HomeMy WebLinkAboutHNTB Final Thoroughfare Plan Changes •
•
•
HT B wAnnO NE CIAIN TAMML°N az.SHFaOSNOOPP 11i M+rlb
ARCHITECTS cNGINI!!AI! P.ANNmays Nor pray unsy
Inakonarlt Inflame
April 9, 1991 462f.)41 MI
rJ17)f,16-4M1
Hr. Jeff Davie. President MXr3/71GL1•ogu4
Carmel-Clay Plan Commissio5#Ac_cizforu-k1)‘
40 E. Nein �� .
Carmel. IN 46032
Re: : Carmel Comprehensive Plan Update I
Final Thoroughfare Plan Changes
Dear Hr. Davina C fi► 131
Through draft text or exhibit changes, we believe we have addressed all
Thoroughfare Plan modifications requested during Plan Commission Review.
Suggested text revisions are provided with this letter and a mark-up of
exhibit changes will be available for review at the next meeting of Plan
Commission members.
Following is a summary of changes for adjustment or adoption by the Plan •
Commissions
Mans Callpom:rg - Additional collector roadways have been added to the
Thoroughfare Plan as requested by the DOCD staff in a letter dated
April 3, 1991. •
2. JEazeldell g ad_Corridor •
A Text on pages 137 and 138 has been modified to
indicate secondary parkway (120 ft. R/W) between 116th and 146th Streets
and to show River Road as a primary arterial (100 ft. R/W) between 96th
and 116th streets. Exhibits have been changed as appropriate.
3. 1989 DataiDeve1onment Traffic Studies • tie suggested by Hr. Blackwell,
text has been added to p. 130 to indicate that data and studies
supporting the areawide plan are based on 1989 conditions, and that the
Plan Commission will continue to; request current data and studies to
accompany development proposals. I
Weate Para 1 wl
q ea o - The north-south collector roadway paralleling
U.S. 31 to the west is now shown conceptually as a straight roadway
located halfway between U.S. 31 and Spring Hill Road.
S. Right-of.W i its
4Y L 0 ting -
A new symbol (hash marks) has been placed on
116th Street (east of Keystone Ave.) and 146th Street (Spring Mill to
Hazeldell) to indicate right-of-way restrictions due to existing
development. Supporting text has been added to pages 126 and 130.
ti
6. Secondary grjogyg • Towne Road, Hate1de11, and Oray Road ars now shown
as Secondary Parkways (120 ft. R/W) instead of Primary Parkways (150 ft.
N..-S 1 'bowie*9 hl.rq..p,P'.11wa.d.1 um...I'1..J.0..1 19wu.,P1.IM..r{•• IMr..,MC,IM.r.Y A Ibo-r.'...144-..1, hr aM.M• 1.1•IM.I.1 41.1., 1.1.
Ila•.,:1 MM..n...Ak Yo.•Y.,54..iary,.M•IL 11r•w,A I Ww,r.NI dMY.11 Pp.40.1 w M.#4.M•IM;1M,....111►M*•a..r..M,11Lr..11 I.rurr,4q
I Mr rf'r.1 Ir....4.I 191.11r.r,1 11430 Il
•M.•.4M..06.4*1 laser.,1.•N.111Mw+•►a W Wear*.19•t1..q n ?hrw...111.now C IIII..rrl nc,tlrIe,.L Musa lei•MI.M.,,.IMMNo 1.1,1 wow I I....••IM,
!1 ,holo..,14•ar,1•MC,IN*,w M II,w..,•h MC,Mrdr*.1 Neil.*del PC.14r•tio111..Ih.•rr.MC,Mere II.0...r•Io,M..r 4. .
'••..n...... •• .. n..
1A.r A..11 Mete*w ,, •, , w....
.1 1T.1:..J.Np.W.On. U.+r.r.•,r Iia .�, ,.�, ...
