HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket to Plan Commission
. .
.
.
,;
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXPLANATION
2. AERIAL # 1
3. AERIAL #2
4. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION
. 5. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS
6. PUD ORDINANCE
7. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS-
A&F ENGINEERING
8. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY -
AMERICAN CONSUL TING
9. PERSPECTIVE
.
, .~
~.
e
e
e
e
e
Explanation of Request
Gershman Brown & Associates, Inc., together with 38 individual homeowners in College
Hills, have filed an application to change the zoning classification of 21. 5 acres of real estate from
R-1 to PUD, permitting the development of an office park.
As indicated on the aerial photographs included in this brochure, the real estate is north of
and adjacent to 96th Street, south of and adjacent to the 1-465 expressway, east of College Avenue
bordering a commercial area, and west of the Five Seasons Sports Club and the Monon Trail. Over
time, the character of the surrounding area has dramatically changed. The 1-465 corridor severed
the College Hills community, leaving approximately 38 lots to the south. A diverse mix of
commercial and multi-family use, of varying character and quality, then surrounded this stranded
pocket of single-family homes. The proposed use responds to these changed circumstances. It
provides much needed transition between the 1-465 expressway to the north, the apartment dwellers
to the south, and the commercial development to the east and west.
The appropriateness of this request is apparent in light of the significant land use changes that
have occurred in the surrounding area since the early 1960's. The construction of 1-465 essentially
severed the property owners from the College Hills neighbors to the north. Over the next 30 years,
more than 1,500 apartment units were constructed immediately to the south, in Marion County, in
an area bounded by 96th Street, the Monon Railroad corridor, 91 st Street and College Avenue.
Commercial development today envelops the neighborhood to the east and west, leaving it stranded
from other established residential areas.
The proposed use is a well-considered approach to these compositional changes. It will
provide an attractive transition between 1-465 and the apartment communities, and complement the
commercial uses now in place along East 96th Street between Meridian Street and the Monon Trail.
The PUD Ordinance will assure architectural standards which will require an aesthetically
appealing office park. Thus, for instance, the PUD Ordinanc~ requires that all buildings conform
to the Golden Section, that all refuse be contained within structures, that all mechanical equipment
be architecturally screened, that a green belt, containing undulating mounding and landscaping,
buffer the 96th Street property line, and that building materials consist of stone, brick, architectural
precast, architectural metal panels, glass, and ornamental metal. Before construction, all structures
are to receive ADLS approval from the Plan Commission. The proposed PUD Ordinance is also
enclosed, together with a building exemplifying the PUD Ordinance and conceptually illustrating
the intended architectural style and appearance.
We look forward to presenting this request to you on March 20, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
c~--~
Charles . ~ -rankenberger
F:\User\Janet\Gerslunan\Explanation 032001.wpd
e
e
~
CI.l
~
d 3
~ I
- .- -tI-t\:- I ~lIa~-3'9~H- q-q -(}-a -.
.
.
\.
~
-". ~....'.'.'.'..'.".'... '.".:.'.\...).
> I~~JI
<l
<I.
Cl
Z
,:Q I
~
lo-l
~
,.J
~ CL
<:1
-
~ .
<1:
r:.I'J.
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
.
,f'!I
..,1
e
e
e
e
e
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
Uses permitted under the R-1 classification of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of
Carmel/Clay Township, Indiana. ~"5HOl.1L'P ~()lJ/s"c.ce-ssF(jL 4_-0-W
VA GA- T101J ~.. (::iA..,.,.-e-p J,.."t::Y'rS ~ ~ ·
Section 2.2 Permitted Accessorv Uses and Structures. Accessory uses and structures,
subordinate, appropriate and incidental to the above-permitted primary uses shall be
permitted, including trash enclosures, Auto~~~hines (ATMs), and utilities.
The following accessory retail and service commercial uses shall be permitted within the
building( s):
Cafeteria/Deli/Coffee Shop
Photocopying and Duplicating Services
The following accessory supportive service uses shall be permitted within the building(s): . \ J
~~vl> -rd' I/-J
Conference Center ~ ~.t.J.. v!A~! ~.S~ctj'~ ...1-
Fitness Center \4' ~ ~*,oU"';~l1S'tO~ ~ ~~~!r ~'-
{/lP ~~ Af.,~ t#V' "Ir
Accessory uses, accessory retail, accessory service commercial, accessory supportive
services, or accessory structures, if utilized, shall:
A. have as their primary purpose serving the occupants or employees of the
buildings; and,
B. have a total gross square footage for all accessory uses which doe~ not
exceed 25,000 square feet.
