The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD-1566-02 DEFEATED/Speed HumpSPONSOR(S): Councilor Rundle ORDINANCE NO. D-1566-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, I? CREATING AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 4, SECTION OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. D-1408-99, as amended, the Common certain criteria for the approval, installation and use of "speed humps" within limits, which criteria have been codified in Carmel City Code Section 8-38; and established City's corporate WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to create a City Code those City locations whereat the installation and use of "speed accordance with City Code Section 8-38; and which establishes has been approved in WHEREAS, the Common Council finds that Medalist Parkway between 122nd Street and 126th Section 8-38, as shown by the documents attached reference; and WHEREAS, the Common humps" on Medalist Parkway between 122"d locations identified on Exhibit B. use of "speed humps" on criteria forth in City Code herein by ~construction and use of "speed Carmel, Indiana, at or about the by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Indiana, as follows: the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Section 1. The foregoing Section 2. The Street and 126th Section 37dcha~pte adopted and shall read as this reference. of "speed humps" on Medalist Parkway between 122~a meets the criteria set forth in City Code Section 8-38, and ocation is therefore approved. ',le 4, Section 8-39 of the Carmel City Code is hereby created, "Sec. 8-39. Author 3 Locations. The following C3 locations are authorized for the construction of "speed humps" pursuant to Section 8-38/?ove: a) / Medalist Parkway between 122n~ Street and 126th Street. b)/ Reserved. ,,¢') Reserved. d) Reserved." Page One of Three Pages Prepared by Douglas C. Haney, Carmel City Attorney SPONSOR(S): Councilor Rundle Section 3. All City ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed, to the extent of such inconsistency only, as of the effective date of this Ordinance. However, the repeal or amendment by this Ordinance of any other ordinance does not affect any rights or liabilities accrued, penalties incurred or proceedings begun prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Those rights, liabilities and proceedings are continued and penalties shall be imposed and enforced under such repealed or amended ordinance as if this Ordinance had not been adopted. Section 4. Should any provision or portion of this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall not be affected so long as they can, without the invalid provision, be given the effect intended by the Common Council in adopting this Ordinance. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective upon proper passage, signing by the Mayor and such publication as is required by law. ~.'~$~L~ by the Common Council of the City of C~el, ~diana, this ] ~ y of ~ -q~?7 / ] ,2002, by a vote of ~ ayes =d ~ nays. COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL, iNDIANA Pr iding Offic Wayne At WilsOn, President Robert Battr~eall ' Ronald E. Carter Kevin Kirl~y ' John R. Ko~e~''-') ,,'3 Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, ~urer Ordinance No. D- 1566-02 Page Two of Three Pages Prepared by Douglas C. Haney, Carmel City Attorney SPONSOR(S): Councilor Rundle ,/.iPresented by m~-~o ~.e I~ayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, at //:l~ o'clock the/~ day of I.J~t,.~_ , 2002. ~, _,~ . t~/~,,~/tj ~ m. on Approved by me, the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, at day of ,2002. o'clock · m. this James Brainard, Mayor ATTEST: Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer Ordinance No. D-1566-02 Page Three of Three Pages Prepared by Douglas C. Haney, Carmel City Attorney Department of EnaineerinR To: Council Member Norm Rundle From: Kate Weese Cc: Mayor Jim Brainard, David Klingensmith, Mike McBride Date: 101t510'1 Re: ¥, Medalist Parkway Speed Hump~ A&F Er,~ineering has completed their traffic count/speed study and presented us with the data. you may recall that the speed humps, to be warranted, must be awarded a cumulative total of 25 points minimum. The points am based on: · Accident History · School Zones · Average Daily Traffic counts · Vehicle Speed · Pedestrian Facilities According to the above categories, for this location: · Accidents:According to our Police records, only one accident in the last 36 months. This point subtotal is determined by 4 points for each accident within 2000 feet of the area being considered per 1000 feet of the street segment being considered. This translates to: 1 x 4 points +2.9 = 1.4 points · School Zones:Them am no public or private school zones located within 2000 feet of the ama being considered. Therefore 0 points for this category. · ~ (number of vehicles in a given 24 hour peded) was 1062. Total points is bmU 'p~. ;1~ athmeoturant~Ocvve~'1062+100= ' e10.6 points. We ghting this spee(~ w . · · ed posted speed limit would net a total of 32.6-25= 7.6 points. Remember, the 85 percenhle spe represents that number where 85% of the vehicles are dnwng th s speed or slower (only 15 ~ am driving faster). '. · PedeStrian Fac~T~ties: There is really only one pedestrian served facility in the ama or within 1000 feet (the clubhouse) but with the golf cart Paths, we am giving the maximum number of 2 facilities, with 3 points a piece, for a total of 6 points. Therefore, the final total is 1.4 + 10.6 + 7.6 + 6 = 25.6 points As stated above, this would be enough to warrant the speed humps. I believe this section of mad does have a higher volume of traffic than we would have expected to find, therefore, they scored high in this category. One important thing to note is that we gave them 2 pedestrian served facilities when technically them is really only one (the clubhouse) but since there were golf cart paths, we gave them both (2 is max allowed). Without the second facility (golf cart paths) the total wpuld only be 22.6 points, and speed humps would not be warranted. . My recommendation: Unless you feel that we should disqualify the pedestrian served qualification for the golf cart paths, I would recommend that we go ahead with speed hump nstallation. The ordinance allows for multiple installations, with separation of between 250 and 600 feet apart. With the maximum spacing, this would amount to 4 speed-h'umps with some of them being in a curved section. I would propose 3 at the most, where we would space them according to straight sections and vicinity to the pedestrian areas. Please let me know if you want us to proceed with the spacing design and ordinance preparation, or if you have questions and would like to discuss. Direct #436 or cell #714-3006 Exhibi~ A :1 6f 2 SPEED HUMP WARRANT ANALYSIS MEDALIST PARKWAY Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Length Of Street: ~ Ft. Accident History: Number of accidents that have occurred in the past 36 months within 2000 Ft. of the area being considered. S--~hool Zones:---~umber of schools located within 2000 Ft. of area being considered ~'DT: Number of vehicles in a given 24-hour period. Vehicle Speed: 85th percentile speed of vehicles in the area being considered in a 24- hour pedod ~edestrian Facilities: Number of pedestrian erved facilities within 1000 Ft of the area ~eing considered 1062 32.6 total Points Equivalent Points 1.4 0.0 10.6 7.6 6.0 25.6 Note: The Total Points must equal 25 or greater in order to warrant speed humps. Exhibit A : 2 of 2 SITE MAP ScALE~ 1" 2-00~ Exhibit B :"1 of 1