HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommercial Development 146th St & US 31Commercial Development of the Southeast Corner of
146 Street and U.S. 431
Key Issues for Discussion
US 31 Overlay (Office vs. Retail)
The evolution of the intersection of 146 Street, Grayhound Pass and 151 Street wi
31 makes the likelihood of Office Development at this intersection highly unlikely given
the abundance of better office sites south of the future 146 Street intersection.
The developer has agreed to design all buildings with a similar office architectural style
that simulates a corporate headquarters building not unlike Conseco's campus.
Traffic Issues
The developer has agreed to assemble, purchase and donate all the right -of -way
necessary to fully construct the east side of the new 146 Street intersection with US
431/31 at a cost in excess of $1.5 Million Dollars.
The developer has commissioned a complete traffic study by A &F Engineering that
addresses all traffic issues related to this proposed development and all potential future
development in the area.
The Indiana Department of Transportation has reviewed and given its blessing for the
developer to proceed with the design of its proposed development.
Real Estate Tax Issues
If this property is not allowed to be developed, the Indiana Department of Transportation
would ultimately have to condemn the property and it would be removed from the Carmel
tax roles.
Table of Contents
Aerials 1
Site Plan 2
Traffic Study 3
InDOT Letter. 4
US 31 Overlay Ordinance 5
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
146TH STREET U.S. 311S.R. 431
PREPARED FOR
KITE DEVELOPMENT
SEPTEMBER 1998
PREPARED BY:
A F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5172 EAST 65' STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220
PH 317 842 -0864
FAX 317 849 -6816
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
COPYRIGHT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
This Analysis and the ideas, designs and concepts contained herein are the
exclusive intellectual property of A &F Engineering Co., Inc. and are not
to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent
of A &F Engineering Co., Inc.
KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES III
CERTIFICATION IV
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE 1
SCOPE OF WORK 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 3
STUDY AREA 3
DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS 4
TABLE 1 VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM 6
TRAFFIC DATA 6
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7
TABLE 2 GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VAC.ANT LANDS 8
INTERNAL TRIPS 8
PASS -BY TRIPS 8
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 9
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS 9
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM 12
VACANT LAND AND YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM 12
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 16
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE 16
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS 18
TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS 21
TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 22
TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 23
TABLE 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -STATE ROAD 431 AND 136TH STREET 23
TABLE 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146TH STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD 24
TABLE 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146TH STREET AND C.AREY ROAD 25
TABLE 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD 26
TABLE 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION 27
TURN LANE DESIGN FOR ACCESS POINTS 27
TABLE 11 ACCESS POINT QUEUING ANALYSIS 27
WEAVING ANALYSIS 27
ALTERNATE RA. \tP INTERSECTION DESIGN 28
TABLE 12 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED U.S. 31/S.R. 431 RAMP INTERSECTION 27
CONCLUSIONS 29
RECOMMENDATIONS 34
TABLE 13 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 35
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLE 14 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 35
TABLE 15 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 RAMP INTERSECTION 36
TABLE 16 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS PROPOSED U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION 36
TABLE 17 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION 37
SUMMARY 38
II
KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF PROPOSED SITE 5
FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2A) 10
FIGURE 3: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2B) 11
FIGURE 4: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (SCENARIO 2A) 13
FIGURE 5: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (SCENARIO 2B) 14
FIGURE 6: SUM OF EXISTING, VACANT LAND AND YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 15
FIGURE 7: SUM OF EXISTING, VACANT LAND, YEAR 2020 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2A) 19
FIGURE 8: SUM OF EXISTING, VACANT LAND, YEAR 2020 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2B) 20
FIGURE 9: APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ACCESS POINT RAMP INTERSECTION 39
III
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
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
engineering.
A &F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
Steven J. Fehribach, P.E.
Indiana Registration 890237
R. Matt Brown, E.I.T.
Transportation Engineer
CERTIFICATION
I j F E HR�
'c, No.
i
890237 j
O� STATE OF ;A CV
"II N Ai 0
IV
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Kite Development is for a proposed
retail development that is to be located just south of 146` Street near State Road 431 and U.S. 31 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 and a
proposed interchange. 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.
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 obtain existing and/or projected traffic volume counts at the following intersections:
U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass
Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street
Proposed West Ramp and 146 Street
State Road 431 and 136 Street
146 Street and Oak Ridge Road
1
KrrE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
146 Street and Carey Road
146` and Gray Road
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated for each of the following:
Vacant Lands These are traffic volumes created by the surrounding vacant lands assuming
full build out for each parcel.
Proposed Development This is the development as proposed by Kite Development.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will provide
access to each of the individual parcels that have previously been identified to be included in this
analysis.
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from each parcel 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
intersections included in the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Conditions Based on existing roadway conditions and existing
traffic volumes plus annual growth traffic volumes plus vacant land traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2A: Proposed Development (Partial Interchange)- Based on the volumes used in
Scenario 1 plus the volumes generated by the proposed development. This
scenario only considers partial completion of the proposed U.S. 31/146`
Street interchange (includes U.S. 31 northbound off -ramp, S.R. 431
northbound off -ramp, and northbound U.S. 31 on -ramp only).
SCENARIO 2B: Proposed Development (Complete Interchange)- Based on the volumes used
in Scenario 1 plus the volumes generated by the proposed development.
This scenario assumes total completion of the proposed U.S. 31/146` Street
interchange (includes southbound U.S. 31 off -ramp, southbound U.S. 31 on-
ramp, southbound S.R. 431 on -ramp, and the ramps included in Scenario
2A).
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Sixth, to prepare a weaving analysis and a queuing analysis based on the projected volumes for
the proposed State Road 431 and U.S. 31 ramps.
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.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed residential development is to be located along U.S. 31 and State Road 431 at the
proposed 146 Street interchange in Carmel, Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of
a 115,000 square foot home improvement store and a 63,000 square foot supermarket. Figure 1 is
an area map and conceptual plan of the proposed development including the proposed access point.
STUDY AREA
The study area as defined by the Carmel Department of Community Services for this analysis will
include the following intersections:
U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass
Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street
Proposed West Ramp and 146 Street
State Road 431 and 136 Street
146 Street and Oak Ridge Road
146 Street and Carey Road
146 and Gray Road
Proposed Development Access Point
3
VACANT PARCEL
DESCRIPTION
RECOMMENDED
LAND USE
VACANT
AREA
Danbury Estates Subdivision
Single Family
10 Lots
Foster Estates Subdivision
Single Family
185 Lots
Worthington Estates Subdivision
Single Family
23 Lots
Smokey Ridge Subdivision
Single Family
43 Lots
Autumn Lake Subdivision
Single Family
24 Lots
Village of Mount Carmel Subdivision
Single Family
56 Lots
Westfield Parcels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146" STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
1.
TABLE 1 VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE
4
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS
The recommended individual parcel land uses and vacant area for each parcel are listed in Table
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes 146
Street, U.S. 31 and State Road 431.
146 STREET is an east -west, two -lane collector street that runs from Willow Road to Cumberland
Road. This roadway services many residential neighborhoods throughout Carmel and the north side
of Indianapolis and will be reconstructed as a four -lane facility from Spring Mill Road to State Road
37 in 1999.
U.S. 31 is a north south, four -lane divided highway that runs the entire length of Indiana and
serves as a major arterial to several mid -size cities throughout the state.
STATE ROAD 431 is a north south, four -lane divided state road that runs from I -465 to U.S. 31.
This roadway serves as a major connection between the northern suburbs and central Indianapolis
U.S. 31 Greyhound Pass This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal. The
northbound approach of this intersection consists of an exclusive left -turn lane, an exclusive
right -turn lane and three through lanes. The southbound approach consists of an exclusive right
—turn lane, two exclusive left -turn lanes and three through lanes. The westbound approach to
this intersection consists of two exclusive left -turn lanes and one shared through/right -turn lane.
Finally, the eastbound approach consists of an exclusive left -turn lane, an exclusive right -turn
lane, and one though lane.
State Road 431 136 Street This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal.
