ZE-0056-96
Canreled File ENGINEE~' S kEVIE V"',' ~.AlffiET
Date Filed
Date As Built Pians Receiveci
Date Rnad Plans Approved REZONE FILE # ZE-0056-96 -96
New Road Standarcts 5-I5-95 NI~•lar
~ Coinpaniun File f!: MHP-0004-96
Hearing Date 03/25/1998 H Time: 01:30 II Numher. 1 Relateci File
f3uilding Dept
Technical Review Date: TR Time:
Review Date: 01/15/1997 R Time: R Number: TECII KEVIEW tl
Date Received: 12/23/ 199b Review Type: Large Lot I_J Bldg. Square Feet: I
IVa. Lot 131 No. Acre 19.5
Project Name: LTR-3.5 to UR-7 MISSION MEADOWS nIFG HOME PK Range_Tawnship-Secuon: 45- 25 - 8
Site Address: N MISSIONlE BARKER PaRCEL(S): (firsc 20)
Applicant Name: 1 P E-MASON, RICHARD Phone 458-6840 55083.9012 55083.9042 55083.9043
Applicant Address: 707 W 7TH AVE STE 200 Phone 2# 928-5160
SPOKANE, WA 99204
Flood Zone No Water Sewer School 356 Fire 1 Phone Date Condi[ions Mailrd:
Billing Owmer: COLVAR. BILL & ARLENE Engineer PATRICK J b400RE
Address: Address 19305 E MISSION Company INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING
GREENACRFS. WA 99015 Address: 707 W Ti'H AVE STE 200
SPOKANE WA 99204
Phone: Phone: 924-6273 Phone: 509458-6840
Fax: 509458-6844
Signed Name
Building f/ 456-3675 / Planning #456-22Q5 Contact:
nate Si~hmittptl P=Wliw Init~
12/10/1997 DATE TECHNICALLY COMPLETE [Traffic Analysis Requirecl]
01/1511997 DATE NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE
DATE PAY FEES RECEIVED
DATE PRIORITY FEES RECEIVED COPY TO ACCOUNTING
T'INAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED AND COPY TO ACCOUNTING ~
NOTICE TO PUBLIC / NOTICE TO PUBLIC 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
in-Out #1 In-Out In-Out 03
DESIGN DEVIATION DATES IN-OUT
!n-Out #4 In•Ou[ #5 ln-Out #6
BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRAINAGE ITEM CALCULATED I
DATE BOND RECEIVED BOND AMOUNT RECEIVED
DATE BOND RELEASE - DATE BOND REDUCED BOND BALANCE
Hearing Date Decision Appravad / I Denied Continuecl Appealed BCC Approved Denied ~
Appealed to Court Approved Denied Continuecl Final Projec:t Status
STAMPED MYI.ARS TO PERMIT TECHNICIAN (SYL)
STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO SECRETARY (SANDY)
~L4u ~
-L)a ~n a
~ a -
3 1/
I
,
~
Canceled ENG:(NTE~,~'R' 5 REVIEfJV SHEET
Date Filed ~
Date As Built Plans Received
Date Road Plans Approved DR REZONE FILE # ZE-056-96 I
New Road Standards 5-15-95 Mytar N:
Companion File MHP-004-96 I
Related File
Hearing Date: H Time: H Number:
DESIGN Review Date: DR Time: Building Dept ~
Review Date: 01 /15/ 199? R Time: R Number: DESIGN REVIEW #
Date Received: 12/23/1996 Review Type: Large Lot El Bldg. 5quare Feet:
No. Lots: 131 No. Acres: 19.5
Project Name: UR-7 MISSION MEADOWS MFG HOME PK Range-Township-Section: 45-25-8
Site Address: N MISSION/E BARKER PARCEL(S): (first 20)
Applicant Name: RICHARD MASON Phone # 458-6840 55083.9043 55083.9012 ssog3.9oa2
Applicant Address: IPE Phone 2#: 928-5160
707 W 7'TH AVE STE 200 Date Conditions Maited:
SPOKANE WA 99204
Flood Zone: No Water Source: Sewer Source: School Dist: 356 Fire Dist: 1 Phone Dist:
Billing Name: Owner: BILL & ARLENE COLVAR Engineer: PATRICK J MOORE
Address: Owner Address: 19305 E MISSION Company: INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERI
GREENACRES WA 99015 Address: 707 W 7TH AVE STE 200
SPOKANE WA 99204
Phone: Owner Phone: 924-6273 Phone: (509) 458-6840
Signed Name: Fax: (509) 458-6844
Building/Planning Contact: Plann.ing Phone # 456-3675 Building Phone # 456-2205
Date Submitteti Descriptioo Initials
DATE TECHNICALLY COMPLETE TECHNICALLY 'I'raffic Analysis Required
COMPLETE (NO)
~ DATE PAY FEES RECEIVED
DATE PRIORITY FEES RECEIVED COPY TO ACCOUNTING
FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED AND COPY TO ACCOUNTING ~
NOTICE TO PUBLIC / NOTICE TO PUBLIC # 1 3 4 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
In-Out #l In-Out #2 In-Out N3
DESIGN DEVIATION DATES IN-OUT
In-0ut !t4 (n-Out 115 ln-Out /{6
BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRAINAGE ITEM CALCULATED
DATE BOND RECEIVED BOND AMOUNT RECEIVED
DATE BOND RELEASE - DATE BOND REDUCED BOND BALANCE
Hearing Date Approved Denied Conanued
Appealzd BCC BCC Decision Approved BCC Decision Denied
STAMPED MYLARS TO PERMIT TECHNICIAN (SYL/SUZANNE)
/ / STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO ADMINSTRATIVE ASSISTANT (SANDY)
.
. - v
_ RECEIVED
SP+OKANE C[)UNTY HEARING EXANIINER JUN Q4 1998
8P0K#N~E CaUA11y,,.nr,RE: Zc~ne R~eclassification frorn ) FINDINGS t7F FACT, ER
Urbaaz Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) ) C(]NCLUSIONS
to Urban Residential-7 (LTR-7) } AND DECISIUN
Applicant: Bill Colyar }
File No. ZE-56-96 }
I, SUMNiAR'Y UF PRiDPUSAL Al'+11D DECISIUN
Propasai; ZQne reclassification from the Urban Residential-3.5 (XJR.-3.5) ta the Urbari
R,esidential-7 (LTR-7), to allow development of a manufactured hame park and those uses
allowed in the Urban Residential-7 (TJR-?) zane.
DeciSiQn: Approved, subject ta conditivns.
~ II. FYNDINGS UF FACT ANU CONCLCJSIONS
The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the zane reelassification applicatian and the
evidence of recard, and hereby adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. GENERAL INFORNLATION:
Lega1(7wners: Bill and Arlene Colyaar, 193(]5 East Missivn Avenue, Greenacres, WA 94016
ApplicantlAgent: Richard 1V1asan, IPEC, 7+07 "VVest Avenue, Suite 200, Spflkane, WA- 99244
Address of Sife: 19305 East 1ltissian Avenue, Greenacres, WA
Lacativn: Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Awenue, 2300 feet east of
Barker Raad, in the SE of the 5W '/4 of Section 8, Township 25 Narth, Range 45 EWM,
Spokane County, Washington,
Legal Descriptiva: The south 20 rods of#he IVW "/a of fihe NW 1/4, except the east 20 rods, and
the SW '/4 of the NW except the sauth haif of the south 20 acres thereaf, alI within Sectian 35,
Township 26 North, Range 43 EWM, Spokane County, Washington,
Zoning: Urban Residential-3.5 (iJR-3.5)
Comprehensive Flan Categot-y. The praperty is desigmated in the Urban cate~ory of the
Spokane Caunty Generalized Camprehensive Plan. The property is also located within the
Priority Sewer Service Area, Aquifer Sensitive Area and Urban Impact .Area designated by the
Plan.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Pa,ge I
.
. .
.
-I
Environmental Review: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was
issued by the Division of Building and Planning on March 2, 1998.
Site Description: The site is approximately 19.5 acres in size, is comprised of three County
Assessor tax parcels, and is mostly flat and undeveloped. A single-family residence, currently
occupied by the legal owners, is located at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to
Mission Avenue. The site is located inside the interim urban growth area (IUGA) boundaries
designated by Spokane County pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act.
Surrounding Conditions: The subject property is located along the north side of Mission
Avenue, which is designated as a Minor Arterial by the County Arterial Road Plan. Barker Road .
west of the site is designated as a Principal Arterial. Interstate 90 is located at some distance
south of the site, while the Spokane River and the Centennial Trail lie at some distance north of
the site. The land lying north and west of the property is zoned Urban Residential-7 (LTR-7), and
is developed or planned for "site-built" single-family residences. The land south of the site
across Mission Avenue is mostly zoned UR-7, along with some land zoned Urban Residential-
3.5 (UR-3.5), and is developed with manufactured homes, mobile homes and single-family
residences. An elementary school is found at the southeast corner of Mission Avenue and Barker
Road. The land immediately east of the site is zoned Urban Residential,3.5 (UR-3.5) and is
undeveloped, while further to the east is found land zoned UR-7 and developed with
mobile/manufactured homes. A very large manufactured home park is found at the northwest
corner of Barker Road and the Spokane River, and large manufactured home subdivisions are
found at the northwest and northeast corners of Barker Road and the Spokane River.
Project Description; A rezone to the UR-7 zone is proposed to allow a manufactured home
park, to be developed in seven phases. The application for a manufactured home park associated
with the proposed rezone is subject to processing and approval administratively, pursuant to
Chapter 14.80$ of the County Zoning Code. The site plan of record (two pages, revised 12/97)
for the proposed manufactured home park illustrates 131 rental spaces for manufactured homes
and an existing house, with the spaces ranging in size from 30,000 squaxe feet to 3,760 square
feet. A.7 acre area for a manager's unit, maintenance building and recreational vehicle storage
is illustrated in the northerly third of the property. The site plan also illustrates a 1.7 acre
community space in the center of the site, with a grass-covered playfield and recreational
facilities, and which is to used only for recreational purposes. A series of paved private roads
with sidewalks and curbs would provide internal circulation within the community area. Access
to Mission Avenue is illustrated in the southwest corner of the site, and access to Indiana Avenue
via "Grady Road" outside the site is illustrated in the northwest corner of the property. The site
plan states that the northwest access will be "normally gated emergency only access", while the
southwest access "may have security gates". Drainage "208" areas are illustrated throughout the
development. A typical lot plan showing manufactured home footprint, a two-space carport,
storage shed and building setbacks are illustrated on the site plan. Fencing and landscaping
details are also illustrated and listed on the site plan.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 2
. B. YRUGEDURAL INFOIZIVIATION:
Applicable Zoning Regulations: Spokane County Zoning Code Chapters 14.402, 14.618
and 14.805.
Hearing Date and Location: Nlarch 25, 1998, Spokane County Public Works 13:
Lower Level, Commissioners Assembly Room, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA. 'i
Notices: Mailed: March 10, 1998 by applicant
Posted: March 10, 1998 b~,,-1,nn? i c~nt
Published: March 9, 1998
Compli~~ircc : T'~c r:VL1.
Site Visit: March 24, 199('~
Hearing Procedure: Pursuant to County Resolution Nos. 96-0171 (Heanng Exan,,'
Ordinance) and 96-0294 (Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure)
Testimonv:
Louis Webster. Pat Harper
Division of Building and Planning Division of Engineering and Roads
1026 West Broadway 1026 West Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260-0240 Spokane, WA 99260
Greg Figg Richard Mason
WA State Department of Transportation Inland Pacific Engineering
2714 North Mayfair 707 West 7" Avenue
Spokane, WA 99207 Spokane, WA 99204
Kerina Higgins Richard Solberg
19110 East Indiana 1819 North Glenbrook
Greenacres, WA 99016 Greenacres, WA 99016
Dean Rowbotham Harvey O'Connor
1922 Michielli Lane 19310 East Indiana
Greenacres, WA 99016 Greenacres, WA 99016
Susan Peterson Thomas Boyes
1724 North McMillan Lane 19225 East Indiana
Greenacres, WA 99016 Greenacres, WA 9901
Greg Stir~ :
2228 East 46''
S1,'..,
Itenis Nuticed: SpokailL Counly Cuilipi~ehc;nsive 1'lan, Luniii~ l,ouc Wld Louilty Lou~.
County Resolution Nos. 96-0171, 96-0294, and 97-0134 (establishing ILJGA boundaries).
County Hearing Examiner Committee final decisions dated 4-2-82 and 4-14-83, and County
Planning Department final decision dated 6-16-95; all regarding the Riverwalk/Riverway
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 3
.
.
development in Building and Planning File Nos. PE-1414-81 /ZE-92-81 /PUDE-1-82. Revised
preliminary plat and preliminary site development plan for Riverwalk approved 5-19-95, and
final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition recorded on 6-15-97.
Procedural Matter: After the public record was closed, the Hearing Examiner received a
letter from the applicant, Richard Mason dated March 26, 1998. Since the letter was received
after the record was closed, it is excluded from the record.
C. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS:
In considering a rezone application, Washington case law generally provides that (1) there
is no presumption in favor of the rezone, (2) the applicant for the rezone must prove that
conditions have substantially changed in the area since the last zoning of the property, and (3) the
rezone proposal must bear a substantial reIationship to the public health, safety or welfare.
Parkridize v. Seattle, 98 Wn. 2d 45419 462 (1978); Biarnson v. Kitsap Countv, 78 Wn. App. 840
(1995). Spokane County Zoning Code Section 14.402 (1)(2) indicates that consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, detriment to the public welfare and changed circumstances are relevant
factors to consider in amending the Zoning Code.
The proposed rezone must also comply with the Spokane County Zonin~ Code, the StateEnvironmental Policy Act (SEPA), the County's Local Environmental Ordinance, and other
applicable land use regulations. Conditions may be imposed to assure the consistency of the -
proposal with applicable regulations.
The following findings of fact and conclusions are made:
1. The t)ronosal eenerallv conforms with the Spokane Countv Generalized Comprehensive Plan.
a. Relevance of Comnrehensive Plan
A county's comprehensive plan provides guidance to the hearing body in making a rezone
decision. Belcher v. Kitsan Countv, 60 Wn. App. 949,953 (1991). Deviation from a
comprehensive plan does not necessarily render a rezone illegal, only general conformance is
required. Bassani v. Countv Commissioners, 70 Wn. App. 389, 396 (1993); Cathcart v.
Snohomish Countv, 96 Wn.2d 201, 212 (1981).
The Hearing Examiner is required to set forth in findings and conclusions the manner in
which a land use decision would carry out and conform to the Spokane County Generalized ~
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. See RCW 36.70.970 (3); and Spokane
County Resolution No. 96-0171, Attachment "A", Section 11. The Examiner's decision may be
to grant, deny, or grant with such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the Examiner
finds necessary to make the application compatible with Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations." Spokane County Resolution No. 96-0171, Attachment "A",
Section 11.
The Spokane County Zoning Code indicates that its provisions are to be interpreted to carry
out and implement the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general plans for
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 4
. •
pliysical development adopted by the Board of County (.:oinmissioners. See Loning Cocic
14.100.104. The Comprehensive Plan states that the Plan should be used as a reference smir,:.:
and guide for making land use decisions, enacting land use regulations and adopting other land
use planning decisions. Comprehensive Plan, Introduction, p. 2. The "decision guidelines" set
forth in the Plan are to used as a guide in determining whether or not a particular proposal shoti i(1
be approved, conditioned or denied. See Comprehensive Plan, p. 2; and Comprehensive Plaii,
Section 1, 1__TrJ)an cateL,on,, "PtiMOse", p. 1~.
Spol:ane Cotiilty has dcsigllatcd tlie policics ot tllc C'onlprel, ci'siPlan as policies to bc
applied under SEPA and the County's Local Environmental Ordinance, in the environmental
review of land use proposals. See Spokane Count_y Code 11.10.160 (4).
b. .-1nnlicahlc nolicies
"I'IIe Compreliensive Plan cateoory for the site is Urban. "I-11e Urban calebory is intencleci to
provide the opportunity for development of a"citylike" environment, which includes various
land uses and intensive residential development served by a high level of public facilities and
services (i.e. paved roads, public sewer and water, storm water systems, police and f r; rrotect iol,
and other features). It is primarily a residential category of single-family, two-familv,
multifamily and condominium buildings. The Urban category also contemplates sorll~~
neighborhood commercial, light industnal uses, and public and recreational facilities. 1 iic UIvwl
category allows for a vast range of residential densities, generally from one unit per acre to 17
units per acre. The category promotes the concept that single-family uses will be isolated from
the noise and heavy traffic, while the more intensive uses such as light industrial and
neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily traveled streets.
Relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan are set forth on pages 4-5 of the Staff Report.
The Urban category encourages a variety, combination and mix of densities and residential uses.
Comprehensive Plan, Decision Guideline 1.1.4. The Urban category recommends that urban
development be approved in areas having adequate utilities, sanitary sewer, drainage systems,
schools and fire service; provided other relevant policies of the Urban category are met.
Decision Guideline 1.1.2. Paved streets, streetlights and underground utilities are encouraged for
new development in the Urban category. Decision Guideline 1.5.5. The need for open space and
recreational developments should be met, and be in accordance with ordinances, plans and
policies prior to residential development approval. Decision Guideline 1.2.2.
New residential development within the Urban category should be buffered from existing
land uses where adverse effects may develop, through such techniques as landscaping, spatial
separation, distance, changing density and screening. See Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.5.a
and Decision Guidelines 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, and definition of "buffering" in glossary. Cluster
development proposals in are encouraged in the Urban category when compatible with nearby
development and when the overall density of the site of the proposal is not exceeded. Decision
Guideline 1.2.1. Different land uses are considered to have "compatibility" when they exist
adjacent to one another or in such proximity to one another that adverse impacts are insignificant.
See Comprehensive Plan, Glossary, definition of "compatibility".
The Urban category contains specific policies for manufactured home developments.
Manufactured home parks should be located adjacent to designated arterials, locate near existing
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 5
.
or pl,anned public taransit rautes, and improve or maintain the consistency of adjacent single-
family ameruties." Decision Guideline 1.1.3. The appraval of a praposed manufactured hame
development shauld cansider the compatibility between manufactured hames and nearby existing
single-family developments. Aesthetic compatibility should consider the provisivn far aff-street
parking or storage struetuares, skirting ar fQUndation and raof shape and cc+mposition similar to
conventipnal single-family residences. Cvmprehensive Flan, Decisian Guideline 1.1.5. The
Urhan category recognizes that manufactured home development may be apprapriate to renew
residential areas, and that changes in the character o#` a neighborhaod may be ailvwed upon
apprapnate review. Qbjectives 1.5.e and 1.5.g. This includes cansideration of structure height
of the proposal in relation to that of nearby structures, and the irnpact that new structures will
have nn the architectural character of the neighborhoad, Decision Guideline 1.5.$.
Manufactured hames should "enhanee the residential character or aesthetics", or "imprave the
residential values of the area". Deeision Guideline 1.5.7.
c. Consistencv of taronosal with arDlicable nvlicies
The applica.nt proposes to rezone the site from the [7rban Residential-3.5 zone to the Urban
Residentzal-7 zone. Zoning Code 14.618. 100 provides as follows:
The piirpose of the UR-7 zone is to set starzdards for the arderly
clevelopment of residential property in a manner that provides cz desr`rable
livi3rg enuironmertt that is cnmpatible with surrounding lund uses and
assures the protection af property values. It is intended that this zpne be -
used to add to the variety of hausYng types rxnd densities up to
approximately seven (7) units per acre, and as an implemerztation tool for
the Corrtprehensive Plan Urban Category. General characteristics of
these areas include paved raads, public sewer and water, accessibility to
sehaols and libraries, and afitll line af public services incluciirig manned
frre prQtectian and public transit aecessibility. Mediurn density UR-7
areas are typred by single fantily dwelliiigs an sma11 lots, duplexes, lotiv
den,sity crpartments and manufactiired home parks.
Zoning Cade Chapter 14.808 establishes detailed standards for the development of
manufactured hQme parks, which in several respects supersede the development standards of the
underlyincr zane. See Zoning Code 14.618.210 (A). 5uch standards are intended to ensure
the deveiopmenf of well-planned manufactured (mobile) home facilities". Zoning Code
14.808.000. The density of the underlying zane govems the density of manufactured hame
spaces, subject ta a maximum of seven (7) spaces per acre and a minimum space size of 3,600
square feet. Zoning +Code 14,$08.040 (a). The applicant must submit a site deuelopment plan
prior to the issuance of a building permit, vi,rhich establishes compliance with the s#andards set
farth in Zoning Code Chapter 14.80$. This includes cQmpliance with minimum standards set
forth fmr side yard and rear yard setbacks from the park perimeter, off-street parkincr, skirting and
lighting requirements, streets and traffc circulatian, landscaping, underground utilities, sewage
and surface vvater disposal, and standards for individual spaces within the park. These adopted
standards implement policies of the LJrban category applicable to manufactured home parks.
Neighboring property owners, primarily in the Riverwalk subdivisions lyin; north and west
of the site, and certain developers of existing and future homes in the Riverwaik development,
HE Findincys, Canclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 pace 6
objected to the proposal based primarily on the density, lot size and type of housing in the
proposal. Such parties contended that the proposal was incompatible with the Riverwalk
development and would adversely impact property values. Other adverse impacts were also
alleged, including impacts to schools and traffic impacts. See letters of opposition, petition, and
testimony in record. The development history of the Riverwalk development is somewhat
complex, as summarized below.
The Riverwalk development was given preliminary approval by the County in 1982 as the
"Riverway Villa" project, which involved a preliminary platlplanned unit development/rezone to
develop 365 manufactured homes on 118 acres, plus a commercial site. This approval rezoncti
such site to the Residential Manufactured Homes and Commercial zone of the now expireci
County Zoning Ordinance. See Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee Findings and
Order dated 4-2-82 in File Nos. PE-1414-81 /ZE-92-81 /PUDE-1-82. On April 14, 1983, a chan-e
of conditions was approved for Riverway Villa, which reduced the common open space area,
increased lot sizes, relocated roads, and allowed individual on-site sewage disposal on certain
lots. See Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee Findings and Order dated 4-14-83 irl
same file numbers. Effective January 1, 1991, the zoning of the RiYerway Villa site was re-
designated to the UR-3.5 zone of the new Spokane County Zoning Code, under the Program to~
Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. This neW zoning was stibject to the previc,u<
c~e~'e1~,ntTiet,t ~1nnrn%-;11c f()r ~ite.
Jll-: 1k.` C:lVpILiC:lil plail
was approved administratively for Riverway Villa, which was renamed "Riverwalk". See
Spokane County Planning Department Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated 6-16-95
in File Nos. PE-1414-81 /ZE-92-81/PUDE-1-82. The revised preliminary plat/preliminary site
development plan illustrated 107.3 acres divided into 365 residential lots, along with a nine (9)
acre commercial site located outside the preliminary plat/PUD at the northwest comer of Mission
Avenue and Barker Road. See Revised Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Site Development Plan
of Riverwalk approved 5-19-95. The 1995 decision provided that as phases of the preliminary
plat received, the underlying land would be reclassified to the UR-7 zone and the PUD Overlay
zone of the new Zoning Code, with the zoning of the commercial site to be reclassified to the
Community Business (B-2) zone. See Spokane County Planning condition #7 on page 8 of
Spokane County Planning Department Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated June
16, 1995 in File Nos. PE-1414-81 /ZE-92-81 /PUDE-1-82.
At least seven of nine phases and 243 lots in Riverwalk have received final plat approval.
See testimony of Richard Mason; and above-referenced decision dated 6-16-95 in File Nos. PE-
1414-81 /ZE-92-81 /PUDE-1-82. The land lying north and west of the current site has received
final plat approval, and is zoned UR-7. See Master Site Development Plan of Mission Meadows.
Several homes have been constructed in Riverwalk, which are all conventional "site-built"
homes.
The neighborhood lying south of the site across Mission Avenue is zoned primarily UR-7,
and is developed with mobile homes, conventional site-built homes and manufactured homes.
This includes the Arbor Grove Mobile Home Park, located along Mission Avenue southwest of
the site. The Arbor Grove MHP was recently developed with 72 manufactured home spaces,
after receiving development approval in the 1970s. See testimony of Richard Mason. The land
immediately east of the site is zoned UR-3.5 and is undeveloped, while further to the east the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 7
land is zaned UR-7 and is developed with mobile homeslmanufactured homes of an Qlder
vintage. Considerably mQre manufactured homes than site--built hvmes have been developed
within a quarter rnile of the subject property. See Exhibit A, "Comprehensive Plan" section, map
labeled "Character of Existing Neighbvrhood around Mission Meadaws".
The prvject is located adjacent ta adesignated arterial and is on an existing public transit
route, as cantemplated fQr manufactured hame parks in the Urban category. The develapment
will be served by a high Ievel of public services arxad wrban infrastrueture, including public sewer
and water, manned fire pratection, paved raads, sidewalks and curbs, and modeznlundergraund
utilitxes. Local drainage ways are considered insignif cant, the soils on the site are considered
suitable for drainage, and stormwater cQliection and treatment wiIl be provided in accorda.nce
vcrith Caunty regulations. See memos from Spokane Regiflnal Health District dated 1-1 G-97 and
3-4-98; and memo dated 3-4-98 fram Bill Hemmings of County Engineering tq Francine Shaw,
and County Engineering conditions of approval. The site develapment plan provides a
playgraund area of 1.7 acres in the middle of the site tv serve the recreational needs of the
prvject, The Cent+ennial Trail and the SpQkane River, which lie a few blocks narth vfthe site,
will also provide signif cant recreatianal opportunities for the residents in the proposai.
The Central Valley Schaal District indicated that the prapasal would generate
approximately 25 elementary public schoc+l students, 11 juniar high students and 9 senior
housing students. The distnct indicated that is cvuld accomanadate all the elementary and high
schovl students generated by the praject within existing attendance boundaries, but would have
ta either bus students from Greenacres Junior High or change its attendance boundaries since the
junior high was currently full. See letter dated 3-18-98 from Dave Jackman to Richard Mason.
The school district did not request mitigation fees or that the project be denied, or regresent that
it did nvt have capacity within the dist-rict to accammadate the additional junior high students.
Under the circumstances, it cannvt be concluded that the proj ect will significantly impact area
schools.
A traffic analysis was prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer ta study the irnpacts of
the proj ect an county roads and state highway infrastructure in the area. See Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by IPEC dated December, 1996, as updated by IPEC in letters dated 9-24-97
and I I-7-97. This study as revised was cammented on by Cvunty Engineering and the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and eventually accepted. A
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the praposal, which binds thc
applicant to make certain road impravements, as reflected in the conditians of approval. The
+County Engineenng conditians of approval require the applicant ta widen Mission Avenue to a
three-lane section, add curb and sidewalk, and ta dedicate and set aside right of tivay, alI along the
frontage of the projeet with Missi+an Avenue. The applicant is alsv required ta rnake phased Off-
site improvements to an ungaved portion of Mission Avenue Iying east of the site, tQ mitigate
dust particulate impacts. See Caunty Engineering conditions of approvaI.
To preserve acceptable levels of service at key intersections impacted by traffic from the
proposal, the applicant is also required to make certain aff-site transpairtation imprvvements to
the state highway system, 7'he WSDOT cvnditions of approval require the applicant to prepare
designs and enter intfl a development acrreement vvith WSDOT ta fund a right turn lane far
southbound Barker Road traff c frvm the project at the westbound Interstate 90 ramp terminals,
and to fund a right tum larie for northbaund Barker Raad traffic fram the projecf at the Barker
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decisian ZE-56-96 Pacre 8
Road/Trent Road (state highway) intersection. See ]etter dated 12-19-97 from WSDOT to Louis
Webster.
W'llile certain traffic coilcerns were alleged by neigllboring property owners, they were ilot
supported by competent expert testimony of a traffic engineering nature. Further, such concerns
were rebutted in the record by the applicant's traffic consultant and comments from County
Engineering and WSDOT. For example, the traffic analysis and the record indicates that future
traffic from the project will not cause a failing level of service at the intersection of Barker Road
with either Mission Avenue or Indiana Avenue. See Traffic Impact Analysis dated December,
1996; letter dated 9-24-97 from IPEC to Pat Harper; memorandum dated 10-7-97 from Steve
Stairs to Pat Haiper; and testimony of Dick Mason and Pat Harper.
An issue was raised by neighboring property owners and a developer of homes in
Riverwalk regarding the proposed northerly access from the site to Indiana Avenue, via a stub
road in the adjacent final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition, referenced as "Grady Road (Public)"
on the Master Site Development Plan for the current proj ect. See letter dated 1-20-98 from Greg
Stirn to Louis Webster; and testimony of Harvey O'Connor, Thomas Boys and Greg Stirn.
County Engineering condition #9 requires the applicant to construct a paved and delineated
approach to meet the pavement on "Grady Road", and to allow for a private road on public
right of way for Grady Road." The final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition shows the subject stub
road extending south from Indiana Avenue as a private lane named "Grady Lane", with the area
encompassed by such stub road listed as "Tract A". The dedication for the final plat indicates
that the private road and Tract "A" are dedicated to the Riverwalk Owners Association, an entit'%,j
created by a separate recorded document, as private easements for ingress and egress, for the
benefit of fronting lots in the final plat. The dedication also states that Tract "A" is subject to a
separate declaration of covenant recorded with the Countv Auditor. The terms of thc covcnant
ai-c not clisclosed in t}le rccord.
IZe;sidents in Riverwalk Sixth Additivn expresseu concern that residents from the proposcd
manufactured home park would use Grady Lane and Indiana Avenue as a shortcut to the
Centennial Trail and the Spokane River to the north. However, the revised preliminary plat o i'
Riverwalk appear to show Grady Lane ("Rogue River Lane" on preliminary plat) as a public s t t1l)
road. Further, the Riverwalk Sixth Addition final plat shows access out of the plat to the south
via Grady Lane for the residents in the plat. If Grady Lane is blocked off, this means of acces:~
out of the final plat is prevented. If Grady Lane is left open, residents in the proposed
manufactured home park could potentially complain that the roads in the park are beina used i,v
Rivenvalk residents as a shortcut to Mission Avenue.
If the applicant has control over Grady Lane/Tract "A" through the Riverwalk Owners
Association, or either the County Engineer or the applicant have control over ihe same through
the referenced declaration of covenant, then Grady Lane could be converted, as proposed, into a
public stub road with a private lane running through it. If not, the applicant will likely need to
provide a second access for the proposal along Mission Avenue. A second access for the site is
needed under County road standards due to the number of home spaces proposed by the
applicant. See testimony of Pat Harper and Richard Mason. The record indicates that "Grady
Road" was originally proposed as the primary means of access for the project via lndiana
Avenue, to serve the first several phases of development until the unpaved portion of Mission
Avenue was paved to the east, and that this was later changed to make Mission Avenue the
HE Findinos, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 9
pnmary access, with "Gzady Road" to serve primarily as an emergency access. See letter dated
1 Z-11-97 fram Richard Mason to Louis Webster. This latter concept is reflected an the site plan
of recQrd for the proposal.
County Engineering indicated that if Grady LanelRoad is unavailable, a second access from
the development could be installed by extending a stub rQad from Au~usta ~,ane ~n the
deUelopment south to IVlissian Avenue, in #he southeast corner of the site, without tnggering the
need far any additianal traffic improvements. See testimony of Pat Harper, Thus a solution is
available even if Grady Lane in Riverwalk Sixth Additivn cannot be used legally as a means of
secandary access far #he project.
As indicated above, the main cvncems raised by neighboring property owners and
developers was the greater density of homes, srnaller Iot sizes and incansistent housina type in
the proposal campared tv the Rawerwalk development, which will allegedly cause negative
aesthetic impacts and a depreciation in propel-ty values tv the homes existing or develQped in
Riverwalk. Since the zvning of the residential pcartions of FZiverwalk is ar will be UR-7, the
proposed zoning of the current site will be the same as Riverwalk and other UR-7 zaning that is
prevalent in the vicinity. The UR-7 zvne implements the Urban categvry. The [Jrban category
does not require that all densities and hvusing types in adj acent lands be the same; and in fact
promotes a mix and diversity of densities, land uses and housing types. This is typified by the
existing land use mix and zvning along Mission Avenue east of Barker Road.
Aside fraarri the issue of cornpatibility, the proposal meets the locational vbjectives fvr
manufactured home parks in the Urban category, in its lacation adj acent to adesignated artenal
and alang a public transit route. Barker Rvad, loeated .4 of a miie to the west, is a Principal
Arterial that is alsQ served with public transit. The Arbor Grove Manufactured Hame Park is
located acrass fram the R.iverwalk development, and other manufacfiured home and mobile harne
develQpment is found in the vicinity of and area of the site. The site does nat have direct access
tn the Centerunial Trail or the Spvkane River, and is arguably not as desirable a site far
development as Riverwaik.
The gross density in Riverwalk is approxirnately 3,4 units per acre. The lots in the
RiWerwalk final plats adjacent to the site appear tv average between 7,800 to 8,800 square feet in
size, alnng with some larger and same smalier lats. See revised preliminary plat of Riverwaik,
approved 5-19-95. The grvss density in fhe current proposal is 6.7 hQme spaces per acre, with
most lats falling within the range of 3,800 square feet tQ 5,604 square feet in area. The home
spaces aiong the perimeters Qf'the proposal are the laz-gest shvwn on the site plan of record,
ranginlo, generally from 3,941 square feet to 6,814 square feet, along with a few larger lots. These
larger perimeter lots provide a transitian from the larger lats in Riverwalk tv the smaller lots ~
within the interior of the current groposal. It ss noted that the minimum lot size fvr sincyle-family
homes within a PLYD Overiay zone in the UR-7 zone is 4,200 square feet. ZQning Code
14.618.310. "Single-family dwellings" inciude site-built homes, rnanufactured homes and
mabile homes. See Zoning Code 14.300.100, definition of "dwelling, singIe-family"; and
Zoning Code 14.848.060. I3uplex and rnulti-family units are also allowed in the UR-7 zone.
Zoning Code 14.618.305.
The cammQn areas in Riverwalk represent abaut 17 % of the preiiminary plat area, while
the camman areas in the current propasal are comparable at about 15 % of the total "community
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 10
_ J
111 i~it' Clli~:~~il[ vi C~~I1]IIi0I] ZO Illi1111uU,11 ll)i~ ]S l~il~~~I' 111
Riverwalk than the ratio of community area to home spaces in the current project, therc 16 1:, ~
basis for concluding that the recreation and open space area provided by the project is
insufficient to serve the proposal. The manufactured home park standards in Zoning Code
Chapter 14.808 do not require that any common area be reserved in a park proposal. Howeve~ _
such standards do limit the density (7 units per acre) and lot sizes (at least 3,600 square feet) i
manufactured home park, and require that at least 50% of each home space be left as open space.
If the project was included in a PUD Overlay zone, only 10% of the site would have to be
reserved as common open space. See Zoning Code 14.703.385.
As represented by the applicant at the public hearing, there is a world of difference between
the mobile home parks of the past and manufactured home parks currently being constructed in
the county. After June, 1976, factory-built dwellings in the county were required to meet new
federal standards for manufactured home construction and safety. See Zoning Code 14.300.100,
definition of "manufactured home" and "mobile home"; and Exhibit A, section labeled "Real
Estate Values", article entitled "The Impact of the Presence of Manufactured Housing on
Residential Property Values". The County Zoning Code, adopted in 1986 and fully implemented
in 1991, provides comprehensive development standards for manufactured home parks, to enstire
the compatibility of such parks with adjacent land uses. See Zoning Code Chapter 14.808.
While the individual spaces in the park will be rented, the homes and accessory structures <vi! 1 1~`
individually owned. The record indicates that 95 % of manufactured homes once placed ar,--
never moved. See testimony of Richard Mason; and Exhibit A, article entitled "Impact of t iI ~
Presence of Manufacriired Halisinc-7 on Residential Propert_y Values= in section entitled "ReLai
l li~, lt1r,11~..Li_L 11c:~l`~:iyi:..~a ~~~1~1~.~. .;itli `'i,~ ..-•.~i i.~'r . ,..~~L. .,1 . illl ~i.\. l~il.\~.ll lilllla `
types in the area. The homes and the park will be landscaped and have a pleasing residential
appearance as well as substantial residential amenities. See photo reprints in Exhibit A, in
sections labeled as "Introduction", "Comprehensive Plan" and "Real Estate Value". The tallest
building in the park will be 30 feet, while the maximum building height in the UR-3.5 and UR-7
zones is 35 feet. See Environmental Checklist, p. 8; and Zoning Code 14.616.335 and
14.618.335. Street lights and sidewalks will be provided within the park, and along Mission
Avenue. See Exhibit A, section marked as "Comprehensive Plan", discussion under Decision
Guidelines 1.5.4 and 1.5.5. Approximately 62 % of the site will be comprised of open space.
See Master Site Development Plan, sheet 2.
Comprehensive rules and regulations, including architectural standards, will be adoptcui C; )F
the park and enforced by a resident manager. See Exhibit A, "Mission Meadows Rules and
Regulations for Inclusion in Space Rental Agreement" The rules and regulations will control
such issues as type of siding, paint color, roof pitch, skirting installation, maintenance, accessu1-'.
structures, carports, decks, on-street parking, storage, number of occupants, pets and speed limit:,
will be adopted and enforced by a resident manager in the park. Each home space in the project:
will have a minimum of two off-street parking stalls. Storage structures may be located on the
rear half of lots, and a large recreational vehicle storage yard will be provided that is screened
from the surrounding land uses. All units must have skirting that is architecturally compati}-! _
with the homes located in the park. Roofs must have a minimum pitch of 4:12 with shinL,':
which pitch compares favorably to the 6:12 roof pitches common to the site-built homes i_,.
Riverwalk. Wood or Nvood-tvpe sidin(~ is reauired. See testimonv ofRiehard Ma~ol~.
Ii~ 1
The rules and regulatians adopted for the park will ensure that only high quality
manufactured hames are placed in the park. 5ee testimany of Richard 1Vlason; an+d Exhibit A.
"Comprehensive Plan" sectivn, discussion under Decisivn Guidelixae 1.1,5, The record indicates
that the proposeti develvpers of the park have constructed two similar parks in the county, with
the current prnposal to be designed similar to a park canstnacted by the developer in the Spokane
Va1ley area.
In addition to the buffering and transitian proWided by the larger Iots around the perimeter
of the site, landscaping and screening will also be used to mitigate the impacts vf the project an
surrounding land uses. The applicant plans to install a six (6)-foot high chain-Iink fence and an
arborvitae landscape screen along the west, north and east perimeter of the site; and intends to
instali a low fence, earth berms and a"5 to 20 foot" landscage screen along the south boundary
of the site adjacent to Mission Avenue. See testimony of Richard Masan; and Exhibit A,
"Comprehensive Plan" section, discussivn under Decision Guideline 1.5.1 (note: the reference in
the discussiQn to a chain link fence and an arborvitae screen on the "south" boundary is
obviousty in error, and should say "north"). Such landscaping and screening scheme is
illustrated for a similar manufaetured hame park in Exhibit A, section an Camprehensive Plan, in
photQ reprints dispIayed an the page entitled "Typical Landscape Screens"; and in photo reprints
displayed in the "Introduction" section of Exhibit A.
T'he Zoning Code does not require landscaping along the north and west boundaries of the
site, but requires 20 feet af Type ITf Iandscaping along the south boundary of the site adjacent to
Missian .Avenue. See Zoning Code 14.806.040 (1){b} and 14.806.040 (2)(a). Aioncy the east
boundary of the site, the Zoning Code requires five (5) feet of Type III (see-thraugh buffer), as
weli as asix (6)w#'vot high wall, salid landscaping or sight-obscuning fence. The si#e plan of
recnrd shows anly 2.5 feet Qf landscaping instead of the required 5 feet of landscaping, and no
screening or wall, alang the east boundary. However, an erihanced type of landscaping (Type II,
visual buffer) is illustrated alvng the east bvrder cvmpared to the Type III lazYdscaping required
by the Zoning Cade. See Zoning Code I4.806.0+60. The site plan of record is also deficient in
indicating that the Type III landscapinor alang the south boundary line wiil rancre from 5 feet to
20 feet, since the Zoning Code requires the entire width of landscaping to be 20 feet. The
applicant testified that the deficiencies would be corrected in a revised site plan. See testimvny
af Richard Mason. The sight-obscuring sereening praposed alang the norfih and west boundary
of the site is not required by the ZQning Code. Such screening appears to have a generally
pleasing residential appearance, based on the phato reprints of such landscapino, in the file, and
will help buffer the manufaetured hame park from the adjacent homes in Rivenvalk.
The applicant indicated that the projeet is intended to serve "low to middle income"
residents in the county. See Environmental Checklist, p. The homes in the proposal are
expected to cost $50,000 to $70,000 for purchase and set up. See testimony of Richard Mason;
and Exhibit A, "Affordable Housing" sectivn, "Cost vf Manufactured Housin~ in Place" ~raph.
This would serve gross annual househvid incomes of $35,000 to $44,000. Incame information
prQVided by the applicant indicates that only 30 % of Spokane area hauseholds could afford
manufactured hames in the $60,000 and $74,000 range, while 47% of Spokane area househalds
could affard manufactured hornes in the $50,000 range. See Exhibit A, "Affordable Hausing"
sectlon, "Affordability of HQUSing at Mission Meadows" table. Incame informatian based on
U.S. Census data indicates that the median hausehold income in Spakane County in 1997 was
HE Findings, Conclusions and I]ecision ZE-56-96 Fage 12
approximately $33,000, and the median family income in 1997 was about $42,000. See Exhibit
A, "Affordable Housing" section, "Household and Family Income Distributions in Spokane
County as estimated by Claritas, Inc." table. The thrust of this data is that the proposal would
provide needed and affordable housing in Spokane.
The cost of homes in Riverwalk are estimated to start out at $100,000 and run up as high as
$250,000. See testimony of Kerina Higgins, and letter dated 1-23-98 from Kerina Higgins. The
distribution of homes in Riverwalk at certain values is not provided, and conceivably the most
expensive homes may be located along or near the Spokane River/Centennial Trail, at some
distance from the project. The record suggests that the lower priced homes in Riverwalk are
probably located near the site. See testimony of Kerina Higgins. A number of developers or
builders of homes in Riverwalk expressed concern that the current proposal would devalue lots
or homes developed nearby. See letter dated 1-23-98 from Castlewood Homes, Inc., letter dated
1-23-98 from Parkland Homes, and letter dated 1-20-98 from Lindsey Construction, Inc. A
petition opposing the current proposal was also signed by 58 residents in Riverwalk. The income
information subnutted by the applicant clearly suggests that only a relatively small percentage of
residents in the county would be able to afford homes in Riverwalk.
More definitive information on the impact of the proposed manufactured home park on
property values in the area was provided by Scot Auble, MAI, a certified general appraiser
retained by the applicant. Auble conducted a general study on the project and neighborhood in
which the property was located and formed a general opinion as to the project's effect on
neighboring property values. This study included consideration of numerous studies on the
effect of low-income housing on adjacent property values, as well as study directly related to the
effect of manufactured housing on adjacent properties. Auble's report states that virhially all
low-income studies as well as the manufactured housing study indicated that such housing had
no measurable impact on the value of surrounding properties, and that a well-designed and well-
maintained project were important factors in mitigating impacts to adjoining properties. Auble
noted the large number of manufactured home parks in the area, which he felt currently
dominated the neighborhood. Auble characterized the Riverwalk development as a large,
developing, single-family planned unit development consisting of entry level to mid-priced
housing, which development was beginning to change the character of the neighborhood slightly,
but also blended in with it. Auble concluded that it was unlikely that a formal study would show
any negative impact by the proposed project on surrounding property values. See Exhibit A,
under section labeled "Real Estate Value", letter dated 3-24-98 from Dave Auble, MAI to
Richard Mason, and attached studies on low income and manufactured housing.
The Examiner finds that more weight should be allocated to the opinions of Dave Auble, a
certified real estate appraiser who conducted a general study on the issue, than the less qualified
and unstudied opinions of developers/builders and area residents on the issue of the impact of
the proj ect on surrounding property values. Like traffic impact issues, real property valuation is
largely a matter of expert opinion. The Examiner also takes into consideration the large number
of manufactured/mobile homes already in the area, and the ample evidence in the record that the
proposed manufactured home park will be well-designed and maintained, have aCenerally
pleasing residential appearance, and will provide many of the amenities enjoyed by surrounding
properties.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 13
The applicant also cited the county-wide planning policies adopted by Spokane County
pursuant to the Growth Management Act as a basis for approving the proposal. As indicated by
the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing, such policies are not relevant to the review and
approval of specific land use proposals. RCW 36.70A.210 indicates that the county-wide
planning policies are to be used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which a
new comprehensive land use plan is developed and adopted under the GMA. RCW 36.70A.020
states that the planning goals set forth in such statute are to be used exclusively to guide the
development and adoption of the comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted
under the GMA. The policies have no regulatory effect until developed into a new
comprehensive plan and development regulations. Under applicable vesting principles, land use
proposals are to be considered under the land use controls in place at the time a fully completed
application for the proposal is submitted. This does not include county-wide planning policies
adopted under the GMA. Since the site is located within the County's established ILJGA
boundaries, the restrictions on land development outside such boundaries do not apply to the
project. The County's IUGA boundaries currently run south of the Spokane River for a
considerable distance east of the site. County Resolution No. 97-0134.
The Examiner finds that the proposal is generally compatible with neighboring land uses,
will uphold properly values in the area, may provide some renewal in the area relative to the
. older housing that exist in the area, and will not detrimentally impact the architectural or
aesthetic character of the area. The proposal generally conforms to the policies of the Urban
category and the Comprehensive Plan.
-
2. Conditions in the area in which the propertv is located have chanized substantiallv since the
nronertv was last zoned.
In applying the changed circumstances test, courts have looked at a variety of factors,
including changed public opinion, changes in land use patterns in the area of the rezone proposal,
and changes on the property itself. The Zoning Code references changes in "economic,
technological or land use conditions" as factors that will support a rezone. Spokane County
Zoning Code Section 14.402.020 (2). Washington courts have not required a"strong" showing
of change. The rule is flexible, and each case is to be judged on its own facts. Bassani v. Countv
Commissioners, 70 Wn. App. 389, 394 (1993). Recent cases have held that changed
circumstances are not required for a rezone if the proposed rezone implements policies of a
comprehensive plan. Biarnson, at 846; Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish Countv, 99
Wn.2d 363, 370-371 (1983).
As discussed above, the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
"last zoning" of the site could be interpreted to be the 1957 reclassification of the zoning of the
site to the Agricultural zone under the now expired County Zoning Ordinance. See Exhibit A,
"Introduction" section, regarding the zoning history of the site. The 1991 cross-over zoning of
the site to the UR-3.5 zone, under the current County Zoning Code, was part of a county-wide
effort that re-designated land in the county from the old zones of the Zoning Ordinance to the
most similar zones under the Zoning Code, using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. The
current Zoning Code was adopted in 1986, and included a Program to Implement the cross-over
zoning in 1991.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 14
IZ~C"Alt c.hat;~C~i co1~LIitiui3s ~~~hic}1 supPort thC projcct incluclc ~~si~natiun of-i}ic sitc witllin
the County's IUGA boundaries; the extension of public sewer, water and modern utilities to the
site and vicinity; steady residential growth in the area and vicinity; growth in area employment,
and improvements to Barker Road and Mission Avenue. The recent development of the Arhi-,
Grove Manufactured Home Park southwest of the site could be cited as a changed conditior
although the development and final platting of Riverwalk with and for site-built homes take~)
away from the significance of this changed condition. The need for affordable housing in ti1e
county can also be cited as a changed condition.
3. The nroDOSed rezone bears a substantial relationship and is not detrimental to the nublic
health, safetv and aeneral welfare.
General consistency with a local govemment's comprehensive plan is relevant in
deterniining whether a rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare. Bassani, at
396-98. As noted, the proposal generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
The views of the community may be given substalltial weight in d rezone matter, althouO}1
they are not controlling. Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1976). Such views must relate to
legal requirements applicable to approval of the land use action being considered, including
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations, environmental impacts and
specific impacts to the public health, safety and welfare. See Couear Mt. Assocs. v. Kina
Countv, 111 Wn.2d 752, 756 (1988). As discussed above, the Examiner has considered aild
given appropriate weight to the views of neighboring property owners and the developers o;'
homes in the vicinity, but does not find the concerns raised to be sufficient to support a findin,_-
that the project will detrimentally impact the public welfare. As conditioned, the proposal wiii
be served by adequate public services and will be reasonably compatible with adjacent land usc~..
There is a significant need for the affordable housing that would be provided bv the project in thc
county.
The Examiner has addressed the access issue involving Grady Lane in Riverwalk S i~:
Addition in the conditions of approval set forth below.
4. The nronosed zone chanee comnlies with the provisions of the State Environmental Policv
Act and the Countv's Local Environmental Ordinance.
The procedural requirements of chapter 43.21 C RCW and chapter 11.10 of the Spokane
County Code have been met. The Hearing Examiner concurs with the Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance issued by the Division of Building and Planning. No adverse comments wcr _
received from ntihlic a~_,e-ficies that Nvotrld dictate a neec3 for vvitbclrz~val ofslicli environment~ii
determination.
5. The pronosal, as conditioned, complies with the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone, the
Sr)okane Countv Zoning Code (SCZC). and applicable land use rep-ulations.
The proposal has been conditioned for compliance with the applicable requirements of the
UR-7 zone, the Manufactured and Mobile Home Standards established in the Zoning Code, and
other land use regulations.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 15
JR
The 5taffReport on page 4 identifies certain discrepancies behween the site plan and the
intemal setbacks and landscaping required by the ,Zoning Code Cha.pters. See testimony af Louis
Webster. The appIicant is willing to revise the site plan to correct these deficiencies, which will
occur through administrative areview of the manufactured home park site plan. 5ee testimony of
F.iehard Mason.
At the public hearing, the Examiner indicated that the density of the project may exceed
that allowed in the LTR--7 zone, even though the grass density af the project is less than seven (7)
units per acre, Zoning Code 14.508.040 states that the density of the underlying zone shall
govem the density of manufactured (mobile) home spaces, provided that there shall be a
maximum ofseven (7) manufactured (mnbile) hame spaces per acre having a maximum of three
thousand six hundred (3,600 square feet per space." The seven (7) space per acre lirnitatian
appears intended tv allaw manufactured hvme parks to be placed in any z-esidential zane at the
density of dwelling units allowed in such zone, as long as it does not exceed a density of seven
spaces per unit.
The maximum density aliowed in the UR-7 zone which applies ta the site is seven (7)
dwelling unzts per acre, except as pravided vr allowed by minirnum lot sizes and bonus
density provisions of this Code". See Zoning Code 14.6 18.305. Zoning Code 14.618.3 10
estabYishes miniruum Ivt sizes o#' 6,000 square feet fvr single-family dwellings, and other
minimuxn Iot sizes for duplex units and multifamily dwellings. Smaller minimum lat sizes and
bonus densities are alsv allowed within a PLTD Overlay zone established pursuant to Zoning
Code Chapter 14.784 ar a"solar development" established under Zoning Code Chapter 14.812.
Zaning Code 14.618.3 10 closes by stating that a density of 7 units per acre must be maintained,
regardless of minimum lat size, unless bonus density Construing Zoning Code 14.6I $.305 and
14,618.310 together, and reviewing the density pravisions listed for the other residential zones in
the Zonang Cvde, it is clear that the maximum density allowed in #he UR-7 zone outside a PUD
Overlay zane or soiar development is 7 units per acre.
Density is defined in Zoning Code 14.300.1 00 to be fhe amount of land per dwelling unit,
excluding roads and other nonresidential uses. This definition is somewhat ambiguous
considering its referen+ce to the calculatiQn of "lot size" for lots o#` five acres ar greater, whereby
lot size for parcels five acres are greater is deemed to include #he area to the centerline of exterior
roads under RCW 58.I7.040 (2). Howewer, "lot area" is defined elsewhere by the Zonino, Gvde,
and the "density definitivn" otherwise appears applicable to the calculation af ~naximum density
under the residential zones in the Zoning C'crde. See Zvning Code 14.300.104, definition of"lot
area".
The area occupied by private roads in the project is nat listed an the site plan af record, but
is estimated by the Hearing Examiner frorn th,e site plan to be about two acres. The area of the
site less roads would be about 17.5 acres, which at adensity of 7 units per acre would allow up to
122 home spaces, instead of the 131 spaces proposed. This presents a design issue which can be
ad+dressed dunnc, the administrative review pracess for the manufactured home park. A
condition of approval has been added ta ensure that this issue is given consideratian.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Aage 16
.
III. ]aECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusians above, the above application for a zane
reclassification is herehy approved, subject to the cantiitions ofthe various public ageneies
specif ed belvw. Conditions which have been added Qr significantly altered by the Hearing
Examiner are italicized.
Failure to comply with the conditions of this apprvval may result in revaeation of this
approval by the Hearing Examiner. This approval daes not waive the applicant's o}aligation to
cvmply vvith all oiher requirernents vfother agencies with jurisdiction over land develvpment.
SPUKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUTLDING AND PLANNING
1. All cnnditions impased by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding an the "ApPlicant",
which term shall include the owner or owners of the praperty, heirs, assigns and successors.
2. The zone change applies tv the fallowing real praperty:
Parcel A(55083.9043): The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Saut:heast Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, in the Caunty of Spokane, State of
Washington. EXCEPT the West 11(}.40 feei of the South 303.00 feet thereof, Tl7GETHER with
the Northeast Quarter of the Southe,ast Quarter of the SQUthwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45
EWM, in the County of Spoka.ne, State of VVashington,
Farcel B(55083.9012): The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
the Sauthwest Quarter of S. S, Township 25 N,, Range 45 EWM, in the County of Spokane, State
of Washingtvn.
Parcel C(55083.9042). The west 110.a0 feet of the Smuth 303.00 feet of the'West Half of
the Svutheast Quarter of the Southeast +Quarter of the Sauthwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45
EWM, in the Cvunty of Spakane, State of Washingtan, TOGETHER WITH a portion of the
South Half of the Sauthwest Quarter of S. S, T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, County of Spakane, State of
Washingtan, more particularly described as foilot~~rs: Beginning at the interseetion of the east
Iine of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quartez of said Section 8 and the
northerly nght afway Iine of Mission Avenue, thence N. 89' 56' 24" W. along said northerly
right of way 1ine a distance of 12.00 feet; thence N. 01 °17' QO" W. parallel with said east line a
distance of 169,85 feet; thence S. 89° 56' 50" E. a distance of 12.00 feet ta said east 1ine; thence
S. 01° 17' 00" E. a distance of 169.85 feet to the PQint of Beginning.
3. The proposal shall cvmply with the Urban Residential-7 (CJR-7) za►ne, arid the Spokane
County Zoning Code, as amended.
4. The applicant shali develop subject praperty generally in accardance within the concept
presented to the Hearin,g Body. Variatians, when approved by the Division Director/designee,
may be permitted, including, but not iimited to buiIding locatiQn, Iandscape plans and Reneral
allorvabie uses of the permitted zone. Ajl variativns must canform to regulations set forth in the
HE Findings, CQncluszons and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 17
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, and the original intent of the development plans shall be
maintained.
5. The Spokane County Division of Building & Planning shall prepare and record with the
County Auditor a Title Notice specifying a future land acquisition area for road right-of-way and
utilities. The reserved future acquisition area Title Notice shall be released, in full or in part, by
the Division of Building & Planning. The notice should be recorded within the same time frame
as an appeal and shall provide the following:
a. At least 13 feet of reserved future acquisition area for road right-of-way and utilities,
in addition to the existing and/or newly dedicated right-of-way along Mission Avenue. NOTE:
The County Engineer has required 7 feet of new dedication on Mission Avenue.
b. Future building and other setbacks required by the Spokane County Zoning Code
shall be measured from the reserved future acquisition area.
c. No required landscaping, parking, '208' areas, drainfield or allowed signs should be
located within the future acquisition area for road right-of-way and utilities. If any of the above
improvements are made within this area, they shall be relocated at the applicant's expense when
roadway improverrzents are made.
d. The future acquisition area, until acquired, shall be private property and may be used
as allowed in the zone, except that any improvements (such as landscaping, parking, surface
drainage, drainfield, signs or others) shall be considered interim uses.
e. The property owner shall be responsible for relocating such "interim" improvements
at the time Spokane County makes roadway improvements after acquiring said future acquisition
area.
6. The Division of Building & Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County
Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special
conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shall serve as
public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The Title Notice
should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be
released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building & Planning. The Title Notice shall
generally provide as follows:
The parcel of property legally described as [ J is the subject of a land use action
by a Spokane County Hearing Examiner on March 25, 1998 imposing a variety of special
development conditions. File No. ZE-56-96 is available for inspection and copying in the
Spokane County Division of Building & Planning.
7. Prior to release of building permits, the sponsor shall submit a final Manufactured Home
Park design plan to the Division of Building & Planning which demonstrates compliance with (a)
the Manufactured Home Parks Development Standards of Chapter 14.808 of the Zoning Code for
Spokane County and (b) all Hearing Examiner conditions of approval. Consideration shall be
giveji as to tivhether the project complies with the maximicm density allowed in tlie UR-7 zone,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 18
.
considering the definition of "density " under 14.300.100 of the Zoning Code, which exclrrdes the
area for roads fi•om the acreage of a site in calczclating densitl'.
8. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend ovc:r the property
boundary.
9. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to
the Division Director/designee and meeting tlzese conditions of approval shall be submitted with
a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. Landscaping shall be
installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired.
10. The applicant shall install and maintain the optional fencing and sight-obscacring
landscape screen along the four bozcndaries of the site, as proposed by the applicant at the
public hearing. 7'he applicant shall also remedy the deficiencies in required landscaping and
screening along the east boundary, in the width of required landscaping along the south
boundary, and regarding setbacks identified in the Staff Report.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
Prior to issuance of a building permit or at the request of the County Engineer in conjunction
with a County Road Project/Road Improvement District, whichever comes first:
1. Applicant shall dedicate 7 feet on Mission Avenue for right of way.
2. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the
County Engineer.
3. Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage and
access plans.
4. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane
County Engineer. The design, location and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance
with standard engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer
will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles
5. The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer.
6. The County Engineer has designated a 3 Lane Minor Arterial Roadway Section for the
improvement of Mission Avenue which is adjacent to the proposed development. This will
require the addition of varying amounts of asphalt along the frontage of the development.
Curbincy and sidewalk must also be constructed.
7. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of `Vashington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge construction and other applicable county standards and/or
adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the
date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 19
,
•
8. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements to Mission Avenue along the project
frontage and based upon a traffic analysis done for the proposed development has voluntarily
agreed through a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance to the following off-site
improvements:
a. The applicant shall apply on a yearly basis a dust palliative to Mission Avenue from the
paved portion of Mission Avenue east to the newly aligned Mission Avenue. This measure shall
commence in the year of the applicants' first phased approval and shall continue on a yearly
basis until the unpaved portion of Mission Avenue is paved in accordance with the following off-
site improvement.
b. The applicant shall be responsible for the engineering and construction of a 28 foot
wide roadway section for Mission Avenue from the east end of the paved portion of Mission
Avenue east to the realigned portion of Mission Avenue, (approximately 3000 feet). This
improvement shall be constructed prior to the 61 S` manufactured home being placed on this
proposal or prior to October 1, 2001, no matter how many manufactured homes have been
placed. Should Spokane County create a County Road Project prior to the placement of the 61S`
manufactured home, the applicant shall proved cash toward the project of $1000 per unit placed.
9. The applicant shall construct a paved and delineated approach(s) to meet the existing
pavement on Grady Road, Grady Road will not be maintained by Spokane County. A Notice to
the Public Number 4 will be requiredto allow for a private road on public right of way for Grady
Road. "Grady Road " is listed as "Grady Lane " and "Tract A" on the final plat of Riverwalk
Sixth Addition, and is indicated as a private (stub) road for the benefit of lot owners in the
dedication for such final plat. However, the dedication for the final plat makes Tract A and the
private stub road subject to a recorded covenant, the terms of which. were not available to the
Hearing Examiner. Under the circumstances, it is unclear whether Grady Lane is available as a
secondary access for the project. Coutity Engineering shall determine if Grady Lane/Grady
Road is legally available to the project as a secondary access. If it is not, a second access along
Missiof: AvenUe shall be provided for the project.
10. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane Board of County Commissioners Resolution 95-0498 as amended and are applicable to
this proposal.
11. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed right of way until
a permit has been issued by the County Engineer. All work within the public road right of way is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer.
12. The County Arterial Road plan identifies Mission Avenue as a Minor Arterial. The
eYisting right of way width of 20 feet is not consistent with that specified in The Plan. In order
to implement the Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that in addition to the required right of
way dedication, a strip of property 13 feet in width along the Mission Avenue frontage be set
aside in reserve. This property may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when Arterial
Improvements are made to Mission Avenue.
13. The applicant should be advised tllat there may exist utilities either underground or
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 20
±
overhead affecting the applicants praperty, including property ta be dedicated ar set aside future
acquisition. Spokane County will assume nv financial obligation far adjustments or relocation
regarding these utiIities. The applicant should check with the applicable utilities and Spokane
Caunty Engineer to determine whether the applicant or utility is responsible far adjustment or
relocation casts and ta make arrangements for any necessary wark.
14. The applicant shall grant appticable bvrder easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of
Way per Spokane County Standards.
SP4KANE REGIiQNAL HEALTH UISTRICT
1. Sewage disposal method shall be as authonzed by the Director vfUtilities, Spokane
County.
2. Water service shall be caardinated through the Director of L1tilities, Spokane County.
3. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health,
4. A public sewer system shall be made available fvr the prvject and individual service sha11
be provided to each Iot. The use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be
authorized.
5. The use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
SPOK.4NE COUNTY DIVISION UF UTILITIES
1. A vvet (Iive) sewer cannectian to the area-wide Public Sewer Sysfiem shall be consiructed.
A sewer connectian pernnit is required.
2. Fublic sanitary sewer easement shall be shown vn the face of the plat and the dedication
shall state: "The perpetual easement granted tQ Spvkane Cvunty, it's successors and assigns is
for the sole purgvse of canstructivn, installing, Qperating, maintaining, repairing, altering,
replacing, remvvinga and aIl other uses or gurpases which are ar may be related to a sewer
system. Spakane County, its successors and assigns at all tirnes hereinafter, at their own cvst and
expense, may r+emoue atl crops, brush, grass or trees that may interfere with the constructing,
installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, alterina, replacincy, remoWxng, and ali other uses or
purposes which are may be related to a sewer system. The grantar(s) reserves the right ta use
and enjoy that property which is the subaect of this easexnent for puxposes which will not
interfere with the County's fuTl enjoyment of the rights hereby granieci; provided the Grantor(s)
shall nat erect or cons#ruct any building ar other structure or drill vn the easement, Qr diminash ar
substantially add to the ground caver over the easement. The easement described hereinabove is
to a.nd shal1 ran with the land."
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Paae 21
J
, .
3. Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division of Utilities, "under separate
cover", only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer
connections and facilities for review and approval.
4. Security shall be deposited with the Division of Utilities for the construction of the public
sewer connection and facilities and for the prescribed warranty period. The security shall be in a
form acceptable to the Division of Utilities and in accordance with the Spokane County Sanitary
Sewer Ordinance.
5. Arrangements for payments of applicable sewer charges must be made for prior to issuance
of sewer connection permit.
6. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1. The applicant/owner shall design and construct to WSDOT and Spokane County standards:
a. A right turn lane for southbound Barker Road traffic at the westbound Barker/I-90
ramps.
b. A right turn lane for northbound Barker Road traffic at the Barker/Trent Avenue
intersection.
These improvements shall include all related items necessary to construct these lanes.
2. The applicant/owner shall prepare design/construction plans acceptable to WSDOT and
Spokane County, enter into a developers' agreement for the construction of the above
improvements, and enter into a WSDOT agreement to pay for plan review, construction
inspection, and administrative costs. All of these requirements must be completed prior to the
issuance of any building pernuts for this site.
HE Findin(ys, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 22
J ~
DATED this 4"' day of June, 1998.
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
,
I
Mic el C. Dempsey, WSBA 98~3
I
i
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AIVD NOTICE OF RIGHT TU APPEAL
~
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution Nos. 96-0171 and 96-0632, the decision o t' t i' L
Hearing Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification and accompanying SEPA
determination is final and conclusive unless within ten (10) calendar days from the Exa.millcl-' S
written decision, a party of record aggrieved by such decision files an appeal with the Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington. However, RCW 36.70B.110 (9)
indicates that administrative appeals of county land use decisions and SEPA appeals shall be
filed with the legislative bod
This decision was mailed uy cei-tified illail tu ti1e Applicaiit oii June 4, 1996.
DEPENDING ON WHICH APPEAL PERIOD REFERENCED.ABOVE LEGALLY
APPLIES, THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS EITHER JUNE 14, 1998 OR JUNE 18.
1998.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal period
with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 324-3490. The file may be inspected
during normal working hours, listed as Monday - Friday of each week, except holidays, betweeil rl,,
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available
the cost set by Spokane County ordinance.
I
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 23
Parcel: 55083.9043
Owner: COLYAR, E W
CoOwner:
Owner Address
19210 E MONTGOMERY DR OTIS ORCHARDS WA 99027 9565
,
Site Address B~k''ya ~
un ~.k,,:
ADDRESS UNKNOWN. SPO
Legal Description
08-25-45 NE114 OF SE114 OF SW114 & W112 OF SE114 OF SE114
OF SW1/4 EXC W110' OF S303' THEREOF & EXC RD - r,_~,~,
t
_ f~l {
- -
• ~ _ i
I_.~I~L ~I- 7 I_ 'I `~`J• %
~ t
I
yooro I ~ I
- ' _ - -
Notice: This is not a legal document. Data depicted on this map is general & subject to constant revision. It is intended for reference
use only. Legal documenis should be obtained from the appropriate agency.
JOINS PANEL 0304
TM J .
5 -
6 ` pA S4 A
EUCUD AVENUE
~ ~ .
rti _ _ - p • -
ZONE C Q
Q
MT VIEW • N
~ GRA~
~ 9~~ . , • .
BUCKEYE ~
MARIETTA
~~S . ~
~9$ Z oN~c,Ot
MONTGOMERY v M ;
~
~ .
~
0
O W
~ Y
cc
Q
INDIANA m
~
~ 0
a:
AVENUE ~ MISSION AVENUE ~
cn
w ~.t
C'> cr-
Z Q
~ Z _ p
J W
w
or
~
~
. - - ~
~
0 17
AVENUE 18 a ,
~ O .
cr . ~
~
ZO N E C PPCIfIC
ALKI AVENUE
~
p0
. • /s~ ~~'i i~i~/
-
rpr May 20, 1999
Spokane County
'
Division of Engineering and Roads
1026 West Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
Attn: Gary Nyberg
Re: Mission Meadows Manufactured Home Park
ZE-56-96
Dear Gary,
I enjoyed meeting with you at our pre-design meetingon Tuesday, May 11,
1999 conceming the referenced project. This letter is to confirm ou.r mutual
understanding of several important issues discussed.
1. Certain conditions of approval tied to the number of lots occupied will be
based on the actual number or location of building pernuts issued for the
placement of manufactured homes and not on the number of spaces or
configuration of spaces receiving final engineering and site plan approval.
For instance, the requirements of Engineering Condition #8(b) would not
be enforced until the 61 st building pernut for the placement of a
manufactured home is issued or the trigger date is reached, even though ~
we may have received final approval of the entire 131 space site plan.
understancht at t would not be required to improve our _ frontage along enue untd iiding pernuts for
the placemen acturedho ch back up directly to Mission
Awnue.
2. We have deternlined that existing Grady Lane as it stubs out south~'-ro-~
Indiana Avenue, is private and will not be available for use by this project
to provide a second access. We will therefore revise the approved site
plan to extend Hodges Lane south to Mission Avenue for our second
access as allowed by Engineering Condition #9. The northerly connection
to existing Grady Lane shown on the approved site plan will be eliminated
and a permanent fence constructed across the south end of the Grady Lane
stub. The new Hodges Lane second access will be for emergency access
only and normally gated closed. I understand that because the Hodges ;
Lane second access will have very limited use, the County is willing to ~
74 I
oeAle dy
~ y. ~ 9 .
jk5el/ uw
,
' - i
waive the normal requirement to either align with existing Hodges Road
intersection on the south side of Mission Avenue, or provide spacing
between intersections as prescribed in the County Road Standards.
Given the understandings outlined above, I plan to design and seek approval
for the entire 131 space site plan and construct the improvements in several
phases. Since the way we proceed is so dependent on the accuracy of these
understandings, I respectfully request that you confinns Spokane County's
concurrence by signing on behalf of the County in the signature block below
and returning a sign copy of this letter to the address indicated below.
Yolu- cooperation is very much appreciated.
Respectfully,
~
Richard L. Mason, P.E.
15918 East Cameron Court
Veradale, WA 99037
Spokane County Concurrence
bY (Printed) 1401a/l
~
by (signature)
Enclostues: Conditions of approval
Approved site plan map
Second original copy of this letter (to be rettirned)
CC: Matt Zaracore, Inland Pacific Engineering
~
~ •
~ I ~ ~ r ~ i ~ ~ i ~ I b ~r
J
~ ~ E:
4 - - - - - - -
~l rj
C
t i' 21 1 ;p ii 12 dv
. ,
i
I ` , I 1 I I ~ r` L~
i .
MCr c
- - - - - - - - - ~ .
ss'%:.C'47 NouOAr W~ F'---
4 ' ~ 0 i I
~ ~f~~ ~T~ _T~ L= T T Y ~T~ _iT-- ~ e Q2
_
-------ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( I ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~
:ssasOa~s ii 1 iii
i iit i i
rurc. ra. I i b n 1 2 4 o
;
557;..CS42 ~ I ~II ~ 1 I~'✓ 1 I - 1-r._1__ I'.\ I ~ ~ ; ~1 I \ \ ~ ! 1
~
i
~ ----~___a_•-?, i , i
I ~ I. III I'~~ 1 I ~ -'---f-`- ~--'r---- \ ~ , 1 I
~ • I
• ~ .
q
~r~jj 1 t ' ~ -------y
srt vi atA ~r ~ V(CINITY YAP
ND 4e' 17 16 45 ~ N% 4.1 41' 4w ~ 60 79 S~ 1~5 ~ s~ ~ si so ur.n u..n wn w.v~
6{ ~ f3 y 61 ~ E} 1 ~r rn ~ vc , ~ r' u• .w ya yr vr u~ rrc us wn ~ +u. u' ~ i i SITE DATA
en u° ~ ~n ~a ~rt t: R ; ~ „ ~ R •
j Zl I j IEGAL N
►«x . ~.C
` i ~ r
a"----'--
'
I ~ I t l I f.__'__'~. ~ r '
'
• - 1 - - - - F- rtesT~wloMw.miuffa/+nPOrMOnKasrawa"
ORADY IANE ,-.1 ■ e • ~CAY RW4D (PU&)C) I anc sau~s aMIa o~cna a7m K. ~r ~Mr, w
~
ORADT r • . e , • Lo ~c mw~ ar vx,K sAx o~a
1*0 t° r 1 1 , (PRI4A ~bm ~cn Q Mc fow ntao rm eaar
~ ;03 r ti ~ ~ ~yje o,. " i ,
e
u~n 13b ~Z9 26 r +ax• t~ . nn raw~sr nw~a o~ x bun+utr airna e
w Z M. 't0Y 1 10A 1 liOT ~ 1DB ~ 105 ~ 10~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ wrc un v~. Mi v, , r x sarn~cs* w+r~. o~ K:~ T3f Iltl L. W. M
~
1 ~ t W ~ 1 4.116 K ~ 1-- 14 c cwr c r rw.a. r.a a
~
AOAD 1 ~ awn ~vc a70 u~ anl+rar~
~ o; e ~ i r a m ' I r pu r um 6 e o L. f 0 i»
' 102
~ I;I ' ~ 1 E3 d I e ~ a . ~ ° ~ ~ 1 1t --iii M ~ I 1
67 ~ ~ EO ~ a. uc t r vc ~ wt
I~ {M ~ W r ~t 7 M R1.'rtJ~~ OYM1R 7 M tiUMAtT OIMW
as~ vc) 1 w 126 1 6vwf Ko,+n~r ara W rcm" ► cn w te L. ar, r
j ~ ~ i4 I , w on. s . . . . . . . rc 0 ~ ~ x oawn rr
3' J lOKAIl. RAE Q~LN:~G
_
I ~ . r • '.I . T -
~an l1: l - ry KII Y fiw rwm soalaU
79 ~ ~nn ~ . ..1.'.'.'..'+'~ . . . . ' ~ ~ 0 n 0 i , r ~ ~ F m an a
~ • F. :•j ~ ~ a+ ~%i%; ..125 ~ ~ ~c ~rn ia ni am, xiS.m rtn r *e m xAu eF
~ 5 r ~w,
~en: k t
1 / i r 4y / l I Sc s'~'vM~:~ wMmi a bususr aMm~ n n[ ~aun+rn
: I ' 'C ~ 9 ~ Y '.r. • ~ ~ + I mk~ a :--o- e • a K. w L. N ae mxn ar
100 r x~ `arr.r""" If . ! urvcl fa.q.n.x or w«c,w
r • r L ~ I
~ne on , ,,w ~n msnrto r*~ . arna n n[ wni w✓ v M[ fomecr
~ ~~rt ~ 1 4rin 1 . . . . .',~1~.'.'.'.'.1.'.' ~ ~~''1 ~ ~ n1J 9 ~
i 60 ~ 78 ~ . . . . ~
~ o1c 1 ,•Ny' ,124 ~ o ~ ~ ~ • i _ arrtr a stc^a e ~ x 0 u e. W r eo.~-~r o sra,ee
I u I \ ' y an~ iur. 9 s . , . . . . . . r L7-II Q ►u s7Att B rout~
. .'I r / u~, rci! ~,:.u~rt.r tt
W--. e f ~ r • Q f~~t•i ;V;!}i}.~'!~ r ur krt ~~C 1 ~ 1car~: 4, ~
MTJi[..~tT D M Usi Ut 7 M %S~
l i `w~ ~n . . ~ ' .I g ~ ~ .r
u u
~ . o-f v
ec n~.or awR. a
R}17 Mr 11[ Q
v+'
1 1 77 ~w ' q~ yi ~wvt 0 I Waa .fwA. o-trs ~rx~+ .o+. [u5 ..r
c ~t L r i r w 9D 123
I ~ ~ 0 ao 70 dn 1 ~ea.r ~J' r r~~' i~"----'1 ~ ~or a■., i n
y~ ~x a. w7 a 1aa rtn. *uz'
. ~ r b~r~'~ r1~tic .n• s' wc A onra v
! 1 ; ! w,vc ! . u
ni, xq+. : s~... ~ ~uia v tuc w[t
. 1 ~ i~i ~ r ~ ~ 7 . L•' m wc cu7 u~t *~e~s eiriroc~is e onrwa v~
12i
9 ~,r~ ~ 07 q• . en; 115
r
q ~u
iM ~ti:j - aW vt 4 I i I ~um rv~n w. rant s amar:
~ • I i ~ 71 ' 7F " aw an . . , , . . . . . . D p a.p ~n
f!un v` • ~ie ~ = . ~"~`r~ ' • I ~ I y
I I I b ~ . . . r 3, G
~ w:r~n a a • • 1~
I 07 • v e n a~ wfn
on sIu wes
72 7s px
u ~ • n a a ur a w~
~ ~93 ~ taw~.
a+~an ~ an ~!171 20 21 wes
: g4 I ~ 1 Y ne 1 fl9 1 1 ~ 3,41 ~ ~ m~i 5~ M+ f~a tn~ o ~i
tiEFUE t u. ~ ~an ~n. -----7] t r vr ir sn ~ ~ q,t ( fKu
T ~ ~r~ ~on ~ 6g ~ 1 90 ' 1 Ot 96
~ 7 f ~r~ a i rt ~ r . f 1 r 1 r ~o ! ! r°
P2 HGES IAME ~ r' , tna,z nuaa ~r
n ~ ~ ~ G n~+a w c Y o l a
f~ - w
~s d d ° ~ --BUII.DING SETBACflS
e ~ e i i i { (
~ i p n / o a n e ~ -31 . 3f ~!3 ~ • ~ ~ ~ YWl1fACRkm AO~SMY
~ an II'i 451 ~ 261 Yll 42 E R 29 ~ 'JO t 1, . ~ ~n ~".r ~ I ~E ~ ~~yytrypj ~
1 21 1 Yl ~
r, i~, 1 I 11 18 ~t9
' ~ ~ n'r' ya • I 1 p,
••1&-~''(i b 12 1 tJ 1 ~ 1Sr 16 1 ~
! 1 ~ u~ sn u~ art aw en a+~ vt u~o on u~ en ~ wn . ►~A~ on vr vc u. v+ a.~ v~, +~e an ~ > > •.r.n omt S f
r ---"---"iM
~l AC' a n~ti[ ci¢t ~ e!
WAF ,Am
a rvwc fr@+ lS l(f
~LV.
dzw/R . ~e~ ~
Iv,•'n . r
C 1
~ ' LEGEND SPONSDR ' CEhERAL N01'ES UTll.ITlES S
' w"'wc' n•~.. "Q"Now N°° «w ~r'"ic
~ • ~u wo .w,r ca,.r 4 u.~+ rn wu ~ uromr+rm ~ww rnr t~a aK ar ~vs asosr so~.c m,■n tw~! roLL' c~aorm »cror rR ec
~ M V A W 1 1/ 7 0 5 1 C t~ : ~ W I C O C O I M I C~. F ~ 1 U 1 1 1 1 R~ m a l D~ l m O i' A C 1 1 Q M rv~JKMG ~Q/ r0 of /ODCD 7n
0~l. M r MP! W1MM 0AS M9~.G101 rN IfIQ ~ lLiQSVi SiIIKTP:S MML M4lOl CIR►MiS ~QR q~
- L 40+ YM6►~Cq~ ~O[ fWl t~Otlm A~ n[ ►04R r. M101 1010~ ~wci YD ronAa1 t+wi¢ ~i
YOOIf~+~ IIIIM 11~I1F (7~ Gri OI 006~~YK1. Wl 001 GYI!
_ ~
.A,~ .,v„K ~ ~ MASTER SITE DEVELOPI~ENT PLAN
~
w r~hcl%fi10 Pomm .LALL am MMOLW ,-V&toa .om somm
~ , ,,,c,c,m
a PJWPON3 A ; OF
W
~ ~ ~aR'S ~~~,~,m MISSION MEADOWS
ot nMta OO
ts ws *u nSVyp n M[ aN waP n a1ftt i iw Aro rM T. Nl ROAIM~ID~NIl01na~pFNO~ Ts M WYO~ 1MA/ Wil f 16fAYID MAN U FACTURED HOME PARK
N~11W , ~ .
M 07I9YMQ ~M M~iS O MC ~ONVI OOIMfi y~ qlp r 1/4 QF SW 1/4 OF
& WMiyy~ ~r M pwQ /OSMI OO.IMR IW ~O /'!WIl~I11Y °~a"'~ sUU
~ °a ~ ro LOCATED IN THE SE
. P2 MA"~°.M,y tN~"°y SECTION 8, T.25 N., R.45 E., W.M.
~ ~
tl. ~ ~ ~
' ► m a"n nrouCn Af OunsQ M ow= ws a MWawL SPOKANE COL'NTY, WASHINGTON
to N~.uo O°` ~ M DECEMBER 1996
~ ~ T ~ M ~ ~ ` ~ ` REVISED AUGUST 1997
p11M~a wr wNt awn afts ta►a01M+t oo~tol~ ItQnw . ~ 1Yx.a rOm
- po~;,..r. REVISED NOVEMBER 1997
_ ~ w~ w wo~ Mi oop M►+w.
SREET 1 OF 2
~
t 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
.
File#: ZE-56-96
~ III~ IIII III DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING ~
SPOK:t1NE COLINn
HEARING DATE: March 25, 1998 FILE ZE-56-96
PROJECT PLANNER: Louis Webster, AICP
Associate Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Reclassification of approximately 19.5 acres from Urban
Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) for a
Manufactured Home Park and those uses allowed in the Urban
Residential-7 (UR-7) zone.
NOTE: The proposal subject to the public hearing is for a zone
- reclassification only. An application for a Manufactured Home Park
(MHP-4-96) is being processed concurrent with the zone
reclassification but is a separate administrative action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the zone change request, as
conditioned.
Proiect Data '
Project Location: 19305 E. Mission Avenue, north of and adjacent to
Mission Avenue, 2300 feet east of Barker Road in the
SE %4 of the SW'/. of S8325, R45.
Parcel Numbers ~ 55083.9043, 55083.9042 and 55083.9012
Owner: Bill and Arlene Colyar
19305 E. Mission Avenue
Greenacres, WA 99016
(509) 924-6273
Agent: Richard Mason
c/o IPEC
707 West 7th Avenue, Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 458-6840 ~
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban
Proposed Zoning: Urban Residential-7 (UR-7)
Existing Land Use: ~ Single family residence, undeveloped and vacant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
• North: Urban Residential-7 (UR-7), Single family residences
• South: Urban Residential-7 (UR-7), Single family residences ~
ZE-56-96 _
Staff Report - March 25, 1998 Hearing -
1 of 5
• East: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5), Vacant and
undeveloped
• West: Urban Residential-7 (UR-7), Single family residences
Known Land Use Proposals and Approved Preliminary Plat of Riverwalk (PE-1414-81) ~
Recent Project Approvals in the is adjacent to the west and north. Riverwalk PUD
Area of this Project was originally approved for 365 lots and consists of 9 ~
phases, 7 of which have been finalized.
