HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis
~,
u
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u.S. 421 AND 106TH STRBBT
PRBPARBD FOR
SWEBT AND COMPANY
JUNB 1989
I
I
I
I
PRBPARBD BY
A & F BNGINBBRING CO., INC.
" _ - , '__ _ ______ _,_~_________L__
u
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
u
INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared at the request of
Mr. George Sweet, a representative of Sweet Company. The study
is an analysis of traffic both as it now exists and as it is an-
ticipated to change with the completion of the development north
of 96th Street and east of U.S. 421 in Hamilton County, Indiana.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic
generated by the development will have on the existing street
system. Recommendations will then be made to provide for safe
ingress and egress to and from the site with minimal interference
to the traffic on the public street system.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is to first determine the
existing traffic volumes at several intersections in the vicinity
of the proposed development. Second, to determine the total
traffic that will be generated by the proposed development.
Third, to distribute the generated traffic to the public street
system. Finally, based on the existing traffic volumes plus
generated traffic volumes make recommendations to ensure safe
ingress and egress to and from the site.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed development is to be located in Hamilton County,
1
~.
-
~
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
r~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
u
Indiana. The project is bounded on the north by 106th Street, on
the east by u.s. 421, and on the west by Shelborne Road. 96th
Street is located south of the site with small housing tracts
between the south property line of the site and 96th Street.
This development, as of the date of this report, is projected to
include 300,000 square feet of retail space, 850,000 square feet
of office space and 200 single family units.
Access to this development will be from 106th Street, Shelborne
Road, and u.S. 421.
Figure 1 is a Conceptual Master Plan for the proposed develop-
ment. Shown are the existing streets and the approximate
locations of the proposed driveways.
STUDY ARBA
The study area for the proposed development will be the street
system which abuts the site which includes, u.S. 421. 96th
Street, 106th Street, and Shelborne Road. The following inter-
section will also be reviewed:
1. 96th Street and u.S. 421
2. 96th Street and Shelborne Road
3 96th Street and township Line Road
4. 106th Street and U.S. 421
5. 106th Street and Shelborne Road
6. 116th Street and Shelborne Road
2
I
I
I
116th
~
STREET
-I
OFFICE I RETAIL
L_
RESIDENTIAL
96th STREET
\\
FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
STREET
o
<(
o
a:
bl
Z
Q:
o
UI
-'
bl
:l:
III
~L
1:1
III
z
~
~
~
Q
BXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS
This development will be served by the public roadway system that
includes U.S. 421, 106th Street, 96th Street, and Shelborne Road.
u.s. 421 is a two lane
serving as
a major
highway which runs north and south
arterial between Indianapolis and
Hamilton County.
96th Street is a two lane east-west major collector street.
96th Street serves as a major collector for residents and
businesses.
l06th Street is a two lane east-west collector for residents
abutting the street.
Shelborne Road is a two lane collector which runs north and
south beginning at 96th Street and running north to 116th
Street.
TRAFFIC CONTROLS
Traffic controls in the area include:
a traffic signal at the intersection of 96th Street and U.S.
421. This intersection is currently under design and
construction for a new actuated automatic traffic signal and
lane widening on U.S. 421.
4
Q.)
()
a traffic signal at the intersection of 106th Street and
U.S. 421 is currently under design and will be installed in
the summer of 1989.
stop controls - Shelborne Road stops for 96th Street, l06th
Street, and 116th Street.
a four way stop control at the intersection of 96th Street
and Township Line Road.
TRAFFIC DATA
.
There were peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts made
at the following locations around the site.
These traffic
volumes data are included in Appendix A and are identified as the
following Exhibits:
I
I
I
I
,
t
Exhibit 1 - 96th Street and Shelborne Road
Exhibit 2 - 96th Street and Township Line Road
Exhibit 3 - 106th Street and Shelborne Road
Exhibit 4 - 116th Street and Shelborne Road
Peak hour turning movement counts for the following intersections
were provided to A & F Engineering Co., Inc by the Indiana
Department of Highways.