The northbound and southbound approaches consist of an exclusive left -turn lane, two through
lanes and an exclusive right -turn lane that is controlled by a yield sign. The eastbound and
westbound approaches consist of an exclusive left -turn lane, an exclusive right -turn lane, and a
single through lane.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour turning movement traffic volume data were taken from the following four sources.
1997 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by A &F Engineering for the City of Carmel'.
This analysis provided AM and PM peak hour traffic counts for 1993 existing conditions as well
as expected, 1996 generated traffic from vacant parcels that are in the proximity of the proposed
site.
6
LAND USE
ITE
CODE
SIZE
AM
ENTER
AM
EXIT
PM
ENTER
PM
EXIT
Retail
862
115,000 SF
92
78
155
175
Retail
850
63,000 SF
166
106
341
328
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
TABLE 2 GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
7
GENERATED TRIPS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
146` Street Corridor Study that was conducted in 1997 by A &F Engineering Co., Inc.
This corridor study provided year 1997 and 2020, AM and PM peak hour data for several of the
study intersections that are to be analyzed in this report. These data were used to develop the
existing and year 2020 volumes that were analyzed in this study.
U.S. 31 Corridor Study that was conducted in 1997 by Bernardin, Lochmueller and Associates,
Inc. This corridor study provided year projected 2020, AM and PM peak hour data the
proposed freeway ramps that are to be analyzed in this report.
Manually collected peak hour turning data for the intersection of U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass
These AM and PM peak hour counts were collected in August, 1998, and were projected into
2008 counts at a growth rate of three percent. These calculated 2008 volumes were then
increased by a growth rate of one percent to determine year 2020 data.
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 of the land use. Trip Generation report was used to calculate
the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a
compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout
the United States in order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses.
Table 2 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
i Traffic Impact Fee Analysis, A &F Engineering Co. Inc., June 1993, Revised 1997.
2 146 Street Corridor Study, A &F Engineering Co. Inc., December 1997.
3 U.S. 31 Corridor Study, Bernardin, Lochmueller and Associates Inc., March 1997.
4 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997.
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
TRAFFIC LMPACT ANALYSIS
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT LANDS
Traffic volumes were to be generated for the following vacant lands as requested by the Carmel
Department of Community Services.
Danbury Estates Subdivision 10 Vacant Lots
Foster Estates Subdivision 185 Vacant Lots
Worthington Estates Subdivision 23 Vacant Lots
Smokey Ridge Subdivision 43 Vacant Lots
Autumn Lake Subdivision 24 Vacant Lots
Village of Mount Carmel Subdivision 56 Vacant Lots
Westfield Parcels
Traffic volumes were generated for these, and several other vacant lands in the previously
mentioned Carmel Traffic Impact Analysis and in the 146 Street Corridor Study. This traffic
generation was performed assuming all vacant lands to be at full build out. Therefore, the vacant
land generated traffic used in these previous studies can be applied to this analysis.
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without using the roadway
system. Any internal trips occurring within the proposed development are included in the trip
generation. Therefore, no reductions will be applied for internal trips.
PASS -BY TRIPS
Pass -by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use.
Transportation and Land Development report was used to estimate the reduction in trips for the
proposed hardware store and supermarket to be approximately 8 percent and 28 percent
respectively. These trip reductions will be applied to the study intersections. However, 100
percent of the generated trips will be applied to the driveway of the proposed development.
S Transportation and Land Development, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1988.
8
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
The Department of Community Services has prepared the estimate of the annual growth rate for
background traffic that will be generated on the street system included in the study area. The annual
growth rate of background traffic to be used for this analysis is three percent for all streets up to the
year 2008. However, a growth rate of one percent was used in this analysis from 2008 to 2020.
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. The traffic volume data presented in the Carmel
Traffic Impact Analysis, 146` Street Corridor Study, U.S. 31 Corridor Study, and manually
collected turning movement counts were used to assign traffic to and from the proposed
site, the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site.
2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public 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 and Figure 3. The former represents partial completion of the proposed U.S.
31/146` Street interchange. The latter represents total completion of the interchange.
9
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
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 study area intersections and the proposed access point. The Peak Hour generated
traffic volumes for scenarios 2A and 2B are shown on Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. These
data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and
distribution of generated traffic.
VACANT LAND AND YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADDED TO THE
STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the vacant land developments have been
prepared for the study area intersections. Also, in order to evaluate the future impact of this
development on the public roadway system, the existing traffic volumes were projected forward to
the design year of 2020. The vacant land volumes, as well as the design year volumes are based on
the previously discussed Carmel Traffic Impact Analysis, 146 Street Corridor Study, U.S. 31
Corridor Study, and manually collected turning movement counts. The vacant land volumes and
2020 volumes have been combined at each of the study intersections. These aggregated volumes
are shown on Figure 6.
12
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. The "efficiency" of an intersection is designated by the Level -of-
Service (LOS) of the intersection. 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 (HCM)
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections:
Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per
vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop
than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Level of Service A describes operations with a very low delay, less than 5.0 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 C describes operation with delay in the range of 15.1 seconds to 25.0
seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from failed
progression. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
6 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Special Report
209, 1985.
16
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 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.
Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 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 60.0 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 Average Delay (seconds /vehicle)
A Less than or equal to 5
B Between 5.1 and 10
C Between 10.1 and 20
D Between 20.1 and 30
E Between 30.1 and 45
F greater than 45
17
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 Th STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
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 form 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 Department of Community Services have requested that an analysis be made for the AM
Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour for each of the study intersections for each of the following
scenarios:
SCENARIO 1
Existing Traffic Volumes Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes Year
2020 Traffic Volumes Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the
study intersections for the peak hours.
SCENARIO 2A: Existing Traffic Volumes Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes Year
2020 Traffic Volumes Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 7 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections
for the peak hours. Analyzed with completion of U.S. 31 and S.R. 431
northbound off -ramps and the northbound U.S. 31 on -ramp.
SCENARIO 2B: Existing Traffic Volumes Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes Year
2020 Traffic Volumes Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 8 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections
for the peak hours. Analyzed with completion of U.S. 31 and S.R. 431
southbound on- ramps, southbound U.S. 31 off -ramp, and the ramps included
in Scenario 2A).
18
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
B
B
Southbound Approach
D
D
D
Eastbound Approach
E
E
E
Westbound Approach
Intersection
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
Southbound Approach
C
D
D
Eastbound Approach
C
C
C
Westbound Approach
Intersection
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
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 3 U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass
Table 4 Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street
Table S Proposed West Ramp and 146 Street
Table 6 State Road 431 and 136 Street
Table 7 146 Street and Oak Ridge Road
Table 8 146 Street and Carey Road
Table 9 146 and Gray Road
Table 10 Proposed Development Access Point
SCENARIO 1:
SCENARIO 2A:
TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing
Conditions.
Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps,
Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Existing Intersection Conditions.
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31
21
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
B
Southbound Approach
B
B
Eastbound Approach
B
B
Westbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
B
B
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
C
C
Southbound Approach
D
E
Eastbound Approach
D
D
Westbound Approach
D
D
Intersection
D
D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Existing
Intersection Conditions.
The intersection operates below acceptable levels.
TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146 STREET
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31
Southbound Off -Ramp, and the ramps included in Scenario 2A.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 Northbound Off -Ramp, S.R. 431 Northbound
Off -Ramp, and Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp.
22
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
C
C
C
Southbound Approach
C
C
C
Eastbound Approach
D
D
D
Westbound Approach
D
D
Intersection
C
C
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
D
C
C
Southbound Approach
E
D
D
Eastbound Approach
C
B
B
Westbound Approach
F
D
D
Intersection
E
D
D
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
Southbound Approach
B
Eastbound Approach
B
Westbound Approach
B
Intersection
B
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
Southbound Approach
B
Eastbound Approach
B
Westbound Approach
B
Intersection
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREETAND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31
Southbound Off-Ramp, and the ramps included in Scenario 2A.
TABLE 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -STATE ROAD 431 AND 136 STREET
AM PEAK HOUR_
PM PEAK HOUR
23
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
B
Southbound Approach
B
B
Eastbound Approach
B
B
Westbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
B
B
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
B
Southbound Approach
C
C
Eastbound Approach
B
B
Westbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
B
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT -146' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCENARIO 1: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing
Conditions.
