Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp. Plan Update Minutes (special) 4/9/91 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 The board members present were : Jeff Davis, Sue McMullen, Richard Klar, Annabelle Ogle, Henrietta Lamb, Tom Welch, Alan Potasnik, Caroline Bainbridge, Michael Nardi, Henry Blackwell and Tom Whitehead. The staff members present were : Wes Bucher, David Cunningham, Mike Hollibaugh and Dorthy Neisler. THIS IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE MEETING ON APRIL 9, 1991 . JEFF DAVIS: We received a letter from John Myers of HNTB indicating the draft changes that he feels like that have been indicated by this committee that we want . You have looked them over and that along with the letter we go from staff about the concerns as they understood them, letter dated April 3rd. Dear Plan Commission Members, future roads #1, comprehensive plan #2, these two pieces of information as far as we understand should solve #3 the Blackwell Letter part 2, number #4 116th street recommendation. You know I have been on this Plan Commission ten years and I never got a letter named after me . I think that is sharp. Blackwell you are moving right ahead here . HENRY BLACKWELL: I 'm afraid I won' t get a check this time . ALAN POTASNIK: Is this open for comment? JEFF DAVIS: It is open for comment, if people that have read it and understand what these two pieces of paper do for us , these two things and feel like it has done what we have asked that comment would be fine . I think these are supposed to handle everything we have asked for up to now and if not then that is what we will start our discussion. ALAN POTASNIK: If I could address, I have a couple of questions to John and I ' ll make this sweet and short as possible . John, at the last meeting that we have with regards to this I had some concerns about 116th Street Task Force and trying to implement their recommendations into our update of the Comprehensive Plan . Is what you presented 1 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 tonight in the proposed text changes does that do that? JOHN MYERS : Yes, and I should say that everything that is here is tentative of course and subject to the will of the Plan Commission. What I have done based on the letter of April 3rd from the staff is to put together some wording that we are comfortable with in terms of a positive response to the 116th Street Committee . That is about four pages from the back, it is an insert, it says page 138 on the top. Everything here is in somewhat draft form but the intent was when you vote on this tonight you will know specifically what you are voting on and there are now four or five paragraphs here so I am not sure what . . . ALAN POTASNIK: Just in continuation of the question, I guess is what I had asked perhaps that this Plan Commission consider with regards to supplementing our update with the task force recommendations, if that was in the letter and if you feel that that would be compatible with what we are trying to do here with this . I didn ' t want to make this something that was more difficult last time then what needed to be , but I guess my question to you as our traffic engineer is do you feel that if we did do that for the purposes of this update it would work. And, in tandem with that question the other point that I brought up that was extending the road east of Gray Road it said in the update 136th Street including that to be 146th Street and bring these in line with the counties standards . JOHN MYERS : As far as the Hazeldell connection we had essentially, we were in line with them between 146th and 116th although there was a typo in the text, it mentioned 136th instead of 146th, so there was not an inconsistency there anyway. There was an inconsistency between 116th and 96th and that we had that shown as a secondary arterial, the county had it shown as a primary arterial. There was a difference of 10 ' in the right-of-way width in those classes the staff had recommended a primary arterial, we certainly have no problem with that . It is one of the changes that is shown on this map, I know that you all can' t see the changes that are on this map and I would even go so far as to say that if you wanted to pass that down the line and look at it that I think that that could be done . Anyway I don ' t really see any sort of inconsistency with the Hazeldell question. As far as the 116th Street, of course I think that was more difficult. That was more difficult for us because we have recommended four lanes 2 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 in that section really from the time we began to have recommendations in this study. I think from a purely technical sense looking at land use the traffic it generates and where it is likely to want to be in the network, given the layout of the roadways, four lanes is still warranted long range for that roadway. And the text that we have here doesn' t say that four lanes is not warranted long range and it makes reference to the fact that we recommended that all along. At the same time, I think there needs to be, well I want to be careful about how I say this because I think it is a judgement that you have to make, but I think that it is reasonable to recognize that there has been a process that has occurred here, there has been a cross section of the community identified on a committee . I know personally that I spent three hours with that committee and I don' t think there