The URL can be used to link to this page

Packet 06-20-06 THE LEGACY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT JUNE 2006 PittmanPartners. KEVIN K. PARSONS '6 AS80CIAT-ItS, tNe "~"I'~,"",~ u...~....._,_ _.".'KlIi Q I . , l DEVELOPMENT REPORT. J. ' ~~ ,Cp,' N ".' <~~ <:J....<v'V'V . ~~~ , \.' ~ '1. ~'t~ ~s \)\S CARMEL, INDIANA u Submitted By: East Carmel, LLC Carmel, IN 46082 Project Landscape Architect: Kevin K. Parsons & Associates, Inc. Project Engineer: Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc. (J u I TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab 1 - Including: Development Report Aerial Photographs Tab 2 - Including: Rendered Development Plan Concept PlanlPrimary Plat Open Space and Landscape Plan Mixed Use and Single Family Area Diagram u Character Exhibits - Residential . Detached Single Family . Town Homes . Multi - Family Character Exhibits -Commercial . Assisted Living . Neighborhood Retail . Garden Office Typical Lighting Plan, Traffic and Street Signage Entry Wall and Neighborhood Signage Amenity Area Plan Open Space and Site Details Tab 3 - PUD Ordinance Tab 4 - Woodland Analysis Tab 5 - Traffic Operations Analysis u Tab 6 - Wetland Delineation Report I u u u I r The Legacy , '., Development Report I Pittman Partners, Platinum Properties, and Schumacher Partners are proposing to develop a community on approximately 509.23 acres to be known as The Legacy. This large parcel is irregular in shape and is located on the northeast side of Carmel. This property is significant not only in size but also in that it serves as a gateway to Carmel from both Noblesville and Fishers. More specifically, it is adjacent to and south of 146th Street, both east and west of River Road, north of and adjacent to Prairie View Elementary, and northeast of and adjacent to Cherry Creek Estates and several larger single family tracts that have direct access to Cherry Tree Road. As planned, The Legacy will provide and emphasize traditional neighborhood design concepts, with a subtle transition from the more standard neighborhood concepts that utilize curvilinear street patterns and are of a single use. The plan will incorporate an eclectic mix of office, retail, assisted living, single family attached, multi family, and single family detached components, all on one property. There will be in excess of 45% open space, over 7 miles of trails, woodland preservation, expansive views, an amenity center, and a hierarchal road system that provides for interconnectivity via existing roads and neighborhoods to important county thoroughfares, thus providing multiple paths for that travel. Perhaps most notably, The Legacy will be a multi-generational community that will provide housing options for people at all stages in the cycle of life. The Legacy contemplates 1316 residential dwellings or approximately 2.7 units per acre. Housing types will vary and transition from attached townhomes and apartments adjacent to the office and retail or high traffic areas, to traditional neighborhood areas that are reminiscent of those planned and designed in the 1940's. Neighborhood interaction is encouraged not only in the Legacy's walkability, but also iu its design coucepts that emphasize people rather thau automobiles. Moviug further from the commercial areas, the neighborhood will transitiou to wider more spacious homesites that will provide for the needs of a wide spectrum of residents, from high end empty nesters wanting a maintenance free lifestyle, to families wanting a yard to maintain and enjoy. Regardless of the area within The Legacy in which one chooses to live, an informal lifestyle will be emphasized, one that encourages people in different stages of life to mix and socialize. The Legacy will truly be a neighborhood where one can live, work and play without dependence on the automobile. It will be a place, a neighborhood, a destination, that will be as unique and beautiful as it is functional. ( , ,., LEGEND I i1M; UGACCY ~ ~ .. RETAIL .. OFFICE .. ASSISTED UVlNO BI MULTl.FAMILY (APTS.1 .. TOWNHOMES .. 40' SINGLE FAMILY .. 60' SINGLE FAMILY ~ 60' SINGLE FAMILY CJ 66' SINGLE FAMILY c=J 70' SINGLE FAMILY D 90' SINGLE FAMILY ~) ....... ~, ~ t-()RtH (1" 3iii--~' t:c KEY1H~~~~:="~;w06 1\ " / \ ~ 146th Street ~ North . 'LJLJU I~ IUI IL-JLJUU '- . ._, /--, / , , I I . , I I . r 1 "-~-~/' 1\ Qlpen Space (80 Acres +/-) EXHIBI~ B Plat I n I Pnmary Concept pad Unit Development . A Planne Legacy. I LEGEND: - - f'fr I I I I I I I I I I I I I '- I I ,~ ~ =--- , I . " EVERGREEN TREE . SHADE TREE 2.50 CAL, MIN. O ORNAMENTAL TREE 1.5" CAL. MIN. = ' ~.. - ~ ~ ; G 11'1: i :1 ~,-;~l / )~ml ..,.t."'{)/ l I: i r:7 1/ ~! 1l11111111111eIT = ~~~m. ~!fIJ; . //JIJ & I \ H~.HH~~r ~~ ~------~ ,~/ ~ ~ = .j ~ tTIdi:D:}tTIdi:D:} ~ ~ r-- I II I ---' = = - ~) mlAAO! I I' 1: = = ~..f I ~i I I ~"i ~m8 13~ i =II ~, ~~; ,J-iY / · ~~~~ _.._~<Ol.. - ~~ ~ III \~ ~~jb.ru '" \..__.J ~f.?b3: '" fJlJ f- , / _ GlllIIIIITI:j 11-----4 q . .-- . .C>ll:\l. . -_. ~ ~ ~>>. -1 -v(~~ j I II fl I I - 'I '\ .~~ I> y / ~ ID Lt~~ ~r~." r ~ =- i .';:'< ~ IL-...,l ~- ~>>' J I = ffi ~~ ";bit< ~ I ~ ~ J '--I L n~ f--'.--' . ~ /- L _"\ ~~ J----l~/ I--- 4'-------,' k I \Oif I ; ? I L ~, f/ T _ . '. 6: '\ I~ '-- I c r ~ l#-"'" .2P . . l~ I I '-- I -' I · I II I jr.' C.., ~ \~ ~ r~ ~..~ 1 1: '! : I tI I I ~\-~ I I I r-I 1 r ~ I ) ~ ~ ~ ,/ - I I _ _ 0 I - - I = =/ ~ ~ II /~~ \/ ~/ q I 1',- l/ ~ -~ -- - - == 1\ nil II 01 LEGACY OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN I I I I I I I~ I . ~% . Q '\ L1.01 ~ 1'~25O'..()" 02 LEGACY OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN KEVIN K PARSONS 8e AssocIATES, INC. ~_landplenring_deolgn 212 wan- 10Tl-l~. sum:....280 -lNDw\W'OUS.llwIANA 48202 :S17.Q1S&81!lll.FAlt31704l~ - - PREPARED FOR PITTMAN PARTNERS 11711 N. PENNSYLVANIA AVE. SUITE 260 CARMEL, IN 46032 P:317.573.6692 F: 3 1 7.580.9786 E-MAIL.: WWW.PIlTMANPARTNERS.CQM - - EXHIBIT C - - - - - - - - C~RTIF1CAT10N - - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - - LEGACY. A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CARMEL, INDIANA OPEN SPACE Be LANDSCAPE PLAN - - PROJECT: 06510 DRAWN: JML CHECKED: JML SCALE: AS SHOWN ISSUE DATE: 03.21 .06 REVISION; 05.16.06 - lANDSCAPE PlAN - L1.01 1.=250'~ Q LI.DI - - \ " ,.- MIXED-USE AREA r-- i I I I I I I I I I 146th Street J '--- r-W _'--1' IL--..JL...JL...JUI '" - I_Dl~ III~~I~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~'.r--'-"I (-.--------~\ 1~1l1. - lb i: (..,T.: I~_j Iliit~1 == ~ 11 i ! l:j I I == =f- J I ! I imi ~ ~)-.. ::-:---) I' / /' I I I N~~:,I I ~~ ~ I I I I I ~.1 '-._J / I I "- ,._.J IUI ILJUULJ \. L' , - , ,. ~--- . 1 f ), : I, I : , I ! i R or 1 i Pond i i : , I i : \._-) I I I I I..) ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II _ n =I~rmo j i == tm:OJ r-:nd] ~ B:] ~ .. I . rr ~~== y~Iiiii_1 fV I1II tEl ~:LIJI ~.. ;W, 83=: 1 i -! Lake i i, -I ' , I i C--~-i i I' V / I \. / . y' ..~./~ ! Pond ~-- -. .... /' I / .' ! : (I If \.---~ I ' i ! III .B1LlJl:l'I".I \,____u____) t/1 "" / I I I I I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA J I I AL ( I I!IilI I I ~~~~~%~~ '------., '-~jbful \ ::-, '-- w (~--"'~""""""'" ) r ~ " Lake o ~o'(j. ._.e~ ~.... ! \ / '\ II' ... North MF J ~~ _1 'J , I OPEN SPACE ], (80 Acres +/-) I It I / / Legend: I BLOCK 1 1 = 1 BLOCK 2 I = 1 BLOCK 3 1 = ~= ~~ = I BLOCK 6A & 661 = lr . !! = I MF 1 = I AI. I = -= : " 90' Single-Family Residential Lots 70' Singie-Family Residential Lots 65' Single-Family Residential Lots 60' Single Family Residential Lots 50' Single-Family Residential Lots 40' Single-Family Residential Lots Townhomes Multi-Femily (Apertments) Assisted Living Facility OfI1ce Suites Neighborhood Retail Center "J EXHIBIT 0 Mixed-Use and Single-Family Area Diagram Legacy: A Planned Unit Development o Exhibit E L_ J . a Exhibit F M I i _ "---.." '...- .. I a I Exhibit G I '. i -- J f I J ...J ~l - I -I - --- I I d I Exhibit H '-- -~ r,r fC -" --I J Exhibit I - 1.f, ......;~.:(l.::.'l'\""'.,~ ~'lf' ~'f...,-,. 1<. c -, ,"j j J Exhibit J (f: I I I ~~~ ~ I ~""~ ~'?'..i, '>~ ~ ~ "" ~.z;;- ~ I ";zr.;; . .lfjii '"'" ... ~~# -l p-;-:;:~ ~w l $~ -.- .,.. .' .... a '1 t~:;~;~.~ Yl '] L ^.tl:~^:~,d',! 5>>,", '~ Exhibit K c - I r-' I - .. - ---- 1 f.... f:l "l ~ - , _ _ ...J Exhibit L .1 d a " .f ~........ """" ... ;,;"",;.,...................... _ iiii 0; I Exhibit M .- .t; '" ..t' '" ~' '1 't 'ft!!"" , fi''i....'U. 1 ..., ~. ~ lJt t 'iY I. .' ",,>I./It, .....'t';"J'rJ~j! , i. 'I.,;' 'f..,. ---. J I o L " !I I 01 THE LEGACY CONCEPTUAL TYPICAL LIGHTING PLAN - NON-RESIDENTIAL A Ll.02 l'=BO'-D' - ... l l - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ... - - - \ , . ~ ,; _.._..-..~ " . Ill! \ I "._.._..~ I I I I Ar. THE LEGACY 02 CONCEPTUAL TYPICAL LIGHTING PLAN - RESIDENTIAUBOULEVARD A Ll.02 1'=8O'-D" 03 LEGEND: )Ol( 16' MAXIMUM HEIGHT POLE MOUNTED JQ( UGHT FtxruRE THE LEGACY I TYPICAL POST TOP ACORN LIGHT FIXTURE 11.02 04 NOT TO SCALE CUSTOM TWO-WAY SIDE-MOUNTED SffiEET SIGN, CAST AlUMINUM STERNBERG R1-'-24 STOP SIGN SET IN A 024 FRAME STERNBERG 3608P4 POLE WITH BC POST CAP. BLACK CAST ALUMINUM THE LEGACY TYPICAL TRAFFIC AND STREET SIGN L1.02 3/4'= 1'-{), to .. re - - KEVIN K PARSONS Be AsSOCIATES, INC. landscape architecture land planning urban design 212 wurr lOrn Srn.:~l' sum: A-290. 1..l.>'.........l'Ows.l..oo....... 46202 317-Q5~155' FAX 317-955-9455 - - PREPARED FOR PITI'MAN PARTNERS 11711 N. PENNSYLVANIA AVE. SUITE 260 CARMEL. IN 46032 P:317.573.6692 F:317.580.9786 E-MAIL: WWW.PITTMANPARTNERS.COM - - EXHIBIT N - - - - - - - - CERTIFICATION - - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - - LEGACY. A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CARMEL, INDIANA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - - PROJECT: 0651 0 DRAWN: JML CHECKED: JML SCALE: AS SHOWN ISSUE DATE: 03.21.06 REVISION: 05.1 6.06 - - UGHTING PLAN Ll.02 - - D 01 9'-<1" 3' I 1'-<1" L 75" ! 4'-6" 2' ! LEGACY ENTRY WALL SIGN 1/2"=1'..()' ll.01 o ri~ ',2', .. I .. \~Q;;>,;< .. 4 ..." ; .~... ., .. .. ........ .. .".... .. .. '.',. ..... I 1'-7" \, /' '\ ./ 04 LEGACY INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT SIGN - - 11.01 1/2'-"-0- KBYIN K PARSONS & As8oCJA'IElI,INC. ~_l8ndplannlng_deslgn 212WfSr lCl'rHS'mEE:T. Sun'E....280.!Nl)lAHN'OU/il,lN~ Ae202 317.omH11!H5.FIU!. 317~ -$- I I I 0 I, ii I \ 't---1 (1 1= I 1= - PREPARED FOR PIllMAN PARTNERS ,,71 tN. PENN$YLVANlAAVE.surrE260 CARMEL. IN 46032 P:.3' 7.573.6692 F: 3 t 7 .580.9786 E-MAiL.: WWW.PrTTMANPARTNERS.COM - - - EXHIBIT 0 - - - - 02 LEGACY FENCE AND COLUMN - - Ll.01 '/2'~"-o- - - CUllURED STONE QUOINS NEIGHBORHOOD SIGNAGE CAST STONE CI>P STONE PANELS \mH INSET CAST STONE MEDAWON, TYP r CULnJRED STONE VENEER, lYP CERTIFICATION - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - ~ ~ 6'-2' 03 LEGACY NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN COLUMN - - LEGACY- A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CARMEL, INDIANA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - - PROJECT: 06510 DRAWN: JML CHECKED: JML SCALE: AS SHOWN ISSUE DATE: 03.21 .06 REVISION: 05.1 6.06 - SIGNAGE - LI.03 - - ll.01 '/2'~l'-o- u o Q ...... "'" -- ..........-.- - Eml~;lll P -MIfJB~N~TI AAJ.aA P"tAN FITNESS TRAIL STATIONS STATlCNS BASED CN AT~lAAIL Ffl'NESS ~NTEFI SYSTEM , o CALF STRETOi @ BODY RAlSEl RE\I8'.SE PUll. UPS .. @ HAMSTRING/OUAD. STRCTCH (2) BALANCE WAJ..KJ HEARTRATti CHECK @ KNEE HANG! HEARTRATti CHECK I~ ",,'" @ SIDE BENO @ SIT-UPS! LEO RAISE @ HAMSTRING PULL! UFT AND DROP l.iWi @ LEO STRETCH PUSH UPS @ TENSION RELEASE ) j;' , .<---- '-"'- I I - I it J x w if .~ ~ ~. ==::= ". ~ g.' .1$ II I ~ ". ~ ~;I i tJiii:J~1:I,i ilili ~III l!.J~Jtl;11 ~ ~I.IJ. fImIIj , ~ .. L -. " .!!. jiB ;, - - , ,.~ " - i-- iB Y ~-~ m:~ z ""'-- - I"ii ~J.;'I~L:. :::::1 ~= "1 tWYI .,.", / .'L ~.,,~...~ ---......._~:w.;. i ~ .~ 9;.~" . i+: . m 1 IP, " c..- ,. :. ;:- 'Ii T .1 ,.~ ~ I" M - I' ~ ,.,- ~. II'" \ .'1'1 " 1- -. ~ It ~ L' /, 'I; ..~~;''' j.' ~/ . , , ~ =-=--------- N;)RIH O. 300' OC()' )i~J!1 .13JllW.J -.,- = ~ATURAJ..IZA1= !I! AREA 6 9 ....... Rt kli !' - .. c-<t 1- 2J==' NEIGHBORHOOD itENilY AAEA TIIIIII r Tiftl tl@A~ '" - 3 clmmu 4 .....!, 'If ') "Wl i i ! w~'" I ~ f % I'll ;}' /;ry. .~~ II ~'i = 7 $I/; ,~ 1: . '" "; .. " t::, _. M ,,~ , -.;l... ~mQ ~~ ~~CCJjJ ~Jl.0 ~JiIjIjj ~~ t:c KI!:.......~~~~~~C~ u DRAFT 06-09-06 Sponsor: ORDINANCE NO. Z- -06 /' U The Legacy PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 'Q u u u TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa1!e Section 1. ADDlicabilitv" of Ordinance ..............................................................................................4 Section 2. Definitions and Rules of Construction. ........................................................................4 Section 3. Permitted Primary Uses.................... .....................................................................9 Section 4. Accessorv Buildinl!s and Uses .......................................................................................12 Sectio n 5. Co mm unica tio n Eo DiD m en t ................................ ..................... ..................................... 12 Section 6. Plattin2.......................... .......................................................................................13 Section 7. Residential Development ...............................................................................................13 Section 8. Commercial Development....................... ...........................................................16 Section 9. Recreational Develooment......................... .......................................................19 Section 10. Streets......................... .......................................................................................19 Section 11. Architectural Desif!n Requirements...........................................................................19 Section 12. Landscaoinf!. and Ooen Soace..................................................................................20 Section 13. Lif!htine.......................... ....................................................................................22 Section 14. Sie.DS........................ ...........................................................................................23 Section 15. Parkin!!......................... .....................................................................................23 Section 16. Homeowners Association and Declaration of Covenants............................... 24 Section 17. Approval Process .......................................................................................................... 24 Section 18. C ontrolline. Develooer's Consent ..............................................................................27 Section 19. River DeveJooable Parcel............................................. ............... .........27 Section 20. Violations........................................................................... ...............27 2 U A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. U K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. u SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS Legal Description Concept Plan / Primary Plat Open Space and Landscape Plan Mixed Use Area and Single-family Area map Character Exhibit - Residential Block 1 Character Exhibit - Residential Block 2 and 3 Character Exhibit - Residential Block 4 Character Exhibit - Residential Block 5, 6A and 6B Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (T) - Townhome Blocks Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (MF) - Multi-family Area Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (AL) - Assisted Living Block Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (NR) - Neighborhood Retail Blocks Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (0) - Office Blocks Typical Street Lighting Typical Single-family Area Sign age Amenity Area Plan and Details Open Space Area - Site Details 3 u u u Sponsor: Councilor ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA ESTABLISHING THE LEGACY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, Section 31.6.4 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-289 (the "Zoning Ordinance"), provides for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development District in accordance with the requirements of I.C. ~ 36-7-4-1500 et seq.; WHEREAS, the Commission has given a recommendation to the ordinance set forth herein (the "Legacy Ordinance") which establishes the Legacy Planned Unit Development District (the "Legacy District"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council, that (i) pursuant to IC ~36-7-4-1500 et seq., it adopts this Legacy Ordinance, as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and it shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, (ii) all prior ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this Legacy Ordinance and its exhibits are hereby inapplicable to the use and development of the Real Estate, (iii) all prior commitments and restrictions applicable to the Real Estate shall be null and void and replaced and superseded by this Legacy Ordinance, and (iv) this Legacy Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and signing by the Mayor. Section 1. Applicability of Ordinance. Section 1.1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, a part of the Zoning Ordinance, is hereby changed to designate the Real Estate as a Planned Unit Development District to be known as Legacy District (the "Legacy District").. Section 1.2. Development in the Legacy District shall be governed entirely by (i) the provisions of this Legacy Ordinance and its exhibits, and (ii) those provisions of the Zoning Ordinance specifically referenced in this Legacy Ordinance. In the event of a conflict between this Legacy Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of this Legacy Ordinance shall apply. Section 1.3. Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance in effect on the date of the enactment of this Legacy Ordinance. Section 2. Definitions and Rules of Construction. 4 u Section 2.1. General Rules of Construction. The following general rules of construction and definitions shall apply to the regulations of this Legacy Ordinance: A. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. B. Words used in the present tense include the past and future tenses, and the future the present. C. The word "shall" is a mandatory requirement. The word "may" is a permissive requirement. Section 2.2. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout this Legacy Ordinance: Accessorv Structure: A structure subordinate to a building or use located on the Real Estate which is not used for permanent human occupancy. Accessory Use: A use subordinate to the main use, located on the Real Estate or in the same building as the main use, and incidental to the main use. u Allev. A private way or easement located through the interior of blocks and providing vehicular and service access to the side or rear of properties. Apartment. A Dwelling intended primarily for rental. Apartment House. More than four apartments placed one on top of another and/or side by side and sharing common walls and common floors and ceilings, and which are located on a block or a single lot of record. Assisted Livine: Unit. A dwelling located in or constructed in association with, maintained as part of and entitled to the benefits of a congregate housing facility. Dwellings mayor may not be attached to the primary building. Attached Dwelline:. Row house, townhouse, flats, duplex, triplex, or quadruplex dwellings, developed side by side for sale as condominiums, or as fee simple dwellings where land is sold with the dwelling. Attached Dwellings may be sold as condominiums or as individually deeded lots. Apartments shall not be within the definition of Attached Dwellings and, as such, all references, in this Legacy Ordinance, to Attached Dwellings shall exclude apartments. u Block: Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4, Block 5, Block 6A, or Block 6B, as delineated in the Concept Plan/Primary Plat. 5 u Buildin!! Hei!!ht: The vertical distance from the lot ground level to the highest point of the roof for a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof and to the mean height between eaves and ridges for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs. City: The City of Carmel, Indiana. Commission: The Carmel Plan Commission. Concept Plan/Primarv Plat. This Legacy Ordinance and the plan for the Development, including the primary plat, all drawings and plans approved by the Commission, as the same may be modified from time to time pursuant to Section 17. Condominiums: A residential living unit or units as defined in and governed by the Indiana Code, Sections 32-25-1 to 32-25-9-2, inclusive. u Controllin!! Developer: Shall mean East Carmel, LLC, until such time as East Carmel, LLC transfers or assigns its rights as Controlling Developer. Such Rights may be transferred by the Controlling Developer, in its sole discretion, in whole or in part. To transfer all or any portion of its rights as Controlling Developer, East Carmel, LLC may (i) name each individual owner of parcels within the Real Estate as Controlling Developer solely with respect to such parcels owned by each such individual owner, (ii) establish a committee of individual owners of the Real Estate within the Real Estate to act as Controlling Developer with respect to such parcels owned by all such owners, or (iii) use either method described in (i) and (ii) above with respect to different portions of the Real Estate. Council: The City Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana. County: Hamilton County, Indiana. Declaration of Covenants: A Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Real Estate, or any portion thereof, which shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, and which may, from time to time, be amended. Department. The Department of Community Services of the City of Carmel, Indiana. u Detached Dwellin!!. A dwelling that is developed with no party-walls and with open yards on at least three sides, but not including manufactured homes, mobile homes, modular homes or recreational or motor vehicles. 6 u Developer. A person engaged in development of one or more phases of the Development. Development. The Real Estate developed in accordance with the Development Requirements. Development Reauirements: Development standards and any requirements specified in this Legacy Ordinance which must be satisfied in connection with the approval of a Final Development Plan. Director: Director, or Administrator, of the Department of Community Services for the City of Carmel, Indiana. "Director" and "Administrator" shall include his/her authorized representatives. Dwellim!: A structure intended for occupancy by a single family. A Dwelling includes an Attached Dwelling, a Detached Dwelling, and an Apartment. Final Development Plan: A specific plan for the development of the Real Estate, or any portion thereof, which is submitted for approval showing proposed facilities, buildings, and structures. Final Development Plans shall include general landscaping, parking, drainage, erosion control, signage, lighting, screening and building information for the site. u Flood Plain Law: Any laws, statutes, ordinances, or regulations governing the use and development of land within flood plains. Gross Residential Densitv: The number of Dwellings, exclusive of Assisted Living Units, divided by and in relation to the total, gross number of acres within the Real Estate. Landscape Plan: The general design for landscaping in the Legacy District included as part of the Open Space and Landscape Plan. Landscapine:: Trees, shrubs, hedges, flowers, ground covers, grasses, other plant materials, and associated structures and improvements. Material Alteration: Any change to an approved plan of any type that involves the substitution of one material, species, element, etc. for another. Minor Alteration: Any change to an approved plan of any type that involves the revision of less than ten percent (10%) of the plan's total area or approved materials and can not include a decrease in the minimum open space or amenities, elimination of required plantings, or the addition of living units identified in the Concept Plan. u 7 u Mixed Use Area: That part of the District more particularly delineated on the Mixed Use Area and Single Family Area Map as the "Mixed Use Area." The Mixed Use Area consists of five sub areas: Mixed Use Area (AL), Mixed Use Area (MF), Mixed Use Area (NR), Mixed Use Area (0) and Mixed Use Area (T) Mixed Use Area (AL): That part of the Mixed Use Area delineated on the Mixed Use Area and Single Family Area Map and containing primarily Assisted Living Units. Mixed Use Area (MF): That part of the Mixed Use Area delineated on the Mixed Use Area and Single Family Area Map and containing primarily Apartments. Mixed Use Area (NR): That part of the Mixed Use Area delineated on the Mixed Use Area and Single Family Area Map and containing primarily retail uses. Mixed Use Area (0): That part of the Mixed Use Area delineated on the Mixed Use Area and Single Family Area Map and containing primarily general office uses. u Mixed Use Area (T): That part of the Mixed Use Area delineated on the Mixed Use Area and Single Family Area Map and containing primarily Attached Dwellings. Open Space: Open space shall comprise a parcel or parcels of land, an area of water, or a combination of land and water, including flood plain and wetland areas located within the Real Estate and designated by the Controlling Developer for the use and enjoyment of some or all of the residents of the Development and, where designated by the Controlling Developer, for the use and enjoyment of the community at large. Except as otherwise provided herein, common open space does not include any area which is divided into building lots, streets (except the landscaped medians of boulevards) or rights of way (except tree lawns). The area of parking facilities serving the activities in the open space and paths or sidewalks located therein may be included in the required area computations. Open Space Area One: That part of the Legacy District identified on the Open space and Landscape Plan as "Open Space" and located west of River Road. u Open Space Area Two: That part of the Legacy District identified on the Open Space and Landscape Plan as the "Open Space" and located east of River Road. 8 u u u Parcel Coverae:e: The total ground area covered by buildings and accessory structures which are greater than eighteen (18) inches above grade level, excluding fences and walls not attached in any way to a roof, divided by the total horizontal ground area. Path: A paved or otherwise cleared way intended as a jogging trail or a bikeway and located in Open Space, an easement, or a right-of-way. Real Estate: The Real Estate shall mean and refer to all of the Real Estate described in Exhibit "A". Rie:ht-of-Wav: An area of land permanently dedicated to provide light, air and access. River Parcel: That portion of the real estate located east of River Road, comprising approximately 95.82 acres, and legally described in Exhibit "A- 2" (page 2 of Exhibit "A"). River Developable Parcel: A portion of the River Parcel comprising 15.8 acres, more or less, and not identified on the Concept Plan as "Open Space". Sie:n: Any type of sign as further defined and regulated by this Legacy Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance for Carmel-Clay Township, Ordinance Z-196, as amended. Sine:le Familv Area (SF): That part of the Legacy District more particularly delineated on the Mixed Use Are and Single Family Area Map as the "Single Family Residential Area" and containing primarily Detached Dwellings. Subdivision Control Ordinance: Ordinance, No. Z-160, as amended. Carmel/Clay Subdivision Control Substantial Alteration: Any change to an approved plan of any type that involves the revision of ten percent (10%) or more of the plan's total area or approved materials. Zonine: Ordinance: Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-289, as amended from time to time. Section 3. Permitted Primarv Uses. Section 3.1. Mixed Use Area - Assisted Livine: (AL). The following uses are permitted in the Mixed Use Area (AL) or parts thereof as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, subject to the applicable Development Requirements. A. The following residential uses: 9 u 1. Detached Dwellings 2.. Attached Dwellings 3. Assisted Living Units 4. Bed-and-breakfast 5. Daycare facility (school age and adults) B. Recreational developments or facilities owned or operated by the Controlling Developer, including clubhouses, parks, pools, ball courts and other recreational spaces and recreational buildings. C. Commercial uses ancillary to congregate housing and intended primarily for the use of visitors to and residents of congregate housing. D. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. u Section 3.2. Mixed Use Area - Multi-familv (MF). The following uses are permitted in the Mixed Use Area (MF) or parts thereof as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, subject to the applicable Development Requirements. A. The following residential uses: 1. Detached Dwellings 2. Attached Dwellings 3. Apartments B. Recreational developments or facilities owned or operated by the Controlling Developer, including clubhouses, parks, pools, ball fields, ball courts, playgrounds and other recreational spaces, and recreational buildings. C. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. Section 3.3. Mixed Use Area - Nei!!hborhood Retail (NR). The following uses are permitted in the Mixed Use Area (NR) or parts thereof as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, subject to the applicable Development Requirements. u A. The following commercial uses: 10 u 1. Retail sales of goods and services 2. Restaurants, maximum of one use including drive-through service 3. Grocery store, including drive-thru window service 4. Drug store, including drive-thru window service 5. Package liquor store 6. Video sales or rental 7. Sale of coffee, ice creams, baked goods and/or prepared foods for consumption on or off the premises, including drive-thru window service 8. Financial institutions, including drive-through banking facilities (provided such are located at the rear of a lot) and exterior A TMs. 9. Offices, including general offices, professional offices u 10. Gym or exercise facility, including outdoor pool(s) B. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. Section 3.4. Mixed Use Area - Office (0). The following uses are permitted in the Mixed Use Area (0) or parts thereof as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat (See Exhibit "B"), subject to the applicable Development Requirements. A. The following commercial uses: 1. Financial institutions, including drive-through banking facilities (provided such are located at the rear of a lot) and exterior A TMs 2. Offices, including general offices, professional offices 3. Clinics or medical health centers 4. Real Estate sales center 5. Daycare u B. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. 11 u Section 3.5. Mixed Use Area - Townhomes (T). The following uses are permitted in the Mixed Use Area (T) or parts thereof as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, subject to the applicable Development Requirements. A. The following residential uses: 1. Detached Dwellings 2. Attached Dwellings, not exceeding eight (8) Dwellings per building B. Recreational Developments or facilities owned or operated by the Controlling Developer, including clubhouses, parks, pools, ball fields, ball courts, playgrounds and other recreational spaces, and recreational buildings. C. Churches or other places of worship. D. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. u Section 3.6. Sinl!le-familv Area (SF). The following uses are permitted in the Single-family Area (SF) or parts thereof as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, subject to the applicable Development Requirements. A. The following residential uses: 1. Detached Dwellings B. Recreational developments or facilities owned or operated by the Controlling Developer, including clubhouses, parks, pools, ball fields, ball courts, playgrounds and other recreational spaces, and recreational buildings. C. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. D. Churches or other places of worship. Section 3.7. Open Space Area One. The following uses are permitted in the Open Space Area One or parts thereof as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, subject to the applicable Development Standards. A. Open Space including, without limitation, passive open space and active open space including, without limitation, athletic and recreational fields, courts, and facilities, and Accessory Structures. (J 12 u o u B. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. Section 3.8. Open Space Area Two. Open Space Area Two may be used for any purpose permitted under the S-l District of the Zoning Ordinance and not prohibited by Flood Plain Laws. Section 4. Accessory Buildine:s and Uses. All Accessory Structures and Accessory Uses Allowed under the Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted except that any detached accessory building shall have on all sides the same architectural features or shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) with which it is associated. Section 5. Communication Equipment. Cell towers shall not be permitted. Home satellite dishes shall be permitted. Section 6. Plattine:. The platting of the Real Estate into smaller tracts shall be permitted, so long as the proposed plat complies with the area requirements set forth below in Section 7 or Section 8, and the creation of a new property line within the Real Estate, shall not impose or establish new development standards beyond those specified below in Section 7 of Section 8 for the entirety of the Real Estate. However, the development of any parcel shall conform to all Final Development Plans which are approved or amended per the terms of Section 17 below, and all other applicable requirements contained in this Legacy Ordinance. Section 7. Residential Development. Section 7.1. General Standards. A. The Gross Residential Density for the entirety of the Real Estate, exclusive of Assisted Living Units, shall not exceed two and seven- tenths (2.7) units per acre. B. Without the approval of the Commission, no more than two hundred fifty (250) Apartments shall be permitted. C. A Dwelling may be utilized as a staffed model, including temporary sales office, during the course of build-out of the Development, subject to the parking and sign age requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be required before the model is placed in service. D. Fences or walls (i) in the front yard shall not be more than four feet high, (il) may not exceed six feet in height along rear and side yard lines and (iii) patio enclosures located in the permitted building area of the lot may not exceed nine feet in height. Fences located in the front yard, in front of the building line, shall not exceed thirty-two (32) inches in height. 13 U Section 7.2. Heie:ht. Area and Sauare Footae:e Reauirements. A. Minimum lot/parcel area: 1. Block 1: Twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet 2. Block 2: Eight thousand (8,000) square feet 3. Block 3: Seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet 4. Block 4: Seven thousand (7,000) square feet 5. Block 5: Five thousand (5,000) square feet 6. Block 6A and 6B: Three thousand (3,000) square feet 7. Mixed Use Area (T): not applicable 8. Mixed Use Area (MF): not applicable B. Minimum lot/parcel frontage on street (public or private): U 1. Block 1: Fifty (50) feet 2. Block 2: Fifty (50) feet 3. Block 3: Forty-five (45) feet 4. Block 4: Forty-five (45) feet 5. Block 5: Forty (40) feet 6. Block 6A and 6B: Thirty-five (35) feet 7. Mixed Use Area (T): not applicable 8. Mixed Use Area (MF): not applicable c. Minimum setback lines: u 1. Front yard (corner lots are required two front yard setbacks): a. Block 1: Twenty-five (25) feet b. Block 2: Twenty-five (25) feet 14 u c. Block 3: Twenty-five (25) feet d. Block 4: Twenty (20) feet e. Block 5: Ten (10) feet f. Block 6A and 6B: Ten (10) feet* g. Mixed Use Area (T): Ten (10) feet h. Mixed Use Area (MF): Thirty (30) feet * A Build-to-line may replace the setback line 2. Side yard: Zero (0) feet a. A minimum distance of six (6) feet between Detached Dwellings is required b. A minimum distance of fifteen (15) feet is required between structures containing Attached Dwellings U c. Minimum distance of fifteen (15) feet required between Apartment Buildings 3. Rear yard: a. Block 1: Twenty (20) feet b. Block 2: Twenty (20) feet c. Block 3: Fifteen (15) feet d. Block 4: Fifteen (15) feet e. Block 5: Fifteen (15) feet f. Block 6A and 6B: Ten (10) feet g. Mixed Use Area (T): Not applicable h. Mixed Use Area (MF): Not applicable 4. Minimum lot width at building line - U 15 u a. Block 1: Ninety (90) feet b. Block 2: Seventy (70) feet c. Block 3: Sixty-five (65) feet d. Block 4: Sixty (60) feet e. Block 5: Fifty (50) feet f. Block 6A and 6B: Forty (40) feet g. Mixed Use Area (T): Not applicable h. Mixed Use Area (MF): Not applicable D. Maximum building height: u 1. Block 1: Thirty-five (35) feet 2. Block 2: Thirty-five (35) feet 3. Block 3: Thirty-five (35) feet 4. Block 4: Thirty-five (35) feet 5. Block 5: Thirty-five (35) feet 6. Block 6A and 6B: Thirty-five (35) feet 7. Mixed Use Area (T): Forty (40) feet 8. Mixed Use Area (MF): Forty-five (45) feet E. Minimum square footage of Dwellings (exclusive of porches, terraces, and garages) 1. 2. 3. 4. U 5. Block 1: Two thousand four hundred (2,400) square feet Block 2: Two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet Block 3: One thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet Block 4: One thousand six hundred 1,600 square feet Block 5: One thousand six hundred 1,600 square feet 16 u u u 6. Block 6A and 6B: One thousand four hundred (1,400) square feet 7. Mixed Use Area (T): One thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet 8. Mixed Use Area (MF): Seven hundred fifty (750) square feet Section 8. Commercial Development. Section 8.1. General Standards. A. Without the approval of the Commission, the aggregate leasable square footage of commercial space in the Mixed Use Area (NR) shall not exceed one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet. B. Without the approval of the Commission, the aggregate leasable square footage of structures in the Mixed Use Area (0) shall not exceed one hundred ten thousand (110,000) square feet. C. Without the approval of the Commission, no restaurant located in the Neighborhood Retail Area shall be open for business (i) between the hours of 11:01 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Monday thru Thursday and (ii) between the hours of 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. D. Restaurants shall be permitted to operate outdoor cafes within or outside the right-of-way, provided that pedestrian circulation and access to store entrances are not impaired. Pedestrian ways of no less than five (5) feet in width shall be provided. E. All buildings and associated parking, landscaping, lighting and sign age in the Mixed Use Area (AL), Mixed Use Area (NR) and Mixed Use area (0) shall require ADLS approval by the Plan Commission pursuant to Section 17.1.B of this Legacy Ordinance. Section 8.2. Heie:ht. Area. and Sauare Footae:e Reauirements. A. Minimum lot/parcel area: 1. Mixed Use Area (AL): Five (5) acres 2. Mixed Use Area (NR): Not Applicable 3. Mixed Use Area (0): Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet 17 U B. Minimum lot frontage on road: 1. Mixed Use Area (AL): Two hundred (200) feet 2. Mixed Use Area (NR): Two hundred (200) feet 3. Mixed Use Area (0): One hundred (100) feet c. Minimum setback lines: 1. Front yard (corner lots are required two front yard setbacks): a. Mixed Use Area (AL): Ten (10) feet b. Mixed Use Area (NR): Ten (10) feet c. Mixed Use Area (0): Ten (10) feet 2 Side yard: a. Mixed Use Area (AL): Five (5) feet U b. Mixed Use Area (NR): Five (5) feet c. Mixed Use Area (0): Five (5) feet 3. Rear yard: a. Mixed Use Area (AL): Five (5) feet b. Mixed Use Area (NR): Five (5) fee c. Mixed Use Area (0): Five (5) feet 4. Minimum lot width at building line: a. Mixed Use Area (AL): Not Applicable b. Mixed Use Area (NR): Not Applicable c. Mixed Use Area (0): Not Applicable D. Maximum building height: U 1. Mixed Use Area (AL): Forty-five (45) feet 18 u u u 2. Mixed Use Area (NR): Forty-five (45) feet 3. Mixed Use Area (0): Forty-five (45) feet E. Minimum square footage, exclusive of porches, terraces, and garages 1. Mixed Use Area (AL): Not Applicable 2. Mixed Use Area (NR): Two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet 3. Mixed Use Area (0): Five thousand (5,000) square feet F. Maximum parcel coverage - 1. Mixed Use Area (AL): Not Applicable 2. Mixed Use Area (NR): Not Applicable 3. Mixed Use Area (0): Not Applicable Section 9. Open Space Area Development. Section 9.1. The layout, landscaping and lighting standards for the Open Space Area shall be as depicted on the Open Space/Landscape Plan with details illustrated on Exhibit "Q". Section 10. Streets. Section 10.1. The street layout (including rights-of-way, pavement widths, and design) within the District shall be as indicated on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, adapted as appropriate to the topography, unique natural features, and environmental constraints of the site. Streets shown on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat may be eliminated or relocated as part of an approved final plat to consolidate blocks for development as long as there is no materially adverse impact on the flow of traffic within the District. Section 10.2. Alleys shall be permitted based on the following standards: A. An Alley shall be a perpetual easement or private way and shall not be dedicated to the public. B. Curbing is not required except at corners of intersections with other street types. At such corner locations, curbing shall be required for the corner radius to the path or sidewalk paralleling the intersecting 19 u u u street. A concrete apron may serve as point of termination for the curb. C. Utilities may be located within Alleys. Section 10.3. All streets (excluding Alleys) within the Legacy District which are to be dedicated for public use and accepted for maintenance by the City of Carmel and shall be constructed to the standards of the City as applicable at the time of the enactment of this Legacy Ordinance, for depth and materials. Section 10.4. With the approval of the Commission, streets within the Legacy District may be private. Section 11. Architectural Desi!!n Requirements. Section 11.1. Buildin!! materials: A. A minimum of three (3) materials shall be used for Building exteriors within the Mixed Use Area, from the following list: brick, cast stone, stone, cement fiberboard, stucco, glass, wood soffits, and vinyl windows and/or the equivalents thereof for all of the foregoing. B. A minimum of two (2) materials shall be used for Building exteriors within the Single-family Area, from the following list: brick, cast stone, stone, cement fiberboard, stucco, glass, wood, and vinyl windows and/or the equivalents thereof for all of the foregoing. Vinyl siding shall only be permitted for shake style accent areas. Section 11.2. Tvpical Buildin!! ima!!es. renderine: and elevations: A. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "E", Exhibit "F". Exhibit "G" and Exhibit "H" are typical images, renderings and elevations, depicting the character of Detached Dwellings, to be constructed upon the Real Estate. B. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "I" and Exhibit "J" are typical images, renderings and elevations, depicting the character of Attached Dwellings and Apartments, to be constructed upon the Real Estate. C. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "K", Exhibit "L". and Exhibit "M" are typical images, renderings and elevations, depicting the character of assisted living, neighborhood retail and office buildings, to be constructed upon the Real Estate 20 u u u Section 11.3. Mechanical Eauipment and Dumpster Enclosures. Any mechanical equipment visible from an adjoining street shall be screened with suitable fencing or landscaping and in general shall be architecturally compatible with the building(s) with which it is associated. Dumpster enclosures shall be screened with a wall and gate of a material compatible with the primary building exterior. Section 12. Landscapim~ and Open Space Reauirements. Section 12.1. Landscape Plans. A. The Landscape Plan shall consist of the landscape detail depicted on the Open Space and Landscape Plan. Landscaping shall be installed per the Open Space and Landscape Plan. B. In addition to the landscaping illustrated on the Open Space and Landscape Plan all uses within Mixed Use Area (AL), Mixed Use Area (NR), Mixed Use Area (0), and Mixed Use Area (MF) shall meet the landscaping requirements of the Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Overlay Zone (Article 23F.ll of the Zoning Ordinance). Section 12.2. Landscapin2 Standards. A. Plantin2 Standards. Landscaping installed pursuant to this Legacy Ordinance and the City's planting standards and BMPs shall be integrated with other functional and ornamental site design elements, where appropriate, such as landscape materials, paths, sidewalks, or any water features. Adequate soil volumes for mature growth shall be considered and supplied for each plant material that is installed. Alternative or pervious paving materials shall be considered, or alternative planting media (such as structural soils) shall be considered, for urban areas were planting space is limited by restrictions such as buildings, asphalt or concrete paving, building parking decks, etc. Graphic planting details will be supplied to the City for each alternative planting situation before required ADLS approval of that section. B. Plant Materials. Landscaping materials shall be appropriate to local growing and climate conditions, and shall meet the requirements of the ANZI 60.1 (1996) Standards. Plant health and suitability, maintenance, and compatibility with site construction features are critical factors that shall be considered. Plantings should be designed with diversity, structured patterns, and complementary textures and colors, and should reinforce the overall character of the area. 1. Shade trees shall be at least two and a half inches (2 ~") in caliper diameter when planted. 21 u 2. Ornamental trees shall be at least one and a half inch (1 ~") in caliper diameter when planted. 3. Evergreen trees shall be at least six feet (6') in height when planted. 4. Shrubs shall be at least eighteen inches (18") in height when planted. 5. Ornamental grasses shall attain a mature height of at least three feet (3'). Section 12.3. Landscapine: Installation and Maintenance. A. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the owners and their agents to insure proper maintenance of project landscaping and lake areas approved in accordance with this Legacy Ordinance. This is to include, but is not limited to, irrigation and mulching of planting areas, replacing dead, diseased, or overgrown plantings with identical varieties or a suitable substitute, and keeping the area free of refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds. u Section 12.4. Open Space. A. Not less than forty (40) percent of the Real Estate shall be allocated to and shall remain in open space in perpetuity. Open Space Area One shall be used for social, recreational, detention and/or environmental preservation or mitigation purposes, and Open Space Area Two may be developed and used for any use permitted under the S-1 (Residential) classification of the Zoning Ordinance which is not prohibited by Flood Plain Laws. B. Open space in the Legacy District shall generally be of the size and configuration and in the locations depicted on the Open Space and Landscape Plan. c. The Developer may make improvements such as the cutting of trails as depicted on the Concept Plan/Primary Plat, the provision of picnic areas, removal of dead or diseased trees, thinning of trees or other vegetation to encourage more desirable growth, and grading and seeding. D. Recreational buildings, structures, and improvements (for example, pools, clubhouses, picnic structures, ball fields, tennis courts, and playground equipment) may be constructed in Open Space Area One. u 22 u u u E. Storm water quality/quantity treatment may be constructed in the open space. F. Trails shall be provided, where feasible, to link open space areas. Trails shall be a minimum of six (6) feet wide. Section 12.5. Street Trees. Shade trees shall be planted along all streets within the right-of-way, parallel to the street and installed per City standards. This standard includes, but may not be limited to, streets and medians to be built. One shade tree shall be installed every thirty to fifty feet (30'-50'). As per City standards, no street trees shall be planted in conflict with drainage or utility easements or structures, underground detention (unless so designed for that purpose), or within traffic vision safety clearances. Species shall be chosen from the Cityl's published list of recommended street trees. Section 12.6. Pedestrian Corridors Any pedestrian corridors that are platted, shall be planted with shade trees for cover (a minimum of one (1) per fifty feet (50') where possible) and shrubs and ground cover or ornamental grasses for interest and beautification. Section 13. Li2htin2. Section 13.1. Residential Li2htin2. Dusk to dawn yard lights shall be provided on all lots containing Detached Dwellings. Section 13.2. Commercial Li2htin2. All site lighting within the Mixed Use Area shall comply with the standards of the Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Overlay Zone (Article 23F.12 of the Zoning Ordinance). All fixtures shall be downcast fixtures/90 degree cutoff. Section 13.3. Street lights shall be as depicted on Exhibit "N", and consistent with the Real Estate. Section 13.4. Street lights along all collector streets and within the Mixed Use Area shall be provided at regular intervals. Street lighting on residential streets shall be confined to the intersections and corners. Section 13.5. Only security lighting shall be permitted within Open Space Area One. Section 13.6. Lighting in the Mixed Use Area (NR) and (0) parking lots shall be designed and maintained so that it is reduced to the minimum amount reasonably required for security purposes during the hours that retail establishments are not open for business. 23 U Section 14. Sbms. Section 14.1. Sine:le-Familv Area Sie:ns. A. All signs shall meet the requirements of Article 25.7 of the Zoning Ordinance B. Typical signs depicted on Exhibit "0", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 14.2. Mixed Use Area Sie:ns. All signs shall meet the requirements of Section 25.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 15. Parkine:. Section 15.1. Parkine:. The minimum number of parking spaces to be provided shall be computed as follows: A. One and one-half (1.5) spaces per Dwelling; B. Four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail floor space; and u C. Except as provided in Section 15.1(D) below, the rules set forth in Section 27.01 through 27.04 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply in computing the number of required parking spaces, and in determining the location and construction thereof; and D. Off-street parking areas for two (2) or more different uses may be provided collectively, if the total number of spaces provided is not less than the total of the minimum required spaces for each individual use. Combined parking shall be designed and constructed so as to create a desirable, efficient, and well planned off-street parking area with functional and aesthetic value, attractiveness and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Sharing of off-street parking areas is permitted where it is proved that two (2) adjacent buildings have uses that require parking at complementary times of the day or days of the week. In addition, on-street parking spaces may, if available and adjacent to the lot of the use, be counted as part of the total parking spaces required by this Section 15.1(D). Section 15.2. On-Street Parkine:. On-street parking may be counted toward all or part of the parking requirement for a use. For the purpose of measuring parking spaces, one parking space shall be counted for every 20' of parking area length. u Section 15.3. Loadine: and Service Areas. 24 u u u A. Loading docks, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and other service areas shall be placed to the rear or side of buildings. B. Screening and landscaping shall prevent direct views of the loading areas and their driveways from adjacent properties or from the public right-of-way. Screening and buffering shall be achieved through walls, fences, and landscaping, shall be a minimum of five feet tall, and shall be visually impervious. Recesses in the building, or depressed access ramps may be used. C. Trash collection areas shall be enclosed and screened as provided in Section 11.3. Section 16. Homeowners Association and Declaration of Covenants. Section 16.1. Declaration of Covenants and Homeowners Association. A Declaration of Covenants shall be recorded which shall also contain various provisions regarding the Real Estate, including provisions for an initiation fee, a budget requirement to fund general reserves, the use of the Real Estate, and improvement approval requirements after initial construction. The Declaration of Covenants will also provide for the establishment of a Homeowners Association in which membership shall be mandatory. At the discretion of the Developer, individual Associations may be established within each district, each required to be a member of the overall Master Association. There may be multiple Declarations of Covenants and Associations. Section 17. Approval Process. Section 17.1. Approval or Denial of the Concept Plan / Primary Plat and Final Development Plan. A. The Concept Plan/Primary Plat constitutes the Development Plan and primary plat for the Real Estate. B. All buildings and associated parking, landscaping, lighting and sign age in the Mixed Use Area (AL), Mixed Use Area (NR) and Mixed Use area (0) shall require ADLS approval by the Commission. If there is a Substantial Alteration in the approved ADLS, review and approval of the amended plans shall be made by the Commission, or a Committee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure. Minor Alterations may be approved by the Director. C. Final Development Plan approval for the Real Estate is required per the procedure set forth below in this Section 17. If there is a Substantial Alteration in the approved Development Plan/primary 25 u () plat, review and approval of the amended plans shall be made by the Commission, or a Committee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure. Minor Alterations and Material Alterations may be approved by the Director. D. The Director shall have the sole and exclusive authority to approve without conditions, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Final Development Plans/Secondary Plats (collectively, the "FDP") for Legacy District; provided, however, that the Director shall not unreasonably withhold or delay the Director's approval of the FDP that is in substantial conformance with the Concept Plan/Primary Plat and is in conformance with the Development Requirements of this Legacy Ordinance. If the Director disapproves any FDP, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis for the disapproval and schedule the request for approval of the FDP for a hearing before the full Plan Commission. E. An amendment to the FDP, which is not determined by the Director to be a substantial or material alteration from the approved Concept Plan/Primary Plat, may be reviewed and approved solely by the Director. However, in the event the Director determines that there has been a Substantial Alteration or Material Alteration between the approved Concept Plan and any proposed FDP, the Director may, at the Director's discretion, refer the amended FDP to the Commission, or a Committee thereof, for review and approval by the Commission and/or a Committee thereof. F. Any FDP shall be a specific plan for the development, which shall include reasonable detail regarding the facility and structures to be constructed, as well as drainage, erosion control, utilities, and building information. Section 17.2. Modification of Development Requirements. u A. The Commission may, upon petition of the Controlling Developer, modify any requirements specified in this Legacy Ordinance other than those relating to the uses authorized in Section 3 and Section 4. B. Modification of the Development Requirements requested by the Developer may be approved by a hearing examiner or committee designated by the Commission, after a public hearing held in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Procedure. However, any decision of a hearing examiner or committee which approves or denies any requested modification may be appealed by the Director or any interested party (including the Developer) to the Commission, also in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Procedure. 26 u u u C. Any proposed modification of the Development Requirements shall comply with the following guidelines: 1. The modification shall be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Legacy Ordinance. 2. The modification shall not have an adverse impact on the physical, visual, or spatial characteristics of the Development. 3. The modification shall not have an adverse impact on the streetscape and neighborhood. 4. The modification shall not result in configurations of lots or street systems which shall be unreasonable or detract materially from the appearance of the Development. 5. The minimum lot size of any lot to be created shall not be reduced below the requirements of this Legacy Ordinance. D. When applying the Development Requirements the Commission shall carefully weigh the specific circumstances surrounding the modification petition and strive for development solutions that promote the spirit, intent and purposes of this Legacy Ordinance. E. If the Commission (acting through its hearing examiner or committee) determines that the proposed modification will not have an adverse impact on development in the Legacy District, it shall grant a modification of the Development Requirements. In granting modifications, the Commission may impose such conditions as will, in its reasonable judgment, secure the objectives and purposes of this Legacy Ordinance. Section 18. Controlline: Developer's Consent. Without the consent of the Controlling Developer, no other Developer, user, owner, or tenant may obtain any permits or approvals, whatsoever, with respect to the Real Estate or any portion thereof and, as such, and by way of example but not by limitation, none of the following may be obtained without the approval and consent of the Controlling Developer: A. Improvement location permits for any improvements within the Real Estate; B. Sign permits for any signs within the Real Estate; C. Building permits for any buildings within the Real Estate; 27 u o u D. DP, ADLS, or primary or secondary plat approval for any part of the Real Estate; and E. Any text amendments or other variations to the terms and conditions of this Legacy Ordinance. Section 19. River Developable Parcel. Notwithstanding anything in this Legacy Ordinance to the contrary, the River Developable Parcel shall remain zoned S-1 (Residential) under the Zoning Ordinance, and the use and development of the River Developable Parcel shall be governed by the S-1 (Residential) classification of the Zoning Ordinance, and not by this Legacy Ordinance. Section 20. Violations. All violations of this Legacy Ordinance shall be subject to Section 34.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. 28 / ' u o o PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this _ day of , 2006, by a vote of ayes and nays. COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL Presiding Officer Richard L. Sharp, President Ronald E. Carter Brian D. Mayo Fredrick J. Glaser Mark Rattermann Joseph C. Griffiths Kevin Kirby ATTEST: Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer 29 u u u Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana the _ day of ,2006, at o'clock_.M. Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this ,2006, at o'clock .M. day of James Brainard, Mayor ATTEST: Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer This Instrument prepared by: 30 u u u EXHIBIT At Development Area Legal Description A part of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22 and a part of Section 23, Township 18 North, Range 4 East of the 2nd Principal Meridian, Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana described more particularly as follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of said Section 23 thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 40 seconds West along the north line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 23 a distance of 337.40 feet; thence South 20 degrees 07 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 149.74 feet to the Point of Beginning being the southwest intersection of the rights-of-way for 146th Street and River Road as described in Instrument No. 200100065741 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, the following 12 courses along the westerly right-of-way of River Road per said Instrument No. 200100065741; (1) South 20 degrees 07 minutes 21 seconds West a distance of 92.91 feet; (2) South 69 degrees 52 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 16.50 feet; (3) South 00 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 195.81 feet to a point on a non- tangent curve to the right having a radius of 688.98 feet, the radius point of which bears North 89 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds West; (4) southerly along said curve an arc distance of 426.40 feet to a point which bears South 54 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East from said radius point; (5) South 35 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 313.27 feet; (6) North 69 degrees 52 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 16.50 feet; (7) South 20 degrees 07 minutes 28 seconds West a distance of 119.41 feet; (8) North 69 degrees 52 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 16.50 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1574.80 feet, the radius point of which bears South 54 degrees 49 minutes 01 seconds East; (9) southwesterly along said curve an arc distance of 367.82 feet to a point which bears North 68 degrees 11 minutes 57 seconds West from said radius point; (10) South 21 degrees 48 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 191.51 feet; (11) South 15 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 82.28 feet; (12) South 68 degrees 12 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 16.50 feet to the physical centerline of River Road, the following 17 courses along the physical centerline of River Road; (1) South 21 degrees 14 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 243.57 feet; (2) South 21 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 151.74 feet; (3) South 23 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 99.76 feet; (4) South 24 degrees 29 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 51.87 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 397.42 feet, the radius point of which bears North 66 degrees 03 minutes 44 seconds West; (5) southwesterly along said curve an arc distance of 191.02 feet to a point which bears South 38 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East from said radius point; (6) South 52 degrees 56 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 64.43 feet; (7) South 56 degrees 48 minutes 58 seconds West a distance of 84.84 feet; (8) South 58 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of 204.22 feet; (9) South 59 degrees 38 minutes 13 seconds West a distance of 213.74 feet; (10) South 59 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 416.86 feet; (11) South 59 degrees 26 minutes 13 seconds West a distance of 210.95 feet; (12) South 59 degrees 08 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 205.20 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1427.15 feet, the radius point of which bears South 29 degrees 09 minutes 29 seconds East; (13) southwesterly along said curve an arc distance of 338.21 feet to a point which bears North 42 degrees 44 minutes 11 seconds West from said radius point; (14) South 47 degrees 13 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 257.68 feet; (15) South 47 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 316.41 feet; (16) South 46 degrees 58 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 613.46 feet to a point on a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1232.86 feet, the radius point of which bears South 43 degrees 01 minutes 14 seconds East; (17) southwesterly along said curve an arc distance of 153.01 feet to a point which bears North 50 degrees 07 minutes 52 seconds West from said radius point; thence North 00 degrees 53 minutes 16 seconds West along the southerly extension of the Carmel Clay School's land described in Instrument No. 9609651829 in the Office of the Recorder, Hamilton County, Indiana a distance of 78.51 feet to the south corner of said land being a point on a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 1285.49 feet, the radius point of which bears South 47 degrees 28 minutes 47 seconds East; thence northeasterly along said curve and the east line of said land an arc distance of 100.05 feet to a point which bears North 43 degrees 01 minutes 14 seconds West from said radius u u u point; thence continuing North 46 degrees 58 minutes 46 seconds East along said east line a distance of 613.46 feet to the northeast corner of said land; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 37 seconds West along the north line of said land a distance of 2114.73 feet to the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 23; thence North 00 degrees 19 minutes 58 seconds East along said west line a distance of 1112.50 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Southwest Quarter also the Southeast Corner of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22; thence South 89 degrees 39 minutes 16 seconds West along the south line of said East Half a distance of 1321.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of said East Half; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 32 seconds West along the west line of said East Half a distance of 2610.79 feet to the southerly right -of-way of 146th Street, the remaining courses along said right-of-way; thence South 84 degrees 48 minutes 27 seconds East a distance of 396.84 feet; thence South 88 degrees 44 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 411.89 feet; thence North 86 degrees 49 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 200.04 feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 295.28 feet; thence South 83 degrees 58 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 230.15 feet; thence North 87 degrees 45 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 197.10 feet; thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 1246.72 feet; thence South 88 degrees 10 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 458.39 feet; thence South 85 degrees 17 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 696.40 feet; thence South 89 degrees 15 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 2161.67 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 413.414 acres, more or less. u u 'U EXHIBIT A2 Recreation Area Legal Description A part of Section 23 and Section 24. Township 18 North. Range 4 East of the 2nd Principal Meridian, Clay Township. Hamilton County. Indiana. described more particularly as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 23 thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 40 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the north line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 23 a distance of 337.40 feet; thence South 20 degrees 07 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 149.74 feet to the southwest intersection of the rights-of-way of 146th Street and River Road as described in Instrument No. 200100065741 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County. Indiana; thence South 86 degrees 23 minutes 21 seconds East a distance of 130.67 feet to the Point of Beginning being the southeast intersection of said rights-of-way for 146th Street and River Road (the following eight courses being along the southerly right-of-way of 146th Street per said Instrument No. 200100065741); (1) thence South 89 degrees 15 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 423.63 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 6650.26 feet, the radius point of which bears North 00 degrees 44 minutes 08 seconds East; (2) thence easterly along said curve an arc distance of 596.98 feet to a point which bears South 04 degrees 24 minutes 28 seconds East from said radius point; (3) thence North 81 degrees 27 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 136.79 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 6482.94 feet, the radius point of which bears South 04 degrees 24 minutes 29 seconds East; (4) thence easterly along said curve an arc distance of 556.05 feet to a point which bears North 00 degrees 30 minutes 23 seconds East from said radius point; (5) thence South 89 degrees 29 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 126.94 feet; (6) thence South 86 degrees 38 minutes 21 seconds East a distance of 558.90 feet; (7) thence North 84 degrees 36 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 110.62 feet; (8) thence North 89 degrees 25 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 238.80 feet; thence continuing on the easterly extension of said right-of-way North 89 degrees 25 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 115.74 feet to the middle of White River (the following two courses being along the middle of White River); (1) thence South 03 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 868.05 feet; (2) thence South 17 degrees 02 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 564.64 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of3212.80 feet to the easterly right-of-way of River Road per said Instrument No. 200100065741 being a point on a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 1443.57 feet, the radius point of which bears South 66 degrees 45 minutes 59 seconds East (the following five courses being along said easterly right of way); (1) thence northeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 311.27 feet to a point which bears North 54 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds West from said radius point; (2) thence North 35 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 426.04 feet to a point on a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 820.21 feet, the radius point of which bears North 54 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds West; (3) thence northerly along said curve an arc distance of 507.62 feet to a point which bears South 89 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds East from said radius point; (4) thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 258.32 feet; (5) thence North 34 degrees 37 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 27.30 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 95.82 acres, more or less. u EXHIBIT "B" Conceptual Plan / Primary Plat (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 32 u EXHIBIT "C" Open Space and Landscape Plan (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 33 u EXHIBIT "D" Mixed Use Area and SiDlde-familv Area Diae:ram (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 34 u EXHIBIT "E" Character Exhibit - Residential Block 1 (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 35 u EXHIBIT "F" Character Exhibit - Residential Block 2 & 3 (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 36 u EXHIBIT "G" Character Exhibit - Residential Block 4 & 5 (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 37 (J EXHIBIT "H" Character Exhibit - Residential Block 6A & 6B (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) (J (J 38 u EXHIBIT "I" Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (T) - Townhome Blocks (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 39 u EXHIBIT" J" Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (MF) - Multi-familv Area (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 40 o EXHIBIT "K" Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (ALl - Assisted Livin2: Block (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) o (. U 41 u EXHIBIT "L" Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (NR) - Nei!!hborhood Retail Blocks (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) (, U u 42 o EXHIBIT "M" Character Exhibit - Mixed Use Area (0) - Office Blocks (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) o o 43 -, u EXHIBIT "N" Tvpical Street Lie:htine: (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 44 u EXHIBIT "0" Tvpical Sine:le-familv Area Sie:nae:e (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 4S u EXHIBIT "P" Amenitv Area Plan and Details (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 46 u EXHIBIT "Q" Open Space - Site Details (See Tab 2 of this Plan Commission Binder) u u 47 u ranch Inc. Tree Care Landscaping Consulting Services Woodland Analysis For: East Carmel, LLC. u By: Judson R. Scott Registered Consulting Arborist #392 American Society of Consulting Arborists and Patrick Grecu, Natural Resource Specialist Indiana Accredited Horticulturist #1418 May 10, 2006 u 4721 East 146th Street, Carmel, IN. 46033. 317.846.3778 u u u Vme Tree Care Landscaping Consulting Services May 10, 2006 East Carmel, LLC. Re: Legacy The following is the requested Woodland Analysis for the Legacy development property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 146th Street and River Road in Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. Please refer to the aerial photo and the photo documentation (appendix A and B) when reading this report. This report contains lists of all flora and fauna discovered during the inspection (appendix C). The Legacy property is currently agricultural land with several farm buildings located on the eastern edge along River Road as well as several dilapidated barns in the western portion. The land is located in a semi- rural area that is surrounded by new residential developments. The property can be divided in to 4 sections. The tree line located in Section A is located on the far west end of the property and borders several residential properties. Black cherry, white mulberry, and hackberry are the species most prevalent in this section, with young black walnut, sassafras, and honey locust also present. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSa III definitions (7.05.07). Section B is located in the western portion of the property. This area includes scattered groupings of trees that extend from the northern end of the south tree line (Section C) to 146th Street. There are a few large trees scattered through this section with most of the growth still relatively young. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSa III definitions (7.05.07). Section C is located in the southwest portion of the property and borders a residential community. This tree line is very sparse and is comprised of a few scattered hackberry, ash, elm, and white mulberry trees. Section D is located in the center of the property and is surrounded on all sides by agricultural fields. There are many large trees scattered throughout this woodland but the majority of the trees are less than 12" in dbh. There are many mature trees distributed throughout this section, which includes large sugar maple, red oak, shagbark hickory, black walnut, and pignut hickory. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSa III definitions (7.05.07). As always, any trees that are preserved should be properly managed prior to clearing or construction including early fertilization, pruning and crown cleaning to reduce risk and liability. Trees should also be protected during all phases of development and construction to maximize their chances of survival. Please contact us if there are any questions about this work. We appreciate this opportunity to work with you. Thank you, Judson R. Scott President, Vine & Branch Inc. Registered Consulting Arborist #392 American Society of Consulting Arborists Patrick Grecu, Natural Resource Specialist Indiana Accredited Horticulturalist #1418 4721 East 146th Street, Carmel, IN. 46033. 317.846.3778 o Location Legacy Property The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 146th Street and River Road in Carmel, Indiana Assignment and Scope of Work 1. Inspect the property and provide an analysis of the natural resources. 2. Mark these natural resources on an aerial photo. 3. Rate the wooded areas. 4. Note and mark any unusual or exceptional trees or landmarks. 5. Record species of flora and fauna found on site. 6. Photo-document property if requested. Limitations Inspections were conducted May 9,2006. As such, they are limited by the time frame and present field conditions. These are not long-term observations that would be needed to fully represent the full spectrum of plants and animals, which use the land over the course of the year and the changing seasons. Summer and fall blooming plants, as well as migrating animals are some of the categories that are not represented in this report. u Methodology All areas in the scope of work were inspected on foot. Tallies of the tree species were taken by species and size. The property was separated into different areas defined by changes in tree, plant, or land cover characteristics. These areas are plotted on the aerial photo attached as Appendix A. All animals and birds seen, heard, or found evident by sign were noted. Plants seen along the way were also noted. All plants, animals and other life noted during the inspection are listed in the appendices. More complete lists could be obtained through more intensive investigations. Findings This property is currently an agricultural property with several farm buildings located on the eastern edge along River Road as well as several dilapidated barns in the western portion. The vast majority of the property is agricultural fields and pasture lands, with a wooded area located in the center. The property borders 146th Street on the north, River Road on the east, residential developments on the west and southwest, and Prairie Trace Elementary School on the south. The topography on the site is flat with the exception of a small rise that is present in the western portion. The property is located in a semi-rural area that is surrounded by new residential developments. The property can be divided into four major areas: the west tree line (Section A), the scattered groupings of trees in the western portion (Section B), the south tree line (Section C), and the central woodland (Section D). u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, ReA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 3 of 33 Specific Area Descriptions (see map and photos in Appendix A & B) The following descriptions will list the general description of each area including dominant tree species and any other conditions or flora/fauna not found on the rest of the property. u Section A: West Tree Line This tree line is located on the far west end of the property and borders several residential properties. Black cherry, white mulberry, and hackberry are the species most prevalent in this section, with young black walnut, sassafras, and honey locust also present. This tree line has very thick undergrowth in many places including black raspberry, multiflora rose, amur honeysuckle, and autumn olive. Many of the large trees that are in this area appear to be on the neighboring properties. Many of the trees in this section would be good to preserve because they provide a buffer for the neighboring properties. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSO III definitions (7.05.07). Trees present in this area include: . Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) . Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) . Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) . Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) . Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) . Black walnut (Juglans nigra) . Eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) . White mulberry (Morus alba) . Black cherry (Prunus serotina) . Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) u Section B: Scattered GrouDinas of Trees in West Portion of ProDertY This section is located in the western portion of the property. This area includes scattered groupings of trees that extend from the northern end of the south tree line (Section C) to 146th Street. The southernmost grouping includes many black locust, hackberry, and young black walnut; many of these black locust are in poor condition. The ground layer in this section is comprised on pasture grasses, a few woodland forbs, and field weeds. The grouping of trees in the west portion of this section includes Ohio buckeye, black locust, black walnut, hackberry, and black cherry. These trees surround several old farm buildings in disrepair and line the dirt road that runs from 146th Street through this section. There are a few large trees scattered through this section with most of the growth still relatively young. The east grouping of trees in this area is comprised of black cherry, white mulberry, and black locust while the north end of this area that extends to 146th Street includes a few scattered mature black walnuts, but is mostly very young growth. Many of these trees would be good candidates for preservation because they would have value in a residential landscape setting. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSa III definitions (7.05.07). Trees present in this area include: . Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) . Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra) . Gray dogwood (Comus racemosa) . Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) . Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) . White ash (Fraxinus americana) . Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) . Black walnut (Juglans nigra) . White mulberry (Morus alba) . Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) · Red elm (Ulmus rubra) u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 4 of 33 u Section C: South Tree Line This section is located in the southwest portion of the property and borders a residential community. This tree line is very sparse and is comprised of a few scattered hackberry, ash, elm, and white mulberry trees. The northern portion of this tree line is adjacent to a woodland on a neighboring property and includes a number of field weeds such as multiflora rose and black raspberry, and a few more scattered trees. This tree line doesn't provide any screening or buffering to neighboring properties. Trees present in this area include: . Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) . White ash (Fraxinus americana) . White mulberry (Morus alba) . Red elm (Ulmus rubra) . Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Section D: Central Woodland This section is located in the center of the property and is surrounded on all sides by agricultural fields. There are many large trees scattered throughout this section but the majority of the trees are less than 12" in dbh. Some of the large trees include: red oak (24"+), black walnut (24"+), sugar maple (28"+), shagbark hickory (24"+), and pignut hickory (24"+). There is very heavy ground layer growth of avens, mayapple, Virginia creeper, and poison ivy and a large number of young sugar maples in the understory. There are a number of trees in this wooded section that would have a high value in a landscape setting. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSO III definitions (7.05.07). u Trees present in this area include: . Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) . Pignut hickory (Carya glabra) . Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) . Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) . Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) . White ash (Fraxinus americana) . Black walnut (Juglans nigra) . Eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) . Black cherry (prunus serotina) . Red oak (Quercus rubra) . Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) . American elm (Ulmus americana) . Red elm (Ulmus rubra) . Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Discussion This vast majority of the land use of this property is for agricultural use. There is a large wooded area in the center of the property and scattered groupings of trees in the western portion. Section A has weedy, weak wooded species such as black cherry and white mulberry for the most part, with other species scattered along the tree line. This area is important to preserve because it does provide a buffer between this development and the neighboring properties. Section B includes scattered groupings of trees with mostly black locust, hackberry, black walnut, white mulberry, and black cherry. There is a lot of young growth in this section especially in the southern and northern portions. This section has many old farm buildings that have collapsed as well as a few abandoned vehicles. There are several mature trees throughout this section that would be good candidates for preservation and would benefit the residents of this community. This section also provides shelter, food, foraging areas, and nesting grounds for the variety of wildlife in the area. Section C is a very sparse tree line that has some thick undergrowth in places but very few trees. U Hackberry and white mulberry account for most of the trees present along this fence line. Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 5 of 33 u Section D is a wooded area present in the center of the property and contains the majority of the trees on the site. There are many mature trees distributed throughout this section, which includes large sugar maple, red oak, shagbark hickory, black walnut, and pignut hickory. There is a lot of young sugar maple growth in the understory of this woodland especially in the open areas in the canopy and along the edges where it borders the agricultural fields. This area provides a habitat for wildlife and would be a great woodland to preserve for the community to encourage interaction with nature. Planning for the preservation of these trees would increase the value of the property and the marketability of the site. They are an irreplaceable asset to the community. Any trees that are to be preserved near future home sites should be individually assessed to determine the health and structural integrity of each tree. Proper care will help maximize the long-term health of the tree and to minimize potential risks. Conclusion The Legacy property is currently agricultural land with several farm buildings located on the eastern edge along River Road as well as several dilapidated barns in the western portion. The vast majority of the property is agricultural fields and pasture lands, with a wooded area located in the center. The land is located in a semi-rural area that is surrounded by new residential developments. The property can be divided into four major areas: the west tree line (Section A), the scattered groupings of trees in the western portion (Section B), the south tree line (Section C), and the central woodland (Section D). u The tree line located in Section A is located on the far west end of the property and borders several residential properties. Black cherry, white mulberry, and hackberry are the species most prevalent in this section, with young black walnut, sassafras, and honey locust also present. This area is important to preserve because it does provide a buffer between this development and the neighboring properties. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSa III definitions (7.05.07). Section B is located in the western portion of the property. This area includes scattered groupings of trees that extend from the northern end of the south tree line (Section C) to 146th Street. There are a few large trees scattered through this section with most of the growth still relatively young. Many of these trees would be good candidates for preservation because they would have value in a residential landscape setting. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSa III definitions (7.05.07). Section C is located in the southwest portion of the property and borders a residential community. This tree line is very sparse and is comprised of a few scattered hackberry, ash, elm, and white mulberry trees. Section D is located in the center of the property and is surrounded on all sides by agricultural fields. There are many large trees scattered throughout this woodland but the majority of the trees are less than 12" in dbh. There are many mature trees distributed throughout this section, which includes large sugar maple, red oak, shagbark hickory, black walnut, and pignut hickory. This woodland has many trees that would have a high value in a landscape setting. This area provides a habitat for wildlife and would be a great woodland to preserve for the community to encourage interaction with nature. This area would be classified as "young woodland" according to Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance ROSa III definitions (7.05.07). u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott. RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 6 of 33 All trees that are to be preserved should be protected during construction. They should also be inspected, pruned, and cleaned up to remove any broken limbs and reduce potential risk. u I certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith. Judson R. Scott President, Vine & Branch Inc. Registered Consulting Arborist #392 American Society of Consulting Arborists Patrick Grecu Natural Resource Specialist Indiana Accredited Horticulturist #1418 u u Copyright @ 2006 Vine & Branch, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America., no part of this publication may be changed, reproduced or distributed without written permission of Vine & Branch Inc. This report and the information it contains are CONFIDENTIAL, for the use of the individual or firm to whom it is addressed, and their assigns. Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 7 of 33 Appendix A: Aerial Photo, Legacy Property, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana Approximate Lo~tion of . Property Bqundaries Prop~rty Sections Photograph Lo~tions Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 J East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 8 of 33 IJ J Appendix B: Photo-documentation. u u 1. West Tree Line o 2. Scattered trees in western portion with west tree line in background Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 9 of 33 I IV u u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 3. West tree line (looking south) 4. West tree line (looking north) East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 10 of 33 u 5. Closeup of west tree line u 6. Distant view of trees in western portion (Section B) u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott. RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 11 of 33 u -----~--.-~-----.--~..--~--,..--~-~---___r-----........- 7. Corner of west tree line u -.-..----) I I , , 8. Trees in western portion of property (Section B) u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 12 of 33 u 9. Neighborhood west of property u 10. Closeup of west tree line u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 13 of 33 o 11. Trees bordering woodland south of property o 12. Scattered trees o Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 14 of 33 u 13. Sugar maple and black walnut along southern border u 14. Young sugar maples u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 15 of 33 () 15. Young sugar maples and large sugar maple just south of property () '''~;;''A'J,~ -"","';,' ~'>'f\". :.:.,.-..:...:!:.' --:J.i~."l ,,-~.;' '-' ": JJ[,~ ~,: ",.'~.:_, ~~::~~~; '~""'; '''",- 16. Trees among open field in western portion u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 16 of 33 o 17. Black locust in open field u 18. Thick undergrowth under hackberries () Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 17 of 33 u 19. Scattered trees in open fields in west portion of property u 20. Agricultural fields u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 18 of 33 u 21. Hackberry growing in old truck frame u 22. Small agricultural field u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 19 of 33 ~ ~~~~;> ,+t,'.. ~.. . .,co:;',- r. , ~"-. 23. Tree line on east side of Section B ~ 24. Line of trees along west drive \...J Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 20 of 33 o 25. Heavy growth along border of agricultural field o 26. Trees along west drive (j Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 21 of 33 u 27. Large black walnut u 28. Trees in northern end of west section u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 22 of 33 u 29. Central woodland u 30. West end of woodland u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 23 of 33 u 31. Heavy ground layer growth in woodland u 32. Large oak among young growth u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 24 of 33 ~ 33. Open canopy of center portion of woodland ~ 34. Young growth in center portion .~ Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 25 of 33 u 35. East end of woodland u 36. Fallen tree in east end u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 26 of 33 \......./ 37. \......./ " '! ,.-,. '. _~~0~'~; ~J't~'.fk~ r-:. . ','5"}. !:\W;,.~ ='-=l -,~ ~.:...:.-~.~ -~~ . . '- -.. -:-- '..:"';'.. . ~~. . . ';';: "'r_ .....:...,.- ;. ../."", :;:/\ '1' o j_L~~;~~.j..~: ~~ _::::~~~:t__:.._-..~ ..... _,_' +':..;.~;t....~, .~~. ~'(.;.....::_._... "'.