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps,
Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics.
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31
Southbound Of Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed
Intersection Geometrics.
The intersection operates below acceptable levels.
TABLE 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146' STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 1: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing
Conditions.
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps,
Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics.
SCENARIO 23: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31
24
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
B
B
Southbound Approach
B
B
B
Eastbound Approach
B
B
Westbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
B
B
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
B
C
C
Southbound Approach
B
C
C
Eastbound Approach
B
B
Westbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
B
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
The intersection operates below acceptable levels.
TABLE 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
The intersection operates below acceptable levels.
25
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed
Intersection Geometrics.
SCENARIO 1: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing
Conditions.
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps,
Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics.
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31
Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed
Intersection Geometrics.
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
C
C
Southbound Approach
C
C
Eastbound Approach
B
B
Westbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
C
C
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2A
SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach
C
C
Southbound Approach
C
C
Eastbound Approach
C
C
Westbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
C
C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Kni DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
SCENARIO 1:
SCENARIO 2A:
TABLE 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PM PEAK HOUR
Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing
Conditions.
Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Of Ramps,
Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics.
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31
Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed
Intersection Geometrics.
The intersection operates below acceptable levels.
26
MOVEMENT
AM PEAK
PM PEAK
Northbound Approach
A
B
Southbound Approach
B
B
Eastbound Approach
B
C
Intersection
B
B
MOVEMENT
QUEUE LENGTH
Northbound Left -Turn
86 feet
Southbound Right -Turn
49 feet
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KrrE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TABLE 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION
Note: Results in Table 10 represent Scenario 2A and 2B
TABLE 11 ACCESS POINT QUEUING ANALYSIS
27
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TURN LANE DESIGN FOR ACCESS POINTS
Based on the generated traffic volumes and the assignment and distribution of generated traffic, the
left-turn lanes and right -turn lanes have been designed for the developments northern access point.
The northbound left -turn lane and the southbound right -turn lane should be developed with 150 foot
tapers to provide safe entrance conditions. A queuing analysis was carried out for both turn lanes in
order to determine the expected length of the northbound and southbound queue at the access point.
Table 11 summarizes the results of this queuing analysis. The access point turn lanes should be
developed to accommodate these expected queue lengths.
WEAVING ANALYSIS
According to the Highway Capacity Manual, weaving areas are defined as the crossing of at least
two traffic streams without the aid of traffic control devices. A weaving area exists in the
roadway section that is located between the U.S. 31 and State Road 431 ramp merge point and
the proposed access point northbound left -turn lane. Therefore, a weaving analysis was
conducted according to the methods detailed in the Highway Capacity Manual. This analysis
uses information pertaining to the weaving section geometrics and traffic volumes to determine
MOVEMENT
AM PEAK
PM PEAK
Northbound Approach
B
B
Eastbound Approach
B
B
Intersection
B
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
an associated level -of- service. Highway Capacity Software was used to perform a weaving
analysis for the previously defined weaving section. The results of this analysis show that a
minimum distance of 775 feet needs to be maintained between the ramp merge point and the left
turn lane in order to provide a safe and efficient weave section which operates at an acceptable
level -of- service.
ALTERNATE RAMP INTERSECTION DESIGN
An investigation of the proposed plans has shown that the minimum required distance of 775 feet
cannot be achieved. Therefore, the alternative method of joining the two ramps as a signalized
intersection was examined. Both ramps are one way roadways, therefore, the proposed
intersection will effectively operate as a form of ramp metering. Ramp metering uses a traffic
control device to control the entrance of ramp vehicles to an adjacent roadway. This technique is
most often used to reduce the amount of turbulence that is created by the merging of two or more
roadways. Therefore, the associated benefits of ramp metering include reduced congestion at the
ramp merge point, and an increase in the level -of- service and safety along the roadway. An
intersection capacity analysis and level -of- service analysis was conducted for this two -way ramp
intersection. The resulting computer solutions are located in Appendix A and Table 12 is a
summary of these results.
TABLE 12 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 RAMP INTERSECTION
2 s
KrrE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment
and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have
been prepared for each of the study intersections, and the field review conducted at the site. These
conclusions apply only to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour that were addressed in this
analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the
resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed the
remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the existing
street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours.
1. U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS
Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with the
existing geometrics has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels
during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes
from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic
volumes, the intersection continues to operate below acceptable levels during the AM
Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant
land traffic volumes, the intersection continues to operate below acceptable levels during
the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
2. PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146' STREET
Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes
from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic
29
KrrE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 311S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and
PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant
land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour.
3. PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET
Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes
from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic
volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and
PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant
land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour.
4. STATE ROAD 431 AND 130 STREET
Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with existing
geometrics, has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels during
the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes
from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic
volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and
30
KrrE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, City of
Carmel, Traffic Impact Analysis are implemented.
Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant
land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the
1997, City of Carmel, Traffic Impact Analysis are implemented.
5. 146 STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD
Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with the
existing geometrics, has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels
during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes
from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic
volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and
PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997,
Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented.
Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant
land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the
1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented.
31
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
6. 146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD
Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with existing
geometrics, has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels during
the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes
from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic
volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and
PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997,
Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented.
Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant
land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the
1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented.
7. 146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD
Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with existing
geometrics, has shown this intersection is operating below acceptable levels during the
AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour.
Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes
from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic
volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and
PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997,
Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented.
32
KrrE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant
land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the
1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented.
8. PROPOSED U.S. 31 AND STATE ROAD 431 RAMP INTERSECTION
Proposed Development (Scenario 2A 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
proposed signalized intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour.
9. PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION
Proposed Development (Scenario 2A 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed
development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, this
proposed signalized intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour.
ACCESS POINTS
A queuing analysis for the northern access point has determined that there is sufficient
distance between this access and 146 Street to accommodate southbound queuing vehicles.
This queuing analysis also showed that sufficient distance exists between this access point
and the intersection of the U.S 31 /S.R 431 off -ramps to accommodate northbound traffic.
To increase safety and efficiency at this access point, left -turn lanes and right -turn lanes
should be constructed on the approaches to the access point as identified in Table 11.
Finally, a right in right out southern access point should be developed so that traffic volumes
and the resulting signal green time can be reduced at the northern access point.
33
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431
PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146 STREET
This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane
requirements.
34
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to insure that
the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed.
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
The following intersections will operate at or above acceptable levels -of- service for both proposed
development scenarios. In order to achieve these results, the intersection improvements
recommended in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study should be implemented.
146 Street and Oak Ridge Road
146 Street and Carey Road
146 Street and Gray Road
The following intersection will operate at or above acceptable levels -of- service for both proposed
development scenarios. In order to achieve these results, the intersection improvements
recommended in the 1997, City of Carmel, Traffic Impact Analysis should be implemented.
State Road 431 and 136 Street
The following proposed intersections will intersections operate at or above acceptable levels -of-
service when the proposed development traffic is added to the vacant land and year 2020 traffic.
Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street
Proposed West Ramp and 146 Street
Proposed U.S. 31 Off -Ramp and State Road 431 Off -Ramp Intersection
Proposed East Ramp and Access Point Intersection
KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 13 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 140 STREET
MOVEMENT
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
REQUIRED LANES
2 Left-Turn Lanes
1 Through Lane
2 Right -Turn Lanes
1 Left -Turn Lane
1 Through Lane
1 Right -Turn Lane
1 Left -Turn Lane
2 Through Lanes
1 Right -Turn Lane
1 Left -Turn Lane
2 Through Lanes
1 Right -Turn Lane
Note: All lanes should be 12 foot (12') wide
PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 140 STREET
This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane
requirements.