Section 2.3 Communication Equipment. Cell towers shall not be permitted.
Communications equipment, as required by the building occupants, s,hall be permitted and
shall be screened with suitable walls orfencing and in general be architecturally compatible
with the building(s) with which it is associated.
CHAPTER 3.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Section 3.1 Minimum Parcel Size. The College Hills PUD parcel shall have a minimum
size of fifteen (15) acres. This Section 3.1 does not, however, preclude the sale or other
transfer of any lot within the Real Estate after the approval of a DP for the parcel. However,
the development of the parcel must still conform to the DP for the Real 'Estate as approved
or amended by the Director, and all other applicable requirements contained in this
Ordinance.
e
.
e Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
B. Lower Level Signs.
1. Number & Type: The maximum number of Identification Signs
permitted shall be six (6) wall signs. CJAI ,-kw fSL.."';?
2. Maximum Sign Area: 60 square feet each.
3. Location: The signs may be located on either the west, south or east
facades. The signs may only be located on the first floor facade.
4. Design: All walls signs shall consist of individual letters.
5. Ilium ination: Internal.
6. Sign Permit: Required.
7. Fees: Required.
C. Colleae Hills Center Identification and Real Estate (Leasina) Sians.
e 1. Number & Type: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for College
Hills.
2. Maximum Sign Area: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for
College Hills.
3. Maximum Height of Sign: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for
College Hills.
4. Location: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for College Hills.
5. Design: Signs must comply with the approved architectural scheme
of the complex, and must be of a similar design, lighting and style of
construction.
6. Illumination: Internal or completely shielded.
7. Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at
least equal to the total sign area.
8.
Sign Permit: Required.
e
e
e
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
--
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................ ............................. II
CERTIFICATION................................................................................................................... .................................. III
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... ................................. 1
PtJRPOSE .............................................................................................................................. . . . . .. . . · . . . . . . . . ... . . . ..... . . .. .. 1
SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................................................... ....... ........ ............. 1
DESCRIYnON OF THE PROJECT........ ... ..................................................... .......... ............. .......................................... 3
S TIJD V ARE A ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . · . . · · · . . . . · . . . . . . .. 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABmING STREET SYSTEM ......... ....... ... .......... .... ..... .....~............... ... .... ..... ..... ........ ....... .... ..... 5
TRAFFIC D AT A.......................................................................... ............................................. ................................. 5
10- YEAR PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES... ......... ..................... ...... ................ .................................... ...... ...... .......... 6
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 6
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 6
INTERN ~ TRIPS .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
P ASS- Bv TRIps .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . · .. 7
PEAK HOUR......... ....................... .................................................................................. .... ... .. ...... ............. .... .......... 7
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS ........................ ...................... ...... ...... ......... ... ..... ................ 7
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SySTEM......................................................... 9
CAP ACITY ~ ~ YSIS .............................................................................................................................. ................ 9
DESCRIYnON OF LEVElS OF SERVICE. .... ... .... ........ ........ .......... ............. ...................................................... ...... ..... 11
CAP ACITY AN ~ YSES SCENARIOS ......................................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-961H STREET AND MERIDIAN STREET .................................................. 17
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-961H STREET AND COLLEGE AVENUE .................................................. 18
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-REAL ROAD AND WESTFIELD ROAD ................................................... 19
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-I-465 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMp AND MERIDIAN STREET........................ 20
TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-I-465 WESTBOUND OFF-RAMp AND MERIDIAN STREET....................... 21
TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARV-961H STREET AND WEST ACCESS POINT .............................................. 22
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARV-961H STREET AND EAST ACCESS POINT ...............................................22
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. ........................ 23
REco MMEND A TIONS . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
-
I
e
e
e
e
e
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOn EAST
TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development will be served by the public roadway system that includes 1-465, U.S.
31, 96th Street, College Avenue, Westfield Boulevard and Real Road.
INTERSTATE 465 - is a major Interstate loop that surrounds the greater Indianapolis metropolitan
area.