£ • t. ... • • •
• �' `,. •":".° r41: °f .'r•. • • o . '• ,.�
•'
•
•
Hr. Jeff Davie t
Carmel-Clay Plan Commission
April 9, 1991
Page Z
•
•
7. 36ttt Stysgt •'In response ,to the DOCD request of April 3, 1991, the text •
•
` describing 116th Street recommendations on page 138 has been replaced •
with text which'-reoognitea the review and reoomoendations of the 116th
Street Study Committee. In addition, text aupporting plan adjustments
batted on..norridor•speoifia studies has been added to pages 126 and 130.
• Figure X-d his been modified to show three lanes rather than four lanes
on this sCotion of 116th Street.
S. rapliutOzy Ngteg • Reference has been added to the note on the color
Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan to indicate that the plan has been
i' prepared to represent a consensus opinion on future roadways and is not
intended to indicate specific alignments of new roadways. ' Likewise, the
note prev*oualy shown on Figure X•S (referring to site-specific
engineering studies has been modified slightly +end added to Figura.
X-7.
We arera arec9 to discuss a •
p p any of the issues or arks additional changes as
necessary. We hope this information is helpful to the Plan Commission in
finalising the. Plan.
Vary truly yours,
HOWARD NEEOLES tAMMEN. & 3EROENDOFF
,„
n V. Hyer .E. , AICP •
glen Bug er •
•
WH/lj o
•
4 L., .. . .
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED TEXT CHANCES
ri 11
?* flk•
( OCA
It should be noted that while minim* geometric standards (including number
of lanes) are intended as a guide to provide for orderly development and
reservation of right of way, exceptions may be warranted on certain routes
to accomodate site-specific conditions. It is not the intent of this plan
6) to eupsrcede project-level studies which identify right of way or lane
reductions to reduce community impact. Neither is it the intent of this
plan to specify project 'timetables or specific alignments for new roadways.
These are appropriate topics for project-level studies.
•
•
.,
.14
.:r
•
.4; j
•
•
•
11, -0,46c44.4taiimmiminsummiiimeismimmeammain. ... . . . , .
-) •
t . .
skifIdent right-of-way Ar sidewalk; bike paths, and other amenities in
addition to landscaping. destisetically, parkways offer an opportunity to
enhance the attractiveness te the convnunity as a whole. From a jimaional
standPolnr, parkways provide additional.ficribility for meeting future neat.
The wider right-oltway provider the opportunity for jiiture apansion by
ad4fing lanes to the median, without compromising the bade parkway
character of the route. T1tvo parkway daignations are used (primary and .
secondary), corresponding to the two arterial classification,described in this
section i
P. Proposed Minimum Geometric Standards
ItUnimum design standards are useful not only for regulating construction of
new thoroughfares and streets but also for evaluating existing conditions to
determine OPfleirmrics and program improvements to existing thoroughfares
and streets. The design standard: pertinent to this recommended
Thoroughfare Plan for Cannel and Clay Township relate to the minimum
right-of-way width and strew pavement width for each functional class of
thoroughfare. Reflecting proposed Jimaional classification changes frons she
• 010 Amendment, these proposed;tondo,* are outlined in Table 1.4.
• Most qf the minimum geometric standards proposed here are consistent with
• the nvently updated:tendon&qfliamllton Couruy. Erception:are panhvays
• (not Included in county datsificationt) and the local and collector standanis„
wide!: addmrs parking hi Carmel, but not In Hamilton County.
. While A funadonal clout/Ica:Ions and minimum design :fondants. In Table
.X4 are o part eche recoinnsaukd Thoroughfare Plan of the Comprehensive
Plan Update, they should also become a part of the City's and Township's
Subdivision Regulations, replacing conflicting elartflcadons and standards in
that document. In this way, the recommended•Thoroughfare Plan would
Identify proposed new roadway alignments and functional classifications,
while the Subdivision Regulations would Impose standards on all roads, both
existing and proposed roads Identified in the recommended Thoroughfare
Plan.