TABLE 14 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET
MOVEMENT
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
REQUIRED LANES
1 Left -Turn Lane
1 Through Lane
1 Right -Tum Lane
2 Left-Turn Lanes
1 Through Lane
1 Right -Tum Lane
1 Left -Tum Lane
2 Through Lanes
1 Right -Turn Lane
2 Left -Turn Lanes
2 Through Lanes
1 Right -Turn Lane
Note: All lanes should he 12 foot (12) wide
35
MOVEMENT
REQUIRED LANES
Northbound
2 Though Lanes
Eastbound
2 Left -Turn Lanes
Note: All lanes should be 12 foot (12) wide
MOVEMENT
QUEUE LENGTH
Northbound Through
230 feet
Eastbound Left -Turn
271 feet
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
PROPOSED U. S. 31 OFF -RAMP AND STATE ROAD 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION
The weaving analysis that was discussed earlier in this report concluded that this intersection
should be developed as a signalized intersection instead of the originally designed merge
system. This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane
requirements.
TABLE 15 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED U.S. 31 AND S.R. 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
These lanes should be constructed to a length that will provide adequate storage for queuing
vehicles. Therefore, a queuing analysis was carried out for this proposed intersection.
Table 16 summarizes the results of this queuing analysis. The turn lanes identified in Table
15 should be developed to accommodate these expected queue lengths.
TABLE 16 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS
In order to avoid limited access right of way, this intersection should be constructed no less
than 590 feet (180 meters) from the proposed access point so that the standards set forth by
the INDOT Design Manual are maintained. However, a distance of 790 feet (240 meters)
between the intersection and this access point is ideal and should be met if design conditions
permit. A preliminary review of the conceptual interchange has shown that these standards
can be achieved. Figure 9 illustrates the approximate locations of the access point and ramp
intersection.
36
MOVEMENT
REQUIRED LANES
Northbound
1 Left -Turn Lane
2 Through Lanes
Southbound
1 Through Lane
1 Right -Turn Lane
Eastbound
1 Left-Turn Lane
1 Right -Turn Lane
Note: All lanes should be 12 foot (12') wide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146" STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND PROPOSED NORTHERN ACCESS POINT
This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane
requirements.
PROPOSED RIGHT IN- RIGHT -OUT ACCESS POINT
This access point should be developed with one twelve foot (12') wide outbound lane and
one twelve foot (12') wide inbound lane.
TABLE 17 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND ACCESS POINT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ACCESS POINTS
PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND PROPOSED NORTHERN ACCESS POINT
This access point should be developed with two twelve foot (12') wide outbound lanes and
one sixteen foot (16') wide inbound lane. A twelve foot (12') wide northbound left -turn
lane, and a twelve foot (12') wide southbound right -turn lane should be developed along the
proposed ramp as identified in Table 11. This access point should be constructed so that a
minimum distance of 600 feet is maintained between the access center line and the center
line of 146 Street. Also, this access point should be developed 790 feet (240 meters) from
the proposed intersection of the State Road 431 Off -Ramp and U.S. 31 Off -Ramp.
However, this distance can be reduced to a minimum of 590 feet (180 meters) if design
limitations exist.
37
KITE DEVELOPMENT-. 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
38
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
The traffic generated by the proposed development will not adversely affect the operation of the
public roadway system to a greater extent than if the development was not constructed. The future
levels -of- service at all of the existing study intersections will be below acceptable levels with or
without the proposed development. The recommendations that were outlined in the 1997 Traffic
Impact Analysis for the City of Carmel, and the recommendations outlined in the 1997, Hamilton
County, 146 Street Corridor should be implemented so that these intersections will operate at
acceptable levels -of- service in the future. Furthermore, the proposed intersections will work at or
above acceptable levels -of- service assuming they are constructed to the recommendations made in
this report. Finally, it is imperative that the access point be constructed at least 600 feet from 146
Street and no closer than 580 feet (180 meters) to the proposed U.S. 31 /State Road 431 ofd ramp
intersection.
KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the
proposed residential development.
Included is the intersection capacity analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour.
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 1 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS 1
PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 11
PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 16
STATE ROAD 431 AND 136TH STREET 19
146 STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD 26
146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD 33
146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD 40
PROPOSED U.S. 31 OFF -RAMP AND S.R. 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION 47
PROPOSED ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION 52
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
1
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146 STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
11
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND MO STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
16
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
STATE ROAD 431 AND 136 STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
19
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET' AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
146 STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
26
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
33
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
40
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED U.S. 31 OFF RAMP AND S.R. 431 OFF
RAMP INTERSECTION
WEAVING ANALYSIS
QUEUING ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431
PROPOSED ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION
QUEUING ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
53
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
1
1
1
Dear Mr. Kite:
FRANK O'BANNON, Governor
CURTIS A. WILEY, Commissioner
Mr. Paul W. Kite
President, Kite Development Corporation
6610 North Shadeland Avenue
Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46220
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
100 North Senate Avenue
Room N755
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 -2249
(317) 232 -5533 FAX: (317) 232 -0238
January 5, 1999
My staff and I have completed evaluation of the proposal presented in October 1998
on your behalf by Steve Fehribach of A F Engineering. Results of our assessment
follow, as well as direction with respect to ensuing activities. In principle the concept
you offer looks feasible.
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is willing to entertain your plan to
occupy and develop commercially what is now planned as interior interchange land in
the southeast quadrant of US 31 /SR 431 and 146 Street. Your proposal may have
merit, and could yield tangible benefits both to you and the Department.
The main commercial drive (access point) you have identified is acceptable.
Recognize that its suitability is contingent upon redesign of the east side of the
interchange to effect a 3- legged T intersection between the US 31 northbound off -ramp
and the SR 431 northbound connector (ostensibly a ramp) to 146"' Street. The freeway
ramp proper would effectively end at the stop controlled T intersection, with limited
access right -of -way extending farther north along the crossroad connector to your main
drive's intersection. The adjustment is necessary to 1) eliminate what would otherwise
be an unacceptable weaving movement downstream of the off ramp's free flowing
junction with the connector, and 2) create sufficient spacing between what will be
another two at -grade intersections to the north along the north -south connector /on-
ramp.
Although in general your plan appears promising, a few elements are troubling. This
agency is charged with protecting rights -of- access to the extent that traffic
operation —now and in the future —is fully protected from potentially destructive
conditions. The minor, southmost drive you request, that set aside for right- turn -in and
-out only to and from the planned northbound on -ramp, presents an unacceptable risk to
Writer's Direct Line
317 232 -5535
1
Printed on Recycled Paper An Equal Opportunity Employer http: /www.indot .state.in.us /aum/dot.index.html
the integrity of the interchange; therefore, we request that it be removed from your
traffic circulation scheme.
A F Engineering prepared the document titled "Traffic Impact Analysis." it
contains traffic capacity analysis for what would be a signalized intersection on the
interchange's east ramp terminal with 146t Street. The study may be overly optimistic
with respect to northbound vehicles' ability to turn right on red. Our analysis shows
negligible opportunity for such a movement, as insufficient gaps exist in the east -west
traffic stream. Principally for this reason, without expansion of the intersection
approaches, beyond what is suggested by the "Traffic Impact Analysis," the
intersection will fail prematurely.
INDOT has placed in its construction program several jobs devoted to the new
interchange at US 31 /SR 431 -146t Street. These are active projects, though in early
stages of development. For future reference, those most directly linked to the matter at
hand carry the following identifying description codes:
1) 9680280, protective land acquisition at US 31 /SR 431 -146 Street, ongoing;
2) 9804350, off -ramp (connector) construction from northbound SR 431 to
146t Street, year 2003 construction;
3) 980435A, bridge construction at northbound SR 431 off -ramp (connector)
over Cool Creek, year 2003 construction;
4) 9804370, on -ramp construction from 146 Street to northbound US 31, year
2003 construction;
5) 9804390, northbound US 31 mainline reconstruction at 146 Street, year
2006 construction;
6) 9804410, southbound SR 431 mainline reconstruction at 146t Street, year
2006 construction;
7) 9804420, off -ramp construction from northbound US 31 to 146 Street (or
to connector from northbound SR 431 to 146 Street), year 2006
construction;
8) 980442A, bridge construction at northbound US 31 off -ramp over SR 431,
year 2006 construction;
9) 9804430, northbound SR 431 mainline reconstruction at 146t Street, year
2008 construction;
10)9804490, southbound US 31 mainline reconstruction at 146 Street, year
2008 construction.
