HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments 96th & Westfield Draft Sub Area Plan96th and Westfield Draft Sub Area Plan (ice l'Ylty e'l
DESCRIPTI o
Date
10/26/2009 Pat Rice
Date
Date
Name
Ground Rules
CRITICAIZ,SUBAREAYEO.UNDARIES
Name
Ground Rules
INSTALLSIDE PATHS
Name
10/18/2009 Michelle Spahr Email
10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr
BUF
Date
10/26/2009
10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter
10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email
NEIGHBORHOODS'TFROMMEDEVELOPM
Name
Pat Rice
Format
Letter
Format
Format
Format
Letter
10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email
10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting
10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting
Person with Interest's Comments
(Last paragraph) Please address the plan for grade separation between Keystone and Westfield Blvd. on 96th Street.
Does the plan still include a round -about at 96th St. and Haverstick?
Need to change last paragraph, first line, to read "In upcoming years, 1 -465 is..."
Person with Interest's Comments
May need to change orientation map to extend to Monon Greenway.
Need to change title to "Critical Subarea Boundaries" not "Critical Area Boundaries"
Person with Interests Comments
Person with Interest's Comments
This is certainly a valid strategy for a neighborhood that contains few walkways for pedestrians. The concern that I have is
the side path that is proposed along the south side of 99th Street from Keystone to Westfield Boulevard. As you are aware,
there are 13 acres of dense woods starting at the corner of Haverstick and 99th and heading west. Installing side paths or
sidewalks would involve the destruction of at least 7 trees that are in excess'of 18 inches in diameter as well as multiple
smaller trees. The proposed plan states that a goal is preserving the tree canopy. In particular, the proposed plan states
that "Carmel will utilize its zoning regulations and processes to reasonably protect existing tree canopy in the subarea."
Destruction of the trees on the south side of 99th Street would not be consistent with this policy. Rather, it would be
consistent with prior plans and negotiations for the sidewalk to be planned for the north side of 99th. There are already
existing sidewalks on the north side of 99th at the Brooks Bend and Weldon Ponds neighborhoods. Thus, it would only
entail construction of sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street between these 2 subdivisions. In particular, when the
neighborhood worked with the City of Carmel and Estridge, the developer of Brooks Bend, the City indicated that eventually
sidewalks would be extended west from Brooks Bend. It is my understanding that easements were retained in the remainder
of the development to the immediate west of Brooks Bend for eventual sidewalks. In addition, the trees have already been
cleared on the north side of 99th Street for the recent utilities that have been installed on the north side of 99th Street in the
Hills and Dales neighborhood. Completing sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street would be less costly as well as
preserving mature tree canopy.
PC Meeting Supportive of sidepaths, however they should be located on the north side of 99th Street to preserve the existing woodlands
on the south side of the street.
What defines a "stable neighborhood" from a "residential area" and to which areas do these apply?
What is meant by "...but preservation of as many residential dwellings should also be considered" and what areas are being
referenced?
I would like the plan to include language that states that any decorative walls be only constructed of non -wood materials.
i.e. Brick, Stone, composite material only. I feel wood fencing that has been used in past projects deteriorates too quickly
and 'lust become an "eye sore" for the community.
At the last meeting, we discussed the possibility of having cul -de -sacs at the end of some of the streets. Maple, Lincoln and
Kittrell. I know that this option was supported by many of the people on those streets. I would like to see it as part of the
plan. I feel that if Maple is connected all the way through to 99 th street, this would be a negative to the neighborhood.
During high traffic times, many people would use this street as a cut through to avoid the round- about. We already have
many car dealers using the street as a test drive area and this is dangerous to the children in the area. So, I propose
cutting off access to the south to 96 street and making Maple Drive a cul -de -sac. If this option is not possible, then we
would need "speed humps" in place to protect the residents.
Strongly support maintaining the residential areas
Would prefer greenspace as a buffer instead of a wall.
Planner /Staff Notes
The language for grade separation at Keystone Parkway and 96th Street is
in the document. The plan for a roundabout at 96th and Haverstick is not.
