HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 03-20-01 PUD (25-01 Z)
v
u
c~0
GERSHMAN BROWN
COLLEGE HILLS
Change of Zoning Classification
To Planned Unit Development-
Office Use
Docket No. 2S-01-Z
Carmel Plan Commission
March 20,2001
Charles D. Frankenberger
NELSON & FRANKENBERGER
3021 East 98th Street, Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46280
Telephone: (317) 844-0106
".
f,'SCANNED
u
TABLE OF-CONTENTS
1. EXPLANATION
2. AERIAL #1
3. AERIAL #2
4. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION
-i-) 5. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS
6. PUD ORDINANCE
7. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS -
A&F ENGINEERING
8. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY -
AMERICAN CONSULTING
9. PERSPECTIVE
(
-.W
w
Explanation of Request
Gershman Brown & Associates, Inc., together with 38 individual homeowners in College
Hills, have filed an application to change the zoning classification of 21. 5 acres of real estate from
R-I to PUD, permitting the development of an office park.
As indicated on the aerial photographs included in this brochure, the real estate is north of
and adjacent to 96th Street, south of and adjacent to the I A65 expressway, east of College Avenue
bordering a commercial area, and west of the Five Seasons Sports Club and the Monon Trail. Over
time, the character of the surr~)Unding area has dramatically changed. The 1-465 corridor severed
the College Hills community, leaving approximately 38 lots to the south. A diverse mix of
commercial and multi-family use, of varying character and quality, then surrounded this stranded
pocket of single-family homes. The proposed use responds to these changed circumstances. It
provides much needed transition between the 1-465 expressway to the north, the apartment dwellers
to the south, and the commercial development to the east and west.
The appropriateness of this request is apparent in light of the significant land use changes that
have occurred in the surrounding area since the early 1960's. The construction of I~465 essentially
severed the property owners from the College Hills neighbors to the north. Over the next 30 years,
more than 1,500 apartment units were constructed immediately to the south, in Marion County, in
an area bounded by 96th Street, the Manon Railroad corridor, 9P' Street and College Avenue.
Commercial development today envelops the neighborhood to the east and west, leaving it stranded
from other established residential areas.
u
The proposed use is a well-considered approach to these compositional changes. It will
provide an attractive transition between 1-465 and the apartment communities, and complement the
commercial uses now in place along East 96th Street between Meridian Street and the Monon Trail.
The PUD Ordinance will assure architectural standards which will require an aesthetically
appealing office park. Thus, for instance, the PUD Ordinance requires that all buildings conform
to the Golden Section, that all refuse be contained within structures, that all mechanical equipment
be architecturally screened, that a green belt, containing undulating mounding and landscaping,
buffer the 96th Street property line, and that building materials consist of stone, brick, architectural
precast, architectural metal panels, glass, and ornamental metal. Before construction, all structures
are to receive ADLS approval from the Plan Commission. The proposed PUD Ordinance is also
enclosed, together with a building exemplifying the PUD Ordinance and conceptually illustrating
the intended architettural style and appearance.
We look forward to presenting this request to you on March 20, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
G
L~ ______
Charles D. rankenberg~r
F:\U..r\JlUl.l'tlGershmanlExplanation 032001.wpd
)
u. ..
~
. -\
's.::
.~-",
,"-" .
'~1t-' ","
c"Ci
,
. \cJ. '
F-
I
I
I
I
,I
\
I
!
"
f" I
I t I
;/ /
/1 /
.' / /
~ y ;
{ .
" .
,/ /.'
I '/
; /;
;' ./!
,
'.
"
~
i
t
t
/;' I .' ,
1'1 l' . I
/." .. ,/
/I~' I I'
/1 / ./!f
//./ / I;'"
,. ;' l ,: j,'
J;.' .. ':'
,.I / I il
J /,' .
;/ ,I
;' j"t " f j
/. I I ,i
:,' i . II
/1 I ;,'
1/" I,
ii I /.
1/;' I!
~' ,;; ;' l
I j / II
ill f /
If / . i/
'I i': i /,
/ i I
f. ; , ! I
'/ ',' ( I
II' - I'
III ,I j. I
I il
. I ( .' 'I
if / / / /
(/,1 I 'I
l -': -; /,
It i J,
(I I ! i I
'/ V) . I,
I, r .I; _
j t \0 J "
Ii ~ " ,'1
.. "I i I I
: !! 'i I
: :" i 1
t l.4 ~', ~
, '.
'.IIU.l1 ,~,
/- i I I
d \ f-! ,.
" I ....." 1,1
/~' ; ~r' ~l
· I I f-I "I
'I (('
:' ~ JZJ )j:
fJ I ~ /.
tI r ; I'
,I ~.~ ~ It.
f- "
I.
Zli
~ ,~ .
""''''.q.
I .,1
1 i.
:
I
.
I'
, I
I
11' i'
!' I'
,~ I
I~ I ! :
l,
I:
I,
Vl
Z
o
~
CI)
w
>
ti:
tI
I' t
.,
,
.
11 I
I
I '
,.
I,
I ;14
I'
I
, ,
';1
,I
q
...J
o ~
~ ~
8 ~
u
I
I i
I
1
,I l
, -,--=~~ LJ .. _~_~ L=~"~~ --, '=--=~~-=--=~~=- 3 ^ I _~ -O-~~C 0'3 "1 ,1 0 J
---I j 1 ; ,------
I j I
i
!
I
,-
I,
!
, I
I,
L=,~~.,==,~=,.._-_.._.:-~~==~=c..
~
~
.j~~~~
~\li. !j
~ '.-. - ..:-:-=:-
l'
Ii
1
Ii
I
II
II
'I
I:
I;
II
IJ
~ ~
~ i
t: ~
O. i1
JI ;1
I . ,
jr
~l:
I
U-l1
t::1
CI') I
I' '
,
, I
, !
" ,
, i
l i I
v
u u
J
.)
~ I
i/
/; / ;1 //
I; I ,/
/1 / / //
,'1 / / II
II I .,.,.1
.IIi I'!!
,. ; .
/1 / /;/
/I I .I ,,'
//1 I' !!/
. I' ,
Ii I Ii
,'; I ...
;I! !;i
;/ I / .//
II I j /
Ii;' (! i
, iI, /
II I I /1 ,
{I I I I
:i I I ,/
/ I / / /1
/;/ ! 1/ /1 .
I I 1(: ;
I I I II .
II f I
iii ./,
:'1 I / Ii I
'I I i II
I i J II
J I I 'If'
I I i I
'II I j' ,I
I .'
; I f I I;
/I ~ i ,i
I' I f II'
:/ '1' j
i I ..i:r I j
J ! I I Ii
! : I : { I
II i I / I;
.J I~I Ii:
if ;1 E-<f I/!
" <.;':
1'1' I E-j / I
, up II
/1 I ~ I:
!!! ~/i
ill i~11 ,
I I /1
;/ II I
I I I I' ~ I
I :5 II
: ~ ~ II
! ~ ~ ~ I
I U I I
L p _~~ -- - -- - - - - - -- - - ___-.: ~:-:---=-J/ 1,,--_ __j I
-- -- ---- -- ---3*I-1{-Q-3- 9-g-y-l-o-a--------- ---- --\- - - -~
. --------- ----~-'\ 1(-
I i I
l-'
L.
----,
I
I
I
i
<I:l
~
~.
Ii
! .
---l ::
i
!
I
,
~~
,[[]
,~
~
~
~
o
~
b
(J:) ,
u
u
e/l
_. I
"l
<I,
0
z
I
I
:1
,I
:
!
........"
I I I
_J
~l
.' ~
I 1
- '-- CL
..:t
I
· ..L.
-
<t
_-.J ...
'~I
I /
n'1
~,_.,
C.',
:1
'I
:
I
v
u
ORDINANCE
NO. Z-
( -OO-Z)
COLLEGE HILLS
u
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
Ordinance No. Z-
( -OO-Z)
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE
COLLEGE HILLS
Plann,ed Unit Development District
WHEREAS, Section 31.6.4 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Z:'289 (the
"Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinancell) provides for the establishment of a Planned Unit
Development District in accordance with the requirements of IC s36-7 -4-1500 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (the IICommissionll) has given a
favorable recommendation to the ordinance set forth herein (the 1I0rdinancell) which
establishes the College Hills Planned Unit Development District (the "District").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
Carmel, Indiana (the "Council"), that, pursuant to IC 936-7-4-1500 at seq., it adopts this
Ordinance, as an amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance.
lJ
CHAPTER 1.0 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 uReal Estate"), as a Planned Unit Development
District to be known as College Hills.
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 of the
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 term not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the
Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires.
CHAPTER 2.0 PERMITTED USES.
Section 2.1 Permitted Primarv Uses.
u
Office, Any Type; and
u
u
u
Draft: 01/1912001
Revised: 03/0912001
Uses permitted under the R-1 classification of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of
Carmel/Clay Township, Indiana.
Section 2.2 Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Accessory uses and structures,
subordinate, appropriate arid incidental to the above-permitted primary uses shall be
permitted, including trash enclosures, Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), and utilities.
The followIng accessory retail and service commercial uses shall be permitted within the
building(s):
Cafeteria/Deli/Coffee Shop
Photocopying a~d Duplicating Services
The following accessory supportive service uses shall be permitted within the building(s):
Conference Center
Fitness Center
Accessory uses, accessory retail, accessory service commercial, _ accessory supportive
services, or accessory structures, if utilized, shall:
A. have as their primary purpose serving the occupants or employees of the
buildings; and,
B. have a total gross square footage for all accessory uses which does not
exceed 25,000 square feet.
Section 2.3 Communication Eauipment. 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 com patible
with the building(s) with which it is associated.
CHAPTER 3.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Section 3.1 Minimum Parcel Size: The College Hills PUD parcel shall have a minimum
size of fifteen (15) acres. This Section 3.1 does not, however, preclude the sale or other
transfer of any lot within the Real Estate after the approval of a DP for the parcel. However,
the development of the parcel must still conform to the DP for the Real Estate as approved
or amended by the Director, and all other applicable requirements contained in this
Ordinance.
u
u
u.
