use center in the heart of
the community will need to continue to adapt to keep up with Frankfort’s growth and development.
In addition, as residential developments are established in and around the downtown area, the
need for additional commercial, office, and recreational uses to support the residential growth also
becomes essential. As the central area of Frankfort grows and develops, the need to expand the
Historic Downtown District becomes important in the long-term sustainability of a healthy yet
growing downtown core.
Development Market Opportunities
As outlined in the Framework Plan, the Historic Downtown District is an important asset to the
Village. It provides a historic anchor that defines the Village as more than just a “bedroom”
community. Although Downtown Frankfort once was the commercial center of a large rural area, it
is now a unique shopping, dining and entertainment experience that provides an alternative to the
sameness of newer mall environments. However, as development occurs, its competitive niche in
the region must be preserved and enhanced. The planning elements that contribute to this unique
environment are the grid pattern streets, continuous commercial façades on key streets, multiple
story developments, two-sided retail, recreation and open space areas, access to bike paths and a
pleasant pedestrian environment. Enhancements that can modernize these characteristics without
harming the image include outdoor dining and well screened parking lots. The area would also be
strengthened by increasing the residential and employee population within a one mile radius and
improving connections to compatible attractions like the Old Plank Road Trail and a potential
lifestyle center to the north along Route 30. The planning challenge inherent to the future of
Downtown Frankfort is retaining its historic ambiance while enhancing its market position and
draw by adding new uses, employees, and residents.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
125
In the Framework Plan, Downtown Frankfort was shown to have a pedestrian population that is
700 to 1,800 residents less than the populations of downtowns in comparable communities that
have reached full build out. To make a significant addition to the nearby downtown population on
the limited land that is available, new developments would likely be townhomes and
condominiums which are currently not available in the less dense single-family subdivisions in
other areas of Frankfort. With approximately two persons per household, it would take 350 to 900
units on 20 to 56 acres to bring Downtown Frankfort’s population in line with those in comparable,
more-developed communities. To find the necessary land, developers would need to acquire
undeveloped parcels or adjacent large lots that can be redeveloped. If the townhomes were
consistent with the local market, they would contain two or three bedrooms and upscale prices of
$350,000 and up. The key to building a stronger, pedestrian-oriented customer base for
Downtown Frankfort is encouraging residential development on vacant or underutilized sites
outside the commercial core and allowing properties to be redeveloped as new residences more in
keeping with the historic style of the original development.
The recently announced infill development on the Die Bier Stube site, two stories with a 5,200square-foot restaurant and bar on the first floor and 5,200 square feet of office space on the second,
is an ideal model for new development in the historic core of Downtown Frankfort. It is in scale
with the surrounding uses and the design was carefully crafted to fit the area’s historic character.
The developer also has found tenants as a preliminary step to finalizing the design. As the Village
considers redevelopment of the historic police station/Village Hall property it should seek a
developer prepared to follow the same tenant driven process. Ideally, there could be another
significant restaurant that would continue the rejuvenation of Downtown Frankfort’s restaurant
destination image. The customers of restaurants add nighttime visits that support extended hours
by nearby stores increasing their profitability. Parking is easily shared with daytime office uses
reducing the total demand for land devoted to lots. If other land in the historic core becomes
available, the new construction should focus on ground floor restaurants because it allows the
building of space for a modern kitchen, ventilation and ADA compliant dining space. Before efforts
to expand Downtown Frankfort are implemented, it is important for the Village to fill existing
businesses and vacancies with new infill development as well as replace existing office uses that
currently interrupt the flow of a downtown shopping experience.
As the traffic builds from the renewed dining cluster and new retail/restaurant uses fill vacant and
office uses, demand will rise for additional retail uses. New stores could be accommodated by
converting historic homes to the north along White Street for retail uses. By expanding Downtown
Frankfort along White Street rather than along Kansas Street, a natural bridge to the potential
lifestyle center development on the north side of Route 30 is created. Like the restaurants in the
core, the added businesses should be established operators opening a second store or adding a
retail operation to an existing successful service. For example, a local decorator may open a home
accessories store and continue to have an office in one of the converted properties. Creative
industries like quilting or scrapbooking where products are sold and classes conducted would be
additional examples of uses appropriate to the expanded area.
