HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket City Council 07-15-02
[J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
[J
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
HUNTERS CREEK
Change of Zoning Classification
To Planned Unit Development-
Office Use
5 Acres at Rohrer Road and
Marana Drive
Ordinance No. Z-381-02
Carmel Common Council
July 15, 2002
/.. ! ~}
\.........
Ci J\Cvc./Vc.u \;--_
[\ JUL 3 2002 B?
\.~~~\ DOCS ~~
./ \.. ' ".
/ > -1<'~
~~}yy
Charles D. Frankenberger
NELSON & FRANKENBERGER
3021 East 98th Street, Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46280
Telephone: (317) 844-0106
u
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
o
0',
,0
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Explanation
2. Aerial
3. Original site/landscape plan
4. Revised site/landscape plan
5. Elevations
6. Streetscapes
7. Survey - 5 acres
8. Traffic Operations Analysis
9. Letters - Hamilton County Highway Department
10. PUD Ordinance
11. Letters from Appraisers
12. Letters of support
13. Certification of Plan Commission's Recommendation
14. Department Report to Plan Commission
H:\1anet\HiU, Brad\TOC-CC 071S02.wpd
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Explanation
July 3, 2002
Carmel Common Council
Re: Hunters Creek Office Park - 5 acres located at Rohrer Road
and Marana Drive - Ordinance No. Z-381-02
First Reading July 15,2002
Dear Councilor:
The Hunters Creek Office Park, LLC ("Hunters Creek") has requested a change in zoning
classification to permit the redevelopment of real estate for office use. The subject real estate is 5
acres located north of V.S. 31 between 13 pI Street and 14 pI Street, north and east ofthe Meridian
Village Plaza, and southwest of the comer of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive. It is the site of the
vacant Carmel Bretheren Church, and is outlined in white on the aerial photograph enclosed as
Exhibit 2.
By way of general background, the first public hearing before the Plan Commission occurred
on November 20,2001, at which time we presented the original site/landscape plan included as
Exhibit 3, and were referred to the Special Studies Committee. We remained there in December,
2001, and January and February, 2002, when we were returned to the Plan Commission in March,
2002, with a negative recommendation from Committee. The Plan Commission then referred us
back to the Committee, at which time we presented the revised site/landscape plan included as
Exhibit 4. The Committee, with a vote of 4 to I, again returned us to Plan Commission with a
negative recommendation. Finally, as evidenced by the certification ofthe recommendation of the
Plan Commission, on June 18, 2002, the Plan Commission voted II in favor, 2 opposed, and 0
abstaining to forward to the Common Council the proposed Ordinance with an unfavorable
recommendation.
In reviewing this request, it is helpful to be mindful that (i) what is proposed and assured by
the PUD Ordinance is a very low intensity office use on a heavily landscaped site with buffering and
significant set backs, (ii) the 5 acres is zoned for residential and B-3 uses which are largely
prohibited by the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone in which it exists, (iii) the office park is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and (iv) in many respects, the office park is less intense than what is permitted
by the V.S. 31 Overlay Zone and, through this reduced intensity, provides transition for the
neighboring residential areas. Further discussion of this follows, together with a synopsis and other
compelling reasons supporting this request:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Carmel Common Council
July 3. 2002
Page 2
1. Intensity. As illustrated by the revised site/landscape plan included as Exhibit 4, only 24,000
square feet of office space is permitted under the proposed PUD Ordinance. In this regard,
the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone permits (i) maximum parcel coverage of 65%. and (ii) maximum
floor area ratio of 70%. The proposed PUD Ordinance permits parcel coverage and floor
area ratio ofless than 11%, substantially below what is permitted in the U.S. 31 Overlay
Zone. Stated differently, the intensity of the proposed office use is l/6th of that permitted
by the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. In this and in other respects, when compared to what is
permitted under the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, the office park imposes more restrictions on the
developer and assures greater protection for the residential neighbors.
2. Traffic. During the public hearings, concerns were expressed about traffic. The evidence
on this issue. however. is incontrovertible. The Traffic Operations Analysis, included as
Exhibit 8. which was based upon the originally proposed 46,000 square feet of office space,
confirms that intersection levels of service "A" will be achieved at the A.M. and P.M. peak
hours, with only one level of service "B" as an exception. The impact at all other times of
the day will be less significant; however, as indicated in the various reports from the
Department of Community Services, there is no level of service more efficient than "A".
As stated, the Traffic Study was based upon the originally proposed PUD Ordinance which
permitted 46,000 square feet of office space, and established that resulting traffic was
nominal. As also indicated above. during the deliberations of the Plan Commission and its
Special Studies Committee, the square footage of office space was reduced from 46,000 to
24,000 square feet -- a 43% reduction. The already nominal traffic would be reduced.
accordingly.
Finally, during the deliberations of the Plan Commission, concern was expressed over
vehicles entering and exiting onto Marana Drive. However, per the correspondence included
as Exhibit 9, the Hamilton County Highway Department will not permit an entrance onto
Rohrer Road. due to safety considerations. Moreover. (i) as verified by the Traffic
Operations Analysis, all intersections will continue to function at acceptable levels of service
and (ii) the office space upon which the Traffic Operations Analysis was based has been
reduced by 43%, further reducing the already nominal traffic.
3. Impact on Surrounding Values. While impact on surrounding values is not the sole
consideration, it is something about which we have inquired. We have received and filed the
opinions of two certified appraisers, asserting that the existence of the office park will not
decrease values. These opinions. copies of which are enclosed as Exhibit 11, reflect common
sense judgments of what has occurred in the immediate real estate market.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Carmel Common Council
July 3, 2002
Page 3
The conditions establishing the value of nearby residential real estate already exist. These
conditions include the proximity of the U.S. 31 Corridor, the shopping center environment
established by the Meridian Village Plaza, and the uncertainty surrounding the use of the 5
acres. It is this uncertainty, and not the answer to the uncertainty, which causes devaluation.
In other words, a potential purchaser of a nearby residence would be aware of the abandoned
5 acres and the fact that it will be eventually used for something. This purchaser will
discount value, accordingly, and would most likely assume a use more intensive than that
proposed. For these reasons, we believe that (i) it is this uncertainty, and not the proposal,
which worsens value and (ii) the proposal is not the problem but, instead, the solution that
stabilizes prices and eliminates uncertainty by positively answering the unknown.
4. Other Uses. In response to the foregoing discussion on devaluation, it may be argued that
other uses are more desirable than a low intensity office use on a heavily landscaped site.
In this regard, what follows is a brief discussion of other available uses:
(a) Residential Use. Considering the comparatively small size of the real estate, its
narrow configuration, and its exposure to the Meridian Village retail center and U.S.
31, it is not feasible to develop the real estate for detached single family homes.
Multi-story, multi-family development would perhaps be economically viable, but
may create other concerns such as increased traffic, additional impact on schools, and
devaluation. Either option, however, is purely academic because this parcel is
governed by the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, which prohibits residential use, per se.
(b) B-3 Use. Part of the real estate is zoned B-3. While the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone
prohibits many ofthe B-3 uses, it would permit such uses as schools, hospitals, or a
multi-story office building. These uses would exist in large, multi-story structures,
for which parking would not be centered and screened by buildings. Their
characteristics would import substantially more intensity. There would be traffic and
activity at night and on the weekends.
(c) Church Use. It may be suggested that another church would be an appropriate use
of the real estate. The most telling evidence of the infeasibility of this use is the
vacant Carmel Brethem Church. Contemporary churches typically prefer large tracts
of real estate, suitable for future expansion, to justify and warrant extensive
investment in a physical plant that can offer the multi-faceted services sought by
today's parishioners. This parcel is not large enough. It may, perhaps, attract a
start-up church; however, the start-up church would either move on or fail and, in any
event, not attract much investment. The land value would continue to decline.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Q
o
o
Carmel Common Council
July 3, 2002
Page 4
5. Remonstrance. Land use matters can become pitched with emotion and, at times, less than
objective. To temper and balance some of the comments received during public hearing, it
is helpful to recognize that those comments do not represent the opinions of all the residents
in the surrounding neighborhoods. In this regard, the letter written by Jim and Doreen
Supan, who reside immediately west of and adjacent to the office park, provide some
balance. This letter is also enclosed, along with a letter of support from another nearby
homeowner.
6. Other Benefits. As indicated on the revised site/landscape plan, set back from Rohrer is
substantial. Landscaping continues to exceed the requirements of the Overlay Zone.
Moreover, size and height of the buildings is substantially less than what is permitted by the
Overlay Zone and, while the Overlay Zone permits some retail use, the proposed PUD
Ordinance permits only office use.
7. Transition. As indicated by the buildings and streetscapes included as Exhibits 5 and 6,
respectively, the proposed office park is understated, single story, residential appearing
buildings. The office park provides transition and buffering, both of which are cornerstones
of fundamental urban land use planning.
8. Department Report. As evidenced by the Department Report included as Exhibit 14, the
Department recommended that the PUD be forwarded to City Council with a favorable
recommendation.
We look forward to introducing this to you on July 15,2002.
Respectfully submitted,
CA:..'~ ~~~~-.-.r--
Charles D. Frankenberger
CDF/jlw
H:\Janet\Hill. Brad\Explanation-CC 071502.wpd
o
o
o
Q
o
o
Q
o
Q ~
o
o
o
a
Q
o
D
Q~
Marana Drive and West Buffer
\l
I
Ent~ nee I
~
. ~!~~'Y!'I~b!~[~~~~~ii~!z!;~~~~!f~!!~f:\~~~~t~i~k:i:tfii1~~~,!
November 7,2001
HuntersCreek
Office Park
10,20 40
o
Preliminary Landscape Plan
Prep.red For:
Hun1a's Creek OftkePark,LLC
Prepared By:
HempDeslgn
Scale In Feet:
r1Jl
North
)
Hunter s
Creek Office
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Park)
LLC.
f-- w'
//[[ >\\
)1lJ...(t1\
~//~C} D f '0::
I
Entram'e
-====
_L
I
E,,-, 2' ROLL C.URB
I.
1/
I'
/;:://
~
'::.C'~"""~:Uf.' 'I;Rll:, l,iCtlln..I:1
. Marana Dri,,!, and West BulTer
MARANA DRIVE
.....2'-4' Undulating Berm
~ 2'_4' Undulating Berm '___,
..
~
=
e:I
-
'"
'"'
~
"0
=
"
'"'
...
'i:
::::
I
!
i
I
I
I
I :r:x 4rJ
-"i2'R.I;~
') ,
i..} I
i~ I
if
/"
/ :
j"
i ,
~.' / '
if.; /
1.:...: ~
r~
::J
::i:t:/
..JY ~
/ ,:. c
/j)j ~
rl
/ /
/
~
~
0.'>
"
=
"
..
"
:;
:'~."l~;,C.!.I: (;,:~')~;'''LLI I:Ei?~'~':.
Meridian Village Plaza BuITer
;2~~il'''(;'): ','iR'::)~ 'l::~:,~~ ';j:l(
!
--'
(
t;I_- 1(.";
I},I!,
:l;:,"IWY; :,!.'[F:(~~,;. '~r.,'lUW~ PU;,"L~'
r
i -I I I j
I ~1~li I r~0i;.,r~:C.I.~ li;'~'.t !co~~~~();~ w,~',~ I()UA;n:l"i=:'Z~ R:~~____.___,._..
, , I 1 , I'" ". "J'[ . "'1'" ""
I R( 1"':[i['~.-'~.~~,~:u-:'--.(.F:EI!; t.l~i:J!lfi' l~R~[N ~'(tI!l.;r: t'L?I';:: CLl;:~.,\ln I .'.: ,'., . .' \:"~. r ~ , l t!,,, Lrl~;. ~ ,
,- ------r I I
I I 0 I '1,'.:,.\ F,'<[J'.\r'r,'tr~;"" w,;:: I ;., I j (.r,.. C:,:.:[1Jile.; SOl:. ~~'~:IJlG c:c
~J ~:-10DCJ~.r~:\R II - Jl.' 1 VI,
I s.\ !5I=i~:'\E;" E'U!.!f'LD; ';'lnHO~J" ',''':.lfRf~' ik~;HoNr l'o'tT~;E:F s~~~____J~~.~j i-~~~~~:-~~~,Il~.;;;:~-~
I,', 1".';,[;" I"W'lt>. IJ;[>" fI','" .J~EC" fl~S" ,"f";. !.. 1___.__1__ j (....c. 'U,L. l S':,""X, '.''''