Draft: 01/1912001
Revised: 03/0912001
Section 3.2 Maximum Buildina HeiQht. For all uses, the maximum building height shall be
the lesser of (i) seventy-nine (79) feet plus an additional twenty-one (21) feet for a
penthouse and/or mechanical or utilitarian roof top appurtenances, or (ii) 5 stories plus an
additional twenty-one (21) feet for a penthouse and/or mechanical or utilitarian roof top
appurtenances.
Section 3.3 Minimum Building Height. All uses, fourteen (14) feet, with a minimum of
twelve (12) feet to the lowest eaves for a building with a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
Section 3.4 Maximum Parcel Coveraqe.
A. Maximum Parcel Coverage of the Real Estate shall be sixty-five percent
(65% ).
B. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of the Real Estate shall be 0.70, with the
F.A.R. being calculated by dividing the total gross floor area of all buildings
on the Real Estate by the area of the Real Estate.
Section 3.5 Architectural Design Requirements.
A.
Scale and proportion: All building facades; including doors, windows, column
spacing, and signage shall be designed using the Golden Section,
represented by the ratio 1: 1.6 or 1.6: 1, as a general guideline.
B. Suitability of building materials: A minimum of three materials shall be used
for building exteriors from the following list: stone, brick, architectural precast
(panels or detailing), architectural metal panels, glass, ornamental metal.
C. Building design: All buildings shall be designed with a minimum of eight
external corners, in order to eliminate monotonous box buildings, unless
otherwise approved by the Commission.
D. Roof design: Sloped roofs shall be a maximum of one hundred (100) feet
without a change in roof plane, or gable or dormer. Sloped roofs shall be
either standing seam metal or dimensional shingles.
E. Building penthouses: Building penthouses must be incorporated into the
building facade design, including exterior materials specifications.
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
Section 3.6 Other Requirements.
A. Outside Storaoe of Refuse. No outside, unenclosed storage of refuse
(whether or not in containers) shall be permitted. All refuse shall be
contained completely within the building(s) or in separate accessory
structure(s). Any separate accessory structure designed for refuse storage
shall be architecturally compatible with the building(s).
B. Loading Berths. No loading or unloading berth or bay shall be visible from
any adjacent residential area.
C. Mechanical'Equipment. Any mechanical equipmentvisiblefrom an adjoining
street or highway shall be screened with suitable walls or fencing and in
general be architecturally compatible with the building(s) with which it is
associated. All HVAC equipment shall be located on the roof of the
building(s), and required screening shall include noise abatement features.
CHAPTER 4.0 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.
u
Section 4.1 Minimum Building Setbacks. The minimum building setbacks shall be
(a) 100 feet from the INDOT right-of-way, (b) 100 feet from the side property lines, and
(c) 200 feet from the South Section Line.
Section 4.2 Minimum Gross Floor Area.
A. All buildings shall have a minimum of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet
of gross floor area, excluding the floor area of any accessory structure(s).
B. Accessory structures permitted need not meet the minimum floor area
requirement.
Section 4.3 Maximum Densitv. Maximum gross floor area for all buildings upon the Real
Estate shall be 420,000 square feet. No more than 5,000 square feet of such 420,000
square feet shall be allocated to a fitness center, and no more than 5,000 square feet of
such 420,000 square feet shall be allocated to a conference center.
Section 4.4 LandscapinlJ Requirements.
A.
Landscaoe Plan. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Commission
for its approval at the same time other plans (I.e., architectural design,
lighting, parking and signage) are submitted. The Landscape Plan (1) shall
be drawn to scale, including dimensions and distances; (2) shall delineate all
u
u
Draft: 01/1912001
Revised: 03/0912001
existing and proposed buildings, structures, parking areas, walks, ramps for
handicapped, terraces, driveways, ground and monument signs, lighting
standards; steps or other similar structures; (3) shall delineate the location,
size and description of all proposed landscape material and the irrigation
system for all planting areas; and, (4) shall delineate the location, size and
description of all existing trees 9" DBH or larger which are located within any
Greenbelt or Planting Strip required in Section4.4.B. Landscape treatment
for plazas, roads, paths, service and parking areas shall be designed as an
integral and coordinated part of the Landscape Plan for the Real Estate.
B. Areas to be Landscaped.
1. Greenbelt:
a. A greenbelt shall be provided adjacent to the 96th Street right-
of-way and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width and
landscaped per the requirements of Section 4.4. C.
, b.
The greenbelt areas shall be unoccupied except for plant
material, steps, walks, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting
standards, signs and other similar structures (excluding
parking).
u
2. Plantino Strip:
a. There shall be landscaped planting areas located adjacent to
the INDOT right-of-way and the side property lines which shall
be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width and landscaped
pursuant to Section 4.4.C hereof.
b. These landscaped areas shall be unoccupied except for plant
material, steps, walks, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting
standards, signs, and other similar structures (excluding
parking).
3. Planting Adjacent to Buildings:
a. A planting area equal to an area measuring ten (10) feet in
depth shall be installed on all sides o,f the building(s).
b.
Outdoor terraces, sidewalks and driveways may be permitted
in these areas.
u
u
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
c.
If an outdoor terrace, sidewalk or driveway cuts into a planting
area, the displaced area shall be an additional area added to
the building perimeter planting.
d.
These additional adjacent planting areas need not be
rectangular in shape as long as the required amount of space
is landscaped. These additional adjacent planting areas may
abut an outdoor terrace area.
4. Planting Within Parkinq Lots: A minimum of (a) one (1) shade tree
and five (5) shrubs or (b) two (2) shade tree.s shall be planted within
each parking lot island at a rate not less than eighteen (18) trees per
acre of parking. (See Section 4.4.0.1 for minimum planting area
requirements. )
5.
Total Landscapino Required: Inclusive of the greenbelts, the planting
strips, the planting adjacent to the building(s), outdoor terrace areas
and the planting within surface parking lots, a minimum of fifteen
percent (15%) of the Real Estate shall be landscaped.
C. Landscapina Standards.
u
1 . Interior Areas. The dimensions, specifications and design of any
planting area or planting median shall be sufficient to protect the
landscaping materials planted therein and to provide for proper
growth. The following minimum widths for interior planting areas shall
be used:
Canopy Trees: 9 feet wide
Ornamental Trees: 7 feet wide
Shrubs (only): 5 feet wide
2.
Greenbelt. The greenbelt areas, as designated in Section 4.4. B.1.,
shall include a four to six (4-6) foot undulating earthen berm on which
will be placed six to eight (6-8) foot tall conifers similar to those placed
along 96th Street east of U.S. 31 and in front of the Parkwood
Crossing development. The berm landscaping shall include deciduous
trees, with a minimum trunk of 2-3 inches at six (6) inches above
ground line, interspersed among the conifer trees. A sidewalk shall be
installed along the 96th Street frontage south of the berm.
Construction of the berm shall commence contemporaneously with
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
the initial site development for the Real Estate and will be fihished
contemporaneously with or prior to completion of the first building.
3. Planting Strip. The primary landscaping materials used in the planting
strip areas and adjacent to buildings shall be shade trees, ornamental
trees, shrubs, ground cover, grasses and flowers. A base planting unit
, of one hundred (100) linear feet will be designated for the planting
strip areas which includes:
Three (3) shade trees; or,
Five (5) ornamental trees or five (5) conifer trees; and
Fifteen (15) shrubs.
4. Materials. All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any
landscaping plan shall meet the following specifications:
a.
Shade Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of 2 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
% of tree height.
u
b. Ornamental Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of 1.75 inches
at six (6) inches above the ground line, a minimum height of
six (6) feet, and a branching height of not less than 1/3 nor more
than % of tree height.
C. Evergreen Trees: A minimum height of six (6) feet.
d. Deciduous Shrubs: A minimum height. of twenty-four (24)
inches, with no less than six (6) main branches upon planting.
e. Evergreen Shrubs: A minimum height and spread of twenty-
four (24) inches.
D. LandscapinQ Installation and Maintenance.
1. Installation. All required landscaping for each phase of the
development shall be installed prior to the issuance of a final
Certificate of Occupancy by the Department. If it 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
u
lJ
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
of the required landscaping prior to the issuance of the final Certificate
of Occupancy.
2. 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.
3. Changes After Approval. No landscaping which has been approved
by the Commission may later be substantially altered, eliminated or
sacrificed, without first obtaining further Commission approval.
However, minor and material alterations in landscaping may be
approved by the Director in order to conform to specific site
conditions.
u
4.
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 4.5 Parking Requirements.
A. Efforts to break up large expanses of pavement are to be encouraged by the
interspersing of appropriate planting areas.
B. Direct, articulated pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the
primary entrance of the building(s).
C. The minimum number of parking spaces required shall be three and one-half
(3-1/2) spaces for each one thousand (1,000) 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 these spaces shall meet State requirements.
Section 4.6 Lighting Requirements.
A.
A site lighting plan shall be submitted .along with the information on
architectural design, landscaping, parking, signage, and lighting ("ADLS")
u
w
u
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
approval petition. The site lighting plan shall include the layout, spread and
intensity of all site lighting, including:
1. Parking lot and service/storage area lighting;
2. Architectural display lighting;
3. Security lighting;
4. Lighting of pedestrian ways; and
5. Landscape lighting.
B. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform
design, color and materials.
C. The height of light standards shall not exceed thirty (30) 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.
D.
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 dev~lopment shall not exceed
0.1 footcandle at the north right-of-way line of East 96th Street.
Section 4.7 Signs. Signs for accessory uses, accessory retail, accessory service
commercial, and accessory supportive services shall be limited to lower level signs.
A. Upper Level Signs.
1. Number & Type: The maximum number of Identification Signs
permitted shall be two (2) wall signs for each building.
2. Maximum Sign Area: 90 square feet each.
3. Locatjon: The signs may be located on either the west, north or east
facades.
4. Design: All walls signs shall consist of individual letters.
5. Illumination: Internal.
6. Sign Permit: Required.
7. Fees: Required.
lJ
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
B.
