The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPoints of Remonstrance I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I April 7, 2001 ~ ~E~ED . 'H 10 2001 Docs Dear Planning Commission Member, This is a summary of remonstrance of the Bonbar Place Subdivision proposal on behalf of the property owners of College Hills, College Meadows, Marwood Trails and neighboring subdivisions. The proposal is scheduled for review at the Subdivision Committee on April 1 0, 2001. First, we address points that were brought up at the March 6 Subdivision committee meeting. Secondly, we restate our major points of remonstrance. Last, is a final word (maybe?) from the remonstrance committee. Many of our responses in this summary are based on information we received previously from Bonbar. Because we could not see Bonbar's "latest" plan until last Friday, April 6, we ask that you pennit us to respond to whatever they present at Tuesday's Subcommittee meeting. A. Points discussed at the March 6. 2001 subcommittee meetina: 1. Committee members asked questions regarding lot sizes and setbacks. The petitioner could not give adequate answers. We include a spreadsheet summarizing this information and graphics that show how proposed Bonbar houses might be placed on one of the lots from the adjacent neighborhoods. It appears to us that it is not possible to construct the minimum size home while conforming to the required setbacks. 2. The petitioner was asked to provide examples of similar developments. He acknowledged that there are none in Hamilton County and he could not cite any in Marion County. Will our neighborhood be a site for a trial balloon? 3. Preservation of buffer areas was questioned. The response was that covenants would result in fining violators of the open space areas. Who will play policeman over this and what good will fines do after the damage is done? We are also concerned about control over the construction activities during the development. "Oops" isn't going to replace trees and ecosystems that have been there for years. 4. Since the first renderings presented last September there has been no presentation of elevations or renderinas of proposed homes. It appears the petitioner intends to "make this up as he goes." The original renderings presented a totally repugnant image because homes were crammed in with no space between. We believe this is his reason for failing to present any subsequent graphic presentation of the proposed plan. 5. The petitioner had continually ignored the environmental impact information requested by a commission member on at least three occasions. His attorney has claimed each time that he isn't clear about the request. Should he not have sought clarification 7 months ago if he needed it? The living lake will be killed by the failure to collect the pollutants from the runoff of these properties. Additionally, this will impact areas downstream from the lake. - 1 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. The effect of adding approximately 10 acres of pavement and roofs will be the equivalent of creatina approximately 20 additional acres of runoff. This is based on the normal coefficient of runoff for grass being 0.30 while the value for paved areas and roofs is 0.90. This means the runoff for these areas will triple. We question whether the petitioner has considered this in controlling the rate that this will be discharged downstream. Erosion control appears to be non-existent, since the petitioner has no plans in this regard. This has to be in violation of State and County requirements. 7. Despite being told at least three times to address the impact of 106th and 96th St traffic problems, the petitioner has ignored this as a "no big deal" issue. On the other hand, he took the time to analyze the intersections on Guilford and Carrolton Ave. at 101st and 103rd Streets, which were obviously not problems. Was this done to create sheer bulk for the report? The proposed office developments at 96th Street and College will be an additional source of traffic. We include the Indianapolis Star article regarding the problems at 106th Sf. and College. 8. We presented a brief traffic summary at the conclusion of the March 6 meeting based on the assumption that this development will add at least 75 cars during the AM peak. This is only one car per home. We believe that a mOfe realistic value is 1.5 cars per home, but we used the conservative number. With that one exception, we used the petitioner's count figures and distribution for our analysis. We used software that we feel was probably the same as the petitioner's and is generally accepted by traffic engineers. The results were an LOS of E for 1015t Street on the west-bound leg during both AM and PM peaks. The LOS for 103rd Street on the west-bound leg during both peaks is B. This clearly refutes the petitioner's prediction that only 10% of the traffic from Bonbar will use Marwood Drive! It doesn't require anything more than common sense and experience for drivers to figure this one out. Our calculations and a summary of these conditions are included in this submittal. 