R~~i{I:{G;' lI["!tRI 'P;'lIBI1: ip\\';"I~: ,:Of.:l;'~~ U;'( 1---=-.1__.~~~~".!------ 3 ':'~,l. ;lU. t ER;..IK..;~::, Ml:~
1-;:-l'~'fii~~C::' PI. lUL" .,,!!S~ ~;.~______. II!!SS KI!,~ DW;'f:~ ~IJ,( I ~~, I ;.:n H; Y '~~l, ;lt~l. f ~;,M-lC'.C 1,/)1:
. I . III'....... ,.",."'...',,.,...'!....'.".1'.'., ')' "'-1 "I "["I"'[. "1'
I T[' .;.ws > 1.1::0i;'. '(lA:;,' (::;[[1; SDi\[A[r[F -.... ,-,' ~.',', -~- c..;.:"; : "", .< ~~ ~'C t ,,' L"-
[_:~JiIU/. . ::UC'il(':U, !CRIVEA'. ll~lDtr; I. 12-1/:" ~&~ 'U,[l:[l ~ CE::Tri,'L lEI,tF '.'.\TCHI'r
~'_!~;'XUS ' l.I[{)I,'., '[)(llSlfOR\~'S' JOWS:: SPF:[:"D:r;(. )"t.", II ~t( I :':~B:I[-'- -,-c- -~ (-::'~CC""6lE :,; 2;'
l-~'::.-1 ~i81)P."1\J!.1. B0f;:K'h'JO)II '1.'0",,\',",' ll.'O\h....ll.: 'v15l!FlIUI.' - "c~:r'.l-p.t rUl. ' BO;"i(H:S IoU,
i 1'( l'E"RlJU!-' CRESII '(,\00"'- i C"Je,' >18URIlU'.' ~__L_~~~~I__i~~=- 3 '"C. FVll. (, ~R"'CH[S M'1.
~j ~lSURtlW liUH:.llrl" i ,\RR::W;I'1\)OC ""i6'.n;~ljlN i.: 1 ::'':- B&f~ ~ C..',~ ,~(C:T!,I.5cl. ILJL~. [, BF.M~CH~~~ 1.1:;'.
i VJ j';;U'NUI.,. ",pp" r::;;~,.' _L_'~J_2" 8:'."__. J "" ,\[C''''6:[. FUll.' "-"KHES 1.1:;:-1
1 v:' v15VRNIJI,t I-'UCAILJI.' ~OM[ ;lO::'W ').I.ARIES" 'I!/.,RlrSli (lC'Jfj~fIL:: ....lB~;;.r;\)'J~ 3{1" 8&2 JL\l~. u: :,\", :;fi;"HCHLD I
]0505 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
(317)846-6611 FAX:(317)l\43.{l54fi
TOLL-I'Rl::1::: (800) 452-64011
i
--,-_._~----
rL-MH SCH[[JULf
! >'.'
. ;t..~':I:U~ f'L!ti<.ill','!,):;;,'. '1,IM~5H1.~l.
: t\,','tl.;'I: f'-:.l~~;~;~~ V"I,.(;' 'r';' WOF,r
)y~F[f"lf~ ('W,,;c~:sr~ 'S[.: GPUI/
,.'J'.r'Ui,i; "F:(:::'.:!,!f;Er:~ '~;~~';'I.C,.'~~r"
,J.!\rlRi..I; rlO;:;:!zc'~n;,L~:, 'y~~un:;Si(J\\1,'
'IL[:';'
t~. ;..Hi:,'
. C()l.~" ;.': 1 ;, .
i: ~ ; I;.:, (U.L;~;" '~;rG~.;"
i L- !~I1({;;:JrN(lRO'; iJ,-I;:Ff~::.
I..WU:' ':':'':'1,1';'
! !.~' i '.!io .ll:' '~'ft/<lf\t[ >:ke
1 r~, ,',IR!t i ,Pt' ::~Af
__1.___..________
I:;V~lIl' (:1\.\:
-I
j .'~(rNi:,' S~'i?UC:
)
\LLAN II. WEIIIE
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
REGISTERED lAND SURVEYOR
l PRESIDENT
CIVJL ENGINFERS . LAND SURVEYORS. LAND PLANNERS . LANDSCAPE ARCIIITECfS
I
j:
: 1,1: .1.l:'J): ' :J'li '::'i..c..:;~f.'~,'''
,
1 't;
'---j
I
I COi.(IF::.D(1 ~~V[ S~>f;-LlCE I
..-n----r~~:~~~.;~ :.,,[(1. .~~~;--- 27
S\':::;ll I t_:'J:~.. w.:c:~m~G COLeF.
hemp design
la nd pia n n ing services
L.awrence Ilemp, RLA
90 Exccuti\'c Drivc. Suite G
Cannel, IN 46032
Omcc;JJ7-1:114-5405
Fax: 317-814.5200
\NEIHE
ENGINEERS,
m
INC.
...,',
,\[il::
i ~,(
: "....-f ,:. rlrl;G:ll~ [{AU;':'
,--'-..~~-~~-~----
,
j ~'. i ~'(r:. Pln;(.[::~
:---C'---- 1--
[~J~,~~::~?---'_-- -'_.--~:":"(URI:"I~
E'B.!.:B
:':'-1/2" f:&E
H[M/~E! ~:. (Er-;Hu,~ LEt.[IEF:. lUll
i 1~. Hl
.'" GA.. :U::. !; li>-!A~'ICH:S LU,
10
()
I
10
m
10
10
()
)>
CJ
I
II
/'
,[
Iii
"~I
Ii
i,!
! i t
. I
,
S;:-"\lE.
j":..- :,(1
1 ~,
6{:
PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE
PlAN BOTANiCAl NAME COU..<J4 NAME QUAN1I1Y
KEY SIZE REMARK
AB ACER PALMAruM 'BLOODCOOO' BI..OOOGOOO JAPANESE "APLE 2 1-1/L Bc!lB MAltHlNG SPEaMENS
AL AMElANaER L.AE\1S AllEGHENY SElMCEBERRY 4 1-1/L Bc!lB lREE FORM. HEADED 4' "'N.
AR ACER RUBRUM x SACOiARINUM . AUru"N BlAZE AUruMN BLAZE MAPlE 22 2-1/2- Bc!lB HEADED 6'. CENlRAL LEADER
AS ACER SACOiARUM 'GREEN MOUNTAIN' GREEN ..OUNTAlN SUGAR ..APlE 13 2-1/2- Bc!lB HEADED 6'. CENTRAL LEADER
CC CERaS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD 7 1-1/2- Bc!lB SlNlll-SlEM lREE RR1, MAltHlNG
C) COTONEASTER DIVARlCATA SPREADING COT<J4EASTER 9 24- HT. 3 GAL. FUU. 6 BRANOfES MIN.
er CORNUS R.ORIDA 'RUBRN . PINK FlOWERING OOGY<<)()I) 3 1-1/L Bc!lB MAltHlNG SPEa..ENs, HEADED 'S "'N.
a cmTEAGUS ~USGAW INERMIS THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN 3 1-1/2- BiB ..ATOlING SPEa..ENs, HEADED 'S "IN.
ev ~A TEAGUS ~R1DIS 'WINlER KING' Yt1NlER KING HAWTHORN 5 1-1/2- Bc!lB MA TOliNG SPEa~ENs, HEADED 'S MIN.
FA FRAXlNUS AMERICANA . AUruMN PURPLE" AUruMN PURPLE ASH 12 2-1/L B&8 HEADED 6'. CENlRAL LEADER
FM FRAXlNUS PENNSYLVANICA 'MARSHALL' MARSHALl'S SEEDLESS ASH 8 2-1/~ BiB HEADED 6'. CENTRAL LEADER
FP FRAXlNUS PENNSYLVANICA 'pATMORE' PATMORE ASH 6 2-1/~ BiB HEADED 6'. CENTRAL LEADER
JC JUNIPERUS CHINENSlS 'SEA GREEN' SEA GREEN JUNIPER 44 24- Bc!lB 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE AT 24-
JG JUNIPERUS PROCUMBENS 'GREENMOUND' GREENMOUND JUNIPER 13 24- Bc!lB 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE AT 24-
JY JUNIPERUS HORIZONTAUS 'YOUNGSTO~' ANDORRA YOUNGSTOWN .lJNIPER 40 24- BIB 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE AT 24-
IC ILEAX Gl..ABRA 'COMPACTA' COMPACT INKBERRY 10 24- HT. 3 GAL. FULL. 6 BRANOlES "IN.
IN ILEX G..ABRA 'NIGRA' NIGRA COMPACT INKBERRY 54 24- HT. 3 GAL. FULL. 6 BRANCHES MIN.
LT URlOOENDR<J4 ruUPlFERA ruuPlREE 6 2-1/L B&:8 HEADED 3' "IN.. MATCHING
MA ..AlUS . ADAM~ ADAMS ~ 11 1-1/L BIB HEADED 3' MIN.. MATCHING
MF MAlUS R.ORIBUNDA JAPANESE R.ODNG CRAB 2 1-1tr BiB HEADED 3' MIN., "A TCHING
- u
MP MAlUS 'PRAIRlEFlRE' PRAIRIE ARE ~ 13 1-1/2- BiB HEADED J' MIN., MATCHING
MZ MAlUS x ZUMI 'CALOCARPA' REDBUD CRAB 16 -1/~ Btil HEADED 3' MIN....A TCHING
PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 32 8' BIB SlNlll LEADER, FUll
PG PICEA PUNGENS GLAUCA COLORADO BWE SPRUCE 15 8' BolB MA TOliNG SIZE AND COlOR
pp P1CEA PUNGENS COLORADO GREEN SPRUCE 27 8' B&8 SINGlE LEADER. "A TCHING COLOR
QR QUERCUS RUBRA RED OAK 9 2-1/2- Bc!lB HEADED 5'. CENTRAL LEADER. FUll
RA RISES AIPINUM ALPINE CURRANT 13 24- HT. 3' GAL. FUU. 6 BRANOlES MIN.
RG RISES ALPINUM 'GREEN "OUND' GREEN MOUND ALPINE CURRANT 34 24- 3' GAL. FUU. 6 BRANOlES MIN.
RP RHOOOOENDRON P.J.... P.J.M. RHOOODENDRON 6 24- 3 GAL. CONDIlION SOIL. SPRING ONLY
SA SPIRAEA x BUMALaI 'ANTHONY WATERER' ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA 42 24- 3' GAL. FULL. 6 BRANOlES MIN.
SN SPIRAEA x BUMALaI 'NEON FlASH' NEON FlASH SPIREA 22 24- 3' GAL. FUU. 6 BRANOlES "IN.
SM SYRINGA ME'f'ER1 'pAUBIN' DWARF KOREAN ULAC 22 24- HT. 3' GAL. FULL. 6 BRANOlES MIN.
SP SYRINGA PAruLA 'MISS KIM' MISS KIM DWARF ULAC 45 24- HT. 3' GAL. FULL. 6 BRANOlES MIN.
ID_ IAXUS ~Mf])IA 'DARK-GREEN S!'REAOEij' .DARK GREEN SPREAD~ YEW 25 24-B&:8 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE AT 24-.
TE llUA x EUOlLORA CRIMEAN UNDEN 8 2-1/2- Btil HEADED 6'. CENlRAL LEADER, MATCHING
TM TAXUS x ..EDIA 'DENSlFORMI~ DENSE SPREADING YEW 26 24- B&8 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE AT 24-
VB ~BURNUM x BUROOODII 'MOHAWK' MOvtiAWK ~BURNU" 20 24- B&8 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE. FULL. 6 BRANOlES "IN.
vc ~BURNUM CARLfSlI 'CAUGA' CAYUGA \1BURNUM 24 24- HT. 3 GAL. FULL. 6 BRANOlES MIN.
VI) ~BURNUM DENTA ru.. ARROWMXlD VIBURNUM 4 24- B&:B 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE. FULL. 6 BRANCHES MIN.
VJ ~BURNUM x JUDDII JUDDI ~BURNUM 5 24- B&8 3 GAL ACCEPTABLE. FULL. 6 BRANOlES MIN.
VP ~BURNUM PUCA ruM TOMENTOSUM 'MARIESlI' MARIESlI DOUBL.EFILE VlBURNU.. 10 JO- B&:8 FULL. HEAVY BRANOlED
III
.J
o
2
:InJ
\f\ ~L
o
t- 1
~
~
~
~
~
Z
o
~
~
,-
~~~::;\~- ~"\
. ~ ~l:{'~"'" --1-'
~..' ....-~ ~r-= \. ":~~"-.-'
H \~~" "i;) ~-
8,9]1' \W~ '':\.~~ .~{~
~.Y.. 6 r f'-'1".'~~'- ~
,Y' -If,"~ jj ~
"'(:jJV
L1-
V')
o
o
o
\D
z
o
t 1
~
~
.~
~
LL.
V)
o
o
o
\D
., ,..",,~^t . . .. ""'W" -. -X>i;."" .- ~.".=.", .5;'> < - .,,'tMf!2C.,,' ", "'" ., >j,,,., ,,,,,, . '. '"'~ . . . _. ">""".,,";f,~ t:1"""""'<r.~J1!'i~"''''~~~,r:",'-""""",~~r"",.-;::~,l1''~'''''~'''-<'P='
\ ~it4t{i~~5'-:~'- ;: "~'""-'-', ~- ";-,~,--:,~~, .~. '~'<~- ~.~ ': 0,.'-:,'..,'... <-O~>,." ~ ,"i~-: ,
.,:>~ -"' -'""" ." ,- ,..", . '"'>:'....-- ( ~ ~-2o,~. ~... --.. ~.3. " ~-J';' ~>~ C-" "" ~ ~ ~.. << ~~'i''''t.}\~~<i_- "'~~r-o..""'~'1:'><f'''''''-;'<:'~" <"_ ". ,,_W~ ';:"\'7 ~~, ~'~"'..:>-"'"\'i-,: Vf~:::,~,~:I,_-:,,_ ,"',J;:;._c" ~.;(t'~~~~~!'~~~.......r.'f,~ ~.::~'">- ,~ ';;"~j.:.._ _<.:.;: " ~ , " ~"1 .::~"~~ ~...;.'~ _-< _ ~
SIGHT LINE OPEN FOR INTERSECTION
~
(t:
<( ~
0....