We should discuss future action. The bid on your part to modify the Department's
current proposal and /or accelerate programmed construction dates must be
accompanied by 1) more extensive preliminary engineering analysis to the extent that
one can verify the feasibility, impacts, and costs of your proposal, 2) conventional
environmental assessment, and 3) survey and design functions. Funding of these tasks
would be your responsibility, with oversight and ultimate approval by this agency. As
well we would ask that you share in other project development costs, including land
acquisition and construction. INDOT and Kite Development would need to enter into a
formal agreement.
2
Please contact me. My phone number: 232 -5535. We can meet and outline a
mechanism to implement your plans.
cc: S. Wuertz
M. Holowaty
B. Steckler
M. Hollibaugh (City of Carmel)
CMK:BLS:bs
file a:31mem11.doc, '99A disk, MSW97
Sincerely,
Cristine M. Klika
3
23B.0 L.S. HIGHWAY 31 OVERLAY ZONE
Ordinance No. J
AN ORDIN A_NCE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CARNIEL CLAY ZONING ORDNANCE
WHICH RELATE TO THE U.S. HIGHWAY 31 OVERLAY
W—IREAS, the City of Carmel and Clay Township, pursuant co ajoinder age t:nen: adopted
under the Township Joinder law (IC 36 -7 -4 -1200 er seq.), have caused co be prepared a comprehensive
plan for the City and Township, which plan was prepared by+'TB Corporation and is known and
referred to as the 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan was approved and recocnmended by the Carmel
Clay Plan Commission on August 20, 1996, and duly approved b resolution or the Common Council
on September 24, 1996, and is therefore the official Comprehensive. Plan of the City of Carmel and
Clay Township; and
WKEREAS, the Common Council finds that, after giving due consideration to the Ceneral policy
and par:ern of development set out in the Comprehensive Plan for that part of the conmuniry
commonly !;nowt as the Carmel Meridian Corridor, it is reasonable and necessary to promote and
accommodate the orderly growth and development of the City and Township by providing that a
Development Plan is required for the development of real property within such Corridor; and
w REAS, the Common Council of the CirJ of Carmel finds that it is reasonable and necessary
to protect the public health, safety, comfort. morals. convenience and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Carmel and Clay Township by establishing development requirements that must be
satisfied before the Carmel Clay Plan Commission may approve a Development Plan for real _property
in such Corridor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City oI Carmel.
Indiana, that, pursuant to IC 36-7-4-600 er seq. and IC 36- 7- 4 -1 =00 et seq. and aster having a received
a favorable recommendation from the Carmel C[av Plan Commission, it hereby adopts this Ordinance
to restate and amend Section 23B (T.;.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone) of the Carmel/Clay Zoning._
Ordinance Z -239, as amended, to read as follows:
23B.0.1 Purpose, Intent and Authority: The purpose of the G.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone is to
promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort. convenience and general. welfare by
providing for consistent and coordinated treatment of the properties bordering U.S. Highway
31 (also known as the Carmel Meridian Coridor) in Ciav Township, Hamilton County,
Indiana. The Commission and Council, in establishing this zone. are relying an IC 36-7-=
This intended
600 er seq. and IC 36- r- =-1 =00 er say. Tss zoning district is, likewise, irrte :c to a rs
:col for implementing the development policies and guidelines set for the Corridor in _`:e
Comprehensive Plan. G.S. Highway 31 is a limited access highwa., and an i--icoran:
US 31 OvI LA 'I ZONE Revued.doc Ul.1;T 1
entrance corridor :o Carmei l
and Clay Township. The L. S.Highway 31 Corridor is a pre:nie_
office location and employment center whose viabi1irr. Quaiicv, and character are important to
the community as a whole, adjacent residents, empioyees. business owners. and :axing
districts. There.'are, it is the further purose of he U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone to
preserve the aes he.tic qualities or those bordering properties through (1) :he promotion of
coordinated development in the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone; (2) the establishment of high
standards for buildings, landscaping, and other improvements constructed on the properties
within the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone which permit innovative site designs and at the
same time encourage efficient land usage; and (3) the establishment of development
requirements which will encourage substantial capital investments for the development of
those properties and prornote the quality, scale, and character of development consistent with
the Corridor's existing and planned uses.
233.1 District Boundaries: The boundaries of the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone are hereby
established as shown on the Zoning Map. The U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone generally
includes an area six hundred (600) feet on either side of the right -of -way for U.S. Highway 31
in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, extending from the north right -of -way line of
96th Street to the south right -oI -way line of 146th Street. Where the proposed or constructed
Illinois Boulevard and Pennsylvania Parkway parallel roads are further than six hundred (600)
feet from the U.S. Highway 31 right -of -way, the Overlay Zone is intended to include all
properties between the U.S. Highway 31 right -of -way and the parallel roads.
233.2 Commission Review:
A. The Commission must approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Development
Plan (DP) for any Tact of land in the U.S. Highway. 31 Overlay Zone. Except as provided
in paragraph E, a public hearing shall be held by the Commission before it decides
whether to approve or disapprove a DP. However, no DP is required for additions to
existing residential structures which:
(1) are attached to the existing residence;
(2) follow a similar architectural design;
(3) do not exceed forty percent 40 of the existing structure, and
(4) meet with requirements of the underlying primary zoning. district.
B. The Commission shall review a DP application to determine if the D9 satisfies
development requirernents specified in Sections 233.3 through 23B.3. The
Commission's review shall include but not be limited to the following items:
(1) Existing site features, including topography and wooded areas;
(2) Zoning on site;
(3) Surrounding zoning and existing land use:
(1) Streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks. and bicycle oaths;
(5) Access to public sneer;
(6) Driveway and curb cut locations in relation to other sires:
(7) General vehicular and pedestrian trar :c;
(3) Vehicle and bicycle oarki.ng facilities and internal site circulation:
(9) Special and general easements for public or private use;
L3 M OVERLAY ZONE Revised.doc l 1/:1:9'
(10) On -site and off-site surface and subsurface storm and water drainage
including drainage calculations;
(1 1) On-site and off-site utilities:
(12) The means and impact of sanitary selvage disposal and water supply tec nicues;
(13) Dedication oI streets and rights-of-way, or reservation of land to be sold to
governmental authorities for the i icu_re develoomenc oI strew and rights -of -way;
(14) Provision for adequate and acceptable setbacks, site Landscaping and screening., and
compatioiliry with existing nlarted residential uses;
(15) Outside storage areas;
(16) Protective restrictions andlor covenants;
(17) E Sects any proposed project may Have on the architectural character or the U.S.
Highway 31 Corridor; and
(18) Consistency with the policies for the Overlay Zone which are set forth in the
Cornprehensive Plan.
D. The Commission shall make written findings concerning each decision to approve or
disapprove a DP. The President of the Commission shall be responsible for signing the
written findings of the Commission.
E. An amendment to a DP which does not alter the use of any land may be reviewed. and
approved by a committee of the Commission according to the rules of the Commission.
However, any interested parry may appeal the decision of the committee directly to the
Commission.
F. Commission review and approval of the site layout and circulation, architectural desi=,
landscaping, lighting, signage, and access to the property (ADLS) pursuant to Sections
238.9 through 233.15 shall be necessary prior to:
(1) the establishment of any use of land;
(2) the issuance of any Improvement Location Permit;
(3) the erection, reconstruction or structural alteration of any buildings) in the U.S.
Highway 31 Overlay Zone; or
(4) any changes in any site improvements.
G. A committee of the Commission may review and approve any ADLS application,
according to the rules of procedure of the Commission. However, any interested par?:
may appeal the decision of the com-mirtee directly to the Come .fission.
233.3 Permitted Uses: All uses which are permitted in the underlying primary zoning district(s),
except the uses expressly excluded by Section 233.5, are permitted in the li.S. 31 Overlay
Zone.
