ZE-039-95
Ri* i
dgeview Estates
o
' ~ ~ .
~ .
; ~ ` !5 N
rd bio
; aY E.
~ POrk~ . N
t ~ CY
V
MQN RELD N
CY
; o i
5H AN NU = !AV Feir
_ ~ - ~ ~ i 1..► t ~1 ~'S►1.1
.
DR. 1
'0'► .
, 9G
C! + 4~~~ ~
.
~ lk
r rs~*
L C~4
' . ~ . A V E. -
- - . _ _
r L `
~ + f 1•. Aw~+
~ 3: I r ~ ~
cr .
' ~
I U r ci~~ t
~ < IV
B O Ofy F- ~ ~ .
_ . _ ~ L? E 5 M E M ~ ~ a . .
~ _ ~ _ • • ~'"~z .
C1ES M ET Aw E Or pl
- ~ AT^.L 0 C A7A, L.i]U f~ ~ . `
~ ~ '+1~ GT~►
,
c
.
p • W ~ cc -
15
~ i
~ ~ t MA LLJ W
> m
q Y
E~ .,~•,r~ ~ ~ • r
T!i
~ K { A' .aLKI
+ ~ ~ ,Q
' ac~v~ .4vs <
' Z WO VAL. L
~ -
~`t. 'J
.
,e' r..,,.,.
g '
; ao
;Z5 3 s as
~
a, ,~lllll~ .
04,0"a,.
17~..~
■ ~ q ".",r
R I ~ -p ~ ~ " no• .
e - ,
5" 9 7 12 ~
r ~ ~ I 'a J"
14
W
1 ~
eM+W+ouw ~ 13
1 3f
~ ~.~..e•' ~ ~ . 1 0Y
I~
' o
-T-
I 2 10
\ -~c--Sl- . ' ~
_ io' 25'
OPProMlsslon Avenue ~ ~ ~ ~
/ ~.T«o.le,r aMr
~
¢ ~v►ti•'~m~ / / .
m r
o /
o /
0
~
DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS:
.a+ee~tevnavi. n,cunaa,+ •.worom wiw wM • •y~~ee w+mr ~a.~ea+oie x~r~ce wree.ee,
•54re AeoURZ!50. wr 15150e r«xwn Aw+.e lW T T'f! A- IWIMADA eeo er 04 uun '~+~~m • 414 erALA-5 n3 PM uuroi eLey, I a 14 . rbt 2 eoWr+, r,i 3 eow+ 32M0 Sf. MLDINbS (INGI. /AT10S. !M 9TOR 1 STAtltFl1L51 • II SP
,51 re rOtEA, 193+ Acus reee.210 ari uar n*e e•2 eoa+rte., eI er ns umen eruK.ae er►us e1 s w 11 12 4 .5 • nei 2 eoMw. ra 5 eow, 150.4e0s1- PNUaft@Ywuves II e+P-Aeesi • 21e3.0 Sr
uur ,r►e . ! eoOu+rmA 10,11e sr » uars w AcGe»IeLe erxi. e1 5 8 & • na) 9 drw. ru e OMw T,.e. SP e101!1,4,~r tautr - 1e,e0 sr
-GaSnM 7At. Wt-ss is2 0►M sr~LLS
tor,.L • ea uu~ e11 1 4 4 . (24) 1 eowr+ 11400 er rorK • or.,z er 31+~
-rwa►oam rae, ui-12 ~ oevnePI oeeir, *or"i • 414 STAaLS ns roe uan aoe a • r3e) i eomv+ ".-so er .orei rAcetiewxAre AMMA. 926]10 ! P f4+{7
•x*eAuco- enPtEe. nwrrAdSe Mer .aLa"!V • b uun ra Aeu (SS+3 uwn) • PAPtcwe atl~ sMAee5 - e5as SP .euiaw 04Deirt.
510t rMto • i3 R[T ►wo►dlm • 701 Ow7! ►Gl K.R! AN Uut7J 0►4r ltNl! - DL• K i0' ~LEA&MO r0~ nC! IG[ 4 Rc. 9700 S►. ,y,,,~~~y _~Ox 7! Ri
~1lAU! rMD - IS R[T OAII/dC 9T^41.9 • W'•!' %]0'
D~VL AiSLb - 74' 1 SO' TOrK dXLDMB ~A . K20X) D/ GLLIEM017! • M~110X ~~T
~M/b6 • ~RRO% I~ f'tI[7
0"" EV EW ESTA ~ ~ ~ aRCHIfECiUAE NORTH ~~tRCN~ ECTUPRE ~ 1
AND PIANNING
AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON SCALE: 1• . ao~ . ISS~ u~
130 woov[a vua ,ur 3 1 iws
BY: ALVIN J. WOIfF, INC.
)ets ~a~ ~uiaI~ ana JOI~ISqI BqWMD ttiin[ k~r~ m~ urtn ansJ='
A[.rmoIup *a DEMNq1,NG rttpum6-431-,xo MT31 1995
~
~
Sl O11ANL COV1\Tl
HEARING EXAMINER COMNII'1"i'EL
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCI,USI4NS AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter has come before the Hearing Examiner Committee on October 19,
1995. The members of the Committee present are: Michael Schrader, Chair,
Verona Southern and John Roskelley.
PROPOSAL
The sponsors, Frucci/Wolff, request approval of a Zone Reclassification, ZE-39-95,
from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) for 316
multiple family residences and those uses allowed in the Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) zone.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The property is generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue,
approximately 650 feet east of Woodlawn Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 10,
Township 25 North, Range 44 EWiVI, Spokane County, Washinaton.
2. The CoiTnlUttee adopts the Planning DeP1[iI11eI1t RepOI't as a part of this record.
3. The 2XISt1I1c, Ia11d USt',S lIl the aI'ea lI1ClUCje II1L1111-fafIllly I'f',ti1deI1Ces. Illcdll'.tl ot t 1cc~,,
retirement facilities, single famil\ rc~iclcn~c,,,, .tnd ~nM11 NlSin~s'~,«.
4. The proposed use is compatiblc With CXiSt111~.' <<,Cl ifl thC
5. The property is located within the Urban cat~,,oi-~ ~uld cht I'Il~~tli\' Sc\~'tl' S~'[ i~~•
Area (PSSA). The Urban category is intended to provide the opportunity fc ~i
development of a"city-like" environment which includes various land uses.
intensive residential development and public facilities and services (water, salllkii ~
and storm sewer lines, police and fire protection and other features). Residential
net densities are suggested to range from 1 to 22 dwelling units per acre in the
Urban category. The proposed density of 20.6 dwelling units per acre is consistelit
with the density range suggested by the Urban category of the Comprehensive
Plan. The zone reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) implements the majoriry of the Goals, Objectives and
Decision Guidelines of the Urban category.
6. The proposed zoning does implement and conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The proposal is located on Mission Avenue. The Spokane County Arterial Roacl
Plan identifies Mission Avenue as a Minor Arterial. In order to implement the
Arterial Road Plan, the County Engineer recommends that a strip of property 8 i c~: t
in width aloncy Mission A\,enue he set asicle as a FlltllI'c'. ,Acquisition Area (FAA).
I
.
8. The existing zoning of the property described in the application is Urban
Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) previously established as Agricultural zoning in 1942 and
redesignated to Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) on January l. 1991 pursuant to the
Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. The proposal does
conform to the requirements of the proposed zone.
9. The provisions of RCW 43.21C (The State Environmental Policy Act) have been
complied with and a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was
issued. The Committee, after independent review, hereby adopts the MDNS.
10. The legal requirements for public notice have been fulfilled.
11. The owners of adjacent lands expressed neither approval nor disapproval of the
proposed use.
12. The applicant has demonstrated that conditions have substantially changed since the
original zoning of this area and accordingly, the proposed zone reclassification is
justified. Specifically, changed conditions include approval of multi family
development in close proximity to the subject property.
13. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or
welfare especially in light of the conditions recommended by the reviewing
agencies.
14. The Committee additionally finds/concludes:
a. The applicant accepts and agrees with all recommended conditions of
approval.
b. Landscaping and fencing is required adjacent to the existing retirement facility
on the west property line and will provide a buffer to the adjacent and less
intensive land use.
CONDITIONS 4R CONTINGENCIES APPLIED TO THIS APPROVAL
1. All Conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner Committee shall be binding on
the "Applicant," which term shall include the owner or owners of the property,
heirs, assigns, and successors-in-interest.
2. The Zone Reclassification and following Conditions of Approval apply to the real
property described below:
The south 38 rods of the west 15 acres of the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1i4 of
Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
That part of the east 660 feet of th4 south 660 feet of the southwest 1/4 of the southeast
1!4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County and lying
south of the canal right of way of Spokane Valley Irrigation District. ALSO that part of
the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said Section 10 more particularly described as
follows: Beginning at a point in the south line thereof, 660 feet west of the southeast
corner thereof, thence west 165 feet, thence north on a line parallel with the east line of
said southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 to a point in the south line of the canal right of
HEC Order for ZE-39-95 Page 2
.
way of Spokane Valley Irrigation I)i~tri:t, tllcn~~ ~wutlic~istci-ly alon` tli~ ~c~utli~~~l~ lillc
of said canal right of way to a point which is 660 feet west of the east line of saici
southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4, thence south on a line parallel with the east line of
said southwest 1/4 of thc southea;t 1/4 of said Section to the place of he~inning.
HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEF
1. The applicant shall install a six (6) foot sight obscuring fence and five (5) feet of
Type III landscaping adjacent to the west property line.
SPOKANE COUNTI' DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner Committee shall be binding oii t l~~
"Applicant", which term shall include the ownet- or owners, of the nroPertv, heir,,,
assigns and successors.
2. The pro~~sal shal] coni1,1% itli th` t~il~,~i~
amendecl.
3. The applicwlt sllall develop subject property generally in accorciance within the
concept presented to the Hearing Body. Variations, when approved by the
Planning Director/designee, may be permitted, including, but not limited to builcli~III"
location, landscape plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All
variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Z; ~1,~ i 11,
Code, and the original intent of the development plans shall be maintaineti.
4. Approval is required by the Planning Director/designee of a specific lighting and
signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building permits.
5. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance
acceptable to the Planning Director/designee 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.
6. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property boundary.
7. The Spokane County Planning Department 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 Planning Department. The notice should be
recorded within the same time frame as an appeal and shall provide the followin41:
a. At least 8 feet of reserved future acquisition area for road right-of-way ancl
utilities, in addition to the existing and/or newly dedicated right-of-way aloll
M1SS10II A\'t'illle. NOTE: Thc Collilty F'il(.'111ccr ha,; I'C(lilll'cCl -1 tet't ot I1c%i
l~t'ljl~';tfl(lll.
I-IcC Ordc,- for zL- ;9-95
r
b. Future building and other setbacks required by the SPokane Countv Zonin~
Code shall bc measured from the i-eserved futui-e c. No required landscaping, parking, '208' areas, diaiilfield _)r allu« cd
should be located within the future acquisition area for road right-of-way a►ld
utilities. If any of the above improvements are made within this area, they
shall be relocated at the apPlicant's expense when raadway improvements arc
Ill:tilc.
d. 'I'lic iuLui-C acquiSitioli W'Ca, uiltil acyuircd, tillall be pri\-ate property a11ci 111a%
be used as allowed in the zone, except that any improvements (such as
landscaping, parking, surface drainage, drainfield. siRns or others) shall he
considered interim uses.
e. The property owner shall be rcsponsible for relocallllb SUCIl ll1lt;I'IIIl''
improvements at the time Spokane County make,~ rnadway improve11iL,nt~,
after acquiring said future acquisition area.
8 . The Planning Department shall prepare and record with the Spuhane COu r; i~
Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety cdspecial conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. Thi, Ti ! 1,~
Notice shall serve as public notice of the conditions of approval affecting thc
property in question. The Title Notice should be recorded within the same i i j i it
frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or in part, b}
Planning Department. 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 Body or
Administrative Official on [ imposing a variety of
special development conditions. File No. [ ] is available for
inspection and copying in the Spokane County Planning Department.
9. The applicant shall contact the Division of Buildings at the earliest possible stage in
order to be informed of code requirements administered/enforced as authorized by
the State Building Code Act. Design/development concerns include: addressing;
fire apparatus access roads; fire hydrant/flow; approved water systems; building
accessibility; construction type; occupancy classification; exiting; exterior wall
protection; and energy code regulations. (Note: The Division of Buildings reserves
the riaht to confirm the actual address at the time of building permit.)
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADti
Prior to issuance of a building permit or at the reQUest to the Countv EnEineer in cuiliunCti~~fl
with a Countv Road Proiect/Road Imarovement District. whichever ~trtic~n cc~rnes fii~st:
1. Applicant shall dedicate 2 feet on Mission Avenue for right-ot'-« ,ty,
Prior To Issuance Of A Buil(iin<r i'ci-niit 01- i'~c 01- The Propc!-t -.Pr,
2. ACCeSS Per1711tS f~~C 1c~ Eo 1l1c l'olI11L1I~~~t~j il '1)~1! I i)!_' :61 ;111-ic(j ~It~Ill lhc
~j~(~~.:lll`.' ~(~lii;~l~~.`•)`:'ill~'~`I.
HEC Order for ZE-39-95 pabe _i
3. Tlle applicant shall submit for acceptance by the Spokane County Eilgirleer road,
drainage and access plans.
4. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be subnutted and approved by the
Spokane County Engineer. The design, location and arrangement of parking stalls
shall be in accordance with standard traffic 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 constrvction of the road improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as
approved by the Spokane County Engineer.
6. The County Engineer has designated a four lane Minor Arterial standard for the
improvement of Mission Avenue, which is adjacent to the proposed development.
This will require the addition of approximately 18 - 20 feet of asphalt along the
frontage of the development. The construction of curbing and sidewalk is also
required.
7. All required improvements shall conforcn to the cui-rent State of Washint[OI1
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 constniction, unless otherwise
approved by the County Engineer.
8. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and draina~e plan requirements are
found in Spokane Board of County Commissio►lers ReSolution No. 95-0498 as
amended and are applicable to this proposal.
9. No construction work shall be performed witliin the existiilb or proposed puh11 C
right-of-way until a permit has been issued by the County Engineer. All worl:
within the public road riaht-of-wav is suhject to inspection and aPrroval hv t~ic
County Enginee:
10. All required cocl~iruk.:t1oli itiiiil ii~~ Cff pru~~~~~C~ pu%iIc: FlOlil-01-~Vay i, t,,
be completed prior to the release of a building permit, or a bond in an amount
estimated by the County Engineer to cover the cost of constructiOn Of iillprovemCF:i~
shall be filed with the County Engineer.
11. The County Arterial Road Plan identifies N1is5ion Aveiiue as a Miiior Ai-terial. T►.ic
existing right-of-way width of 60 feet is not consistent with that specified in thc
Plan. In order to implement the Arterial Road Plan, in addition to the required
right-of-way dedication, a strip of property 8 feet in width along the Mission
Avenue frontage shall be set aside in reserve. This property may be acquired by
Spokane County at the time when arterial improvements are made to Mission
Avenue.
12. There may exist utilities, either underground or overhead, affecting the subjcct
property, including property to be dedicated or set aside for future acquisition.
Spokane County assumes no financial obligation for adjustments or relocati()11
regarding these utilities. Applicant(s) should check with the applicable utilit\'
purveyor and the Spokane County Engineer to determine whether applicant(s) ol-
HEC Order for ZE-39-95 Page 5
~
the utility is respoiisible ior acijustilient ur l-clucatloll "t11L1 I+' :Iial~e
arf ~aTlgeI11eIltS fOI' aIIV IleCttiSaI'ti' wOI'k.
13. A [rttrtlC aIlaly'S1S has becII pI'~pal-f'.d tOC 11115 IN'01)OSaI, lIl COI1Jl1I1CIlOI1 wllh th1S ai1aIVS(ti
a delay study was also completed. Based on this analysis, the proposal could ~
accommodate 275 units, should the applicant wish to proceed beyond that point a[lOCiler
traffic analysis sha11 be done prior to the 276th unit being constructed to reevaluate the
intersection of Mission and McDonald and mitigating measures if anv sh.lll hc
constructed by the applicant should he wish to proccc(_I. y
SPUKaNE COtiN`T1' llIN'ISIUIti OF li'I'1L1'1'IES
1. The owner(s) or successor(s) in interest agree to autllui-izc ilic: C I uunty to piace tiieii
name(s) on a petition for the formation of ULID by petition method pursuant to
RCW 36.94, which petition includes the owner(s)' property; and further not to
object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULID by
resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94 which includes the owner(s)'
property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the owner(s) or
successor(s) from objecting to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of
improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a LTLID by either
petition or resolution under RCW Chapter 36.94.
2. A wet (live) sewer connection to the area wide Public Sewer System is to be
constructed. Sewer connection pernut is required.
3. Applicant is required to sign a sewer connection agreement prior to issuance of permit
to connect.
4. Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Utilities Department "under
separate cover" only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for
public sewer connection for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to
issuance of pernut to connect.
5. Security shall be deposited with the Utilities Department for construction of the public
facilities connections.
6. Arrangements for payment of additional sewer charges must be made for prior to
issuance of sewer connection permit.
7. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
VVater System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRIC7'
1. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokan~
County.
2. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County.
l ;
LL: -
` ,
l ; '
3. tn C",::,:.;~,:_
Regiumal EnLineer (Spol:aile), State I~~parttilent o( Health.
4. A public sewei- systeill ",ill be illade available foi- the project, aild individual SeI"vice
will be provided to each lot. Use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems
Shall n0t hC atitlloi-ilcd.
5. Usc oi' pri~ate we11s anCi watcr systetns is proliibiteci.
SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTRUL AtiTI-IOkITI'
1. All air pollution regulations must be met.
2. Air pollution regulations require that dust emissions during demolition, constructiorl
and excavation projects be controlled. This may require use of water sprays, tarps,
sprinklers or suspension of activity during certain weather conditions. Haul roads
should be treated, and emissions from the transfer of earthen material must be
controlled, as well as emissions from all other construction-related activities.
3. SCAPCA strongly recommends that all traveled surfaces (ingress, egress, paI-kIIl"areas, access roads) be paved and kept clean.
4. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mucl frocn unpaved
surfaces onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces,
measures mList he taken immediately to clean these stirfaces.
5. Debri~ ~enerated as a reAilt of this project must be disposcd of h\' otll~2r 1l1~1n
burning (i.e., construction waste, etc).
6. All solid fuel burning devices (wood stoves, pellet stoves, etc..) must comply with
local, state, and federal rules and regulations.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1. The proposed development shall not occur in more than three phases as related to
the application of building pernuts.
2. Based on 3161iving units and mitigation totaling $36,000, the pro-rata share shall
be $114.00 per living unit. Payment of this fee shall be made to WSDOT prior to
the issuance of the requested building permits.
3. Issuance of all building permits shall occur before June 30, 1999. Building permit~,
obtained after June 30, 1999 shall require the applicant to tipdate the ti-affic analysis
along with the required mitigating measures.
4. The above SEPA mitigation fees shall be used by WSDOT to construct needed
improvements on Pines Road in the vicinity of I-90 and Mission Avenue which «ill
be used directly by the traffic generated by thi,~
5. To ensure that this mitigation is provided i',_)1. icy~ic,i,-, Iil ~i,lll;>t;i, 1h~
inclLldM fnr «'SDnT ~_~n iht_- huilciiilL, I)er111it.
HEC Order for ZE-39-95 pacre 7
.
.
ORDER
The Hearing Examiner Committee, pursuant to the above Findings of F<ct ar1d
Conclusion, APPROVES the application of Frucci/Wolff for the Zone
Reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residelltial-21?
(UR-22) for 316 multiple family residences and those uses allowed in the Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) zone as described in the application ZE-39-95
Motion by: Verona Southern Seconded by: Michael Schrader
Vote: (2-1) TO APPRnVE THE ZONE RF,CLASSTFICATION
HEARING EXAML'VER C01MN11"I`rI'LI
HEREBY ATTEST TO THE ABOVE FiND1NGS, ORDEK A;NI) 0~
,
CRAI 1 .