Iol
w II
u
LL
LL
0
~ ~
W lIil
W l!i C
(t: r~
u 7i
it::'
(f) d~
(t: ..'"
....~
w ~ ...
III
r- ei
Z ~
::l
I
i ili i
"'..'
""... .'~ -.. -
:.-.. -':, -.....,.~,,:
MARANA DRIVE CURB LINE
$
G
CENTER ~
SECTION ~
"'
~
~
C-;
~
U
.~
~
a
~ ~
~
C) ~
~ I-...
\..) ~
~
C/) V)
.. ~
~ ~
~ c:::l
~
~ ~ ~
I ~ ~
~
IIBDT liD.
!
CENTER LINE CURB
ROHRER ROAD
ROHRER ROAD
40' HALF
RIGHT OF VAY
CENTER UNE
OFFICE PARK
ENTRANCE
MARANA DRIVE STREET VIEW- EAST SECTION
215' EASTERLY PROPERTY FRONTAGE
BUILDINGS ARE APX 175' TO 225' BEHIND CURB
LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS SHOWN AT
APPROX 5 YEARS MATURITY
WESTERLY c..5
SECTION ~
~
"
~
8
~
~
0
.~
~
a
~ ~
Q)
Q) ~
~ ~
u ~
CI) V)
" ~
~ ~
~ cs
~
~ ~ ~
I ~ ~
~
IEilIlr KQ.
1
EASTERLY
SECTION
MARANA DRIVE CURB LINE
MARANA DRIVE STREET VIEW- CENTER SECTION
250' CENTER PROPERTY FRONTAGE
BUILDINGS ARE APX 175' TO 225' BEHIND CURB
LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS SHDWN AT
APPROX 5 YEARS MATURITY
~
0:::
<C m
0....
Joi
w II
u
LL
LL
0
~ s
w ~
W ! Gl
0:::: 'o~
rl
u "'j
l'
IO:~~
(f) ~~
0:::: ....,
-~
w ~ J>j
IZl
f- a
Z p,;
:J
I
I
CENTER
SECTION
MARANA DRIVE CURB LINE
MARANA DRIVE STREET VIEW- WEST SECTION
250' VESTERLY PROPERTY FRONTAGE
BUILDINGS ARE APX 175' TO 225' BEHIND CURB
LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS SHDINN AT
APPRDX 5 YEARS MATURITY
~
0:::
<( i
0...
Joi
W II
u
LL
LL
0
~ S
w ;
w j!j III
0::: r~
u 751
~~
(f) t_;J
S!:i-
0::: ....,
-~
w m Il<t
I- ei
Z p;
::J
I
I
cj
~
I...:j
"-
VEST PROPERTY ~
LINE ~
~
~
C,)
.~
~
a
~ ~
~
~ ~
G ......
~
~
fI) VJ
... ~
~ ~
~ c:s
~
~ ~ ~
I ~ ~
~
lIlIDT 110.
I
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D'
D
D
D
D
D
-0
D~~
o
~ N.E. Cor. S.W. 1/4
I ' Sec. 24- T1BN-RJE
~ II~ -
0:: ' I
I.&J III ,..:
~ I~ ~
~ II
~ '"
, . ~
N 88'00'00. W
- - - - - - -...::::::.t~"!!.A~ - - - - - "'~-11
r - - - -io-- - - - ---!i 88'00'00. W :
715:00"- - - - - - - - ~
I
P.O.&.
. .
'''' ~~
~, a I'~ ~
!l' ~ Zf'" I r:N~
BRE1HREN CONFIRENCE OF INDIANA
Parcel 117-09-24-00-00-044.001 , .i "
0.8. 335, P,.. 771-772 I
5.00 Acre. ~
... ... '" .,.., , ,~, ~
~~. ~ II
-~~ijh (' . ~ ..:,... li
.............. ~ .I
~------1t1'ql(~V II I:
385.irr -- - - -;:=J/ iii
Hunt_ Creek South - Section One
0.8. 12, P'I 74-76
j
. t
FLYNN It Z1N1<AN REALTY COMPANY
tn.t,:- f81J029314
MERIDIAN 'JILLAGE PLAZA
lEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 18 NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST. IN HAMILTON COUNlY.
INDIANA. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOllOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 18 NORTH,
RANGE 3 EAST. IN HAMILTON COUNTY. INDIANA: THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST
(ASSUMED BEARING) ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER 1451.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 40.03 FEET TO THE ~UE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE TRACT HEREIN
DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 715.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 01
DEGREE 03 MINUTES 53 SECONDS EAST 201.60 FEET: THENCE SOUTH. 62 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 21 SECONDS
EAST 324.67 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 365.87 FEET TO THE
NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR U.S. HIGHWAY 31 PER WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN DEED RECORD
246. PAGE 216 IN THE OFACE OF THE RECORDER OF HAMILTON COUNTY. INDIANA: THENCE NORTH 16 DEGREES
54 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST ON SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 198.45 FEET: THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 06 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER 150.10
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.000 ACRES. MORE OR LESS.
--
--
-- -- --
BRAD HILL DEVELOPMENT
. WEIHE ENGINEERS, INC.
-~.........- ..........
..~ "llrflnloar- Pit -..
HlIN1lR'S CRCE1f 0F1'1t:C PARK, I.U:'
I '
o
G'~':
o
o
o
IJ
o
o
!Jf~)
o 'ZI1!'
;0
Q
o
o
Q'
o
o
o
o
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
SEPTEMBER 2001
PREPARED By:
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240
PHONE 317-202-0864
FAX 317-202-0908
D
n~'~'\
~....'
o
/'1
U
Cl
D
,0
o
D'
o
.0
U
D
o
Q
o
o
o
o
BRAD IIlLL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT
This Analysis and the ideas, designs and concepts contained herein are the
exclusive intellectual property of A&F Engineering Co., LLC. and are not
to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent
of A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
@2001, A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
o
O:r~".;
\"
10
D
o
D
r-'l
U
o
D6'0
t} ~J)
O~
D
o
D
o
'w
G
o
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.... .... ....... ...... ....... ............ ......... ..... ...... .... .... .............. .................... ... ......... ...... .......... ..... ....... .... .......... II
CERTIFICATION. ................................................................. ...................... ... ..................................................................III
INTRODUCTION.................................................................. ..................................................................................... ........ 1
PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................. ...........................................1
SCOPE OF WORK......... .... ....... ........ ........ ..... ........... ............ ... ........... ...... ..................... ......................... .... ............ ... ........1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .............. .... .... ....... ............. '" ...... ...... .......... ..................... ....... ................. .......................2
STUDY AREA. ............. ............... ............ ............... ...................... ..... ................ ... .................... ....... .... ... ......... ............... ..2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUITING STREET SYSTEM ..........................................................................................................4
TRAFFIC DATA .............. ... ...... ....... .......... ................... .... .... .............. .... ........................... ... ...... ....... .............. ......... .... ....4
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................4
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................5
INTERNAL TRIPS..................................................................................................................................... ........................5
P ASS- BY TRIPS ........... ...... ...... ..... .......... ........ .................... ......... .., ...... ............... ........... ......... ........... .................... ...... ...5
PEAK HOUR ....................................................................................................................................................................5
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS.......... ........ ............................... .................................... ...........5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM ............................................................6
CAPACITY ANALYSIS. .... .... ..... ........ .... ....... .... ... ......... ............... ........... .................................................... ....... ........ ........6
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE.... .... .................. ........... ... .......... .... .............. ..... ................ .............. ........ ... ........... 9
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS. ................ .........:.............. ...... .......................... .............. ................ ............ ..... ........ ] 1
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: MARANA DRIVE AND ROHRER ROAD ....................................................]4
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: MARANA DRIVE AND OFFUIT DRIVE ....................................................14
CONCLUSIONS ............................................ .................................................................................................................. ] 5
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................................................................................................... .16
I
D
D,"",
D
DI
Q
0,
N
W
'0
D
.r4~:
: 0
D
V
.n
:u
D
o
D
0'
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: AREA MAP ..... ... ....... ...... ....... ............. ...... ......... ................... ..... ... .... ... ............. ........................ ...................... 3
FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT......... 7
FIGURE 3: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................8
FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........... ............ ..... ........ ................ ............ ........ ...... ........ ......................... ... ....12
FIGURE 5: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..............................................13
II
o
D
D
o
U
I,D,
D
o
D~",,,.,
:c,;,'!)
G""'"
D
~
n
U
Q
U
C
o
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my
immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and
transportation engineering.
A&F ENGINEERING CO., LLC.
Steven J. Fehribach, r.E.
Indiana Registration 890237
Tom Vandenberg
Transportation Engineer
III
o
D'''~'
Q
f1
LJ
o
D
,0
o
A
U~
o -"#
D
o
,0
D
'0
,,0,
[]...'....'..'...
. /.:">,
I.,
. ~.;j;>'
D
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Brad Hill Custom Homes, is for a
proposed office development that will be located along Marana Drive and Rohrer Road in Carmel,
Indiana.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed
development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This
analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site
is developed.
Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the
anticipated traffic volumes. These conclusions will determine the modifications required if there
will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes.
Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis.
These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements that will
accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and
egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public
street system.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is:
First, to obtain turning movement traffic volume counts at the following intersections:
. Marana Drive and Rohrer Road
. Marana Drive and Offutt Drive
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed office
development.
"Third, 'to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will provide
access to the proposed development.
1
o
....~'.",
D\
o
D
W
D
D
a
D~~>
(~,'~;j
Q .0'
D
~
IJ
D,
o
o
D(''-)
I..l \;:;",,,
D
U
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed site onto the public roadway
system and intersections identified in the study area.
Fifth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in
the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO I: Existing Conditions - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2: Proposed Development - New traffic volumes that will be generated by the
proposed development added to the existing traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses,
conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic
through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will be located along Marana Drive and Rohrer Road in Carmel,
Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of approximately 46,000 square feet of general
office land use. Figure 1 is an area map of the proposed development.
STUDY AREA
The study area has been defined to include the following intersections:
. Marana Drive and Rohrer Road
. Marana Drive and Offutt Drive
2
o
~f~c',
D
o
MARANA DRIVE
lsaoo so FT I 15000 so FT I 16000 SO FT I
w
>
a:
o
J::
:J
LL_
LL'
L
~
LiJ
o
<(
o
a:
a:
w
a:
I
o
a:
o
,w,
n
,J.j
1J
D6\1"
06~
D
a
,D'
~
'"
0:
I
00
N
C\ ~
, c
~
'"
=i
,0 i
- ,/
u
r;:
Ul::?)
\,~",J
EXISTING ACCESS
DRIVE
46,000 so FT GENERAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE 1
AREA MAP
'"
<(
""
1J i BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
5' CARMEL, IN
o
N
ON
@ A /lc F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
3
o
....r--~.,
JJ\-'
Q
D
Q
D,
D,
o
D~
tJ
D/
o
...
D
o
c\
D
o
D
f'
U
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
~COPERATIONSANALY~S
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes Marana
Drive and Rohrer Road.
MARANA DRNE - is an east/west two-lane residential roadway within Carmel. The posted speed
limit in the vicinity of the site along this roadway is 25 mph.
ROHRER ROAD - is a north/south two-lane roadway within Carmel. The posted speed limit in the
vicinity of the site along this roadway is 30 mph.
OFRJrr DRIVE - is a north/south two-lane residential roadway within Carmel. The posted speed
limit in the vicinity of the site along this roadway is 25 mph.
Marana Drive and Rohrer Road - This intersection is controlled by a two-way stop with Marana
Drive stopping for Rohrer Road.
Marana Drive and Offutt Drive - This intersection is controlled by a two-way stop with Offutt
Drive stopping for Marana Drive.
TRAFFIC DATA
A peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume count was made at each of the existing
study intersections by A&F Engineering Co., LLC. The traffic volume count includes an hourly
total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at each intersection. The traffic volume
counts were made during the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in June
2001. These traffic volume counts are summarized on Figure 4 and are included in Appendix
A.
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the
development size and type of land use. Trip Generationl report was used to calculate the number of
trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a compilation of trip data
for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout the United States in
order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses. Table 1 is a summary
of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
I Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Sixth Edition, I 997.
4
10
r(''''-''
~\"'-'
G
0,
o
n
:Ui
n
.J..i
D
D8
o
D
r----
W
D
.0
U
o
o
D
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 1 - GENERA1ED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERATED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
General Office 710 46,000 SF 88 12 22 109
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without traversing the roadway
system. Since this development consists of a single land use only, no internal trips will be
generated.
PASs-BY TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use. The
development will contain general office buildings, which are destination land uses. Therefore,
no reduction will be applied for pass-by trips.
PEAK HOUR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak
hour varies between the intersections. Therefore, the actual peak hour at each intersection will be
used for this analysis to represent the maximum traffic volumes at each intersection.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
Traffic volumes will be generated by the proposed development and added to the public street
system. The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes is defined as follows:
1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the site must be assigned to the various access
points and to the public street system. Using the existing traffic volume data collected for
this analysis, traffic to and from the proposed new site has been assigned to the proposed
driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site.