Lower Level Siqns.
1. Number & Type: The maximum number of Identification Signs
perm itted shall be six (6) wall signs.
2. Ma?<imum Sign Area: 60 square feet each.
3. Location: The signs may be located on either the west, south or east
facades. The signs may only be located on the first floor facade.
4. Design: All walls signs shall consist of individual letters.
5. Illumination: Internal.
6. Sign Permit: Required.
7. Fees: Required.
C. Colleqe Hills Center Identification and Real. Estate (Leasino) SiQns.
u
1.
Number & Type: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for College
Hills.
2. Maximum Sign Area: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for
College Hills.
3. Maximum Height of Sign: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for
College Hills.
4. Location: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for College Hills.
5. Design: Signs must comply with the approved architectural scheme
of t,he complex, and must be of a similar design, lighting and style of
construction.
6. Illumination: Internal or completely shielded.
7. Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at
least equal to the total sign area.
8. Sign Permit: Required.
u
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
9.
Fees: Required.
D. Other Provisions. Section 25.7.01 - "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.
CHAPTER 5.0 APPROVAL PROCESS.
Section 5.1 Approval of ADLS.
A. The Commission shall consider an ADLS approval petition for any building
within College Hills.
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 College Hills development.
c.
The Commission shall approve the ADLSwithout conditions or approve with
conditions.
u
D. If there 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, pursuantto the Commission's rules of
procedure. Minor 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 5.2 Approval or Denial of the Development Plan.
A. The Commission shall approve a conceptual Development Plan (the "DP").
B.
The Director shall approve without conditions, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the final DP for any project within College Hills; provided,
however, thatthe Director shall not unreasonably withhold or delay his/her
approval of a final DP that is in substantial conformance to the conceptual
DP and is in conformance with the development requirements of this
Ordinance. If the Director disapproves the final DP for any project within
College Hills, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis for the
u
u
u
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
disapproval and schedule the request for approval ofthe final DP for hearing
before the Commission.
C. An amendment to a final DP which does not alter the use of any land may be
reviewed and approved by the Director.
D. The final DP 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.
CHAPTER 6.0 DEFINITIONS AND VIOLATIONS.
Section 6.1 General Rules of Construction: Definitions.
A. General Rules of Construction: The following general rules of construction
and definitions shall apply to the regulations of this Ordinance:
1.
The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular,
unless the context clearly indicates the contrary.
2. Words used in the present tense include the past and future tenses,
and the future the present.
3. The word "shall" is a mandatory requirement. The word "may" is a
permissive requirement. The word "should" is a preferred
requirement.
B. Definitions:
1. Accessory Structure: A structure subordinate to a building or use
located on the Real Estate which is not used for permanent human
occupancy.
2. 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.
3. Alteration, Material: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the substitution of ane material, species, element, etc. for
another.
Draft: 01/1912001
U Revised: 03/09/2001
4. Alteration. Minor: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the revision of less than ten percent (10%) of the plan's total
area or approved materials.
5. Alteration. Substantial: Any change to an approved plan of any type
that involves the revision of ten percent (10%) or more of the plan's
~ total area or approved materials.
6. Antenna: A structure or device that is used for the purpose of
collecting or transmitting signals, images, sounds, or information of
any nature by wire, radio, visual, or electromagnetic waves, including
but not limited to directional or omni-directional antenna, panels, and
microwave or 'satellite dishes. The term does not include an amateur
radio station antenna.
7. Architectural PlaiT A plan for the construction of any building or
structure designed by a qualified registered architect.
8.
Automated Teller Machine (ATM): A mechanized apparatus which
performs limited banking functions for customers such as deposits,
withdrawals and transfers of funds upon insertion of a customer
identification card, password or similar device.
u
9. Board: The Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals.
10. Buildino: 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.
11. BuildinQ or Structure. Front Line of: The line of the face of the
building or structure nearest the South Section Line, not counting
patios, terraces, etc.
12. Buildino Heiqht: The vertical distance from the grade at the main
entrance to the top of the parapet that comprises the majority of the
perimeter of the building.
13. Building or Structure Setback Line: (Sometimes called a Building
Line) 'The line nearest the front of and across the Real Estate
establishing the minimum open space to be provided between the
front line of a building or structure and the South Section Line.
u
u
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
Cafeteria/Deli/Coffee Shoo: An establishment located within tlie
building(s) where food and drink is prepared, served and consumed
primarily within the building(s) by the occupants of the building(s) and
their guests.
Centerline: A line lying midway between the side lines of a street or
alley right-of-way and/or pavement.
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.
Common Area: Areas within a development that serve either a
portion of or the entire development. (Ex~mple common area - signs,
lighting, landscaping, maintenance shed, etc.)
20. Conference Center: A meeting room provided as an amenity for, and
made available to, all occupants of the building(s) and their guests.
21. Council: The City Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana.
22. County: Hamilton County, Indiana.
23. Development Plan: A specific plan for the development of real
property that is subm itted for Com mission 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.
24. Development Requirements: Development standards and any
requirements specified in this Ordinance which must be satisfied in
connection with the approval of a development plan.
25. Diameter at Breast Heiqht (DBH): Diameter of the trunk measured at
fifty-four (54) inches above grade.
lJ
u
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
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.
Dish:" That part of the earth station shaped like a saucer or dish.
Dish-Type Receivina Antenna (Earth Station or Ground Station): A
signal receiving device, the purpose of which is to receive radio
communications, television, data transmission or other signals from
a satellite or satellites in earth orbit.
Financial Institution: Any building wherein the primary occupation is
concerned with such Federal or: State regulated businesses as
banking, savings and loans, loan companies and investment
companies.
Fitness Center: An exercise facility provided as an amenity for, and
made available to, all occupants of the building(s).
u
31. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R. ): The gross floor area of all stories of all
buildings within the Real Estate divided by the total horizontal area
within the Real Estate boundaries.
32. 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.
33. Front Yard: The side of the Real Estate which is adjacent to the 96lh
Street right-of-way.
u
34. Greenbelt: That portion of the front yard which is immediately
adjacent and parallel to the right-af-way of 96th Street and having a
minimum depth of thirty (30) feet.
35. Greenbelt Buffer: That portion of the Real Estate which abuts the
south perimeter of the development and which is designed specifically
to provide a buffer and visual screen to adjacent residential land.
36. Gross Floor Area (Construction Area): The floor area, excluding any
penthouse areas, as measured by the face of-the exterior building
material.
Draft: 01/1912001
U Revised: 03/09/2001
37. HVAC: Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
38. Landscaped Green Area: An area which includes live plantings other
than grass. The size of planting at the time of installation shall not be
less than a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in width and height for
shrubs, a minimum of four (4) to five (5) feet in height for evergreen
conifer trees; and a minimum of six (6) to eight (8) feet in height for
shade trees.
39. Landscaping: The improvement of the 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.
40. Lot: A portion of the Real Estate intended as a unit for transfer of
ownership or development.
u
41. Lower Level Sign: A sign located on a building facade below a height
of twenty-six (26) feet, measured from grade level.
42. 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 govern,me-ntal offices.
43. Parcel Coveraqe: 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.
44. Parkinq Soace: An area having .a rectangular area of not less than
one hundred eighty (180) square feetand a minimum width of nine (9)
feet exclusive of driveways, permanently reserved for the temporary
storage of one automobile.
u
45. Photocopvinq and Duplicating Devices: A facility providing
reproduction, cutting, printing, binding, etc. of written materials,
drawings, labels, etc. for occupants of the building(s).
Draft: 01/19/2001
U Revised: 03/09/2001
46. P lantinq Strip: A section of land not less than ten (10) feet in width
intended to contain plant materials and for the purpose of creating a
visual separation between uses or activities.
47. Pond: A body of water either occurring naturally or artificially created
and not fed by any watercourse.
48. Professional Office: An office of a member of a recognized profession
such as an architect, attorney, dentist, engineer, physician or
surgeon.
49. Receiver: A television set, radio, communication device or data input
device that utilizes the signals from the earth station.
50. Riqht-of-Wav: An area of land permanently dedicated to provide light,
air and access.
u
51. Setback: The least measured distance between a building or
structure and the Section Line, the side property line of the Real
Estate or the rear property line of the Real Estate.
52. Siqn: Any type of sign as further defined and regulated by this
Ordinance and the ~ign Ordinance for Carmel-Clay Township,
Ordinance Z-196, as amended.
53. South Section Line: The South Line of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 12, Township 17 North, Range 3 East.
54. Starv: 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
u
w
u
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/09/2001
57.
Upper Level Siqn: A sign located on a building facade above a height
of twenty-six (26) feet, measured from grade level.
58.
Use: The employment or occupation of a building, structure or land
for a person's service, benefit or enjoyment.
Section 6.2 Violations of Ordinance. All violations of this Ordinance shall be subject to
Section 34.0 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance.
(Signature Page Follows)
u
u
u
Draft: 01/19/2001
Revised: 03/0912001
of
PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this
I 2001, by a vote of ayes and nays.
day
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL
Presiding Officer
Kevin Kirby, President
N.L. Rundle
John R. Koven
Robert Battreall
Luci Snyder
Ronald E. Carter
Wayne A. Wilson
ATTEST:
Dia'na L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, on the _ day of
,2001.
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
F:IUser'JanetIGershman\FUD-Clean 3-9-01.wpd
u
u
u
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
COLLEGE HilLS
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES
FEBRUARY 2001
A&F ENGINEERING CO.. lLC
CONSUL liNG ENGINEERS
8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200
INDIANAPOUS, INDIANA 46240
(317) 202-0864
u
u
u
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
COLLEGE HILLS
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES
FEBRUARY 2001
PREPARED By:
A& F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200
INDlANAPOLlSt IN 46240
PHONE 317-202-0864
FAX 317-202-0908
u
u
u
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES -PARKWOOD EASf
TRAFFIC LW'ACT ~~ALYSIS
- - . -- - ~. . ~ - - ....... -- - --.-
.' _ ---= ~"- _ I _- _ . H _ _ ~ _ _' "? _ _0' ~ _~"-"- If i!l..~' -1 _ ". ~ __ _ L _ ~
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.