is anything that you have heard as, a Plan Commission or even as a Steering Committee with regard to this issue that that committee did not also hear. I know that they had a lot of testimony, there was quite an extended process that came up with an answer. I would say that three lanes over the short term, not based on specific studies that we have done but studies that I have had a chance to look at that has been done by a professor from Purdue University. In looking at existing conditions apparently based on his study three lanes , even a two lane roadway would give acceptable service . So, I think in the long term there are always options, there is no single roadway on this map that has to be any specific configuration to solve future needs . We do leave the door open in our verbiage that there may ultimately need to be other improvements on parallel routes and this should be a subject in the next plan update . As far as the plan itself, the plan is expressed in terms of functional classification, the functional classification is not changed. We also have an exhibit, it happens to be under this exhibit . 8 that shows recommended improvements over the next 20 years that do include lanes . We have changed that to show three lanes on that section. I think it is a case where we believe that the studies we have done are proper, are right from a technical sense and if I had blinders on and looked only at traffic I would still say that four lanes is the right answer. I think it was the objective of the 116th Street Committee to take a broader view and their recommendation was three lanes, I think there is nothing inappropriate about having a respect for that and I find myself in a position that I can respect that process and at the same time say that given the land use that we have assumed and ordinary processes and a technical sense of generating traffic from those and putting them on the network that we don' t see anything different now then we saw a year ago in terms of ultimately with the residential development and the pattern of streets that you have there now that there is going to be a need for that east west roadway capacity somewhere . If it 3 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 is not on 116th Street it is likely to be needed somewhere else. There is even another factor here and that you can still get from point A to point B and it is matter of what sort of conditions on the roadways that you want to tolerate . That is really a judgement call and we can use levels of service and measures that are ordinarily used, but once again we are looking into the future and we are talking about future land use, future development and a future four lanes . I don' t know if this is the end of the question forever, but I think at this point in time it is kind of a tough question that you have in terms of balancing the recommendations of a committee that has gone to an extensive process versus the technical answers you are getting from us . So what we have done here in the text is to try and describe what I am saying now in a way that is comprehensible and reasonable and I think you still have the option of using this text or use the original text . We recommended four lanes, it is based on technical findings and you can simply go with that . I think the option is yours . ALAN POTASNIK: But if we do accept the text of the recommendation by the 116th Street review committee as you bring it now, that doesn' t stop you from sometime in the future of picking up that option and realizing that as our needs as a city change, so perhaps might the future needs of 116th Street and other streets around the area. We are closing the door on ever changing that from a three lane somewhere . JOHN MYERS : As a matter of fact I think that we have verbiage here all along both in the text and on the graphics that have made reference to area wide planning versus corridors specific studies . Sometimes we say engineering studies and sometimes we say site specific, but still ours is an area wide view, I think our Comprehensive Plan is probably the most general document that even deals with these issues . This was a corridor specific study that was done on 116th Street, there are some additions here now. This verbiage that strengthen the fact that there are guidelines that are given from the Comprehensive Plan from the geometric design standards . The functional classifications that when it comes to a specific roadway each one is a specific question, either in the alignment of a new roadway, location of an interchange on a freeway, or the number of lanes on any specific roadway. I don ' t see it as being automatically being inconsistent and I think that the verbiage is here for that now. ALAN POTASNIK: 4 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 I guess, in closing I might just want to make a point that I think that we have to be aware of what we are considering here and that is the Comprehensive Plan Update. It is 1991, this again has to be done in 1995 again, and it would appear to me from review, and it is too bad that this task force came as last as it did with their findings and facts on this . But, it would appear that if we end up looking and we are changing the Hazeldell connection from a secondary to a primary arterial with regards to 116th Street, it would seem to me that by designating that as such as a primary arterial it would be more desirable in handling perhaps some traffic off of 116th Street . JOHN MYERS : I wonder Jeff if you would mind, I think I could do this for about fifteen minutes and walk through all of this . Ok. My intent was over the last several months there have been a number of comments and a number of things that in fact, that we have agreed on at these meetings and we have tried to collect all of those in one place . It is a fairly short letter here in a page and a half and there are only items even though there are a lot of attachments . I would just like to tell you what is here and what we have done . The first item is Minor Collectors and this was a reference that was made in the letter from the staff on April 3rd. There were a number of , I would say the most minor roadways were not shown on this Comprehensive Plan. We have added those to the map that is here now and they are in blue, I can't tell blue from black from here . I could go over and point to some of them but at any rate they are the most minor roads on here and the reason they haven ' t been on this map up to this point is because when we changed the geometric standards to have a consistency with the county we increased the right-of-way on the collector roadways from 60 ' to 80 ' . There was never a formal discussion with the Steering Committee or the Plan Commission I 'm sure but there was some direction at the time I had some discussion with Rick Brandau of the staff . He and I just kind of looked at it and said which one of these are really the most minor collectors and where there may be some question whether really a 80 ' right-of-way ought to be there instead of a 60 . Those were left off . I think that is sort of a hard call whether you have them on there or not . Collector roadway is one that collects traffic from local streets and feeds arterials . So I think that it is kind of difficult at that lower end whether it is a collector or not a collector. I also don' t think that it is terribly relevant . At any rate these are shown on the map, they are the ones that were marked in yellow i think on the letter you got from Wes . If you don't mind I think I will just go through each item just like that and then we can come back if you have questions, Jeff . The Hazeldell Road Corridor we just talked 5 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 about, there have been some changes made in the text to reflect to what we just described and also the changes have been made on the map to show that as either primary arterial or secondary parkway all the way up. It has a minimum of 100 ' of right-of-way just as the county has . We have added text and I will just go ahead and read this as it is only one paragraph. It should be noted that this Thoroughfare Plan is based on 1989 data and studies . Although the results are suitable for supporting an area wide plan, 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 . That is added under the section on Thoroughfare Plan. It is not the exact wording that we received in the letter but I think it is very close and we just simply added a phrase that is suitable for supporting an area wide plan . Item 4, West Parallel Collector, I think we will all remember the discussions we had of what is the route of that west parallel connector between Spring Mill and 31 and the fact that whatever we show on there isn ' t really the route because we haven' t done this specific corridor studies . And, given that fact, why add something that looks very specific when they are really saying and really believing that it is not . So our understanding was that we would show that as a straight line between 31 and Spring Mill and that is what we have done. I think that you can actually can see that from almost anywhere in the room. The fifth item, Right-of-way limitations again, this was mentioned at the very end at one of the meetings . This is a response to a concern that we are showing some classifications through areas that are restricted due to existing development and so even though we are showing our classification that has a wide right-of-way we don ' t necessarily believe, for instance on 116th Street that it is reasonable to go out and take 150 ' right-of-way for a primary parkway, in an area that is fronted by houses and development on each side . As we mentioned at the end of that meeting that it was our suggestion that we use some hash marks to indicate that there right-of-way restrictions in certain areas and the discussion with the staff in addition to 116th Street, 146th Street was identified between Spring Mill and Hazeldell. I am sure there are others , those are the only two that have been identified at this point, and another paragraph, this was also added this was under the one that was added previously under thoroughfare plan, on page 130 and I ' ll read this paragraph. Even though we don' t have it identified on here . The paragraph say that : 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-of-way constraints to parkway construction on both 116th and 146th Streets, even though they are designated as 6 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 parkways . Similar adjustments to geometric standards may be recognized elsewhere by the Plan Commission on a case-by-case basis, as indicated in Section E, Proposed Minimum Geometric Standards . Which is that it is another additional paragraph that talks about basically the same thing. It includes the statement that it is not the intent of this plan to supersede project level studies which identifies a right-of-way or lane