9. The petitioner appears to intend to improve 101st Street from Bonbar to the west property line of the Korean Church. The apparent right of way isn't sufficient to meet County Standards for a ditch section. If this will not be a ditch section (i.e. curb and gutter), it will require a storm sewer to deal with the drainage. A ditch section requires at least 70 ft. of RMJ. This is indicated in Table 6-1 of the Hamilton County Standards in this submittal. 10.The petitioner is required to restore 101st Street to acceptable conditions if it is damaged. This appears to be taken far more lightly than it should be. This is going to be a mess during construction if more specific requirements aren't exacted. The pavement section of 101st Street should be cored to determine its load carrying capacity. Since it belongs to the County, they would have to authorize this. 11. The question still must be resolved regarding what the actual R/W on 1015t Street is east of the west property line of the church. It appears this answer is to come from the County Attorney. -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B. MAJOR POINTS OF REMONSTRANCE: 1. Property values and Quality of life in our existing neighborhoods will be negatively impacted. Who would choose to live in the proposed development? We find the suggestion that anyone could take pride in owning one of these "homes" sad. The congestion and inherent lack of privacy will generate considerable discontent among these owners. How could any parent expect to find this environment equal to his hopes for a "yard for his children to play in?" Will this discontent not spill over into our yards? When the specific lot sizes are considered, 80 % are 0.100 acre, or less. This is 10 homes per acre for almost the entire site! The largest lot is 0.20 acre, and there is only one that size. These 75 lots comprise a total area of 7.270 acres and average 0.097 acre per lot. There is no way these even approach being equivalent in value to our existing homes. We are not separated by the width of a good-sized closet, as they are. Aside from the price of these homes, they are in no way compatible with the character or Quality of our surrounding homes. Our homes will still be standing and have breathing space between them after these have turned in to rentals and are in total disrepair. We don't expect them to be the same style because that is a transient thing, but we do expect something better than these "blue light specials with no yards and the density of apartments with grass hallways. 2. Traffic problems and safety concerns We have discussed this at length and provided you with substantiation that traffic will use Marwood Drive_extensively because it will be easier to access College Avenue from 103rd Street rather than 101st Street. Most of you have experienced the convoluted route this will take and the invasion of our presently peaceful area. There are no sidewalks outside of Marwood Trails and no street lighting. There is extensive pedestrian traffic in the area because it is presently safe. These streets were not designed to promote traffic. They curve to control traffic as well as for aesthetic reasons. Non-residents will totally ignore this concept in their hurry to reach a destination. Marwood Drive as a point of access is absurd! (When this stub street was platted over 30 years ago by the current owners' father it was not for this sort of density. This is based on first hand conversations between one of our members and the owner at that time. The point is that creation of the stub 30 years ago doesn't justify the current intent.) We again point out the explosion of commercial development in the immediate area that will further exacerbate our present traffic problems. A most recent example of this is the proposed development at College and 96th Street that proposes offices with 1 ,400 parking spaces. 