. 2-. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadway's intersection with
5
u
.!..r"-~.';,
nt, ,,";
~./.'
U
(}
o
WI
,0
'0
D~iS";;'
" "o,'i')
::\",<::.'J
0="
lJ
o
D
o
U
o
JJ
o
'0
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
the driveway. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the existing
traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic.
The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are
shown on Figure 2.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE
STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
for each of the study area intersections. The peak hour generated traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 3. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of
generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The
LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data
into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes
and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each
of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer
program based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCMl
2 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000.
6
Q
tJ:C"''>)
o
,0
o
o
o
o
D~'S;"'0
~."~.'.';"','.',"'.::,',<~.
<,..'.-.-....'''-.
,;" :.<"J
n
w
D
n
U
D
D=
I
a::l
'"
O~
~
Cl
0', ~
, 0
./
U
G:
...
n/~':
I.J ~, J
Cl
..
0;
~
o
o
N
ON
5%....
EXISTING ACCESS
DRIVE
MARANA DRIVE
15000 SO FT I lsooo SO FT 116000 SO FTI
w ~
> 20%.:J' ~
a: 1l-t
U")
t-
O
.~
~[2
LL
0
0
<(
III 0
a:
a:
w
a:
I
0
a:
46,000 50 FT GENERAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LEGEND
* = NEGLIGIBLE
t
';fl.
."
.....
FIGURE 2
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
CARMEL, IN
7
@ A Ilc r Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
o
Ge-')
U
D
o
0,
D
o
D,
@,<\
t:::~<1
0""'
D
Q
D
a:
I
lXl
N
O~
. l:>
~
C>
. :i
Oi
./
u
G:
"-
O'~';<';"."
."j
\.~:;.(./
i
""
C>
""
a::
r-->, CD
U~
-- ./
o
o~
EXISTING ACCESS
DRIVE
MARANA DRIVE
15000 so FT 115000 so FT 116000 so FT I
w
>
a:
o
~
::>
LL
LL
o
46,000 sa FT GENERAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
o
<{
o
a:
a:
w
a:
I
o
a:
FIGURE 3
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
CARMEL, IN
8
@ A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
Q
W. ,<"~\
i. 1
. \. '..........1
",.,." '.' ~\
CJ
,0
o
0,
o
o
U(l
. 0lA"
.... ," ~.,,'.
"::"i:,~
,....,..,.1
o "'1C.'
D
o
0,
o
o
o
o
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc QPERATlONSANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections:
Level of Service A - Describes operations with a very low delay, less than or equal to 10.0
seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable,
and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not
stop at all.
Level of Service B - Describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per
vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop
than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Level of Service C - Describes operation with delay in the range of 20.1 seconds to 35.0
seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from failed
progression. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
Level of Service D - Describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per
vehicle. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combinations of
unfavorable progression. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles not stopping dec1ines~
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.
9
Q
~J""'"
Q
D
Cl
W'
o
o
D~
D .~~
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
BRAD Hn.L CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
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)
Less than or equal to 10
Between 10.1 and 15
Between 15.1 and 25
Between 25.1 and 35
Between 35.1 and 50
greater than 50
A
B
C
D
E
F
10
o
,r,........."'..~
O'd,
o
D
o
o
o
0'
'1
u~
O~fI:
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the existing and
generated traffic volumes must be obtained to form a series of scenarios. The analysis of these
scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway system. From the analysis,
recommendations can be made to improve the public street system so it will accommodate the
increased traffic volumes.
An analysis was made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study
intersections considering the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the existing traffic volumes that were
obtained in June 2001. Figure 4 is a summary of the existing traffic
volumes at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Generated Traffic Volumes - Figure 5 is a
summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the AM and
PM peak hours.
The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of
service results are included in Appendix A. The tables that are included in this report are a
summary of the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows:
Table 2 - Marana Drive and Rohrer Road
Table 3 - Marana Drive and Offutt Drive
11
~
"'-',
OC
o
D
Cl
o
o
o
o
o
o
Q
[J
0:
I
co
N
U. ~
"
- C>
3:
o
,:
0, i
./
U
G:
"--
"'U :'C<i)
. p:}",;.>;
~
'"
o
<(
0::
o i
./
5
o
N
o N
EXISTING ACCESS
DRIVE
MARANA DRIVE
15000 sa FT I lsooo sa FT I 16000 sa FT I
w
>
a:
o
~
:J
lL
lL
o
[i [
46,000 SO FT GENERAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
CARMEL, IN
c;o
0>
e~
o
ON
~ ~
(5) 0 3' ~ t
o
<(
o
a:
0:
W
0:
I
o
0:
FIGURE 4
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
12
@ A Be r Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
o
Ar! '\
0;
o
D
o
o
o
o
o (lIl;"'1
0">"
o
Q
o
0:
I
DO
N
I
O~
~
o
::i
01
<..>
c;:
...
<(
o Q,)
~
'"
o
<(
'"
01
5
o
N
ON
EXISTING ACCESS
DRIVE
w
>
a:
o
~
:J
LL
LL
o
III
MARANA DRIVE
15000 SO FT I 15000 SO FT 116000 SO FT I
~ --/
~~ /4>
~ 16000 SO FTI ((/
46,000 SO FT GENERAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
o
<(
o
a:
a:
w
a:
I
o
a:
FIGURE 5
SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC
VOLUMES AND GENERATED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
CARMEL, IN
13
@ A &. F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
o
t"~-".
~! \
W
o
D
o
o
o
o
0[,<:>,.
O~~l'
o
Q
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
BRAD Hn..L CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: MARANA DRIVE AND ROHRER ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Left-Turn A A
Eastbound Approach A A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Left-Turn A A
Eastbound Approach A A
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Roadway Conditions
(Two-Way Stop Sign)
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with Existing Roadway
Conditions (Two-Way Stop Sign)
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: MARANA DRIVE AND OFFUTT DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach - A
Southbound Approach A B ,/--
Eastbound Left-Turn A A
Westbound Left-Turn A A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach - A
Southbound Approach A A
Eastbound Left-Turn A A
Westbound Left-Turn A A
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Roadway Conditions
(Two-Way Stop Sign)
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with Existing Roadway
Conditions (Two-Way Stop Sign)
14
o
o~
o
o
o
o
o
o
O~i'/"
)~;?':)
"'".:.>'
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
BRAD Hn.L CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on the following:
. Existing Traffic Volume Data
. Trip Generation
. Assignment and Distribution of Generated Traffic
. Capacity Analysis with the Resulting Levels of Service for Each of the Study Intersections
. 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. If the resulting level
of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed that the remaining 22
hours will have levels of service equal to or better. This occurs because the roadway traffic volumes
during the remaining 22 hours will be equal to or less than the peak hour traffic volumes.
1. MARANA DRIVE AND ROHRER ROAD
Existing Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1) - A review of the level of service for each of the
intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing geometries, has
shown that the approaches are operating at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak
hours.
Existing Traffic Volumes + Generated Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2) - When the traffie
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the
intersection approaches will continue to operate at acceptable levels during the AM and PM
peak hours with the proposed intersection geometries and existing intersection control. The
proposed intersection geometries consist of reconstructing the eastbound approach to
include an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane.
2. MARANA DRIVE AND OFFUTT DRIVE
Existing Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1) - A review of the level of service for each of the
intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing geometries, has
15
CJ
O~-""'!
... "-..
o
o
o
o
o
r'
W
o~"'''',:
...,.\,'.."j
o 0;,,y
o
o
o
o
o
o
'I
U
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFF1c OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
shown that the approaches are operating at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak
hours.
Existing Traffic Volumes + Generated Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the
intersection approaches will operate at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak hours
with the existing intersection geometries and existing intersection control.
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.
MARANA DRNE AND ROHRER ROAD
The approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service when the site is
developed as proposed. Since there will be increased left-turn and right-turn volumes on the
eastbound approach of Marana Drive and Rohrer Road, it is recommended that the approach
contain both a separate left-turn and a separate right-turn lane.
MARANA DRNE AND OFFUTf DRNE
The approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service when the site is
developed as proposed. An access drive to the proposed development already exists. It
connects with Offutt Drive and consists" of two lanes. The access drive's approach to the
intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service when the site is developed as proposed.
No changes to the intersection are required due to this development.
16
CJ
0'\
o
o
o
o
D
o
O~....;.;\.:;;~.,
:':-';:'--.i".:;
0':;';)>
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for
the proposed office development.
Included are the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity
analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.
o
CJ\
o
o
o
o
o
o
o /fe,
.. . (CEil
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
BRAD Hn.L CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MARANA DRIVE AND ROHRER ROAD .............................................................................................................................1
MARANA DRIVE AND OFFUTI DRIVE ................................................................................ .............................................9
o
o,,-~-,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o~,..~.,
.,..';.,,,'t'..;
:.", '1 .. ~,. . ..
':;~~~tZy
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
MARANA DRIVE AND ROHRER ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
1
o
O"'~""."'.'.'.'..'..~...'...'."".\,
'. ,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o~.~..
~~,y;.~~;f;'.;;
~:':"\...""f~'~
.,'.;'l;~_:':/'
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
MARANA DRIVE & ROHRER ROAD (01)
JUNE 20, 2001
PEAK HOUR DATA
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7:15 AM HR BEGIN 4:30 PM
L T R TOT L T R TOT L T R TOT
6 50 56 26 206 232
0 14 14 5 10 15
201 0 201 98 8 106
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 20 106 126 16 142
7- 8 55 201 256 14 270
8- 9 57 119 176 15 191
- PM -
3- 4 103 66 169 14 183
4- 5 181 95 276 10 286
5- 6 240 92 332 13 345
TOTAL 656 679 1335 82 1417
46.3% 47.9% 94.2% 5.8% 100.0%
-AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 18 61 10
HOUR 57 201 24
PHF 0.79 0.82 0.60
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 68 31 5
HOUR 240 106 15
PHF 0.88 0.85 0.75
2
o
0('
o
o
o
o
o
o
n
U~"".
. ..",,,
:,",.".,;,\'
.. ""'''\
o $i,''i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o.
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
MARANA DRIVE & ROHRER ROAD (01)
JUNE 20, 2001
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 6 0 6 14 0 14 20 0 20
7- 8 6 0 6 42 7 49 48 7 55
8- 9 3 0 3 51 3 54 54 3 57
PM
3- 4 9 1 10 90 3 93 99 4 103
4- 5 15 0 15 165 1 166 180 1 181
5- 6 26 0 26 210 4 214 236 4 240
PASSENGER 65 572 637
98.5% 96.9% 97.1%
TRUCK 1 18 19
1. 5% 3.1% 2.9%
BOTH 66 590 656
10.1% 89.9% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 3 0 3 13 0 13 16 0 16
7- 8 2 0 2 12 0 12 14 0 14
8- 9 2 0 2 13 0 13 15 0 15
PM
3- 4 4 0 4 10 0 10 14 0 14
4- 5 2 0 2 8 0 8 10 0 10
5- 6 5 0 5 8 0 8 13 0 13
PASSENGER 18 64 82
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TRUCK 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
BOTH 18 64 82
22.0% 78.0% 100.0%
3
o
OC~"i
o
o
o
o
o
o
D6<~
0'0;9
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
MARANA DRIVE & ROHRER ROAD (01)
JUNE 20, 2001
SOUTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 105 0 105 0 1 1 105 1 106
7- 8 200 1 201 0 0 0 200 1 201
8- 9 118 1 119 0 0 0 118 1 119
PM
3- 4 58 2 60 5 1 6 63 3 66
4- 5 84 5 89 6 0 6 90 5 95
5- 6 85 0 85 7 0 7 92 0 92
PASSENGER 650 18 668
98.6% 90.0% 98.4%
TRUCK 9 2 11
1.4% 10.0% 1.6%
BOTH 659 20 679
97.1% 2.9% 100.0%
4
o
O{.""..~'''\
\. .
o
o
o
o
o
o
0,
~
O@1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information ;ite Information
~naJvst TSV Intersection Marana Dr & Rohrer Rd
~Qencv/Co. ~&F Enaineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
ate Performed 6/22/2001 A.nalvsis Year Scenario 1 - Existina
nalvsis Time Period lAM Peak Proiect 10 Brad Hill Custom Homes
East/West Street: Marana Dr North/South Street: Rohrer Rd
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 6 50 0 0 201 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 55 0 0 223 0
Percent Heavv Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT T R
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 14
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 15
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delav. Queue Length and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
v (vph) 6 15
C (m) (vph) 1328 809
Iv/e 0.00 0.02
95% queue length 0.01 0.06
k;ontrol Delay 7.7 9.5
LOS A A
~pproach Delay I -- -- 9.5
APproach LOS . -- -- A
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:/ Ie: \Documents%20and %20Settings\tvandenber~ocaI % 20Settings \ T emp\u2k59. tmp
6/25/200]
o
O ([jeT")
'(;:i:' ,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
t'~$,,4
~),;:',l'
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst TSV Intersection Marana Dr & Rohrer Rd
\aency/Co. A&F Enaineerina Uurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 6/28/2001 IAnalysis Year Scenario 1 - Existing
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Proiect ID Brad Hill Custom Homes
East/West Street: Marana Dr r-..jorthlSouth Street: Rohrer Rd
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period lhrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 26 206 0 0 98 8
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 228 0 0 108 8
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT T R
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
lVolume 0 0 0 5 0 10
Peak:.Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourfy Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 11
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delav. Queue lenath and level of Service
IApproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Iv (vph) 28 16
C (m) (vph) 1454 794
vlc 0.02 0.02
95% queue length 0.06 0.06
Control Delay 7.5 9.6
LOS A A
IApproach Delay ! -- -- 9.6
lAf>proach -LOS -- -- A
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:/ /C:\Documents%20and % 20Settings\tvandenberkocal % 20Settings\ Temp\u2k77 . tmp
6/28/2001
o
0('-'"
o
o
o
o
o
o
U~.cj2'C
i~;'.'f'.) .