reductions to reduce community impact . Neither is it the intent of this plan to specify project time tables or specific alignments for new roadways . These are appropriate topics for project level studies . I think you can start to get a sense of that idea now being added through here and emphasized. Again, I really think it is inappropriate to look at an area like this as a whole and for that to supersede a concentrated study on a particular section of roadway or a particular corridor. Item 6, Secondary Parkways, again it was a recommendation of ours that originally we had all primary parkways with 150 ' of right-of-way, it was our recommendation that that be kept for the two eastwest roadways, with respect to north south roadways given the fact that there are already two very high capacity roadways with wide rights-of- way, 31 and Keystone, the primary arterials would really not be needed that kind of ultimate capacity and right-of-way would not be needed for Towne Road, Hazeldell or Gray Road. We have made those changes on the graphic. 116th Street we have already talked quite a bit about that and this is in response to the recommendations of the committee . It doesn' t really back away from the technical recommendations of four lanes but it does recognize that process, at least at this point in time is a project specific recommendation that the three lanes be shown . Finally the last three pages of this package are the explanatory notes from the various exhibits and I have blown these up so they are easier to read. The first one would go on the color poster, that includes both land use and the thoroughfare plan . This note seemed to read before as if it referred only to the land use plans, so there are just a couple of phrases added, that it communicates an illustrative representation of a consensus opinion for future roadways and distribution density of future development . Further, once again the same statement is not the purpose of the plan to indicate exactly locations from future development . Then we added specific lines for roadways or precise amount of acreage for any given land use . The next one is one that has always been on figure x. 8 which talks about a 20 year time frame being approximate, actual improvements based on verified needs getting back to a corridor level of analysis and so on. Basically what we have done is take the same note and add to the exhibit that we are looking at now that shows the functional class and all we have done is take out the reference to 20 year time frame, because there is no time frame on that thoroughfare plan itself . And that is shown on the last exhibit . 7 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9 , 1991 I am sorry that I didn' t get these out to you about a week ago so you could study all this text . It didn' t exist a week ago. I would certainly be glad to answer any questions about any of this material . I think I have got it all and I 'm sure you will let me know if I 've left anything out . JEFF DAVIS : Are there any other questions of the Comprehensive Plan at this time? My understanding is that these are the things we have asked them to address to the questions that we had. Does this answer everybody' s questions? JOHN MYERS : Joanne has one other thing, it was in response to the suggestion that Judy Hagan had, it is one page earlier in the text . JOANNE GREEN: It is on page 67 and I will pass copies out . Quickly as John had said at the bottom of page 67 , since the preparation of 1985 update under the portion that is crossed out . A consensus opinion we changed from seems to be emerging to has emerged. How symbolic. How appropriate . That is all ! JEFF DAVIS : The staff has no other questions of the planners then? Alright, CAROLINE BAINBRIDGE: I would like to make a motion that we accept this Docket No. 1-91 CP an amendment to the ordinance D 454 entitled the Comprehensive Plan Update City of Carmel, Clay Township 1985 effective September 30, 1985 amendment to Comprehensive Plan Update City of Carmel, Clay Township 1990 . I move that it be approved as presented with attachment 1 and the information that we were given by HNTB this evening. RICHARD KLAR: I ' ll seconded. JEFF DAVIS : It was seconded. Is there any discussion at this point? 8 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 SUE MCMULLEN: Call for the question! JEFF DAVIS : Everyone in favor of signify by saying aye . Opposed the same sign. Unanimously approved. JEFF DAVIS : There is a resolution here that HENRY BLACKWELL: Mr. Chairman I would like to move acceptance of the Resolution, I think you each have a copy of it in front of you. RICHARD KLAR: I ' ll seconded. JEFF DAVIS : Is there any discussion of the so called, Blackwell Resolution to accompany this? There is no discussion, everyone in favor of, what we are doing is sending this with the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council . Everyone in favor of signify by saying aye. Those opposed the same sign . I don ' t believe it . Unanimously approved. DAVID CUNNINGHAM: Jeff, the only outstanding question that staff has is are you going to appoint the 1995 Update Committee now? JEFF DAVIS : I don' t think anyone would serve if I tried to appoint them now. I would like to have that committee, have people be in mind to serve in 30 days . I would like to have some carry over from the old committee . DAVID CUNNINGHAM: Will you be chairing it? 9 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9 , 1991 JEFF DAVIS : Until the end of the year. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 10 P.M. 10 ity of rmel Wesley G. Bucher DIRECTOR• DEPT.OF ODMMUNfrY DEVELOPMENT Dorothy J.Hancock MAYOR April 3, 1991 Dear Plan Commission members, The following are the items I outlined at the last Plan Commission meeting involving what, hopefully, will be the last of the sessions and discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Update: I) Future roads: The enclosed map shows several roads, in yellow highlight, that were designated as future roads on the 1985 plan. These were not included by the consultants on the 1991 Update. There was, as far as minutes and the memory serves,never a discussion by the Comp Plan Committee to either keep them or delete them from the map. If the Commission believes they should be maintained, the Commission should move tonight to add them to the 1991 Update map for presentation to the Council and before final printing. If you would please draw your attention to the intersection of Guilford and 116th Street, you will notice there is a proposed extension of Guilford south to 111th Street. Staff has been working with the County Commissioners and Developers of Woodpark Subdivision to extend this street southward in a more direct manner. Due to that fact, and also to the relative uncertainty of the Monon Corridor, Staff would recommend the red dotted alignment. 2) Compliance with the county Comprehensive Plan: The 116th Street Task Force recommended that the County Comp Plan designation for River Road south of 116th Street be a Primary Arterial rather than a Secondary Arterial as shown on the proposed Carmel/Clay '91 Comp Plan Update. This would mean that the designated right-of-way for this road would increase from 90' to 100'. In addition, HazelDell Road should be designated in the text to extend as a Primary Arterial north from 116th to 146th Street (currently the text says 136th Street). If the Commission agrees with these two changes, a motion to correct the document and map should be made. I CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/571.2400 FAX 317/844.3498 • Page 2 4/3/91 3) The"Blackwell Letter,Part II": Mr.Blackwell will separate his recommendation and propose that the following be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update: 'This traffic/thoroughfare plan was based on 1989 studies. The Plan Commission will request that an updated traffic data be provided when traffic analysis plans are submitted with Development proposals." In addition, Mr. Blackwell is proposing that the attached resolution be sent to the Carmel City Council. 4) 116th Street recommendation. Alan Potasnik has requested that Mr.John Myers of HNTB work out wording to accommodate the recommendations of the 116th Street Task Force in the proposed Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Myers is meeting with Staff on Thursday, April 4th,and if his recommendations are forthcoming prior to the Tuesday, April 9th meeting, we will forward them to you. Hopefully, the above will give a clearer picture of the several issues that remain outstanding. Staff believes that the Commission can vote to make or deny these changes on Tuesday night, April 9th, and then vote at your regular Commission meeting on April 16th to --' recommend the document to the City Council. inc-rely, Wes Bucher enc. RESOLUTION TO ACCOMPANY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO THE CARMEL CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Authorized an update of the Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted in 1985, and WHEREAS, the "Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Carmel/Clay Township, 1990" has been considered by the Plan Commission, and, WHEREAS, the update has been limited in scope to include study and revision of only the areas of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to land use and transportation, and WHEREAS, a number of meetings and public hearings have occurred during Steering Committee and Plan Commission deliberations of proposed amendments to the 1985 Comprehensive Plan Update, and WHEREAS, large numbers of the public have attended meetings, answered surveys and spoken out giving their opinions and recommendations regarding land use and transportation issues, NOW THEREFORE, the Plan Commission recommends that a statement be included in the final text of the amended plan, . acknowledging the public's consensus recommendation that no change be made to present zoning laws where such change would result in greater density in housing units per acre in township areas not serviced by sewers and water, and that a statement be included in the final text of the amended plan acknowledging the public concern regarding increased traffic congestion and the need to have continually updated traffic projections upon which to base public discussion and future Plan Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals and Carmel City Council decisions regarding development impacting traffic flow into and out of the City and Township, and That in other respects the Plan Commission accepts the "Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Carmel/Clay Township 1990" and refers it to the Carmel City Council with a recommendation that it be enacted. 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 extension 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. Y.•. . . . • • • • .1 • _ .. •. • . •. • .• •• • • • •• • •q .l • • . •• . . - • • •.