Downtown Frankfort’s economic strength will be enhanced by the expansion of the population and
the addition of new nearby quality shopping opportunities that increase the community’s regional
drawing power. Regional shopping destinations such as Orland Park, Oak Brook, and Schaumburg
have an image that attracts a larger number of customers seeking more selection and better quality
than is available close to home. If Frankfort is able to attract the lifestyle center north of downtown,
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
126
it would acquire a regional image as the upscale alternative to mall shopping. Downtown
businesses could benefit from exposure to the new customers attracted by that image. Asking
customers to add a stop for lunch or antiquing in Downtown Frankfort is easier when they are
already shopping a short distance away than attracting them to visit only downtown. The keys to a
successful sharing of customers between Downtown Frankfort and new developments are effective
signage and easy access.
Development Plan
The Special Area Plan Map for the Historic Downtown District is shown on page 110. In addition
to specifying the future land use designations for the Historic Downtown District, the map identifies
the opportunities that would help enhance the vitality of the Historic Downtown District. These
opportunities include:
ƒ
Extending White Street. White Street presently runs in a north-south direction connecting
Nebraska Street to the Route 30/Route 45 intersection. By extending White Street in a
northeasterly direction to realign with the Route 30/95th Street intersection, White Street
would provide a direct physical and visual linkage from the proposed mixed use/lifestyle
center north of Route 30 to the Historic Downtown District. This connection will also
strengthen the expansion of commercial uses along White Street.
ƒ
Expanding the Historic Commercial land use designation. Although the businesses located
within the present areas designated as Historic Commercial provided a variety of goods and
services to residents and visitors, the vitality of the Historic Downtown District would be
enhanced by expanding the areas designated as Historic Commercial to provide new
businesses that make their home in buildings with the same type of charm and history that
have made the Historic Downtown District such a valuable asset to the Village. In addition,
the expansion of the Historic Commercial land use designation in the area located southeast
of the Route 30/White Street intersection would help form a natural bridge between the
downtown core to the proposed mixed use/lifestyle center north of Route 30.
ƒ
Converting historic homes for retail uses. To accommodate the growth of the Historic
Downtown District, more buildings need to be available for businesses to set up shop.
Maintaining the downtown area’s charm and connections to Frankfort’s past is important.
Converting homes of historic character for retail uses or adding new buildings that reflect
this established historic character should be required.
Furthermore, the potential
conversion of historic homes for new businesses is consistent with the expansion of the
areas presently designated as Historic Commercial. A bed and breakfast market also needs
to be investigated and encouraged in this area to continue the goal of intensifying uses in
this area and the creation of a 24 hour district.
ƒ
Establishing new restaurant sites. In the past, the Die Bier Stube restaurant helped establish
the Historic Downtown District as a destination for not only local residents but also out-oftown visitors. The Historic Downtown District can reclaim its former restaurant destination
image by establishing the type of restaurants within the historic core area that draw patrons
from not only the Village but the region as well. A steady customer base for a new cluster
of downtown restaurants would also have a positive impact on the customer base for other
businesses in the Historic Downtown District.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
127
ƒ
Providing more residential development opportunities. In order to generate a solid
pedestrian customer base to support businesses in the Historic Downtown District, more
people need to live within walking distance to the downtown area. By establishing new
higher density residential developments on vacant or underutilized sites in the downtown
area, a pedestrian customer base will be infused into the Historic Downtown District which
will, in turn, foster a stronger pedestrian-friendly downtown environment.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
128
Insert the Special Area Plan Map for the Historic Downtown District
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
129
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
130
SPECIAL AREA 3: ROUTE 45/LARAWAY ROAD DEVELOPMENT AREA
Both Route 45 and Laraway Road are major regional arterial roads that support large volumes of
traffic throughout the Village. As identified on the Framework Plan, the proposed developments for
the intersection of these two roads are split by Route 45 with a neighborhood level commercial
development center on the west and an employment/business opportunity on the east. A
neighborhood level commercial development center, which generally serves a market within a 1 to
2 mile radius, provides goods and services that local residents need on a regular basis. This type of
commercial center is primarily characterized by small-scale anchor stores (i.e. pharmacies,
convenience stores, video stores, etc) with supporting small-scale retailers or services. An
employment/business opportunity generally pertains to office and industrial developments that
generate a significant number of jobs as well as provide an industrious and attractive environment
in which to conduct business.