Planner /Staff Notes
Planner /Staff Notes
The 13 acres of woods is a developable parcel. When it develops, the
developer would likely be required to build a sidepath on the south side of
99th Street consistent with Aramore. With Aramore's piece, a significant
portion of sidepath on the south side of 99th Street would be built at the
expense of development. The north side sounds like a good opportunity as
well. Showing sidepath on both sides of the street may be a good
compromise.
Planner /Staff Notes
We based "stable" on the opinions of the 100+ persons that attended the
open houses and professional planner observation during field research.
10/29/2009
D Z`( -C1
STABILIZE>HA'MILTONHEIGHTS AND FOREST GLEN`SUBDIVISION
Date
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
Date
Name
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Name
IMPROVESURFACEIDRA/NA
Date
Date
Name
Format
Letter
Letter
10/23/2009 Steve Pittman Email
ADD STREETL%GHTS_AND SIDEWALK
Format
10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email
Format
10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email
CONNECTMAPLE STREET TO 99THSTREET
Name Format
10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email
10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email
10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email
10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email
10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email
10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email
10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email
10/20/2009 Pete Sole PC Meeting
10/20/2009 Pete Sole PC Meeting
Person with Interest's Comments
This text is a bit confusing. (please see "Other Comments
Emergency access need to be addressed. This is already an issue with the round -about when traffic is at grid -lock north,
south, east and around the circle.
I would like to comment on how to preserve the residential on Maple and Lincoln. It is my belief that if we want the
residential on those 2 streets to improve and not become rentals, then it would be a good idea to create commercial off of
96 Street and then cul -de -sac these streets where commercial meets the residential. This area would have a new major
entryway at 98 Street and have a second point of ingress and egress through Aramore to 99 th Street. We may want to do
that with Kittrell also, but plan on having all of the houses between 98 th Street and 96 street between Kittrell and Westfield
to be redeveloped to a much higher urban density classification. That additional density coupled w Aramore would allow for
some walkable business and retail to thrive on 96 Street. I think this could be really cool in the long run. I know Carmel
does not like to cul -de -sac streets and they want more of a grid pattern but this may be an example where the cul -de -sac
makes sense.
Person with Interest's Comments
I would like the plan to commit to including sidewalks and street lighting in the Forest Glen area. The current plan
language is very vague.
Person with Interest's Comments
I would like the plan's language to include a more "specific plan" as to resolving the drainage issues in Forest Glen. The
language currently is vague and really means that this problem will linger on and not get resolved in my view. One idea is if
the cul -de -sac option is put in place for some of the streets, part of the buffering area could include a landscaped drainage
pond to help handle the overflow during rainy periods.
Person with Interest's Comments
We ask it to be mandated that going forward as par of the plans, that Maple Drive be closed off to 96th Street. Would
support connections to either 99th Street or Westfield Blvd. be considered and approved.
The bottom line is this. We know that change is inevitable. We also know the pressures that are present to modify the land
use on 96th Street. Haverstick is already being groomed as an access road from 99th to 96th complete with a roundabout.
If the proposed modifications and land use changes are put into place, opening Maple Drive to the traffic that will be created
will only server to destroy our quite, tree -lined family neighborhood and turn it into just another traffic moving street.
It was stated under the (connect maple street to 99th section) that Maple Dr. should be open to 99th and or 98th Streets for
emergency needs. This does have some merit, but only if maple would be closed off to 96th street. Without that closure,
our safety and security is harmed not strengthened by these changes.
The traffic would increase both from 96th going south and west, the traffic from Westfield going west and the traffic from
99th St. Going south would be funneled down our street any time cars wanted to avoid backups or delays on these streets.
At present we are used by the auto dealerships as test tracks for their customers. We also get traffic every morning and
evening as it is from these peak times, even now when our streets go nowhere. To say that the opening of these streets in
some wav benefits the residents is not an argument.
If 96th St. is to be redesigned to include more commercial development we do not think that opening up our street to traffic
from Westfield and or 99th Street should be considered unless and considered as part of those changes that Maple Dr. be
closed to 96th activity with access being rerouted from either 99th St, or from an entrance that would open pitman's
development to Westfield blvd.
Most of the information that has been shared with our neighborhoods was shared three years ago when this whole process
started. Although for the most part we understand that change is inevitable change that does not consider its resident's
needs should be open for modifications.