Land Division Status: All three lots are legal lots of record. Parcels ~
55083.9042 and 55083.9043 were created in 1980,
according to County Assessor's records and CE-498-
96. Parcel 55083.9012 has been a separate, legal lot
dating back to 1957, according to County Assessor's
records.
Shoreline Designation: ~ Not Applicable
Water Purveyor: Consolidated Water District #19
Sewage Disposal: Spokane County Public Sewer System
Fire District Fire District #1
School District: Central Valley School District #356.
Nearest Arterial and Distance: Mission Avenue is a Minor Arterial and is located
south of and adjacent to the subject property. The
' Spokane County Engineer requires 7 feet of roadway
dedication and 13 feet of Future Acquisition Area
(FAA) set aside in reserve. The site plan does not
' accurately represent this. See Engineer's Conditions
of Approval.
Nearest Parks and Distance: Sullivan Park is located approximately 3 miles west of
the subject property.
Neighborhood Association: None known • This proposal is located inside the IUGA.
• This proposal is located inside the Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA).
• This proposal is located outside the 1000' notification boundary of designated Natural
Resource Lands. ~
GMA/Critical Areas
Aquifer Recharge Area: Subject property is located within the
Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) and the
Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA) Overlay Zone.
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Area Maps.
Floodplain: Not Applicable.
Geologically Hazardous: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Area Maps.
Wetlands: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Area Maps or Wetland Inventory
Maps.
SEPA
• MDNS issued on 3-2-98. The mitigating measures include construction of turning lanes in the
vicinity of the proposal
• Comment period ends 3-23-98
ZE-56-96
Staff Report - March 25, 1998 Hearing
2of5
1
R ,
Noticinq
Published: Spokesman Review on March 9, 1997.
The deadline for notifying property owners/taxpayers within 400 feet of the proposal was March 10,
1998.
Site Posted Deadline: The deadline for posting public notice on the site was March 10, 1998.
1724 Comaliance Dates
Application Accepted (Counter Complete): 12-13-96
Technically Complete / Determination of Completeness issued: 1-12-98
Date Notice of Decision is Due: 5-12-98
Reviewinq Aqencies
18 Agencies were notified on 12-19-96 and 3-2-98. Comments were due on 1-15-97 and 2-11-98.
Agencies Notified Response Date Agencies Notified Response Date
Received Received
Spokane County Division Yes 1-15-97 Washington State Yes 1-15-97
of Engineering and 10-7-97 Department of 10-27-97
Roads, Transportation 12-10-97 Transportation (WSDOT) 12-19-97
Spokane County Division Yes 3-4-98 Spokane County Air No
of Engineering, Pollution Control
Development Services Authority (SCAPCA)
Spokane County Division Yes 2-19-97 Spokane Regional No .
of Utilities-Sewer 1-20-98 Transportation Council
Spokane County Division No Spokane Transit No
of Utilities-Water Authority
Resources .
Spokane Regional Health Yes 1-16-97 Washington State No
District 1-20-98 Department of Ecology
(DOE)
Spokane County Parks, No Spokane County Parks, No '
Recreation & Fair Recreation and Fair
Spokane County Division Yes 3-4-98 Spokane County No
of Long Range Planning Boundary Review Board
Fire District No. 1 Yes 1-31-97 Consolidated Irrigation No
District #19
Central Valley School No City of Spokane Yes 1-7-97
District No. 356 Construction Services
Responses from the Pubtic:
Six letters were received from adjacent property owners. One of the responses contained a petition with 56
signatures. Five of the authors and the petitioners objected to the proposed reclassification and
manufactured home park because of possible diminution in land values. The sixth author objected to
increased numbers of people and the resulting increase in traffic.
Description of the Site:
The site involves three Spokane County tax parcels, measures approximately 660 feet by 1300 feet and
consists of approximately 19.5 acres. The site plan of record is date stamped "Received Spokane County
December 12, 1997". The subject property is essentially flat and undeveloped but for a single family
residence, intended to remain on the parcel at the SE corner of the property adjacent to Mission Avenue.
The site plan shows a"fencep of unknown height or construction surrounding the subject parcel with a
security gate at Mission Avenue and an emergency gate to the north near Indiana Avenue. There are 131
manufactured home spaces varying in size from 30,000 square feet to 3,760 square feet in excess of the
zE-5s-ss
Staff Report - March 25, 1998 Hearing
3 of 5
f ~
a minimum required 3,600 square feet per Section 14.808.040.1.a of the Spokane County Zoning Code. Six
private roads, 35 feet in width, with sidewalks provide for circulation within the manufactured home park. A
1.7 acre grass covered playfield is located in the center of the development with a half-court basketball court
and a softball diamond. "208° drainage areas are shown throughout the development. The manufactured
home park is proposed to be developed in seven phases which are clearly shown on the site plan.
Perimeter building setbacks are shown directly on the site plan and on the right side of the plan for interior
spaces. The perimeter setbacks shown are correct with the exception of the side yard setbacks shown for
spaces 33 and 41. A 10 foot perimeter setback is to be maintained throughout. Interior setbacks listed on
the right side of the plan are also in error. See Section 14.808.040.20 of the Spokane County Zoning Code
for correct setbacks for both perimeter and interior (in-park) lots. Page 2 of the site plan details Landscaping
Types under Zoning Information for the proposed manufactured home park. The types and distances
shown are not correct. Section 14.806.040.1.b & 2.a of the Spokane County Zoning Code requires five feet
of Type III landscaping adjacent to Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to the east and twenty feet of Type III
landscaping is required adjacent to Mission Avenue. According to Section 14.618.365.2 of the Spokane
County Zoning Code, a 6 foot high wall is required along the east property boundary, but this is not shown
on the site plan.
Backqround:
The applicant submitted the rezone proposal to the Division of Buifding and Planning on December 13, 1996
and a Determination of Completeness was issued on January 12, 1998.
Staff Analysis:
The proposal is located within the Urban Comprehensive Plan Category and the Urban (U) Category is '
intended to provide the opportunity for development of a"city-like" environment which includes various land
uses, intensive residential development and public facilities and services (water, sanitary and storm sewer
lines, police and fire protection and other features). Due to the variety and mix of land uses and activities
found in the Urban Category, there are few land use activities that would be inappropriate.
Goal 1.1 of the Urban (U) Category is to "Encourage a variety of housing types and densities". Objective
1.1.b states that "Higher-density developments such as multifamily and mobile home (manufactured homes)
parks should be located with direct or near direct access to the major arterial systems rather than on interior
neighborhood streets. Access to public transportation should also be considered". Decision Guideline 1.1.3
states "A multifamily dwelling structure exceeding three (3) residential units or a development of such
structures or manufactured homes (except those on single-family lots) should: a) locate adjacent designated
arterials; b) locate near existing or planned public transit routes; c) improve or maintain the consistency of
adjacent single-family area amenities. Objective 1.1.e states "Established standards for mobile home
housing and sites that improve the compatibility of mobile homes with standard residential developments".
Decision Guideline 1.1.5 states "Approval of a proposed manufactured home development should consider
the compatibility between manufactured homes and nearby existing single-family developments. In
determining aesthetic compatibility such things as the following should be considered: a) provision for off-
street parking or storage structures; and b) provision of skirting or foundation; and c) roof shape and
composition similar to conventional single-family residential structures".
Goal 1.2 states "Encourage a variety of parks and open spaces that meet the needs of all people in or
residential areas". Objective1.2.b states "Ensure adequate open space, recreational facilities and parks for
residential development". Decision Guideline 1.2.2 states "The need for recreation and open space created
by residential developments should be met and be in conformance with ordinances, plans, and policies prior
to residential development approval".
Goal 1.5 states uEncourage a healthful and pleasing environment in the county's residential areas".
Objective 1.5.a states "New residential or multiple-family development should be buffered from existing
adjacent land uses where adverse effects may develop". Decision Guideline 1.5.1 states "Buffering and/or
landscaping will be used to mitigate the differences befinreen proposed developments and existing uses".
Objective 1.5.b states "Encourage installation of underground utilities". Objective 1.5.g states "In many
instances, mobile home and multifamily development may be appropriate to renew residential areas".
ZE-56-96
Staff Report - March 25, 1998 Hearing
4 of 5
~ i
. Decision Guideline 1.5.7 states "Before approving any multifamily housing or manufactured home
development proposals, it should be determined that such development will enhance the residential
character or aesthetics, or will improve residential values of the area". Decision Guideline 1.5.8 states
"When determining whether a proposal will change the existing land use character of an area, factors to
consider may include: a) the structure height of the proposal in relation to structure height of nearby
structures; and b) whether new structures will have a positive or negative impact upon the neighborhood's
architectural character".
Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zoning surrounds the subject property on all sides but to the east. Mission
Avenue is a Minor Arterial and STA bus Route 9 passes on Mission Avenue south of the proposal.
Standards for manufactured home housing and sites have been established in Section 14.808.040 of the
Spokane County Zoning Code and the proposal is in conformance with the development standards of this
section. Final site plan review and approval will ensure compliance with all of the applicable standards of
the Spokane County Zoning Code. A 1.7 acre playfield to address the need for recreation is proposed. The
perimeter fence and landscaping proposed on the site plan serves to buffer existing single family residences
to the north and west from the proposed manufactured home park. Regarding any change to the existing
land use character of an area, structure height in the existing, proposed and adjacent zones is 35 feet high.
The impact that any new structures will have on the neighborhood's architectural character is more
subjective. The neighborhood north and west of the subject property is the Riverwalk Planned Unit
Development (PUD) (file # PE-1414-81) which is zoned Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) and consists of
undeveloped lots and conventional, site-built single family residences built in the last three years. The
neighborhood to the south is zoned Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) and consists of single family residences
(mobile, manufactured or conventional, site-built) built in the last 15 to 18 years.
• The purpose of the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone is to set standards for the orderly development of
residential property in a manner that provides a desirable living environment that is compatible with
surrounding land uses and assures the protection of property values. It is intended that this zone be used to
• add to the variety of housing types and densities, up to approximately 7 units per acre, and as an
implementation tool for the Comprehensive Plan Urban Category. General characteristics of these areas
include paved roads, public sewer and water, accessibility to schools and libraries, and a full line of public
services including manned fire protection and public transit accessibility. Medium density UR-7 areas are
typified by single family dwellings on small lots, duplexes, low density apartments and manufactured home
parks. The proposed Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zoning is consistent with the Urban Comprehensive Plan
category and existing zoning in the vicinity of the subject property.
Staff Recommendation:
It is suggested that the Hearing Examiner determine that there is adequate buffering between the proposed
use and existing and future uses permitted in the area. The Division of Building and Planning recommends
approval, as conditioned.
Attachments:
A. Maps
• Vicinity Map
• Site Development Plan
• Sheet 1
• Sheet 2
• Comprehensive Plan Map
• Zoning map
B. Agency and Public Comments
C. Recommended Conditions of Approval
ZE-56-96
Staff Report - March 25, 1998 Hearing
5 of 5
f
ATTACHMENT A
MAPS
VICINITY MAP
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SHEET'I 8c SHEET 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
ZONiNG MAP
t I
~
ZE=56m96
Vicinity Map
Q o J
W ►~I
-J ~
, !1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Cfl
AVE. - ~ Q I
Cf . . . , _ i) " -
, ►~wR~2 ~ ~
•,4 ~ r
\ Z rq • ~a ' . ~
~ ? ♦"~i~p~ ' /
~ ~ • r J/ \ ~/L
" 2 A ~ % ~I ~
5
5503_ I
o • .
EL.P000
a
~ ~ ,
N ~
~
~
~ o LLJ • W W > : .
W -
LLJ
> < , - ~f w
e
AuGUSTaq
187 188 1e9 190 1°i
184 185 186(0 152 195 14~. 197 198 199 200 201~~ i ~ 203 i
I-{+ ~J . p
hI~ T~' E L L A~ ZGreen ocre s C JL' 1001 :t •~l_] C, y¢j • W~ a W, Q N•'l-
~ 1 ' Y
(E)tirzlc~+a ry) Qf < ~
< '
O c; u
►~~~~~""..L:'iL'F ~ . I ~ ~ ~
1 p,ti: -
-tARP ~ ~
1300N
N + _ ' • ~ I
N E. " i
= SMET 'v~ ~
SaTALDO
, . , 90 " •ru •rj
~ FREEWAY,
Not to Scale 03/12/98 N~
V(CINITY MAP
Z
0
~
r«
0
N
0
N
(D
- -
rwrai w. ~ ~ ~ i-----
' 'I ; y ~ ' • r' • ~ ~1 ~l ,.~t.., nO.Ett
UCAIION
x` ~ ~ iS' u ~ i'•-., 0 7! _~~7 • ~
nmwr1t ii--i i"--J
rwraL nu. I i
uinei~i : i -
' ' - '
~ • • ~
; ; •,n '»T"- ""T""" i I 1 i i ~ , ~ ~ i fn' ~
.
n. I
. ~
~
~ ~~lu ~ 1 ~ I i I T I ' ~ i •1
+1 ~ . ' • • - ;
hc
IN1TY YAP
r 1 u t o w u, uM
w
SrM ATA
J~~
~ , - - ;
03
'I ~Y.~ ,rM ~NI 1~ I WY ~ i11NO11~uMVNNYRl11~'
~i II ~~.w~~, _ 1 • y 1~ Ipl IMI If~11p1IOS1MMI V 11 1 t~l~rlr~~~ 1 "'tL•., ` ~ ~r.1✓uya~~~~nww~r
~ + ~ M- ~iW'v.~..ilrvii..r:~•~4• ~ ~
Im N . ~ 1 } I j w~Yw~ray
I j ~ I , 1 1 L.~.~.yq7. M yK I NIMrl~l~rw,w Yrww4Y~
i ~ ;'G -i t ~ ' N . " .~..r ~ ~ ~.'.~'::.,.iw.~S.'.'.~..~r..
1'C 1'4~ ._y 1~ ~ 1 u~~w I• ~ •r.n5 . r ~ ~i+.~1n~1~~.~~ia~itW~i~ Y~~ O Y
l~~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ cf~ax~M: :s::d`..~.:~:i'.• .iri.;.. ' d ~ E~'~ii+l h'1 Y~~ t~
d r- i~
ro i I'~ ~ M r N ~ ~ , ry~: ~~'L,~ Ij ~1~ , . ~ :'ti~.~~.~..~ ~
Y~~i ~yt...... F. ~~,~11~;~~~,f,laf~w~• ~
~.~.ea ~ n~ Sy ~f i
~ ~.:,1'
~ ~ { ~ ` ~ ' i ' ' I'''.•' ~ ~,/J,~~''~11~j~1+.,..~ I 1V
._i.__~ I i - ~ ~f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~t~i' .~I~ • • ' ' ~ ~ ~ .L ~ ~
* r M 1~~rwM 1~ ` ..o
! 1 m 4K 1
t/I S~~ MipQf ~t ~ ~+iiJ~i~ fi f y
~ • , + . . i ~
i
aK • rt~ ~ u~ n ~ u i~ n~ ~~M .:°JI n~ u u ~ u w ia Mn~~ u ~ ~ y~ ~i N~1 ~ ~ i
44
m
~ _ ' ' _ _ ' ' ' ' _ _ a.~ rr _ ~ a' 1_. ~`~'L~w ~ • rElL
• • •
rn ~ (ur.Pa~eD; tLr,rutrec;
<
RECGIVED r~~" c~l~~ ~rtcmn '
m y SPOkAN
r ccourm
:•"w'. =".,.e. b(ASTER SITE DEVGLOP~IGNT PLAN
0 DEC 121991
Qi'
MISSION MCADOSYS
Rl F-h avisO+oF eu=voumP.uwwo --.~.w•.•.,• ~ MANUI'ACTURCD 1iOh{E PAR1C ~
mtr- SiTF PIAN
o d ow~r ~u~ If►RECO.10 tncatm d na ac V~ or sx f4 or
~ N ~ .,..~..y..~.,.~~..,,.. . 3taioH r.ee e. u.
~ibK~; cou,~, XAlIIIN4~TON
~
~ I.cric , w..a.....~..~~.....~..,. • D£CEUI7BR 1000
r ! Ir~'E"°r'LtnN° ••`r"•• ~....w.~w.M REVISED AUCUST 1997
P2 REVISED DGCGkBCR 1007
S11EF:T ! OF 2
3 - . . _ - - -
D
ro
'
Z
0
rt
r►
0
C/)
0 '
a)
(D
' ixcexo
A.
~ xat~e w r_-=
31 rJ e~~~ f^'~' u
n 0'
, to;
, , ~ ~ ~ ~ a` ~
I
11 11 ll , ~ cl)
F•~,i.rra~
~
I j~ ~ ~ 91 I I .LII
r:.7
i - ~ ~ H . i f f . :q z. rEtL
•',----1
' CD
wm A ia tn iar
~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1)1 ~ ~ " ~ 1 I Al~n[ . IM v
64 ~d la F°----__
~
r.
! r \
I
N ~r , u ' ~ • ~ ~ " ~ ~u' r i , ~ I
~ ' ~ ~ i ~ ~
~ ' ; ~ _ I .
co e y H ~ • ~ I~~ ~ r~~ < ~
, I
~
n
n t n
' w~i~ut ~ l 1~~ I 1~ • N N 11 1 u M tl N
•
n u~ n ~ r n u u~~ u u~r u a r r v ~ ~ ti•:::}r~;:~
.J ~
L
-;•-----•1 I
~ j 1YPICAI lot rLeN ~
N ~.n..rONR1011f►OPVIT~p~,
r+w++lar~m ~aanisun_ 'G
r~ui.u y~ ~ WAK IG(
• ~ r ~M ~
~ - ~ q ~ u..,..,~' i
m U)
. ~ ~ :1.~ ~ I w ~,,,,,.,~..,o rElL
MASTER SITE DEVEIAPMGNT PLAN
m
~ M TYPICAI SfCTION - PfiVA7C IANE Qj`'
m y MISS[ON MEADOtiYS ~
O RECEIVED MANUrACTURGD HOhIG PARK
N
. ~
SPOKANECOUN'iY SEWER, WdTER, STREETS AND STORU DRA1N,tCE ~
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
~ R fTNtf AHD UNnSCAPE SCREEN OEC 1 2 1997 unaN ~DCATYO M eT11Ir.¢e!C x. 1/1ai 0/
e i!~ 1 y1 Ol
, ~
m SITE ~'111~~sro~uxe courrtr; VuiaNdroir' ~
Z `r I"A" ~ OM910NOPBUItDINOANOpfANN~Np OF RECORU Df:CEbf[3CR 1990
Y
~ N A u VC ' rm Aatu m n~ri ton a tm
sccnois - vnivAU nmvcwAr or, REVISED AUCUST 1007
RGVIS[;Q DGCEM[3ER 1907
sireer z or• z
D
Z ~
3
D
~
~ .
~
ZEm56=96
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
tS~ i h
',ft-/~ F •'t~ . ;
V. ♦ ~~z
~±,h+~,-t
,t` '~~3~-""~ ~''j~ ~j ~j'*•1 ~ rl~y} ~ ~ 1
• i 1'~`~ !~1' i • . ` L Yt?1 1 ~ ~ • ' ; ~r 'I~,"
~ ~ i yil~ ` ~ ~~1 ~ ~~.ti,~- ~~.✓~~i. ~ Y " ~ _ ~ ~~'RI. ~t
~ , ''4 ~ ~ t j~~ 'f ~ ~ Jt~ ~ f'~j~~~~r !~t
; ~ Q~ # l#1'~"}? ~~i~.,. Y L ~ 4 ~i~~; ~v ~%f • ~-,.1~ .~:Sf'
74 ~ y ~ ~ ~ M ~ . ~ ~ 13 f ~'~r{~~~j s~` {'Y, 5 ~ ~~'v~yf- C ~ . ~
u+`"LS ' T. , ~ j,- f~t9 ~`i • : .
"1% ~ ~ •i~ ~ • : Dl':.~~ S
,.~,`~a ~7 . . ~ . . L 11'.' a ll'J' •S~
1`~j~y7`~.!~~~-" , =`~~,,~n~~~d.Y;ni~~t~..L~:r.,+~~`+n
y ~Yvri
Fl
~?~~~-,r/~~ t ~ ' '(v i'~"'~}7~• ~ • • . . - . ' • • • • . : n j~-ti~7' ~ ~~'1' t Y '
-MW - ~ . ',-)':.}.1~N1. rr, '~r•►ti.,
~"'~:%l~s~ ~ . ,~~._~,~~~~~,.;'-1~,•~;~~`.~:,:
~.i~~~~ ~ . . . , ' . . . ~i~•?~•~•.~r~ f- ~~,`.~;~1~.':j.`.'~t, ~1v'' . . l~i , ti~
r it1 .i . . ~ . - • ~ , . . `L: .t~,~f.l,~!. ,~.y~~' ~
f~ ~!,^~~'~.r ' ' ' T . • ' .
* •v~,h,.~ ' t ~ . . . . r•~ ~ • ' . _ •
' ~r~ ~ ' ~ .I.~.• . ' . . ~ ~ ~ *
~~~'1 . • ~ - --L~~' _ ,y"
M f Ss Ia N . . . : . .~t -
~ Y
O . . ' . . ,
b e~ •
maCrQ ~ . . . x tA,.o
~~y,r.,~ ~`';-i . . r~: • ; Ae~,
T 'r~"[--•L.'~ . . . . 1 ~ ~ x~ ~ ~
. .i
' , r.. .
. • i.~. • . . . . . ~ J'
- • ± ' I ~ . . . , . . ~ Y ~ , (v~~,p`~ ~ = .r
. , . , ~ . • . ^7 r~~
• . . . ~ 1~ `J ~ ~ ~
• ' `1 - • • ♦ Y
. • , , ` 1' ' ?~Y3~!.r? •~5., : ' _i
: . • . . _ . - ~ ; . . l
4TH . . . . ; :
8Tiil
, • ' / y
. ~ e . . . . . - . • . ~ - . ~ I . ~ . ' Zy r
~
~ • - 12 ~ ' . G
~
V ..~Z .!N`W/'t~ . C ` ~
Not to Scale 03112/98 N'' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
goo loop .
zon
E~ _ ►
.
, .
- ~.fa . ~ ~ . . i~
o~w
~ f
A R • 'i'~ .
• ~ ~ f
~ ` . • Q~~ ' / -
Pi!`o
`ocqr,~; `'t: , r ~ ►
. . _ . - . .
~ • d'o~ ~
~ • ~ ~ • , 1
a • ' . , . , .
, f .
. . . . . i
E L,
. . . ~o~ . . ~
~ ni . . .
~ co . . .
~ ~R• . ~ ~g5 .
Ig l° t 192 '.~.5 %e9
f Pk w „i ~
J
.
100 ~ a • : ~ ~
_ uR o
• . ~ ~
~G~. 5 a . ,
.
,
-.55•5
~
• . '
ZON
~ ~
, .
,
ATTACHMENT B
AGENC1' AND f UGLIC COrOlMENT
l
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
"ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPRQVAL" ZQNE
TO: Spokane County Planning Department
FROM : Divi s ion of Engineering & Roads ~C\~
DATE: March 11, 1998
PROJECT: UR-7 MISSION MEADOWS MFG HOME PK
FILE ZE-0056-96 (MHP-4-96) /
Hearing: 03/25/1998 @ 1:30 #1
Review Date: 01/20/1998 D OF C(Ol/15/1997) @
Sponsor/Applicant: RICHARD MASON
Section Township Range: 08-25-45
Planner: LOUIS WEBSTER
Technical Review Date: (@ )
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved.
Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed:
Prior to issuance of a building permit or at the request of the County
Engineer in conjunction with a County Road Project/Road Improvement
District, whichever comes first:
l. Applicant shall dedicate 7 feet on Mission Avenue for riaht of way.
2. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be
obtained from the County Engineer.
3. Applicant shall submit for approval by th~ Spokane County Engineer
road, drainage and access plans.
a. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Spokane County Engineer. The design, location and
arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard
engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County
Engineer will be required for any portion of the project which is to
be occupied or traveled by vehicles
5. The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be
accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer.
CC: Applicant RICHARD MASON
Er_gineer/Surveyor PATP.ICK MOORE
Planr.er LOUIS WEBSTER
' .
Page 2 of 2
03/25/1998
ZE-0056-96 (MHP-4-96)
6. The County Engineer has designated a 3 Lane Minor Arterial Roadway
Section for the improvement of Mission Avenue which is adjacent to the
proposed development. This will require the addition of varying
amounts of asphalt along the frontage of the development. Curbing and
sidewalk must also be constructed.
7. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of
Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge construction
and other applicable county standards and/or adopted resolutions
pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at
the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County
Engineer.
8. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements to Mission Avenue
along the project frontage and based upon a traffic analysis done for
the proposed development has voluntarily agreed through a Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance to the following off-site
improvements:
• The applicant shall apply on a yearly basis a dust palliative to
' Mission Avenue from the paved portion of Mission Avenue east to the
newly aligned Mission Avenue. This Measure shall commence in the year
of the applicants' first phased approval and shall continue on a
yearly basis until the unpaved portion of Mission Avenue is paved in
accordance with the following off-site improvement.
• The applicant shall be responsible for the engineering and
construction of a 28 foot wide roadway section for Mission Avenue from
the east end of the paved portion of Mission Avenue east to the
realigned portion of Mission Avenue, (approximately 3000 feet). This
improvement shall be constructed prior to the 61St manufactured home
being placed on this proposal or prior to October 1, 2001, no matter
how many manufactured homes have been placed. Should Spokane County
create a County Road Project prior to the placement of the 615t
0
manufactured home, the applicant shall provrdecash toward the project
of $1000 per unit placed.
9. The applicant shall construct a paved and delineated approach(s) to
meet the existing pavement on Grady Road, Grady Road will not be
maintained by Spokane County. A Notice to the Public Number 4 will be
required to allow for a private road on public right of way for Grady
Road.
• r
' Page 3 of 3
03/25/1998
ZE-0056-96 (MHP-4-96)
10. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan
requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners
resolution 95-0498 as amended and are applicable to this proposal.
11. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or
proposed right of way until a permit has been issued by the County
Engineer. All work within the public road right of way is subject to
inspection and approval by the County Engineer.
12. The County Arterial Road plan identifies Mission Avenue as a Minor
Arterial. The existing right of way width of 20 feet is not
consistent with that specified in The Plan. In order to implement the
Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that in addition to the required
right of way dedication, a strip of property 13 feet in width along
the Mission Avenue frontage be set aside in reserve. This property
may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when Arterial
Improvements are made to Mission Avenue.
13.The applicant should be advised that there may exist utilities either
underground or overhead affecting the applicants property, including
'property to be dedicated or set aside future acquisition. Spokane
County will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or
relocation regarding these utilities. The applicant should check with
the applicable utilities and Spokane County Engineer to determine
whether the applicant or utility is respons-ible for adjustment or
relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work.
The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to
Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards.
. ►
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE: March 4, 1998
✓
TO: Francine Shaw, Senior Planner, Spokane County Building and Planning
Division
1 n
FROM: Donald T. Lynch, EHS II - EHD, SRHD ~
SUBJECT: ZE-56-96 (Colyar / IPEC)
An interoffice memo to Louis Webster, dated January 16, 1997, stated the
Spokane Regional Health conditions of approval. We offer no additional
comment.
planning.IV1 ze-56-96(colyarfipec)1 pa
. •
JKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTI\,k-:T
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
Inter-office Communication
r ECEIVED
cpOj~A~yc COUNT(
DATE: January 16, 1997
„ r1 ;,C'",~ Gi= E-'
Ci•''~~,11. 71 r'"'`".Irl
TO: ' L~ouis Webster, AICP, Planner II, Spokane County Building and Planning Division
FROM: Donald T. Lynch, EHS II _ EHD, SCHD
SUBJECT: Proposed Zone Change: ZE-56-96 (IPEC)
1. References:
a) Map of subject, scale 1" = 60', by Patrick J. Moore, dated December 10, 1996, received by this office
December 12, 1996.
b) Reconnaissance Geoloeic Map of the West Half of the Spokane Quadranele. Washinp-ton and Idaho,
Allan B. Griggs, 1966. •
c) Soil Survev, Snokane Countv. WashinQton, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A., March, 1968.
.
d) Spokane Countv. WashinEton. EnizineerinQ Interaretations, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A.,
August, 1974.
e) Spokane Countv Rules and Rep-ulations for Sewaize Disposal Svstems, January 19, 1995.
f) Logs of water wells in Range 45E. Township 25N, Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, and 17.
g) Map: Greenacres Quadrangle, U.S.G.S., 1973, and Spokane N.E., U.S.G.S., 1973.
2. Findings:
a) This project lies over the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer.
b) The project is within Critical Water Supply Service Area #3 and within the service area of
Consolidated Irrigation District #19. Water supply will be a public system.
c} The project is inside the Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Area, inside the
General Sewer Service Area, and inside the Priority Sewer Service Area recommended in the '201'
Study. The method of sewage disposal is subject to approval of the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County, pursuant to County Resolution 80.0418 adopted March 24, 1980. The topography and soils in
the area are generally suitable for use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems. The lots are not
of the proper dimensions to permit the use of both individual wells and sewage systems.
d) The project lies in a relatively flat -u-ea east of Holiday Lane and north of Mission Avenue. Local
drainageways are insibnificant.
.
,
Praposed Zone Change; ZE-56-96 (l_ ~Q
Fage 2
e) Surface soils are classed by the U.S. Soil ConservatiQn Service as Garrison Gravelly Loam with 4% to
S% spopes. They have a septic tank f lter field Iimitation of slight. (There is also possibie
cpntamination of groundwater.) This soil would be classified as a Type YV.
f) C'reologically, the soils are glaeiofluvial deposits. These gealogical stmctures generally yield moderate
tv very large amounts of water. Data frorn wells in the area referenced in section 1 f shaws they are
from 59' to 234' deep and have static water Ievels varying fram 40" to 106` below the suxface. Tlle
Con5olidated Trrigation District #19 has zndicated that it can supply domestic use water for the project
upon completion of agreements with the propanent.
3. Required (rrrandatory) ConditiQns If Approved:
a} Sewage disposal methad shall be as authorized by the Director af Utilities, Spokane County.
b) Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County,
c) Water service shall be by an existing pubiic vvater supply when appxaved by the Regfonal Engineer
(Spokane), State Department of Health..
d} A public sewer sys#em will be made available for the project and individual service will be provided to
each lat prior to sale. Use of individual on-site sevuage disposal systerns shali not be authorized.
4. Recommended Conditions of Approval: .
a) Use of private wells and water systems is prvhibited.
c: Director of Utilities, Spokane County
c: Sponsor: Richard Mason
IFEC
707 W. 7`'' Ave., Ste. 200
Spokane, WA 99204
Biii & Arlene Calyar
19305 E. Mission
Greenacres, WA 99015
landuse.ltr'ZE-7b-96 IPEC"lali
rptCoMents..txt
To: FRANCINE SHAW (Building & Planning)
CC: KEVIN CaOKE (Utilities)
SUSAN MITCHELL (Hearing Examiner)
From: JIM RED (Utilities)
aate: 3/17/98
Subject: ZE-0056-96 Stage: Hearing Examiner
Phase:
Mission Meadow5 UR-3.5 to UR-7
and MHP4-96
A wet (live) sewer cannectian to the area-wide Public Sewer System
is to be constructed. Sewer connection
permit is required.
Public Sanitary Sewer easement shall be shown on the face af the pl
at and the dedication shall state: "The
perpetual easement granted to Spokane County, its' successors and
assigns is for the sale purgase of
canstructing, installing, aperating, maintaining, reparing, alterin
g, replacing, removing, and all other uses
or pllrp45eS whieh are or may be related to a sewer system. Spokan
e County, it's successars and assigns at
all times hereinafter, at their awn cost and expense, may remove al
1 erops, brush, grass or trees that may
interfere with the constructing, installing, operating, maintaining
~ reparing, altering, replacing, removing
and all other uses or purpases which are may be related to a sewer
system. The grantQr(s) reserves the
right tQ use and enjoy that property which is the subject of this e
asement far purpases which will not
interfere with the County's full enjoyment of the rights hereby gra
nted; provided, the Grantor(s) shall not
erect ar construct any building or other structure or drill on the
easement, or diminish or substantially add
to the ground cover over the easement. The easement described he
reinabove is to and shall run with the
land. "
Page 1
rptComi~ents.txt
Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Utilities Depart
ment "under separate cover", only those
plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public s
ewer connections and facilities for review
and approval.
Security shall be deposited with the Utilities Department for const
ruction of the public sewer connections
and facilities
Arrangements for payments of applicable sewer charges must be made
for prior to issuance of sewer connection
permit.
Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance
with the Coordinated Water System Plan for
Spokane County, as amended.
Page 2
\ t
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
l ~ I
. ,
~ RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF
1 1 APPROVAL FOR ZE-56-96
.
III I DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
SPOK:ANE COUNTY
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the
"Applicant", which term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs,
assigns and successors.
2. The zone change applies to the following real property:
1'arcel A (55083.90431
The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, in the County of Spokane,
State of Washington.
EXCEPT the West 110.00 feet of the South 303.00 feet thereof;
TOGETHER with the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, in the County of Spokane, .
State of Washington.
Parcel B (55083.9012)
The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of S. 8, Township 25 N., Range 45 EWM, in the County of
Spokane, State of Washington.
Parcel C (55083.90421
The west 110.00 feet of the South 303.00 feet of the West Half of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R.
45 EWM, in the County of Spokane, State of Washington.
•
M
7QGETHER WITH a pQrtion of the Svuth I--lalf of the Sauthwest Quarter of S. 8,
T. 25 N., R. 45 EV11M, County of Spokane, State of Washington, more particularly
described as fvllvws:
Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the West Half of the Sautheast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 8 and the northerly right of way
line of Mission Awenue, thence N. 89° 56' 20" W. along said nartherly right of
way fine a distance of 12.00 teet; thence N. 01 ° 17" O+D" W. parallel with said
east lane a distance of 169,85 feet; fhence S. 890 56' 50" E. a distance of 12.00
feet ta said east line„ thence S. 0'! 1 17' 00" E. a distanGe of 169.85 feet to fhe
Point of Beginning.
3. The propvsal shall cc►mply with the Urban Resi+dential-? (UR-7) zone as
amended.
4 The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accardance within the
concept presented to the Hearing Body. Variatians, when appraved by the
Division Directorldesignee, may be permitted, ineluding, but not limited tv
building locativn, landscape prans arrd general allowabte uses of the permitted
zone. All variations must conform tv regulations set fvrth in the•Spokane Cvunty
Zvning Ordinance, and the original intent of the development pfans shall be
maintained.
.
5. The Spokane County Division of Buifding & Plannung shall prepare and recvrd
with the County Auditor a Title Notice specifying a future land acquisition area fvr
road righf-of-way and utifities. The reserved future acquisitEan area Title hlotice
shall be released, in full or in part, by the Division of Suilding & F'lanning, The
natice should be recorded within the same time frame as an appeal and shall
provide the fallowing:
a. At feast 13 feet of reserved tuture acquisitivn area for road rrght-of-way and
utilities, in addbtion to the existing andfor newly dedicated rightFot-way along
Missiorr Avenue. NUTE: The Courrty Engineer has required 7 feet of new
dedication on Missian Avenue.
b. Future building and ather setbacks required by the Spokane Gaunty Zoning
Code shall be measured from the reserved fu#ure acquisitivn area.
c. No required landscaping, parking, '208' areas, drainfeld or allowed signs
should be located within the future acquisi#ion area for raad right-af-way
and utilities. If any of #he abave improvements are rnade within this area,
they shall be relocafed at the aRplicant's expense when roadway
irnprovements are made.
d. The future acquisition area, until acquired, sha11 be private property and
may be used as allowed in the zone, except that any improvements (such
as fandsGaping, parking, surface drainage, drainfield, signs or others) shall
be considered interim uses.
~ ti ►
e. The property awner shall be responsible fvr relocating such "in#erim"
improvements at the time Spakane County makes rvadway imprvvemen#s
after acquiring said future acqu+sition area.
6. The DiUision of Building & Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane
Cvunty Auditvr a 7itle Notice noting that the property in question is sub}ect tv a
variety of speciae conditivns imposed as a result of approval of a land use action.
This Title Natice shall senre as public nvtice of the conditians of approual
affecting the praperty in question. The Title Natice should be recorded within the
same time ft'ame as allowed fvr an appeal and shall only be released, in fuil or in
part, by the Divisian of Building & Planning. The Title tVot`rce shail generalfy
provide as fvllows:
The parcef of prop+erty Eegally described as Parcel A t55083.90431
The West Half of the Sautheast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of #he
Sou#hwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 E1NM, in the Cvunty of Spokane,
Sta#e of Washingtvn.
EXCEPT #he Wes# 110.00 feet of #he Sou#h 303,00 feet thereof;
TOGETHER wi#h the Northeast Quarter of the Suutheast Quarter of the
Sou#hwest Quar#er of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, in the Caunty of Spakane,
State of Vllash i n gtvn,
Parcel B (55083.9012) The East Half of #he Southeast Quarter o€ the Sou#heast Quarter of the
Sauthwest Quarter of S. 8, Township 25 N., Range 45 EWM, in the County
of Spakane, State of Washingtnn.
Parcel C (55083.9042)
The west 110.00 feet of the Sauth 303.00 feet of the 1Nesf Half of the
5outheas# Quar#er of the Southeast Quarter of the Sau#hwest Quarter of S.
T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, in the Coun#y of 5pokane, S#ate of Washingfon.
TOGETHER WITM a partivn of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of
S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 EINM, Caunty of Spakane, State of 1Nashington, more
particularfy described as fallews.
Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the We$t Ha1f of the
Southeast Quarter of the Sauthwest Quarter of said Seetion 8 and the
northerly right of way line of Mission Avenue, thence N. 890 56' 20" W.
along said nvrtherly right of way tine a distance o# 12.00 feet; thence N.
010 17' 00" W. parallel with said east line a distance of 169.85 feet; thence
S. 89° 56' 50" E. ar distance of 12.00 feet t4 said east line, thence S. 010 17'
.
i 'w ►
. 00" E. a distance af 169.85 fee# to the Paint of Beginning is the subject of a
land use activn by a Spokane Gounty Hearing Examiner on Nlarch 25, 19g8
imp4sing a variefiy of special der►elopment cvnditions. File No. ZE-56-96 is
availabte for inspectian and cvpying in #he Spakane County Divisivn of
Building & Planning,
7. Prior to release of building permits, the sponsor shall submit a final Manufactured
Home Park design plan ta the Divisivn of Building & Planning which
demonstrates campIiance with (a) the Manufactured Hame Parks Development
Standards of Chapter 14.808 of the Zoning Code for Spokane Caunty and (b) all
Hearing Examiner conditions of approaal.
Direct Iight from any exterior area lighting fxture shall not extend over the
property boundary.
9. Aspecifc landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance
acceptable ta the Division Directorldesignee shail be submitted with a
perforrnance band far the paraject prior to release of building pezmits.
Landscaping shall be instalted and maintained sa that sight distance at access
poznts is nat obscured vr impaixed.
e \41,;~-- ~
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
_ "~~,GINEER' S CONDITIONS OF ~,.~VAL_" . ZONE
TO Spokane County Planning Department
FROM Division of Engineering & Road<?,' 46\'
DATE March 11, 1998
PROJECT: UR-7 MISSION MEADOWS MFG HOME PK
FILE ZE-0056-96 (NII3P-4-96) /
Hearing 03/25/1998 @ 1:30 #1
Review Date 01/20/1998 D OF C(O1/15/1997) Q#
Sponsor/Applicant RICHARD MASON
Section Township Range 08-25-45
Planner LOUIS WEBSTER
Technical Review Date ( @ )
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved
Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed:
Prior to issuance of a building permit or at the request of the County
Engineer in conjunction with a County Road Pro3ect/Road Improvement
District, whichever comes first
1 Applicant shall dedicate 7 feet on Mission Avenue for right of way
2 Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be
obtained from the County Engineer
3 Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer
road, drainage and access plans.
4 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Spokane County Engineer The design, location and
arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard
engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County
Engineer will be required for any portion of the project which is to
be occupied or traveled by vehicles
5 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be
accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer
CC Applicant RICHARD MASON
Engineer/Surveyor PATRICK MOORE
Planner LOUIS WEBSTER
Kimball, Sancly
From Hemmings, Bill
Sent Wednesday, March 04, 1998 9 24 AM
To Shaw, Francine
Cc Engelhard, Scott, Pederson, John, Harper, Pat, Kimball, Sandy, Franz, Dean
Subject ZE-56-96 - Bill & Arlene Colyar - MHP-4-96
3-4-98
I received the above referenced application on March 3, 1998
This project lies in an area of approved soils so no concept drainage plan is required
I have no knowledge of any critical areas on this site
I consider this application to be technically complete
I recommend using the standard drainage condition
ea ~
Page 1
PAGE 1 tr12 Ol 37 23 DEC 1996
Road# Road Names. MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info
03042 MISSION AV (START) 00 000 FANCHER FRONTAGE RD U 17 PAVED 20
MISSION AV 00 490 THIERMAN ST (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00 620 BR.ADLEY RD ( END ) U 17 PAVED 20
00.770 LILY RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00 930 BOWMAN RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00 990 PARK RD U 17 PAVED 20
Ol 110 CENTER RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
01 130 CENTER RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
Ol 230 ELLA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
01.270 ELLA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
Ol 290 ELTON RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
MISSION AV (END) Ol 510 VISTA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
03043 MISSION AV (STAR.T) 00 000 VISTA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
MISSION AV 00 120 BESSIE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
00 250 SAR.GENT RD U 17 PAVED 22
00 310 MARGUERITE RD U 17 PAVED 22
00 370 MARGUERITE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
00 500 ARGONNE RD (ONE WAY U 16 PAVED 44
00 560 MULLAN RD (ONE WAY N U 16 PAVED 44
00 660 WILLOW RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
00 760 LOCUST RD U 16 PAVED 36
00 900 FARR RD U 16 PAVED 36
Ol 010 WOODRUFF RD U 16 PAVED 36
01 140 HER.ALD RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01 260 FELTS RD U 16 PAVED 36
01 390 R.AYMOND RD ( START ) U 16 PAVED 36
01 410 OBERLIN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01 500 UNIVERSITY RD U 16 PAVED 36
Ol 670 GLENN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01 750 PIERCE RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01 950 WOODWAR.D RD ( END ) U 16 PAVED 36
02 020 BOWDISH RD U 16 PAVED 36
02 060 BATES RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
02 140 WILBUR RD U 16 PAVED 36
02 290 UNION RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
02 510 SR-27 (PINES RD) U 16 PAVED 50
02 650 HOUK RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
02 720 HOUK RD (START) U 16 PAVED 50
02 760 VERCLER RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
02 900 WOODLAWN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
03 030 MCDONALD RD (END) U 16 PAVED 20
03 280 BLAKE RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
03 400 MAMER RD U 16 PAVED 22
03 520 EVERGREEN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
03 650 BOLIVAR RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
03 790 BEST RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
03 880 REES CT (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04 050 ADAMS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04 130 MARCUS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04 170 BURNS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04 320 PROGRESS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04 380 ST CHARLES RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.540 CATALDO AV (END) U 16 PAVED 22
MISSION AV (END) 04 590 SULLIVAN RD
03045 MISSION AV (START) 00 000 WEST END TO FLORA RD U 19 GR.AVEL 20
MISSION AV 00 280 FLORA RD U 19 GR.AVEL 20
<< t l PAGE 2 ' 12 01 39 23 DEC 1995
Road# Road Names . MPost Reference Descriptio Road Log Infa
MISSION AVE 00 430 ARC ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
MISSIOIV AV 00 770 LONG RD U 17 LIGH°I' BITUM 20
00 870 ARTIES ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
Ol 030 GREENACRES RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
Ol 270 BARKER RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM 20
Ol 670 GRADY RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
Ol 730 HODGES RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
01 790 ALADD I1V RD ( ENL} ) U 17 L I GHT B I TUM 18
01 850 CAVALIER RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
02 050 HOLL RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
02 160 GLENBROOK RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM 18
M I S S I ON AV ( EIVD ) 03 260 HARVARD RD { START } R 08 GRAVEL 30
03046 MISSION AV (START) 00 000 COUNTRY VISTA DR R OS PAVED 50
MISSI(7N AVE (END) 00 220 SIGNAL RD (END) R 08 PAVED 50
MISSION AV 00 470 HOMESTEAD DR (END) R 08 LIGHT BITUM 22
00 790 MOLTER RD (LIBERTY L R 09 LIGHT BITUM 25
01 300 SIMP50N RD {LIBERTY R 09 LIGHT BITUM 26
MISSION AV (END) 03 100 IDAHO RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM 26
03047 MISSION RD (START) 00 000 LINCOLN COUNTY LI1VE R 09 GRAVEL 18
MISSIOPT RD 00 570 RR TRACKS R 09 GRADED/DRAINED 10
MISSIUN RD (END) Ol 030 STFtOUP RD R 09 GRADED/DRAINED 10
03049 MISSION RD (START) 00 000 FLINT RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM 22
MISSI4N RD 00 500 OLD TRAILS RD (START R 09 GRAVEL 20
01 060 DE.NO RD (START ) R 09 GRAVEL 20
M I S S I ON RD (END ) 02 150 GROVE RD R 09 GRAVEL 20
03048 MISSION RD (START) 00 000 WOOD RD R 09 GRAVEL 12
MISSION RD (END) Ol 000 RITCHEY RD (ST.ART) R 09 GRAVEL 12
7 Records Pracessed
Traf f ic Co'unts, , Road Name . Location Leg Count
MISSION AV at PARK RD E 2140
MISSION AV at PARK RD W 3191
MISSION AV 55 ft E of ARGONNE RD (ONE W E 5741
MISSION AV 55 ft E of ARGONNE RD (ONE W W 7513
MISSION AV 55 ft E of MULLAN RD (ONE WA E 7764
MISSION AV 105 ft E of UNIVERSITY RD E 7113
MISSION AV 105 ft E of UNIVERSITY RD W 7513
MISSION AV at BOWDISH RD E 7794
MISSION AV at BOWDISH RD W 7988
MISSION AV at SR-27 (PINES RD) E 12948
MISSION AV at SR-27 (PINES RD) W 8176
MISSION AV at MCDONALD RD (END) E 8682
MISSION AV at MCDONALD RD (END) W 11838
MISSION AV at EVERGREEN RD (END) E 6604
MISSION AV at EVERGREEN RD (END) W 7272
MISSION AV 55 ft W of ADAMS RD (END) E 5172
MISSION AV 55 ft W of ADAMS RD (END) W 5240
MISSION AV 105 ft E of FLORA RD E 612
MISSION AV 105 ft E of FLORA RD W 108
MISSION AV at BARKER RD E 1586
MISSION AV at BARKER RD W 2082
MISSION AV at MOLTER RD (LIBERTY LAKE) E 244
MISSION AV at MOLTER RD (LIBERTY LAKE) W 981
MISSION AV (END) at SULLIVAN RD W 3451
M I S S I ON AV ( END ) 105 f t a f t e r HARVARD RD ( S TA W 625
MISSION AV (START) at VISTA RD (END) E 2032
MISSION AV (START) at COUNTRY VISTA DR E 3713
MISSION RD at RR TRACKS E 12
MISSION RD (END) at GROVE RD W 56
MISSION RD (START) at WOOD RD E 27
~ Traffic Counts
Road Name Location Leg Count
MISSION AV at PARK RD E 2711
MISSION AV at PARK RD W 3342
MISSION AV at A.RGONNE RD (ONE WAY SOUTH E 9167
MISSION AV at ARGONNE RD (ONE WAY SOUTH W 8738
MI S S I ON AV at MULL.AN RD (ONE WAY NQRTH ) E 12 012
MISSION AV at UNIV'ERSITY RD E 10319
MISSION .AV at UNIVERSITY RD W 9338
MISSION AV at BOWDISH RD E 12031
MISSION AV at BOWDTSH RD W 8712
MISSION AV at SR-27 (PINES RD) E 15135
MISSION AV at SR-27 {PINES RD} W 9669
MISSION AV at MCDONALD RD (END) E 10765
MISSION AV at MCDONALD RD (END) W 12914
MISSION AV at EVERGREEN RD (END) E 7466
MISSION AV at EVERGREEN RD (END) W 8597
MISSION AV at ADAMS RD (END) E 8789
MISSION AV at ADAMS RD (END) W 7917
MISSION AV at FLORA RD E 1621
MISSION AV at FLORA RD W 108
MISSION AV at BARKER RD E 1932
MISSION AV at BARKER RD W 2705
MISSION AV at MOLTER RD (LIBERTY LAKE) E 520
MISSION AV at MOLTER RD (LIBERTY LAKE) W 1985
MISSION AV (END) at SULLIVAN R17 W 6737
MISSION AV (END) at HARVARD RD (START) W 339
M I S S I ON AV (S TART ) a t FANCHER FRONTAGE RD (END ) E 1541
MISSION AV (START) at VISTA RD (END) E 2891
MISSION AV (START) at COUNTRY VISTA DR N 1624
MISSION RD at RR TRACKS E 2
MISSION RD (END) at GROVE RD W 56
MISSION RD (START) at WQcJD RD E 27
Traffic Counts "
Road Name Locatlon Leg Count
BARKER RD at STH AV N 1971
BARKER RD at 8TH AV S 1812
BARKER RD at SPRAGUE AV N 4279
BARKER RD at SPRAGUE AV S 3571
BARKER RD at APPLEWAY AV N 9280
BARKER RD at APPLEWAY AV S 7983
BARKER RD 105 ft N of I 90 OVERPASS N 13242
BARKER RD 105 ft N of I 90 OVERPASS S 9734
BARKER RD at MISSION AV N 10762
BARKER RD at MISSION AV S 10649
BARKER RD at EUCLID AV (START) N 5853
BARKER RD at EUCLID AV (START) S 8536
BARKER RD ( END ) at SR 290 ( TRENT ) S 5359
BAR.KER RD ( S TART ) a t 3 2 ND AV N 1735
,
V RECEIVED
~
t - Washgngtpg~ S$at@► Eastern Region
~ s, ,1
~ Depa0"tB'1'1eB'tt Of TB'anSpO~'tatAOQ9 2714 N May~air StrRE C 2 2 1997
Spokane WA 99207 2090
Sid Morrison ~POKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
Secretary ot i ansportation (509) 324 600
December 19, 1997
Mr Louis Webster
Spokane County Planmng
1026 West Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA 99260
RE 1Viission Meadows Development
Dear Mr VVebster
The Wastungton State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has received IPEC's
November 7, 1997, letter concerrung the addendum to the 1Vlission Meadows Traffic
Impact Analysis We accept the conclusion drawn within that letter that project generated
negative traffic unpacts would be adequately offset by the construction of a southbound
nght turn lane on Barker Rd at the North I-90 ramps and a northbound nght turn lane on
Barker at SR 290 0
We ask that these above unprovements, wluch are recogrvzed in the IPEC November 7,h
addendum, be rnitigating measures for this development and that they be included in the
SEPA deternunation for this project The following language descnbes the needed
rrutigation
1 The appliccmt/owner shall design and construct to WSDOT and Spokane Cou»ty
standards a) a right turn lane for southbound Barker traffic at the Westbound
Barker/I-90 Ramps b) a right turn lane for northbound Barker traffic at the
Barker/Trent Ave intersection These improvements will need to r»clude all related
rtems necessary to construct these lcmes
2 The above mrtrgatron will require the applicant/owner to prepare de.sign/construction
plans acceptable to WSDOT and Spokacne County, enter into a developers agreement
for the constructron of the above rmprovements, and enter into a WSDOT agreement
to pay for plcm review, construchon inspection, and admtnisirative costs All of these
need to be completed prior to the rssuance of cmy burldrng permits for this site
0
. Mr Webster '
; December 19, 1997 ,
Page 2
If you have any questions cancerning these comments, please contact either Greg Figg or
myself in our Development Services Office at (509) 324-6199(7)
Sincerely,
,
~
,
~
KEITH L NiARTIN, P E ,
Development Services Engrneer ,
GF/MA.
cc Tun Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineerung
Wat Harper,,-Y-Spaka-he,,sCounty ~Engineers i
Project File ~ JT i
Harper, Pat
From Harper, Pat
Sent Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10 19 AM
To Webster, Louis
Subject Technical complete review for ZE 56-96
A traffic study has been done and accepted by Spokane County Engineering Spokane County Transportation
Engineering considers this proposal to be Technically Complete provided that an MDNS is to be issued for this
proposal mitigating off-site impacts to the transportation system
Pat
Page 1
a Harper, Pat
From Harper, Pat
Sent Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10 19 AM
To Webster, Louis
Subject Technical complete review for ZE 56-96
A traffic study has been done and accepted by Spokane County Engineering Spokane County Transportation
Engineenng considers this proposal to be Technically Complete provided that an MDNS is to be issued for this
proposal, mitigafing off-site impacts to the transportation system
Pat
Page 1
~
WashOng$pn State Eastern Region
~~~~art8'~ent Of Tran'SpOrtatao19 2714 N Mayfair Street
Sid AAorrison Spokane, WA 99207-2090
Secretary of Transportation (509) 324-6000
,
. ,
October 27, 1997
;
1Vir Louis Webster 0vT 2~ 1997 Spokane County Planning '
West 1026 Broadway Avenue _ S?CwAEyC COUNTY ENGINEER ~
~
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
Re NLssion Meadows
Dear Mr Webster
On September 30'hboth WSDOT and Spokane County Engineers met with the apphcant to
discuss the traffic impacts associated with the above development Based on this meeting, it is
our understanding that the applicant wnll be investigating alternate means of mitigation for the
development proposal along with modifying the existing traffic analysis to reflect these
changes As a result, WSDOT cannot adequately comment on the existing traffic information
until this supplemental uiformation is received This information is expected tlus vveek fi-orri
Inland Pacific Engineenrig
Due to the above, we ask that any environmental determinations not be made until this
uiformation can be reviewed and the necessary rrutigating measures deternuned
If you have any questions regarding the above please feel free to contact either Ynyself or
Keith Martin in our Regional Planrung Office at 324-6199 or 324-6197
Sincerely,
KEITH MARTIN, P E
Developer Sernces Engineer
~
By Greg Figg
Transportation Planner
cc Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
Tun Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineenng
Proj ect File
0
r
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 17, 1997
~
TO. Pat Harper
CC: Louis Webster, Spokane County Pianning
Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
FROAA: Steve Stairs I IIII
SU BJ ECT: $POKiMCOLKff
' ".~~~~t o i ; ~ ~ ' , i _ _ ~~►~'~a~~~~'~`
I have reviewed the above referenced traffic study and have found the information reported to
be complete While there are some errors in turn movement volumes shown in the various
figures, they should not affect the conclusions and recommendations reported
One item that I do wish to have revised is the site generated volumes shown in Figures 8, 9, 10
and 11 The northbound volumes shown between the Indiana/Barker and Trent/Barker
intersections do not match These figures should be corrected and forwarded to all recipients of
the report so that future studies may incorporate the correct site generated volumes if needed I
request that IPEC provide these corrected site generated trip figures prior to acceptance of this
study Once received and reviewed, I will forward another memorandum accepting the report
Lastly, I have some concern for the intersection of Mission and Barker This report proposes
adding five dedicated turn lanes (NBL, NBR, SBL, SBR & WBL) at this intersection throughout
the progress of this proJect resulting in a build-out LOS of `E' with 43 8 seconds of delay (>45
seconds results in LOS 'F') It believe that even if these lanes could be accommodated in the
existing right of way, it would be aesthetically unappealing and possibly result in an increase in
the accident potential due to the unusual stop controlled configuration If signal warrants are
expected to be met at the completion of the IVlission Meadows proJect, I would suggest using the
funding associated with the turn lanes and applying them to a signal which would greatly
improve the capacity at build-out
If you have any questions concerning the review of this traffic study, please feel free to bring
them to my attention
.
MEMORANDUM
DA►TE: September 17, 1997
~
TO: Pat Harper
CC: Louis Webster, Spokane County Planning
Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT k~l
" FROM: Steve Stairs ~`~S ~
SpaKof Cowy
SUBJECT: Revised Mission Meadows Traffic Impact Analysis for ZE56-96
I have reviewed the above referenced traffic study and have found the information reported to
be complete While there are some errors in turn movement volumes shown in the various
figures, they should not affect the conclusions and recommendations reported
One item that I do wish 4o have revised is the site generated volumes shown in Figures 8, 9, 10
and 11 The northbound volumes shown between the Indiana/Barker and TrenUBarker
intersections do not match These figures should be corrected and forwarded to all recipients of
the report so that future studies may incorporate the correct site generated volumes if needed I
request that IPEC provide these corrected site generated trip figures prior to acceptance of this
study Once received and reviewed, I will fonNard another memorandum accepting the report
Lastly, I have some concern for the intersection of Mission and Barker This report proposes,
adding five dedicated turn lanes (NBL, NBR, SBL, SBR & WBL) at this intersection throughout
the progress of this proJect resulting in a build-out LOS of `E' with 43 8 seconds of delay (>45
seconds results in LOS `F') lt believe that even if these lanes could be accommodated in the
existing right of way, it would be aesthetically unappealing and possibly result in an increase in
the accident potential due to the unusual stop controlled configuration If signal warrants are
expected to be met at the completion of the IVlission Meadows proJect, I wouid suggest using the
funding associated with the turn lanes and applying them to a signal which would greatiy
improve the capacity at build-out
If you have any questions concerning the review of this traffic study, please feel free to bring
them to my attention
i
/
Q, ' •
~
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 21, 1997 ~
TO: Pat Harper (SWA "A%
CC: Mark Rohwer, WSDOT Ann Winkler, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc.
FROM: Steve Stai 2P S
SUBJECT: Mission Meadows Traffic Impact Analysis spmmcomy
I have reviewed the above referenced traffic study and have noted the following comments:
1. Table 3 on page 15 shows background project build-out and the number of background
project units expected to be completed upon completion of the Mission Meadows project.
It appears that only the number of background units expected to be completed at the
completion of Mission Meadows, year 2001, was included in the background traffic
voiumes. Given there is a finite capacity for the roadway system and that the background
prujects are committed to use some portion or all of that capacity, the background build-out
volumes must be used. We cannot allow quicker constructed projects to undercut the
larger, longer constructed project's capacity requirements. This is the same problem that
has been identified for Turtle Creek South and all of the other projects in this area.
2. Of the background projects listed in Table 3, it appears the Edwards Cataldo
Industrial/Commercial Park is not included in this report. According to my notes of the
scoping meeting held November 5, 1996, it was agreed that the projects in the Barker
Road Corridor Study and everything up to and including Turtle Creek South would be
included in the background traffic.
3. The report states Indiana Ave. will be the primary access for the site with emergency
access via Mission Ave. It goes on further to explain that after Mission Ave. east of the
project has been paved, the access roles to the site will be reversed; Mission Ave. will be
the primary access and Indiana Ave. the emergency access. Should this Nroposal not be
adhered to, and a general use access be provided to Mission Ave. prior to the paving of
Mission Ave., the sponsors of the Mission Meadows project should be responsibfe for the
paving of Mission to help protect air quality.
4. The length of time analyzed field in the HCS software should be 60 minutes. This value is
important in the delay calculations of equation 10-11 of the Highway Capacity Manual.
Using the peak hour, 60 minute time period, in the delay calculations shows Mission Ave
and Barker Rd with a level of service of 'F' for the pm peak hour with both access options.
Furthermore, if the Edwards Cataldo Industrial/Commercial project traffic through this
intersection is added, the LOS degrades even further into `F' for both scenarios.
c
f
I ~ lk
1
I f
5 A figure and/or table showing the distribution of background project trips should have been
provided in the study
6 The peak hour factor for Barker Rd and EB ramp terminals is 0 82 for the existing AM
analysis and 0 93 for all subsequent AM analyses No explanation for the change was
given in the report In addition, an EBR lane was added to this intersection alvng with the
signalization, but no discussion of these changes were provided
7 It appears from the discussion on page 9, thaf not all of the intersections were observed far
turning movement counts If ali vf the study area intersections were not physically caunted,
a methodology describing how the remaining volumes inrere extrapolated and how any
adjustments to existing turn movement counts were made shouid have been provided
I wou{d request that these comments be addressed by IPEC before~this study is accepted if
you have any questions regarding the review of this traffic study please feel free tn see me
2
~
P
R E C~:Y~~
• a • ~ ~ t
JAN 1 7 1996
WaSh06'Dg$On S$ate tern Regeon
De~ea~'$A~9e~9t Off T9'anSpO~'ta$B009SPOKANE COUNTY EP1GiN, r , Q t;/rair Stree
0~,~ 5~ r~ f
Sid Morrison 5 p oKcr.. Y! A 9 9 2 0 i 2 0Q
r G~
Secretary or Transoortation (509) --2- 0000
January 15, 1997
Mr Lewis Webster
Spokane County Planrung
1026 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
Re I-90Barker Road
NLssion Meadows Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Nir Pederson
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDO`l`) has completed its review
of the traffic unpact analysis for the above referenced development We would ask that the
applicant make the necessary revisions ui order to address the issues presented below To
ensure that the impacts this development will have on the surrounding transportation
system are fully addressed, these issues need to be addressed pnor to a SEPA
deternunation being rendered
1 The Level Of Service (LOS) calculations in the Techiucal Appendix for the intersection
of Barker Road and the westbound off-ramps show northbound and southbound left
turn lanes on Barker Road These left turn lanes have not currently been funded by
WSDOT, and they are necessary in order to maintain an acceptable LOS at this
intersection Therefore, the IViission Meadows developer will need to provide funds for
the construction of these left turn lanes, or (if the situation anses) the 1VLssion
Meadows developer will need to participate vvith other area developers to fund these
left turn lanes
2 Participating in the construction of a signal at the Barker Road/WB ramps is suggested
on page 6 of the TIA as rrutigation The funding of this signal has already been
estabhshed
3 Table 4, page 16, of the TIA contains the tng genPration rates that were used for
Nlission Meadows The rates vvithin tlus table are for the peak hour of the adjacent
street traffic As this TIA should provide the worst case scenano for future traffic, the
tnp generation rate for the peak hour of the generator should be used
4 According to Appendix D of the Morningside Heights EIS there will be an access point
between the Morrungside Heights development and Barker Road regardless of any
connection of Chapman Road to Barker Road Appendix D also states that 60% of the
traffic to and from these homes vvill use Barker Road The 1VLssion Meadows traffic
study states on page 15 that no analysis of Morningside Heights (as a background
project) is necessary until the connection of Chapman Road and Barker Road is
completed Although no connection of Chapman Road to Barker Road has been
completed, Morrvngside Heights trafhc wnll utilize Barker Road Homes will be
r-.
Mr Webster } a
January 15, 1997
Page 2
constructed in Morrungside Heights even without the connectton of Chapman Road to
Barker Road, and a majonty of the resulting traffic will use Barker Road Tlvs
amounts to a substantial volume of additional background tra_ffic that the Turtle Creek
South tra.ffc study does not take into consideration IVlorning'side Heights must be
included as a background project -
5 The Hawkxns-Edwards industna.Ucommercial development is an approved pro,ect As
identified in a traffic study conducted for this development by Inland Pacific
Engineenng, this development is expected to have a significant i,mpact on the I-
90Barker Road interchange and must be included in this study as a background
develapment
6 The Meadow View Terrace develapment is Iisted in TabPe 3, page 15, as only having
10 1 uruts completed at the time of the build out of Mission Meadows, but a113 09 urvts
of the Meadow View Terrace will be approved if the development is approved
Because there is no way of accurately predicting the actual number of urvts likely to be
bu11t by 2001 and because th.is TIA should portray the worst case scenano, all of the
uruts in each of the background develQpments must be included for the purposes of
background tnp generation
7 The Turtle Creek South TIA has the same background projects as this TIA, but the
background volumes in this TIA are lower Please explain why the tnp distnbution or
generation for the same background projects would change from one study to another
or correct the lower volumes contamed in the M.ission Meadows TIA
8 WSDOT would request that IFEC prvvlde a detailed descnption of the tnp distnbution
that was used for the back,ground projects llsted tn this study
Based upon the uLformation presented in the Niission Meadows TIA and the information
presented in the Hawkans=Edwards traffic study the mitigation hsted below is necessary to
ensure that adequate transportation infrastructure is available to thls development We
would ask that the follow-ing measures be mcluded ur as mutigation in the SEPA process
The apphcant shall fund, design, and construct the followzng 2mprovements
* Northbound and southbound left turn channelization on Barker Road at the intersection
of the I-90 Westbound Ramps and Barker Road wrll be requued Due to the potential
of future developments in ttus area, a cost shanng opporturuty with subsequent
developments may become available for this left turn channelization
* The intersection of Trent(SR 290)Barker Road is L4S "F" with the existing
channelization and existing traffic volumes A westbound left turn acceleration lane on
Trent (SR 294) unll be necessary to reduee the number of conflicting movements that
the northbound left turners on Barker Road expenence wluch vvill result in an improved
LOS
. Mr Webster OW
• .
January 15, 1997
Page 3
If you should have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact
Greg Figg or myself in our Planrung Office at 324-6199
Sincerely,
~
ROHWER
Acting Regional Planning Engineer
MR gjb
cc Ann Winkler, Inland Pacific Engineenng
Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
Steve Stairs, Spokane County Engineers
Project file
♦ ~ ~I
! • ~i
INLAND PACIFlC ENGINEERING, INC. ~I
W.O. No. 96072 RECEIVED
SEP Z 5 1997
Pat Harper
Spokane County Engineering SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
RE: Misson Meadows - Response to Memo on Revised TIA from Spokane Couot\ ,
Dear Pat : ~
The following letter is in response to comments made in a memo to you from Steve Stairs dated
September 17, 1997 regarding the Mission Meadows project. The following is a summary of what was
requested or commented on and our response:
• The northbound volumes for the site generated traffic, figures 8, 9, 10, and I1 do not match
betweem the Barker & Indiana intersection and the Barker & Trent intersection.
As detailed on page 20, 2nd paragraph of the revised report, a portion of the trips on Barker north
of Indiana Avenue will use Euclid Avenue to go to/come from Sullivan Avenue and the Spokane
Industrial/Business Park and mall areas. I have marked up and enclosed a copy of figu►-cs R- 1 l
showing the site generated turning volumes at the Euclid Ave./Barker Road intersectioll
• A signal at the Mission Avenue/Barker Road intersecrion may be more desireable than several turn
lanes. The suggestion was made to use the funding associated with the turn lanes toward the
installation of a signal at rhis intersection.
I performed a level of service calculation using a signal with only one lane for each approach. The
level of service anticipated for the PM peak hour in the buildout year, 2003 with the Mission
Avenue entrance to the proposed project is LOS B. Enclosed is a copy of the HCS calculation.
I trust that all outstanding issues are now addressed. Please give me a call if you have any question
regarding this project.
Sincerely,
~~4 d- -3 C"
Timothy A. Schwab, P.E.
TAS/tas
cc: Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
Lewis Webster, Spokane Co. Planning
Steve Stairs, Spokane Co. Engineering
Bill Colyar
Richard Mason
707 West 7th • Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205
Spokane, WA 99204 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
509-458-6840 • FAX: 509-458-6844 208-765-7784 • FAX: 208-769-7277
.
294
R~N~ P
~
N ° `-t 04
Fvr%-iqE AvEl ~ o
ir
W
~ Of ~13
, m 29
I D IANA AVEIV UE
~
~ INDIANA •
cAV ' ' '
~ , . . ' .
. .
.
. .
:
. . . .
~
. :
. ~ ~ .
, .
e•
.
a ; •
.
.
.
MISSION AVENUE
010
2-P~ b
4
~
. _ . r. t - CATALDE? - - -
- go~
~
04 go
s
4
~
i
~
` NOT TO SCALE J
. . 1 • . . . ~ . . . . . . , .
♦ I NLAND 1 ~ FIGURE 8 MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC AM'BUILDOUT
ENQINEERINQ SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 wet 7th • suite Zoo (Ws) 4.ss-6e40 TRAFFIC Vp LUME PROJECT N0. 96072
~Spokane. W~1 99204 FAx: 4~-~~~ \ INDIANA ENTRANC J=\ ~
~
290
REN" P
~ .
~ Q 5-,~F Ih ~ 2
CL)GL,n~ At/f-. o<
~
't- v w ~
Y ~
y Q
i m ? 20
INDIANA AVENUE
N
n ~
.
- INDIANA P~
, •
~ ~ •
. .
~ _ .
,
. . .
. .
.
. ,
.
. .
.
.
MISSION AVENUE
:2
~
~b
9J,
Q
a
^ . _ .
CATALD4- ~
90
ow~
I
~m
z,c::P
bb _ 4
N
~
~ NOT TO SCALE ~
~ ~ ,
/ ' I NLAND \ FlGURE 9 MISSION MEADOWS 1
rior. PACIFIC ' .BUILDDUT
ENCIINF.ERINQ SITE GENERATED TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7th • suita zoo (5509) 4.5s-6840 TRAFFIC VOLUMES- PROJECT N0. 96072
\sIX*qn-s. WA 99204 FAX: (5os) 458-6844;f \ INDIANA Ef4 AN . / - \4,,
. . ~
i '
/ . ' I ~
/ •
~ 294
EN~ P
~R
N
EvGL i DE A~E O
I ~
w ~
Y ~
Q
► m
~ n
INDIANA AVENUE
^
INDIANA
,
~ ~ .
.
. .
.
' ~13 . .
~ •
.
~ 21 ~ , • .
.
.
. ~
m
:
.
MISSION AVENUE •
A N
4
~
CATALD G ~ -
~ . . ~
- - ~ -
90
I
N
5
-P
4
~
i
NOT TO SCALE "o/
~
INLAND FlGURE 10 1 ~ MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC BUILDOUT ~
ENGIINEERINQ SITE GENERATED TRAFF1C IMPACT ANALY'SiS
707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-4840 ~ AFFIC ~N
~ LU PROJECT N0. 96072 SPoicqM. YVA 99204 FAX: (549) 458-6844 nr ISjQ~1 T~A~~ \
/
~ - . \
. •
290
~
~ C) Sc;kr a p f z
~ Q
0
w
"7(if +
w ^
, m
~ INDIANA AVENUE Q
0
INDIANA
~
~ ; ~ . •
. . ~ .
~ .
. . •
, ~ .
14 ~ ' • •
.
.
0 , ' •
r~ • .
.
.
. ~
MISSION AVENUE
M
4
el
N
- ` t CATALDO
90 I
z,~ .
4
N
a
~ NOT TO SCALE ~
I NLAND 1~ FlGURE 11 MISSION MfADOWS ~
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HQUR
ENGINEERINCi SITE GENERATED TRAFFic iMPACT ANALYSis
707 west 7tin • suic. 200 (sos) 458-6840 TRAFFI C VO LU M ES pROJECT No. 96072
\ Spokana, WA 99204 FAx: (509) 458-ss,-~ ~ M I S S I 0 N E N T RAN C E J~ /
. •
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY VersiBn 2.4c 09-24-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Mission Avenue (N-S) Barker Road
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAMIPBWM.HC9
Area Type: Other 9-24-97 PM Peak'
Comment: Buildout (2003) With Project, Misson Access
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < > 1 < > 1 <
Volumes 22 8 47 111 10 34 7 224 34 14 507 31
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y; N) N (Y/N) Y 8.5 s(Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 15.OA Green 35.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0 Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combinat:_.on order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 377 1331 0.212 0.283 10.6 B 10.6 B
WB LTR 374 1319 0.466 0.283 12.2 B 12.2 B
NB LTR 974 1580 0.271 0.617 3.5 A 3.5 A
SB LTR 1009 1637 0.579 0.617 5.0 A 5.0 A
Intersection Delay = 6.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.543
RECE VED
MAR 0 2 )998
~
~ SPOKANE COUMYENGI
NEER
s P O K A. N E O U N T
RUIT.DINC AND PLANNING • A DNISION OF THE PURLIC WORKS DEPARTMF.N'l
['Nj1:11OIZ_1:tii)l'NI
TU: Spokaiie County Division of Engineerin~;; Pat 1larpc.-
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby
Spokane County Division of Building and Planning; Jeff Forr"
Stormwater Utility; I3renda Sims
Development Engineering Services; Bill Hemmings.
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Autliority
Long Range Planning Division; John Mercer
rire Protection District No. 1
Central Valley School District No. 356
Consolidated irrigation District No. 19
Spokane County Boundary Review Board; Susan Winchell
Spokane County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair; Steve Horobiowski
Spokane Regional Transportation Council; Glenn Miles
Spokane Transit Authority; Christine Fueston
WA State Department of Transportation; Keith Martin
WA State Department of Ecology (Olympia)
FROM: Francine Sllaw, Seilior Planner--IJa-
DATE: March 2, 1998 •
SUBJECT: Review and comments for below listed file for the hearing of March 25, 1998 Please review and return any comments for tlle following files by March 11, 1998. If you liave any
comments regarding roads and circulation in your response, please forward that response also to the
Spokane County Engineer's Office. PleRSe forward your comments to ttie attention of ttie
assigned planner.
l. ZC-56-96/MHP-4-96
UR-3.5 to UR-7 w/MHP
Sec. 8-25-45
Sponsor: Bill & Arlene Colyar c/o IPEC
Assigned Planner: Louis Webster
1026 W1iST E3ROAUWAYAVr-NUC: • S('OKANF., WASHINGTON 99260
I't Iorvt:: (509) 456-3675 • Fnx: (509) 4564703
TDD: (509) 324-3166
. 7
~
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
November 14, 1996
N 0 V 15 1996
W.O. No. 96072
SPOKANE COUN7Y ENGINEER
John Pederson
Spokane County Planning
W. 1026 Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
RE: Scope of Traffic Impact Analysis for the Colyar Property
Dear John:
Our fum has been selected to do a traffic impact analysis for the Colyar Property. It is my
understanding based on a scoping meeting and subsequent conversations with Pat Harper, Steve
Stairs and Scott Englehart from Spokane County Engineers, and Mark Rohwer from WSDOT
that the scope of this traffic study would include AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses at the following intersections:
~ Barker Road & Trent Avenue (SR 290)
~ Barker Road & Indiana Avenue
• Barker Road & Mission Avenue
• North I-90 Ramp terminals & Barker RoadlCataldo
• South I-90 Ramp terminals & Barker Road
This project proposes to construct approximately 132 mobile home units on a parcel of land
!ocated be*-a~een M:~sion A~~enue and Tndi~.na A~~enue east of B~ker Road. ~rit~~Iy a~l rr~~
vehicles will Indiana Avenue to exit or enter the site with an emergency only access onto Mission
Avenue. However, in the future after Mission Avenue has been paved all the way through to
Harvard Road, the primary access point will be onto Mission Avenue with the access point at
Indiana Avenue serving only as an emergency access point.
If the trip distributions calculations and assumptions show that more than 5% of the traffic will
go through the ApplewayBarker Road intersection, this intersection will be added also.
The background projects identified for inclusion in this traffic study are R.iverwalk, Turtle Creek,
Meadovwiew Ranch Estates, Meadovwiew Terrace, the Good Samaritan expansion and Turtle
Creek South. Other traffic issues in the area which will be addressed are the non-site specific
traffic growth on the transportation system. Due to the large number of known traffic generators
in the area, the non-site specific growth rate will be modeled at 1% compounded per year to build
707 West 7th • Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Dri~e • Suite 205
Spokane, Wf1 99204 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
509-458-6840 • CAX: 509-458-6844 208-765-7784 9 FAX: 208-764-7277
~
.
. ~
Scape af TIA for Calyar Property
Nvvember 14,11996
Page 2
out. Build out of the background prvjects will be phased as was dQne before.
Althaugh the Barker Road Corridor Study has b+een used in the past, the document for the Colyar
Praperty will be a stand alone document. Trip generation and distribution eharacteristics of the
swrirraunding projeets will be obta.ined fram the Barker Road Corridvr Study, hvvvever, no further
use of the previaus document will be made.
If this scope is not curreci, piease let rine knvw.
Sincerely,
~ ~"~4z
Titnothy A. Schwab, P.E.
TASltas
encl. .
cc. Pat Harper, Cvunty Engineers
Mark Rohwer, WSDQT Planning
Dick Mason
,
. ~
~
b f T_~Ll.-~;~w~ ~
S Y C~ K A N E Y~~~~~~ ' C_ c~ 4~ ~ 9
BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DIVISION OFTHE PL E;f.1~ ~1't~Kfv 1AMts L. MAvSoN. C.B.O.. DtRFCroR DENNIs M. ScoT-r.1'.E.. DIr:rc7c)RI
DATE: JanLiary 7, 1998
TO: Spokane County Division of Engineering; Pat Harper
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
Spokane Regionai Health District; Steve Holderby
Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Steve Worley
Spokane County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair; Steve Horobiowski
WA State Department of Transportation; Mark Rowher
Spokane Regional Transportation Council; Glenn Miles
City of Spokane - Design Services Section; Angelo Bomben
City of Spokane Transportation; Lou Dobberstein
Spokane County Fire District No. 1
Spokane Transit Authority
Central Valley School District No. 356
Consolidated Irrigation District
.
FROi1: Louis Webster, AICP. Associate Planner A",
RE: Extension of Time for issuance of a Determination oi Compfeteness fcr
ZE-56-96/MHP-4-96; Mission Meadows Manufactured Home Park
The above referenced application was determined technically incomplete by the Divisie~:
of Building and Planning on January 15, 1997. Our records indicate the application is
due to expire on January 15, 1998. As provided for by Section .050 (Determination of
Completeness) of the Procedural Rules prepared to Implement ESHB-1724 (Resolution
No. 96-0293), the applicant has requested an extension of time for determining
technically complete status. In addition, a revised site plan has been submitted.
Primary access has changed to Mission Avenue and the proposed phasing has been
revised Please review the extension request and forward your comments to me by
January 20, 1998.
If you have any
456-3675,
kc
Enclusure(s'c: Inland
9920-',
Bill &
il..~~i~f~i G! , ~ .i~. •y .;J: 'r"
Laurie Grimes, Assistant Planning Director, Division of Building & 1026 WESr BxoADwAY AvENuE • SnoxANF, WAsHrrvc, i
Pliorrc: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (5(
TDD: (509) 324-3166
i
~
. J
I ~
l • '
y f[
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
RECE1VED
SPOKAIVE COUfV?°Y
December 11, 1997 DEC 12 1991
Spokane County Division of Buildi.ng and Planiung DIvISIQN OF6UIl.pINGAvp p~~iNG
1026 West Broadway Avenue BY
Spokane, Washington 99260
Attention Mr Louss Webster, Associate Planner
Re Techrucally Complete Status - Tune Extension for ZE-56-96 Nbssion
Meadows Manufactured Home Park
y
Dear Louis -
The onginal application for Mssion Meadows was submltted in December of
1996 We received staff comments in January and February of,1997 and
have been techrucally complete since that tune except for traffic related
issues County Engmeenng took issue vAth the findings of the 1Vlission
Meadows traffic analysis because of disagreements and rrusunderstandings
concernulg the background level of traffic that should be used in the analysis
for the Barker Road comdor In approaimately April 1997, we agreed wrth
the County that as part of theu responsibdiry as a regulator, the County
should establish the background level of traffic along the Barker Road
corridor to be used by all projects along the comdor In June of 1997, we
received the background uzformation from the County and proceeded to make
extensive revisions to the ongmal traffic analysis Our revised traffic analysis
was subnutted in August of 1997 for review and comment by the County and
the State Dunng October, November and December we have had several
meetings, prepared additlonal analysis, and had numerous telephone
conversations with the staff of both agencies to establish traffic nvtigations
acceptable to all parties At thls date, I believe that we have a"meetmg of
the nunds" vvith both the County and the State, and that we need only to
receive wntten conf~irmation from each of the agencies to be declared
techrucally complete Not knowulg whether of not you will be m receipt of
the required correspondence before the December 13, 1997 application
expiration date, and on behalf of Bill and Arlene Colyar, and based on the
707 West 7th - Suite 200 2020 Lal.e%%ood Dnve • Suite 205
Spokane WA 99204 Coeur d Alene 10 83814
509 458 6840 - fAX 509 458 6844 308 765 7784 • FAX 208 769 7277
43v~$S'ry +_rr-tt,'T'Rq
AP-h
.
_ • ,
Y
December 111, 1997
Page 2
steady and signicant progress made toward completion of the referenced
application, we request that the application expiration date be extended for a
period of six months to June 13, 1998
The Mission Meadows proposal has undergone minor changes as a result of
the review process The changes are
1 The onglnal proposal had Grady Road as the pnmary access via lndiana
Avenue to serve the first several phases of development until Mssion
Avenue was paved to the east, makmg a paved connection to Harvard
Road, after wluch, Mlssion Avenue would become the pnmary access
vvith Grady Road becomi.ng a normally closed emergency access only As
a result of proposed traffic nutigation's, Mlssion Avenue will now be the
prunary access from the begintung
2 As a result of the change u1 the pnmary access location outlined in # 1
above, the phasing has been revised
To reflect the changes descnbed, we have revised the Mission Meadows Site
Plan We are submltting rune full size copies and one reduced size copy of
the two sheet set for your use Tlus revlsed plan, vAth the latest revision date
of December 1997, should become the official Site Plan of record We are
avadable to answer any questions you may have and look forward to the
scheduling of a pubhc hearulg in the near future
Very truly yours,
Rlchard L AMason.- P
.