•, • •v . •• • • Ms' 1 •1 w • .• • •- . . • 1 • on •• •• • . - . /• • • .1 •- - •• -*I IS.. U.S ••' ' . w • ' / •1 •.• ' ..., • .. • , .. w. .1. • .1 C • • ., . . . . .• ••. _•. Since the preparation of the 1985 Update a consensus opinion avc..tc-fri,. k n S emerge in the community that non-residential development occurring along Meridian Street should not have direct access to Spring Mill and - 67 - NTEtHOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN S.SEROFNDOFR ARCHITECTS CNGINLICRS PLANNERS .1.11 MO) Nap foray Aiwa April 9, 1991 a, ,,,,4 Mr. Jeff Davis, President 13171 636-168,1Carmel-Clay Plan Commission f�X(3/7)G.t.ta�tuf 40 E. Main Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Carmel Comprehensive Plan Update Final Thoroughfare Plan Changes Dear Mr. Davis: 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 Commission: 1. Minor Collect.,... - Additional collector roadways have been added Thoroughfare Plan as requested by the DOCD staff in a letter todatedApril 3, 1991. 2. Adel]. Road orririnr - Text on pages 137 and 138 has been modified to indicate secondary parkway (120 ft. R and to show River Road as a primary aro ial (100 between 116th t. R Wnd 1 eth Streetsh and 116th Streets. Exhibits have been changed as appropriate. 96th 3. 1989 DataJDev tOpment Tra studies - As suggested by Mr. 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. 4. Wear Pa a =e1 Collecfnr - The north-south collector roadway U.S. 31 to the west is now shown conceptually as a straight para roadway located halfway between U.S. 31 and Spring Mill Road, 5. Elghtzglaujjaisaraam - 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, 6. lecondary Parkwavia„ - Towne Road, Hazeldell, and Gray Road are now shown as Secondary Parkways (120 ft. R/W) instead of Primary Parkways (150 ft. R/W) . • 806,040►11 I Ilur'w1.T F...“1J•M1 PI.11.••w••.1 L11.11.1..'4....J0.•,I I 1•(.111.1••'".41 II,...,..WC,11...1.1 A 4J,'4,,,,..1,,.11,.,.,..1. 1111444.1.' I. .1%.•••I I Ii••`.I:111h.111.••Iu 1.U.wo...M.Iw••WVJ1'IN— W.'YVr Ml 18••1,.1,.,.Y4.M'11.111'1•'.,..14 I;114µ1111114..kr, W+d•L./. Or J.,x'11111111.•.......PI,IL.. I YY.1W-.0 1-1'r..1Nl P9.Ik.l••wll 11..14.81 ••' w.l,.. I.1. ••r.1.1 -K1'.V.w 1 1.4441/.110.14.('1111 w'.'I.n W tJ.wL1.1111.II ••111 1.Iry 1..•./.1/1, M ,11.1 1.1I.,,'.•r f1 f1.M1U.••.l I' .IIIIII I C AVI,.111 YI PC,OL-.+.r I.M.n,l IH W,j,..n.111444.1 I'I.I i•••••• I ,/•./....•PC,MA..M /1;.1v.w'1.PC,M /1 1••11.1..11.1 PC.A1.••,,11'11 4 A,.r.•/1C.f;1.11ry1 YY1,1.01.....111,P...,A .111..1M•N Nur••w 11 �IpI,..I`C,I,o, J,Mph..MC,CJ1Yw••I.14•41.M'I'I,1L••Y••J I',.m1I1.1 1•"•..1q Vk•r..l.M A .., AIA.I+,. .. , . 4„ia. 11..Y1.w 1.W,ui..n A.A.CA......I.1•.1„v,r.1. .,. . 1•r..,.1 N M1/ly.I.\1A. Al. .11.-.4. ♦ . . 4 . r, i•• Kr. Jeff Davis Carmel-Clay Plan Commission April 9, 1991 Page 2 7. 116th Wept - In reepunse to the DOCD request of April 3, 1991, the text describing 116th Street recommendations on page 138 has been replaced with text which recognizes the review and recommendations of adjustments baseth d Street Study Committee, In addition, text supporting plan ura x- 8ohasdbeen modifiedes tohas threebeen lanesadded ratherpages than2and 130. four Figur lanes Fig on this section of 116th Street. 8. Expis�tori Notes - Reference has been added to the note on the color Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan to indicate that the plan has been prepared to represent a consensus opinion on future roadways and is not intended to indicate specific alignments of new roadways Likewise, the note previously shown on Figure X•8 (referring to site-specific engineering studies has been modified slightly and added to Figure X-7. We are prepared hope this information is issues helpful to eadditional necessary., the the Plan Commission in finalizing the Plan. Very truly yours, HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN 6 BEKCENDOFF -f il',i,. A V. Myer P.E. , AICP y.jeot Engi .er WM/ljc pFp . ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED TEXT CHANCES i l . v1.. , i ii • f2L(. 0-10-. It should be noted that while minimm 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 to supercede 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. sufficirnt right-of-way for sidewalks, bike paths, anis other amenities to addition to landscaping. Aesthetically, pa enhance the saraai parkways offer an opportunity to standpoint, p provide additional bid whole. •From a functional The wider right-of-way provider the opportunity� n'f°r meeting future ,�ecds. lanes to the median, without compromising for future expansion by character of the route. No the basic parkway secondary). corresponding toarterial classifications described are used Orimary and section. ' E. Proposed Minimum Geometric Standards Minim= design standards are useful not only for regulating construction of new thoroughfares and streets but also for evaluating existing conditions to determine deficiencies and program improvements to existing thoroughfares and streets. The design standards pertinent to this recommended Thoroughfare Plan for Cannel and Clay Township relate to the minimum right-of-way width and street pavement width for each functional class of thoroughfare. R¢kcring proposed functional classification changes from the 4441figadamsz these proposed standards art outlined in Table 1.4, Most of the ndnimwn geometric standards proposed here are consistent with • she recently updated standards ofiamilton County. Exceptions are parkways (not included in county classifications) and the local and colkcxor standards, which address pig in Cannel, but not in Hamilton County. While the functional classifications and minimton design standards in Table £4 are a part o f the reconvnended Thoroughfare Plan of the Comprehensive Plan Update, they should also become a part of the City's and Township's Subdivision Regulations, replacing conflicting classifications 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 • Ih . •lel. ♦qg •. :r�• ,,k•., .. . 