MERIDIAN STREET/U.S. 31 - is a north-south, four-lane divided highway that runs the entire
length of Indiana and serves as a major arterial to several mid-size cities throughout the state.
This roadway becomes Meridian Street within the Indianapolis City limits.
96TII S1REET - is an east-west, two-lane roadway that runs from Michigan Road to Keystone
Avenue. This street becomes a four-lane facility at Keystone Avenue and continues east to 1-69.
WESTFIELD BOULEVARD - is a north-south, two-lane roadway that provides access to several
residential areas throughout Marion County and Hamilton County.
96th Street & U.S. 31 - This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal. The
northbound approach consists of an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared through/right-turn lane and
three through lanes. The southbound approach consists of two exclusive left-turn lanes an
exclusive right-turn lane and three through lanes. The westbound approach consists of an
exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive right-turn lane and a through lane and the eastbound
approach consists of an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared right-turn/through lane and a through
lane.
96h Street & College Avenue - This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal. All
approaches at this intersection consist of an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared right-
turn/through lane.
Real Road & Westfield Boulevard - This "T" ...intersection is currently stop controlled with Real
Road stopping for Westfield Boulevard. In the near future a traffic signal will be installed at this
location.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts and 24 hour volume counts were made
at the study intersections and along 96th Street by A&F Engineering Co., LLC. The traffic turning
movement counts include an hourly total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at thee
5
e
-3 q, r------7
f.....:~
Cl)o
,..
~ ~
0)
WESTRELD RD
e
AI
'-4%
~*
.4%
~ ,.
~~
~~
h: 14% . .--
~ CI)
0 ~
N
'+ ~10%
<0
0)
~ t 5% ~
~N~ ~o
lt1 r- lt1 U") .--
~~ '+
5% .:1' t
~ ~~
N 72% ~ NO
r- r- .--
h...: ~
CJ) L
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 10%
~ L aNa
U") -- ...-
~
~ "t
~ ~ ~L t
0: ~
CI) ""
~L ...-
~L
2 3
t L
~ JL
~ I FIGURE 2
II ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
t OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
<l!-
N
'w-
y:
~
o
o
I
"
N
I
/I
C)
3:
~
,/
O'l
o
o
,/
o
o
o
N
,/
U
COLLEGE HillS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIA TES
8
.-10%
LEGEND
* = NEGLIGIBLE
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
tt All Rights Reserved"
e
e
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
e
Level of Service E - describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per
vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high
delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle lengths.
Level of Service F - describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersections:
Level of Service Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) .
A Less than or equal to 10
e B Between 10.1 and 15
C Between 15.1 and 25
D Between 25. 1 and 35
E Between 35.1 and 50
F greater than 50
e
12
.
~ ~ r-----7
f..-.:
CI)
~
(()
WESTAELD RD 0)
21260550) 1 t
LO LO
,..,., to
-
_0
o LO
LO ,..,.,
N-
-
0_
LO 0
LO LO
-.t;..
o
00
,..,., 0
..- m
~ ~ 173~307)
-. (2650) 2726 ~
f..-.:
CJ)
~
(Q
0)
AVE
h..: ~
CI) L
~ ~
~ 6:~
~ L
~'\t
~ --l ~L
~
~L
~C
y:
~
3
C
JL
II
o
o
I
,.....
N
I
c.:>
3:
~
o
/
rn
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIA TES
c;
o
/
C>
C>
o
N
/
U
14
.
~450 (686)
. 71 (133)
(706) 682 ~ ~ rt
164) 21 0 ~ ~ ex>
..... ....... to
--
m LO
o ..--
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 4
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
e
e
=c q, r---7
'"
C1)
i!:
(Q
WESTAELD RD. 0)
~
12
~
1057 (2769) (/~
.- ~
2824 (ii 35) ~ t
LO 0
........N
or:;)
........ 1O
LO LO
'-450 (686)
.. 131 (172)
(706) 682~ ~ t+
(301) 423 ~ ~ ~
-
-
_en
00 -
00 0
~ .:::..
'"
CI)
~
(Q
0)
a-
NN
to LO
i ~ 237~144)
(3477) 3574 ~
~~
(22) 3..1'" ~ t
(322) 50 ~ ~ ~
,..,., N
'"' ~
CI) L
~ ~
a:~
~ L
~
~'t
~ ~ "L
~
CI)
~L
~C LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
~ 3
0 C
0
I
,......