RLIVI/j il
enclosure
J DOCiJMENTSV60721WEBSI'ERLTR DOC
I
t
i
S P O K A. N E ' C O U N T Y
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNWG ° A DMSION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
]AMES L MANSON, C B O, DIRECTOR DEIVNIS M SCOTI', P E, DIRECTOR
December 23, 1996
Pat Harper
Spokane County Division of Engmeermg
1026 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 9920 11~
Re ZE-56-96
Dear Pat,
Enclosed is a copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis for Mission Meadows for your review and analysis
The above referenced application was forwarded to you from John Pederson on December 12,1996 and
your comments were requested no later than January 15, 1996
Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
Smcerely,
Louis Webster, AICP
Planner II
1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE ° SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
BuILDuvc PxotvE (509) 456-3675 • Fnx (509) 456-4703
PL.ANNItvc I'HONE (509) 456-2205 • FAx (509) 456-2243
TDD (509) 324-3166
Harper, Pat
L _
From Harper, Pat
Sent Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10 19 AM
To Webster, Louis
Subject Technical complete review for ZE 56-96
A traffic study has been done and accepted by Spokane County Engineering Spokane County Transportation
Engineering considers this proposal to be Technically Complete provided that an MDNS is to be issued for this
proposal mitigating off-site impacts to the transportation system
Pat
e
e
Page 1
f t
O
0 0
D
0
0 S ~ o e
~ ~ ~ • •
~ -
To: Lewis Webster, Planner Division of Budding and Planning
From: Pat Harper, TransportaUon Engineenng Superviso~~.~
CCe ZE 56-96
Date: January 15, 1997
Re: Technical Complete status
Spokane County Engineenng is requesbng a suspension in the Technical Complete status of ZE 56-96
until such bme as a traffic analysis can be compieted and reviewed by both Spokane County
Engineenng and the Washington State Department of Transportabon This analysis is to be scoped by
both Spokane County Engineenng and the Washmgton State Department of TransportaUon pnor to
proceeding with the report Thank-you for your consideration in this matter
a Page 1
NOU-06-1997 13 33 _AND PACTFIC ENG P 02
,
`
.
~DRAFF
Spokane County Engineers
Atten. P'at Harper
Re MflSS10II MeadOWS IV1,nlIfaC~ed HOIIle Park
Traffic 1Vfitigation
Dear Pat,
Based on the T'raffic Impact Analys4s prepared for Mission Meadaws, the
primaryy traffic nutigation requirement falls at the mtersection of Mission
Avenue and Barker Road. The nutigation could be 1n the foana of rhe additton
of tnning lanes or the mstaUation of a tiraffic signal As you have pomted out,
nt may be very dbfficult to obtam the additionai nght of way required to
construct the turning lanes makjng the traffic signal the more viable
alternative Unfortunately, the currentIy used methads of traffic anaIysis do
not adequatcly fldentify the effects of gaps created by nearby control devices
such as traffic hghts In the case of tbis project, we are unable to accurateiy
pre&ct the effects of the traffic hght under construction at the mtersection of
Barker Road and the eastabound on-off ramps of 1-90. We do knovv that the
leve➢ of service is hlcely to tmprove at the mtersectton of Misszon and Barker
when the hght goes mto serrice, and that semce w11 flmprode agatn dvhen the
se6ond planned light is installed To docurnent level of servnce unprovennents
which resuit from the addition of hghts on Baurker, we will be perforiming
additional traffic counts at Mission and Barker to measure delay times for the
before and a.4ter conditions Fina11y, $o satisfy the State, rt appears hkely that
Iane dvidemng at the intersection of Barker IZoad and the west-bound on-off
ralnps of I-90, and lane stnpmg at Barker Road and Trent Avenue wnli be
reqwed.
Based on the background outiined above, I propose the followmg uaffic
mutigation condlhans of approdal a.nd revisyons for the pro,ect
1We wi11 revase the proposed project to have it's rnan entry on Nfission
Avenue from the beginmng, wath the access to Indiana bemg normally
gated closed foT emergency only. This arrangement w11 probably be more
NOU-06-1997 13 34 LAND PACIFIC ENG P 03
t .
a •
.
patatable to the present atid future residents of Riverwalk and other
adyacent neighborhoods
2We wM place $1,000 per lot anto a jomt I)edeloper/Counfiy fimd to be
used for traffic mitigataon The S 1,000 vntl be deposited into the fuad
each tiae a building pernut as tacen out to place a ananufact,ired hoine for
the first 60 homes or through September of 2001, vdlnchewer occurs first
3We w11 apply a dust palliatide annually (from the year of the first approval
of lots to ttae year 2001) to the unpaved porhon of Nfissivn between
Barker Itoad and Ha►rvard Road as PM-10 imifagation
4 Concurrent vnth the approval of the 61 ' lot or on Qctober 1~` , 2001,
wluchever occurs first the developer at the County's drecuon, will do
one of the followang
a. Deposat an additional $40,000 vato the joint account so that a sum of
00,000 plus any accrued interest is avadable to be used by the
County for traffic imtigataon they may deecm appropnate for the area
based on the then curtent traffic sttuation
b tlsmg ghe funds m the jo'nt account and whatever addittonal funds may
be required, conaplete the paving on the unpaved portion of Nfission
Adenue for alength not to exceed 3000 feet. Paving to be 24 feet wide
and the pavement section to be designed usang the local access road
standards
SConstruct the traffic mitigations as agreed on with the State It ls hcely
that these mitigattons witi be required early m the Project's devclopment
and wnll conslst of left and right hand turuing lane striping on Barker Road
at it's intersecuon vvith Trent Avenue, and the addinon of a tanung lane on
Barker at the west-bound on-oflE ramps of I-90
I believe these suggested conditaons adequately► nuttgate the project's traffic
unpacts aund are fair m terms of cost per peaic hour tnp when compared to the
same cnterria for the Riverwalk project Please contact rne at your earliest
convenience so that we can dlscuss and final.ize ghe tra.f~c mingation
condztions of approval for this project and get it to hearang
VIY
RLM
1lRITIGATED DETERMINA'TION OF N0NSIGNIFICANCE
FOR
NIgSSIO1V IVEADOWS MOBILE HOME PARK
The applicant shall be responsible for all frontage improvements to Mission Avenue and
based upon a traffic analysis done for the proposed development has voluntanly agreed to
the followuig off-srte transportation mitigation
1 The applicant shall apply on a yearly basis a dust palliative to Mission Avenue from
the paved portion of Mission Avenue east to the newly aligned Mission Avenue,
(approxunately 3000 ft) This measure shall be done until Mission Avenue is fully
unproved
2 The applicant shall be responsible for the engineenng and construction of a 28 foot
roadway section for Mission Avenue from the,east property line of tlus proposal east
to the newly realigned portion of Mission Avenue, (approximately 3000 feet) This
improvement shall be constructed prior to the 61 S` manufactured home being placed
on this proposal or pnor to October 1, 2001, no matter how many manufactured
homes have been placed Should Spokane County create a County Road Project prior
to the placement of the 61 S` manufactured home, the applicant shall provide cash
toward the project of $1000 per unit placed
3 Construct the traffic mitigation as agreed on wnth the State Department of
Transportation
Nfltigation needed for Mission 1Vleadows
For all of the following conditions, we are assuming that the intersections at the EB Ramp
tenninal intersection and the WB Ramp termmal intersection will be signalized by others In
addition, at the WB Ramp terminal intersection, northbound and southbound left tum lanes wdl
be constructed by others prior to thus project
For Phase 1 (Year 2000)
Trent and Barker Road Intersectcon
Participate in WSDO'T/County Improvements
For Connection to Indiaaaa
Barker Road & Mission Avenue
Construct a Westbound to Southbound left turn lane on Mission Avenue
For Connection to 1Vlission
Barker Road & Mission Avenue
Construct a Westbound to Southbound left turn lane on Mission Avenue
Construct a Northbound to Eastbound right turn lane on Barker Road
For Build Out (Year 2003)
Trent and Barker Road Intersection
Participate in WSDOT/County Improvements
For Connectaon to Indiana
Barker Road & Mission Avenue
Construct a Westbound to Southbound left turn lane on Mission Avenue
Construct a Northbound to Eastbound right turn lane on Barker Road
For Connection to Mission
Barker Road & Mission Avenue
Construct a Westbound to Southbound left turn lane on Mission Avenue
Construct Northbound and Southbound left turn lanes and right turn lanes on Barker
Road
, .
. ~ -
J ~l/1
ft i. " .Y~ • {Y;
S 1 O 1< ~ N f~ , ~ 7'~` ~ C7 U U N ` 1' Y
0
DEPARTNfENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNWG • A DIVISION OF TfiE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMETJT
JAIvfES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR
R~
~
,
TO: Spokane County Division of Engineering; Pat Harper ~
Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red 996
Spokane County Healtli District; Steve Holderby ~ Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Steve Worley
Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Fair; Wyn Qirkenthal
WA State Department of Transportation; Greg Figg
Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Glen Miles
City of Spokane Transportation, Lou Dobberstein
City of Spokane Public Works, Developer Services, Eldon Brown
Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1
Spokane Transit Authority
Central Valley School District No. 356
Consolidated Irrigation District
FROM: John W. Pederson, Senior Planner
\
DATE: December 19, 1996 ~
RE: ZE-56-96/MHP-4-96
The Spokane County Division of f3uilding & Planning accepted the above -referenced
applications as "counter-complete" applications on December 12, 1996. Acceptance of the
preliminary plat application and designating said application as "counter complete" vests tlie
applications for review witli respect to current regulations and for review to determine
teciinically complete status. Tlie County now lias 28 calendar days to circtilate application to
af'fected agencies for tlieir review. Additional information may be requested by affected
agencies allowing the County to determine if the application is technically complete. if
additional information is requested, tlie 28 day time period will be suspended until adequate
information is received. For these applications, the "design review" process will not be utilized
aiid your specific review comments are requested within 28 calendar days from the above date.
Please forward your review comments or requests for additional information in the form of
memorandum or letter to Louis Webster by January 15, 1997.
I t you have any questions regarding the apnlication and review process, please contact Louis
Webster at the Division of [3uilding & Planning at 456-2205.
Cc: Richard Mason, I PEC, 707 W, 7tll Ave., Suite 200 Spokane, WA. 99204
Qill & Arlene Colyar, 19305 E. Mission Ave., Spokane, WA. 99015
Laurie Grimes, Assistant I'lanning Director, Division of f3uilding & I'lanning
1026 WEST FiROADWAI' AVENUF • SPOKANL, lNASlIINGTON 99260
Run.oiNC PtioNC: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 456-4703
P[.ANNINC PHON[:: (509) 456-2205 • rAx: (509) 456-2293
TDD: (509) 324-3166
a
e
NOT'ICE OF PUBLIC HEA12IIiTG
SPOKA►N]E COIJN7CY HEARING EXAMIIVER
'I'O: All interested persons, and owners/taxpayers within 400 feet
YOU AYtE HEREBY NOTIFIED T]FIIAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE H]CLD ON THE
LAND USLi APPLICATION I,YSTED BELOW, AS FOL]LOWS:
Application: File No ZE-56-96/MHP-4-96, Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5)
to Urban Residential-7 (LJR-7) on approxlmately 19 5 acres for a 131 unlt Manufactured Home Park
Hearing Datc and 7Cime: March 25, 1998 1 30 p m
Place: Commissioners Assembly Room, Lower Level, Spokane County Public Works Building, 1026
West Broadway, Spokane, Washington
Applicant/Owner: Bi11 & Arlene Colyar
Owner's Designated Contact: Inland Pacific Engineering, Co, c/o Richard Mason, 707 W 7`h Avenue,
Suite 200, Spokane, WA 99204, (509) 458-6840
Location: Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue, east of Barker Road in the SE %4
of the SW of Section 8, Townshlp 25 N, Range 45 EWM, Spokane County, Washington
Comprehensive Plan: Urban '
Zoning ]Designation: Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5)
lCnvironmental Determination: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsigruficance (MDNS) was issued by
the County Division of Building and I'laniung, as the lead agency The offic2al comment period ends 3-
23-98
Related Permits: None
Division of Bu►lding & Planning Staff: Louis Webster, AICP, (509) 456-3675
HEARING EXAMYNE R PROC]CDURES
Hearing Proeess and Appeals• The hearing will be conducted under the rules of procedure adopted in
Spokane County Resolution No 96-0294 All interested persons may testify at the public hearing, and
may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing The Hearing Examiner may limit
the time given to speakers A speaker representing each side of the issue is encouraged Any appeal of
the Hearing Examiner's decision will be based on the record established before the Hearing Examiner,
pursuant to County Resolution Nos 96-0171 Environmental appeals vvi11 follow the same procedural
route as the underlying action All heanngs vnll be conducted in facilities wlvch are physically
accessible to persons with disabilities
.
Inspection of File, Copies af Llocuments: A Staff Repor't w211 generally be available for lnspection
seven days before the hearing The Staff Report and application file may be inspected at the Spokane
County Division of Building and Planning, 15' Floor Permit Center West, Public Works Building, 1026
West Broadway, Spokane, WA, 99260, between 8 a m and 4 p m, weekdays, M-F, except liolidays
Copies of documents will be made available for the cost of reproduction If you have any questions or
special needs, please call the Division at (509) 456-3675 Send written comments to the Spokane County
Division of Building and Plammng, 1026 W Broadway, Spokane, WA, 99260, Attn ZE-56-96/MHP-4-
96, Louis Webster 1Vlotions must be made in writing and submitted to the Spokane County Hearing
Examiner, Y`' Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 W Broadway, Spokane, WA, 99260-0245
. SPOKANE ENVIRONIVIE NTAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-970) Section 11 10 230 (3) Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance (MDNS)
MITIGATED DETERIVIINATION OF NONSIGNdFICANCE 111VIDNS"
FILE NO(S): ZE-56-96/MHP-4-96 . DESCRIPTICDN OF PROPOSAL Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) to
Urban Restdential-7 (UR-7) on approximately 19 5 acres for a 131 unit Manufactured Home Park
PROPONENT Bill & Arlene Colyar, 19305 E Mission, Greenacres, WA 99016, (509) 924-6273
OWNER'S I)ESIGNATED CONTACT Inland Pacific Engineering, Co, c/o Richard Mason, 707
W 7t}l Avenue, Suite 200, Spokane, WA 99204, (509) 458-6840
I.OCATYON OF P1tOPOSAi. Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue, east of
Barker Road in the SE '/4 of the SW '/4, of Section 8, Township 25 N, Range 45 EWM, Spokane
County, Washington
LEAI) AGENCY SPOKANE COUNTY
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse
impact on the environment if mitigated as stipulated below An Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is not reqLUred under RCW 43 21C 030(2)(c) This decision was made after review of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency This
information is available to the public on request
There is no comment period for this MDNS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 (1)
(X) This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2), the lead agency will not act on tllis
proposal for at least 15 days from the date issued (below) Comments regarding this 1VIDNS
must be submitted no later than 4 00 p m, March 23, 1998, if they are intended to alter the
MDNS
NIITIGATING NYEASURES
1 The applicant/owner shall design and construct to WSDOT and Spokane County standards a) a
right turn lane for southbound Barker Road traffic at the westbound Barker/I-90 Ramps, b) a
right turn lane for northbound Barker Road traffic at the Barker/Trent Ave intersection These
improvements will need to include all related items necessary to construct these lanes
2 Tlie above mitigation will require the applicandowner to prepare design/construction plans
acceptable to WSDOT and Spokane County, enter into a developers agreement for the
construction of the above improvements, and enter into a WSDOT agreement to pay for plan
review, construction inspection, and administrative costs All of these need to be completed
prior to the issuance of any building permits for this site
I acknowledge the above mitigating measures to be modifications and adjustments to the above
described proposal and warrant that I will not oppose, object to or contest these measures in the
fiiture
,
Date rinted/T ped Name
Signature
MSTR, MDNS
RCV 12/90
MDNS, File No ZE-56-96/MHP-4-96 ' Page 2
Responsible Official: JIM MANSON by Louis Webster, AICP
Position/'I'itle: Associate Planner Plione: (509) 456-3675
Address: West 1026 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260
Comments regardi g nvironmental concerns r el~om at t e Date Issued: 3 qr Signature
APPEAL OF THIS gDE1'ERNINATION, after it becomes final, may be made to the Spokane
County Division of Building & Plannrng, West 1026 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260 The appeal
deadline is ttle same as the above proposal appeal deadline, being ten (10) calendar days after the
signing of the Decision This appeal must be written and make specific factual objections Contact
the Division of Building & Planning for assistance with the specifics of a SEPA appeal
*****~~**************~****~****a***********~**********
A copy of the MDNS was mailed to
1 WA State Department of Ecology 2 Spokane Regional Health District
Sepa Review, Olympia, 98504 Attn Steve Holderby
.
3 Spokane County Division of Utilities 4 Spokane County Drvision of Building & Planning
Attn Jim Red Attn Jeff Forry
5 Spokane County Drvision of Engineenng 6 Spokane County Fire Protection
Attn Pat Harper District #1
7 Spokane County Air Pollution Control 8 Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Fair
Authority Attn Steve Horobiowski
9 Spokane County Stormwater Utility 10 Spokane County Boundary Review Board
Attn Steve Worley Attn Susan Winchell
11 Spokane Regional Transportation Council 12 Spokane Transit Authortty
Attn Glenn Miles Attn Christme Fueston
13 WA State Department of Transportation 14 Central Valley School District No 356
Attn Keith Martin
15 Long Range Planning Division 16 Consolidated Irrigation District No 19
Attn John Mercer
MSI R, MDNS
ItLV 12/9O
~
~
FOR
MISSION MEADOWS
MANUFACTURED
AOME PARK
DECIIMBER 1996
I
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
SECTION 11.10,230 -1-
SPOKANE EIIYIROWENTAL ORDINIQICE
(11AC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
Envtrorxmenta) Checklist
File No.
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Envirornental Policy Act (SEPA) chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all goverrwental agencies to conslder the envirorimental impacts of a proposal
before naking Aecisions. An Environmntal lmpact Stateaent (EIS) must be preDared for all proposals Mith prvbable significant adverse tmpacts on
the quallty of the envirornent. The purpose of Lh15 thecktist 1s to provide infonaatfon to help you and the agency iderttify 1mpaCts from your
proposal (and Lo reduce or avoid iaQacts froe the proposat, if it can Ee done) and to help the a9ency Oectde vhether an EIS is required.
InstruCtions for Applittnts:
This environmcntal cheCklist asks you to Cescrlbe some basic lntonaetion abw t your proposel. Governwental agencles use this checklist to determine
rhether the environaerttsl fnpatts of your propotal are stgniflcant, requtrinq prepara[ion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the nqst
precise inforaation knawn, or give the best descrtptton you can.
'►ou aiust •nsrer eath Qvestion atcurately and carefully. to the btst of your knw ledge. 1n moit casts. you should be able to enswtr the questfons
fros your o+n+ observations or project planf without the n Nd to hire experts. If you rtilly do not knoa the answer, or if a question does not aDD1Y
your proposal, vrite 'do not know• or 'does not •pply.• Caspiete ansvers to the puestlons now awy avold unnetesssry deiays later.
;ne Questions ask about qovernmentat requlattons, such as zontng, shorellne. and landmark designatlons. Answr these questtons if you can. If you
ave problems, the govarmental agencies can assist you.
•ie checkllst questlons 4pply to all parts of your proposal, even tf you plen to do thda over a perloC of time or on different parcels of 1and.
,ctach any additional inforaution that wiil descrtbe your Qroposal or 1ts envlronnntal effetts. The agency to wh1cA you submlt this chetkllst may
ssk you to explain your answers or provide aEdtttonal lnfonnation reisonably relited to deter+oining if there may be slgnificant adverse imeact.
use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Cap lete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions nay be answered 'does not •oply'.
tN ADOiTtON, cauptete the SUPPIEMENTAI SHEET FOR HONPROJECT ACTIONS(Part D).
For nonprojeCt aCttons. the referentes in the Chetkllit t0 the words 'DrOject,' 'ipplltant,' and 'Droperty or site' should be reatl as 'proposal,'
'praposer,' and 'affected glwgraphlc area,' resDecttvely.
A. B1lCKGROUND
1. 'laoe of propozed project, if applicable: M7.SSi0T1 itnadoWS rtar.tifaetured HOiTl? Park
z. %,.e of Applicant: BZ1l Colvar/Richard Mason.
3. Address and phone nwber of ippllcint or tontatt person: COP_tBCt per.sor.: R1Ch.'irCl 1"I?SOI1
c/o Inland Pacific EnaineerinQ Company, Inc. .
77 West 7th AvenuP, Suite 200 Spokane. WA 99')04 L
a. oate cAeckllst prepared: DQCE'.iJ1bP.r 2, 1996
S. Agency requestlnq cnecktt:c: Spokzne Countv P-1attrri-tZg Da15zTtmv9-,t I) 1111 It ()A ~ ~~j, r~~+~~~~•~~
6. Proposed tlwing or sthedule (intludlnq phaSlnq, it app11Cab1e): The prolect will bP constrtic*?d 5 tn 8 '
phases of 20 to 30 lots Pach over a t:ne frarr,e of 5 to 10 yQar s.
7. a. Do you have a►+y plans for future addtilCns. expanSton, Or turthtr •Ctfvtty relatcd to or co m ected rlth this oroposat? If yes, enplain.
No
b. Do you ovn or have opttons on land nearby or adjaCent to this proposal? if yes, expialn. y O
B. List any environmntal infornucion you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, ai►Y n iy related to this proposel.
Traf f ic Analysis prPparPd f or Mi .sion MPadows N:ar_uf actured HomP Park. Also,
Traffic Ana.lvsis nrenarPd for the Riverwa?.k ProiPCt locatPd immediate]v to the west.
S'POKAnL LrRPIROHldHTJL OllDIlfAli4:E
(ilAC 147-I1-460) Saeticar 11.16.230(1)
L. aACXC[0!Q8D (eaatlaved)
4- Do Tau im+aw vluther •pplitattoeu are pecdfng for govermental approvaLs of othex propaaalt direefly affec[ing the praptrty eavered bry yaur
proposai? If per, explaia.
NO
lp. Liss aa' governasent apqrovals or peraits [hst rf11 be naeded for yaur propasal, tf knflwn. ZL7inE ehar_ge, SltP_ plan appraval;
a,~nrc~vaI af cietailed des_gns fc~r roads. ~torm draina,ge faci~,ities, water distribution
facilit%es, sewave colleetion 'Lacilities, huilding narmita_for iMp_rovPme?zts anci
nlace that of mar,ufactured home,.
11. GLve s brief, tarpl+te descrlptlon of rwr prapoaai, including [!ee prapased ure■ and [fie ri:e of [he prajeet •nd rite. -here are aewsral
questfans Ltar in this eheckltst tha[ ask you Co dtscxlbs tertain aspo[ta ni rasr proposal. Y w do not aeeQ co repp f C'hose anavecs fln thia
page.
Mis sior. Meadvws MHP proposes 131 rental snaces on approximaCely 19.5 acres. Lot,
will be for rer.t or leasF L'or the Dlacetaent of manuf acturPd omes . ThP nr •si ect
J
include, a2.5 acre Dlavfie-ld, ar.d a R.V storaRe area ILFor the P_YCl43 ,ive use of the
tpnants. The entire 19,5 acre site will be fenced.
i:. Lncatino of the proposal. Ctre aufficient in[ocsacinn for a perian to vnderytand the precise tocstian of yeur Qropns:d prcr}ect, lncludlnE a
e[reet addrers, 1[ any, and ■aetion, tavinahlp and rangw, if lcnavn. Tt a propoaal vould occur over a range of area, grovide the rsnge pr
boundarte■ of tht site(s). Provtde a ltgal dEacription, aits glae, ricinlty sap, •nd copograp'h.tc aap, if reasaeu bly ova! L ble. tRtitr ycu
ehrnuld au bstt aay plans requirad !ry the a;eney, rou are noC required to duyllCate wpa ar detslled pians •utoitted r![h •ny persic aQplicatlon
reLAced ta chii check2iat.
T'he vroiect is locatQd an the north side: of Mi ssion Avenue annroximatel'r 113 mile
east o£ 8arker Road in the SDokane V'a1.1ev,
~
1~ ; 0 R-
13. 4oss Che prapased actlon i!• vLtltSn trit Aqutirr Sensi[ive Araa (A5A)' TTwe Gnaral SaVer Servie• AT/i? :Ihe Priarisy Sa w Y Service Area? "he
City e{ Spokarae' (Sea: 5pakane Cauntp"• ASA DverLy 2one AGiaa foc boundiriei),
The Pronvsal iv in *hp vrf4rxtv sewer servicA area ancl the aquifer sensit;ve area.
-o nc cOe[FI,.e-En 37 ArPr..icAxr
e. drvtxo~ie-~. EIJDCLNrrs
Evaluation Fer
k. EAR"T! Aganey Use Qmly
a. Canarsl demerfpcion at [fu siLe (clrcle one): ! L C, roLlietg, hilly. strep elopes, wountainoua,
other:
Frolect site is flat with maximum s?_opes of 2% or less.
b. 'Thrt ia zhe steepest •lope an [tu si[e (aprprpYfssa[e pereen[ alope)? /0
C. 11hac genersl tqpea of $oll$ are found on the slte (foz axaapls, elay, sand, gsovel. peat, muck)'
If you knov the claasiftettion of a;ricuLzural soila, apecifx th~ and noce any prime farmisad.
Snokane Cnunt a 54i1 Sur_vPv cla: sifies orOn4saT site as having Ga.rrisan gravPlly loam
-gr_avelly~ med~um-te-,:tured some-c,that excessivels drained soil with depth to m--::ture of
sand, ~rave.l. ~.nci cnb~b'~.e stonQS ~~t L~ ta ~tee
d, kre there ou aee tadicatloaa or hiaiary of unotable aalls Sn tlmediate vfcinit'? If ■a,
descrihe.
N n a
J
- SPOIUNE ENYIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
(wAt 197-11•960) Sectton 11.10.230(1) B. ENViROfMENTAL ELEMENTS(tontlnutd)
Evaluatlon For
Agency Use Only
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approxiniete qusntitles of any f1111ng or grading proposed.
lndicate sourte of f111. .
ATinor aradinQ for construction of_ utilities.
f. Could erosion o a ur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so. generally descrlDe.
There will be a slight chance of minor erosion during
construction. Ero szor. can easilv be confinPd on-site.
ThPre will be no risk of erosion when pr.oject is completed
and spacPs J.andscaped.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered xith impervioua surfaces atter project construc-
tion (for exsmple, asphalt or bu11d1ngs)?
Roads, sidPwalk;, homes, carnorts, driveways and deckc ,
will c:over. «ppro::imateJ.y 507 of the sltP when the proiect
is comDlete. A_
~ C►!`'~ , -
h. Proposed meisures to reduce or control erosion, or other lwpatts to the esrth, tf any; ~ G.l~
Ail yards wiJ_1 be landscaned. All storm d:.zinage
control areas coill. havp Prp.,s.
~ N)
1
2. AIa a. What type of enissions to the a1r would result fram the proposel (1.e., dust, autanoblle. odors
industrial, wood saioke) during constructton and when the project 1s completed? If any.
generally describe and give tpDroxlmate quantltes If known.
There would be ir.creased emissi_ons ir0111 increasPd
automob4lP traffic. Few i-f anv woodstoves arP exnectPd.
b. Are there any off-site sources of eelsstons or odor that may affect your proposal? If so.
generally Aescrlbe.
No
c. Proposed meesures to reduce or control emlsslons or other tuqacts to atr, 1f any:
Compliar.ce with existinQ air Qttalit•t regulatior_s.
3. WATER
a. Surface:
(1) is there any surface water pody on or in the iiwedlate r1c1n1ty of the site lncluding year-
round and seasonal streaes. saltwater, lakes, ponds. ++etlands)? If yes. describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what streaw or rtver 1t flors 1nto.
No
(2) Will the project require any work over, in. or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes. please describe and attach available plans.
N/A
3
STO[AJM L11PIROIQOI.rLL OIDIAANCL
(JAC 197-11-960) Ssetloa 11.10.230(1) '
D. ETNIRONlRNTA1. CLEMlr:S (continurd)
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
(3) Escisace the asounc of fill and dredae mtarial clvt vould ba p Lced in or removed Eros the
surface vatar ot vscL ads and indicate the •ru of the site that vould be afteeced. Indicate
the •ource of fill macerial.
N/A
(4) Vill the proposal reQuire surfu • water vithdravali or diversloeu' Giw • geaeral descrip-
tion, purpose, •ad appro:isate quancitiea. Sf Icnovn.
NO
(5) Doe• the proposal lie vithin a 106ryear [lood plaini It •o, note loeation on the site p La.
No
(S) Does the proposal involve any diseharges of vu to material• to surtae• vatarsi I[ ro,
describe the cype ot vaste and ancicipated volum of discharge.
No
b. Ground:
(1) WL11 groundvatsr be vithdrevn. or vill vater ee discharged [o groundvater? Give jeaeral
deseription. purpose, •nd approsiwte awnti[les. it Imovn.
No groundwater will be withdrawn. Stormwater run-off
mav be discharQe indirectl>> to the aroundwatPr throueh
approved '208' stormwater disvosal facilities.
(2) Describe vast• aaterial tlut vl11 be dischasged Lo[o the `rouod tra sepcic tanks or o[!ti r
saoi[ary vsst• tru oent taeility. Dascribe the `eeural siso o( the t7rsces, the aumber o[
houses to be served (lf applicaple) or the nuaber oI pecsoos the srsten(s) •re ezpeeced to
•erve.
No new septic systems are proposed.
(J) Descsibe any •rstna, other than those demigned [or the dispoaal ot sanitary vu
initalled for the purpos• ol disehargin; fluid• belov the grouod surtu e(ineludes systems sucA
as chose for the disposal of •corm vater or drslna`e trom llooc dralas). Deseribe the type ot
sysces, the amount oi "tecial to be dlsposed of throuah clr systn and tlw t7pe• of material•
likely co be dispossd ot (lncludin= aacorials vhich ma7 enter the srstm inadvartently through
sp111s or •s • result ot [ireflghtias aetlvities).
StormwatPr run-ol'f ir. evcPss of the first ; ir.ch nr
rur_-off mav discharoe throuiah dri,wells and tventuallv
reach the Qroundwater.
(4) will aay eheicals (especiallr organie solvenc• or petroleum tw 1s) be stored !n abow-
asouad or uederground scorags tanka? If so, vlut qpes aod quaetitiom ot materlal• vill be
stored?
No
4
srowNt u"nomNExru. oeniNANa
(YAC 197-11-960) Seetion 11.10.230(1) ~
E. LRPIRONlMAI. II.DEf3 (eontinwd) •
Bvalwtlon Por
Agenc7 Use Only
(S) VFuc protsetive seasure• vill De tatun to lasure thac lealc• or •pills of any cheaical•
scored or used on aite v111 not be alloved to percolate co groundvater (this includes esasures
to keep cneaicals ouc o[ disposal mystes• described in 7b(2) and 3b(3)'
Compliance with existing regulations. Drvwells be
]_ocated in common area where it will be more difficuit
f_or homeownPrs to i_J.1.ep-all'%, disno:;e of r_hemical s.
c. uater Runoff (including •tora vater):
(1) Describe the source o[ rvnotf (lacludini •tors vater) aod mat4od of colleetion aod dispoMl
if any (include quaotitiea, if knovn). Vher• vill thi• water flov? Will tAls water [lov into
o[her vsters' Lf so, describe.
Al]. stormwatPr run-ofT will be Qenerated from on-sitP.
ThPre is little or no drainaQe from off.-site. Run-off
wi1Z be collected fro street gutters and disvosed of in
Qrass ner.co:Lation areas and drvwells.
:Jill aay choaieals be stored, handled or wad oa [he site la a lou tion vM re • spill or
lenk vill drain to suriace or aroundvater or to astorm vater dispow 1symtm diseharlln= to
sur[ace or ground Nter'
No
Could vaste msterials enter `round or surface y terst It so, 6enerally deseribe.
Generally no. I11eKal disposal of waste materials by
homeowners ts possib]_e and could result in trace amounts
of waste material reaching *he Rroun.dwzter.
d. Proposed messure• to reduce or tontrol surtsee, =round, aod runotf vattr lipacts, tt •nr (lf
t the proposed ♦ction 11es vithin the Aqulfer Sensitive Aru e. ..p.cia ir clur oo o:►laoatlons
r relatie►g to facilities eoneerniag Seetions 3D(4). Sb(S). •od 3c(2) o[ this cheeklist):
Al1 disposal and control fac??ities wiJ_1 meet Spokane
Cour_tv ' ?_03' r. egula tions .
4. PIA:rI'S
s. ':heck or circle [ypo of vegecation found on che site:
deeiduous [ree: alder, oaple, aopen, other.
•ver;reen troe: t1r, eeder, pina, otM r.
shcubs.
erass.
X_ pasture.
X eTOp or `rain.
vec so11 pLnts, esctail, 6uttarcup, Dullrush, •kumk eabDage, other.
rater plants: ycar lilly, eal`rass, ailfoil, ocf►ar.
ocher types o[ vesetation.
b. Vhac kind •nd uount of ve`ecation vill be raisoved or altersd! NQarlY 11l
existinQ veQetation wi].1 be removed.
c. Lisc thraacened or andaajered speeies Imovn to be on or near tlu sits. N o n e
d. Proposed landscapin6, f asciva p'ts, or ochar saap r~ opr erve or enhance wgat t
on the .it., ir .Ay: `~'1~ renta~' spaces wi~1 ~e Yand scaped. 17
commtinity snace wil be landscaped.
5
• SPOKAlIE ENYIRONMENTAL OROINAlICE
(WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1) ` .
9. ENVIRONMENTIIL ELEHEKTS (continued)
Evaluatlon for
Agenty Use Only
5. ANIMALS
a. Clrcle any birds anC animais rhich have been observed on or nar the site or are kna+n to be on
or near the site:
birds: haw heron. eagle.ongbirdj) other:
nbmmals deer, bear. elk. beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring. shcllfish, other:
other: ,
b. List any threatened or endangered species knorn to bt on or near the site.
None
c. ls cne stte part of a migratton route? lf so, e:plain. N n
d. Proposed nessures to preserve or enhance vildltfe. if •ny: landscaped spaces
will attract ne.w varieties of native songbirds.
5. ENERGY ANp NATURAL RESOURCES
d, uhat kinds o1 energy (electrtc, natural gas, rood stove, solar) wtil be used to meet the
the completed project's energy needs' DescrlDe rhether 1t w111 be used for heating, wanufac-
turing, ett.
Enerp-v reouirements will be met bv electricitv and
natural gas.
b. Would your project affeCt tAe potentlal use of solar enerqy by •djaCent properties? 1f so,
generatly describe.
No
c. Mhat kinds of enerqy conservatton features are included tn the plans of thls proposal? L1st
other proposed measures to redute or Control lnergy 1n4atti, 1f any:
All livinQ units will meet current HUD enerp conser.vative
requirements.
7. ENYIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any envlronnental health hazsrds, tncluding exposure to toxic cAesicals. rlsk of tire
and explosion, spill, or hizardous waste, that could occur as a result of thls proposal? 1f so,
destribe. .
No '
(1) Describe special emeryency servlces that mlght be rcquired.
None
6
srowNa ZMsoXKEmu. oeDirANcc
1
(uAC 197-11-960) Seccion 11.10.230(1)
6. E!IVIROlQQRM EiJKEf'i'S (continued)
Lvalwtioa Yor
Agaacy Use Onlp
Etl{►IROtilQti:AL HLALT!! (continued)
(2) Proposed msasuces to raduce or coocrol aovironrntal health hasards, !f any:
Compliance with existinQ reQulations.
b. Noint:
(1) What type• of noise e:isc lo the aru vhich ~y alfeet your projeet (foT enuple: traffic.
aQulpmnt, operatlon, othet'
Minor traffic noise exists adjacent to the proposal site.
(2) What types aad levels oi noLse vould be crut&d try or a Noeiated vi[h tM project oo a
short-cers or s long-tam basi• (for example: tratfie, cotitruetion, operatioo. other)? Indicate
vhac hours noise vould co~ fron the @its.
Short term: Noise associated with street and utility
construction.
Long term: Noise generally associated with residential
neiahborhoods.
(3) Proposed seasure to reduee or control nois• impaets, it any:
Compliance with existing codes.
8. IXtD AND SHORELInL u5E
A. What 1s th• current uss ot the site and adjaeent propeetise? S 1 t e an d p r o p e r t i e s
to east are used aariculturally. North, west and south are residential.
b. Itaa the @its Deen used for agrleultuTe' It no, deseribe. Site has been used
to raise alfalf a .
c. Describe .ny .tru«ur.s aa tn. .it.. Landowner's home and out building
<zre on the site.
d. Wlll any structure• be desolished? II so, vhleh? OUt btiilding may be
demolished.
e. What is che curreat :oaing claosificacion o[ cha s1te1 U R 3.5
f. Uhac 1s the currenc caopreheoslve p Ln designatioa ot [M @its' U r b a n
g. If applieable, vhat !s the curreat shorelins saster progras designatlon o( the site?
N/A
h. Il&• any part ot che sice Dwn clauitied •s an 'envisocesanta.lly srmitiw' arut It so,
specity.
No i. Approsiaatelr har manr peopl• vould reside or vork ic the eamplaced projectt
350 peonle.
7
sro+uIM Env~omQmru. oiminerce
(WAC 197-11-460) Section 11.10.130(1) •
E. ERVIRONltMLI. II.EMERfS (continued)
°valuttion For
Aaeney Use Only
Appro:isacely hov san7 people vould the coaple[ed projec[ disp Lcs? N o n e
tc. Proposed seasures co avoid or taduce disp Lcment ispaets, if any: N/A
1. Proposed kasures co ansure tha proposal in compacibL vitA existins aod projeeted Lnd uses •od
plans. 11 any:
Comnliance with ZoninQ Code and Conditions of Appr.oval
of the proposal.
kpproxiaacely hw e.an7 unics vould be providad, lf •nyT Indicsc* vtrtM r hlgh-, ■lddlr , or
1ov-1acom housic►S.
130 low to middle income units.
b. Approxiqataly hov "ny vnits, it anr, vould be •lialnated1 Indi u ce vhet M r high-, a1dd1e-, or
1ov-ineose housieig.
tione
Proposed se,aeurem to reduc• or eontsol housin; impaeu. !f aap: Inelusion Of
recreational facilities. fencinQ and landscaninQ in the
project. Compliance with Conditions of Annroval f.or
project.
10. AESTIIETICS
Nha[ is thc calles[ hefghc of any proposed structure(e). not includiog •oteenas? Vhac is [tu
principal eaterior buildia; titsrial(a) propomed?
Tallest buildinQ would be 30 feet. BuildinQ exteriors
woul_d be wood or wood-like materials.
c 1.10
b. v7ha[ vievs in [he issediace vicinity vould be altered or obrctvecedt
c. Proposed M asures to raduce or coat[ol aesthecic lapacta, lt •oy: P e r im e t e r ~
fencing and landscapinQ.
I . .
~
11. LICH" AND CI.ARE
'7ha[ trpe o( ligh[ or 61are vlll tTe propoul produee? :7Tut tlse of da7 vould St aainl7r occur?
Pr_oiPCt will havP street 1-i_Oits and norch liRhts.
b. Could 116hE or gLce [rou cha tinished pro}eec De • ufecy lusard or ineerfere ritA •ievst
No
c. uhat ezistioa otf-sit• soureom of liahc or gLre msy attect ywr proposali Nont,
d. Proposed asawra• to reduce or control light and gLre Lpacts, 1f any: ComnI1aI1Ce
with existing codes.
SPOXAt7L LHYIRON?¢NLL O1tDINANCZ
(tlAC 191-11-960) Sectioa 11.10.230(1)
~
D. IIrVIROMKMAL LIS?QKIS (coatioued)
Evaluation For
hsency Uae Only
12. RLCALAIIOtI
A. ►rhat desl6nated and inloraal retcea[iooal opporwnl[les are in the imnedLaCe vlcinLty?
Centenial Trail is i mile to north} alonQ the Spokane
River.
b. Vould the proposed project diapL ct •ny exlsCina [etT u Clotul uses? If so, dcsulbe.
No
c. Proposed seasure• co reduce or control iapacGi on recreatlon, includtna recreatlorul opportunl-
tSes to be provlded by the project or appllcanc, 1[ •ay:
Project will include 2 acre playground. 13. HIS'OP.IC Af(D CULTURAL PRESERVA:ION
A. Are chece any placea or objeccs listed on oT proposed (oT r►atlonal, state or local preterva-
tion regiaters knovn co be on or nezt co the s1[e? II •o, generally dcscribe.
No
b. Genecally de.cribe .ny lando.arks or evldenee o( historic* archacologicLl, sclenti(lc or culcural
inporCance 1rn ovn to be on or next [o the si[e.
None .
c. Proposcd ueiiures to reduce or control lapac[s, 1f any: N/ A
14. -ti'.AIISPOR-ATL017
A. Tdentl[y publlc screets and Aljhvars secvina the ■ltc and deoc[tDe proposed atccas to the
exi.ci„s .cr«< .r.«o. shor-an .t« Pl.M., if .nr. Indiana Avenue via Grady Road will nrovide access from the north. Mission Avenue
will provide access from the south. Barker Avenue is a
nrincinal arterial anDroximatelv 1/3 mile to the west.
b. Is elte currencly scc-ved bj' publle transitT lf noC, what 1s the approzima[e distancc co thc
nurc.c cr•n.ic .copt pLlb 1 i C transit rOl1teS c'iT@ on Mission Avenue
adiacent to tet nrouosal and on Barker Road.
c. flov oanr D~rkioS sDa« e vould the coupliced projeCt have? }b v aartq vould Che projctt eliairute'
The completed_~Droiect will have approxiwtelv 270 narking_
spaces.
d. V111 ,eQuire ■nr nev coads oT t[ieeta, or 1mproveeenC■ to exlsCing ro+ds or screets
not lncludLnj drlvevals? I( ro, =eoetally deac[lbe (lodlta[e vhe[heC public or p[!v&[e).
All uroposed spaces will have direct access onto new private
drives constructed for the project. Mission Avenue frontage
will be improved. ImprovemenCs to Barker will be made via
cooperation with other projects.
c. ulll the projecE umc (o[ occur !a the isnedlate vtcioit7 0O %.te[, rall, or air [racuporcation!
if oo, 6enerally descrlbe.
No
~
srouun eavLto~xrks, oeniftNcz
(YAC 197-11-960) Seetion 11.10.270(1)
B. CA'VIROtlQlr*'JlL LLIIKMM (eontiaued)
Lvaluation For
Agency Ose Only
t. Aov san7 vahicular crips per day vould be geoerated by the campleted pro]ect' Ii knovn,
indlcate vhan paak vould occuc.
Avnroximatelv 800 trips per day will be Qenerated by
completed proiect. Peak wi11 occur between 4 P.M.
and 6 P.M.
g. Proposed seasures to reduee or control transportatine iupaets, if sny: Imp r ov eme n t
of Mission Avenue f_rontaRe. Participation in Barker
Road improvements as may bP identified in the project
Conditions of Annroval.
15. PITnLIC SLRVICLS
a. Siould etre projeet result in ao inerueod owd tor puDlle •enice• (for e:ample, [!r• protection.
police protection, health eare. sehoola, otlu r)2 If so, genetally describe.
Residents of nroiect caill reauired nublic services.
D. Proposed ou sures co rtduet or control Elreet iapacto oa puElie senices, 1' any:
Proiect will be nhased.
16. U-ILITIES /
a. C uti i11y antlr-avai L~1• ac the •ite: `jlsetrleity~~utural ga x wscer~re[us• >
•ervice celephone ianltar7r ssw , septic sysceu. o[M r.
Cable T.V.
b. Describe the utilitie■ that •re proposed tor the projeet. the utilit7 provldln= chm senice •nd
the general construction •c ivitie• oe 4he aite or lo tM im~d ats vicinlt vhl hsight be
needed. W.W.P.: E~ectricitv and natura gas: ~vo`kane Caunty:
Public sewers: Consolidated IrriQation District: Public
waCer: U.S. 4]est: Te?ephone; Co-x-G1atri.-e': T.V.
C. SICNATURL
I, the undersigned, ovu z uoder cM pewlt7 ot perjur7r c}vc the •bove respooses sr• mad• truthtully and to clr best of mr knovledge. I•lso
unEers[aad cFuc, •tiould there be •ny villful darepromeotacioo or villful Lck ot full dlselosure oe ry parc, the ••n aar vithdtav any
deceraination ot noe+rlanltlcaoee that it al=hc issue Ln reliaoc• upoa thl• eheckllst.
o.t.: DPCember 2 1771 Tcoponent Bill Colyar/Richard Mason
(P1eas• Prlnr. or Type)
Proponent: aea:...: Inland Pacific Ent~4neerinR Companv, Inc.
cssgnacu~.)
PhoA.: 1~.~4 707 WPSt 7th Avenue, Suite 200, Spokane, WA 99204
per.on co.Pl«in rorm: Richard Mason o.t.= December 2, 1996
Pnon.: (509 ) 458-6840
FOR STA!/ OSt OHLT
Staff ssber(s) reviavin; eleeklist: s~"v
Dased on chis scaff raviav of the environarncal ehecklisc aad otM r pertinenc inforatLon, the staff:
A. Concludes ehat ther• •re no probabl• signifieant •dverse lapaet• and reeasimeods a detectination of nonsignificanca. .
E. _X/\ Coneludes that probable signitieaat adwrse anvironseatal impaet• do e:ilt for the•eurrent proposal and cecouands a sitigacod decer-
:oncludee inacion o[ nonalinifieanee vith eooditioos.
C. ciuc ttv re •ce probable signiti unt adw rse •ovironmental lapacts aod ractotmends a dacecmloscioo ot signi[icance.
TILIIIC TS - $75.00
10
, .
G~ J.
~0
g►~~''~04 wASWo
. .
' o .
• .
.
.
.
.d. '
~0 •18091 ~ O
December 4, 1996
. (ij .
s~o~Ai.L.AND
EXPIRE3 12 08 LE(3AL DESCRIPTION
FOR
MYSSION MEADOWB
MANIIFACTURED HOME PARR
PARCEL "A" (Tax Parcel 55083.9043)
The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, T.25 No, R.45 E., w.M., i_n
the County of Spokane, State of Washington
EXCEPT the West 110.00 feet of the South 303.00 feet thereof
TOGETHER with the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, T.25 N., R.45 E., W.M., in
the County of Spokane, State of Washington
PARCEL "B" (Tax Parcel 55083.9012)
The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, T.25 N., R.45 E., W.M., in
the County of Spokane, State of Washington
PARCEL "C" (Tax Parcel 55083.9042)
The West 110.00 feet of the South 303.00 feet of the West Half of
the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 8, T.25 N., R.45 E., W.M., in the County of
Spokane, State of Washington
TOGETHER WITH A portion of the South Half of the Southwest
Quarter of Section S, T.25 N., R.45 E., W.M., County of Spokane,
State of Washington, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the West
Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
said Section 8 and the northerly right of way line of
Mission Avenue; thence N.8905612011W. along said northerly
right of way line a distance of 12.00 feet; thence
N.0101710011W. parallel with said east line a distance of
169.85 feet; thence S.8905615011E. a distance of 12.00 feet
to said east line; thence S. O1 ° 1 71oo"r . a di staT-)c.e of
feet to the Point of Beginninq
. • ,
. , .
~
~
FOR
MISSION MEADOWS
MANUFACTURED
HOME PARR
DECEMBER 1996
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
SECTION 11.10.230 -1-
SPOKJUIE ENVIROIMENTAL ORDINANCE
(YAL 197-11-960) Settton 11.10.230(1)
` • • ' , •
~
Envirornental Checklist
F11e No.
Purpose of Checkllst:
The State Environmental Po11cy Act (SEPA) chapter 43.21C RCW, requtres ali goverrwental agencles to consider the envlronmentat iwvacts of a vrooc-,,'
before arlcing Aecisions. An Environnntal lapatt Statenent (EI5) must be prepared for ail proposals with probabie signlftcant adverse fmpacts -
the qwlity ot tAe envlrorwent. The purpose ot tM s checkllst is to provide inforraatton to he1D y(xu and the aqency identify fmpacts fron
proposal (iRd tO ►'ldYC! 0r avoid itflpdCLS fr011t ?h2 prOC05AI, if 12 --an be don?1 3nn help C!? 7q2nC'✓ !,2C1de rhPthpr 1n ~S rn~;~~r?^.
lnstruttions for Appllcants:
This environmental che[klist luVrrrKlCflid~ dy'2n=1e5 _her.'Iijl
whether the environmntal inqacts of your proposal are significant. reQutring preparetion of an E15. Ansrrer the questfons britfly. with the mos!
precise inforwation knwn. or qive tAe Dest description you csn.
You must •nsrer each question uturately anA tartfully. to the best of your kn a+ltdgt. ln most cises, yCU Should De able to answer the questions
from your own oCservations or project plans rithout the need to nire experts. If you really do not knrnr tht answer. or 1f a question does not aDP1y
to your proposal, vrite 'do not know' or •Ooes not apply.' Camplete ansrers to the Questlons noM w y awotd unnecessary Gelays later.
Sow Questlons ask about governmental regulattons, such as iontnq. sl+oreltne, and landeark desiqryttons. Answer these puesttons if you can. If you
have probless, the goverr»entai agencies can asslst you.
The Checklist questtons apply to a11 parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do thdm over a period of t1me or on dlfferent parcels of land.
Attach anr additional lnfornatlon that rill destrlbe your proposal or its enrlronnental effetti. Tht agenty to which you suDmlt this checklist may
ask you to explain your answers or provide addtttonal tnforw tlon reisonably related to deterntnlnq tf there may De slgnifitant adverse impsct.
Use of checkltst for nonproject proposals:
Conplete this checklist for nonproject proposals. even though questions may be answereE 'does not spply•.
IN 11DOITION. couplete the SUP►LEMENTAL SHfET FOR N011PROJECT ACTIOMS(Part 0).
For nonproject actlons. tht references 1n the theckllst to the ►vords 'project.' 'appllcant.' •nE 'property or site' should be read as 'proposal."
Oproposer,' and 'affected geoqraphit area,' respettively.
A. BJICKGROUNO
i. nme ot proposed project, ir appltcable: M1.SSlOT1 MPadows Mar.ufaetured Home Park
z. M,w of Applicant: BZI.1. Colvar/Richard Mason
3. Address •nd phone nuniber of applicant or contact person: C o r t a e t p e r s or: R 1 Cha r d Ma s a n
c./o Inl_and Pacific Engineeri^g Company, Inc.
707 West 7th AvenuP. SuitP 200 SpokanP, WA 99')04
4. o,ce cneckiisc prepared: December 2, 1996
s. A9emy nquestlnq cheCkllst: Spokane Countv Planning DPpartmer.t
6. Proposed tlminq or schedula llntluding phasinq, if appltcablel: The projeet will bp eonstrueted in 5 to 8
phases of 20 to 30 lots each over a rime framP of S to 10 yPar_s.
7. a. Do you have any plins tor future •dditions, expansion, or further attlvity related to or cometted rtth tA1s Droposal? If yes. explain.
No
D. Oo you oirn or Aave optlons on isnd nearDy or adjacent to thls proposal? lf yes, explatn. N O
8. Ltst any enrlronmntal tnforsatton you know about that has been prepared, or will De prepared. d/rectly related to this proposal.
Traffic Anzlysis prpparPd for Mi,sior. Meadows Mar.ufacCured IiomP Park. Also,
Traffir_ Analvsis nrevarPd for thP Riverwal.k ProiPCt located immed4ateJ_~T to r_he west.
Rev.Z/iiss 1
lTORAli! C11Y21011lQ1fTV,' ORDINAACC
(vAC 19)-11-960) Seecioo 11.10.230(1)
~ • .
, • .
A. aALZGf00M (eontiowd)
9• Oo 7«+ ma vhsther applieaclons are paodio= for governMncal'approvals of other propo w 1s direetlr •EEectln6 the property covered by your
proposal? I[ yes, ezplaio.
IV O
10. List an7 governmn[ approval■ or perolcs that viU be needed for rour proposal, !f Icwvo. Zone char_ge, S1tP_ plan approval;
aanrovajl of detailed designs for roads, sto m d ainage facilities, water distribution
facilitips, sewaQe collection iacili_ties } buildinQ ne 'lu- _or improvements and
Dlace that of mar.ufactured home s.
11. Cive • Dr1ef, emplete description of rw r proposal, teuludio` the proposed use• •od the slse oI the project •nd alts. "here are several
questious Lter !a chia chocrllac that ask you to doseribe certain u pect• o[ your proponal. You do not pefd to ffQY C those aeuvers on this
page.
Missior. Meadows MHP proposes 131 rPntal snaces on approximately 19.5 acrPS. Lor.,
wi'Ll- be for rPr.t or 1Pase L'or the placement of manuf«cttired homes. The pro;ect
includes a 2.5 acrP plavField, ar.d a RV storaRe area for the PYClusive use of the
tPnants. The entire 19.5 acre site wi-lJ. be fenced.
1:. Locatioo ot the proposal. G1vt suf[leient lnfoctition (or a ptrson to uadocstand the ptscls• location ot your proposed proJect, includinr a
streec addrtss, i[ •ny, •nd seccloo, tovnship aod range, if knovn. If a propoaal vwid occur over a range o( area, provtde the range or
Doundarie• o( the •iteW. Provide a 1ega1 description, slte plaa, nlclnity aap, and topographlc map, reasonaDly •vat L D1e. vhile you
should suhsit aay plaas requlrsd bry the agency, yw •ce not required to duplteace aap• or detailed plaas suhmltted with •ny pecmlt applleacfon
reLced co chis checieiis[.
The nroi ect is IocatPd. on the north side of Mia§ion Averlie a9pyoximatel- 1/3 mile
east of. Barker Road i-n the Snokane Va_llev.
13. Does the proposed action lie vithin the Aqul[er Sornltivs kra (ASA)' The G aeral Saw r Sarvice Area' :he Prlority Sever Servtce Area? 'he
Ct[y o( Spolune? (See: Spokaae County's ASA OverL r Zone At Ls [or boundaries).
The nrOnOSc11 7_S j_11 rhP. DrioritV SE'wP_Y' SP_rV1CP. ,=iY'Pa ?;nd thp acuife:- sP.I'ls1tlV(' arPa.
-o eE coKn.eren eT ArrLicexr
D. IEf V I ROIRRlr".LL Q.EKERS
Evaluatlon For
Asency Use Only
1. EAP."fl
A. General deacriptton ot the •it• (elrcl• oae): f Lt, rolllng. hlllr, •teep •lopes, wouncainous,
ocher:
Proiect site is fl.at with ma:rimum s?_opes, of ?I or less.
b. '►hac !s the •csepesc slope on the ■ic• (appro:isate psrcenc slope)' 1i /o
c. 'lhac gaoeral cype• o[ soils ar• tound on the slte (tor exasple, clay, saod, sravel, post, wcr)'
If you Icnov che claaeiflcatloo ot •gricultural @otli, sptcify thes and aocs aay prim tsmlaod.
Snokane Countv So;l Sur.vev classifies pronosal site as hzving GarriGon gravelly loam
gravelly, medium-textured some-what exces ,ivelv drained soil with depth to m4_-:ture of
sand, ~r2veJ_ ar.d cobble stonPS at "L~ to 5 teet.
d. kre chere su aee lodicatioos or hiotorp of urrcable soila !n c!r iemsediate vieioity' If go,
describe.
No 2
. ~
SPOKANE EItYIRONMEN'[Rl OROINAIlCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Sectlon 11.10.230(1)
,
. . . '
B. ENViROlMENTAL ELEMENTS(tontlnued)
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
e. DescrlDe the purpose. type, and •pproximte qusntities of any fi111ny or yrading proposed.
Indicate source of f111.
Mino:- 2radi.ni! ior construction of utilitie s.
f. Could erosion oacur as a result of clearing. constructlon, or ust? lf so, generally descrlbt.
There wil'_ be a slight chance of minor erosion during
cor.struction. Ero sion can easilv be confined on-site.
There will be rio risk of erosion when. pr.ojPCt il's r_ompleted
and spar_PS J_andscapr_d.
g. About what percent of the slte will be tovered with impervlous surfaces atter project construc-
tion (for exanqle. asphalt or eu11d1nqs)?
Roads, sidewa?ks, homea, carnorts, drivPways and decks
will cover appro::inate].y 50% of the site when t11e proiect
i s comDlete.
h. Proposed measures to reEute or Control eroslon, or other tmpatts to the earth. 1f any:
Ail yards will be landscaped. All storm dY.11:?age
control ar. eas will have jzr. a,^,s .
2. 0.1R
a. 4hat [ype of enissions to the a1r rould result from the proposal (1.e., dust. •utaaobile. odors
industrtal, wood saokt) durinq Conitruttton •nd when the pro,}ect is towpleted? If any,
generally describe and glve approxfmate quantttes 1f knarn.
There would be increased er.lissi_ons `rom xacrPasPd
automobi le traf f ic . Few ? f anv WOOCIStOVP.S arP eypectPd.
D. Are tnere any oft-site sourtes of emlsstons or odor that nw y affect your proposal? If so.
generally descrlbe.
No
I
c. ProposeG measures to reduce or control ewlsitons or otAer twpatts to •1r. 1f any:
COltlplic'1T:CP. Wittl P;:l:;t1P.Q air QllSllt'/ rPptll.-I t10^S.
l. WATER
a. Surfate:
(1) Is there eny surface water body on or in the 1medtate vicinity of the site including year-
round and sessonal streams. saltwater. lakes, ponds, retlanGS1? If yes. descrlbe type •nd
provlde names. If appropriate, state rhat streaw or river 1t flows 1nto.
NO
(2) Will the project require any work over. in. or adjacent to (rlthin 200 feet) Lhe described
waters? If yes, please descrlbe +nd attach available plans.
N/A
3
srown txvztoaoaerriL- oentw►eict
(aAC 197-11-960) Seecioa 11.10.130(1)
a . ~ ' ~ •
S. LNVIROtilQIR'1L CLXMZR:3 (coutlowd)
. ~ Evalwcion For
l1`ency Use Only
(7) Eotiwce the •mouat oi iill and drsdg* saterial tt►ec vould De platsd le or removed froo the
■urfac• vater or vecland• and indlcace the •ru o[ the site cttit vould be affected. Iadicac•
the •ource of [L11 wAcerial.
N/A
(4) ytll the proposal requir• surtac• wacer vithdrs wl• or diverslons' G1 w• general deserip-
tion, purpost. and appTOxisate quantities. if Icaovn.
NO
(5) Du • the proposal lie rithin a 100-y u r[lwd plain7 It •o, note lou t3on on the site plac.
No
(5) Does the proposal tnvolve aar dieehatse• of vute macerial• co surlaee vacerst It so,
deseribe the type o[ vsste •nd anticipated volum of disclu rae.
No
b. G[ound:
(1) ytll groundvater Dt withdravn, or vill vacer De dischargtd to grouadvatar' Cive teneral
descriptioo, purpose, and appro:imate Q WIILiC1es. 1! Imown.
No Qroundwater will be wiChdrawn. Stormwater run-off
mav be discharPe indirectlv to the aroundwater throus?h
approved '208' stormwater di.snos~l facilities.
DencrlDe vssca sacerial tlut vtll De dlseMrged loto the grouad trom sepcic tank• or o[Fyr
saoitary v&sce cru wnt tacility. Deseribe tlu general •it• o[ the qrscm, the aLabor ot
house9 co be •erved (if ■pplicaple) or t M number o[ ptrsoos c!u srstes(s) •re •:peeced to
•!fVl.
No new septic s,r;;tems are proposPd.
(3) Deseribt anr •retese, otM r than [hose desigaed [or the dLsposal oI Mtlltary vuce,
inscalled Eor the purposs o1 dlechargla` (luids belev the jrouod surtsc• (iecluds• systos sutA
chose for the disposal o[ ston vatar or dralaage trm [loor drains). Descrlbe che type of
syscea. the anount ot mterlal to be dieponed ot throuih tlti •yntts aed clu t7Pes ot materlal•
1lkely co be disposad of (Locluding x&cerial• vhich ma7r •ncer the spscm Loadvertentlr through
•pill@ or a resulc of [1ceflgAting activities).
StormwatPr rur►-off in. e~:CP_SS o-I the f;rst J 4r.ch oF
rur_-off rnav discharg:e throueh dr,►wells and pventuallv
rear_h the groundwater.
(4) Y111 aar ehsical• (espeeiallr orgaalc solveats or petroleum tw 1s) be scored ie aEove-
ground or under`round •torage tsolu'! It no. vlsat tppe• aod auautitles of aateriali vill be
scored?
No
4
aroKAXc nMionaWMu. oeniNAMe
(YAC 197-11-960) Seetioa 11.10.230(1)
B. LlIYIIQNldlITAL LLDOO1'TS (contlnutd) a ~ ■ ~ ~ '
ev.lwcioo ror
A`e
oc~ U~e 0~►ly
(S) 11ha[ protecclve seasures vlll be taiun to lasure ttut l"lu or sp111• of •ay chealcal■
•tored or w ed oe slte vill not be •Iloved to pereolat• to `rwndvates (th1s loelude• eu sure•
co keep ehealeal• ouc of disposal •yscess deoeribsd in 7b(2) and 3e(3)'
Compliance with existinQ regulation:;. Drywells be
]_ocated in common area where it will be more diff=cuit
for homeownPrs to iJ_l.epzaliv disuose of chemicala.
c. uater Runotf (lacludinj stocs vacer):
(1) Deseripe tM source o[ runolt (laeludtas scon vater) aod mocbd oi eolleetion and dlspowl
li any (include Quaotities, lf known). Vhere vill this y ter flow? Y111 thi• water Elov lato
other vacsrs? Ii so, descripe.
A1]_ stormwater run-ofi will bP Qenerated from on-siCP.
There is little or no dr.ainage from off.-site. Run-off
will be collected fro strPet gutters and disposed of in
Rrass ver.cotati.on areas and clrvwPl_ls.
'Jl11 ♦nr ehemicals be •co«d, handled or wsd oo the @ite !o a lou tloa vM r• • @ptll or
lesk vill drain to suriace or `roundvatar oc to •stors vacer dlspo N i@yetma d1mcAarftn6 co
surface or ground Ntar'
No
(l) Could vsste mterials enter ground or •urtace waterst I[ •o, aenerally describe.
Generally no. Illegal disposal of waste mater4 als b_y
homeowners is possib].e and could result in trace ariounts
of waste material reaching the groundwaCer.
d. Proposed saasure• co reduce or coatrol surtace. Eround, •nd evnoff vacer lapaets, lf •ny (!t
c [h• proposed •etlon 11e• vithin the Aqul[*r Sensieiv Aras be •speeiallr elear on •xplaoaeions
r relacing to faeilitiss coaeernins Seetions lp(i). )p(S). •nd 3c(2) ot thls c Mekllst):
All disnosal and control facii ;_ries wiJ.1 mePt SPokanP
Cour_ty '203' rejvulntions.
4. Purrs
a. ''heck or circle type ot ve`etation tound on the slte:
declduous cree: alder, oaple, aspen. ocher.
ever`reen tree: f1r, eedar, pine, ocher.
shrube.
griis.
x pascure.
X crop or gralo.
vec soil plants, eaccail, buccereup, sullrush, sIcunic cabEage, otlw r.
yter plants: weter lillr, salgraes, ailfoll, oclti r.
otAer cype• of vtdetatioa.
b. Vhat klnd aad uouet ot vofetation vlll bo rmoved os altesad? Nearly c'lll
ex;stinR vepPtation wiJ.l be removed.
c. List threateaed or eadan;ered •pecles Imow to be oa or near the si[e. N o n e
d. Propossd laadscaping, ~ f o&tiv* p ts, or otlur ~apr s o pr ern or snhaaee w get c
on tn. .i«, ir .nr: 11T renta~ snaces wi`~ e ~and scaped.
communitv space wil be landscaved.
5
SPOKAIIE ENVIROlf1EKT4.ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11-960) Settton 11.10.230(1)
~ . v .
B. ENYIRONMENTAL EIEMEI(TS (continued) &
Evaluatlon Far
Agency Use Only
S. AN1M1lL5
e. Circle any blyds anG animals which Aave been obsarved on or neer the site or are knw n to be on
or near the 51te:
birds: hir heron, eaqle,os'ongbirdyj other:
naaaals(d~ bear. elk. Ceaver. other:
iisn: bass. salmon. trout. herring. shellfish. other:
other:
b. List any threatened or endanqered species knwn to be on or near the s1te.
NoTlE'
I
c. ls tne site part of a migratton route? lt so, explatn. N O
a. ProDOSed raessures to preserve or enhance rllditte, 1I any: 1 a n d s c a p e d s p a c e s
will attract new varieties of native songbirds.
6. ENERGY AND vATUAAL RESOURCES
a. what kinds of energy (electric. natural gas, rood stove, so1ar) w111 be usN to meet the
the conpleteC project's energy needs' Destribe rhether 1t w111 Dt used for Aosttnq, wanutac-
turing, ett.
Energv reouirements will be met by electricitv and
natural Qas.
h. Would your project •ffett the potentlal use of solar energy by •djactnt proDerties' if so.
generally deSCribe.
No
c. What kfnds of enerqy conservatlon feitures sre intluded in the plans of this proposal? L1st
other proposeC measures to redutt or control eneryy 1i+pacts. 1f any:
Al1 livinQ units will meet current HUD enerSy conservative
requirements.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL NEALTH
a. Are there •ny envlrornentai health hazards. lncluding enposure to toxic chemicalt. risk af flre
and exploslon, spill. or hazardous waste, that could occur •s a result of this proposal? If so,
descriDe.
No
(1) Describe speclai emergency servtces that mlght be required.
None
6
QR=*OtDINAIlCL
(VAC 197-11-960) Seetion 11.10.230(1) lTORAlIL IIIPILOIQ
L1fYIR0lQQRM EiJXM1'!S (coaclausd)
Gvalwtioa Por
11geocy Use Only
EINIROHldtRAL IiEAL-A (contlowd)
(2) Propossd asasures to redue• or coocrol anviroaaeotal hsalth fusards, lf ■ny:
Comnliance with existi.nQ reQulations.
b. Noise:
(1) Wlut type• ot aolss e=iet in the arw which aap alfeet pour projeet (for erasple: tratfic.
•quiprn[, oparation, ocMr?
Minor traffic noise exists adjacent to the proposal site.
(2) Nhat t7De• and lovel• ot nois• vould be crsa[ed bq or • Nocla[ed with the project oo •
shoct-ceru or • long-cen basis (lor enamPle: cra[[ic, coascructloa, operation. other)' Lodicac•
vhat hours noise vould eoM ttom [1►e @its. Short term: Noise associated with street and utility
constrtiction.
I,on~ term: Noise generally associated with residential
neiRhborhoods.
(7) Proposed msssure to rtduee or eontrol nois• tmpaeta, 1I aay:
Compliance with existing codes.
8. U►'tD AND SHORLLI!TE USE
A. What is the current ws ot the site and adjaceat propseties? Slte and Aroperties
to east are used aRriculturally. Northw west and south are residential.
b. Itas the slte besn used (or agciculture' I[ •o, deser1be. Slte 1'lSS been llSed
to raise alfalfa.
c. Desertbe •ny •cruccures on the .ice. j.andowner's home and Ollt building
are on the site. I
a. uiii .nY .tr„«ur.s ee a.moii.n.a? ir .o, wnicn? Out buildinQ may be
demolished.
e. Vhac Ls the currenc zoning classifieatlon of the si[e1 U R 3. S
WFut is the curreoc cmprohonaive pLn desi;w[ion of the •Lte' ilrban
g. I[ •pplieabla, vhat 1s the current •horelias master progru designation of the @its'
N/A
h. Has aoy parc ot the sice been classified as ao 'oavironimen[ally Nwitivo' area? If so,
spscify.
No I. Appro:isstelr hov aaor people vould reside or voTk in the cmpleted projsctT
350 neople.
7
3}'OKAlEE Eo'IfT1(]MWlPL1L URDIlIA11CL
(LAG 147-11-940) Sse tiao ll.la. 27A(1)
D. LIfvIRUtRSL1R'A1. 2LXKZWrS (coaciawd)
'valuaelon For
Ageaep Use Da.ly
j. Approzlm[ely hov unr ptople would cZue eospltted ysp ject QispLte3 Nnne
k. Yrapowd mrasures to avoid flr rsdus• dlsplaesse►C Lmpacta, if sny: N1A
1. Propcsed it1out'!s sa aasure the proposal is coayatible rrith exletini aod projacced land uaee asd
p1ana, if +rs+r: .
Compliance with ZoninR Code and Cnnditians of Annroval
af the proposal.
9. HOUSINC
a. Approx3aately Ysa+r man7 unlt■ would 6r pro+tdsd, it aqy3 Iadlcata rhrthEr lsi;tr, mlddks-, of
lov-intowe houmins. ,
13(] low to middle income uniCs. ,
D. ApQroxioately hov msssy unita, 1[ any, would loi *l1alaatadT iadlute vhrthsr high-, @iddle-, ar
lov-income housl4s.
None
c. Praynsed oeawres ta redue: or toeotral haualnt impacts, if aor: inC1L1S1-on df
recreational facilities, fencine and l.andscaninR in the
proiect. Comvl.iance with Conditians Qf AnUrpval far
project.
10. AESTiIE'rL CS
A. Whst Lw c!1'se talleat heighs of an7 propased strucLUxs=O. ooc includlag aateanser uhat is Ehe
printipak e=trrtor auildia; aaEerial(s) proposed'!
Ta1lest hiailding would he 3(} feet. F3uildinR exteriors
would be wpQd or wood--l.ike materials.
b. Whac vlrva ix+ ttu ifardists wLeinity would be a1cered or ohs[=vctRdT NOI1e
c. Praposed masuse• ta rtduce ar eontrol ieach4tlc iapacto, Sf an7: Pf.'r11T1P.t2Y
fencing and l.andscaping.
11. s.tcx- Axn cLARE
a. 'rhas trps of light at glaee vlll [}e ptoposal produreat '•lhat tiae oi da7 would it rtaial} oeeur'.
Proieet wiii have streeC 1iehts and norch liRhts.
b. Could 1ighc or Slare fsou c!K tiuir!k►fd projtet be a arfac7l tasard or lnreriere riEh .ierst
No
C. WYwat exlrtlag off-sit* sources af lighs os Slars ray afiact your propoarlt None
d. Tropo%ed nartsurfr ta r:deui or concrol light and giar• iapsecr, if ao7t Cpmplic-~RCk~'
with exisCin,g codes.
$
• STOKANL ?)(YLROH?QHi1L OIlDI11ANR
(VAC 191-11-960) Ssc[lon 11.10.230(1) • ' •
3. LNVIROlQQRTAL L1.L?QKI'S (cooclnued) ~ ~ . ~ .
. ■ ~
Evaluatlon For
. . Ag«cr u.e only
12. RZCRLAIIOtI
a. Vhac desian.ced and lnlottial [ecreaciooal opportunltie• •re in the Laaediate vlcinicr2
Centenial Trail is ; mile to north, alonQ the Spokane
River.
D. Vould the proposed project Aisp L ee •ny exlstiog retcu tional uscs? I( so, desccibc
No I
c. P;opufed ueabureG to recucc or contcol lopac u on recrea[Son, ln:: .
tfes to bc pcovlded by Ehe project or appllcanc, if anr:
Project will incl.lide 2 acre
13. iIIS:UY.IG AND CULIUft.IL YRESERVA.-IGN
A. Are there •nr places or oDjects ltsted on oi proposcd fot natlotul, •tate or local presenra-
tion reYlsters knovn [o be on o[ nex[ co the sitet If mo, genecall/ deicrlbe.
No
D. Cene[ally demtrlDe any landnarks or evldence o( AlsCOCIc archaeologlcal, oclenttflc or cultu[al
leportance 6own to be on or next to Ehe stce.
None
c. Pcoposed vcisures to reEuce or tonttol lspa[ta, 1[ .nY: N/ A
16. TGAt15POR':ATIUN
idcati(y public strcnto and hlghvrys servlng the site and descrlDc propoecd •ccess to rh,
ezlscine .y.«v. s►,o..-on .i« pl.", Ir .ny. Indiana Avenue via GradN,
Road will urovide access from the north. Mission Avenue
will urovide access from the south. Barker Avenue is a
nrincinal arterial annroximatelv 1/3 mile to the west.
b. It ■iCe cucren[ly served by publlc [CansiC? 1( noc, vFuC 1e Che appco:inate d1sCante [o CAc
ntA«.< <r•u1t .toPT publ_i_c tranGit routeS are on Mission Avenue
adiacent to teh provosal and on Barker Road.
c. flov eany parklng space• vould the completed project have? }b vsLarr7r vould the project eliairutc?
The completed,pro,ject will bave approximaCely 270 narking-
spaces.
d. Vtil :eQulic •ny oev roads or sCree[i, o[ Ssprovcuen[* to ezlatln` coads or stree[li
not Sncludlns drircvays? 1[ ro, geaerally descrlpe (lodlcate v}xcher publlc oC prtva[c).
All vrovosed svaces will have direct access onto new private
drives constructed for the proiect. Mission AvPnue frontage
wi]_1 be imnroved. Imurovements to Rarker will be made via
cooperation with other projects.
C. W111 [he pcojeec use (o:
If w, gene[ally descrlt.-
No
9
sroWAJft aNvteo"tcaxru, 0aDiekr+c7
(YAC 197-11-960) Seetioo 11.10.230(1) S. II1YIU0!!M3'.AL EI.DQRT3 (eontiowd)
°valuA :fon : ur
t. Hov unr wRieular trlps pet dar vould be gaoerated Dp the campletad projeet' If 1movr.,
indicate when peak vould oceur.
Apnroximatelv 800 trins per day will be QeneratP(' ' I
completed ~ . ' , , , , , . .
and 6 P.M. ,
g. Prnpostd seawies [o reduce or control transporta[Lon impaccs, 1t •ar: I.IIII)IOVClllt.:l~, I
of Mission Avenue frontage. Participation in Barkt.i-
Road improvements as he i(lent,f i ecl in th(' T)rn i,-.(,t
) 11c1 I C L() I1,; 1ZI) I-V~i_~ .
I
l5. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. 57ould Ch-a projact resul[ in •n lncreased DMd for publlc services (to< <Lmple, flre protectlon,
polics procection, health cars, scAools, ocher)1 II •o. ionerally deacrlbe.
W
acae,.:rea [u -es,ice .3 r :unero! J ::ec c iopocca )n F;ubl?c •arvic a a, •nrProiect will be nhased.
16. U-ILI:'IES -
-OIC U«11Sitt •,s~ntlr-avaiL 10 ~t the site: Glectcltit r~~tuCural gaxwater~cetus• ~
` rvice celepAooe( kantcar7~ saw •:pt1c •yscem, other.
Cable T.V.
b. Describe the utilitie• that •r• proposed tor the projocc, the utility providing ctr •e nic• •od
the general constructlon ac ivtcie• o0 4M site or in the ismd ate viclnit vhi haight
n..aea. W.W.P.: E~ectricitv and natura~. Qas: ~pa`kane aunty:
Public sewer5; Consolidated IrriRation District: Ptiblic
water; U.S. 4JPSt: Te?ephone; Cox Cahle: T.V.
C. SICNATURL
I, the undersigoed. Nur uoder the petilt) of p-arjunr chat tlti •Eove respooras ar• made truchlully aad to the bes[ ot •r Ieawladge. I•lso
underscaed ctut, •hould thsre Ee •oy villful dereproseotatloo or villtul Le1e ot lull disclosur• oa my parc, the • ee "y vlchdrav aar
deteralnation of noosi=nlficaoce ttut lc might issue !a raliane• upoo thl• eltieklist.
o,«: December 2~, 199 PTO~e.nt Bill Colyar/Richard Mason
% " (P1a"e trinc or Type)
/
Proponenc:
71 .,r. ~►aar...: Inland Pacific EnQ~neerinR Comnanv_, Inc.
. - cs to.c6r.)
Pnoo.: 707 West 7th Avenue, Suite 200, Spokane, WA 99204
per.oa ca.Pl.«ng ror.: Richard Mason at.: December 2, 1996
Phon.: ( 509 ) 458-6840
~
POR STAT1 OSL OItLY
StaE[ asber(m) re.- ~ ~ ,
Sasad oa thi• sufi rwiw:of the e;,.~y. ".~....a. a::,: .....z . ,n:,...~...
I
A. Cooclude• that tFure are no pcobable signitiunc •dvsrse Lpaeu aad neareod• a daterziciac:on ui nor.stgnltiu❑ce. I
S. Coaeludes tlut probaple sigaitlcant •d w rse •oviron=atal Lapaat• do e:ist tor the turtent proposal aod recouroEs a aicigared decer-
■laacion of now igniticanee vich eonditiow .
C. Concludes that there •re probable slSniflunt adverse sovirosomantal lapaets aod recommaods • dateraloacion of signi[icaoce
TILIIIC TQ - :75.00
J
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
3AND PLANNING
ZO1 `V JU RJ1J~~~~~~FICATION 1'bPPLICATION
FOR
MISSION MCADOWS MANUFACTURID HOME PARR (DECIIKBER 1996)
PART g
A. GENERAL INF(DIt1V1ATION:
NAME OF APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE Richard Mason c/o Inland Pacific Eneineering
MAII.ING ADDRESS 707 West 7th Avenue, Suite 200
CI'i'y Spokane STATE WA ZIP 99204
PHONE (509 ) 458-6840 (work) (509) 928-5160 (home)
IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER, I1VCLUDE WRI'fTEN OWNER AUTHOItIZATION
FOR APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPftESENTATIVE.
LEGAL OWNER'S NAME Bill & Arlene Colvar PHONE (509)924-6273
MAILING ADDRESS 19305 East Mission Avenue
CI'I'y Greenacres STATE WA ZIp 99015
PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA (acres or sq ft) 19.5 AC
ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq ft ) -0-
ASSESSOR PARCEL #S OF PROJECT/PROPOSAL 550$3 . 9043 ; 55083 . 9012 ; 55083 . 9042
ASSESSOR PA.RCEL #'S OF ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED N/A
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL 19305 East Mission Avenue
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATE ESTA.BLISHED) IIR 3.5
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY Vacant
PROPOSED ZONING UR 7 .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY Drban
SCHOOL DISTRICT Central Vallev
FIRE DISTRICT Fire District #1
WATERPURVEYOR Consolidated Irriaation Dist.
PRQPOSED USE OF PROPERTY
Single fanuly dwellings Duplexes Multifacruly dwellings
Manufactured homes (X) Business Industrial Mixed Use
Other ( ) - Descnbe
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY
Idone
B. LEGAL/ZONE RFCLASSIT'ICAT'ION INrOR1VIA'rION;
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL Northside of Missaon Avenue, annrox. 2300 f t. east of Barker Rd
SECTION $ TOWNSHIP 25N RANGE 45E.W.M.
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCESS Mission Avenue; Indiana Avenue/Grady Road
WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRONTING ON PUBLIC ROAD 660 feet on Mission
d ~ ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 2 of 4
DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARTERIAL OR PLANNED ARTERIAL (X) YES NO
NAME(S) OF ARTERIAL ROADS Mission Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIP'TION OF PROPERTY FOR EACH ZONE RECLASSIFICATION PROPOSED
(Legal Description Attached)
EXISTING ZONE(S) UR 3.5 TO PROPOSED ZONE(S)_ UR 7
FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
PROPERTY (ATTACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION STAMPED BY LAND SURVEYOR OR PROVTDE
BELOW _ (Legal Description Attached)
IF YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, WHAT IS YOUR TNTEREST IN IT9 _
Land owner is co-sponsor of nroject.
WHAT ARE THE CHANGED CONDITIONS OF THE AREA WHICH YOU FEEL MAKE THIS
PROPOSAL W D? Increased urbanization4 Pronerties to west, north,
and south have been developed to urban densities. Urban services including
public sewer are adiacent to proposal. Properties adjacent to proposal
have been rezoned to UR 7.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROPOSED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION HAVE ON THE ADJACENT
PROPERTIES? Increased traffic on egisting streets.
WHAT FACTORS SUPPORT THE ZONE RECLASSTFICATIDN9 Communitv's need for
affordable housing. Availability of all urban services immediatelp
adiacent to the proposal.
WHAT MEASURES DO YOU PROPOSE TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPACT ON
SURROUNDING LAND USE) Recreational provisions within proposal.
Traffic mitiaations outlined in Conditions of Apnroval. Fencing of
entire project site. Strict enforcement of home and vard appearance
rules and reaulations to be initiated with nark.
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PAR'T 11
THIS SECTION OF THE APPLICATION WILL PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF WITH
U✓RI'ITEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION WITH THE
AGENCIES IDENTIFIED RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE INCORPORATED
IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FIRE MARSHALL/FIRE DISTRICT
A THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO 1
B ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (HA-VE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN MADE TO MEET tJUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACII.ITIES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES
C RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW , OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE, AND WII.L BE DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION TIME
1) REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE .
C;FIRE DISTRICT SIGNATURFJI'ITLE DATE
WATER PURVEYOR
A. SATISFACTORY ARR.ANGEMENTS F C WATER AND FIRE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (HAVE) THAVE NOT) ) BEEN MADE
B REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS /l./O CtJ4`Z e- vl l~~
i
n ► _
r-.