3. Neaative Environmental Impact and loss of a natural habitat The destruction of a beautiful natural habitat, the displacement of the wildlife forever and the killing of a living lake with pollutants from the runoff generated by this development are a third point. - 3 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c. FINAL WORDS This proposal bases its entire justification on the ROSO ordinance and the attendant requirements set forth in that ordinance. We have chronicled our endeavors to meet with Mr. Kosene to work out a compromise. He assured us that he would build 115 homes in this location and we might as well get used to it. He told us that he couldn't afford to build fewer homes than that because the owner of the land was asking such a high price for it. We suggest that the price must be too high if that is the case. (A rule of thumb is that a lot is normally 200/0 of the price of the home. This translates to $240 thousand per acre for the developed portion of this subdivision, based on an average home costing $120 thousandl We find it difficult to believe this can't be economically feasible at considerably decreased density.) At any rate the petitioner has continued to put forth an obscenely dense concentration of homes because it is within the limits set forth by ROSa. That is his only "justification!" We believe this ordinance was written with the intent to provide some green space and protect the environment. We are certain that the authors of it never intended it to be used as a sick joke to violate the rights of adjacent property owners. History has shown that much legislation is passed with the best intentions in the world, but people find ways to circumvent those intentions to their advantage until the negative loopholes are closed. This is a clear-cut case of such a situation. We suggest that this proposal flies in the face of the true "spirit of ROSa." There is certainly room for more than strict mathematical interpretation of this ordinance. Even if you do not reject it on this basis, the other concerns are more than adequate reasons to do so. We call your attention to how long this issue has been dragged out before the commission. The chronology is as follows: 1. Petitioner tabled the first presentation scheduled for Aug. 15, 2000, ostensibly to try to reach a compromise with neighbors. All he did was tell us we might as well accept the plan! 2. Petitioner's first presentation was Sept. 19, 2000. The plan at this point was rife with violations of numerous regulations and requests for variances. At that meeting a field trip to the site was scheduled to precede next Planning Commission meeting in October. 3. The petitioner was then supposed to present in December 2000. He met with our committee Nov. 30, 2000. At the end of that meeting he offered to table the presentation for 30 days if we wanted to evaluate their new plan. It still proposed too many homes,as well as numerous other points of contention. We notified his representatives the next day that we saw no reason to delay presenting, because the plan wasn't even close to anything acceptable. 4. When we didn't help them out by supporting this delay, they tabled the presentation anyway. (Obviously we were being used to buy time because they didn't really have a plan ready to present.) -4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. They finally presented in Feb. 2001, at which time it was sent to subcommittee for a March 6, 2001 meeting and then continued to the April 10, 2001 subcommittee meeting. We have watched several other petitioner's proposals during the review process in the past few months. We did not see all of this tap-dancing about what they were going to do. Changes were made if requested; and the matter was approved or disapproved without dragging on. Surely you are tired of this issue and listening to both sides of it after 8 months. We feel this has been dragged out by the petitioner in hopes we would lose our resolve. While we are, in fact, very tired of it, our opposition to it has not weakened. We still represent the 150 people who signed the petition against this plan. The petitioner has made a mockery of the process. We hope that he will not be permitted to continue prolonging this with haphazard and inconsistent proposals until everybody just gives up. We also want to know what guarantees and controls are in place to make sure he will even do what he proposes. With the exception of the first presentation, the petitioner has failed up to now to show any araphics of the actual homes he proposes to build and their proximity to each . other. Finally at the "11th hour," he has come up with the current "plan du jour" showing a graphic of a single home with trees on both sides and a relatively pleasing appearance. The plan, which our committee did not receive until Friday, April 6, 2001, does not show a group of these homes placed next to each other and is totally out of scale with the actual lot size. It ignores the fact that they will not have trees