0
I JL
~ FIGURE 6
\I
C)
3: II SUM OF EXISTING, YEAR 2011,
~
x V ACANT LAND AND
COLLEGE HILLS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
,....-
~ GERSHMAN-BROWN TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0
0 & ASSOCIA TES
,....-
0 @ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
0
0
N "All Rights Reserved"
,....-
(j
16
e
e
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOn EAST
TRAFF1C IMPACT ANALYSIS
e
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment
and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have
been prepared for each of the study intersections, and the field review conducted at the site. These
conclusions apply only to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour that were addressed in this
analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the
resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, the remaining 22 hours will have
levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the existing street traffic volumes are less
during the other 22 hours.
1. 96TI1 SlREET AND MERIDIAN SlREET
Existing (Scenario 1) - A review of the level of service fOf each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing geometries, has shown this
e intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak
HOUf.
Year 2011 (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 2011 added to the existing traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and below
acceptable levels of service per the City of Carmel Guidelines during the PM Peak Hour
with the proposed intersection geometries. The proposed geometries are illustrated on
Figure 7.
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate below acceptable levels with the proposed geometrics outlined in
the Year 2011 scenario. These proposed goometrics are illustrated on Figure 7.
e
23
e
e
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOn EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
It
2. 96TII SlREET AND COLLEGE AVENUE
Existing (Scenario 1) - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing geometrics, has shown this
intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak
Hour.
Year 2011 (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 2011 added to the existing traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour
with the proposed intersection geometrics. The proposed geometrics are illustrated on
Figure 8.
e
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and below
acceptable levels of service per the City of Carmel Guidelines during the PM Peak Hour
with the proposed geometrics outlined in the Year 2011 scenario. These proposed
geometrics are illustrated on Figure 8.
3. REAL ROAD AND WESlFIELD BOULEY ARD
Existing (Scenario 1) - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes has shown this intersection will operate at
acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour with the planned
intersection improvements. These improvements include the installation of a traffic signal
in the near future.
Year 2011 (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 2011 added to the existing traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and below
e
24
tit
e
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
e
7. 96m SlREET AND EAST ACCESS POINT
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes all
approaches at this intersection will operate at acceptable levels with the proposed
intersection geometrics. The proposed intersection geometrics are illustrated on Figure 11.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that
the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed.
1. 96m SlREET AND MERIDIAN SlREET
. This intersection should be reconstructed to include the geometrics illustrated on Figure 7.
These improvements should be constructed based on future vacant land traffic and are not solely
a result of the proposed development.
2. 96m SlREET AND COLLEGE AVENUE
e . This intersection should be reconstructed to include the geometries illustrated on Figure 8.
These improvements should be constructed based on future vacant land traffic and are not solely
a result of the proposed development.
3. REAL ROAD AND WESTFIELD BOULEVARD
. A traffic signal is planned at this intersection early in the Year 2001. Furthermore, a left-turn
and right-turn lane should be constructed along the eastbound approach as traffic increases due
to the proposed development and surrounding vacant lands. The proposed future improvements
are illustrated on Figure'9.
4. 1-465 EAS'ffiOUNDOFF-RAMP AND MERIDIAN SlREET
. Due to the large amount of traffic exiting 1-465 and along Meridian Street, this intersection
might experience delays during the AM Peak Hour. These delays will occur independently of
the proposed development as traffic increases over time and as traffic is generated from vacant
land development.
. The Indiana Department of Transportation has future plans for the modification of this
interchange. However, before these improvements are made, an eastbound right-turn lane
should be constructed to better serve the eastbound to southbound exiting vehicles. These
improvements are shown on Figure 10.
e
27
e
.
AI
.,., J J J~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
96TH STREET t
~ ~ t
~ ~ ~
~ c2} <:= ~
-.. ~ Existing Traffic {F ~
-V-~ Signal ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ t t t t t+
I-
W
W
a:
I-
en
Z
cC
-
Q
-
a:
w
:E
~Q)
c;
$0
c;
Existing Lane Configuration (C/C>
Level Of Service Legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Year 2011, Vacant Land & Proposed Development Configuration CD/D)
II
C>
~
o
I
x
W
01
~ COLLEGE HILLS
01
8 GERSHMAN-BROWN
o
g & ASSOCIA TES
o
N
/'"
N
FIGURE 7
96TH STREET & MERIDIAN STREET
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
29
.