Existing Conditions
Agricultural uses presently characterize the east side of Laraway at the intersection of Route 45.
however there are a variety of uses along the Laraway Road as you travel east, including, heavy and
light industrial uses, both to the north and to the south of Laraway Road, office uses and some
distinct isolated uses such as a bus transportation company and landscaping facility. There are
plans for a proposed industrial park just east of 108th Avenue and a mobile home subdivision is
located further south at the northeast corner of Steger Road and Route 45.There is also a significant
drainage way (tributary to Jackson Creek) located further south of the Laraway Road intersection
that encumbers the area midway between Laraway and Steger Roads,
West of Route 45, there is an existing retention pond at the northwest corner and a Gas City service
station at the southwest corner. The Heritage Knolls residential subdivision, a small garden center,
and an indoor soccer complex with minor retail uses are located northwest of the retention pond.
There are approximately 100 acres of vacant land used for agricultural purposes surrounding the
Gas City. Residential uses dominate the Laraway Road frontage as you travel west, except for the
intersection at Wolf Road which has a commercial development at the northwest corner. The
remaining corners at Wolf Road are planned for commercial uses as well.
Development opportunities exist west of Route 45 on both corners. At the northwest corner,
behind the retention pond there are 8-10 acres zoned B-2, Community Business. At the southwest
corner the 100 acres surrounding the existing Gas City service station offer a variety of
opportunities for development
Development Market Opportunities
Due to the physical division formed by Route 45, developments opportunities on the west side of
Route 45 differ from opportunities on the east side. The predominance of residential uses to the
west of Route 45 dictates a neighborhood-oriented commercial uses for both the northwest and
northeast corners of the intersection conversely, locating office and industrial uses on the east side
of Route 45 is consistent with the existing and future office and industrial uses evident along
Laraway Road Since the overall development of the entire special area has a dual character, the
development concepts for the two sides are discussed separately below.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
131
Neighborhood Commercial Center (west of Route 45)
This special study area is designed to be a neighborhood-oriented retail node that provides
convenient goods and services to nearby residents and workers. The key to a successful
development is providing the appropriate scale and adequate and efficient access. The
appropriate scale or size of the development is dependent on the demographics of the
market area or number of customers and the convenience uses they can support. Access is
auto-oriented for heavy, bulky or awkward items or those goods and services most
conveniently obtained at the beginning or end of a commute. Pedestrian/bicycle access is
necessary to serve nearby residents who exercise or want their children to be able to safely
use the services in the center. These parameters suggest that any commercial development
located on the west side of the intersection develop with pedestrian access to adjacent
residential areas.
The ultimate size of a neighborhood-oriented development at this site is estimated at
30,000 to 40,000 square feet with 75 to 80% occupied by anchor businesses. Those
anchor businesses would occupy 10,000 to 15,000 square feet each and include such uses
as banks, convenience stores, day care centers, restaurants or video rental facilities. The
balance of the space would be filled with 1,000 to 3,000 square feet service uses like hair
care, dry cleaning, specialty food service or carry out and professional offices. The total
land area required including parking, landscaping and detention is estimated at 5-7 acres.
Parks and open space opportunities help to enhance the attractiveness of the development.
Such amenities would provide recreation space and facilitate the development of pedestrian
access from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Open space opportunities would also
buffer the more intense commercial uses from adjacent residences.
Phasing and the construction of access to this site are dependent on the build out of nearby
land. Currently there are approximately 1,700 residents within one mile of this site and
traffic counts are approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. This type of center generally
requires a neighborhood of 3,500 to 5,000 residents and average daily traffic count above
15,000 on the major access road. The existing Heritage Knolls and Autumn Fields
residential developments provide some of the customer base needed to support the
commercial development, however fall short of the recommended population. It is feasible
for the development to commence slightly in advance of those market conditions given the
fact that the residential component (i.e. a future residential development just east of the
Autumn Falls development) and traffic generated by the future retail and office uses factor
into these market conditions. With other approved subdivisions planned in this area, it is
reasonable to expect development of this site in the next 2 to 4 years.