233.4 Permitted Special Uses: Al! special uses which are permitted (upon obtaining a special use
approval `sor^ the 3oard) in the underlying primary zoning dis ic:: except life uses
expressly excluded by Section 232.5. are pe ^ined in the tJ.S. Hi_ way 31 Overlay Zone.
CS 31 OVERLAY ZOKE Revrsed.doc 11121,9"
3
23B.5 Excluded Uses: All adult uses, including adult bookstores, adult photo studios, adult
heaters, and sexually oriented commercial enterprises; a park; autorobile sales or
teasing; automobile service station or fling station; boat sales: bulk storage of petroleurn
products; car wash; carnivals, fairs, circuses; cornnier_iai warehouse storage; hscosal or
storage of .iazardous or radioactive materials; ecuipment sales or repair; fast food restaurants;
fertilizer manuIacturing. stock yards, slaughter -.rig, teacher curing and tanning; :lea market;
garbage discosal o[anusanitary landfill; go -cart pack; grain elevator; industrial uses heavy;
Junk and/or salvage yard; commercial !kennel; nanuIaczured housing sales; rninianze golf;
mobile horse court; movie theater (indoor and outdoor); penai or correctional instic tion; plant
nursery; reclaiming processes involving. materials and/or chemicals that are considered
dangerous to the heath, safety, and welfare of the general oubiic as determined by the State of
Indiana, Hamilton Councy or the City; refining or manufacturing of petroleum products;
refuting or manufacturing of asphalt, cement, gypsum, lime, wood preservatives; retail uses
comprising more than fifteen percent (15 or the overall square footage in any DP; roadside
sates stand; sand and gravel extraction or sales; self- storagzlrnini- warehouse facilities; single
family residence; small engine sales or repair; truck stop; water slide.
23B.6 Accessory Buildings and Uses: All accessory buildings and uses which are permitted in the
underlying primary zoning district(s) shall be permitted, except that any detached accessory
building in any DP shall have on all sides the same architectural features or shall be
architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) with which it is associated.
23B.7 Minimum Tract Size:
A. Except as provided in Parazraph C, the minimum area covered by. a DP wirhin the U.S.
Highway 31 Overlay Zone must be 217,800 scuare,feet (5 acres).
B. If a tract is located both inside and outside or the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone, a DP
shall be submitted to the Commission for the entire pact to be developed.
C. All tracts to be developed in the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone shall contain minimum
area of 217,300 square feet (5 acres). However, if a parcel of :and or subdivision tot was
recorded prior to April 21, 1980 (the "Effective Date and said parcel or lot does not
con* /in the minimum. area required by this Paragraph, said parcel or lot "Undersized
Lot may be used for any use permitted in the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone provided
that:
(1) At the time of recordation of the Undersized Lot or on the Effective Date, the
Undersized Loc met the requirements for minimum lot size then in effect for a lot in
the underlying primary zoning district(s);
(2) The owner of he Undersized Lot must include, up to the minimum tract size, any
adjoining vacant land (not separated by a street or public way) owned. or owned by
an affiliate, on or before the Effec Date or at the time of application which, if
combined with the Undersized Lot. would :reate a tract which corlor:zs, or more
closely conforms. to the minimum tract size recuirernencs of this P ara.raeh: and
(3) All other development :eouue.Lents applicable to the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone can be
me:.
l:S 31 OvERLAY ZONE Reviled-toe I b' .9"
233.3 Height and Area Requirements.
233.3.1 Maximum Building Heights: As specified in the underlying primary_ zoning d[st:ict(s),
except as follows:
A. 3 -5 District All uses. sixty (60) feet, except that the maximum height may riot exceed
forty percent (40 of the distance from any residential property line.
B. B -6 District All uses, one hundred twenty (120) feet, except that the maximum height
rr-ay not exceed fort percent (40 of to distance from any residential property line.
233.3.2 Minimum Building Height: All uses, two (2) stories along the U.S. Highway 3- 1- frontage, or
for uses not on the frontage, fourteen (14) feet, with a minimum of twelve (12) feet to the
Lowest eaves for a building with a gable or hip roof. Any building or part of a building within
three hundred (300 feet) of the U.S. Highway 31 right -of -way shall be considered on the
frontage.
233.3.3 NFinimum Front Yard:
A. U.S. Highway 31 front yard: A11 uses, ninety (90) feet.
B. Parallel Road front yard: Same as underlying zoning..
233.8.4 Minimum Side and Rear Yards: All uses, forty -five (45) feet.
23B.8.5 Minimum Aggregate of Side Yard: All uses, ninety (90) feet.
23B.3.6 Minimum Parcel Width: For all uses, the parcel width shall equal or exceed that amount
which is one -half (112) the depth of the parcel. However, if a parcel of land or subdivision lot
was recorded prior to April 21, 1980 (the "Efecdve Date and said parcel or lot does not
contain the minimum width required by this ParaQ-aoh. said parcel or lot "Undersized Lot
may be used for any use permitted in the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone provided that:
(1) At the time of recordation of the Undersized Lot or on the Effective Date, the
Undersized Lot met the requirements for minimum lot width then in effect for a lot in
the underlying primary zoning dis is :(s);
(2) The owner of the Undersized Lot must include, up to the minimum parcel width, any
adjoining vacant [and (not separated by a st eec or.pub[ic way) owned, or owned by an
affiliate; on or before the Effective Date or at the time of application which. if
combined with the Undersized Lot, would create a parcel :which conforms, or more
closely conforms. to the minimum parse[ width requirements of this Parar�aph, and
(3) All other development requirements acp[icab[e to the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone can be
met.
233.3.7 Minimum Gross Floor Area: All buildings snail have a minimum of fifteen thousand
(13.000) square feet of gross loor are excluc'ing the door area of any basement or any
accessory building(s). �.ccessory buildings permitted seed not meet the mini -purr. :oor area
LS 31 OVERLAY ZONE RevIsed.doc 11:Lr
requirement. The intent of this minimum Moss door '3.1"e 2, requirement Is co preclude small,
freestanding buildings and uses not in character with the Corridor.
233.3.3 Maximum Parcel Coverage and Density:
A. Maximum Parcel Coverage shall be sixty -five percent (65 or any parcel covered by a
DP. However, the Commission rnav, in its discretion, allow Parcel Coverage LID Co
seventy percent (70%) for any DP that exhibits extraordinary site design, landscaping
treatment, or site amenities or features, or that includes above or below-grade parting
facilities.
B. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) shall be 0. i0, with the F.A.R. being calculated by
dividing the total gross floor area of a building or buildings on any parcel by he area of
such parcel. However, the Commission may, in its discretion, allow a Floor Area Ratio
up to 0.30 for any DP that exhibits extraordinary sire design, landscaping treatment, or
site 2menities or features, or that includes above or below -grade parking facilities.
233.9 Architectural Design Requirements:
In reviewing the architectural design of building(s) proposed to be built in the U.S. Highway
31 Overlay Zone, factors to be considered by the Commission shall include but
are not limited to the following:
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.
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. All buildings shall be designed with a minimum of eight external corners, in order to
eliminate monotonous box buildings.
D. Building penthouses roust be incorporated into the building facade design, including.
exterior materials specifications.
E. 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
23B.10 Landscaping Requirements.
233.10.1 Landscaping Plan: A Landscaping Plan shall be submitted to the ?tan Commission for its
approval at the same time other plans (i.e. architectural design, lighting, parking and signage)
are submired. ;his clan (1) shall be dra%vn to scale, including dimensions and distances; (2)
shall delineate ail existing and proposes rores. to g areas, k, tar-+
c� ,�r: ;a. .,�.r`.c.itn _......s, aL• :amps fo r
handicapped, terraces, drive -ways. signs. ligrtins standar s. steps and other si r.dar structures:
CS 31 ovERLkY ZONE Revised—lac I 1,7. IA";
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
and (3) shall delineate the location. size and description of all ian r.a:e a
ds....pe .l. and the
irrigation system for all planting areas. Landscape zeat.':?ent for plazas, roads. paths. service
and private parking areas shall be igt ed as an ral a.'
=`��i it :�2 ^C LOOLQL'.aC.'^_ �ai�. Or :he
Landscape Ptan for the entire tract.