or anything else between these homes, because the lot sizes and set-backs won't permit it. Additionally, the covenants presented at the last meeting called for a minimum of 1,300 sq. ft. on the first floor. The new proposal is a home with only a 950 sq. ft. footprint. Is he going to change the covenants again, or is this just something he thought looked good, without considering his own rules? More to the point, does he really have a plan other than to just get by the Planning Commission and then ad lib with anything he chooses to build? Many trees could be saved if the petitioner submitted his proposals using a child's Etch-a-Sketch, rather than wasting paper for his numerous revisions. Determining his true intent is equivalent to trying to pick up mercury. In that regard we have not rewritten certain portions of this submittal to reflect these apparent last minute changes. We don't really know for certain what they are. We ask to be permitted to respond to them when they are, hopefully, clarified. The key to this whole issue is the density of the homes. This affects the property values. the safety and the traffic concerns. We ask that you not prolong a decision because of much less serious considerations. These have significance only after these major points are resolved, and they should have been addressed long ago. We appreciate the many hours you have spent on this issue. We hope that you agree that this project is not in the best interest of the citizens of Carmel/Clay Township. We strongly urge you to reject this proposal. - 5 - I I I I I I I I I I (Taking the highest density for surrounding neighborhoods of 3 lots per acre this means that 3.4 homes could be built on our smallest (1/3 acre) lotsl) I I I I I I I I I PROPOSED BONBAR PLACE LOT INFORMATION sq. Ft. No. of Lots Acres (approx.) Lots x Ac. % of Total 1 3 0 .08 3 ,485 1 .04 1 7.3% 39 0 .09 3,920 3 .5 1 52.0% 8 o. 1 0 4 ,356 0.80 1 0.7% 5 o. 1 1 4,792 o. 55 6.7% 6 O. 1 2 5 ,227 0.72 8 .0% 1 O. 1 3 5 ,663 O. 1 3 1 .3% 1 O. 1 4 6,098 O. 1 4 1 .3% 1 O. 1 8 7,84 1 O. 1 8 1 .3% 1 0.20 8 ,71 2 0.20 1 .3% TOTALS 75 --- 7.27 1 00.0% ~ ~~~~II~~~jl~!~~!lirrmji~~~~~I~iirrmiii!iil!!l!!lIilllillil!li!1il~~~~lii!l!j!lliii~~~~~j!!lIIj!lll!I i !!II I III III I! 1111ll1II! II! III!!!II!!I! I!!I!!I!! !IIIIIIIIII!!! I! I! I!! I !l!11111111! IIIIIIIIIWI!! ~III!! I I!I !!III I Ill!! II! 1II1111111~~~~ II! II ~q~I~~~ !!lllllIIll!! rh'I!!Ji!li!!tr[I~!~!!I~"~,~!~~I!~!Q~~~!I~9~~!!lp~rlli~~~I!llI!I~!l!ll!l! 7 Using 80' average depth = 52.78 avglWidth ~ti~~~II'=l~~~lli!!ijj~lijlijj~m!!~l~~IIY~~lll~gl~!I~~Ji!IY!mll9..... ~..!!~~..!I~~~~:e~i:~~'.~~.lij~.I.i.i.'Ilil.I:li.I.I...iii:.liiilii'l.iiilllm:!' 1~~~!m~m!!I~~~II~~~~~II~~I~~l!~HIIIII!I!I!lllllllllllllllll11111!!!I!IlI!!!!!!!!!!I!I!!!j~I!I!!!1/:' 1~~~!rn~rojll~~~j!~,~~II~~j~~~~~~q~ljfTI*HI!iWi~jlll!~!111!ll!l!!l~j!iilll!~~/' ,. Assuming the rule of thumb that a developed lot is approximately 20% of the total price of a home and using a $120,000 selling price for the Bonbar homes makes the price per lot be about $24,000. ~J.J.j'$:m~~$.:~~:p~::~rH"p~:'~r~hi$.::I""~:~:$.~QgQ~:~UJ.~~~Igt$l~p~:~r:$~4.Z~~I,:p~:"p.~J.::::::::::::::::::::::m::1 At that rate our 1/3 acre lots would be worth $82,560 and the 1/2 acre lots $123,840 with no homes on them. How is there any comparison between our values and those proposed for this development? This may be "playing with numbers" to a degree; but it isn't nearly as distorted as the claim of 2.1 lots per acre put forth by the petitioner. (We understand the ROSO interpretation, but this is totally misleading to anyone not steeped in the depths of this ordinance. And the petitioner is usina it to support an extremelv exaaaerated claim.) Res: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Worksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information 1. Analyst: FG 2. Intersection: East 103rd St. & College Ave. 3. Count Date: January 2001 4. Time period: AM Peak Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1. LT Volume: 2. TH Volume: 3. RT Volume: 4. Peak Hour Factor: 5. Flow Rate LT: 6. Flow Rate TH: 7. Flow Rate RT: 8. Flow Rate Total: 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 10. Subject Approach 11. Opposing Approach 12. Conflicting Approach 13. Geometry Group 14. T (Time in Hours): North Bound L1 11 362 6 0.90 12 402 6 421 0.02 1 1 1 1 0.250 South Bound L1 4 448 46 0.90 4 497 51 553 0.02 1 1 1 1 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet East Bound L1 41 5 21 0.90 45 5 23 74 0.02 1 1 1 1 West Bound Ll 33 25 10 0.90 36 27 11 75 0.02 1 1 1 1 North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 Ll Ll 1. Flow Rate Total: 421 553 74 75 2 . Flow Rate LT: 12 4 45 36 3 . Flow Rate RT: 6 51 23 11 4 . Prop LT in lane: 0.03 0.01 0.61 0.49 5. Prop RT in lane: 0.02 0.09 0.31 0.15 6 . Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 7 . Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 9 . hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 10. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70. 11. hadj 0.03 -0.02 -0.03 0.04 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 421 553 74 75 2 . hd, initial value 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3 . x, initial 0.37 0.49 0.07 0.07 4. hd, final value 5.1 4.9 6.2 6.3 5. x, final value 0.59 0.75 0.13 0.13 6. Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7 . Service Time 3.1 2.9 4.2 4.3 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 421 553 74 75 2 . Service Time 3.1 2.9 4.2 4.3 3. Degree Utilization, x 0.59 0.75 0.13 0.13 4. Departure headway, hd 5.1 4.9 6.2 6.3 5. Capacity 702 734 525 520 6. Delay 15.2 20.9 10.1 10.3 7 . Level Of Service C C B B 8. Delay Approach 15.2 20.9 10.1 10.3 9. LOS, approach C C B B 10. Delay, Intersection 17.3 11. LOS, Intersection C I I HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC} ANALYSIS I Worksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information 1. Analyst: FG 2. Intersection: East 103rd St. & College Ave. 3. Count Date: January 2001 4. Time period: PM Peak II Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound Ll 13 535 23 0.90 14 594 25 634 0.02 1 1 1 1 South Bound L1 20 424 49 0.90 22 471 54 547 0.02 1 1 1 1 1. LT Volume: 2. TH Volume: 3. RT Volume: 4. Peak Hour Factor: 5. Flow Rate LT: 6. Flow Rate TH: 7. Flow Rate RT: 8. Flow Rate Total: 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 10. Subject Approach 11. Opposing Approach 12. Conflicting Approach 13. Geometry Group 14. T (Time in Hours): 0.250 II Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet 1. Flow Rate Total: 2. Flow Rate LT: 3. Flow Rate RT: 4. Prop LT in lane: 5. Prop RT in lane: 6. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 7. Geometry Group 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 10. hHV-adj Table'10-18 11. hadj North Bound Ll 634 14 25 0.02 0.04 0.02 1 0:20 -0.60 1.70 0.01 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time North Bound Ll 1. Total lane flow rate 634 2. hd, initial value 3.2 3. x, initial 0.56 4. hd, final value 5.4 5. x, final value 0.95 6. Move-up time, m 2.0 7. Service Time 3.4 II Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound Ll 634 3.4 0.95 5.4 670 46.1 E 46.1 E 34.6 D 1. Total lane flow rate 2. Service Time 3. Degree Utilization, x 4. Departure headway, hd 5. Capacity 6. Delay 7. Level Of Service 8. Delay Approach 9. LOS, approach I 10. Delay, Intersection 11. LOS, Intersection II II I East Bound L1 74 25 25 0.90 82 27 27 137 0.02 1 1 1 1 West Bound Ll 23 15 18 0.90 25 16 20 62 0.02 1 1 1 1 South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll L1 Ll 547 137 62 22 82 25 54 27 20 0.04 0.60 0.41 0.10 0.20 0.32 0.02 0.02 0.02 1 1 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 1.70 1.70 1.70 -0.02"'" 0.03 -0.08 South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 547 137 62 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.49 0.12 0.06 5.5 6.9 7.1 0.83 0.26 0.12 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 4.9 5.1 South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 547 137 62 3.5 4.9 5.1 0.83 0.26 0.12 5.5 6.9 7.1 655 503 487 29.5 12.3 11.0 D B B 29.5 12.3 11.0 D B B RCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: FG Intersection: East 101st St & College Ave. Count Date: January 2001 Time period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume: 0 469 29 7 528 0 101 0 12 HFR: 0 521 32 8 587 0 112 0 13 PRF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None * of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 * of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 'approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R L Lane 3 T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R y y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 I Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R I Channel:zed: Grade: N N N N N N N N N 0.00 I Upstream Signal Data: I Approach: Northbound L prot T Distance: Progression Speed: Cycle Length: Green Time: Arrival Type: Saturation Flow Rate: Progressed Flow: 2640 35 120 25 3 1700 o 25 3 1700 o Approach: southbound L prot T Distance: Progression Speed: Cycle Length: Green Time: Arrival Type: Saturation Flow Rate: Progressed Flow: 2640 35 90 10 3 1700 o 30 3 1700 o Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Northbound 469 29 1700 1700 1 Southbound o o 1700 1700 1 Length of study period, hrs: 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------.