1
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES- PARKWOOT> EASf
j _ - _ _ '"' ~ L .:.. ; _ ~. '. !l,..:' = ~. ~ ; I -, ---.:-- .'0'<:- ~:;. ~ -. l' -;0" i
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSlS
u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
u
LIST OF FIGURES.... ..... ..... .......... .... ..... ...... ........ ......... ......... .... .......... .... ...... ..... ............................... ...... ..... .... ...... ...II
CERTIFICATION ...... ..... ..... .......... .... ................. ...... ..... .... ......... ..... ......... .................. ............. ................. ..... .... ....... III
INTRODUCTION ...... ..... ..... .......... .... ........... ............. .... ............. ..... ......... ...... .......... ............... ............. ......... ............. I
PuRPOSE .... .............. ................. .... .... ............. ...... ..... ............. .............. ..... ...... ..... ............. ..... ........ ...... ..... .... ......... 1
SCOPE OF WORK .... .......... .............. ......... ......... ..... ..... ......... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ............ ........ ................................ ..... .... 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT........ ..... ..,.................... ............. ..... ......... .......... ..... ......... ..... ..... ........ ...... ..... .... ......... 3
STUDY AREA.... ............... .......... .... ..... ............ ...... ..... ....... ...... ..... .............. ...... ......... ..... ......... ......... .......... ..... ........ 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM ....... ........................... ..... ..... ......... ...... ............ ............................. 5
TRAFFIC DATA................. .......... .... ........... .... ............. ............. ...... ........ ........... ......... ......... ........... ........ ..... ............. 5
10- YEAR PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES.................... .............................................. ...... ................. ................ ........6
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.......... ........ ................... ........... ...............................6
TABLE 1 . GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............ ...... ..... .............. .................. ....................... 6
INTERNAL TRIPS .... ............................. .......... ......... ......... ........ ........... ... ..... ...... .............. ..... ..... ....... ................ ........ 6
PASS-By TRIPs........... ............................................................................................................................. ............... 7
PEAK HOUR ...... ............... ..... ..... .... ........... ......... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... ............... ................... ................................. ........7
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIB1ITION OF GENERATED TRIPS........... ..... .............. ......................... ..... .............. ................. 7
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRJPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM. ......................... ....... ........................ 9
CAPACITY ANALYSIS ....... ..... ................... .............. ....................... .............. ..... ..... .... ..... ............. ..... ............... ........ 9
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .................... ........................ ........ ..... ...... .............. .... ......... .... ............... ....... 11
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS.. ......................... ............ ...... ..... ........ ................. ....... ...... ..... ... ..... .............. ....... 13
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-961l1 STREET AND MERIDIAN STREET .................................................. 17
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERV1CE SUMMARY-961l1 STREET AND COLl.EGE AVENUE .................................................. 18
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-REAL ROAD AND WESTFIELD ROAD .................................................. 19
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-I-465 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMp AND MIRlDlAN STREET........................ 20
TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-I-465 WESTBOUND OFF-RAMp AND MERIDIAN STREET....................... 21
TABLE 7 - LEVELOFSERVlCE SUMMARY.96ll1 STREET AND WEST ACCESS POINT ...........................................22
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-961l' STREET AND EAST ACCESS POINT ............................................... 22
CONCLUSIONS .. ...... ............................. .................................................................................... ......... ..... ............... 23
RECOMMENDATIONS ......... ..... ......... ..... .......... ..... ...................... ..... ......... ........................................... ........ ....... ..... 27
(.).
I
u
w
o
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES- PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
.. . ___ T _ ;- _ _ - _ :. ~ ~ f' .' ,. _ """ . - --;; -, f - -, ~ .rll....... :-..._ _::.~
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: AREA MAP .................... .....,..... ..... ............. ............... .......................... ......... ................. .......... ... ..... ....... 4
FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBlfI10N OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....... 8
FIGURE 3: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................. ..... ............ .......... 10
FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRAFFlC VOLUMES... .............. ...... ......................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 5: SUM OF EXISTING, YEAR 201 I, AND VACANT LAND TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................. 15
FIGURE 6: SUM or ExrSTING, YEAR20Il, VACANTLAND, AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRAFFIC
VOLUMES ................... ............................. ...... ...... ................................... ..................................................... 16
FIGURE 7: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS-9611-1 ST. & MERIDIAN ST. ......................................................... 29
FIGURE 8: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICs-9611-1 ST. & COLLEGE AVENUE................................................... 30
FIGURE 9: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICs-REALROAD AND WESTFIELD BLVD. ......................................... 31
FIGURE 10: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICs-EASTBOUND OFF-RAMp AND MERIDIAN ST. ..... ............. ..........32
FIGURE 11: INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS-WESTllOUNDOFF-RAMp ANDMERIDlAN ST. ............................................ 33
FIGURE 12: PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE GEOMETRICS .............................................................................................. 34
II
u
u
u
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL VSIS
___- _-__-__ __ _~ ~~ ~L ~'__ (~- _ c:.'" __" ,~,I- A i ~ I ~.,."" r. .' .. _ "
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT 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
engmeenng.
A&F ENGINEERlNG Co., LLC.
8~rAA
Steven 1. Fehribach, P.E.
Indiana Registration 890237
~ 41 tZt--
R. Matt Brown E.!.
Transportation Engineer
III
GERSHMAN~BROWN & ASSOCJATES- PARXWOOD EAST
TRAmC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
_'~ - ..:. "_ __ ,k __ _ .:' _ -: . - '" = ."0 ~, ~ i' _-'
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIc IMPACf ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Gershman-Brown & Associates is for
a proposed office development that will be located along 96th Street between College Avenue and
Westfield Boulevard 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 or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if
it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes.
u
Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis,
These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements which 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 make traffic volume counts at the following locations:
lit 96th Street and Meridian Street
o 96th Street and College Avenue
,. Real Road and Westfield Boulevard
. 1-465 Ramps and Meridian Street
w
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EASr
TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
- I' _ ~ , ~. , _-, ", - '- ~. "_:. _~_~.~--~
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated for each of the following:
Vacant LandslBackground Traffic - These 10-year projected traffic volumes were calculated
from the 96'h Street Corridor Stud/ prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Planning Organization,
Proposed Development - This is the development as proposed by Duke-Weeks.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will serve to
provide access to the proposed development.
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development onto the public
roadway system and intersections which have been identified as the study area.
Fifth, to prepare an analysis, including a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each
U intersection included in the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Conditions - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2: Year 2011 Conditions - Based the projected year 2011 traffic volumes with
the proposed roadway conditions.
SCENARIO 3: Proposed Development - Add the traffic volumes that would be generated by
the land use based on the proposed development to the existing traffic
volumes and the projected year 20]] traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses, conclusions
and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the study
area.
U I 96th Street Corridor Study, Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 1999.
2
LJ
u
u
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT Ai'llALYSIS
~ . ____- ~'_ _ -:- _ _ I~ ;""'" --~-;:_--_-""' -_~- "_" '= I, = i::cJr ~ .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will be located along 96th Street between College Avenue and Westfield
Road in Carmel, Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of approximately 409,500
gross square feetof general office space.
Figure 1 is an area map of the proposed development including the proposed access points.
STUDY AREA
The study area as defined by the City of Cannel Department of Community Services for this
analysis will include the following intersections:
. 96th Street and Meridian Street/U S. 3]
. 96th Street and College Avenue
. Real Road and Westfield Boulevard
" 1-465 Eastbound Off-Ramp and Meridian Street
. 1-465 Westbound Off-Ramp and Meridian Street
. Access Points along 96th Street
3
(..:
(...
x
~
/'
m
----3 ~ ~
y
~
co
co
I
~
I
II
'-'
'"
CO
o
o
/'
o
o
~
./'
o
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
h:
Ci)
~
WESTRELD RD ~
tg
"i
-.!..
CORNELL ST
I.....:
Ci)
~
to
0)
I--..:
CI)
~
a
-..::::
~L ~
L t~.
JICJI~. . ~!
] Q ID
~ 0:
JCQ .
J lJ a:1
PENN
] U.S."31
JCJ
=tV -'1
FIGURE 1
AREA MAP
@,~ & ~ Engineering Co., LLC 2000
All Rlghls Reserved"
4
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES- PARK WOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
U-~_~~~~_~I _,,-'.,;:' ~ .~ _' _ ~':..- ~"'11- >=!~'" _ " ". - s. ~; ;- I ..... -~ '. ,,- I -1 - ",-
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed developmel1t will be served by the public roadway system that includes 1-465, U. S.
31, 96th Street, College Avenue, Westfield Boulevard and Real Road.
INTERSTATE 465 - is a major Interstate loop that surrounds the greater Indianapolis metropolitan
area.
MERIDIAN STREETIU.S. 31 - is a north-south, four-lane divided highway that runs the entire
length of Indiana and serves as a major arterial to several mid-size cities throughout the state.
This roadway becomes Meridian Street within the Indianapolis City limits.
96TH SlREET - is an east'-west, two-lane. roadway that runs from Michigan Road to Keystone
Avenue. This street becomes a four-lane facility at Keystone Avenue and continues east to 1-69.
WESTFIELD BOULEVARD - is a north-south, two-lane roadway that provides access to several
residential areas throughout Marion County and Hamilton County.
u
96th Street & US. 31 - This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal. The
northbound approach consists of an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared through/right-turn lane and
three through lanes. The southbound approach consists of two exclusive left-turn lanes an
exclusive right-turn lane and three through lanes. The westbound approach consists of an
exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive right-turn lane and a through lane and the eastbound
approach consists of an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared right-turn/through lane and a through
lane.
96th Street & College Avenue - This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal. All
approaches at this intersection consist of an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared right-
turn/through lane.