- 38. Trees along southeast edge of woodland "'--/ Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 27 of 33 u 39. East edge of woodland u 40. Sparse growth along south tree line u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 28 of 33 u - -....1- ..alii. ii8, -':;:".." 111111 ~,.I! II .. . I. II fij. .... II .. !Ii J~" ~ B_ -.' I..,. III ... !Il!_ II .r I ." ...... .... III lUll II .. I. III. IlII!I I II --. III .', I II . _1111 IIIIIIII 1'1 ~ _ IIIl1 . 11_. B_., '. .... II.. III '.',n_ .11I "11II".' .......'.' II. .. .. .-..... ........ . '. .... -.- 11_..... -. ,. . ... ....... 11111I II. 1111 .....[1..1 II i,II.'- Il1I -. ~ 11I11 Ii IB.IIIIII'III 11II _ _. .. 111m 'U.', _- 11._ I .. · -. IDfJ!I .. . · .DlIl "".. 11IIII .... II. I' 1_ ..- .. .- . -- -..- -. II . . III"' _ .,.- . - .. -- .!II&. II III - ..... . ,- . - -.- . . III... III -..- ... r 41. South tree line bordering neighboring woodland u 42. Dilapidated farm buildings among mature trees u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC./Legacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 29 of 33 (;) (;) o 43. Small depression along west drive Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, ReA #392 317.846.1424 u u u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 45. West drive East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 31 of 33 Appendix C: Master Lists of Flora and Fauna Found on Site u u Trees Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra) Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) Pignut hickory (Carya glabra) Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) Gray dogwood (Comus racemosa) Hawthorn (Craetegus spp.) White ash (Fraxinus americana) Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) White mulberry (Morus alba)* Eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) Black cherry (prunus serotina) Red oak (Quercus rubra) Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) American elm (Ulmus americana) Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Red elm (Ulmus rubra) Shrubs Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackil)* Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)* Black raspberry (Rubus spp.) Autumn olive (E/aeagnus umbe//ata)* " Vines Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) Greenbriar (Smilax sp.) Poison ivy ( Toxicodendron radicans) Wild grape ( Vitus sp.) u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 32 of 33 u Plant sDecies Thistle (Cirsium sp.)* Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Orchard grass (Dadylis glomerata) Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota) Daisy fleabane (Erigeron annuus) Fescue grass (Festuca spp.) Avens (Geum sp.) Annual rye grass (Lolium multiflorum) Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) English plantain (Plantago lanceolata) Bluegrass (poa spp.) Mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum) Foxtail (Setaria spp.) False solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa) Goldenrods (Solidago spp.) * = non-native, invasive species Animal sDecies Deer Rabbits Raccoons Squirrels u u Vine & Branch, Inc. Judson R. Scott, RCA #392 317.846.1424 East Carmel, LLC.lLegacy PJG 2006.5.10 Page 33 of 33 u u u' TRAFFIC OPERA liONS ANALYSIS LEGACY 146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD CARMEL, INDIANA PREPARED FOR EAST CARMEL, LLC JUNE 2006 A&F ENGINEERING CO., LLC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240 (317) 202-0864 u u u TRAFFIC OPERA liONS ANALYSIS LEGACY 146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD CARMEL, INDIANA PREPARED FOR EAST CARMEL, LLC JUNE 2006 PREPARED By: A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 PHONE 317-202-0864 FAX 317-202-0908 u u u LEGACY CARl\-IEL INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS COPYRIGHT This Analysis and the ideas, designs and concepts contained herein are the exclusive intellectual property of A&F Engineering Co., LLC. and are not to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent of A&F Engineering Co., LLC. @2006, A&F Engineering Co., LLC. u o u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF FIGURES....... ......................... .... ........ .............. ............ .................... ......................... ...... ........ .... .......... ...... ....... II CERTIFiCATION.................................................................... ...... ............................................................ ....................... I II INTRODUCTION. ..... .......... .............. ................................................. ....... ............. ............... ...... ...... ................................. 1 PURPOSE..... ....... ..... ..... .......................... ................................................ ...... ....... .... ................. ....................................... 1 SCOPE OF WORK........ ..... ........................... ................... ............ ................... ................. ........ .......................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ..... ...... ........... ...................... ............ ............ ............................... .................. .......... ........ 2 STUDY AREA.............................................................................................................................. ....................................2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM ............... .................... .... ......... ................ ............................. ......... ....4 TRAFFIC DATA ....................... ....... ................. ........................................................... ............. ........................................4 PEAK HOUR............................................... ............................................................. ........................................................4 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................6 TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................6 INTERNAL TRIPS............ .................................. ....................... ...................................... ........ ....... ...................................6 PASS-BY TRiPS.... ...... ...................................... ....................................................... ........................................................7 TABLE 2 -INTERNAL AND PASS-BY TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 7 ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS..... ............... .................................................................. ..........8 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM.............................................................8 CAPACITY ANALYSIS... ..... ........................................................... .................................. ..................... ......................... .12 DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERViCE............ ........... .... ....... ..... .................................................. ..................................12 CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS ....................................... ........................ ............ ................... .................... ........... ...14 TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD................................................................17 TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146Tl' STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 1 ...................................................18 TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146ff' STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 2 (RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) .............18 TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146111 STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 3 ...................................................19 TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146T11 STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 4 (RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) .............20 TABLE g - LEVELOF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146T11 STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 5...................................................20 TABLE 9 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 6.....................................................21 TABLE 10 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 7...................................................21 TABLE 11 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 8...................................................22 TABLE 12 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 9...................................................22 CONCLUSIONS..................................... ............... ......... ................ ...... .................. ...... .......... ................................ ........ .23 RECOMMENDATIONS.......... ......................................... ................. ...... ..................... ............ ............... ......................... .28 u o u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERA nONS ANALYSIS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE I: AREA l'vlAP ..... ...... ......... ............. .... ...... ... .......... .......... ....... ...................... ..... ...... .............. ............. .............. ..3 FIGURE 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION SCHEMATICS ..........................................................................................................5 FIGURE 3A: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR TOTAL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.. .... ........... .............. .... .................. ................ ...... .........................................................9 FIGURE 3B: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED PASs-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR TOTAL PROPOSED DEVELOPM ENT........................... .............. ........................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE4: TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.....................................................II FIGURE 5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................................................................15 FIGURE 6: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPM ENT.. ........ ............ .......... ................... ................................................................................................. 16 11 u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CERTIFICATION I certify that this TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering. A&F ENGINEERING CO., LLC. \\\111""'"'", \\ I F II "~II \\ J. [f/D 1/// ,'.~\ "f '/ ~ ,,~,"1""", /./> "/ $' .::;.; ",,\~ \ 5 T t ';"'" (T -? ~ 2 " ........... ~~ <'0 I,.... C' -s. -~-- -:.~- ~ f No.12855 ~ ~ - - - - STATE - -;. ....0 -:., or .-: ~ ::: ~ ~ ...."" Itv 0 I A ~ l>-",........ <~...$ /., v./", \' ~v....... '/ /" (. It'll'''''' \"'" ,'" /////I/SIONAl ,-\\~\\\"" "1/,,,","11\\\ President Indiana Registration 12855 \ O/Y) 'V ~t~L.~ Thomas S. Vandenberg, E.!. Transportation Engineer ~yj Brett Schnurpel, E.!. Transportation Engineer III u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Hamilton County and the City of Carmel, on behalf of East Cmmel, LLC, is for a proposed mixed-use development that will be constructed along 146th Street and River Road in Cmmel, Indiana. PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site is developed. Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes. 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 tranic 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 as follows: First, to obtain peak hour manual traffic volume counts at the intersection of 1461h Street and River Road. Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed mixed-use development. Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will serve to provide access to the proposed development. u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development onto the public roadway system and intersections that have been identified as the study area. Fifth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in the study area considering each of the following scenarios: . Existing Traffic Volumes - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic volumes. . Existing + Proposed Development - New traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development added to the existing traffic volumes. Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses, conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the study area. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The proposed development is to be located along 1461h Street and River Road in Carmel, Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of retail, general office, and residential land uses. Access to the proposed development will be provided along both 146th Street and along River Road. A roadway connection in the southwest comer of the site will be made to the existing Cherry Tree Boulevard which will then provide access to the site from Hazel Dell Parkway. Figure 1 is an area map showing the location of the proposed development and its associated access points. STUDY AREA The study area has been defined to include the following intersections: . 146th Street & River Road . All proposed access points Figure 1 is an area map showing the location of the study intersections. 2 [\ l/ I : .J \ ""\ .-/ g 8 J. ~ ]: 1i "" ~ I ! ?i -~ '\ ) ----a ~ ~ , N ALL DISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATE LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 3 '\, LAND USE LEGEND IBLOCKS'1' -,II) t. ." ;' 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEHTlAL lOTS TOWNHOIIES t''', If, .., N. 1 r 0'1 L;"a;;::] IIULn-FAIIILY (APARTIIENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY OrnCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS tWO @ PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS f1VE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX Q) PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE FIGURE 1 AREA MAP @A c!c F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERA nONS ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes l461h Street, River Road and Chen)' Tree Boulevard. 1 46TH STREET - is an east/west four lane, divided roadway that travels through Carmel. The posted speed limit along this roadway in the vicinity of the site is 45 mph. RIVER ROAD - is a north/south two lane roadway that travels from l161h Street and past 146111 Street. The posted speed limit along this roadway in the vicinity of the site is 40 mph. CHERRY TREE BOULEVARD - is an east/west two lane roadway that travels from Hazel Dell Parkway through the Cherry Tree Estates subdivision. A roadway connection in the southwest corner of the site will be made to Cherry Tree Boulevard which will then provide access to the site from Hazel Dell Parkway. 146111 Street & River Road - This intersection is controlled with an automatic traffic signal. The northbound and southbound approaches each consist of a left-turn lane, a through lane and a right-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches each consist of a left~turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane. Figure 2 shows the existing intersection schematics. TRAFFIC DATA Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by A&F Engineering Co., LLC at the intersection of 1 461h Street and River Road. The count includes an hourly total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersection. The count was made during the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM in April 2006. Computer printouts of the traffic volume counts are included in the Appendix. PEAK HOUR Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak hours occur from 7: 15 AM to 8: 15 AM and 5: 15 PM to 6: 15 PM. Therefore, the volumes collected during these hours will be used for all analyses contained within this study. 4 146TH STREET ~ ~ l) Q ~ I~ '+ ~ ~ ~ 1467H STREET AND RNER ROAD ~ ~ ~ ~ ! fi o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ? ! N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 5 t FIGURE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION SCHEMA TICS @A ct f" Eriglneerlng Co., LLC 2006 "All RIghts Reserved" u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The estimate of tratlic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the development size and ofthe character of the land use. Trip Generation' rep0l1 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 vmious land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout the United States in order to establish the average number of nips generated by various land uses. Table 1 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development. TABLE I - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS ITE AM AM PM PM LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Single Family 210 640 DU 114 343 359 211 Homes Townhomes 230 400 DU 27 130 126 62 Apartments 220 200 DU 20 81 83 45 Assisted Living 254 150 Beds 18 8 23 21 Office 710 100,000 SF 165 23 32 158 Retail 820 60,000 SF 70 45 214 232 INTERNAL TRIPS An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land uses without traversing the external public roadway system. Internal trips will occur between the different land uses within the proposed development. Therefore, the internal trip reduction procedures published in the ITE Trip Generation HandbooK were applied to the generated trips ofthe proposed development. Table 2 is a summary of the internal trips associated with the proposed development. I Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003. 2 Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001. 6 u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS PAss-BY TRIPS Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that are captured by a land use. Retail developments typically generate a significant amount of pass-by trips. Therefore, the pass-by trip equation in Trip Generation Handbook was used to estimate the pass-by trips for the retail portion of the proposed development. Table 2 summarizes the pass-by trips associated with the proposed development. TABLE 2 - INTERNAL AND PASS-BY TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS ITE AM AM PM PM LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Townhomes & 230 Single Family 210 1,040 DU 141 473 485 273 Homes Internal Trips 4 5 25 16 External Trips 137 468 460 257 Apartments 220 200 DU 20 81 83 45 Internal Trips I 1 4 3 External Trips 19 80 79 42 Assisted Living 254 150 Beds 18 8 23 21 Internal Trips Assumed to be negligible External Trips 18 8 23 21 Office 710 100,000 SF 165 23 32 158 Internal Trips I 3 5 12 External Trips 164 20 27 146 Retail 820 60,000 SF 70 45 214 232 Internal Trips 9 6 28 31 External Trips 61 39 186 201 Pass-By External Trips (45.1 %) 28 18 84 91 Non Pass-By External Trips (54.9%) 33 21 102 110 7 u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS The study methodology used to detelmine 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 proposed development must be assigned to the various access points and to the public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected for this analysis, traffic to and from the development has been assigned to the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site. 2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their intersection with the driveway. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the existing traffic patterns, the existing external roadway network, the proposed internal roadway network and the assignment of generated traffic. U The assignment and distribution for the separate land uses of the proposed development are shown on figures included in the Appendix. The assignment and distribution of the generated non pass-by and pass-by traffic volumes for the entire development are shown on Figure 3A and Figure 38, respectfully. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared at each of the study area intersections. The generated traffic volumes for the separate land uses are shown on figures included in the Appendix. The total peak hour generated traffic volumes for the entire development are shown on Figure 4. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic. U 8 I I I I i :~ IN~ i-- I~~ t~ 0 .. 25.6% (23.0%) If + ~ 4.4% (8.2%) (3.0") 2.7" ~ ~ t ,. (2408") ~1.9"...... M M M In ,." ." (1. ) 0.5"~ ~ ~ oi I ,........,.--."......." MMM ." co ,." oo.rl --- FIGURE 3A ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERA;TED NON PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES [ FOR TOTAL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . '\ /" ... 3.8" (2.3") 1.1"1. (2.0%) ~27.2"1. (23.0%) (11.3") 9.2" ...... ~ ,. (4.1%) 3.8% ~ ~ (4.6") 5.4" ~ oi ~ if (22.6%) 21.8"...... (3.3%) 1.6% (0.8% 2.21 ~ ...'.5" (0.9%) 28.3% (25.0%) 0.3% (0.7"> (27.3") 23.8" ~ ,. (1.3%) 0.5%...... M ~ (2.0") 1.1% ~ ~ 0 - - M M ""';......."! _ 0 ...... ...... ,. M o N "\ ~ g 8 .b ~ ]: i c ~ J. ! Q /' ! N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 9 LAND USE LEGEND 11ILOCICS '1 ....181 I' , ' '~ T: : " 'I r. ~_ #IIF:" ',I r - ,'AI.- "I ','0' , 1 ;;::I -~~1 SINGLE FAlIILY RESIDENTIAl LOlS TOWNHOWES WULTI-FAlIILY (APAJmlENTS) ASSISTED UVlNG FACIUTY OmCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS NO @ PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS fIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = A.M. OUTBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = P.M. OUTBOUND TRAFFIC 00 = A.M. INBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = P.M. INBOUND TRAme II = NEGUG1BlE @A &c F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" ~ .../ \ ~ ~ ~ I U> ~ ! i Q ~ I ~ ~ ~ _i! '\ LJ ~ ! N LAND USE LEGEND '1lUlCICS I - .88' E:: ~ ~T'~":" e'l . "W' AI. SINGLE FAltILY RESIDENTlAL LOlS TOWN HOWES WULTI-F'AWILY (APAJmtENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY OmCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENl[R I. 0 J E,.~ ] ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS TWO o PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS flVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = A.M. OUTBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = P.Id. OUTBOUND TRAFFIC 00 = A.M. INBOUND TRAme (00) = P.M. INBOUND TRAfFIC II = NEGUGIBLE FIGURE 38 A$SIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENE~ATED PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES I FOR TOTAL PROPOSED , DEVELOPMENT LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 10 @A 4: F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" I I J "" - ....,,8 (189) ~1 (5) ~ it (182) 143...:! II) (14) 4"\. 00- - LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA I ~ 'in' -- ...,.- Ii + ~16 (57) (25) 17' ~ t it (14~ 127'" ~,... m (~3) 4.... ..-..'W)'_ I ....." I - --"" I - ....... I '"\ ./ LAND USE LEGEND IBLOCKS '..881 [;",~'r~> ~ J 1 IIf' I' AI. . I 1 0 I [.,': '.' ::.t SINGLE F'AMILY RESIDEN11AL LOTS TOWNHOl.tES l.tULTHAl.tILY (APARntENTS) ASSISTED UVING F'ACIUTY OF'F'ICE SUITES NEIGHBORIlOOD RETAIL CENTER "" / ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE (i) PROPOSED ACCESS lWO (!) PROPOSED ACCESS THREE o PROPOSED ACCESS F'OUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS F'M @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGKT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE ~ lS J, ~ ]: ~ c ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ , ,:J LEGEND 00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR * = NEGUGlBLE FIGURE 4 OT AL GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT @A c!c F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" 11 u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CAPACITY ANALYSIS The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS is detelmined 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 detennine 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 descliptions are for signalized intersections: Level of Service A.. describes operations with a very low delay, less than or equal to 10.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, U and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Level of Service B.. describes operations with delay in the range of lO.l to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C - describes operation with delay in the range of 20.1 seconds to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from failed progression. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. U 3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000. 12 u ( . -u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Level of Service D - describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result fi'OlTI some combinations of unfavorable progression. Many vehicles stop, and the propOltion of vehicles not stopping declines. Level of Service E. desclibes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values'generally indicate poor progression and long cycle lengths. Level of Service F - describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contIibuting causes to such delay levels. The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for stop sign controlled intersections. Level of Service Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Less than or equal to 10 Between 10.1 and 15 Between 15.1 and 25 Between 25.1 and 35 Between 35.1 and 50 greater than 50 A B C D E F 13 u () u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERA TIONS ANAL YSIS 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. An analysis has been made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study intersections considering each of the following scenarios: SCENARIO I: Existing Traffic Volumes - Figure 5 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes - Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of service results are included in the Appendix. 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 - 1461h Street & River Road Table 4 - 146111 Street & Proposed Access 1 Table 5 - 1461h Street & Proposed Access 2 (Right-In/Right-Out) Table 6 - 1461h Street & Proposed Access 3 Table 7 - 1461h Street & Proposed Access 4 (Right-In/Right-Out) Table 8 - 1461h Street & Proposed Access 5 Table 9 - River Road & Proposed Access 6 Table 10 - River Road & Proposed Access 7 Table 11 - River Road & Proposed Access 8 Table 12 - River Road & Proposed Access 9 14 '\ ./ - I co (D';; ,.,., ("00,1........ .. -- _'-122 (158) I ~ ~ ~ +-1270 (730) ~ + '+ ~208 (88) (8~) 57.:1' ~ t ,. (1462) 706" ~ ~ :;0 ( 1 ~) 36 "l- co"N'r::- N <D co "'-''''-'''t:!, "" ./ ..J l.L a: <0 o I <0 'I '" o " ~ o :r: x w I '" ... o <0 ~ ~ ~ ... -i'( \ cd <0 o o ~ N LAND USE LEGEND 1!8tOCKS I -681 1[,:; ',"r,,,, :..;1 "W" ,J .:Ai; I o . I 1::,:3__'.,;:::;",] SINGLE FAlllLY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWN HOliES llULTI-FAllllY (APARTllENTS) ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY OFFICE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD @ Q) o @ @ <V @ @ PROPOSED ACCESS ONE PROPOSED ACCESS TWO PROPOSED ACCESS THREE PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR PROPOSED ACCESS FWE PROPOSED ACCESS SIX PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) ::: P.M. PEAK HOUR · = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 15 @A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" ~ '\ / "'1484 (985) .e 1 (5) ~ ,. (1739) 942...:! on (14) 4 ~ 00 - ...1439 (911) ~ 4 (14) (1662) 877... ~ f (18) 6 ~ "'1378 (797) ~ 120 (196) ~ ~_/ (1612) 860'" -18-:;0 (44) 22~ ,. .." It ~ "" ./ g CD o I CD J; o ]: 1& Q ~ I ~ CD ~ ~ -~ \ ) ~ ~ ~ N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 16 - -- a-en '" .., - ... \-- _ ''''' 122 (158) I;;'; ~ ~\ "'1365 (889) 11+ '+'~ 224 (145) (106) 7'(~ ~ t ,. (1609) 833'" ~~ ~ 27) 40 ~ 0;::-'(;;' ;: . on 1IO --- .., - LAND USE LEGEND 18UICIC$-' "'181 I .~ ;';;;.]'J.,>' :: >,1 I.,. ".1 F IL, I 01 l:~'.:.:-;; SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWNHOIIES IIULTI-FAMILY (APARTMENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY OmCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT (!) PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS lWO CD PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX Q) PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = A.t.4. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR * = NEGLIGIBLE I I I I : I SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & T10TAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I I I FIGURE 6 @A &: F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 II ALL Rights Reserved" u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146TII STREET & RIVER ROAD AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 Northbound Approach C C Southbound Approach C C Eastbound Approach B B Westbound Approach B C Intersection B C PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 Northbound Approach C C Southbound Approach C C Eastbound Approach B C Westbound Approach B B Intersection B C DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS U SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions u 17 (J u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: I 46TIl STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS I SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM 'PEAK HOUR Northbound Approach C E Westbound Left-Turn B C DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic V olumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 146lh Street. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot (minimum) eastbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along 1461h Street. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median along 1461h Street. This turn lane should be a minimum of 100 feet for storage with a 100 foot taper which will accommodate the anticipated queue lengths. TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 1 46TII STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 2 (RIGHT-IN/RIGHT- OUT) SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Approach B C DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . The proposed access constructed as a right-in/right-out access. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along l461h Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. 18 u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERA nONS ANAL YSIS TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146111 STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 3 AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach D C Eastbound Approach --- A Westbound Approach B A Intersection nla A n/a = intersection level of service is not calculated for one-way stop controlled intersections PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach F C Eastbound Approach --- B Westbound Approach E A Intersection n/a B n/a = intersection level of service is not calculated for one-way stop controlled intersections DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Stop Sign Control and Proposed Access Condi!ions* SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Traffic Signal Control and Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 146lh Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. . The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median along 146lh Street. This turn lane should be a minimum of 200 feet for storage with a 100 foot taper. The recommended storage will accommodate the anticipated queue lengths whether the intersection is controlled with a stop sign or traffic signal. 