44•40, ._...KAirX. ;_.. � ♦• • ♦�•r � A :r 1,11 a',++ r..,�..�r r.Ar.4'4'•. 4 •40, , . ; •• •proposed western parallel connector, will.be necessary to serve • abutting commercial developments. (4) Demand will continue to increase on Keystone Avenue due to residential development and a lack of north-south travel oppor- tunities between Keystone Avenue and White River. (5) Although not likely during the next twenty years, increased demand on Keystone Avenue may ultimately warrant an upgrade to freeway standards from 1-465 to 116th Street. (6) Before build-out is complete, a Township Line Road interchange at 1-465 will be needed to maintain mobility in western Clay Township. (7) Findings from the review of the programmed scenario provide a base which is quite conservative for a for a Cannel and Clay Township Thoroughfare Plan. 1.07 • Ke lopot G. Recommended Thoroughfare Plan I`�i Ali4wh ' earrtetn c StArodartie The recommended Thorouglybre Plan has been developed using the programmed scenario as a bate. Local, collector, and arterial roadway improvements are added to serve localized developments at indicated by the build-out scenario, and regional improvements are added to address modest additional trqtric growth on regional roadways. The resulting plan is illustrated, in terms of jinuxional class and lane widths, on Figure X7. -r1 Wt. which X.8 presents a recommended 20 year roadway improvement elan which corresponds to the thoroughfare plan. Al noted . •• ---- , •nal r4rr3'*pi, configurations and tirnetabk of these improvements will depend speck studies and demonstrated need on project- . speck recognition of differing ering area characteristics, and for clarity of discussion, po otzsme N the Thoroughfare Plan is described below in terms of western, central, and eastern sections of Clay Township. 1. Western Clay1'pwnrhip 03oone Cowuy Line to Sprjrig Mill Road) Roth the 1985 Update and the 19)0 Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan propose the lowest density of development in the western porton of Clay Township. Principal exceptions are anticipated commercial areas along Michigan Road at the southwestern corner of Clay Township and at urnspec lfled locations near major intersections of Towne a. Q ‘\4-A 4; pc 2'6 0.A.3 4 efrwflos1.40..., It should be noted that this Zttroughfare Plan is based on 1989 data and studies. Although the results are suitable for supporting an areawide plan, c they are not sufficient to replace traffic impact studies for specific �✓J 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 functional11classification would suggest more. Figure X.7 indicates right d� way constraints to parkway Gconstruction on both 116th and 146th Streets, even though they are designated as parkways. Similar adjustments to geometric standards may be recognized elsewhere by the Plan Commission on a case-by-case basis, as indicated Pro „loon.,, in Section E, Pi 'it'v1f4�feRhe ti Geometric Standards. 1_.1. '; psi. • ;x;11 immediate vicinity of the U.S. 31 freeway assume interchanges at these two locations and at 126th Street. It is emphasized, however, that the final configuration of the freeway and its interchanges must be determined in detailed engineering studies beyond the scope of this review. This planning process has 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 can be reserved to minimize the cost and impact of construction. Regardless of the final configuration of the U.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 U.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 serve commuter traffic between Carmel residences .and Indianapolis employment cantata. Future land use scenarios suggest that this trend will continue. A review of minimum needs from approved developments (programmed scenario) indicates that Keystone Avenue should be widened to six lanes rind between 98th Street(where the existing six-lane section ends casters Drive. When anticipated residential growth in western y ownahip is considered, traffic forecasts suggest a need to extend the six-lane facility northward to 131st Strut, 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 I-465 and Indianapolis. The potential need for a freeway standard on Keystone Avenue is based on assumed build-out of residential areas in eastern 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 tither U.S. 31 or Keystone Avenue, especially where interchange construction is proposed. Since both facilities are stale highways, it is assumed that INDOT 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 reviews indicate that a "tight urban diamond' design 4*IP- irua.•.vi.,u�•r r mended for 116th Street and 146th Street, subject to socioeconomic impacts of right-of-way acquisition, as indicated by project-level environmental studies. Three locations within central Clay Township have been identified 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. Channelization or signalization improvements are underway or planned at each location, but long-range needs may warrant more extensive improvements. Bach location is subject to development which may preclude future options for improvement. 