.
+l ~ '+
~~
96TH STREET
~2}
~~
~
~
Existing Traffic
Signal
~
~...
~~
~~
w~ t tt
::)
z
w
>
c(
w
"
W
...I
...I
o
o
~ CD
~
0 0
I
0'>
0
I
5
II
~
:3:
~
Level Of Service Legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Existing Lane Configuration <C/C)
Year 2011, Vacant Land & Proposed Development Configuration <C/O)
o
o
/'
0'>
o
o
/'
o
o
o
N
/'
N
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 8
96TH STREET & COLLEGE A VENUE
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
.
1
~
REAL ROAD
~
Planned
Traffic
Signal
~
~{
00
Q
a:
c
>
W
..J
::)
o
m
Q
..J
W
u::
I-
en
w
~
~ ~
~ t
~ 0
~
0 0
I
O'l
0
I
0
II
<.:>
3:
C!
.
o
o
Level Of Service Legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Existing Lane Configuration with
Planned Traffic Signal (B/C)
Year 2011, Vacant Land & Proposed Development Configuration with
Planned Traffic Signal (B/C)
o
o
/'
O'l
o
o
/'
o
o
o
N
/'
N
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 9
REAL ROAD & WESTFIELD BOULEV ARD
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
e .
o ...
Q) ~ ~ ~
1-465
EB OFF-RAMP
~c2f
~c2f
~c2f
~~
~
~
Existing Traffic
Signal
~ ~ ~ ~
t t t t
Q)
o
....
w
w
a:
....
U'J
Z
c(
-
C
-
a:
w
:E
~ Q)
5i
c; 0
I
m
0
I
c;
II
<-'
~
Level Of Service Legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Existing Lane Configuration (C/B)
Year 2011, Vacant Land & Proposed Development Configuration (E/C)
o
o
/'"
m
o
o
/'"
o
o
o
N
/'"
N
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 10
1-465 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP
& MERIDIAN STREET
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRieS
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
tit
~ CD
~
0 0
I
(1)
0
I
0
II
c..:>
~
o
o
/"
(1)
o
o
/"
o
o
o
N
/"
N
e
o ~~~~
CD ~ ~ ~ ~
~
Existing Traffic
Signal
I-
W
W
a:
?-
m
z
c(
-
c
-
a:
w
::E
~ ~ ~
t t t
.
~~
~~
$~
$~
$~
1-465
WB OFF-RAMP
00
o
o
Level Of Service Legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Existing Lane Configuration (C/B)
Year 2011, Vacant Land & Proposed Development Configuration (D/C)
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 11
1-465 WESTBOUND OFF-RAMP
& MERIDIAN STREET
INTERSECTION GEOMETRieS
@ A & r Engineering Co., llC 2000
It All Rights Reserved"
e
.
~ q, r---7
a
o
.0
o
EAST ACCESS .-
DRIVE
WESTFIELD Ro.
h-:
CJ)
~
<0
0)
,.
~
EXISTING DRIVE
WEST ACCESS cJ' ~
DRIVE I
h-:
,. CI)
~ ~
<0
0)
~
CI)
~ / ~
<0
0)
I--....
~
~
~ iI
I!! ,. ~ iI
~ I!! ~
CI) ~ COLLEGE AVE
@ ~
~ a:~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
c; --l
I ~
I
c; 0:
II
COLLEGE HILLS
g GERSHMAN-BROWN
i & ASSOCIATES
N
/"
N
FIGURE 12
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
GEOMETRICS
@,~ & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
All Rights Reserved"
e
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
e
.
III. TRAFFIC DATA
The 24-hour machine traffic counts and the manual turning movement traffic counts
completed in November of 2000 should be accurate and illustrate the current traffic
operations. These counts, when compared to the counts in the Parsons Brinckerhoff
study, reflect the same magnitude of the volumes. The total morning and evening peak
hour entering volumes of the common intersections reflects the accuracy of the counts
within the daily and seasonal variations in traffic volumes. The source and date of the
Parsons Brinckerhoff study volumes is unknown, but the counts do reflect the same
general traffic conditions.