I, and most of our neighborhoods concerns are centered around the safety of our children, the preservation of our way of life
in our neighborhoods and the value of our assets as it pertains to our homes. We are here because we choose to be and
have worked to make our street a place that we are proud of.
Maple Drive should continue to be a dead end street, in order to limit traffic for the safety of our children.
If there is commercial development, then Maple Dr should not be connected through to 96th Street to protect our
neighborhood.
2
Planner /Staff Notes
Applies also to "Connect Maple Street to 99th Street" section, and "Maintain
Westfield Boulevard as a Residential Corridor" section.
Planner /Staff Notes
Could be tied to "developer costs" similarly to building cul -de -sacs, at least
for portions of the neighborhood. Also, if residential redevelopent occurs
along Westfield, that too could partially fund street lighting.
Planner /Staff Notes
Not enough engineering study has been conducted to add more at this time.
Planner /Staff Notes
10/29/2009
ALLOW_EMPLOY,MENT CENTERS ALP NG96.TH
Date
Name Format
10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter
10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting
10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting
10/18/2009 Michelle Spahr Email
10/14/2009 Joy Sullivan Email At the maximum it should be 2 lots deep on East side of Wild Cherry
I feel that the plan should in compass only two lots deep (commercial area) East of Wild Cherry Alexia has responded to Ms. Sullivan and a copy of the comment will be
10/14/2009 Joy Sullivan Email distributed to the Plan Commission members before the October meeting
10/1 /2009 Frank Hahn Letter Asking that the properties located at 9639 and 9659 would be included in the plans as neighborhood business locations
10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email
10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email
10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email
10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email Another phrase that may be problematic is re: neighborhood serving commercial "if fully supported by community." I'm
concerned about using the word "fully" not knowing what that could mean in the future
10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email Also, the light blue code between Haverstick and Keystone I believe should be "employment node" rather then "community
vitality node" in keeping with the existing usage
9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email Feels that all of the sections /areas identified directly adjacent to 96th and directly adjacent to Westfield should be planned
for redevelopment and /or transitional use.
The entire sections numbered 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 should also be included in the redevelopment options
9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email
The other sections /areas more interior to the 96th Street and Westfield Blvd. roadways could remain protected
9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email neighborhoods, with buffers, if the landowners there preferred, which seemed the case at the afternoon open house that I
attended
We feel that the possibility of re= development of the land directly adjacent to 96th Street and directly adjacent to Westfield
Blvd. would provide the opportunity to improve the use of these lands, from their original 1950's and 1960's residential
9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email characteristic, to possibly something more currently characteristic the 96th Street and Westfield Blvd. roadways being
more heavily traveled now than then), and, provide for the highest and best current use of the land. The re- development in
these roadway adjacent sections /areas could possibly be office, commercial, retail, or residential in nature
9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email
9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell
Name
Email
GR.!) AN;4GEM
Date
10/26/2009 Pat Rice
Format
Letter
Person with Interest's Comments
Planner /Staff Notes
This text presents major issues and needs to be explained as to the meaning of words and phrases. The wording opens up This subarea plan is consistent with most of the others in its degree of being
a legal issue as well as allowing for decisions to be made by other than the Plan Commission and City Council. Ground "conceptual."
Rules has stated several times that this plan is "conceptual" and not binding nor "property specific." It is my understanding
the purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to be more than just conceptual as an actual document that gives direction to
developers and the public and speaks on behalf of the City of Carmel. Using the term conceptual leaves everything open
to interpretation at any given time by whomever is doing the interpreting. A, plan brings clarity and direction for
interpretation.
In the Chesterton area, the depth of the commercial should be only (2) lots deep, as opposed to (3).
Would support single story commercial, consistent with the residential character.
The second concern that I have is the width and height of the of the employment centers along 96th Street. Although we
recognize that the north side of 96th Street will eventually become commercial, we would like to anticipate that the
commercial development will be more professional and Tess invasive than suggested in the proposed plan. In particular, we
would rather see the commercial developments at a width of 2 lots for the entire length of 96th Street not just that area
located contiguous to Cherry Lane. In addition, the buildings should be 1 story with facades and roof designs that are
consistent with the area. I would refer your attention to the commercial buildings east of Haverstick on the north side of
96th Street. In particular, the building on the northeast corner of Haverstick and 96th Street is a dentist office that is a
renovated single family dwelling. To the east of the dental office are several recent commercial construction projects that
are single story low light density and professional in design. I am referring to the medical building and the jewelry store.