~ /3
L
WATER DISTRICT SIG A T L E DATE
COUNTY ENGINEER
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS
AND DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT
A COMMENTS
!I
j
l'~
` SIGNA~~I'ITL.E DATE ,
COUNTY UTILYTIES
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (]HAVE) HfA'VEO) lBET SATISFIED THE DESIGNATED
WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE ,jS ~omSo l, A-f -e -
A COMMENTS t~cJ.'9 '1~r ..C-P J i L& t,J ~A ~c~rsc,~ C~,4TCJ
L_ IGc ~ ic Z
J /o l~ ~v
` IGNATUREfTITLE DATE ,
HEAY.TH I)ISTRICT
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PL B-GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMTITAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) ~AVE~NOy BEEN SATISFIED
A COMMENTS PJ4
~
,/SIGNATUREITITLE DATE _
t
SEWER PURVEYOR
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT
A COMMENTS ~c 4D~E SIGNATUTLE ,
v e ' `
d CATION APPLICATION Page 4 of 4
00 ~ PAItT IYI
. ~
SURVEYOR VERIFICATION
. h .
. .
. .,..dI;;THE SIG LICENSED I.AND SURVEYOR, HAVE COMPLETED THE INFORMATION
FOV ONIlVG MAP AND WRITTEN LEGAL DESCRIP'TION
'••;~GISTERti~
4p1L•L• • • S~ .~L~ i~
p DATE
l ~ .
EXPIRE3 12 oe PHONE
ZIP
PAItT IV
(SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION)
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE
RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED
FOR THE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACI'ION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED
HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER
BEHALF
NAME DATE
~jC.~~~/6t-~~'~tc,~ ~f,~r•~r'c'.~-f 117~~S~-~f1~C1
ADDRESS Av ?v -7 7 yj ~ - 5cc' le PHONE
ZIP
.
-2
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATNE DATE
/ ~ ` 5~ l.'►` L4 v!-~~ ~4-~
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
SIGNED AND SWORN OR AFFIRMED BEFORE ME ON THIS 1 1~-- DAY OF
1996, BY
- ,
~UDIT~y _
T yo ~ ' .
, Ltary P~\lic in and f r the State of Waslungton
• ~/~y Residing at
My appointment expires I D-~a 7-`!, 7
PAItT V
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DMSION OF BUII,DING AND PLANNING)
DATE SUBMITTED FILE # M
DATE ACCEP-WD By
TOTAL FEES a~ 41:
r~ RECEIPT #
.
.
s o 1rJ1.1`)►.1 r UA' ACTURED HOME PARK APPLICATIO1\
MISSION MF.ADOWS MANUTACTURED HOME PARR
A. CENERAL INFnR IV~TIn&-
DATE December 3, 1996 APPLICATION NO.
NAME OF APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE Richard Mason c/o Inland Pacific Engineering
MAILING ADDRESS: 707 West 7th Avenue. Suite 200
CITY Spokane STATE WA ZIP CODE 99204 TELEPHONE 458-6840
AUTHORIZED AGENT REPRESENTING OWNER Richard Mason
IF APPLICANT YS NOT OWNER, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION
FOR APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVE
EXISTTNG ZONE CLASSIFICATION UR 3.5 DATE ESTABLISHED 1991
PROPOSED ZONE CLASSIFICATION UR 7
EXISTING LAND USE vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY IIrban
SCHOOL DISTRICT Central Valley FIRE DISTRICT #1
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIONS IlWOLVING THIS PROPERTY•
None
B. LEGA.L INk'ORMA,TI01S:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY See Legal Description attached
SECTION g TOWNSHIP 25N RANGE 45EWM
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 55083.9043; 55083.9012; 55083.9042
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ADJOIIVING LAND OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY OWNER OR SPONSOR
NOne ,
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL 19305 East Mission
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCESS Mission Avenue, Indiana via Grady Road
DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL Misition Meadows will be a 131 loC rental park for
manufactured homes. Project will be developed in phases of 15 to 30 lots
per year and is expected to take S to 8 pears to complete. 7wo and one half
acres of recreational facilities are proposed. Park rules will requite
covered parking, porches and decks, pitched roofs with shingles, wood siding
and paved drivewavs. Park will be fenced and landscaned.
.
C. OTTiER HOME PARK TNT'ORMATIC)N
IVZJMBER OF SPACES 131 GROSS AREA 19.5 acres
TYPICAL LOT SLZE 53 x 85
.b ~
19, .
PROPOSED SOURCE OF WATER;
Individual wells Pubhc System ~ Pnvate Community System
Other Descnbe
PROPOSED MEANS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL.
Public sewer (K) Community system Septic tank and drainfield
Double Plumbing Dry Sewer Other
UTII.ITY COMPANIES AND/OR DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THIS PROPOSAL.
Electricity. wwP Sewer: Spokane county
Gas WWP Water Consolidated Phone IIS West
Irrigation
IS THIS PROPOSAL AFFECTED BY
Aquifer Senslnve Area (k) PSSA (X)' Shorehnes
Wetlands
DO YOU, OR THE OWNER IN THE EVENT YOU DO NOT OWN THIS PROPERTY, HAVE ANY
PLANS FOR FUTURE ADDITIONS, EXPANSIONS OR FURTHER ACTIVITY RELATED TO THIS
PROPOSAL? Yes No Qr.) IF YES. EXPLAIlv
IS PHASING OF THE FINALIZATION OF THE MANUFAC,TURED HOME PARK PROPOSED
Yes (X) No IF YES. SHOW PHASING ON T'HE PRELIMNARY SITE PLAN
D. AGENCY CONSIJLTATIQN
THIS SECTION OF TBE APPLICATION WII,L PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTNENT STAFF WTI'Fi
WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT TBE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIlViINARY CONSULTATION WITI3
THE AGENCIES IDENTIFIED. RESULTS OF T'BE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL B8
INCORPORATED IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
FIRE MARSHALL/FIRE DISTRICT
A THIS PROP4SAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO (
B ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (UAAM) (HAVE NOT) BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR
NEEDS IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILTI7ES
FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURP $F~S
C RECOMNTENDED FIRE FLOW ( , OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE, AND WII.L BE DETERMINED AT BUII.DING PERNIIT
APPLICATION TIME.
D REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE .
!9~ 11 ( C,, 05' ib
FIl2E DISTRICT SIGNATURE/I'ITLE DATE
WATER PURVEYOR
A SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS FO STIC WATER AND FIRE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (HAVE) <THAVE NOT~,- BEENMAI7E
~
I3 REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS ~U~ i ~i~~C.- ~ C~ v) ~~7~7cJ
~ . R
zae- 014*0
WATER DISTRICT SIGNATURE TLE DATE ,
COUNTY UTILITIES
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NOT), BEEIi St~jtTISfTEIy~ TI-E
DESIGNA'I,'ED WATER P VEYOR FOR THIS SITE IS La~ Sp S~ ~
L }-C w-c. f
A CO1~~VIENTS ~~f' ~ r r
r,
.
SIGNATURE/TITLE DATE
. . - - - ~
~ r ~ •
COUNTY ENGINEER '
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS
AND DRAIlNAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICAIVT
A COMIviENTS
. r. ~
~ SIGNATuitE/1'tTLE DATE
HEALTN DISTRICT A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN P ~~XN QUIREMEN TS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) ~AVE NOT) SATISFIED
A COMNENTS
/Aal ~2 /v
SI ATURElTITLE DATE
PAItT IV
(SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER OF AUTHORTZATION)
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES
ARE MADE TRU'ITIFLJLLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
I FURTHER SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PR4POSED FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR. IF NOT TBE OWNER, ATTACHED HERfiWITH
IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF.
.
SIGNED DATE ez%f
ADDRESS G-U ?c~ 7 7 441 /14,v- ~ k Z. ~ PHONE e1~-~'`~I,) `~S~! ~ ; c.C'l'!_►~~f~~-~ L~CJ/~ ZIP
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE DATE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
IGNED AND SWORN TO/AFFIRMED BEFORE ME ON THIS C~ DAY OF
1994, BY
. ~i1D1T,PI p NOT Ti~q~o ~J - • ~
_votary l~ ` and for e State of Washington ,
ResicLng at
My appointment ex ires )I 'cA7
• PAItT V
(TO BE COMPLETED BY TI-E PLANNING DEPAR'TMEN'1)
DATE SUBNIlTTED . RECEIPT _
DATE ACCEPTED BY La
. . .
. . i-
~ ' Security Pacific
Housing Services
A Divisbn of Bank oi America FSB
SPOKANE COL' df~ ~
I) 5 cAt
BUILDING
ZONE RECLASSIF
MISSION MEAI)OWS MANUFAC ~
l t ; J: - ~
7J
A. GENERAL INFORMATIOIV:
NAIvE OF APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Mason c o Inland Pacific En&ineering
MAII.ING ADDRESS: 707 We§t 7th Avenue, Suite 200
CITy: Spokane STATE: wA ZIP: 99204
PHONE: (509 ) 458-6840 (work) (509 ) 928-5160 ~
(home)
IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATYON
FOR APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVE.
LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: Bill & Arlene Colvar PHONE: (509 ) 924-6273
MAILING ADDRESS: 19305 East Mission Avenue
CITY: Greenacres STATE: WA ZIP: 99015
PROJECT/PROPOSAL STI'E AREA (acres or sq. ft) . 19 .5 AC
ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq. ft.) -0-
ASSESSOR PARCEL #S OF PROJECTIPROPOSAL 55083 . 9043;_,_,55083 . 9012 T 55083.9042
ASSESSOR PARCEL #'S OF ADJACENT A.REA OWNED OR CONTROLLED N/A
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL 19305 East Mission Avenue
EXIS'TIING ZONE CI.ASSIFTCATTON(S) (DATE ESTABLISHID) IIR 3.5
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY Vacant
PROPOSED ZONTNG IIR 7
COMPREHENSNE PLAN CATEGORY IIrban
SCHOOL DISTRICT Central Vallep
FIRE DISTRICT Fire District #1
WATER PURVEYOR Consolidated Irrigation Dist.
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY:
Single family dwellings Duplexes Multifamily dwellings
Manufactured homes (K) Business Industrial Mixed Use
Other ( ) - Describe:
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPART1ViENT ACTIONS IlWOLVING THIS PROPERTY:
None
B. LEGAL/tiONF RECLASSIFICATION INFORMATION:
LOCATTON OF PROPOSAL: Northside of Mission ,Avenue. aRvroz, 2300 ft. east of Barker Rd
SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 25N RANGE 45E.W.M.
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCESS: Hission Avenue; Indiana Avenue/Grady Road
WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRONTING ON PUBLIC ROAD: 660 feet on Mission
.
- • , ~ ~ . .
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PART II
THIS SECTION OF THE APPLICATION WII..L PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF WITH
WRITI'EN VERIECATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRFELIMINARY CONSULTATION WITH THE
AGENCIES IDEN'ITFIED. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE INCORPORATED
IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTTvIENT.
FIRE MARSHALL/FIRE DISTRICT
A. THIS PROPOSAL IS V'irITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. !
B. ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (ItAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACII.ITTES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES. a
C. RECONiMENDED FIRE FLOW: ; OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE; AND WII..L BE DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION TIME.
D . REQ S INCLUDE: .
,
FIRE DISTRICT SIGNATUREfI'ITLE DATE
WATER PURVEYOR
~C WATER AND FIRE FLOW
A. SATISFACTORY A►RR.ANGEMENTEO
T) BEEN MADE.
REQ S (HAVE) VE NO
B . REQUIREMENTS/COMMENTS : GtJ ~Q ~'1 %Z~ ✓
/z13
WATER DISTRICT SIG DATE
COUNTY ENGINEER
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS
AND DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT.
A . COMMENTS:
~t 11.~
SIGNA DATE
COUNTY UTILITIES
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENER.AL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED. THE DESIGNATED
WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE IS
A. COMMENTS:
SIGNATURE=E DATE
HEALTH DISTRICT
A PR.ELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PL F RAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) ((HAVE NOy BEEN SATISFIED.
A. CorRMENfs:
7~ SIGNA IURE/TTTLE DATE
t '
SEWER PURVEYOR
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT.
A. COMMENTS:
SIGNATURFII'ITLE DATE ~
' • .
~ . .
.
.
, .
MAN CJF`iA.CTURED HOME PARK APPLICATION
~ j MISSION MEAD4WS MAN[TFACTURED flOME PARK
GENFRAL ZNFORMATI()NI
DATE December 3, 1996 APPLICATION NO.: • .
NAME OF APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Mason c/o Inland Pacif ic Engineering
MAILING ADDRESS: 707 West 7th Avenue, Suite 200
CITY: Suokane STATE: WA ZIP CODE: 99204 TELEPHONE: 458-6840
AU'TFiQRIZED AGENT REPRESEN!'ING OVVNER: Richard Mason "
IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION ~
FOR APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVE
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: UR 3.5 DATE ESTABLISHED: 1991
PROPOSED ZONE CLASSIFICATION: UR 7 ,
EXISTIlNG LAND USE oacant ~
,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY Urbai gecurity pacifles
Central valle HOUS1119 se~vic
SCHOOL DISTRICI' y AD , iS. 10 ~ 01 gas►k of Ame6ca FS8
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNIlVG DEPARTMENT ACT'I
None
~ ' p~sd~l t `~p►^ s
3. LEGAL INFORMATIOK:
LEGAL DESCRIP'IZON OF PROPERTY See Leg
SECTION: 8 TOWNSHIP: 25N RANGE:. 45EWM
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 55083. 9043;, 55083.9012; 55083.9042
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ADJOJNING LAND OWNED OR CONT'ROLLED BY OWNER OR SPONSOR
NOne STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL 19305 East Mission , ,
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVTDING ACCESS I"ission Avenue, Indiana via Grady Road
DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL Misgion Meadows will be a 131 lot rental park for
manufactured homes. Project will be developed in phases of 15 to 30 lots
per year and is expected to take 5 to 8years to complete. 7wo and one half
acres of recreational facilities are proposed. Park rules will requite covered patking, porches and decks, pitched roofs with shingles, wood siding
and paved drivewavs. Park will be fenced and landscaaed.
QTHER HOMF PARK INFORMA.TI0N
NUMBER OF SPACES: 131 GROSS A.REA: 19.5 acres
TYPICAL LOT SIZE 53 g 85
RECEIPT SUNMARY f -
.
, A M , ► - J
TRANSACTION NUNIDER: T9602206 DATE: 12/10/96
APPI,ICANT: INLAND PACIFIC ENGIN PHONE=
ADDRESS: 707 W MISSION AVE #200
SPOKANE WA 99209
CONTACT NAME: RICHARD MASON PHONE= 509 458 6840
TRAN3ACTION: ZONE CHANGE REVIEW (ENGINEERS & UTILITIES)
DOCUMENT ID: 1) 2) 3)
4) 5) 6)
COIrMENTS: PARCEL N0.55083.9043
FEE & PAYMENT SUMMARY
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY FEE AMOUNT
ZONING PERMIT 1 200.00
REZONE REVIEW 1 25.00
TOTAL DUE = 225.00
TOTAL PAID= 225.00
BALANCE OWING= .00
PAYMENT DATE RECEIPT# CHECK# PAYMENT AMOUNT
12/10/96 00013027 11997 225.00
PROCE3SED BY: WENDEI,, GLORIA
PRINTED BY: WENDEL, GLORIA
THANK YOU *~**********************+r***********
- I
- - i
1 r
~ • .
PERMIT CENTER PASSTOk7`
Uatc: Number: `4
~
Namc ~ J Phone
Address
Comments: ,
CUSTOMER ROUTING
;
Division of Buildin & Plannin Division of Bu.~ld'w & Planninb
. . ~.ti ...vv::: - ~ ~ f•v....: ......:v.~::.~:......
. ..............~I..................~I...............
.........ti.. r...... ....ti.............,..........-....... v.ti•.~:::-...;...,........ , .
..L . r~...t.......t... S . . .ti •r:.~:.~:-?:??::~:~?: 'ti; :M1;_
. . . . ti.r , .w}::r;.~::. . r.4.~. r x..... ..L. r :v: wr::. ,.,Z.. .r. ~ ~ : ...ti r:::.}w:::::.., . i:'•?}i::{^:i}:}.}~:vi'}:?}y$: iiii}}~i
. . .r .v: n...; ; v. ~
. , . . : yc ;
r.~•kfti~'r.r }i:v:tii•:'r::C~i}i}}i:.':{%~'ti ::i{t+ ,f~?0~,.. C ~j, !
...v.•:::. ~ ~ r:.:i{ • r ~ki~141~~•I~lk~~~i~~i::•,:ir { ;:;::;?ti;$:{:'{::::{ti~ .
:
~~~~:5~#~• :~•~r~~:~~~l1~#~i~`:;-:~::;~::-:::::;:;:>;:;:::: - . .
~i
A~:
: ~
C Addressing , Admin. Exception ~ Approach Perniit
~ Building Pemut ~ Arterial Rd Plan Info = Flood Plain Prnnit
C Code Informatioa s Binding Site Plan Info : PublidPrivate Roads
F-Commercial Review , Cert. of Exemption = Res. 91dg Permit Rev.
C Conference ~ Comprchensive Plan s Site Drainage Info
~ Energy Code Info ~ Cond. Use Permit : Subdivision Revicw
C Fire Safety Review = Nonconfocming Use UdGty Permit
F-Manufactured Home i Permit Review : Zone Change Review
T J
C Mechanical Permits , Shorelines Info G • c/
F-Other Perraits - , Short Plat Info ~ NO FEE REQUIRED
~ Reviewer 'I'ime out
F-Plumbing Permits ~ Subdivision Info S Css Lf~-V-\3/ ' I
/
_ x-;:r,-: r,~ ; ~
;::,{t?{... '~<<::;x•r~•:c•::::;:;::r:~:c;>:::r:::
C Private Road Info : T'emp. Use Permit ~`~'~~•~:~'~'t'~~1~.?~..~:xfir:>:::::=:~:::<?=:::::~;
~ Residential Review ~ Variance Appl. ~ APA PaYment
C Sewer Permits ~ Zone Chcck , Cert of Exemption
C InforTnation ~ Zone Info ~ Subdivision Review
n , s ULID/Sewer lnfo
F Zoae Change Review
1- ! -1 -
r- i NO FEE REQUIRED ~ ND FEE REQUIRED
Reviewer Time out Reviewer Time out Revievver Time out
MASl'[RTASS('ORI.C7R 1/I6/96
f?EECE1rVED
SPOKA\E COliNTY HEARING EXAIIINER J(Jf`( O'd 1998
3-~DpAN,E
RE: Zone Reclassification irom ) FINDINGS OF FACT,`- Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) ) CONCLUSIONS
to U'rban Residential-7 (UR-7) ) AND DECISIOti'
Applicant: Bill Colyar )
File \To. ZE-56-96 )
I. SI.'1'1~11aRY OF PROPOSAL aND DECISION
'i-oposai: Zone reclassification from the Urban Residential-3.5 (CTR-3.5) to the Urban
:esidential-7 (UR-7), to allow development of a manufactured home park and those uses
_ . . Nl
71 ~)l'CI~IUfI. •
II. FI\DItiGS OF FACT AtiD C'ONC,LliSIONS
1 1'.~ ~-TC:II-i31v, 1I3~i l1as t"ev1z~Ved ihe "LOI:C I'~~1~35~1 t1C:~iiOil ~t1~allC~l:IOIi ~:i?Cl :h~
eVidence of record, and hereby adopts the followinQ findinas of fact and conclusions:
A. GE\ER-kL INFOR~IATION:
Legal Owaers: Bill and Arlene Colyar, 19305 East Nlission Averlue, Gre.-ilacr`s, 1ti'A 99016
' ApplicantlAgent: Ricllard Mason, IPEC, 707 West 7" Avenue, Suite 200, Spokane, W."A 991-04
Address ofSite: 19-305 East Mission Avenue, Greenacr; s, tiV.':
Location: Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue, 2300 feet east of
Barker Road, in the SE'/~ of thc SW of Section 8, Township 25 '`orth, Rance '5 ENV'~1,
Spokane County, WashinLytoli.
Legal Description: The south 20 rods of the ;4 of the 'N-VV except the east 20 rods, and
tlle SW of the NW ',i4, except the south half of the south 20 acres thereof all ~xithin Section
Township ?F North, Ran`e 43 E"'iVi, Spokane County, NVashinrrton.
"1_oning: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)
Comprehensive Plan Category: The property is designated in the Urban cateQory of the
Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan. The property is also located within the
Priorit_y Sewer Service Area, Aauifer Sensitive Area and Urban Impact Area desiQnated hv th,~
Plan.
11L' t' lII~11II~5, I.rOIli;1llS10I1S dIl(1 DGC151Ui1 1
~
Environmental RevieNv: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsicynificance (MDNS) was
issued by the Division of Buildin~ and Planning on March 2, 1998.
Site Description: The site is approximately 19.5 acres in size, is comprised of three County
Assessor tax parcels, and is mostly flat and undeveloped. A single-family residence, currently
occupied by the legal owners, is located at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to
Mission AN-enue. The site is located inside the interim urban growth area (IUGA) boundaries
designated by Spokane County pursuant to the Washinaton State Growth Management Act.
Surrounding Conditions: The subject property is located along the north side of Mission
Avenue, which is designated as a Minor Arterial by the County Arterial Road Plan. Barker Road
west of the site is designated as a Principal Arterial. Interstate 90 is located at some distance
south of the site, while the Spokane River and the Centennial Trail lie at some distance north of
the site. The land lying north and west of the property is zoned Urban Residential-7 (LTR-7), and
is developed or planned for "site-built" single-family residences. The land south of the site
across Mission Avenue is mostly zoned UR-7, along with some land zoned Urban Residential-
3.5 (UR-3.5), and is developed with manufactured homes, mobile homes and single-family
residences. An elementary school is found at the southeast corner of Mission Avenue and Barker
Road. The land immediately east of the site is zoned Urban Residential-3.5 (LJR-3.5) and is
undeveloped, while further to the east is found land zoned UR-7 and developed with
mobile/manufactured homes. A very large manufactured home park is found at the northwest
corner of Barker Road and the Spokane River, and large manufactured home subdivisions are
found at the northwest and northeast corners of Barker Road and the Spokane River.
Project Description: A rezone to the UR-7 zone is proposed to allow a manufactured home
park, to be developed in seven phases. The application for a manufactured home park associated
with the proposed rezone is subject to processing and approval administratively, pursuant to
Chapter 14.808 of the County Zoning Code. The site plan of record (two pages, revised 12/97)
for the proposed manufactured home park illustrates 131 rental spaces for manufactured homes
and an existing house, with the spaces ranging in size from 30,000 square feet to 3,760 square
feet. A.7 acre area for a manager's unit, maintenance buildina and recreational vehicle storage
is illustrated in the northerly third of the property. The site plan also illustrates a 1.7 acre
community space in the center of the site, with a grass-covered playfield and recreational
facilities, and which is to used only for recreational purposes. A series of paved private roads
with sidewalks and curbs would provide intemal circulation within the community area. Access
to Mission Avenue is illustrated in the southwest corner of the site, and access to Indiana Avenue
via "Grady Road" outside the site is illustrated in the northwest corner of the property. The site
plan states that the northwest access will be "normally gated emergency only access", «hile the
southwest access "may have security gates". Drainage "208" areas are illustrated throughout the
development. A typical lot plan showing manufactured home footprint, a two-space carport,
storacye shed and building setbacks are illustrated on the site plan. Fencing and landscaping
details are also illustrated and listed on the site plan.
HE Findings; Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 2.
r r
B. PRaCEi)URAL INFORNIATIQN
Appllcable Zoniag Regulatrons Spokane County Zoninc, CQde Chapters 14 402 14 618
and 14 808
Hearin~ Date and Location March ?S, 1998, Spokane County Public Works Buildin~,
Lower Level, Commissloners Assembly Room, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA
Iti'atices Mai1ed March 10, 1998 by applicant
Posted i'vlarch 10, 1998 b}I applicant
Published March 9, 1998
Campliance The legal requirements for public notice have been met
Srte Visit March 24, 1998
Hearan~ Proeedure, Pursuant to County Resolution Nos 96-0I71 (Heanng Ehaminer
Qrdznance) and 96-0294 (Heanng Examiner Rules of Procedure)
Testimonv•
Louis Webster. Pat Harper
Dltiislon of Building and Planntng Diviston of Engineenn; and Roads
1026 West Broadway 1 026 West Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260-0240 Spokane, WA 99260
Greg Figc; Richard Mason
WA State Department of Transportation Inland Pacific Engineenng
2714 North Ivlayfair 747 West 7`hAvenue
Spokane, WA 99207 Spokane, WA 99204
Kenna Higalns Richard Solberg
19110 East Indiana 1819 North Glenbrook
Greenacres, WA 99016 Greenacres, WA 99016
Dean Ro«botham Harvey O'Gonnor
1922 Mich1e11i Lane 19310 East Indiana
Greenacres, WA 99016 Greenacres, WA 99016
Susan Peterson Thomas Boyes
1724 North MciVlillan Lane 19225 East Indhana
Cireenacres WA 99016 Greenacres, WA 99016
Grecy 5tirn
2228 East 46`h Avenue
Spokane, WA 9922-3
Items Noticed. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and County Code
County Resolution Nos 96-017I, 96-0294, and 97-0I34 (establishing IUGA boundanes)
County Heanng Examiner Committee final decisions dated 4-2-82 and 4-14-83, and County
Planning Department final decision dated 6-16-95, all regarding the Riverwalk/Rivenvay
HE FindinRs, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 3
. ti
development in Building and Plannincr File Nos PE-1414-81/ZE-92-81/PUDE-1-82 Revised
preliminary plat and preliminary site development plan for Riverwalk approved 5-19-95, and
final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition recorded on 6-15-97
Procedural Matter: After the public record was closed, the Heanng Examiner received a
letter from the applicant, Rlchard Mason dated March 26, 1998 Since the letter «as received
after the record was closed, it is excluded from the record
C. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS
In considenng a rezone application, Washington case law generally provides that (1) there
ls no presumption in favor of the rezone, (2) the applicant for the rezone must prove that
conditions have substantially changed in the area since the last zonincy of the property, and (3) the
rezone proposal must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or ,i elfare
Parknd2e v Seattle, 98 Wn 2d 454, 462 (1978), Biarnson v Kitsan Countv, 78 VVn App 840
(1995) Spokane County Zoning Code Section 14 402 (1)(2) indtcates that consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, detnment to the public welfare and changed circumstances are relevant
factors to consider in amending the Zoning Code
The proposed rezone must also comply with the Spokane County Zorung Code, the State~
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the County's Local Environmental Ordinance, and other
applicable land use regulations Conditions may be imposed to assure the consistency of the -
proposal with applicable regulations
The following findings of fact and conclusions are made
1 The prooosal Qenerallv conforms with the SDOkane Countv Generalized ComDrehensive Plan
a Relevance of Comprehensive Plan
A county's comprehensive plan provides guidance to the heanna body in mal:ing a rezone
decision Belcher v Kitsan Countv, 60 Wn App 949, 953 (1991) Deviation from a
comprehensive plan does not necessanly render a rezone iilegal, only general conformance is
required Bassani v Countv Commissioners, 70 Wn App 389, 396 (1993), Cathcart v
Snohomish Countv, 96 Wn 2d 2011212 (1981)
The Heanng Exanilner is required to set forth in findinQs and conclusions the manner in
«Thich a land use decision «rould carry out and conform to the Spokane County Generalized
Comprehensive Plan and development reQulations See RCW 36 70 970 (3), and Spokane
County Resolution No 96-0171, Attachment "A", Section 11 The Examiner's decision may be
to " grant, deny, or grant «rlth such condltions, modifications and restnctions as the EYaminer
finds necessary to make the application compatlble with Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations " Spokane County Resolution No 96-0171, Attachment "A",
Section 11
The Spokane County Zoning Code indlcates that its provisions are to be interpreted to carry
out and implement the puipose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general plans for
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 4
S a~Ed 96-95-~Z uois~~aQ puE suoisnjouo~ `sauiput3 gH
Satlscxa iEau alEooi `slEUaln palECrSisap ol juan7{'pE palumoj aq pinoqs sxiEd auioq pasnjoE3nuew
sjuacudojanap atuoq pain}agnum ioj satoilod ogioads saiEiuoo fjogalEo uEqln auZ
«f4iliqtledcuoo„ jo noniugap `kMssoi0 `uEjd anisuaualduioo aas
lutoiiu'oisut an s1oEduit aslanpE lEul layjouE auo ojKjiuztxoid cjons ui io laiqlouE auo 01 Iua0ECpE
isixa XaLp uaqh~ «AtpqijEdwoo„ anEq 01 p010pis1103 aiu sasn puEj lualaj3cQ j z I auijapinf)
uoistoaQ papaa-3xa lou st tESOdosd aqljo alis aul}o XIisuap jjEiano ayluaunn puE luau.idojanap
Xq.mau qlinn ajqtjEduzoo uacinn faooalLm uoqln aqi ut pagEinoma a.M ui sjESOdold iuaLUdola>>ap
iaisnjD icaussoja uc ,nuuajjnq„ 3o uoiliugap pc,ne `z 5 i puE I~ i sauclaping uotstxaQ puE
E~ t 0ntj3aCq0`uEld anisuaualdcuo3 aas autuaalos puE X11suap oIITnLIELjo`aoumsip `uoiiElEdas
jEIw,dS `nuidEospuEj se sanbmqoaj qons qnnorql `dolanap XEUi sIOaJJa aslanpe aiaqm sasn puEi
,51.111six3 uioij pala3jnq aq pjnoqs fjonawo uEqln aql uiulcm juauzdojanap IEtIuapcsa.z nNaN
Z Z t auijaping uocstoaQ IEnoiddz juacudojanap IEtImpisal ol loud satotiod
puE suEld `S2oLIELTIp.IO qlTM aaiEp10on, III aq pII8 `laur aq pinoqs siuat.udolanap leczoiIEaloal
puE ;mds uado loLi paau auZ S S j auijapmf) uotstoaQ fjoaalEm uEqs~q aul ui juaLUdoianap "Aau
io~ paaElnooua alE satltjiln punoiolapun puE sjq'ijjaasls `sjaa.qs panEd G j i auijaping uotsioaQ
jacu axe f.ro&jEo uEq.zn ar.l jo satoijod IuEnajallaqlo papinold `aoinlas aug puE sioouos
`suiajs.~s aaEUiEip `lamas faEliuES `satjiltjn ajEnbapE SutnEq seam ut panoiddE aq luawdojanap
ueq.rn IEul spuaLUtuooai fao2alEo uEqln aqi tr i I auttapcng u0isi00Q `uUjd anisuaualduro3
sasn jEtluapisai pue satlisuap jo xiui pt.cE uoilEmiquioo `f%JauEn E saaEin03ua faooalEo uEqin au,I,
iioda~jjjmS aql jo s-t, saoEd uo uljoj las a.m aEjd anisuaualduio3 aqi jo smliod IuEnaia-d
slaaus pajanEij AiinEaq acllmau palEooj aq IIinn jEtolaunuoo pooqioqqaiau
pue jELqsnpuc jqIRtl sE uons sasn anisuaJut aiow acpalrqnn `ogjEil fnEau pue asiou au1
uzo.Lj pajElosi aq jjim sasn nliuxEj-ajaais 1Eql ldamoo aql sajocuold fjoaaw3auL aloE lad slrun
L j ol am, sad iTUn auo Luojj Ajjelauaa `SatIISLI2p jEiIQ2piS2130 2nLiE.I ISEA E.IOJ Sh1011E X.IOa2IEo
uuqin auZ S2IlTjmj jELI0iIE2IoaI pLTE oi[CItICI ptIE `sasn jEUlsnpui luatj `jEi3iau,ztuoo poousoqqvl2LI
auios sajEldu.~ajuoo osie ~oSalEo treqln auZ s~utpiinq uznruiuiopuoo puE ,Ciiuzrjilinu.i
`Xjauuj-onn, `ICjILiIEj-ajcLi[S jO fjOoalEo IEilLIapiS2.I E XjL.IELLIi1d Si lj (salnjLaj laulo puE
uoiloaloid axg pue aoijod `stualsXs lalEnn uuols `laIEnn puE lamas oiiqnd `spEOl panEd a i) saoinlas
puE samltoE~ o-qqndjo janaj uau4 E Xq panias Iuauidoianap IEt111apisal anisuaIut pIIE sasn puEj
snouEn sapnjout qOMnn `IUautuo.zinua Ejo juauUdojanap loJ ~Jiunjloddo aqjapinold
oi papuaiui st faoaaln a-eqln aqZ uuq.in si aIis aql ioJ fJoSa~E:D UEld antsuapsdtuoo aqZ
s310110a aigoijaaV q
(t) 091 Ot I I apoo X-junoDauexods aas sfEsodold asn puEj Jo n',ainal
jEIuauzuosinua acll ut `00uEUCp10 jEJuatuuo.zinuH jLIDoZ s,XjunoD aL{i puE dd3S japun paijddE
aq ol samtjod sE uUjd anisuaqaxdLuoD alljo samijod aqi palEaisap sLq 4jvnoo aum-jods
EI d `«asodlnd„ `uo!RajEo uEqin `j uotjoas
`uEjd anisuaclaldcuoo puE `Z d`uUjd anistzaua-idtuooaas patuap .Io pauoiIipuoO`panolddE aq
pjnous jESOdoid .rEjnoiurd L, lou lo laqjaum auraiuuapp ut apln° E sE pasn olaiE uEjd aLjJ ui uvoj
Jas «sautjapina uotstoap„ ayZ Z d`uoqonpoiluI `uejd amsuaqa1dLUOo saoisioap auiuuEid asn
puEj laqlo ocnldope puE suotjEjnSajasn puEj guqoeua `suotsioap asn puEj outiEUi .zoj aping pu-e
ao.znos aouajaps e sE pasn aq pinoys uEld aql lEyl saIEIs uEld anisuaqasdwoZ) aqjL tp 1001 b t
apoooatuoZ aas s.iauotsstwtuoofjunoDjo psLog aylXq paldope luacudol:Dnap lEocsXud
• ,
. ~
or planned public transit routes, and " iinprove or maintain the consistency of adjacent single-
family amenities " Decision Guideline 1 1 3 The approval of a proposed manufactured home
development should consider the compatibility behveen manufactured homes and nearby existing
single-family developments Aesthetic compatlbility should consider the provision for off-street
parking or storage structures, skirting or foundation and roof shape and composition similar to
conventional single-family residences Comprehensive Plan, Decision Guideline 1 1 S The
Urban catecrory recognizes that manufactured home development may be appropnate to renew
residential areas, and that changes in the character of a neighborhood may be allowed upon
appropnate review Objectives 1 5 e and 1 5 g This includes consideration of structure height
of the proposal in relation to that of nearby structures, and the impact that new structures will
have on the archltectural character of the neighborhood Decision Guideline 1 5 8
Manufactured homes should "enhance the residential character or aesthetics", or "improve the
residential values of the area" Decision Guideline 1 5 7
c Consistencv of nronosal wlth aoolicable policies
,
The applicant proposes to rezone the site from the Urban Residential-3 5 zone to the Urban
Residential-7 zone Zonincy Code 14 618 100 provides as follows
The picrpose of the UR-7 zone is to sei stafidards for the orderly
development of residenttal property in a manner that pf-ovides a desirable ~
IIVZ11a 2YIVI7-onment that is comprrtible with sun-ounding land irses and
assu7 es the pr otection of pj operty values It is rnlended that this zofie be -
used to add to the varzety of housing types and densities up to
appy-oximately seven (7) units per acre, and as an implementatron tool for
the Comprehenscve Plan Urban Category General characterlstics of
these areas include paved roads, public sewer and water, accessibility to
schools and labrarres, and a full line of public services including niarined
fire protection and public transit accessibclity Medium densrty UR-7
areas are typified by srngle fanzily dwellings oft small lots, duplexes, low
defisrty apartments and manufactiired home parks
Zoning Code Chapter 14 808 establishes detailed standards for the development of
manufactured home parks, which in several respects supersede the development standards of the
underlyin~ zone See Zorung Code 14 618 210 (A) Such standards are intended " to ensure
the development of well-planned manufactured (mobile) home facilities" Zoning Code
14 808 000 The density of the underlying zone governs the density of manufactured home
spaces, subject to a maximum of seven (7) spaces per acre and a muumum space size of 3,600
square feet Zorun(ir Code 14 808 040 (a) The applicant must submit a site development plan
pnor to the issuance of a buiiding permit, which establishes compliance with the standards set
forth in Zoning Code Chapter 14 808 This includes compliance with minunum standards set
forth for side yard and rear yard setbacks from the park penmeter, off-street parkinQ skirting and
liahting requirements, streets and traffic circulation, landscaping, underground utilities, sewage
and surface water disposal, and standards for individual spaces within the park These adopted
standards implement policies of the Urban category applicable to manufactured home parks
Neighbonng property owners, pnmanly in the Riverwalk subdivisions lying north and west
of the site, and certain developers of existing and future homes in the Riverwalk development,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Pa~e 6
,
objected to the proposal based pnmanly on the density, lot size and type of housincy in the
proposal Such parties contended that the proposal was incompatible with the Rivenvalk
development and would adversely impact property values Ofher adverse impacts «ere also
alleged, including impacts to schools and traffic impacts See letters of opposition, petition, and
testimony in record The development history of the Riverwalk development is somewhat
complex, as summanzed below
The Rivemlalk development was given preliminary approval by the County in 1982 as the
"Riventlay Villa" project, hich involved a preliminary plat/planned unit developmentlrezone to
develop 365 manufactured homes on 118 acres, plus a commercial site This appro"al rezoned
such site to the Residential Manufactured Homes and Commercial zone of the now eapired
County Zoning Ordinance See Spokane County Heanng Examiner Committee Findings and
Order dated 4-2-82 in File NOS PE-1414-81/ZE-92-S1/PUDE-1-82 On Apnl 14, 19832 a change
of conditions was approved for Rlvenvay Villa, hich reduced the common open space area,
increased lot sizes, relocated roads, and allowed individual on-site sewage disposal on certain
lots See Spokane County Heanng Examiner Committee Findings and Order dated 4-14-83 in
same file numbers Effective January 1, 1991, the zoning of the Ri!eerway Villa site was re-
designated to the UR-3 5 zone of the new Spokane County Zoning Code, under the Program to
Implement the Spokane County Zorung Code TYus new zoninc, was subject to the previous
development approvals for such site
In June 16, 1995, a revised preliminary plat and preliminary PUD site development plan
was approved administrahvely for Rlvenvay Villa, which was renamed "Rlverwalk" See
Spokane County Planning Department Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated 6-16-95
in File Nos PE-1414-81/ZE-92-81/PUDE-1-82 The revised preliminary plat/prelirrunary site
de-velopment plan illustrated 107 3 acres divided into 365 residential lots, along with a rune (9)
acre commercial site located outside the preluninary plat/PUD at the northwest corner of Mission
Avenue and Barker Road See Revised Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Site Development Plan
of Riverwall; approved 5-19-95 The 1995 decision provided that as phases of the preliminary
plat received, the underlying land would be reclassified to the UR-7 zone and the PUD Overlay
zone of the new Zoning Code, with the zoning of the commercial site tfl be reclassified to the
Communit_y Business (B-2) zone See Spokane County Planning condition n7 on paee 8 of
Spol:ane County Planrung Department Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated June
lb, 1995 inFileNos PE-1414-81/ZE-92-51/PLTDE-1-82
At least seven of nine phases and 243 lots in Rivenualk have received final plat approval
See testimony of Richard Mason, and above-referenced decision dated 6-16-95 in File Nos PE-
1414-81/ZE-92-81/PUDE-1-82 The land Iying north and west of the current site has received
final plat approval, and is zoned UR-7 See Master Site Development Plan of Vlission Meadows
Several homes have been constructed in Rlverwak, which are all conventional "site-built"
homes
The neighborhood lyinc, south of the site across Mission Avenue is zoned pnmanly UR-7,
and is developed with mobile homes, conventional site-built homes and manufactured homes
This includes the Arbor Grove Mobile Home Park, located along 1VIission Avenue southwest of
the site The Arbor Grove N1HP was recently developed with 72 manufactured home spaces,
after receiving development approval in the 1970s See testunony of Richard Mason The land
immediately east of the site is zoned UR-3 5 and is undeveloped, while further to the east the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Pacre 7 -
1
land is zoned UR-7 and is developed with mobile homes/manufactured homes of an older
vintage Considerably more manufactured homes than site-built homes have been developed
within a quarter mile of the subject property See Eahibit A, "Comprehensive Plan" section map
labeled "Character of Existing Neighborhood around Mission Meadows"
The project is located ad~acent to a designated artenal and is on an eaistina public transit
route, as contemplated for manufactured home parks in the Urban category The deti elopment
will be sened by a high level of public services and urban infrastructure, including public sewer
and water, manned fire protection, paved roads, sidewalks and curbs, and modzrn/underground
utilities Local drainage ways are considered insiguficant, the soils on the site are considered
suitable for drainacre, and stormwater collection and treatment will be provided in accordance
with County regulations See memos from Spokane Regional Health Distnct dated 1-16-97 and
3-4-98, and memo dated 3-4-98 from Bill Hemmings of County Engineenng to Francine Shaw,
and County Engineenng conditions of approval The site development plan provides a
playground area of 1 7 acres in the middle of the site to serve the recreational needs of the
project The Centennial Trail and the Spokane River, wluch lie a few blocks north of the site,
wtll also provide sigruficant recreational opporturuties for the residents in the proposal
The Central Valley School Distnct indicated that the proposal would generate
approximately 25 elementary public school students, 11 juruor lugh students and 9 seruor
housing students The distnct indicated that is could accommodate all the elementary and hiah
school students generated by the project withln existincy attendance boundanes, but tivould have
to either bus students from Greenacres Junior High or change its attendance boundanes since the
junior lugh was currently full See letter dated 3-18-98 from Dave Jackman to Rlchard Mason
The school distnct did not request mitigation fees or that the project be derued, or represent that
it did-not have capacity within the distnct to accommodate the additional juruor high students
Under the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the proJect will significantly impact area
schools
A traffic analysis was prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer to study the unpacts of
the project on county roads and state highway infrastructure in the area See Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by IPEC dated December, 1996, as updated by IPEC in letters dated 9-24-97
and 11-7-97 This study as revised was commented on by County EncrineennQ and the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and eventually accepted A
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposal, which binds the
applicant to make certain road improvements, as reflected in the conditions of appro-val The
County EnQineenng conditions of approval require the applTCant to widen Mission Avenue to a
three-lane section, add curb and sidewalk, and to dedicate and set aside naht of way, all alona the
frontage of 'Lhe project with Mission Avenue The applicant is also required to make phased off-
site improvements to an unpaved portion of Mission Avenue lying east of the site, to miti~ate
dust particulate impacts See County En~ineenng conditions of approval
To preserve acceptable levels of service at key intersections impacted by traffic from the
proposal, the appllcant is also required to make certain off-site transportation improvements to
the state highway system The WSDOT conditions of approval require the applicant to prepare
designs and enter into a development agreement with WSDOT to fund a nght turn lane for
southbound Barker Road traffic from the project at the westbound Interstate 90 ramp terminals,
and to fund a nght turn lane for northbound Barker Road traffic from the project at the Barker
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 8
Road/Trznt Road (state highway) intersection See letter dated 12-19-97 from WSDOT to Louis
Webster
While certain traffic concerns were alleaed by neighbonng property owners, they ~vere not
suppor'ted by competent eapert testimony of a traffic engineenng nature Further, such concerns
were rebutted 1n the record by the applicant's traffic consultant and comments from County
Engineenng and WSDO? For example, the traffic analysis and the record indicates that future
traffic from the project will not cause a fatling le'vel of service at the intersection of Barker Road
with either Mission Avenue or Indiana Avenue See Traffic Impact Analysis dated December,
1996, letter dated 9-24-97 from IPEC to Pat Harper, memorandum dated 10-7-97 from Sfeve
Stalrs to Pat Harper, and testimony of Dick Mason and Pat Harper
An issue was raised by neighbonng property owners and a developer of homes in
Rivenvalk regardincr the proposed northerly access from the site to Indiana Avenue, via a stub
road in the adjacent fina] plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition, referenced as "Grady Road (Public)"
on the Master Site Development Plan for the current project See letter dated 1-20-98 from Greg
Stirn to Louis Webster, and testimony of Harvey O'Connor, Thomas Boys and Greg Stirn
County Engineenrig condihon #9 requires the applicant to construct a paved and delineated
approach to meet the pavement on "Grady Road", and to " allow for a pnvate road on public
nght of way for Grady Road " The final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition shows the subJect stub
road extending south from Indiana Avenue as a pnvate lane named "Grady Lane", wnth the area
encompassed by such stub road Iisted as "Tract A" The dedication for the final plat lndicates
that the pnvate road and Tract "A" are dedicated to the Riverwalk Owners Association, an entity
created by a separate recorded document, as pnvate easements for ingess and egress, for the
benefit of fronhncr lots in the final plat The dedicatlon also states that Tract "A" is subject to a
separate declaration of covenant recorded with the County Auditor The terms of the covenant
are not disclosed in the record
Residents Ln Riverwalk Sixth Addition expressed concern that residents from the proposed
manufactured home park would use Grady Lane and Indiana Avenue as a shortcut to the
Centenrual Trail and the Spokane 1Ziver to the north However, the revised preliminary plat of
Riverwalk apgear to show Grady Lane ("Rogue River Lane" on preluninary plat) as a public stub
road Further, the Riverwalk Sixth Addition final plat shows access out of the plat to the south
via Grady Lane for the residents in the plat If Grady Lane is blocked off, this means of access
out of the final plat is prevented if Grady Lane is left open, residents in the proposed
manufactured home park could potentially complain that the roads in the park are being used by
Riverwalk residents as a shortcut to Mission Avenue
If the applicant has control over Grady LaneiTract "A" through the Piverwall: Owners
Association, or either the County Engineer or the applicant have control over the same throufzh
the referenced declaration of covenant, then Grady Lane could be converted, as proposed, into a
public stub road with a pnvate lane running through it If not, the applicant will likely need to
provide a second access for the proposal along Mission Avenue A second access for the site is
needed under County road standards due to the number of home spaces proposed by the
applicant See testimony of Pat Harper and Richard Mason The record indicates that "Grady
Road" was on;inally proposed as the pnmary means of access for the proJect via lndiana
Avenue, to serve the first several phases of development until the unpaved portion of Mission
Avenue was paved to the east, and that this was later changed to make Mission Avenue the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 , Page 9
pnmary access, with "Grady Road" to serve pnmanly as an emergency access See letter dated
12-11-97 from Richard Mason to Louis Webster This latter concept is reflected on the site plan
of record for the proposal
County Engineenng indicated that if Grady Lane/Road is unavailable, a second access from
the development could be installed by extending a stub road from Augusta Lane in the
development south to Mission Avenue, in the southeast corner of the site, without tnggenng the
need for any additlonal traffic improvements See testimony of Pat Harper Thus a solution is
available even if Grady Lane in Riverwalk Sixth Addition carulot be used legally as a means of
secondary access for the project
As indicated abo-ye, the main concerns raised by neighbonng property owners and
developers was the greater density of homes, smaller lot sizes and inconsistent housing type in
the proposal compared to the Rlverwalk development, whuch will allegedly cause necrative
aesthetic impacts and a depreciation in property values to the homes existing or developed in
Riverwalk Since the zorung of the residential portions of Riverwalk is or will be UR-7, the
proposed zoning of the current site will be the same as Riverwalk and other UR-7 zorung that is
prevalent in the vicinity The UR-7 zone implements the Urban category The Urban category
does not require that all densities and housing types in adjacent lands be the same, and in fact
promotes a mlx and diversity of densities, land uses and housing types This is typified by the
existing land use mlx and zorung along Mission Avenue east of Barker Road
Aside from the issue of compatibility, the proposal meets the locational objectives for
manufactured home parks in the Urban category, in its location adjacent to a designated artenal
and along a public transit route Barker Road, located 4 of a mile to the west, is a Pnncipal
Artenal that is also served with public transit The Arbor Grove Manufactured Home Park is
located across from the Riverwalk development, and other manufactured home and mobile home
development is found in the vicinity of and area of the site The site does not have direct access
to the Centenrual Trail or the Spokane River, and is arguably not as desirable a site for
development as Riverwalk
The gross density in Rlverwalk is approximately 3 4 units per acre The lots in the
Riverwalk final plats adjacent to the site appear to average between 7,800 to 8,800 square feet in
size, alona wlth some larcrer and some smaller lots See revised preliminary plat of Riverwalk,
approved 5-19-95 The gross density in the current proposal is 6 7 home spaces per acre, with
most lots fallincy within the range of 3,800 square feet to 5,600 square feet in area The home
spaces along the penmeters of the proposal are the largest shown on the site plan of record,
ranging generally from 3,941 square feet to 6,814 square feet, along with a few larcrer lots These
larger penmeter lots provide a transition from the larger lots in Riverwalk to the smaller lots
within the intenor of the current proposal It is noted that the minimum lot size for sinQle-family
homes within a PUD Overlay zone in the UR-7 zone is 4,200 square feet Zotung Code
la 618 310 "Single-family dwellings" include site-built homes, manufactured homes and
mobile homes See Zoning Code 14 300 100, definition of "dwelling, single-family", and
Zoning Code 14 808 060 Duplex and multi-family unlts are also allowed in the UR-7 zone
Zoning Code 14 618 305
The common areas in Riverwalk represent about 17 % of the prelirrunary plat area, while
the common areas in the current proposal are comparable at about 15 % of the total "community
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 10
areas" in t11e current site While the ratio of common area to individual lots is larger in
Rivervvalk than the ratio of community area to home spaces in the current proJect, there is no
basis for concluding that the recreation and open space area provided by the project is
insufficient to serve the proposal The manufactured home park standards in Zonincr Code
Chapter 14 808 do not require that any common area be reserved in a park proposal However,
such standards do limit the density (7 units per acre) and lot sizes (at least 3,600 square feet) in a
manufactured home park, and require that at least 50% of each home space be left as open space
If the project was included in a PUD Overlay zone, only 10% of the site would have to be
reserved as corrunon open space See Zonlna Code 14 703 385
As represented by the applicant at the public heanng, there is aworld of difference beriveen
the mobile home parks of the past and manufactured home parks currently being constTUCted in
the county After June, 1976, factory-built dwellings in the county were required to meet new
federal standards for manufactured home construction and safety See Zoning Code 14 300 100,
definition of "manufactured home" and "mobile home", and Eahibit A, section labeled "Real
Estate Values", article entitled "The Impact of the Presence of Nlanufactured Housing on
Residential Property Values" The County Zoning Code, adopted in 1986 and fully implemented
in 1991, pro-v ides comprehensive development standards for manufactured home parks, to ensure
the compatibility of such parks with adjacent land uses See Zorung Code Chapter 14 808
While the Individual spaces in the park will be rented, the homes and accessory structures will be
individually owned The record indicates that 95 % of manufactured homes once placed are
never moved See testimony of Richard Mason, and Exhibit A, article entitled "Impact of the
Presence of Manufactured Housing on Residential Property Values'= in section entitled "Real
Estate Values"
The applicant has designed a project that will reasonably blend in with the rruxed housing
types in the area The homes and the park will be landscaped and have a pleasing residential
appearance as well as substantial residential amenities See ghoto repnnts in Exhibit A, in
sections labeled as "Introduction", "Comprehensive Plan" and "Real Estate Value" The tallest
building in the park will be 30 feet, while the maximum building height in the UR-3 5 and UR-7
zones is 35 feet See Environmental Checklist, p 8, and Zorung Code 14 616 335 and
14 618 335 Street lights and sidewalks will be provided within the park, and along Mission
Avenue See E:chibit A, section marked as "Comprehensive Plan", discussion under Decision
Guidelines 15 4 and 1 5 S Approximately 62 % of the site will be compnsed of open space
See Master Site Development Plan, sheet 2
Comprehenslve rules and regulations, includin~ architectural standards, will be adopted for
the park and enforced by a resident manager See Exhibit A, "Mission Meadows Rules and
Regulations for Inclusion in Space Rental Agreement" The rules and regulations will control
such issues as type of sidinQ, paint color, roof pitch, skirting installation, maintenance, accessory
structures, carports, decks, on-street parking, storace, number of occupants, pets and speed limits
will be adopted and enforced by a resident manager in the park Each home space in the project
wlll have a minimum of two off-street parl:ing stalls Stora4e structures may be located on the
rear half of lots, and a large recreational vehicle storage yard will be provided that is screened
from the surrownding land uses All units must have slartina that is architecturally compatible
with the homes iocated ln the park Roofs must have a minimum piteh of 4 12 with shingles,
which pitch compares favorably to the 6 12 roof pitches cnmmon to the site-built homes in
Riverwalk Wood or wood-type sidino, is required See testimony of Richard Mason
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 ~ ti Pacre 11
~
The rules and regulations adopted for the park will ensure that only I-ugh quality
manufactured homes are placed in the park See testimony of Richard Mason, and E-Nhibit A,
"Comprehensive Plan" section, discussion under Decision Guideline 1 1 5 The record indicates
that the proposed developers of the park have constructed rivo similar parks in the county, with
the current proposal to be designed similar to a park constructed by the developer in the Spokane
Valley area
In addition to the buffenng and transition provided by the larger lots around the penmeter
of the site, landscaping and screening will also be used to mitigate the impacts of the project on
surrounding land uses The applicant plans to install a six (6)-foot high chain-link fence and an
arborvitae landscape screen along the west, north and east penmeter of the site, and intends to
install a low fence, earth berms and a"5 to 20 foot" landscape screen along the south boundary
of the site adjacent to Mission Avenue See testimony of Rlchard Mason, and Exhibit A,
"Comprehensive Plan" section, discussion under Decision Guideline 1 5 1(note the reference in
the discussion to a chain link fence and an arborvitae screen on the "south" boundary is
obviously in error, and should say "north") Such landscaping and screening scheme is
illustrated for a sunilar manufactured home park in Exhibit A, section on Comprehensive Plan, in
photo repnnts displayed on the pa;e entitled "Typical Landscape Screens", and in photo repnnts
displayed in the "Introduction" section of Exlubit A
The Zoning Code does not require landscaping along the north and west boundanes of the
_ site, but requires 20 feet of Type III landscaping along the south boundary of the site adjacent to
Mission Avenue See Zonlncr Code 14 806 040 (1)(b) and 14 806 040 (2)(a) Along the east
boundary of the site, the Zoning Code requires five (5) feet of Type III (see-through buffer), as
well as a six (6)-foot lugh wall, solid landscaping or sight-obscunng fence The site plan of
record shows only 2 5 feet of landscaping instead of the required 5 feet of landscapinor, and no
screerung or wall, along the east boundary However, an enhanced type of landscaping (Type II,
vlsual buffer) is illustrated along the east border compared to the Type III landscapinQ required
by the Zorung Code See Zoning Code 14 806 060 The site plan of record is also deficient in
indicating that the Type III landscaping along the south boundary line will range from 5 feet to
20 feet, since the Zoning Code requires the entire width of landscapinQ to be 20 feet The
applicant testified that the deficiencies would be corrected in a revised site plan See testimony
of Rlchard Mason The sight-obscunng screerung proposed along the north and west boundary
of the site is not required by the Zorung Code Such screening appears to have a generally
pleasin~ residential appearance, based on the photo repnnts of such landscaping in the file, and
will help buffer the manufactured home park from the adjacent homes in Riverwalk
The applicant indicated that the project is intended to serve "low to middle income"
residents in the county See Environmental Checl:list, p 8 The homes in the proposal are
expected to cost S50,000 to $70,000 for purchase and set up See testimony of Richard Mason,
and Exhibit A. "Affordable Housina" sectlon, "Cost of Manufactured Housin-r in Place" graph
This would serve gross annual household incomes of $35,000 to $44,000 Income information
provided by the applicant indicates that only 30 % of Spokane area households could afford
manufactured homes in the $60,000 and $70,000 range, while 47% of Spokane area households
could afford manufactured homes in the $50,000 range See Exhibit A, "Affordable Housing"
section, "Affordability of Housing at Mission Meadows" table Irtcome information based on
U S. Census data uldicates that the median household income in Spokane County in 1997 was
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 PaQe 12
~ . -
approaimately S33,000, and the median family income in 1997 was about $42,000 See Exhibit
A, "Affordable Housing" section, "Household and Family Income Distnbutions in Spokane
County as estimated by Clantas, Inc " table The thrust of this data is that the proposal would
provide needed and affordable housing in Spokane
The cost of homes in Riverwalk are eshmated to start out at $100,000 and run up as high as
S250,000 See testimony of Kenna Higgins, and letter dated 1-23-98 from Kenna Hiaains The
dlstnbution of homes in R.iverwalk at certain values is not provided, and conceivably the most
expensive homes may be lacated alorg or near the Spokane River/Centerulial Traii, at some
dtstance from the project The record suagests that the lower pnced homes in Rivemalk are
probably located near the site See testimony of Kenna Higjins A number of developers or
builders of homes in Riverwalk expressed concern that the current proposal would devalue lots
or homes developed nearby See letter dated 1-23-98 from Castlewood Homes, Inc , letter dated
1-23-98 from Parkland Homes, and letter dated 1-20-98 from Lindsey Construction, Inc A
petition opposing the current proposal was also slgned by 58 resldents in Riverwalk The income
information submitted by the applicant clearly suggests that only a relatively small percentage of
residents in the county would be able to afford homes in Rivenvalk
More definitive information on the impact of the proposed manufactured home park on
property values in the area was provided by Scot Auble, MAI, a certified general appraiser
retained by the applicant Aubte conducted a general study on the project and neighborhood in
' which the property was located and formed a generai opinion as to the proJect's effect on
neighbonng property values Thls study included consideratian of numerous studies on the
effect of low-lncome housing on adjacent property values, as well as study duectly related to the
effect of manufactured housing on adjacent properties Auble's report states that vu-tually all
low-inconle studles as well as the manufactured housing study indicated that such housing had
no measurable unpact on the value of surrounding properties, and that a well-desiganed and well-
maLntained project were important factors in mitigating impacts to adjoining properties Auble
noted the large number of manufactured home parks in the area, wluch he felt currently
dominated the neiahborhood Auble charactenzed the Rivenwalk development as a large,
developina, single-family planned unit development consisting of entFy level to mid-pnced
housing, whzch development was beginning to change the character of the neighborhood sli~htly,
but also blended in wlth it Auble concluded that it was unlikely that a formal study would show
any negatiN eimpact by the proposed proJect on surrounding property values See Exh.iblt A,
under section labeled "Real Estate Value", letter dated 3-24-98 from Dave Auble, MAI to
Richard Mason, and attached studies on low income and manufactured housing
The Examiner finds that more weight should be allocated to the opinions of Dave Auble, a
certified real estate appraiser who conducted a general study on the issue, than the less qualified
and unstudied opinions of develop ers/bui I d ers and area residents on the issue of the impact of
the project on surrounding property values Like traffic impact issues, real property valuation is
largely a matter of expert opui.ion The Examiner also takes into consideration the large number
of manu fact ured/mobi le homes already in the area, and the ample evidence in the record that the
proposed manufactured home park will be well-designed and maintai.ned, have a generally
pieasing resldential appearance, and will provide many of the amenities enjoyed by sunounding
properties _
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 13
. `
The applicant also cited the county-wide planning policies adopted by Spokane County
pursuant to the Growth Management Act as a basis for approving the proposal As indicated by
the Heanna, Examiner at the public heanng, such policies are not relevant to the review and
approval of specific land use proposals RCW 36 70A 210 indicates that the county-wide
planning policies are to be used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which a
new comprehensive land use plan is developed and adopted under the GMA RCW 36 70A 020
states that the planning goals set forth in such statute are to be used exclusively to cruide the
development and adoption of the comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted
under the GNfA The policies have no regulatory effect until developed into a new
comprehensive plan and development regulations Under applicable vesting pnnciples, land use
proposals are to be considered under the land use controls in place at the time a fully completed
application for the proposal is submitted This does not include county-wide planning policies
adopted under the GMA Since the site is located within the County's established IUGA
boundanes, the restnctions on land development outside such boundanes do not apply to the
project The County's IUGA boundanes currently run south of the Spokane R.iver for a
considerable distance east of the site County Resolution No 97-0134
The Examiner finds that the proposal is generally compatible with neighbonng land uses,
will uphold properly values in the area, may provide some renewal tn the area relative to the
. older housing that exist in the area, and will not detnmentally impact the architectural or
aesthetic character of the area The proposal generally conforms to the policies of the Urban
category and the Comprehensive Plan
2 Conditions in the area in which the prooertv is located have chaneed substantiallv since the
vroneriv was last zoned
In applying the changed circumstances test, courts have looked at a vanety of factors,
including changed public opuuon, changes in land use patterns in the area of the rezone proposal,
and changes on the property itself The Zorung Code references changes in "economlc,
technological or land use conditions" as factors that will support a rezone Spokane County
Zoruna Code Section 14 402 020 (2) Washington courts have not required a"strong" showing
of change The rule is flexible, and each case is to be judged on its own facts Bassani v Countv
Commissioners, 70 Wn App 389, 394 (1993) Recent cases have held that changed
circumstances are not required for a rezone if the proposed rezone implements policies of a
comprehensive plan Btarnson at 846, Save Our Rural Environment v Snohomish Countv, 99
Wn 2d 363, 370-371 (1983)
As discussed above, the proposal is generally consistent wlth the Comprehensi,% e Plan The
"last zoning" of the site could be interpreted to be the 1957 reclassification of the zoning of the
site to the Aancultural zone under the now expired County Zoning Ordinance See Exhibit A.
"Introduction" section, regardmg the zorung history of the site The 1991 cross-over zoning of
the site to the UR-3 5 zone, under the current County Zoning Code, was part of a county-wlde
effort that re-designated land in the county from the old zones of the Zorun~ Ordinance to the
most similar zones under the Zoning Code, using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide The
current Zonuig Code was adopted in 1986, and included a Program to Implement the cross-over
zoning in 1991
HE Findin~s, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 14
Recent changed conditions which support the project iiiclude designation of the site wlthin
the County's IUGA boundanes, the extension of public sewer, water and modern utilities to the
site and vicinity, steady residential growth in the area and victnity, growth in area employment,
and improvements to Barker Road and Mission Avenue The recent development of the Arbor
Grove Manufactured Home Park southwest of the site could be cited as a changed condition,
although the development and final pIatting of Riverwalk with and for site-built homes takes
away from tlle slgnificance of this changed condrtion The need for affordable housing in the
county can also be cited as a changed condition
3 The orooosed rezone bears a substantial relationship and is not detnmental to the oublic
health safetv and 2eneral «elfare
General conslstency with a local government's comprehensive plan is relevant in
determinin~ ~vhether a rezone bears a substantial relatlonship to the public welfare Bassani, at
396-98 As noted, the proposal generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
The views of the commuruty may be given substantial weight in a rezone matter, although
they are not controlling Parkndge v Seattle, 89 Wn 2d 454 (1976) Such views must relate to
legal requirements applicable to approval of the land use action being considered, including
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations, environmental impacts and
specific impacts to the public health, safety and welfare See CouErar Mt Assocs v Kina
Countv, 111 Wn 2d 7527 756 (1988) As discussed above, the Examiner has considered and
given appropnate weight to the views of neighbonng properiy owners and the developers of
homes in the vicinlty, but does not find the concerns raised to be sufficient to support a finding
that the project will detnmentally unpact the public welfare As conditioned, the proposal will
be served by adequate public services and will be reasonably compatible wlth adjacent land uses
There is a sigruficant need for the affordable housing that would be provided by the project in the
county
The Examiner has addressed the access issue involving Grady Lane in Rlverwalk Sixth
Addition in the conditions of approval set forth below
4 The DroDOSed zone change comolies with the provisions of the State Environmental Policv
Act and the Countv's Local Environmental Ordinance
The procedural requirements of chapter 43 21 C RCW and chapter 11 10 of the Spokane
County Code have been met The Heanng Examiner concurs with the Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance issued by the Division of Bullding and Planning No adverse comments were
received from public agencies that would dictate a need for withdrawal of such environmental
detennination
5 The orot)osal as conditioned comnlies with the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone the
Sr)okane Countv Zonina Code (SCZC) and apnllcable land use regulations
The proposal has been conditioned for compliance with the applicable requirements of the
UR-7 zone, the Manufactured and Mobile Homz Standards established in the Zonincr Code, and
other land use regulations
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Paae 15
The Staff Report on page 4 identifies certain discrepancies between the site plan and the
internal setbacks and landscaping required by the Zoning Code Chapters See testimony of Louis
Webster The applicant ls willing to revise the site plan to correct these deficiencies, which will
occur through administrative review of the manufactured home park site plan See testimony of
Richard Mason
At the public heann~, the Examiner indicated that the density of the proJect may exceed
that allowed in the UR-7 zone, even though the gross density of the project is less than seven (7)
units per acre Zoning Code 14 808 040 states that tlle density of the underlylncr zone shall
govern the density of manufacfiured (mobile) home spaces, " provided that there shall be a
maximum of seven (7) manufactured (mobile) home spaces per acre having a maximum of three
thousand six hundred (3,600 square feet per space " The seven (7) space per acre limitation
appears intended to allow manufactured home parks to be placed in any residential zone at the
density of dwelling uruts allowed in such zone, as long as it does not exceed a density of seven
spaces per unit
The maximum density allowed in the UR-7 zone which applies to the srte is seven (7)
dwelling uruts per acre, " except as provided or allowed by minunum lot sizes and bonus
density provisions of this Code" See Zon.ing Code 14618 305 Zoning Code 14 618 310
establishes muumum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet for single-family dwellings, and other
minimum lot sizes for duplex uruts and multifamily dwellings Smaller minimum lot sizes and
bonus densities are also allowed within a PUD Overlay zone established pursuant to Zorung
Code Chapter 14 764 or a"solar development" established under Zoruna Code Chapter 14 812
Zoning Code 14 618 310 closes by stating that a density of 7 uruts per acre must be maintained,
regardless of muumum lot size, unless bonus density Construing Zoruna, Code 14 618 305 and
14 618 310 together, and reviewing the density provisions listed for the other residential zones in
the Zorung Code, it is clear that the maximum density allowed in the UR-7 zone outside a PUD
Overlay zone or solar development is 7 units per acre
Density is defined in Zoning Code 14 300 100 to be the amount of land per dwellin~ unit,
excluding roads and other nonresidential uses This definition is somewhat ambiguous
considenn~ its reference to the calculation of "lot size" for lots of five acres or greater, ~vhereby
lot size for parcels five acres are greater is deemed to include the area to the centerline of extenor
roads under RCW 58 17 040 (2) However, "lot area" is defined elsewhere by the Zoruner Code,
and the "density defirution" otherwise appears applicable to the calculation of maximum density
under the residential zones in the Zorung Code See Zoning, Code 14 300 100, defirution of "lot
area"
The area occupied by pnvate roads Tn the project is not listed on the site plan of record, but
is eshmated by the Heanno, Examiner from the site plan to be about two acres The area of the
site less roads would be about 17 5 acres, which at a density of 7 units per acre tivould allow up to
122 home spaces, instead of the 131 spaces proposed This presents a desiQn issue which can be
addressed dunnc, the admirustrative review process for the manufactured home park A
condition of approval has been added to ensure that this issue is given consideration
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 16
III DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions above, the above application for a zone
reclassification is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of the vanous public agencies
spectfied below Conditions whlch have been added or siguficantly altered by the Heanng
Examiner are ztallcz::ed
Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this
approval by the Heanng Examiner This approval does not waive the applicant's obliQation to
comply with all other requirements of other agencies with junsdiction over land development
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLAIVNING
1 All conditions imposed by the Heanna Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant",
which term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns and successors
2 The zone change applies to the following real property
Parcel A(55083 90431 The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of S 85 T 25 N, R 45 EWM, in the County of Spokane, State of
Washincyton EXCEPT the West 110 00 feet of the South 303 00 feet thereof, TOGETHER with
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of S 8 T 25 N, R 45
EWM, in the County of Spokane, State of Washington
Parcel B(55083 9012) The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of S 8, Township, 25 N, Range 45 EWM, in the County of Spokane, State
of Waslungton
Parcel C(55083 9042) The west 110 00 feet of the South 303 00 feet of the West Half of
the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of S 8, T 25 N, R 45
EWNi, in the County of Spokane, State of VVashinjton TOGETHER WITH a portlon of the
South Half of the Southwest Quarter of S 8, T 25 N, R 45 EWM, County of Spokane, State of
Waslungton, more particularly descnbed as follows Begiruvng at the intersection of the east
line of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 8 and the
northerly nght of way line of Mission Avenue, thence N 89° 56' 20" W along said northerly
nght of way line a distance of 12 00 feet, thence N 01° 17' 00" W parallel with said east line a
distance of 169 85 feet, thence S 89° 56' 50" E a distance of 12 00 feet to said east luie, thence
S 01° 17' 00" E a distance of 169 85 feet to the Point of Beginning
3 The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone, arid the Spok-ane
County Zoning Code, as amended
4 The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance withln the concept
presented to the Hearuig Body Vanations, when approved by the Division Director/designee,
may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape plans and general
allowable uses of the permitted zone All vanations must conform to regulations set forth in the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 17
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, and the onginal ilitent of the development plans shall be
maintained
5 The Spokane County Division of Building & Planning sllall prepare and record with the
County Auditor a Title Notice specifying a future ]and acquisition area for road nght-of-way and
utilities The reserved future acquisition area Title Notice shall be released, in full or in part, by
the Division of Building & Plaruung The notice should be recorded withln the same time frame
as an appeal and shall provide the following
a At least 13 feet of reserved future acquisition area for road nght-of-way and utilities,
in addition to the existing and/or newly dedicated nght-of-way along Mission Avenue NOTE
The County Engineer has required 7 feet of new dedication on Mission Avenue
b Future building and other setbacks required by the Spokane County Zorung Code
shall be measured from the reserved future acquisition area
c No required landscaping, parking, '208' areas, drainfield or allowed signs should be
located within the future acqulsition area for road nght-of-way and utilities If any of the above
improvements are made withln this area, they shall be relocated at the applicant's expense when
roadway improvenients are made
d The fuh.ire acquisition area, until acquired, shall be pnvate property and may be used
as allowed in the zone, except that any improvements (such as landscapi.ng, par}cing, surface
drainage, drainfield, signs or others) shall be considered intenm uses
e The property owner shall be responsible for relocating such "intenm" improvements
at the time Spokane County makes roadway improvements after acquiring said future acquisition
area
6 The Division of Building & Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County
Auditor a Title Notice nohng that the property in question ls subject to a vanety of special
conditions unposed as a result of approval of a land use action Thls Title Notice shall serve as
public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question The Title Notice
should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be
released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building & Planning The Title Notice shall
generally provide as follows
The parcel of property legally descnbed as [ ] is the subject of a land use action
by a Spokane County Hearino, Examiner on March 25, 1998 imposing a vanety of special
development conditions File No ZE-56-96 is available for inspection and copyincr in the
Spokane County Division of Building & Planrung
7 Pnor to release of building permits, the sponsor shall submit a final Manufactured Home
Park design plan to the Division of Building & Planrung which demonstrates compliance with (a)
the Manufactured Home Parks Development Standards of Chapter 14 808 of the Zorung Code for
Spokane County and (b) all Heanng Exammer conditions of approval Constderatzon shall be
given as to whether the project complies with the maximum densrty allowed in the UR-7 zone,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 18
conscdejmg tl~e defitiitioii of "deiisrty" uiidei 14 300 100 of the Zaieiig Code, whcch excl~rdes the
aj ea for roads from the acreage of a stte in calczilatiiig denscty
8 Direct light from any extenor area lighting fxture shall not extend over the property
boundary
9 A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to
the Division Director/designee arid meetcng these condctions of approval shall be submitted with
a performance bond for the project pnor to release of building permits Landscaping shall be
installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired
10 The applccant shall install ai:d malntacn the optcorral fenccng and sight-obscurin g
landscape screen along the four boundarees of the site, as proposed by the applicai2t at the
publcc heariizg The applicant shall also remedy the def ciencies in required landscaprria and
screening along the east boundary, ryi the width of required laiidscaping alojig the soarth
bouizdary, aitd regardcng setbacks tdentified in t12e Staff Report
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
Pnor to issuance of a building permit or at the request of the County Engineer in conjunction
with a County Road Project/Road Improvement Distnct, whlchever comes first
1 Applicant shall dedicate 7 feet on Mission Avenue for nght of way
2 Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the
County En~ineer
3 Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainac-re and
access plans
4 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane
County Engineer The design, location and arrangement of parlong stalls shall be in accordance
with standard engineenng practices Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer
will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles
5 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Englneer
6 The County Engineer has designated a 3 Lane Minor Artenal Roadway Section for the
improvement of Mission Avenue which is adjacent to the proposed development This will
require the addition of varying amounts of asphalt along the frontage of the development
Curbincr and sidewalk must also be constructed
7 All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bndge construction and other applicable county standards and/or
adopted resolutions pertauzing to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the
date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 19
8 The applicant shall be responsible for improvements to Mission Avenue along the project
frontage and based upon a traffic analysis done for the proposed development has voluntanly
agreed through a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance to the following off-site
improvements
a The applicant shall apply on a yearly basis a dust palllative to Mission Avenue from the
paved portion of Mission Avenue east to the newly aligned Mission Avenue This measure shall
commence in the year of the applicants' first phased approval and shall continue on a yearly
basis until the unpaved portion of Mlssion Avenue is paved in accordance with the following off-
site improvement
b The applicant shall be responsible for the engineenng and construction of a 28 foot
wide roadway section for Niission Avenue from the east end of the paved portion of Mission
Avenue east to the realigned portion of Mission Avenue, (approximately 3000 feet) This
improvement shall be constructed pnor to the 61 ' manufactured home being placed on this
proposal or pnor to October 1, 2001, no matter how many manufactured homes have been
placed Should Spokane County create a County Road Project pnor to the placement of the 61St
manufactured home, the applicant shall proved cash toward the project of $1000 per unit placed
9 The apphcant shall construct a paved and delineated approach(s) to meet the existing
pavement on Grady Road, Grady Road will not be maintained by Spokane County A Notice to
the Public Number 4 will be requiredto allow for a pnvate road on public ncrht of way for Grady
Road "Grady Road " is listed as "Grady Lane " and "Tract A" on the final plat of Riverwalk
Srxth Addition, and is indicated as a private (stub) road for the benefit of lot ownel s in tlTe
dedication for such final plat However, the dedication for the final plat »iakes Tract A and the
przvate stub j oad subject to a j-ecorded covenant, the terms o, f'whzch were fiot available to the
Hearrng Examiner Under the czrcumstances, it ts unclear whether Grady Lane is available as a
secondafy access for the project County Engineenng shall determrne if Grady Lane/Grady
Road is legally available to the project as a secondary access If it rs not, a second access aloj:g
Mission Avenue shall be provided for the project
10 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane Board of County Commissioners Resolution 95-0498 as amended and are applicable to
tlus proposal
11 No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed nght of way untll
a pernut has been issued by the County Engineer All work within the publlc road nght of way is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engneer
12 The County Artenal Road plan identifies Mission Avenue as a Minor Artenal The
existincr nght of way width of 20 feet is not consistent wlth that specified in The Plan In order
to implement the Artenal Road Plan it is recommended that in addition to the required nght of
way dedication, a stnp of property 13 feet in width along the Mission Avenue frontage be set
aside in reserve This property may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when Artenal
Improvements are made to Mission Avenue
13 The applicant should be advised that there may exist utilities either underground or
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 20
. overhead affecting the applicants property, including property to be dedicated or set aside future
acquisition Spokane County will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation
regarding these utilities The applicant shoutd check with the applicable utilities and Spokane
County Engineer to determine whether the applicant or utility is responsible for adjustment or
relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work
14 The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of
Way per Spokane County Standards
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
1 Sewage disposal method shall be as authonzed by the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County
2 Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County
3 Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health
4 A public sewer system shall be made available for the project and individual servlce shall
be provided to each lot The use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be
authonzed -
S The use of pnvate wells a.nd water systems is prohibited
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILI'TIES
1 A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System shall be constructed
A sewer connection permit is required
2 Public sanitary sewer easement shall be shown on the face of the plat and the dedication
shall state "The perpetual easement granted to Spokane County, it's successors and assigns is
for the sole purpose of construchon, installin~, operahng, mainta.ining, repainn~, altenng,
replacing, removing, and all other uses or purposes which are or may be related to a sewer
system Spokane County, its successors and assigns at all times hereinafter, at their own cost and
expense, may remove all crops, brush, grass or trees that may interfere with the constructing,
installing, operating, maintaining, repainng, altenn~, replacin~, removing, and all other uses or
purposes which are may be related to a sewer system The grantor(s) reserves the ncrht to use •
and enjoy that property which is the subject of this easement for purposes whlch will not
interfere with the County's full enjoyment of the nghts hereby granted, provided the Grantor(s)
shall not erect or construct any buildmg or other structure or dnll on the easement, or diminish or
substantially add to the ground cover over the easement The easement descnbed hereinabove is
to and shall run with the land "
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Pa2e 21
.
, -
3 Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division of Utilities, "under separate
cover", only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer
conriections and facilities for review and approval
4 Secunty shall be deposited wrth the Division of Uhlities for the construction of the public
sewer connection and facilities and for the prescnbed warranty penod The secunty shall be in a
form acceptable to the Division of Utilities and in accordance ~.vith the Spokane County Sanitary
Sewer Ordinance
5 Arrangements for payments of applicable sewer charges must be made for pnor to issuance
of sewer connection permit
6 Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended
WASHINGTON STATE DEPAR'I'IVIEN'T OF TitANSPOR7CA'I'ION
1 The applicant/owner shall design and construct to WSDOT and Spokane County standards
a A nght turn lane for southbound Barker Road traffic at the westbound Barker/I-90
ramps
b A nght turn lane for northbound Barker Road traffic at the Barker/Trent Avenue
intersection
These improvements shall include all related items necessary to construct these lanes
2 The applicant/owner shall prepare design/construction plans acceptable to WSDOT and
Spokane County, enter into a developers' agreement for the construction of the above
improvements, and enter into a WSDOT agreement to pay for plan review, construction
inspection, and administrative costs All of these requirements must be completed pnor to the
issuance of any building, permits for this site
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 22
r
DATED this 4' day of June, 1998
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMI\'ER
;ox ~ aw p ~ - • .
Mich~ael C Dempsey, WSBA 98235~,/
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution Nos 96-0171 and 96-0632, the decision of the
Heanng Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification and accompanying SEPA
determination is final and conclusive unless within ten (10) calendar days from the Examiner's
wntten decision, a pariy of record aggneved by such decision files an appeal with the Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington However, RCW 36 70B 110 (9)
indicates that administrative appeals of county land use decisions and SEPA appeals shall be
filed with the legislative body within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision
This decision was ma.iled by certified mail to the Applicant on June 4, 1998
I)EPENDING ON WHICH APPEAL PERYOI) R]EFERENCED ABOVE LEGALLY
APPLIES, THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS EITHER JUNE 14,1998 OR JUNE 18,
1998.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file dunng the appeal penod
with the Office of the Heanng Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 324-3490 The file may be inspected
dunng nonnal working hours, listed as Monday - Fnday of each week, except holidays, between the
hours of 8 00 a m and 4 30 p m Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at
the cost set by Spokane County ordinance
~
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 23
a~
~
INL.ANG1 PACIFIC ENGINEERING, lNC.
SPCJKANE o COEUR D'ALENE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANL'LYSIS
Mission Meac1,,,-)--1,
Spokane County, Washington
Prepared for:
Bill & Arlene Colyar, 19305 E. Mission Ave., Greenacres, WA 99015 ~ v~~,,~ , r•v
August, 1997 7
V~ ~ Nd► i "t=APt_.
=Nv~c~
Pre ared b J~D a f F- ~
P Y: ~ P~ F"L~c.T-
~ ~ rir~E r.rT
Indand Pacific Engineering, Inc.
~l c o JT r
West 707 Seventh Avenue, Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99204
(509)458-6840
I
This report has been prepared by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering under the direction of the
undersigned professional engineer whose se ' ture appears hereon. ~
SC
W
Sy~A~ ~
.
