Letter to Jeff Davis from John Myers Re: Thoroughfare Plan 3/5/91 1.4rjrirei 225;North
HOWARD NWEDLetts TAMMEN G.AGRGIENDOFF
ARGHITGCTs CNOINCCqe PLANNGRi 'JrrsL�'•til mel
hulicinaprths, 1ncGirJ+i<
March 5, 1991 (_317)636-408
Fax(31')6.3.3-n505
Mr. Jeff Davis, President
Carmel-Clay Plan Commission
40 E. Main
Carmel, IN 46032
Re: Final Recommended Thoroughfare Plan
1990 Carmel-Clay Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Mr. Davis:
As the Comprehensive Plan approval process is drawing to a close , we would
like to suggest a few final thoroughfare plan adjustments for consideration
by the Commission, They are briefly discussed below:
1. garkway5 - Although the proposed minimum geometric design
standards (Table X.4) include both primary parkways (150
foot right-of-way) and secondary parkways (120 foot right-
of-way) , all parkways shown on the plan are indicated as
primary. Considering the overall pattern of roadways and
potential long-term needs, we would recommend the
following classifications:
Primary Parkways: 116th St. , 146th Street
Secondary Parkways: Towne Road, Cray Road, Hazeldell Road
2 , Rieht-of-WaY. imitation) - Language is included in the
report text to vindicate that plans are conceptual and
subject to adjustment based on project-specific
factors. Nevertheless , this concept is not well
communicated geographically. Therefore , a new symbol is
suggested (series of slashes) to indicate "probable right-
of-way restrictions, " where adjustments to geometric
design standards may be necessary to minimize impact on
existing development. As a minimum, this symbol should
be shown on 116th Street east of Keystone Avenue. We
would welcome Commission and staff input on other sections
appropriate for this notation.
:. 11u,I L..J,I,..r 1 1 i,1,11111'1.I I„11x:.'1.�1 l`.r.,,..IJL.I J.,,,,1111 A. LI....r.11:.Irlll:.'ll 1 Till Ill...,” Irl',rl.,.1,,I :I,'I„. Irl
P,f/ 1.1..,1„•..T 1,4.11111q1111 1'IL.I!"'.J' '
/ V:1 ;',I..,,"r r,f i I I,x,J,Ju ,.l rr .1,,"'W W'I',',V'4,•,N[:.Ml,in,.',1 I).(l
1r,�1,.r.u,1'If�riA:f.,xl•If 1 1.r,•,,.1,..''.1�.
I' 'Y 1,1�IUr,.. A,F I„r�•.1.,•x 11%!,. uV.J, f-•I nu,�•,.: N.. .,.1,�...li'l^I .,. I
A. O f rr•f ,u 1.Pt.. .n.."'L 1. 'I H[ ,I,• HI 1 , v I l 1 ••.. .'Pr fl.,1 f4J1 ..' Pf Linn wY I A•
AH NI�R�A � oJI I.t 1'1''� , - (f II� ,.u•11t 14 ..c{ I• I M Ibo„.. f 1 -t' �
f, M I I' r,t„u I I:',L r•NI 111„1 I K 1,1, i W .. 1' i .1.
",,,w. r'[ IJ .' I"1 ,J r ,1 1`I 1"11r•n r'..L W II r,In r AIF.(1 I I,1,
H rC L:, - MA I l .I.r L f1 'I. 1 1 V. „., f'1r r4,.17"I'Y L PI .I..1...rJ 15,,I.I u.,1.Hf I f'•,I 1 1111 II
F.,. .,I M .. ✓....I lur,, A ,.I xi n,. A Yn PC F . ..
fi.:1ul I M Y Pt n,...f l„l'• r,. uII M11 'I I.fl I W.r L1u AIA l:ll 1.111.1 . V.1,
,I1 t KI1„N'�,A,iM •A' ,'tH ,i'.1'1'. l W. 1/'1. M ,I I.IIrn1,1,1 1.IIr t.S 11.111'.A rJ II I ..(�
,.] fl:r,.1.,..MA.I,,,r WV I'1 r Ali.I,,,.\VI.M:•.., „ r''N.