,--,--r`
. - i
i ,
ATI'EST:
For JOHN MERCER
Acting Assistant Planning Director
Gc%~
B OHN W. PEDERSON
Senior Planner .
/O-ad-qS
DATE
Pursuant to Spokane County regulations, any aggrieved party has the right to appeal this
written decision to the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners within ten (10)
calendar days of the signing of this order. Upon receipt of an appeal, a public hearing will
be scheduled. If you desire to file such an appeal, you must submit a written appeal,
preferably on forms designed for such purpose, to the Board of County Commissioners,
West 1116 Broadway, Spokane. ~~'_=1 )~~,n. ,,,-,~c~ ,,,T fe~~
the Spo!:-ine
If you
HEC Order for ZE-39-95 Page 8
~
~
EN+GINEER}S REVIEW SIIEET
REzar~ FME# ZEM -
Related File #
Date to Review #
Date t4 AA & I]R 08-30-95 Time 1:15
Date Received 8117J95
Praject Name UR-3.5 Ta UR-22 ,A,PT 316 UNIT RIDGEVIEW EST No. Lvts 0 Nv. Acres 15.3
Range - Tuwnship - Sectian
SITE ADDRESS N MISSI(INfE MCDCI►NALDIW MAMER P,ARCEL # 35104.9025
Applicant's Name FRUCCIIWOLFF Phone # 747-0999
Address J+DHN SWEITZER Phane 2#
107 S H+QWARD STE 300
SP(J WA 99204
FLOOD ZDNE No W S Schoal Dates Conditioas mailed
Owner J4HN FRUCCI Engineer 1 Surveyvr's / Architect INLA,ND PACIFIC ENGINEERING
Address 12111 E 22ND AVE
SPQKAl'1E WA 99206
Phone Address MARY'CI.TFF HALL
Phone 1 FAX 707 W 7TH STE 20(}
SPOI{ANE WA 99204
458-6$44 FAX FA.X 458-6844
Ptanning Contract Person Phane # 4St4-~i+
Date Submitted Uescription Initials
~
1 I AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES OR PRIORITY FEE COMFLETEI) & CC}PY TC7 ACCOUNTING
! 1 FINAL PLAT FEES Cl7MPLETEIJ & C4FY TO ACCOUI'+iTING
1 ! NUTICE 'I'C} PUBLIC # I 3 4 6 CUMPI.ETED - OR NEED5 fi4 BE SIGNED
f I DESIGN DEVIATION SUBMITTEA '
1 1 ALTER.ATION 7'O PLAT - BLC}CKS -LOTS
BOND REI.EASED► -RG1AI7 & DRAINAGE IMPRQVEMENTS
f 1 HEARING EXAM APPR(}'VED UENIEI]- APPEALED BBC I PROJECT APPROVED DENTED
f 1 BOND QUANTITIES FOR DF.AINAGE ITEM CALCULATED
I / STA'MPED MYLARS TO PERNIIT TECHIVICAN (SYLISUZANNE)
1 J ST.AMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO ADMIMSTRATNE ASSISTAIVT" (SANDY)
ENGINEER' S REVIEW SHEET
uEZvrE Fn~E# ZEm039m95 .95
Related File #
Date to Review 10f19I95 # 7
Date tQ AA & DR 08-34-95 • Tiane 1:15
Date Received 81 17195
Project Name UR-3.5 TO LJR-22 APT 316 UNIT RIL7GEVIEW EST Ato. Lats Q Nv. Acres 15,3
Range - Tawnship - Section
SITE Ai)DRESS N MISSI+QN/E MCDUNALDfW MAMER PAR.CEL # 35104.9025
45104.902'7
Applicant's Name FRUCCIIWULFF Phone # 747-0999
Address JC)HN SWEITZER Phvne 2#
147 S H4WARD STE 300
SPC]► WA 99204
FLOC?L7 ZUNE Nv W S School Dates Cvnditivns mailed _,,ov
Owner JOHN FRUCCI Engineer 1 Surveyor's 1 Architect
Address 121 11 E 22ND AVE
SF(3KANE WA 99206
Pbone Address
Phvne 1 FAX FAX
.
Flann%n$ Cantract Person Phone # 456-22Q5
Date Submitted Description Initials
- -
1 1 AGREEMEhTT TO PAY FEES QR P'RIC}R.ITY FEE COMpLETED & GUPY T[] ACCOUNTINC
1 f FINAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED & C(3PY TO ACCC}UNTING
1 I N(]'Y`ICE TO PUBLIC # 13 4 fi CQMF'LETED - DR NEEDS TO BE SIGNEI)
1 l DESIGN DEVIATION SUBMITTED
1 1 ALTERATION TO PLAT - BLOCKS -LaTS
J ! BQND R.ELEASED - RQAD & DRAINAGE IMPRaVEMENTS
_EIVIED
!_qT HEARING EXAM _jAAPPR4VED ~DEIVIED--APYEALEI] BBC 1 PROJECT _APPRQVTDi}
1 1 BaN13 Q[JANTITIES FQR DRAINAGE ITEM CALCULATED►
! 1 STAMPEI3 MYLARS TO PERMTT TECHNrICAN (SYLISUZANNE)
1 1 STANSPED 24$ Lt)T PLANS TO ADMINISTRATP+TE ASSISTANT (SANDY)
.
J
w
r ~
~
l.J F f-_.l lj L l..J F, I t-i E l.: U U N I`Y L-I\i 6.l I\I i.
;..,r,....~,-A i;-• r~ M~ I t.I~-•~.r ! 71, 1i'~7 7,
t.JL'tobet.. ,jy i YJ':.
T -Da S p ~ k a n e C~ ID 1_i ri
A c:lmi ni~tira f,c,
~
-
~I_._ ~ i'l C a._, i..t I~~ i ~y k- i 1~ j_ r 1.~ - 1-? t- 1: i►i o rt
•_.i
J..I. b J E:' ctn Z C .,ne CrI :cl r! ge Z E
Applicants IVame Fri_tcci/W----lff
10, Townsfiip~2~ IV, Ranqe 44 EWM
re__Zoning
rhe fk:al lc-Wlfi(a "Ci If1C1'1t1..1--fls .---:if r1F1p1'"ijVcll " f-D1' tVIe at?clVE referencPd : c-iC1e
chanqe are submitted t---j the Spok:ane County Hearinq Examiner Comm.ittee
for incl usion in the "Planninq Report" and "Findinqs and Order" for
-L- he pub 1 i c h ea r i n g s c hed u1 ed 0 c t,Dbe r_ 19, 1995.
I=^GA Pri-Dr to issuance of a bijilding permit or at the request of the
COLtnty Enqineer in con.junction with a Coijnty Road Project/Road
:f.mpr-ove-me-nt Dist1r1_Cty Wh17 ChC?VeY" aCtiof1 i=c,flle5 f.1.Ysta
Applicant shall derlicate 2Z feet on Mission AvenLte f---.r riqht of
wC-AY ID Ui, pID S E?
1."_ f. • . _ • ..i:~. ~ l'~:' 1..~ t f.) I..1 7.. .I. ~..l.~ ! 1 C.I I..! 1`~ i ti~l ~1. ~..J 1'~ l t1'Ie pr1.J
p e r t y ~ S
~'~.J
1.3 F.~ r7 e (J n
F -:E t::J _ ~~;~:-i ~ r- . . lr' a ~l;t~~~-~ f.:; ,..trit}! 1=z -::-,.::?t::i c~ st; rn t ~ al.1 t~ e
!~CC. ~S.~.~ r}F'r°fTl1 J F <-1 t:: ~"I E•_ .
~~.lta tai ned frclffi t I-ie Er-jq i neer„
E I3J A p p 1 i rF.A n ts F► a 11. i_i. h rr) .i. tf ..-I r- a c c e p t a n c e b y t hc-. p,:::,[:: ,EArIGI. f:; ,:::,urIty-
Enqineer rclad, drcai nacge .::---tnd access plans.
E45 A park:inq plan and ty-affic circulati-Dn plan sl-ial l be sU!
and appriDved by tl-ie Spok:ane County Engineer. TI-re desiqr
J.c)cation and arranqement of park:inq sta115 sha1 l be in
acc-Drdance with standard enqineerinq praCtices. Pavinq ----r
surfacinq as approved by the County Enqineer will be required
f-Dr any piDrtion of the pro.ject whicn is t-D he occupied or
t ra v e 1ecl byve hi. c]. ~,.=i
E48 -r'he cr-Instructicin c-If the ri.-Jadway irnprcivements statecl herein
, , , . r r, ~1 ~
1- r~-, - ~
. .;,..~-:1 _.~;,~,-I ~~-~i,..: . ,~,~~-1 ~i 1-,. . , . ,
.
• , 1
1 j
F:) c:l Ca f='
I.='y=,~"y The C-DUnty Engineer fias desiqnated a_4_lane_Minor_Arterici_
standard for the improvement c-if Mission_Avenue which~is~ad,jacE"r'l
to the pr-:,posed development. 'rhis will reqLtirP the addition of
apprinximately 18-20 ft. of asphalt alc-nq the firontaqe of the
development. Curhing anc:l si.dewalk: mi_tst als-D he cc-inatructPCi.
L a1 A1 1reyuir-ed impr-c-vements s{-ia1 J. c-c-Inform t~~l the ci_trt-ent S{:ate .--.-f
Washinqton Standard Specifications foDr Road and BridUe
construction and other applicable coi_tnty standards and/or
~:.~adopted reso1ut ions per tai ni nq per tai ni nq to Road Standards and
St-Drmwater Manaqement in effect at the date of cc)nstruction,
I_tnles>~ ~~,therwase aPprclved by the Goi_inty Enqineer.
E;'J R-Dadw~.ay Standards, typi ca1 rc.adway 5t?Ct.;Lcifl5 and drainaUe plan
reqLiirements are found in SpoF::ane Board of County Commissioner5
r-es-Dl ution 95-0498 as amended and are appl i cable to this
pr op osa1 .
E 0 N----l constructicin wizirk: is tc- be perfr-irmed wi.thin the exicLtinq c-r
propcised ri qh tof way unt i 1 a permi t has been issued by t he
County Enqineer. All work: within the pi_tblic road riql-it of way is
i
s►_i. h..1 ~~=f~pcfi a_ r7 r~. C'1 C.j f) ~y' ~"I f::' 1..1I'1i" ECl~~ 1f-1E:'e1''a
F : = . ` J ' : j A 1 1 r eyl..(i rc-~c:l w:aJ: hi ri t he exi s t i n g c-r prop-Dse d pu b 1 i c
right of way is to be c-Dmpleted prior to the release c-if a
buildinq permit or a bond :in an amount estimated by the County
Engineer to cover the cost of construction or imprcivements shal 1
h-P -f i 1-_r-. ci w.i. th t; ht:~ r--i -t; y F n c.I :i nca e r.,
EF,1. 1- 1--1 r.~ C-_- i-+.n t y A r- i;e r-ia l F-_- ~.~(_i p l,~Ek n id e nt a.-f ie h1is s.ir;_Aven 11.e~ a -r a
Min-Dr Arterial. Tfie existinq riqht of wayrwidth of 6Q~ft. is
no1: consistent with that specified in The Plan. In order toD
implement the Arterial Rc-ad Plan it is recommended that in
addition to the reqLtir-ed right of way dedication, a strip of
~roperty 8 ft. in width a1c-ng the M1551-Dn AvenLte friDntaqe be set
aside in reserve. ThiS proDperty may be acquYred by Spok:arie
Coi_tnty at the time when Arterial Improvements are made to
hlission Avenue.
E9C') There may exist Lttilities, either Linderqround or overhead,
affecting the sub.ject property, inclijdinq pr-Dperty to be
cJpdicated cir set aside for future acquisition. Spok:ane County
assumes no financial obl iqation for ad.justments or relocation
reqardinq these i_ttilities. Applicant should chPCk: with the
applicable i-itility purveyor and the Spok:ane County Engineer to
cietermine wriether appl i cant or the Ltti 1 ity is responsible for
ad.justment or relocation ccists and to make arranqements for any
r►~.~c:E~~~~<_~r-;w~_:~~E::
~ •
r ,
.
, . , _ . .
r.. • .
~tra.f.I"ic analysis has bzEn prepared for triis pr~~posa1,
r_cin.junction witi-i this analysis a delay stijdy was also c-:,ir,;
~~ased on this analysis the prc-p-Dsal could accomodate 275 units,
should the applicant wisfi tj_, proceed beycind that piDint anotfier
traffic analysis shall be done prior tc- the 276th unit beinq
constructed t-D reevaluate the .inter5ection c-f Mission and h1cDc-nald
i..
and m.i.tx.qatinq measurPS
1
~
SEP-08-1995 16:11 INLAND PACIFIC ENG P.01
• 1
eojkTE-.
~ TO: .
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING CO. ~ COMPANY:
707 West 7th Ave., Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99204 ~ FAX Nu R: '
Telephone - (509) 458-6844
FAX - (509) 458-6844 FRO~:
~
i NUMBER OF P/IGES: JOB NUMBER
fNCL. COVER PI1GE
~ NOTES:
-
OW"
j
e
FAX TRANSMISSION 1
SEP-0E-1995 16:11 IhLAND PACIFIC ENG P.02 I
. Mission & McDonald
- -
SVtcrr! !n rT e r
P;~
basW upon the gap study, there were two conctusivns which were reacheti. The first was U-,
the critical gap fell somcwhere betwecn five and sia seconds. Based upon ft distribution of
gaps accepted between the five and siac second range, the average accepted pp was 5.3 seconds.
The second eonclusion which was reached basod an the gap study conducted was that the sample
size of gaps whe,re two or more vehicles accepted the same gap was tioo small to be statisticatly
signifuant. Therefore, based on the gap study, the critical gap foF this specific unsignalizod
inmrw+ction should be adjusted downward to 5.3 seconds. At this time, there is insufficient data
to warrant any adjustment tio the follow-up dme in the model.
i~:erein Iies the dil,emma; the delay study says that the avera,ge gap size is slightiy under five
seoonds (4.9 seconds), but the gap study shows the critical gap size is 5.3 secands. While this
is not a very big differencx, it affacts the level of service at build out. Since there is no way
to predict which one is correct, an analysis was conducted using the averagc of the two (5.1
seconds).
One other factor which was included in the original study, but which is subject to ernor, is the
back;round, or non-site specific, growth rate. In the study pre5ented to you, a three pement
gruwth rate per year was used. However, the land surnounding this int,ersection which would
servo to crrate future mffic generators, is almost completely built upon with very fcw vacant
parcrls left. This mearts that the expected growth rate of traffic in this area oould well be less
than 3 96 per year and xhoutd possibly have beeri estimated at about l% per yr;ar. Therefore,
it is my professi+onal opinion that the levels of traffic which were included in the report am
representativc of ultimatc build out and maximum traffic volumcs which Mission Avenue will
see (barring the event of the Evagrecn Interchangc). It could well be that the actual growth due
to non-site specif c sources is closer to 196 pGr year.
As a final scenario, several levels of development were looked at for the apartment complex to
soe when unacceptable levels of seivice arisc. Based upon the analysis, a"Phase 1" sccnario
of 275 units which the analysis demonstrates could reasonably be built and stiii allow the
intersection of Mission & McDonald, in it's gresmt conftguration to experiencx adequate level
of setvice .
The fallowinY table shows what the projected lcvels of service are undcr existing conditions,
buiZd out conditions with the Ridgeview Estates Apartmeat Community, and under a condition
where there is Iess backgmund ttaffic growth and at a"Phase 1' condition as dcscribed above.
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
August 29, 1995
Pat Harper RECEIVED
County Engineers AUG 3 0 1995
1026 W. Broadway SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEEIR
Spokane, WA 99260
RE: Analysis of the intersection of Mission & McDonald as a part of the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community TIA
Dear Pat,
As you are aware, the intersection of Mission & McDonald is presently functioning at level of
service F in the PM peak hour. A warrant analysis has been performed and is included as part
of the technical appendix in the TIA previously submitted to you. The warrant analysis shows
that this intersection meets warrants for a traffic signal using the present traffic volumes.
However the fact that the existing level of service, without any additional traffic from the
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community or any other project, is level of service F means that
this intersection is present functioning at unacceptable levels of service as defined by the County.
This may explain in part why there were twice as many accidents at this location in 1994 as
there were in either 1992 or 1993. This existing unacceptable level of service is not caused by
any particular project, and is not the responsibility of any particular individual or project to
remedy, but rather is the responsibility of the County as a whole.
On the other hand, this situation cannot be made worse by the addition of any project.
Therefore, solutions which will fully mitigate the impacts to this intersection as a part of the
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community TIA, including a signal but also options which are less
costly will be explored in this letter. Options which fully mitigate the impacts of the additional
traffic from the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community, and which provide for the safe and
orderly movement of traffic will be considered.
Clearly, as shown in the TIA submitted in conjunction with this project, a traffic signal at this
location will full address any present or future level of service or safety problems which will
occur at this intersection. However, there are other options which deserve equal consideration.
One solution which I have found and which will fully mitigate the impacts of the Ridgeview
Estates Apartment Community is shown on the attached figure. It involves changing the control
at Mission & McDonald from stop controlled for northbound traffic on McDonald Road only ~
to control for all legs of the intersection. Beyond that, and in order to make this intersection
function properly, the eastbound curb lane will need to be changed to a right turn only lane, and
this movement will need to be a free flow movement separated out of the intersection and not
707 West 7th . Suite 200
Spokane, Washington 99204
509-458-6840
FAX: 509-458-6844
. ,
Mission & McDonald
August 29, 1995
Page 2
subject to the stopped condition in the rest of the intersection. With these changes, the level of
service at this intersection in the PM peak hour with the Ridgeview Estates Apartment
Community fully built out, will be LOS E with 36.8 seconds of delay. I have attached the level
of service calculations for your review. This compares favorable with the existing level of
service at this intersection in the PM peak hour of LOS F with 48.2 seconds of delay.
Changing the control at this intersection to an all way stop is a suitable solution to the
unacceptable level of service at this intersxtion for the following reasons. First, McDonald and
Mission are both minor arterials, and therefore are the same functional class of arterial.
Therefore, although at the present time the traffic volumes on the streets are not equal, the
streets are designed to carry the same amount of traffic. Beyond that, the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that an all way stop may be warranted if traffic signals
are needed, and a more restrictive traffic control measure is needed as an interim solution while
arrangements are made for the installation of the traffic signal. The warrant analysis previously
performed for this intersection indicated that traffic signal warrants are met based upon existing
traffic volumes. The MUTCD also states that an all way stop may be installed if there is "an
accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of
correction by a multiway stop installation in a 12-month period. " This condition has also been
met at this intersection, since during 1994 six accidents have occurred, five of which were right
angle accidents, a type of accident which can be corrected through the use of a multiway stop.
It is also my firm belief that this traffic control will work to provide safe and effective control
of this intersection based upon first hand knowledge of the operation of the intersection of
Mission and McDonald. During the PM peak hour when this level of service difficulty is
present, the eastbound traffic using Mission Avenue separates itself so that the only traffic in the
curb lane presently uses McDonald Road. Those motorists in the other, or inside, lane are
either going the Evergreen, continuing further east on Mission, or are going to the new
apartment complex east of McDonald. This present lane distribution works well and is
anticipated to continue to work well with the additional traffic from the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community as shown in the TIA.
I also base this recommendation on the following information. Through knowledge of the area,
and as agreed by you in a telephone call on this project, nearly all of the land surrounding
Mission Avenue, and which will generate additional traffic through this intersection has been
developed. Because of this, Mission Avenue, at the completion of the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community, will have almost the ultimate traffic volumes it will experience. In other
words, the increase in traffic volumes on Mission is expected to level off and remain stable.