'!7
2291 2
9FG/STEA~O
~SS~ONAL ENG~
EXPIRES: t
A. 1 a , . .
r
1
TABLE OF CQNTENTS ^
IIVTRODUCTICaN .............................................................1
TIA - DOCUMEIVT SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PR DJECT DES"CRIFTI(7N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . , . . . . . Z
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................5
CDNCLUSIO.NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RECOAMENDATIQNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EXISTING C4.NDITIDNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
EXISTING +CONI~JITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Land Use ........................................................8
Existing Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Barker Road ................................................8
Mission Avenue .............................................8
Indiana Avenue .............................................8
TrentAvenue(SR29D) ........................................8
Interstate 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Project Study Area Irrtersections and Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Traffic Tjolumes and Peak Hours of Operatian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
LEVEL 0"F SER YICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Unsignalized IntersectrQns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Existing Level nf Service and Traffic Arralysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Traffic Safety ....................................................IS
BackgroundProjects 16
Trrp Generation and I)istribution : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . , . . 19
FUTURE YEAR TRAF'FIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Phases 1-3 (20114) ~`.~AR LEYEL U'F SER V.ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZS
Indicrncr Averrue Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
32 .Lat Phase irVith IrrdianaAvenue Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Missian Avenue Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
BUILD 0 UT (2003) YEAR LE'VEL 0'F SERY'ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Indiana Avenue 14ccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Mission Avenue Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
caNcLvsIONs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
RECOMMENDATICJ"N►S' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
~
TABLE nF CQNTENT& continued
LIST QF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2 - Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3 - Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4 - AMPeak Hour Existing Traf~`'ic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure S - PMPeak Hour Existing Traffic Yolumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 6 - AMPeak Hour Background Project Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 7 - PMPeak Hour Background Project Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 8- AMPeak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes - Indiana Avenue Entrance 21
Figure 9- PMPeak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes - Indiana Avenue Entrance 22
Figure 10 - AMPeak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes - Mission Avenue Entrance 23
Figure 11 - PMPeak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes - Mission Avenue Entrance 24
Figure 12 - AM Peak Hour 2000 Traffic Yolumes without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 13 - PMPeak Hour 2000 Traffic Yolumes without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 14 - AMPeak Hour 2000 Traffic Volumes with Project - Indiana Avenue Access 30
Figure 15 - PMPeak Hour 2000 Traffic Yolumes with Project - Indiana Avenue Access 31
Figure 16 - AMPeak Hour 2000 Traffic Yolumes with Project - Mission Avenue Access 33
Figure 17 - PMPeak Hour 2000 Traffic Volumes with Project - Mission Avenue Access 34
Figure 18 - AMPeak Hour 2003 Traffic Volumes without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 19 - PMPeak Hour 2003 Traffic Volumes without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 20 - AMPeak Hour 2003 Traffic Volumes with Project - Indiana Avenue Access 39
Figure 21 - PMPeak Hour 2003 Traffic Volumes with Project - Indiana Avenue Access 40
Figure 22 - AMPeak Hour 2003 Traffic Volumes with Project - Mission Avenue Access 42
Figure 23 - PMPeak Hour 2003 Traffic Volumes with Project - Mission Avenue Access 43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Existing Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 2 - Accident History 1993-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 3 - Traffic Distribution for Background Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 4 - Trip Generation Rates for Mission Meadows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table S - Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Traff c Without Mission Meadows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 6- Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Indiana Avenue Access 29
Table 7- Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Mission Avenue Access 32
Table 8 - Year 2003 (Build Out Year) Traffic Without Mission Meadows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 9- Year 2003 (Build Out Year) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Indiana Ave. Access 38
Table 10 - Year 2003 (Build Out Year) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Mission Ave. Access . 41
TABLE QjF CQNTENT continued -
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Level of Service - Methods, Criteria and Tables _
Background Trips for Other Projects - Spokane County Data
Spreadsheet for Indiana Ave. Entrance
Spreadsheet for Mission Ave. Entrance
Existing Level of Service
Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Level of Service Without Project
Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Level of Service Including Project - Indiana Ave. Entrance
Year 1998 (Phase 1) Level of Service Including Project for Mission/Barker Intersection
Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Year Level of Service Including Project - Mission Ave. Entrance
Year 2003 (Build Out) Year Level of Service Without Project
Year 2003 (Build Out) Year Level of Service Including Project - Indiana Ave. Entrance
Year 2003 (Build Out) Year Level of Service Including Project - Mission Ave. Entrance
INTROD UCTION -
TL4 - DOCUMENT SCOPE
This Traffic Impact Analysis is being provided to Spokane County and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to document the analysis and findings of a traff'ic impact
assessment conducted for the proposed development of Mission Meadows, a proposed manufactured
home park in the eastern portion of Spokane County. This properiy lies east of Barlcer Road and
north of Mission Avenue next to Riverwalk as shown on Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The proposed
project will develop 19.46 acres of generally flat agricultural land into 132 new manufactured home
sites.
The purpose of this analysis is to identify, review and assess potential traff'ic related impacts which
this development may have on the transportation system and where possible minimize these impacts.
This TIA will be completed in accordance with the current traffic guidelines available from Spokane
County, WSDOT and the Institute of Traffic Engineers (A Recommended Practice - Traffic Access
and Impact Studies for Site Development,1991).
The project study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis was deternuned through conversations with
Spokane County and WSDOT to include the followi.ng intersections:
~ Barker Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Barker Road & the westbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Barker Road & Mission Avenue
• Barker Road & Indiana Avenue
• Barker Road & Trent Avenue (SR-290)
Specific traffic impact related issues to be addressed within this report will include:
Existing traffic conditions within the project study area.
• Trip generation characteristics related to the proposed development for the existing
and future transportation system.
• The anticipated trip distribution expected for the new trips to/from the site at full
build out.
• The effect of the trip generation and distribution to the existing and future
transportation system.
• Traffic impacts within the project study area due either to traffic growth or other
background projects which are separate from the addition of Mission Meadows.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 1 Mission Meadows TIA
~ Separately identify tkie traffic impacts which are due to the additional trafFic from -
Mission Meadvws.
• Identify impacts associated with having the main entrance on Indi.ana and identify the
impacts for hawing Mission'Ave as the main entran.ce.
~ Analysis and recarmmended mitigation fQr the effect of the tni.ps generated by Missivn
Meadows on the transpartation system. ~
PR+QJECT DESCRIPTIDN
This parcel is Ivcated in eastern Spokane County, aPProximately one miie north of I-9+0 and one half
mile east of Barker Road. This 19.46 acre parcel is presently used far agricultural pwrposes.
Development in the areas ta the west has been sparadic for many years. There are tw►v mobile hame
parks on the west side of Barker near her+e, and the aresidential development which has occurred south
of Mission Awenue fr4m thus site includes a mix of manufactured and conventional residences.
Immediately to the north and west af this site is the Riverwalk deveioprnent. Land to the east is
presentIy undeveloped.
Two access points are planned for Mission Mead4ws, one ta Mission Avenue and the other to
Indian.a Avenue and ultimately Barker Raad. At the present time, a partion of Mission Avenue
between #his site and Harvard R.oad is not paved. I]ue to the Spokane area's status as a particulate
non-attainment area, gutting mare cars on this street is undesirable. Therefore, it is anticipated that
the Gannectivn to► Indiana Avenue wili be the primmaty access point with the Mission Avenue aecess
point serving as an emergency access only. However, having the Mission Avenue access as the
primary access is more desirable in the long run, and therefore, at such time as Mission Avenue is
paved to Harvard Raad, the access points will reverse roles, with #he Mission Avenue access serving
as the pr~iammazy access point and the Indiana access serving as emergency access only.
Existing zaning of this parcel is UR-3.5, and this TIA is being prepared in cvnju.nction vvith an
appiication for a zone change to L1R-7. The surraunding area is a mix of [JR-3.5 and UR-71and use
categvries. A preliminary site plan of this developnnent is shawn in Figure 2.
Inland Paeific Engineering, Inc. 2 Mission Meadows TIA
.
,
w
:LID W EUCLIO ~
l~ Y •
HPtjAME . cr O J -
viEw ¢ -
t 9,~ ~.Mi wE W FAIR-..' Z. a
~ Y Lt~
GRACE ~o ; .GRACE /
. SRACEw c7
' z Z BUCKEYE BUCKEYE LN /
PROJECT
g'MAR1ETTA^ Q ° ~
~Y L
~ ~4C-~ oa O O ~1
~9~` ~ ~ ac cc
c~99 o ~ y M~Py _ a
_ jMONTGOMER~~ MpN'~GO ~
AVE • f / \ ~ _
:
. ~ .
. . ~
~ INDIANA i
~ BALD!y1N o IBALDWIN
W .
Z' w
O: ~ iNORA
~ Y
J! u AUSTA > z'AUGUSTA
)N MISSION_ ~ .
} ~ o M,►;. J__ J; - -
o
W MAXWELL W
:MAXWELL ar °Q o j W, a¢~'
Q SINTO cr o <
Z c~ x J w
~
0 ~
w SHARP BppNE
= f + cc ~Q
BOONE .
DESMET "
,~OESMET ~ ~ i•.
CATALDO 90
, cc .
, . W
Z
_ BROADWAY _Servlce_ Road W
I~SPRINGFIELO = pQ~~W P Y , '
~ p
.
~ ALKI ~ ALKI
Zj c COWLEY • ~a . , ~
o ~ eEpP'~ ¢
` f.1 N
nove Qy
~EC W
r"` WAY p ~
PL PVti a'a'~a~ v~~►.Er °
~ c;o v~«EV s NIXON =
W AY ? Hp MA IN
W ~t t T rC~' r
<
= RIVER5IDE~ ~
.
< SPRAGUE AVE
=Z •
.
a 1ST AVE
N ~
~S o c ~
2N0 2ND ~ y a
W WINDY AVE ~ ~ ~
' o ~ ~ DR j>a
~
¢ z4TH ITH
Z ¢ °J MICA ' . CLOVERDAL ~
O t7 ~ C7 . y~
¢
•E -j Y o o J
GC a ~ t 6TH 0Q o >
Q V Z~ v~ ¢ y
m O' tl ~ 1
8TH AVE u°; i
~ _ f
' ¢ ~
~ ¢
c U = t
DTHcr
o~
r' 9~ AVE ¢ _11 TH
mI
:
' z~
t J ~
~ ~
i
NOT TO SCALE
INLAND r FlGURE 1 MISSlON MEADOWS
PACIFIC -
ENQINEERINGi VI CI N I TY M AP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7tn • suite 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 96072 ' /
~ Spokcne, WA 99204 FAX: (509> 458-6844~ ~
~
3cumnv vrmo+ ___.r- --1
~".r n II~II r Ip I~i%,~sl I I I
{ ~ . . ~ .
R
3►m rn#are ~d
r4 ~
~
amo. xr ri ^
~
+ $1 r
3W iNAw
a ~ o s g$~ o ~
n
h b e~
N
n
g o ~
S s
- A O
■ ~
~:i
v
g "d E ~d ~ ~O 8 S a
3wn nvrI" ~
~ 0 8 ~ ~o F _ ~ K' ~ ~
+C~
a
3w vlsrxxn a •
N . ~7
r1 d ^ O
r~
1,"Ylit
- - -iow AsL.7 ~AY N015~I1 ~ Ttr~
1 ~
~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ 1 ',:,-s NOT TO SCALE
r-
-~44- ~
\ ~ Y .
FIGURE 2 ~
I NLAND MISSION MEADOWS \
PACIFIC - -
ENatNEERtNQ SITE MAP TRqF'FlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7tn • sune Zoo (509) 458-W40 PROJECT N0. 96072
`
Spokcne. WA 99244 FAX: (509) 458-6844;e
~
EXEC'UTIVE SUATM4ltY
CONCLtISlONS
Based upon the analysis, field observanons, assumptions, methodologies and results which are
provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that the unpacts to the overall area -
transportation system from developing this property can be nutigated Tlus conclusion was reached
'
and is documented wntlvn the body of tlus report
o The existmg levels of service at most of the intersections in the project study area are
wntlun the acceptable range for unsignalized intersections vrnthin Spokane County
Four of the five existing intersections within the project area are presently
functiorung vvitlun acceptable levels of service The mtersection of Barker & Trent
is expenencing LOS F condltions in the AM and PIVI peak hours Level of service
F is below the normally accepted standards for unsignalized intersechons in Spokane
County and on the WSDOT system Dunng the PM peak hour, Barker and the
eastbound I-90 ramp ternunals is funchomng at LOS E as an unsignalized
mtersection wluch is below acceptable levels of service A signal is currently being
constructed at tlus mtersection which wnll bnng the level of service into an
acceptable range The Bazker Road & westbound I-90 ramp ternunal/Cataldo
Avenue mtersection is functioning at LOS D The other intersecnons aze functiorung
at LOS C or better
o The background traffic increases expected over the next six years to the year 2003,
including the non-srte specific traffic growth, and the increases from the known
projects in the area will affect the levels of service at the intersections in the study
area At the intersection of Indiana & Barker, the level of service in the PM peak
hour wnll fa11 from LOS B to LOS D Level of service D is an acceptable level of
service The intersechon of Mission & Barker wnll fall from LOS B to LOS F Level
of service E is an unacceptable level of service With the anhcipated construction of
a signal and unprovements by others for background projects at both the Eastbound
and Westbound ramp ternunal intersections, levels of service vrnll be i4 the
acceptable range
The mtersection of Barker & Trent (SR 290) is also shown to continue to operate
below acceptable lunrts, at LOS F dunng both the AM and PM peak hours with the
increase m traffic as projected As identified m the Riverwalk traffic study, a traffic
signal may be necessary at ttus location, although it is a less than optunal location for
installing one If one is needed, it is recommended that four traffic signal warrants
be met first, including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2
~ The addition of the traffic anticipated from Phases 1-3 (2000) of the Mission
Meadows project with Indiana Avenue as the prunary access does not lower the
levels of service to unacceptable ranges dunng the AM peak hour During the PM
Inland Pacific Engrneermg, Inc 5 Mrssion Meadows TIA -
peak hour, the level of service at Barker & IVussion will fall to LOS F Construction -
of a westbound left turn lane will bnng the level of service into acceptable range,
LOS E The addrtional traffic from Mission Meadows will to increase the delay at
Barker & Trent wluch is already functioning at LOS F
~ The addition of the traffic anticipated from Phase 1(1998) of the IVbssion Meadows -
project (321ots) vvith Ind.iana Avenue as the prunary access will not lower the levels
of service to unacceptable ranges dunng either the AM or PM peak hour The
addinonal traffic from Mission Meadows w111 to mcrease the delay at Barker & Trent
wluch is already functioning at LOS F
• The addition of the traffic anticipated from Phases 1-3 (2000) of the Mission
Meadows project vvith Mission Avenue as the pnmary access does not lower the
levels of service to unacceptable ranges dunng the AM peak hour Dunng the PM
peak hour, the level of service at Barker & Mission will fall from to LOS F
Construction of a westbound left turn lane and a northbound nght turn lane vrnll bnng
the level of service into acceptable range, LOS E The additional traffic from
Mission Meadows will to increase the delay at Bazker & Trent wluch is already
functiorung at LOS F
o The traffic anticipated at build out (2003) of the Mssion Meadows project vvith
Indiana Avenue as the pnmary access does not lower the levels of service to
unacceptable ranges dunng the AM peak hour Dunng the PM peak hour, the level
of service at Barker & Mission will fall to LOS F Construction of a westbound left
turn lane and a northbound nght turn lane will bruig the level of service into
acceptable range, LOS E The additional traff'ic from Niission Meadows will increase
the delay at Barker & Trent wluch is already function.uig at LOS F
0 The traffic anticipated at build out (2003) of the Niission Meadows project wrth
Mission Avenue as the pnmary access does not lower the levels of service to
unacceptable ranges dunng the AM peak hour Dunng the PM peak hour, the level
of service at Barker & Mission will fall to LOS F Construction of a westbound left
tum lane and northbound and southbound left and nght tum lanes will bring the level
of service into an acceptable range, LOS E The additional traffic from 1V1ission
Meadows will increase the delay at Barker & Trent wluch is already funcnoning at
LOS F
REC'OMMElYDATIONS
Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of Mission Meadows will have a
minor affect on the surrounding transportation system The level of service can be maultained at
acceptable rates vvith nutigation In order to implement t.lus project and provide the safest possible
transportation system, not only for tlus proposed development, but also to the surrounding area, the
following recommendations should be incorporated into the project
Inland Pacrfic Engrneertng, Inc 6 Missron Meadows TIA -
0 Participate in a fair share way in the design and/or installahon of a traffic signal at -
Barker & Trent if four warrants (mcluding either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2) from the
MUTCD aze met before complete build out
0 If access onto Indiana Avenue is used, construct a westbound left turn lane at the
Barker/Mission intersechon for Phases 1-3 For build out conditions, a northbound -
nght turn lane at the Barker/Mission intersection should also be constructed
0 If access onto Indiana Avenue is used and only 321ots are constructed in Phase 1, no
mrtigation is required except for participation in improvements at the Barker/Trent
intersection
0 If access onto Mission Avenue is used, construct a westbound left turn lane and a
northbound nght turn lane at the Barker/Mission intersection for Phases 1-3 For
build out condinons, northbound and southbound left and nght turn lanes at the
Barker/1Vlission intersechon should be constructed along vvith the westbound left turn
lane
~ Frontage unprovements as requued by Spokane County
Inland Pactfic Engrneerrng, Inc 7 Mission Meadows TIA -
EXFSl ING COATDId IO1 rS
EXISTING CO1Vl)ITIONS
Land Use
At the present tune the land for this plat is being used as an alfalfa field Present zorung is UR-3 5,
and this study is being conducted as a part of a zone change to UR-7 The area around the proposed
development is a nux of UR-3 5, UR-7 and I-2 The land south of Mission and west of Barker has
been platted as residential Existmg zoning is shown on Figure 3 Other uses vvithin the surrounchng
area include several mobile home pazks, a church, a truck servicing facilrty near I-90 and the
Spokane Industrial Park The proposed project vvill develop 19 46 acres into a manufactured home
park of 1321ots Development in the larger area has been ongoing for many years
Exi.sting leoadways
Barker Road is a two lane pruicipal artenal wnthin Spokane County The lanes are generally 12' in
vrndth with shoulders on either side The pnmary funcrion of Barker Road is to provide a north/south
connection for the surrounding residential areas to erther Trent Avenue or I-90 Access to tlus
facility is by erther pubhc street or pnvate dnveway All cross traffic is at grade and north of I-90,
is stop sign controlled The speed lunit on Barker is 35 mph between I-90 and the Spokane River
and increases to 45 mph north of the Spokane River to Trent
Mi.ssion Avenue is on Spokane County's Artenal Road Plan as a major collector It serves to collect
and d.istnbute the east/west traffic from the neighborhood around Mission Avenue to Barker Road,
the nearest pruicipal artenal The general cross-section of tlus facility consists of two travel lanes
with a drtch section on erther side The speed lurut is posted at 35 mph East from this srte towards
Harvard Road, an approximately 10 mile secnon of Mission Avenue is not paved
dndianaAvenue north of the manufactured home park has been developed as a collector street which
proceeds east from Barker Road into the Riverwalk subdivision It serves to collect and distnbute
the traffic from the neighborhood to the artenal system The speed lunit on it is posted at 25 mph
and rt has curbs and sidewalk on both sides along rt's length
TrentAvenue (S1e 290) is an eastlwest four lane pnncipal artenal on both the Spokane County and
Washuigton State Department of Transportation systems It connects parts of the State of Idaho
north of Post Falls with SR 2 and SR 395 within the Crty of Spokane The speed lunit on Trent
Avenue at Barker Road is 50 mph Trent Avenue was the subject of a corridor safety improvement
project, and now has abundant advanced sigiung for cross-streets and several new left turn pockets
for intersections in the more rural areas including the Barker Road intersection
Inland Pacrfic Engrneering, Inc 8 Mcssion Meadows TIA
qqw rji{
<
ye)
lm2 ~
~
- -
~
I t
~~ls
UK"'3*5 ~ • _%n J w
„ti tft,~- u! I
L,,
. . . ~ ~ >
LAJ ~
AVE - Ic"
~
~ ~ • ~'L ~riQ Q~ ~r~' i
r~ "i . . ~
~
5503 P"ROJE'CT .
LOCATION A.._
~i - - ~
EL.P'404 _
N .r {
QV -
; ~KP,31S
3*5
Q
~ fiL~}1/~{N
_ r • ap ~
4 ~o
X ,4 [ • .
11.~ i„I 1
> - '
: AOUJ%
.
' 182 183 184 A95~1$6~ t87 I88 lt?9 190 I°+ 192 195 1~ 197 198 199 200 z h". I?_~J3 t
R, ~ Gret °
Sc )oo ~z ui ~ ° a w •
MAxWELL AV
lern t B UR J
3.5 ~ 3.5
D Q
s
~ - • a r4 - i
w
or li,2
NE E- SMET a3 _ 1,~2 IY1
~
. I
-1caYa,Laa A~ `Q.
• • ~ ;•-~f't~~~r, . r~
. . ~ u, sa
2 R- E'wA Y" - ~ ~
- 3
. . . . . _ . : . ~ ~ ~ NoT to sc aLE
I NLANC) 1 ~ FiGuRE 3
. ~ MISSIaN MEAD4WS 1
PACIFIC - -
ENGlNEER1NCi ZQN I NG M AP TRAFFfC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 wast 7th • Sulte 200 (509) 458-6840 PRO.IECT N{}. 96072 F
~ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844,
~
~
Interstate 90 (I-90) is an interstate federal highway connecting Seattle with points east of Spokane.
In the vicinity of Barker Road, it is a four lane divided, controlled-access freeway. The south ramp
terminals or eastbound on/off ramps are configured as a traditional diamond interchange. At the
north ramp ternunals, the westbound on ramp is configured in a traditional diamond layout and the
off-ramp is a loop ramp bringing the exiting westbound I-90 traffic around a curve to face east across
from Cataldo Avenue at Barker Road.
Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control
Project study area intersections in the site vicinity were identified through discussions with Spokane
County and WSDOT. The intersections identified for further analysis were:
• Barker Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Barker Road & the westbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Barker Road & Mission Avenue
• Barker Road & Indiana Avenue
• Barker Road & Trent Avenue (SR-290)
These intersections have been analyzed for level of service (LOS) and form the basis of this
document. All of these intersections are unsignalized with the minor street stopping for the traffic
on Bazker Road. Barker Road "tees" into Trent Ave, a state route and principle arterial. In this case,
the tra -£fic on Barker is stop controlled for the traffic on Trent. A signal is currently being installed
at the eastbound ramp ternunal intersection.
Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation
Existing turning traffic movement counts at the I-90 ramp terminal intersections were taken by the
staff of Inland Pacific Engineering (IPE) during the fall of 1996. Existing turning traffic movement
counts at the other three scoped intersections were taken in 1995 in conjunction with the Riverwalk
tra ffic unpact analysis. The 1995 traffic counts were compazed with the 1996 traffic counts to verify
correlation between intersections. The northbound/southbound through traffic on Barker Road at
the three intersections counted in 1995 was changed by the use of a growth factor until they
approxirnately matched the new traffic volume information collected in 1996. Although the increase
in housing units is very small since 1995 (about 30 additional homes in Riverwalk and five homes
in Meadow View Ranch Estates), the increase in traffic was observed to be in excess of 15% for each
of the other intersections,. It is anticipated that this increase in traffic has been brought about by
either non-site specific sources or by sources outside the Barker Road corridor.
Since the weekday AM and PM peak hours have been identified as the time period when the greatest
traffic demands are placed on the transportation system, these time periods will be utilized by this
study for analyzing affects on the transportation system by the proposed action.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 10 Missio» Meadoivs TIA
290
~IENV~ -
~
241 G= 1059
69 79
Q
O ~ n
~
~ 9 ~L
(lj n o
Y ~
INDIANA AVENUE Q p '~f
N O
_ lV
P~Nv
m INDIANA ~
M ^ ~
~ •
. .
21J, 11
. ~
- • :
7~ ~10
44 35
.
.
rc m o • •
t~
~
MISSION AVENUE • ~ ' ~
~N
co co
J'~ ~ ,o
19
18 ~ G~ 18
8~ p '~f19
~ m `cy
t CATALDO
90
I
ba
99 ~
i~
74 ~
~m
~
~
~ NOT TO SCALE ~
r r~ I NLAND ~ FIGURE 4 1 ~ MISSION MEADOW'S ~
PACIFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR
ENGINEERINQ EXISTING (1996) TRqFFIC IMPACT ANALY'SIS
I 707 we3t 7th • suite 200 (509) 45e-6840 TRAFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96072
l Spokane. WA 99204 pAX: (509) 458-6844J
~ . , .
s460
a p~
1030~
P~4 ~ s N
f.I
'j ~ p 5
U_t 'r0 1
m
.
P • • •
.
:
NA A~ENV~ ~Na~RNp, • . ~ :
. •
.
.
. .
.
.
~ •e
~ • + •
~ ~ ~
35,p ~ENVE
24`' ~ 1s..~"loN A
N ~
~ A
.lscJ ~;4
CA-rP,Loa _
•
V ~
Y ~
Z1 0 ~
173 ~ ~ N
~AIS~
5
00-000 + FlGUR!
000-- ~AovR ~
00
n P.M• l;%kr5jNG
LEVEL OF SER VICE -
Level of service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to
quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped
delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles afforded to drivers who utilize the transportation
network. It has been defined by the Transportation Research Board in Special Report No. 209, the
1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of service into a range from
"A" which indicates little, if any vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant vehicle delay and
traffic congestion which may lead to system breakdown due to volumes which may far exceed
capacity.
Signalized Intersections
For signalized intersections, recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle
is the best available measure of level of service. The technical appendix of this report, includes a
section on the Level of Service, Methods and Criteria. The tables in the technical appendix identify
the relationships between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this
definition as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual; level of service D is generally considered
to represent the minimum acceptable design standard for signalized intersections in an area such as
this.
Unsignalized Intersections
The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one/two-way stop-controlled intersection
is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The Highway Capacity
Manual. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the delay experienced by each
movement within the intersection.
The concept of delay as presented for unsignalized intersections in the Highway Capacity Manual
is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend at the intersection. Vehicles passing straight ,
through the intersection on the major (uncontrolled) street experience no delay at the intersection.
On the other hand, vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the
right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through
vehicles on both the minor and major streets, must spend more time at the intersection. Levels of
service are assigned to individual movements within the intersection, and are based upon the delay
experienced by each movement or approach.
The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for unsignalized
intersections should be, by designating level of service A through F, where level of service A
represents a facility where no vehicle in any movement is delayed very long and level of service F
which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in at least one
movement in the intersection. Level of service E has been defined as the minimum acceptable level
of service for this area.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 13 Mission Meadows TIA
All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the -
procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and
procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the
weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which
are only for the peak hours of operation.
Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysis
As outlined above, the LOS techniques used for this study will follow those outlined in the 1994
Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209. The scope of this study will include those
intersections within the project study area, namely the intersections of Barker Road & Trent Avenue
(SR 290), Barker Road & Indiana Avenue, Barker Road & Mission Avenue, Barker Road & the
westbound I-90 ramp terminals and Barker Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals. These
intersections were chosen by Spokane County or WSDOT as intersections which could experience
impacts from Mission Meadows. As determined during scoping of this TIA, the greatest impacts
to the transportation system for this type of development would occur during the AM and PM peak
hours when the home-based to work (AM peak hour) and work to home-base (PM peak hour)
commuters are on the transportation system. Based upon requirements of Spokane County and
WSDOT for this analysis, the lowest acceptable level of service for an unsignalized intersection will
be an LOS of E, while for a signalized intersection, the lowest acceptable level of service is LOS D.
Intersections with levels of service lower than that are candidates for mitigation to provide
acceptable levels of service.
Table 1 summarizes the current levels of service for the existing AM and PM peak hour at the
scoped intersections. These LOS results are based on the traffic counts shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Highway Capacity Manual Soflware (HCS) data used to generate a111evels of service shown in this
document are in the Technical Appendix which follows the report section of this docw.r
Table 1- Existing Level of Service .Y-
s s~o > . : _ r~ /vI
EXISTING
INTERSECTION
(s);gnafiZea AM PM
(U)nsignalized ~
DELAY LOS DELAY
Barker & Trent (SR 290) U 118.6 sec F 195.4 sec
Barker & Indiana U 6.2 sec B 8.3 sec B
Barker & Mission U r6.4 sec B 11.4 sec
.
Barker & WB I-90 Ram s U 13.4 sec C 21.1 sec D
~
Barker & EB I-90 Ram s U 12.2 sec C 33.9 sec E _JJ
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 14 Mission Meadows TIA
~
.
I
As can be seen from the above table, the existing levels of service at most of the intersections in the
project study area are within the acceptable range for unsignalized intersections within Spokane
County. Four of the five existing intersections within the project area are presently functioning
within acceptable levels of service. The intersection of Barker & Trent is experiencing LOS F
conditions in the AM and PM peak hours. Level of service F is below the normally accepted -
standard for unsignalized intersections in Spokane County and on the WSDOT system. During the
PM peak hour, Barker and the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals is functioning at LOS E, while the
Barker Road & westbound I-90 ramp terminaUCataldo Avenue intersection is functioning at LOS
D. The other intersections are functioning at LOS C or better.
Traffic Safety
Accident sununaries available for the past three years from Spokane County and WSDOT files for
the Barker Road intersections were assembled. Generally, accidents are documented by type of
occutrence, such as property damage only (PDO), injury accident (INJ), and fatality accident (FA`I).
Accident frequency is measured per million entering vehicles (MEV) entering the intersection.
Accident rates higher than 2 accidents per MEV are considered to have safety issues attached to
them. Table 2 shows that all of the intersections analyzed as a part of this study have accident rates
far below the 2 accidents per million entering vehicles which is considered the threshold for safety
improvements.
Table 2- Accident History 1993-1995
. _ , _ ,
ACCIDENT STATISTICS . :
Intersection ' 1993 1994 , 1995 per
of Barker MEV
&; PDO INJ PDO INJ PDO INJ
Eastbound 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.08 I-90 ramps
Westbound 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.07
I-90 ramps
Mission Ave 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.18
Indiana Ave N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0.00
Trent Ave 3 1 2 2 3 5 0.71
(SR 290)
N/A - intersection was not in existence
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 15 Mission Meadows TIA
Background Projects
For this report, other developments were identified for inclusion as background projects, since they
will generate traffic at the subject intersections. The specifically identified projects are:
• Riverwalk, a total of 365 units, 35 units have been built at time of counts -
~ Turtle Creek, a total of 101 units
• Turtle Creek South, a total of 159 units
~ Meadow View Ranch Estates, a total of 35 units, 5 units have been built at time of
counts
• Meadow View Terrace, a total of 309 units • Momingside Heights (present approval is for 140 units and no connection to Barker)
• Good Samaritan (60 units of elderly housing)
• Hawkins-Edwards Cataldo Ave Industrial Park
Not all of these units are expected to be completed within the build out of Mission Meadows,
however they will be included in the future traffic condition based upon their anticipated build out
for Phases 1-3 (2000) and project build out (2003) of Mission Meadows. Trip distribution for these
projects was performed by Spokane County Engineering. This distribution was used in this report
and is shown on Table 3. Actual projected traffic volumes from these developments, both at Phases
1-3 (2000) and at build out (2003) are shown on Figures 6 and 7.
Table 3- Traffic Distribution for Background Projects
-
: Project North of I-90 West on I-90 East on I-90 On 5prague/ Appteway
on Barker Corridor
,
Riverwalk 15% 50% 10% 25%
Tuttle Creek 5% 50% 10% 35%
Turtle Creek South 5% 50% 10% 35%
Meadow View 5% 50% 10% 35%
Ranch Estates
Meadow View 5% 50% 10% 35%
Terrace
Good Samaritan 0% 40% 10% 50%
Edwa.i'ds Cataldo 10%/25% 50%/40% 20%/20% 20%/15%
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 16 Mission Meadows TIA
290
R~N~ P
~
29 18
C)
Q x N
O
LL
w
~ Q 22
Q
m ~ 122
INDIANA AVENUE Q?
~
. .
W INDIANA
n
~ ~ ; •
4
.
9 ~
. •
.
~ . ~
.e
.
~
.
. .
.
MISSION AVENUE
N
O m0 ~ . '
7
60~ a
,zczN ~
~
~ N
- ~ t CATALDO
90 - - - - - -
f ~
Q cZ a •-c 7' s ~
~
187 ;;,J Z3 L
82 c%,
m~
N
i
NOT TO SCALE
~
`
r ~ INLAND FlGURE 6 MISSION MEADOWS \
ic PACIFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR
s ENQINEERINQ BACKGRO U N D P ROJ ECTS - -
TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALY'S1S
707 wat 7ch • suits zoo (509) 458-6s4o PROJECT N0. 96072
Spokane. WA 99204 FqX: (50) 458-6844.0 /
~
4,
Q ~
O
~
O
rN
U-3`j ~%t,~14
y
Q ~'T7
m
2$
Q. . , , . :
. •
~
~A ~~ENU 1NID\ANA ~ .
. .
;
~ . ,
;
~t ~ ~ r • , ~ • '
, ~ .
Y s°~ ~ • '
~
MissloN
4
UZ
f~
~og
m
4P 52
34.,p C,ATALQO .
o ~ awa ! ~ _ - _
r r'
r
-
~ 90 ~
~
~
o ~
, MIssI(
~
~ Fl~uRE ~
~ , ~P~K H D~E~TS 1w~
_ wND ''f ROVN~
Trip Generation and Distribution -
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition, the
anticipated number of trips to be generated on adjacent streets by the proposed project was
determined. The Trip Generation Manua1(TGM) provides empirical data, based upon actual field
observations for trip generation characteristics of similar maaufactured home parks throughout the
United States. The proposed project has a total of 1321ots. The TGM provides trip generation data
for manufactured home pazks under land use # 240, Mobile Home Pazk. The trips expected to be
generated by the Mission Meadows development are shown in Table 4 which follows.
Table 4- Trip Generation Rates for Mission Meadows
.
;
: .
; AM Pcak ~our ' PM Peak Hour
_
No. Vol @ 0.44 Directional Vol @ Directional
of
Lots trips per Dis#ribution 0.56 trips Distributiom
lot 21% In 79% Dut Per tot 62% In 38% Out
132 53 11 42 74 46 28
: . . .
<
Average DailyTPp Ends (ADT)
:
: : .
. <
Lots : Rate Tota1.ADT : :
132 4.81 635
Phases 1-3 (2000) volumes are defined as half of the total build out. Therefore, Phases 1-3 consists
of 661ots and the distribution of these trips is half of the amount for the build out condition.
These trip generation rates are based upon the independent variable - occupied dwelling units and
assumed full occupancy. Furthermore, the time period used was the peak hour of the adj acent street,
not the peak hour of the generator. The traffic volumes for the peak hour of the adj acent street was
chosen over the peak hour of the generator for several reasons. First, under the trip generation
manual's description of a mobile home park, it is specifically stated that there is no information on
the peak hour of the generator, i.e. it's relationship to the peak hour. Second, the difference between
the two is not that great, and the total difference in the number of trips is 4 additional trips in the AM
peak hour and 3 trips in the PM peak hour.
Based upon existing ADT's along the adjacent roadways, the peak hours' directional and turning
volumes at each intersection and field observations of primary driver characteristics determined
during actual field observations and intersection counts, the anticipated trip distribution and
assignment within the general area was determined for the proposed project. It is the desire of the
sponsor to have Mission Avenue be the primary access point, however, at the present time a section
Inland Pacif c Engineering, Inc. 19 Mission Meadows TIA
of Mission Avenue is not paved east of this site and west of Harvazd Road. Paving this section of -
road is beyond the scope of this project and therefore, the pri.mary access point will be Indiana
Avenue until Mission Avenue is paved. However, at such time as Mission is paved, the access to
the park will be changed from Indiana Avenue to Mission Avenue and the connection to Indiana
Avenue will serve as an emergency access only. To demonstrate that both access options work
acceptably, distribution for each of these two options was done for build out conditions. Actual
traffic volume assignments are shown in Figures 8& 9 for the Indiana Avenue option and on Figures
10 & 11 for the Mission Avenue option. Traffic volumes for Phases 1-3 are half of the amounts
shown in these figures.
With the Indiana Avenue access point, 30% will go northbound on Barker Road toward Trent Road
and 70% will go southbound on Barker Road toward the I-90 interchange. At the Euclid
AvenueBarker Road intersection, 15% will go west on Euclid Avenue toward Sullivan Avenue and
the IndustriaUBusiness Park area. At the Trent AvenueBarker Road intersection, 10% of the total
trips will go westbound on Trent Road and 5% will go eastbound on Trent Road. At the I-90 ramp
terminal intersections, 45% will go west on I-90 toward City of Spokane, 20% will go east toward
Liberty Lake interchange and Post Falls, and 5% will go south on Barker Road to the
Appleway/Sprague corridor. The origin of the trips entering the site will be the same percentage as
the destination for the trips exiting the site.
With the Mission Avenue access point, 20% will go eastbound on Mission toward Harvard Road and
80% will go westbound on Mission Avenue toward Barker. Approximately 30% will go northbound
on Barker Road toward Trent Road and 50% will go southbound on Barker Road toward the I-90
interchange. At the Euclid AvenueBarker Road intersection, 15% will go west on Euclid Avenue
toward Sullivan Avenue and the IndustriaUBusiness Park area. At the Trent AvenueBarker Road
intersection, 10% of the total trips will go westbound on Trent Road and 5% will go eastbound on
Trent Road. At the I-90 ramp terminal intersections, 45% will go west on I-90 toward City of
Spokane and 5% will go south on Barker Road to the Appleway/Sprague corridor. The origin of the
trips entering the site will be the same percentage as the destination for the trips exiting the site.
Other trip distribution scenarios are possible for the traffic from Mission Meadows, however, this
scenario was chosen based upon field observations of existing traff"ic, and because it best illustrates
the abilities of the existing transportation system, and shows what improvements to the
transportation system will be needed to accommodate the traffic from general growth and from
Mission Meadows specifically.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 20 Mission Meadows TIA
290
.J
Q 'C~l ~ l0t~' 1 e5
~ 0.-1 t ~
O N
A/ 9 ~ ~ ~ /J
I..L~ .
~
W
Y ~
~ ~13
m
29
I DIANA AVENIiE
~
INDIANA
N
~ ~ .
~
.
•
~ •
~ •
- ~ .
. .
e .
MISSION AVENUE • ' " '
010
z
Q
~
- . . r. t - CATALDE3
90
- - - _ _ I
N c0
3
4
~
~ NOT TO SCALE ~
INLAND FlGURE 8 MISSION MFJIDOWS ~
PACIFIC AT. 'gUIL OUT - -
ENQINEERINQ SITE GENERATED TRAF'FIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 wet 7th • suite 240 _(5os) a.ss-se4o TRAFFI C Vp LU ME PROJECT N0. 96072 .
~s~a~. w4► 99204 FAx: (*09) 458-sa~~ ` INDIANA ENTRANC ~ J~\ ~
290
R~N~ A
~
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll,iiiijlilllllllI
/i+2 ` iCe~ ~
5~ dp Cf
~
W
Y
~ Qs
Q
m ~ 20
INDIANA AVENUE
N
~ ~ .
INDIANA
. ~
o ~ •
N
.
. ~
.
. '
e
N ~
►7
. •
MISSfON AVENUE
:2
~
9
4
~
N
- ` ~ - - CATALD4- ~
90
~
bb
z,czP "
4
N
~
~ NOT TO SCALE ~
. s . s ~ . ~ . . 11M
INLAND FlGURE 9 MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC gUILDOUT
ENC~INEERINQ SITE GENERATED TFZAFFlC IMPACT ANALY'SIS
707 woM 7th • sutta zoo (sos) 4.5s-s84o TRAFFI C Vp LU M S PROJECT N0. 96072 .
Spokqne. WA 99204 FAx: (sos) 4sa-s8+4 I N DIANA Ef~TRAN E.
J. ~ . . . ~
~ ~ `
/ 1
/
290
I
~~NvE
LLJ n
Y ~
Q
~
INDIANA AVENUE
~ :2 ~
IND{ANA Pa ,
~ : .
. .
. '
13 . -
:
~ 21 ' .
~ B
. .
:
. . •
MIS510N AVENUE •
~
~ N
4
~
- ` t • CATALDO ~ ~ -
90 ~
N
J' ~
g
4
~
~
NOT TO SCALE ooo/
~ .
l NLAND FlGURE 10 1 ~ NISSION MEADOWS ~
~ .
PACIFfC A-P BUILQOUT HOUR
~ -
ENQINEERING SITE GENERATED TRAFFiC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 waet 7tn • suite 200 (sos) ~-sa+o MI~SIC~N &VAM~3E . PROJECT N0. 96072 . J
`SPokaM. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6$44~ ~
290
R~N~ P
~
5 `zz~r )';f2 o ~ ~ • ~ -i
O
w
y ~
Q
00
INDIANA AVENUE Q
m
I N D IANA
. .
. :
.
8 .k.... , .
.
14 .
~ ' .
~
~ • , •
n •
N
.
MISSION AVENUE •
~
~b
Q
~
N
` t CATALDO
90
~
2,1-~'
4
04
i
` NOT TO SCALE ~
r ~ I NLAND FlGURE 11 MISSION MfADOWS ~
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
ENGINEERINQ SITE GENERATED ~ic irwPACT a~YSis
707 w~t 7th • suit. 200 458-6840 TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROJECT N0. 96072
a Spokane. WA 99204 FAx; (509) 458-68+4;, ~ M I SS 10 N ENTRAN C E • 0/
FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL YSIS
PHASES 1-3 (2000) LEVEL OF SER VICE
Level of service calculations were made for Phases 1-3 (2000), with and without Mission Meadows
for entrances onto Indiana Avenue and Mission Avenue and for AM & PM peak hour traffic. These
calculations show how the tra.~'ic volumes will be handled by the existing facilities or what new
elements will be needed for the traffic system to continue working. The background traffic volume includes the existing traffic, with a compounded growth rate of 1% per year on all streets and includes the background projects scoped for inclusion in the study. As a
part of the traffic mitigation associated with Riverwalk, a signal will be installed at the intersection
of the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals & Barker; and another at Barker & the westbound I-90 ramp "„`i`
terminaUCataldo Avenue intersection. The build out for Riverwalk is expected to be within the build e ;~I
out expected for Mission Meadows. It was also identified in the Turtle Creek South traffic study that
;
left turn channelization would be necessary at this intersection. Therefore, these improvements are
expected to be in place before the completion of Mission Meadows. See Figures 12 & 13 for the background traffic volumes anticipated in 2000. A summary of the
Level of Service calculation results aze shown on Table 5 which follows.
Table S- Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Traffic Without Mission Meadows
YEAR 2000 (Phases 1-3) TRAFFIC
: INTERSECTION . . : : . WITHOUT PROJECT
' (S)ignalized '
(u)nsigoal;zea ~ . AM pM :
' DELAY LOS DELAY L45
_
Barker & Trent U 402.9 sec F >999.9 sec F
Barker & Indiana U 13.4 sec C 20.0 sec D
Barker & Mission U 18.5 sec C 44.1 sec E
Barker & WB I-90 Ramps S 20.9 sec C 31.6 sec D
Bazker & EB I-90 Ramps S 10.8 sec B 19.9 sec C
The background traffic increases expected to the year 2000, including the non-site specific traffic
growth, and the increases from the known projects in the area will affect the levels of service at some
of the intersections in the study area. At the intersection of Indiana & Barker, the level of service
in the PM peak hour will fall from LOS B to LOS D. The intersection of Mission & Barker will fall
from LOS B to LOS E. These are both within the range of acceptable levels of service. At the ramp
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Mission Meadows TIA
terminal intersections, improvements will raise the level of service at these intersections.
The intersection of Barker & Trent (SR 290) is shown to continue to opera.te below acceptable limits,
at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours with the increase in traffic as projected. As
identified in the Riverwalk traffic study, a traffic signal may be necessary at this location, although
it is a less than optimal location for installing one. If one is needed, it is recommended that four
traffic signal warrants be met first, including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 26 Mission Meadows TIA
2~
251 1102
101cl~ 99
Q ~ p~
o
ry
w
b"k-
Q as
m If 136
INDIANA AVENUE 4 ~r'
^ .
- INDIANA
t
,
.
22-P Q20 .
8C=> a,o ~ ~ •
. .
48~
. ,
.
a4~ ~
ro w ao ~
N N
.
MISSION AVENUE
M N ~t
27 38
79~ <:=54
20c;~, a ~27
$r~
n c~ n
CATALDO
go
m
N tD
290 ~
139 ~
N iA
~ N
i
l NOT TO SCAI.F ~
\
I NLAND FlrGURE 12 'MIssioN MEADOws ~
PACIFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR
ENGINEERINQ 2000 TRAFFiC VOLUMES TRAmc iMPncT fwa..Ysis-
707 west 7t, • suite 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 96072
`s~~~, wA ~204 FAx: (509) 458-s8~~ ~ WITHOUT PROJECT ~ ~ ~
/ ~
290
~
1084 C=> C-479
189 111 '
0
0
~
N
w ~
Y ~
m ~
INDIANA AVENUE .4 ,
INDIANA P ~ ~
~ . ~
N f 7 . ~ ~ ~ ~
• '
~
37-Z;p ~25 . .
6C= 17
25cz~r ~85
. ~
N^ ~ .
Ln
,n ~ .
.
MISSION AVENUE • '
48 82
39c=J 4133
~ 32cz,~r /r+118
N I~ 1~0
N CD
r t - CATALDO
90 - - -
407~
382 ~
i
~ NOT T4 SCALE J
INLAND ~ . F~GU~ 3 . N ~ MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
ENQINEERINQ 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS-
7o7 west 7th . s~ite 200 (509) 458-6840 WITHOUT PROJ ECT PROJECT N0. 96072
` Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844/ ~ ~ ` . ' J
~
Indiana Avenue Access -
Using the number of generated trips shown in Table 4 and half the estimated trip distribution shown
in Figures 8& 9 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use
the transportation system for Phases 1-3 with Indiana as the entrance point is obtained. Figures 14
& 15 show the future traffic volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic volumes,
Phases 1-3 year level of service calculations were performed and the results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6- Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Indiana Avenue Access
YEAR 2004 (Phases 1-3) TRAFFIC VVITH
INTERSECTION PRUJECT - INDIANA AVENUE ACCESS
. :
AM ~ P1VI
(s)igngtiZea `
_ _ ;
(U)nsignalized
DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
Barker & Trent U 413.3 sec F >999.9 sec F
Barker & Indiana U 14.5 sec C 22.8 sec D
Barker & Mission U 19.5 sec C 48.3 sec F
With EB Left Turn Lane 43.5 sec. E
Barker & WB I-90 Ramps S 24.8 sec C 34.7 sec D
Barker & EB I-90 Ramps S 10.7 sec B 21.0 sec C
The addition of the traffic anticipated from the Mission Meadows project with Indiana Avenue as
the primary access increases the levels of service during the PM peak hour over the without project
condition for one intersection. The level of service at Barker & Mission will fa11 from LOS E to
LOS. F. With a westbound left turn lane, the level of service will improve to LOS E at this
intersection as shown above. The additional traffic from Mission Meadows will also increase the
delay time at Barker & Trent which is already functioning at LOS F.
Phase 1- 32 Lots With Entrance on Indiana
The only intersection that requires mitigation because of this project for the year 2000 with the
entrance on Indiana Avenue is the Barker Road/Mission Avenue intersection. The Barker
RoadlMission Avenue intersection was analzed for the PM peak hour traffic for Phase 1, 1998 with
321ots or one quarter of the total number of lots. The level of service at this intersection under this
condition was LOS E with 42.8 seconds of delay. This is within the acceptable range. Therefore,
this project is able to build 32 lots in a first phase without any mitigation needed except for
participating in improvements at the Barker Road/Trent Avenue intersection. See appendix for
spreadsheet and level of service calculations.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 29 Mission Meadows TIA
290
VEN~E
~
251c=:> a1102
102c;~r /~99
Q ' o ~v.
O
~
w ~a
2e
Q
INDIANA AVENl1E co 4P 136
Q ~
. P`~~ . .
INDIANA :
~ ~ • ~
~ ~
, .
22 20 ~
. .
8=> a,o , ' .
46 -,~r
09
, •
. e
.
`h
mn N • .
N .
MISSION AVENUE ~
N n Oi
M N t
eQ
z as
79 ~ 54
20~ 27
n cV r>
- f t CATALDO
90 I
~
ba
292 ~
139 ~
N ig
i
~ NOT TO SCALE J
/ r
t ~ INLAND ~ FlGURE 14 MISSION ME4DOWS ~
PACIFIC A. M. P EAK H 0 U R
ENC3INEERINQ 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAMC IMPAiCT ANALYSIS
707 west 7tn • su►te zoo (509) 458-6sao WITH PROJECT PROJECT N0. 96072
Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844J ~ INDIANA ACCESS
,
/ ~
290
~
1064 479
191cz~r ~112
Q ~ ~ -
Q
~
W .r n
Q ~18
~
INDIANA AVENU m 87
E Q ~r'
o
- ~ tNDIANA
n
c°DV ~n ~ • ~
37CP 25
6 ~ 17 • ~ .
25 cr~, 85
16
~
~1.10, In
in~ :
MISSION AVENUE •
~
~~w
%i~
52 ~ 82
39 ~ 134 32 8
v /p11
p~
` t - CATALDO
90 - - - - - -
~
,7 ~ b~
+ '
~ a
382
m ~i
- In
~
` NOT TO SCALE J
. . ~ .0
NISSION MEADOWS
-""m I NLAND FlGURE 15
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
ENCiINEERINCi 2000 YRAFFIC VOLUMES TRqF-FlC IMPAiCT ANAL.YSIS
70 ~ west 7tn • suite 200 (sos) 458-6840 WITH PROJECT PROJECT N0. 96072
`Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844of ~ INDIANA ACCESS ` ' J
Mission Avenue Access -
Using the number of generated trips shown on Table 4 and half the estimated trip distribution shown
on Figures 10 & 11 and adding it to the background tr-affic, the total number of trips projected to use
the transportation system for Phases 1-3 with Mission Ave. as the primary access point is obtained.
Figures 16 & 17 show the future traffic volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic
volumes, Phases 1-3 level of service calculations were performed and the results are displayed in
Table 7. -
Table 7- Year 2000 (Phases 1-3) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Mission Avenue Access
. . . . . . . . . . . . i
1
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . , . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
` 'YEAR 2004 (Phases 1-3) TRAFFIC WITH
.
: _
. . ~NTER~ECTI4N < . PR4JECT - MISSIUN AVE ENTRANCE
, (S)igr~alizeci , , ~ A~M PM
. . :
(Y1)nsignaiized
DELAY : LOS DELAY LOS
Barker & Trent U 413.3 sec. F >999.9 sec. F
Barker & Indiana U 14.8 sec. C 23.0 sec. D
~ Barker & Mission U 19.9 sec. C - -
With Lane Improvements 38.9 sec. E
Barker & WB I-90 Ramps S 24.7 sec. C 34.5 sec. D
Barker & EB I-90 Ramps S 12.3 sec. B 21.3 sec. C
The addition of the traffic anticipated from the Mission Meadows project with Mission Avenue as
the primary access affects the levels of service during the AM peak hour at one of the intersections
in the study area, Barker & Mission, dropping it from LOS E to LOS F. By adding a westbound to
southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at this intersection, level of service is
improved to LOS E. The additional traffic from Mission Meadows will also increase the delay at
Barker & Trent which is already functioning at LOS F.
Inland Paciftc Engineering, Inc. 32 Mission Meadows TIA
.
290
R~N~ A
~
251~ ~1102
102~ 99
o
o
~
~ k)
w °
25
a
~
INDIANA AVENU m 136
E Q ~
N `
aV
f*- INDIANA
°n0 N I .
. .
~ .
~
22 26 . .
8 10 ~ -
46 ~ 99 e ~
.
N
MISSION AVENUE
m
M N ~
274 ~38
79 54
ZO 27
.
a4~
r7 N P)
CATALDO
90
29zcP .
,39 c:,,,
N
~o
~
` NOT TO SCAL.E J
~
INLAND ~ FlGURE 16 MISSION MEApOWS ~
PACIFIC A. M. P EAK H 0 U R ~
ENAINEERING 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAmC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 wee 7th • Suite 200 (509) -.684o WITH PROJECT
` Spokane, WA 99204 FAX:( ~509) 458-6844~ ~ M I S S I 0 N ACC ES S / \ PROJ ECT N0. 960Z2 . l
~
oe ~
290
~
. 1064 c=> Ga 479
191~ ~ 112
Q 0 4m
O ^ m
~
~ M
W ~N~
Q
~ 86
INDIANA AVENUE Q v~
N m I~ !
w\v
~
`
INDIANA P • ~ ~ ~
CV
n ^ n ~ ~
. .
. .
37 czP 1. 29 . . , :
s~ an .
92
25 .
~
. ~ .
a4r ~ ' ~
N^ N ~
In
► •
r
MISSION AVENUE •
~ M t
48 v ~82
39 133
32~ rp118
N
N
CATALDO
90 - - - - _ _
~p I
tA N
M
417 czP
~
382 ~
Am
\ NOT TO SCALE ~
- _ . r . . .
I NLAND ♦ ~ FlGURE 17
MISSION MEADOWS
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR ENCiINEERINQ 2000 TRAFFI C VO LU M ES TRWFic iMPACT avnLYsis
707 west 7th • suite 200 (509) 458-6840 WITH PROJECT PROJECT N0. 96072 _
`Spokane. WA 99204 FIU(: (509) 458-6844~ ~ MISSION ACCESS / ` J
BUILD OUT YEAR (2003) LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service calculations were made for build out year (2003), with and without Mission
Meadows for entrances onto Indiana Avenue and Mission Avenue and for AM & PM peak hour
traffic. These calculations show how the traffic volumes will be handled by the existing facilities
or what new elements will be needed for the traffic system to continue working. _
The background traffic volume includes the existing traffic, with a compounded growth rate of 1%
per year on all streets and includes the background projects scoped for inclusion in the study. As a
part of the ttaff'ic mitigation associated with Riverwalk, a signal will be installed at the intersection
of the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals & Barker; and another at Barker & the westbound I-90 ramp
terminallCataldo Avenue intersection. The build out for Riverwalk is expected to be within the build
out expected for Mission Meadows. It was also identified in the Turtle Creek South traffic study that
left turn channeliza.tion would be necessary at this intersection. Therefore, these improvements are
expected to be in place before the completion of Mission Meadows.
See Figures 18 & 19 for the background traffic volumes anticipated in 2003. A summary of the
Level of Service calculation results are shown on Table 8 which follows.
Table 8- Year 2003 (Build Out Year) Traffic Without Mission Meadows
:
YEAR 2003 (BIJILD OUT) TRAFFIC
.
. INTERSECTION . WITHOUT PROJECT
. (S)ignalized
,
' , ,:(U)nsignaiized : : . _ . AM pIM
_ DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
Bazker & Trent U 486.0 sec F >999.9 sec F
Barker & Indiana U 13.9 sec C 21.1 sec D
Barker & Mission U 19.4 sec C 50.4 sec F
Barker & WB I=90 Ramps S 22.3 sec C 34.7 sec D
Barker & EB I-90 Ramps S 12.4 sec B 22.9 sec C
The background traffic increases expected to the year 2003, including the non-site specific traffic
growth, and the increases from the known projects in the area will affect the levels of service at some
of the intersections in the study area. At the intersection of Indiana & Baxker, the level of service
in the PM peak hour will fall from LOS B to LOS D, within the acceptable range. The intersection
of Mission & Barker will fall from LOS B to LOS F outside of acceptable limits. At the ramp
terminal intersections, improvements will raise the level of service at these intersections.
The intersection of Barker & Trent (SR 290) will continue to operate below acceptable limits, at
LOS F during both the AM & PM peak hours with the increase in traffic as projected. As mentioned
previously, a traffic signal may be necessary at this location.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 35 Mission Meadows TIA
~
zgo
R~N~ A
~
259 ~ 1135
103~ 4:2 101
O ° °m
~
~
~ in
w ~ a
Q 1%.25
~ If 137
INDIANA AVENUE Q
N ommukim
` • . .
Q•~ .
INDIANA •
.
22~ ~21 '
43- 10 • ~ '
47czkr ~90
. ~
. ~
.
nt o
cV N
N
MISSION AVENUE
wv~
27 1139
79 ~J C:=54
21~ 27
e7 N Mf
CATALDO
90 - - - - - ~ - - ~
N N
293
141~
~ N
~
\ NOT TO SCALE J
/00
r I NLAND ~ nGURE 18 MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC A. M. PUK HOU R
ENQINEERINQ 2003 TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
7o7 west 7u. suite 200 4W-6M WITHOUT PROJECT pROJECT N0. 96072
` Spokone. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844;e \ J ~ L
.
/ - \
290
R~N~ P
~
1098 =J G- 493
193 113
Q ~ n
O
~
~
W
m
INDIANA AVENUE
~ INDIANA
•
. .
~x04 • .
,
.
3g~ ~2g ~ •
7=> G~ 17 • • • •
.
28 c:~, f87 ' • :
• ~ .
B .
. ,
t0 N tC N CD • ' ~
1n n" .
MISSION AVENUE • ~ ' =
49 83
40 135
33 c;,s, ? 119
a 4 ~~r
Nm n
N
CATALDO
90
tD N ■
m N
M~
~
413 c:P ~ -
387 c%,
to
~
l NOT TO SCALE J
\
1~m I NLAND L/ FlG„ 9 MISSION MEADOWS
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
ENQINEERINQ 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
,a, W~ ,~U 200 4~_~ TRAFFIC VO LU M ES pROJECT N0. sso~2
~ Spokcne. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844e \ / ` •
~ .
Indiana Avenue Access
Using the number of generated trips shown in Table 4 and the estimated trip distribution shown in
Figures 8& 9 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the
transportation system at build out with Indiana as the primary access point is obtained. Figures 20
& 21 show the future traffic volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic volumes, -
build out year level of service calculations were performed and the results are displayed in Table 9.
Table 9- Year 2003 (Build Out Year) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Indiana Avenue Access
: : . : ' ,;::::7: YEAR 2003 (BUILD OUT) TRAFFIC WITH
,
; INTERSECTION . PROJECT - INDIANA AVENUE ACCESS
,
(S)ignaiiaed AM PM
<
(U)nsignalized ; .
_ -
DELAY . : LOS DEI..AY ; LQS
Barker & Trent U 525.1 sec F >999.9 sec F
Barker & Indiana U 16.8 sec C 28.1 sec D
Barker & Mission__ U 21.5 sec D 61.9 sec F
NVith EBl,xt Tt~n Lane 44.9 sec. E
Bazker & WB I-90 Ramps S 27.9 sec D 37.9 sec D
Barker & EB I-90 Ramps S 13.4 sec B 23.1 sec C
The addition of the traffic anticipated from the Mission Meadows project with Indiana Avenue as
the primary access lowers the levels of service during the AM peak hour over the without project
condition for two intersections, Barker & Indiana and Barker and Mission. Both of these
intersections fall from LOS C to LOS D, still within an acceptable range. During the PM peak hour,
levels of service are the same as the without project condition, only with increased delay times. At
the Barker & Mission intersection, the level of service will fall from LOS E to LOS F. However,
with a westbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane, the level of service will improve
to LOS E at this intersection as shown above. The additional traffic from Mission Meadows will
also increase the delay time at Barker & Trent which is already functioning at LOS F.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 38 Mission Meadows TIA
290
~
259 1135
104 ~ /r+ 102
Q
o
~
LL,
~ bb
Q ~35
m
INDIANA AVENUE Q p 4= 151
V
N ~
~ I N Q IANA
~n.- , , .
n Ln .
~ ~ .
. .
. .
22.~,
.
8 -J G- 10
47 cz,-,
.
, .
B
.
a
t. a ao . .
r7 N
N
MISSION AVENUE
.
n N ~
~ 3
29 9
79 54
21~ 27
h N M
r t CATALDO
90
~
04
298 czp ~
i-J
141czk,
N
~
~ NOT TO SCALE J
. . . . . . m
INLAND FlGURE 20 MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR ~
ENC3INEERING 2003 WITH PROJECT TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
7o7 w"t 7th • suite zoo (509) 4W-6a4o TRAFFIC VOLUMES pROJECT N0. 96072 .
1 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844~ \I N D I ANA AVE. AC CES S J ~ ~
290
~
1096 493
198~ ?115
cr
Q
O ~
Of
22
? 97
INDIANA AVENUE m Q ? ~
om
a r-
INDiANA PJ 0 2 n . . :
. . :
. .
38 cp Q26 '
7-:> G):=17
28 czzkr ,p 87 '
, .
4 Cr ,
e
cv
~o ~
MISSION AVENUE
N
58 J, 1%153
40 b -c::Z= 136
33 czkrll~ ? 119
~ ~r',
d r0 N
N w 1,
N40 ~
` t CATALDO
90
t~0 N ■
r1 ~
434 c;P
387 -%r
- kn
~
NOT TO SCALE ~ J
♦ i~=~ I NLAND FIGURE 21 MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR ENGINEERING 2003 WITH PROJECT TRAFnC IMPACT ANALYSIS
7o7 west 7th • suite 200 (509) 458-6840 TRAFFI C VO LU M ES pROJECT N0. 96072 .
\ spokane, WA 99204 FAx: (509) asa-ss++e ~ INDIANA AVE. ACCESS./
` J
Mission A ven ue Access
Using the number of generated trips shown on Table 4 and estimated trip distribution shown on
Figures 10 & 11 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use
the transportation system for build out with Mission Avenue as the primary access point is obtained.
Figures 22 & 23 show the future traffic volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic
volumes, build out year level of service calculations were performed and the results are displayed
in Table 10. ~
Table 10 - Year 2003 (Build Out Year) Traffic With Mission Meadows - Mission Avenue Access
. , ; ; , . . . YEAR 2003 (BUILD OUT) TRAFFIC WITH
: . INTERSECTIaN' . PROJECT - MISSION AVE. EI~tTRANCE
. _ .
_
_
.
_
_
.
.
: : : . . . . . : . . . (S)ignalized 1~.M PM
. . ,
~ (U)nsignatized
DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
Barker & Trent U 525.1 sec. F >999.9 sec. F
Barker & Indiana U 15.9 sec. C 24.9 sec. D
N81- 19 K,
Baxker & Mission SGV- U 23.3 sec. D - -
With Lane Improvemen~s~" ~ 43.8 sec. E
Barker & WB I-90 Ramps S 27.4 sec. D 37.3 sec. D
Barker & EB I-90 Ramps S 14.9 sec. B 25.8 sec. D
The addition of the traffic anticipated from the Mission Meadows project with Mission Avenue as
the primary access affects the levels of service during the AM peak hour at two of the intersections
in the study area, Barker & Mission, dropping it from LOS C to LOS D and Barker and Westbound
Ramps, dropping from LOS C to LOS D, both within acceptable levels. In the PM peak hour, the
Barker and Eastbound ramp intersection level of service drops from LOS C to LOS D, still within
acceptable levels. The Barker & Mission intersection which is at LOS F even without the project
traffic, can be improved to acceptable levels of service (LOS E) with the addition of northbound and
southbound left and right turn lanes and with a westbound left turn lane. The additional traffic from
Mission Meadows will also increase the delay at Barker & Trent which is already functioning at LOS
F.
Inland Pacifrc Engineering, Inc. 41 Mission Meadows TIA
oe 1
290
REN~ A
~
259 ~ a 1135
Illjlillllll 104 cz~, ~ 102
0 ~ m
~ _
~ 0
(„L) v o,
25
~
INDIANA AVENUE m 137
Q ~
~ INDIANA .
~ : .
.
.
//Iol
22~ A~kb34 '
.
8~ a10 ~
47 ~ ~ 111 • •
, . :
e
ntN~ .
N
MISSIDN AVENUE • ~ ~
MI N ?
27 v
.39
79 a 54
21cz~N
f 27
a 4M~~
M N e~
` t CATALDO
r
94 - - - _ _ ~ ~
29e.P
141cz,%,
i
~ } ~ NOT=TO SCALE ~
NLAND FlGURE 22 1 ~ MISSION MEADOWS \
PAGIFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR
ENQINEERINQ 2003 WITH PROJECT TRAMC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7th • suite zoo (509) 458-6840 TRAFFI C VO LU M ES
1 Spokane. WA 99204 F/~(; (5pg) 45g-6g44J \MISSION AVE. A~,CESS J \ PROJECT N0. 96~72 • `
~
290
R~N~ A
~
1086 ~ 493
198~ ~ 715
Q ~
w ~
Y ~p
Q
I N D IANA AVEN U E Q
I N D IANA P
~V9
.
. .
. .
,
38c~p ~34
7~ G= 17
.
28~ 101
~
. ~
N aNo n ~
MISSION AVENUE • ~ 44.
49 83
40 ~ a 135
33~ ~119
a4~
tmn
CATALDO
90 - ~ - - _ _
N N
AN
434~'
~
387 ~
lm Go
- r n
u~
i
~ NOT TO SCALE J
I NLAND FlGURE 23 MISSION MEADOWS \
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
ENGINEERING 2003 WITH PROJ ECT ~
707 west 7t, • su;te 200 458-sa4o TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~~IC IMPACT ANALYSIS
• ~
1 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (5pg) 458-6844, ~MISSION AVE. ACCESS PROJECT N0. 96072
CONCL IISIONS -
Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are
provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that the impacts to the overall area
transportation system from developing this property can be mitigated. This conclusion was reached
and is documented within the body of this report.
• The existing levels of service at most of the intersections in the project study area are
within the acceptable range for unsignalized intersections within Spokane County.
Four of the five existing intersections within the project area are presently
functioning within acceptable levels of service. The intersection of Barker & Trent
is experiencing LOS F conditions in the AM and PM peak hours. Level of service
F is below the normally accepted standards for unsignalized intersections in Spokane
County and on the WSDOT system. During the PM peak hour, Barker and the
eastbound I-90 ramp terminals is functioning at LOS E as an unsignalized
intersection which is below acceptable levels of service. A signal is currently being
constructed at this intersection which will bring the level of service into an
acceptable range. The Barker Road & westbound I-90 ramp terminaUCataldo
Avenue intersection is functioning at LOS D. The other intersections are functioning
at LOS C or better.
• The background traffic increases expected over the next six years to the year 2003,
-Y including the non-site specific traffic growth, and the increases from the known
~,v projects in the area will affect the levels of service at the intersections in the study
area. At the intersection of Indiana & Barker, the level of service in the PM peak
hour will fall from LOS B to LOS D. Level of service D is an acceptable level of
\io service. The intersection of Mission & Barker will fall from LOS B to LOS F. Level
V' ~ of service E is an unacceptable level of service. With the anticipated construction of
`
a signal and improvements by others for background projects at both the Eastbound
and Westbound ramp termiual intersections, levels of service will be in the
~
acceptable range.
The intersection of Barker & Trent (SR 290) is also shown to continue to operate
below acceptable limits, at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours with the
increase in traffic as projected. As identified in the Riverwalk traffic study, a traffic
signal may be necessary at this location, although it is a less than optimal location for
installing one. If one is needed, it is recommended that four traffic signal warrants
be met first, including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2.
• The addition of the traffic anticipated from Phases 1-3 (2000) of the Mission
Meadows project with Indiana Avenue as the primary access does not lower the
levels of service to unacceptable ranges during the AM peak hour. During the PM
peak hour, the level of service at Barker & Mission will fall to LOS F. Construction
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 44 Mission Meadows TIA
of a westbound left turn lane will bring the level of service into acceptable range, -
LOS E. The additional traffic from Mission Meadows will to increase the delay at
Barker & Trent which is already functioning at LOS F.
~ The addition of the traffic anticipated from Phase 1(1998) of the Mission Meadows
project (321ots) with Indiana Avenue as the primary access will not lower the levels -
of service to unacceptable ranges during either the AM or PM peak hour. The
additional traffic from Mission Meadows will to increase the delay at Efarker & Trent
which is already functioning at LOS F.
• The addition of the traffic anticipated from Phases 1-3 (2000) of the Mission
Meadows project with Mission Avenue as the primary access does not lower the
levels of service to unacceptable ranges during the AM peak hour. During the PM
peak hour, the level of service at Barker & Mission will fall from to LOS F.
Construction of a westbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane will bri.ng
the level of service into acceptable range, LOS E. The additional tra.ffic from
Mission Meadows will to increase the delay at Barker & Trent which is already
functioning at LOS F.
~ The traffic anticipated at build out (2003) of the Mission Meadows project with
Indiana Avenue as the primary access does not lower the levels of service to
unacceptable ranges during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the level
of service at Barker & Mission will fall to LOS F. Construction of a westbound left
turn lane and a northbound right turn lane will bring the level of service into
acceptable range, LOS E. The additional traffic from Mission Meadows will increase
the delay at Barker & Trent which is already functioning at LOS F.
2
~j .
~ v~The traffic anticipated at build out (2003) of the Mission Meadows project with
~t
~ Mission Avenue as the primary access does not lower the levels of service to
unacceptable ranges during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the level
of service at Barker & Mission will fall to LOS F. Construction of a westbound left
turn lane and northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes will bring the level
of service into an acceptable range, LOS E. The additional traffic from Mission
Meadows will increase the delay at Barker & Trent which is already functioning at
LOS F.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of Mission Meadows will have a
minor affect on the surrounding transportation system. The level of service can be maintained at
acceptable rates with mitigation. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible
transportation system; not only for this proposed development, but also to the surrounding area, the
following recommendations should be incorporated into the project:
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 45 Mission Meadows TIA
~ Participate in a fair share way in the design andlor installation of a traffic signal at -
Barker & Trent if four warrants (including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2) from the
MUTCD are met before complete build out.
• If access onto Indiana Avenue is used, construct a westbound left turn lane at the
Barker/Mission intersection for Phases 1-3. For build out conditions, a northbound
right tu.rn lane at the Barker/Mission intersection should also be constructed.
• If access onto Indiana Avenue is used and only 321ots are constructed in Phase 1, no
mitigation is required except for participation in improvements at the Barker/Trent
intersection.
~ If access onto Mission Avenue is used, construct a westbound left turn lane and a
northbound right turn lane at the Barker/Mission intersection for Phases 1-3. For
build out conditions, northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes at the
Barker/Mission intersection should be constructed along with the westbound left turn
lane.
• Frontage improvements as required by Spokane County.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 46 Mission Meadows TIA
. ~
r
.-r
_ ~ p,E,~~~~ .
, i~AL ,A.i' .
_ T~C-~~ .
-
LEVEL OF SERVICE -
METHODS, CRITERIA AND TABLES
LEYEL OF SER VICE
Level of service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to
quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped
delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles afforded to drivers who utilize the transportation
network. It has been defined by the Transportation Research Board in Special Report No. 209, the _
1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of service into a range from
"A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant veh}cle delay and
traffic congestion which may lead to system breakdown due to volumes which may far exceed
capacity.
Signadized Intersections
For signalized intersections, recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle
is the best available measure of level of service. The technical appendix of this report, includes a
section on the Level of Service, Methods and Criteria. The tables in the technical appendix identify
the relationships between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this
definition as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual; level of service D is generally considered
to represent the minimum acceptable design standard for signalized intersections in an urban area
such as this.
Unsignalized Intersections
The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one/two-way stop-controlled intersection
is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The Highway Capacity
Manual. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the delay experienced by each
movement within the intersection.
The concept of delay as presented for unsignalized intersections in the Highway Capacity Manual
is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in the intersection. Vehicles passing straight
through the intersection on-the major (uncontrolled) street experience no delay at the intersection.
On the other hand, vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the
right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through
vehicles on -both the minor and major streets, must spend more time at the intersection. Levels of
service are assigned to individual movements within the intersection, and are based upon the delay
experienced by each movement or approach.
The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for unsignalized
intersections should be, by designating level of service A through F, where level of service A
represents a facility where no vehicle in any movement is delayed very long and level of service F
which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in at least one
movement in the intersection. Level of service E has been defined as the minimum acceptable level
of service for this area.
All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the
procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and
procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the
weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which
are only for the peak hours of operation.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
General Description
LOS
A - More than adequate gaps available to proceed.
- Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. '
B - Little delay encountered with adequate gaps available.
- Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue.
- Delays are short but persistent as the number of gaps reduce
C and driver comfort drops.
- Usua11y there is more than one vehicle in the 4ueue.
- Always at least one vehicle in the queue.
D - Drivers feel quite restricted due to the few gaps available in
which to make a safe turning movement.
- Delays are long and at this LOS drivers may begin looking for
alternative routes prior to entering the 3emand ueue.
E - Represents a condition in which the equals or exceeds
the safe movement of vehicles through the intersection.
- Always more than one vehicle in the queue.
- Delay s are long, driver frustration is high and it is not
F unusual to see dnvers in the queue turn around to find
alternative routes.
- Forced flow; little to no available gaps.
- Represents an intersection at failure condition.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
,
Delay (sec) Level of Service Expected Delay to Minor Street
Traffic
5 A Little of No Delay
5- 10 B Short Traffic Delays
> 10 - 20 C Average Traffic Delays
> 20 - 30 D Long Traffic Delays
> 30 - 45 E Very Long Traffic Delays
> 45 F Progression Breakdown
- Stopped Condition
SYGNALIZED INTERSE+CTI4NS
INDIVIDiJAL LEVEL (lF SERVICE DESCRIPTIUNS
:
; . -
~evel of Service > `~raff.c Fic~w C ~,ar~etexistics _
A Little to no awerag e stc~pped delay, average is less than five seconds pe~-
vehicle. 1'vlust vehicTes do nat stop at alt. Short eycle lengths may a1so
contribute tv IQw delay.
B Average stop de1ay 1S 111. the ran e of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle.
This ~enera.Ily occurs wXth ~oopro~ressian andJar short cycle lengths.
C Average stopped delay is in the range vf 15.1 fa 25.0 seconds per
vehicle. These higher delays ma~y result from fair prc~gression and/Qr
longer cycle lengths. The number of vehicles stvpping is sxgnificant at
this leUel.
D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 secands ~!r
vehicle. 'The in~luea~ce of ~cangestion becvmes more noticeable. anger
delays may result from some combinatian af unfavorable progressi+an,
long cycle lenqhis h, or high volume/ca acity ratios. Mast, i# not a11,
Wehicles stop. is considered tv ~e the limit of acceptable delay.
E Average stopped delay s are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per
vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poar pragression,
lon~ cycle lenos, and hi~h vvlumelcapacity ratios.
F Average sto~p delay is in excess vf 60 secvnds per vehicle. This
condition of~en occurs vwith over saturation of the intersection. It may
alsm occur with volumelcapacity ratios of 1.0 or above.
SIGNALIZED YNTERSECTIUNS
LEVEL OF SERVTCE CRYTERIA
Level of Stapped Delay per Velxicle :
Service (sec)
A 5,0
B 5.1to15.U
C 15,1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 40.0
E 40.0 tQ 60.0
F > 60.0
Source; Transpvrtativn Research Board; "Highway Capacity Manual," Special Report 209 (1994).
BACKGROUND TRIPS -
FOR OTHER PROJECTS
Spokane County Data
BARKER ROAD - PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION ~ I I I I I I I I._...
I I AM Peak ~ PM Peak TolFrom
ProJect ~ # of units Hour_ Hour North of 190 West on 190 on 190 SpraguelApleway In Out In Out on Barker ~East ^ Corridor ~ total
-
RiveNV81k 365 sfdu 72 205 242 130 15% 50% 10% 25% 100%
Turtle Creek ~ 101 sfdu ~ 20_ _57~ 67 36 ~ 5% ~ 50°/a ~ 10% ~ 35% 100% (1)
Meadow View Ranch Estates ~ 35 sfdu ~ 7 20 ~ 23 13 ~ 5°/a ~ 50% ~ 10% 1 35% 100% (1)
Good Samaritan 50 ret.apts _2 _ 1 2 2 0% 40°/a 10% 50% 100%
28 ret, duplex 2 3 4 3
Edwards Cataldo 21.5 ac. manufacturing 1 149 11 ~ 95 8~ 10% ! 25% 1 50% I 40% „ 20% I 20% 1 20%! 15% 100% I 100_ % (2)
121.5 ac. warehousing ~ 153 ~ 59 ~ 66 ~ 122
I I I I I I I I I I
Turtle Creek South 159 sfdu 31 89 105 57 5% 50% 10% 35% 100% (1)
Meadow View. Terrace 309 sfdu 61 174 205 110 5% 50°/a 10% 35% 100% (1)
I I I I I I I I...
~Sub_totals _497 619 809 558 ~
. _ . .
~
Total AM & PM 11116 _ 113671 _I _ _ ~ ~ . . . _ .
~ - - _ . .
(1) Assumed half of the EB 190 traffic uses Greenacres Interchange
(2) Different AM ! PM distribution representing more AM "home based work" trips
~ ~ I. ,
Projects (ncluded Total AM Peak
4--
Riverwalk Tren t Sr- 290
Turtle Creek
Meadowview Ranch Estates
Good Samaritan 7-7 1 34 21
Edwards Cataldo Project
Turtle Creek South
Meadowview Terrace
Spokane River
~
t 2z
41 1~ r ~ 2Z Indiana Ave.
1 ~ 1 f*
33 43
Z
t ~j
i5b 3
' r~Z
Mission Ave.
s" '1 1 f'
~ !07 I4
Z
t7
1,1)7 1S 30 4.35
WB Ramps 1~ 'r ZO Cataldo Ave.
C
~.t 1 r'
Go
82 3s
1 E8 Ramps
1 r► .
249 17
~
~
. ~
n~
-Y
~
v
m
,
RIVERlA/AL-K
. r' 4 Trent Sr-290
~ -
19 12
. ~ ~ Spokane River
~
~ , .
t ZZ
3 S 4"'
!ZZ Indiana Ave.
~ 1 1'
t~
~ u 3 4--
1 4 r s z
Mission Ave.
1 ~ 1 ~
Z
t
101- ? Z 4'."
WB Ramps 1 C r Cataldo Ave.
zoll ~71 ~ 1 ~
~ C4
Z
51 Zi
EB Ramps
3~ ~ 1 . la
z
~
. ~
~
-Y
L
0
m
►AiFC: ra ~ o Trent Sr--290
G7 v O~ .S ~Wt 4 ~ t T'Ar.(
o
o O
Spokane River
i
~ _ - -
~ t
t1 ~
Indiana Ave.
t .
'
t
Mission Ave.
J 1 r►
3
!
Z U
j j.
- WB Ramps ~ Cotoldo Ave.
Z,8 31
~ 10 1
D ~ Z 2 U
0
i
7
~
E6 Ramps
j 3 ( ~ f3) ~ .
~
4 1 Z ~
-v
~
~
a~
~
~
v - _
m
X As:uwi F4> '/z oF Eg Z5o Tf=r
5 C~ ~i•:~1 i: C.,~ ~ ~ . ~
I
~
'♦'1
~
.
~ ~
SP°k°ne
~ .
t.
Indiona Ave.
-
~
~
t
Ave•
~Jlission .
~ ~
L~
~ ~ Zg = kald0 A`4e' .
Ramgs
wg ?
~ 4
1
~
-01
cr
y
~ ' .
~
0
m
l C..t-- ~-K ' E•k 54 U T-jq .
_ ~ .
Trent Sr-290
5 4
Spokane River
3 t
Z
r
Indiana Ave.
t
t
4
- 9
3 t
Z
1 t
Mission Ave.
~
~
Z
3 t
L ~
1
WB Ramps Cataldo Ave.
1 r' - -
95 4
~ 3 87 q
9
s
1 ~ E8 Ramps
s t &
49 Ct
Ps
Z
~
~
~
~
0
m
TR•djtr~-
4 A SSu M E r) %Z of 190
a s~ s G, 26 ~.A/ /,C r:
Projects Included Total PM Peak
f- -
Riverwalk r. 41
Turtle Creek - .
Meadowview Ranch `Estates
Good Samaritan ~ ~ -
Edwards Cataldo Project . 5A Z q 5 Turtle Creek South. Q d
Meadowview Terrace
Spokane River
~
~ 11
? 0 :~C, ~
~
17 Indiana Ave.
1 f'
-r (Py 144
I Z
t~
.J 1 L*
~ r Mission
~
1 &
L4 rJ
~
t. 5 Z I
4 D
WB Ramps ~ 1~ r~L Catald ~ -
y -L4 s ~ 1 r► ~ ~ ~ s
?J2 ~ ~io ~q3 ~7 -
~Z I
G 3 54- I
E E 2
~ 8l0 1 & N
~ 2CNv l~ ~
v
Of
`
a~
~
~
0
m
.,.i_
~l V~R tN•~Lk..
~ 55 w►1 ~ ~/O w.-r-~S
Trent Sr-290
,ace- t-< s ►tiss~o~r f
Z S~
Z2-i IZ S
Spokane River
~ ~
t ~
I
'1 1 t' ri1
Indiana Ave.
1 r'
~ l d~ _
Z
t~
r 33 Mission Ave.
J 4) 1 1+
l4~ (v 2
Z
t
Cc. 452
1 y
WB Ramps ~ r Cataldo Ave.
z- -4 J ~ 1 ~
y 182
Z
JZ i.3
EB Ramps
_ I Z~ 1 1 r'
. ~
Z
v
cl~
`
a~
~
L
0
QD
-
_V_N~?TLE GF-e-~' K
rneA-Po w Vc t_-.Vr 9A^Je-N E ST,c~TE.S
SqMAQtrA,.J Trent Sr-290
~ y (~oi 40 %o ,
41 -
i o
Spokane River
~ ~
t
~
J ~
Indiana Ave.
'1 1 r*
~ I
~
t
~
~ f-
l
Mission Ave.
1 ~ 1 r►
?
z
t
1 ~
J
l j.
WB Ramps 41 L. Cataldo Ave.
1 r~
-r ~g Z
"I (
1 Z ~ Z 2 0
1
3
to
EB Ramps
- 1 1 r'
20 4
8 ~
2. J 2 3 4'i 2 O
-D
~
f)
I
/
C,a -T-aI-va _PreaJE CTp~
r' Trent Sr-290
~ ~
h
Spokane River
~
t
qL~
~ 1 t
Indiana Ave.
~ 5Z
Z
t
Mission Ave.
~ 52
Z
t 52
qc 83
WB Ramps ~ 1 4 r 7 Z Cataldo Ave.
. Q
1 r►
~7 ~89
Z
31 ql
1 EB Ramps
~ 5 1 1 r►
. za
Z
cy-
~ .
~
~
~
v
m .
~ i
Spokane Rvver ~ -
t
i o 'r" pve.
a
.