19 u u u LEG;\CY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 1461H STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 4 (RIG/-rr-IN/RIGHT- OUT) SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Approach B C DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . The proposed access constructed as a right-in/right-out access. The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 146th Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. . TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146TH STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS 5 SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Approach C E Westbound Left-Turn B C DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIO SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 1461h Street. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot (minimum) eastbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along 1461h Street. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The existing two-way left-turn lane along 1461h Street will accommodate the anticipated number of vehicles turning left into the access. 20 u u u LEGACY CARMEl., INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS TABLE 9 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMAR Y: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 6 SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Left- Tum A A Eastbound Approach B B DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-tum lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a northboundleft-tum treatment along River Road. TABLE 10- LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 7 SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Left- Tum A A Eastbound Approach B B DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. 21 o u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERA TlONS ANALYSIS TABLE II - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 8 SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Left-Turn A A Eastbound Approach B B DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. TABLE 12 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 9 SCENARIO 2 MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Left-Turn A A Eastbound Approach B A DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed Access Conditions* * The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. · The construction of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road. 22 u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses, 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 levels of service are adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed that the remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hours, since the existing street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours. I 46TH STREET AND RIVER ROAD Existing Trajjic (Scenario 1) - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection geometries, has shown that this intersection operates at acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. u Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the existing intersection geometries. 146nJ STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS I Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - Based on a preliminary traffic signal warrant analysis, the traffic volumes exiting the access for any hour of the day will most likely be less than the volume requirements for either of the primary traffic signal warrants listed in the Indiana Manual on Uniform Trajfic Control Devices (Indiana MUTCDl. Therefore, a traffic signal will not be warranted at this access when the site is fully developed. When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, vehicles exiting the proposed access may experience delay during the PM peak hour with a stop sign control and the proposed access conditions. u 4 Indiana Manual on Uniform Tr(iffic Control Devices jar Street and Highways, Indiana Department of Transportation, 2000. 23 u u u. LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS However, peak hour delay is to be expected for vehicles exiting any un-signalized access along 1461h Street due to the amount of existing through traffic along 1461h Street Also, gaps in the traffic stream along 146th Street should be provided by the existing traffic signals at the near-by intersections of 1461h Street and Cherry Tree Road and 1461h Street and River Road. These gaps can be used by vehicles exiting the proposed west access which will minimize the delay experienced. Additional gaps should be provided if a traffic signal is installed at the near-by intersection of 1 46th Street and the proposed access 3. The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 146th Street . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . . The construction of a 100 foot (minimum) eastbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along 1 46th Street. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median along 146th Street. This turn lane should be a minimum of 100 feet for storage with a 100 foot taper which will accommodate the anticipated queue lengths. 146TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 2 (RIGHT -IN/RIGHT-OUT) Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the following proposed access conditions: . The proposed access constructed as a right-in/right-out access. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 1461h Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. 24 u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 146H1 STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 3 Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, vehicles exiting the proposed access as well as vehicles turning left into the access may experience delay during the PM peak hour with a stop sign control and the proposed access conditions. However, peak hour delay is to be expected for vehicles turning left into and exiting any un-signalized access along 146lh Street due to the amount of existing through traffic along 146th Street. Also, gaps in the traffic stream along 146lh Street should be provided by the existing traffic signals at the near-by intersections of 146th Street and River Road and I 46th Street and Cherry Tree Road. These gaps can be used by vehicles exiting the proposed access 3 which will minimize the delay experienced. A preliminary traffic signal warrant analysis was performed for this access considering the volume requirements of Criteria I B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic listed in the Indiana MUTeD. Based on the analysis it appears that a traffic signal will be warranted at this intersection when the site is fully developed. Depending on the phasing of development, a traffic signal would not be warranted until the site is fully constructed. If a traffic signal were installed, this intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the proposed access conditions: . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 146th Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. . The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median along 146th Street. This turn lane should be a minimum of 200 feet for storage with a 100 foot taper. The recommended storage will accommodate the anticipated queue lengths whether the intersection is controlled with a stop sign or traffic signal. 25 u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 146111 STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 4 (RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-QUT) Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the following proposed access conditions: . The proposed access constructed as a right-in/right-out access. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 146111 Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. u 1461" STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 5 Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - Based on a preliminary traffic signal warrant analysis, the traffic volumes exiting the access for any hour of the day will most likely be less than the volume requirements for either of the primary traffic signal warrants listed in the Indiana MUTeD. Therefore, a traffic signal will not be warranted at this access when the site is fully developed. When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, vehicles exiting the proposed access may experience delay during the PM peak hour with a stop sign control and the proposed access conditions. However, peak hour delay is to be expected for vehicles exiting any un-signalized access along 1461h Street due to the amount of existing through traffic along 1461h Street. Also, gaps in the traffic stream along 1461h Street should be provided by the existing traffic signals at the near-by intersections of 1461h Street and River Road and 1461h Street and Cherry Tree Road. These gaps can be used by vehicles exiting the proposed access 5 which will minimize the delay experienced. Additional gaps should be provided if a traffic signal is installed at the near-by intersection of 1461h Street and the proposed access 3. u The proposed access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for I 46lh Street. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot (minimum) eastbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along 1461h Street. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The existing two-way left-turn lane along 1461h Street will accommodate the anticipated number of vehicles turning left into the access. 26 u LEGACY C\RIHEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 6 E-dsting TnifJic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development ofthe proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the following proposed access conditions: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road. u RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 7 Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the following proposed access conditions: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 8 Existing Trq{fic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the following proposed access conditions: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound lane. . The constmction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. u 27 u u u LEG/lCY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAH1C OPERA TIONS AN,tLYS1S RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 9 Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the full development of the proposed site are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the following proposed access conditions: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed. I 46TH STREET AND RIVER ROAD The existing intersection geometrics will adequately serve the additional traffic generated by the proposed site. Therefore, no improvements are necessary at this intersection due to the proposed development. I 46TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS I . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 146th Street. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot (minimum) eastbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along 146lh Street. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median along 146th Street. This turn lane should be a minimum of 100 feet for storage with a 100 foot taper which will accommodate the anticipated queue lengths. I 46T11 STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 2 (RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) . The proposed access constructed as a right-in/right-out access. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 1461h Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. 28 u LEGACY CARMEL, INDlAN;t TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS u 1 46TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 3 Based on a preliminary traffic signal warrant analysis it appears that a traffic signal will be met at this intersection when the site is fully developed. However, a traffic signal will not be warranted until the site is fully constructed, depending on the phasing of development. It is therefore recommended that the traffic volumes at this intersection be continuously monitored as the site is developed over time. In order to ensure that vehicles entering and exiting the access operate safely and efficiently, consideration should be made to the installation of a traffic signal when the traffic volumes meet one of the primary signal warrants listed in the Indiana Manual on Untform Trqffic Control Devices. The recommended access conditions include the following: . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 1461h Street. Consideration should then be made to upgrading the intersection to a traffic signal control when the traffic volumes meet one of the primary traffic signal warrants. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 146111 Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. . The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median along 146th Street. This turn lane should be a minimum of 200 feet for storage with a 100 foot taper. The recommended storage will accommodate the anticipated queue lengths whether the intersection is controlled with a stop sign or traffic signal. 146TIl STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 4 (RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) . The proposed access constructed as a right-in/right-out access. . The construction of a continuous eastbound right-turn lane along 1461h Street that serves access 2, access 3 and access 4. This right-turn lane should start at least 100 feet west of access 2 and extend to access 4. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at access 4. 1 46TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 5 . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 1461h Street. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot (minimum) eastbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along 1461h Street. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The existing two-way left-turn lane along 1461h Street will accommodate the anticipated number of vehicles turning left into the access. u RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 6 . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 1 461h Street. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road. 29 u u u LEGACY CARII,IEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 7 . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 8 . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS 9 . Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road. . The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane. . The construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane with a 100 foot taper along River Road. A 100 foot recovery taper is also proposed at the access. . The construction of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road. 30 u u u TRAFFIC OPERA liONS ANALYSIS ApPENDIX LEGACY 146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD CARMEL, INDIANA PREPARED FOR EAST CARMEL, LLC JUNE 2006 PREPARED By: A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 PHONE 317-202-0864 FAX 317-202-0908 u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFf1C OPERATIONS ANALYSiS ApPENDIX This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for the proposed development. Included are the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity analyses for each of the study intersections fOT the AM peak hour and PM peak hOUT. The additional figures are also included. u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ApPENDIX T ABLE OF CONTENTS ADDITIONAL FIGURES ........................... ............... ...... ........ ........ .................................................................... ....... ......... I 146"f1l STREET AND RIVER ROAD...................................................................................................................................14 146n1 STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS \ ......................................................................................................................21 146f11 STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 2 (PROPOSED RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) .............................................................. 24 146T11 STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 3 ......................................................................................................................27 146T11 STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 4 (PROPOSED RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) .............................................................. 32 146nt STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 5 ......................................................................................................................35 RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 6 .......................................................................................................................38 RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 7 .......................................................................................................................4\ RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 8 .......................................................................................................................44 RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 9 .......................................................................................................................47 u u u LEG/iCY (ARIHEI-, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL FIGURES 1 L I I LAND USE LEGEND IILOCKS , - 881 l J .1 SINGLE fAlllLY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWNHOIlES r it I AL 0 " IlULTI-fAIlILY (APARTIlENTS) ASSISTED UVING fACIUTY OffiCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE (!) PROPOSED ACCESS TWO o PROPOSED ACCESS THREE o PROPOSED ACCESS fOUR o PROPOSED ACCESS riVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX CD PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND * = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE A I ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAl TED NON PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED RETAIL I LAND USE LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 2 @A &t F" Engineering Co.. LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" FIGURE B ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF G'NERATED PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES I FOR PROPOSED RETAIL LAND USE !ii" -... llt' ... - ....... . M .~~ +'. (9%> 4%" ~ t (56%> +31" llt llt (-56%) -31%" '::"7 ( I llt_ 4%) 9" "\r e ~ .2... .. +56" (+31") -56% (-31 %) ... -56% (-31 %) -&' 69% (44%) (+10%) +6%.. ~ ", (-56%) -31% llt llt (14%) 8% "\r ~ ~ (+59") +38"" (-56%) -31"~ ", ~ ~ co \ (-42%) -23"... (42%) 23% ~ ", ~ -' "- Cl: <D C I ~ I '" C ,!!. ~ :i x W I ~ ~ ~ i! ~ J ~ <D 8 ~ N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 3 LAND USE LEGEND 1.8LOCl($ , - t81 It T SINGLE FAIlILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWNHOllES L. .... AL. o r!Of MULTI-FAMILY (APARTMENTS) ASSISTEO UVING F ACIUTY OFFICE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD REf AIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSEO ACCESS TWD ~ PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS nVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX CD PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = AM OUTBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = PM OUTBOUND TRAFF'IC 00 = AM INBOUND TRAF'FIC (00) = PM INBOUND TRAFFIC * = NEGLIGIBLE @A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" \ / \ / ~ 8 J, J; o ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ;; d ~ ~ ~ N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 4 LAND USE LEGEND 18UlC/(S" , ..u 1 I.. . . 'i'f;' ':;;) r' W' . J' w;, 1 0 .1 r~. .R SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOlS TOWNKOWES WULn-FAWILY (APARTWENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY ornCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT <D PROPOSEO ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS lWO o PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = OUTBOUND TRAFFIC 00 = INBOUND TRAFFIC · = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE C ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED OFFICE LAND USE @A &: F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" ) '" ) / ~ l:!l I .. J; C) li ~ ~ I ~ J ~ ,~ ') / 1 ~ , N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 5 LAND USE LEGEND IBUlCKS ,j - 881 t~ ". <"t~ .' .~::~ I' "'w. AI. I O. I 1.:,:,. ,,] SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEHTW. LOTS TOWNHOllES llULTl-FAMILY (APARTWENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY ornCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS lWO ~ PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS F1VE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND * = NEGUGIBlE FIGURE D ASSIGNMENT &: DISTRIBUTION OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING LAND USE @A &c F' Engineering Co., LLC 2006 II ALl Rights Reserved" ~, , v '\ /' ~ 8 J., J. o Jt i Q ~ I ! :l ~~ ~i i r:J LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 6 LAND USE LEGEND IBUlCI(S'"'f'-;;-'J81 L ":,I'./...} SINGLE rAllILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWNHOIotES .. AI. I 0 I L:: .. 1 IotULTI-rAllILY (APARTWENTS) ASSISTED UVlNG rACIUTY DmCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT Q) PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS TWO o PROPOSED ACCESS TllREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS rOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX CD PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND * = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE E ASSIGNMENT II DISTRIBUTION OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED APARTMENTS @A &: F' Engineering Co.. llC 2006 "All RIghts Reserved" D ... 3" 3" ... W, ... 12X ... 27% ,MM 3" ... 27% If<) ~ ~3r. ~3r.. ~ 24% ~lX 41. ~ ,. 3" ... ,. 10"... ~ ,. ~ ,. 3"~ 12X'" lloIt ~ 9X lloIt 4" lloIt lloIt 27"'" lloIt lloIt I 25"'" 4" · 3"~ ..... 0> It') ", ~ ~ 5"~ ~ 3"~ "", ./ ~ l!l J. 'T II> o ;[ ~ ~ I I ~ -~ '\ 1 ! N LAND USE LEGEND !1ILDCKS1- 81 r:,.._.:~.:u-:f I. ~ -MF" -J I - 'AI;" :1 01 ,':,. :] SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOlS TOWNHOIIES IIUlTI-FAMllY (APARTIIENTS) ASSISTED LIVING fACIUTY OF'F'ICE SUlTES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS lWO <!> PROPOSED ACCESS THREE (!) PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX (!) PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = OUTBOUND TRAFFIC 00 = INBOUND TRAFFIC * = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE F ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED TOWNHOMES & SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 7 @A & F Engineering Co., LtC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" ~, I / '\ ./ ~ 0:: 8 I <.0 J; C) :! i C) ~ ..!. C!i ~ j! -\ .J ~ ~ N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 8 LAND USE LEGEND 18UlCk$ I ""HI F, .: ;J;;:. ~.. >1 I. >> .:a SINGlE FAllllY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWN HOWES MULTI-FAMilY (APAImIENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY OmCE SUm:S NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER 'At .. ;1 '0 .: :1 t:-~:: n::: '.~=':J ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT (!) PROPOSED ACCESS ONE <D PROPOSED ACCESS lWO @ PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS F1VE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = AM OUTBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = PIA OUTBOUND TRAfFIC 00 = AM INBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = PM INBOUND TRAffiC * = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE G GENERATED NON PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED RETAIL LAND USE @A '" r Engineering Co., LlC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" L ~ I V '\ ./ ~ :g I U> J; o J[ i <> ~ I N ~ ~ ~ j~ \ -d ~ ! N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 9 LAND USE LEGEND 18LOCKS 1-181 I. .fri. :.:,1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDDmAL LOlS TOWNHOMES W' Ai; 0 r JIll J MULTI-FAMILY (APART\IENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY OFFICE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS 1WO o PROPOSED ACCESS TllREE (!) PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = AM OUTBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = PM OUTBOUND TRAFFIC 00 = AM INBOUND TRAffiC (00) = PM INBOUND TRAfFIC · = NEGUGIBLE FIGURE H GENERA TED PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED RETAIL LAND USE @A c!c F Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" '\ ,/ '\, ./ Ii 0: :g I U> ~ 1 ~ ~ ! -! \ ) -0 ~ ~ ~ N LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 10 LAND USE LEGEND 18UlClCJ r.. 'III [/,:'1:., '~-,'>1I ["IIF,',] I, '!AI. o I ;, .~ ': j SINGLE FAWILY RESIDENTlAL LOTS TOWNHOYES WUln-F'AWllY (APARTWENTS) ASSISTED UVING F'ACIUTY OF'FICE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT Q) PROPOSED ACCESS ONE (i) PROPOSED ACCESS TWO @ PROPOSED ACCESS lliREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS 1M @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = AM OUTBOUND TRAfF'Ie (00) = PM OUTBOUND TRAffIC 00 = AM INBOUND TRAFFIC (00) = PM INBOUND TRAf'flC · = NEGUGIBLE FIGURE I GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED OFFICE LAND USE @A &: F' Engineering Co.. LlC 2006 "ALL Right, Reserved" j\ l/ " \ ./ ~ :g I CD ~ :!: ~ o ~ i j \ ~~ /' ~ ~ r'l LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA 11 LAND USE LEGEND IIIlOCKS t - III 1__ :'t.:'~~'<'. r 1lJ'" j I Al,., I I '0 ,"'I I :I!L,;] SINGLE FAllllY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWNHOWES WULn-FAllILY (APART\lENTS) ASSISTED UVlNG FACIUTY OmCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT (}) PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS lWO @ PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX (j) PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = AM OUTBOUND TRAffiC (00) = PM OUTBOUND TRAfFIC 00 = AM INBOUND TRAffiC (00) = PM INBOUND TRAffiC * = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE J GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING LAND USE @A '" f Engineering Co., LLC 2006 "All Rights Reserved" "'\. .-/ ~ .-/ g 8 I lD ~ ]: ~ o B i ~{ '\ ~ LEGACY i CARMEL, INDIANA ~ N 12 LAND USE LEGEND 18UlCKS .t .. 181 I ..: ..~J', :. :l,1 L: . W, J I. - -AI.- I 0 L :,JIIt ',:::1 SINGLE F AWIL Y RESIDENTlAL LOTS TOWNHOWES WULTI-FAWILY (APARTWENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIUTY OmCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE @ PROPOSED ACCESS lWO @ PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX Q) PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = Aid OUTBOUND TRAFFIC (DO) = Pt.4 OUTBOUND TRAFFIC 00 = AM INBOUND TRAFfiC (DO) = PM INBOUND TRAFFIC * = NEGLIGIBLE FIGURE K GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED APARTMENTS @A & F Engineering Co., LlC 2006 "ALL Rights Reserved" "'\ ./ ~ ./ ~ ~ I co ~ :E i ~ I I ~ -~ \ ) 1 ~ ~ N LAND USE LEGEND 18UlCKS' t' ;';"'111 t"~.:t~ -":'J I.'.':] I AI.. 'I I 01 [' =: :'MIL:", , I SINGl! FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOWNHOlIES lIULn-FAMllY (APAR1\IENTS) ASSISTED UVING FACIIJTY OmCE SUITES NEIGHBORHOOD RrfAIL CENTER ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT CD PROPOSED ACCESS ONE <D PROPDSED ACCESS TWO Q) PROPOSED ACCESS THREE @ PROPOSED ACCESS FOUR @ PROPOSED ACCESS FIVE @ PROPOSED ACCESS SIX o PROPOSED ACCESS SEVEN @ PROPOSED ACCESS EIGHT @ PROPOSED ACCESS NINE LEGEND 00 = AM OUTBOUND TRArF'IC (00) = PM OUTBOUND TRArF'IC 00 = AM INBOUND TRAfFIC (00) = PM INBOUND TRAFFIC · = NEGUGIBlE FIGURE L THE LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED TOWNHOMES & SINGLE FAMILY HOMES 13 @A &: F' Engineering Co., llC 2006 "All Rights Reserved" u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPE&lTIONS ANALYSIS 146TH STREET AND RIVER ROAD INTERSECTION DATA TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS AND CAPACITY ANALYSES 14 A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY u CLIENT: INTERSECTION: DATE: Pittman Partners 146th Street & River Road (01) 4/26/2006 TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS) AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES BEGINS 7:15 AM BEGINS BEGINS 5:15 PM L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL NORTHBOUND 16 23 87 126 28 62 287 377 SOUTHBOUND 151 48 80 279 91 26 38 155 EASTBOUND 57 706 36 799 81 1462 14 1557 WESTBOUND 208 1270 122 1600 88 730 158 976 AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEAK HOUR FACTOR OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.88 APPROACH 0.91 0.66 0.92 0.93 INTERSECTION NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND APPROACH 0.81 0.88 0.90 0.83 INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION 0.94 u TRUCK PERCENT AGE AM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE OFF PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE PM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL NORTHBOUND 6.3% 0.0% 4.6% 4.0% 3.6% 11.3% 2.8% 4.2% SOUTHBOUND 31.8% 0.0% 52.5% 32.3% 6.6% 3.8% 7.9% 6.5% EASTBOUND 50.9% 7.8% 11.1% 11.0% 14.8% 4.2% 0.0% 4.8% WESTBOUND 1.4% 8.2% 50.8% 10.6% 1.1% 4.2% 12.7% 5.3% HOURLY SUMMARY HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL 6:00 AM TO 7:00 AM 52 182 234 388 921 1309 1543 7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM 104 269 373 772 1615 2387 2760 8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 115 246 361 719 1047 1766 2127 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM 267 188 455 1109 1015 2124 2579 5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM 376 172 548 1419 1027 2446 2994 6:00 PM TO 7:00 PM 229 117 346 1167 857 2024 2370 TOTAL VOLUME 1143 1174 2317 5574 6482 12056 14373 PERCENTAGE 8.0% 8.2% 16.1% 38.8% 45.1% 83.9% 100.0% u Release 11-18-04 15 A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CLIENT: INTERSECTION: DATE: Pillman Partners 146th Street & River Road (01) 4/26/2006 o DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: NORTHBOUND HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 9 0 9 9 0 9 33 1 34 51 1 52 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 9 0 9 19 0 19 75 1 76 103 1 104 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 18 2 20 21 1 22 66 7 73 105 10 115 PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 26 2 28 44 2 46 178 15 193 248 19 267 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 27 1 28 61 7 68 270 10 280 358 18 376 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 23 0 23 31 1 32 169 5 174 223 6 229 PASSENGER 112 185 791 1088 95.7% 94.4% 95.3% 95.2% TRUCK 5 11 39 55 4.3% 5.6% 4.7% 4.8% BOTH 117 196 830 1143 10.2% 17.1% 72.6% 100.0% DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: SOUTHBOUND HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 85 30 115 34 1 35 25 7 32 144 38 182 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 103 41 144 48 0 48 44 33 77 195 74 269 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 84 62 146 20 0 20 28 52 80 132 114 246 PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 84 30 114 14 0 14 29 31 60 127 61 188 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 96 10 106 23 2 25 38 3 41 157 15 172 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 64 7 71 15 1 16 27 3 30 106 11 117 PASSENGER 516 154 191 861 74.1% 97.5% 59.7% 73.3% TRUCK 180 4 129 313 25.9% 2.5% 40.3% 26.7% BOTH 696 158 320 1174 59.3% 13.5% 27.3% 100.0% u DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: EASTBOUND HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 17 7 24 341 20 361 3 0 3 361 27 388 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 26 28 54 649 41 690 25 3 28 700 72 772 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 28 36 64 567 70 637 15 3 18 610 109 719 PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 46 41 87 920 73 993 26 3 29 992 117 1109 5:00 PM . 