Office Parks (east of Route 45)
As stated above, the east side of Route 45 is more appropriate for the development of office
or industrial uses, which would help maintain the office/industrial environment already
being created along the Laraway Road corridor. In particular, three separate office parks are
identified using physical boundaries such as roads and floodplains. One of the office parks
is located on a triangle site bounded by Route 45 on the west, Elsner Road on the east, and
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
132
Laraway Road on the south. The other two office parks are located south of Laraway Road
but are separated into two individual sites as delineated by the floodplain.
Through the use of increased setbacks, landscaped berms and detention areas some of the
structures in the office complexes can exceed the typical height limits of current office
buildings in Frankfort. The Village recently created an Office/Research (OR) zoning district
that will allow buildings up to 60’ in height. The office park should be designed as an
integrated campus-like environment with imaginative landscaping and screening, controlled
access and extensive setbacks. The complexes south of Laraway may accommodate 3-5
story structures due to the additional landscape buffering and building setbacks.
Development Plan & Site Design Guidelines
Conceptual Site Plan
The Conceptual Site Plan of the proposed Route 45/Laraway Road commercial and office
development area is shown on page 116. As indicated on the site plan, approximately 134,000
square feet of commercial space is proposed along the west side of Route 45. Retail stores and
service/office uses are proposed north of Laraway Road with additional retail stores and restaurants
shown south of Laraway Road. Existing and future residential neighborhoods are integrated with
these commercial uses at the northwest and southwest corners of the Route 45/Laraway Road
intersection.
Although it is feasible to expand these commercial uses to cover a larger area and offer more
businesses, there comes a critical point where expanding the commercial uses would start to
detract from other commercial nodes elsewhere in the Village. For instance, adding a specialty
food store to the presently proposed mix of commercial uses may enhance the viability of the Route
45/Laraway Road commercial node, but it may be at the expense of competing with an existing
specialty food store or displacing it from one part of the Village to another. Therefore, expanding a
commercial node solely based on the notion that there’s enough land to accommodate such an
expansion is not always the best option if unhealthy competition or displacement of businesses
occur. Based on a careful market analysis of the area around the Route 45/Laraway Road
intersection, the presently proposed mix of commercial uses at this intersection is the most
sustainable form of development long term.
Some of the principles and recommendations presented in the ULI publication entitled Ten
Principles for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips that were followed for the Route 30 mixed
use/lifestyle center development were also followed for the commercial uses for the Route
45/Laraway Road development area. Using key intersections to create a core of development,
encouraging shared parking, creating attractive gateways into a development, and consolidating
driveways to allow safer and more efficient vehicular movement are intended to create a cohesive
development catering to the needs of the community and nearby residential areas, this results in the
creation of a, high quality image for the southern gateway to the Village along Route 45.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
133
Site Design Guidelines
The following site design guidelines provide a set of general design standards that will need to be
enforced during the development of the Route 45/Laraway Road development area. Adherence to
these site design guidelines will ensure that the commercial and office developments are designed
at the highest quality expected by the Village.
Access, Parking and Circulation
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Limit access for the commercial development sites west of Route 45 from Laraway Road
(Route 45 should only be used in cases where access from this road is unavoidable).
Limit access for the office parks east of Route 45 from Elsner Road (Laraway Road and Route
45 should only be used in cases where access from these two roads is unavoidable).
No more than two (2) new curb cuts for each of the individual commercial development
sites.
No more than one (1) new curb cut for access to each of the office parks.
Wherever and whenever feasible, align all newly proposed access points with existing
and/or proposed access points.
Limit access points to future commercial development sites along Laraway Road to the two
existing access points (Heritage Drive and Regency Drive) along Laraway Road
Limit all proposed access points for non-residential uses to “right-in and right-out” only if
they do not align with existing or proposed points of access, , unless full access will not
impede traffic and development in the area.
Encouraged shared parking between neighboring uses.