~
. ~p •
~ ~isston Ave
-
~
~
' i
ts Ga~a~do Ave•
-
55 ~8 RamP _
~ 1 ~ ~t°~
- ~z
~
fZ DY
m ~SES C~
SPREADSHEETS FOR
INDIANA AVENUE ENTRANCE
Entrance on Indiana
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 26-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Trent Road
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 25.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7 200~
NIS GROWTH RATE ~ 1,00%
EIW GROVI(TH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ NIS I EIW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
;
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I YR BUILD OUT I Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC W!0 PRJCT WIO PRJCT ~ TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
193 EB TH 241 251 259 251 259
55 EB RT 69 29 101 103 ~ 1 1 102 104
62 WB LT 78 18 99 101 0 1 99 102
847 WB TH 1059 1102 1135 1102 1135
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
57 N B LT 71 34 108 110 2 4 110 114
NB TH 0 0 0 0 0
29 NB RT 36 21 59 60 1 2 60 62
SB LT 0 0 0 0 0
SB TH 0 0 0 0 0
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
,
File:j:ldocument1960721spreadshlvolume4a.wb2
,
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Indiana Ave. Entrance on Indiana
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNGI 18.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00%
EIW.GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% N1S ~ E1W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC W!0 PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
EB TH 0 0 0 0 0
EB RT 0 0 0 0 0
WB LT 0 77 77 77 10 20 87 97
WB TH 0 0 0 0 0
WB RT 0 14 14 14 4 8 18 22
NB LT 0 0 0 0 0
333 N B TH 393 69 478 490 478 490
NB RT 0 144 144 144 16 32 160 176
SB LT 0 25 25 25 7 14 32 39
274 SB TH 323 70 406 417 406 411
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS ~ ~ FUTURE LOS = ~
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Mission Avenue Entrance on Indiana
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG ~ 22.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
NIS GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00%
ENV GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ N!S ~ ElW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR I 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1,072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
29 EB LT 35 37 38 37 38
5 EB TH 6 6 7 6 7
20 EB RT 24 25 26 25 26
41 WB LT 50 33 85 87 85 87
13 WB TH 16 17 17 17 17
15 UVB RT 18 6 25 26 25 26
20 NB LT 24 25 26 25 26
289 NB TH 353 204 571 582 16 32 587 614
39 N B RT 48 65 115 116 115 116
16 SB LT 20 11 31 32 31 32
236 SB TH 288 136 436 445 10 20 446 465
22 SB RT 27 28 29 28 29
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
,
, ~
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road 8 WB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Indiana
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00%
EIW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ N1S ~ ElW ~
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL ~ MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
23 EB LT 23 24 48 49 4 9 52 58 7 EB TH 7 32 39 40 39 40
12 EB RT 12 20 32 33 32 33
44 WB LT 44 72 118 119 118 119
49 WB TH 49 83 134 136 134 136
29 WB RT 29 52 82 83 82 83
106 N B LT 106 110 220 224 220 224
420 NB TH 420 193 630 643 11 23 641 666
77 NB RT 77 89 169 172 169 172
6 SB LT 6 40 46 46 46 46
273 SB TH 273 64 348 357 3 7 351 364
106 SB RT 106 65 175 179 6 13 181 192
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
~
,
,
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & EB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Indiana
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00% ,
EIW GROVYTH RATE I 1.00% ~ N/S ~ E/W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 Ali Project PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
212 EB LT 212 186 407 413 10 21 417 434
0 EB TH 0 0 0 0 0
173 EB RT 173 202 382 387 382 387
WB LT 0 0 0 0 0
WB TH 0 0 0 0 0
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
N B LT 0 0 0 0 0
346 N B TH 346 206 566 577 1 2 567 579
25 NB RT 25 11 37 38 37 38
63 SB LT 63 54 120 122 3 6 123 128
255 SB TH 255 93 358 366 0 1 358 367
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
, ,
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 26-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Trent Road Entrance on Indiana
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4 zoo 0
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 25.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7 20 0,
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00%
EIW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ N1S ~ EIW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I BUILD OUT (112) Project All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0 818 EB TH 1023 1064 1096 1064 1096
104 EB RT 130 54 189 193 2 5 191 198
54 WB LT 68 41 111 113 1 2 112 115
368 WB TH 460 479 493 479 493
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
49 N B LT 61 45 109 111 1 3 110 114
NB TH 0 0 0 0 0
101 N B RT 126 38 169 173 0 1 169 174
SB LT 0 0 0 0 0
SB TH 0 0 0 0 0
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS ~ FUTURE LOS
File:j:ldocument1960721spreadshlvolume4a.wb2
,
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road 8 Indiana Ave. Entrance on Indiana
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNGI 18.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
N/S GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00%
ElW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ NlS ~ ElW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1,041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT W!0 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WlPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
EB TH 0 0 0 0 0
EB RT 0 0 0 0 0
WB LT 0 122 122 122 14 29 136 151
VIIB TH 0 0 0 0 0
WB RT 0 22 22 22 6 13 28 35
N B LT 0 0 0 0 0
146 N B TH 172 33 212 218 212 218
NB RT 0 43 43 43 4 8 47 51
SB LT 0 8 8 8 1 3 9 11
297 SB TH 350 39 404 415 404 415
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS ~ ~ FUTURE LOS = ~
PROJECT NUMBER; 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road 8 Mission Avenue Entrance on Indiana
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 22.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
NIS GROIlVTH RATE ~ 1.00%
EIW GROUVTH RATE I 1.00% ~ N/S I E/W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
17 EB LT 21 22 22 22 22
6 EB TH 7 8 8 8 8
36 EB RT 44 46 47 46 47
29 WB LT 35 52 89 90 89 90
8 WBTH 10 10 10 10 10
9 WB RT 11 9 20 21 20 21
5 NB LT 6 6 7 6 7
120 NB TH 146 67 219 224 4 8 223 232
8 NB RT 10 18 28 28 28 28
6 SB LT 7 3 11 11 11 11
267 SB TH 326 158 497 507 14 29 511 536
24 SB RT 29 30 31 30 31
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
,
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & WB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Indiana
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG ~ 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT I 7
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00%
E/W GROWTH RATE 1.00% ~ N1S ~ ElW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTN FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
19 EB LT 19 7 27 27 1 2 28 29
18 EB TH 18 60 79 79 79 79
8 EB RT 8 12 20 21 20 21
.19 WB LT 19 7 27 27 27 27
18 UVB TH 18 35 54 54 54 54
10 WB RT 10 28 38 39 38 39
181 N B LT 181 172 360 366 360 366
167 NB TH 167 71 245 250 3 6 248 256
122 NB RT 122 212 339 343 339 343
18 SB LT 18 30 49 49 49 49
182 SB TH 182 78 267 273 5 10 272 283
202 SB RT 202 102 312 319 9 19 321 338
EXISTING LOS ~ ~ FUTURE LOS = ~
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & EB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Indiana
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT 7
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00%
EIW GROWTH RATE I 1.00% N!S I EIW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
99 EB LT 99 187 290 293 2 5 292 298
1 EB TH 1 1 1 1 1
.74 EB RT 74 62 139 141 139 141
WB LT 0 0 0 0 0
WB TH 0 0 0 0 0
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
NBLT 0 0 0 0 0
359 NB TH 359 268 642 653 0 1 642 654
8 NB RT 8 17 25 26 25 26
49 SB LT 49 35 86 88 4 8 90 96
171 SB TH 171 ' 82 260 265 1 2 261 267
SB RT 0 0 0 4 0
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
' ,
SPREADSHEETS FOR
MISSION AVENUE ENTRANCE
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 26-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road 8 Trent Road Entrance on Mission
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ q Zoo 0
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 25.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7 zoos
NIS GROUVTH RATE 1.00%
EIW GROWTH RATE 1.00% ~ NfS I E/W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.04T 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WlPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0 193 EB TH 241 251 259 251 259
55 EB RT 69 29 101 103 1 1 102 104
62 WB LT 78 18 99 101 0 1 99 102
847 WB TH 1059 1102 1135 1102 1135
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
57 NB LT 71 34 108 110 2 4 110 114
NB TH 0 0 0 0 0
29 NB RT 36 21 59 60 1 2 60 62
SB LT 0 0 0 0 0
SB TH 0 0 0 0 0
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
File: j:Idocument1960721spreadshlvolumes4.wb2
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Indiana Ave. Entrance on Mission
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNGI 18.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
N1S GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00%
ElW GROUVTH RATE ~ 1.00% NIS ~ EIW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1,072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WlPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
EB TH 0 0 0 0 0
EB RT 0 0 0 0 0
12 WB LT 14 122 136 137 136 137
WB TH 0 0 0 0 0
2 WB RT 2 22 25 25 25 25
NB LT 0 0 0 0 0
146 NB TH 172 33 212 218 6 13 218 231
4 NB RT 5 43 48 48 48 48
1 SB LT 1 8 9 9 9 9
297 SB TH 350 39 404 415 1 3 405 418
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
.
' , ,
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road 8 Mission Avenue Entrance on Mission
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG ~ 22.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
N/S GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ,
ElW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ NIS ~ EIW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WlPRJCT WIPRJCT
17 EB LT 21 22 22 22 22
6 EB TH 7 8 8 8 8
36 EB RT 44 46 47 46 47
29 WB LT 35 52 89 90 10 21 99 111
8 WB TH 10 10 10 10 10
9 WB RT 11 9 20 21 6 13 26 34
5 NB LT 6 6 7 6 7
120 NB TH 146 67 219 224 219 224
8 NB RT 10 18 28 28 3 6 31 34
6 SB LT 7 3 11 11 1 3 12 14
267 SB TH 326 158 497 507 497 507
24 SB RT 29 30 31 30 31
EXISTING LOS ~ FUTURE LOS
~
,
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & WB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Mission
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
N1S GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00%
EIW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ NIS ~ E!W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ( PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
,
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT 'COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WlPRJCT WIPRJCT
19 EB LT 19 7 27 27 27 27
18 EB TH 18 60 79 79 79 79
8 EB RT 8 12 20 21 20 21
19 WB LT 19 7 27 27 27 27
18 WB TH 18 35 54 54 54 54
10 WB RT 10 28 38 39 38 39
181 N B LT 181 172 360 366 360 366
167 NB TH 167 71 245 250 3 6 248 256
122 N B RT 122 212 339 343 339 343
18 SB LT 18 30 49 49 49 49
182 SB TH 182 78 267 273 1 2 268 275
202 SB RT 202 102 312 319 9 19 321 338
EXISTING LOS ~ ~ FUTURE LOS = ~
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & EB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Mission
AM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG ~ 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ ?
N!S GROWTH RATE I 1.00% ,
EIW GROWTH RATE I 1.40% ~ NIS ~ E1W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR M 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I YR BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traftic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
99 EB LT 99 187 290 293 2 5 292 298
1 EB TH 1 1 1 1 1
74 EB RT 74 62 139 141 139 141
WB LT 0 0 0 0 0
WB TH 0 0 0 0 0
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
N B LT 0 0 0 0 0
359 NB TH 359 268 642 653 0 1 642 654
8 NB RT 8 17 25 26 25 26
49 SB LT 49 35 86 88 86 88
171 SB TH 171 82 260 265 1 2 261 267
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS ~ I FUTURE LOS
,
PROJECT NUMBER: 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 26-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road 8 Trent Road Entrance on Mission
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 25,00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7 2003
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00% ,
EIW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ N!S ~ ElW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWfH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL! MOVEMENT y CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project ^ PHASE I~ BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
818 EB TH 1023 1064 1096 1064 1096
104 EB RT 130 54 189 193 2 5 191 198
54 WB LT 68 41 111 113 1 2 112 115
368 WB TH 460 ' 479 493 479 493
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
49 NB LT 61 45 109 111 1 3 110 114
NB TH 0 0 0 0 0
101 NB RT 126 38 169 173 0 1 169 174
SB LT 0 0 0 0 0
SB TH 0 0 0 0 0
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS =
, .
File:j:Idocument1960721spreadshlvolumes4.wb2
PROJECT NUMBER; 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Indiana Ave. Entrance on Mission
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I _ 41
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 18.00% F--~- r t-, rNo-r YEARS TO BUILDOUT. L 7
N/S GROUVTH RATE 1.00%
E/W GROUVTH RATE 1.00% N!S EIW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.041 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.072 1.072
f . I .
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT ITRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WlPRJCT
EB LT 0 0 0 0 0
EB TH 0 0 0 0 0
EB RT 0 0 0 , 0 0
7 WB LT 9 77 86 86 86 86
WB TH 0 0 0 0 0
1 WB RT 2 14 16 16 16 16
NB LT 0 0 0 0 0
333 NB TH 393 69 478 490 4 8 482 498
14 NB RT 16 144 161 161 161 161
2 SB LT 3 25 28 28 28 28
274 SB TH 323 70 406 417 7 14 413 431
SBRT 0 0 = 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS , FUTURE LOS = L I
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Mission Avenue Entrance on Mission
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG ~ 22.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00%
EIW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ N/S I E/W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1,041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC W10 PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
29 EB LT 35 37 38 37 38
5 EB TH 6 6 7 6 7
20 EB RT 24 25 26 25 26
41 WB LT 54 33 85 87 7 14 92 101
13 WB TH 16 17 17 17 17
15 WB RT 18 6 25 26 4 8 29 34
20 N B LT 24 25 26 25 26
289 NB TH 353 204 571 582 571 582
39 NB RT 48 65 115 116 11 23 126 139
16 SB LT 20 11 31 32 7 14 38 46
236 SB TH 288 136 436 445 436 445
22 SB RT 27 28 29 28 29
. ~
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
,
~
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & WB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Mission
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG ~ OAO% YEARS TO BUILOOUT ~ 7
NIS GROWTH RATE I 1.00%
EIW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ N1S ~ E/W
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR I 1.072 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJEC PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT W!0 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WlPRJCT WIPRJCT
23 EB LT 23 24 48 49 48 49
7 EB TH 7 32 39 40 39 40
12 EB RT 12 20 32 33 32 33
44 WB LT 44 72 118 119 118 119
49 WB TH 49 82 133 135 133 135
29 WB RT 29 52 82 83 82 83
106 N B LT 106 110 220 224 220 224
420 NB TH 420 193 630 643 11 23 641 666
77 NB RT 77 89 169 172 169 172
6 SB LT 6 40 46 46 46 46
273 SB TH 273 64 348 357 0 1 348 358
106 SB RT 106 65 175 179 6 13 181 192
,
EXISTING LOS ~ FUTURE LOS
,
PROJECT NUMBER; 96072 Project Name: Colyar Property 18-Aug-97
INTERSECTION: Barker Road & EB Ramp Terminals Entrance on Mission
PM PEAK HOUR
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1996 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 4
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 0.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
NIS GROUVTH RATE I 1.00% ,
EIW GROUVTH RATE I 1.00% ~ N/S ~ ElW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0411 1.041
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PROJECT PHASE I BUILD OUT Phase 1 All Project... PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VOL TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT W10 PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WIPRJCT
212 EB LT 212 186 407 413 10 21 417 434
0 EB TH 0 0 0 0 0
173 EB RT 173 202 382 387 382 387
WB LT 0 0 0 0 0
WB TH 0 0 0 0 0
WB RT 0 0 0 0 0
NB LT 0 0 0 0 0
346 NB TH 346 206 566 577 1 2 567 579
25 NB RT 25 11 37 38 37 38
63 SB LT 63 54 120 122 120 122
255 SB TH 255 93 358 366 0 1 358 367
SB RT 0 0 0 0 0
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
, , I
EXISTING LEVELS OF SER'VICE
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENAMEX.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW -
Date of Analysis.......... 12/6/96
Other Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 241 69 78 1059 71 36
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s )
SU/RV' s ( % )
CV' s 006)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right-Turn Minor Road . 5.50 2.60
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENAMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 172
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1133
.Kovement Capacity: (pcph) 1133
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 _
:'-.')tep 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 345
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1119
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1119
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Zonflicting Flows: (vph) 1570
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 105
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.91
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.91
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.91
14ovement Capacity: (pcph) 96
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Kovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
.qB L 87 96 >
I
139 118.6 5.5 F 118.6
NB R 44 1133 >
n1B L 96 1119 3.5 0.2 A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 8.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDAMEX.HCO Page 1
2enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) BARKER RD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
14aj or Street Direction. . . . NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW _
Date of Analysis.......... 12/6/96
Dther Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0 0 0 0> 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 172 4 2 350 11 5
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
3rade 0 0 0
MC' s 006)
SU/RV' s
CV' s 06)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDAMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
:31tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 193
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1105 -
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1105
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
~onf licting Flows : (vph) 195
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1384
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1384
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 584
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 486
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 485
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950 -
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 13 485 >
604 6.2 0.0 B 6.2
WB R 7 1105 >
SB L 2 1384 2.6 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.2 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAMEX.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... NS _
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW _
Date of Analysis.......... 12/6/96
Other Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
IVo. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 6 146 10 7 236 29 21 7 44 35 10 11
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s (°s)
SU/RV' s ( ~ )
CV' s )
PCE's 1.10 11.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 -
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left' Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
LICS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
>tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
7onflicting Flows: (vph) 168 278
lotential Capacity: (pcph) 1138 1001
,•Zovement Capac ity pcph ) 1138 1001
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.95 _
')'tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
:onflicting Flows: (vph) 173 294
;otential Capacity: (pcph) 1418 1242
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1418 1242
'"Irob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
.tT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
:onf licting Flows : (vph) 476 466
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 614 621
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
2ovement Capacity: (pcph) 605 612
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
33tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
^_onflicting Flows : (vph) 489 472
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 552 564
.Zajor LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: . 0.97 0.97
~djusted Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.97
-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.96
-Rovement Capacity: (pcph) 511 543
T4CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAMEX.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
4ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 40 543 > _
,'B T 9 612 > 724 5.8 0.5 B 5.8
~B R 54 1001 >
aB L 43 511 >
nTB T 12 605 > 589 6.9 0.4 B 6.9
WB R 13 1138 >
VB L 8 1242 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
3B L 9 1418 2.6 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 1.5 sec/veh
rICS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBAMEX.HCO Page 1
:!enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
7niversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
jainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) WB Ramp Terminal
4aj or Street Direction . . . . NS
. ength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab _
Date of Analysis.......... 11/27/96
Jther Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
vo. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 181 167 122 18 182 202 19 18 8 19 18 10
PHF .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s (0i)
CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBAMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
-onflicting Flows: (vph) 248 308
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 1037 967
L4ovement Capac i ty pcph ) 1037 967
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 315 418
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1213 1084
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1213 1084
?rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.80
CH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
.2T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.75
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 884 840
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 375 395
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.74 0.74
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 276 291
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92 0.92
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 788 789
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 370 370
Major LT,- Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.68 0.68
Qdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.75 0.75
-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.74 0.74
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 276 274
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBAMEX.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
4ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 23 274 > _
;B T 22 291 > 324 13.4 0.6 C 13.4
,'B R 10 967 >
-JB L 23 276 >
JB T 22 276 > 326 13.4 0.6 C 13.4
YIB R 12 1037 >
fB L 217 1084 4.2 0.8 A 1.6
;B L 22 1213 3.0 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 2.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAEBAMEX.HCO Page 1 I
-enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) EB Ramp Terminal
4ajor Street Direction.... NS
. ,ength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab _
Date of Analysis.......... 11/27/96
Jther Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo . Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 359 8 49 171 99 1 74
PHF .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82
.7rade 0 0 0
MC' s (01)
SU/RV' s
2V' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAEBAMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 209
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1085
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1085
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91 _
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 448
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1049
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1049
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.93
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 717
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 459
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 426
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 712
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 410
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.93
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.93
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 381
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAEBAMEX.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Rovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 133 381 > _
,'B T 1 426 > 526 12.2 2.3 C 12.2
?,B R 99 1085 >
~B L 66 1049 3.7 0.1 A 0.8
Intersection Delay = 3.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPMEX.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
-3treets : (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Zajor Street Direction.... EW _
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW _
Date of Analysis.......... 12/6/96
Dther Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
LVo. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1023 130 68 460 61 126
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
-7rade 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV' s ( % )
^V' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Tur1z Minor Road . 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 607
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 682
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 682
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.79 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1214
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 382
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 382
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.79
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1702
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 86
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.79
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.79
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.79
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 68
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 70 68 >
174 195.4 10.3 F 195.4
NB R 146 682 >
WB L 79 382 11.9 0.8 C 1.5
Intersection Delay = 20.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPMEX.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
13-Tainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) BARKER ROAD (E-W) INDIANA AVE .
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW _
Date of Analysis.......... 12/6/96
Other Information......... EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
1Vo. Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 393 13 5 323 7 3
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (106)
SU/RV's
CV' s ( °s )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep l: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 421
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 847
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 847
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 _
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 428
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1072
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1072
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
I'H Saturation Flow Rate :(pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99 .
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
~onf licting Flows : (vph) 766
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 381
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 378
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS" Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 8 378 >
445 8.3 0.0 B 8.3
WB R 3 847 >
SB L 6 1072 3.4 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPMEX.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
iainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
"3treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
4ajor Street Direction.... NS
.,,ength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst ALW _
)ate of Analysis.......... 12/6/96
)ther Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
10 . Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
~top/Yield N N
Volumes 24 353 48 20 288 27 35 6 24 50 16 18
?HF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
?rade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
3U/RV' s ( % )
;V' s ( % )
2CE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Jeft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 -
Chrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
jeft Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows: (vph) 395 316
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 873 958
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 873 958
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.97 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 420 330
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1081 1194
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1081 1194
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.98
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.97
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 771 782
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 430 424
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.94
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 406 400
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.98
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 772 775
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 378 377
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.90 .
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.92
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.90
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 346 340
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPMEX.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 41 340 > _
EB T 7 400 > 454 9.5 0.6 B 9.5
EB R 28 958 >
WB L 57 346 >
WB T 19 406 > 412 11.4 1.0 C 11.4
WB R 21 873 >
NB L 28 1194 3.1 0.0 A 0.2
SB L 23 1081 3.4 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 1.9 sec/veh
rICS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMEX.HCO Page 1
-enter For Microcomputers In Transportation ~
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
,ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
"3treets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) WB Ramp Terminal
4aj or Street Direction . . . . NS
..,ength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab _
Date of Analysis.......... 11/27/96
Jther Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo . Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 106 420 77 6 273 106 23 7 12 44 49 29
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
3rade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV' s ( )
CV' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road _ 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows: (vph) 482 343
'otential Capacity: (pcph) 789 928
~4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 789 928
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 0.98 -
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
:onflicting Flows : (vph) 523 399
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 966 1107
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 966 1107
Drob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.89
rH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
_2T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.84
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 1000 984
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 326 332
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.83 0.83
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 271 276
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.79 0.97
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 954 985
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 297 285
.vIaj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.81 0.66
%djusted Impedance Factor: 0.85 0.73
-apacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.84 0.70
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 249 200
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMEX.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Aovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 26 200 > _
EB T 8 276 > 276 15.8 0.6 C 15.8
EB R 14 928 >
WB L 51 249 >
WB T 57 271 > 310 21.1 2.3 D 21.1
VJB R 34 789 >
lVB L 123 1107 3.7 0.3 A 0.6
SB L 7 966 3.8 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.2 sec/veh
ACS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAEBPMEX.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
aainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) EB Ramp Terminal
4ajor Street Direction.... NS
Jength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab _
)ate of Analysis.......... 11/27/96
)ther Information......... Existing Traffic (1996) PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
lo. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 0 0
')top/Yield N N
Volumes 346 25 63 255 212 0 173
?HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
srade 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
5U/RV' s (26)
~V' s ( % )
?CE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
,lehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
-jeft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.-50 2.60 _
Chrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
jeft Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAEBPMEX.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 268
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1013
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1013
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.80 _
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 390
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1117
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1117
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.92
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 724
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 455
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.92
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 420
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Step 4: LT f rom Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 711
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 410
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.92 _
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.92
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.92
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 378
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAEBPMEX.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
4ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 245 378 > _
-i'B T 0 420 > 526 33.9 8.2 E 33.9
-EB R 200 1013 >
SB L 73 1117 3.4 0.1 A 0.7
Intersection Delay 12.4 sec/veh
YEAR 2000 (PHASES 1- 3) -
LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITHOUT PROJECT
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABOI.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida .
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... PHASE 2 YR. (2000) W/O PROJECT AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 251 101 99 1102 108 59
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (o)
SU/RV' s ( % )
Cv' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABOI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
')tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
:'onflicting Flows : (vph) 196
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 1102
.4ovement Capac i ty pcph ) 1102
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 _
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street WB EB
:onf lict ing Flows :(vph) 391
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1057
Movement Capacity : (pcph) 1057
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.89
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
:onflicting Flows: (vph) 1669
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 91
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.89
~djusted Impedance Factor: 0.89
.:apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89
lovement Capacity: (pcph) 81
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Rovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
1B L 132 81 >
121 402.9 13.3 F 402.9
NB R 73 1102 >
dB L 121 1057 3.8 0.4 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 39.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDABOI.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) BARKER RD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/O PROJECT AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 212 43 8 404 122 22
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s 006)
SU/RV's
CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 -
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDABOl.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 260
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1022
L Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1022
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 _
Step 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 284
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1255
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1255
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 718
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 406
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 402
Intersection Performance Summary
. Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 150 402 >
442 13.4 2.0 C 13.4
WB R 26 1022 >
SB L 10 1255 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 2.4 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABOI.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Sainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/O PROJECT AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
LVo. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 6 219 28 11 497 30 22 S 46 89 10 20
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s )
SU/RV' s (
CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road. 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABOI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 258 568
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1025 714
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1025 714
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.92 _
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 274 585
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1269 902
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1269 902
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 862 862
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 385 385
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 375 375
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 876 862
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 329 335
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 291 313
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABOI.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) _
EB L 40 313 > _
EB T 10 375 > 455 10.3 1.0 C 10.3
EB R 56 714 >
WB L 109 291 >
WB T 12 375 > 337 18.5 2.1 C 18.5
WB R 24 1025 >
NB L 8 902 4.0 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 13 1269 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.1 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMAFtY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 North Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
3nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBAB0I.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) Traff ic Without Project, With anticipated improv
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
vo. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Jolumes 27 79 20 27 54 38 360 245 339 49 267 312
PHF or PK15 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
,ane W( f t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
-Trade 0 0 0 0
-s Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0 0
:~on . Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
krr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
rJB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB- Right _
SB Right WB Right
sreen 12.OA Green 16.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
r`ycle Length: 65 secs Phase combination order: ##1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 299 1494 0.459 0.200 15.6 C 15.6 C
~4B LTR 290 1451 0.445 0.200 15.5 C 15.5 C
VB L 463 1770 0.845 0.262 24.0 C 23.5 C
TR 682 1704 0.907 0.400 23.2 C
SB L 463 1770 0.114 0.262 11.8 B 18.9 C
TR 688 1719 0.867 0.400 19.6 C
Intersection Delay = 20.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.784
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 South Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
-inalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBABOI.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) Traffic Without Project, With Anticipated Improv
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
10. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
Iolumes 290 1 139 642 25 86 260
PHF or PK15 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
T~ane W( f t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
:,rade 0 0 0
Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0
:on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
krr Type 3 3 3 3
ZTOR Vols 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Drop. Share
Irop. Prot.
Signal Operations
)hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
'~'B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.1B Lef t SB Lef t *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds . Peds
NB Right EB Right _
3B Right WB Right
areen 19.OA Green 33.OA
~(ellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combinat_on order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 591 1774 0.529 0.333 11.2 B 10.7 B
R 528 1583 0.282 0.333 9.6 B
1B TR 948 1673 0.739 0.567 8.4 B 8.4 B
.B LT 447 789 0.832 0.567 15.6 C 15.6 C
Intersection Delay = 10.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
,ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.720
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBOl.HCO Page 1
.enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/O PROJECT PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
[Vo. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1064 189 111 479 109 169
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (°s )
SU/RV' s ( °s )
CV's (o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 . 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 . 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBQl.HCQ Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SS
~onflieting Flows: (vph) 660
Pvtential Capacity: (pcph) 641 Movement Capaeity: (pcph) 541
-
Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0.69
Step 2: LT f rom Ma j or Street WB EB
Conf licting Flaws : (vph) 1319
Patential Cagacity: (pcph) 335
Movement Capacity : (pcph) 336
Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0.62
5tep 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
~onflicting Flaws: (vph) 1840
Patential Capacity: (pcph) 71
Ma1or LT, Minar TH
Impedance Fact4r . 0.62
kdjusted Impedance Factar: 0.52
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Mavements 0,52
'~ovement Capacity: (pcph) 44
Tntersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
9B L 127 44 >
101 * 29.0 F *
NB R 196 641 >
WB L 129 336 17,2 1.8 C 3.2
Intersection Delay - 141.7 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 959.9.
.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPBOl.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) BARKER ROAD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
Major Street Direction.... NS _
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/O PROJECT PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0 0 0 0> 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 478 144 25 406 77 14
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (°s)
SU/RV' s ( a )
CV' s 06)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.Ic INDPB01.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Interseetian
atep l: RT from Minar Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : tvpha 579
3otential Capacity: (pcph) 705 _
,lovement Cagac i ty :(pcgh) 705
_
grob. of Queue-F'ree State: 0.98
7tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
`:anflictzng Flows: (vgh) 655
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 836
MQVement Capacity: (pcph) 836
prQh, of Queue-Free State: 0.97
'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
~T Saturatian Flow Rate : (pcphpl )
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
:onflicting Flows: (vph) 1032 '
.)otential Capacity: (pcph) 267
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95
Wjusted Imp€dance Factor: 0.95
Cagacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impedxng Mavements 0.95
lovement Capacity; (pcph) 255
InterseGtian Performance Summary
Avg, 9 5o
F14w Mave Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length L4S Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veYa) (sec/veh)
JB L 89 255 > 284 20.0 1.7 U 20.0
VJB R 17 7Q5 >
313 L 29 $36 4.5 0.0 A 0.3
Intersectimn Delay ~ 1.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBOI.HCO Page 1
~enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
?ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
4ajor Street Direction.... NS
.uength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Dther Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/O PROJECT PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo . Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 25 571 115 31 436 28 37 6 25 85 17 25
PHF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
srade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s ( % )
2V's
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBOI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3)tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 658 472
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 643 798
Aovement Capacity : (pcph) 643 798
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 718 486
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 780 1006
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 780 1006
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 0.97
I'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
:ZT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.95
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1202 1248
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 255 241
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89 0.89
Kovement Capac i ty pcph ) 227 215
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91 0.97
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows : (vph) 1204 1210
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 213 211
.~4aj or LT, Minor TH ~
Impedance Factor: 0.86 0.81-
%djusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.86
2apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.82
-Kovement Capacity: (pcph) 183 172
TTCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBOl.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
tovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/vel:
9B L 43 172 >
:B T 7 215 > 248 21.2 1.3 D 21.2
'B R 29 798 >
iB L 98 183 >
TB T 20 227 > 220 44.1 3.7 E 44.1
WB R 29 643 >
1B L 29 1006 3.7 0.0 A 0.1
T, '7 P. n n o ~ T.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SU'MMP,RY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets (E-W) I-90 North Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
knalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBPBOI.HC9
3rea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
~omment: Phase 1(2000) Traffic Without Project, With Anticipated Improv
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
10. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Jolumes 48 39 32 118 134 82 220 630 169 46 348 175
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
-jane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
.7rade 0 0 0 0
s Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0 0
-on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
krr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Drop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
rJB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right _ EB Right
313 Right WB Right
sreen 18.OA Green 10.0A 32.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 72 secs Phase combinat--on order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 284 1075 0.444 0.264 15.0 B 15.0 B
nTB LTR 345 1309 1.016 0.264 58.9 E 58.9 E
VB L 270 1770 0.858 0.153 35.0 D 35.5 D
TR 829 1808 0.996 0.458 35.6 D
SB L 270 1770 0.178 0.153 17.2 C 11.3 B
TR 816 1781 0.635 0.458 10.8 B
Intersection Delay = 31.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.978
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 South Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
'lnalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBPBOl.HC9
~rea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
lomment: Phase 1(2000) Traff ic Without Project, With Anticipated Improv
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
Iolumes 407 1 382 566 37 120 358
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
T,ane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Jrade 0 0 0
s Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0
~on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Irr Type 3 3 3 3
tTOR Vols 0 15 0
,,ost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
prop. Share
?rop. Prot.
Signal Operations
?hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S
!,B Lef t * NB Lef t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
JB Left SB Left *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
':')B Right WB Right
sreen 15.OA Green 37.OA
lellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combinatLon order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 473 1774 0.907 0.267 28.7 D 32.8 D
R 422 1583 0.952 0.267 37.2 D
JB TR 1056 1667 0.586 0.633 4.8 A 4.8 A
3B LT 567 895 0.887 0.633 17.1 C 17.1 C
Intersection Delay = 19.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
.jost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.907
YEAR 2000 (PHASES 1 - 3) -
LEVELS UF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
WITH INDIANA AVENUE ENTRANCE
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENAWIl.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
")treets : (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
4ajor Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
ate of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
ther Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT AM Peak INDI
ANA ACCESS
Cwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
_Jo. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
lolumes 251 102 99 1102 110 60
?HF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
~4C' s 06)
3U/RV' s ( °s )
L'v' s
pCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
"Jehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 .2.10
tight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Chrough Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENAWIl.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 196
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1102
Movement Capac i ty pcph ) 1102
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
2onflicting Flows: (vph) 392
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1056
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1056
'?rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.89
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 1670
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 91
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.89
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89
14ovement Capacity: (pcph) 81
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
VB L 134 Sl >
121 413.3 13.7 F 413.3
NB R 74 1102 >
inTB L 121 1056 3.8 0.4 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 41.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDAWII.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) BARKER RD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT AM PEAK IN
DIANA ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0 0 0 0> 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 212 47 9 404 136 28
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s 006)
SU/RV' s ( °s )
CV' s (°s)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuve r Gap ( tg ) T ime ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDAWII.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT f rom Minor Street WB Ei=
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 26:'
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 102C
Movement Capac i ty pcph ) 1020
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 _
Step 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB Nri
-onf licting Flows : (vph) 28 e,
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1250
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1250
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.9ri
I'H Saturation Flow Rate :(pcphpl ) 170 ~
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.9`i
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EL:---------------------------------------------------------
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 721
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 401-
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.9.
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.9.
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Aovement Capac i ty pcph ) 40(,
Intersection Performance Summary
_ Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
~TB L 166 400 >
446 14.5 2.3 C 14.5
WB R 34 1020 >
'3B L 11 1250 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 2.9 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAWII.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Rajor Street Direction.... NS -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
knalyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Jther Information......... Phase 1(2000) WITH PROJECT AM Peak
INDIANA ACCESS
I'wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 6 223 28 11 511 30 22 8 46 89 10 20
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s 006)
SU/RV' s (106)
CV' s ( o )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road , 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAWII.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
2onflicting Flows: (vph) 264 584
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1018 701 _
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1018 701
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.92 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
2onf licting Flows :(vph) 279 601
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1262 887
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1262 887
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
I'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
-onflicting Flows: (vph) 884 882
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 375 376
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97
yovement Capacity: (pcph) 365 366
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
C_"onflicting Flows: (vph) 897 884
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 320 326
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 282 304
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAWII,HC0 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
F1aw Mave Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap pelay Length La5 Delay
7ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) {veh.} (sec/veh) -
EB L 40 304 > ~
JB T la 366 > 444 10.6 1.0 c io, 6
,-~'B R 55 701 >
JB L 109 282 >
4B T 12 365 > 327 19.5 2.2 C 19.5
KB R 24 1018 >
JB L 8 887 4.1 0.0 A 0.1
-3B L 13 1262 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.2 sec/veh.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-
Streets: (E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
knalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBAWII.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, Anticipated improvmnt, Indiana Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound _
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1 < 1 1 <
Volumes 28 79 20 27 54 38 360 248 339 49 272 321
PHF or PK15 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
-7rade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S
EB Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
vJB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
,jreen 14.OA Green 14.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR.4.0 4.0
~ycle Length: 65 secs Phase combinat-~on order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 340 1473 0.406 0.231 14.2 B 14.2 B
iVB LTR 329 1425 0.392 0.231 14.1 B 14.1 B
VB L 408 1770 0.957 0.231 40.6 E 30.3 D
TR 682 1705 0.912 0.400 23.8 C
SB L 408 1770 0.130 0.231 12.8 B 20.8 C
TR 687 1718 0.891 0.400 21.5 C
Intersection Delay = 24.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.789
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
~malyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBAWII.HC9
irea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
,.-omment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, AnticipatedImprovmnt, Indiana acce
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
lolumes 292 1 139 643 25 90 261
PHF or PK15 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Tjane W( f t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
7rade 0 0 0
s Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0
;on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
~rr Type 3 3 3 3
ZTOR Vols 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
prop. Share
)rop. Prot.
Signal Operations
)hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
~'B Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.1B Left SB Left *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
'B Right WB Right
7reen 18.OA Green 34.OA fellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combinata-on order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 562 1774 0.561 0.317 12.0 B 11.4 B
R 501 1583 0.297 0.317 10.1 B
iB TR 976 1673 0.719 0.583 7.6 B 7.6 B
jB LT 451 774 0.837 0.583 15.6 C 15.6 C
Intersection Delay = 10.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
jost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.740
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPWII.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
"')treets : (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
lajor Street Direction.... EW -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
knalyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
)ther Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT PM Peak I
NDIANA ACCESS
Pwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
.Jo. Lanes 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 1064 191 112 479 110 169
?HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
KC' s ( % )
:-)U/RV's
cv' s ( % )
pCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
'iehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Le f t Turn Maj or Road 5.50 2.10
Zight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPWIl.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 660
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 641
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 641
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.69 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1321
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 335
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 335
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.61
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1842
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 70
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.61
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.61
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.61
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 43
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
lVB L 128 43 >
99 * 29.3 F *
NB R 196 641 >
WB L 130 335 17.4 1.8 C 3.3
Intersection Delay = 146.5 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPWII.HCO Page 1
"enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
zainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets: (N-S) BARKER ROAD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
lajor Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
knalyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97 ,
)ther Information Phase 1 (2000)
D IANA ACC
I'wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T r='
No. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 478 160 32 406 87 1'b
?HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
4C' s (01)
:-)U/RV' s (0i)
CV' s ( % )
DCE's 1.10 1.10
I
-
I
4aneuver Gap (tg) Time ( t f )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
2ight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPWIl.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 587
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 698
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 698
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 -
'3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 671
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 821
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 821
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95
I'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1048
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 262
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.94
Kovement Capacity: (pcph) 246
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap ~ Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
'vJB L 101 246 >
277 22.8 2.1 D 22.8
WB R 21 698 >
SB L 37 821 4.6 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 2.2 sec/veh
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWIA.HCO Page 1
^enter For Microcomputers In Transportatian
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
Jainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue I
Major Street Direction.... NS i
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97 II
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT PM Peak IND
IANA ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 25 587 115 31 446 28 37 6 25 85 17 25
PHF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV's
CV' s 06)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 -
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWIA.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
')tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
:'onflicting Flows: (vph) 675 482
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 630 789
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 630 789
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
~onflicting Flows : (vph) 735 496
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 765 995
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 765 995
?rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.97
CH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
.2T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.95
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 1229 1274
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 247 234
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89 0.89
_4ovement Capac i ty pcph ) 219 208
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91 0.97
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1230 1236
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 205 204
.4aj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.86 0.81 -
%djusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.85
:apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.81
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 176 166
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWIA.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Zovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
FB L 43 166 > -
B T 7 208 > 240 22.2 1.4 D 22.2
B R 29 789 >
n1B L 98 176 >
4B T 20 219 > 212 48.3 3.9 F 48.3
WB R 29 630 >
vB L 29 995 3.7 0.0 A 0.1
3B L 35 765 4.9 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 5.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWII.HCO Page 1
'enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
lniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
;ainesville, FL 32611-2083
'h: (904) 392-0378
")treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
iaj or Street Direction NS
.uength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT PM Peak IND
IANA ACCESS
'wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
_To. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 1 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
rolumes 25 587 115 31 446 28 37 6 25 85 17 25
IHF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
Grade 0 0 0 0
-ZC's
')U/RV' s (1k)
CV' s 06)
pCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
"Tehicle Critical Follow-up
laneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road . 5.00 2.10
:ight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWII.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT f rom Minor Street WB E: ~
.-onflicting Flows : (vph) 675 481.
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 630 789 _
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 630 789
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96 _
Step 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 735 496
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 765 99,
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 765 99`
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.9'' I
I'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 170-
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 170
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.9
i
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB E:
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1229 127
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 247 23
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89 0.89
.4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 219 208
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
'Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1230 1236
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 205 204
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.86 0.81
Ndjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.85
-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.81
vlovement Capacity: (pcph) 176 166
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWIl.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 43 166 > -
EB T 7 208 > 240 22.2 1.4 D 22.2
EB R 29 789 >
WB L 98 176 43.5 2.6 E
WB T 20 219 > 33.0
WB R 29 630 > 357 11.7 0.5 C
NB L 29 995 3.7 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 35 765 4.9 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 4.2 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-20-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets :(E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road _
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBPWII.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, Anticipated Improvmnt, Indiana Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1 <
Volumes 52 39 32 118 134 82 220 641 169 46 351 181
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 19.OA Green 9.OA 30.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combinatLon order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 301 1052 0.433 0.286 13.8 B 13.8 B
WB LTR 375 1313 0.936 0.286 37.8 D 37.8 D
NB L 253 1770 0.918 0.143 44.2 E 48.4 E
TR 801 1809 1.045 0.443 49.6 E
SB L 253 1770 0.190 0.143 17.1 C 12.0 B
TR 788 1779 0.670 0.443 11.5 B
Intersection Delay = 34.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.988
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-16-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBPWII.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, With Add. Improvmnt, Indiana Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound _
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
Volumes 417 1 382 567 37 123 358
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Jrade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
us Stops 0 0 0
on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
krr Type 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
?rop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-'B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
►qB Left SB Left * *
Thru Thru * *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
3B Right WB Right
areen 18.OA Green 10.0A 30.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
^ycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 482 1774 0.914 0.271 31.6 D 33.8 D
R 430 1583 0.936 0.271 36.2 D
i-B TR 738 1667 0.840 0.443 17.2 C 17.2 C
5B LT 1028 1599 0.492 0.643 4.5 A 4.5 A
Intersection Delay = 21.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
,ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.624
YEAR 1998 (PHASE 1) -
LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
FOR MISSIONBARKER INTERSECTION
PROJECT NUMBER: 9607 Project Name: Colyar Property 25-Aug-97
' INTERSECTION: Barker Road & Mission Avenue Entrance on Indiana
PM PEAK HOUR For 32 Lots in 1998
INITIAL COUNT DATE ~ 1995 YEARS TO PHASE I ~ 2
COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG I 22.00% YEARS TO BUILDOUT ~ 7
N/S GROWTH RATE I 1.00% ,
EIW GROWTH RATE ~ 1.00% ~ N/S ~ EIW
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ~ PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0201 1.020
BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR ~ 1.0721 1.072
INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON-PRO,IECT PHASE I BUILD OUT ! Phase 1 All Project PHASE I BUILD OUT
COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC WIO PRJCT WIO PRJCT TRAFFIC Traffic WIPRJCT WlPRJCT
29 EB LT 35 36 38 36 38
5 EB TH 6 6 7 6 7
20 EB RT 24 25 26 25 26
41 WB LT 50 33 84 87 84 87
13 WB TH 16 16 17 16 17
15 WB RT 18 6 25 26 25 26
20 NB LT 24 25 26 25 26
289 NB TH 353 204 564 582 8 32 572 614
39 NB RT 48 65 114 116 114 116
16 SB LT 20 11 31 32 31 32
236 SB TH 288 136 430 445 5 20 435 465
22 SB RT 27 27 29 27 29
EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS
,
~
, ~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWIA.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
lajor Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/25/97
)ther Information......... Phase la (1998) W/ PROJECT PM Peak IN
DIANA ACCESS 32 lotsonly
I'wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 25 572 114 31 435 27 36 6 25 84 16 25
PHF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( °s )
SU/RV's (s)
cV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Kaneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWIA.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 658 469
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 643 801
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 643 801
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 718 483
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 780 1009
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 780 100 "i
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 0.9
I'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 170
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 170:
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.95
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1200 1245
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 256 242
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89 0.89
Hovement Capacity: (pcph) 228 216
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1202 1207
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 213 212
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: . 0.86 0.82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.86
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.82
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 184 174
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWIA.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) _
EB L 42 174 > _
EB T 7 216 > 252 20.6 1.3 D 20.6
EB R 29 801 >
WB L 97 184 >
WB T 19 228 > 221 42.8 3.6 E 42.8
WB R 29 643 >
MB L 29 1009 3.7 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 35 780 4.8 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 5.0 sec/veh
/
/
YEAR 2003 ItD OUT -
)
LEVE F SERVICE
TH PROJECT
WITH IANA AVENUE ENTRANCE
.
{
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENAWMI.HCO Page 1
~enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT AM Peak MISS
ION ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 1 2 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 251 102 99 1102 110 60
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC's ( o)
SU/RV' s ( % )
CV's (o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENAWMI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
-onf licting Flows : (vph) 196
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1102 -
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1102
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 -
Step 2: LT f rom Maj or Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 392 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1056
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1056
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.89
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
~onf licting Flows : (vph) 1670
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 91
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.89
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 81
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay I
.Hovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
LJB L 134 81 >
121 413.3 13.7 F 413.3
NB R 74 1102 >
'r1B L 121 1056 3.8 0.4 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 41.0 sec/veh
I
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDAWMI.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
,ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ih: (904) 392-0378
"')treets : (N-S) BARKER RD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
2ajor Street Direction.... NS _
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT AM PEAK MI
SSION ACCESS
cwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
.Jo . Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Iolumes 218 48 9 405 136 25
?HF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
4C' s ( % )
3U/RV' s ( s )
c1' s 006)
pCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
`lehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Zight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Chrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 ~
T4CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDAWMl.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
')tep l: RT from Minor Street WB EB
:'onf licting Flows : (vph) 268
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 1013
lAovement Capac i ty pcph ) 1013
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 _
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 295
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1240
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1240
'?rob. of Queue - Free State : 0.99
CH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
_zT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Step 4: LT f rom Minor Street WB EB
:onflicting Flows: (vph) 728
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 401
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
Wjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 396
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. .9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
1B L 166 396 >
438 14.8 2.3 C 14.8
wB R 31 1013 >
3B L 11 1240 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 2.9 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAWMl.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
-Tainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT AM Peak MI
SSION ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 6 219 31 12 497 30 22 8 46 99 10 26
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s 06)
SU/RV' s ( % )
CV' s 06)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAWMI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 260 568
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1022 714 _
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1022 714
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.92 _
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 277 585
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1265 902
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1265 902
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 865 866
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 384 383
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 374 373
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 878 868
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 328 333
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 290 308
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSAWMI.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 40 308 > -
EB T 10 373 > 451 10.4 1.0 C 10.4
EB R 56 714 >
WB L 121 290 >
WB T 12 374 > 343 19.9 2.5 C 19.9
WB R 32 1022 >
NB L 8 902 4.0 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 14 1265 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.5 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMKARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road _
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBAWMI.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, Anticipated improvmnt, Mission Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1 <
Volumes 27 79 20 27 54 38 360 248 339 49 268 321
PHF or PK15 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 14.OA Green 14.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 65 secs Phase combinat-on order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 341 1478 0.402 0.231 14.1 B 14.1 B
WB LTR 329 1426 0.392 0.231 14.1 B 14.1 B
NB L 408 1770 0.957 0.231 40.6 E 30.3 D
TR 682 1705 0.912 0.400 23.8 C
SB L 408 1770 0.130 0.231 12.8 B 20.3 C
TR 687 1717 0.884 0.400 20.9 C
Intersection Delay = 24.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.787
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLfMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
'%nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBAWM1.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
"'omment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, AnticipatedImprovmnt, Misson acces
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
10. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
lolumes 292 1 139 642 25 86 261
PHF or PK15 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
T Jane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
srade 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0
:on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Irr Type 3 3 3 3
ZTOR Vols 0 15 0
.uost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
?rop. Prot.
Signal Operations
?hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.JB Le f t SB Le f t *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB_ Right
3B Right WB Right
3reen 20.OA Green 32.OA
fellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 621 1774 0.507 0.350 10.5 B 10.1 B
R 554 1583 0.269 0.350 9.1 B
JB TR 920 1673 0.762 0.550 9.4 B 9.4 B
':)B LT 424 771 0.880 0.550 20.7 C 20.7 C
Intersection Delay = 12.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.735
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPWMl.HCO Page 1
~enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
zainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
4aj or Street Direction . . . . EW
.uength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
)ther Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT PM Peak M
ISSION ACCESS
Cwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lanes 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 1064 191 112 479 110 169
?HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (°s)
3U/RV' s ( °s )
cV's
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
"lehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Zight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPWMl.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
."onf licting Flows : (vph) 660
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 641
Movement Capacity : (pcph) 641
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.69 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1321
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 335
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 335
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.61
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 1842
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 70
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.61
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.61
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.61
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 43
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
[JB L 128 43 >
99 * 29.3 F *
NB R 196 641 >
WB L 130 335 17.4 1.8 C 3.3
Intersection Delay = 146.5 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPWMI.HCO Page 1
"'enter For Microcomputera In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
-3treets: (N-S) BARKER ROAD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
Rajor Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
ALnalyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... Phase 1(2000) W/ PROJECT PM PEAK MI
SSION ACCESS
Pwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
.,Jo . Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 482 161 28 413 86 16
?HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
4C' s (0-0)
3U/RV's (o)
LV' s ( °s )
DCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
'Jehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 ~
Zight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPWMI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
- -
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 59',
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 69''~
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 694
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 -
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NP
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 676
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 817
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 817
?rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.9;
I'H Saturation Flow Rate :(pcphpl ) 170
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
-onf licting Flows : (vph) 1056
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 259
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95
%djusted Impedance Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95
4ovement Capac i ty pcph ) 245
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9501
~
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 100 245 >
273 23.0 2.1 D 23.0
1nTB R 19 694 >
3B L 32 817 4.6 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 2.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWMI.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... Phase 1(2000) WITH PROJECT PM Peak M
ISSION ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0> 1 1 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 < 0 1 1< 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 25 571 126 38 436 28 37 6 25 92 17 29
PHF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV' s ( °s )
Cv's ( o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 - 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
TzT TuF~-/ GA,..)t- ~
lN?_> G7, -"vgp "NE
I
ICS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWMI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
')tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
,onflicting Flows : (vph) 598 472
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 689 798
iAovement Capacity: (pcph) 689 798
Drob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
:onflicting Flows : (vph) 730 486
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 770 1006
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 770 1006
?rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.97
CH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
AT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.92 0.96
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
-onflicting Flows : (vph) 1150 1268
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 272 236
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88
_lovement Capacity : (pcph) 239 207
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92 0.97
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
':onf licting Flows : (vph) 1152 1160
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 228 225
Aaj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.85 0.81 -
Wjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88 0.85
:apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.81
4ovement Capac i ty pcph ) 194 182
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPWMI.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
14ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) _
EB L 43 182 > _
EB T 7 207 > 258 20.0 1.3 C 20.0
EB R 29 798 >
NB L 106 194 38.9 2.6 E
4B T 20 239 > 29.4
'G+TB R 33 689 > 403 10.3 0.4 C
VB L 29 1006 3.7 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 44 770 5.0 0.0 A 0.4
Intersection Delay = 4.0 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-20-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets :(E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBPWM1.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, Anticipated Improvmnt, Mission Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Volumes 48 39 32 118 133 82 220 641 169 46 348 181
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S
EB Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 19.OA Green 9.OA 30.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 308 1077 0.409 0.286 13.6 B 13.6 B
WB LTR 377 1319 0.929 0.286 36.5 D 36.5 D
NB L 253 1770 0.918 0.143 44.2 E 48.4 E
TR 801 1809 1.045 0.443 49.6 E
SB L 253 1770 0.190 0.143 17.1 C 12.0 B
TR 787 1778 0.667 0.443 11.5 B
Tntersection Delay = 34.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9-.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.986
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets :(E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
.nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBPWM1.HC9
,rea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
Comment: Phase 1(2000) With Project, Anticipated Improvmnt, Misson Acce
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R ~
do. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
rolumes 417 1 382 567 37 120 358
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
'jane W( f t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
.7rade 0 0 0
-o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0
:on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
~rr Type 3 3 3 3
tTOR Vols 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
nrop. Share
)rop. Prot.
Signal Operations
)hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
;B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.JB Le f t SB Le f t *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
3B Right WB Right
lreen 17.OA Green 42.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
^_ycle Length: 67 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 477 1774 0.923 0.269 32.4 D 34.8 D
R 425 1583 0.945 0.269 37.4 D
JB TR 1070 1667 0.580 0.642 5.0 A 5.0 A
5B LT 560 873 0.898 0.642 18.8 C 18.8 C
Intersection Delay = 21.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
~ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.912
YEAR 2003 (BUILD OUT) -
LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITHOUT PRO.TECT
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABO.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
,ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ih: (904) 392-0378
Itreets : (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Zajor Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/O PROJECT AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
10 . Lanes 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
~top/Yield N N
Volumes 259 103 101 1135 110 60
?HF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
zrade 0 0 0
MC' s 015)
3U/RV' s (
.V's (a)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
.,.,eft Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Chrough Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
jeft Turn Minor Road 7.00 ~ 3.40
'iCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABO.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
)tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
:onf licting Flows : (vph) 201
;otential Capacity: (pcph) 1095
iAovement Capacity: (pcph) 1095
Drob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 -
-;,tep 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
;onf licting Flows : (vph) 402
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1043
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1043
')rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.88
O'tep 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
;onf licting Flows : (vph) 1718
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 84
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.88
~djusted Impedance Factor: 0.88
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88
lovement Capacity: (pcph) 74
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
,4ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
1B L 134 74 >
111 486.0 14.6 F 486.0
NB R 74 1095 >
iB L 123 1043 3.9 0.4 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 47.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDABO.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
-,ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) BARKER RD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/O PROJECT AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
LJo. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 218 43 8 415 122 22
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s (0-6)
Cv's (o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road' 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDAB4.HC0 Page 2
Warksheet for TWSC Intersection
5teg 1; RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 266
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1015
Movement Capacity. (pcph) 1015
Prab. of Queue-Free State. 0.97 _
Step 2: LT from Majar Street SB NB
~anflicting Flows: (vph) 290
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1247
Movement Capaca.ty: (pcph) 1247
Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0.99
I'H Saturation Flcrw Rate ; (pcphpl ) 1700
RT Saturatian Flow Rate: (pcphgl)
Majar LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Step 4: LT fram Minor Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 735
PQtential Capacity: (pcph) 397
Major LT, Minor TH
Impeclance Factor: 0.99
A.d.j usted Impedance Factar : 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due ta Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 393
Zntersection Perfarmance Summary
Avg, 950-. -
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
- Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(see/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
KB L 15C} 393 >
432 13.9 2.0 C 13,9
WB R 25 1015 >
~:)B L 10 1247 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 2.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABO.HCO Page 1
-enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
4aj or Street Direction . . . . NS
.uength of Time Analyzed . . . 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Dther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/O PROJECT AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
3top/Yield N N
Volumes 7 224 28 11 507 31 22 8 47 90 10 21
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
srade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
3U/RV' s (0i)
:!V' s )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 _ 2.60
rhrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABO.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
33tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 264 580
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1018 704 _
.Kovement Capacity: (pcph) 1018 704
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.92 _
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 280 597
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1261 890
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1261 890
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
PH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
:onflicting Flows: (vph) 882 880
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 376 377
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 366 367
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.97
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 895 882
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 321 327
4aj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95_ 0.94
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.95
~apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 283 304
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABO.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Aovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 40 304 > _
EB T 10 367 > 446 10.6 1.0 C 10.6
EB R 57 704 >
WB L 110 283 >
WB T 12 366 > 330 19.4 2.2 C 19.4
WB R 25 1018 >
[VB L 9 890 4.1 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 13 1261 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.2 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 North Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBAMBO.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout (2003) Traffic Without Project, With anticipated improv
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Volumes 27 79 21 27 54 39 366 250 343 49 273 319
PHF or PK15 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right -
SB Right WB Right
~reen 12.OA Green 16.OA 25.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 65 secs Phase combination order: #1 ##5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 299 1494 0.462 0.200 15.6 C 15.6 C
;qB LTR 290 1451 0.448 0.200 15.5 C 15.5 C
lVB L 463 1770 0.860 0.262 25.3 D 25.2 D
TR 682 1704 0.923 0.400 25.1 D
SB L 463 1770 0.114 0.262 11.8 B 20.6 C
TR 688 1719 0.889 0.400 21.4 C
Intersection Delay = 22.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.797
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 South Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
'%nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBAMBO.HC9
~rea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
'-omment: Buildout (2003) Traffic Without Project, With Anticipated Improv
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
10. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
lolumes 293 1 141 653 26 88 265
PHF or PK15 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Tiane W( f t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
lrade 0 0 0
~ Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0
:on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3
ZTOR Vols 0 15 0
.uost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
prop. Share
)rop. Prot.
Signal Operations
)hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
;B Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.JB Left SB Left *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
)B Right WB Right
':'rreen 19.OA Green 33.OA
r
J.ellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 591 1774 0.534 0.333 11.2 B 10.7 B
R 528 1583 0.288 0.333 9.6 B
B TR 947 1672 0.754 0.567 8.8 B 8.8 B
iB LT 428 755 0.888 0.567 21.2 C 21.2 C
Intersection Delay = 12.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
,ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.757
J
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBO.HCO Page 1
-enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
jainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
'3treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Kajor Street Direction.... EW -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
'knalyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Jther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/O PROJECT PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo . Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
jtop/Yield N N
Volumes 1096 193 113 493 111 173
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
_,rade 0 0 0
MC' s (01)
SU/RV's (o)
_V' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBO.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT f rom Minor Street NB Sl-
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 678
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 628
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 628
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.68 _
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street WB E-121
-onf licting Flows : (vph) 135'.;
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 320
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 320
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.5r~
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street NB S~
-onf licting Flows : (vph) 1894
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 65
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.59
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.59
t-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.59
Aovement Capacity: (pcph) 38
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
.yovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
VB L 129 38 >
89 * 31.0 F *
NB R 200 628 >
JB L 131 320 18.8 1.9 C 3.5
Intersection Delay = 171.3 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPBO.HCO Page 1
~enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets: (N-S) BARKER ROAD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
4ajor Street Direction.... NS _
.uength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/O PROJECT PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
3top/Yield N N
Volumes 490 144 25 417 77 14
?HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
srade 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
iU/RV' s ( ~ )
'-IV's ( o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
. jeft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 _2.60
Chrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
jeft Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
.
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPBO.HCO Page
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection 3tep 1: RT f rom Minor Street WB Ei ;
-
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 59~
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 69.: ~
Movement Capacity : (pcph) 69Z
~
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.9c: _
3tep 2: LT from Major Street SB N~- ,
2onflicting Flows: (vph) 66"
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 82~.
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 82.:
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.9~
rH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 170! ,
ZT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State:
Step 4: LT f rom Minor Street WB El-,
~onf licting Flows : (vph) 1057
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 259
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95
Aovement Capacity: (pcph) 247
Intersection Performance Summary
. Avg. 95%~
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
qB L 89 247 >
275 21.1 1.7 D 21.1
WB R 17 694 >
3B L 29 824 4.5 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 1.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBO.HCO Page 1
'enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
37ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets : (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
4ajor Street Direction.... NS -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
7knalyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Dther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/O PROJECT PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound I Westbound
L T R L T R L T R : L T R
Jo . Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
3top/Yield N N
Volumes 26 582 116 32 445 29 38 7 26 87 17 26
?HF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
.7rade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
3U/RV' s (16)
7V' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 11.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10,1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Min.or Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBO.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
,onflicting Flows : (vph) 670 481
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 634 790 _
Movement Capac i ty pcph ) 634 790
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
:onflicting Flows: (vph) 730 496 ?otential Capacity: (pcph) 770 995
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 770 995
?rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.97
CH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
,ZT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.93 0.95
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
~onf licting Flows : (vph) 1226 1272
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 248 235
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88
_4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 219 207
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91 0.96
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows: (vph) 1228 1234
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 206 204
.4aj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.85 0.80
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88 0.85
-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.81
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 175 165
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBO.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
4ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
FB L 44 165 > _
EB T 8 207 > 239 22.7 1.5 D 22.7
EB R 30 790 >
,qB L 100 175 >
qB T 20 219 > 211 50.4 4.1 F 50.4
WB R 30 634 >
1B L 30 995 3.7 0.0 A 0.1
~B L 37 770 4.9 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 5.9 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUiMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 North Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
knalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBPMBO.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
Comment: Buildout (2003) Traffic Without Project, With Anticipated Impro~:-
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Vo. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Volumes 49 40 33 119 136 83 224 643 172 46 357 179
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9-1
Lane W( f t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.c)
17rade 0 0 0 .
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) 1-T
Bus Stops 0 0 0 -on. Peds 0 0 0 G
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
krr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
EtTOR Vo 1 s 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Shar~_-
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
vJB Left * SB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right _
SB Right WB Right
3reen 18.OA Green 10.0A 32.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 72 secs Phase combinat-on order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 282 1070 0.457 0.264 15.2 C 15.2 C
uJB LTR 344 1302 1.033 0.264 64.2 F 64.2 F
lVB L 270 1770 0.873 0.153 36.8 D 39.8 D
TR 829 1808 1.016 0.458 40.7 E
SB L 270 1770 0.178 0.153 17.2 C 11.6 B
TR 816 1781 0.652 0.458 11.0 B
Intersection Delay = 34.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.996
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 South Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
,nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBPMBO.HC9
.rea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
Comment: Buildout (2003) Traffic Without Project, With Anticipated Improv
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound _
L T R L T R L T R L T R
fo. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
'olumes 413 1 387 577 38 122 366
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
~,ane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
;rade 0 0 0
a Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
,us Stops 0 0 0
'on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
►rr Type 3 3 3 3
:TOR Vols 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
nrop. Share
Irop. Prot.
Signal Operations
)hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
;B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
4B Left SB Left *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right _
►B Right WB Right
;reen 15.OA Green 37.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
^ycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 473 1774 0.922 0.267 30.7 D 35.0 D
R 422 1583 0.964 0.267 39.5 D
fB TR 1056 1667 0.598 0.633 4.9 A 4.9 A
5B LT 543 857 0.945 0.633 25.2 D 25.2 D
Intersection Delay = 22.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
,ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.951
YEAR 2000 (PHASES 1 - 3) -
LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
WITH INDIANA AVENUE ENTRANCE
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABWI.HCO Page 1
2enter For Microcomputers In Transportatiozi
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E_W) Trent Road ~
Aajor Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min;~
Analyst tas
Date of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
Dther Information . . . . . . . . . BUILD OU`l, ( 20,5-' ;v i
DIANA ACC11-,SU
rwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southboun,:
L T R L T R L T R L T T:
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 259 104 102 1135 114 6_:
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (016)
SU/RV's
cV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABWI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 202
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1094 -
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1094
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 404
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1040
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1040
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1720
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 84
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.88
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 74
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 140 74 >
110 525.1 15.5 F 525.1
NB R 76 1094 >
WB L 124 1040 3.9 0.4 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 52.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDABWI.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
37ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
-3treets: (N-S) BARKER RD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
Zajor Street Direction.... NS -
.L,ength of Time Analyzed . . . 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT AM PEAK
INDIANA ACCESS
Pwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
So. Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 218 51 11 415 151 35
?HF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
AC' s ( % )
3U/RV' s (0i)
CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
"Tehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 - 2.10
2ight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
rhrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDABWI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows: (vph) 270
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1010
.4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 1010
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 _
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
2onflicting Flows: (vph) 299
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1235
Movement Capacity : (pcph) 1235
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
rH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 744
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 393
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Aovement Capacity: (pcph) 387
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95% .
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
nTB L 185 387 >
438 16.8 2.9 C 16.8
WB R 43 1010 >
SB L 13 1235 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.6 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABWI.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Jainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Kajor Street Direction.... NS _
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Dther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) WITH PROJECT AM Peak
INDIANA ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 7 232 28 11 536 31 22 8 47 90 10 21
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s (01)
SU/RV' s (16)
CV' s (°s)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time ( tf )
Le£t Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 ~
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABWI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
-onf licting Flows :(vph) 274 613
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1006 677 -
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1006 677
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.92 -
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
2onflicting Flows: (vph) 289 630
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1248 859
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1248 859
2rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
I'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows: (vph) 924 922
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 357 358
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97
Kovement Capacity: (pcph) 347 348
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 937 924
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 304 309
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.94
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.95
-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.93
Aovement Capacity: (pcph) 266 287
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABWI.HCO Page ~
Intersection Performance
~
Avg. 95'%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approac},
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
4ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/v,:1j_ i
EB L 40 287 > -
EB T 10 348
ti' L~ L l 1. L) Gu b -
n]B T 12 347 >
WB R 25 VB L 9 8~y 4.2
SB L 13 1248 2.9 0.0 A
I
Intersection Delay = 3.4 sec/ve~:.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBABWI.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout (2003) With Project, Anticipated improvmnt, Indiana Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R _
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Volumes 29 79 21 27 54 39 366 256 343 49 283 338
PHF or PK15 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
3rade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
.3reen 14.OA Green 14.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 65 secs Phase combinat:-on order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 337 1462 0.418 0.231 14.3 B 14.3 B
WB LTR 328 1422 0.396 0.231 14.1 B 14.1 B
lVB L 408 1770 0.974 0.231 44.2 E 33.1 D
TR 682 1706 0.931 0.400 26.1 D
SB L 408 1770 0.130 0.231 12.8 B 25.5 D
TR 687 1717 0.935 0.400 26.6 D
Intersection Delay = 27.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.807
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets :(E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBABWI.HC9
rea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout (2003) With Project, AnticipatedImprovmnt, Indiana acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound.
L T R L T R L T R L T F
fo. Lane s > 1 1 1 < > 1
'olumes 298 1 141 654 26 96 Z2_,
PHF or PK15 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.9~
",ane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.(
►rade 0 0 c
-o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) r:
,us Stops 0 0 I
'on. Peds 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N,
,rr Type 3 3 3
:TOR Vo1s 0 15
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.01-
nrop. Sharf.
Irop. Prot.
Signal Operations
'hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
;B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
vJB Left SB Left *
Thru Thru *
Right _ Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right .
;B Right WB Right
,reen 18.OA Green 34.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
^ycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 562 1774 0.571 0.317 12.1 B 11.5 B
R 501 1583 0.303 0.317 10.1 B
-B TR 975 1672 0.733 0.583 7.9 B 7.9 B
5B LT 422 724 0.923 0.583 25.8 D 25.8 D
Intersection Delay = 13.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
,ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.800
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBWI.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Major Street Direction.... EW -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
Other Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT PM Peak
INDIANA ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1069 198 115 493 114 174
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (.06)
SU/RV' s (26)
CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
- Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 _
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'IC5: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBWr.HCQ Page 2
Worksheet far TWSC Intersection
3tep l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
~anflicting Flaws : (vph) 666
?Qtential Capacity: (pcph) 537
Mavement Capacity: (pcph) 637
-
?rob. of Queue - F'ree State : 0.68
_33tep 2: LT frvm Majvr Street WB EB
:anflicting Flows: (vph) 1333
?otential Capacity; (pcph) 330
Mavement Capacity. (pcph) 330
?rvb. of Queue-Free State : 0.60
O"tep 4; LT fram Minvr Street NB SB
-onflicting Flows : (vph) 1869
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 68
Maj r r LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factar: 0.60
kdjusted Impedance Factor : 0.60
Capacity Adjustment Factar
c3ue to Impeding MQVements 0.50
Aavement Capacity : (pcph) 41
TI`1tersE?Ct1CC]n PerfCjrmanCe SL1mTtidz`y
A 0~~
vg. 9 F
Flow Mave Shared Total Que Li:::f
Rate: Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Dela:,-
,qavement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(see/veh) (veh) ( sec/v.~:_1; i
YB L 132 41 >
. - r
4 Yr ~p1 i f ~y=i' k
N$ R 201 637 >
;qB L 133 330 18.1 1.9 C 3.4
Intersection Delay - 165.2 sec/veh
`1'1`ie C::a1Cir11.c~~ed V"aiUe WaS eaCer tTlaLIi ~JJ . 9.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPBWI.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
7ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ih: (904) 392-0378
3treets : (N-S) BARKER ROAD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
lajor Street Direction.... NS -
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT PM PEAK
INDIANA ACCESS
['wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
.J0 . Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Iolumes 490 176 39 417 97 22
?HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
2C' s 06)
')U/RV' s (
cV' s
pCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
`Tehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Zight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Chrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPBWI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
')'tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows: (vph) 608
lotential Capacity: (pcph) 681
.•Zovement Capacity: (pcph) 681
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 _
')tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
;onflicting Flows : (vph) 701
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 794
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 794
Drob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94
CH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
_ZT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.92
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
:onf licting Flows : (vph) 1088
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 248
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.92
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.92
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.92
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 229
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
JB L 112 229 >
261 28.1 2.7 D 28.1
WB R 25 681 >
3)B L 45 794 4.8 0.0 A 0.4
Intersection Delay = 2.8 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBWI.HCO Page 1
~enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
sainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
4ajor Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
knalyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Jther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT PM Peak I
NDIANA ACCESS
I'wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 26 614 116 32 465 29 38 7 26 87 17 26
PHF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s 09)
SU/RV' s (115)
CV' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
I
.4aneuver Gap (tg) Time ( t f)
Lef t Turn Maj or Road 5.-00 2.10
I
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBWI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
'tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
-:onflicting Flows : (vph) 704 50'1~
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 609 771
L4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 609 771
prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96 -
')tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
:onflicting Flows : (vph) 764 517
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 741 9712
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 741 97-,L'
'?rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.9",
,6'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 170C
.tT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 170(_"
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.93 0.9,~
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EF
:onflicting Flows: (vph) 1282 1327
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 232 219
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 203 192
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.90 0.96
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
'IN
-onflicting Flows: (vph) 1284 1289
)otential Capacity: (pcph) 191 190
,4aj or LT, Minor TH
- Impedance Factor: 0.84 0.79
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88 0.84 _
:apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.84 0.80
4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 161 151
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBWI.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
iovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) _
EB L 44 151 > -
;B T 8 192 > 220 25.8 1.6 D 25.8
~B R 30 771 >
JB L 100 161 >
JB T 20 203 > 195 61.9 4.5 F 61.9
WB R 30 609 >
JB L 30 972 3.8 0.0 A 0.1
'B L 37 741 5.1 0.0 B 0.3
Intersection Delay = 6.8 sec/veh
I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPIIA.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
7niversity of Florida - 512 Weil Hall
?ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378 i
Streets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenu,=,
4ajor Street Direction.... NS
. jength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97 '
)ther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT PM Peak I
NDIANA ACCESS
Cwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound ~ Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T
_Jo. Lanes 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 1 1 <
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 26 614 116 32 465 29 38 7 26 87 17 26
?HF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
Grade 0 0 0 0
'IC' s ( °s )
')U/RV' s (0i)
cV' s (1-0)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Zight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
k,Tp I~/g ~7• T~~ ~ % ~ ~
NE~ R-T. TvFd ~ANF_
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPIIA.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
^onflicting Flows: (vph) 643 502
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 654 771 _
.4ovement Capacity : (pcph) 654 771
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.96 -
3tep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street SB NB
2onf licting Flows :(vph) 764 517
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 741 972
iKovement Capacity: (pcph) 741 972
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.97
rH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.93 0.95
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1221 1327
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 249 219
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88
Hovement Capacity: (pcph) 220 193
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.91 0.96
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 1224 1228
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 207 206
_Kaj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.85 0.80
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88 0.85
-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 175 167
1
HCS: Unsignalized lntersections Release 2.1c MISSPIIA.HCO Page
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
4ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) _
EB L 44 167 > _
;'B T 8 193 > 238 22.9 1.5 D 22.9
EB R 30 771 >
-113 L 100 175 44.9 2.7 E
VB T 20 220 > 33.8
v1B R 30 654 > 366 11.4 0.5 C
1B L 30 972 3.8 0.0 A 0.1
3B L 37 741 5.1 0.0 B 0.3
Intersection Delay = 4.2 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-20-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBPBWI.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
~omment: Buildout (2003) With Project, Anticipated Improvmnt, Indiana Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Tolumes 58 40 33 119 136 83 224 666 172 46 364 192
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
T,ane W( f t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
srade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0 p
~on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Irr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
ZTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Liost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
prop. Share
Irop. Prot.
Signal Operations
?hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
!,B Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.qB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
3B Right WB Right
3reen 18.OA Green 9.OA 31.OA
fellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combinat:-on order: #1 #5 ##6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 277 1020 0.498 0.271 15.1 C 15.1 C
'VB LTR 351 1292 1.012 0.271 56.8 E 56.8 E
JB L 253 1770 0.933 0.143 47.1 E 49.0 E
TR 827 1810 1.047 0.457 49.5 E
SB L 253 1770 0.190 0.143 17.1 C 11.8 B
TR 812 1777 0.681 0.457 11.3 B
Intersection Delay = 37.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L=. 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 1.017
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
'%nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBPBWI.HC9
Lrea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
I
--omment: Buildout (2003) With Project, With Add. Improvmnt, Indiana Acc
Eastbound ~ Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L• T R L T R
To. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
rolumes 434 1 387 579 38 128 367
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
T,ane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
?rade 0 0 0
s Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
~us Stops 0 0 0
:on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N ~ (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
~rr Type 3 3 3 3
ZTOR Vols 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
)rop. Prot.
Signal Operations
)hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
;B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.1B Le f t SB Le f t * *
Thru Thru * *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
>B Right WB Right
Jreen 18.OA Green 10.0A 30.OA
Zellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 482 1774 0.951 0.271 37.4 D 37.8 D
R 430 1583 0.947 0.271 38.2 D
fB TR 738 1667 0.857 0.443 18.3 C 18.3 C
.~B LT 1022 1589 0.510 0.643 4.7 A 4.7 A
Intersection Delay = 23.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
.jost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.641
YEAR 2003 (BUILD OUT) -
LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
WITH MISSION AVENUE ENTR.ANCE
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABWM.HCO Page 1
7enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
N
7ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets :(N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
4ajor Street Direction.... EW -
i,ength of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
ALnalyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
Jther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT AM Peak MI
SSION ACCESS
I`wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
lvo. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 259 104 102 1135 114 62
?HF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
VIC' s ( % )
Z-)U/RV' s ( °s )
CV' s 06)
PCE's 11.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
.4aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
I
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Etight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 202
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1094
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1094
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 _
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
::onflicting Flows: (vph) 404
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1040
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1040
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1720
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 84
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.88
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88
Kovement Capacity: (pcph) 74
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Kovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
VB L 140 74 >
110 525.1 15.5 F 525.1
NB R 76 1094 >
KB L 124 1040 3.9 0.4 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 52.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDABWM.HCO Page 1
'enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets :(N-S) BARKER RD (E-W) INDIANA AVE
4ajor Street Direction.... NS _
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas _
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
)ther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT AM PEAK
MISSION ACCESS
I'wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound ~ Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lane s 0 1 < 0 ~ 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 231 48 9 418 137 25
?HF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (o )
3U/RV' s ( % )
cv' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road- 5.00 2.10
Zight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
I'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDABWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB ~
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 284
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 994 _
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 994
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 _
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 310
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1220
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1220 ~
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 '
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 758
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 385
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 380
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
wB L 167 380 >
421 15.9 2.5 C 15.9
WB R 31 994 >
SB L 11 1220 3.0 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABWM.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... NS -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT AM Peak
MISSION ACCESS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound I Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 7 224 34- 14 507 31 22 8 47 111 10 34
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV's (o)
CV' s )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
TICS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
3tep 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
'2onf licting Flows :(vph) 268 580
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1013 704 _
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1013 704
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96 0.92 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
" onflicting Flows: (vph) 287 597
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1251 890
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1251 890
2rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
I'H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
.2T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
2onflicting Flows : (vph) 889 891
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 373 372
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97
_Kovement Capac i ty pcph ) 360 359
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.97
3tep 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 902 896
?otential Capacity: (pcph) . 318 321
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.93 -
%djusted Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.95
-apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.91
qovement Capacity: (pcph) 279 292
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSABWM.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 40 292 > -
EB T 10 359 > 435 11.0 1.0 C 11.0
EB R 57 704 >
WB L 135 279 >
WB T 12 360 > 338 23.3 3.1 D 23.3
WB R 42 1013 >
NB L 9 890 4.1 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 18 1251 2.9 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 4.3 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road -
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBABWM.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout (2003) With Project, Anticipated improvmnt, Mission Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R _
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Volumes 27 79 21 27 54 39 366 256 343 49 275 338
PHF or PK15 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
srade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3B Le f t * NB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
+]B Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
JB Right EB Right
SB Right . WB Right
3reen 14.OA Green 14.OA 25.OA
tellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Lycle Length: 65 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
"'B LTR 341 1477 0.405 0.231 14.2 B 14.2 B
WB LTR 329 1425 0.395 0.231 14.1 B 14.1 B
JB L 408 1770 0.974 0.231 44.2 E 33.1 D
TR 682 1706 0.931 0.400 26.1 D
5B L 408 1770 0.130 0.231 12.8 B 24.1 C
TR 686 1715 0.923 0.400 25.0 C
Intersection Delay = 27.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
-,ost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.801
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
-knalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBABWM.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 AM Peak
"omment: Buildout (2003) With Project, AnticipatedImprovmnt, Misson acces
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
Jolumes 298 1 141 654 26 88 267
PHF or PK15 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
_,ane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
3rade 0 0 0
's Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0
-on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
~rr Type 3 3 3 3
ZTOR Vols 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Drop. Share
?rop. Prot.
Signal Operations
?hase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S
?
,B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
.JB Le f t SB Le f t *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right _ EB Right
3)B Right WB Right
7reen 20.OA Green 32.OA
fellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: ##1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LT 621 1774 0.517 0.350 10.6 B 10.1 B
R 554 1583 0.274 0.350 9.1 B
IB TR 920 1672 0.778 0.550 9.8 B 9.8 B
jB LT 405 737 0.942 0.550 30.2 D 30.2 D
Intersection Delay = 14.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
,ost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.777
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBWM.HCO Page 1
;enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
3ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
:")treets : (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
4aj or Street Direction . . . . EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/26/97
Jther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT PM Peak
MISSION ACCESS
Pwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1096 198 115 493 114 174
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
KC' s (0-0)
Z-)U/RV's
CV's (°s)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
\4aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time (t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2_.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'ICS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
33tep l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
-onf licting Flows : (vph) 681
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 626
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 626
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.68 -
3tep 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
2onf licting Flows : (vph) 1362
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 318
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 318
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.58
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 1898
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 65
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.58
kdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.58
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.58
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 38
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9506
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
[VB L 132 38 >
88 * 31.6 F *
NB R 201 626 >
WB L 133 318 19.2 2.0 C 3.6
Intersection Delay = 178.2 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersectians Release 2.Ic INDPBWM.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Flarida -
512 Weil Hall
,7ainesville, FL 32511-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (iV-S) BARKER R(7PD (E-W) INDIA,NA AVE
Maj car Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min.)
Analyst tas -
Date of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Other Inf ormation . . . . . . . . . BUILl3 flUT (2003) W/ PR.OJECT PM PEAK
MISSIC)N ACCESS
Twa-way Stop-cantralled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1 { d > 1 d a Q 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stog/Y'ielcl N N
Volumes 498 161 28 431 86 16
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade Q Q Q
mc 's (o}
SU/RV' s ( o }
CV' s (106)
PCE`s 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Crit ical Follow--up
Maneuver Gap (tg ) Time ( t f)
Le f t Turn Maj or Road 5.00 2.10
-
Right Turn. Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Raad 5.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Rvad 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INDPBWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 608
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 681 _
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 681
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 693
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 801
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 801
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1092
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 247
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 234
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95% -
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 100 234 >
261 24.9 2.2 D 24.9
WB R 19 681 >
SB L 32 801 4.7 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 2.2 sec/veh
i
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBWM.HCO Page 1
:enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
Jniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
,ainesville, FL 32611-2083
?h: (904) 392-0378
3treets : (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
4ajor Street Direction.... NS -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Nnalyst tas -
)ate of Analysis.......... 8/18/97
Jther Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) WITH PROJECT PM Peak
MISSION ACCESS
rwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
LJo. Lane s 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 1 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 26 582 139 46 445 29 38 7 26 101 17 34
?HF .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955 .955
Grade 0 0 0 0
KC' s ( % )
3U/RV' s (0i)
CV's 0.0
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
\4aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road - 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
IN I0
L7 t ~-r T 1~,~ ,
w~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MISSPBWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
'onflicting Flows : (vph) 609 466
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 680 804
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 680 804
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.96 -
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 755 496
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 749 995
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 749 995
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 0.97
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
~onflicting Flows: (vph) 1180 1296
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 262 228
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.90 0.90
!4ovement Capacity: (pcph) 236 205
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92 0.96
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1167 1192
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 223 216
.4ajor LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.87 0.82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.90 0.87
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 193 176
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Aovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 44 176 >
EB T 8 205 > 251 21.1 1.4 D 21.1
EB R 30 804 >
;qB L 117 193 43.8 3.1 E
NB T 20 236 > 32.5
vVB R 40 680 > 418 10.1 0.5 C
~VB L 30 995 3.7 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 53 749 5.2 0.1 B 0.5
Intersection Delay = 4.5 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-20-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) I-90 WB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
),nalyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAWBPBWM.HC9
krea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
Comment: Buildout (2003) With Project, Anticipated Improvmnt, Mission Acc
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound _
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Jo. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 1< 1 1<
Jolumes 49 40 33 119 135 83 224 666 172 46 358 192
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
iiane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
srade 0 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
3us Stops 0 0 0 0
~on. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
krr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
2TOR Vols 0 0 15 30
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
E-'JB Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
vJB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
3B Right WB Right
.7reen 18.OA Green 9.OA 31.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combinat.on order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 292 1074 0.443 0.271 14.4 B 14.4 B
9B LTR 355 1308 0.997 0.271 52.4 E 52.4 E
VB L 253 1770 0.933 0.143 47.1 E 49.0 E
TR 827 1810 1.047 0.457 49.5 E
5B L 253 1770 0.190 0.143 17.1 C 11.7 B
TR 812 1776 0.674 0.457 11.2 B
Intersection Delay = 37.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 1.013
_.CM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 08-18-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
treets: (E-W) I-90 EB Ramps (N-S) Barker Road
Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: BAEBPBWM.HC9
.rea Type: Other 8-18-97 PM Peak
omment: Buildout (2003) With Project, Anticipated Improvmnt, Misson Acce
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R _
No. Lanes > 1 1 1< > 1
~olumes 434 1 387 579 38 122 367
HF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
rade 0 0 0
Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
r,arking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Rus Stops 0 0 0
on. Peds 0 0 0 0
ed Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3
.TOR Vols 0 15 0
,ost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
nrop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
B Le f t * NB Le f t
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
'B Le f t SB Le f t *
Thru Thru *
Right Right
Peds Peds
B Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
-reen 17.OA Green 42.OA
~ellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
t'ycle Length: 67 secs Phase combinat--on order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
B LT 477 1774 0.961 0.269 38.7 D 39.1 D
R 425 1583 0.957 0.269 39.6 D
B TR 1070 1667 0.592 0.642 5.1 B 5.1 B
B LT 535 833 0.961 0.642 28.9 D 28.9 D
Intersection Delay = 25.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Tost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.961
~ ~ -
.