The growth used in the TIA submitted to you for the build out of this project, which included
the existing traffic volumes with a 3% per year compounded growth rate and the addition of both
the Wolfe and Lawson commercial projects, plus the traffic from the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community itself, will be very close to the ultimate traffic which should be expected
. ,
Mission & McDonald
August 29, 1995
Page 3
for this arterial. Due to this anticipated leveling off of the traffic volumes on Mission in this
area, and the ability of this intersection to adequately handle the traffic under the multiway stop
condition, I am very comfortable recommending these operational and channelization changes.
Based upon the preceding information, I recommend that the control at Mission and McDonald
be changed from a stop control for the northbound traffic on McDonald only to a multiway stop
with all three legs stopping. This combined with a free ea.stbound to southbound right turn lane
will serve to provide acceptable levels of service for the foreseeable future, or until such time
as the intersection can be signalized if the County chooses to continue to pursue that option.
This recommendation is made in conjunction with the completion of the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community.
I look forward to discussing this with you further tomorrow at the pre-development meeting on
the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community project.
Sincerely,
1
U-
0
.
at-oy',- c
Ann L. Winkler, P. E.
encl.
cc: Joe Organic, Alvin J. Wolfe, Inc.
John Sweitzer, Auble & Assoc.
~
~s 24' 24'
1
r~ 12' 12r
I ~ I GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
I I
( IN FEET )
I I 1 inch = 20 ft.
I I
y 20'R 1
10' CROSS -
WALK (TYP) ~
McDONALD ROAD 1-
STOP BAR (TYP) ~,4
RAISED ISLAND
- - ~
I N
~
~
~
I
j ~s•
QI
z
0 2 40'R
V))
~
~
48'
f` '1
♦ ~
NOTES:
~ ~~u►~c
~ E ~e~ O1 - STOP SIGN (R1-1)
707 ,,,ad s„lb, ~ 488-MO O2 - RIGHT LANE MUST TURN
` spao&., rw aOW4 FNC: (soo) 4-54-4a4s~ RIGHT (R3-7R)
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCD4W.HC0
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVE
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 8/28/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
All-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
-r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r---
No. Lanes 0 1 0 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Volumes 557 97 380 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
. ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Paqe 2
Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet
EB WB NB SB
LT Flow Rate 0 103 197
RT Flow Rate 0 0 102
Approach Flow Rate 593 507 299
Proportion LT 0.00 0.20 0.66
Proportion RT 0.00 0.00 0.34
Opposing Approach Flow Rate 507 593 0
Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 299 299 1100
Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.42 0.36 0.21
Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.36 0.42 0.00
Lanes on Subject Approach 1 2 2
Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 1 0
LT, Opposing Approach 103 0 0
RT, Opposing Approach 0 0 0
LT, Conflicting Approaches 197 197 103
RT, Conflicting Approaches 102 102 0
Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.20 0.00 0.00
Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.00 0.00
Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.66 0.66 0.09
Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.34 0.34 0.00
Approach Capacity 521 864 586
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Approach Approach V/C Average
Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS
EB 593 521 1.14 75.4 F
WB 507 864 0.59 9.3 B
NB 299 586 0.51 7.0 B
Intersection Delay = 36.82
Level of Service (Intersection) = E
AUG-29-1995 13:19 INLAND PACIFIC FJNG P.02i06
' ~
I~
NLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
August 29, 1995
Pat Harper
County Engineers
1026 W. Broadway
Spo]cane, WA 99260
RE: Ana►lysis of the intersection of Mission & McDonald as a part of the Ridgeview Estates
Apartrnent Community TIA
Dear Pat,
As you are aware, the intersectian of Mission & McDonald is presently functioning at level of
service F in the PM peak hour. A warrant analysis has been performed and is included as part
of the tethnical appendix in the TIA previously submitted to you. The warrant analysis shows
that -this intersection mects wanants for a traffic signal using the preser►t traffic volumes.
However the fact that the cxistinP level of service, without any additional traffic from the
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community or any otter project, is l,evel of servic,e F means that
this intersection is present functioning at unaoceptable levels of service as defined by the County.
This may explain in part why the,re wera twice as many a,ccidents at this location in 1994 as
there were in either 1992 or 1993. This existing unacceptable Ieve1 of servicc is not causad by ~
any particular project, and is not the responsibility of any particular individual or project to
remedy, but rather is the responsibility of the County as a whole.
On the other har►d, this situation cannot be made worse by thc addition of any project.
Therefore, solutions which will fully mitigate the impacts to this intcrsection as a pazt of thc
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community 1'IA, including a signal but also options which are less
costly will bc explored in this lett,er. Options which flilly mitigatt the impacts of the addibonal
traffc from the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community, and which provide for the safe and
ordezly movement of trafftc will be consider+ed.
Clearly, as shown in the TIA submitted in conjunction with this project, a traffic sigaal at this
location will fuil address any present or future lcvel of service or safety problems which will
oxur at this intcrsection. Howevcr, thcre arc other options which deserve equal consideration.
One solution which I have found and which will fully mitigate the impacts of the Ridgeview
Estata Apartment Community is shown on thc attachcd figure. Yt involves changing the control
at Mission & McDonald from stop oontrolled for northbound traffic on McDonald Road only
to control for all legs of the intersoctioa. Beyond that, and in ordc,r to make this intGrsection
function properiy, the eastbound curb lanc will need to be changcd to a ripht turn only lane, and
this movement will need to be a frec flow movement separated out of the intiersoction and not
707 wost 7th . suiw ioo
Spoksne, Washin9ton 99204
509•458•6840
FAX: 509-438-6844
AuG-29-1995 13 :19 I NLAhyiD PAC IFI CEhIG P. 03i0B
. ,
Mission & McI3onaId
August 29, 1995
pa,ge 2
subjecc ta the stapped oondition in the rest of the intersecdon. With these changes, the Yevel of
service at this interseetion in thc PM peak hour with the Ridgeview Estates Agartment
Cammuni.ty fully built vut, will be L+DS E with 36.8 seconds of de1ay. I hawe attached the level
of service calcuLati.vns for your review. This camga,res favorable with the existirtg 2eve1 of
service at this interswtivn in the PM peak hour of LOS F with 48.2 secands of deIay.
Changing the control at this intt,rscctian to an aI2 way stop is a suitable solutivn t+o the
unacceptabie level of serviae at this inttrsection for the fvllvwing reasons. First,McDonald and
Mrission are bvth minor artr,riats, and therefore are ti►e same functional cla,ss of artmriaT.
Therefore, althuugh at the pr+esmt timc thc traffic volumes tin the streets are not equ,al, the
streeats are designed to carry the same amount of traffic. Beyvnd that, thc Manual an Unifarm
Traffic Control Devices (ML1'TCD) states that an aFI way stvp may be vvazranted if mff'ic signals
arc necded, and a more restrictive traffic control measure is needed as an interim svlution whxle
arrangements arc made fQr the insWhtion of thc traffic signa1. The warrant anatysis previously
perforrned for this intersection indicatod that traff c signal warrtnts are met based upon existing
traffic volumes. The MUTCD also statcs that an all way stvp may be installed if there is "an
acciident pmblcm, as indicated by five or mvn repvrted accidenLs of a type susoeptible of
cornectian by a multiway stap installativn in a I2-manth period." This conditivn has also been
met at this intersectic►n, since during 1994 suc accident.s have tyccurred, five of which were right
angIe ac,cide,nts, a type of acccident which can be corrected through the use of a multiway stvp.
It is also my firm belief that this traffu oontrol will wark ta prvvide safe and effective cvntrvl
of this intersecdon based upan fust hand inowledgc of thz operation of the intersectiom of
Mission and IulcDonald. During thc PM peac hcwr when this kve1 of service difficulty ais
present, the eastbound traffic using Missivn Avenue separates itself so that the only traffic in the
curb 1anc prtsently uses McDonald Road. Those motorrissts in the otfier, vr inside, lane arre
either going the Evergreen, continuing further east on M'ission, or are gving to thC new
apartment complcx east of McI7anald. This present lanc distnbuticm wotks well and is
anticipatcd to +ccmtinuc ta work well with the aciditianal traffic from the Ridgcview F_states
Apartrnent Community as shvwn in thc TIA.
I also hasc this recvmmendation an the follawing infbrmativn. Through knowledge of the area,
and as agrced by you in a Wcphone call on this prvject, nearly ali of the land swnra►unding
Mission Aveuue, and which will gencaratrc additicmal traffic thrvugh this intGrsection has beeen
developed. Becausc of this, IV[issian Avenue, at the completi.Gn of the Ridgeview F.sta.t+es
Apartzncnt Carnmunity, wil have almost thG ultimate traff c volumes it will cacperience. In other
words, the increase in traffic volumes cm Mission is expected to lcvcl off and remain stable.
Z'hc growth used in the TIA submitted to you for thc build vut of this project, which included
the existing trafific Yalumes with a 3 % per year compounded gmwth rate and thc additivn of both
the Wolfe and Iawsan comrnercial pmjects, plus the traffic from the Ridgevieww Estates
Aparttnent Community itself, will bc vcry Glose to the ultimatc traffic which should be expected
AUG-29-1995 13:20 INLAND PACIFIC ENG P.04i06
.
Mission 8c McDonald
August 29, 1995
Page 3
for this arterial. Due to this anacipated ]eveling off of the traffic volumes on Mission in this
arca, and the ability of this int,ersection to adequately handle the traffic undes the multiway stop
condition, I am very comfortable recommending these ope,ration,al and chann~lization changes.
Based upon the preceding information, I rocoinmcnd that the conuol at Mission and McDonald
be changod from a stop control for the northbound tlaaffic on McDonald only to a multiway stop
withall thrc,e legs stapping. This combined with a fret eastbound t,o southbound right turn lane
will serve to providc acceptable levels of service for the foreseeable future, or until such time
as the intersoction can be aignaliud if the County chooses to conanue to pursue that aption.
This rccommendation is made in oonjunction with the completion of the Ridgevieew Estates
Apartment Community.
I look forward to discussing this with you turthcr tomorrow at the pro-dcvclopment mceting on
the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community proj ect.
Sincerely,
G~ • ~
.
Ann L. Winkler, P. E.
cncl.
cc: Joe Otganic, Alvin J. Wolfe, Inc.
John Swtitus, Auble & Assoc.
AUG-29-1995 13:20 INLAND PACIFIC ENG P.05i08
, . ,
Le 24• 24• ~ ~ ♦
124 ~ 12'
~ I I GRAPHIC SCALE
~
20 to 20 ao
I I
fN FEET )
1 ~ 1 i n ch - 20 ft.
I I
~ Zo'a ,
~ Ck
i 10' CROSS
N
wALK ("YP) McDONALD ROAD ~
STOP BAR (TYP) 'V
.
RAusEO isuNo -rt
~ - - n
~
,
N ~
z
0 s 4o•R
W I
V)
~
4e.
NOTES:
' bLAND O -
STOP SK3N (R1- 1)
PACtC
~
RIGHf rE M~JS7 TURN
aos..~a U► ana~ RK;HT -7R)
7
~ ~ -
AUG-29-1995 13:21 INLAND PACIFIC ENG P.06i06
. .
Canter For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalfzed Intersection Release 2.1 Paqe 1
*~*~*~#*~~~#**~~~~#*~~~***~~~*~#t***~*~f~~~~~~~~#~*#t**tf~*#~#~*
File Name MCD4W.HC0
Streeta N-3 ) MCDONAI.D ROAD ( E-W ) MISSION AvE
Analyst................... ALw
Date of Analysis......... . 8/28/95
Other Information........_ BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
All-way Stop-controlled intersection
ae'~'l:~a/ts~a~~arssssss:sssssssasssss:sss~~:s~
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1 0 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Volumes 557 97 360 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0CV18 0 0 0 0 0
PCEfs 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
I
AUG-29-1995 13:21 ItJLAND PACIFIC ENG P.07i08
• ' I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersectfon Release 2.1 Paqe 2
~*#~*~t~~~~#*f**f*t#t~f**f~~*ft**~f~~**~~*#f~~~t#*~#t*tt~ffttf~t
volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet
EB WB NB SB
LT Flow Rate 0 103 197
RT Flow Rate Q 0 102
Approach Flow Rate 593 507 299
Proportion LT 0.00 0.20 0.66
Proportion RT 0.00 0.00 0.34
Opposing Approach Flow Rate 507 593 0
Conflictinq Approaches Flow Rate 299 299 1100
Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.42 0.36 0.21
Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.36 0.42 0.00
Lanes on Subject Approach 1 2 Z
Lanes on Opposing approach 2 1 0
LT, opposinq Approach 103 0 0
RT, Opposinq approach 0 0 0
LT, Conflicting Approaches 197 197 103
RT, Conflictinq ApproachQS 102 102 0
Proportion LT, opposinq Approach 0.20 0.00 0.00
Proportion RT, Opposirtq Approach 0.00 0.00 0.00
Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.66 0.66 0.09
Proportion RT, Conflictinq approaches 0.34 0.34 0.00
Approach Capacity 521 864 586
~rr
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ &-"w ~ r-------
AUG-29-1995 13:21 INLAND PACIFIC ENG P.08i08
~ .
Center For Hicrocomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized IntQrsection Release 2.1 Page 3
~*#*~~*~f*t*tftff~t#t~tf *~~**~~*~f~f~~~~~tf~~rt~*f*t~#t*f~rt#t#f#t
Intersection Perfonaance Summ.ary
Approach approach v/C Average
Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS
SB 593 521 1.14 75.4 F
W8 507 864 0.59 9.3 8
NB 299 586 0.51 7.0 B
Intersection Delay = 36.82
Level of Service (IntQrsection) ~ E
711T/\I A AI1
AUG-29-1995 13:18 INLAND PACIFIC ENG P.01/08
~
~ oe►T : t ~
~
t To'. . '
~ COMPANY:
INLAND PACiF1C ENGiNEERfNG CO.
707 Weat 7th Ave., Suite 200 ~ gpokane, WA 99204 ~ FAx NU BER: ~
Telephone - (509) 45"840 O
FAX - (509) 458-6844 5 5~
ib iEMBER & PAGES: .bB NUIIdBER
INCL. COVER PAGE
~ NotES:
.
~
.
~ ~ ' ~~\T
~ .
FAX TRANSMISSION S
. ~ - .
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENfiAL ORDINANCE
(WAC 197-11,-,970) Section 11.10.230 (3) Mitigated Deternunation of Nonsignificance (NIDNS)
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE "MDNS"
FILE NUMBER(5): ZE-39-95
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5
(UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) for 316 multiple family residences and those uses
allowed in the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone.
APPLICANT: FruccilWolff
c% John Sweitzer
107 South Howard
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 747-0999
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue,
approximately 650 feet east of Woodlawn Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North,
Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
LEAD AGENCY: SPOK:ANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
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 required 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.
This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for
at least 15 days from the date issued (below). Comments regard.ing this MDNS must be submitted
no later than 4:00 p.m., October 17, 1995 if they are intended to alter the MDNS.
MITIGATINCt MEASURES:
1. The proposed development shall not occur in more than three phases as related to the
application of building permits.
2. Based on 316 living units and mitigation totaling $36,000, the pro-rata share shall be
$114.00 per living unit. Payment of this fee shall be made to WSDOT prior to the issuance
of the requested building permits.
3. Issuaiice of all building permits shall occur before June 30, 1999. Building pernuts
obtained after June 30, 1999 shall require the applicant to update the traffic analysis along
with the required mitigating measures.
4. The above SEPA mitigation fees shall be used by WSDOT to construct needed
improvements on Pines Road in the viciniry of I-90 and Mission Avenue which will be
used d.irectly by the traffic generated by this development.
5. To ensure that this mitigation is provided for, we requests a sign-off block be included for
WSDOT on the building permit.
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
future.
Date: September 22, 1995
PrintedfTy am J~h---P;rzPr _
Signature:
, • •
, * .
sk k * k # k k K * k k k 3k k k * k k ~ k k K k 7k k k k sk k k k ~ k k k sk sk k k ~ ~ ~ ~ sk k k ~ k k *
Responsible Official: JAIVIES L. MANSON, DLRECTOR
By: Lvme Lakshas, Planner I
Address; Spokane Caunty Division vf Building and Planning (MS-P)
1026 West Brvadway
5pokane, WA 99260
(509) 456-2205
Date Lssued: September 22, 1995 Signature:
zelf
APPEAL OF THIS DETERMINATION, after it becomes final, may be made to the Spokane
County Divisian of Building and Planning, I026 West Broadway (MS-P), Spokane, WA 99260.
The appeai deadline is t.he same as the above proposal appeal deadline, being ten (10) calendar days
after the signing of the Decision. This appeal must be wntten and make specific factual abjections.
Contact the Planning Diwisran for assistanee with the specifics of a SEPA appeal.
A cvpy vf the MDIWS was mailed to:
1. WA State Departrnent 4f Ecalogy (Olympia)
2. WA St.ate Uepartment Qf Health
3. Spokane County Health District
4. Spokane Caunty Division af Engineering
5. Spokane County Air Pollution Contral Authority
b. Spokane County Parks Departrtment
7. Spokane County Bound.ary Review Board
8. Spokpane Regional Transpartatian Cauncil
9. WA State Department vf Transpvrtativn
10. Spokane Transit Autharity
11. East Valley School District
12. Modem Eiectric Water Company
13. Fire District No. I
A
r^1
• a '
. f s
sy~
~
DI~~INcE
UR
IRONMENTAL A
,
SpOKANE ENV
1
11,010,0230 ~ _
SECTION
t
. .
SPOKAME Et(VIROtQSEMTAL ORDIMAKE
(YAC 197-11-960) Settlon 11.10.230(1)
r .
Enviromental Checkltst
File Mo.
rvrpose of Checic 11 tt :
The StaLe Emrlrormental Pollcy Ikt (SEPA) chapter 13.21C RCN. requlres ait yoven..ental aqenctes to constder the environienta1 iiapacts ot a proposal
before makinq Aecistoes. M Envtronwntal lwpact Statement (E]S) must be preparcd for all Oroposals with probable stqnlficint adverse fmpacts on
the pwllty of the erwlroment. The purpose of this Chetkllst 1i to provide infoniatlon to heip you anA the aqenty iEenttfr lwpatts from your
pTOpOSal (Md tO PldYC! Of aV!;ir~ 1mdCL; fr:)1tl 10~2 pfOpOSdl, lf iC C8n bf QCn!, d",! !C halp qhn a~_7,an:,r' .M_C1C!F a.nethtr dr) Gt; 1S t"2QU1r°C.
instructions for Applicsnts:
TIi1i lnvironwntal thctkllit asks rou to destrlbe soae basic lnformation a0out your proposal. Goverrrental a9encles use this Cnetkitst to deteraSne
rhether the environmental topads of rour proposat are siqnlflcant, reQutring prepantfon of an EIS. J1nsMer the questlons pr/efly. witA the wost
pnctse /nforration knwn. or glve tAe best descrlptlon rou cae.
You must anstier eacA auestlon accurauly and unfullr, to the best of your knowtedge. In oost cases. yau sAould be able tc answer the questtons
trom your oMn observatlans or projett pians vtthout the nced to hfre experts. If you really do not know the anaMer, or 1f a Question does not •pply
. to your proposal, wrtte 'do not knov or 'does not apply.' Cawplete aeswers to the Questlorts now may avo14 unnecessary dcleys later.
. Som questions ask abaut yovernwn+tal re9ulatlons, sucA as zoninq. sAoreltne, aed landwark 4eslIn2blons: •Arw:er tkese questlons If you can, !t you
Aave problens, tAe govern.ental aqencles cae assist you. -
The cbedcllst qvestions applr to a11 parts of your proposal. even 1f you plan to Oo cnea-orer ayytr~od'a.''-t9we'or U.114ffEl[mY parcels of 1anA.
Attaci+ aer addtttonal iRfor.rtion that vtll GestrlDe your proposal or Its envtroneental effetts. The agency to vhlch you w0mit this checklist wAy
ast rou to explatn your aesvers or provide aCEttlonal fnforw tton reasonably relatcd to deterolning it tbere.pAy tie siqnltlcant adverse 1Apstt.