The design and style of these buildings would be consistent with a more professional commercial setting that would
enhance rather than detract from the remaining residential character of the neighborhood.
In the description the term "three properties deep" is used. However, on the map it shows three acres deep three Acres is not a linear measurement. The map is scaled to reflect 3 properties
properties would cut off the two northern properties on Wild Cherry Lane which acreage runs east/west deep.
I believe the intent (according to the map) should read "three acres deep" rather than three properties deep Acres are not linear measurements
The historic property facing Haverstick was included and I wondered if that was an oversight The historic property is in the "residential" area
We feel the re- development/transitional option should be available and characteristic along 96th Street, through the 96th
Street/Westfield Blvd. intersection, and, continuing North through t h e area in question along Westfield Blvd
We directly own 6 parcels in the section /area you numbered 10, directly fronting along Westfield Blvd
Person with Interest's Comments
"Redevelopment along 96 Street should be permitted only when it is contiguous to existing commercial uses..." This
statement rules out redevelopment west of Haverstick. (The dental office on the east side of Haverstick is a Special Use
and is zoned S -2 not zoned commercial.)
3
The predominant use is "community serving but don't take issue with
"employment" being used.
The reference to numbers is from a map we used in the first open house.
The numbers mostly correspond to the areas shown in the first draft of the
subarea plan.
Planner /Staff Notes
These areas are supported in the document to be redeveloped for more
intense residential uses.
10/29/2009
UTIL/ZETRANSIT/ONA'L' USE A
._LAND S.ANDFORM PTO °SOFTEN= `IMPAC3S1 OF POTENTIALL''Y LARGE SCALE= OFFICEPEV.ELOPIVIENT SO,UTH.OF 96TH =BYRE
Date
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
Name
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
10/23/2009 Steve Pittman
MA/NTA/N$WESTRELD BL,VD:AS kRES1QENT/AL"CORR/D
Date
10/26/2009
Name
Pat Rice
10/18/2009 Michelle Spahr
DESIGN .GUIDELINES
Date
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
Name
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
10/26/2009 Pat Rice
10/26/2009 Pat Rice
Format
Letter
Letter
Email
Format
The words "maintained as" followed by "however redevelopment..." seem to be conflictive.
I support maintaining Westfield Boulevard as residential, I am concerned about high density condominiums and apartments.
Email At a minimum, if multi- family dwellings are considered, they should be no greater than 2 stories in height and designed
with no more than 4 units per building with substantial green space and trees.
Letter
Format
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Person with Interest's Comments
What are "two conflicting land uses
This section seems somewhat confusing.
Wild Cherry Corner area. I interacted closely with these folks when I was going through zoning on Aramore and became
very familiar with their part of the world. I went so far as to share with them how I thought the area should be planned. I
know we need to be sensitive to the Chesterton neighborhood and that this area will not develop overnight. I also think it is
important that the approved study that comes out of the council needs to send a message that Carmel knows and wants this
area to be developed and encourages a developer to bring in a plan and that the city is open to a good plan that is not
bound by existing property lines. To that end, I think the plan should encourage this area to be developed commercially or
to be developed commercially w a higher density residential component transitioning to Chesterton. I don't think one could
actually look at developing the front of the property commercially and not develop the back of the parcel. It all needs to be
developed together. Since none of us can see the future, it is important to build in as much flexibility for the property to be
developed in a manner that meets the demands of the market at the time that it is developed. That being said Carmel
should and will control the architectural integrity of the development along w the appropriate buffering to the preserved
residential areas.
Person with Interest's Comments
Person with Interest's Comments
"Protect and enhance existing tree canopy" suggest using the phrase, "preserve tree canopy where possible."
Again, use of the terminology, "stable neighborhoods," needs the area(s) defined.
What does "buffer designs that do not consume large areas which necessitate the demolition of additional residential
structure" mean? What area(s) are involved?