A.
10-YEAR PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
.
The use, by A&F Engineering Co., LLC, of the 96th Street Corridor Study is
appropriate for the projected traffic for the future. The use 'Of these forecasted
volumes provides consistency in evaluating the impacts of the proposed
development. Previously approved developments within the study area have been
included in the future traffic. The Parsons Brinckerhoff study provides for the
future traffic generated on the vacant lands in the 96th Street corridor. This
provides the maximum generated volumes and illustrates the "worst case"
scenario. Alternate use of existing parcels, similar to this proposed development,
is one possibility of further increases in traffic volumes. Additional traffic from
outside the study area could also increase these volumes, but this is unpredictable
and not within the scope of any traffic impact analysis.
B. TRIP GENERA TION
.
The estimated traffic generated by the proposed development is provided from the
source of the Trip Generation report from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers. The correct land use code and variable is utilized in this study and
follows good engineering practices.
The proposed development as an office building is not conduci ve to reduction of
the generated trips for internal trips and pass-by trips. Internal trips occur
5
q:\emp\ds\O 10136-00 I.doc
e
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
e
.
generally in mixed-use developments where more than one trip can be combined
on the site. Pass-by trips are examples of a generated trip being diverted out of
the existing stream of traffic into and out of the site. Neither of these types of
trips should exist with this proposed development and no reduction has been made
in the traffic impact analysis.
The generated trips could be adjusted for the trips generated to and from this land
with the Cllrrent land use. The existing residential properties contribute traffic
volumes during the peak periods in the study and are not removed from these
volumes. These trips' are probably not in the ,critical directions with the newly
generated trips and, therefore, would not affect the results of this analysis.
c.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
.
Traffic generated by the proposed development has to be assigned to the major
roadways within the study area. A logical movement for the traffic arriving and
departing the site is the basis for the distribution and assignment of the trips. The
assignment of the traffic volumes provides the basis for the capacity analysis and
improvement recommendations.
.
American Consulting, Inc., conducted a traffic survey for the purpose of
determining the arrival and departure of the existing traffic to the roadway system.
The survey requested the travel patterns to and from work from the employees of
the businesses that occupy the Six Parkwood building. The specific routes were
then compiled into the turning movements at the various intersections in the study
area and the directional assignment and distribution were derived from the survey.
This building is the building in Parkwood Crossing located at the northwest
corner of 96th Street and College Avenue. This building is the closest to the
proposed development and would best define the possible routes that the future
elnployees n1ay utilize for the proposed development. The results of the survey
indicate a slightly larger percentage of persons using College Avenue than was
assumed in the traffic impact analysis.
6
q:\cmp\cls\O 1 0 136-00 I.doc
e
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
e
.
IV. CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The selection of the three scenarios for examination in the study is appropriate for a
traffic impact analysis. Examining the current conditions provides a baseline to judge
and analyze the situation as it exists today without the added development. The second
scenario illustrates the conditions that may exist in' the target year without this
development. The third scenario illustrates the conditions that may exist in the target year
with the proposed development. The last two scenarios include the assumptions of
increases to the traffic by the Parsons Brinckerhoff corridor study with the development
of the vacant lands along the corridor and other previo~sly approved developments in the
area.
.
American Consulting, me., completed independent' capacity analysis for some of the
critical intersections at the critical time periods. These analyses were conducted using the
volumes as determined by the traffic impact analysis for consistency. The assumption of
improvements made at the critical intersections as agreed to by other developments were
used in the analysis and are necessary for the results to be valid.
The computer program Signa12000, part of the TEAP AC (Traffic Engineering
Application PACkage) package, was tlsed for the capacity analysis. This program
performs capacity analysis, signal timing optimization, queuing lengths, and design of
intersection geometries utilizing methodology documented in the HeM from TRB. The
TEAP AC program was then used to examine the intersection with the signal timings
optimized with and without the added generated traffic.
The capacity analyses were comparable to the results found in the traffic impact analysis
within the accuracy of the methodologies used in the Highway Capacity Manual.
.
Additionally, American Consulting, Inc., examined the intersection of I06th Street and
College Avenue to determine the impacts to that intersection. This intersection is
scheduled for a major reconstruction by the Hamilton County Highway Department in the
year 2004. The additional traffic added to the design year volumes have no affect upon
the design of the planned improvements.