Encouraged vehicular and pedestrian cross access between adjacent uses.
Interconnect sidewalks with existing sidewalks.
Architecture & Site Design
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Orient structures located along Route 45 toward the central, shared parking field.
Buildings should be designed and oriented so as to frame the primary entrances to the
associated parking fields.
Encourage high quality architectural design for building façades fronting Route 45 including
the appropriate use of windows, building materials, architectural features, signage, and
landscaping regardless of the location of the primary entrance.
Orient drive-through service lanes behind the principle building and away from public
ROW, minimizing views from principal roads.
.
Provide a positive relationship between, restaurants and the public right-of-way with
parking provided behind or to the side of the structure.
Design structures so that they are similar in style, design and architecture; however, it not
so similar as to create monotony.
Create a wide, interconnected sidewalk network for all uses.
Encourage outdoor seating, plazas, courtyards, and green spaces to increase opportunities
for social gatherings foster activity and create an attractive, lively environment.
Ensure that all materials and colors match or complement the ones adorning other adjacent
structures and uses.
Incorporate landscaping features and open space In the design of the proposed structures.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
134
ƒ
ƒ
Design one (1) building that serves as the focal point for the site for each distinct
development site, incorporating unique architectural features and/or a unique design.
Orient this building to serve as a key focal point viewable from either Route 45 or Laraway
Road.
Encourage common stormwater management, that is designed as attractive amenities
incorporating best management principles, including the use of native prairie plants to
enhance water quality. Wet bottom ponds are preferred.
Setbacks & Landscaping
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Recommend a minimum fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way which will include a
landscaped buffer along the west side of Route 45 for commercial development sites.
Recommend a minimum one hundred (100) foot setback from the right-of-way with a
landscaped buffer along Laraway Road and the east side of Route 45 for office parks.
Maximize landscape buffers between residential structures and commercial uses and
associated parking lots.
Encourage all principle access lanes for large-scale developments contain a landscaped
median.
Incorporate the use of native landscaping in parking areas.
Incorporate best management practices for storm water management to improve the water
quality of storm water especially in parking areas. The use of bio-swales is encouraged.
Open Space/Natural Areas
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Respect existing site conditions when designing site layouts and building orientations.
Preserve and protect the local natural environment through the preservation of existing tree
masses and tree lines to enhance the buffer between adjacent uses
Maximize open space -- either natural or man-made (such a plazas, outdoor seating areas,
etc) – and incorporated into all proposed uses.
Design proposed detention areas so as to serve both functional and aesthetic purposes and
should incorporate best management principles, including the use of native prairie plants to
enhance water quality. Wet bottom ponds are preferred to provide potential recreation
opportunities.
All delineated floodplains and wetlands must be preserved and protected from adverse
impacts of proposed developments.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
135
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
136
Insert the Conceptual Site Plan for the Route 45/Laraway Road Development Area
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
137
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
138
Section XI. Action Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is a statement of policy, expressing the objectives and aspirations of the
Village to develop a well-planned community and maintain a high quality of life. The Plan is a
fluid document and not an end unto itself, emphasizing its impact on sustaining Frankfort’s growth
management process.
The growth management process is based on a planning and review system that is needed to
ensure effective management of development in the Village. It is a systematic program intended to
influence the rate, amount, type, location and/or quality of future development within the Village.
Effective growth management is the product of combining the objectives and policies outlined in
this Plan with implementation tools described below. Decisions on funding and regulatory controls
are typically made during the implementation phase of the comprehensive planning process.
Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan does not signal the end of the planning process in Frankfort.
Rather, it signals the beginning of a process of continuing implementation whereby the Plan serves
as a guide for the Village to make public and private decisions affecting the future of the
community. This requires that Village leaders and the community be familiar with and generally
support the major tenets of the Plan. Therefore, it is important that the Plan be well publicized,
understood and supported by the entire community for it to be recognized as a practical and
effective guide for the Village. It is also important to keep in mind that the Plan is not static. The
Village must periodically re-examine and update the Plan as conditions and community aspirations
change.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Plan implementation consists of a variety of proactive and reactive activities that will collectively
ensure that the Village grows and develops into the well-planned community envisioned in this
Plan. Proactive activities are those in which the Village initiates actions through a proposal, plan,
improvement or regulatory change. On the other hand, reactive activities are those in which other
parties approach the Village with a proposal on which the Village must act. Planning a mixed
use/lifestyle center along Route 30 is an example of a proactive activity while development review
is an example of a reactive activity.