_,.. .. n _.. .u... VA.rVl:l.1'1V J. .A f1.141,,,I I„Il .. u. , .. ... t.• ,1,.,.,,NA.Lr..p:.1..I l.rV N .,lx.(l
CARMEL-CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC HEARING TRAFFIC QUESTIONS
FEBRUARY 5, 1991
This information is intended to supplement the DOCD staff comments by
addressing traffic questions and issues raised in public hearing testimony
on February 5, 1991.
LAS-- bb
Q: What are traffic plans for 116th, 96th and 146th Streets?
C: There are four roadways shown as continuous arterials d 146lhnes1os rth more)
across the entire township; 96th, 116th, 131st,
and
131st are shown as primary parkways. 96th Street is a primary arterial
east of Keystone and between U.S. 31 and College. Other sections of 96th
St. are secondary arterial.
pick licl.inney
Q: Are Guilford and 126th Street proposed to be widened?
C: Guilford - No. It is shown as a collector.
126th - Yes. Plans include a short 4-lane connection just west of
Range Line Road and widening to 4 lanes from Keystone to Hazeldell.
a
Q: As recommended by the 116th St. Task Force, is the plan consistent with
the Hamilton County Plan with respect to Hazeldell and River Road?
C: This is addressed in detail in the staff's response,
Tl south ofe m 116thnded
upgrade of River Road from a secondary to primary
Street (as suggested by the staff) is not inconsistent with the intent
of the plan, and we are prepared to make other suggested changes to both
the maps and the text.
Patty Appelsou
Q: What effect would proposed 116th Street widening have on Woodbrook
Elementary?
C: Specific details (pavement edges, drives, etc. ) are a function of project
design. Recommendations in this plan reflect systemwide needs based on
demand generated by land-uses shown on the proposed comprehensive plan.
As the area continues to add new homes, the existing two-lane roadway
will become increasingly overloaded, resulting in hazardous conditions
all along the route. It is assumed that detailed improve swould byld e
sensitive to the needs of the school,
minimizing conflicts of pedestrians, local traffic movements, and through
traffic flow.
Mr. Jeff Davis, President
Carmel-Clay Plan Commission
March 5, 1991
Page 2
3. New £oadway Alignmeatp - Based on the legal opinion
solicited by the Plan Commission, dashed lines do not
indicate specific route locations as the plan is currently
written and presented. We believe that the alternate
approach of leaving these routes off the map and
attempting to describe them only in text would seriously
undermine the clarity and utility of the plan. The
current approach (generalized, non-specific alignments
with qualifying notes) provides an effective means of
conveying information on the maps, while leaving
flexibility to accommodate site specific considerations
identified in more detailed studies. In our experience,
the precedent for this approach is overwhelming.
It should be recognized that many people will insist on
perceiving specific route locations in spite of all
efforts to indicate otherwise. We do not believe this
warrants a compromise of the plan. Clearly, the Plan
Commission will understand the plan's intent and will act
accordingly.
In a final attempt at clarity, it may be useful to add an
asterisk (*) to the words "new facilities" in the legend,
with a note (in the legend) saying "Specific alignments
subject to detailed studies."
We hope these comments are helpful in developing final refinements to the
Thoroughfare Plan, We are prepared to discuss them in greater detail at the
March 5 plan review meeting.
Very truly yours,
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
John W. Myers, P.E„ AICP
Project Engineer
JWM/ljc
cc: Ms. Joann K. Green, HNTB
Plan Commission Members
DOCD Staff
To►n Kendall
Q: Is it reasonable to widen 116th Street to a primary parkway (150 foot
right-of-way) east of Keystone, given the dramatic impact on the fully
developed residential properties fronting the route?
C: It is not the intent of this plan to apply rigid right-of-way and design
criteria in developed areas where impact would be inappropriate.
Statements are included in the text to clarify this, referring to plans
as "conceptual and subject to adjustments based on detailed environmental
and design studies. " This qualifier is especially appropriate for east
116th Street. The intent on this section of 116th Street is to provide
a parkway character, but only within reasonable limits of impact as
determined in project design.
Although this issue is addressed in the plan, it is not readily apparent
in reviewing the maps. A remedy is suggested in an accompanying letter
to the Plan Commission, dated March 5, 1991.