Use of chetlcllst for ronproject proposals:
Ca.plete this chedcllst for nonproject propou ls. even though questions mar be ansuered 'does not soply'.
IM MOITION. couplete the SUPfLEMEMTAL StiEET FOR NO!fPROJELT ACTIOKS(Part 0).
For nonprojed actions. the references in the checiclist to the wrds 'projed 'appllcartt.' and 'property or site' sAOUId pe read as 'proposal.'
•preposer.• and 'aftetteE qeographlc area,' respectively.
A. dACKGROWfO
1. 'tame ot propaseE project, ,f ap0licable: Ridqeview Estates Apartment's Community, Frucci/Wolff
z. w.e or Appl,cant: John T. Swei tzer: Frucci /Wol ff; C/0 John T. Swei tzer
3. Aaans: ,na phone nuwber ar .opl,c,nt or tontatt persoe: John T. Swei tzer; 509/747-0999
1N S_ Howard Street, Suite 300
SRokane, WA 99204
4. ace cneckii:t prep.na: 7/31/95 '
s. Agency eque:c,ng cnectl,SC: SpokanP (:ountv P1 anni n9 Deaa~ rtmPnt
6. ►roposee c,.,ng or utieaule (1nc1uAlnq phastn9. ,r appllcable): Fi rst phase to beqi n i n the spri ng of 1996,
with 50 to 100 units; Phase II will be subject to market conditions.
7. a. Oo rou have any plans for future addittorts. expanston. or further activlty related to or con,ected rith this Droposal' If yes, eV1s1n.
for future additions or further activity related to or connected with
thi s proposal. .
0. Do you orn or have optlorts oit land ne.rey or •ajaceet co this proposal? It yes. explaln.
1\V r
B. list anr envlromerttal fnfornatton you know about that has baen prepared. or w111 be prepared. diredly related to this proposal.
Traffic Impact Analysis for this Ridgeview Estates Apartment.
Re►. v 1/sa ~
, . . ~cRO~xr~. oRnrxu~ca
(f~LC 197-i1-960) Stetion 11.10.2I0(1) sro~u►M c A. BACKGROM (eoatioued; 9. DO yOY knOV VhlthlL a,^a11,_r~_.:r:s arc ;en~..n~ f•~i gove-,~a.n~.a1 :,i:.~;n:e ~-ivr. Tre,noaais ..,re,-,_ v e!`cc_ir~~ ;h.- F~,tv -,vc-
ProPosal? If yes, e:r..a-'r. _
~~v r
10. Llec aei- gorecoeenC a;provaii or pcr-zi:a that wi'1 be nee,'ed ior Trnic pcop:aai, !o ino~m.
Zone change aDproval of the si _P from "U2-3 to "UR-22" b}y the Spokane Heari
Exami riPr Cn mi ttaP anri Rnarci nf fnunte ('o►mni ssi nnPrs; aporoval of access by the
Saokane County Enqineers! approval of the sewaqe permits and on-site storm drainage
by Spokane County Utilities Department. 11. Give • brief. complete deseciption ot yout propoaal'~ _'ncludiag the ptoposad use• aad the •ise ot the project aad site. -►ere are several
quescioos Lter lo this eAeekliet thac uk you r.o descrit~ ca~tt61e "p*ctg of your pro •al. Tou do aoc n to re eat ho e~nwer• oe► c!s
a<<• Ridqeldew _Esta t::~T rtme~ 3 ~S _a ~~x ~ri th a nnn~ ~nc~ _f u6ho irP
tQtal of 316 aarage oarki ng soacPs ar o,.. ro nqP , pl us 16 handi rap snarPs and 14 oop,n
spaces. The proposed densitv for this pro.iect is 20.6 units per acre, with 51% of the
? Rnnnev>>>P
Pnwer Adminictratinn trantmiccinn lin as m n j S diagona1ly across the southeasterly
portion of the site, encumberinQ an estimated 3.13 acres. This strip of land is
approximately 140' wide. This area cannot be used for any permanent structures, (r.ONT)
1~. Locatioo oi tl+e proposal. Give su[tieienc intocrcloa tor a person to underscaad the pseeis* lou tion o( your propw sd ProSeet, iercluding •
street add nss. ii aoy. aed "etloa. towuohlp and rangs. 1[ kaovo. I[ • propo wl vould oetur ovsr a cae`e of area. provtEe che ranae or
bouadaries of the •ite(e). Piovide a letal deseciption, slte p Lo. vlclai q map, aod topographic "p, tf «..on.eir avai L Ele. Vhile r w
should w bmic any Plaw reaulced 1ry tbi ageney. 7on an oot reduired to dupliute saps or Ae[ai1sA p LeA submitced vith anr pe nic applicaclon
reLced to chis ef+eckiist.
The s i te i s 1 ocated in ae 5pokane 7-aTl ey on a ridge on tlhe south s i ae ofT9O; eas t of
Pi nP,, Rnari; wAst nf Siil l ivan Rnad 1 nratorl at the northeast corner of McDonal d Road
and Mission Avenue; commonly referred to as E. 13303 Mission Avenue. The site is
located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 25N, Range 44 E.W.M.,
Spokane County. Washinaton.. .
13. Does che prnpossd accioa lie vithio the Aqui[er Semitlre Ara (ASA)' :'he Ceneral Sew r Se cviee Ara! :n* rrioricy sewer Se rvice Area'. :he
Cltr ot Spoicane' (See: Spolcaae Countp's ASA OrerLy iosee AtL• tor bauaAariss).
The suhjert lies within the ASA and'the PSSA, but not in the City of Spokane.
-n se caePLc' Xn sT Arr[auxr
eevnot~ru. Q~r'rs
Craluation Fot
i. e~.r.n ~epcr u.e oQir
a. Cew ral descciotioe o[ the •ite (eirele ons): fL t. rolliog. hilly. •ceep slope~. wuotaieous.
ocher:
The site is a lonq. narrow parc 1 that is fairly level with
T_-
Mission Avenue. The subject is ocated on a ridge, (Cp,.
NT)
e. 'n,.t is the .te.P..t aoPe an te. .it. (.ppro:im.te peR.nt .iop.)+ ThP NWC has a s 1 ope
of 6% to 8%: th ma_ioritv of the site has a slope less than 1%.
c. yhat geoeral cypeo of soils are fout►d on the site (for omswle, elar. saod. gravel. paat. suek)'
If you Imow tAe e Lwifiution of airicultural soi L.specitr chen sad oote aap ptim taalaod.
JJlp -~uhjer_t soils ar_ GaA_ suitable for cqltivation, with
most of the acreaqe irriqated for orchards, corn, (CQNT)
d• Are tdece surfate iodiutioes or histocy of mutable soi L in tAe lmmcdiate vieiaity? Ii w,
de sc ribe.
No indicatications or known history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity.
z ,
.
. ~ •
. SPOKANE ENYIROMMAL OROINIINCE
(11AC 197-11-960) Sectlon 11.10.230(1)
B. E!N I ROIMENTAI 0.fMENT'S ( cont 1 nued )
Eveluatton Fer
Agency Use 6nly
e. Oescribe the purpose, type. and approztinte awettties of aey t1111n9 or 9n dlnq proposed.
Indicau source of t111.
Minimal grading will be required tor site preparations
_fnnt5 n_,,as anci fnundati ons, dri vewavs and parki na ,
f. Could eroslon oaur u a result ot e1eaH n9, eonstruct bn. or useT If so. qenerally aescrtoe.
Minimal erosion wi 11 occur d ~ring cons _r i__inn_
q. About wbat percent of the stte vtll Oe tovered vith 1mpervlous surfaces •fter proJect cortstruc- .
tion lfor e,caaqle. asphalt or bulldingsl? •
Approx. 339,992 sf (50%) of the site will be impervious surfaces,
i ncl udi ng bui 1 dings, pat? os, -c1ri.! ' Yewaycj~.,- s i.dewa? ks, & sport court.
RiiildinT = = 918,540 sf.TSidewdl ks/
Sport,Court = 13.980 sf.
h. Proposcd masures to reduce or control erosion, or other toWatts to the earth. If anr:Potent1 d l
of wind erosion durinq construction phase may be reduced by
water sprays. The completed development's impervious surfaces,
_]andsca Ring and "20~" 5wale area will minimize thP oo_ ntial
of wind and water erosion.
2. AIR
a. Mhat type of mifsions to the •1r vould result trom the proposa) (1.t.. dust, w taablle. odors
fndustrial. rood seoke) during tonstructton and vhen the pro,fect ts co.pleted? If any.
9enerally describe and yive approxisate quantttes If knare.
TPS levels will increase from site preparatfon. Increase
in h`vdrocarhons from asnhalt installatinn ThPrPaftPr,
automobile and deliverv truck emissions will increase (CONT)
D. Are there any oft-stte sovrtts of ewissloes or odor that Ny aftect rour pwposal' If so,
yenerally destrlbe.
Traffic a1on4 I-90 to the north and Mission Av_ni_
on the south.
c. ProooseE weasures to reduce or corttrol eWisstons or other 1mpacts to a1r. 1f any:
Compliance with SCAPA regulations: avina and landscaoing
in the "completed" phase.
3. WATER
A. Surface:
(1) ls there any wrfice water body on or in the tmmedtate vfcinltr of the site lncludlnq year-
round and seasonal streaies. saltwter. lakes, ponds, retlaMslT If yes. describe type aed
provide naaes. lt appropriate, state what stnam or M ver 1t tlows into.
N/A
(2) Y111 the pro,}ect require any rork over. in, or adjacertt to (within 200 feet) the descrlbed
raters? If yes. please descrlbe and attach avallable plans.
N/a
3
, . . . ~~ru. o~ni~~tvcL
('aA~C 197-11-960) Seecion 11.10.230(1) srocus
CIfVIR014KDrM LI.QEf"'.5 (continucd)
Evaluation Eor
lgencr Ose Ooly
(3) Estimte the aeount of Eill aad dredie material thst wald be placed in or nmored iron the
wcfue wter or vetLods aad ladiuta the •rea of td •ite that vwld be affeeted. Iodiuce
the •ource of fill macerial.
N/A
(4) Vill the prnposal reauire suriaee mater vlthdraraL or diversLoas! Cive a =eneral descrip-
tion, purpose, acd appro:lsace quantitieo. tf kawn.
NO
(S) Doe• the oroposal lle vithia a 100-7aar ilaod Plaim? Ii so. sota loutloa oo the site plan.
NO
(5) Doa• the 'ropo"l lovolne aay dischar=e• of v"te material• to ourfaee vaterst I[ go,
describe ttu qpe o[ wste aad ancicipaced aolum o[ discha ne.
NO
b. Croutd :
(1) Yill grouadvater ►e vicAdrwn, or vill vacer be disehar=ed to grouodvatsr! Cive geoeral
aescriptioa. pucPosa. aad approxiaate auaatltlRs. !f Imora.
Discharqe of surface water to "208" storm water
area.
(2) Deoctlbe wute aatarlal that vi11 be discharged lnCo the grwod trom •eptit caaics or otlr r
woitee7r wsu traacasst tatilitr. Deseribe the geaeral si:c of tl+e qsts, the oumber of
house• to be serwd (lf •ppliuble) or che ambec of pecwos the nstea(s) are ezpected co
serve.
None! Pro.iect to hook-up to public sewer.
(7) Describe aor rystma. ocher tEan tbose desigasd for the dimpoaal of saoitar7 vuce. tostalled for thA rurpose of disclurslog [luids beLov the grwod surtaee (locludss nsteas wch
as tdoss for tAe diepowl o[ stocu vacer er draioa6• fram [loor dralos). DaseriDe the cype of
srsceso tbs asouat of material to ►e diepossd of thraKh tM srstaa aed tbe tTpe• of mterials
likelr to be lispoNd of (ixludiog matecials vhicA may sntsr the qecm losdM cteatly tArouiA
•pills oc ua nsult of tirefighting aetivities).
No other systems are required or proposed.
(i) Yill aay cbsicals (especially orgaaic solvents or pecroleum fuels) be stored !n abore-
groua4 or ro"rsrouod storage taoks2 If so, vliat types aod quaetitles of materlaL vill be
stored!
In the develoaed "completed" phase, fertilizer &
pesticides will be applied to the landscaped areas.
4
.
. SPOKANE Et(VIROlR1ElRAL OROINAtICE
(uAt 197-11-960) SecLlon 11.10.230(1)
E. ENYIRONtEf(TAL El,Q1ENT'$ (concinuee)
• ,
Evaluation For
Agency Use Only
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any btrds anQ aelwals whfch have been observed an or near the site or are knwn to be on
or near the stte:
blyds: hauk. Aeroe. eaQlt. SongbfMs, other: • • .
wAmali: deer, bear. elk. peaver. other:
fish: bass. salmor►, trout. herrtng. shellfish, other:
QthK: No known birds or animals have been observed on tje-(CONT)
b. L1st any thrtatered or endanqercd species tnaMe to be on or naar the s1te.
NONE
c. [s the site part of a ■iqration route? If so. explaln. _
f,! n
Proposed ocesurts to prtserve or enhsnce rilCllft. if any:
Installation of landscaped areas will preserve habitat
for sonpbirds.
5. ENERGY AND +IATURIIL RESOURCES
a. vnat kinEs oE energy (electric. natural gas. veod stove. solar) w11) be useE to oeet the
the coapleteE project's enerqy netds? Destrlbe rhether it will be useE tor heating. wanufac-
turing. ett.
Electricity and natural gas.
b. Mauld your project iffect the potential use ot solar enerqy by •Qjacertt prope K 1es? it so.
9enerally descr/be.
NO
C. 4hat kinds Ot enerqy Conservatton features art 1ncludeE 1n the plarts Ot thls proposal? L1St
other proposeE measures to reduce or control enerqy 1.pacts. 1f any:
11BC rnnctrtirt;nn ctandards.; cnnvPniPnt nff StrPPt narking,
7. ENYIRONMENTAL MEALTH
A. Are there any envfronentai health haztMs. lnciuQin9 expown to toxtc cfantuis, rtsk of tlre
and explosion, spi11, or M zerCous waste. that could octur as a resutt of thls proposal? If so.
descrlEe,
NO
(1) Describe special emeryency services that mlght be required.
Police, fire, and medical.
6
(WAC 197-11-960) Seetioa 11.10.230(1) S!'OTA1E IIR=tdlQWWLI. 02alllA.r,,r.
1. LWIRAIlRNiAL. LLEMEIR'S (eoatiowd) • '
.*.va.~a:lon Fcr
.~,enr.'~ ~lae 0~:•:
QtYIROtl22T:11L REI1L.'3 (eontiau@d )
(2) rt0poold MasYi!/ CO Te,;ucc or co::r_rr;~ scviror.mtntel 11.ea1c1i '^.asa:da,
Compliance with a l l State and City Building Code require-
mPntt Cmmol i anrA w; th al lof the zoni nTstandards -R
conditions of aaprovalT
e. noi.c:
(1) Vhst tYpes ef ooiee Kist in the arm vb1eR my atLad yoac projset (toc esssple: traffic.
aauipmst. operation. other'
Traffic noise from I-90 to the north and Mission Avc
on the south.
(2) Yhat qpes md levals ot aoise vould 6e eraatad bp or awxLtod vitb tbe p"ct oa a- ~ . • • .
rhort-term or s loag-ten basi• (for euaples traffie. coostcvecion. spiratioa. other)' iodieace -
vhat hours nol" vould cor irw tAe slte.
I
Short term: Gradino and construction
~Long term: Primar~,qenerators of noise will be traffic,
HVAC systems and vehicles. Hours of peak noise levels
wi l l occur between 7: 30 am to 9: nn am, and 4_ 3(l m~ to 6: 30 pm.
(3) Proposed rasure to reduce oc eoatrol aoi*e tapaets. ii aey:
Orientation of project to the interior of the site and
perimeter bufferina_
S. tA-nD A"° sHORMi►M USE Si te i s vacant/undev.
a. Vhac tM cvcteat we oI t!u sico and adjsesat oropertiea!
__(old bouse, cabin, and Qaraoe at NW corner. but are (CONT)
b. t4s the site beea wed [ot agriealcvice! It w. dereri►s.
The current owners had a truck farm (vegetables) and
a few frqit trees on the site until 1991. Aporox. 40
years ago, the property was used for wheat cultivation.
c. Describe anr stcuetures oo the sita.
At the NWC of the site is a 864 sf house that was built
in 1921, a 321 sf quest cabin & a storaqe shed. All of
thn m-n +
a. yill .e, .tructur.s k...oli.a.a: :c w, ..hLce? The howse, the cabi n. &
the garage will be demolished.
e. Y4st is tM curreat sooing eLseifieacloa et the ~it.t Current zoninq iS 11UR-
3.5, Urban Residential 3.5".
i. Hhat is the curreac emyroheosive pLa dosigoatiou oi tAe site!
Urban
g. tf applluDle. vhat 1s t!w eursent al+orelioe saater progru deoignacion ot the aite'
_h1A
h. Has aay part of the eite Deen e LNifiad u aa 'sa~iromencally Mmitits' areaT Tf so.
.pecirr.
NO •
i. Appro=i.ticely 6ov saar peopls vould resido or vork in che c4pleced pro}eet! T~ 1$
estimated that aRprox. 711 peo le maY reside in the
completed project (3.16 units @ 2.25 persons/unit).
7
srcWARa 1Mva,oMOMM oeffcW(7
(wAC 197-11-M) Seetion 11.10.230(1)
1. IIIVIRA1QQ1ffal. QZMENTS (cootiwwd) • PYfl1c:A~:Q7'. ~U:
t~ency U~c Uci•,
J. Appco:imately bw maa7 people vould the completed projeec dispLee! NONE
h. *TOpoNd srsures to eso!Q or teduce dlsplicemeat impacts, !f •nv: Nn mPC75tireC
needed.
1. Prooosed manireo to ownrt the proposal Ls eo"ac101a vith aiaclug and projeccad Lad rsae aod
plaos. !t aays
Compliance with all zoninq standards and zone chanqe
cnndi ti nnc nf an,Tnrnval . I
9. tI005ItiC
a. Approxlaately hor eaay vnits vould te ycorldod. !i aoyt Iodicaca vAstMr dlgk-. aiddlr . or
lov-locome Aowitg. .
A tota] of 315 units are proposed and are planned (CONT)_
b. Approximtely bv saay usits, it aaq. vould M elidoatedt Iadiuce vlotMt kigM. aiddlr. or
lorlacone houalng.
No units will be eliminated,
c. troposed woure• to nduee or coocrol housla= iapacts. if any:
No measures requj l PL
10. ALSTl1LTICS
a. Vhat is the tallest Ae1gAt ot ssy ptoposed •trueture(s). eot leeladiac setom"t Vhat i• the
Priocipal a=tsrior luilding rtarial(s) }roposed?
J'hP y,ji 1~1? 112 tn 3 stnri Ps i n hPi nht _ ThP
developer is considerinc~vinvl laa sidiU,g, cedaridiag,
or stucco for exterior finish, with pitcfied roofs,
b. Vhst Keve ie the ismediate vicinity vould be altarsd or obatcnetedt
Views of the hills on the north side of the SQokane
Val-l e,y & the Mt SookanP fnnthi 1 1-, tn the n01^th mav (CnNT )
c. Troposed measun• to ceduee er eoatrol asschetie tawets. it aaTs
pl acAmAn+ nf Lltl l1 tl@S underyround; 49% of thP 57tP_ to
be open space/landscapinq.
U. LIGI- A,CD a►n
a. UAat tnm et light ot gL ro vill the proposal pc+odueet Ulrt tiaa et "y voald !t ualaly eeeur!