Implementation tools represent proactive activities which the Village should undertake to generate
the types and character of development that foster a well-planned community with a high quality of
life. In addition to devising a set of implementation tools, the Village will also need to review and
modify existing Village regulations to implement the policies and recommendations outlined in this
Plan.
The plan implementation phase of the planning process begins when the Village Board adopts the
Plan. Adoption of the Plan then initiates the implementation of the policies and recommendations
outlined in the Plan. Since the implementation phase will require time and effort on the part of
Village staff as well as sensible allocation of the Village’s financial resources, the Village Board
should prioritize all activities to be carried out. To facilitate the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Village should consider the following activities:
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
139
ƒ
Review the Zoning Ordinance and Land Subdivision Regulations for compliance with
Plan. The Village will need to review and update its Zoning Ordinance and the Land
Subdivision Regulations to ensure that they are consistent with the policies and
recommendations outlined in this Plan. More specifically, the Zoning Map will need to be
updated to reflect changes to zoning districts and future land use designations as outlined in
the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the standards contained in both the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Subdivision Regulations will need to be reviewed and updated. The Village is
encouraged to investigate the benefits of an Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) which
combines all land development ordinances within one “user friendly” document.
ƒ
Conduct an audit of existing ordinances for compliance with the Plan. Conduct a review
of development related ordinances, i.e. landscape, sign and impact fee ordinances, for
compatibility with adopted Comprehensive Plan.
ƒ
Review development plans, standards, and guidelines for compliance with the Plan.
Review existing planning tools (bike trail master plan, transportation master plan, water
resource and open space plan) for consistency with Comprehensive Plan.
ƒ
Adopt a 3 to 5 year capital improvements program. A capital improvements program
relates the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan with the financial capabilities of
the Village. A capital improvements program is generally defined as a prioritized record of
public improvements to be provided over a certain period of time relating to the need for
improvements such as streets, parks and open spaces, and other civic infrastructure.
Prioritization of these improvements is based on the Village’s fiscal ability and resource
capacity to support them. The value of a capital improvements program is its ability to
provide citizens and public agencies a clear conception of the projects to be constructed
and financed in the coming years. It is under these circumstances that the community may
avoid duplicating wasteful services as well as call attention to any deficiencies that the
Village may have in order to stimulate action to promptly correct them.
ƒ
Prepare a fiscal impact analysis of key growth areas. The Village will evaluate the impact
of growth and development on its finances as part of its long-term strategic planning
process. A fiscal impact analysis of key growth areas will help determine the long term
impact of these areas on Village finances and resources. A fiscal impact analysis also helps
the Village sensibly allocate its finances and resources by evaluating potential new revenue
sources, current and future levels of services, and new costs associated with serving a
growing community. This approach also benefits other taxing districts.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN
Until recently, local government involvement in telecommunications has focused on franchising
and placement of infrastructure such as utility poles in public right-of-ways. One aspect of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to spark competition, ultimately resulting in more
services, choice and innovation. Communities must now work with multiple players in the private
sector to ensure that the proper infrastructure is in place not only to serve current businesses and
residents, but to also attract future economic development. To assist communities in this effort, the
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
140
American Planning Association (APA), through its Growing Smart Legislative Handbook,
recommends that a technology assessment and action plan be developed to include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Surveys and assessments of future telecommunication needs on a local and/or regional
basis;
Assessment of existing private telecommunications infrastructure;
Inventory of existing telecommunications facilities and potential locations;
Assessment of local ordinances, regulations and permitting procedures that affect private
telecommunications;
Provisions for construction or installation of, or improvements to, the telecommunications
and computer networks of local governments;
Public education efforts to market the telecommunications potential in the community and
region;
Agreements between private firms and local governments for the use of technology capacity
by local agencies, departments and service providers; and
Establishment of incentives and removal of barriers for increased technology infrastructure
investment by the private sector.