6:00 PM 53 13 66 1276 65 1341 12 0 12 1341 78 1419 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 51 3 54 1041 42 1083 30 0 30 1122 45 1167 PASSENGER 221 4794 111 5126 63.3% 93.9% 92.5% 92.0% TRUCK 128 311 9 448 36.7% 6.1% 7.5% 8.0% BOTH 349 5105 120 5574 6.3% 91.6% 2.2% 100.0% DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: WESTBOUND u HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 123 2 125 691 40 731 43 22 65 857 64 921 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 238 3 241 1177 85 1262 55 57 112 1470 145 1615 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 85 3 88 739 115 854 43 62 105 867 180 1047 PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 63 4 67 734 47 781 132 35 167 929 86 1015 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 83 1 84 746 47 793 130 20 150 959 68 1027 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 80 0 80 634 28 662 94 21 115 808 49 857 PASSENGER 672 4721 497 5890 98.1% 92.9% 69.6% 90.9% TRUCK 13 362 217 592 1.9% 7.1% 30.4% 9.1% BOTH 685 5083 714 6482 10.6% 78.4% 11.0% 100.0% Release 11-18.04 16 Short Report Page 1 ot 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BWS Intersection 146th St & River Rd />"Clncy or Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type All other areas \ 5/23/2006 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed e Period AM peAk:.. Analysis Year SI- 6'><'15'(/1'/6 -rll.ftf"+tc Volume and Timina InDut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 57 706 36 208 1270 122 16 23 87 151 48 80 % Heavy Vehicles 51 8 11 1 8 51 6 0 4 32 0 53 PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.83 0.83 Pretimed/Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 18 0 0 61 0 0 43 0 0 40 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour r. .~ Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( ...,Iimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G = 7.0 G = 51.0 G= G= G = 10.0 G = 12.0 G= G= y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 3 y= 5 y= y= Duration of Analvsis (hrs) - 0.25 Cvcle Length C = 96.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav. and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 70 872 22 236 1443 69 18 26 49 182 58 48 Lane Group Capacity 162 1780 1000 377 1780 736 341 238 388 295 238 264 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.49 0.02 0.63 0.81 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.13 0.62 0.24 0.18 Green Ratio 0.64 0.53 0.69 0.64 0.53 0.69 0.26 0.13 0.25 0.26 0.13 0.25 Uniform Delay d1 14.7 14.3 4.8 9.3 18.5 5.0 26.6 37.3 27.9 31.1 37.9 28.3 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 1.8 0.2 0.0 3.3 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.9 0.5 0.3 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 16.6 14.5 4.8 12.6 21.5 5.1 26.6 37.5 28.0 34.9 38.4 28.6 Lane Group LOS B B A B C A C 0 C C 0 C Approach Delay 14.4 19.6 30.4 34.6 Uroach LOS B B C C I Intersection Delay 19.7 Intersection LOS B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+ ™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/23{2006 3:16 PM 17 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BWS Intersection 146th St & River Rd ~cy or Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type All other areas Performed 5/23/2006 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN e Period AM PeAJ::.. Analysis Year $2.. - 6KI5T( 1J6 r P~.oP(JseD Volume and Timina InDut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 74 833 40 224 1365 122 26 30 146 151 47 94 % Heavy Vehicles 51 8 11 1 8 51 6 0 4 32 0 53 PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.83 0.83 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 21 0 0 61 0 0 69 0 0 46 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour r .~ Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....,Imum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasinq Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G = 7.0 G = 47.0 G= G= G = 12.0 G = 7.0 G= G- Y - 3 Y - 5 y= Y= y= 3 Y = 5 y- Y- Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Lenqth C = 89.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 91 1028 23 255 1551 69 29 33 86 182 57 58 Lane Group Capacity 175 1769 1046 330 1769 769 336 149 332 285 149 225 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.58 0.02 0.77 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.26 0.64 0.38 0.26 Green Ratio 0.64 0.53 0.72 0.64 0.53 0.72 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.21 Uniform Delay d1 15.6 14.3 3.6 10.2 18.5 3.8 25.7 38.4 29.1 29.1 38.9 29.1 Delay Factor k 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.32 0.40 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 2.8 0.5 0.0 10.8 5.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.4 4.7 1.6 0.6 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.3 14.8 3.6 21.1 23.8 3.8 25.8 39.2 29.6 33.8 40.6 29.7 Lane Group LOS B B A C C A C 0 C C 0 C ~ADproach Delay 14.8 22.7 31.0 34.3 ~roach LOS B C C C Intersection Delay 21.5 Intersection LOS C Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 18 . 'Generated: 5/23/2006 3:23 PM Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BWS Intersection 146th St & River Rd QCY or Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type All other areas Performed 5/23/2006 Jurisdiction Carmel. IN e Period 7M 'P~ Analysis Year Sf - G');:'(s7 I l'-fG ~-RC- Volume and TiminQ Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 81 1462 14 88 730 158 28 62 287 91 26 38 % Heavy Vehicles 51 8 11 1 8 51 6. 0 4 32 0 53 PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 Pretimed/Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 7 0 0 79 0 0 143 0 0 19 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour po .~\ Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .....,Imum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G - 7.0 G = 55.0 G- G= G- 7.0 G = 10.0 G- G- Y - 3 Y = 5 y= y= y= 3 Y - 5 y- y- Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cvcle Lenqth C - 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 89 1607 8 133 1106 120 30 67 157 98 28 20 Lane Group Capacity 221 1939 1026 211 1939 755 288 200 360 206 200 245 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.83 0.01 0.63 0.57 0.16 0.10 0.34 0.44 0.48 0.14 0.08 Green Ratio 0.68 0.58 0.71 0.68 0.58 0.71 0.21 0.11 0.23 0.21 0.11 0.23 Uniform Delay d1 7.8 16.2 4.1 16.5 12.6 4.6 30.1 39.4 31.2 32.0 38.6 28.6 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.37 0.11 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 1.2 3.2 0.0 5.9 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.8 1.7 0.3 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 9.0 19.4 4.2 22.4 13.0 4.7 30.3 40.4 32.0 33.7 38.9 28.7 Lane Group LOS A B A C B A C 0 C C 0 C f.oproach Delay 18.7 13.2 34.0 34.0 t......Jroach LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 18.3 Intersection LOS B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/23/2006 3:25 PM 19 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BWS Intersection 146th St & River Rd J' "'ency or Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type All other areas \ ~ Performed 5/23/2006 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN e Period VI4 PeAic. Analysis Year S2- - E. ~/S T/,.I6 -t f(lLlfJoseJ> Volume and TiminQ Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 106 1609 27 145 889 158 41 59 318 91 31 60 % Heavy Vehicles 51 8 11 1 8 51 6 0 4 32 0 53 PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 Pretimed/Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 13 0 0 79 0 0 159 0 0 30 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour ~. 'S Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...,.Iimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 PhasinQ Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G - 8.0 G = 50.0 G= G= G = 7.0 G = 7.0 G= G= Y- 3 Y = 5 Y= Y= Y= 3 Y = 5 Y= Y- Duration of Analvsis (hrs) - 0.25 Cycle LenQth C = 88.0 Lane Group Caoacitv, Control Delav, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB ! Adjusted Flow Rate 116 1768 15 220 1347 120 45 64 173 98 33 32 1903 1025 1903 , Lane Group Capacity 192 248 754 262 151 353 191 151 240 v/c Ratio 0.60 ~.93 0.01. 0.89 0.71 0.16 0.17 0.42 0.49 0.51 0.22 0.13 Green Ratio 0.69 0.57 0.70 0.69 0.57 0.70 0.19 0.08 0.23 0.19 0.08 0.23 Uniform Delay d1 10.9 17.4 3.9 25.1 13.7 4.3 29.4 38.6 29.6 30.9 37.9 27.1 Delay Factor k 0.19 0.44 0.11 0.41 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 5.3 8.7 0.0 29.7 1.2 0.1 0.3 1.9 1.1 2.4 0.7 0.3 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 I Control Delay 16.2 26.0 3.9 54.8 15.0 4.4 29.7 40.5 30.6 33.3 38.7 27.3 I Lane Group LOS B C A D B A C 0 C C D C Aoproach Delay 25.3 19.4 32.7 33.2 Uroach LOS C B C C Intersection Delay 23.7 Intersection LOS C Copyrlght@2oo5 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/23/2006 3:31.PIV 20 u u u LEG/iCY CARII'lEL, INDIANA TRi\FFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 146TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 1 INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 21 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation ite Information ~Dalyst WS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 1 \ney/Co. &F Engineering Co., LLC urisdiction Carmel, IN fl!lw(e Performed 5/23/2006 ~nalysis Year 82 - Existing + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period lAM Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners East/West Street: 146th Street 1\ orth/South Street: Proposed Access 1 Intersection Orientation: East-West tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ~olume (veh/h) 877 6 4 1439 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 974 6 4 1598 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Siqnal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R v ',me (veh/h) 19 14 ~k-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0,90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 0 15 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Lenath, and Level of Service !Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R ~ (veh/h) 4 21 15 C (m) (veh/h) 682 192 518 vie 0.01 0.11 0.03 95% queue length 0.02 0.36 0.09 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.3 26.0 12.2 LOS B 0 B '"",roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.3 I ~roach LOS -- - C Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 22 Generated: 5/23/2006 3:56 PM Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information IAnalyst BWS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 1 '\lCV/Co. IA&F Enqineerinq Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/23/2006 I\nalvsis Year S2 - Existinq + Proposed IAnalvsis Time Period IPM Peak Project Descriotion Pittman Partners EastlWest Street: 146th Street North/South Street: Proposed Access 1 Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ~olume (vehlh) 1662 18 14 911 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1846 20 15 1012 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Siqnal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R \me (veh/h) 10 8 ~-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 8 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service !Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R IV (veh/h) 15 11 8 C (m) (veh/h) 307 87 266 ~/c 0.05 0.13 0.03 95% queue length 0.15 0.42 0.09 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.3 52.3 19.0 LOS C F C I' '"'roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 38.2 ~oach LOS -- -- E Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 23 Generated: 5/23/2006 3:57 PM () u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 146TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 2 (PROPOSED RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 24 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information Ilt\nalyst BWS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 2 I"" . iA&F Engineering Co., LLC Uurisdiction Carmel, IN 'ney/Co. ~ Performed 5/23/2006 ~nalYsis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period 'AM Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners East/West Street: 146th Street North/South Street: Proposed Access 2 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period hrs): 0.25 ~ehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 840 51 1443 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 933 56 0 1603 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R T Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'lme (veh/h) 42 !IilwJ'k-.Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 46 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service IApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh/h) 46 C (m) (veh/h) 535 v/c 0.09 95% queue length 0.28 ~ontrol Delay (s/veh) 12.4 LOS B ,. "'roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.4 ~roach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/24/2006 11:19AM 25 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 Generallnformation IAnalyst IBWS 10-- \~cy/Co. ~&F Engineering Co., LLC ~ Performed 5/23/2006 !Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Pittman Partners EasVWest Street: 146th Street Intersection Orientation: East-West lVehicle Volumes and Adiustments Maior Street Movement TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information I nte rsection Uurisdiction !Analysis Year 146th St & Prop Access 2 Carmel, IN S2 - Existinq + Proposed 1 L North/South Street: Proposed Access 2 Studv Period (hrs): 0.25 Eastbound Westbound 2 3 4 5 T R L T 1590 80 925 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1766 88 0 1027 -- -- 0 -- Raised curb 6 R lVolume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized Lanes Configuration Upstream Siqnal Minor Street Movement 0.90 o o 0.90 o 7 L 2 T o Northbound 8 T o 1 R o 2 T o Southbound 11 T o o o o o 9 10 R L 66 0.90 0.90 73 0 5 0 12 R 'lme (veh/h) ~Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach Storage RT Channelized Lanes lConfiguration Delay, Queue length, and level of Service IApproach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration Iv (veh/h) K:; (m) (veh/h) !v/c ~5% queue length Control Delay (s/veh) LOS . ")roach Delay (s/veh) I ~roach LOS o o o N o 0.90 0.90 o 0 o 0 o N o 0.90 0.90 o o o 1 0 R o o 0 Northbound 789 R 73 283 0.26 1.00 22.1 C Southbound 10 11 12 22.1 C Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/24/2006 11 :20 AM 26 o u () LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANAl,YSIS 146TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 3 INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 27 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information IAnalvst WS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 3 '\lcy/Co. &F Engineering Co., LLC urisdiction Carmel, IN r...e Performed i/23/2006 I\nalvsis Year S2A - Existing + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period M Peak Project Description Pittman Partners EastlWest Street: 146th Street North/South Street: Proposed Access 3 Intersection Orientation: East-West !StudY Period (hrs): 0.25 ~ehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ~olume (veh/h) 860 22 120 1378 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 955 24 133 1531 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ~. '\me (veh/h) 65 81 ~~Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 72 0 90 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service IApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R IV (veh/h) 133 72 90 C (m) (veh/h) 683 145 526 "'Ie 0.19 0.50 0.17 95% queue length 0.72 2.35 0.61 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 52.1 13.3 LOS B F B ( . 1roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 30.5 1....Jroach LOS -- -- D Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/24/2006 4:24 PM 28 Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information ~nalyst BWS Intersection 146th St & Prof) Access 3 '''lcy/Co. 4&F Engineering Co., LLC !Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/23/2006 ~nalvsis Year S2A - Existing + Proposed ~nalysis Time Period PM Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners EastJWest Street: 146th Street orth/South Street: Prof)osed Access 3 Intersection Orientation: East-West tudv Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lVolume (veh/h) 1612 44 196 797 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1791 48 217 885 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R -. 'me (veh/h) 128 110 IlIIIIIftk-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0,90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 142 0 122 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh/h) 217 142 122 C (m) (veh/h) 315 54 277 v/c 0.69 2.63 0.44 95% queue length 4.78 14.64 2.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 38.3 900,2 27.8 LOS E F D I' "'roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 497.1 ~oach LOS -- -- F Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 29 \ .. ,..." r, r,-.,.T'.........' , .. . Generated: 5/24/2006 4:24 PM ,.. ,,.,, A 1_ r. ^ , Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BWS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 3 QCY or Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type All other areas Performed 5/24/2006 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN e Period AM PeA-k. Analysis Year s.z.!3 - '3Y'snfll6 -+ 'PteoPoseJ) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB S8 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume (vph) 860 22 120 1378 65 81 % Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 40 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour p..~ Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...,IImum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB On Iv EW Perm 03 04 NB On Iv 06 07 08 Timing G - 7.0 G - 58.0 G- G- G= 7.0 G- G- G- Y = 3 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y- Y= Y- Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 956 12 133 1531 72 46 Lane Group Capacity 2351 1267 465 2756 142 344 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.01 0.29 0.56 0.51 0.13 Green Ratio 0.68 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.08 . 0.22 Uniform Delay d1 5.9 1.3 2.7 3.1 37.3 26.4 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 3.0 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 6.1 1.3 3.0 3.3 40.3 26.6 Lane Group LOS A A A A 0 C .A~proach Delay 6.0 3.3 35.0 l. )roach LOS A A C Intersection Delay 5.6 Intersection LOS A Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 30 "Generated: 5/30/2006' 3:00'P~,f Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BWS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 3 UCY or Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type All other areas Performed 5/24/2006 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN e Period PM PeAk: Analysis Year S 2.8 - f3'X'( sT (N6 'f- P {l.c Po'!; eb Volume and Timina Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume (vph) 1612 44 196 797 128 110 % Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PretimedlActuated (PIA) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 55 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parki nglGrade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour - ~ Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~mum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasinq WB Onlv EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G - 7.0 G - 36.0 G= G= G = 7.0 G= G= G= y - 3 y- 5 y= y= Y = 5 y= y= y- Duration of Analvsis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Lenqth C = 63.0 Lane GrouD CaDacitv, Control Delav, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 1791 24 218 886 142 61 Lane Group Capacity 1969 1172 306 2515 191 464 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.02 0.71 0.35 0.74 0.13 Green Ratio 0.57 0.76 0.73 0.73 0.11 0.30 Uniform Delay d1 12.0 1.8 14.0 3.1 27.1 16.0 Delay Factor k 0.43 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.30 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 6.8 0.0 7.6 0.1 14.5 0.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.8 1.8 21.6 3.2 41.7 16.1 Lane Group LOS B A C A D B Aoproach Delay 18.6 6.8 34.0 ~roach LOS B A C Intersection Delay 15.4 Intersection LOS B Copyrighl @ 2005 Universilyof Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+ ™ Version 5.2 Generaled:5/24/2006 4:15 PM 31 o u o LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 146TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 4 (PROPOSED RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT) INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 32 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 oft TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information IAnalyst IBWS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 4 ~.. '1cy/Co. IA&F Enqineerina Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/24/2006 Analvsis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period L4M Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners East/West Street: 146th Street North/South Street: Proposed Access 4 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R N'olume (veh/h) 933 8 1498 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1036 8 0 1664 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R \rne (veh/h) 13 ~-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate. HFR 0 0 14 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delav. Queue lenath, and level of Service IApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R rv (veh/h) 14 ~ (m) (veh/h) 495 ~/c 0.03 95% queue length 0.09 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.5 LOS B I' -"'\roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.5 ~oach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+ ™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/24/2006 11 :06 AM 33 -..-.. ,.....,....-'- Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information IlAnalyst BWS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 4 , 'ncv/Co. I1.&F Enqineerina Co., LLC !Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/24/2006 IIlAnalvsis Year S2 - Existinq + Proposed IIAnalysis Time Period PM Peak III Proiect Description Pittman Partners EasVWest Street: 146th Street North/South Street: Proposed Access 4 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1717 5 993 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1907 5 0 1103 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicfes 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ''me (veh/h) 36 lIIIIIII!tI<-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 40 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delav, Queue lennth, and level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh/h) 40 C (m) (veh/h) 254 vlc 0.16 95% queue length 0.55 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.8 LOS C J'-""foach Delay (s/veh) -- - 21.8 ~oach LOS -- -- C Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 34 Generated: 5/24/2006 11 :08 AM -,- .. ,....""......,. o o u LEG/iCY CtiRMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERA TIONS ANAL YSIS 146TH STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS 5 INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 35 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information IlAnalyst ews 11~tersection 146th St & Prop Access 5 "Dcy/Co. A&F Enqineering Co., LLC urisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/23/2006 IIlAnalvsis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed IlAnalysis Time Period AM Peak 111 Project Descriotion Pittman Partners East/West Street: 146th Street orth/South Street: Proposed Access 5 Intersection Orientation: East-West tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ~olume (vehlh) 942 4 1 1484 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1046 4 1 1648 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy ~ehicles 0 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'lme (veh/h) 14 5 ilIIIIf!k-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 5 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy ~ehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue Length and Level of Service ~pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R ~ (veh/h) 1 15 5 C (m) (veh/h) 641 179 491 vIe 0.00 0.08 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.27 0.03 lControl Delay (s/veh) 10.6 26.9 12.4 LOS B D B ,. '~roach Delay (s1veh) -- -- 23.3 ~roach LOS -- -- C Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 Generated: 512312006 4:23 PM 36 Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information !Analyst IBWS Intersection 146th St & Prop Access 5 Ir- \ ~&F Engineerinq Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN '\Icy/Co. ~ Performed 5/23/2006 Analysis Year 52 - Existinq + Proposed IAnalvsis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Pittman Partners East/West Street: 146th Street North/South Street: Proposed Access 5 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period Chrs): 0.25 !Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R !Volume Cveh/h) 1739 14 5 985 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1932 15 5 1094 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Sianal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R , 'lme (vehlh) 8 3 ~k-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 3 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue lemlth, and level of Service !Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Iv (veh/h) 5 8 3 C (m) (veh/h) 285 79 249 'r-i/c 0.02 0.10 0.01 195% queue length 0.05 0.33 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.9 55.6 19.6 LOS C F C (. ,,\roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 45.8 ~roach LOS -- - E Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 37 Generated: 5/23/2006 4:24 PM o u u LEGf\CY CARMEI-, INDIANA. TRAFFiC OPERATIONS ANALYSiS RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 6 INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 38 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information I~alyst lBWS Intersection River Road & Prop Access 6 . '\lcy/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/24/2006 Analysis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed IlAnalysis Time Period lAM Peak Project Description Pittman Partners EastlWest Street: Proposed Access 6 North/South Street: River Road Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Maior Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 11 155 298 13 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 52 0 52 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'Ime (veh/h) 47 47 ~-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 331 14 12 172 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue lenath, and level of Service fA,pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R ~ (veh/h) 12 52 52 C (m) (veh/h) 1197 501 704 v/c 0.01 0.10 0.07 95% queue length 0.03 0.35 0.24 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 13.0 10.5 LOS A B B ooaCh Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.8 roach LOS -- -- B Copyright@ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ ™ Version 5.2 39 Generated: 5/24/2006 1 :51 PM Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Generallnformation IIAnalyst BWS 1"'- \ncy/Co. A&F Enqineerinq Co., LLC ~ Performed 5/24/2006 I~nalysis Time Period PM Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners EastlWest Street: Prooosed Access 6 Intersection Orientation: North-South 'Ime (veh/h) ~k-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach Storage RT Channelized Lanes 1 Configuration L Delay. Queue Lenath, and Level of Service !Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration L Iv (veh/h) 51 ~ (m) (veh/h) 1327 ",/c 0.04 195% queue length O. 12 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 LOS A (' "lroach Delay (s/veh) -- ~roach LOS -- ~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement lVolume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized Lanes Configuration Upstream SiQnal Minor Street Movement 1 L 46 0.90 27 5 1 L 7 L 25 0.90 o 5 Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Northbound 2 T 393 0.90 o 1 T o Eastbound 8 T 0.90 168 o o N o o Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year River Road & Prop Access 6 Carmel, IN 52 - Existing + Proposed North/South Street: River Road Study Period hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 152 51 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 27 0 0 0 -- 0 -- -- Undivided 0 0 0 0 1 1 T R 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 25 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 56 51 436 0 5 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 L R 27 27 383 868 0.07 . . . Q.03 0.23 0.10 15.1 9.3 C A 12.2 B HCS+ ™ Version 5.2 Generated: 5/24/2006 1:52 Pili 40 u o u LEGACY CARMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIC OPE/V\TlONS ANALYSIS RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 7 INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 41 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information !Analyst IBws Intersection River Rd & Prop Access 7 'Wy/Co. ~&F Engineering Co., LLC Uurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/23/2006 ~nalysis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period ~M Peak Project Description Pittman Partners EastfWest Street: Proposed Access 7 North/South Street: River Road Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 147 339 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 0 5 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- - 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R "me (veh/h) 19 5 ~-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 376 6 2 163 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service !Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R ~ (veh/h) 2 21 5 C (m) (veh/h) 1160 495 664 vIe 0.00 0.04 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.13 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 12.6 10.5 LOS A B B ~-'1roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.2 ~oach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 42 Generated: 6/2/2006 11 :39 AM Page 1 of 1 ~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information I~nalyst BWS Intersection River Rd & Prop Access 7 '\lcy/Co. A&F Engineerina Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/23/2006 Analvsis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed l!Analysis Time Period PM Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners EastlWest Street: Proposed Access 7 North/South Street: River Road Intersection Orientation: North-South !Studv Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Malar Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 429 159 18 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 3 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v L T R L T R '1me (veh/h) 10 3 ~k-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 176 20 5 476 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav. Queue lenath and level of Service IApproach Northbou nd Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R Iv (veh/h) 5 11 3 C (m) (veh/h) 1359 420 859 Ivlc 0.00 0.03 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 0.08 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 13.8 9.2 LOS A B A -""roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.8 ~roach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 43 Generated: 6/2/2006 11 :40 AM u u u LEGACY CARMEL, INDMNA TR.4FFIC OPERATIONS AN.4LYSIS RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 8 INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 44 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Isite Information I~nalyst BWS Intersection River Road & Prop Access 8 \flcy/Co. A&F Enaineerinq Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/24/2006 Analvsis Year S2 - Existinq + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period AM Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners EastlWest Street: Proposed Access 8 North/South Street: River Road Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 144 344 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Siqnal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ( ~me (veh/h) 5 5 ~k-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 382 0 1 160 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue length and level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 1 10 C (m) (veh/h) 1160 565 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.00 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 11.5 LOS A B uoach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.5 roach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 Generated: 6/2/2006 11 :38 AM 45 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of I ~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY Generallnformation [site Information Irnalyst BWS Intersection River Road & Prop Access 8 \\lcy/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN ~ Performed 5/24/2006 Analysis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period PM Peak Proiect Description Pittman Partners East/West Street: Proposed Access 8 \forth/South Street: River Road Intersection Orientation: North-South :itudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ~olume (veh/h) 5 431 162 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 3 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R \)me (veh/h) 3 3 ~k-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 180 0 5 478 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Lenath, and Level of Service !Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Iv (veh/h) 5 6 C (m) (veh/h) 1378 561 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 11.5 LOS A B . "'lroach Delay (s/veh) 11.5 -- -- ( ~roach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+™ Version 5.2 46 Generated: 6/212006 11 :38 AM u u () LEGACY C\RMEL, INDIANA TRAFFIc OPERATIONS AN;\LYSIS RIVER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS 9 INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 47 Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information l\Analyst BWS Intersection River Rd & Prop Access 9 \ncy/Co. A&F Enqineerinq Co., LLC Jurisdiction Carmel, IN "-e Performed 5/23/2006 Analvsis Year S2 - Existing + Proposed IAnalysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Pittman Partners i EastlWest Street Proposed Access 9 North/South Street River Road ! Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 lVehicle Volumes and Adjustments Maior Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R !Volume (veh/h) 15 140 348 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 18 0 0 0 I'veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configu ration L T T R Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R , ~me (veh/h) 5 17 ~k-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 386 1 16 155 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach I N N Storage I 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service IApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Iv (veh/h) 16 5 18 C (m) (veh/h) 1155 469 655 ~/c 0.01 0.01 0.03 ~5% queue length 0.04 0.03 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 12.8 10.7 LOS A B B uoach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.1 roach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ ™ Version 5.2 48 Generated: 5/24/2006 1 :53 p~ Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation Site Information l!Analyst WS Intersection River Rd & Prop Access 9 1.....- '\lcy/Co. &F Enqineerinq Co., LLC Uurisdiction Carmel. IN ~ Performed 5/23/2006 ~nalysis Year S2 - Existinq + Proposed IlAnalysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Pittman Partners EastlWest Street: Proposed Access 9 North/South Street: River Road Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 lVehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lVolume (veh/h) 21 433 160 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate. HFR 3 0 23 0 0 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R \me (veh/h) 3 21 ~-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 177 5 23 481 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh/h) 23 3 23 C (m) (veh/h) 1375 392 858 vlc 0.02 0.01 .... 0.03 95%'queue length 0.05 0.02 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 14.3 9.3 LOS A B A " "'foach Delay (s/veh) - -- 9.9 ~oach LOS -- -- A Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 49 Generated: 512412006 1 :53 PM u u u WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT NAI OLYMPIA PARTNERS EARLHAMCOLLEGEPROPERTY SOUTHWEST OF RIVER ROAD AND EAST 146TH STREET HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA Prepared for: NAI Olympia Partners 320 North Meridian Street Suite 700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Prepared by: Williams Creek Consulting 919 North East Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 317.423.0690 WOII.DWIJI. TABLE OF CONTENTS u Wetland Delineation Page Executive Summary... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1.0 Introduction ... ................ ...... ...... ........... .......... ............. ... ....... ..... ........... ........... ...... 2 2.0 Definitions ...................... ........................ .......... ............ .................. ............... .......... 3 3.0 Site Characterization.... ................ ....... ....... ............... ........ ........ ..... ... ..... ..... ...... .... 7 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 14 u FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - NWI Map Figure 3 - Key to NWI Map Figure 4 - NRCS Soil Survey for Hamilton County Figure 5 - Aerial Photograph Figure 6 - Wetland Location Map APPENDICIES Appendix A - Wetland Data Forms Appendix B - Site Photographs u Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u Executive Summary Current Site Conditions Based on a review of available resources and a site visit, there are two wetlands within the project boundary. . Wetland A has a cumulative area of 3.7 acres and is classified as an emergent wetland system. . Wetland A appears to be within the 100 year floodplain and may be considered jurisdictional by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. . Wetland B has a cumulative area of 0.2 acres and is classified as a shrub/scrub wetland system. . Wetland B does not appear to have a hydrological connection to any "waters of the U.S." Pending verification, USACE will most likely consider it isolated, therefore IDEM would be the regulating agency. u Wetland Issues The cumulative wetland area is approximately 3.9 acres. If development activltieS are planned that would result in cumulative impacts greater than 0.100 acre, permitting will be required through the USACE and the IDEM. Nationwide permit applications for certain activities may take up to 2 to 3 months to process. Regional general permit applications for impacts greater than 0.1 acre and less than 1.0 acre typically require 3 to 6 months to process. Individual permit applications for impacts 1.0 acre and above typically require 6 to 12 months to process. IDEM has up to 120 days to review complete permit applications for isolated wetlands. If mitigation is necessary, the minimum mitigation ratio acreage for any isolated wetlands is 1:1, and a maximum ratio of 3:1. Ratios for USACE jurisdictional wetlands are 2:1 for emergent wetlands, 3: 1 for scrub-shrub wetlands, 4: 1 for forested wetlands, and 1: 1 for open water or drainage features. According to the FIRM map portions of the property are within the 100 year and 500 year floodplain respectively. Permitting may be required through the Hamilton County Drainage Board and/or the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-001 Page 1 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u WETLAND DELINEATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this project was to assess the property located west of River Road and south of East 146'h Street, Hamilton County, Indiana, for evidence of wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. The site is more specifically located in the Fishers USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map in Sections 23 and a portion of the northeast 1/4 of Section 22, Township 18 North, and Range 4 East. The scope of work included delineation of wetland areas and identifying jurisdictional waters using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual 1987 (1987 Manual). This report is separated into four sections: . Section 1 - Introduction . Section 2 - Definitions . Section 3 - Investigation Results . Section 4 - Conclusions and Recommendations u u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-00t Page 2 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u 2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 Jurisdictional Waters U.S. Army Cops qfEngineers Through the Clean Water Act, 1972, Section 404, the USACE maintains authority over "waters of the U.S." as defined in the code of federal regulations (33 CFR 328.3). The limit of jurisdiction described in 33 CFR 328.4 for non-tidal waters is the "ordinary high water mark" if no adjacent wetlands are present. If wetlands are present, the limit of jurisdiction applies to the boundary of the adjacent wetland. Any wetland that has a hydrological connection to a "waters of the U.S." is also included. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U .S.c. 403) also serves as a base of federal authority over certain waters. Definitions and permitting requirements for jurisdictional waters under Section 10 can be found in 33 CFR Parts 322 and 329. A permit must be obtained from the Corps before any fill or dredging actIv1tIes are conducted within the boundary of a "waters of the U.S." including federal jurisdictional wetlands. The USACE has three types of permits: nationwide permits, regional general permits for Indiana, and individual permits. Nationwide Permits have been developed for projects that meet a specific criterion that are deemed to have minimal impacts to the aquatic environment. u Regional General Permit for Indiana authorizes activities associated with any construction activities including agriculture and mining activities. Wetland impacts must be less than 1 acre and stream impacts must be less than 300 linear feet to qualify for this type of permit. Section 401 water quality certification must be obtained through the Indiana Department of Environmental Management concurrently. Individual Permits are required for proposed wetland impacts of 1 acre or greater and stream impacts of 300 linear feet or greater. The review process for this type of permit may take up to 1 year due to the higher level of scrutiny by the regulatory agencies. The Louisville District of the USACE recently developed new mitigation guidelines for the federal jurisdictional wetlands and "waters of the U.S." The guidelines require stream and wetland characterizations for all drainage features and wetlands proposed to be impacted. The document required for permitting must contain extensive detail of the proposed impact sites, the proposed mitigation sites, and information regarding the construction and monitoring of the mitigation sites. Impacts to USACE jurisdictional wetlands or other "waters of the U.S." will require in kind mitigation. The Corps and the IDEM prefer the mitigation to be on-site, but may allow off- site mitigation in some cases due to certain constraints of a property. The mitigation ratios for impacts to federal jurisdictional wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." are as follows: u Impact Type Emergent Wedand Scrub-Shrub Wedand Forested Wetland Stream/Drainage Ways Replacement 2:1 3:1 4:1 1:1 Linear feet or restoration activities Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-2S-00t Page 3 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u Indiana Department of Environmental Management IDEM is the state agency that reviews and issues permits regarding isolated wetlands according to IC 13-18. House Enrolled Act No. 1798 (with amendment 1277) was enacted to take the place of the NPDES permitting through the IDEM. The law recognizes three types of wetlands: Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I isolated wetlands are in areas that have been disturbed by human activity/development, have low species diversity or greater than 50% nonnative species, do not provide critical habitat for the support of significant wildlife or aquatic vegetation, and do not possess significant hydrologic function. Class III isolated wetlands are located in areas that are undisturbed or minimally disturbed by human activity / development, are composed of rare or important ecological types, and support more than minimal wildlife or aquatic habitat and hydrologic function. Class II isolated wetlands are those that do not fit the criteria set for either Class I or Class III isolated wetlands. Exemptions are in place to allow impacts to Class I and Class II wetlands without requiring permitting and mitigation. Exemptions to Class I wetlands may be taken for up to 0.5 acres, exemptions to Class II wetlands may be taken for up to 0.25 acres, and any impacts to a Class III wetland will require an individual permit and mitigation. Only wetlands with the maximum allowable acreage may be used towards to the exemption. Section 401 permit applications will be submitted with any USACE jurisdictional wetlands or "waters of the U.S.". u According to House Enrolled Act No. 1798, impacts to isolated wetlands will require some form of compensatory mitigation. The law specifically states the amount of mitigation that must be created to offset impacts to isolated wetlands. These mitigation ratios do not apply to USACE jurisdictional areas. The mitigation ratios for impacts to state jurisdictional wetlands (isolated) are as follows: Impact Type Class I Class I Class II Replacement Class I Class II or III Class II or III On-Site Ratio 1.5:1 Acres 1:1 Acres Non-forested 1.5:1 Acres Forested 2:1 Acres Non-forested 2:1 Acres Forested 2.5:1 Acres Off-Site Ratio 1.5:1 Acres 1:1 Acres Non-forested 2: 1 Acres Forested 2.5: 1 Acres N on- forested 2.5: 1 Acres Forested 3:1 Acres Class III Class III Indiana Department rfNatural Resources Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has authority over the floodways of waterways that have a watershed greater than one (1) square mile. If construction activities are proposed in a regulated floodway, then a Construction in a floodway permit would be required. A watershed analysis would be required to determine the actual drainage for any waterways. u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-001 Page 4 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u Hamilton County Drainage Board The Hamilton County Surveyor regulates all subdivision drains, field tiles, or open ditches & creeks Hamilton County. Regulated drains have easements associated with the proximity of structures. The Hamilton County Surveyor's office requires a permit for crossing, outletting or working within the easement of a regulated drain. Coordination with the County Surveyor is critical to maintain deadlines and avoid scheduling conflicts. 2.2 Wetlands Wetlands offer a variety of functions and values that may include, but may not be limited to, groundwater recharge/discharge, flood flow alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, and fish and wildlife habitat. Because of the perceived functions and values of wetlands, the USACE developed the 1987 Manual to identify wetlands. Wetlands are defined in the 1987 Manual as, "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.,,1 This document outlines the protocol for identifying wetland areas distinguishable from "upland" areas. Wetland areas are delineated according to three primary criteria: vegetation, soil, and hydrology. An area is determined to qualify as a wetland if it meets the following "general diagnostic environmental characteristics." u 2.2.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation The 1987 Manual defines hydrophytic vegetation as, "... the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present..." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Plant List Panel developed the following categories to establish the relative probability of species occurring within the range between upland and wetland: Obligate Wedand Plants (OBL) - Probability of >99% occurrence in wetlands with a 1 % probability of occurrence in upland areas. Facultative Wedand Plants (F ACW) - Probability of 67% - 99% occurrence in wetlands with a 1 % - 33% probability of occurrence in upland areas. Facultative Plants (FAC) - Probability of 34% - 66% occurrence in either wetlands or upland areas. Facultative Upland Plants (F ACU) - Probability of 67% - 99% occurrence in upland areas with a 1 % - 33% probability of occurrence in wetland areas. u I U.S. A17JIY Corps rifEngineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, (1987 Manual). Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-00t Page 5 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u Obligate Uplands (UPL) - Probability of >99% occurrence in upland areas with a 1 % probability of occurrence in wetland areas. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met if greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL. 2.2.2 Hydrology Areas which are inundated or saturated to the surface for a significant time during the growing season will typically exhibit characteristics of wetland hydrology. This is not always the case, however; careful examination of the site conditions is needed to adequately identify wetland areas. The anaerobic and reducing conditions in inundated or saturated soils influence the plant community and may favor a dominance of hydrophytic species. It should be noted that the 1987 Manual further defines the growing season and methodology for determining evidence of hydrology. There are two types of hydrology indicators: primary and secondary. Primary indicators of hydrology discussed in the 1987 Manual include, but are not limited to, inundation, saturation within the upper 12 inches of soil, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. Secondary indicators may include, but are not limited to, oxidized root channels, water stained leaves, local soil survey data, F AC- Neutral test, etc. One primary or two secondary indicators are required to meet this criterion. u 2.2.3 Soil "A hydric soil is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. ,,2 All organic soils (except Folists) are considered hydric while mineral soils must be carefully examined to qualify as hydric. There are several indicators, which suggest a soil is hydric. An inspection of the soil profile to a minimum depth of 16 inches below ground surface is required in order to make this determination. The soil data used is the horizon of soil immediately below the A-horizon or at 10 inches below the soil surface. A minimum of two test pits are manually excavated at each data station. One of the pits is excavated in the wetland area and the other in the upland. Hydric soils may be present in the upland position; however, there may be insufficient evidence of hydrology or vegetation for the area to qualify as wetland. u 2 USDA-NRCS, HYDRIC SOIL TECH. NOTE I: Proper use of Hydric Soil Terminology, Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-2S-001 Page 6 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u 3.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION WCC reviewed readily available historical information and conducted a field reconnaissance to characterize ecological conditions onsite. 3.1 Historical Records Review WCC reviewed available public and supplied information regarding this site to enhance the field investigation. Resources available include USGS Quadrangle maps, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NRCS soil surveys, and aerial photography. 3.1.1 USGS Topographic Map This resource is generally used to spatially locate the site and provide a graphic display of the site location and general topography of the area. These maps provide insufficient detail for accurate site measurements or for planning purposes; however, general drainage trends can be established. The topography represented on this map shows a moderately sloping terrain towards the 100 years floodplain. A site location map has been included as Figure 1. u 3.1.2 NWI Maps The NWI maps were developed to meet a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) mandate to map the wetland and deepwater habitats of the United States. These maps were developed using high altitude aerial photographs. Indicators noted in the photographs, which exhibited pre-determined wetland characteristics, were identified according to a detailed classification system. In some cases, the NWI information is erroneous and areas are misidentified which emphasizes the need to perform field verification. The NWI maps use the USGS Quadrangle maps as a topographic base. The NWI map retains some of the detail of the Quadrangle map; however, it is used primarily for demonstration of wetland areas identified by the agency. This is not used to positively identify wetlands on a site. The Fishers NWI map is included as Figure 2. This NWI map identifies four (4) wetlands that may be within the area of investigation; three (3) PEMA- palustrine, emergent, temporarily flooded; and two (2) PEMC - palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded. The maps are only deemed accurate to a scale of 1:24,000 inches. A key to the NWI Map designations is included as Figure 3 for reference purposes. u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-001 Page 7 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u 3.1.3 County Soil Surveys WCC reviewed the information provided in the NRCS Soil Survry 0/ Hamilton County, Indiana that is relevant to the study site. The soil surveys provide a 1 :1320 0n:ft) scale aerial photograph on which distinct soil unit boundaries are identified. The eleven soil units classified on site are Fox clay loam, 8 to 18 percent slopes, severely eroded (FxC3); Fox loam,2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded (FnB2); Hennepin loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes (HeF); Houghton muck (Ho); Miami silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (NImA); Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded (MmB2); Ockley silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes (OcA); Ockley silt loam 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded (OcB2); Palms muck (pa); Sleeth loam (St); and \Vestland silty clay loam (We). Other information contained within the soil survey may be used to further characterize the site. Figure 4 presents a copy of the soil survey sheets for the site. 3.1.4 Aerial Photography Aerial photographs provide a visual overview of the site and can provide information to assist in identifying land use practices, terrain, drainage, vegetated areas, wetlands, habitats, etc. Certain features such as variegated soil patterns for instance, may suggest the presence of wetlands. Figure 5 provides a copy of a spring 2004 photograph. 3.2 Site Investigation A Williams Creek staff scientist conducted a site investigation on April 27, 2005. The study site is approximately 476 acres. The majority of the study site consists of agricultural fields, pasturelands, a farmstead and small woodlots. u Photographs of the site were collected to document current site conditions, and to provide a visual record of wetlands and "waters of the U.S.", if any, present at the time of inspection (Appendix B). Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (Data Forms) are completed in the field to document representative site conditions. A paired Data Form is prepared for each data station that represents any wetland or upland areas identified while onsite. Copies of the Data Forms are included in Appendix A. Two wetlands were identified during the site investigation for this property. A detailed description of the wetlands is as follows. Additional data points were recorded in other areas within the project boundary. 3.2.1 Wetland A - (3.7 Acres) This wetland community is located in the northeastern portion of the study area and is classified as an emergent wetland. u Wetland Data Points A-1 This sample station was located in the eastern portion of the wetland, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW+). The dominant plant species present in this community are hydrophytic, which meets the vegetation criterion. Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-2S-001 Page 8 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u The soil profile was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit within the wetland boundary. Examination of the soil profile within the wetland area revealed a matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. Evidence of hydrology for this wetland area included saturated soil at less than 12 inches and the F AC-Neutral test. Since all three criteria were met, this area qualifies as a wetland. A-3 This sample station was located in the southern portion of the wetland, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is reed canary grass (FACW+). The dominant plant species present in this community are hydrophytic, which meets the vegetation criterion. The soil profile was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit within the wetland boundary. Examination of the soil profile within the wetland area revealed a matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. Evidence of hydrology for this wetland area included saturated soil at less than 12 inches and the FAC-Neutral test. Since all three criteria were met, this area qualifies as a wetland. The wetland appears to be within the 100 year floodplain and may be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. u Ubland Data Points . A-2 This sample station was located adjacent to sample station A-1, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is field sow thistle (Sonchus aroensis, FAC-), reed canary grass (FACW+), and tall goldenrod (Solidago altissima) FACU). The dominant plant species present in this community are not hydrophytic, therefore it does not meet the vegetation criterion. The soil profile was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit. Examination of the soil profile revealed a matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. No hydrology indicators were noted for this area. Since all three criteria were not met, this area does not qualify as a wetland. . A-4 This sample station was located adjacent to sample station A-3, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is reed canary grass (FACW+), common blue violet (Viola sororia, UPL), and tall goldenrod (FACU). The dominant plant species present in this community are not hydrophytic, therefore not meeting the vegetation criterion. The soil profile was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit. Examination of the soil profile revealed a matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. Evidence of hydrology for this area was saturated soil at less than 12 inches. Since all three criteria were not met, this area does not qualify as a wetland. u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-2s-001 Page 9 Wetland Delineation EarIham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u 3.2.2 Wetland B - (O.2Acre~) Class 1 This wedand community is located in the south-central portion of the study area and is classified as a shrub/scrub wedand. Identification was made in an atypical situation as the wetland had been burned with the agricultural field. Wetland Data Points B-1 This sample station was located in the northwestern portion of the wedand, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is reed canary grass (F ACW +) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidental is, OBL). The dominant plant species present in this community are hydrophytic, which meets the vegetation criterion. The soil proftle was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit within the wedand boundary. Examination of the soil profile within the wedand area revealed a matrix color of 10YR 3/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. Evidence of hydrology for this wedand area included saturated soil at less than 12 inches and the FAC-Neutral test. Since all three criteria were met, this area qualifies as a wedand. B-3 This sample station was located in the southern portion of the wedand, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is reed canary grass (FACW+). The dominant plant species present in this community are hydrophytic, which meets the vegetation criterion. u The soil profile was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit within the wedand boundary. Examination of the soil profile within the wedand area revealed a matrix color of 10YR 3/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. Evidence of hydrology for this wedand area included oxidized root channels and the FAC-Neutral test. Since all three criteria were met, this area qualifies as a wetland. The wedand does not appear to have a hydrological connection to a "waters of the U.S."; therefore it would be considered jurisdictional by the IDEM. fJ.tJ/and Data Points B-2 This sample station was located adjacent to sample point B-1, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is corn (Zea mt!Js, UPL). The dominant plant species present in this community are not hydrophytic, therefore not meeting the vegetation criterion. The soil proftle was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit. Examination of the soil proftle revealed a matrix color of 10YR 3/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. Since all three criteria were not met, this area does not qualify as a wedand. u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-001 Page 10 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u B-4 This sample station was located adjacent to sample point B-3, and the dominant vegetation present at this station is reed canary grass (FACW+), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora, FACU) and common pokeweed (Pf?ytolacca americana, FAC-). The dominant plant species present in this community are not hydrophytic, therefore not meeting the vegetation criterion. The soil proftle was inspected by manual excavation of a test pit. Examination of the soil profile within the upland area revealed a matrix color of 10YR 3/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. Since all three criteria were not met, this area does not qualify as a wetland. 