::.lfZ;j
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
f1.nalvst TSV Intersection Marana Dr & Rohrer Rd
f1.gency/Co. A&F Engineerina urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 6/22/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing &
Gen.
f1.nalvsis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 Brad Hill Custom Homes
East/West Street: Marana Dr North/South Street: Rohrer Rd
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R l T R
Volume 72 50 0 0 201 18
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 80 55 0 0 223 20
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- --
Median Type Undivided
AT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configu ration LT T R
Upstream Siqnal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T A L T A
~olume 0 0 0 2 0 23
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFA 0 0 0 2 0 25
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration L R
Delav. Queue lenath and level of Service
~pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vph) 80 2 25
C (m) (vph) 1306 535 809
v/e 0.06 0.00 0.03
95% queue length 0.20 0.01 0.10
Control Delay 7.9 11.8 9.6
LOS ,A B A
pproach ,Delay -- -- 9.8
Approach LOS -- -- A
Copyright @ 2000 Unive.rsity of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file://C :\Documents %20and % 20Settings\tvanden berg\Local % 20Settings \ T emp\u2k6B .tmp
6/2812001
o
o(~,..
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analvst TSV Intersection Marana Dr & Rohrer Rd
Agency/Co. A&F En.C1ineerin.C1 urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 6/22/2001 I\nalysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing &
Gen.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project 10 Brad Hill Custom Homes
EastlWest Street: Marana Dr orthlSouth Street: Rohrer Rd
Intersection Orientation: North-South tudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 43 206 0 0 98 13
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 228 0 0 108 14
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT T R
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 27 0 92
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 30 0 102
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration L R
Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service
I\pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vph) 47 30 102
C (m) (vph) 1447 558 938
vIe 0.03 0.05 0.11
95% queue length 0.10 0.17 0.36
Control Delay 7.6 11.8 9.3
LOS ,A B A
iA~proach pelay -- -- 9.9
iApproach LOS -- -- A
Copyright @ 2000 University of Rorida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and% 20Settings\tvanden berkocal % 20Settings\ T emp\u2k6E. tmp
6/2812001
o
OC"\
o
o
o
o
o
o
o~
, 0 ,,~>
o
,0
o
o
o
o
D()
~~/
o
o
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
TRAme OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
'~'t:r ~~'l.,f;~~_, ,;,--, "" "'_""~:""" t" '. .:. '.-,_ - ',: j .I, . ~ ,_I .~. ,
MARANA DRIVE AND OFFUTT DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
9
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O (:.'~<.:-,~\
. ~;11'
o
o
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
MARANA DRIVE & OFFUTT DRIVE (02)
JUNE 21, 2001
PEAK HOUR DATA
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 6:30 AM HR BEGIN 5:00 PM
L T R TOT L T R TOT L T R TOT
0 13 13 1 8 9
10 0 10 5 0 5
4 0 4 15 10 25
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 8 11 5 16 24
7- 8 7 8 3 11 18
8- 9 8 9 3 12 20
- PM -
3- 4 6 7 15 22 28
4- 5 3 10 18 28 31
5- 6 5 9 25- 34 39
TOTAL 37 54 69 123 160
23.1% 33.8% 43.1% 76.9% 100.0%
-AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 5 4 3
HOUR 10 13 5
PHF 0.50 0.81 0.42
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 3 4 11
HOUR 6 10 25
PHF 0.50 0.63 0.57
10
o
t:~"'.,
Ot,~J
'..,,-.,.'
o
o
o
o
o
o
O~5't"
",,"""Y.:
o.S
o
o
o
o
o
o
0""',,,
I li)
o
U
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
MARANA DRIVE & OFFUTT DRIVE (02)
JUNE 21, 2001
EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 0 0 0 11 0 11 11 0 11
7- 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 0 8
8- 9 0 0 0 8 1 9 8 1 9
PM
3- 4 0 0 0 7 0 7 7 0 7
4- 5 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 10
5- 6 1 0 1 8 0 8 9 0 9
PASSENGER 1 52 53
100.0% 98.1% 98.1%
TRUCK 0 1 1
0.0% 1.9% 1.9%
BOTH 1 53 54
1. 9% 98.1% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL . SOUTHBOUND
.
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 7 0 7 1 0 1 8 0 8
7- 8 7 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 7
8- 9 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 8
PM
3- 4 5 0 5 1 0 1 6 0 6
4- 5 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 --- 3
5- 6 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5
PASSENGER 34 3 37
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TRUCK 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
BOTH 34 3 37
91. 9% 8.1% 100.0%
11
o
OC~~')
o
o
o
o
D
o
00M)
'(~~~,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0('\
~:)
o
u
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
BRAD HILL CUSTOM HOMES
MARANA DRIVE & OFFUTT DRIVE (02)
JUNE 21, 2001
WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5
7- 8 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 3
8- 9 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3
PM
3- 4 9 0 9 6 0 6 15 0 15
4- 5 13 0 13 5 0 5 18 0 18
5- 6 15 0 15 10 0 10 25 0 25
PASSENGER 47 22 69
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TRUCK 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
BOTH 47 22 69
68.1% 31. 9% 100.0%
12
o
D(
o
U
o
U
o
o
D@9'''':':::::;
~~.."'-;-'."'.
"- ','. .~."
o';j
U
o
o
o
o
o
Ot..... )
,',:,. ,.i
.,:"..","
o
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-W A Y STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection Marana Dr & Offutt Dr
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 6/22/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 1 - Existinq
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 Brad Hill Custom Homes
East/West Street: Marana Dr \Jorth/South Street: Offutt Dr
Intersecticm Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 13 0 0 4 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 14 0 0 4 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 10 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 11 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delav. Queue lenQth and level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
~ (vph) 0 0 0 11
K:; (m) (vph) 1598 1585 0 989
~/c 0.00 0.00 0.01
95% queue length 0.00 0.00 0.03
K:;ontrol Delay 7.3 7.3 8.7
LOS A A F A
Approach Delay ! -- -- 8.7
Approach .LOS -- -- A
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:/ /C:\Documents%20and % 20Settings\tvandenber!~ocal % 20Settings\ T emp\u2k202. tmp
6/22/2001
u
w(-~')
o
U
D
o
o
o
O~_::..:_,~..
";~'<Y_".:'''.
'<~-:\~'..
0'2:>
o
D
o
o
o
o
O ~r:;;:~)
<:..:{-d
-:.';.:;'-"
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection Marana Dr & Offutt Dr
Agency/Co. A&F Enaineerina Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 6/22/2001 6.nalysis Year Scenario 1 - Existina
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project 10 Brad Hill Custom Homes
EastlWest Street: Marana Dr North/South Street: Offutt Dr
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 1 8 0 0 15 10
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 8 0 0 16 11
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 5 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 0
Percent Heavv Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delay. Queue LenQth and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
~ (v ph) 1 0 0 5
C (m) (vph) 1568 1593 0 968
~/c 0.00 0.00 0.01
95% queue length 0.00 0.00 0.02
~ontrol Delay 7.3 7.3 8.7
LOS A A F A
fApproach Delay I -- -- 8.7
~pproach LOS -- -- A
HCS2000™
Copyright ~ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:/IC: \Documents %20and %20Settings\tvandenberkt-ocaJ % 20Settings\ Temp\u2k67 . tmp
6/25/2001
o
O {..'."~"
I,'
D
o
o
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O (,.'~~
\;..c'
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
I\nalyst TSV I nte rsection Marana Dr & Offutt Dr
I\gency/Co. A&F Engineering urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 6/22/2001 I\nalysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing &
Gen.
I\nalysis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 Brad Hill Custom Homes
East/West Street: Marana Dr North/South Street: Offutt Dr
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 13 4 84 4 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 14 4 93 4 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
[Volume 1 0 11 10 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 12 11 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delav. Queue length and level of Service
~pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
v (vph) 0 93 13 11
C (m) (vph) 1598 1579 1017 698
vlc 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.02
95% queue length 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.05
Control Delay 7.3 7.4 8.6 10.2
LOS ,A A A B
Approach pelay -- -- 8.6 10.2
Approach LOS -- -- A B
Copyright <!:> 2000 Unive!sity of Florida. All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:IIC: \Documents% 20and %20Settings\tvandenberk~ocal % 20Settings\ T emp\u2k71. tmp
6/2812001
o
DC"
U
U
o
U
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
D.......'
. "
I .,
'<.,j
[j
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 10f2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
IAnalyst TSV Intersection Marana Dr & Offutt Dr
IIAQency/Co. ~&F Engineering urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 6/22/2001 ~nalysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing &
Gen.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Proiect 10 Brad Hill Custom Homes
EastlWest Street: Marana Dr North/South Street: Offutt Dr
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 1 8 1 21 15 10
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 8 1 23 16 11
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 5 0 104 5 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 115 5 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Delav. Queue lenath and level of Service
6.pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
~ (vph) 1 23 120 5
~ (m) (vph) 1568 1591 1057 730
~/c 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.01
95% queue length 0.00 0.04 0.38 0.02
Control Delay 7.3 7.3 8.8 10.0-
LOS A A A A
Approach Delay , ' 8.8 10.0-
-- --
Approach LOS -- -- A A
Copyright Ii:> 2000 Unive~ity of Horida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4,)
file:/IC :\Documents %20and %20Settings\tvandenberk(Local % 20Settings\ Temp\u2k7 4. tmp
6/28/2001
u
o
o
'0
o
o
o
D
o
Q
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
HAMILTON COUNTY
.\
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
December 27. 2001
. Mr. Charles D. Frankenberger
Nelson & Frankenberger . . .
3021' East 98111 Street,'Suite 220
Indianapolis, Indiana 46280
RE: Hunters Creek
S of Marana Drive I W of Rohrer Road
Clay Township
. Dear Charile:
Thank you for submitting the requested Traffic Operations Analysis for the above-mentioned
project. After revl~wlng the Analysis, the Highway Department has the following comments:
1. The Analysis shows the entrance onto Marana Drive. According to the Analysis, all
Intersections which were studied will conUooe to function at acceptable Levels of Service
when the proj~thas been completed.
2. Your suggestion of a right In/right out on Rohrer Road will not be permitted. The entrance Is
not needed and the existing geometric conditions of the area do not make the entrance onto
Rohrer Road an acceptable option. The right In/right out entrance does not provide a large
enough deterrent to motorists that wish to make left turns out of or Into the entrance/exit,
therefore creating a greater hazard to motorists traveling through the area.
3. The entrance onto Rohrer Road does not follow the typical traffic flow patterns that the
Highway Department strives to achieve. The typical pattern Is for the traffic to f1Qw from the
local streets, to the collector roads to the a~erlals. Marana Drive Is a local street and Rohrer
. Road Is a collector road. .
4. The Highway Department will expect Improvements to be made to the Intersection of Rohrer
Road and Matana Drive as listed in the Analysis.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please feel free to contact me at
anytime.
Sincerely,
/.-t.-Ig~
'steven J. Broermann .
Staff Engineer,
cc: Jon Doboslewl.cz
G:\USERS\SB\2001 Tac\12.27 -01hunlerscteek.doc
1700 South IOcb Street
IV^~I^~..:II^ T_ ,1"'1\"'''
Office (317) 773-7770
I<'..v 1'\ 1 '1\ '1'11\_QIU d
,..'.....Ul ,.,.. ...."tl"niltn..-. in lie'
o
o
o
,0
o
D
o
o
U
o
o
0,
n
,0
o
.0
o
HAMILTON COUNTY
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
beGentber 20,_1
Mr. Fred P.rk..
W.... En,*-- Inc.
10&0II Harth CDIIega Avenue
Indf&nepola. 1nct18N146280
RE: HuntIIa Creek
8 of Metana Odve IW of Rahrer Road
CI8y TOWIWIIp
0. Mr. PII'ker.
ThIa tetter a.v"1D foUaw up comrnenf8 mllde during our phane GDnwnetlon or DeoeIhber 19.
2001. canaemlng the Hunter. Crwek proJeoI.
1. The HIghway Department wauJd not ...rrnl the entr&nce for this praJeot to be plllOld on
Rohrw Ftoad. The IImlbad eight dIa18nce to \he lOUth, and the trdIc h828RIs th8t ~ be
created by left IurRlIntD thlt dMIIopment do not make 8ft entr8Itae onto Rahrer Road .
viable optta,. .
2. The HIghway Depnnent W11l1Xpect Improvements to be hIIId. to Ihe tnI8nsedkIn _ Rohrer
Mosd IIIId Mar8ne DriVe. .