Assistance in providing the high speed telecommunication services may be found in recent changes
to the Illinois Telecommunications Law, which provides funding for establishing services in
underserved areas. The Digital Divide Elimination Fund will provide money for community
technology centers (CTC’s), public hospitals, libraries, and park districts. Grants can be used to
fund staffing, training, and infrastructure. The Digital Divide Elimination Fund also encourages the
creation of broadband infrastructures for areas with limited broadband access. Other sources of
funding for public/private initiatives may include banks, corporations, private colleges and
universities, the Illinois Development Finance Authority, tax increment financing (TIFs), Illinois
FIRST, or other programs. Frankfort should also explore cooperative efforts with the Illinois
Century Network (the State’s program to connect schools, community colleges, universities,
libraries and municipalities with the State’s connection to the internet) to other local organizations.
ANNEXATION POLICY
The process of annexing land in Illinois is an essential step in the land development process in that
the Village and the private property owner typically enter into an agreement outlining a number of
development controls which may extend beyond the standards set in the Village Zoning
Ordinance.
Annexation agreements generally define the governmental agency or group
responsible for providing or maintaining infrastructure needs such as roads and utilities.
Annexation agreements also outline the present capacity of infrastructure, the need to improve or
expand infrastructure, and the timing of these improvements or expansions.
Due to the rapid growth of Will County and Frankfort’s proximity to other growing communities, it
is imperative that the Village monitor development pressures in the area The Village may consider
having annexation agreements in place to exert greater control over the type and character of
development of critical land parcels to ensure that they conform to the community character
envisioned by this Plan. To ensure proper intergovernmental cooperation with adjacent
municipalities, it is recommended the Village have boundary agreements with all adjacent
municipalities. Frankfort currently has boundary agreements with the Village of Mokena to the
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
141
north and the Village of New Lenox to the west. However, as outlined in the Action Plan below,
the Village is encouraged to establish boundary agreements with the Village of Monee to the south
and the Village of Richton Park to the east.
MONITORING & UPDATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan is based on dynamic variables whose future direction cannot always be
accurately predicted. This Plan is based on currently available information regarding community
conditions and desires, development trends, and an understanding of environmental issues. Over
time, most if not all of these assumptions will change. Accordingly, changes in variables such as
population and development trends should be monitored periodically and compared with the
Plan’s assumptions and recommendations. Based on this periodic review, modifications to the Plan
may be necessary to ensure that the Plan is kept current and accurately reflects the community’s
needs and overall vision.
The Plan should be reviewed on an annual basis. Given the rate of development anticipated in the
near future, it is recommended that the Village review and update the Future Land Use Plan as
needed, but at least every 2 to 3 years. Comprehensive updates to the entire Plan should preferably
happen every 5 years, but no longer than every 10 years, at which time the Plan should be
amended and re-adopted, depending on the extent of growth and changes in the Village.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
An implementation action plan identifies and defines each planning and community development
activity to be carried out during a particular fiscal year, the individual responsibilities of the Village
for each activity, and the specific involvement of the Plan Commission where appropriate. The
table on the next page is designed to provide a starting point for prioritization and budgeting of
actions needed to implement strategies and recommendations outlined in this Plan. The action
plan identifies several potential key organizations and governmental agencies that will take part in
the implementation process. A timeframe for each activity is also specified to define general
phasing for implementation. Further refinement of this table will be needed as details of costs and
staff resources are verified and become available. In addition, the Village is encouraged to review
and update the action plan on an annual basis to ensure that it stays within the Village’s financial
ability and resource capacity.