.•
•
. ?crticvh' .
f..,,....
lalfi
it.4,40.
� • .. • ._� ♦ •. • •..♦ a ..l .tom.. L_ •..a... .1..�.r aq`o.�,..I.J.,�
�I • .%;114•.',11'.�,�' tt ,C., JIn 1a� ,,yrl!11 1.wp II M'4 "04J "7y' �` Zf.I PK:Nh 'iN h~+!^��
X77 7"�,.. ���. .�:fw� r!'T iF'I�I� �� � �. hF'�:' '•�+'h .5.1'�Z' .. tt IH:,,f'11•'!�1'..p' .'I' ,•:R.�`•
- -
proposed western parallel connector, Wit be necessary to serve
• abutting commercial developments.
(4) Demand dd will Continue to Increase on Keystone Avenue due to
residential development and a lock of north-south travel eppor.
• amities between Keystone Avenue and White River.
(S) Although not likely during the next twenty years, increased
denand on 1reystane Amuse may ultimately warrant an updode
toft eway standardsfrom 1-465 to 116th street.
(6) amore build-out Lr compkte, a Township Line Road interchange
at I40 will be needed to maintain mobility in western Clay
Township.
(7) 8g f ore the review of the programmed Scenario provide a
base ch is quite conservative for a fir a Carmel and Clay
Township Thoroughfare Plan.
,Pt SeggHoet � "per
G. Recommended Thansughfar a Man fliO iwh ' eor+wkn'c. 314natortitII
s
The recommended Thorougkbre Plan has been developed using the
progismoned scenario at a base. Local, collector, and arterial roadway
• improvements are added to serve localized developments at indicated by the
build-out scenario, and regional improvcnents are added to address modest
additional traffic growth on regional roadway's. The resulting plan Li
Illustrated, in terms of jlmcttorwl Class and lent widths, on PYgure X7.
mil Str3- FigureX8 patens a recommended 20-year roadway improvement 'Ism
which corresponds to the thoroughfare plan. At noted.• , ---- , nal
potcrapha,„...wi, cortigurarions and tbnaabk of theseencs depend will o n project-
spec IC studies and demonstrated need.
ilbn51* In recognition of erin area charaaerisdcs, and •
for clarity of discussion,
Pfirxe rifiN the Thoroughf sre Plan is described below In terns of western, central, and
eastern sections of Clay Township.
10
. A / 41 0101 01.48 I.i' 1. .' I a . 1 0I1 • vl i . r..
Both the Inlaid= and the 1,2214menthnent of the Comprehensive
Plan propose the lowest density q f development in she western portion
f (lay Township. Principal exceptions are anticipated commercial
wear along Michigan Road at the sou hiwsta erre corner of Clay
Township and at souped/led locations near nsa)or Intersections of Towne
(;$1\Crestor31 417 St4I,:rv: get' oter&3 efrvorstL.
It should be noted that this ltroughfare Plan is based on. 1989 data and
studies. Although the results are suitable for. supporting an areawide plan,
(g) they are not sufficient to replace ,traffic impact studies for specific
developments. The Plan Commission will continue to request that updated
traffic data and studies be submitted with development proposals.
Some deviations from standards have been identified in formulating the
Thoroughfare Plan. Figure X.8 indicates three-lane construction for a
section of 116th Street, although its functional classification would
suggest more, Figure_ X.7 indicates right g way constraints to parkway
construction on both 116th and 146th Streets, even though they are designated
as parkways. Similar adjustments to geometric standards may be recognised
elsewhere by the Plan Commission on a case-by-case basis, as indicated
tro h�A
in Section E, ISnded Geometric Standards.'
h
A • I.
R•Rq
•
1 '
immediate vicinity of the U.S. 31 freeway assume interchanges at these • ;"
two locations and at 126th Street. It is emphasized, however, that the ' a
final configuration of the freeway and its interchanges must be
determined In detailed engineering studies beyond the scope of this
review. This planning process hu verified the need for a freeway
facility. Engineering studies necessary to better define the facility
• should be conducted in the near-term so that right-of-way con be
reserved to minimize the cost and impact of construction.