- 3,lt c,T: stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c,base t c,hv P hv t G t t 1 c,g t c 1 stage 4.1 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.00 2.2 2.2 0.9 0.02 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.02 3.5 4.0 0.9 0.00 4.0 3.3 0.9 0.02 3.3 II ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 5a. Effect of Upstream Signals (Computation 1) II Movement 2 Movement 5 Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) I Arrival Type Effective Green g eff (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9-2) I Proportion of vehicles arriving on green P g ql g q2 G q II ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: FG Intersection: East 101st St & College Ave. Count Date: January 2001 Time period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume: 0 579 106 24 529 0 59 0 13 HFR: 0 643 118 27 588 0 66 0 14 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R L Lane 3 T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R L Lane 3 T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 I Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R L Lane 3 T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 I Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 I Upstream Signal Data: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I,APpro~ch:Northbound Distance: Progression Speed: Cycle Length: Green Time: Arrival Type: Saturation Flow Rate: Progressed Flow: L prot T 2640 35 120 25 25 3 3 1700 1700 0 0 Approach: Southbound Distance: Progression Speed: Cycle Length: Green Time: Arrival Type: Saturation Flow Rate: Progressed Flow: L prot T 2640 35 90 10 30 3 3 1700 1700 0 0 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shared ln volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Northbound 579 106 1700 1700 1 Southbound 553 o 1700 1700 1 Length of study period, hrs: 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 I t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I t 3,lt 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.00 2.2 2.2 0.9 0.02 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.02 3.5 4.0 0.9 0.00 4.0 3.3 0.9 0.02 3.3 Worksheet Sa. Effect of Upstream Signals (Computation 1) II Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal: Movement 2 Movement S V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) I Arrival Type Effective Green 9 eff (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9-2) I Proportion of vehicles arriving on green P 9 q1 9 q2 G q II ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- --4- 01 o ," o :: ~ l I I I I I I I I J 80' -0' ,'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'---'-'-'-'-'- . 15'-0" 8'-0 34'-0" ~ ~~ ~C/) ~ &1 I I I t--- I I S ~ i$ I I L.___._.___._._ CD ::::0 o ^ ;! ('") rrJ -i -i -i ('")-0 I II O~rrJ~U) c<::::o ~rrlrrJIu) ZU'):E~:> C)-irrrl Ir- 0 ~~CDd~ rrl-rrlr-:E C)U')tQOZ )>-01-<GJ ::::O~OO )>-0 co GJOU') ,., ['1~"':t:E rnOrTlI r-,.,-<~ rrlr--== . -~-i <"-I -iZZrrl IGJ-i rrl -i-U ""U~Og ::::O)>-o-i O('")CCS ""Urrl-iZ ~OOfTl rrlZZ:::O O-i)>I "':::r: :> Orrl~(J) ~GJ-o(J) ""U:::o-c: ::::OoS;rn ZCr-~ --iZr-=1 OOfTl ~"":-i~ Z5:C-i OOO;!; Z::::O:E(J) ~,-..~- fllrrl(J) :::r:X::::O-i ~ ('").. :c <E-ifTl rrlo:c ~t~~8 N GJ:r: -i U'))>~;g ""~fTlz ~GJ(J)-i S<B~o -. :...-...t,., ~--i8-i ~;!; :c U')-irrl :E :r: =iO~:r: :::r:::::O 0 O~ Vj ~z fTl GJ -I -< \J - () )> r r o -I en () )> r m ~ .......... ~ 02 Ii ~ .. ~ ---------- ~ rD ,.. .. f.') ~ c.. o ''oJ I l..J .....,J ) o ....... (') ""1 o CD ~ =:s ~ ;::: · en ~ g. ;:t t:t · 0 :> g CD s= . f"+ Cl. ...... o. cT st o fJ:I ::s '< CD g ~ 3 ~ ~ ~..... ~ fJ:I 3' ~ 0 p Z p.. e: ::I. ~ 3 .... · ::I. '< 0 fJ:I fJ:I g ~ .-.3 a g ben 2 ~ tj ~ .....::s .... ...... ...... CD o 0Cl ::s 0 0 ...... 0 · ~ . 0 _ ..... !:t cT Pi" fl CD ~ CD t:r !:< CD "'1 .... en 0 ~ - CD "'1 Oft ll) .... _ . ""1 CD ..,.1 ..... ~ ~ g ~ ~ g & g' ~ o' ~ "'1 P cT CD · "'1 t:r _ 0 s= a ~ 0 = ~ ~ ::s 0 ~ ..... s= ~ 1-1 l;:! ~ CD ::s p.. 0 0 ...... CD S ~ ~ CD .... · ..... ::r' 0 ~ fJ:I' p ::I. g;. Jg ~ ~ >-+a s= p.. -< .... fJ:I "d t:l ll) 0 fJ:I a ca ::r' (;l "d CD ...... 0 s= CD CD ll) ...... a -< ~ !i g. .~ ~ ;: ~ ~ 5- p.. fJ:I 0 ll) ::l CD .... · ...... "d ..... ..... 0..... ::s CD 5 ll) ~ ::r' -< ~ 0Cl ~ "'1 ..... ::s "'1 ~. ,.., CD tj ll) 0 p.. p.. _ _ 0 p ~ "'1 CD ~ 0Cl ~ (t S' '"d a 0 0 = CD p.. ..... cT "'1 ll) ::t. CD ~ :::: ~ tj CD 0 ...... .... fJ:I ... ~ · ll) p "d ..... CD fJ:I 0Cl .e ...... Ei 0 CD o "'1 0 CD u" (t E:l cT ~ So ::;! ~ (;l g a ~ e. 0 CD 0 cT "'1 ..... p.. ll) ::s s= "'1 s= ll) CD .:. ::s ~ s: fJ:I CD .... . ;>< \J p.. - ::3 CD a s: 3 0 ji)' ~ ~ CD o o' Er ;j' ~ 0 p.. ::I. Ul :::.