If ~u heve 8hy quoetfan8 or ccnun.... concernfnll thla .....r. pleBee feel ". to GOntBct me .t
anytime,
Sfncetely, '
,/t../ &---
Stlwen l~"'n
Iliff En.......
cc: Jan DaboBIIWIcz
G:UlERS\....tlll\'z.ao.o1~
o
"00 S.lIth I.... SMet
NobllllYllle, la. 46NO
!Um,ca.taamllt".III.UI
omf8 (311) ~"'O
Fax (317) 776-9814
o
u
o
Q
D
o
:0
D
c\
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
'I
ORDINANCE
NO. Z-381-02
HUNTERS CREEK OFFICE PARK
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
Draft #7-
Dated 7/1102
o
D
o
D
C~
i{}
D
o
D
o
D
Q
D
D
o
o
o
o
8:
Ordinance No. Z-38l-02
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE
HUNTERS CREEK OFFICE PARK
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section 31.6.4 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-289 (the "Carmel/Clay
Zoning Ordinance"), provides for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development District in
accordance with the requirements ofLC. ~ 36-7-4-1500 et seq.;
WHEREAS, the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (the "Commission") has given a favorable
recommendation to the ordinance set forth herein (the "Ordinance") which establishes the Hunters
Creek Planned Unit Development District (the "District").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel,
Indiana (the "Council"), that (i) pursuant to IC ~36-7-4-1500 et seq., it adopts this Ordinance, as an
amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance and it shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage, (ii) all prior ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed, (iii) from and after the passage and signing by the Mayor of this
Ordinance, the U.S. 31 Highway Overlay Zone Ordinance No. Z430 shall no longer apply to the
Real Estate, and (iv) this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
signing by the Mayor.
Section 1
Applicability of Ordinance:
Section 1.1 The Official Zoning Map of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, a part of
the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, is hereby changed to designate the land described in
Exhibit 'A' (the "Real Estate"), as a Planned Unit Development District to be known as
Hunters Creek Office Park.
Section 1.2 Development in the Planned Unit Development District shall be governed
entirely by (i) the provisions of this Ordinance, and (ii) those provisions ofthe Carmel/Clay
Zoning Ordinance specifically referenced in this Ordinance. In the event of a conflict
between this Ordinance and the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance or the Sign Ordinance, the
provisions of this Ordinance shall apply.
Section 1.3 Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth
in the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance in effect on the date of the enactment of this
Ordinance.
Section 2 Permitted Primary Uses: Office, any type, including without limitation, clinic or
medical health center, general offices, professional offices, insurance offices, and office buildings.
o
D
U
,0
Q\
':DI
D
'~\
W
-I
D
o
D
o
D
,0
D
D
o
o
D
Section 3 Accessory Buildings and Uses: All Accessory Structures and Accessory Uses which
are permitted in the B-5 zoning district shall be permitted except that any detached accessory
building shown in any Development Plan ("DP") shall have on all sides the same architectural
features or shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) with which it is
associated.
Section 4 Communication Equipment. Cell towers shall not be permitted. Communications
equipment, as required by the building occupants, shall be permitted and shall be screened with
suitable walls or fencing and in general be architecturally compatible with the building( s) with which
it is associated.
Section 5 Platting: The platting of the Real Estate into smaller tracts shall be permitted.
However, the development of any parcel must still conform to the DP for the entire tract as approved
or amended by the Director, and all other applicable requirements contained in this Ordinance.
Section 6
Height and Area Requirements:
Section 6.1
feet.
Maximum Building Height: The maximum Building Height is thirty-two (32)
Section 6.2 Minimum Set Back: The minimum Set Back from the perimeter boundary
line of the Real Estate contiguous with Marana Drive shall be one hundred (100) feet, and
the minimum Set Back from all other perimeter boundaries of the Real Estate shall be thirty
(30) feet.
Section 6.3 Minimum Building Separation. The minimum building distance between
Buildings, measured from the exterior face of the foundation, shall be twenty (20') feet.
Section 6.4 Maximum Parcel Coverage and Density:
A. Maximum Parcel Coverage shall be eleven percent (11 %).
B. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) shall be eleven percent (11 %).
Section 6.5 Architectural Design Requirements:
A. Suitability of building materials: A minimum ofthree materials shall be used
for building exteriors, from the following list: stone, brick, architectural
precast (panels or detailing), architectural metal panels, glass, ornamental
metal, wood, and EIFS.
B. Building design: All buildings shall be designed with a minimum of eight
external corners, in order to eliminate monotonous box buildings, unless
3
o
D
o
D
o
'rl
iJ
D
:0\
O.
7J
o
Q
D
D
L1
D
o
o
o
otherwise approved by the Commission.
C. Roof design: Sloped roofs shall be a maximum of one hundred (100) feet
without a change in roof plane, or gable or dormer. All roofs shall have a
minimum slope of 12 horizontal to 6 vertical.
Section 6.6 Minimum Gross Floor Area: No building shall exceed six thousand three
hundred (6,300) square feet of Gross Floor Area, excluding the floor area of any Accessory
Structure(s). All buildings, together, shall not exceed twenty-five thousand two hundred
(25,200) square feet of Gross Floor Area.
Section 6.7 Maximum Number of Buildings. There shall be no more than seven (7)
Buildings located upon the Real Estate.
Section 7
Landscaping Requirements:
Section 7.1 Greenbelt. The Greenbelt shall exist around the entire perimeter of the Real
Estate.
Section 7.2 Landscaping Plan: The Landscaping Plan is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit "B" (the "Preliminary Landscape Plan"). The Preliminary Landscape Plan
is intended to illustrate the landscape requirements set forth in this Section 7. The
Preliminary Landscape Plan identifies landscaping for (i) the three (3) buffer yards, each of
which is intended to adjust landscaping for adjoining uses, (ii) the base building landscaping,
and (iii) internal parking lot landscaping and perimeter parking lot landscaping. Each of
these areas is further described below.
Section 7.3 Areas to be Landscaped:
A. Marana Drive and West Bufferyard.
1. The Marana Drive and West Bufferyard starts at the center of the
access drive on the north property line shown on the Conceptual
Redevelopment Plan, and extends (i) west to the west property line
and then (ii) south to the southwest property line. The Marana Drive
and West Bufferyard is identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan.
2. The purpose of the Marana Drive and West Bufferyard is to provide
a heavily landscaped area to accent the property and screen the
residential area from the commercial use.
3. The landscaping in the Marana Drive and West Bufferyard shall
include, within each one hundred foot (100') increment, (i) five (5)
4
o
w'
o
o
o
'Q,
o
D
o
n
,~
C'
o
D
Q
o
o
C\
o
o
B.
shade trees, (ii) five (5) ornamental trees, (Hi) twenty-seven (27)
shrubs, and (iv) in the areas shown on the 'Preliminary Landscape
Plan along the northern property line, undulating mounds, two feet
(2') to three feet (3') in height. Evergreen trees may be substituted for
shrubs and, for each evergreen tree planted, three (3) fewer shrubs
shall be required.
Rohrer Road Bufferyard.
1. The Rohrer Road Bufferyard starts at the north end of the east
property line and then extends south along the east property line, to
the south property line on the Rohrer Road Right-of-Way. The
Rohrer Road Bufferyard is identified on the Preliminary Landscape
Plan.
2. The purpose of the Rohrer Road Bufferyard is to enhance the
property perimeter and provide a transition from the U.S. 31 use to
that of a lower profile office use.
3. The landscaping in the Rohrer Road Bufferyard shall include, within
each one hundred foot (100') increment, (i) three (3) shade trees,
(ii) two (2) ornamental trees, (iii) ten (10) shrubs, and (v) two (2)
evergreen trees.
c.
Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard.
1. The Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard starts at the south property
line adjacent to Rohrer Road and extends west, and then northwest to
the south end of the west property line. The Meridian Village Plaza
Bufferyard is identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan.
2. The purpose of the Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard is to provide
a transition from the Meridian Village Plaza to the office use.
3. The landscaping in the Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard shall
include within each one hundred foot (100') increment, (i) one (1)
shade tree, (ii) one (1) ornamental tree and (iii) two (2) evergreen
trees.
D.
Base Building Plantings. There shall be planted in front of and adjacent to
each Building (i) two (2) ornamental and/or shade trees, and (ii) eighteen (18)
shrubs. There shall be planted on each of the two sides of each Building (i)
one (1) ornamental and/or shade tree and (ii) seven (7) shrubs. Except for the
5
o
D
n
1.\
o
QI
0,
W
E.
6\
;.\
u
o
~}
n
~.
D
o
0,
D
C\
o
o
Section 7.4
area of the Real Estate occupied by Office (I) shown on the Conceptual
Development Plan, there shall be no building base plantings adjacent to the
rear of any building. There shall, however, be (i) two (2) shade trees and/or
ornamental trees, and (ii) twenty (20) shrubs located along the rear of each
building located within the area of the Real Estate occupied by Office (1)
shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
Planting Within Parking Lots: . All parking lot landscaping, consisting of
both perimeter parking lot landscaping and internal parking lot landscaping,
shall comprise no less than seven percent (7%) of the total surface parking
area, and shall be of a quality to improve and enhance the site and its
surrounding area:
1.
Landscaping internal to the parking lots shall occur in any
combination of planting islands, planting peninsulas and
entranceways, and provide not less than one (1) ornamental and/or
shrub tree and ten (10) shrubs for each four hundred (400) square feet
of interior, paved, parking lot area;
2. Perimeter parking lot landscaping shall exist along the perimeter of
the parking lot except along those segments of the parking lot
perimeter adjacent to the front and sides of any Buildings. In each
one hundred foot (100') segment of the perimeter parking lot to be
landscaped, perimeter parking lot landscaping shall consist of
(i) twenty-four (24) shrubs, (ii) four (4) evergreen trees, and (iii) two
(2) shade trees every one hundred (100) feet.
Landscaping Standards:
A.
Materials: All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any
landscaping plan shall meet the following specifications:
1. Shade trees: a minimum trunk diameter of2 Y2 inches at six (6) inches
above the ground line, a minimum height of eight (8) feet, and a
branching height of not less than 1/3 nor more than Y2 of tree height.
2. Ornamental trees: a minimum trunk diameter of 1 Y2 inches at six (6)
inches above the ground line; and
3. Shrubs: shrubs may be deciduous or evergreen, and shall be
twenty-four (24) inches at height at planting.
4. Evergreen Trees: Evergreen trees shall be eight feet (8') in height at
6
u
o
o
o
Q
o
D
D
o
0,
D
P
D
o
0,
o
C\
o
Section 8
o
planting.
Section 7.5 Landscaping Installation and Maintenance:
A. Installation: All required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance
ofa final Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Ifit is not possible to install
the required landscaping because of weather conditions, the property owner
shall post a bond for an amount equal to the total cost of the required
landscaping prior to the issuance. of the temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Maintenance: It shall be the responsibility of the owners and their agents to
insure proper maintenance of project landscaping and retention ponds
approved in accordance with the Development Requirements specified for
this Ordinance. This is to include, but is not limited to, irrigation and
mulching of planting areas, replacing dead, diseased, or overgrown plantings
with identical varieties or a suitable substitute, and keeping the area free of
refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds.
C. Changes After Approval: No landscaping which has been approved by
the Commission may later be materially altered, eliminated or sacrificed,
without first obtaining further Commission approval. However, Minor
Alterations in landscaping may be approved by the Director in order to
conform to specific site conditions.
D. Inspection: The Director shall have the authority to visit the Real Estate
to inspect the landscaping and check it against the approved plan on file.
Section 7.6 Initial Landscaping: Landscaping within the Marana Drive and West
Bufferyard, the Rohrer Road Bufferyard, and the Meridian Village Plaza
Bufferyard shall be installed during the first phase of
construction! development.
Parking Requirements:
A. Efforts to break up large expanses of pavement are to be encouraged by the
interspersing of appropriate planting areas wherever possible.
B. Pedestrian access to and through parking areas shall be provided in the DP.
C. The number of Parking Spaces required shall be one (1) Parking Space per
three hundred (300) square feet of Gross Floor Area.
D. There shall be an appropriate number of parking spaces, accessible to the
building( s) and identified as reserved for use by handicapped individuals, and
7
o
o
o
o
o
Q
Q
o
o
o
o
c\
D
o
o
IJ
o
o
r)
L.\
Section 9
these spaces shall meet State requirements.
Lighting Requirements:
Section 9.1. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Commission along with the
information and other plans for ADLS. The site lighting plan shall include the layout, spread
and intensity of all site lighting, including:
A. Parking lot and service/storage area lighting;
B. Architectural, display lighting;
C. Security lighting;
D. Landscape lighting.
Section 9.2. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform
design, color and materials.
Section 9.3. The height of light standards shall not exceed twenty (20) feet from the top of
the fixture to the top of the pole base. The base of the pole shall not exceed two (2) feet in
height.
Section 9.4. All exterior and street area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoebox" variety
which directs light downward. Any parking lot lighting or building lighting illumination
emanating from the Real Estate development shall not exceed (i) 0.1 Footcandle at the north
right-of-way line of Marana Drive, and (ii) 0.3 foot candles along all other perimeter
boundaries ofthe Real Estate. The light fixture to be located near the Marana Drive entrance
shall be a minimum of seventy (70) feet south of the south right-of-way line of Marana
Drive.