Parking lot lights, building exterior lTqhtinq, &
vehicle liqhts. in th_ PvPnin~
b. Could light er gLre Erom the fiaiahod projeet be a safety haurd ot iatsttere rit6 •Levwt
W,i th "down 1 i gh_t'i na" ancl uSp nf nricra~ ~-#.hB-tCow-TT-
e. What aistiog otf-site •ounes of li=ht or SLte aay afiset yonr proposalt
Li4hts from_traffic along Mi.ssion and McDnnald: liq,bts
from f.PCiar C-hatPail Apartments t^ the rrnMT1 '
d. lropo"d wsun• to reduee ot control ligt►c aod gL ra Sapaets. if aeys
Down-lightinq and screeninq and landscaaTna.
a
.
sroun ENWIROIaCEICUL osnnu.W..-E
' (WAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1)
D. CIIVIR01MNUI. IIEMEllTS (eoaCiawd) ~ •
Etaluatioe Tor
1lsenc7 Use Only
12. RLCRLAI'ION
a. Vlsat designated and lafoerl raereatlooal opportmitie• are in the lamediate +riciaicY?
Valle,y Mission Park is located approx. 1/2 mile west of the
subject. This park is 7 acres and includes lawn, baseball
backstops., restrooms, swina sets. jungle avm. horse (CONT)
b. Hould the proposed projaec dispLco any aistiog ner"tiooal w"oT If so. deeeribe.
The proposed project will not displace any recreational
uses" TWs proiect will include a Qool/clubhouse,
sport court, and tot lots.
c. Propoood wwn• to nduce or control layscto es taetaatios. iscludiag coerN cioasl oppoctua!-
tie• to be provided by the projett or appliust, if soy:
The proposed pro,ject will incude recreation amenities including a pool/clubhouse, sport court, and tot lots,- 4p^._~
These on-site amentities will minimized thP_imnact that
- - ,
this-.pro,iect will have on recreational facilities (CONT) 17. EIS_'ORIC AND GVL2URIIL TRLSQVA'2011
A. Are there any places or o►}eets listed ee er proposed tor aacional. state or loul Prsserva-
tion nsis[ars kAOrn to be.oc or aen to tlw sitef If w. pwra117r deftribe.
NO
b. Goerally deseribe a¢y landmrka or evideaee ot historie arehaeologieal. oc Lotitit oc culcural
imporcaoee Imovn to be on or eact co the sits.
N/A
c. Propooed ssasvres to reduce oe coatsol ipaets. ii say:
N/A
14. TRAttSPORlATION
6. Ideatify yublic scr«c• aor highwys Neving the aits aod describa propoood aeceN co the
e:isting screec hsts. Shoroe site oL". if aq. The subject has ap roximately 1,320' of frontage along
-ission Avenue to ~he south. Mission Ave. is a 60'
wide east~Vest mi nor arteri al , wi th two 1 anes of
traffic fronting the subject; future plans call (CONT)
e. I• site edrreutly Nned 1y ouslie trassitl If wt. Mut io the apOro:faace distuee to the
asaresc cramit scopT
Public transportation is avai1able at the (CONT) .
C. Hov aany pattiog apaea• vould ths eermpletd peojset Larat fov aaay rouid the peojeet slidaate'.
The nr rnno-sPdprn,aart wi 11 i nrl uriP '1_1 Fi aaraoP q;aCa_-,,
142 open parkino spcaes, and 16 accessible spaces
for a total of 474 spaces, 1.5 spaces/unit,
d. Vill the pcopoNl nq4ltt aay aw raads oT stte+u, or laptovemeat• to esistias rdde or acswto i ~
not lecludi~ drivewyeT If w. S~ra.lly deeeri1e (ieAieits vhother publie or priryte). _7 ~
Accordi n4 to the S okane Count Traff i c Engi neers
?
Mission Avenue wil be require~ to be i.mproved with_
, /~,,~,~~~v •
curbs, sidPwalkq, and strPet widenina_ RPfPr .n
Traffic Impact Analvsis for this pro'ect.
~ (
e. Yill the project w" (ot oaur ia the lardiate vielaity et) wacer. call. or air tramportatlaaf
If w . teoecally deserlbe.
1\1J
9
~
' . • sroFAea nrvz:oieCKx= oenniANCE
• (tiAC 197-11-960) s.ecioa u.lo. z3o(i)
S. rAvMORWliAL B.EKE1R5 (eoacinued)
Lvaluatioa Por
Aaeocy IIse Only
Nor aany vehleuLr trip• per a.r wmia ba gaoorated by the eoapLted pcojeetT I[ lmovn.
ladieatt r1+en peak voulA otcur.
Accordin to the Institute of Transportdti-on
Engineers ?ITE), Trips Generation Manual,, 5th. Edition,
this Qro,ject could aenerate as many as 2.045 ADT, (CONT)
j. riOpOsld n"sItme CO tedYCqi Ot COqCI01 CitOiPO[LlC3Qe 1mpaCt/, Lt anyt
Location of access points as per City Traffic
Enqineer's requirements.
15. PlJDLIC SExVICLS
Vould the pco}ect rawlt in an locrsased o"d far public •ocvics• (far usaMls. !`ise pra':actSon,
Poliee protectioa. Malch ure. schoola, ocl+er)1 If so, gener`117 drurtba. •
This proposal may result in an increasPrl nPPd fnr fire
protection, police protection, and other qovernmental
services, including Planning, Building Codes, Health
Di stri ct,S.nokane Cnunty Traffi c R I lti 1 i tiac _ X Pnstal Serv.
.
b. Proposed wawn s to ndaee or coetrol direct lapaet• oa pnllie "riees. !f a":
Additional tax dollars will hcl~~ to offset the increaseci
cost for additional sPrvice~,
16. ll-ILITIES
a. C1TCli utilities cvrteatlr •vai L ele ac the •ite: oleetrieity. eatural gu . water. reIuse
•ecvice. telephoas. saoitan sewr. •eptie hrsts. otMr.
All of these utilities are available, but a septic
sewage system will not be used.
b. Descri6e the etilittoo tMat ara proposa tor the pro}ect. the ucility provldieg the seeviee tad
the teseral coostnuetioo actlvitLes on the •!te er !n t M iswdiate vieialty vhleh dght be
needed.
Electricity & water fi rom Modern Electric Water Co.;
sewer from Spokane County Utilities; natural ga
from WWP; telephone by U.S. West Communications.
C. SICtU1TUR!
I. the uMersigned. wr+ac aeder the peeAlq ot perjue7 tAat the abore nspores acy mde truthially sed to the r"c ot q kawLodte. t also
noderscaad tl+at, slould cMrs ►e any villfal uLaaepnseecacioe er rllliul Lek et lull 1iselesare oa my pa[t. the asenep may vltAdrav •ay
deceesiaatioa of soosigoiileaace that it dgAc lasue !a reliaeee upon t41s eheeklist.
a«: Jul v 31, 1995 .ropoe.nt FrucciZWolff
( ers lriat o[ lyps)
h,posiaet=c/n John T. Swei tzer „ddroN; S. 103 Howard Street, S-'~:e .'nn,
(Sitaacurs)
okane, WA 99204
Phon.: 509/747-0999 ,S
`
rsrwa eoepl.eciaa foa: 1 • ~ :1 :;n:~ : _ , _ ~ _ _
509/ 747- 0999~ U
v
!OR STA" OSE OIfLT
Scaff Naber(s) reviaviag elreklist:
based oo thi• s4if reviev oi the eaviro ncal el+ecklist aod otl+or pertieent iafonatfos. clr staf`:
A. ` Coeelu"s that tben are ao probablA signifieaat adrerse fmpaets aod neomsead• a Lterai::.uoc o! ::or-a!K^:`!:er.«.
S. ~CooGludeo LhaC pL'ODable dgnlfitsnt adwise env;.ronAe::a: SApac;s ~'.o ea'rt fo; ttx cu_rcr.c p:o;*3941 a::.' :~cn`xn's e xtt::'.a:c.,
siontion ot no"ignifieance vith cooditioos .
C. CoOC1Ybl* tlYC tblie ait probaple •1gLltlu.:t edve;er ~uv+._rn~se:tal iap~x<;s a31+_ -erOyr-ar;a!u c±dceeu!:;+e[.,,..
FlI.I11C tg - 17 1. 00
10
Continued from Pa2e 2; A-1 i:
but can be used for parking, driveways, recreation uses (not including swimming pools) and landscaping. Generalk
speaking, it can he used in a supPnrt role. The area within thc ezserlient can he iised tO cOmPute the huilciir.;"
densities.
Continued from Pape 2; L' south of I-90, with the northwest corner dropping off slightly fo the nortll.
Continued from Page 2; B-1 c:
vegetables, and wheat. This soil is gravel. This series is made up of somewhat Pxcessivety drained, gravely or
stony soils.
Continued from Pap-e 3; B-2a:
existing CO levels.
Continued from Paee S; B-4b:
located at the NW corner of the site). All existing wild grass and possibly a few of the fruit and pine trees may
be removed.
Continued from Paee 6: B-Sa:
site; robin, quail and crows have been observed o the property north of the site.
Continued from PaQe 7; B-8a:
vacant); land use to the north includes I-90 and a mix of residential/commercial uses along Nora; the Cedar Chateau
Apartments (362 units) to the south; the Ann-Tone Apartments (12 units) to the east; the Camlu Retirement
Community to the west. The Valley General Hospital is located approximately 1,000' west of the subject site, south
side of Mission Avenue.
Continued from Paize 8; B-9a:
to be middle to slightly above middle income housing.
Continued from Pap-e 8; B-lOb:
be obstructed slightly from residences to the southwest. The view of the existing site will also be altered.
Continued from PaQe 8; B-l lb:
potential for light or glare safety hazard or interference is minimal.
Continued from PaQe 8; B-llc:
Camlu Retirement Community to the west and the Ann-Tone Apartments to the east.
~
. ~
, . `
, . , . .
. .
July 31, 1995
Page 2
Continued from Pav-e 9; B-12a:
stables, riding arena, tennis courts, and senior citizens center.
Continued from Pa2e 9; B-12c:
in the Spokane Valley.
Continued from Paee 9; B-14a:
for four lanes (two lanes in each direction). Turn lanes and signalization is to be installed at major intersections
on a need basis.
Continued from Paee 9: B-14b:
~itld 11\4"iV;,.;tld.
?1 ii1
assurning ? io wiit5. Ille at[actled *-Frafile Iiripact .liiaiysis iciriitiiics 2,U5 1 Average llaiiy 1 rip Lnds (AUT), buI
assumes 317 units, one more than the site plan and application. For a detailed analysis of the traffic impact that
Ridgeview Fstates Apartment Community will have on the existing transportation facilities in the area, refer to the
attached Traffic Impact Analysis.
/ GIJ
I
SPOKAI'NE COUNTY PLANNING
Z4NE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICA,.TION
PART I
A. GENERAL INFORMATIQN:
NAME OF APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: J_rUcci /Wol ff , clo John T. Swei tzer
MAILING ADDRESS: S. 107 Howard Street, Sui te 300
CITY: Saokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99204
PHONE: 509/747-0999 (WOrk) 509/747-6765 (home)
IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION
FOR APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVE.
LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: John A. Frucci PHONE:
MAILING ADDRESS: E. 12111 22nd Avenue
CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIp: 99206
PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA (acres or sq. fc) 15.34 Acres (6689210 sf )
ADJACENT AREA OWNfiD OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq. ft.) None
ASSESSOR PARCEL #S UF PRQJECT/PROPOSAL 45104. 9025/9026/9027
ASSESSOR PARCEL #'S OF ADJACENT AREA 4WNED OR CONTRQLLED N/A
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL E. 13303 Mi ss i on
EXISTING ZbNE CLASSIlFICATI4N(S) (DATEESTABLISHED) Urban Resi dential 3. 5(UR 3. 5)4/24/42.
EXISTIlVG USE OF PROPERTY Sinq1e Familg RP5.i dPn . at NW Corner; ma.iori ty vacant.
PROPOSED ZONING Urban Resi denti al -22 (UR-22) Zone
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY Urban
SCHOOL DISTRICT East Val 1 ey School Di stri ct
FIRE DISTRICT Orie
WATER PURVEYOR Modern El ectri c Water Company
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: •
Single family dwellings Duplexes Multifamily dwellings (x)
Manu#'actured homes ( ) Business ( ) Industrial ( ) Mixed Use ( )
Other - Describe: 316-uni t apartment complex
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY:
Zone chanae to Aqricultura? Suburban 4/24/42
B. T.Fr.AT./ZONF. RFCLASSIFIC: TIQN INFORMATxnN;.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northeast Corner of Mi ssi on Avenue and McDonal d Road
SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 44
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCESS: Mi ss i on Avenue
WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRONTIIVG ON PUBLIC ROAD: 1, 320 ' al ong Mi ss i on to the South
1-1
ZONE, RECI; A.S S IFICA'I.- A.PPLICATION Page 2 of 4
►
► r
DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARTERIAL OR PLANNED ARTERIAL YES NO
NAME(S) OF AR'IERIAL ROADS Mi ssi on to the south.
LEGAL DESCR]P'TION OF PROPERTY FOR EACH ZONE RECLASSIFICATTON PROPOSED.
45104.9025-W 15 ac of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4, Exc. 42 Rods; Subject to easement.
45104.9026-W 165' of E 825' of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4, Exc. PTN lying North of
former Spokane Valley Irrigation District Canal R/W, Subject to easement.
45104.9027-Ptn of SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 Lying South of North line of
former Spokane Valley Irrigation District Canal R/W, Subject to easement.
EXISTING ZONE(S) UR.3. 5 TO PROPOSED ZOIVE(S)_ URt22
FOR THE FOLLOWIlNG DESCRIBED
PROPERTY. (A'TTACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION STAMPED BY LAND SURVEYOR OR PROVIDE
BELOW.
See at,tached l eqal descripti,t)n.
IF YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, WHAT IS YOUR IIVTEREST IN IT? _
John A. Frucci i:s the owner of record,
WHAT ARE THE CHANGED CONDITIONS OF THE AREA WHICH YOU FEEL MAKE THIS
PROPOSAL WARRANTED?
Canstrlict.inn nf thP I_-90 increased traffi-c alonq Mission Avenue;
DpVP_ 1npm nt nf the Va11ev Genera1 Hospita1 neiqhborhood to the sowthwest;
construction of tfie Cedar Chateau Apartments to the south; constructipn of
the Ann Tone Apartments to the east and Camlu Retirement Community to tne west.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROPOSED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION HAVE ON THE ADJACENT
PROPERTTES? ThP Rrooosed 316-unit aqartment complex will increase traffic in
neighborhood. This project is "f711-in" development that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and previous zone changes in the area.
WHAT FAC"TORS SUPPORT THE ZONE RECLASSIFTCATION? Zhe Spokane Countv
C Pnsi~yP Plan. and previous z ne chanqe apo~rovals in the area suQport
this rP7flne ThP 12rapased ' artment is also comaatible with adjacent land use,
WHAT MEASURES DO YOU PROPOSE TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPA QN
SURROLTNIYINGLANDUSE? Lands.caplng of the project perimeter; evelloping
the prnQe rtv as per required by Spokan_e Zonjng Standards and zone change
condittons of aQproval.
ZONE RECLASSIFTCATTON hr ?LICATION , . Page 3 of 4
PART II
THIS SECTION OF THE APPLICATION WILL PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF WITH
WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION WITH THE
AGENCIES IDEN=D. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE INCORFORATED
IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
FIRE MARSHALL/FIRE DISTRICT
A. THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. ~
B. ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (IiAVE) H.r~VE NOT--,-I-," BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILITIES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PUR.POSES.
C: RECOMMENDED FIRE FI.OW: ; OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE; AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION TIME.
D . REQUIREMEIVTS INCLUDE:
FII~F DIS'I~I • SIGNAT~JRF/TITLE DA~
1 ~ ~ ~ L. o~ ~ P.Aw)vtn;- 7/~ /c! f
WATFR PURVEYOR
A. SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS ~F.~~~ESTIC WATER AND FIRE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (HAYE) C HAVE NO'I'~ BEEN MADE. .
B. REQUIREI~iEIVTS/COMMENTS: 1,~~ r. , = ,
s ~ V*. V t y' L ~ `7
WATER DISTRICT SIG ATURE ITLE DATE
COUNTY ENGINEER
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIRENiENTS FOR ROADS
AND DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCLJSSED WITH THE APPLICANT.
A. COMMENTS:
~ ~ ,~I 1 t ~ 7- l. Y~ S
S IGNATURE E DATE
COUNTY UTILITIES
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL. REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OFTHIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED. THE DESIGNATED
WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE jS An 6 E12 Il..~
A. COMMENTS : _ CceR ti Iv ATe' Pura\,= Yci (Z
L~
'0 ~ ; '7 ~7
SIGNATLJRWITLE DA
fIFALTH DISTRIC'I'
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLA AA-hal NERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (NAVE) HAVF NOT BEEN SATISFIED. l0el
A. COMMENTS : ~ ~ L ~ ec,> c'.~'
' SIGNA TLE DATE
SEWER PURVEYOR
A PRELIMINA.RY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIRENiENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT.
A. COMMENTS: U, ' (Z , T Wti'T 6 a.i 1~' C iL C000ECV
ShL- 7 I~
,
tGNATURE/I'I E A
' • `
ZONE RECLA S,S IFICATIOT ?LICATION Page 4 of 4
r PART III
:...•oFwA s~~~...rj.
SURVEYOR VERIFICATTON
I, Tltp- ' IGft, LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, HAVE COMPLETED THE INFORMATION
, t2UES R NING MAP AND WRITTEN LEGAL DESCRIP'TTON.
L L~+~ D ATE:
RESS: 70 ~ ee~ e!X- PHONE:
EXPIRES 12 0
ZIP:
PART IV
(SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LETTER OF AUTHORIZATIOrI)
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT TEIE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE
MADE ?RUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. i FURTHER SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITii IS
WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF.
,
. "~-77
SIGNED: ~.A I ~ DATE: ~ 1 y
ADDRESS: PHONE: ' <
-1 (W 7 - J ~
S I C~ 7 •'-1 c~ 2~ ~;,c r~ t; 5 G C7 Z I P: 2
.
'
~ .
~
~ 0
~ .
SIGNATYRE OF APPLICANT OR REPRES ATIVE DATE
-
STATE OF WASHllVGTON )
) ss:
COUNTY OF SPOKANE
SIGNED AND SWORN TO/AFFIRMED BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF
1993, B Y
,~~~11 111~~I % - -
NO~ ` 0. .A4
~oA
~ O" '
s~~ T Notary Public in and for thc Scate of Washington
siding at:
y ; 6 ; • ^
;
f
W~ MY aPTointmcnt cxpires:
~j~ ~•t.4 •1~ O:~~
•,,~oF?~~~•
.
{
PART V
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPAR'I'MENT)
DATE SUBMITTED: 20 FILE
DATE ACCEPT BY: 142
TOTAL FEES: REC ~''J7 I
E:_.l F . f. IF C~; P...i h,r 1.,
E.~.J I r°I i'1~ l,
~s a..t (.E f,
i..? F ~ a k : 11 1 - I-1 1"i 1 '1 f~ f_:•} e..~, ' 4 . i I~I i.r~ I 1 I, I .r. I', 1 Ji f...' ~ ~ ~ F~7
~ :l I i a_: i. r:~~ 1"i ~ r
Ad[Tll 1 P"I 1. st1' atc1r)
F r~.~rn: ;~pc-eE::~.~ne County Enqirieer's L?epartment
S i_l bj e c t m Cof"I d1. t1. + I"1 s r°F f App1`' ck V al Zof 1 E' Chafl gE' N-:► :lJ C1 asisi. t:] ~~,~,1 i:.a ~:I
Appl.ie~►r~ts i~arr►e Fri_i~ci,~W~~lff_
e t:. t I. r~ F"1 .I. C? y T o w n s h p :2 5 ~ N ~ R a n a e
r. P. Z n' n:;~
T't i e f olloW 1. nQ F l Cond1 t.l cA I"1 S ol' AppY' c,V r_'# li i fF_iY" trI e i'_4b1_1v-C..-~ i` efereii"1 l. ~ d z CIFl C:i
cFiange are si_ibmitted tc- thae Spi:jk-ane Ct-nunty P1<..~nninq Denartment fr-~r
J. r`1 I 1 ~~:f i"1~ f`i ~ : C:~ i ! t.::i ~t i.. ?::i ~r1 1"`'~ i=' f :1. fl q t 1'-i C~ C~ i..1 1~ 1_E ~Nl t ~a
:r~..[r;kt i1=(~: a p:~ :i.. 1.~`~,~i.i i~~~ P~'~i~ i ~°i w. 'r+ ~.~t t'i~+ e y }_l t~ st f
~=~~~r f~ ~~.~.~,~l~ 7 s .