These traffic volume data are included
in Appendix A and are identified as the following Exhibits:
Exhibit 5 - 96th Street and U.S. 421
Exhibit 6 - 106th Street and U.S. 421
TRIP GENERATION DATA
The estimate of traffic that will be generated by the proposed
5
H ~ _ ~ _~___~______~___~_~_~__~__[
L
o
o
~ 1
development is a function of the size and character of the land
l:
use. A & F Engineering Co., Inc. has collected trip generation
data for various land uses. Data collected at similar land use
l
developments were used to estimate the hour by hour distributions
of traffic entering and exiting the proposed development. Trip
~:
Generation1 was used to calculate the actual trip rates that were
used for th~ individual land uses.
~,
l'
lA~~~GNMEN~F-oENERAT~D-~R~FFrCt
All generated traffic must be assigned to a particular ingress-
,
I
I
egress point. In reviewing the layout of the driveway system,
with respect to the surrounding street system, it has been
assumed that the traffic from each of the individual land uses
will ingress/egress as shown in Table 1 and on Figure 2.
TABLE 1
ASSIGNMENT OF TRAFFIC TO STREET SYSTEM
I
I
l
t
Residential
- 106th Street Driveway
- Shelborne Road Driveways
50%
50%
Office/Retail
- U.S. 421 Driveways
- 106th Street Driveway
75%
25%
1 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Fourth Edition, 1987.
6
Q)
o
116th
~
I
I
L.
RESIDENTIAL 35%J
c
<(
I ~ 0
50% a::
65%~ UJ
z
I a::
I 0
( aJ
..J
UJ
:J:
Vl
96th STREET
\\
~Flllillig~T)
ASSIGNMENT and DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED TRAFFIC
STREET
'!'l
81
~L
I~I
Vl
z
3
o
f-
I
<.)
o
I
DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC
~
To analyze the effect on the abutting street system, of the
traffic generated by the development, the generated traffic must
I
be distributed to the street system.
The distribution of the
traffic to the street system is based on existing traffic
I patterns of similar land uses in the area, and the existing
-
traffic pattern of the abutting street system.
I
~
The percentage distribution of the traffic exiting the site are
shown in Table 2 and on Figure 2.
O^B.LE_~-'
DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC
- 106th Street Driveway
Eastbound Right 65%
Eastbound Left 35%
Northbound Right 5%
Northbound Left 95%
Westbound Right 35%
Westbound Left 65%
Northbound Right 10%
Northbound Left 90%
Residential - Shelborne Road Driveways
- 106th Street Driveway
Office
Retail
- u.s. 421 Driveways
iI
(I
--
--
- INTRA-S~ITE-TRIPS.
.. ----- --~
In multi-land use development there will be trips to the in-
dividual land uses that are generated from within the develop-
mente These internal trips can be second or third stops, trips
8
1
I
~
o
I
between retail and office or trips originating from the single
I
family units and their destination being "the retail or office in
the development.
A & F Engineering Co., Inc has conducted a
I
study of multi-use facility where it was found that the internal
trips accounted ~.~....:..8_p~j$ent,.of--an::-.!~t~
This compares
I
favorable with the findings as reported in Trip Generation where
it was reported that ". ..multi-use developments could reduce trip
II
I
generation of individual uses within the development by 25
percent.
I
~lie,r..~~f~r-e -; for: 'th.i"'s-iinJlly:s~is L. al DenJ~ra1:ed {'rips for tHe sf'n~1e:
.-... ...
I
ffanrgy:[Q.i.ts have been r-educ~9:.. 15y -10 })ers...eI'!...t7 and t.he s-e:ri-E!~at~cJ.i
~i.pl?- _tQ:+:'th.e":o.f-:-r:i,p:e_~ ~e~~educecl....:!?!:-?O:-perc~Qt~.
I
PASS-BY/CAPTURED TRAFFIC
I
The Transportation and Land Development2 projects that for a
retail center that has a square-foot area of between 200,000
I
square feet and 399,999 square feet, 41% of the entering traffic
I
will be from pass-by/captured traffic (traffic
which is already
on the street system).
Therefore, the total
new traffic that
I~
will be added to the public 'street system, because of the retail
center, will be 60 percent of the generated traffic. However,
I:
the trips entering and exiting the site, at the driveways, will
I
equal the total number of the generated trips.