Real Road & Wes(fieldBoulevard - This "T" -intersection is currently stop controlled with Real
Road stopping for Westfield Boulevard. In the near future a traffic signal will be installed at this
location.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts and 24 hour volume counts were made
at the study intersections and along 96th Street by A&F Engineering Co., LLC. The traffic turning
movement counts include an hourly total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at thee
u
5
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMJ"ACT ANALYSIS
u
_' . . - _. l' '. -. - ~':? e. - :; - - - - - l, =....:: _. - ~1~Jf~'...=
intersection. These counts were made during the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to
7:00 PM in November 2000, These traffic data are included in Appendix A.
10- YEAR PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The 9dh Street Corridor Study prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Indianapolis Metropolitan
Planning Organization was used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the vacant
lands and that will exist along 96th Street in the Year 2011. These traffic volumes are summarized
on Figu re 5.
u
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 of the character ofthe land use. Trip Generatiori 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 oftrips generated by various land uses.
Table 1 is a summary ofthe trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PRoPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOP1vIENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
LAND USE ITE AM AM PM PM
CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
General Office 710 409,500 SF 505 69 92 447
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without using the roadway
system. Typically, internal trips occur in mixed-use developments. This site is a single use office
development. Therefore, reductions were not applied for internal trips.
u
2 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997.
6
u
u
u
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOClATES - PARKWOOD EASt
TRAFFIC L\1PACT ANALYSIS
r -.-_ . <<~-_ - ~'-~--'_ ~~~:~J-. ~ ~-_ _ ~- r_' =_-. ____ ~~__-~ _':':..'< . =:77 _~~ - L ~-. ~ '^~ ,-.,-" -r--c"'"_ If'=~ ~--,L_~
PAss-BY TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use. Pass-by
trips were considered to be negligible for this study.
PEAK HOUR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak
hours are from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM and 5 :00 PM to 6:00 PM. Therefore, the volumes collected
during these hours were used in this report.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes, from the proposed development, that
will be added to the street system 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 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 detennine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their
intersection with 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.
7
~
--=r ~ ~
~
o
'"
'-+ '-10%
(.;
y
""
'"
'"
I
~
I
'"
'$
o
c;
o
...-
m
o
;?
'"
<:>
o
""
...-
<3
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
WESTAELD RD
I....:';/!.
CJ)o
po
~ ~
Q)
...4%
I-....:
CJ)
~
(Q
Q)
t2
':t
~
L
L
I-....:L
CJ)
~L
~L
.....10%
LEGEND
3
I C
~ lL
~ I FIGURE 2
II ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
t OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
ffi.
f:'I
..-
* = NEGLIGIBLE
@A & F Engineering Ca., LLC 2000
"All Rig hIs Reserved"
8
u
u
w
GERS[jMAN~BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EASf
. .
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
,-
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 proposed access, points and for each of the study area intersections. The Peak Hour
generated traffic volumes for the proposed development 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 abil ity to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. The "efficiencyt' of an intersection is designated by the Level-of-
Service (LOS) of the inter~ection. The LOS of an intersection 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 level of service at each of the study
intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program based
on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCMY.
3 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Special Report
209, 1985.
9
h..;
~ ~L ~
~~L .~ ~
]1 ]I~ ~!
] Q.fE
~
JC~~
J~
] PENN
US 31.
1
w
-----3. ~ .------?
(28) 152 -l> ~
o
co
u
'"
'"
o
o
I
'"
N
I
'"
'"
~~
c
o
-;;;
5
o
/
co
o
o
N
./
u
COLLEGE HilLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
I.....:
CJ)
~
1O
WESTAELD RD Q)
I.....:
Cl)
~
lO
0)
.; 1 .-. (*)
(58) S .7 ~ t
(,) ,-I> ~ '"
(45) 7 ~ ~g
L
L
~L
Cl)
~L
~C
LEGEND
00:;; A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) =: P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
:3
L
JF FIGURE 3
II GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
10
GERSHMAN-BROWN &. As..>;QCIATES - PARKWooD EAST
TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
_ ~ ~ ~ - I~. - , ' -'... -, ~ - r_ !!::-. -=' ~ ----- "'. ~ -- - ~. ~ _ ~ - J'> _ I. _ ~ ~, ~'" ~.(
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following descriptions are for sign.alized 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
U 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 declines.
u
11
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARK WOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
,~"'" - I,=- ~,< _ - I ~ ~ .1. - . -~", - ~~~-.~ ~. ~.Ji);;~;: - ="~. ._"._-r., "'- L -<-
Level of Service E - describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per
vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high
delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle lengths.
Level of Service F - describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersections:
Level of Service Control Delav (seconds/vehicle)
A Less than or equal to 10
U B Between 10.1 and 15
C Between 15.1 and 25
D Between 25.1 and 35
E Between 35.1 and 50
F greater than 50
u
12
GERSHMAN"BROWN & AssocIA TES - PARKWOOD EASf
TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
(J
,," ""';: ~ . r j ~-.-. ,f, . - I i - ~ ~ '* _ -, ~ I -. .~ _ -.-"'::-'" ~ '"" > ~ II '" ~' _ '~ ",. . :xi.. I
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the traffic volumes
from each of the various parts must be added together to fonn a series of scenarios that can be
analyzed. 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.
The City of Carmel Department of Community Services have requested that an analysis be made
for the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour at each of the study intersections for each of the
following scenarios:
SCENARIO I: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the traffic volumes that were obtained
in November 2000. Figure 4 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the
study intersections.
u
SCENARIO 2: Existing + Year 2011 Traffic Volumes - Figure 5 is a summary of these
traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.
SCENARIO 3: Existing Traffic Volumes + Year 2011 Projected Trqtfic Volumes +
Proposed Development Generated Trqffic Volumes - Figure 6 is a summary
of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour.
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 - 96th Street and Meridian Street
Table 3 - 96th Street and College Avenue
Table 4 - Real Road and Westfield Boulevard
Table 5 - 1-465 Eastbound Off-Ramp and Meridian Street
Table 6 - 1-465 Westbound Off-Ramp and Meridian Street
Table 7 - 96th Street and West Access Point
Table 8 - 96th Street and East Access Point
w
13
~
-------3: ~ r---7
h:
CJ)
~
(Q
WESTAELD RD Q)
2126~50) ~ ~
on on
'" <<>
~
C>
on 0
en '"
~~
C>
00
'0 c:>
- 0>
~ 4 173~307)
(3300) 3126 -- roo ...
~~ 1826 (1900)
Cb
;<)
'\
J COLLEGE A IE
-=~
@ ~L ~
~ L ~~
~ ~
31 II~ ~ ~
JC~~
] J)
] PENN
US 31
Jc]'
COLLEGE HILLS q
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
L
y
'"
o
o
,!..
N
,
l'J
'"
Cl
o
/"
en
5
o
./
o
o
2
./
-:.;
~o
o en
on """'
""~
'-450 (686)
.. 71 (133)
(706) 682-'" ,.
164) 210":lr .:::g
h:
Ci)
~
(Q
Q)
-:;;-
~r-- ~
0Cl.- ."-.:J"
~::~ t 29 (66)
...q- LD t."")
0Cl N ~ ... 420 (364)
It ~ ~.. 191 (113)
(116) 33 ..1" ~ t (t
(489) 276 __ ;::::.:::g
(89) 129 ~~~
LO N r-I')
I'<"") ("-,I r--.
=~-=..
L
L
h:L
Ci)
~L
~C
3
L
JI
II
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 4
~~
0> '"
C -
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
@A & F El'lgll'leering Co., lLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
14
c
~-~-' ,
~.
'"
'>'
o
o
I
""
C"
I
L"
~
o
WESTRELD RD
2672""tl07) ~ !!
""'0
r-- ~
~~
0"'"
I'-- "<t
..,.,~
~
~
<00
CO 0
<.0 _
00
N N
UJ ....
;i "4 236~098)
/6' ~
/".. 2002 (2445)
t/.->
'0
"
J COLLEGE
(3449) 3422--:1l-
I-:
CI)
~
<.0
Q)
I....:
CI)
~
~
....450 (686)
.111 (168)
(706) 682 ~ ~ it
28B) 352 + ~ ~
4 .-.
~~~
UJ"-'CO
:;:-..<:>: t 45 (56)
~~~ ....553 (435)
~ J 4.274 (168)
(140) 38 J"~ t rt
(538) 310 ~ ;g;; ~
(158) 165 - ~.-.
.-..-.0
m r-- """
to ,..., 0J
-"-'~
~~
AVE
I-:
Ct)
~
8
"'=-
~L
L
~B'~
] ~.
~
JC~~
~ !!)
] PENN
US 31
Ie] 1
CJ(
\
~
~
5:~
~ 7'
~ -
0..:
o
~
D
o
./
o
o
~
./
o
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
L
L
I....:L
CI)
~L
~c
3
C
JI
II
15
3~
m-.--""""
~
LnLnO
co co r--
~~:=..
~m
<0 ..,., N
..-- lD-
~'""--
LEGEND
00::: A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P,M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 5
SUM OF EXISTING, YEAR 2011,
V ACANT LAND
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
"f....;
-----3: ~ r---7
(.,'
'"
'"
'"
'"
I
"-
o
I
'"
'"
""
""
<..:
o
.;:;::
5
~
'"
o
12;
...-
ii
2824(2;35) 1 t
en 0
r-. N
o~
..... ill
.r> <n
~m
co -
co 0
<D ~
o-
N""
<D on
;i ~ 237~144)
/6' -
/".. 2053 (2458)
1/.;>
'0
,
J COLLEGE
h..:
lJ)
~
8
-..:::
~L
L
JD~"
J=~
JFJ
J II)
] PENN
US 31
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMANmBROWN
& ASSOCIATES
WESTFIELD RD
(3477) 3574-
A~
>-:
~
a: "~
;:: "t
~ .J...