I:cbu n t y E n q i neer i r7 c: c--Injun c t a. on w i t F~ a CoLknty Rc' ad F' r~ ~.-',.;i ec-k; / R,: _I <;a r.~
-
T . : , . .
p J u
q ~~V i~ r=~ r' .l I~ i t_ I T~I ~ t
f13 Y~ ! ~ Il i E..! D P i:. .1_
_W._ . , -
I.
_t r.i f.~ .l. ° - . ~ ' ^f~ ~ a 'd~ 1-1 I,! k;? 1" ~E`- ~L. 1..
k,-~; . l 1 ~ L
W ay
, ~ ~ ~ ~
1. Y t F'' c:~ ~ f ••~.l E.) I..l :1. 1 d i I°i C:I 1•J CP Y I il I ii ii'C
pri iposed ~
F-40 Ac~ ~ ~ s per-m .i. ta fc+ r appr oar es t.o ~ h(.-:~ Cc-)untv
h t a- i ne r-1 fr o mt f ic.-_ G` c, un t y 5::: r~ gi ne P... r
A~:~ p :i. i c an t s-e 1 ~t t~ i -G ~ ~ a r: e ~a j : r~~ s~ - t:~ y
...i f.
E# I q.J!. ni:~2eY° acces (:t l..-~ilsn
A t: i: i:.1 ff.1. f: C l. 1" k": ~_l c~ .1. -~.ii'1 pl~.°~ k~ s~'~~:~1ll b.. 1
, -
~.lirid appr----Yed by the 5pr_lG:.ane County Engineer. The des.i.anY
and arranqement j---f parkirig stalls sha11 be ir..i
ar_cc--rdance witFi standar-d enqineering practices. Paving =.-~r..
c,l..(rfiacinc~ apprc-svecl by the County EnQineer•- wil l be reqi..t:i.rec:-!
t.1.rr►I'~ ..,`f ~~I d°:' {:.t"~.~ ~ 1, ) l=:s~.~ W"i:~.C ~ I 1~"::a t!~.- ~1 e
, _
1:1ir ar'r'yr p11~"~
b' f veh_LL. ,I. k-.?`::a
.
~C. I f-.3 ...i . .
. . , . , i .
0 F~ t:, ~.~k f i'' i..j. ( _ i"'~ i~ i.:l l~ ~:4 ; f; i ~:7 Y' E ~ i il F,•: (-1 _ • a t- .
f~l k:~' A
1__)k~ ~ ccunfl'1 p1 .1 shed ..r"~a 1-:)y thC2 , t ~:`t t.:~ f'~3 C,:? i..! I"I tfj Efl '
i
. . ~
~
i
. ~
C 11jj t=) 'The Lciunty Enqineer h-i~.~s desiUnated a_4_lane_I1iric-r-_Arteri<"A, ~
standard fiiDr the improvement of Missii-nn_AvPni_te which is adja ~
tc- the proposed development. This will~reqi_iire the addition . I
I
approximately 1-_~ i ~ ~ ft. f aspF~alt al~~ nq the fr_ntaqe ~~f tf-if~:~
_ ~
t--, I I ~ 1._i ...I r' _'I '1 ! I C"ti l_! , -i i?'i 1 f 1 (_1
I
I
I
A1 1 r- c q ui r- ed i m Nrciv~ eni: s 5 I-ia1 1 cCIri for m i: o -t i-je cur re nt :Washinqton Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
ciDnstrijctic-n and other applicable coi_inty standards and/or
adopted resolutions pertaininq pertaininq tiD Road Standards and
St-Drmwater Manaqement in effect at the date of cc-nstructicin,
1_t fl lE' S 5 C:,'f; F'I E-? Y W1 SE? apprciv e-d f) y t l"1 e D-Jufl t: ''~i Efl Q.1. fl H' Y.
EIJ::J Rc-adway atandardsa, tYpical rcnadway ~ectic-ir>> and drainaUn pl~.i;
requirements are found in Spok:ane Board Of COLtnty
rescla.i..tti.c,n 95-0498 as amPnded anci tire app1 icable to this
f' r'
I"l i_ I C. 1.. 1 f 1::D l, fi_l l. l 1_I i W I'_:i LJ l"_ f 1~._1' I I I t:.' 1 I y I 1 L.- I I l•r' e_ 1_j I,
proposed rigl-it of way i_tntil a permit has been issiaed by the
~ounty Enqineer. All work: within tfie puhlic road riqht of way is
suh.jFCt tc. in7per_t.ir-fn anci :ppr.-Ival hy the C.-Junty Fi-igineer.
F 1J'=) A 1 1 reqi_t i r- e d c n s-t r-~_t c t i-Dn w i t-~i ri t f-ie e% ist i n q ~_ii~ p r~ ~~i~r~:~ s Ea dp~_tt,1
riqht --_~f way is to be completed prior to the release of a
buildinq permit or a bond in an amount estimated by the C-►unty
. , .
Engineer to ci-nver e c~~,s o con: ;
; : ~ , . r-. . . .i.. . . r... ~ _
L_ b 1 I f-ie Lounty Arter ial Road Nlan ideni:ifies Priissioii Aver7i_ie as a
h1inor Arterial. The existinq riqht of way width of~60~ft. is
not consistent with that specified in The Rlan. In order tc-
implement the Arterial Road Plan it i5 recommended that in
additi-Dn to the required riqht of way dedication, a strip -Df
property 8 ft. in width alonq the Mission Avenue frontaqe be set
aside in reserve. This property may be acquired by Spok:ane
Caunty at the time when Arterial Impr-Dvements are made to
1v1 i. s ~ :i. n A v e n 1_t e o
F_ 'D C} -r here m a y ex is tut i 1 a. t i es , ei t her un de r- a r,:*11_tn d cl r- over head ,
affectinq the sub.ject prc-perty, incli_tdinq property to be
dedicated or set aside for fUtLtre acquisition. Spok:ane County
assumes no financial obliqation for ad.ju«tments or relocation
regardinq the5e Lttilities. Applicant sr~~~-uld check: with the
applirable utility purveyor and the Spok:ane County Enqineer to
cietermine whether applicant or the Lttility is responsihle for
ad.ji_tstment ~~r~ rc~1~-icat~.~,iri r~~-~sts anci t~~. maE::e arranc~ement~ f~-~r any,
neC G r~i sct Y V Wc-IY' kA ~
~
. • ~
~
~
t r rif Y" i c z{ ri a 1 y s i s h Gt s bee n d rie fci r- t i-, e si_t b. j~ c t N FC- pe r- t y a n d t I
of writinq of these desiqn review comments an unacceptable level
service cLtrrently exist at Mission and Mcdonald. The applicantr:> ~
representative is reexamininq the intersection based on a delay
,and will be modifyinq their analysi5. If the oLttcome of level
serva. ce does nc-t change t-,- an exceptable level iDf servi te for M.
ancl Mcdc-inald,
~
t
L~ ~:..i ~1 . cl I i 1..: ~ i_~. I 1~. 'v' L. I i i I t~::.. .r i.!.. I I~...~ 1..~ ~_l .L l.l i k_` 1..~ I(I I! ~ t~ i_ I~ i i, i i,ry~ : i!` i l .
Fnvironmental Policy Act envirconmental docijments that
c: ~,nst r- ,..tc_ ta -t r-af-f i c. sicIna1 a t Miss ionan d M c don a 1 d
I
Spc~k:ane County Erigineerinq would rec---)mmend that
clenied since appropriate infirastructure related tn transportati~
cou1 d n---t fj ef11 r-Ir'15 t 1' a'G P d4
PAGE 1 11:12:15 21 AUG 1995
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
02907 MCDONALD RD (START) 00.000 25TH AV (START) & FO U 16 PAVED 50
MCDONALD RD 00.050 23RD AV U 16 PAVED 50
00.110 22ND AV U 16 PAVED 50
00.180 SEMRO RD U 16 PAVED 50
00.240 BLOSSEY AV U 16 PAVED 50
00.300 SALTESE & BLAKE FRON U 16 PAVED 50
00.320 SALTESE AV U 16 PAVED 40
00.500 16TH AVE U 16 PAVED 40
00.540 15TH AV (START) U 16 PAVED 40
00.600 14 TH AV ( STAR.T ) U 16 PAVED 40
00.660 13TH AV (START) U 16 PAVED 40
00.730 12TH AV U 16 PAVED 40
00.790 11TH AV U 16 PAVED 40
00.860 lOTH AV U 16 PAVED 40
00.920 9TH AV U 16 PAVED 40
00.980 8TH AV U 16 PAVED 40
01.050 7TH AV (START) U 16 PAVED 40
01.110 6TH AV (END) & 6TH A U 16 PAVED 40
01.170 STH AV (START) U 16 PAVED 40
01.240 4TH AV U 16 PAVED 40
01.490 SPRAGUE AV U 16 PAVED 48
01.570 RIVERSIDE AV (END) U 16 PAVED 48
01.610 MAIN AV U 16 PAVED 48
01.670 NIXON AV U 16 PAVED 48
01.740 VALLEYWAY AV U 16 PAVED 48
01.800 OLIVE AV (END) U 16 PAVED 48
01.860 ALKI AVE (END) U 16 PAVED 48
01.930 SPRINGFIELD AV (END) U 16 PAVED 48
01.990 BROADWAY AV U 16 PAVED 48
02.080 MALLON CT (START) U 16 PAVED 48
02.150 CATALDO AV U 16 PAVED 48
02.210 DESMET AV U 16 PAVED 48
02.270 BOONE AV (START) U 16 PAVED 48
02.370 SINTO AV (END) U 16 PAVED 48
02.430 MP,XWELL AV ( END ) U 16 PAVED 48
MCDONALD RD (END) 02.500 MISSION AV U 16 PAVED 48
02908 MCDONALD RD (START) 00.000 SR-290 (TRENT AV) U 17 PAVED 20
MCDONALD RD 00.210 RICH RD U 17 PAVED 20
. 00.360 HEROY AV (START) U 17 PAVED 20
00.380 HEROY AV (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00.450 WELLESLEY AVE U 19 PAVED 28
MCDONALD RD (END) 00.870 SANSON AV (START) U 19 GRAVEL 22
03161 MCDONALD ST (START) 00.000 31ST AV U 19 PAVED 40
MCDONALD ST 00.090 SKYVIEW AV U 19 PAVED 40
00.150 29TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
00.210 28TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
MCDONALD ST (END) 00.270 27TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
3 Records Processed
A
PAGE 1- 11:11:39 21 AUG 1995
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 BOWNIAN RD ( END ) U 17 PAVED 20
00.990 PARK RD U 17 PAVED 20
01.110 CENTER RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
01.130 CENTER RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
01.230 ELLA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
01.270 ELLA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
01.290 ELTON RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
MISSION AV (END). 01.510 VISTA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
03043 MISSION AV (START) 00.000 VISTA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
MISSION AV 00.140 BESSIE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
00.260 SARGENT RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
00.330 MARGUERITE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
00.510 ARGONNE RD (ONE WAY U 16 PAVED 44
00.570 MULLAN RD (ONE WAY N U 16 PAVED 44
00.680 WILLOW RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
00.760 LOCUST RD U 16 PAVED 36
00.920 FARR RD U 16 PAVED 36
01.010 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
01.430 OBERLIN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01.520 UNIVERSITY RD U 16 PAVED 36
01.670 GLENN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01.770 PIERCE RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01.950 WOODWARD RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
02.020 BOWDISH RD U 16 PAVED 36
02.080 BATES RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
02.140 WILBUR RD U 16 PAVED 36
02.310 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
02.780 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
03.670 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
04.040 ADAMS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.130 MARCUS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.190 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
04.560 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 00.300 FLORA RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
MISSION AVE 00.460 ARC ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
PAGE 2• 11:11:44 21 AUG 1995
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference•Descriptio Road Log Info..........
MISSION AV 00.790 LONG RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.870 ARTIES ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
, 01.030 GREENACRES RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.270 BARKER RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.690 GR.ADY RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01.750 HODGES RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01.810 ALADDIN RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01.870 CAVALIER RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
02.070 HOLL RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
02.190 GLENBROOK RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
MI SS I ON AV ( END ) 03.280 HARVARD RD ( START ) R 08 GRP,VEL 30
03046 MISSION AV (START) 00.000 COUNTRY VISTA DR R 08 PAVED 50
MISSION AVE (END) 00.220 SIGNAL RD (END) R OS PAVED 50
MISSION AV 00.470 HOMESTEAD DR (END) R OS LIGHT BITUM. 22
00.790 MOLTER RD (LIBERTY L R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 26
01.300 SIMPSON 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 LINE R 09 GR.AVEL 18
MISSION RD 00.570 RR TRACKS R 09 GRADED/DR.AINED 10
MISSION RD (END) 01.030 STROUP RD R 09 GRADED/DRAINED 10
03049 MISSION RD (START) 00.000 FLINT RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 22
MISSION RD 00.500 OLD TRAILS RD (START R 09 GRAVEL 20
01.060 DENO RD (START) R 09 GRAVEL 20
MISSION RD (END) 02.150 GROVE RD R 09 GRAVEL 20
03048 MISSION RD (START) 00.000 WOOD RD R 09 GR.AVEL 12
MISSION RD (END)- 01.000 RITCHEY RD (START) R 09 GRAVEL 12
7 Records Processed
.
i.
S P O K A N E C O U N T Y
DNISIOr1 OF ENGWEERING AND ROADS • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
William A. Johns, P.E., Acting County Engineer Dennis M. Scott, P.E., Director
~N E 14 0
To: John W. PZJ44,nStormwater erand Lorne Lakshas, Planning Dept.
From: Katherine Utility
Subject: Zone reclassification for Ridgeview Estates
Date: August 21, 1995
During the SEPA review and/or the building permit process the applicant will need to address the
following issues:
The applicant shall address means of disposing of the dra.inage associated with the proposal
without impacting public road facilities or offsite properties.
The proposed project is located in the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). The requirements
pertaining to projects within the ASA in the C'niidelines for Stornrwater Management will need to
be met.
1026 W. Broadway Ave. 0 Spokane, WA 99260-0170 •(509) 456-3600 FAX: (509) 324-3478 TDD: (509) 324~3166
pp,
~ .
August 30, 1995; 1:15 p.m.:
FRUCCI/WOLFF ZONE RECLASSIFICATION
Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue, approximately
650 feet east of Woodlawn Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township
25N., Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban, and within the Priority Sewer Service
Area (PSSA)
EXISTING/PROPOSED ZONING: Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Reclassification from Urban
Residenrial- 3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) for
development of 316 multiple-family residences, and those uses allowed in
the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone.
PARCEL NLTMBER(S): 45104.9025; .9026; .9027
SI'I'E SIZE: ± 15.34 acres
APPLICANT(s): Frucci/Wolff
% John Sweitzer
S 107 Howard St. STE 300
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 747-0999
ASSIGNED PLANNER: Lorne Lakshas
{ 1
S P O K A N E O U N T Y
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DNISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTI', P.E., DIRFCTOR
MEMORANDUM REC4VED
AUG 17 1995
TO: 1%tMarper, Spokarte County Divisicm of Eh$ineering
Brend.a Sims, Storm Water Utility
Jim Red., Spokane County Utilides Deparnnent ~aeerir~
Steve Holderby, Spokane County Health District
Wyn Birkenthal, Spokane County Parks & Recrearion Department
Greg Figg Department of Transportation
Christine Fueston, Spokane Transit Authority
Susan Winchell, Boundary Review Board
Glen Miles, Spokane Regional
East Valley School District Fire Protection District No. 1
Modern Electric Water District
~
FROM: John W. Pederson, Senior Planner
DATE: August 15, 1995
RE: Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22)
APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESI zN REVIEW MEETIN G
August 30. 1995 AT 1:15 P.M.
GOUNTY PLANNING CONFEREN _E ROOM. 2ND FLOOR
Please review the above application and use the attached APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE A1vD
DESIGN REVIEW MEETTNG FORM for your comments. The Planning Department
encourages your presence at this meeting. The sponsor and representative have been
invited to also attend. If you can not attend, please forward your review comments on the
attached form to Lorne Lakshas for the meering. The attached AFPLICATION
ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FORNiS will be given to the sponsor at the meeting and
included in the Planning Department file (so bring thrgg copies to the meeting). Thanks
for your cooperadon. If you have any questions about the application, please contact
Lorne Lakshas of the Planning Department at 456-2205.
c: Frucci/Wolff
Attdchments: Application Acceptance and Design Review Form, Project Design, Site Plan
1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASH[NGTON 99260
BvILDINC PHOtvE: (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 456-4703
PLANtvltvG PHONF: (509) 456-2205 • FAx: (509) 456-2243
TDD: (509) 324-3166
_ ,
,l
~ SPOKtinE COUNTY PLANNING
.
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATIQN
PART I
. GENERAL INFORMATION:
NAME OF APPLICANT/RESPRESENTATIVE: Frucci/Wolff. % John T. Stiveiter
MAILING ADDRESS: S. 107 Howard St., Suite 300
CITY: Spokane STATE: WA _77IP: 99204
ncxnINr*- . ;cnn, 7 .i-T 000
11 . t t.: _ -
sI a s . ♦ . w..: ti v r i i'a ;t, ~..i sI k- f i1. Y,i t1. 1 l V Ji fLl.i
APPLICANT TO SERVE ASREPRESENTATIVE.
LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: ]ohn A. Frucci PHONE:
MAILING ADDRESS: E. 12111 22nd Avenue
CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99206
PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA (acres or sq. ft.) 14.42 Acres (628,446 sf
ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq. ft.) None
SSESSOR PARCEL #S OF PROJECT/PROFOSAL 45104.9425/9026/9027
ASSESSOR PARCEL #S OF ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED N/A
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL E. 13107 Mission
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATE ESTABLISHED) Urban Residential 3.5 (UR 3.5): Anril
24. 1942
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY Single Famiiv Residence at NW corner; maioritv vacant
PROPOSED ZONING Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) Zone
,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY Urban
SCHOOL DISTRICT East Vallev School District
FIRE DISTRICT One
WATER PURVEYOR Modern Electric Comaanv
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY:
Single family dwellings Duplexes Multifamily dwellings (X)
Manufactured Homes ( ) Business ( ) Industr2al ( } Mixed Use ( )
Other ( ) - Describe:
LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY:
Zone chanQe to Agricultural Suburban - 4/24/42
B. LEGAL/ZONE RECLASSICATION INFORMATION:
LOCATION PRQPOSAL: Northeast Corner of Mission Avenue and McDonald Road
SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 44
NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCESS: Mission Avenc:
WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRONTING ON PUBLIC ROAD: 1,320 ft alone mission to South
.
a.
.
ZONE RECLASSIFTCATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4
PART II
THIS SECTION OF THE A,PPLICATION WILL PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF WITH
WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELTMINARY CONSULTATION WITH THE
AGENCIES IDENTTFIED. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHA[.L BE INCORPORATED
IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNINO DEPARTMENT.
FIRE MARSI3ALL/FIRE DISTRICT A. THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO.
B. ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (IiAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS
IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILITIES FOR FIRE
PROTECTION PURPOSES.
Ct RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW: ; OR UNABLE TO CALCULATE NOW
BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE; AND WILL BE DETERMIlVED AT BUILDIIVG PERMIT
A.PPLICATION 'IIME.
D . REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE:
FIRE DISTRICT • SIGNA?tJFtE/TITLE DATE
WATFR PURVEYOR
A. SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS F ESTIC WATER AND F1RE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS (NAYE) lHAVE NO BEEN MADE. .
.
B. REQUIREMENTS/~COMMENTS: .AW ct, Pif' ►ti ~ . . ?
~
, ,
, ~1oc~T t ~,,Lc 0(-4 1-'( 4L,
WATER DISTRICT SIG ATURE/I'ITLE DATE
COUNTY ENGINEER
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS
AND bRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCLJSSED WTTH THE APPLICANT.
A. COMMENTS:
C-) .
L ~
~
S IGNATURE LE DATE
COUNTY UTILITIES
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROP4SAL (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN SATISFIED. TNE DESIGNATED
WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITB ]S
A. COMMENTS:
SIGNATUREfTITLE DATE
IIFALTH DISTRIC'C
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLA NERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HI~VE) HAVF NOT BEEN SATISFIED.
A. COMMENTS :
' SIGNA TLE DATE
SEWER PURVEYOR
A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT.
A. COMMENTS:
SIGNATLJRF.fI'I7LE DATE ~
f :RMIT CENTER PASSPQRT
Datq: d . Number.
~ .
Name / Phone
Address
Comments:
CUSTOMER ROUTING
~ BUILD(NG Department . ( PLANNING Department ENGINEER'S DepartmeM ~
Addressing i Admin. Exception ~ Approach Permit
3uilding Permit Arterial Rd Plan Info Flood Plain Permit
Code Information i Binding Site Plan Info ! Public/Private Roads
~ Commercia] Review i Cert, of Exemption ~ Res. Bldg Permit Rev.
i Con[erence i Comprehensive Plan Site Drainage Info
~ Energy Code Info Cond. Use Permit Subdivision Review
_ Fre Safety Review ~ Nonconforni ing Use ` Utiliry Pcrmit
_ Manufactured Home ~ Permit Review i Zone Qiange Review
_ Mechanical Permits _ Shorelines Info 2-5
, Other Permits i Short Plat Info NO FEE REQUIRED
Reviewer Tuue out
_ Plumbing Permits i Subdivision Info
- - /
~ Private Road Info _ Temp. Use Pemiit /UTILiT1ES Department ~
_ Residential Review ~ Variance Appl. AYA Pavnient
` Sewer Permits i Zone Check ~ Cert. of Fxemption
I f Zone Info ~ Sutxiivision Review
ULID/Sewer Tnft)
_ Zane Cfiange Rcview
i NO •E E REQUIRED NO I•EE RL'QUIIZED
Reviewer Timc aut Reviewer Time out Reviewer Time out
I ~
MASTER1PtiSSPOR1.CfR 111R93
2 ` h
~
~
L.- •
.
~ •
~
. .
~ f
-
r
~ -
~
. V ~
~ •
~
Il~~ • p
` v
~Q
. ,
.r.
.
. ~ • ~ .
~i~•: ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ • ~ h~ ►
'e { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , '
o `~t ovK
, H
Hpt~K ~ . ►
~ N ➢ ~ ~ ~ _ ~
~ C
• ~M~t~ ~ - ~
vaab y vlCtb► ~ D ~N ' ~ . ~ .
tt► _
~ • p ~
_ •
oo+-"~'~ . r ~ .
< ~ ~
. , ~
Cp ~ • t 1 ' ,
_ w MgCAa~
11Ih ° ~t ~ ➢ 'fj -
r ~ ~L ~ • • ;
L` . . . ,
1
, t„nt
■ p ~ . ~ '
28 30
2
2? •
' 12r 1
V~Rti`'RE~►~ ,
12 13
• ~ Il „ ~ ~ .
O 9 io
g ~ . l~~....~-"
G
ZEm39mw95
1
~ , . . . ~ . , .
. . . ~ ~ . .
. ; ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
RRoio
. ~ ~ . ~ . .
. ,ro~ . .
~ . - . - • ' . , , . . ~ 4 • -
V s22
s •
• ; ~ . „ , . ~ . PQrk~
, . ,
• . . . : v , , . - . ~ : ' ~ ` + .
~ . , . . .
Y1 . . . . : ~ . . ~ . ' . ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ .
~ ' : ~ • . : ~ - ' . . ~ - . . •
QL
N
. ~ • ~ issio • ; •
. ~
N IEtD RRSIO
• . . . N _ -
. • . . . J I ~ . ' '
N ~ ~ • ~►v~ , ~ - " js~l~,.
~r,ao
r
' ' 01
1
iiiiiiiiiiiii~illjllllllllllllliiiillilI
• ~ ' ~ ~
. ' " . ' . . : . .i{'.' , • ~ +
. . . Ik:.1~.~
- IC
N
10
- } ; ~
- 3•. :x N ~ UR22. UR..12
CW - o UR.22 ~ -
~
B
M2 uR•2?.
cc
U R 35
dR-7
r' 80 NE pESnnET'
ool UR-Z2 ~ s . • ' ~ C aT,,.~o~ ~ _ _ U.ti
DE T Av E
• . ~ ~ ~ R .
. . -.r z
cc
. uR,3,%!5T . m
~UR-°` aY
' UR•22 22 > ° -
E L
UR'? ' ~K ti AV • A 1
~ _ : - - - - - - + Page
98
for 7:E
ni9S HEC Staff ReP°rt -39-95
~
' f
~
ZE=39=95
W II
c Sub tation
i989 renl j ':f,. ; • j .
~ 'rh u~{
9 ~~,~':~iT:i!`. '~if~r~~~~ . • •
994 , 1 rr - . _ ~ •
.
• ~O ,.1,, ~ ~i . :,'!..y.:i:• ' . ~010
:'s:':::';i~
„Well
~ • ;~,t;.M:;::;:•:•:i~:';?~~ar:~i% ?004
~ ~ .y • ~ ! ~
. b , . _ t
p
'
~,1~
..~1 21060 . ~i , 4 . , W. Borrow
~ . o ~ ' z ~ P i t
~ I N' .L A N D E~M P I.R . ` ' . • '
~ f ■ ~ 9~.y wC ~
Q~• Z00 .
'T.
10
- ~I ' ~ , ~ p
~ • , ~ RNArION , ."r
Al. s: E3orrow
o ' rNTF • Pit,
,i . . . SP~KANE
'
~ ~ P O
~j . N ~ . „ ~ . • ~ ~ » ~ Sullivan
~~~sAV ' • ~ Park e ~
~ ' n • ~ • • .
• ~ ~
a ~::~p:::<::::::;.:..:::. _ • RN
~ • ' S oka eVAiI ^ ~ R
.
~ ~ •
Hospf ' I,.~ z
~
~
w ~ I +.I , ~ II • ~ • ~
2 21 ~ _ ~ ~ • , . aos • .
~ AVE_.. z _ ' • ' ~
Z O
_ _ ~ ~y~ .t ~ ~ • ~ ~ , ~r • , ~ ~I
~ •wT ~ S „ II ► ~
i E~leke > - II U.. - • ~ ~ y ,,t~
T' SRO ~
~
4;
~ I f • ~ ~ . •
h . . ~ I • Well . ~ • ~ ~ ~ *h rniu+ _
~ ~ •
I. . I , ~o
• - r• . ~ ?O5T ~ ~ .
I
V~• ' WAY VA ~
0 ~ `C~~ ~1 y~-Y' • e • .
j •
W-2026 ul, statkcn
; ~OPPORTUNIT
_ . - - - - , i~ r • . -
; :a SPR ` E VeradE
, SoRAGVE II ~l 1n7~ LA o n•. .
~ •
-1~.~•~ ~
I ~IA '•~:p~~'~ * . . . .t. : ~I+. o . ou . 4.
. . . „
~
, . ~{,I , , .
_ - 1 .!,I.'. j~ •w C ~ ~
, ~ ' V
t • .
:1t Mervea
4t
. ._i.
w- ~ • ~,x ~ . . . '
a
'
. . , ~
• KeYsitmt• . i Well PALV$•ap -F3~'- '
~ 11.... • ~ . .
tirh I ?oi,7 • • ,
~ ~1 111 lG~01~, C!~# Adams 10~ + •
8t ~Stib~~1ftS~. ~Sch °
~
O ~ ~ 0 •
?O/ 4 ' fl ~ . o ~~l1 i ' ' • . ~ ~ . ~"~r~' Cea" VAlltn
. . o . r r ; . : • I.... tl : c~. I• HiRh :teh
- •,1 ~ - . o . . . .
~ . . ~ , . . , 023~ , Q
• ~ _,,~..w c.~,~. . .
. . ~
. •
= ..Q M • . ~ p ~ ~ ' .
AVLrNUE_ u~ .a h . ~ • ~ ~
. _ . r • - n .
11 • 46.4 a~ • ••0."• •
z ~I • bY q q . •U ' •
„ ~ . . a 0' ~ V
• • • ' ~
* . ~ ~ ; o i. • . 's i
. well ; : . ~ . ; ~
_ ~6 ~ ~ ' t • ° • p:vQryvflQfl .
_ • ~ ~ Me I)nnald ~ 1 6fh r IIl $ • ' : • ~ . ~ L p ~
ach . e •z'.:::.~ . . ,
?08 ~ u Jpgl • . . ,
• ~i ~ . . _ ' O I'~-r:'/:'_ ' ~ ' ' I . . p •
~ : . . ~ q ~ _ ~ ' - ~ - ~ . ' • , ~ ,
~
10/95 HEC Staff Report for ZE-39-95 Page 100
I
~ . ,
DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING REPORT
TO: SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE
FROM: CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1995
SUBJECT: ZE-39-95, ZONE RECLASSIFICATION FROM URBAN
RESIDENTIAL-3.5 (UR-3.5) TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL-22
(UR-22)
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Frucci/Wolff
c/o John Sweitzer
107 South Howard
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 747-0999
Contact Planner: Lorne Lakshas
Location: Generally located north of and adjacent to Mission Avenue,
approximately 650 feet east of Woodlawn Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 10,
Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington.
Proposal: Zone Reclassification from Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) to
Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) for 316 multiple family residences and those uses
allowed in the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone.
II. SITE INFORMATION
A. Site Size: Approximately 15.34 acres
Gross Density: 20.6 units per acre
B. Comprehensive Plan
1. Land Use Plan: The property is located within the Urban category and
the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA). The Urban category is intended to
provide the opportuniry 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). Residential net densities are suggested to
range from 1 to 22 dwelling units per acre in the Urban category. The
10/95 HEC Staff Report for ZE-39-95 Page 102
f
•
West: Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) established in 1991 previously
classified as Residential Office (ZE-17-71)
F. Land Use Analysis: The surrounding area consists of a mix of multi-family
dwellings and medical facilities. Multi family uses are located to the east and
southeast of the proposal. To the south is a neighborhood medical center and a
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement which also runs through the
subject property. Northeast of the project are single family homes which have
been turned into small businesses. Northwest of the proposal is a single family
home on a large acreage and west of the project is a convalescent center. Some of
the existing uses in the area were established prior to the implementation of the
Zoning Code on January 1, 1991 and some uses were established after
implementation.
Site: Vacant
North: Small businesses and single family homes
South: Apartments, med.ical building and Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) easement
East: Small apartment building
West: Retirement facility
G. Circulation: The proposal is adjacent to Mission Avenue which will provide
primary access to the site. The County Engineer has designated a four-lane Minor
Arterial standard for the improvement of Mission Avenue which will require an
additional 18 - 20 feet of asphalt. The Washington State Department of
Transportation has indicated that they will seek improvements for the intersection
of McDonald Road and Mission Avenue-one which will serve to provide adequate
levels of service with the addition of a second southbound to eastbound left turn
lane. All intemal parking and travelways will be paved.
A Mitigated Deternunation of NonSignificance (MDNS) was issued for this
project (See Section III of this report). A total of $36,000 and $114.00 per unit
was agreed on by the applicant and the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT). The SEPA mitigation fees shall be used by WSDOT
to construct needed improvements on Pines Road in the vicinity of I-90 and
Mission Avenue which will be used directly by the traffic generated by this
project. The aforementioned was a result of a"Traffic Impact Analysis for the
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Communiry" (prepared by Inland Pacific
Engineering and dated July, 1995).
The traffic analysis and delay study provided by the applicant was reviewed by
the County Engineer and the County Engineer has commented that infrastructure
could accommodate 275 dwelling units. If the applicant wants to construct more
than 275 multi family dwellings, an additional traffic analysis is required to
reevaluate the intersection of Mission Avenue and McDonald Road. (See
Division of Engineering Condition No. 13).
H. Design: The proposed site development plan illustrates 316 multi family
residences with garages and a common clubhouse. The site plan meets the zoning
10/95 HEC Staff Report for ZE-39-95 Page 104
~
e , . .
L. Water Supply: The proposal is within the Modern Electric Water District.
Appropriate provisions for water service are required prior to the issuance of
building permits. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited.
M. Sewage Disposal: A public sewer system will be made available to the project.
Use of on-site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorizeci.
N. School: The proposal is in the East Valley School District No. 361.
0. Fire Protection: The proposal is within Fire District No. 1. The Fire District
and the Division of Buildings Department (Fire Marshall) are required to approve
fire protection provisions prior to issuance of building permits.
P. Cultural Resources: None have been identified.
Q. Transit: The Spokane Transit Authority is able to serve this project at the
intersection of McDonald and Mission Avenue.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Environmental Checklist was submitted by the sponsor and was reviewed by
the County Planning Department. The review considered the specifics of the
proposal, other available information, County ordinances, other regulations and
laws, possible standard Conditions of Approval, the Generalized Comprehensive
Plan, and other County policies and guidelines. The Planning Department has
determined that there are "probable significant adverse impacts" if the proposal were
developed as proposed. However, the applicant has agreed to specific mitigating
measures which should minimize or eliminate the probable significant adverse
impacts. Therefore a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") has
been issued. The specific mitigating measures include:
1. The proposed development shall not occur in more than three phases as
related to the application of building pernuts.
2. Based on 3161iving units and mitigation totaling $36,000, the pro-rata share
shall be $114.00 per living unit. Payment of this fee shall be made to
WSDOT prior to the issuance of the requested building permits.
3. Issuance of all building pernuts shall occur before June 30, 1999. Building
pernuts obtained after June 30, 1999 shall require the applicant to update the
traffic analysis along with the required mitigating measures.
4. The above SEPA mitigation fees shall be used by WSDOT to construct
needed improvements on Pines Road in the vicinity of I-90 and Mission
Avenue which will be used directly by the traffic generated by this
development.
5. To ensure that this mitigation is provided for, we request a sign-off block be
included for WSDOT on the building permit.
The "NIDNS" was circulated to 13 other agencies of jurisd.iction and other
agencies/departments affected by the future development for review and comment.
10/95 HEC Staff Report for ZE-39-95 Page 106
~
variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning
Code, and the original intent of the development plans shall be maintained.
4. Approval is required by the Planning Director/designee of a specific lighting and
signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building permits.
5. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for maintenance
acceptable to the Planning Director/designee 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.
6. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property
boundary.
7. The Spokane County Planning Department 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 Planning Department. The notice should be
recorded within the same time frame as an appeal and shall provide the following:
a. At least 8 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. NOT'E: The County Engineer has required 2 feet of new
dedication.
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.
8. The Planning Department 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
Planning Departrnent. The Tit1e Notice shall generally provide as follows:
The parcel of property legally described as [ ] is the subject
10/95 HEC Staff Report for ZE-39-95 Page 108
+ . ,
9. No construction work shall be performed within the existing or proposed public
right-of-way until a pernut 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.
10. All required construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way is to
be completed prior to the release of a building pernut, or a bond in an amount
estimated by the County Engineer to cover the cost of construction of improvemen1 ~
shall be filed with the County Engineer.
11. The County Arterial Road Plan identifies Mission Avenue as a Minor Arterial. The
existing right-of-way width of 60 feet is not consistent with that specified in the
Plan. In order to implement the Arterial Road Plan, in addition to the required
right-of-way dedication, a strip of property 8 feet in width along the Mission
Avenue frontage shall be set aside in reserve. This property may be acquired by
Spokane County at the time when arterial improvements are made to Mission
Avenue.
12. There may exist utilities, either underground or overhead, affecting the subject
property, includ.ing property to be dedicated or set aside for future acquisition.
Spokane County assumes no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation
regarding these utilities. Applicant(s) should check with the applicable utility
purveyor and the Spokane County Engineer to deternune whether applicant(s) or
the utility is responsible for adjustment or relocation costs and to make
arrangements for any necessary work.
13. A traff'ic analysis has been prepared for this proposal, in conjunction with this analysis
a delay study was also completed. Based on this analysis, the proposal could
accommodate 275 units, should the applicant wish to proceed beyond that point another
traffic analysis shall be done prior to the 276th unit being constructed to reevaluate the
intersection of Mission and McDonald and midgating measures if any shall be
constructed by the applicant should he wish to proceed.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES
1. The owner(s) or successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the County to place their
name(s) on a petition for the formation of ULID by petition method pursuant to
RCW 36.94, which petition includes the owner(s)' property; and further not to
object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a LTLID by
resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94 which includes the owner(s)'
property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the owner(s) or
successor(s) from objecting to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of
improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either
petition or resolution under RCW Chapter 36.94.
2. A wet (live) sewer connection to the area wide Public Sewer System is to be
constructed. Sewer connection permit is required.
3. Applicant is required to sign a sewer connection agreement prior to issuance of permit
to connect.
10/1)7 1 II:(` tor li-:-0-95 P~i'.:C~ " 10
, `
- -
~ ~
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
September 8, 1995
REC~~~~D
Pat Harper
County Engineers
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260 a,ND pt~K~
v
RE: Gap & delay study at Mission & McDonald as a part of the Ridgeview Estates Apartnient
Community TIA
Dear Pat,
Pursuant to the conversations at the pre-development meeting, and field observations by both
Bob Brueggeman and myself, it was the general consensus that the 1194 Highway Capacity
Manual's model for unsignalized intersections was too conservative for the intersection of
Mission & McDonald. The model reports that this intersection is presently experiencing an LOS
of F during the PM peak hour. In order to adjust the model to reflect field conditions, two
subsequent studies were conducted at this intersection during the PM peak hour. The first of
these studies was a delay study and the second was a gap sttidy. The data collected for these
studies is attached.
The delay study was done duriilg the peak llotir, and nieasured tlle delay of 53 vehicles whic}i
turned left from McDonald onto Mission. The average delay measured per vehicle was 14.5
seconds, and according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), this movement (which control s
the level of service at this intersection) is functioning at LOS C. This delay study measured the
delay for a sample of the vehicles making this maneuver, and did not include the delay of ever`
vCl1itlC.
Although the delay study demonstrateci what the existing level of service is at the intersection.
using this information to project what the level of service will be in the future involves adjustin(,_
the acceptable gap time which vehicles making this maneuver will use. Since the delay study
was conducted first, the model was adjusteti to match field conditions with the modellecl
condition. The critical gap, which is the variable which must be adjusted to account for field
conditions, was determined to be just under 5 seconds. However, to verify this number, a gap
study was also performed to find out the size of gaps which are being accepted. Based on thi~
information, there are two parameters which could be adjusted, one is the critical gap, or thc
size of gap which the average motorist will accept, and the second is follow-up time, or the
additional time which a following vehicle needs to use the same gap.
;'u/ Vvest iti, Su:, . Spokane, Washingtc
509-458-684,,
FAX: 509-458-o ~ ~
r ~
Mission & McDo►lald
September 8, 1995
Page 2
Based upon the gap study, tllere were two conclusions which were reached. The first was that
the critical gap fell somewhere between five and six seconds. Based upon the distribution of
gaps accepted between the five and six second range, the average accepted gap was 5.3 seconds.
The second conclusion which was reached based on the gap study conducted was that the sample
size of gaps where two or more vehicles accepted the same gap was too small to be statistically
significant. Therefore, based on the gap study, the critical gap for this specific unsignalizeO
intersection should be adjusted downward to 5.3 seconds. At this time, there is insufficient da<<J
to warrant any adjustment to the follow-tip time in the model.