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
142
Insert the Implementation Action Plan Table
Comprehensive Plan Update (August 16, 2004)
Village of Frankfort
143
Implementation Action Plan
Classification
Community
Character
Action Item
Plan for improvements and a unified set of
design elements for community gateways at
major entrances into the Village
Purpose
Timeframe
To announce a sense of arrival to Near Term
Frankfort, develop a sense of
community, and provide
information/direction to Village
business districts or other focal
points
Responsibility
Village Board
Participants
IDOT; Local
businesses
Community
Character
Establish a downtown organization for the
Historic Downtown District
To promote the Historic
Downtown District and the
Village's historic and cultural
resources
Near Term
Village Board;
Chamber of
Commerce
Local businesses
Community
Character
Establish a wayfinding signage system in the
Historic Downtown District and along major
road corridors
To create a unified signage
Near Term
system creating a sense of local
identity and providing direction
to Village business districts or
other focal points
Village Board
IDOT; Frankfort
Park District
Economic
Development
Pursue a variety of financing mechanisms (e.g. To provide financing options for Long Term
TIFs, BIDs, etc.) for development
future developments that are
most appropriate for the site and
its surrounding area
Village Board;
Chamber of
Commerce
Economic
Development
Establish a strong business retention program
To encourage existing
commercial and industrial
businesses to maintain their
operations in Frankfort
Near Term
Village Board;
Chamber of
Commerce
Local businesses
Economic
Development
Establish a strong business attraction program
To target and attract appropriate Long Term
commercial and industrial
developments that fit the local
market
Village Board;
Chamber of
Commerce
Local businesses
Economic
Development
Long Term
Attract unique restaurants and retail stores to the To re-establish the image of
Historic Downtown District
Frankfort's Historic Downtown
District as a regional destination
Village Board;
Chamber of
Commerce
Economic
Development
Reserve potential sites for future commercial
and industrial developments
To capitalize on key sites in the Long Term
Village that provide the greatest
opportunities for commercial
and industrial development
Plan Commission;
Chamber of
Commerce
Economic
Development
Develop a communication process between
existing businesses and the Chamber of
Commerce
To establish a system to assess
the needs of businesses and
develop initiatives to support
them
Chamber of
Commerce
Growth &
Development
Develop a fiscal impact model
To evaluate the fiscal strength of Near Term
individual developments and the
overall fiscal balance of the
Village
Village Board
Growth &
Development
Establish boundary agreements with the Villages To provide legal documentation Near Term
of Monee and Richton Park
of boundary lines with adjacent
communities to ensure proper
intergovernmental cooperation
Village Board
Growth &
Development
Establish appropriate residential densities in the To establish appropriate
Near Term
Historic Downtown District and multi-family
residential densities to provide
residential areas
the critical mass of residents to
support the downtown area and
other planned developments
Village Board; Plan
Commission
Growth &
Development
Identify buildings in the Historic Downtown
District to convert into mixed use buildings
Long Term
To foster an environment
catering to a mix of retail and
office uses to enhance the quality
of downtown
Village Board; Plan
Commission
Public Facilities Review and update development impact fees
& Services
To ensure that the burden of
administrative costs for
development reviews is passed
on to the developer and not
residents
Village Board
Public Facilities Adopt a capital improvements program
& Services
To ensure that the Village has
Long Term
sufficient financial and physical
resources to provide
infrastructure improvements
Village Board; Plan IDOT; Other state,
Commission
county and
township agencies
Public Facilities Adopt a telecommunications plan
& Services
To promote the need for cutting Near Term
edge telecommunications
infrastructure, including highspeed internet and a fiber optic
cable system
Village Board
Local telecommunications
providers
Public Facilities Update the master transportation plan
& Services
Village Board
IDOT; Other state,
county and
township agencies
Environment
To document recent and
Near Term
anticipated improvements to the
local transportation system
Develop a comprehensive regional stormwater To provide adequate control of Near Term
management system
stormwater runoff
Village Board;
Village Utilities
Dept.
Village Board;
Frankfort Park
District
Long Term
Long Term
Environment
Develop natural resource conservation
incentives for future developments
To promote the conservation of Near Term
natural resources on
environmentally sensitive
properties
Parks &
Recreation
Develop an open space acquisition program
Parks &
Recreation
Pursue grants for expanding the Village bike/
recreation trail system
To provide opportunities for
Near Term
active and passive parks and
recreational areas
To create a connected bike/
Long Term
recreation trail system that serves
the entire community
Village Board;
Frankfort Park
District
Village Board;
Frankfort Park
District
Local businesses
Villages of Monee
and Richton Park
Illinois Dept. of
Natural Resources