> ::s 0Cl I=i . p.. ~ ~ 0 .. ::r' ll) fJ:I 3 S · - "'1:> CD ...... 0 s= 0Cl g ..... fJ:I t-4 "'1 3 0 fJ:I b ~ fJ:I ':t "d ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ~ CD ::r' 0 ~ :::.; a ~ o::! CD iii' o ..... . ,... ~ ~ ::i ,..... "'1 ..... " .... · ....... · .... . ~ ....." 0 ~. ~ =1 0 ~ (t o::s ,e ~ CD _ .... p.. 3:" u" fJ:I N ......... 3 CD 0' .... . "'1 __ ? 0 CD fJ:I I 5 g.. -< ::r' "'1 ::s "d 3~ ...... ll) CD a CD 0 CD s= ..... ::r' ~ 3 CD a p.. CD .... · '" tj.... · ..... _. p.. 0 ~:::. p-< -<::s ......'~::S CD CD 0Cl 8' CD ~ ::S""" ~fJ:I ~ 0 ..... '.;<: t:j 0 ~ H') CJ) ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0'" ~ 0'" S Z 0' CD ~ a ~ 3 _~ '< ~ ll) ~ 0 0 -< ~ ~ (') .-. ~ 0 ~ ~ < en 0 ~ ~ (') .- 0 ~. s ~ 0 0 ~. tii' ~ S !:; g 6. ~ 3 CD ~ ~~ p.. Jg '"en ~. ..... o (') ~ 0 CD a. ~ CD g CD ::r en s. (') ""1 <; >< ....-+ >< .-+ I ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 8"> (JQ s.: (') 0 ~ t::: g, ~ t:S CD ~ CD ~ ~ N. CD $).) 3 cT 0 S q g Jg -S ~ cfJ s' -S ~ ~ CD ] t:h 5 ~ 0 ~ CD ~CD 0Cl So t""4 '< ....... ::s S (t 0 ::s a ~ cT ~ ~ a ~ ~ g ~ 0... ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 = ~ 0 0 en 0 o ~ 0 CD ~ ~ CIl ::s ~ en (') 0... t:S ~ ~ t:1 s: ~ st 8. Cl. ~ ~ ~ ~ ll) 9 · ~ ~ 0 ~ cT ~ 0Cl ~ ~ g t"'"4 p. ~ ~ s:. tj 5. S g 0 ~ ""1 o ~ ""1 0 (1) ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ....... ~ . ("D....... ~ ~ ... ..... I-' CD ~ J.1 CIl 0 ..0 (1) Cf) <; (1) en 0 (') CD ::r t:S ~ 3 .-+ ~ ~ ::1. ...en r+ ::r PJ ~ 0 ==;. "0 2 p CD ~ (JQ ~ 0 == t-+, (1) 0 (') ~ ~ en f;\) ... ~ ~ Cl. ~ .-+ CD ::r ~. ~ ~ to- cT =:s ~. _~ ~ ::1. CD ::s ~ ~ 0 (1) '< t:S '< (1) ~ ~ (') ~ ~ t:S 8~. 8 0 ~ ~Ui' p.. -g 0 g.? < t:S t:S ""1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (1) ~ (1) (JQ t:j "'d ........ p ~ 9 ~ 0. 0 ""1 ~ CD ........ ~ t:1 . · (') (1Q - ~ CD (1) (') SO c:T '< ~ a (') ~ '< Cl. ~ :::t. 0 0'" CIl CD 0 ~ ~ o ~ 0 "'d 0 ~. 0. CIl ~ ~ t:S S t:S ~ ~ ~...... ~ (JQ 0 .......:=.: ~ 0 ~ ~ t:S a - ~ ~ t::: =:r '< ~. t:S CD "'d (JQ 0 '< ~~. o Cl. ::r f"+ p.. to; 0 f"+ ~ =' dQ ~ f"+ ""1 0 0 ~ ::r ~ 0. ~ ~ t:r' CD ~ ~ ....... CD s::; cT::r ....... ~ (1)~. 0 0. ~ 8 ~ ~ g CD ~ (') 0. 0 ~ Cf) ::I.::s 0 ~ ::s ~ ~ ~ "'1 CD ~ g OQ ~ (') ~ ~ ~ (1) ~ a (') ~::r' ..... CD a tJ ~CD a g, ~ 0 ..... g g 0 a ~ g a ~ fjj ~ ~ en ~ ~ (1) CD .-. ~ 2 =::r (1) ..... · p....-.... · 0 '< 0 o ~ 0 a t;j .... (') ~ g t;j Q 9 totj CD ~ ~ 0'" t* o 0 ~ CD ~ ~ ~ 0 CD o ~ ~ g ~ ;t C). ~ p.. b p.. ...0.. (') ~ L..,f 3 Z ~ 0 en ~ S CD en --. ~ p.. 0 =::r <; ~ cT CJ) S. 0 ~ 0 CD ~ ~ 00 ~ ::I. en (JQ r-+ (:) (t en re. ~ -~ ~ (") 0 ~ =:r'....... ..... · ~ ~ 0 r ~ q> ~ a F- ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ 00 ------------------- <..n o I- ~ 80' -0' ,--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- . 15'-0" 8'-0" 51'-4" I [o:]~ ~ ( I f'V 23' -0 ~ q I I 0 ~ I ~i I ~ ~ I~ C"I'J CIJ ~~ I ~ I L, _. _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _. _, _, _, _, _', _, _, _,_ 8~8~;f s:::cn< U) s:::s:::"" =1~~~~ ~~~G)~ .~ U) Z 8 O~G) ;O)>ZOU) ;OU)-o"':J: 6d~~~ _ c: ~oo;~~ o )> - ", rrl ;oZ-o ~U)50~d -1"')>00 6 -'" C) ~ -I :Z-l~o;g :J: - s::: ", ~ "-1 Z o , u)-ocngo -Ig. ;0" z:::::!=E--.)> d~~~:J: ;orrl):>oo ~;o:::oEt?5 :::::!:J:"'Orrl 0)> - zU)~~o -zrrl Z U)oo~)> s:::-Io:::o U)~~~~ '<Zrrl- ~fTl):>"'--'o OZ~-I~ Z-IU):J: C)~0~5 o ::;:;-1-1 ;oLJ":J:- S;:fTlrrlZ c:z~LJcn U)o~rrlO -10 :::::!Z -os:::~g~ S;:~)>z:::o zU)Zrrl-l ~-I:::O:J: zO:J::J:~ OZrrl):> oooU)~ ~:::o;oU)o ~U)~~=E -I<=-s:::U) . cnz_-I S2G)~:J: <U)fTl", (/)-10 -:J: ~ ~~z~ -10 ~:J:U) rrl~" ::::0 --I -< -0 - o )> r r o --I (fJ () )> r m ~ .......... ~ 02 Ir ~ .- ~ ,~ " f:i' i ~' v\ .~:... ~t, 'l~ ~i.~~: .. Q~~~ "f, ':,~:I"- '~~~i ~~': : :.'~~' ~~.. , 'I" , ....\. I.. . ,~ '; ~I-.;., ..Df.l'l"l ~.~~ '~~I~. ~"" ~Ii -- ~~. '~.~:: ~Wl"" ~!;~": ;.., ,:~t...\\ .'!.. :r;'. . .~. '-_,'f._\; .r~.) 'T'" ~. .. .~.~ (: . " "!~, .':~~ p~\( ~~", :,~~I."'::'~' \, ;i. : n l~"',' :;~..}~ 1"J'.::' L \; : i;~: - - - - - - ...~.",::i~ . i....... ~!:.',.". I . :r~ ':.:- \', : 'iJ.~ *' 4:- ~I' lii~; ; :: ~~'.~:.. i' · ~i ';'V" II'" ~~~ ',' ...' \.J ~~. <."~~. ." /'''fi1i · 'i}~.f\[-J~,::;'. ';,( /:~\ ,;ii~~ .~.. -. 'j;' J}> . \tS.~~ ' . i "":;,/t~ ,:; ~ .. ~..; "4ib'.~Y '~!~" ~ ~1r:,~:,/ '.: \'.~Y'. '.. "; (\' I . ~:~"'~'-'~:'~'~:.; ...... ~:. .." . , ~~:. ....A~. "J ..'~. . ..' \? '. "ti, : '~~~~t . '~7:i!" .1 '1 ./.~ '.-'" .' I ~_'" .' ~J:K;;~6~~'t:.:j'~...: "'1:. :.;~:.~~i fSr;'i~\:l .u~;~ ._.til";': - ,'r- "~f ., ";:. -. ~.~::~ ; '~~":' ..., t~.! - - - - ~ li~~, . ~ .' ......11...&.. .;.4.11" . ....I!... ,_~'~. ("; "" , ~~j.l$. 1-~. .. ................ --'-,- '. 'C ~ ~t' 1'a,~-'- , 'i'.