Section 10 Signs
Section 10.1. Wall Signs.
A. Number & Type: The maximum number of Identification Signs permitted
shall be four (4) wall signs for each Building.
B. Maximum Sign Area: 30 square feet each.
C. Location: The signs may be located on the front of each Building. For
purposes of this Section 10.1, the front location of each Building shall be the
Building elevation facing the parking lot.
8
o
o
o
o
o
{J
o
C\
,.----,
U
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
0,
o
o
D.
Design: All walls signs shall consist of individuanetters and/or logo.
E.
Illumination: Internal or external.
F.
Sign Permit: Required.
G. Fees: Required.
Section 10.2. Center Identification Sign:
A. Number & Type: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Hunters Creek,
but shall not exceed two (2) in number.
B. Maximum Sign Area: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Hunters
Creek.
C. Maximum Height of Sign: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for
Hunters Creek.
D. Location: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Hunters Creek, to be
located east ofthe Marana Drive entrance.
E. Design: Signs must comply with the approved architectural scheme of the
complex, and must be of a similar design, lighting and style of construction.
F. Illumination: Internal or external.
G. Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least equal
to the total sign area.
H. Sign Permit: Required.
I. Fees: Required.
Section 10.3. Other Provisions. Section25.7.01- "General Provisions" and 25.7.06-25.7.09
- "Legal Non-Conforming Signs, Sign Permits, Variance, and Administration and
Enforcement" of the Carmel/Clay Township Sign Ordinance Z-302, are also incorporated
by reference.
Section 11
Other ADLS Requirements
Section 11.1 Outside Storage of Refuse or Merchandise: No outside, unenclosed storage
9
c\
(J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Q
01
o
o
o
o
Section 12
I
U
of refuse (whether or not in containers) shall be permitted. All refuse shall be contained
completely within the building(s) or in separate Accessory Sfrilcture(s). Any separate
Accessory Structure designed for refuse storage shall be architecturally compatible with the
building(s).
Section 11.2 Mechanical Equipment: Any mechanical equipment visible from an adjoining
street or highway shall be screened with suitable walls, fencing or landscaping and in general
be architecturally compatible with the building(s) with which it is associated.
Approval Process:
Section 12.1 Approval of ADLS:
A. The Commission shall consider an ADLS approval petition for any building within
Hunters Creek.
B. The ADLS approval request shall be a specific plan consisting of the architectural
design of any buildings, landscaping, lighting, and signage for a site within the
Hunters Creek development.
C. The Commission shall approve the ADLS without conditions or approve with
conditions.
D. Ifthere is a Substantial Alteration in the approved ADLS plans, review and approval
of the amended plans by the Commission shall be made by the Commission, or a
Committee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure. Minor
Alterations and Material Alterations may be approved by the Director.
E. In no event, however, may the Commission or the Director approve any alteration
that exceeds a maximum limitation imposed by this Ordinance or approve any
alteration that is less than a minimum limitation imposed by this Ordinance.
Section 12.2 Approval or Denial of the Development PIC\ll:
A. The Conceptual Development Plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as Exhibit "D" (the "CDP").
B. The Director shall approve without conditions, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the Final Development Plan (the "FDP") for any project within
Hunters Creek; provided, however, that the Director shall not unreasonably
withhold or delay hislher approval of a FDP that is in substantial
conformance to the CDP and is in conformance with the Development
Requirements of this Ordinance. If the Director disapproves the FDP for any
10
o
o
o
o
u
0,
D
D
Section 13
"
u
o
D
o
n
U
o
o
o
o
o
o
project within Hunters Creek, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis':
for the disapproval and schedule the request for 'approval of the FDP for
hearing before the Commission.
C.
An amendment to a FDP which does not alter the use of any land may be
reviewed and approved by the Director.
D. The FDP shall be a specific plan for the development of all or a portion of the
Real Estate that is submitted for approval by the Director showing proposed
facilities and structures, parking, drainage, erosion control, utilities and
building information.
Definitions and Rules of Construction:
Section 13.1 General Rules of Construction. The following general rules of construction
and definitions shall apply to the regulations of this Ordinance:
A. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular, unless the
context clearly indicates the contrary.
B. Words used in the present tense include the past and future tenses, and the
future the present.
C. The word "shall" is a mandatory requirement. The word "may" is a
permissive requirement. The word "should" is a preferred requirement.
Section 13.2 Definitions.
A. Accessory Structure: A structure subordinate to a building or use located on
the Real Estate which is not used for permanent human occupancy.
B. Accessory Use: A use subordinate to the main use, located on the Real Estate
or in the same building as the main use, and incidental to the main use.
C. Alteration. Material: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the substitution of one material, species, element, etc. for another.
D. Alteration. Minor: Any change to an approved plan of any type that involves
the revision ofless than ten percent (10%) of the plan's total area or approved
materials.
E. Alteration. Substantial: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the revision often percent (10%) or more of the plan's total area or
11
c\
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
Q
K.
o
r:
U
o
r'
W
o
o
o
o
o
o
approved materials.
Building: A structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, for the
shelter, support, enclosure or protection of persons or property, and intended
for human occupancy.
Building Height: The vertical distance from the ground level at the main
entrance to the mean height between eaves and ridges for gable, hip and
gambrel roofs.
Certificate of Occupancy: A certificate signed by the Director stating that the
occupancy and use of land or a building or structure referred to therein
complies with the provisions of this Ordinance.
City: The City of Carmel, Indiana.
Commission: The Carmel/Clay Plan Commission.
Council: The City Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana.
L.
County: Hamilton County, Indiana.
M.
Development Plan. Final: A specific plan for the development of real
property that is submitted for Commission approval showing proposed
facilities, buildings and structures. This plan review includes general
landscaping, parking, drainage, erosion control, signage, lighting, screening
and buildings information for a site. A development plan may include only
parcels that are contiguous and not separated by the right-of-way of any
highway in the state highway system.
N.
Development Plan. Conceptual: A general plan for the development of real
property, that is submitted for Plan Commission approval showing proposed
facilities, buildings and structures. This plan generally shows landscape
areas, parking areas, site access, drainage features, and building location(s).
o.
Development Requirements: Development standards and any requirements
specified in this Ordinance which must be satisfied in connection with the
approval of a Development Plan.
P.
Director: Director, or Administrator, of the Department of Community
Services for the City of Carmel, Indiana. "Director" and "Administrator" shall
include his/her authorized representatives.
12
o
o
u
o
o
Q.
R.
S.
Q
o
o
Q
n
..
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): The Gross Floor Area of all stories. of all
buildings within the Real Estate divided by the tohilhorizontal area within
the Real Estate boundaries.
Footcandle: A unit of illumination. It is equivalent to the illumination at all
points which are one (1) foot distant from a uniform source of one (1)
candlepower.
Greenbelt: A strip, thirty (30) feet in width, around the entire perimeter of the
Real Estate. The Greenbelt shall be unoccupied except for plant materials,
steps, walks, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting standards, and other
similar structures.
T.
Gross Floor Area (Construction Area): The floor area, excluding any
penthouse areas, as measured by the face of the exterior building material.
u.
HV AC: Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
V.
Landscaping: The improvement ofthe Real Estate with grass and mounding,
shrubs, trees, other vegetation and/or ornamental objects. Landscaping may
include pedestrian walks, flower beds, retention ponds, ornamental objects
such as fountains, statues and other similar natural or artificial objects
designed and arranged to produce an aesthetically pleasing effect.
w.
Office: A building or portion of a building wherein services are performed
involving predominantly administrative, professional or clerical operations,
including but not limited to professional offices, business or personal service
offices, financial institution offices, sales offices, real estate offices, and
governmental offices.
x.
Parcel Coverage: The total ground area, within the Real Estate, covered by
buildings and accessory structures which are greater than eighteen (18) inches
above grade level, excluding fences and walls not attached in any way to a
roof, divided by the total horizontal area within the Real Estate boundaries.
Y.
Parking Space: An area having a rectangular area of not less than one
hundred eighty (180) square feet and a minimum width of nine (9) feet
exclusive of driveways, permanently reserved for the temporary storage of
one automobile.
z.
Professional Office: An office of a member of a recognized profession such
as an architect, attorney, dentist, engineer, physician or surgeon.
13
Q
o
u
o
o
AA. Real Estate. The Real Estate shall mean and refer to all of the Real- Estate
described in Exhibit "A".
BB. Right-of-Way: An area ofland permanently dedicated to provide light, air
and access.
n
l.J
o
o
Q
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CC. Setback: The least measured distance between a building or structure and the
perimeter boundary of the Real Estate. F or purposes of determining Set
Back, the perimeter boundary of the Real Estate (i) shall always mean and
refer to the outside perimeter boundary line of the Real Estate and (ii) shall
not be changed or reduced by reason ofthe platting or subdivision ofthe Real
Estate into smaller parcels.
DD. Sign: Any type of sign as further defined and regulated by this Ordinance
and the Sign Ordinance for Carmel-Clay Township, Ordinance Z-196, as
amended.
EE. Story: That part of any building comprised between the level of one finished
floor and the level of the next higher floor or, if there is no higher finished
floor, that part of the building comprised between the level of the highest
finished floor and the top of the roof beams.
FF. Street: A right-of-way, other than an alley, dedicated and accepted, or
otherwise legally established for public use, usually affording the principal
means of access to abutting property.
GG. Trash Enclosure: An enclosed accessory structure that is designed to screen
and protect waste receptacles from view and to prevent waste debris from
dispersing outside the enclosure.
HH. Use: The employment or occupation of a building, structure or land for a
person's service, benefit or enjoyment.
Section 14. Violations. All violations of this Ordinance shall be subject to Section 34.0 of
the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance.
14
o
o
o
o
o
n
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this
, 2002, by a vote of ayes and nays.
-day of
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL
Presiding Officer
N.L. Rundle, President
Kevin Kirby
John R. Koven
Robert Battreall
Luci Snyder
Ronald E. Carter
Wayne Wilson
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana the
, 2002.
day of
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
15
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this day of
2002.
, "
James Brainard, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
This Instrument prepared by: Charles D. Frankenberger
NELSON & FRANKENBERGER
3021 East 98th Street, Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46280
H:\Janel\Hilt Brad\Drat\ Ordinance #l7.wpd
16
o
o
DOUGLAS W. -LEWELLEN
m
REALTOR ~
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL CO.
ASSOCIATES:
o NANCY GLASS
. MICHAEL C. GLAZER, GRI, CRS
5160 E. 65th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46220 Phone: (317) 842-8862
6618 Moss Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana 46237 Phone: (317) 881-0863
Fax: (317) 842-8878
o
o
o
0'
o
:0
! .:
,0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
October 31,2001
Century 21, Realty Group I
3801 E. 82nd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46240
AITN: James Reed
RE: Proposed office building development
Rohrer Road and Marana Drive .
Carmel, IN 46033
Dear Jim,
Per your request, I have reviewed the site development and landscape plan,
proposed building elevations, maps, and other information regarding the above-
referenced proposed 8-building, office building development. An inspection of the
property was conducted on October 25, 2001.
The 5-acre tract of land is currently improved with a small, vacated church
building and adjoins a shopping center on the south. There are single-family
residential properties located on the northside of Marana Drive. These homes are
located in Hunters Creek South Subdivision. A portion of the subject site is
currently zoned for business or 63, and is also in the 31 Corridor. The proposed
development consists of eight l-story, brick office buildings, two of which contain
5000 SF, and the remaining six have 6000 SF of building area. There is only one
proposed access to the development, and this is just west of Rohrer Road, and
across from Offut Drive. All parking will be on the interior of the site and there
will be extensive perimeter landscaping, particularly along Marana Drive. It
appears that this landscaping will block out most of the view of the office
buildings, and block out the view of the shopping center, for the homes located
on Marana Drive. .
I am a certified, residential appraiser, licensed through the state of Indiana, and
have been appraising residential properties for approximately 30 years. I have
appraised many homes in the Hunters Creek, Hunters Creek South, and Village
of Mt. Carmel areas over the past years.
o
,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I
After reviewing all ofthe above-referenced exhibits and information, it is my
opinion that the office complex, if developed as proposed, will not have a'
negative effect upon the market value or marketability of the homes in Hunters
Creek South and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Respectfully submitted,
/() I tv.;;".wd4-
~LeWellen, A5A
DWL/jct-s
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
-0
o
o
o
o
o
o
D.
o
o
[J,
INTEGRA Realty Resources
10'
I \
I ,\ \
j,
c. \
MICHAEL C. LADY ADVISORS, INC. . INDIANAPOLIS
May 24, 200 I
Mr. James Reed
Century 21 Realty Group I
3801 East 82nd Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
Re: Proposed Development
Rohrer Road at Marana Drive
Carmel, Indiana
MCt File #11810593
Dear Jim:
At your request, we have reviewed the preliminary exhibits for a proposed office park
development at the southwest comer of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive in
Carmel, Indiana. The purpose of our review was to analyze the proposed development
and to form an opinion of the possible impact of the change in the land use as pertains to
the nearby single-family residential development
Included in our review was an inspection of the site and adjacent area The subject site is
irregular in shape, contains an area of approximately five acres per the records of the
Assessor of Clay, and has a gently sloping topography. The site fronts onto
Marana Drive with single-family residential development to the north, west and east, and
backs toward a recently developed neighborhood shopping center. The site is presently
improved with a church .building of apparent average quality construction, an asphalt
paved parking area and established lawn area.