~
h:
C1)
l:S
<.0
Q)
....450 (686)
+ 131 (172)
(706) 682_ ~ rt
(301) 423.. ~ ~
h:
C1)
~
<0
Q)
~~
(22) 3.:1' ~ t
(322) 50 ~ ;:;;::;
...,N
L
L
h:L
C0
~L
~L
3 ;S~
~ t 220 (95)
~ ~ ~ ....1363 (2393)
~ ~ 4 ..("119 (91)
(533) 1170 .:1' ~ t (f
(1490) 2135_ ~~:'2
(438) 701 ~ ... ;;;.;
l.D-lD"N
;::~~
~-
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
3
C
JL
ll-
FIGURE 6
SUM OF EXISTING, YEAR 2011,
VACANT lAND AND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
@A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
16
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARXW(JOD EASf
~:~ _~~_ ~-- _ -~-- ~ ~ - ~-: _ r ~_ I.". ,_' '" _ . - -~ . '-v- ;-,<< - ~~ ~_-c~"o~;d -~ ~ ~
TRAl'lnc IMPACT ANALYSIS
w
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-96ffi STREET AND MERID1AN STREET
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENAElO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach C C D
Southbound Approach B C D
Eastbound Approach C D D
Westbound Approach C C D
Intersection C C D
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARJO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach C D D
Southbound Approach B C C
EastbOlmd Approach D E E
Westbound Approach D C 0
Intersection C D D
U SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing and Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Intersection Geometrics*
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing, Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes, and Proposed
Development. Traffic Volumes with Proposed Intersection Geometries *
* The proposed intersection geometries are illustrated on Figure 7.
u
17
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EASf
TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
.~ \, - _ .. L - -,_-_: ._-: i: ~"t ~ "'_ ~:-;: ~~~........~.,.~ _7 ;:~ _:.-~~_ '__ a . ~ ~ " "'. ..,. ;;..'" ~
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY_96TH STREET AND COLLEGE AVENUE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARlO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound .t\pproach C C D
Southbound Approach C C C
Eastbound Approach B C C
WeStbound Approach C C D
Intersection C C C
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach C B D
Southbound Approach C C D
Eastbound Approach D C C
Westbound Approach C C D
Intersection C C D
PM PEAK HOUR
W SCENARIO]: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions
SCENARlo2: Sum of Existing and Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Intersection Geometrics*
SCENARlO 3: Sum of Existing, Year 2011 Projected. Traffic Volumes, and Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed Intersection Geometrics*
* The proposed intersection geometries are illustrated on Figure 8.
w
18
GERSHMAN~BR()WN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWoonEASf
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
w
~ , II " ~,~ '- E J. ~,- ~:I;--L ~ .-_-.~_,..,~ ~_~_ II =..~= -"'.- --- ~ -'"-.-.-:;:_~ ~-=- ~ - ~ .---;c:. " "}= .... n,'" ':_ II I _ . ""'
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -REAL ROAD AND WESTFIELD ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARI02 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach A A A
Southbound ADProach B C C
Eastbound Approach C D D
Intersection B C B
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARlO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Aooroach A B A
Southbound Aooroach C E D
Eastbound Aooroach C E D
Intersection C D C
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Planned Intersection Conditions.
U SCENARlo2: Sum of Existing and Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes with Planned
Intersection Conditions*
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing, Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes, and Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed Intersection Conditions**
* The planned intersection conditions include the installation of a traffic signal at this
intersection. These improvements are tentatively scheduled to begin in the beginning of year
2001.
** The proposed intersection geometries are illustrated on Figure 9.
w
19
GERSHMAi~~BROWN & ASSOClATES- PARKWOOD EASf
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
~ - - _ ~ ~ - .- ~ M.-': _ . t~ I =" f tI :' . I - ,~ . -~ ' ... . _: ':.. ~~ ..... y:..... "" ~r' =~., .. '..., ~. ~
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-I-465 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND MERIDIAN STREET
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO I SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach C A A
Southbound,Approach C E F
Eastbound Approach C D D
Intersection C D E
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach B B B
Southbound Approach B B B
Eastbound ApPcQach C C C
Intersection B C C
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions
U SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing and Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Intersection Geometries *
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing, Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes, and Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed Intersection Geometries.
* The proposed intersectiongeometrics are illustrated on Figure 10.
u
20
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARK WOOD EAST
TRAFF1C IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
_ _ I. ~ .. - ~# .,. 1. -.. . l -= :\.;:...... L"'. ~.,--= " - _~ . :-......,.,.. ~. ,--' ~ - ~ ~ ., J 1 ~_ ,.
TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUl\.1M.ARY-I-465 WESTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND MERIDIAN STREET
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach C E E
Southbound Approach C D C
Westbound Approach B B D
Intersection C D D
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3
Northbound Approach A C D
Southbound Approach B A A
Westbound Approach C D D
Intersection B C C
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions
U SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing and Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes with Existing
Intersection Geometries
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing, Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes, and Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometries. These
geometries are illustrated on Figure 11.
u
21
u
u
u
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES- PARK WOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL YSlS
~, -. -. :'~ ~1Ii ,-- :-="-~'-r ~-o;: ----r. ~. -~, _"_;. >0 - -, _ 'r. .,'1 ~'-' ,; ~
TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY _96TH STREET AND WEST ACCESS POINT
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3
AM PEAK PM PEAK
Southbound Approach D C
Eastbound Approach A A
Westbound Approach D C
Intersection C B
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing, Year 20] 1 Projected Traffic V o]umes, and Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed Intersection Geometries and the
Installation of a Traffic Signal '"
'" The proposed intersection conditions are illustrated on Figure 12.
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY _96TH S1REET AND EAST ACCESS POINT
MOVEMENT SCEN ARlO 3
AM PEAK PM PEAK
Southbound Approach C C
Eastbound Left-Turn A A
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing, Year 2011 Projected Traffic Volumes, and Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed Intersection Geometrics*
'" The proposed intersection geometries are illustrated on Figure 12.
22
u
,~.: - ".,-,"'.- L,:j<c.~~~~..;:...- _....~~ _.....'--~1~~-.:.T'>~.if,. _"LJ.=--";""" ~~ _...... _ ~ .. '""" ..-
GERSHMAN-BROWN & .ASSOClATES - PARKWOOD EASf
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffie volume data,. trip generation, assignment
and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have
been prepared for each of the study intersections, and the field review conducted at the site. These
conclusions apply only to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour that were addressed in this
analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the
resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, the remaining 22 hours will have
levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the existing street traffic volumes are less
during the other 22 hours.
1. 96TH STREET AND MERIDIAN SlREET
Existing (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 this
U intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak
Hour.
Year 2011 (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 2011 added to the existing traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and below
acceptable levels of service per the City of Carmel Guidelines during the PM Peak Hour
with the proposed intersection geometries. The proposed geometries are illustrated on
Figure 7.
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development ate added to the existing, Year 2011, and vaeant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate below acceptable levels with the proposed geometries outlined in
the Year 2011 scenario. These proposed geometries are illustrated on Figure 7.
u
23
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES- PARK WOOD EAST
TRAmC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
. , '. 'I, I ~""J, !......" .,,,,-- '"\-J~_.~"".=....: ~':"'-~ -:;......-. -_;_ _ - ~ / .."J ~ jl~. iO
2. 96TH STREET AND COLLEGE AVENUE
Exi~1ing (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 this
intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak
Hour.
Year 201 J (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 2011 added to the existing traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour
with the proposed intersection geometries. The proposed geometries are illustrated on
Figure 8.
u
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and below
acceptable levels of service per the City of Carmel Guidelines during the PM Peak Hour
with the proposed geometries outlined in the Year 20]] scenario. These proposed
geometries are illustrated on Figure 8.
3. REAL ROAD AND WESTFIELD BOULEVARD
Existing (SCenario 1) - A review of the level. of service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes has shown this intersection will operate at
acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour with the planned
intersection improvements. These improvements include the installation of a traffic signal
in the near future.
Year 2011 (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 20] 1 added to the existing traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and below
u
24
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIA'rES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
w
--.'_-_- -r~ -,- :"..,;. ',=" l w. _ - ~ ~ ,~. -, ...... "'Iff' '",-: . .~.: _ = -_ - =-,1: -n' T'r"':"'~ :::.-m: r;
acceptable levels per the City of Carmel Guidelines during the PM Peak Hour with the
planned intersection improvements outlined in the existing scenario.
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels with the proposed intersection geometries and
the planned installation of a traffic signal. The proposed geometries are illustrated on
Figure 9.
4. 1-465 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND MERIDIAN STREET
Existing (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 this
intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak
Hour.
u
Year 2011 (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 2011 added to the existing traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate below acceptable levels per the City of Carmel Guidelines during
the AM Peak Hour and at acceptable levels of service during the PM Peak Hour with the
proposed intersection geometries. The proposed geometries are illustrated on Figure 10.
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 20 II, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate below acceptable levels per the City of Carmel Guidelines during
the AM Peak Hour and at acceptable levels of service during the PM Peak Hour with the
proposed intersection geometries outlined in the Year 2011 scenario. These proposed
geometries are illustrated on Figure 10.
u
25
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES - PARKWOOD EAST
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
u
I ....... . ..... . '" ~'::= r ~ - '1' - "... - _"': -~.... .=--_ -<"':' -=.. _ = ~. ~ -: eo ,- . - * ~ ';- I I'
5. 1-465 WESTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND MERIDIAN SlREET
Existing (Scenario J) - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and eXisting geometries, has shown this
intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak
Hour.
Year 2011 (Scenario 2) - With the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
background traffic through the Year 2011 added to the existing traffic volumes this
intersection will operate below acceptable levels per the City of Carmel Guidelines during
the AM Peak Hour and at acceptable levels of service during the PM Peak Hour with the
existing intersection conditions.
u
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will below acceptable levels per the City of Carmel Guidelines during the AM
Peak Hour and at acceptable levels of service during the PM Peak Hour with the existing
intersection conditions.