I.
2 Stove and Koepke, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
1988.
t
9
l
-
w
o
SITB GBNBRATBD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Using the trip generation data, the assignment of generated
traffic and the distribution of generated traffic the generated
traffic volumes have been calculated for each of the intersec-
tions in the study area. These volumes are shown on Figure 3.
TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To evaluate the effect the site generated traffic volume will
have on the public street system, the site generated traffic
volumes have been added to the existing traffic volumes at each
of the intersections in the study area. These total traffic
volumes are shown on Figure 4.
10
~ --- ~~~---~----~------~-I-----~
~L
I:i
z
~
.-
STREET
~
-I
L
RESIDENTIAL
c
<l(
o
a:
w
z
a:
o
al
-'
W
:r
III
LEGEND:
00 - A M
(001 : p. M.P pEAEAK HOUR
.. K HOUR
\\
/'FIGURE 3
GENERATED TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
. THE VOLUME
FOR THIS 140 OF TRAFFIC
IS NEGLIGIBL~ENT
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
J'
J
I
I
\\
LEGEND:
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(001 = P.M. PEAK HOUR
STREET
STREET
I
L
RESIDENnAL
o
<(
~
w
z
a:
o
III
-'
W
::t:
lJl
96th STREET
FIGURE 4
TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
Q
RECOMMENDATIONS
To insure that the traffic into and out of this development will
operate in"a safe and efficient manner, at both the access point
and the surrounding intersections, the follow recommendations
should be implemented.
Proposed Driveways
1. The cross section for the proposed driveways should include
two exit lanes, each 12 feet in width, and two entrance
lanes, each 12 feet in width.
2. At each access point, the public street should be designed
to include a right turn lane and left turn lane for traffic
entering the site. These lanes should be 12 feet in width.
Intersections
1. 106th Street and U.S. 421 - the westbound approach (east
leg) should be designed to include an additional 12-foot
lane for left turning vehicles. This would permit through
vehicles and right turning vehicle to continue uninter-
rupted.
2. 96th Street and Shelborne Road the southbound approach
(north leg) should be designed to include an additional 12-
foot lane. This would allow for a separate right turn lane
and a separate left turn lane. The eastbound approach (west
leg) should be designed to include a left turn lane. This
13
I
o
o
I
would permit through traffic to continue uninterrupted.
,
3.
106th Street and Shelborne Street - the northbound approach
I
(south leg) and the eastbound approach (west leg) should be
designed to include an additional 12 foot lane, on each
I
approach.
This would permit through traffic and right
I
turning traffic to continue freely.
I
- -SOMAARy
- --"----
O~rw~~e--f~~FOv:ments. are
in-c-brp-orated in-t"hi~s p-roject;- as :r.ec..Q!D'-'
-'-
r~q~d: the traffic into and out of this development "wrrt operat~~
fin a --safe and~ efficient m~ner. ~ The additional traffic at the
intersection of 116th Street and Shelborne Road and the intersec-
tion of 96th Street and Township Line Road is minimal and will
not cause any additional delay at those intersections.
14
, page 2
LU 2/6/90
u
o
I'
(
\.
~Docket No. 75 -89 Z, Shady Brook Development, a rezone application for
180.86 acres south of 106th Street, east of Michigan Road, and west of. Shelbourne
Road. Current zoning: S - 1 Residential; Request: 56.1 acres B-3 Transition Business,
26.67 acres B - 5 Professional Office, and 98.09 acres S - 2 Residential.
Mr. Jim Nelson was present representing the applicant. He gave an explanation of the
location, geographic and existing conditions. Mr. Nelson then pointed out the areas to
be zoned B-3, B - 5, and S - 2 specifically, giving the rationale for choosing each
respective zone classification.
Mr. Nelson highlighted a list of voluntary commitments made by the applicant which
are to be recorded in favor of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission and the City of
Carmel. They are as follows:
- any development within the B -' 3 or B - 5 districts will be subject to review
by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission for architectural, design, lighting,
landscaping, and signage
- heights of buildings: B - 5 buildings shall not exceed the lesser of (1) story
in height or 35'; with respect to the (2) story office the height would be
increased to 45'. No building in the B-3 will exceed 55' in height.