Using the word "if" again implies that it is not the Plan Commission that determines whether or not such a development is
appropriate. After the Plan Commission and City Council hear from the community, it is still up to them, not the community
to decide. That's what public hearings are all about. (Same wording is used as a caption under photo at bottom left.)
Planner /Staff Notes
Planner /Staff Notes
Planner /Staff Notes
10/29/2009
yr
WILD. CHERRY,CORNER (WGGY
Date
10/20/2009
10/16/2009
10/16/2009
10/16/2009
10/17/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
THE M AP,
Date
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
10/23/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009
Name
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Charles Mary
Harshbarger
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Name
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Format
WCC wants to remain a "quiet residential oasis"
She plans to submit and present the following two things: That they believe the buffer boundary should be shown on the
map further north to include her property and the Alexis family to the west of Pat's property, but still avoiding the historic
property. She also believes the Imel and Hollenback properties should be included; and that the text in the document
should be modified to say something like "the depth of redevelopment shall be limited to 3 properties deep for building sites,
but may include additional properties in depth if those properties are used for) buffering."
Other notable information is that the Hollenback property, which is the middle "bowling alley" lot east of Maple Drive, is now
Phone party to the attempted sale of the Wild Cherry Corner "neighborhood."
There is one property included in the group sale, the Jones family, that is north and west of Pat's home. It gains access
from the Wild Cherry stub street coming out of Chesterton neighborhood. Pat was suggesting that it too be included in the
text and on the map as a redevelopment property.
PC Meeting
Phone
Phone
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Phone
Person with Interest's Comments
Is the plan to change the entire Wild Cherry Corner area from S -2 to commercial or will only the area shown as proposed
redevelopment be changed to commercial? We own 2 acres at 2406 E. 96th St., which is the northwest corner of Wild
Email Cherry Corner. Although we are not interested in selling our property at this time, if the plan is to change the entire Wild
Cherry Corner to commercial, we would like to be included in the change in case we decide to participate in any future
redevelopment.
Email The proposed map excludes four of the original properties of Wild Cherry Corner
WCC residents have been working with the City for ten years to get something resolved. For many years, we worked to
Email preserve this area as residential, but as things, have developed over the past five years especially, this is no longer an
option
We believe WCC should be seen as a whole, not fragmented. Perhaps it could be designated for a mixed use
redevelopment allowing for a PUD which would give the Planning Commission and City control of how it is developed
Wild Cherry Corner is not a platted subdivision
There was a court ruling made many years ago when the developers of the Chesterton Subdivision attempted to cut through
Wild Cherry Lane cul -de -sac to 96th Street
All of WCC (Wild Cherry Corner) properties include one or more acres with the exception of the above mentioned
The small home on the Historic property sits very close to Haverstick and the entire property is already well buffered. The
owners have expressed that they are not opposed to the rest of WCC being developed
Wild Cherry Corner is not part of the Chesterton Neighborhood as proposal suggests
Planner /Staff Notes
The text modification sounds reasonable and might be supported by other
property owners in the subarea. The map modification I'm not fully in
support of, but think there is room for compromise. I think it is reasonable to
show the buffer bumped further north to conceptually include part of the next
two properties, but I think it's risky to go much more north. The text seems
to be the areatest concern.
The map information we reviewed from the Realtor representing the
neighborhood didn't include it. Had we known that, we would likely have
shown 3 properties deep starting one property farther to the west.
Although they were historically part of Wild Cherry Corner division, their
home was established many years ago as being north of the barricade and
has always been associated with the Chesterton neighborhood. Although
they may be willing /wanting to sell, including that property for redevelopment
would very likely generate significant remonstration. I also rationally I
cannot see the need or benefit to the surrounding area (or to a developer for
that matter) to have that oronertv redeveloped.
Format
Letter
Letter
Email
Phone
Phone
The buffer area shown can be considered a "taking"
Clarity needed on which district the historic home is in
Person with Interest's Comments
Ground Rules has stated that the map is "only conceptual." One cannot tell just where the buffer demarcation line is drawn
Letter without exact location given. If the map represents the text, then it too presents the legal issues raised in the text and is
indeed property specific.
The map does not reflect the various types of residential land use but rather suggests all areas outside the commercial area
remain classified as "residential preservation" without defining what the word "residential" means. (Example: Aramore is a
higher residential area than Chesterton Subdivision but appears on the map to be the same.)