~ .\'':'''',,'':: ,.. , .' . ~'..~~_.. ", ',; I(~ '\:.. -i:",~ . ' - ~ ';'I..~ff_fr :."~~" ..~.,. -~". 1I~ '1'\' .~ (...... - - - i~~i fl ~.\~.~ . ~~;. ."-\~.:..j.., .~ - ':lJ.\D.... 'I z.;~l H~ ~ ~~, \ '17 . ~ !ldi; ;.~~ :i:~~' .~.t' lIP, - Jf f ~ 'I " / l I l i I - ~>;~ ,I r '7\ C ~ - ;if',' :,.! ' II?t~ .~~ ,',::.: ~ 'i,' ~ /' ,!.!. C ' .,' ,,~..~;. ~I.-/, '.., /::::. Mi~~ / :~:~~i ' , f;:~~i~\:f I -$;?~;, ,\ rr;" . r: ~t;~~i ;c I~fii.". ",;'~' ~:~ ',. .!r,. , '; A~:': ' :E.. ..:-1. , f , i. \I;j ! 'I - N ""'- N (j) ......... o ~ \JJ o Z \JJ )>- ~ \l r )> () m ,/ /' , t ~~'.7 t-";: .i - IVH1 ~ ~ ~ 00 - <..0. ~ ~ ~o:J ~ ~ ~. cO ~ " ~ .OOOHtl08H~13N ~NI1SIX3 3H1 -=JO A1ISN30 3Hl 01 3(fv'd~OJ iON 5300 OOOHtl08H~13N 03S0dO~d 3Hi .:10 AlISN30 3H1 MOHS 01 3NOO SVM ~NJMV~O SIHl ..O-.~ =..9~/~ 31VOS SMOaV3V\1 3831108 NII01 \ <;.vOG ... ------- .. --------- ---- ": I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ---- ~ ~ - .... ~ a~VA)l~\f8 l \ 3JVdS \ ~NI^ll ~ --- ..:1S Ogt ~ ~ 3snOH ~ E>NI1SIX3 I , LN~8 " s -INIW ... ::: , "? - ... ...... - I. ~ ::: / - ........ .... I. ~ ~ --- ~ - - ~ ---- -- 9 l. -\7g l c Al~3dOtJd .3~J\f ONY .:10 SH1N3i 9 01 lVn03 51 10l SIHl .' ... ~ o ~ I I ~ ::r: ~ w 3= 0::::: 0 <( 0 :r:OCLZ (/)w::E- (/)otn OOU- ---- r-CL x ---- Or-W ---- Wo::::OW ZCLZ::r: 8W(/)~ :r:Wl...L- (/)t-OO <( 0 5;LL. ~. u..: 00_0 (/) o 0(/)0 00t5 Z~OZ:O , - - ::r: W ::r:: OZ<( ~(/)O::::OO:::: r-0>e- ~QOwO ~ --l (/) OOCO m II:r: UJW0t-0 w ::r:::r:wOw :z: t- t- :z t- z: --.J ~ \ 0:::: W ---- 0- ---- 0 \ --- 0:::: ---- C/) ~ 0- ---- ---- ~ - --- \- ---- z ---- 0 0 0 u..: <( CJ) if) W I- o0t5 O~<( ~ 0 1"')>0- --' ~ --.J (f) W a:: (!) <( ~ W CO \ ~ --' Z <:r --' 0 ---- N '0 0 ---- ~ <..0 \ ----- CO . ---- () 0 ~ ---- I ~ ---- ~ CO ---- Z ~ II \ --- I: r ---- CO - :c ~ "'"""'- I- ~ I- w 0 - ...J ~ <( '--' () u..: U) U") o~t3 W OZ<e 0:::: n>CL u ~ --.J (/) <t: z: <C LL- \ .0 I,:. (f) ----.. . .. :r:: ---- . . ; . .~ \ ---- z: --- W ---- ~ ---- CD ---- \- --- Z --- 0 l- LL... (.f) I- ~ 0 ---l (f) 0:::: Oc:>t5 <( OZ<( CO f'I)>CL :z: -r- ---1 (f) 0 CD ~ \ --- ---- 101 ' ---- ---- ---- ---- L ---- ---- ,_.. ...------------ .... ----.-.-------.--.---.. .- -...----------.- ~ - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I USE OF MARWOOD DRIVE AS AN ACCESS POINT We have discussed at length the total lack of logic in allowing Marwood Drive to serve as a point of access to the proposed subdivision. It is apparent that even the petitioner recognizes this point. That is why he has attempted to downplay the amount of traffic that would use this route. His claim is that less than ten (10) percent of the traffic from Bonbar will travel this route. We strongly disagree with this claim and ask for the following reasons that this not be permitted: 1. Although not the only reason, one of the major reasons for the October 3, 2000 field trip was to demonstrate the problems of Marwood Drive's being considered a safe and practical point of access. 2. Our study based on just one car per household during the AM peak will result in LOS E for the westbound leg of the 101st St. and College Ave. intersection. This is the case during both AM and PM peaks. 3. Under this same scenario, the LOS at the west leg of 103rd St. and College Ave. will be B for both peak hours. The LOS on the northbound leg of College Ave. will be F during the PM peak. This means that even if a car could exit north-bound onto College Ave ~highly unlikely!). it would then encounter an LOS of F when it gets to 1 03~ Street. But by going to 103rd St. it will be possible to go south or north on College with much less delay. This means far more than 10 percent of the Bonbar traffic will use Marwood Drive. 4. Section 6.3.21 of the Township Subdivision Control Ordinances states, "Subdivisions consisting of fifteen (15) lots or more shall have at least two (2) points of access. This access is to be from a through street (feeder, arterial, or collector) or, where the Plan Commission finds it to be appropriate, the continuation of existing, planned or platted streets on adjacent tracts, or the extension of proposed streets to the boundary of the subdivision." 5. Marwood Drive is even lower in functional classification than a "Local Street". It has only one home located on it. Yes, it is a "platted street to the boundary of the subdivision." But there is no way, when you have seen the rest of the route to reach an arterial street (College Avenue or 10Sth St.), that this can be interpreted as "appropriatel" It appears that the Planning Commission is empowered to deem this to not be appropriate, thereby limiting the number of homes served by this route to fourteen or less.