3L
an 4m 4.
Planniriy, Englnsering, Arcfrkocturo, lrndsuping Archltscturo, Lend Survnybnp
C LG ASSOCIATES, I NC.
RECEIVED
FEa 2 8 2000
SPDKANE C4UNTY ENGINEER
FIE-GEIV'ED
S POKANE GOU NT1f
MAR 0 6 2000
5P'OKANE, WA • DENVER, C(]
CURRENT PLANNlNC DI'V1SICK,
~
DRAINAGE REPORT
for
MISSION MEADOWS
FEBRUARY 2000
CLC # 99079
Prepared by: CLC & ASSOCIATES
707 West 7th .Suite 200; Spokane, WA 99204; (509)455-6840
The design improvements shown in this set of plans and calculations conform
to the applicable editions of the Spokane County Standards for Road and
Sewer Construction and the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater
Management. All design deviations have been approved by the Spokane County
$ngineer. I approve these plans (calculations) for construction.
This report has been prepared by the staff of CLC & ASSOCIATES under the direction of the undersigned
professional engineer whose seal and signature appear~igron.
ef g K S-~
~ • r ~
~ ~ •
~ 0036212
♦
~ f• ~~~%ISTER~' ~"~.1
e.S:SIO N,A L
=XFIRtS os-ts-oo ~
John F. Saywers, P.E.
J
Stor•m Water Technical Evaluation
Narrative
GENERAL
The proposed development is situated on approximately 19.4 acres. The project is located
approximately 2000 feet East of Barker Road and North of Interstate 90 on the north side of Mission
Avenue. The site currently has one existing home and mostly vacant land with sparse field grass and
weeds as the only land cover and vegetation.
. PURPOSE
The purpose of this drainage report is to determine the extent of storm drainage facilities which will
be required to dispose of storm water runoff created by created by this development.. The ponds on
this project have been designed to contain the runoff from the 10-year storm event. This development
is within the Aquifer Sensitive Area of Spokane County and is subject to '208' requirements. For this
project the Intensity, Duration, and Frequency (IDF) curves from the Spokane, Medical Lake,
Reardon, Cheney and Rockford intensity curves were used.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The Rational Method, which is recommended for basins less than ten acres in size, will be used to
determine the peak discharges and runoff volumes for all of the basins since none of the sub-basins
exceed 10 acres.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is located in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 E., W.M. in Spokane
County, Washington.
TOPOGRAPHY
The site is gently sloping towards the north and the south at approximately one to two percent away
from a small rise 450 feet north of Mission Avenue.
SOILS
As can be seen from the accompanying soils map from the Spokane County Soils Survey as
performed by the SCS, the site consists of a Class B soil type. The soil description is as follows.
CLC & ASSOCIA TF.S D 1 A7ISSION MEADOWS Urainage Report
GgA - Garrison gravelly loam, U to 5 perceat slopes: This cpmplex of sail rs a somewhat
excessively drained soil formed frvm a variety of igneaus rock. Sur#'ace runaff is slow, and the
hazard of erosian is slight. Spakane +County Guidelines fvr Storm water Management indicate this to
be a Sail Group Type B and pre-appxoved for dryvvell installatian.
Hydroingie Soil Classifrcation - B
DR,AINAGE NARRA TI VE
Qf. f-site
Nv off-site basins cQntribute runoff to this site since Missian Avenue is fully improwed to the west
and drainage flaws to the west away fram the propased project, and unimproved land tv the east
slopes northerly, para11e1 to the praject baundary.
0'n-site
We prapose that drainage from the common access driwes be dispased of through 208 ponds via
catch basins and storm pipes as shown on plans. At the lacations where the use of inverted siphons,
we intend the road section be at 1% crass slvpe to allow runaff to cross roadway if upstream end of
siphon is plugged. If both catch basins are plugged, the runoff will travel averland thru easements tQ
ponds which are at Iow points. CaTculations using the Rational and Bawstring rnethods were run
considering impervious areas in the aroadway and sidewalk. As shvwn in the 1 G-year calculations the
pand valume available combined with the discharge from a Type B dryweils provides adequate
capacity. These basins and the ponds are shown on the basin map at the back of this repart.
►'21I8" Calculatrons
As shown on the '208' calculation worksheets included, the '248' storage volume provided is
adequate t4 perforrn '208' treatment for the runoff created by the first half inch af rainfall upon the
basin it serves.
.aRAINAGE CALCUII.AT'IDNSS U1V1MA R Y
Bowstring calculativns have been included for indiwidual basins to determine the extent of storm
draznage facilities xe+quired for the 10-year event. The basin characferistics are sumrnarizec[ below
with #he remaining, calculations in the appendix.
C:I,C &A55C1CIATES D2 AfI551C?N MEAU(7W.S Drairaage Report
TABLE 1- BASlN SUMMARY TABLE
BASIN TOTAL AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
(A CRES) (SF) (SF)
A 0.33 14,285 14,285 0.9
B& C 0.74 32,408 32,408 0.9
D 0.04 1,888 1,888 0.9
E 0.08 3,431 3,431 0.9
F 1.11 48,416 48,416 0.9
G 0.96 41,767 41,767 0.9
H 0.12 5,111 5,111 0.9
TABLE 2- POND SUMMARY TABLE
POND POND AREA 208' ASPHALT 208
VOLUME (CF) AREA VOLUME (CF)
PROVIDED REQUIRED
6" DEPTH
A 1,226 613 11,847 494
B & C 3,109 1,555 27,109 1,130 I
D 297 149 1,888 79
E 421 210 2,227 93
F 4,178 2,089 42,354 1,765
G 4,359 2,180 32,828 1,368
H 646 323 4,901 204
CLC & ASSOCI,9TES D3 rti11SSION NtEADOWS Drainage Report
• Runoff Coefficient for Basins A thru H are based upon a weighted "c" value of 0.15 for
pervious area ancl 0.90 for imperviotis area
CONCL USION
As demonstrated by the calculations and body of this report, the storm drainage facilities provided in
the design will adequately treat, store, and dispose of the storm water from the site. Additionally, the
"208" area required for the asphalt areas is provided.
CLC & ASSOCI.4TES D4 MISSION ME1DOW.S Drainage Report
APPENDIX
MAPS
VICINITY MA.P
SOILS MAP
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
10-Yr. RATIONAL CALCULATIONS
INLET CALCULATIONS
CONVEYANCE PIPE CALCULATIONS
RIPRAP CALCULATIONS
BASIN MAP
BASIN MAP
CLC & ASSOC1,9 TES D 5 MISSION AfEADO 3 'S Drainage Report
SOILS MAP
~
~
~
SCS SOIL SURVEY OF SPOKANE COUNTY
SHEET 68
E COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET NUMBER 67 I
R_ 4 :1 E I R. A 5 F. (Joins sFic-tt 58) ~
- - , - ~ - ~ i•~ ` -
~ _ - .f~~°/~S ~ _ ~ i. ~1a. .,a-a, _ ~ ~ A1tilA~L~
BC~ - 9C~ ~PSA
~ .
- ~ ~ _ ' ~ _ t:~~~"?: r~"~-,~~ ~5 ~
~ - " ~ ~ ~ r 5 Tk y r ~ • i: l ut~ i ~r~s~-`- r ~ = ' _ , . ~ f ~ ~F~ f-~-~ . -~r _ + ~
C r;<f!
-
~4, . s r ~ -=r ~
_7
. b,a,,,~• - ..+t . , ~t 1 ~ i { .m ~~'`1 'r ~~r~' ~ ~ y I~ ~ ~ ~ - - . _ ~ r,.i . ~ ~
~ n, f'(~ .~y~^ ' i~ ' ~ ~ _ ~ , t' 4 i.n~'• - ; l + ~?~.l 4~~_~
~L;~ ~1ir,;,;:r.A..~ n~i • F t11~ ~ ~ - . - ~ • - - . . . _ . . r~-r ~~~5.-c , - t?~3; ' !
`i~ ~ . f~~,F{~ ~ ' - ~ ,~'•1 ~
~ `ti,~_`~ 4~. r!* ~ .a. ~ _ ,F•,}~-.~~ ,r . i ~ ~ ~z:
['3 -i.~
~ . .
- - ~
' - _ -
""~+,re'Y~•w+~..i
. , .
r+
l
, .
. . ,
~ i-.# ~ t-~v~ -.~.'{t,•.k«i;~ ~ ~r T ~ ~ ~ ~ 3r i - s a - i ~L:~17 . ~F ~~s~ k A. - ~~1~~
.~~1 ~a.:.. ~~~T ~!►'ti , T "`N .~'t~ ti - _ f _ ~ ~ _ 15.:~ 1,~. . Y , .S~ts.
~ ,~,.t - .!R. w y~.,' ~ i ~ ' ~ l. ^ L ` J^ ~ . _ ,E. ` - .-i. ~~.ir.+'y-^I
~
. 1. a ~ ~ ~ .~f~'-~ - ~ ; s: _ a ~'~t r~t"'~j - ~•t .`i',T ~ v
'-~G • ~ ~ - ~'.~t ,~^.+C± : ~i<_ _ k'~_~ ~ . 3 : ~ ~ ~tF~j 4`•<`~y Y . . ~ ~ ~
,x-w 7 . ~ , S, ..~s`- Yt~ . i Z f r-i[•- rt ~ ~.i.'i ~::~kN ~~:C . j `i - ~ ~T''F - .
' K f ~ _ i . T ~<'t .s. ~~3' Sr"•-~~.~ j. _ . ; ~ ~ - f,+r~ .~r .~x i
: r `t"' r 1 3t`!~ i~.~= ~~y'`~L ~rr, )~~;.,F~'~_~yd•[- '=l~~t~ 7' A~
Y~'t1 7. ~ i .i`~°.~~y~ysi.A~~ r,. --;~a'~i~: c-3if-'+~'''.-~ ~!-`s~'~ - L t ~ ~'i.,J ''.fs ri. .yti .~L-••:
~ a;~ . F 'i~ > ~ ~ - .~r t ~ ~ , ~ , S~ . ~ . ~ ~ ti4w " ~ ~ ; ` ~ V f.f ~ ~:1 ~
_f~Q' ,S~s~F•
.t~ ,'r.~ ~ f,,.~i1t~:.~z~~~.- ,y"~-► ~,.~•'~s~ J'i" 1~ ~ ~ - - 7-G ~ R ,3!t,'~
.K Y -tB ' j 1 y• ~_y, y~ ~ ti' ' - r i °}?2'Y.:•y1}~/y~ • I
"}Fi~ ~ .ie~.~.[~~~~ ~W2 _ ]S.✓ii:''1?s~` "'~Y< E ~l/ ~ `r _ t~ ~ t ~ 1 ~ ~
~ : r~-, _ ~ t?~s'` ~y- • ~ "~'w~ , , _ ~ 't _ ~ i `
(
~ t
~~}7<
A ~ - ` •,~yU~~ 4
~ ~ 1 _ - "^'~~y. r„fs{ s - ~ .c y-~ ~s ~ Yh -1 ~ .1,~ ~a~~.~`y .
L
~ .T -r'~ ~ •r. _ ' i ~+,3'~ - . ~ -.►3
- 1' ~~4~ ~ r[ ~ ~ ' V = r ~•.s~ ~~t` ~ _ , ~ r., _ -rt 11 ~ r
-3• ~ r f.: = r t, ~JS'' ~ r~-=i7 ~ ~ ~ f 1t ~ - A S ' 1 ~i .B . ..4 h
fia ~ • j ~ ~ :i[~' 7 J ~r
. ,
. ~ -
~ ! - . r f a ~r ' c ~ - /
.
P
.
. ,
~-.1.,^3• 7 ~ •J?:~~""St~ '1~=:5- ''~`.'`Y ~t - s.._ ) ...:t t ~1. `t ~]T' l.~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ r ~~~y~- yf r R~'~ ~
~
.-y
\ '1{j ~ - ~ r~_`' q ~_Y` ~.,a„
r ~
n: ~ ~2i'7 ~ ~'`-~cJ'~~~'~~7+~' ,j ~ •i !'t - L s t~ ' ~ `~"~l'; t1\ - - . ' cJ
~i• . '
V
~..L
4
~
v`
~t' ~'ti • ru ~ j ju~ .4~ ; r ~ r' Ez✓/.s at'+~, , , ~'~~i~~ " e ~3..-, ~
t, ~4'?~~ _ ;P',', ~ . q - _ r. _ g ^ ~ • ` ~y ~ .a~ -t`£+ , ~ x . ` 'b{f''k~~,v ,?.j
zY
_ i«:;.~~` _ _ _•<4T~t
+~w.i 'z y ~VI i~f~.r> ~ h . ~ `r _ 3' _ - t ~ _ r ti.~~~%''^La
r
.
1-
- _ - ~ ~ zT °~x 'Le= ~If s "r? :r ` ~31•I~ i r i j~r^•{j~~~.j~h~f
,1~.._ . r,-~~'' ~r y~. .t. - ~ Itr . - - . . . ,~.~,f~X + i
4 . 7
~Y
a _ ~ ( y'-:+c..w -_r +~~y~' 1~~' - ii ~ ~ ~ -
~ T • _ - • . . ~ ~ . f~ lt"-
: , `,J`;
1~ d-' ~ ~ ! ~:u ` - ~ ra{ y :Y'y - i.->~ I ~ _
C. ~ r~' . ~ r{ h _~~y~ I! L`AC~ ~ A . 1 =tlx - Vr ~ _ _ - _ 5 s~ ; ~.~i
~ . . . .
_ r ~ _ ~ht~ I2 •!Y t'= ! ..S„~ ~'-1<~_^.Ir Ea'~ ~ - 1 ' '~1.."1.~--_
. •r r `F~- -r~. '~k-~ ;tr~~~.'1'~.'i- - ~S _ - ' ~,'•1
~y~ .I' ~ Y . 3, y~~i~~.-. ' ~1= • ~C ?R •S~r ( '~~,~$y . _
? - - ~ " ~ t { ~1 ~.~rf •+f`~` , ~ ~ ~ _ -
z r_~ ~ ~I~ -7 ~ _ , -~~~y~, ,o _ ~ i i _ _ - - '
~ 6;•: ~ .j~. :~~"a'~~ ~ ~~VT 1'.j•;'^~c.~ Wf ~R Y ~i~~ ~,5- .,l'~~~"~y' ~ .
. ;
.
,
L...
.
. - ; ~r
. . . , . ~ ~ . .
/ .
. ~ . . ~
. . ~ . , , . .
- - ~ ' - n , ~ ;i' , . t ~ ~ ~ n
a~ ` ~ ~ _ _ ` `~_~lr _ ` 1. ~ 1~ i~~ 4 ~r- ~
1 yh sV'4+ =~1~".~ ~ 'i~~ ~ ?~3#.r' ~;,~,~y~ e r`-3~r ~ r~~~ ; l y~r~~ ~ ~ ~ • , ' . .
r . _ . . _ . • ~
z c ~ J.k. ~t{~'X~ ~'m~~~.s~`~' fr- r ~-.s'"y-il"`?: ,.~a,. ~~I~ P r.< • _ F~;
w
h;t.. n ~,.y ~ ',i~~ ~~{i♦s~~=~„{ti•, k~'s, -t "~.~~j _ s ~~-fis:~: ~ j~ _ . • i • j"V...
- re''-i+~ - j 3`-=
- ~ . ,
=+f
N_~ , Y }.sf ' Y ~2•-~ G'' 1< < ~ ~F ~ r~j t y~.~ . _ n ~ ~ ' ~ _ „ ~ _
.
Ty~
. 1
: r . ~'.i ~ t"
j ~ ~~i.~Gt'~` J', . • ^C~.. 4. 1 . r-• . L~.~~~^~,_- ~7,a ~.t~p, t t~c7~ ~ ,~f~-<<ia. ~,~~i,c~~;~ ~ . _ . - .
- ~ f~""':- .
: .
. . • . . _ . . , , .
-w y ~ - , r.~ , . ti.,~;•.- ~".a:'.~
1'~f_i. ~,~~'.-~r'., ~;I4- .r - - s~` 'S~` - Ci~;r~' .ri .i .;y, • ''t. ~;i - . _ ~~i`r~,.
-J,~ .1 - ' ~F•7~ ~i' : Y ~~S f ~ .ti.v ~w..~ , fsi ~ ~ ;f~ ~ 'Sr~ ' f .'ab~' r=T - L . ' e ' a~.-'#
.Y . ,
, . _
. . - ' . -
. , . . . - .
' _ . _ .~I _ ~_x . - - '
- - ~ - . _ . - ~ - - - - - - - - - '
- ~ - - - - . ~ ^ - - - - ~ - - ~ - . _
(Joins sheet 76)
1 Mile 5000 Feet
Scale 1: 20 000 0
~ ,
VICINITY -MAP
i
~
/ I I ^
7
MONTGOMERY P
ROJEGT
SPOKANE R\\JR LOCATIOIV
~
CD
INDlANA AVE. ~
"rn
~
~ ~
°
X o
D
MISSION AVE. /
_ . . , ~
pNE
B0
F
V ~ N ~Y
MAP
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
~
10-Year Oesign Starm 80W5TRlNG METHQD PROJECT, MISSION MEADOWS
PEAK FLOW CALCUlAT10N PRaJECT MISSIflN MEADQWS DETENTION BASIhI QESIGN BASIN; A
BASIN; A 10-Year Design Storm QESIGNER: JFS
Toi. Area 0.33 Acres DATE: 2119100 11:1 Q
Asph. AreE 11847 SF
C = 0.90
Time Increment (min) 5
GASE 1 Time af Canc, (min) 5.09
Outflaw (cfs) 1
0 fl. Overland Flow Design Year Fgaw 10
Area (aeres) 0,3279
Ct = 0.15 Asphalt Area (sq,f1,) 11847
L = fl ft. 'C' Factor 0.9
n= 0,40 '208' Volume Provided 613
(7,[
S ~ O.rl~/~ Eq6Pd ,!(Y9P 4Ft' /~CGP V p~j * /~A~7
V 11 e L I,ItteEat[t: fS ~.6
Ezn~ad4#+r n[n.
.aaF3aac;eatnen
Tc = 0,00 rnin,, by Equation 3-2 af Guitlelines
7ime Time Inc. 6ntens. Q Devel, Vol,fn Vol.Qut Starage
286 ft. Gutter flow {min} (see) (inlhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu fi) {cu ft)
Z1= 50.0 ForZ2 5.01 301 3,18 0,94 378 301 77
Z2 = 4.5 Type B =1.4
n= 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 5 300 3.18 0.94 371 300 77
S= 0.005 Wedge=4.5 10 604 2.24 0,66 464 600 -136
15 900 1.77 0,52 524 900 -376
d= 0,110 ft. 20 1200 1,45 0.43 557 1200 -643
25 1560 1.21 0.36 572 1500 -928
A R Q Tc Tctatal I Qc 30 1800 1,04 0.31 584 1800 -9216
35 2100 0.91 0,27 591 2100 •1509
0,33 0.05 0.31 5.01 5.01 3.18 0.94 40 2400 0,62 0,24 606 2400 -1794
45 2100 0.74 0.22 612 2700 -2088
Qpeak for Case 1= 4.94 cfs 50 3000 0.68 0,20 623 3000 -2377
55 3300 0,64 0,19 643 3300 -2657
60 3600 0.61 0.18 666 3600 -2934
CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0,18 709 3900 -3191
70 4200 0.58 0,17 736 4200 -3464
Case 2 assumes a Time af Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the 75 4500 0.56 0,17 761 4500 -3139
peak flow =.90(3. t$)(Imp, Area) = 0.7$ cfs 80 4800 0,53 0.16 767 4800 -4033
85 5100 0.52 0.15 798 5100 -4302
90 5400 0.50 0.15 812 5400 -4585
So, ihe Feak flow for the 8asin is the greater of the two flaws, 95 5700 0.49 0,14 839 5700 -4861
0,94 cfs 100 6040 0,48 0,14 864 6000 -5136
108' tiRAINAGE WOND GALCIJLATIONS
Required'20$' Siarage Volume
= Impervious Area x,5 in I 12 inlft 494 cu ft
3H .
206' Starage Volume Pravided 613 cu ft
aRYWELL REQUIREMENTS -10 YEAR DESIGN STQR
Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 77 cu ft
Number and Type of Drywefls ReGuired 0 Single
1 Double
10-Year Design Stortn BOWSTRING METHOD PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT MISSION MEADOWS DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: B& C
BASIN; B& C 10-Year Design Storm DESIGNER JFS Tot, Area 0.74 Acres DATE; 211 9100 1 1:27
Asph, AreE 27109 SF
C = 0.90
Time Increment (min) 5
CASE 1 Time of Conc. (min) 5.86
Outflow (cfs) 1
0 fl. Overland Flow Design Year Flow 10
Area (acres) 0.744
Ct = 0,15 Asphalt Area (sq,ft.) 27109
L= 0 ft. 'C' Factor 0.9
n= 0,40 '208' Volume Provided 1554
S= 0,020 Area " C 0.670
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel, Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage
423 ft, Gutter flow (min) (sec) (inlhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft)
Z1= 50.0 For Z2 5.86 352 2,93 1.96 926 352 574
Z2 = 4.5 Type 8 =1.0
n= 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 5 300 3.18 2.13 856 300 556
S= 0.008 Wedge= 4.5 10 600 2.24 1,50 1079 600 479
15 900 1.77 1.19 1208 900 308
d= 0,110 ft, 20 1200 1.45 0.97 1281 1200 81
25 1500 1.21 0,81 1312 1500 -188
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 30 1800 1.04 0.70 1337 1800 -463
35 2100 0.91 0,61 1352 2100 -748
0.33 0.05 0.40 5.86 5.86 2.93 1.96 40 2400 0,82 0,55 1383 2400 -1017
45 2700 0.74 0.50 1397 2700 -1303
Qpeak for Case 1= 1.96 cfs 50 3000 0.68 0,46 1420 3000 -1580
55 3300 0,64 0.43 1465 3300 -1835
60 3600 0.61 0,41 1519 3600 -2081
CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0,40 1615 3900 -2285
70 4200 0.58 0,39 1678 4200 -2522
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the 75 4500 0.56 0.37 1732 4500 -2768
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.78 cfs 80 4800 0.53 0,35 1746 4800 -3054
85 5100 0.52 0,35 1817 5100 -3283
90 5400 0.50 0,33 1848 5400 -3552
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 95 5700 0.49 0,33 1909 5700 -3791
1.96 cfs 100 6000 0.48 0.32 1967 6000 -4033
208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS
Required'208' Storage Volume
= Imperoious Area x,5 in 112 inlft 1130 cu ft
208' Storage Volume Provided 1554 cu ft
DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS -10 YEAR DESIGN STOR
Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 574 cu ft
Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single
1 Double
10-Year Design Storm BOWSTRING METHOD PROJECT; MISSION MEADOWS
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT MISSION MEADOWS DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: D
BASIN: D 10-Year Design Storm DESIGNER JFS
Tot. Area 0,04 Acres DATE: 2119l0011:17
Asph. Aree 1888 SF
C = 0,90
Time Increment (min) 5
CASE 1 Time of Conc. (min) 5,00
Outflow (cfs) 0.3
0 ft. Overiand Flow Design Year Flow 10
Area (acres) 0,0433
Ct = 0,15 Impenrious Area (sq ft) 1888
L= 0 ft. 'C' Factor 0,9
n= 0.40 '208' Volume Provided 149
S= 0.020 Area " C 0,039
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
Time Time Inc. Iniens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage
110 ft, Gutter flow (min) (sec) (infhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft)
Z1 = 50.0 ForZ2 5,00 300 3.18 0.12 50 90 40
Z2 = 4,5 Type B =1.0
n= 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 5 300 3,18 0.12 50 90 -40
S= 0.005 Wedge = 4.5 10 600 2.24 0.09 61 180 -119
15 900 1.77 0,07 69 270 -201
d= 0.110 ft, 20 1200 1.45 0.06 74 360 -286
25 1500 1.21 0.05 76 450 -374
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 30 1800 1.04 0,04 77 540 -463
35 2100 0,91 0,04 78 630 -552
0.33 0.05 0.31 1.93 5.00 3.18 0.12' 40 2400 0,82 0.03 80 720 -640
45 2700 0.74 0.03 81 810 -729
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.12 cfs 50 3000 0.68 0.03 82 900 -818
55 3300 0,64 0.02 85 990 -905
~ 60 3600 0.61 0.02 88 1080 -992
CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0.02 94 1170 -1076
70 4200 0.58 0.02 97 1260 -1163
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the 75 4500 0.56 0.02 100 1350 -1250
peak flow =,90(3,18)(Imp, Area) = 0.12 cfs SO 4800 0.53 0.02 101 1440 -1339
85 5100 0.52 0.02 105 1530 -1425
90 5400 0.50 0,02 107 1620 -1513
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 95 5700 0.49 0.02 111 1710 -1599
0.12 cfs 100 6000 0.48 0,02 114 1800 -1686
208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS
Required'208' Storage Volume
' = ImpeNious Area x.5 in ! 12 in/ft 79 cu ft
208' Storage Volume Provided 149 cu ft
DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS -10 YEAR DESIGN STOR
Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring -40 cu it
Number and Type of Drywells Required t Single
0 Double
10-Year Dssign Siorm gUWSTRING METFfQD PRJJECT: MISSION MEADOVUS
PEAK FLOW GALCULATION PROJECT MISSION MEAQOWS ° DETENT{ON BAS1N DESIGN BASIN: E
BASIN: E „!,j14-Year Design 5torm DESIGNER:JaP
Tot. Area 0,08 Acres pATE: 211910011:19
Asph. Aree 2227 SF
C ~ 0,90
7ime Increment (min) 5
CASE 1 Time of Conc. (min) 5,00
Outflow (cfs) 0.3
0 ft. Overland Flaw Design Year Flow 10
NE y`Vi;, Area (aeres) 0,0788
Ct = 0,15 `iAsphaEt Area (sq,fi.) 2227
L= Q ft, '1iji`Factor 0.9
n = ~1,40 ~ '208' Volume Provided 210
<<<„S= 0.020 ` ArEa' C 0.071
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
N,' Time Time Inc. Intens. QDevel. VoIJn Vol,Out Slorage
159 ft. Cutter flow (min) (sec) (inlhr) (c!s) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft)
Zi = 50.0 Far Z2 5.00 300 3.18 0,23 91 90 1~==
Z2= 4.5 Type8-1.0
n= 0,016 Rolled = 3.5 5 300 3.18 023 91 90 1<==
S= 0A05 Wedge = 4.5 10 600 224 0.16 112 180 -68
15 960 1.77 0,13 126 270 -144
d- 0.110 ft. 20 1260 1.45 0.10 134 360 -226
25 1500 121 0.08 137 450 -313
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 34 1800 1,04 4.47 140 540 -400
35 2100 0.91 0.46 142 630 -488
0.33 0,05 0.31 2,79 5,00 118 0.23 40 2400 0,82 0.06 146 720 -574
45 2700 0,74 0.05 147 810 -663
Qpeak for Case 1= 0,23 cfs 50 3000 0.68 0.05 150 900 -750
55 3300 0,64 0.05 154 990 -836
64 3600 0.61 0.04 160 1080 -920
CASE 2 1165 3900 0.60 0.04 170 1170 -1000
70 4200 0.58 0.04 177 1260 -1083
Case 2 assumes a Time of Cancentration less than 5 minutes so ihatlhe 75 4500 0,56 0.04 183 1350 -1 #67
peak flow =,90(3.18)(Imp, Area) = 0.15 cfs €$0 4800 0.53 0.04 184 1440 -1256
85 5100 0.52 0.04 192 1530 -1338
90 5400 0.50 0.04 195 1620 -1425
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater ot fhe two Flows, 95 5700 0.49 0.03 202 1710 -1508
0.23 cfs ' 100 saaa 0,48 0.03 208 1800 -1592
208' DRAINAGE PONQ CALCIJI.ATIC3NS
Required'20$' Storage VQlume
~
= Imperuious Area x.5 in 112 inlft 93 cu ft
208' Storage Volume Provided 214 cu ft
~ DRYWE4.L REQUIREMENTS - 30 YEAR DESIGN STC?R
~ NEaximum Storage Required by Bawstring 1 cu ft
Number and 7ype af Drywells Required 1 Single
~ 0 Qoubie
10-Year Design Storm BOWSTRING METHOD PROJECT; MISSION MEADOWS
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT MISSION MEADOWS DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASW; F
BASIN: F 10-Year Design Storm DESIGNER: JFS
Tot. Area 1,11 Acres ~ DATE: 211910011:21
Asph. Arez 42354 SF ~
C = 0.90
Time Increment (min) 5
CASE 1 Time of Conc, (min) 16.25
Outflow (cfs) 1
0 ft. Overland Fiow Design Year Flow 10
Area (acres) 1.1115
Ct = 0.15 Asphali Area (sq.n.) 42354
L= 0 ft. 'C' Factor 0.9
n= 0.40 '208' Volume Provided 2089
S= 0.020 Area * C 1.000
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
' Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage
1097 ft. Gutter flow (min) (sec) (inlhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft)
Z1 = 50.0 ForZ2 16.25 975 1.68 1.68 2199 975 1224
Z2 = 4.5 Type B =1.0
n= 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 5 300 3.18 3.18 1279 300 979
S= 0.007 Wedge = 4.5 10 600 2.24 2.24 1802 600 1202
15 900 1.77 1.77 2135 900 1235
d= 0.110 ft. 20 1200 1.45 1.45 2221 1200 1021
25 1500 1.21 1,21 2217 1500 717
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 30 1800 1,04 1.04 2218 1800 418
35 2100 0.91 0.91 2213 2100 113
0.33 0.05 0,37 16.25 16.25 1,68 1.68 40 2400 0,82 0.82 2241 2400 -159
45 2700 0,74 0.74 2244 2700 -456
Qpeak for Case 1= 1,68 cfs 50 3000 4.68 0,68 2266 3000 -734
55 3300 0.64 0.64 2325 3300 -975
' 60 3600 0.61 0.61 2399 3600 -1201
CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0.60 2540 3900 -1360
70 4200 0.58 0.58 2629 4200 -1571
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the 75 4500 0,56 0.56 2707 4500 -1793
peak flow =.90(3,18)(Imp. Area) = 2.78 cfs 80 4800 0,53 0.53 2721 4800 -2079
85 5100 0,52 0.52 2825 5100 -2275
90 5400 0.50 0.50 2867 5400 -2533
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the iwo flows, 95 5700 0.49 0.49 2956 5700 -2744
2.78 cfs 100 6000 0,48 0.48 3040 6000 -2960
208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS
Required'208' Storage Volume
Impervious Area x.5 in 112 iNft 1765 cu ft
208' Storage Volume Provided 2089 cu ft
DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS -10 YEAR DESIGN STOR
Maxumum Storage Required by Bowstring 1235 cu ft
Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single
1 Double
10-Year Design Slorm BOWSTRING METHOD PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT MISSION MEADOWS DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: G
BASIN: G 10-Year Design Storm DESIGNER. JFS
Tot. Area 0.96 Acres DATE: 211910011:24
Asph, Arez 32828 SF
C = 0.90
Time Increment (min) 5
CASE 1 Time of Conc. (min) 12.21
Outflaw (cfs) 1
0 ft. Overland Flow Design Year Flow 10
Area (acres) 0.9588
Ct = 0,15 ASPw4LT AREA (SF) 32828
L= 0 ft. 'C' Factor 0.9
n= 0,40 '208' Volume Provided 2180
S= 0,020 Area * C 0.863
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 af Guidelines ~
Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage
935 ft. Gutter flow (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft)
Z1= 50.0 For Z2 12.21 733 2,00 1.73 1695 733 963
Z2 = 4.5 Type B =1.0
n= 0.016 Ralled = 3.5 5 300 3.18 2.74 1103 300 803
S= 0.009 Wedge = 4,5 10 600 2.24 1.93 1554 600 954
15 900 1.17 1.53 1755 900 855
d= 0,110 ft, 20 1200 1,45 1.25 1813 1200 613
25 1500 1.21 1.04 1826 1500 326
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 30 1800 1.04 0,90 1839 1800 39
35 2100 0.91 0.79 1845 2100 -255
0.33 0.05 0.42 12.21 12.21 2.00 1.73 40 2400 0.82 0.71 1875 2400 -525
45 2700 0.74 0.64 1883 2700 -817
Qpeak for Case 1= 1.73 cfs 50 3000 0.68 0.59 1907 3000 -1093
55 3300 0.64 0.55 1960 3300 -1340
60 3600 0,61 0.53 2026 3600 -1514
CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0.52 2148 3900 -1752
70 4200 0,58 0.50 2227 4200 -1973
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the 75 4500 0.56 0.48 2295 4500 -2205
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 2.16 cfs 80 4800 0.53 0.46 2309 4800 -2491
85 5100 0.52 0,45 2400 5100 -2700
90 5400 0.50 0.43 2437 5400 -2963
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 95 5700 0,49 0,42 2515 5700 -3185
2,16 cfs 100 6000 0.48 0,41 2588 6000 -3412
208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS
Required'208' Storage Volume
= Impenrious Area x,5 in ! 12 in/ft 1368 cu ft
208' Storage Volume Provided 2180 cu ft
DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS -10 YEAR DESIGN STOR
Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 963 cu ft
Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single
1 Double
10-Year Design Storm BOWSTRING METH00 PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: H
BASIN: H 10-Year Design Storm DESIGNER: LFS
Tot. Area 0.12 Acres DATE: 02119100
Imp. Area 4901 SF
C = 0.90
Time Increment (min) 5
CASE 1 Time of Conc. (min) 11,54
Outflow (cfs) 0.3
0 ft. Overland Fiow Design Year Flow 10
Area (acres) 0.1173
Ct = 0.15 Impervious Area (sq ft) 4901
L= 177 ft. 'C' Factor 0,9
n= 0.40 1208' Volume Provided 323
S= 0.011 Area * C 0,106
Tc = 7.40 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Voi.Out Storage
299 ft. Gutter flow (min) (sec) (inlhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft)
Z 1= 50.0 For Z2 11.54 692 2.07 0.22 203 208 -5
Z2 = 4.5 Type 6 =1.0
n= 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 5 300 3.18 0.34 135 90 45
S= 0.008 Wedge = 4.5 10 600 2,24 0.24 190 180 10
15 900 1,17 0.19 212 270 -58
d= 0.110 ft. 20 1200 1.45 0.15 220 360 -140
25 1500 121 0.13 222 450 -228
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 30 1800 1.04 0.11 223 540 -317
35 2100 0.91 0.10 224 630 -406
0.33 0.05 0.40 4.14 11.54 2.07 0.22 40 2400 0.82 0.09 228 720 -492
45 2700 0.74 0.08 229 810 -581
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.22 cfs 50 3000 0,68 0.07 232 900 -668
55 3300 0.64 0.07 239 990 -751
60 3600 0.61 0.06 247 1080 -833
CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0.06 262 1170 -908
70 4200 0,58 0.06 272 1260 -988
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the 75 4500 0.56 0.06 280 1350 -1070
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.32 cfs 80 4800 0.53 0.06 282 1440 -1158
85 5100 0.52 0.05 293 1530 -1237
90 5400 0.50 0.05 297 1620 -1323
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 95 5700 0.49 0.05 307 1710 -1403
0.32 cfs 100 6000 0.48 0.05 316 1800 -1484
208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS
Required'208' Storage Volume
= Impervious Area x.5 in / 12 in/ft 204 cu ft
208' Storage Volume Provided 323 cu ft
DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS -10 YEAR DESIGN STORI
Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 45 cu ft
Number and Type of Drywelis Required 1 Single
° 0 Double
INLET CALCULATIONS.
MISSION MEADOWS 99079
Spokane County, Washington 2/19/0010:24
10-Year Strom Event Engineer: JFS I
CURB DROP FLOW CAPACITIES
in Sump Conditions
Curb Inlet Basin Basin + inlet Maximum Maximum By-Pass
Inlet STREET Inlet Type Peak Flow By-Pass* Length Flow Depth" Discharge*** Flow
(cfs) Q (ft) H Qa Q- Qa
TYPE 2
A1 GRADY LANE CURB 0.49 0.49 4.00 0.33 2.34 -1.85
TYPE 2
A2 GRADY LANE CURB 0.29 0.29 4.00 0.33 2.34 -2.05
TYPE Z
B 1 AUGUSTA LANE CURB 0,66 0.66 4.00 0.33 2.34 - l.68
TYPE 2 -
B2 AUGUSTA LANE CURB 0.43 0.43 4.00 0.33 21.34 -1.91
TYPE 2
CI MCMILLIAN LANE CURB 0.55 0.55 4.00 0.33 2.34 -1.79
TYPE 2
C2 MCMILLIAN LANE CURB 0.49 0.49 4,00 0.33 2.34 -1.85
TYPE 2
D HODGES LANE CURB 0.12 0,12 4.00 0,33 2.34 -2,22
TYPE 2
E HODGES LANE CURB 0.23 0.23 4.00 0.33 2.34 -2.11
NOTE: TYPE 1 CURB INLET TYPE 2 CURB INLET Qa = 3.087 ~ L~ H^ 1.5
Curb Inlet Depression = 2 in. Curb Inlet Depression = 2 in. Where L= Length of Curb Drop, H= Flow Depth
Maximum Inlet Height = 6 in. Curb Inlet Length = 4 ft.
Maximum Inlet Height = 4 in.
~ By-Pass flows from upstream inlets on continuous grades.
Maximum Flow Depth is based on Inlet height
Calculated per Section 4-1 of the Spokane Counry Guidelines
for Stormwater Management
CurbDropS
MISSION MEADOWS 99079
Spokane County, Washington 2/1910010.27
10-Year Strom Event Engineer: JFS
CURB DROP FLOW CAPAC[TIES
in Sump Conditions
Curb Inlet Basin Basin + Inlet Maximum Maximum By-Pass
Inlet STREET Inlet Type Peak Flow By-Pass* Length Flow Depth" Discharge*** Flow
(cfs) Q (ft) H Qa Q- Qa
TYPE 2
F1 BALDWIN LANE CURB 1.53 1,53 4.00 0.33 2.34 -0.81
TYPE 2
F2 BALDWIN LANE CURB 1.25 1.25 4,00 0.33 2.34 -1,09
TYPE 2
G1 BALDWIN LANE CURB 1.14 1.14 4.00 0.33 2.34 -I.20
TYPE 2 -
G2 BALDWIN LANE CURB 1.02 1.02 4.00 0.33 2.34 -1.32
TYPE 2
H GRADY LANE CURB 0.32) 0.32 4,00 0.33 2.34 -2,02
NOTE: TYPE 1 CURB INLET TYPE 2 CURB INLET Qa = 3.087 ~ L* H^ 1,5
Curb Inlet Depression = 2 in. Curb Inlet Depression = 2 in, Where L= Length of Curb Drop, H= Flow Depth
Maximum Inlet Height = b in. Curb Inlet Length = 4 ft.
Maximwn Inlet Height = 4 in,
~ By-Pass flows from upstream inlets on continuous grades.
Maximum Flow Depth is based on Inlet height
Calculated per Section 4-1 of the Spokane County Guidelines
for Stormwater Management
CurbDropS
T ~T~
LCLLATIQ
PIPE CA
-mq
Al P-1 A2
P-2 - ~
:
O,
Project Tide; MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:lmissfon meadouvslmmeedow4.stm Inland Paalfio Enpineerlnp Co. StamCAD v1.0
02/06I00 05:52;57 PM 0 Haested Methods, Inc. 37 Brodcside Roed Weterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: A1
Tot. Area 0.17 Acres
Imp. Area 4748 SF
C = 0.90
CASE 1
0 ft. Overland Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
188 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type 6= 1.0
n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5
S = 0.005
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc
0.33 0.05 0.31 3.29 5.00 3.18 0.49
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.49 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.31 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,
0.49 cfs
,
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BAS I N : A2
Tot. Area 0.10 Acres
Imp. Area 4282 SF
C = 0.90
CAS E 1
0 ft. Overland Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
187 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0
n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5
S = 0.005
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc tota I 1 Q c
0.33 0.05 0.31 3.28 5.00 3.18 0.29
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.29 cfs
CASE 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.28 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the finro flows,
0.29 cfs
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Downstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) Size Velocity Invert Invert Slope Crown Depth Ground HGL Flow (cfs)
(ftls) Elevation Elevation (ftJft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (cfs)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 A2 A1 23.50 12 inch 0.60 32.75 32.50 0,010638 33.50 2,30 0.013 35.78 34,81 0.47 0.47
P-2 A1 Outlet 75.00 12 inch 2.42 34,36 33.90 0.006133 34.90 0,50 0.013 35.78 34.72 0.47 0.75
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Praject Engineer, CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lmmeadows.stm Inland Pacffic Engineering Co, StormCAD v1.0
02108100 01:00:44 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 oi 1
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- -Siope- -Sectlon- Length Average Oischarge Capaciry System Roughness
Upstream Upstream Upatream Upstream Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
DovmsVeam Downstream Dawnstream Downstream Constructed Size (ft/s) Time
(ft) (ft) (fttft) (min)
P-1 A2 35.78 34,81 34.81 0,000174 Circular 23.50 0,60 0,47 3.67 0.00 0.013
A1 35.78 34.60 34,81 0,010638 12 inch
P-2 A1 35,78 34.72 34.85 0.005309 Circular 75.00 2,42 0,75 2.79 0.65 0.013
Oudet 36.00 34.46 34.48 0.006133 12 inch
ProJect Title: MISSION MEADOWS Projxt Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:lmisalon meadawslmmeadows.strn Inland Paolile EnplnNrinp Co. ' StamCAD 0.0
02/06/00 08:46:44 PM m Haeatad Nbthods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1868 Pape 1 of 1
EMIR
- - - ~ ~ , 36.00
_
Ou let. Outlet '
Ri : 36,00 ft Inl t: A1 Inl t; M50
;
Sump: 33.90 ft , Ri : 35,78 ft Ri ft
- i Suinp:_32.11 ft_ Sum 1 ft
~ - - - - - - 34.50
34.00 Elevation ft
~ 33.50
- - - ~
33,00
. ' 32.50
32,00
Pipe: P-2 Pipe: P-1
0+00 0+20 Uoigrt, 34,36 ft 0+60 0+80 Up Invert; 32.1tqP
Dn Invert; 33Mtfbn ft Dn Invert: 32,50 ft
Length: 75,00 ft Length: 23.50 ft
Size;12 inch Size:12 inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:lmission rneadowslmmeadows,stm Inland Paaliic Enalnserlnp Co. StormCAD v1.0
02/08/00 07:55:43 PM C) Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
A1 TO POND
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File untitled_fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Elemerrt Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Soive For Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Ccefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.006000 ft/ft
Diameter 12.00 in
Discharge 0.75 cfs
Results
Depth 0.36 ft
Flow Area 0.25 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 1.28 ft
Top VVidth 0.96 ft
Critical Depth 0.36 ft
Percent Full 35.62
Critical Slope 0.005669 ft/ft
Velocity 2.99 ft/s ~
Velocity Head 0.14 ft
Specific Energy 0.50 ft
Froude Number 1.03
Ma)dmum Discharge 2.97 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 2.76 cfs
Full Flow Sbpe 0.000443 ff/ft
Flow is supercrifical.
I
02J06100 Acadeiric Edition FlowMaster v5.17
06:02:46 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 af 1
B1 P-1 B2 P-2 , P 0 N D B-C
,
~
ProJect Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Englneer: JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c,Misslon meadowalb.stm Inland Paalfla Enplneerlnp Co. StamCAD v1.0
02l06100 07:39:14 PM m Haestad Methode, Inc. 37 Brookside Roed Weterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1688 Pape 1 of 1
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: B1
Tot. Area 0.23 Acres
imp. Area 7286 SF
C = 0.90
CAS E 1
0 ft. Overland Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
270 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For ZZ
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0
n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5
S = 0.008
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc tota I I Q c
0.33 0.05 0.40 3.74 5.00 3.18 0.66
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.66 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.48 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,
0.66 cfs
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: B2
Tot. Area 0.15 Acres
Imp. Area 6600 SF
C = 0.90
CAS E 1
0 ft. Overland Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
223 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0
n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5
S = 0.008
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc
0.33 0.05 0.40 3.09 5.00 3.18 0.43
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.43 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.43 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,
0.43 cfs
J
MEN"
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Downstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) Sae Velociry Invert Invert Slope Crown Depth Ground HGL Flow (cfs)
(fUs) Elevation Elevation (ft/ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (cfs)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 B1 62 23.50 12 inch 0,85 32.56 32.33 0.009787 33.33 2.40 0.013 35.56 34.74 0.67 0.67
P-2 B2 POND B-C 85.00 12 inch 3.05 34.19 33.50 0.008118 34.50 0,50 0.013 35.56 34.63 0.67 1.10
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lb.stm Inland Pacffic Engineering Co. StormCAD 0,0
02l08100 01:03;05 PM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- -Slope- -SecUon- Length Average Discharge Capacity System Roughness
Upatream Upstream Upstream Upstream Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
Dovmstream Downstream Downstream DovmsNeam ConsVucted Size (ft/s) Time
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (min)
P-1 81 35.58 34,74 34,75 0.000354 Clroular 23,50 0.85 0,67 3.52 0.00 0,013
B2 35.58 34,73 34.74 0.009787 12 inch
P-2 132 35.58 34.83 34.80 0.007974 Circular 85,00 3.05 1.10 3.21 0.46 0,013
POND B-C 35.50 34.00 34.12 0.008118 12 inch
ProJect Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:lmisaion meadwvalb.stm Inland Pocific Engin**rinp Co. StormCAD 0,0
02/06/00 08;43:27 PM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
B2 TO POND B-C
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project Fite urrtitled.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
SoNe For Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficierrt 0.013
Channel Slope 0.008000 ft/ft
Diameter 12.00 in
Discharge 1.10 cfs
Results
Depth 0.41 ft
Flow Area 0.30 ftZ
Wetted Perimeter 1.38 ft
Top Width 0.98 ft
Critical Depth 0.44 ft
Percent Full 40.53
Critical Slope 0.005882 ft/ft
Velocity 3.68 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.21 ft
Specific Energy 0.62 ft
Froude Number 1.18
Ma)dmum Discharge 3.43 cfs
Full Flaw Capacity 3.19 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.000953 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
02J06J00 Academic Edition FlativllAaster v5.17
07:41:25 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Pege 1 af 1
36.00
35.50
- - - - .
Qwlet: POND B-C ' Inl t: B2 ~ Inl t: 61
Ri ' : 35.54 ft Ri ; 35.56 ft Ri ; 35.56 ft 35.00
Su p; 33.50 ft ! Sump:-31:59 ft i_ Suinp; 31.69 ft 34.50
, I 34.00
Elevakion ft
- _ - - ! 33.50
, .
~ i 33.D0
~
32.50
~
I
32.00
Pipe; P-2 ' Pipe: P-1 31.50
0+00 0+20 0}4~ Invert: 34.19 #t 0+60 0+80 Up kh&: 32.56 ft 1+20
Dn Invert: 33.50 ftStatian ft Dn Invert: 32,33 ft
Length: 85.00 ft Length: 23.50 ft
Size;12 inch Size;12 inch
Praject TitCe: MISSION MEADQWS Project Enqineer; JONN SAYWERS, P.E.
c,lmissivn rneadawslb.stm Inlond Pac6ftc EnglnesrEng Co. StarmCAD v1.0
02I06104 07:54:27 PM &9 Haestad EVlethods, inc. 37 Brookside Raac! Waterbuty, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 page 1 of 1
POND B-C P-2 C1 P-1 C2
r, i7 ❑
;Project Tltle: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:lmisalon meadowalc.sVn Inland PaolTla Enplnoorlnp Co. StamCAO v1,0
02J06/00 08:29:03 PM 0 Haeatad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookaide Roed Weterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1668 Page 1 of 1
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: C1
Tot. Area 0.19 Acres
Imp. Area 8413 SF
C = 0.90
CAS E 1
0 ft. Overland Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
338 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2= 4.5 TypeB=1.0
n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5
S = 0.008
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc tota I I Q c
0.33 0.05 0.40 4.68 5.00 3.18 0.54
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.54 cfs '
CASE 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.55 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,
0.55 cfs
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: C2
Tot. Area 0.17 Acres
Imp. Area 4810 SF
C = 0.90
CAS E 1
0 ft. Overland Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines
210 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0
n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5
S = 0.008
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc tota I I Q c
0.33 0.05 0.40 2.91 5.00 3.18 0.49
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.49 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.32 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the finro flows,
0.49 cfs
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Downstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) Size Velocity Invert InveR Slope Crown Depth Ground HGl Flow (cfs)
(ft/s) Elevation Elevation (ft/ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) {cfs)
(h) (ft) (ft) (h)
P-1 C2 C1 23.50 12 inch 0.61 32.56 32.33 0.009787 33,33 2,39 0.013 35.56 34.72 0.48 0.48
P-2 C1 POND B-C 85.00 12 inch 2,94 34,19 33.50 0.008118 34,50 0.50 0.013 35.56 34,62 0.49 1.04
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lc.stm Inland Pac(fic Engfneering Co. StonnCAD 0.0
02/08100 01:03:26 PM (D Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- -Slope- -Section- Length Average Discharge Capacily System Roughness
Upstream Upstream UpsVeam Upstream Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Constnicted Size (ft/s) Time
(ft) (ft) (ft) (fttft) (min)
P-1 C2 35.56 34.72 34,73 0.000182 Circular 23,50 0,61 0,48 3.52 0.00 0,013
C1 35.56 34.72 34.72 0,009787 12 inch
P-2 C1 35.56 34,82 34,78 0.007908 Circular 85.00 2,94 1.04 3.21 0,64 0.013
POND B-C 35.50 34,00 34.11 0.006118 12 inch
ProJect Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:lmfsaion meadowalc,strn Inland Pacific EnpinNrlnp Co. StamCAD 0,0
02/06/00 08:25:20 PM 0 Haeetad Methoda, Inc. 37 Brookaide Roed Wetobury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1868 Page 1 af 1
I ; 36.00
-----T---- 35.50
: C1 ~ Inl t: C2
du,let: POND B-C Inl j
Ri i: 35.50 ft - Ri : 35.56 ft Ri : 35.56 ft 35.00
S,x p; 33.50 ft Surnp: 31.69 ft Sump: 31.69 ft 34.50
~
~ _ ~
34.00
, Elevation ft
33.50
33.00
i _
,
~32.50
32.00
Pipe: P-2 i Pipe: P-1 31.50
0+00 0+20 0+0 Invert: 34.19 ft 0+60 0+80 Up Ihk0t: 32.56 ft 1+20
Dn Invert: 33,50 ft Station ft Dn Invert; 32.33 ft
Length: 85,00 ft Length: 23.50 ft
S¢e:12 inch Size:12 inch
Prqect Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:Miasion meadavslc.stm Inland Paclfla Enpinesrlnp Co, StormCAO 0.0
02/06J00 08:25:54 PM m Haestad Methods, inc. 37 Brooksida Roed Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
C 1 TO PON D B-C
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File untitled.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Sotve For Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Ccefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.008000 ft/ft
Diameter 12.00 in
Discharge 1.22 cfs
Results
Depth 0.43 ft
Flaw Area 0.32 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 1.43 ft
Top Width 0.99 ft
Critical Depth 0.47 ft
Percerrt Full 42.92
Critical Slope 0.005979 ff/ft
Velocity 3.79 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.22 ft
Specific Energy 0.65 ft
Froude Number 1.17
Ma)timum Discharge 3.43 cfs
Full Flaw Capacity 3.19 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.001173 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
02/06/00 Academic Edition FlawMaster v5.17
08:13:33 PM Haestad Methads, Inc. 37 Brodcside Roed Wa2erbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 d 1
P.10 PO%D D
~
A-
~
Project Tifle: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:ld.stm Inland Pacific Engineering Co. StormCAD v1.0
02107I00 04:01:48 PM C) Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Now"
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Downstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) Size Velocity Invert Invert Slope Crown Depth Ground HGL Flow (cfs)
(ff/s) Elevation Elevation (ft/ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (cfs)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 I D I POND D I 12.00I 8 inch I 0.511 35,42I 35,30I 0.010000I 35.97I 0.50 0.013I 36.60I 35.80I 0.12I 0.12
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:ld.stm Inland Paciflc Engineering Co. StormCAD 0.0
02l08100 01:03:58 PM C) Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- -Slope- -Section- Length Average bischargd Capacity System Roughness
Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Constructed Size (ftls) Time
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ftlft) (min)
P-1 D 36.60 35.80 35.60 0.000176 Circular 12.00 0.51 0.12 1.21 0.00 0.013
POND D 36.30 35.80 35.60 0.010000 8 inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: ClC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:ld.stm Inland Pacific Engineering Co. StormCAO v1,0
02107100 03:53:55 PM (D Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
D TO POND D
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File untitled.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOVV'~--)
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formul~
Solve For Channel Depth
I
Mannings Coeffic;ent 0.0113
Channel Slope 0.010000 Diameter 8.00 in
Discharge 0.12 cf~ I
Results
Depth 0.14 ft
Flow Area 0.05 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 0.64 ft
Top Width 0.55 ft
Critical Depth 0.16 ft
Percent Full 21.28
Critical Slope 0.006490 ft/ft
Velocity 2.21 ff/s
Velocity Head 0.08 ft
Specific Energy 0.22 ft
Froude Number 1.23
Maximum Discharge 1.30 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 1.21 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.000099 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
02107/00 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
04:03:03 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
PO%D E P.10 E
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a;le.stm Inland Pacmc Englneering Co. StormCAD 0.0
02l08l00 09:28:54 AM (D Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Downstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) Size Velocity Invert Invert Slope Crown Depth Ground HGL Flow (cfs)
(fUs) Elevation Elevation (ft/ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (cfs)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 I E POND E I 18.00I 10 inch I 0.85I 35.44I 35.30I 0.007778I 36.13I 0.50I 0.013I 36.60 35.80I 0.23 0,23
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:le.stm Inland Paciflc Engineering Co. StormCAD 0.0
02/08/00 01:04:18 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
=MR
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- -Slope- -Section- Length Average bischargd Capaciry System Roughness
Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Constructed Size (ftls) Time
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (min)
P-1 E 36,60 35.80 35.81 0.000437 Circular 18.00 0.85 0.23 1.93 0.00 0.013
POND E 36,30 35.80 35,81 0.007778 10 inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:le.stm Inland PacNlc Engineering Co. StormCAD 0.0
02/08/00 09:21:37 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
E TO POND E
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File untitled.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.007800 ft/ft
Diameter 10.00 i n
Discharge 0.23 cfs
Results
Depth 0.19 ft
Flow Area 0.10 ft,
Wetted Perimeter 0_84 ft
Top Width 0.70 ft
Critical Depth 0.21 ft
Percent Full 23.28
Critical Slope 0.006003 ft/ft
Velocity 2.39 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.09 ft
Specific Energy 0.28 ft
Froude Number 1.14
Maximum Discharge 2.08 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 1.93 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.000110 ft/ft ~
Flow is supercritical.
' I
02/08/00 Academic Edition FtowMaster v5.17
09:28:40 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
F~
PM ~
2
F
~
PM2
PO%D F
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c;1m16610n R198dONV81(.ShT1 Inland Paclfla Enplneorinp Co. StamCAD v1.0
02/06100 09:54:21 PM m Haedtad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Roed Weterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1668 Pege 1 oi 1
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- Slope- -Section- Length Average Discharge Capacity System Roughness
Upstream Upstream UpsVeam Upstr~eam Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
Downstream Downstream Dovmstream Downstream ConsVucted Size (ft/s) Time
!ft) (n) (ft) (ftm) (min)
P-1 F1 29.73 29.23 29,29 0.001844 Circular 23,50 1,95 1.53 3.52 0.00 0,013
F2 29.73 29,19 29,25 0,009787 12 inch
P-2 F2 29.73 29,03 29,30 0.007881 Circular 57.00 4,42 2.78 5.80 0,20 0,013
POND F 31.00 28,51 28,85 0.008070 15 Inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYINERS, P.E.
c:lmission meedwvsV.stm Inland Pociflc Enylnesrlnp Co. StormCAD 0.0
02/08/00 10:04:09 PM m Haestad Nbthods, Inc, 37 Brookaide Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1866 Page 1 011
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Oownstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) Size Velociry Invert Invert Slope Crown Depth Ground HGL Flow (cfs)
(fUs) Elevation Elevation (ft/ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (cfs)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 F1 F2 23.50 12 inch 1.95 26.73 26.50 0,009787 27.50 2,69 0.013 29.73 29.23 1',53 1,53
P-2 F2 POND F 57.00 15 inch 4.42 28,36 27.90 0.008070 29.15 0.61 0.013 29.73 29.03 1.53 2.78
~
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:li.slm Inland Pacific Englneerfng Co. StormCAD 0.0
02/08/00 01:04:41 PM 4 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
31,00
O;u,lefi POND--F , -
R'ni; 31.00 ft 30.50
S,uinp; 27,90 ft 'i 30.00
~
~
Inl~t; F2 - ; - Iml~ -
t: F1 29,50
Rim. 29,13 ft Rini: 29,73 ft
'
,
- w 9.00
Surnp; 26.06 ft aump: 26.06 - ~ i ~ 28,50 Elevation ft
I ~
28,00
. I ,
~ - - 27.50
~ ' _
,
_ 27.00
_ _ _ - . I 26.50
26.00
+ + + P -2 + + P ~ +
0 00 0 10 0 20 0 50 0 60 0,
Ufgel: 28~6~~ U +I vert. 26~~~~t 0 90
Dn Invert: 27,90 ftStation ft Dn Invert: 26,50 ft
Length: 57,00 ft Length; 23.50 ft
Size.15 inch Size:12 inch
Project Title; MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
c:lmission meadowslf.stm Inland Pacltlc EnalnssrlnQ Co. StormCAD v1.0
02l06/00 10:03:46 PM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brodcside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Pege 1 of 1
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: F1
Tot. Area 0.58 Acres
Imp. Area 23299 SF
C = 0.90
CAS E 1
0 ft. Overland Ffow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40 S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidehries
855 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0
n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5
S = 0.020
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc tota I I Q c
0.33 0.05 0.63 7.49 7.49 2.60 1.36
Qpeak for Case 1= 1.36 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.53 cfs
~
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,
1.53 cfs
1 0-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT:MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: F2
Tot. Area 0.53 Acres
Imp. Area 19055 SF
C = 0.90
CAS E 1
0 ft. Overiand Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidefines
1042 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0
n= 0.016 Rolled=3.5
S = 0.007
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc
0.33 0.05 0.37 15.43 15.43 1.75 0.83
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.83 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.25 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the finro flows,
1.25 cfs
~
F2 TO POND F
Worksheet for Circular Channei
Project Descripbon
Project File untitied.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth
Inp<rt Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Sbpe 0.008000 fG{1
Diameter 15.00 in
Discharge 2.78 cfs
Resuits
Depth 0.61 ft
Flow Area 0.60 f2
Wetted Perimeter 1.94 ft
Top Width 1.25 ft
Critical Depth 0.67 ft
Percent Full 48.89
Critical Slope 0.005890 ft/ft
Velocity 4.66 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.34 ft
Specific Energy 0.95 ft
Froude Number 1.19
Ma)amum Discharge 6.21 cfs
Full Flaw Capacity 5.78 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.001852 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
I
02/06/00 Academic Edition FlawMaster v5.17
10:00:41 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 BrooFcside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 vf 1
1
POND G
P-Z.=
,
G2.
~
P-1
G1
PrOject 1 1 lie. tu11551UN N1EAD
a:lg.stm StormC
Inland Pacific Enyineeriiiy Go.
02/07/00 02:34:15 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 AD v1.~
Page 1 ot 1
10-Year Design Storm
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN: G1
Tot. Area 0.42 Acrc, s
I mp. Area 17284 S F
C = 0.90
CASE 1
0 ft. Overland Fiow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 ft.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
I
Tc = 0.00 min., by Equation 3'-2 of Guidelines
661 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0 n = 0.016 Rolied = 3.5
S = 0.009
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc
0.33 0.05 0.42 8.63 8.63 2.42 0.92
Qpeak for Case 1= 0.92 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.14 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,
1.14 cfs
PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT: MISSION MEADOWS
BASIN- G2
Tot. Area 0.54 Ac re s
Imp. Area 15544 SF
C = 0.90
CASE j
0 ft. Overiand Flow
Ct = 0.15
L = 0 it.
n = 0.40
S = 0.020
Tc = 0.00 min., hy F_(ji.aation 3-2 oi GUidelillcs
880 ft. Gutter flow
Z1 = 50.0 For Z2
Z2 = 4.5 Type B= 1.0
n = 0.016 R~ ,tI d - ~.5
S = 0.009
d = 0.110 ft.
A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc
0.33 0.05 0.42 11.50 11.50 2.08 1.01
Qpeak for Case 1= 1.01 cfs
CAS E 2
Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the
peak flow =.90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.02 cfs
So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,
1.02 cfs
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Downstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) S¢e Velocity Invert Invert Slope Crown Depth Ground HGL Flow (cfs)
(ftls) Elevation Elevation (ft/ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (cfs)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 G1 G2 23,50 12 inch 1.45 25.45 25.22 0.009787 26.22 3.23 0.013 29.03 28.47 1.14 1,14
P-2 G2 POND G 55.00 12 inch 4.30 27.66 27.20 0.008364 28.20 0.59 0.013 29.03 28,29 1.14 2.16
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lg.stm Inland Paciflc Englneering Co. SlormCAD 0.0
02/08/00 01:05;09 PM C) Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- -Siope- -Section- Length Average bischargd Capacity System Roughness
Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Constructed Size (fVs) Time
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ftlft) (min)
P-1 G1 29.03 26.47 28.51 0.001024 Circular 23.50 1.45 1,14 3.52 0,00 0.013
G2 29,03 28.45 28,48 0.009787 12 inch
P-2 G2 29.03 28.29 28.56 0.008296 Circular 55.00 4.30 2,16 3.26 0,27 0.013
POND G 29.00 27.79 28.10 0.008364 12 inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lg.stm Inland Pacfflc Enginesring Co. StormCAD v1.0
02/07/00 02:26:45 PM C) Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 oi 1
Outldt: POND G Inlet; G2 Inlet: G1
Rim: 29.00 ft Rim: 29.03 ft Rim: 29.03 ft
Sum~: 27,20 ft S15:03-# Stm;). 25.03 ft
/
i
I
Pipe: P-2 Pipe: P-1
Up Invert: 27.66 ft Up Invert: 25.45 ft
Dn Invert: 2720 ft Dn Invert: 25.22 ft
Length: 55.00 ft Length: 23.50 ft
Size:12 inch Size:12 inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lg.stm Inland PacNic Englneering Co, StormCAD v1.0
02/07100 03:11:23 PM (D Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Walerbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 oi 1
G2 TO POND G
VVorkstieet for Circular C}ianne(
Projer_t Description
Project File untiileci.fir,12"
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formul:I
Solve For Channel Depth
If1pU i Dcata
Mannings Coef-ficieni 0.013
Channel Slope 0.0080u0 ft%~,
Diameter 12.00 ir
Discharge 2.16 ci ~
~r:-s'..IS
Depth ~ p
Flow Area 0.50 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 1.78 ft
Top Width 0.98 ft
Critical Depth 0.63 ft Percent Full 60.35
Critical Slope 0.007094 ft/ft
Velocity 4.36 ftls
Velocity Head 0.30 ft
Specific Energy 0.90 ft
Froude Number 1.08
Maximum Discharge 3.43 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 3.19 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.003676 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
02/07/00 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
03:09:04 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
POND H
,
~
;
;
;
~
~
/
%
P
i
~
~
,
7
Project Titie: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lh.stm Inland Paciflc Engineering Co. StormCAD v1.0
02/08l00 11:20:16 AM C) Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Combined PipelNode Report
Pipe Upstream Downstream Length Section Average Upstream Downstream Constructed Downstream Downstream Roughness Upstream Upstream Known Discharge
Node Node (ft) Size Velacity Invert InveR Slope Crown Depth Ground HGL Flow (cfs)
(fVs) Elevation Elevation (ftlft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (cfs)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P•1 I H I POND H I 65.00112 inch I 1.561 32.45I 31.80I 0.010000I 32.80I 0.50I 0.013I 34,32I 32.68I 0.32I 0.32
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lh.stm Inland Pacific Engineering Co. StormCAD 0.0
02/08/00 01:05:33 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Walerbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
DOT Report
Pipe -Node- -Ground- -HGL- -EGL- -Slope- -Section- Length Average bischargd Capaciry System Roughness
Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Energy Shape (ft) Velocity (cfs) (cfs) Flow
Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Constructed Size (fUs) Time
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (min)
P-1 H 34.32 32.68 32,77 0.007001 Circular 65.00 1.56 0.32 3.56 0.00 0.013
POND H 34,60 32.30 32.31 0.010000 12 inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer. CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lh.stm Inland Paciflc Engineering Co. StormCAD v1.0
02l08/00 11:20:08 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Ou~let: POND H
Ri ; 34.60 ft Inl~t; H
Su p: 31.80 ft Rini: 34,32 ft
Sump: 30.28 ft
~
Pipe: P-1
Up Invert: 32,45 ft
Dn Invert: 31.80 ft
Length. 65.00 ft
Size:12 inch
Project Title: MISSION MEADOWS Project Engineer: CLC ASSOCIATES, JOHN SAYWERS, P.E.
a:lh.stm Inland Pacific Englneering Co. StormCAD v1.0
02/08100 11:20:43 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc, 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
HTOPONDH
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File untitled.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Diameter 12.00 in
Discharqe 0.32 cfs
Results
Depth 0.20 ft
Flow Area 0.11 ft '
Wetted Perimeter 0.93 ft
Top Width 0.80 ft
Critical Depth 0.23 ft
Percent Full 20.25
Critical Slope 0.005678 ft/ft
Velocity 2.81 ft/s
~
Velocity Head 0.12 ft
Specific Energy 0.33 ft
Froude Number 1.32
Maximum Discharge 3.83 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 3.56 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.000081 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
02/08/00 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
11:22:09 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Curve
Plotted Curves for Circular Channel
~v c,
Project Description
Project File untitled.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formu
Solve For Channel Deptr,
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.009
Channel Slope 0.020000 ff/ft
Diameter 12.00 in
Input Data
Minimum Ma)dmum Increment
Discharge 0.00 8.00 0.10 cfs
1.0 Channel Depth vs Discharge
0.9 ~
0.8
0.7
$ 0.6
t
~
a
a)
00.5
m
c
c
m
0.4
U
0.3
0.2
0.1 ~
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Discharge (cfs)
02/06100 Acadernic Edition FlwvMaster v5.17
08:55:14 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Curve
Plotted Curves for Circuiar Channel
Dve--T i, , _ , ~
Project Description
Project File untitfed.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Elemerrt Circular Channel
Method Manning's Form«Va
Solve For Channel Depth
Constant DaiL-7
Mannings Coef hcieri-L U. u'i 2
Channel Slope 0.020000 ftifi
Diameter 12.00 in
Input Data
Mir~irn~.~,>> iViaxiro1um Increment
Discharc,.
~
0.8 Channel Depth vs Discharge
/
0.7
0.6 I
$ 0.5
r
n.
m
C) 0.4
z
c
c
m
U 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Discharge (cfs)
02/06/00 Academic Edition FlvwMaster v5.17
08:52:07 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
C u rve
Plotted Curves for Circular Channei
~V(" I
Project Descri;-,fi~;r,
Project File orlti~itd fni<=:
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Discharqe
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.009
Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
Diameter 15.00 in
Input Data
1"J!n lfliU.`11 ~7~s?Clfil~_iiTl 1r1CfE:f11t:f[lI
Depth F)C) 0 ~r; ft
Discharge vs Depth
16.0
-
14.0
%
12.0
,
10.0 /
~
~
U
~
N
~ 8.0
co /
r
U
n
~
6.0
4.0 ~
/
2_0 /
0.0 -
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 i 4
Depth (f±;
02119/00 Academic EdiUon FlowMaster . '
10:54:50 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page i
Curve
Plotted Curves for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File untitled.fm2
Worksheet MISSION MEADOWS
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Discharge
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.012
Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
Diameter 15.00 in
I n put Data
Minimum Maximum Increment
Depth 0.00 1.20 0.10 ft
12.0 Discharge vs Depth
10.0 /
/
~
8.0 /
~
~
~
U
~
N
6.0
c~
r
U
~
~
4.0 /
2.0 '
0.0 =
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Depth (ft)
02/19/00 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
10:55:30 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
1
i
I
i
RIPRAP CALCULATIONS
. ~
. .
. . 3 0, ~ -
. J . .
. . ~ c~
T • - . .
. z
' ~10 . . .
o v
,
`
L s? .
t..,
~ ~ ~ ►
- bo
~ . •
~ ~
1
. . . k 1 ~ ~
.
? I ON
.
. ~i . ~ .
~
coNF'~ ~ FGR
. . • . - - ~ ~ ot,.
~ _
~ ' ! ' ~ ..i - _ _ _
~
. 1NJ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ • v I , ~
~ ~ 1~~~ ~1~. . I , ~ ~1~..~~-..~..~.~.....~...~. y.i
~ ~ I~~_I. ~ ' G1 ~ ~ . .._I_._ _ _
~ o.~ . . ~ r iM ~ ~ ~ y r~ .w _ - _ ~
~ _ ._.I. ._._1 ~ . • '
I n•
j. . _.1.._.. _ _ . ~~i
, , ` . , I ~ ' ~ ~ I..~.j.~•_ ri IV I I`~ I L ~....I O~ _ ,I I ...r, w _+~w.n ..~..w~. ~ .~~.i. r.. r ~.~~f ~
_ M : ~ , U• -
LO'-
. . -Q~ i ~ ~ ( i , , ~ ,~,I ( ; "p' ~ Al
,(,NJ ~ ( v~ ! ' ~ s •--~--r~. ' -
, ~ ~ ~ _ I _ _ . ~ ; ; , ; , ~ I l ~ ► • 1 . !
vi..
_ ♦ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~-~'!---:~/.~.'~"1 - ~ J. l I1 ` .r1,
; - b ~ i ~ ` I ' ; 0 c`~!,
, , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ v ,~3~ ~ `~~~j_;
~ • i ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ~ _ _ ~ ta _ u ~ z ~ _ ! _..~._y'~ o . ' U, ~._..1... . _ _
r-
. _....v _
Ct.
~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ; ~ ~ ~ i ' . ...'..r! ! . 'T .-I_ J__~ 1 _ . _ 1 _ . .
J - - , , f,~, r, • I~ ~r - _t~' o ~ ~ ~ ~ I
vi
vi
~ ~ ~ ' ~ Q ~•I~~ ~ - ~ ,4 ~ _ c~~ _
I(
! . ~ I--r ~ ~ . ~ .._.'.:-~i _ . ,...,~1 - -
. L _1~_
{~j + '.....i._r ~ J , ! J ..r..._..,.._ - . , , , . I, r , ~ v , ~ ~•i I , ,
l-q U I S I A I CI
, .E~ , . J , . J J .
~ c ~AN JJ l aQ , ,
.
~
-tt
.
~ i
.
~ . . '
_
~
~ .
t I 1 i~" r~
0 • - _ ~ ~ --1_~ I._ j 1 , ~.I ~ 7-• ,
.
~ _ ! 1...I...! ~ . ~ -
,
,
j-~ ~ ~ • i ~ _ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, l
i I_ 4
_ r.' .~_a_~_ . J. • 1.. - ~ ~ _ 1. , ~ ~ 1 . _ 1 1,.. _.L_i.. ' _~L.i
_ I
~ ~ ~ I ~-1-I' {_.~_~r _T - - • ~ j ~ , . _ a ~ _ . i I_~.. _ . , ~ ' 1_.j_._..~_....1~ ' f_'-1_,
.
~ ' ~ - - - - -r ~ ~ t-
„
, ~ . .
i_ .
~
..1. _1-.47 fJ
g b ~~t
_1_ . 1 ._L..,..~_
. `
I ~
; ~ ~I_~ 1 ~ i.~ ri_V _ ..-i' , ~ , M 1 ..1... ~ ~ i.~. ~ C_~ I
- - ~
_ 4-
.
,
. !
. ; ,
0 r_ i
i ,
r t r~~ ~}t n ~
.r •
_j- 1_.L_-1
~ N ~ ~_I . _ . ~ E .A 1. . _ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ i i . .i~L 1-; _~•y --~-1. ! ;.^I'~_~.~~ ~ ~
~ ~ a a
0 3 L
r h h.r
~
, F_L..~.L ~ .t _ .....1.~,. ! _►-~-i-~fi_t~.!.. 1
~ ~ i , ~ i ► , . ~ ~ ~
r
y
.
~ _ _ . - .
L.. . _ .
. ~ .
...._1.....1~ ~..,.J ~..1.., L..~ ^T ~ •~i.~.rJ..:._~ i ' ~ i 1.:_._._....~_ ~ ~T . -1- 1_ . ~
.~...~....~.►.T .....Y ...+r n_ _ _ .
I
1
e~...~..
.
~ «I . v.. i.....
~
' I .
~ -
~
_ ~ . . .
F 1- ~ .
~
. .
. i. . ~ . _
~
. .
~ . ,
4 ,
1. ,J..
a~.
.~~_~J• ~--4_~_ _ ~.I_..~..J ~ ; ~1. ~ i ~ ~ ~ _ _j_r . I _i ~ ~._1.~, ~ ~ . J._i ~ ~ j_~-~_~ ~ A
~
. . . . - - _
-
,
-
_
,
. _ ,
. _ _~~1... . ,
y ~I-. '
r ;
_ ~ ~ _ -~i• .
A~-^~
-
~L
' , . . _ ' . . I. ' V
I I i I
J~ -~1-~-
~
1_...
,
• „ ~ ~
~ •r--+-.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --~-~--i- ~ , ;
. ~
.
I.
~
~ ~ I
t
~
r
I... ~
~ ~
~ 1 . .
t_.~. Ti,~1._,
J_..
_ . _ . ,
-i -
!
i _ i
, . _
_
.
. ~ _ - _ _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~1... . _ i_. _.,L. , ~ ~ .a I [~I L~ _ , ;_I._ _ I--..
r a , ~ ~ 1 : ~ l ~ -I- - I_t._L' ~ ,_~.L._ _l. ~ ~ ~ .J. , ! . . i_t a ~ . .
~ ob^ ab
. _i-•~.. . , _!._L1 .rt.. l~__, ~.J. ; : ~ _ .
.
^
~
. ; ~ ~i
"
0 3L ^
~ ~ I ' 1 ~ ~ ,.-I _ _ _ _ _ , I~ , . . ~ ._1.1..~_i 1_i ~ i ±I.~.-~- - a~ ~
~ ~ r ' ~ ~ I ~ I ~~_.r.. .(r~.. . I . t I.~....I 1 ._I . • ~ I ~ , !
~
. I ~ Y~~ _ 1~"t I ~ •
.
~ ~ 1 _ ~i.. ..~_..~►.l_.~~ ".i--~.- I-.,.~ .1 i._ _ i_ ' _1.~. ~f~P, - - _ _ i
. .
~
.
~
~ ~~--_.R_
, . . . .
+
1
~f_._
~
~i
~ ~ . .
. ~ . ~ _ . _ _ . .
. ~ ~ . . . ~
~ ._l.. ~ ~.~J . . ' ~ ; t• ~ r r ~ ' t ' I i f ~ ,
. , .
'
,
.._T ~
~ It
. ~ ~
e. . ~r ,
, -
~.-1~.. 1
_4_
~ ~ ~ .
i ~l. ~ ~ ' 1 ~ ~ - - ~ , . ~ ~ _.~f._._i._ - - ~ r- - -i - ' ~ ~ ~ V , ~ I_1 p~.r ~ I~ ~
. ~ . ~ _ .
_..~L
~ . _ . _
I • . ~ ~ . ~ I ' 1 . ~ ~ _ . S~ . = M .e„ ~ - •-~1• ..1~. ~ ~ ~ ~r..,-.
. a . . _ . I -a._.... . _.~....~-.1_ ~ .I,. . _ 1-- I~_ I~i_ . 1_ ..__-I--•.I~-.1~~~
Jr._. ~ 1
.
, ' ' -
~
~
~I
~e s• € ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~,L_. _ ~ . ~.I_~~ 1. ~ . _ l..',. . ~1~.~~ ~.a_~J~ .i
. , ,
~
; I~
~
~ _ . , .jY ~ .r.~ • ~~...T..~..1 _ _1' 1~.-~-~~. ~ G_,--~._~,~` ' -
+
,
_ , . . I
_ i__.. _ _ - . _ , . ~ "'~4
+u
-
..i--
u ~v 7 • ,
~ ~ ~ _4_~: r-, i ~ l. a. . ' ; ; , _1__i..~_~_~..~_~_a ~ . ..a_ I_,~ i -
«a I I,._. I F I tI~ .
~ ~
~
,
. ,
I-
-Lt nF I-,~-.. .
~ ' i
f
.J,... ~_..~i., ._...u'.a.. 1_ .r.._....... I ' I ~ '~~V.
a . ' . '
~ _ . _
I a..-
e~ j. . . i .J--I
~ I I 1 l~~' I I~ ~1l I ~
1
~
.
~ . ' ' ..ld! ~.1
{Tl
. I
.I. ~,.I
~ -T.
• _1 ! I•
1 ~ I , _..r. _ _r• " r-.. ^-~-F-.. i - v
~ - -
~
~
. ~
'
(
± T
~
. ~ ' .
T--
, r
r i r I~l - -r ~--~-.f_ _•I ~ _ f....~ ...`._r _i_. ~ --J ' ~ i I ; I. j 7 ~
I-~~ --r-•~~ ~-T i ~ i-~~- , ~ ~ . . ~„y
~
r.l_ _ .
Vi Vi J
j --~-_~1 fi . 'I-'-'_.~M~' ; f-~..~_..
I .
- f I T t" ~ VI VI
~ F-~
7 l ~ " i► ~p a. ~p
, _ _l l_ t i ~ _ ~ ~ } ~
; ~._r ; ~ t ~ ~ ► ~ ~ F ~ , J r . ~ ~ ~ r_ ~ ~ T
F~
r ♦..r_' .~5._~..'_..}_I l--~ ~.r ~..»I.....r r_.~ . : ~....~._I
. . ,
~
~ , ~ ~ 1 y~r ~ i..~ l f.-" t r' I r +I ~ . ~ i _I_ i ~
T
. . ' 1 . ~ ' . _i. .
~
Pik, o
i-i.~ _I ` ~ .~r ~ I•- t ~ i ~ ~ ~ I ~ I~ i ' I ~ ~
f+ I ..4~ I..,. ; ,,_.r.~ ~ .1 V « ~~~rl 1.. t~~~~...... ~ ~.t ~..y. Id
~t r
_._.r
I-
a i_ , i . .r. I
.
~ ,
,
.
,
t~ _ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ .
~ . +
_ - _ - • r r - .~.1 ~ . ~ ~
p ~
T
m IN,
.
~
~ ~ I
~ :__L• r ~ ~ i ~ ~ i !
~ ` ~
' ~ _ ~
_ j
~
~
- . _ _ . .
~
- - - ~ .
~
I
i y I~.. (Y ~ , . I ~ ~-}-.F_.~ 'j j. , ~ I - I "1.- -h~- '
. . . . T ~
i
~-a-i_~--
,
F - :
I. I I,
. . . ~
- - , E ~ ~ ~ - - - -
_ T +
. : _ _ ~ _
~
~
~
, ~ _
i-
_ ~ _ _ _ - - - - - - - -
~ , ,
1 O
,
~ -~4.
.
.
.
.
_ _ _ . - -
_
~
~-1--~~- - ~
1 _ i _ . . _ , . ~ - ~ t ~
..r
_ . _ . r. - , ~ . ~ . : . _ _ - , _
,
.
_ . _ . _ . . , ,
.
_
.
~ ; i _ `i _I ~ ~ i-- _ -1 -I~i ~ ~
, .