7
q:\cmp\cls\O 10 I 36-00 I.doc
I
I
I
L------
~dIJJ
:z: [rull
c f'>>
o t-A 'flffi ~
~ CD;~
i'"j [nru
gg
~'"
I _
~
tl1
I
I ~
\ i / :
I
I I
I I CIJ
i I i
I I
~~ I I !~
;.g I
I ;~
~
~
-.--=
~
o
"''' Z
>
00
~
~
en
~
~
~
~
m
o
m
~
~
o
(j
I: 0
I:
I:
I:
I,
II
i: .
I
Ii
Ii
I
Ii
I,
I:
Ii
Ii
I,
>
z
c:
>
,0
~
8800
61 NVr
(Q]~ffM~j~~~
f
dSI ()()()g(
'i:1ZIS ONKl1lCl& W.LOJ.
I
I
--~
--- I
I~I I -------HT9T _ I
I ------- ~ H H 1I ~ S ------J-- I I
~ I --- . DlV&UlB --- I I
qpoN __---1-___ ~_ __ __ I
-PlI _ _ ________ I I :. I
- - - - ~~~It~ :tl ------- --- ! i
I 1 I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I
: -- I I
I : ~
! ~
I %1
~I
~ ! f
i ~
I
\ ~
i I
i i
: I
I I
: I
-~ I
---- I ,____
- - - ..............001.......................
:............... ........... .... . ....... ........ ........
I
........,...
...~. ... ..
SNOSViIS BAld
..........
...
t
.
t
XMWJS
9 NOlldO
NVld 3l1S
VNVIONI
S '1 1 I H
~:~~:
~.~.!:_----~
S 11 0 d V N V I a N I
3 D tI 1 1 0 J
. ~~~ 4
~ 'q~~
~ ',//Ih
,-:;-:/~
<.1 ;p (~~'~
V~ <h ~
~Jl vq;?
TOTAL BUllDING SIZB
3JS3OO RSF
NQrth
~
-
-
FIVE SEASONS
~.
---
SB11WX
OPTION B
I
~:=:=:=,:.:::\:...................................=..=.===...:..:~~::::=:::.=::::~:......._..... ...._~::::::=.!....N..T".ll...R.-S-.T..A... T E
I - - ..... '~~'-',~
- .. h_... '::':'0,:'::,:,:,,'_"_" """-. _". .....~._..... _"'_
I ---
1------
I :
I I
I I
i !
I I
I I
~ i
..... I
~ i
~ i
~ i
~ :
~ !
I I
I :
I I
I I
i !
, I
I I
I :
I
I-
I
I
I
SITE PlAN
~
I
I
I
I
I
EXISTING
.
.
s
L L
A N A
H I
I N D
c 0 L L E G E
INDIANAPOLIS
;5~i:~;:;:;.o.;:~~:;:;:~;~S:;:~;:;:;:Q:;:;:;.:;:;:;:;:;:~;:;:;:;""e;:;:;:;e;:;:~;:;:;:;s:;:;:;:;:;.:;:;:;:;:;:;-~;:;:;:;:;:;S:i:;:;~;:i:;:;:i>:;:;:;:;:~;:;:i:;:;:;:;:;:~;:;:;:;:;:;~;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:O;55:;:;:;:;"~,-;:;:;:~;:;:;:;:;:;:;:<;:;~;:;:~:
I
;.:;:;..;s:;:;:-':;:;:~;5e;:;:;"'~~<<~;:;"-;:;:;:;:;:~;:;:;"~~;:~;:;'';:;:;~;:;:;:;:;:-~;:~;:;:;~;:;:=!;:;:;~;:;:;:;:;:~......~;:;e;:;e;:;:;~;~:
I
I
:.p-
~
u
-_.--~---
~~....~.
~~
,....
""':
...
-
:'1:"
;;:f::
-
...
...
e
r
-
Ii
f
I
.
r
I
.J
l
{
.
I
1
1
I
(
~
I
Q.
.
)1
~
eo..
<:>
~
~
Of)
.
=--
.....
~
E::
e3
=
~
J
-
~
- , ":.I-
.- ., ...::'::................-
I
I
I
-=1=
::r;
-~
......'
~
....
-1-'-
~
-
J
tv