Regardless of the final configuration of the V.S. 31 freeway, local
roadway improvements will be necessary to provide access to abutting
properties. These Include development of parallel collector roadways
and improved east-west connectors at interchanges, as discussed later in
this section.
Whereas traffic growth on V.S. 31 during the 1980s was Influenced by
- - nearby commercial development, traffic growth on Keystone Avenue
resulted mainly from residential growth In central and western Clay
Township. Traffic increased on Keystone Avenue(north of 96th Street)
by 20% between 1981 and 1989, from 31,000 to 37,000 vehicles per
day. As shown on Figure X.2, directional distribution of traffic flow
on Keystone Avenue indicates that it continues to ave commuter traffic
between Carmel reddanoes .and Indianapolis enrployment miters.
Future land use scenarios suggest that this tread will continue.
A review of minimum needs iron approved developments(programmed erne
scenario) indicates that Keystone Avenue should be widened to . lanes
between 98th Street(where the existing six-lane section en. 1:^�, ;; onsite
, Drive. When anticipated residential growth in , t' so y
Is coo tdered, traffic forecasts suggest a need to - . the sot-lane
facility northward to 131st Street, and, ultimately, a potential need to
consider future freeway construction between I-465 and 116th Street.
Keystone Avenue growth is likely to occur gradually in the future,.as
it did in the 1980s. The service area of this roadway is large, extending
eastward to White River, due to the 'funneling' effect of the river and
a lack of alternate access points to 1«465 and Indianapolis. The
potential need for $ freeway standard on Keystone Avenue v based on
assumed build-wit of residential areas in astern Clay Township. This
level of development is not likely to occur within the next 20 years.
As stated previously, additional studies will be needed to Implement the
recommended actions on either V.S. 31 or Keystone Avenue, especially
where interchange construction is proposed. Since both facilities are
state highways, it Is assumed that D DOT will direct or participate in
these studies. Major topics would include interchange locations and
configurations, right-of-way needs, staging, maintenance of traffic and
costs. Preliminary teviews indicate that a 'tight urban diamond' design
17":" M.O. ••
•
mended for 116th Street and 146th Street, subject to socioeconomic
• impacts of right-of-way acquisition, as indicated by project-level
aivironmental studies.
Three locations within central clay Township have been idened as
requiring additional detailed geometric studies due to unusual roadway
• configurations and improvement constraints. These are Westfield
Boulevard/96th Street, 136th Street/Smokey Row Road/Rohrer Road,
and U.S. 31/Keystone Avenue/146th Street. Channelitation or
&Jonas:Arlon improvements are underway or planned at tech location,
but long-range needs may warrant more extensive improvements. Bach
location is subject to development which may preclude future options
for Improvement.
3. ESIICOLCIA.Y212311111RCanantAnnilL11235211
Most of eastern Clay Township is expected to continue its past
development pattern of low to moderate density residential land uses.
The results of this development pattern will be continued gradual growth
in area traffic as individual subdivisions and homes are constructed. An
exception is along 96th Street in the southeast corner of the township,
Which will soon be octended across White River to I-69, east of Clay
Township. This will relieve other east-west routes in the short term,
but ultimately, it is anticipated that most of the additional capacity of
• this route will be needed to save future commercial development in the
ACM
' More than other areas of Clay Township, the eastern section is affected
by existing barriers to travel and limitations to potential roadway
development. T'ho most significant barrier is White River, extending
northeast to southwest along the eastern township boundary. Bridges
currently exist at 116th Street and 146th Street, and an additional bridge
is planned for 96th Street. Other barriers are 1465 to the south and
Keystone Avenue to the west. Although Allisonville Road (east of
White River) provides an option for north-south mei, it is congested
and difficult to access. As a result, Keystone Avenue and White River
• tend to 'funnel' rtridential traffic to the I-465/Keystone Avenue
Interchange. This has impacts for future Keystone Avenue uaffic
volumes (as discussed in the previous section) and for local roadways
throughout this part of the township.