23B.10.2 Areas to be Landscaped.
A. Greenbelt:
(1) The greenbelt along C.S.:-Iichwav 31 snail be a manurial of thirry (30) feet in i.o1dth
and landscaped per the requirements of Section 233.10.3 as well as per he G.S. 3 I
Corridor Master Plan.
(2) The greenbelt areas located along the illin_ois Boulevard and Pennsylvania Pa± vay
rights- of -way, shall be a tninimum width or ten (10) feet wide, and landscaped
pursuant to Section 23B.10.3, and the recotnrnendations of the G.S. 31 Corridor
Master Plan.
(3) Greenbelt areas shall be unoccupied except for plant material, steps, walks, terraces,
bike paths, driveways, lighting standards, signs, and other similar structures
(excluding a private parking area). Mounding and other innovative treatments are to
be especially encouraged in this area. Pedestrian walkways and bikeways are
encouraged to be incorporated into the greenbelt.
B. Planting Adjacent to Buildings:
(1) A planting area equal to an area measuring twenty -five (25) feet in depth by the width
of the front of the building. plus twenty (20) feet (to extend ten (10) feet out on both
sides) shall be installed at the front of the building.
(2) A planting area equal to an area ten (10) feet in depth by the remaLnina sides of the
building shall be in 'led on all other sides of the building(s).
(3) Sidewalks up to eight (3) feet in width may be permitted in these areas, but shall not
occupy the entire area on any side of the building(s).
(4) If an approach driveway cuts into a planting area displaced by the driveway,
additional area shall be added to the building perimeter planting.
(5) These adjacent planting areas need aoc be rectangular in shape as long as zhe required
amount of space is landscaped; innovative and original designs are encouraged.
C. Parking Lot Perimeter Planting: There shall be a peripheral landscaping sup five (5) feet
in depth located along the side of any private parking area which abuts any side or rear
property line.
D. Planting Within Parking. Lots: All parking lot landscaping shall be of a cualiry to improve
and enhance the site and its surrounding area. representing no less than six percent (6 of
the total. surface parting area. Landscaping wit±in parking lots shall occcir in any
combination or planting islands. planting cenir.suias and en ance:vays. and provide not
less than one (1) zee and :z n. (10) shrubs for each four :sundered (`00) scuare feet of
interior landscaped area. (=or purposes of this computation. tandscapin_ in :he
Jreenbeic(s), adjacent :o the building(s) and an :n e. periphe 1 tract shall of the sr... Lot be
inc luded.)
eS 31 oVERL. Y ZONE Revised.doc I I, ::.9'
E. Enzy Drives: Same planting unit standards as on parallel roads.
F. Side Yard Landscaping: Planting unit shall include one (1) canopy Tee. one (1)
ornamental uee, and cwt (2) ever=een zees ter one hundred (100) lineal feet.
G. Buffering Adjacent to Residential Areas: Bu_*=ering shall occur per the Commission
guidelines for landscape buffering.
H. Total Landscaping Required: Inclusive of the greenbelt, the planting. adjacent to the
building(s), the peripheral planting, and the planting within parking lots, a mir?-nurn of
fifteen percent (15 of the tact shall be landscaped.
23B.10.3 Landscaping Standards.
A. 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
Ornamental Trees: 7 feet
Shrubs (only): 5 feet.
B. Greenbelt: Landscape design within the greenbelt areas shall be consistent with design
concepts in the U.S. 31 Corridor Master Plan The primary landscaping materials used in
the greenbelt areas and adjacent to buildings shall be shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs,
ground covers, grasses, and flowers. A base planting. unit of one hundred (100) linear feet
has been designated for the U.S 31 g*eeabelt which includes:
Five (5) shade trees;
Three (3) ornamental Sees;
Three (3) evergreen trees; and
Fifteen (15) shrubs.
C. I1Linois Boulevard and Pennsylvania Parkway: A base planting unit alone hundred (100)
linear feet has been designated for parallel roads which includes:
Three (3) shade trees;
Two (2) ornamental trees;
Two (2) evergreen Nees; and
Ten (10) shrubs.
D. Parking Lot Perimeter Planting: The primary landscaping materials used in and =round
private parking areas shall be zees which provide shade at maturity. Shrubbery, hedges,
and other planting materials may be used to co,Loiemeat the landscaping, but shall not be
the sole contribution :o the landscaping. A base planting unit of one hundred (100) linear
feet has been designated for this area which ncludes wo (2) shade trees and thi v (30)
shrubs.
E. Materials: All :[ants proposed :o be _sed in accordance with any landscaping :::an shall
US 31 OvERL4Y ZONE Rev,,ed.doc l 1.21.9".
3
meet the following specifications:
(1) Shade trees: a minimum 7T!ni diameter of: 1/2 inches at six (6) inches above the
V
ground lime, a =ir urn height eight (3) feet, a ,h oC
of g- 3) and a branching �.ei2r:t Oi less
than 1/3 nor more than 1/2 of zee height.
(2) Orriamencal trees: a ini?num rank diameter of 1 1/2 inches at six (6) inches
above the ground line, a minimum height of six (6) feet, and a branching heig.ht of
not less than 1/3 nor more than 1/2 of zee height.
(3) Evergreen trees: a minirnuni height of eight (3) feet, a width of not less than 3/5
or the height.
(4) Deciduous shrubs: Minimum height of rwenry -four (24) inches, with no less than
six (6) main birches upon piantng.
(5) Evergreen shrubs: Minimum height and spread of Twenty -`our (24) inches.
F. Preservation: Landscaping materials selected shall be appropriate to local growing and
climate conditions. Wherever appropriate, existing stands of trees should be preserved
and integrated into the DP.
233.10.4 Landsca ping Installation and Maintenance.
A. Installation: All required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate oI Occupancy by the Deparnment. 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 of the required landscaping prior to the issuance of the Final
Certificate oI Occupancy.
B. :vIaintenance: It shall be the responsibility of the ow tiers and their agents to insure proper
maintenance of project Landscaping approved in accordance with the development
requirements specified for this Overlay Zone. 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 fee of
refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds.
C. Changes After Approval: No landscaping which has been approved by the Commission
may later be materially altered, eliminated or sacrificed, without first obtaining. further
Commission approval. However, minor alterations in landscaping may be approved by
the Director in order to conform to specific site conditions.
D. Inspection: The Director shall have the authority to visit any tact within the L S.
Highway 31 Overlay Zone to inspect the landscaping and check it against the approved
plan on tile.
233.10.5 Tree Preservation: Sites with existing trees or stands of zees. should make reasonable
efforts to protect and incorporate them into the overall site design. including within ?reenbelt
ares, plantings adjacent to buildings. and prole::: Puffer-L-4.
233.10.6 Public Art: Public art is e ^ce provided it is placed outdoors in a location shown on
the pian that is visible tote cublic from either U.S. =i�-:.vay 3 i. ?ear�sylvania -.v
_iff ay, or
(:S 31 OVERLAY ZONE Revised.doc t ti :t.9 9
Illinois Boulevard. The use of public apt: may make the project eligible for a site density
bogus as suggested in 233.3.3.
'33.11 Parking Requirements:
A. Except as provided in Paragraph 3, parking is prohibited'oerween the li.S. 31 right -of-
way and the font set -back line of the building.
(1) Efforts to break up large expanses of pavement are co be encouraged by
the interspersing of appropriate planting areas wherever possible.
Pedestrian access to and through parking areas shall be provided in the DP along with
bicycle parking. and access.
(2) The number of parking spaces required are established in Section 27, depending upon
the zoning and intended land use.
(3) 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.
(4) Above grade, structured parking facilities shall have on all sides architectural features
that are compatible with the principal building(s) with which they are associated.
B. The Commission may, in its discretion, allow a minimal number of visitor or handicapped
parking spaces between the greenbelt and the front yard line.
23B.12 Lighting Requirements:
A. A site lighting plan shall be submitted along with the DP. The site lighting plan shall
include the layout, spread and intensity of ail site lighting, including::
(1) parking lot and service /storage area lighting;
(2) architectural, display lighting;
(3) security lighting;
(4) lighting of pedestrian and bicycle ways;
(5) landscape lighting.
B. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform desigza,
color and materials.
C. The maximum height of Light standards shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet high.
However, when light standards abut or fail within ninety (90) feet of a residential district
or use, they shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
D. All site pole Lights and wall mounted lights shall be low level, 90° cutoff luminaires and
shall not spill over into adjoining. properties in excess of 0.3 foot candles in commercial
areas, and 0.1 fooccandles in residential areas.
E. Exterior architectural. display, decorative and sign lighting. visible to the public from
either LS. Highway 31. Pennsylvania Parkway, or Illinois Boulevard. the parallel
roadways shall be generated from concealed tight source, Low level light. faxrures.
F. A11 pedestrian pathways. bicycle :vans, parking lots and building ent =-ces shall be a
CS 31 OVERLAY ZONE Revaed.doc l 1/21,9
maximum of three (3) :oocc :ndles.
233.13 Bicycle and.Pedestrian Access: The DP should include specific provisions for
accommodating pedestrian and bicycle access. circulation and amenities into the
development. This shall include design considerations related co the site and its owns oarcina,
buildings and amenities as well as consideration for linking pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and features to adjacent development, the C.S. 31 Corridor, and the co .muni overall
system of bicycle and pedes Tian rails and routes.
233.14 Access to Individual Tracts: As U.S. Highway 31 is a limited access highway, and as acce
to individual tracts along his highway is either not in existence or not clearly defined in many
cases, access roads will need to be built. In order to preserve the aesthetic benefits provided
by the greenbelt, access roads shall be provided at the rear or all tracts, whenever oossible.
Access roads to contiguous tracts shall be coordinated so as to form one main access road
serving adjoining developments. These roads should be designed so as to funnel traffic onto
major arterial roads rather than into residential areas and roads which may adjoin or be near
this Overlay Zone. Bicycle and pedestrian access shall likewise be coordinated with vehicular
access, greenbelt design and par' -sing.
233.15 Other ADLS Requirements.
23B.15.1 Outside Storage of Refuse: No outside, unenclosed storage of refuse (whether or not in
containers) or display of merchandise shall be permitted on any tract. All refuse shall be
contained completely within the principal or accessory building(s). Any accessory structure
designed for refuse storage shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building.
233.15.2 Loading Berths: Loading berth requirements shall be specified in the underlying primary
zoning disaict(s), except that any loading or unloading berth or bay visible from L.S.
Highway 31 shall be screen:
23B. I5.3 Additions to Existing Residential: Uses and detached structures accessory to single- fafnily
dwelling units are permitted provided that the use and/or structure meets the requirements of
the underlying primary zoning district. Additionally, any detached structure must:
(1) be of compatible architectural design with the principal structure;
(2) be set back thirty (30) feet from the right -of -way line nearest to and ripping most
parallel with U.S.Lighwav 31; and
(3) be accompanied by adequate adjacent Landscaping.
233.16 Application Procedure.
23B.16.1 Consultation with Director and Applicarion: Applicants shall meet with the Director to
revie .v the zoning. classification of their site. review the regulator; ordinances and materials.
review the procedures and examine the proposed use and development of the property. The
Director shall aid and advise the applicant .n preparing als application and supeor:
documents as necessary. T ne applicant shall su'orn t two (2) copies of the r :rten application
form: r.yo 2) copies of the DP and/or the recuired information on architectural ±_stzn,
LS 31 OVERLAY ZONE Rev;sed.doc
iandsca ina, parking, sig ^_age, lighting_ and access (.ADLS), aS well as all nece r supporting
..SS...
documents and mater ais. 'Filing tees shai! not be required for appiicacions for additions to
residential housing required t0 be reviewed under this Sec:ion 23B.
233.16 .2 Initial Review; Submission to the Commission: Following the receipt of the ,vrirren
application., DP and/or he rewired information on architectural design, landscaping., parkins,
3igg:nage, lighting and access (ADLS), and necessary supporting documents and or :materials by
the Director, he shall then review the materials solely for the purose of decerrriining whether
the application is complete, in technical compliance with all applicable ordinances, taws and
regulations and is to be forwarded to the Commission. If the materials submitted by the
applicant are not complete, or do not comply with the necessary legal requirements, the
Director shall inform the applicant of the deficiencies in said materials. Unless and until the
Director formally accepts the application as complete and in legal compliance, it shall not be
considered as formally filed for the purpose of proceeding to succeeding steps toward
approval as hereinafter set forth. Within twenty (20) days of the formal acceptance of the
application by the Director, he shall formally file the application by placing it upon the agenda
of he Commission, according to the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The applicant shall
file each Commission member a copy of the DP and/or ADLS plans and supporting
documents and/or materials.
23B.16.3 Approval or Denial of the Application by the Commission:
A. An approved DP or ADLS petition shall be valid for two (2) years from the date of
approval. If construc of the building(s) has (have) not started at the end of the two (2)
year period, the DP and/or ADLS request must be re- submitted to the Commission.
B. If the DP and/or ADLS plans is (are) materially changed in any way, resubmission to the
Commission per Section 233.2 is required.
C. Ilan ADLS petition is denied by the Commission, the Commission shall provide the
applicant with a written copy of said reasons, if requested.
233.16.4 Reservation of Land for Pending State Highway Improvements:
A. In addition to the development requirements specified in Sections 23B.3 throu h 23B.3, a
DP must reserve for acquisition by the Scale of Indiana all land that the State expects to
need for pending improvements to U.S. Highway 31, as shown on plans developed for the
Indiana Deparnnent of Transportation by the consulting L-na Bernardin, Lochrnueiler and
Associates. An applicant :Lust notify in writing the Commissioner of the Indiana
Department of Transportation of any proposed DP that includes land within the projected
right -of -way for those pending improvements.
3. Whenever an applicant believes that the reservation of such land as required by Paragraph
A vvouid result in the toss Or ail reasonable and beneficial use or or recurm from C. e
applicant's property. then the applicant may request an E...-iic Hardship Exception
tir0m he terms of Paragraph A. Upon receipt or a re: nest for an Economic :,:.rCsrno
r ce :c!0 the a such re The e n.
rx n. e Com.:riirioa shall hold public ae� _g on sic Guest. i n ;z r.�.:; :_._y
not be until at least ai e"• (90) days alter the a :ci er1 C r~ r_er
!c...nt i no che �.0 :...^�.iSSiC
LS 31 OVERLAY ZONE RevIsed.doc 11l:1:97
or he Indiana Department of Transportation of ±..e Proposed DP as described above in
Paragraph A. In determining whether to grant an Eccnccnic Hardship Exception, the
Commission may consider the following crite- :a:
(I) the applicant's knowledge of the State s ?iacs ac the time of acquisition;
(2) the current level of economic return cn the propel including the dace of
purchase, the purchase price, income from the property, any remaining mortgage
debt, real estate taxes, and recent appraisals of the proce.T
(3) any recent otters for sale or purchase, including offers co purchase which the State
itself may have made;
(4) the feasibility of profitable alternative uses for the proper�y; and
(5) whether the State can reasonably be expected to provide just compensation to the
applicant for any taking of the applicant's property within one (I) year from the
date of he Commission's decision.
C. An applicant for an Economic Hardship Exception must Drove by clear and convincing
evidence both (I) that the existing use (if any) of he applicant's probery is economically
infeasible; and (2) that, if the terms of Paragraph A are applied co the property, the sale,
rental, or rehabilitation of the property will not be possible, resulting in the property not
being capable of earning any reasonable economic retum. The Corunission's decision
must be in writing and must contain the factual findings hat constitute the basis for its
decision, consistent with the criteria in Para r oh 3.
D. This Section 233.16.4 expires December 3 I 2002.
PASSED by the Common Council of the city of CarMel, Indiana this i day
of lyr, 1997 by a vote of ayes and nays.
CONLVO'+.CO[J O FOR 1 CITY' O -CARv1 L
James Guy Mille
of 1
tf idle J t
Ronald E. Carter
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cord: Clerk l .ea�tira
Robert atceall
S LT del
3 iilY� w hiker