- included "excluded uses" in the 421 Overlay Zone to the land that lies outside
the 421 Corridor
- submitted covenants that excluded additional uses (copy attached)
Mr. Nelson indicated that the manner and timing for development of the B-3 and
B - 5 areas is not known at this time. Development of these areas will occur as the
need arises and is subject to market conditions.
The S - 2 area, if approved, would be developed by Mr. George Sweet and require
primary and secondary plat approval which the applicant would seek vary quickly. The
S - 2 a,rea would contain approximately 170 single family home sites and be developed
pursuant to the S - 2 district requirements. The lot sizes will exi~t within a range of
1/3 acre to 2.43 acres with an average lot size of 1/2 acre. Average price per home
will exist between $175,000 and $225,000.
Mr. Nelson then explained the conceptual development plan for the S - 2 'area.
Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed zoning request provided a tapering of the business
. zones moving from the southern limits northward along the eastern limits of the
commercial areas to northern property lines at 106th Street and further north to a
parcel rezoned B-3 by Bob Altham.
\
,
QI
r
page 3
LV 2/6/90
o
Q
(
,., ;;'~:i<'Mr. Nelson reviewed the Technical Advisory Committee's (TAC) comments. After
~. / '1nquiring with the Indiana Department or Transportation the applicant has discovered
with exception of improvements that have currently been constructed there are no plans
for widening, required granting of additional right - of - way, or additional signalization
of Highway 421.
Mr. Nelson stated that the future development of the commercial area would be platted
as necessary pursuant to the Carmel/Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. Prior to the
development of the commercial area the applicant would meet with the Dept. of
Community Development to formulate a procedure for the platting of the commercial
real estate. The procedure could resemble that of Carmel Science and Technology
Park, the primary plat would divide the area into blocks and the as individual parcds
are known, the secondary plat would then be filed for approval.
i~:rMouck~a""Sk"'f~~xj51am{RQn':a~I(O!:t'J.Il2li~~'~$j,~f~lt.lfeJinreYn"~11fc[a:~~.!$.)L~Je1ID
Mr. Houck ask the applicant to define the dimensions of commercial along the north
and south property lines.
Mr. Nelson indicate that it was approximately 775' along the north and 1200' along the
south. .
Mr. Houck questioned t~le need for the B - 5 zoning for purposes of "stepping down"
from B-3 zoning.
Mr. Nelson explained that the B - 5 as a "transition area with single story office" was
brought about by the concerns of the property owners immediately surrounding the
areas to be rezoned.
i&.1r:_H"<Luck ask why..th~ ~~tlmtial coUla -not. be '~xtend_ed in!,9 ~ ar~aas now. l>-eil1g'
\r.e.questeJ.l as B - 5.'!
Mr. Nelson stated that with the use of dr~inage retention facilities in and around the
Crooked Creek drainage ditch a natural buffer was created between the residential and
commercial areas. To develop the areas west of Crooked Creek would be impractical
from an engineering and cost point of view.
George Sweet added that open space or a natural buffer; utilizing trees and water
areas, is more acceptable as far as place to live is concerned.
"
'!II
,page 4 '
LU 2/6/90
CD
o
(
\
"'&fri. ~McMul1enwh~t.,ovcrall road improvements were planned._ "W.hat -ex~'ct]y :ar~ you'.
(applicant) ^co~aing too?" .. .
"'~~3"i!RT.
~:.." 421 'F"76ntf!ge - (2) entrances in accordance with the 421 Overlay
,.equirements which would be installed to State Highway standards;
- 421 and l06th Street - dedic(lte right - of - way and provide a left turn lane
on the west bound lane to go south on 421;
- 106th Street Frontage - (1) entrance with acceljdecel lane on the south
side and a passing lane on the north side assuming right - of - way can be
obtained;
- 106th Street and Shelborne Road - where right - of - way could be obtained
left turn lanes both off of Shelborne Road on south bound lane and also on
the west bound lane;
- Shelborne Road Frontage - (2) entrances on the west side into the
residential area each would have acceljdecel lanes and a passing lane on the east
side assuming right - of - way can be obtained
- Shelborne Road and 96th Street - where right - of - way could be obtained
on the north side of 96th and work with Marion County DOT to provide a left
turn lane north bound on Shelborne Road and then a right and left turn
capability south bound on Shelborne Road.