3. • 1 •!tl N• :I, I I 1t •1h11a I • yl • J/1 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 extended across White River to I-69, out 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 serve future commercial development in the area. • More than other areas of Clay Township, the eastern section is affected by existing barriers to travel and limitations to potential roadway development. The 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 I-465 to the south and Keystone Avenue to the west. Although Allisonville Road (east of White River) provides an option for north-south travel, it is congested and difficult to access. As a result, Keystone Avenue and White River tend to *funnels residential traffic to the I-465/Keystone Avenue interchange. This has impacts for future Keystone Avenue traffic volumes (as discussed in the previous section) and for local roadways throughout this part of the township. A review of build-out conditions for medium density housing (two units per acre for estimating traffic effects) indicates the following future needs for eastern Clay Township: tkt5 f' A W1 new cit Road . Extend , .• • -- i. ' 116th Street/ and 4 • lino Rosa ped.• widen to four lanelto serve as a north-sou 'arterial &x ►' ,�►�.�.• • • • 137 • L. ;.k • travtrsi+a 441e eh} LI% 044, . the stud's Clay Township. This will -• ' ,odate a rola• y large service ° arcareduce traffic demand n River Aven • and provide a consistency with Hamilton C 'ty plans. It would be the only four-lane north-south roadway^ of Keystone Avenue,ard•aeosis el•Wosioditowss, To enhance the character of this roadway through high quality residential areas, itis proposed as a parkway io'r'4S'tret 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 traffic forecasts. If Ha eldcll Road is constructed as proposed north of 116th Street, further widening of Gray Road to the north should be unnecessary if development is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. c. 116th Street - 1'&.place.. u.704.... ?a7A-st'Nelft.56 Sizeet..-Lake.s,-suliditsion‘and4olf.courses.hlockAppeetenitiss for parka�'.�y �tn�Coa3. mets--idea ft -in • 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 Hat eldedl Road to Keystone Avenue to serve sur- rounding residential development. As with 116th Street, this need relates to traffic concentrations resulting from the funneling effect of White River and Us lack of east-west parallel roadways be- tween Gray Road and Keystone Avenue. • f. 106tti.St t - T714M-TO tieacasts indicate a need for four lanes betwm' rzystone Avenue for the same general reasons as fit 4,,._ street and 126th Street. - • Jae4e2/144f)ft ."10 • e, 156 AAs in previous Carmel-Clay Township Thoroughfare Plans, early drafts of this 1990 Amendment indicated a need for four lams 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 golf 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 (EP 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 recommendation po hree lanesfor his/corridor section.t Consistent with the recommendations of the 116th Street Study Committee, Figure X.8 shows 116th Street as a three-lane roadway between Keystone rO� Avenue and White River. As stated previously, a parkway character is in- tended for this 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 ..^.0,1c /.nt,l e, ..nr' lr1 � .a-- 7 r - recommendation, and the relatively slow rate of growth in Eastern Clay Township, ® additional review of alternate parallel routes ie left to the next Comprehensive Plan Update. `'+, 'ttYY • . ATTACHMENT 2 EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR FICURES & EXHIBITS • • • • • • • 480. 0 © o O cts . ett12 O C. 6. a) s 7 w ` ' �( � • asj U o 7 �.. : 3 --t- = ,,,..--., tL ems ; 7E 7.... ce tD . . i .4... N o a U 5 — F 4 . 73 :78 ' :i I, o ....2 Q. ' 51.4' ' 0 1 1) (1) F•41 :11 I ;4 .-u 1 • ali r aS (1.) ; Z 2. Ac) 0 44 0 3 was EMI ° :< ° ..E.1 '.1g Ail • ii- 2 •4— co V.. on .€ , , c .0 ie. 4.6 e• • Z es. ..,\...:.j.i.... , : -d• al. g D . . 4, •a 1. . a ce -• o : -:: 1 c . . * ci I; 4 i . . .4) ' ' ' agerl 4?o 4 . . o . • ` i•+ . 4 . a4. . . a a 7 Clill �1 O C 2 O 411 0 c 0 is. 'ow 2 a 6 C:11 41.+1 O � . ' ao c v C ! co) 0i • mi a. U 03 ca act ` p m O a U 43 iimllami = 6* a ` , pro il ,./Ifl .> in cl "" co) ii�.. 'Z' w.. Q1 }r = 0 5. 0 1■!4 1,=•••=,a,••••••••.. ....... 0.... O • . IA E - . CO CZ CCS 1 2___________, 0\ 0 cn u; • a) a) ......• ....... ,c1 .)..) 4_, !IIMPIE - . . CD ac a) E 4--• CO d) v) a) . ,.,.. a t .0 ...... .0) ;:i .4 _. , .2 .c....- 2 -0 , 0 .s.,47) (.,, 0 > 4,.. ...0 .....• +.4 • ' • :4‘1. ".‘"4.=.,i . • ._.. , . .;.../A.:::.:ent... -;...:..;', .• •144" ';.. It-if •---... CO.:: c:, E. a) () m • • ;.: . I.. a '1� C tom!) : 0 0 C • 'C7 +-0 4-+ U) C.. � ' co c N iOqieqS to 0 .c C� a, E a)uac •0 '474 ,c 0)• CD +-+ +a +-+ ..... — E ci, a) ;Ai, 4.0 co f' . • GI E E C a Cca O la) o CD V > CD • . • (,) >. a] 6. a CD '-. 1 > CZ C,) .()) ) 0) ., 1... r cti c'a -5 au (n cn . 2 ED,. Art .I M V) Cv -o. CT �._.,.; M = CO Q) ....., r) , 1111 ..�. . n c ._ tz 41► O LTJ ..... N . -,..- .7- '�' CJS 1 C l 0 CZ's C C13 '" C Co 0). "' ' . I II � 0 CD C C� C -+-� • T ,1 , V Cn -C ' CD 0 2; . . ..4:i C0.., .LlCti U 41..1 ° ( � ;; = • Q) C 'ta U) • ..... C . C 11• C2. CD C 0 uo e q o• 0 CD .° t. F (i) C.) =CO N a C� ►r . ta) iii "0 (13 • • 0 . . E � .0 � .._. • I f • �.