A teview of bidld-out conditions kr medium density housing (two units
per acre for eadmating •;.„ eifecu) indicates the following !unite
needs ,
°A ne ":rrs'Aqt "- 'between inr• • Email *Mew* 116th Streene and • .4"
A
RO4a ^OAP. Wide' to "OW save as a north-sou varterishit for
P.""),
• . . L . A. A..j ♦ a A
tretvtrsiem the&Pitt 4361A110
o4+ • IU.• street,
• Clayowns Thi
p. s will odate a rola - y large service
reduce traffic demand n River Aven and provide a
consistency with Hamilton C ty plans. It would be the only
four-lane north-south rta+dwayA of Keystone Avenue,aternE
itMt To wham* the character of this roadway
through high quality residential antis, it is proposed as parkwayei0C-Rartit
o
b. Gray Road -Widen to four lanes between 116th Street and 96th
Street. This would serve north-south residential traffic south of
116th Street, and it would provide an alternative to Keystone
Avenue through this section of the township. The need to widen
this section is Indicated by traffio forecasts. If HareldeU Road is
constructed as proposed north of 116th Street, Rusher widening of
Gray Road to the north should be unnecessary if development is
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
•
c. 116th Street -
Clay wnshti
Ri riCi e. L1314%.
( i
p�rxscwp�+s' 444•4) . . shipr-trralge-fevecasts-bued.ca.gesi,deadal-buil44et-isreastees
.
• Soset.. T�L'p,.subdb(aen n.d.mlf 1 -Jt e E lock 1
.
.. •• • : . ., . .•►;. other-seedoes-ef-446641tree‘r4hla,-ssedeus-4eieeesateemdsdp✓.`,Til i.'1 �►
for•
' • d. 146th Street • This roadway is 'recommended as a four.lane
parkway, consistent with identified need and recommendations for
• the remainder of Clay Township.
e.' .126th Street • Traffic forecasts indicate that four lanes will be
needed from Haseldell Road to Keystone Avenue to serve sur-
'rounding reeldeotial development. As with 116th Street, this need
relates to tragic conoentrattons resulting from the
funneling
' • of White River sad the lack of east-west parallelroadwass effect
tines,pre Reed led Keystone Avenue.
L ' indicate t need for four lanes
bttdics i A ' r'i 4 4 Keystone Avenue for the same general
reasons u for 116th Street and 126th Street.
_
•
Po )9! ) Al4asj ATIMOLokr 0.11 4f 4,1214/0ft
1), 156
)1 •
An in previous Carmel-Clay Township Thoroughfare Plana, early drafts of this
uh
1990 Amendment indicated a need for four^lanb.between Keystone Avenue and
White River. Traffic forecasts based on residential build-out in Eastern
Clay Township indicate a need for this roadway capacity. This is due in
part to a lack of east-west roadways connecting Keystone Avenue and Gray
Road between 96th and 126th Streets. Lakes, subdivisions, and golr courses
block opportunities to construct new roadways in this area, so east-west
traffic is concentrated on 106th, 116th, and 126th Streets.
In a parallel activity, underway while this plan was being completed, the
116th Street Study Committee was appointed by the mayor to review the
corridor-specific benefits and impacts of widening 116th street. The
committee reviewed a wide range of material and interviewed numerous individuals
knowledgeable about this corridor. it was the finding of this committee
(E) that the traffic benefits of widening the roadway to four lanes or more would
be outweighed by 'negative social and neighborhood impact, leading to a
of ( .4 . 'j /.,,e.•1 4,44w%)
recommendation *twthree lane^for this corridor section.