6. 96TH SlREET AND WEST ACCESS POINT
Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels with the proposed intersection geometries and
the installation of a traffic signal. The proposed intersection geometries are illustrated on
Figure 11.
u
26
u
[" '.- -.~j."--"""~ * ~";:' '" tv 61~ -. 0 J, _" -.,0 o.er ...-.,,: ~_ ~:: .="" _- so- .....:--=-. -~ ~-~.. "'~
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES- PARK WOOD EASr
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
7. 96TH STREET AND EAST ACCESS POINT
Proposed. Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, Year 2011, and vacant land traffic volumes all
approaches at this intersection will operate at acceptable levels with the proposed
intersection geometries. The proposed intersection geometries are illustrated on Figure n.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that
the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed.
1. 96TH SlREET AND:MERIDIAN SlREET
(') This intersection should be reconstructed to include the geometries illustrated on Figure 7.
These improvements. should be constructed based on future vacant land traffic and are not solely
a result of the proposed development.
2. 96TH SlREET AND COLLEGE AVENUE
u
o This intersection should be reconstructed to include the geometries illustrated on Figure 8.
These improvements should be constructed based on future vacant land traffic and are not solely
a result of the proposed development.
3. REAL ROAD AND WESlFIELD BOULEVARD
(I A traffic signal is planned at this intersection early in the Year 2001. Furthermore, a left-turn
and right-turn lane should be constructed along the eastbound approach as traffic increases due
to the proposed development and surrounding vacant lands. The proposed future improvements
are illustrated on Figure 9.
4. 1-465 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND MERIDIAN SlREET
o Due to the large amount of traffic exiting 1-465 and along Meridian Street, this intersection
might experience delays during the AM Peak Hour. These delays. will occur independently of
the proposed development as traffic increases over time and as traffic is generated from vacant
land development.
o The Indiana Department of Transportation has future plans for the modification of this
interchange. However, before these improvements are made, an eastbound right-turn lane
should be constructed to better serve the eastbound to southbound exiting vehicles. These
improvements are shown on.Figure 10.
u
27
u
u
u
GERSHMAN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES- PARKW{X)D EAST
TRAFFle IMPACT ANALYSlS
'1"....-- ~.>...~,j _or ['",.-_~_J-'. ~><<=. - j".=-;:,_, ",-' . 1-:; ,"-"V.llr I': "'
5. 1-465 WES1BOUND OFF-RAMP .AND MERIDIAN SlREET
. Due to the large amount of traffic exiting 1-465 and along Meridian Street, this intersection
might experience delays during the AM Peak Hour. These delays will occur independently of
the proposed development as traffic increases over time and as trallie is generated from vacant
land development.
o The Indiana Department of Transportation has future plans for the modification of this
interchange. These plans should address the conditions and improvements at this intersection.
6. 96TH SlREET AND WEST ACCESS DRIVE
tit A traffic signal should be installed at this access point.
o The proposed aecess should be constructed with the geometries illustrated on Figure 12.
7. 96TH SlREET AND EAST ACCESS DRIVE
o The proposed access should be constructed to include the geometries illustrated on Figure 12.
28
~
c..;
,~
""-
'"
~
w
~
m
~ ~ . ~ ~ '+ ~
dJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00
96TH STREET t
.:1' ~ 't..
.7 L\& ....
:J'" ;jf -G= ......
~ => Existing Traffic {J' ..c'
V~ Signal ...r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~t t tt~
I-
w
w
a:
I-
(I'J
Z
<C
-
C
-
D::
1.1.1
~
level Of Service legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
~ 0 Existing lane Configuration <C/C)
o
$ 0 Year 2011, Vacant Land & Proposed Development Configuration (0/0)
o
6
o
o
;;
o
o
N
~
N
COllEGE HillS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 7
96TH STREET & MERIDIAN STREET
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRieS
@A & F Engineering Co.. LLC 2000
"All Rignts Reserved"
29
~
l;
<.:>
'"
o
~
~
-;;;
23
o
~
<::>
<::>
o
N
~
N
96TH STREET
.:1"2J
......~
":\.
~Q)
:>:
,?@
'"
o
I
23
I(J ~ '+
~ ~
~
Existing Traffic
Signal
~f>
w~ t ,.
:J
Z
W
>
q(
w
c:J
W
...J
...J
o
(J
t
~...
$+'
level Of Service legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Existing lane Configuration (C/C)
Year 2011, Vacant land & Proposed Development Configuration (C/O)
COLLEGE HillS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 8
96TH STREET & COllEGE A VENUE
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
30
@ ^ & F Engineering Co, LLC 2000
"All Rigtl ts Reserved"
~
C-
'-'
'"
Co
c;
./
ml
REAL ROAD
j
.{
0CD
yCD
::'i
~0
I
c
'Ii
1
~
~
Planned
Traffic
Signal
o
a:
cc
>
W
..I
:)
o
aJ
C
..I
W
-
u.
I-
en
w
~
~ %
~ t
CD
o
Level 'Of Service legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Existing lane Configuration with
Planned Traffic Signal (B/C)
Year 2011, Vacant Lelnd & Proposed Development Configuration with
Planned Traffic Signal (B/C)
o
o
./
o
o
~
./
N
COLLEGE HILLS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 9
REAL ROAD & WESTFIELD BOULEVARD
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
31
@,~ & F Engineering Co., LLC 2000
"All Rights Resorved"
~
@ .. ~
o ~ ~ ~
1-465 .:1';})
EB OFF-RAMP 3';}) ~
3' .;f}
":\- ~ Existing Traffic
+ Signal
C- ~ % it % 0
I-
w t t t t @
W
0::
I-
en
Z
ct
-
a
a::
LLJ
:i:
co
""
co
~
o
/
rn
~0
'"
9@
,,",
o
I
c
level Of Service legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Existing Lane Configuration (CIS)
Year 2011, Vacant Land & Proposed Development Configuration (E/C>
;,:;
a
/
o
o
l'l
/'
N
COllEGE HillS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 10
1-465 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP
& MERIDIAN STREET
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
@A & F Engineering Co,. LLC 2000
"All Rights Reserved"
32
~
o ~~~~
CD ~~~~
r.gJ
lQj
Existing Traffic
Signal
c ~ ~ ~
l- t t t
w
1.1.1
a::
I-
(J)
Z
~
-
0
a::
w
~
~
co
C
o
/
'"
~CD
'"
~0
'"
o
,
o
o
o
/
o
o
~
/
N
Existing Lane Configuration (CIS)
1
~
~t
~"t..
~.
c.&'
c+
1~465
we OFF~RAMP
00
o
o
level Of Service legend
(AM Peak/PM Peak)
Year 2011, Vacant land & Proposed Development Configuration (D/C)
COLLEGE HillS
GERSHMAN~BROWN
& ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 11
1~465 WESTBOUND OFF~RAMP
& MERIDIAN STREET
INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
@A & r Engineering Ca., LLC 2000
"All Rights Res.rv<~d"
33
l.
L>
'"
Cl
cO
~
/'
m
~-~-~
h.:
Cl)
~.
(Q
Q)
WESTFIELD RD
CORNELL ST
'"
3'
I-..:
CI)
@
B
~
5
I
I
D
D
o
/'
o
o
~
/
N
COLLEGE HillS
GERSHMAN-BROWN
& ASSOCrA TES
fl
EAST ACCESS { ,: ·
DRIVE I
,.
,.
EXIS1ING DRIVE
0"
~/~ WEST ACCESS
,l!:! DRIVE
;g
'\f
..J...
h.:
Cf)
~
(Q
Q)
f-.,.
~
Q
~
34
~' ~
,.
-..
h.:
CJ)
~
(Q
Q)
, I
..' ~
I I
I
I I
'" r
~ ..
'" ..
"" ,.
COLLEGE AVE
I "I"
II II
FIGURE 12
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
GEOMETRies
@.~ & ~ Engineering Co., LLC 2000
All Rights Reserved" ,
u
.W
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
OF
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
u
BY
A&F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
PARKWOOD EAST
CARrv1EL, INDIANA
Prepared for:
GERSIDv1AN BROWN & ASSOCIATES
. Prepared by:
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
4165 Millersville Road
Indianapolis, IN 46205-2998
Telephone: 317/547-5580
Facsimile: 317/543-0270
March 5, 2001
u
u
u
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
OF
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
BY
A&F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
PARKWOODEAST
CARMEL, INDIANA
Prepared for:
GERSHMAN BRO\VN & ASSOCIATES
Prepared by:
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
4165 Millersville Road
Indianapolis, IN 46205-2998
Telephone: 317/547-5580
Facsimile: 317/543-0270
I certify that this review of the TRAFFIC IMP ACT STUDY has been prepared by me or under
my immediate supervision, and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and
~~
Clinton L. Sparks, E
1\11\' II" lilt
\" L 111/
........,...' ~ \J~....' S"o 11",,,,..-
.2.... ,,~~~t:.I<; T[Rio.-:1~ ~
[(y No.~%
:: '* · 16531 *' =
-=---0. 'Q:~
-;:. ~. STAlE Of ..'. - -
~'b ' _ - ~~
-;....~.l~DI~ll!'.~~ .....:::
'->)J!;IONAL t.~"...",
1//Ii'''ll\\\\'
March 5, 2001
q:\~lI1p\(-I<\() I OI.'\6-001.doc
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
u
I. INTRODUCTION
Gershman Brown & Associates and Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation are proposing an
office development located on 96th Street east of College Avenue in Carmel, Indiana.
A&F Engineering Co., LLC was retained by Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation to complete
a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project. Due to the complexities of the traffic
in the immediate area, American Consulting, Inc., was then retained by Gershman Brown
& Associates to review and comment on the accuracy and validity of the Traffic Impact
Analysis.
The purposes of this study are:
1. to examine the methodologies and assumptions utilized In the Traffic Impact
Analysis;
2. to evaluate the capacity analysis computations;
u
3. to examine the findings and suggested improvements; and
4. to review the recommendations for improvements to the roadway system or traffic
signal system to ensure that the roadways will accommodate the additional traffic
volumes safely and efficiently.
u
3
q:\empldsIOIOI )6.0()I.dl1~
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
u
II. STUDY AREA
The study area for the Traffic Impact Analysis is the same approximate area utilized in
recently completed studies and should be adequate to examine the traffic impacts to the
surrounding area. The area studied included the following intersections:
III 96th Street and Meridian Street (US 31)
o 96th Street and College Avenue
h .
iii Real Road (ge Street) and Westfield Boulevard
o 1-465 Eastbound off-ramp and Meridian Street (US 31)
" I -465 Westbound off-ramp and Meridian Street (US 31)
III Proposed Access Points on 96th Street at the development
u
This study area will reflect the impact in the immediate area of the development, illustrate
the cumulative impacts of this project, and be comparable to the previous studies.