The information furnished is for a proposed office park. The proposed development will
consist of eight l<;>w-rise office buildings constructed around the perimeter of the site with
paved parking to the center. The site 'development plan prepared by Weihe Engineers,
Inc. and provided to the appraisers, indicates extensive landscape plantings around the
perimeter of the site to improve the site/view amenities and screening. It is our opinion
that the proposed improvements including the landscaping will also screen the retail
center from the residential areas.
In considering the possible impact of the proposed development on the nearby residential
areas, it is important to consider the proposed development as well as any other use
LOCAL EXPERTISE...NATIONALLY
4981 N. Franklin Road . Indianapolis, IN 46226-2000 . Phone: 317-546-4720 . Fax: 317-546-1407 . Email: mlalJ-j@irr.com
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D-
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
which may be possible under current zoning restrictions or reasonable zoning change or
variance. Also, it is important to consider similar developments in other lireas- of the -
community .
, Based on our inspection of the site and the nearby areas, our review of the proposed
development including the landscape plan, and review of other areas wfth, similar
developments with buffer areas, it is our opinion that the proposed office park
development will not have an adverse influence on the marketability of the-single-family
residences in the area
If you have any questions regarding our opinion or if we may be of further service, please
contact us.
Sincerely,
U
Michael C. Lady, MAl, SRA
Certified General Real Estate App . ser
Indiana Certificate #CG691 00223
RJP/sI
0 . '
0
0
0
D
0
0
:0
0
'0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:,'~.. ':;':.~.~,,;;.~~~,;t.J
AERIAL MAP
J
---,
j
o
o
o
o
o
o
\ .
\
0' I,
I "
~.;, Ii
UI t I
a: 1
W II
WI Ii
%'1 \
aliI
ffi!1;
,1 I
wll; i
;!il! !
. ~i'
. ....
--1
:--1
...I..f \
"11"(':.
lUt'l
~.- ....-1
t...._-- !
o
j!i:
;, i
.. ,
~! '--
,__
- --r- :=.._.....__.
o
'0
.0
o
o
o
-
~
- .:
~
- <l
: i
::
- l
o
..
-. ~
:::: l
'. ~
'Il
~
~
I :
. --
1-'
-'-
---- 1
o
..-,,-
-'.
Or
~
-
SUBJECT SITE
o
o
,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
q
I
o
o
~
[]
o
o
o
..,. {;~f:;~~~~0\:'i;{.f/j;~~~:,l:
.',
'.~' ..,...,
o
D-
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
View Looking toward Shopping Center
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ExPERIENCE:
EDUCATION:
LICENSES:
PROFESSIONAL
MEMBERSIDPS:
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF
RAYMOND J. PICKETT, JR
,
Senior Real Estate analyst for Integra Michael C. Lady Advisors, Inc. - Indianapolis
Background includes 13 years as an independent fee appraiser associated' with Michael C.
Lady Appraisal Company. Valuations have been perfonned on various property types
including, but not limited. to land and residential properties, including. small income
properties. The purpose of these valuations are for mortgage loans, maniage dissolutions,
estate planning, insurance settlement, etc.
Bachelor's Degree, Wabash College
Course Work Completed:
Real Estate Appraisal I-A
Real Estate Appraisal Principles
Standards of Professional Practice Part A
Constructio~pection
Condo/Small Income Properties
Limited Properties Appraisal Reports
FHA Valuation Analysis
Appraising Complex Properties
Appraisal Continuing Education Seminars Completed
AIREA-Rates, Ratios, and Reasonableness
AIREA-Highest and Best Use
SREA-Standards of Professional Practice
Indiana Certified Residential Appraiser # CR6920 1 098
Licensed Real Estate Broker-State ofIndiana-# B 127736
Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors
Indiana Association of Realtors
National Association of Realtors
o
,0
o
o
:0
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
EXPERIENCE:
PROFESSIONAL
MEMBERSHIPS
and
DESIGNATIONS:
PROFESSIONAL
INVOLVEMENT:
EDUCATION:
LICENSES:
CERTIFICATION:
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF
MICHAEL C. LADY, MAl, SRA
Managing Director for Integra Michael C. Lady Advisors, Inc. - Indianapolis.
Background includes two years as Staff Appraiser for the Indiana State
Highway Commission and twenty-five years serving the public in real estate
valuation and consulting. Recent experience is concentrated in major urban and
suburban development projects, as well as public development and
redevelopment projects. Valuations have been performed on various property
types including single and multi-tenant retail properties, apartment complexes,
single and multi-tenant industrial properties, low to high rise office buildings,
mixed use facilities, residential subdivision analyses, and vacant land for
different uses. Specialized real estate valued includes military bases, hospitals
and medical centers, nursing homes, churches, and recreational properties.
Valuations have been performed for mortgage loan purposes, equity
participation. and due diligence support, estate planning, condemnation
proceedings, insurance purposes, and real estate tax valuation. Assignments
have included the valuation of proposed properties, distressed properties,
contaminated properties, and market studies.
Qualified as an expert witness in several courts and jurisdictions, including
U.S. Bankruptcy Court and Federal Tax Court. Litigation support work has
included consulting and review services, as well as valuation services.
Appraisal Institute: MAl, SRA
American Society of Real Estate Appraisers: ASA
Commercial Real Estate Institute: CCIM
Commercial, Industrial Marketing Group (Member)
Indiana Association of Realtors (Member)
Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors (Member)
National Association of Realtors Real Estate Appraisal Section (Member)
Urban Land Institute (Associate Member)
Member: Appraisal Institute
Chair of General Experience Subcommittee
General Admissions Committee
Qualifying Education Committee
(Past member of National Board of Directors)
(Past President, Hoosier State Chapter)
Bachelor of Science Degree, Ball State University, 1972
(Major Study: Business Administration)
Successfully completed numerous real estate and related courses and seminars
sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, Commercial Investment Real Estate
Institute, and accredited universities.
Indiana Broker #IB5123 8117
Indiana Certified General Appraiser #CG69 I 00223
Kentucky General Real Property Appraiser #000951
Michigan Certified Appraiser #1201004011
Ohio Certified General Appraiser #397391
Florida Certified General Appraiser #RZ 0001893
Currently certified by the Appraisal Institute's voluntary program of continuing
education for its designated members.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~an Jim
From:
Jim and Doreen Supan
679 Marana Dr.
Cannel IN 46032
To:
Brad HIII- Developer
Cannel Plan Cammis8ion
Gentlemen:
We Ilve on the property bordering the west side of the proposed development on Marana Or.
We are not opposed to the re zoning requested by Brad HIli.
If this land now zoned B3 and R11a going to be developed, we feel the renderings submitled by Mr. HiU Is as
good as any commerctaI development can be forthll am.
. one sby buildings blend Into the neighborhood
. tree plantings are abundant
. single entranc:e at the bottom of Marana Dr. should not hurt the neighborhOOd
I feel the property values wiI be less elrec:tBd by this proposed ~ment than the uncertainty
of what could be-developed on this land ( epartinents, three story offiCe, etc. )
Mr. HID has taken a lot of time to show thll~1 to the neighborhood and has been very receptive to the
concerns we haVe had. The short sighted of some of the neighborhood is NOT shar8d by all.
Regards,
1~4-
Jim and Doreen Supan
Nov. 19th, 2001
1
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
June 4. 2002
To: City of Carmel
RE: Hunter's Creek Office Park
We support the office project proposed at the corner of Marana and Rohrer Road. We
have spoken with other neighbors who also believe this office park offers benefits to
the area and will not affect the value of our homes. We understood that Carmel had
planned for this area to be fight commercial to help control the sound and appearance
of the highway from the surrounding homes. This project seems to accompfish this
without causing any significant problems. We have heard that the neighbors wanted
homes on this site. Why would anyone want to live next to the highway? We think this
project is a good use for this site. The last change to 4 buildings seems to give the
best compromise possible to the neighbors. We support the office project as
proposed.
?;t ~ Rd tfrP
Joe & Ruth Fitzgerald
929 Rohrer Road
Carmel. IN 46032
'[11l.-01-P(l(l~ HON 1(l:?R ~M C~RHFI. GOHMlfNlTY SVCS
F~X NO. j17 571 ?4~A
P. 01
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CER'l'U'lCATION OF' Tl "0 II
PLAN COMMISSION'S R ,q
ON A PF,TITION .&.... .--.__._
THE CARMEUCLAY ZONING ORDINANCE
PURSUANT TO INDIANA CODE 36-7-4-605
-'
ORDINANCE No. Z-381-02
Buuten Creek om\:t: PKCk.
PlaJUl~d U.it PeveJapllleJlt District (pu U)
'1'0: fte BOBorable ConunoB CaUDeil
or the City or Carmel
Hamilton Cuunty, Indiana
Dear Members:
The (;armeJ/Clay Plan Commission ofters you the following report on the application of Hunters.
Creek Office 1'1Ik. LLC. {Docket No. 125-01 Z) pctitioniDg to establish the Htn,re/'S Creek
njfir..R Park Planned Unit DevelDpment TJid7'irl. The SU'PJ1. affected is gemnlly located on the
southwest comer ot. Marana Drive and Rohrer Road, Hamilton County, IndiaD:L
.The Carmel/Clay Plan Commission's recommendation on the petition of the Hunters Creek
OtticePark. LLC, is UNFAVORABLE.
A.t a reeu1ar1y p.cheduled meedng nfn1t~sdAY, June 18,2002, the Carmel/Clay PllU1 Commission
voted eleven (11) in Favor, two (2) Opposed, zwo (0) Abstaining, to forward to the Common
CDUI1cil thc= prgposcd OnliDaacc No. Z.381-02 with au Vnfavorable ~,:unmu:J1daUun.
Please be advised that by virtue of the Plan Commission's Unfavorable Recommendation,
pursuant to IC 3cS-7-4-ti07(f). the Counci1laas uiucty (90) Uayli Lo l:I.CL on Lhis petition before it hi
defeated. Nmety days from the date oftbis Certificatiou is Thursday, September 26,2002.
.LA.~
~Oia~oct; Secretary
CARMRTJCf,A Y PI,AN' COMMISSION
~~ '4 it
M ny/. erson,Pr~~'"
lJ.A:rltD: Friday, JUIle 18, ZOOl
-.-.........--.:.::=.=..,.
RECilveO
Zcna~Zb: loJlI I oIJZ !lUlUa" ueet I'Ul) c;emnc8!lDn
,JUN :< 8 ~l2
., , Cl\RMEL CLFAK
,., ,,, .: TREAGURER
06-2B-02AC9:Z9 RCVD
RECE IVED JUL-DI-ZDDZ IO:30AM
PROM-51T 5TI Z4Z1
To-NELSON I PRAIlK!NBERG PAll DOl
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
CARMEL/CLA Y PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
June 18, 2001
Ii. Docket No. 125-01 Z; 136tll Street & Rohrer Road PUDI Hunters Creek Office Park
Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone 1i'om the B-3 (Business) and R-I.
(Residence) districts to a PUD/planned unit development district on S:I: acres. The site is
located at the southwest comer of Maran a Drive and Rohrer Road.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Hunters Creek Office
Park. LLC.
The applicant is proposing an office development at the southwest"Comer ofRohrcr Road and
Marana Drive. Pleaso refer to the revised informational packet provided by the applicant for a
layout and description of the proposed development. The infotmation packet was distributed last
week with the meeting agenda. Several revisions have been made since the original request was
filed.
The Public Hearing for this item was held in November 2001. It has also been discussed at the
December 4th, January Sib and FeblUary Sth Special Studies Committee meetings. The petition
was discussed at the March 19111 Plan Commission meeting under Old Business. It bad received a
negative recommendation from the Special Studies Committee at the Febrwuy Sth Committee
mcctin.g. In light of proposed new information at the March 19'dJ Plan Co1Tlrnission meeting the
item was sent back to Committee. The Committee met on June 4" to discuss the item and
forwards a negative recommendation back to the full Plan Commil:sion on the revised request.
The Special Studies Committee fozwards a negative recommendation to the tb11 Plan
Commission by a vote of 4-1 Oil the POO, as amended.
The DepartmeDt recommeuds that this proposed PUD be forwarded to the City Council
with a favorable recommendatiOD.
Background Informatlou:
The Department has maintained 1i'om the time of the initial Public Hearing that we are in support
of the proposed rezone. The proposed development, in its previous and current fonDS, gJll1f'S11nt,.--.
a building size, landscapinglbuffering standards and architecture with maximum sensitivity to the
adjacent teSidential area in order to provide a transition between that existing residential and the
higher intensity commercial uses to the south and US Highway 31 to the southeast.
In $llmmary, the intensity is nearly half of that previously requested. The proposed intensity of
use is significantly below what is otherwise permitted under the US 31 Overlay Zone. The
design of the proposed development (originally and even more so as amended), while not
preferred by the Department over the previous plan due to the ~uced intensity, is far sup~or to
the type of transition that could be achieved under the current zoning (B-3/R-l, US 31 Overlay).