.
r - -
I I I ' '
.t._.._. ._.l._..... .r_........J.~.4~...~.~-....~. ....uL ,~._.~.a_...... .
,
i~
. ~ ~ . . ~ _1.. _ ~ , • ~ - t- ~ I - - _ i {
.
. . . , _ . _ L 7
. .
. . . . . , . .
.
~
~
. .
. ~ _
.
..I-~._~._t
_
~
f
. Y. . ~ . _ ~ , . ~ ~ I .~..a.~..,..~ ' 1.~...~
~
i I
i ~
. . .
~
~
i.1
.
q i' .t I
00 a ~ _;.'~,r ~ , ~.Y~ _ • 1.. _ . _ ' , _I.~r.' ~ i. l~ , ! _ J_~~.~ ~.l 1
.
~ ~ ~v ^ . _ . ..~..,..~...1.~ . .r_r.} , ' i
~ I I ~ I I ~ ' .LT -hn
~
~5 -~I~
fl
.
.
I , LI:
~
4
^l '
.
F
.
~ i
I ~ ~ j.
) i
•
r I f` i i
y 1 i ~ I ~ ~ . , ~ ' .
N I I y~ ~ r ~ i
-I._.
~L~
v ^ 1 + I or - - = -
_4 ~ _i . _ 1~/'_..'" I .•j~~ ~ .~-_.r. I 1 i....' ~ . . 1 j ~ .~_..I I y ; ~ ~ . r J~ i...'. y . ' .
~ V~i
I-~. I I-•+
F
- . _
_.;__~!..r
r~
.
rR ~ t..~.~~~~
V ~ ~ ~ - . . _ ~
.____._.~~1_. 1_r. ~ ~ ~_.f . ~ , ~
. ~
.
. . . _ . . ~ _.La_ .1 ~ . I , ~ . ~ ~ ...I._~
. , . . _ r . i._. . ~ ....i. _ . j ~
,
+ f
.
~
_ . _ ~ ~
i
.
, . ~
„
-t4-
~
~
r.. r 1
Ail, -1
~ . . ,
...J.
i ' ♦ ~ ti , ~ ~ P ~ ~ 1.-;
4_I t
i r .
~ ~
. .
~..~J
F I ,
~ ~
. .
.
, .
00 1 i t ~ ~ ~ ~ 1_~ r_~ i
, I
'
1.
dp 'C Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i~~ i ' ~ - - ~ ~ . .
~ ~ ~ , ~._l_1 ~ ~ • ~ ~1- , - - - .i. _.L _ _.!_fi _ _L_.a_.1._ _1J
~
_ , .y
~
-r I
' 1 I _~J. , ; ~ I ~.1._ ..1. j ' ~i 1 ~_~.~.1...(_J ~ _~i,.-~ ~ ~ -f ~ f
I
14.1I_ ~ ~......_7 ~ _ T
. i
~ I
I I
T_1.~_~_~-~ .
_ . _ _ . . ,D, ..i . ~ , ~ .
_ . i I._. ' .1
~ ~
1
.
~ ~ I ~ r~ -r - ~ I ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ,_„L~,._._~.~ ~ ..~._L.-:-, ~~-}~••.~J..~~...I.~_.~.. ~ t._).. ~ ~_,L,.1.... .
'
~
.I r i
Y
-
O ~7 R O O l_~ i
h .
iA V1 }
~ v •_~.~~_a 1~ ~ I^~ .r...~~ i J . ..l ~ ' ; _ _.1. ~ ~.i .~_.I~....1--...1..1 .1 ~'..1. ~ _.~.i_i. _ ' ~ 1~.~ ~
,
.~._~..T_...~.._,_,, ~ . , . ~ , .
a .4.~. i ~ . ~~4..~...t...i..
i~ , . . .
• 1_ ~ . ,.l ._r ~ i ~ .i. ~ ~
_ A , i , ~ ~ .
.
I i ~ J
~ j. ~ . . ~ .4._~._ ~ I. f . { l i . . r. _ I ~ ~ _ i . . . , a. .1 ~ ~ . I J .i .
~ _ f _ . ~ ' . ' .L' ~ ~ V 1 . , +.-i. .t. _ _ ~ ~ ~
a.-
6~ ..~,L ' i ~ j ~ ..,1.-- - - 1 .I~'.I.! ~ ~ 1..~_i , •
L ~
. , ' ~ -d~ j 1 I
V ~ ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1 I ~ ~ t~ ~ .i..~_ ~ ._._.i . ~ , ( I , ' ' , •
~
ri ~ ~ ~ _ ~--~~Y...ri--~- j~ a"'• ~ ~~-1-. -1 ~ i_ J~ ~ _~...~_7-I..,.. ~ _t... ~..~..;.t.
_ f . ~ ~ . r..
+
• ~ j I.. r ~ ~ ~_.~_t.. ~ ~ i.. I. ~ _ _'..,y~ j' ~I,_.~ _ 1---I-~~ ~
I I i
,
. ~ . .
_ I
~ ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ • ~ ~ • • ; ~ ~ - "
► i^, E~ ~ r_-r.-~ ~t-I- ~ _ , , . y
, i • f-'~ ~ r_. ! ~
rA r r em5
t ~ ~ -t ' ~
. '
- -
TT-
q .
';/i J
+ t. . r . . ,._E.. _ . ~ . ...j .i....,_,a_ . _ I . _ .-i~ i ~ . 1~ ..I_., .l_ • ' "~r.i. _1~ A
~ J
p
. t ~ ~
~ _ ~r
I rJ
F . i ~T
. ..r_ . . . _ ~ 1~ .
.
,
~ r
I _
. . . . ' O
l ~ ~ ~ ! ~ , t' i ~ ~ _~1- - ~ - ~
~ i I 1
,
_ r._ . _ . l ~ .
I-T
. . ~
• i
_ , r -~-1-~ , ; ~ .1► . ~ i , i ~1 ~T ' .o. . ~
f i r. ._r_ . - . _
~ . I I ~ I (f" ~p~+ ~pt+ y [T~
. . . _ . ..L~._ " T ~ 7 7
7 ~ ~ . bT a-,_~.. ~
! ~~r ' • 1 i I ~ I ~ ~ I ~~~1
! 7. _
, f
, _ - - - °i-- ~ - - --*--r - - - -
'
T T_;:: 1:~i~_1. _ _ ~ ~ - ( { _ r- _ r , - ~r+. , . ~ - L; ~ ~
' ~-i I ; T ~•r ~ T ~ . .I
- ~ - -
r ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ I ~ I ~ I i ~ ~ _j_. ~
,
_ i._ - . _ I . t r .
_ ~ . ~
;
~ 7
~
.~.i .
F
7.-..i..~i~,-,.~....
I ~ I ~ 1
-
~ _
-
~ ~ "~_r~~ ..l r
I i r.. I I. I ' ~...i
, . r t .,..r . _ . .
,
_
.
i._.~..,~
,
- - - . .
_t .i . ~ ~....i
~ - .
' , r I 1 ~r ~7~~~~ ~ .•..I.. I." ~ .I,.1.-i.-.-I ` ! _ ~~T~- i I -I ~ .
(
~_14
11
~
~ _ ~
.
.
- ~ .T i~ ~ . T .T~1
, ~ , ~~~I
-
~ . _ .
.I~ _
:
_ . ~ _
. . . . .
0
,
~ j.~
_ `
r-
~ r _ _ . .
dt[_
~
-I -E
I I ~ -i-- 7
_ ~ . ; .
,
4.. . _
~ r
~ __i , . . i._. -~i_ _ ~J~ - t ' ~ ~ a.~~ ~ ~ f.~l t._~ ,
,
. ~ ~
~
~
_t.
_ .
i
_ . . . . . . ~ J.~ ~ . _ . ~ .
4-.
1
~ ~ ..T._~a..{... i.. ~ ...i,~ . 1 I E _ ~ _.I
_ .
,
i.
~ _
.r
~ . ~ ..i.. . . j__ .
-G
~ r
. ~ ~ .
- l
~
. '
~ y ~ _ , ' ~ ~ . ,...L..:..+.~, -~t_i~# _1__:._ I. 1._ I. .I_.~._ ~1 . _ * •i--
.
I ~i ~~i i~ ~ f~~~~i~, ~ ' ~
.1--
a
I 1I .
. _ _1_1.1..;. ~~~1.~ _ . ~ 1~ ~ ~ _~4 ~ . _i '-r ~-~-a--I i`~►~~ - i . ~ ~ ! ~
~ r
, ~ i , i ► D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
. ~
i~ r t t , ~ I
-
• 1 . r I I ' 1 I ...r ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ 1
_J
i
a . g_~_.~ i_.. . _l~ _ 1.. _ I. {.-r-...t... 1 ~'.~..J. ~ ~
- ,
Y IH V+ ~
_
y r] -1._ ~ I '~`r L _ ~ . . i . _1 1 ~ ~I _ I. t-. . : (f ~ v 1 ~ , Q►; ~ 1..i_., ~ a-.~.1.t -1t ! _ 1.~-~
1
1 ~
A_L_
+
I I I I j . I i , ~ - ~ , r'
~ ' -r-~--I~ - ~ _ -a-_ - ' --•I - - ~ ~ rl. . _l_.}_. ...~._.L.L.}_. '
.
,
~ I I I
E .
~
. _ ~ _ i _1 . _ ~ -I- ~ 4 .~.I...~ _ , - a-! ' _ _ ~ 1
V ~ r ~
~ ~ ~ ~ . J._. _ _ _ ._4. . _ . ~ ~ _ ~ " _ . . . ..J._~ - •
• - ~ _ _.a.~,....~..~ ~ _ r ~ ~ .1 ~
~~i'
RASI~T MAP
.G
- ~ '
MEMOjUNDUM DATE: October 7, 1997
TO: Pat Harper
CC: Louis Webster, Spokane County Planning i i
Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc.
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
_
FROM: Steve Stairs
SUBJECT: Mission Meadows TIA SPO~~~~(x`~I'Y
I have received the additional information requested in my September 17`" memo to you. After
reviewing this additional information, I recommend that we accept this report and accompanying
errata as complete. If you have any questions concerning the review of the Mission Meadows
Traffic Impact Analysis, please do not hesitate to ask.
~
,
• _
• ` ~
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. RECEIVED
gpOKANE COUNTY
September 24, 1997 I
W.O. No. 96072 SEP 2 5 1997
Pat H er pIV18lON OF BUILDINa AND Pl1~N~MN~
arp eM;
Spokane County Engineering
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
RE: Misson Meadows - Response to Memo on Revised TIA from Spokane County
~
Dear Pat:
The following letter is in response to comments made in a memo to ,you from Steve Stairs dated
September 17, 1997 regazding the Mission Meadows project. The following is a summary of what was
requested or commented on and our response: . • The northbound volumes for the site generated traffic, figures 8, 9, 10, and I1 do not match
betweem the Barker & Indiana intersection and the Barker & Trent intersection.
As detailed on page 20, 2nd paragraph of the revised report, a portion of the trips on Bazker north
of Indiana Avenue will use Euclid Avenue to go to/come from Sullivan Avenue and the Spokane
IndustriaUBusiness Park and mall areas. I have marked up and enclosed a copy of figures 8- 11
showing the site generated turning volumes at the Euclid Ave.Barker Road intersection.
• A signal at the Mission Avenue/Barker Road intersection may be more desireable than several turn
lanes. The suggestion was made to use the funding associated with the turn lanes toward the
installation of a signal at this intersection.
I performed a level of service calculation using a signal with only one lane for each approach. The
level of service anticipated for the PM peak hour in the buildout year, 2003 with the Mission
Avenue entrance to the proposed project is LOS B. Enclosed is a copy of the HCS calculation.
I trust that all outstanding issues are now addressed. Please give me a call if you have any question
regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Timothy A. Schwab, P.E.
TAS/tas
cc: Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
Lewis Webster, Spokane Co. Planning
Steve Stairs, Spokane Co. Engineering
Bill Colyar
Richard Mason
707 West 7th • Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205
Spokane, WA 99204 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
509-458-6840 • FAX: 509-458-6844 208-765-7784 • FAX: 208-769-7277
~
,
~ • ~
290
N~E . .
N
E'vctiqE Ave, o
~
Q
I D IANA AVEN UE so'
. INQIANA •
:
N -
• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.
•
. ~ ~ • ~ ~
a
• ~
~ •
• ~
• ~ •
~ • •
• • •
~ •
~ ~ r •
~
~ • ~ ~
MISSION AVENUE • ' ' ~
, .
~
2J/'~b
4
~ -
~ . .
. f CATALDO
- . ~
- ~ - - _ -
90
. ~
N QJ
4
~
~
NOT TO SCALE J
* FlGURE 8
I NLAND MISSION MFJIDOVIfS .
RACIFIC ' 'BUILDOUT
F..,.NQINEFRINC1- SITE GENERATED ntAMc IMPAcT ANw-YSis
707 w~t ~th • sutte 200 (b09) ~8-8844 T AFFIC V UM PROJECT N0. 96072
Spokvne, w4► 99204 F,~x: (sos) 4ss-ss~/ ` INDIANA EN~1`~AN ~
. . .
/ . . . . . ~
290
5c:~r ~z
~
o~
~r "T W ~
► a 8
i ~ m 4= 20
INDIANA AVEN.UE p
N
n avV
. .
~ , .
~ INDIANA Pv
.
.
.
. .
, .
Q '
.
~ ~
.
.
MISSION AVENUE ~
~b
9J,
4
~
- ~ ` ~ - - - CATALD4-
90 - - - _ _
.I
,04
z,
4
N
~
~ NOT TO SCALE o/
~
~ i~= I NLAND FlGURE 9 MISSION MEADOWS 6im PACIFIC ' .M.BUILDOUT -
ENQINEERINQ SITE GENERATED TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ 707 west 7tn • suite 200 (5W) 458-8840 , ` I~IANA EV~A~I~~• J~ PROJECT N0. 96072 /
Spokqne, WA 99204 F/~(; (50g) ~g-684{ J
/ . .
. " ~
290
~R
p ,f ~
EvaipE AvE Q
~ 0
I f1 T ~
n\s w
~
co
INDIANA AVENUE
~
.
I N D IANA P • ~
„
.
. .
,
~ 13 • •
. . . .
.
4a 21 • :
.
. ~ .
(l ' ~ •
.
. ~ .
.
. . .
MISSION AVENUE
~ N
4
~
, . .
t • CATALDG ~ - -
90 - - - _ _ ~
,
I
~
~
4
~
~
` _ . . . , . . _ . . , . . NOT TO SCALE J
i -
~ I NLAND FlGURE 10 MISSION MEADOWS ~
PACIFIC . ~BUILDOU ENQINEERINQ SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC IMPArCT ANALY5IS
\707 wsst 7th • Sutte 200 (509)458-6840
~ ~_Q~A~~(:~ PROJECT N0. 96072 .
SP~ane. WA 99204 PI1X: (509) 458-6844 M IV ~V J-\ . /
. ~
2 9 0
Z
5cz~r ip2
~ Q V
~ Q
O
'7~F1T
w +
~
Y b
~
Q
INDIANA AVENUE Q
b
. ~ L&
. ~ I N D IANA • ~ :
.
~
.
.
b
~ ; . .
e •
. . . .
. •
~a 14 '
.
V ~
. .
.
.
. ~ . •
MISSION AVENUE
M
~b
4
~
CATALDO
90 - - - - _
~
Z, c%P
b 4
04
~
~ NOT TO SCALE J
I NLAND FlGURE 11 MISSION MEADOWS 1
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
ENC~INEERINQ SITE GENERATED ~ic iMPACT ~~rsis
707 w~c 7tn • suit. 200 (sos) a5s-e~o TRAFFIC VOLUMES pROJECT N0. 96072
~ spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-68111~ ~ M I SS I 0 N ENTRAN C E /
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09-24-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~
Streets: (E-W) Mission Avenue (N-S) Barker Road
Analyat: Tim Schwab File Name: BAMIPBWM.HC9
Area Type: Other 9-24-97 PM Peak'
Comment: Buildout (2003) With Project, Misson Access
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < > 1 < > 1 <
Volumes 22 8 47 111 10 34 7 224 34 14 507 31
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89
Lane W(ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 . ► 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 8.5 s(Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 15 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share Prop. Prot.
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Le f t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right - WB Right .
Green 15.OA Green 35.OA
Yellow/AR - 5.0 Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combinat-on order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 377 1331 0.212 0.283 10.6 B 10.6 B
WB LTR 374 1319 0.466 0.283 12.2 B 12.2 B
NB LTR 974 1580 0.271 0.617 3.5 A 3.5 A
SB LTR 1009 1637 0.579 0.617 5.0 A 5.0 A
Intersection Delay = 6.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.543
..i
►
SPOh:ANE COUNTY HEA,RING Ex:AMINER
RE: Zone Reclassification from ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) ) CONCLUSIONS
to Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) ) AND DECISION
Applicant: Bill Colyar )
File No. ZE-56-96 )
1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION
Proposal: Zone reclassification from the Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to the Urban
Residential-7 (IJR-7), to allow development of a manufactured home park and those uses
allowed in the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone.
Decision: Approved, subject to conditions.
U. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the zone reclassification application and the
evidence of record, and hereby adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. GENERAL INFURMATION:
Legal Owners: Bill and Arlene Colyar, 19305 East Mission Avenue, Greenacres, WA 99016
ApplicantJAgent: Richard Mason, IPEC, 707 West 7`bAvenue, Suite 200, Spokane, WA 99204
Address of Site: 19305 East Mission Avenue, Greenacres, WA
Location: Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue, 2300 feet east of
Barker Road, in the SE '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM,
Spokane County, Washington.
Legal Description: The south 20 rods of the NW '/a of the NW '/4, except the east 20 rods, and
the SW '/4 of the NW '/4, except the south half of the south 20 acres thereof, all within Section 35,
Township 26 North, Range 43 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
Zoning: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5)
Comprehensive Plan Category: The property is designated in the Urban category of the
Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan. The property is also located within the
Priority Sewer Service Area, Aquifer Sensitive Area and Urban Impact Area designated by the
Plan.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 1
i
• i
1
Environmental Review: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was
issued by the Division of Building and Planning on March 2, 1998.
Site Description: The site is approximately 19.5 acres in size, is comprised of three County
Assessor tax parcels, and is mostly flat and undeveloped. A single-family residence, currently
occupied by the legal owners, is located at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to
Mission Avenue. The site is located inside the interim urban growth area (ILJGA) boundaries
designated by Spokane County pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act.
Surrounding Conditions: The subject property is located along the north side of Mission
Avenue, which is designated as a Minor Arterial by the County Arterial Road Plan. Barker Road
west of the site is designated as a Principal Arterial. Interstate 90 is located at some distance
south of the site, while the Spokane River and the Centennial Trail lie at some distance north of
the site. The land lying north and west of the property is zoned Urban Residential-7 (IJR-7), and
is developed or planned for "site-built" single-family residences. The land south of the site
across Mission Avenue is mostly zoned UR-7, along with some land zoned Urban Residential-
3.5 (UR-3.5), and is developed with manufactured homes, mobile homes and single-family
residences. An elementary school is found at the southeast corner of Mission Avenue and Barker
Road. The land immediately east of the site is zoned Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) and is
undeveloped, while further to the east is found land zoned UR-7 and developed with
mobile/manufactured homes. A very large manufactured home park is found at the northwest
corner of Barker Road and the Spokane River, and large manufactured home subdivisions are
found at the northwest and northeast corners of Barker Road and the Spokane River.
Project Description: A rezone to the UR-7 zone is proposed to allow a manufactured home
park, to be developed in seven phases. The application for a manufactured home park associated
with the proposed rezone is subject to processing and approval administratively, pursuant to
Chapter 14.808 of the County Zoning Code. The site plan of record (two pages, revised 12/97)
for the proposed manufactured home park illustrates 131 rental spaces for manufactured homes
and an existing house, with the spaces ranging in size from 30,000 square feet to 3,760 square
feet. A.7 acre area for a manager's unit, maintenance building and recreational vehicle storage
is illustrated in the northerly third of the property. The site plan also illustrates a 1.7 acre
community space in the center of the site, with a grass-covered playfield and recreational
facilities, and which is to used only for recreational purposes. A series of paved private roads
with sidewalks and curbs would provide internal circulation within the community area. Access
to Mission Avenue is illustrated in the southwest comer of the site, and access to Indiana Avenue
via "Grady Road" outside the site is illustrated in the northwest corner of the property. The site
plan states that the northwest access will be "normally gated emergency only access", while the
southwest access "may have security gates". Drainage "208" areas are illustrated throughout the
development. A typical lot plan showing manufactured home footprint, a two-space carport,
storage shed and building setbacks are illustrated on the site plan. Fencing and landscaping
details are also illustrated and listed on the site plan.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 2
.
►
B. PRacEnURAL INFORMATroN:
Applicable Zoning Regulativns: Spokane County Za►ning Code Chapters 14.402, 14.618
and 14.8+D8.
Hearing Date and Location: Ma.rch 25, 1998, Spvkane County Public Warks Building,
Lower Lewel, Corrunissioners Assembly Rovm, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA.
Notices: Mailed: March 10, 1998 by applicant
Faste+d: March 14, 1998 by applicant
Published; March 9, 1998
Compliance: The legal requirements for pubiic notice have been met.
Site Visit: Nfarch 24, 199$
Hearing Pracedure: Pursuant ta County Resolution I'+1os. 96-017 1 (Hearing Examiner
Ordinance) and 96-0294 (Heaning Examiner Rules of Procedure)
Testimany;
Lauis Webster Pat Harper
Division Qf Buiiding and Planning Division of Engineering and Roads
1026 West Broadway 1026 West Broadway
5pokane, 'VVA 99260-0244 Spokane, WA 99260
Greg Figg Richard Masvn
WA State Department of Transportation Inland Pacific Engineenng
2714 Narth Mayfair 707 West 7hAdenue
Spvkane, WA 99207 Spvkane, WA 99204
Kerina Higgins Richard Solberg
19110 East Indiana 1819 North Glenbraak
Greenacres, WA 99016 Gr+eenacres, VVA 99016
Dean Rvwbotham Harvey O' Cvnnor
1922 Michielli Lane 1931 0 East Indiana
Greenacres, WA 99016 GreenaGres, WA 99016
Susan Pe#erson Thamas Boyes
1724 North McMillan Lane 19225 East Indiana
Greenacres, WA 99016 Grreena.cres, WA 99016
Greg Stirn
2228 East 46''' Avenue
Spokane, WA 99223
Items Notieed: Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Zvning Code and County Code.
County Resolution Nos. 96-0171, 96-0294, and 97-0134 (establishing IUGA boundaries).
County Hearing Examiner Committee final decisions dated 4-2-82 and 4- 14-83, and County
Planning Department final decision dated 6-16-95; all regarding the Riverwalkr'Riverway
HE Findings, Cvnclusivns and I)ecisian ZE-56-96 Page 3
•
a
development in Building and Planning File Nos. PE-1414-81 /ZE-92-81 /PUDE-1-82. Revised
preliminary plat and preliminary site development plan for Riverwalk approved 5-19-95, and
final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition recorded on 6-15-97.
Procedural Matter: ARer the public record was closed, the Hearing Examiner received a
letter from the applicant, Richard Mason dated March 26, 1998. Since the letter was received
after the record was closed, it is excluded from the record.
C. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS:
In considering a rezone application, Washington case law generally provides that (1) there
is no presumption in favor of the rezone, (2) the applicant for the rezone must prove that
conditions have substantially changed in the area since the last zoning of the property, and (3) the
rezone proposal must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or welfare.
ParkridQe v. Seattle, 98 Wn. 2d 454, 462 (1978); Biarnson v. Kitsap Countv, 78 Wn. App. 840
(1995). Spokane County Zoning Code Section 14.402 (1)(2) indicates that consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, detriment to the public welfare and changed circumstances are relevant
factors to consider in amending the Zoning Code.
The proposed rezone must also comply with the Spokane County Zoning Code, the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the County's Local Environmental Ordinance, and other
applicable land use regulations. Conditions may be imposed to assure the consistency of the
proposal with applicable regulations.
The following findings of fact and conclusions are made:
1. The prot)osal izenerallv conforms with the Spokane Countv Generalized Comprehensive Plan.
a. Relevance of Comprehensive Plan
A county's comprehensive plan provides guidance to the hearing body in making a rezone
decision. Belcher v. Kitsan Countv, 60 Wn. App. 949, 953 (1991). Deviation from a
comprehensive plan does not necessarily render a rezone illegal, only general conformance is
required. Bassani v. Countv Commissioners, 74 Wn. App. 389, 396 (1993); Cathcart v.
Snohomish Countv, 96 Wn.2d 201, 212 (1981).
The Hearing Examiner is required to set forth in findings and conclusions the manner in
which a land use decision would carry out and conform to the Spokane County Generalized
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. See RCW 36.70.970 (3); and Spokane
County Resolution No. 96-0171, Attachment "A", Section 11. The Examiner's decision may be
to grant, deny, or grant with such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the Examiner
finds necessary to make the application compatible with Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations." Spokane County Resolution No. 96-0171, Attachment "A",
Section 11.
The Spokane County Zoning Code indicates that its provisions are to be interpreted to carry
out and implement the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general plans for
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 4
~
physical development adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. See Zoning Code
14.100.104. The Comprehensive Plan states that the Plan should be used as a reference source
and guide for making land use decisions, enacting land use regulations and adopting other land
use planning decisions. Comprehensive Plan, Introduction, p. 2. The "decision guidelines" set
forth in the Plan are to used as a guide in determining whether or not a particular proposal should
be approved, conditioned or denied. See Comprehensive Plan, p. 2; and Comprehensive Plan,
Section 1, Urban category, "Purpose", p. 13.
Spokane County has designated the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as policies to be
applied under SEPA and the County's Local Environmental Ordinance, in the environmental
review of land use proposals. See Spokane County Code 11.10.160 (4).
b. Applicable nolicies
The Comprehensive Plan category for the site is Urban. The Urban category is intended to
provide the opportunity for development of a"citylike" environment, which includes various
land uses and intensive residential development served by a high level of public facilities and
services (i.e. paved roads, public sewer and water, storm water systems, police and fire protection
and other features). It is primarily a residential category of single-family, two-family,
multifamily and condominium buildings. The Urban category also contemplates some
neighborhood commercial, light industrial uses, and public and recreational facilities. The Urban
category allows for a vast range of residential densities, generally from one unit per acre to 17
units per acre. The category promotes the concept that single-family uses will be isolated from
the noise and heavy traffic, while the more intensive uses such as light industrial and
neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily traveled streets.
Relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan are set forth on pages 4-5 of the Staff Report.
The Urban category encourages a variety, combination and mix of densities and residential uses.
Comprehensive Plan, Decision Guideline 1.1.4. The Urban category recommends that urban
development be approved in areas having adequate utilities, sanitary sewer, drainage systems,
schools and fire service; provided other relevant policies of the Urban category are met.
Decision Guideline 1.1.2. Paved streets, streetlights and underground utilities are encouraged for
new development in the Urban category. Decision Guideline 1.5.5. The need for open space and
recreational developments should be met, and be in accordance with ordinances, plans and
policies prior to residential development approval. Decision Guideline 1.2.2.
New residential development within the Urban category should be buffered from existing
land uses where adverse effects may develop, through such techniques as landscaping, spatial
separation, distance, changing density and screening. See Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.5.a
and Decision Guidelines 1.5.1 and 1.5.21 and definition of "buffering" in glossary. Cluster
development proposals in are encouraged in the Urban category when compatible with nearby
development and when the overall density of the site of the proposal is not exceeded. Decision
Guideline 1.2.1. Different land uses are considered to have "compatibility" when they exist
adjacent to one another or in such proximity to one another that adverse impacts are insignificant.
See Comprehensive Plan, Glossary, definition of "compatibility".
The Urban category contains specific policies for manufactured home developments.
Manufactured home parks should be located adjacent to designated arterials, locate near existing
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 5
~
or planned public transit routes, and improve or maintain the consistency of adjacent single-
family amenities." Decision Guideline 1.1.3. The approval of a proposed manufactured home
development should consider the compatibility between manufactured homes and nearby existing
single-family developments. Aesthetic compatibility should consider the provision for off-street
parking or storage structures, skirting or foundation and roof shape and composition similar to
conventional single-family residences. Comprehensive Plan, Decision Guideline 1.1.5. The
Urban category recognizes that manufactured home development may be appropriate to renew
residential areas, and that cbanges in the character of a neighborhood may be allowed upon
appropriate review. Objectives 1.5.e and 1.5.g. This includes consideration of structure height
of the proposal in relation to that of nearby structures, and the impact that new structures will
have on the architectural character of the neighborhood. Decision Guideline 1.5.8.
Manufactured homes should "enhance the residential character or aesthetics", or "improve the
residential values of the area". Decision Guideline 1.5.7.
c. Consistencv of uroposal with avplicable policies
The applicant proposes to rezone the site from the Urban Residential-3.5 zone to the Urban
Residential-7 zone. Zoning Code 14.618.100 provides as follows:
The purpose of the UR-7 zone is to set standards for the orderly
development of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable
living environment that is compatible with surrounding land uses ar:d
assures the protection of property values. It is intended that this zone be
used to add to the variety of housing types and densities up to
approximately seven (7) units per acre, and as an implernentation tool for
the Comprehensive Plan Urban Category. General characteristics of
these areas include paved roads, public sewer and water, accessibility to
schools and libraries, and a full line of public services including manned
fire protection and public transit accessibility. Medium density UR-7
areas are typified by single family dwellings on small lots, duplexes, low
density apartments and manufactured home parks.
Zoning Code Chapter 14.808 establishes detailed standards for the development of
manufactured home parks, which in several respects supersede the development standards of the
underlying zone. See Zoning Code 14.618.210 (A). Such standards are intended to ensure
the development of well-planned manufactured (mobile) home facilities". Zoning Code
14.808.000. The density of the underlying zone governs the density of manufactured home
spaces, subject to a maximum of seven (7) spaces per acre and a minimum space size of 3,600
square feet. Zoning Code 14.808.040 (a). The applicant must submit a site development plan
prior to the issuance of a building permit, which establishes compliance with the standards set
forth in Zoning Code Chapter 14.808. This includes compliance with minimum standards set
forth for side yard and rear yard setbacks from the park perimeter, off-street parking, skirting and
lighting requirements, streets and traffic circulation, landscaping, underground utilities, sewage
and surface water disposal, and standards for individual spaces within the park. These adopted
standards implement policies of the Urban category applicable to manufactured home parks.
Neighboring property owners, prima.rily in the R.iverwalk subdivisions lying north and west
of the site, and certain developers of existing and future homes in the Riverwalk development,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 6
i
obj ected to the proposal based primarily on the density, lot size and type of housing in the
proposal. Such parties contended that the proposal was incompatible with the Riverwalk
development and would adversely impact property values. Other adverse impacts were also
alleged, including impacts to schools and traffic impacts. See letters of opposition, petitio». ~1nd
testimony in record. The development history of the Riverwalk development is somewhat
complex, as summarized below.
The Riverwalk development was given preliminary approval by the County in 1982 as the
"Riverway Villa" project, which involved a preliminary plat/planned unit development/rezone to
develop 365 manufactured homes on 118 acres, plus a commercial site. This approval rezoned
such site to the Residential Manufactured Homes and Commercial zone of the now expired
County Zoning Ordinance. See Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee Findings and
Order dated 4-2-82 in File Nos. PE-1414-81 /ZE-92-81 /PUDE-1-82. On April 14, 1983, a ch ~ MRe
of conditions was approved for Riverway Villa, which reduced the common open space arezt.
increased lot sizes, relocated roads, and allowed individual on-site sewage disposal on certaii-I
lots. See Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee Findings and Order dated 4-14-83 111
same file numbers. Effective January 1, 1991, the zoning of the Riverway Villa site was re-
designated to the UR-3.5 zone of the new Spokane County Zoning Code, under the Program to
Implement the Spokane County Zonin(~ Co(ic. T1iis ncv,- -roni?M;r Was sUhiOrt to tlle rrcvio>«
development approvals for such site.
In June 16, 1995, a revised preliminary plat and preliminary PUD site development plan
was approved administratively for Riverway Villa, which was renamed "Riverwalk". See
Spokane County Planning Department Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated 6-16-95
in File Nos. PE-1414-81/ZE-92-81 /PUDE-1-82. The revised preliminary plat/preliminary site
development plan illustrated 107.3 acres divided into 365 residential lots, along with a nine (9)
acre commercial site located outside the preliminary plat/PUD at the northwest corner of Mission
Avenue and Barker Road. See Revised Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Site Development Plan
of Riverwalk approved 5-19-95. Tbe 1995 decision provided that as phases of the preliminary
plat received, the underlying land would be reclassified to the UR-7 zone and the PUD Overlay
zone of the new Zoning Code, with the zoning of the commercial site to be reclassified to the
Community Business (B-2) zone. See Spokane County Planning condition #7 on page 8 of
Spokane County Planning Department Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated June
16, 1995 in File Nos. PE-1414-81/ZE-92-81/PUDE-1-82.
At least seven of nine phases and 243 lots in Riverwalk have received final plat approval.
See testimony of Richard Mason; and above-referenced decision dated 6-16-95 in File Nos. PE-
1414-81/ZE-92-81/PUDE-1-82. The land lying nort,h and west of the current site has received
final plat approval, and is zoned UR-7. See Master Site Development Plan of Mission Meadows.
Several homes have been constructed in Riverwalk, which are all conventional "site-built"
homes.
The neighborhood lying south of the site across Mission Avenue is zoned primarily UR-?,
and is developed with mobile homes, conventional site-built homes and manufactured homes.
This includes the Arbor Grove Mobile Home Park, located along Mission Avenue southwest o:
the site. The Arbor Grove MHP was recently developed with 72 manufactured home spaces,
after receiving development approval in the 1970s. See testimony of Richard Mason. The land
immediately east of the site is zoned UR-3.5 and is undeveloped, while further to the east the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 7
.
land is zoned UR-7 and is developed with mobile homes/manufactured homes of an older
vintage. Considerably more manufactured homes than site-built homes have been developed
within a quarter mile of the subject property. See Exhibit A, "Comprehensive Plan" section, map
labeled "Character of Existing Neighborhood around Mission Meadows".
The project is located adjacent to a designated arterial and is on an existing public transit
route, as contemplated for manufactured home parks in the Urban category. The development
will be served by a high level of public services and urban infrastructure, including public sewer
and water, manned fire protection, paved roads, sidewalks and curbs, and modern/underground
utilities. Local drainage ways are considered insignificant, the soils on the site are considered
suitable for drainage, and stormwater collection and treatment will be provided in accordance
with County regulations. See memos from Spokane Regional Health District dated 1-16-97 and
3-4-98; and memo dated 3-4-98 from Bill Hemmings of County Engineering to Francine Shaw;
and County Engineering conditions of approval. The site development plan provides a
playground area of 1.7 acres in the middle of the site to serve the recreational needs of the
project. The Centennial Trail and the Spokane River, which lie a few blocks north of the site,
will also provide significant recreational opportunities for the residents in the proposal.
The Central Valley School District indicated that the proposal would generate
approximately 25 elementary public school students, 11 junior high students and 9 senior
housing students. The district indicated that is could accommodate all the elementary and high
school students generated by the project within existing attendance boundaries, but would have
to either bus students from Greenacres Junior High or change its attendance boundaries since the
junior high was currently full. See letter dated 3-18-98 from Dave Jackman to Richard Mason.
The school district did not request mitigation fees or that the project be denied, or represent that
it did not have capacity within the district to accommodate the additional junior high students.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the project will significantly impact area
schools.
A traffic analysis was prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer to study the impacts of
the project on county roads and state highway infrastructure in the area. See Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by IPEC dated December, 1996, as updated by IPEC in letters dated 9-24-97
and 11-7-97. This study as revised was commented on by County Engineering and the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and eventually accepted. A
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposal, which binds the
applicant to make certain road improvements, as reflected in the conditions of approval. The
County Engineering conditions of approval require the applicant to widen Mission Avenue to a
three-lane section, add curb and sidewalk, and to dedicate and set aside right of way, all along the
frontage of the project with Mission Avenue. The applicant is also required to make phased off-
site improvements to an unpaved portion of Mission Avenue lying east of the site, to mitigate
dust particulate impacts. See County Engineering conditions of approval.
To preserve acceptable levels of service at key intersections impacted by traffic from the
proposal, the applicant is also required to make certain off-site transportation improvements to
the state highway system. The WSDOT conditions of approval require the applicant to prepare
designs and enter into a development agreement with WSDOT to fund a right turn lane for
southbound Barker Road traffic from the project at the westbound Interstate 90 ramp terminals,
and to fund a right turn lane for northbound Barker Road traffic from the project at the Barker
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 8
Road/Trent Road (state highway) intersection. See letter dated 12-19-97 from WSDOT to Louis
Webster.
While certain traffic concerns were alleged by neighboring property owners, they were not
supported by competent expert testimony of a traffic engineering nature. Further, such concerns
were rebutted in the record by the applicant's traffic consultant and comments from County
Engineering and WSDOT. For example, the traffic analysis and the record indicates that future
traffic from the project will not cause a failing level of service at the intersection of Barker Road
with either Mission Avenue or Indiana Avenue. See Traffic Impact Analysis dated December,
1996; letter dated 9-24-97 from IPEC to Pat Harper; memorandum dated 10-7-97 from Steve
Stairs to Pat Harper; and testimony of Dick Mason and Pat Harper.
An issue was raised by neighboring property owners and a developer of homes in
Riverwalk regarding the proposed northerly access from the site to Indiana Avenue, via a stub
road in the adj acent final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition, referenced as "Grady Road (Public)"
on the Master Site Development Plan for the current project. See letter dated 1-20-98 from Greg
Stirn to Louis Webster; and testimony of Harvey O'Connor, Thomas Boys and Greg Stirn.
County Engineering condition 49 requires the applicant to construct a paved and delineated
approach to meet the pavement on "Grady Road", and to allow for a private road on public
right of way for Grady Road." The final plat of Riverwalk Sixth Addition shows the subject stub
road extending south from Indiana Avenue as a private lane named "Grady Lane", with the area
encompassed by such stub road listed as "Tract A". The dedication for tlle final plat indicates
that the private road and Tract "A" are dedicated to the Riverwalk Owners Association, an entity
created by a separate recorded document, as private easements for ingress and egress, for the
benefit of fronting lots in the final plat. The dedication also states that Tract "A" is subject to a
separate declaration of covenant recorded with the County Auditor. The terms of the covenant
are not disclosed in the record.
Residents in Riverwalk Sixth Addition expressed concern that residents from the proposed
manufactured home park would use Grady Lane and Indiana Avenue as a shortcut to the
Centennial Trail and the Spokane River to the north. However, the revised preliminary plat of
Riverwalk appear to show Grady Lane ("Rogue River Lane" on preliminary plat) as a public stub
road. Further, the Riverwalk Sixth Addition final plat shows access out of the plat to the south
via Grady Lane for the residents in the plat. If Grady Lane is blocked off, this means of access
out of the final plat is prevented. If Grady Lane is left open, residents in the proposed
manufactured home park could potentially complain that the roads in the park are being used by
Riverwalk residents as a shortcut to Mission Avenue.
If the applicant has control over Grady Lane/Tract "A" through the Riverwalk Owners
Association, or either the County Engineer or the applicant have control over the same through
the referenced declaration of covenant, then Grady Lane could be converted, as proposed, into a
public stub road with a private lane running through it. If not, the applicant will likely need to
provide a second access for the proposal along Mission Avenue. A second access for the site is
needed under County road standards due to the number of home spaces proposed by the
applicant. See testimony of Pat Harper and Richard Mason. The record indicates that "Grady
Road" was originally proposed as the primary means of access for the project via lndiana
Avenue, to serve the first several phases of development until the unpaved portion of Mission
Avenue was paved to the east, and that this was later changed to make Mission Avenue the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 9
I
primary access, with "Grady Road" to serve primarily as an emergency access. See letter dated
12-11-97 from Richard Mason to Louis Webster. This latter concept is reflected on the site plan
of record for the proposal.
County Engineering indicated that if Grady Lane/Road is unavailable, a second access from
the development could be installed by extending a stub road from Augusta Lane in the
development south to Mission Avenue, in the southeast corner of the site, without triggering the
need for any additional traffic improvements. See testimony of Pat Harper. Thus a solution is
available even if Grady Lane in Riverwalk Sixth Addition cannot be used legally as a means of
secondary access for the project.
As indicated above, the main concerns raised by neighboring property owners and
developers was the greater density of homes, smaller lot sizes and inconsistent housing type in
the proposal compared to the Riverwalk development, which will allegedly cause negative
aesthetic impacts and a depreciation in property values to the homes existing or developed in
Riverwalk. Since the zoning of the residential portions of Riverwalk is or will be UR-7, the
proposed zoning of the current site will be the same as Riverwalk and other UR-7 zoning that is
prevalent in the vicinity. The UR-7 zone implements the Urban category. The Urban category
does not require that all densities and housing types in adjacent lands be the same; and in fact
promotes a mix and diversity of densities, land uses and housing types. This is typified by the
existing land use mix and zoning along Mission Avenue east of Barker Road.
Aside from the issue of compatibility, the proposal meets the locational objectives for
manufactured home parks in the Urban category, in its location adjacent to a designated arterial
and along a public transit route. Barker Road, located .4 of a mile to the west, is a Principal
Arterial that is also served with public transit. The Arbor Grove Manufactured Home Park is
located across from the Riverwalk development, and other manufactured home and mobile home
development is found in the vicinity of and area of the site. The site does not have direct access
to the Centennial Trail or the Spokane River, and is arguably not as desirable a site for
development as Riverwalk.
The gross density in Riverwalk is approximately 3.4 units per acre. The lots in the
Riverwalk final plats adjacent to the site appear to average between 7,800 to 8,800 square feet in
size, along with some larger and some smaller lots. See revised preliminary plat of Riverwalk,
approved 5-19-95. The gross density in the current proposal is 6.7 home spaces per acre, with
most lots falling within the range of 3,800 square feet to 5,600 square feet in area. The home
spaces along the perimeters of the proposal are the largest shown on the site plan of record,
ranging generally from 3,941 square feet to 6,814 square feet, along with a few larger lots. These
larger perimeter lots provide a transition from the larger lots in Riverwalk to the smaller lots
within the interior of the current proposal. It is noted that the minimum lot size for single-family
homes within a PUD Overlay zone in the UR-7 zone is 4,200 square feet. Zoning Code
14.618.310. "Single-family dwellings" include site-built homes, manufactured homes and
mobile homes. See Zoning Code 14.300.100, definition of "dwelling, single-family"; and
Zoning Code 14.808.060. Duplex and multi-family units are also allowed in the UR-7 zone.
Zoning Code 14.618.305.
The common areas in Riverwalk represent about 17 % of the preliminary plat area, while
the common areas in the current proposal are comparable at about 15 % of the total "community
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 10
.
areas" in the current site. While the ratio of common area to individual lots is larger in
Riverwalk than the ratio of community area to home spaces in the current project, there is no
basis for concluding that the recreation and open space area provided by the project is
insufficient to serve the proposal. The manufactured home park standards in Zoning Code
Chapter 14.808 do not require that any common area be reserved in a park proposal. However,
such standards do limit the density (7 units per acre) and lot sizes (at least 3,600 square feet) in a
manufacriued home park, and require that at least 50% of each home space be left as open space.
If the project was included in a PUD Overlay zone, only 10% of the site would have to be
reserved as common open space. See Zoning Code 14.703.385.
As represented by the applicant at the public hearing, there is a world of difference between
the mobile home parks of the past and manufactured home parks currently being constructed in
the county. After June, 1976, factory-built dwellings in the county were required to meet new
federal standards for manufactured home construction and safety. See Zoning Code 14.300.100,
definition of "manufactured home" and "mobile home"; and Exhibit A, section labeled "Real
Estate Values", article entitled "The Impact of the Presence of Manufactured Housing on
Residential Property Values". The County Zoning Code, adopted in 1986 and fully implemented
in 1991, provides comprehensive development standards for manufactured home parks, to ensure
the compatibility of such parks with adjacent land uses. See Zoning Code Chapter 14.808.
While the individual spaces in the park will be rented, the homes and accessory structures will be
individually owned. The record indicates that 95 % of manufactured homes once placed are
never moved. See testimony of Richard Mason; and Exhibit A, article entitled "Impact of the
Presence of Manufactured Housing on Residential Property Values" in section entitled "Real
Estate Values".
The applicant has designed a project that will reasonably blend in with the mixed housing
types in the area. The homes and the park will be landscaped and have a pleasing residential
appearance as well as substantial residential amenities. See photo reprints in Exhibit A, in
sections labeled as "Introduction", "Comprehensive Plan" and "Real Estate Value". The tallest
building in the park will be 30 feet, while the maximum building height in the UR-3.5 and UR-7
zones is 35 feet. See Environmental Checklist, p. 8; and Zoning Code 14.616.335 and
14.618.335. Street lights and sidewalks will be provided within the park, and along Mission
Avenue. See Exhibit A, section marked as "Comprehensive Plan", discussion under Decision
Guidelines 1.5.4 and 1.5.5. Approximately 62 % of the site will be comprised of open space.
See Master Site Development Plan, sheet 2.
Comprehensive rules and regulations, including architectural standards, will be adopted for
the park and enforced by a resident manager. See Exhibit A, "Mission Meadows Rules and
Regulations for Inclusion in Space Rental Agreement" The rules and regulations will control
such issues as type of siding, paint color, roof pitch, skirting installation, maintenance, accessory
structures, carports, decks, on-street parking, storage, number of occupants, pets and speed limits
will be adopted and enforced by a resident manager in the park. Each home space in the project
will have a minimum of two off-street parking stalls. Storage structures may be located on the
rear half of lots, and a large recreational vehicle storage yard will be provided that is screened
from the surrounding land uses. All units must have skirting that is architecturally compatible
with the homes located in the park. Roofs must have a minimum pitch of 4:12 with shingles,
which pitch compares favorably to the 6:12 roof pitches common to the site-built homes in
Riverwalk. Wood or wood-type siding is required. See testimony of Richard Mason.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 11
.
The rules and regulations adopted for the park will ensure that only high quality
manufactured homes are placed in the park. See testimony of Richard Mason; and Exhibit A,
"Comprehensive Plan" section, discussion under Decision Guideline 1.1.5. The record indicates
that the proposed developers of the park have constructed two similar parks in the county, with
the current proposal to be designed similar to a park constructed by the developer in the Spokane
Valley area.
In addition to the buffering and transition provided by the larger lots around the perimeter
of the site, landscaping and screening will also be used to mitigate the impacts of the project on
surrounding land uses. The applicant plans to install a six (6)-foot high chain-link fence and an
arborvitae landscape screen along the west, north and east perimeter of the site; and intends to
install a low fence, earth berms and a"5 to 20 foot" landscape screen along the south boundary
of the site adjacent to Mission Avenue. See testimony of Richard Mason; and Exhibit A,
"Comprehensive Plan" section, discussion under Decision Guideline 1.5.1 (note: the reference in
the discussion to a chain link fence and an arborvitae screen on the "south" boundary is
obviously in error, and should say "north"). Such landscaping and screening scheme is
illustrated for a similar manufactured home park in Exhibit A, section on Comprehensive Plan, in
photo reprints displayed on the page entitled "Typical Landscape Screens"; and in photo reprints
displayed in the "Introduction" section of Exhibit A.
The Zoning Code does not require landscaping along the north and west boundaries of the
site, but requires 20 feet of Type III landscaping along the south boundary of the site adjacent to
Mission Avenue. See Zoning Code 14.806.040 (1)(b) and 14.806.040 (2)(a). Along the east
boundary of the site, the Zoning Code requires five (5) feet of Type III (see-through buffer), as
well as a six (6)-foot high wall, solid landscaping or sight-obscuring fence. The site plan of
record shows only 2.5 feet of landscaping instead of the required 5 feet of landscaping, and no
screening or wall, along the east boundary. However, an enhanced type of landscaping (Type II,
visual buffer) is illustrated along the east border compared to the Type III landscaping required
by the Zoning Code. See Zoning Code 14.806.060. The site plan of record is also deficient in
indicating that the Type III landscaping along the south boundary line will range from 5 feet to
20 feet, since the Zoning Code requires the entire width of landscaping to be 20 feet. The
applicant testified that the deficiencies would be corrected in a revised site plan. See testimony
of Richard Mason. The sight-obscuring screening proposed along the north and west boundary
of the site is not required by the Zoning Code. Such screening appears to have a generally
pleasing residential appearance, based on the photo reprints of such landscaping in the file, and
will help buffer the manufactured home park from the adjacent homes in Riverwalk.
The applicant indicated that the project is intended to serve "low to middle income"
residents in the county. See Environmental Checklist, p. 8. The homes in the proposal are
expected to cost $50,000 to $70,000 for purchase and set up. See testimony of R.ichard Mason;
and Exhibit A, "Affordable Housing" section, "Cost of Manufactured Housing in Place" graph.
This would serve gross annual household incomes of $35,000 to $44,000. Income information
provided by the applicant indicates that only 30 % of Spokane area households could afford
manufactured homes in the $60,000 and $70,000 range, while 47% of Spokane area households
could afford manufactured homes in the $50,000 range. See Exhibit A, "Affordable Housing"
section, "Affordability of Housing at Mission Meadows" table. Income information based on
U.S. Census data indicates that the median household income in Spokane County in 1997 was
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 12
approximately $33,000, and the median family income in 1997 was about $42,000. See Exhibit
A, "Affordable Housing" section, "Household and Family Income Distributions in Spokane
County as estimated by Claritas, Inc." table. The thrust of this data is that the proposal would
provide needed and affordable housing in Spokane.
The cost of homes in Riverwalk are estimated to start out at $100,000 and run up as high as
$250,000. See testimony of Kerina Higgins, and letter dated 1-23-98 from Kerina Higgins. The
distribution of homes in Riverwalk at certain values is not provided, and conceivably the most
expensive homes may be located along or near the Spokane River/Centennial Trail, at some
distance from the project. The record suggests that the lower priced homes in Riverwalk are
probably located near the site. See testimony of Kerina Higgins. A number of developers or
builders of homes in Riverwalk expressed concern that the current proposal would devalue lots
or homes developed nearby. See letter dated 1-23-98 from Castlewood Homes, Inc., letter dated
1-23-98 from Parkland Homes, and letter dated 1-20-98 from Lindsey Construction, Inc. A
petition opposing the current proposal was also signed by 58 residents in Riverwalk. The income
information submitted by the applicant clearly suggests that only a relatively small percentage of
residents in the county would be able to afford homes in Riverwalk.
More definitive information on the impact of the proposed manufactured home park on
property values in the area was provided by Scot Auble, MAI, a certified general appraiser
retained by the applicant. Auble conducted a general study on the project and neighborhood in
which the property was located and formed a general opinion as to the project's effect on
neighboring property values. This study included consideration of numerous studies on the
effect of low-income housing on adjacent property values, as well as study directly related to the
effect of manufactured housing on adjacent properties. Auble's report states that virtually all
low-income studies as well as the manufactured housing study indicated that such housing had
no measurable impact on the value of surrounding properties, and that a well-designed and well-
maintained project were important factors in mitigating impacts to adjoining properties. Auble
noted the large number of manufactured home parks in the area, which he felt currently
dominated the neighborhood. Auble characterized the Riverwalk development as a large,
developing, single-family planned unit development consisting of entry level to mid-priced
housing, which development was beginning to change the character of the neighborhood slightly,
but also blended in with it. Auble concluded that it was unlikely that a formal study would show
any negative impact by the proposed project on surrounding property values. See Exhibit A,
under section labeled "Real Estate Value", letter dated 3-24-98 from Dave Auble, MAI to
Richard Mason, and attached studies on low income and manufactured housing.
The Examiner finds that more weight should be allocated to the opinions of Dave Auble, a
certified real estate appraiser who conducted a general study on the issue, than the less qualified
and unstudied opinions of developers/builders and area residents on the issue of the impact of
the project on sunounding property values. Like traffic impact issues, real property valuation is
largely a matter of expert opinion. The Examiner also takes into consideration the large number
of manufactured/mobile homes already in the area, and the ample evidence in the record that the
proposed manufactured home park will be well-designed and maintained, have a generally
pleasing residential appearance, and will provide many of the amenities enjoyed by surrounding
properties.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 13
,
The applicant also cited the county-wide planning policies adopted by Spokane County
pursuant to the Growth Management Act as a basis for approving the proposal. As indicated by
the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing, such policies are not relevant to the review and
approval of specific land use proposals. RCW 36.70A.210 indicates that the county-wide
planning policies are to be used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which a
new comprehensive land use plan is developed and adopted under the GMA. RCW 36.70A.020
states that the planning goals set forth in such statute are to be used exclusively to guide the
development and adoption of the comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted
under the GMA. The policies have no regulatory effect until developed into a new
comprehensive plan and development regulations. Under applicable vesting principles, land use
proposals are to be considered under the land use controls in place at the time a fully completed
application for the proposal is submitted. This does not include county-wide planning policies
adopted under the GMA. Since the site is located within the County's established ILJGA
boundaries, the restrictions on land development outside such boundaries do not apply to the
project. The County's IUGA boundaries currently run south of the Spokane R.iver for a
considerable distance east of the site. County Resolution No. 97-0134.
The Examiner finds that the proposal is generally compatible with neighboring land uses,
will uphold properly values in the area, may provide some renewal in the area relative to the
older housing that exist in the area, and will not detrimentally impact the architectural or
aesthetic character of the area. The proposal generally conforms to the policies of the Urban
category and the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Conditions in the area in which the prooertv is located have chaneed substantiallv since the
nronertv was last zoned.
In applying the changed circumstances test, courts have looked at a variety of factors,
including changed public opinion, changes in land use patterns in the area of the rezone proposal,
and changes on the property itself. The Zoning Code references changes in "economic,
technological or land use conditions" as factors that will support a rezone. Spokane County
Zoning Code Section 14.402.020 (2). Washington courts have not required a"strong" showing
of change. The rule is flexible, and each case is to be judged on its own facts. Bassani v. Countv
Commissioners, 70 Wn. App. 389, 394 (1993). Recent cases have held that changed
circumstances are not required for a rezone if the proposed rezone implements policies of a
comprehensive plan. BjarnsonLat 846; Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99
Wn.2d 363, 370-371 (1983).
As discussed above, the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
"last zoning" of the site could be interpreted to be the 1957 reclassification of the zoning of the
site to the Agricultural zone under the now expired County Zoning Ordinance. See Exhibit A,
"Introduction" section, regarding the zoning history of the site. The 1991 cross-over zoning of
the site to the UR-3.5 zone, under the current County Zoning Code, was part of a county-wide
effort that re-designated land in the county from the old zones of the Zoning Ordinance to the
most similar zones under the Zoning Code, using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. The
current Zoning Code was adopted in 1986, and included a Program to Implement the cross-over
~ zoning in 1991.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 14
Recent changed conditions which support the project include designation of the site within
the County's IUGA boundaries; the extension of public sewer, water and modern utilities to the
site and vicinity; steady residential growth in the area and vicinity; growth in area employment,
and improvements to Barker Road and Mission Avenue. The recent development of the Arbor
Grove Manufactured Home Park southwest of the site could be cited as a changed condition,
although the development and final platting of Riverwalk with and for site-built homes takes
away from the significance of this changed condition. The need for affordable housing in the
county can also be cited as a changed condition.
3. The nronosed rezone bears a substantial relationshin and is not detrimental to the nublic
health, safetv and general welfare.
General consistency with a local government's comprehensive plan is relevant in
determining whether a rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare. Bassani, at
396-98. As noted, the proposal generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
The views of the community may be given substantial weight in a rezone matter, although
they are not controlling. ParkridQe v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1976). Such views must relate to
legal requirements applicable to approval of the land use action being considered, including
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations, environmental impacts and
specific impacts to the public health, safety and welfare. See Cougar Mt. Assocs. v. King
Countv, 111 Wn.2d 752, 756 (1988). As discussed above, the Examiner has considered and
given appropriate weight to the views of neighboring property owners and the developers of
homes in the vicinity, but does not find the concerns raised to be sufficient to support a finding
that the project will detrimentally impact the public welfare. As conditioned, the proposal will
be served by adequate public services and will be reasonably compatible with adjacent land uses.
There is a significant need for the affordable housing that would be provided by the project in the
county.
The Examiner has addressed the access issue involving Grady Lane in Riverwalk Sixth
Addition in the conditions of approval set forth below.
4. The pronosed zone chanize comnlies with the nrovisions of the State Environmental Policv
Act and the Countv's Local Environmental Ordinance.
The procedural requirements of chapter 43.21 C RCW and chapter 11.10 of the Spokane
County Code have been met. The Hearing Examiner concurs with the Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance issued by the Division of Building and Planning. No adverse comments were
received from public agencies that would dictate a need for withdrawal of such environmental
determination.
5. The provosal, as conditioned, complies with the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone, the
Snokane Countv Zoninia Code (SCZC). and amvlicable land use reLyulations.
The proposal has been conditioned for compliance with the applicable requirements of the
UR-7 zone, the Manufactured and Mobile Home Standards established in the Zoning Code, and
other land use regulations.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 15
The Staff Report on page 4 identifies certain discrepancies between the site plan and the
internal setbacks and landscaping required by the Zoning Code Chapters. See testimony of Louis
Webster. The applicant is willing to revise the site plan to correct these deficiencies, which will
occur through administrative review of the manufactured home park site plan. See testimony of
Richard Mason.
At the public hearing, the Examiner indicated that the density of the project may exceed
that allowed in the UR-7 zone, even though the gross density of the project is less than seven (7)
units per acre. Zoning Code 14.808.040 states that the density of the underlying zone shall
govern the density of manufactured (mobile) home spaces, provided that there shall be a
maximum of seven (7) manufactured (mobile) home spaces per acre having a maximum of three
thousand six hundred (3,600 square feet per space." The seven (7) space per acre limitation
appears intended to allow manufactured home parks to be placed in any residential zone at the
density of dwelling units allowed in such zone, as long as it does not exceed a density of seven
spaces per unit.
The maximum density allowed in the UR-7 zone which applies to the site is seven (7)
dwelling units per acre, except as provided or allowed by minimum lot sizes and bonus
density provisions of this Code". See Zoning Code 14.618.305. Zoning Code 14.618.310
establishes minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet for single-family dwellings, and other
minimum lot sizes for duplex units and multifamily dwellings. Smaller minimum lot sizes and
bonus densities are also allowed within a PUD Overlay zone established pursuant to Zoning
Code Chapter 14.704 or a"solar development" established under Zoning Code Chapter 14.812.
Zoning Code 14.618.310 closes by stating that a density of 7 units per acre must be maintained,
regardless of minimum lot size, unless bonus density, Construing Zoning Code 14.618.305 and
14.618.310 together, and reviewing the density provisions listed for the other residential zones in
the Zoning Code, it is clear that the maximum density allowed in the UR-7 zone outside a PUD
Overlay zone or solar development is 7 units per acre.
Density is defined in Zoning Code 14.300.100 to be the amount of land per dwelling unit,
excluding roads and other nonresidential uses. This definition is somewhat ambiguous
considering its reference to the calculation of "lot size" for lots of five acres or greater, whereby
lot size for parcels five acres are greater is deemed to include the area to the centerline of exterior
roads under RCW 58.17.040 (2). However, "lot area" is defined elsewhere by the Zoning Code,
and the "density definition" otherwise appears applicable to the calculation of maximum density
under the residential zones in the Zoning Code. See Zoning Code 14.300.100, definition of "lot
area".
The area occupied by private roads in the project is not listed on the site plan of record, but
is estimated by the Hearing Examiner from the site plan to be about two acres. The area of the
site less roads would be about 17.5 acres, which at a density of 7 units per acre would allow up to
122 home spaces, instead of the 131 spaces proposed. This presents a design issue which can be
addressed during the administrative review process for the manufactured home park. A
condition of approval has been added to ensure that this issue is given consideration.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 16
I
III. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions above, the above application for a zone
reclassification is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of the various public agencies
specified below. Conditions which have been added or significantly altered by the Hearing
Examiner are italicized.
Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this
approval by the Hearing Examiner. This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to
comply with all other requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction over land development.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant",
which term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns and successors.
2. The zone change applies to the following real property:
Parcel A(55083.9043): The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, in the County of Spokane, State of
Washington. EXCEPT the West 110.00 feet of the South 303.00 feet thereof; TOGETHER with
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45
EWM, in the County of Spokane, State of Washington.
Parcel B(55083.9012),: The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of S. 8, Township 25 N., Range 45 EWM, in the County of Spokane, State
of Washington.
Parcel C(55083.9042): The west 110.00 feet of tlle South 303.00 feet of the West Half of
the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45
EWM, in the County of Spokane, State of Washington. TOGETHER WITH a portion of the
South Half of the Southwest Quarter of S. 8, T. 25 N., R. 45 EWM, County of Spokane, State of
Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east
line of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 8 and the
northerly right of way line of Mission Avenue, thence N. 89° 56' 20" W. along said northerly
right of way line a distance of 12.00 feet; thence N. O 1° 17' 00" W. parallel with said east line a
distance of 169.85 feet; thence S. 89° 56' 50" E. a distance of 12.00 feet to said east line; thence
S. 01° 17' 00" E. a distance of 169.85 feet to the Point of Beginning.
3. The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-7 (UR-7) zone, and the Spokane
County Zoning Code, as amended.
4. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept
presented to the Hearing Body. Variations, when approved by the Division Director/designee,
may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape plans and general
allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 17
~
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, and the original intent of the development plans shall be
maintained.
5. The Spokane County Division of Building & Planning shall prepare and record with the
County Auditor a Title Notice specifying a future land acquisition area for road right-of-way and
utilities. The reserved future acquisition area Title Notice shall be released, in full or in part, by
the Division of Building & Planning. The notice should be recorded within the same time frame
as an appeal and shall provide the following:
a. At least 13 feet of reserved future acquisition area for road right-of-way and utilities,
in addition to the existing and/or newly dedicated right-of-way along Mission Avenue. NOTE:
The County Engineer has required 7 feet of new dedication on Mission Avenue.
b. Future building and other setbacks required by the Spokane County Zoning Code
shall be measured from the reserved future acquisition area.
c. No required landscaping, parking, '208' areas, drainfield or allowed signs should be
located within the future acquisition area for road right-of-way and utilities. If any of the above
improvements are made within this area, they shall be relocated at the applicant's expense when
roadway improvements are made.
d. The future acquisition area, until acquired, shall be private property and may be used
as allowed in the zone, except that any improvements (such as landscaping, parking, surface
drainage, drainfield, signs or others) shall be considered interim uses.
e. The property owner shall be responsible for relocating such "interim" improvements
at the time Spokane County makes roadway improvements after acquiring said future acquisition
area.
6. The Division of Building & Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County
Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special
conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shall serve as
public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The Title Notice
should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be
released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building & Planning. The Title Notice shall
generally provide as follows:
The parcel of property legally described as [ ] is the subject of a land use action
by a Spokane County Hearing Examiner on March 25, 1998 imposing a variety of special
development conditions. File No. ZE-56-96 is available for inspection and copying in the
Spokane County Division of Building & Planning.
7. Prior to release of building permits, the sponsor shall submit a final Manufactured Home
Park design plan to the Division of Building & Planning which demonstrates compliance with (a)
the Manufactured Home Parks Development Standards of Chapter 14.808 of the Zoning Code for
Spokane County and (b) all Hearing Examiner conditions of approval. Consideration shall be
given as to whether the project complies with the maximum densiry allowed in the UR-7 zone,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 18
~
considering the definition of "density" under 14.300.100 of the Zoning Code, which excludes the
area for roads from the acreage of a site in calculating density.
8. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property
boundary.
9. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance acceptable to
the Division Director/designee and meeting these conditions of approval shall be submitted with
a performance bond for the project prior to release of building permits. Landscaping shall be
installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired.
10. The applicant shall install and maintain the optional fencing and sight-obscuring
landscape screen along the four boundaries of the site, as proposed by the applicant at the
public hearing. The applicant shall also remedy the deficiencies in required landscaping and
screening along the east boundary, in the width of required landscaping along the south
boundary, and regarding setbacks identified in the Staff Report.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
Prior to issuance of a building permit or at the request of the County Engineer in conjunction
with a County Road Project/Road Improvement District, whichever comes first:
1. Applicant shall dedicate 7 feet on Mission Avenue for right of way.
2. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the
County Engineer.
3. Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage and
access plans.
4. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane
County Engineer. The design, location and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance
with standard engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer
will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles
5. The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer.
6. The County Engineer has designated a 3 Lane Minor Arterial Roadway Section for the
improvement of Mission Avenue which is adjacent to the proposed development. This will
require the addition of varying amounts of asphalt along the frontage of the development.
Curbing and sidewalk must also be constructed.
7. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge construction and other applicable county standards and/or
adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the
date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 19
~
l
8. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements to Mission Avenue along the project
frontage and based upon a traffic analysis done for the proposed development has voluntarily
agreed through a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance to the following off-site
improvements:
a. The applicant shall apply on a yearly basis a dust palliative to Mission Avenue from the
paved portion of Mission Avenue east to the newly aligned Mission Avenue. This measure shall
commence in the year of the applicants' first phased approval and shall continue on a yearly
basis until the unpaved portion of Mission Avenue is paved in accordance with the following off-
site improvement.
b. The applicant shall be responsible for the engineering and construction of a 28 foot
wide roadway section for Mission Avenue from the east end of the paved portion of Mission
Avenue east to the realigned portion of Mission Avenue, (approximately 3000 feet). This
improvement shall be constructed prior to the 61 S` manufactured home being placed on this
proposal or prior to October 1, 2001, no matter how many manufactured homes have been
placed. Should Spokane County create a County Road Project prior to the placement of the 615`
manufactured home, the applicant shall proved cash toward the project of $1000 per unit placed.
9. The applicant shall construct a paved and delineated approach(s) to meet the existing
pavement on Grady Road, Grady Road will not be maintained by Spokane County. A Notice to
the Public Number 4 will be required to allow for a private road on public right of way for Grady
Road. "Grady Road " is listed as "Grady Lane " and "Tract A" on the final plat of Riverwalk
Sixth Addition, and is indicated as a private (stub) road for the benefit of lot owners in the
dedreation for such final plat. However, the dedication for the final plat makes Tract A and the
private stub road subject to a recorded covenant, the terms of which were not available to the
Hearing Examiner. Under the circumstances, it is unclear whether Grady Lane is available as a
secondary access for the project. County Engineering shall determine if Grady Lane/Grady
Road is legally available to the project as a secondary access. If it is not, a second access along
Mission Avenue shall be provided for the project.
10. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in
Spokane Board of County Commissioners Resolution 95-0498 as amended and are applicable to
this proposal.
11. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed right of way until
a permit has been issued by the County Engineer. All work within the public road right of way is
subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer.
12. The County Arterial Road plan identifies Mission Avenue as a Minor Arterial. The
existing right of way width of 20 feet is not consistent with that specified in The Plan. In order
to implement the Arterial Road Plan it is recommended that in addition to the required right of
way dedication, a strip of property 13 feet in width along the Mission Avenue frontage be set
aside in reserve. This property may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when Arterial
Improvements are made to Mission Avenue.
13. The applicant should be advised that there may exist utilities either underground or
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 20
,
overhead affecting the applicants property, including property to be dedicated or set aside future
acquisition. Spokane County will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation
regarding these utilities. The applicant should check with the applicable utilities and Spokane
County Engineer to determine whether the applicant or utility is responsible for adjustment or
relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work.
14. The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of
Way per Spokane County Standards.
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
1. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County.
2. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County.
3. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health.
4. A public sewer system shall be made available for the project and individual service shall
be provided to each lot. The use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be
authorized.
5. The use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES
1. A wet (live) sewer connection to the area-wide Public Sewer System shall be constructed.
A sewer connection pernut is required.
2. Public sanitary sewer easement shall be shown on the face of the plat and the dedication
shall state: "The perpetual easement granted to Spokane County, it's successors and assigns is
for the sole purpose of construction, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, altering,
replacing, removing, and all other uses or purposes which are or may be related to a sewer
system. Spokane County, its successors and assigns at all times hereinafter, at their own cost and
expense, may remove all crops, brush, grass or trees that may interfere with the constructing,
installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing, removing, and all other uses or
purposes which are may be related to a sewer system. The grantor(s) reserves the right to use
and enjoy that property which is the subject of this easement for purposes which will not
interfere with the County's full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted; provided the Grantor(s)
shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill on the easement, or diminish or
substantially add to the ground cover over the easement. The easement described hereinabove is
to and shall run with the land."
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 21
3. Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division of Utilities, "under separate
cover", only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer
connections and facilities for review and approval.
4. Security shall be deposited with the Division of Utilities for the construction of the public
sewer connection and facilities and for the prescribed warranty period. The security shall be in a
form acceptable to the Division of Utilities and in accordance with the Spokane County Sanitary
Sewer Ordinance.
5. Arrangements for payments of applicable sewer charges must be made for prior to issuance
of sewer connection permit.
6. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1. The applicantlowner shall design and construct to WSDOT and Spokane County standards:
a. A right turn lane for southbound Barker Road traffic at the westbound Barker/I-90
ramps.
b. A right turn lane for northbound Barker Road traffic at the Barker/Trent Avenue
intersection.
These improvements shall include all related items necessary to construct these lanes.
2. The applicant/owner shall prepare design/construction plans acceptable to WSDOT and
Spokane County, enter into a developers' agreement for the construction of the above
improvements, and enter into a WSDOT agreement to pay for plan review, construction
inspection, and administrative costs. All of these requirements must be completed prior to the
issuance of any building perniits for this site.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 22
i
DATED this 4" day of June, 1998.
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
~
~
7~7
c el C. Dempsey, 3
Mi
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL,
Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution Nos. 96-0171 and 96-0632, the decision of the
Hearing Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification and accompanying SEPA
determination is final and conclusive unless within ten (10) calendar days from the Examiner's
written decision, a party of record aggrieved by such decision files an appeal with the Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington. However, RCW 36.70B.110 (9)
indicates that administrative appeals of county land use decisions and SEPA appeals shall be
filed with the legislative body within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision.
This decision was mailed by certified mail to the Applicant on June 4, 1998.
DEPENDING ON WHICH APPEAL PERIOD REFERENCED ABOVE LEGALLY
APPLIES, THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS EITHER JUNE 149 1998 OR JUNE 189
1998.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal period
with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 324-3490. The file may be inspected
during normal working hours, listed as Monday - Friday of each week, except holidays, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at
the cost set by Spokane County ordinance.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE-56-96 Page 23
~ i • ~ 1,0 ~ 1
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
AiDv o .
November 7, 1997 ? ~99~
W.O. No. 96072 ~4SC I~CS IN1 Y~NG1tyEF
R
Vc,~fs~~"t Z•~d •
Pat Harper
Spokane County Engineering
1026 W. Broadway •--r~,~~ i~+~Ws Lc.~i ~ c~~ ~a~
Spokane, WA 99260 j S oit "+n~ l,&s5 -f&Ae s+OP
~,Jv~}~ot I.~ ~h ~'tX S~c.-{a w~ s• .
RE: Misson Meadows - Addendum to TIA 5~a,,,,~ d t~.~ ~•t t~ toyprdvt
Dear Pat: vnrr~~-h
a~c 4Z-;I;h5 -f+Y
The following letter is an addendum to the Mission Meadows Traffic Impact Analysis. This
addendum is to address WSDOT concerns and provide justification for allowing additional trips
with improvements at the intersections of Barker Road & Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Barker Road
& the I-90 Westbound Ramps.
Barker Road & Trent Avenue
This intersection was analyzed for both AM & PM peak hour traffic for build out year (2003)
conditions with the project. A new northbound right turn lane was considered to determine if this
improvement would shorten delay times to less than without the project. The following table
shows a comparison of the delay times for condition without either the project or northbound right
turn lane and for the condition with the project and the northbound right turn lane.
Trent & Barker Delay Time Improvements, Year 2003
Without Project With Project
Without NB Rt. Turn Lane With NB Rt. Turn Lane
NB Approach Delay NB Approach Delay
AM Peak 486.0 sec. 347.9 sec.
PM Peak >999.9 sec. 530.8 sec.
As shown in the table above, both the AM and PM peak hour delay times are improved so that
delay times with the project and the northbound right turn lane are less than delay times without
the project and a northbound right turn lane. See attachments for copies of the delay calculations
for the condition with the northbound right turn lane. The TIA has the calculations for the
condition without the northbound right turn lane.
Barker Road & I-90 Westbound Ramps
This intersection was also analyzed for both AM & PM peak hour traffic for build out year (2003)
conditions with the project. A new southbound right turn lane was considered to determine if this
707 West 71h • Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205
Spokane, WA 99204 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
509 -458-6840 • FAX: 509-458-6844 208-765-7784 0 FAX: 20$-769-"7;
Addendum to TIA for Mission Meadows
November 7, 1997
Page 2
improvement would shorten delay times to less than without the project. A signal will be required
at this intersection if all of the background traffic actually builds in this area. Since that is
uncertain both as to timing and as to if proposed projects will build, total background counts were
not used. For comparison purposes, only a portion of the background trips were used in the
calculations as a base to compare in the determination if a southbound right turn lane at this
intersection will improve the delay times. The following table shows a comparison of the
intersection delay times for condition without either the project or southbound right turn lane and
for the condition with the project and the southbound right turn lane. Total intersection delay time
was used because with the improvement (right tum lane), some of the turning movement delay
times were shorter and some longer for the condition with the project and the right turn lane over
the condition without the project. .
, I-90 Westbound Ramps & Barker Delay Time Improvements, Year 2003
Witbout Project With Project -
Without SB Rt. Turn Lane With SB Rt. Turn Lane
Intersection Delay Intersection Delay
AM Peak 3.7 sec. 3.4 sec.
PM Peak 4.3 sec. 4.3 sec.
This table shows that the intersection delay for the AM peak is reduced slightly by constructing
the right turn lane and the intersection delay for the PM peak stays the same with the project traffic
if the right turn lane is constructed. See attachments for copies of the delay calculations.
Please give me a call if you have any question regarding this project.
Sincerely,
~
~
Timo y A. Schwab, P.E.
TAS/tas
cc: Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
Lewis Webster, Spokane Co. Planning
Steve Stairs, Spokane Co. Engineering
Bill Colyar _
Richard Mason
i
ATTACHMENTS
. '
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABWM.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/97
Other Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT AM Peak MI
SSION ACCESS, NB Rt. turn
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 259 104 102 1135 114 62
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 ~ .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (o )
SU/RV' s ( °s )
CV' s 006)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENABWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 202
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1094
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1094
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 404
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1040
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1040
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.88
Step 4: LT f rom Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1720 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 84
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.88
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 74
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 140 74 535.1 10.4 F
347.9
NB R 76 1094 3.5 0.1 A
WB L 124 1040 3.9 0.4 A 0.3
Intersection Delay 34.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBWM.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) Trent Road
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst tas
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/97
Other Information......... BUILD OUT (2003) W/ PROJECT PM Peak, M
ISSION ACCESS, Rt. Turn
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1096 198 115 493 114 174
PHF .95 .95 .'95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s M
SU/RV's
CV's
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c TRENPBWM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 681
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 626
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 626
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.68
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1362
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 318
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 318
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.58
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1898 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 65
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.58
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.58
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.58
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 38
~ Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 132~ 38 * 12.7 F
530.8
NB R 201 626 8.4 1.5 B
WB L 133 318 19.2 2.0 C 3.6
Intersection Delay = 70.8 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBAMBO.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) WB Ramp Terminal
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min
Analyst Tim Sch,..:.
Date of Analysis.......... 10/28/9"/
Other Information Base (2603) hl~nout Froject
ow improvements)
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection AVA
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound I
L T R L T R L T R L T k ~I
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N .
Volumes 281 167 222 18 182 343 19 18 8 19 18 10
PHF .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's (°s)
SU/RV's (o)
CV' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Le f t Turn Ma j or -Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
~As~ N~T_
141 GLVD~ Att, OF ~~GI~C~~Ov/~D TF~PS
HCS: Unsignalized Intersectioris Kelease 2.1c 8AW8AiyiBU.riCG raJG ~
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 302 384
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 973 885
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 973 885
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 423 571
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1078 916
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1078 916
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.63
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 170
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.97 ~ 0.51
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1198 1132
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 257 278
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.50 0.50
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 127 138
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.83 0.84
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1026 1028
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 270 269
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.42 0.41
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.54 0.53
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.53
_
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 143 14:7
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBAMBO.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 23 141 >
EB T 22 138 > 165 32.4 1.3 E 32.4
EB R 10 885 >
WB L 23 143 >
WB T 22 127 > 165 32.9 1.4 E 32.9
WB R 12 973 >
NB L 336 916 6.2 1.9 . B 2.6
SB L 22 1078 3.4 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 3.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBAMBW.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ^ I
University of F1o?"ida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32 ~ =1
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets :(N-S) Barker Road (,E-W) WB Ramp l'e:L-n-iinal
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed 15 t PL-iini
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/28/97
Other Information......... Base (2003) With Project (Base to show
improvements) ~AA PC, A, K
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T a
No. Lanes 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 1 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N . N
Volumes 281 173 222 18 184 362 19 18 8 19 18 10
PHF .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s (o )
SU/RV' s (51c)
CV' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00' 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBAMBW.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 308 200
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 967 1096
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 967 1096
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.99
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 429 593
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1071 894
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1071 894
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.6-
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.5o
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EI-J
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1226 954
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 248 344
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.49 0.41
Movement Capacity : (pcph) 120 16 - , 7
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.82
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 848 104
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 342 26~:
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.42 0.1~
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.54
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.54 0.5y
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 183 134
Ul1S 1 qi 1 c.i .1. i i C a i I i C_ C ? -D E2 _DJ L-ii 1:~ '1'4
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950,
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 23 134 >
EB T 22 167 > 176 29.5 1.2 D 29.5
EB R 10 1096 >
WB L 23 183 >
wB T 22 120 > 177 25.7 i.3 D ~9.7
WB R 12 96? >
NB L 336 894 6.4 1.9 B 2.7
22 1071 3.4 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Dell,,,.,
i
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMBO.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) WB Ramp Terminal
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/29/97
Other Information......... Base (2003) Without Project, PM Peak (B
ase to sr. _ . , .
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersectior i
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 156 470 77 6 273 106 23 7 12 44 '49 29
PHF ~ .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV' s ( % )
CV' s 006)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left.Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40.
~i~s~ ~o~s ~lo ~ SE~o~ ~w ge+~~C~o~i~D T[~tPs
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMBO.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 536 343
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 741 928
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 741 928
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 576 399
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 911 1107
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 911 1107
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.84
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.75
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1104 1089
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 287 293
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.75 0.75
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 214 219
Prob: of Queue-Free State: 0.73 0.96
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1058 1090
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 258 248
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.72 0.55
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.78 0.65
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.77 0.62
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 199 l~~
HCS: Unsignalized 'lntersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMBO.riCu Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 26 153 >
EB T 8 219 > 217 21.2 0.8 D 21.2
EB R 14 928 >
WB L 51 199 >
WB T 57 214 > 250 31.8 3.0 E 31.8
WB R 34 741 >
NB L 180 1107 3.9 0.6 A 0.9
SB L 7 911 4.0 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 4.3 ~ec/veh
~ Ivt. f-f .
,
%
.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMBW.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportatie::
University of Florida ~
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Barker Road (E-W) WB Ramp Terminal
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim SchwJ:.
Date of Analysis.......... 10/29/97
Other Information......... Base (2003) With Project, PM Peak (Base
to show im~ro-Je~ments ) ~
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 <"Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 156 493 77 6 274 119 23 7 12 44 49 2~
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s 06)
SU/RV' s (s)
CV' s 006)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
~Af,E- ~V6,6 Nar 5 PoW Aw 0r BAGK-G-rOVlup ~~if-e
~fLIPS Q'r 6vrLPoar WFFE-fz- ADvaD,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMBW.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB E11-3,
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 560 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 720 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 720 989
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 0.99
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 600 413
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 888 1090
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 888 1090
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.74
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 1142 1058
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 274 304
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.74 0.74
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 202 224
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.72 0.96
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EE~
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 1028 1122
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 269 237
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.71 0-.53.
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.78 0.63
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.77 0.6-
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 206 14:.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c BAWBPMBW.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 26 142 >
EB T 8 224 > 206 22.7 0.9 D 22.7
EB R 14 989 >
WB L 51 206 >
WB T 57 202 > 246 32.9 3.1 E 32.9
WB R 34 720 >
NB L 180 1090 4.0 0.6 A 0.8
SB L 7 888 4.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 4.3 sec/veh
.-Washington State Eastern Region
~ Department of Transportation 2714 N. Mayfair Street
Douglas B. MacDonald Spokane, WA 99207-2090
Secretary of Transporlation 509-324-6000
Fax 509-324-6005
TTY: 1-800-833-6388
~+-WSdot.wa.gov
~
September 23, (dwa
Mr. Jim Falk Spokane Cou
n.SEP West 1026 Bro ue Sp~ Spokane, WA ~FCo~~,~,n ~
Re:I-90Miss:o ?~~eudoti:~s Development
Dear Mr. Falk;
In regard to the above development the applicant has now completed the required roadway
improvements to the state highway system. With these improvements being provided for we
have no objections to this project moving forward.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 324-6199.
Sincerely,
~i~%/~/ ~
Greg Figg
Transportation Planner
cc: Richard Mason, Applicant
Scott Engelhard, Spokane County Engineers
Project File