Consistent with the recommendations of the 116th Street Study Committee,
Figure X.8 shows 116th Street as a three-lane roadway between Keystone
Avenue and White River. As stated previously, a parkway character is in..
®
f tended for thin corridor although full parkway right of way is inappropriate
due to potential negative impacts on adjoining properties.
It should be noted that reducing the number of through lanes on 116th Street
from four to two may increase the warrant for additional capacity on alternate
071
• • • • • A.••••••••••••
poitp.
• •••••••........011•6 GAIN
recommendation, and the relatively Blow rate of growth in Eastern Clay Township,
• additional review of alternate parallel routes ie left to the next Comprehensive
•
Plan Update.
. .
•
•
•
•
, .
„ y
. .
•
. .
•
. ,
•
•
•
i s• ATTACHMENT
.pY�
t
2
a
EXPLANATORY NOTES FO• A F2CUAE8 & EXHXRITS
i Ir=•.
.1'r
•• •.MSI
'4A1'.
•
• ,
11
,,1,
•
rii:
w
• _ • . h
S • Zi o 1616 .
.11:3
b "a c .°
• f
......•
1 co arilv. S RI m a a a „4.4
) 6-
(I) .
,� MCI
c•
.: ..0 •01 43Iw. 6 _
1... fio : o
sa 0c to
1ei 0 . i
LE eV g .
11 = 0 o 7,3 ; =0
4:14.4 • — tr I .43 0 ....
I Oil . VI 0 :Pr. 9: " foz
.7. a 47.. = . . dui •141
I 0 l 4 p .co Q' • °.nf
, co ;„,� , +'' 'v 4 et: /0 1 V 0 dor
2
• al 0- 01. c
L. 0 - .....-g
PCS
D4 ac ) .*f. 4� '
o••• • zcfse
a amal. >0 On 44*ftt. . 41)
. ao 0. E . Ca
0 z
a �• = Q 4. 0:
�•
t)
• i
• Hca •C? .
• o0 o a1 I •.
. . Pc • . .
,� o
. I:: gi it 3 4 4 1 It . .
4 . . 0
a ...
•
C a ...q, 1 ;014
*4
' .
• wig : : 2
zi .
1 • 031 ..` o o ►
° co .. I
LI O ° • 1 gar
: C •
•. tow .4; 4a4 g c i Q *• c i• da• o = o .0 E ca r
. co 0, 0 ‘..0 .
0 o O a
m poli
O`. Ti ..• C
e > 00 co4
GI• AN , ' • M ii. 0 ° ho 6
C
, e *°. cm)
• al 7 o o
w m ,�
a.40 02 lug, �� m
.; .4• d 2 C C~7
• CY --....... ..
' 0
C
'":. >•
•.r...
E•
• ct co
2 o14.?
u) 0al, • as us
; En CCD. 'O• va ex
11111MIleri, , ta �, '. .�, �
Crt -o as E +� ..,._ ..
c ' ', as ---
• o
a C = •_
C as o 'C '10 •�
• ti -0 ,a) c® ci) cn
1 c .2 !,-;•‘:. LD 43.3 a:/.. 1
s ca c..O > +.4 -0 +a +�+ .
CU i c N CU a). "
. . k K*1.11"141' .;. - . 1.r .. m:".7..":• " .' . (13 % (1) ° E.--- E co. ,,,,• .
' ' -.�''.'�1('td.4. .+;` •• • . •, . •- 0 c ' u) c '0) C •-
,, ...44....40• ... .,
,...," .. MI i`j0v at. E . • +a . •
v.
' th. ' 4• ' '....; j.I .. 1• •• :+ I. � i . y) . . .•, • .
0 �
•
•
a0 e- a' •E v� a) . o .
ore
• c® ro vii O as -,a ro co
Orme
rn .�.�+ +.+ r-+ .....
. . E F 2 ...3) a). .9.
• r
m
•
.i. cm
• ..... ,
•
. 0.
. 1- ,
o. C o ,.� cu
. • • 0 Ca 0 � -0 a) cy
- - .