3.2.3 Other Data Points Other data points were sampled throughout the study area to further characterize the site. DP-l This data point was located in the eastern portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by Kentucky fescue (Festuca arundinacea, FACU+), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. u DP-2 This data point was located in the northeastern portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by corn (UPL), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. DP-3 This data point was located in the north-central portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by corn (UPL), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil proftle from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. u DP-4 This data point was located in the west-central portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by hackberry (Celtis occidental is, FAC-), wild ginger (Asarum canadense, UPL), burdock (Articum lappa, UPL), and bedstraw (Galium aparine, FACU), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-2S-001 Page 11 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 3/3 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. DP-5 This data point was located in the western portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis, UPL) not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 3/2 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. DP-6 This data point was located in the western portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by smooth brome (UPL) and reed canary grass (FACW+), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 4/3 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. u DP-7 This data point was located in the west-central portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos, F AC), Canada thistle (Cirsium a17Jense, FACU), smooth brome (UPL), and Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota, UPL), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 4/3 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland and is a vegetated swale with no "ordinary high water mark." DP-8 This data point was located in the western portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by hackberry (FAC-) and Kentucky fescue (FACU+), not meeting the vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 4/3 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland and is a vegetated swale with no "ordinary high water mark." u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-001 Page 12 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u DP-9 This data point was located in the northern portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by reed canary grass (FACW+), wood nettle (Lamium purpureum) UPL), field sow thistle (FAC-), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata, FAC), and black walnut (juglans nigra, FACU), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 3/2 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. This area does not meet the hydrology requirements. This area does not qualify as wetland. DP-l0 This data point was located in the central portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by hackberry (FAC-), Kentucky fescue (FACU+), false mermaid (Floerkea proserpinacoides, FAC+), moonseed (Menispermum canadense, FAC), and bedstraw (F ACU), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 3/1 to a depth of 12 inches and 10YR 4/3 from a depth of 12 inches to 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. u DP-ll This data point was located in the central portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by black walnut (F ACU), hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana, F ACU-), mayapple (Podopf?yllum peltatum, F ACU), bedstraw (F ACU), and Solomon's seal (Pofygonatum bijlorum) F ACU), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 3/2 to a depth of 7 inches and 10YR 5/4 from a depth of 7 inches to 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. DP-12 This data point was located in the northern portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by corn (UPL), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 2/1 to a depth of 16 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. DP-13 This data point was located in the northern portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by common dandelion (Taraxacum rfficinale, FACU), red clover (Trifolium pratense, FACU+), and Kentucky fescue (FACU+), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-001 Page 13 Wetland Delineation Earlham College Property Hamilton County, IN July 2005 u Examination of the soil profile from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of lOYR 3/2 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland and is a vegetated swale with no "ordinary high water mark." DP-14 This data point was located in the northern portion of the study site. The vegetation at this location was dominated by common dandelion (F ACU), Canada thistle (F ACU), red clover (FACU+), catnip (FAC-), and Kentucky fescue (FACU+), not meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil proftle from this pit revealed a soil matrix color of 10YR 3/2 to a depth of 16 inches, not meeting the hydric soil criterion. There was no evidence of hydrology for this area. This area does not qualify as wetland. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. performed a wetland and "waters of the U.S." delineation for the site located west of River Road and south of East 146m Street, Hamilton County, Indiana, for evidence of wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. The site was inspected on April 27, 2005. u Based on the criteria established by the USACE 1987 manual, one emergent and one shrub/scrub wetlands were located within the study site boundary. The cumulative wetland area is approximately 3.9 acres. Wetland A appears to be within the 100 year floodplain and may be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Wetland B does not appear to be hydrologically connected to a "waters of the U.S." and may only be jurisdictional by the IDEM. If proposed development will impact any of the aforementioned wetlands, then WCC recommends that this report be sent to the Corps of Engineers and the IDEM for a jurisdictional determination. Any proposed activities for USACE jurisdictional wetlands or "waters of the U.S." over 0.1 of an acre will require a Section 404 and Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit through the USACE and IDEM. If 0.1 or less impacts are proposed then a notification to the IDEM will be required. Any proposed activities for isolated wetlands or "waters of the state" will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the Class of the wetland. Permitting and mitigation ratios are dependant on the class of the wetland. According to the FEMA/FIRM map portions of the property are within the 100 year and 500 year floodplain respectively. Permitting may be required through the Hamilton County Drainage Board and/or the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. u Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. NAIO-25-001 Page 14 u FIGURES NAI OLYMPIA PARTNERS EARLHAM COLLEGE PROPERTY SOUTHWEST OF RIVER ROAD AND EAST 146TH STREET HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA u u u u p.. r;. .c. (~ ,~/ ~ t' '\_~ j ~: ! v Babeca Building 919 N. East Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 Tel: 317-423-0690 Fax: 317-423-0696 N . FIGURE #1 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (Fishers Quadrangle) Earlham College Property Hamilton County, Indiana Prepared for. NAI Olympia Partners Project No. Date: 1":::::1300' NAIO-2S-001 July 2005 u /I /I II " 0' ~o \ () /1 :/,0 C-i' o ~~ t-,l'FOICh '}-- ~ - ~ --1' PFOICh u ", >?~'- I ;1 il il i! H !~~~. ." CQ I. ". ./ ..--- u Baheca Building 919 N. East Stteet Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 Td: 317-423-0690 Fax: 317-423-0696 N t FIGURE # 2 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY (Fishers Quadrangle) Earlham College Property Hamilton County, Indiana Prepared for: NAI Olympia Partners Project No. Date: 1 "~2000' NAIO-2S-001 July 2005 SUBSYSTEM I CLASS RB--ROCK UB-UNCONSOLlDATED BOTTOM BOTTOM Bottom Subclass I Bedrock 2 Ruhhk 3 Mud 4 Organic Non-Tidal A Temporarily Flooded B SalUrated C Seasonally Hooded D Seasonally Flooded! Wdl Drained E Seasonally Hooded! Saturated F Semipermanenlly Flooded G Intermittently Exposed I Cobble-Gravel 2 Sand I AB-AQUATIC BED I Algal 2 Aquatic Moss 3 Rooted Vascular 4 Hoating Vascular 5 Unknown Submergent 6 Unknown Surface I US-UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE I Cobble-Gravel 2 Sand 3 Mud 4 Organic 5 Vegetated P - PALUSTRINE I I ML--MOSS- LICHEN I EM--EMERGENT I Moss 2 Lichen I Persistent 2 Nonpersistent I SS--SCRUB-SHRUB I I FO--FORESTED OW-OPEN WATER! Unknown MODIFIERS I Broad-Leaved I Broad-Leaved Deciduous Deciduous 2 Needle-Leaved 2 Needle-Leaved Deciduous Deciduous 3 Broad-Leaved 3 Broad-Leaved Evergreen Evergreen 4 Needle-Leaved 4 NeL>dle-Leaved Evergreen Evergreen 5 Dead 5 Dead 6 Deciduous 6Dcciduous 7 Evergreen 7 Evergreen In order 10 more adequately describe wetland and deepwater habitats one or more of the water regime. water chemistry. soil. or special modifiers may ~ applied at the class or lower level in the hierarchy. The farmed modifier may also be applied to the ecological system. WATER REGIME CoastalHalinitylnlandSalinitypHModitiersfor Tidal H Permanently Flooded J Intermittently Flooded K Artificially Flooded W Intermittently Floodedrremporary Y Saturated/Semipermanent! Seasonal Z Intermittently Exposed/Permanent U Unknown WILLIAMS CREEK CONSULTING K Artificially Flooded L Subtidal M Irregularly Exposed N Regularly Flooded P Irregularly Flooded 'S Temporary-Tidal "R Seasonal-Tidal "1' Semipermanent -Tidal V Permanent -Tidal U Unknown "These water regimes are only used in tidally influenced. freshwater systems. Babeca Building 919 N. East Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 Tel: 317-423-0690 Fax: 317-423-0696 WATER CHEMISTRY J Hyperhaline 7 Hypersaline 2 Euhaline g Eusaline 3 Mixohaline (Brackish) 9 Mixosaline 4 Polyhaline 0 Fresh 5 Mesohaline 6 OligohaJine o Fresh SOIL SPECIAL MODIFIERS all Fresh Water a Acid t Circumneutral i Alkaline g Organic n Mineral b Bea ver d Partially Drained/Ditched f Farmed h Diked/Impounded r Artificial Substmte s Spoil x Excavated Prepared for: FIGURE # 3 KEY TO NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP Earlham College Property Hamilton County, Indiana NAI Olympia Partners Project No. Date; NAIO-25-001 July 2005 u u FxC3 Fox clay loam, 8 to 18 percent slopes, severely eroded Fn B2 Fox loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded HeF Hennepin loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes Ho Houghton muck MmA Miami silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes MmB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded DcA Dckley silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes OcB2 Dckley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Pa Palms muck St Sleeth loam We Wesdand silty clay loam u Project No. Date WILLIAMS CREEK CONSU1T1NG Babeca Building 919 N. East Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 Tel: 317-423-0690 Fax: 317-423-0696 N . NAI Olympia Partners 1"=1320' FIGURE # 4 HAMILTON COUNTY SOIL SURVEY (SHEETS 45/46) Earlham College Property Hamilton County, Indiana Prepared for: NAIO-25-001 July 2005 ----.---~....------.-..--__________L_______ _ __ u Babeca Building 919 N. East Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 Tel: 317-423-0690 Fax: 317-423-0696 N t FIGURE # 5 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 2004 Hamilton County GIS Earlham College Property Hamilton County, Indiana NAI Olympia Partners Project No. Date: 1 "::::1 000' NAIO-2s-001 July 2005 '\ ./ " / I N n " ./ o I LEGEND SITE BOUNDARY - - - - DATA POIIIT 1 LOCATION ill VlETWD~ LOCATIOII ~ ~ / I // ~ i ~. ~~cc! // -- ) y // f,/~ / I /./ / / I .~ WILLIAMSCBEEK Oiiiiiiiimiiii IIAIIECA gIg No ~ INllWW'OUS INr:::n Tel: 31i_423-08904G02 fax: 317-423-06118 ~ ~ \O~ ::t:t:~ ga3 83 ~o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ REVISIONS - JULY 2005 SCU t'~ ~~ o I:: 1-< I--t p.. ~ ve- 13 o 0 UU I=l I:: a B ~1 ~:r: 1-=500' PIllI.IECfIll. NAlo-25-oo1 ~8Y SO DIll IWIE NAl025OO1 PREPARED fOR: AG6.DWG NAI OLYMPIA PARTNERS ~ u u APPENDIX A WETLAND DATA FORMS NAI OLYMPIA PARTNERS EARLHAM COLLEGE PROPERTY SOUTHWEST OF RIVER ROAD AND EAST 146TH STREET HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA u Site: U. Client: Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Yes No No Date: County: State: UPLAND Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? A-1 WETLAND Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana A-2 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum 1. Phalaris arundinacea Herb 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: Indicator FACW+ VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum Sonchus arvensis Herb Phalaris arundinacea Herb Solidago altissima Herb 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 100% Indicator FAC- FACW+ FACU 33% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators Field Indicators Primary Indicators Inundated X Saturated <12" Water Marks U- Sediment Deposit ~ _ Drainage Pattems _ Remarks: Buttressing Trees None 10" 0" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: HYDROLOGY None >16" 14" Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels - Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Soils Houghton muck (Ho) Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Solis Fox loam (FnB2) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Muck Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Loam Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic ContenUSandy Soils _ Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed -X Low Chroma Remarks: HYDRi'CSOii. INDICATORS Concretions Organic ContenUSandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List == Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Sampling Point Within a wetland? Remarks: X Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes No No No No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No No X No u ,;.,~.{ Site: UClient: Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Yes No No Date: County: State: UPLAND Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? WETLAND Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? A-3 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana A-4 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum 1. Pha/aris arundinacea Herb 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: Indicator FACW+ Dominant species Pha/aris arundinacea Viola sororia Solidago altissima 100% VEGETATION Stratum Herb Herb Herb Indicator FACW+ UPL FACU 33% Field Indicators Field Indicators Primary Indicators Inundated X Saturated <12" Water Marks U- Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Pattems Remarks: HYDROLOGY HYDROLOGY None 15" Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) None 5" 0" Primary Indicators Inundated X Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Pattems Remarks: 10" Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Soils Houghton muck (Ho) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Soils Houghton muck (Ho) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Muck Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Sampling Point Within a wetland? Remarks: X Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Muck No No No No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? ~ Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: Histosol _ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. _ Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions _ Organic ContenUSandy Soils _ Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. _ Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: HYD"RiCSOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic ContenUSandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) u X No No No X No Site: U Client Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: UPLAND Station #I Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? B-1 WETLAND Station tI Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No No Yes No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum Cepha/anthus occidenta/is Shrub Phafaris arundinacea Herb Indicator OBL FACW+ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) 100% Remarks: Wetland vegetation appears to have been burned. Field Indicators HYDROLOGY Depth of Surface Water: 0" Depth to Free Water: 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: 10" Secondary Indicators X Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Primary Indicators Inundated X Saturated <12" Water Marks U= Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/1 Soils Westland silt clay loam (We) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt clay loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol _ Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: Dominant species 1. Zea mays 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana B-2 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No No Yes No VEGETATION Stratum Herb Indicator UPL 0% Field Indicators HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit Drainage Pattems Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/1 None >16" >16" Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Soils Westland silt clay loam (We) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt clay loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions _ Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Sampling Point Within a wetland? Remarks: X Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes No No No No U Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No No X No Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: Site: UClient: Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: UPLAND Station #I Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana B-3 No Yes No WETLAND Station #I Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No No Yes No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum Pha/aris arundinacea Herb Indicator FACW+ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSL, FACW, FAC{excl. FAC-) 100% Remarks: Wetland vegetation appears to have been burned. HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators X Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks U. . - Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: B-4 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Dominant species Rosa mu/tiflora Phylo/acca americana Pha/aris arundinacea VEGETATION Stratum Herb Herb Herb Indicator FACU FAC- FACW+ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 33% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks _ Sediment Deposit Drainage Patterns Remarks: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water. Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/1 Soils Westland silt clay loam (We) Soils Westland silt clay loam (We) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt clay loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. _ Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/1 Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt clay loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions - Organic Content/Sandy Soils - Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. GJeyed X Low Chroma Remarks: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Sampling Point Within a wetland? Remarks: X Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes No No No No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No No X No u Site: UClient: . Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana Data Point Station #j Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? DP-1 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No Data Point Station #j Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? DP-2 Yes No No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Dominant species 1. Festuca arundinacea 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: VEGETATION Stratum Herb Indicator FACU+ 0% Field Indicators HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks ( \ = Sediment Deposit ~ _ Drainage Pattems Remarks: None >16" 14" Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Dominant species 1. Zea mays 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks; VEGETATION Stratum Herb Indicator UPL 0% Field Indicators HYDROLOGY Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit Drainage Pattems Remarks: None >16" >16" Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water. Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: Soils Palms muck (Pa) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Muck HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils _ Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Soils Fox loam (FnB2) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: U X No X No No X No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? _ Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No No X No Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: Site: Earlham College U Client: NAI Olympia Partners Investigator: S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Data Point Station # DP-3 Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Stratum Herb Dominant species 1. Zea mays 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAG-) Remarks: Indicator UPL 0% HYDROLOGY Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water. Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Indicators Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks U.. - Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: None >16" >16" Date: County: State: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? DP-4 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum Celtis occidentalis Tree Asarum canadense Herb Articum lappa Herb Galium aparine Herb Indicator FAC- UPL UPL FACU 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAG-) Remarks: 0% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit Drainage Patterns Remarks: Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water. Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Soils Westland silt clay loam (We) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt clay loam Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/3 Soils Hennepin loam (HeF) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed Low Chroma Remarks: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No No X No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No U Site: ( '\ Client: ~ Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? DP-5 Yes No No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Stratum Herb Indicator UPL Dominant species 1. Bromus inermis 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 0% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks ( \= Sediment Deposit ~ _ Drainage Pattems Remarks: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? DP-6 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No VEGETATION Stratum Herb Indicator UPL Dominant species 1. Bromus inermis 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 0% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks _ Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Pattems Remarks: Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water. Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/2 Soils Fox clay loam (FxC3) Soils Ockley silt loam (OcA) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Clay loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed Low Chroma Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/2 Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Hislic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed Low Chroma Remarks: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No Q Site: UClient: Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? DP-7 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum Pha/aris arundinacea Herb Bromus inermis Herb Indicator FACW+ UPL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 50% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks U. - Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? DP-8 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No Dominant species G/editsia triacanthos Daucus carota Cirsium arvense Bromus inermis VEGETATION Stratum Tree Herb Herb Herb Indicator FAC UPL FACU UPL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 25% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit Drainage Patterns Remarks: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 4/3 Soils Ockley silt loam (OcB2) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic ContenVSandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Greyed Low Chroma Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 4/3 Soils Fox clay loam (FxC3) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Clay loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon Organic ContenVSandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Reg. Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed National Hydric Soils List _ Low Chroma == Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: No soil pit excavated Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No U Site: UClient: Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana DP-9 Yes No No Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum Celtis occidentalis Tree Festuca arundinacea Herb Indicator FAC- FACU+ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 0% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks U.' . _Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem area? DP-10 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Dominant species Jug/ans nigra Sonchus arvensis Pha/aris arundinacea AI/aria petio/ata Lamium purpureum VEGETATION Stratum Tree Herb Herb Herb Herb Indicator FACU FAC- FACW+ FAC UPL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSLo FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 40% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 4/3 Soils Fox clay loam (FxC3) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Clay loam HYDRiCSOii. INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed Low Chroma Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/2 Soils Westland silty clay loam (We) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silty clay loam HYDRiC"'SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed Low Chroma Remarks: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No U Site: ( \ Client: ~ Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana DP-11 Yes No No Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No VEGETATION Stratum Tree Herb Herb Herb Herb Indicator FAC- FACU+ FAC+ FAC FACU Dominant species Celtis occidentalis Festuca arundinacea F/oerkea proserpinacoides Menisperrnum canadense Galium asparine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 40% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks U. . - Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Patterns Remarks: Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? DP-12 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Dominant species Jug/ans nigra Ostrya virginiana Podophyllum pe/tatum Galium asparine Po/ygonatum biflorum VEGETATION Stratum Tree Tree Herb Herb Herb Indicator FACU FACU- FACU FACU FACU 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSLo FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 0% Field Indicators HYDROLOGY Depth of Surface Water: None Depth to Free Water: >16" Depth to Saturated Soil: >16" Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels - Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit Drainage Patterns Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-12" 10YR 3/1 12-16" 10YR 4/3 Soils Ockley silt loam (OcA) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt loam Silt loam HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-7" 10YR 3/2 7-16" 10YR 5/4 Soils Ockley silt loam (OcA) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt loam Silt loam HYDR'iC'SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic Content/Sandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed Low Chroma Remarks: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No No X No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No u Site: U Client: . Investigator: Earlham College NAI Olympia Partners S. Shaw and S. O'Brien Date: County: State: 04/27/05 Hamilton Indiana Yes No No VEGETATION Dominant species Stratum 1. Zea mays Herb 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OBl, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? DP-13 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes No No Indicator UPl 0% HYDROLOGY Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained leaves local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Indicators Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks U. _Sediment Deposit _ Drainage Pattems Remarks: None >16" >16" Solis Westland silty clay loam (We) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 2/1 Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silty clay loam Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. _ Gleyed X Low Chroma Remarks: HYDRIC SOil INDICA TORS Concretions Organic ContenUSandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils list Other (Explain in Remarks) Data Point Station # Normal Circumstance? Significantly Disturbed? Potential Problem Area? DP-14 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Dominant species Cirsium arvense Taraxacum otticinate Trifolium pratense Lamium purpureum Festuca pratensis VEGETATION Stratum Herb Herb Herb Herb Herb Indicator FACU FACU FACU UPl F ACU- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent Species OSL, FACW, FAC(excl. FAC-) Remarks: 0% HYDROLOGY Field Indicators None >16" >16" Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated <12" Water Marks Sediment Deposit Drainage Pattems Remarks: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: Secondary Indicators Oxidized Root Channels - Water-Stained leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Map Unit Name: Profile Description: Depth Matrix 0-16" 10YR 3/2 Solis Ockley silt loam (OcB2) Mottles Texture, Structure, etc. Silt loam HYDRi'C"SOIL INDICATORS Concretions Organic ContenUSandy Soils Organic Streaking/Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils list National Hydric Soils list Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _ Aquic Moisture Reg. Gleyed low Chroma Remarks: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? X Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No No X No Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes Remarks: X No X No X No X No U u u APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS NAI OLYMPIA PARTNERS EARLHAM COLLEGE PROPERTY SOUTHWEST OF RIVER ROAD AND EAST 146TH STREET HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA u Photo Point 1: Cow Pasture View: Looking West u u u Photo Point 2: Corn Field View: Looking South u Photo Point 3: Wetland A View: Looking East u u Photo Point 4: Wetland B View: Looking East Photo Point 5: Upland Forest View: Lookin East u u u