Mr. Sweet further went on to say that Dick Albright indicated these improvements
would be prioritized as the areas were platted and developed.
Mrs. McMullen ask whether the entrances would be divided.
Mr. Sweet stated that he anticipated all entrances would be divided.
Mrs. McMullen indicated her continued concern for the location of the entrance on
106th Street.' She ask whether it could be located closer to 421.
Mr. Fehribach stated that most usually the rule is no closer than 600' to a major
intersection, however, in some cases this could be reduced to 500': separation. He
would not advise any less than 600' in this case."More is better."
Mr. Nelson explained that the actual location of the entrance on -106th Street has not
yet been determined, the applicant has only committed that it would not be any closer
than 600' to the Hoffman property.
Mr. Houck pointed out that the street to the south presented the conceptual basis for
a collector road continuing to north.
Mr. Nelson indicated that is what is encouraged by the 421 Overlay.
~;1
. _. ~ ... . ' .
page 5
LV 2/6/90
(LJ
o
Mr. Houck continued that the location of the entrance extending north across 106th
Street could quite easily defeat the "tapering effect alluded to earlier in the original
presentation".
Mr. Nelson responded that the applicant is required to build an frontage road and one
that is safe. According to the experts the frontage road should be a minimum of 600'
to other street inter~ections. If the land to the north is to be .used for commercial
purposes it would have to be rezoned because it is currently zoned S - 1.
Mrs. McMullen thanked the applicant for including Exhibit B (additional excluded uses
in the B ~3area)but asked why it was not added it in the beginning.
Mr. Nelson replied that it was never considered necessary. The 421 Overlay encumbers
excluded uses, which are being applied and the B-2 and B-3 parcels to the south
of this project are towlly unincumbered.
Mr. Jones gave an explanation of the Staff comments cautioning the Committee on a
potential inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Text with respect
to land use in the "general vicinity". He also cautioned the Committee of precidentially
tapering" commercial uses to the north on property not involved in this request.
During the public hearing Mrs. Riddle, an adjoining property owner to the northeast
stated she was concerned for the number of individual lots from the residential area
that would abut her property. Mr. Jones suggested as a possible solution the same
formula or ratio that was used to appease Mr. Hoffman could be utilized for the
Riddle property.
Mr. Riddle asked how the property would be used if the applicant did not receive
approval.
Mr. S~eet stated that due to financial commitments both in engineering design and a
sewer bond issue of approximately $135,000 in cash and $145,000 in bond guarantees
they would develop the 40 acres next to the Riddle property under the requirements
of the S - 1 classification and get just about as many 101S as in tlie being proposed by
this S - 2 rezone request.
r..
.page 6
LV 2/6/90
~
Q
('
\Mr. ~S;we~t stat~d tffiit he_felt the public is bestsefVe-d by this overall project fqr... th.e
(fOllowing reasonS:
. 1) The sewer plan: privately financed and will provide badly needed sewer
service for the entire area.
2) Drainage: currently the square mile of area in question has deplorable
drainage and because of the size of this proposed development 40 acres could
not do as much for the overall drainage system as would the 180 acres working
in concert with mixed uses.
.OtTraffic: th.ete-is no way-developing 40 acres can. "marshall" the",same resources
(a's. -"developing the 180 acres and still be able to make the sarn:.e- mag
l!mpro_vements proposed. .
4) Housing costs.
:Mrs. M.cMiillen moved to approve Docket No. 75 ~ 89 Z with the points made that ~Eey
are committing to the road improvements that-were listed in the traffic repd~~and
. ExhibiLB as 3ar :'as uses that would be excluded_in. the B-3 Zone. Mr. Hoock
tseconded.
Motion failed (1) for (2) against.
~ ..-... '....~.~". Ai~~--~:--l.;..(::~.:;;::-ir~:.~~c-~~:::!=.:~ . _.:.... ~_ .:....~..;...:.:~..~.~,. :::';':'..:'_":"'0;". ;..... . :..-' ~ ..._'