Previous studies in the immediate area include:
II 96th Street Corridor Study prepared by Parson Brinckerhoff for the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Planning organization completed in December 1999.
1Il Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Parkwood West development by A&F
Engineering Co., LLC.
u
4
q:\~mr\el~\() II) 1.1(,.()(J I .dDC
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
u
III. TRAFFIC DATA
The 24-hour machine traffic counts and the manual turning movement traffic counts
completed in November of 2000 should be accurate and illustrate the current traffic
operations. These counts, when compared to the counts in the Parsons Brinckerhoff
study, reflect the same magnitude of the volumes. The total morning and evening peak:
hour entering volumes of the common intersections reflects the accuracy of the counts
within the daily and seasonal variations in traffic volumes. The source and date of the
Parsons Brinckerhoff study volumes is unknown, but the counts do reflect the same
general traffic conditions.
A. 10- YEAR PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
u
The use, by A&F Engineering Co., LLC, of the 96th Street Corridor Study is
appropriate for the projected traffic for the future. The use of these forecasted
volumes provides consistency in evaluating the impacts of the proposed
development. Previously approved developments within the study area have been
included in the future traffic. The Parsons Brinckerhoff study provides for the
future traffic generated on the vacant lands in the 96th Street corridor. This
provides the maximum generated volumes and illustrates the "worst case"
scenarIO. Alternate use of existing parcels, similar to this proposed development,
is one possibility of further increases in traffic volumes. Additional traffic from
outside the study area could also increase these volumes, but this is unpredictable
and not within the scope of any traffic impact analysis.
8. TRIP GENERA TION
The estimated traffic generated by the proposed development is provided from the
source of the Trip Generation report from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers. The correct lanel use code and variable is utilized in this study and
follows good engineering practices.
u
The proposed development as an office building is not condUCive to reductIon of
the generated trips for internal trips and pass-by trips. Internal trips occur
5
q:\t:fl1p\do\O 10136.00 l.lIoe
AMERICAN CONSULTINGl INC.
u
generally in mixed-use developments where more than one trip can be combined
on the site. Pass-by trips are examples of a generated trip being diverted out of
the existing stream of traffic into and out of the site. Neither of these types of
trips should exist with this proposed development and no reduction has been made
in the traffic impact analysis.
The generated trips could be adjusted for the trips generated to and from this land
with the current land use. The existing residential properties contribute traffic
volumes during the peak periods in the study and are not removed from these
volumes. These trips are probably not in the critical directions with the newly
generated trips and, therefore, would not affect the results of this analysis.
c.
TRIP ASSIGNMfENT
u
Traffic generated by the proposed development has to be assigned to the major
roadways Within the study area. A logical movement for the traffic arriving and
departing the site is the basis for the distribution and assignment of the trips. The
assignment of the traffic volumes provides the basis for the capacity analysis and
improvement recommendations.
u
American Consulting, Inc., conducted a traffic survey for the purpose of
determining the arrival and departure of the existing traffic to the roadway system.
The survey requested the travel patterns to and from work from the employees of
the businesses that occupy the Six Parkwood building. The specific routes were
then compiled into the turning movements at the various intersections in the study
area and the directional assignment and distribution were derived from the survey.
This building is the building in Parkwood Crossing located at the northwest
comer of 96th Street and College Avenue. This building is the closest to the
proposed development and would best define the possible routes that the future
employees may utilize for the proposed development. The results of the survey
indicate a slightly larger percentage of persons using College A venue than was
assumed in the traffic impact analysis.
6
q:\crnp\c1~\O I 0 136-00] .uoc
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
u
IV. CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The selection of the three scenarios for examination in the study is appropriate for a
traffic impact analysis. Examining the current conditions provides a baseline to judge
and analyze the situation as it exists today without the added development The second
scenario illustrates the conditions that may exist in. the target year without this
development. The third scenario illustrates the conditions that may exist in the target year
with the proposed development. The last two scenarios include the assumptions of
increases to the traffic by the Parsons Brinckerhoff corridor study with the development
of the vacant lands along the corridor and other previously approved developments in the
area.
u
American Consulting, Inc., completed independent capacity analysis for some of the
critical intersections at the critical time periods. These analyses were conducted using the
volumes as determined by the traffic impact analysis for consistency. The assumption of
improvements made at the critical intersections as agreed to by other developments were
used in the analysis and are necessary for the results to be valid.
The computer program Signal2000, part of the TEAP AC (Traffic Engineering
Application PACkage) package, was used for the capacity analysis. This program
performs capacity analysis, signal timing optimization, queuing lengths, and design of
intersection geometries utilizing methodology documented in the HeM from TRR The
TEA PAC program was then used to examine the intersection with the signal timings
optimized with and without the added generated traffic.
The capacity analyses were comparable to the results found in the traffic impact analysis
within the accuracy of the methodologies used in the Highway Capacity Manua1.
u
Additionally, American Consulting, Inc., examined the intersection of 106th Street and
College A venue to determine the impacts to that intersection. This intersection is
scheduled for a major reconstruction by the Hamilton County Highway Department in the
year 2004. The additional traffic added to the design year volumes have no affect upon
the design of the planned improvements.
7
q:\cmp\d,\O I [) I 36-()() 1.L1De
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
u
v. FINDINGS
A. 96th Street and Meridian Street
This intersection operates at an acceptable level of servICE except for the
eastbound movement during the PM peak period. The ea;;;tbound movement
operates at a level of service "E" during this period. This low level of service
occurs only during the PM peak and is not attributable to the proposed
development.
B.
96th Street and College Avenue
This intersection with the study's proposed improvements operates at an
acceptable level of service during the peak periods. The analysis for the scenario
No.3 assumes improvements be made at the intersection, including an additional
right-turn lane in an directions. Acquisition of the required right-of-way needs to
be pursued, and these improvements should be constructed.
u
c.
Real Road and Westfield Boulevard
This intersection with the study's proposed improvements operates at an
acceptable level of service during the peak period. The installation of the traffic
signal is programmed to be completed by the Indianapolis Department of Capital
Asset Management. The addition of the eastbound right-turn lane will provide for
an acceptable level of service.
D.
1-465 Off-Ramps and Meridian Street (US 31)
u
These intersections do not operate with an acceptable level of service during the
peak periods in the future scenarios. The projected volume utilizing the US 31
corridor illustrates the anticipated growth in the area. The Indiana Department of
Transportation is currently completing studies to address the future needs of the
US 31 corridor and the intersecting ramps. Delays are excessive during isolated
time periods and are not necessarily attributable to any individual development.
The other anticipated improvements in the study area committed to by other
8
q:\emp\cls\O I () I J6-001.doc
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
u
developments will increase capacity and decrease delays through the area in the
interim period prior to the INDOT improvements.
E. 96th Street and West Access Point
This intersection was analyzed with the addition of a proposed traffic signal.
With the addition of the traffic signal, the intersection operates at an acceptable
level of service. Installation of the traffic signal should be when the development
is occupied to a level creating the volumes to warrant a traffic signal. At that
time, travel patterns will have been established and the volumes will be factual
instead of projected numbers.
F.
96th Street Corridor adjacent to the site
The 96th Street corridor adjacent to the proposed site should be improved to
include a right-turn lane and a 2-way, left-turn lane for the length of the frontage
of the site. This will provide for a left-turn lane not only into the development,
but will also provide for the turning vehicles to the properties on the south side of
961h Street. This will improve the level of service for the corridor.
'U
..
u
9
q'\~mp\cls\O I 0 J 36.00 I doc
u
u
u
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
This development directly impacts the intersections of 96th Street and College A venue
and Real Road and Westfield Boulevard. The proposed improvements listed in the
traffic impact study would improve these intersections to an acceptable level of service.
At 96th Street and College Avenue, the addition of a right-turn lane for all directions
provides for an efficient operating intersection. The acquisition of right-of-way could
limit the ability to provide all these improvements.
At Real Road and Westfield Boulevard, the addition of the second lane for the west
approach increases the capacity of the intersection. The traffic signal should be installed
and the additional lane constmcted in conjunction with the signal construction.
To a lesser degree, this development impacts the 96th Street and Meridian Street and the
intersecting ramps from 1-465 and Meridian Street.
The 96th Street and Meridian Street intersection has a definite need for improvement.
'With the anticipated other developments in the area, the intersection should be improved
to provide the capacity needed for the 96th Street approaches and adequate turning lanes
from Meridian Street, The timing of the various developments will dictate the staging of
the improvements to this intersection. The projected traffic volumes should be verified
before extensive improvements are made to this intersection. The Indiana Department of
Transportation's study of the US 31 corr~dor wil1likcly impact this intersection and future
improvements. The INDOT interchange improvements and right-of-way could be a
limiting factor for the added improvements.
10
q:\cmplclsIO 10 I :16-0U I,doc
AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC.
u
VII. CONCLUSION
This review of the Traffic Impact Analysis by A&F Engineering Co., LLC examined the
assumptions and methodologies of the study. American Consulting, Inc., concurs with
the findings and recommendations of the analysis and all aspects of the analysis were
completed with the best information available at the time. The dynamics of development
in the study area dictates that the improvements are carefully staged to best serve the
public and the proposed developments. The proposed development will affect the traffic
in the immediate area of the development but, with the proper planning and coordination
of the improvements, the traveling public can be served with the improved roadway
system.
u
w
1 l
q\~lllr\ds\{) I 0 I :"\6.00 I.doc
(J
t )
~
I
5 1
'"
I
l
1---
""'/ ~l g
I J
I ~!
-:.
I m
\ V\
---"<
"
!: Iffi
.r.
\~ I
1:')
~
i
.~
\ )