> a 0 cn a) a)•1-+ f
• jU .
4., C S4c... • .
0 , �'•
. E •WPM
LIM
•
11 o
♦✓ �...� .1 I +'
4 c\-.1 4 .
i (..... rils
y.= •
.4.. r '' C • 0
.... -.4.
ilmille, ,, ,
N �i� •O, c cu .
.
elemie• Lea
� tl1 . V�
L. � 0 "••`
I 1""?..
I '1 O V. 16"..q. .
,. I a, •...• , 0 co
.
Ii 0 > 4.4• MI
• i o C C c
i � C •4' co rte• O
• '1 1...,
•r.•+ tD) • ••
„ LC) •.i ' ' . •• �� .0 0 U) •CMC 0
�+-�' 4.....
a V U -0 • a)' = 0
•
'al
fa C
E e 4...0 .
. • --., 0 c0 C• •0 • ,U?
• ..•rr a ♦ }3)
'• wJ
• . • 0 .O ' c0 0C
I
C CO• • C
• •
• 'g '�C .•0 .� > .'-, Cl) •.....
o.
CCIbqe Lf9 .c o
P U Cd N 0 0
,�.r �t •
. C 0 0 U0
• • .• r• �• 0 •r COCV 0♦ •LI
• • • 1401110 •
E 0 c a c
v
10
•� �'
r . • , ,, • • 11 0 cd •!R Zu as
+ di • . .
ID �ail ,I f )
4. C�. V) 00 0
q E ft-ser.-- cc' ...... +-a-"4, .0 4".. C 4....Mme. ••w •
t"'li•; YJ
,• boom 6•••• •
The possibility of double loading these service roads is viable and
should be considered because this would provide a means for stepping
down land uses; a better transition from the high-rise office towers of
Meridian Street to the largely single-family residential structures of the
city and township could be created by locating higher density housing
and/or cluster developments in the immediate vicinity. A buffer
between these two diverse building types would also be created.
Development along those streets that feed into Meridian Street, such as
106th Street, 111th Street, 116th Street and 131st Street has been fairly •
significant since the 1985 Update. If improved, these streets could
provide convenient east/west access while at the same time encouraging
development to move off of Route 31 (Meridian Street). This, too,
would create additional opportunities for stepping down land uses from
Meridian Street.
The area in the vicinity of 131st and Meridian is experiencing signifi-
cant pressures for development. Evidence of this pressure exists in the
form of the St. Vincent's Hospital, the Summer Trace Retirement
Center, office development proposed south of 131st Street and east of
Meridian Street, the &tension of Cannel Drive, and the recurrent but
informal proposal for major commercial/residential development west
of Meridian Street near 131st Street.
With the extension of sewers on Spring Mill Road west of Meridian
Street, increased development could be realized in this corridor. All of
these developments represent opportunities to increase the tax base of
the area. These are also contingent upon the ability of Meridian Street
to carry additional traffic.
Many of the problems anticipated in the 1985 Update for Main Street
have not occurred, due primarily to the closing of the 131st Street
median at U.S. 31. Main Street is one of the few Cannel thoroughfares
with less traffic in 1989 than that reported in the 1985 Update.
A policy question is introduced as well by the prospect of commercial
development west of Meridian Street in the vicinity of 131st Street.
•
• • • , en /, 1 • •• • I • I IMI 1 • 1 1. • •.• ••
•
•• a • •1 1 I• .1 I. .. -• . • . / 1 IS .1 I • • .1 I 1 —•• • I . 1.1
I. • . .• ' 1 : •r. • • . •, • • ... •- w. .w 1 .1I C
• . • • • •
•
Since the
preparation of the 19fl5 Update a consensus opinion iss au.,ta•ier k
emerg4 in the community that non-residential development occurring
along Meridian Street should not have direct access to Spring Mill and
- 67 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
}
Ml's
i ..
•
•
1