Ground Rules stated that it is difficult to get developers to combine commercial and residential, yet it does occur in a
number of places. Is there a classification that would permit a combination commercial and urban residential?
Requested the classification that the church property falls under and also historical sites.
Planner /Staff Notes
Sarah replied that the church properties are identified as "Institutional
Nodes" on the Proposed C3 Future Land Classification Map and that the
historical sites are identified as "Suburban Residential"
Sarah sent Pat an email asking her to share her likes, dislikes, and ideas to
remedy her dislikes.
It is clearly in the "protect neighborhood" classification
10/29/2009
MISCELANEO
Date
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
10/23/2009
10/16/2009
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
10/26/2009
Date
10/22/2009
10/20/2009
10/20/2009
10/20/2009
10/20/2009
10/20/2009
10/18/2009
10/13/2009
Name
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
10/27/2009 Michael Johnson
Steve Pittman
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Pat Rice
Name
Edward Steele
Pat Rice
Luci Snyder
Luci Snyder
Luci Snyder
John Tintera
Michelle Spahr
Luci Snyder
Format
Letter
Email
Email
Phone
Letter
Letter
Format
Email
PC Meeting
PC Meeting
PC Meeting
PC Meeting
PC Meeting
Email
Email
Person with Interest's Comments
Some of the language used in this subarea plan seems to be vague and at times ambiguous, leaving important issues
unanswered and unresolved.
Throughout the subarea text, words such as "would," "should," or "will seem to be interchanged and lack clear direction in
Letter the context in which they are used. (Compare with the Home Place Subarea text which gives clear contextual direction.)
It is my opinion that the highest and best use of the land making up Wild Cherry Corner is for commercial urban residential
use. The current and future residents will benefit from the development of Wild Cherry Corner, as well as, those that work
along or use the 96th Street corridor. The most logical approach would be to include all of the properties making up Wild
Cherry Corner for land re- classification to include commercial urban residential opportunities. This will present a cohesive
area for development to the type of developer that the City of Carmel would like to attract.
While I have not been close to this most recent study, with my investment at Aramore, I am hopeful that this area develops
out in a very dynamic and attractive way.
Wants to know rational for map and language in draft plan
The new Comprehensive Plan Transportation map is showing this section of 96th as a Primary Arterial. That was taken
from the Hamilton County Transportation map but that was never the correct classification. The County had planned to
expand 96th St. west as a Primary Arterial but was taken off the table after the 96th St. Corridor Study. The accurate
classification was a Secondary Arterial and then changed after the study to a Residential Parkway. This was added as an
amendment to the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan and has been shown in a number of conceptual plans.
Given the changes that will be taking place on 96th St. between Keystone,and Westfield Blvd. and a plan exists to extend
96th St. to Pennsylvania Parkway, a decision needs to be made as to what classification best applies to this section of
Letter roadway. The proposed extension from Westfield to Penn is designated as a Secondary Parkway which seems to best fit
the entire section of road from Keystone to Pennsylvania Parkway. (See the parkway treatment of Westfield Blvd. from 96th
St. roundabout to 99th Street.'
This information is a significant part of the missing link in the 10- year -old Special Study which was to make a decision on
the configuration of 96th Street from Keystone to Westfield Blvd. and from Westfield to Pennsylvania Parkway.
Person with Interest's Comments
6
I would like to add a vote of complete approval to the subarea plan as it presently exists. I cannot think of any significant
change I would recommend. The planning demonstrates logic and common sense in every way.
The neighborhood can benefit from a well designed plan.
The properties on 96th Street are in "limbo"
Now is the time to finalize a plan for this area.
It has been a delight to see all of the opinions coming to a consensus.
Well studies, and good involvement.
I am pleased to see that the present plan is a thoughtful plan taking into account many of the concerns of the homeowners
in our neighborhood.
Thank yob for all of your work on this project
Planner /Staff Notes
All language is based on what we believe is supported by the 100+ people
that attended the open house.
We can add a description of the preferred cross section for 96th Street
between Keystone Pkwy. and Westfield Blvd. If the City has a good sense
of what its design will be, it could prove useful to communicate to the
development community.
Planner /Staff Notes
10/29/2009