Herein lies the dilecnma; the delay study says that the average gap size is slightly under five
seconds (4.9 seconds), but the gap study shows the critical gap size is 5.3 seconds. While this
is not a very big difference, it affects the level of service at build out. Since there is no way
to predict which one is correct, an analysis was conducted tising the average of the two (5.1
seconds).
One otller tactor which was included in the uriginal study, but which is subjt;c;t to error, is the
background, or non-site specific, growth rate. In the study presented to you, a three percent
growth rate per year was used. However, the land surrounding this intersection which would
serve to create future traffic generators, is almost completely built upon with very few vacant
parcels left. This means that the expected growth rate of traffic in this area could well be less
than 3% per year and should possibly have been estimated at about 1% per year. Therefore,
it is my professional opinion that the levels of traffic which were included in the report are
representative of ultimate build out and maximum traffic volumes which Mission Avenue will
see (barring the event of the Evergreen Interchange). It could well be that the actual growth due
to non-site specific sources is closer to 1% per year.
As a final scenario, several levels of development were looked at for the apartment complex to
see where unacceptable levels of service arise. Based upon the analysis, a"Phase 1" scenario
of 275 units which the analysis demonstrates could reasonably be built and still allow the
intersection of Missio❑ & McDonald, in it's present configuration to experience adequate level
of service.
The following table shows what the projected levels of service are under existing conditions,
build out conditions with the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community, and under a condition
where there is less background traffic growth and at a"Phase 1" condition as described above.
r ~
Mission & McDonald
September 8, 1995
Page 3
Level of Service of Mission & McDonald
Level of service Existing Build out with 275 unit Build out with
based on the results 1% growth build out w/ 3% growth
of the: 3 % growth
Delay Study 14.5 C 29.0 D 36.4 E 39.4 E
Gap Study 17.2 C 40.8 E 55.4 F 62.3 F
Average' 15.7 C 34.1 E 44.0 E 49.1 F
* Gap acceptance of 5.1 seconds.
Based upon the analysis that a 3% growth rate, and 275 apartment units would work, we
recommend that the zone change go forward, and that at such time as more than 275 units were
to be constructed, that the issue of contro] at this intersection be re examined.
Sincerely,
Gl~v
Ann L. Winkler, P.E.
encl.
cc: Joe Organic, Alvin J. Wolfe, [»c.
John Sweitzer, Auble & Assoc .
John Pederson, County Planniti`t
•
Gap Study, Mission 8 McDonald Delay Study, Mission & McDonald
size of gap # cars Seconds per vehicle
3 1 1
3.6 1 1
4 1 1.1
5 1 1.4
5 1 1.6
5.1 1 1.6
5.2 1 2
5.2 1 2.4
5.2 1 2.7
5.3 1 3.1
5.5 1 3.2
5.7 1 3.5
5.7 1 3.9
5.9 1 4.1
6 1 4.2
6.2 1 4.2
6.7 1 4.5
6.8 1 5.2
6.8 1 5.2
7.2 1 5.2
7.4 1 5.9
7.4 1 6.6
7.9 1 6.6
7.9 1 6.9
8.1 1 6.9
8.3 1 7
8.5 1 7.8
8.8 1 8.4
9.6 1 9.9
10.1 1 10.6
10.5 1 10.7
11.1 1 13.4
11.2 1 14.4
11.7 1 16.5
11.9 1 16.9
12.6 1 17.2
13.1 1 17.3
7.5 2 17.8
7.9 2 18.2
8.7 2 18.7
8.8 2 20.5
9.1 2 24.8
10.5 2 26.4
10.6 2 27
11.1 2 32.2
11.5 2 33.3
11.7 2 39.2
14.7 2 42.5
14.8 2 44.5
20 2 48.7
14.5 3 51.8
16.9 3 64.4
34.9 4
, c ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPMEX.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS (based on delay study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 383 192 77 296 163 71
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *4.90 3.40
I
/ a
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 575
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) $42
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.89
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflictinq Flows: (vph) 852
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 496
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) 437
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HGS: Unsiqnalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 190 437 14.5 C
48.2
NB R 84 989 4•0 p'
WB L 90 842 4.8 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 9•9
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBD.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS lo (based o
n delay study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 533 218 92 362 175 91
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *4.90 3.40
I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflictinq Flows: (vph) 376
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 893
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 893
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•$$
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 751
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 678
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 67$
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.84
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.82
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1096
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 400
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance F'actor: 0•82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0•82
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0•82
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 327
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 205 327 29.0 D
48.2
NB R 107 893 4.6 A
WB L 108 67c) 6. ; B 1.3
I-ntersection De1_ay , ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPED.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n delay study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's ( a) 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
I.,eft Ttirn 1~!~:i no_r Ro~3~1 *<< c~~? . " } . . I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 394
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 874
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 874
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.87
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 787
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 648
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 648
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.80
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1149
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 381
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.80
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
Capacity Adjustment Factoi-
due to Impeding Movement. ~
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 305 I
, Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 305 39•4 E
48.2
NB R 112 874 4.7 A
WB L 113 648 6.7 B 1.4
Intersection Delay = 9•2
1 ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPED.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS (based on gap study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 383 192 77 296 163 71
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s(%) 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV' s(°s ) 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's ( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.30 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
*******************************************~r********************
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflictinq Flows: (vph) 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB E$
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 575
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) $42
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•89
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0•88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 852
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 452
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0•88
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0•$$
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0•88
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 398
• i
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 190 398 17.2 C
48.2
NB R 84 989 4.0 A
WB L 90 842 4.8 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 9.9
I
I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Paqe 1
File Name MCDPBG.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS 1$ (based o
n gap study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 533 218 92 362 175 91
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV' s(°s ) 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE-'s 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.30 3.40
~
. ,
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 376
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 893
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 893
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 751
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 678
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 678
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.84
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.82
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1096
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 354
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.82 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.82
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 290
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 205 290 40.8 E
48.2
NB R 107 893 4.6 A
WB L 108 678 6.3 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.1
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPEG.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n gap study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-ur,
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 *5.30 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Paqe 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 394
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 874
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 874
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•87
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 787
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 648
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 648
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.80
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1149
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 336
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.80
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.80
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.80
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 269
• t
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 269 62•3 F
48.2
NB R 112 874 4.7 A
WB L 113 648 6.7 B 1.4
Intersection Delay = 9.2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBAI.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS 1% (based o
n average gap)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 533 218 92 362 175 91
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV' s(•°s ) 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 101 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.10 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 376
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 893
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 893
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 751
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 678
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 678
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.84
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.82
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1096
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 376
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0•82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0•82
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0•82
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 308
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 205 308 34.1 E
48.2
NB R 107 893 4.6 A
WB L 108 678 6.3 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.1
J
. Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBA.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n average gap)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 Tur.n Mi_nor Road *5.10 3,110
. .
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 394
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 874
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 874
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.87
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 787
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 648
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 648
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.80
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1149
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 358
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.80
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.80
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.80
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 286
~
. Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 286 49.1 F
48.2
NB R 112 874 4.7 A
WB L 113 648 6.7 B 1.4
Intersection Delay = 9.2
I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
` HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPED.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS (based on average gap
acceptance)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 383 192 77 296 163 71
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.10 3.40
.
Center For Microcomputers In Z'ransportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 575
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 842
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.89
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl_')
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 852
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 474
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) 418 _
.
' • Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
***~r***~****************************************~***************
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-
NB L 190 418 15•7 C
48.2
NB R 84 989 4•0 A
WB L 90 842 4.8 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 9•9
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBG.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MzSSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis..... 9/8/95
Other Information I3tTI?-:Pj OU"I, WIZ}IH PP.C,:1ECT PM CUNDITIOrIS ( r~asecl o
n gap study ) ft~op-control~led y~ eTwo-way Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbounc:
L T R L T R L T R L T
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 546 230 93 377 185 921
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.30 3.40
. ,
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows: (vph) 388
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 881
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 881
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 776
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 657
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 657
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.81
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1131.
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 3z!.-
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.
Adjusted Impedance Factor-
Capacity Adjustment Factoz
due to Impeding Movement:-",
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 277
. . ,
Center For Microcomputers In Transportatign
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersectivn Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Tata1 Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS BY App
NB L 217 277 55,4 F
48.2
NB R 108 881 4,7 A
WB L 109 657 6.6 B 1.3
Intersectivn Delay = 9,2
i
4 ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBD.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Info ation BUILD OU'I' WIZ'H PFZOJECT PM CONDI'I'IONS (based o ~
n delay study )p -P, v I UVY\
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 546 230 93 377
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *4.90 3.40
,
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 388
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 881
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 881
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 776
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 657
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 657
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.81
Step 4: LT fram Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1131
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 387
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.81
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 313
~
~
• 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 313 36.4 E
48.2
NB R 108 881 4.7 A
WB L 109 657 6.6 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.2
~ I A
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBA.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Info mation......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n average qap )p a S-~- 1 v o1 ui,\ eS
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 546 230 93 377 185 92
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
C V' s 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.10 3.40
~ ~ •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
*********************************~r******************************
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 388
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 881
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 881
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 776
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 657
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 657
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State : 0.81
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1131
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 364
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.81
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 295
N ~r
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsiqnalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 295 44.0 E
48.2
NB R 108 881 4.7 A
WB L 109 657 6.6 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.2
~
i -
t _
~ L
~
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
September 8, 1995
Pat Harper
County Engineers
1026 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
RE: Gap & delay study at Mission & McDonald as a part of the Ridgeview Estates Apartment
Community TIA
Dear Pat,
Pursuant to the conversations at the pre-development meeting, and field observations by both
Bob Brueggeman and myself, it was the general consensus that the 1194 Highway Capacity
Manual's model for unsignalized intersections was too conservative for the intersection of
Mission & McDonald. The model reports that this intersection is presently experiencing an LOS
of F during the PM peak hour. In order to adj ust the model to reflect field conditions, two
subsequent studies were conducted at this intersection during the PM peak hour. The first of
these studies was a delay study and the second was a gap study. The data collected for these
studies is attached.
The delay study was done during the peak hour, and measured the delay of 53 vehicles which
turned left from McDonald onto Mission. The average delay measured per vehicle was 14.5
seconds, and according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), this movement (which controls
the level of service at this intersection) is functioning at LOS C. This delay study measured the
delay for a sample of the vehicles making this maneuver, and did not include the delay of every
vehicle.
Although the delay study demonstrated what the existing level of service is at the intersection,
using this information to project what the level of service will be in the future involves adjusting
the acceptable gap time which vehicles making this maneuver will use. Since the delay study
was conducted first, the model was adjusted to match field conditions with the modelled
condition. The critical gap, which is the variable which must be adjusted to account for field
conditions, was determined to be just under 5 seconds. However, to verify this number, a gap
study was also performed to find out the size of gaps which are being accepted. Based on this
information, there are two parameters which could be adj usted, one is the critical gap, or the
size of gap which the average motorist will accept, and the second is follow-up time, or the
additional time which a following vehicle needs to use the same gap. -4
RECEIVED
SEP 0 81995
707 West 7th • suice Zoo SPOKltitE C41lNn ENGtNEER ~
Spokane, Washington 99204
509-458-6840
FAX: 509-458-6844
J ►
Mission & McDonald
September 8, 1995
Page 2
Based upon the gap study, there were two conclusions which were reached. The first was that
the critical gap fell somewhere between five and six seconds. Based upon the distribution of
gaps accepted between the five and six second range, the average accepted gap was 5.3 seconds.
The second conclusion which was reached based on the gap study conducted was that the sample
size of gaps where two or more vehicles accepted the same gap was too small to be statistically
significant. Therefore, based on the gap study, the critical gap for this specific unsignalized
intersection should be adjusted downward to 5.3 seconds. At this time, there is insufficient data
to warrant any adjustment to the follow-up time in the model.
Herein lies the dilemma; the delay study says that the average gap size is slightly under five
seconds (4.9 seconds), but the gap study shows the critical gap size is 5.3 seconds. While this
is not a very big difference, it affects the level of service at build out. Since there is no way
to predict which one is correct, an analysis was conducted using the average of the two (5.1
seconds).
One other factor which was included in the original study, but which is subject to error, is the
background, or non-site specific, growth rate. In the study presented to you, a three percent
growth rate per year was used. However, the land surrounding this intersection which would
serve to create future traffic generators, is almost completely built upon with very few vacant
parcels left. This means that the expected growth rate of traffic in this area could well be less
than 3% per year and should possibly have been estimated at about 1% per year. Therefore,
it is my professional opinion that the levels of traffic which were included in the report are
representative of ultimate build out and maximum traffic volumes which Mission Avenue will
see (barring the event of the Evergreen Interchange). It could well be that the actual growth due
to non-site specific sources is closer to 1% per year.
As a final scenario, several levels of development were looked at for the apartment complex to
see where unacceptable levels of service arise. Based upon the analysis, a"Phase 1" scenario
of 275 units which the analysis demonstrates could reasonably be built and still allow the
intersection of Mission & McDonald, in it's present configuration to experience adequate level
of service.
The following table shows what the projected levels of service are under existing conditions,
build out conditions with the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community, and under a condition
where there is less background traffic growth and at a"Phase 1" condition as described above.
~ Mission & McDonald
September 8, 1995
Page 3
Level of Service of Mission & McDonald
Level of service Existing Build out with 275 unit Bui.ld out with
based on the results _ 1:% growth build out wl 3% growth
_
of t11e: 3 %growth
Delay Study 14.5 C 29.0 D 36.4 E 39.4 E
Gap Study 17.2 C 40.8 E 55.4 F 62.3 F
Average' 15.7 C 34.1 E 44.0 E 49.1 F
* Gap acceptance of 5.1 seconds.
Based upon the analysis that a 3% growth rate, and 275 apartment units would work, we
recommend that the zone change go forward, and that at such time as more than 275 units were
to be constructed, that the issue of control at this intersection be re examined.
Sincerely,
.
.
Ann L. Winkler, P. E.
encl.
cc: Jce Organic, Alvin J. Wolfe, Inc.
John Sweitzer, Auble & Assoc.
John Pederson, County Planning
~ ►
Gap Study, Missian & McDonald Delay Study, Mission & McDonald
size of gap # cars Seconds per vehicle
3 1 1
3.6 1 ~
4 1 1.1
5 1 1.4
5 1 1-6
5.1 1 1.6
5.2 1 2
5.2 1 2.4
5.2 1 2.7
5.3 1 3•1
5.5 1 3.2
5.7 1 3.5
5.7 1 3-9
5.9 1 4.1
6 1 4.2
6.2 1 4.2
6.7 1 4.5
6.6 1 5.2
6.8 1 5.2
7.2 1 5.2
7.4 1 5.9
7.4 1 6.6
7.9 1 8.6
7.9 1 6.9
8.1 1 6.9
8.3 1 7
8.5 1 7•8
8.8 1 8.4
9.6 1 9.9
10.1 1 10.6
10.5 1 10.7
11.1 1 13.4
11.2 1 14.4
11.7 1 16.5
11.9 1 16.8
12.6 1 17.2
13.1 1 17.3
7.5 2 17.8
7.9 2 18.2
8.7 2 18.7
8.8 2 20.5
9.1 2 24.8
10.5 2 26.4
10.6 2 27
11.1 2 32.2
11.5 2 33.3
11.7 2 39.2
14.7 2 42.5
14.8 2 44.5
20 2 48.7
14.5 3 51.8
16.9 3 64•4
34.9 4
Mission & McDonald
September 8, 1995
Page 3
Level of Service of Mission & McDonald
Level of service Existing Build out with 275 unit Build out with
based on the resuits 1%, growth build out w/ 3% growth
of the: _ 3 °1o growth . :
Delay Study 14.5 C 29.0 D 36.4 E 39.4 E
Gap Study 17.2 C 40.8 E 55.4 F 62.3 F
Average' 15.7 C 34.1 E 44.0 E 49.1 F
* Gap acceptance of 5.1 seconds.
Based upon the analysis that a 3% growth rate, and 275 apartment units would work, we
recommend that the zone change go forward, and that at such time as more than 275 units were
to be constructed, that the issue of control at this intersection be re examined.
Sincerely,
. ~
Gliv
.
Ann L. Winkler, P. E.
encl.
cc: Joe Organic, Alvin J. Wolfe, Inc.
John Sweitzer, Auble & Assoc.
John Pederson, County Planning
• t
Gap Study, Mission & McDonald Delay Study, Mission & McDonald
size of gap # cars Seconds per vehicle
3 1 1
3.6 1 1
4 1 1.1
5 1 1.4
5 1 1.6
5.1 1 1.6
5.2 1 2
5.2 1 2.4
5.2 1 2.7
5.3 1 3.1
5.5 1 3.2
5.7 1 3.5
5.7 1 3.9
5.9 1 4.1
6 1 4.2
6.2 1 4.2
6.7 1 4.5
6.8 1 5.2
6.8 1 5.2
7.2 1 5.2
7.4 1 5.9
7.4 1 6.6
7.9 1 8.6
7.9 1 6.9
8.1 1 6.9
8.3 1 7
8.5 1 7.8
8.8 1 8.4
9.6 1 9.9
10.1 1 10.8
10.5 1 10.7
11.1 1 13.4
11.2 1 14.4
11.7 1 16.5
11.9 1 16.9
12.6 1 17.2
13.1 1 17.3
7.5 2 17.8
7.9 2 18.2
8.7 2 18.7
8•8 2 20.5
9.1 2 24.8
10.5 2 26.4
10.6 2 27
11.1 2 32.2
11.5 2 33.3
11.7 2 39.2
14.7 2 42.5
14.8 2 44.5
20 2 48.7
14.5 3 51.8
16.9 3 64.4
34.9 4
r 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPMEX.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS (based on delay study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 383 192 77 296 163 71
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's M 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *4.90 3.40
.
r ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 575
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 842
Prob. of Queue-free State : 0.89
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 852
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 496
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) 437
~ Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 190 437 14.5 C
48.2
NB R 84 989 4.0 A
WB L 90 842 4.8 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 9.9
I
r ►
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBD.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS lo (based o
n delay study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 533 218 92 362 175 91
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE,'s 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *4.90 3.40
r
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Paqe 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 376
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 893
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 893
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 751
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 678
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 67$
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.84
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.82
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1096
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 400
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0•82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0•82
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0•82
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 327
~
Jr Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 205 327 29.0 D
48.2
NB R 107 893 4.6 A
WB L 108 678 6.3 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.1
i 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPED.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n delay study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *4.90 3.40
~
i ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 394
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 874
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 874
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.87
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 787
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 648
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 648
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State : 0.80
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1149
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 381
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.80
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.80
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.80
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 305
t,
r ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 305 39.4 E
48.2
NB R 112 874 4.7 A
WB L 113 648 6.7 B 1.4
Intersection Delay = 9.2
v ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPED.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS (based on gap study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 383 192 77 296 163 71
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.30 3.40
~
v ►
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 575
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 842
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.89
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 852
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 452
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0•88
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 4•88
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 398
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignali2ed Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 190 398 17.2 C
48.2
NB R 84 989 4•0 A
WB L 90 842 4.8 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 9•9
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBG.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS 1% (based o
n gap study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 533 218 92 362 175 91
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.30 3.40
~
I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 376
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 893
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 893
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 751
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 678
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 678
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.84
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.82
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1096
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 354
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.82
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.82
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 290
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 205 290 40.8 E
48.2
NB R 107 893 4.6 A
WB L 108 678 6.3 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.1
u i
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPEG.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n gap study)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.30 3.40
,
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 394
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 874
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 874
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•87
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 787
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 648
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 648
Prob. of Queue- f ree State : 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.80
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1149
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 336
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.80
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.80
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.80
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 269
~
' !
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-
NB L 217 269 62•3 F
48.2
NB R 112 874 4.7 A
WB L 113 648 6.7 B 1.4
Intersection Delay = 9•2
.
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBAI.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS 1% (based o
n average gap)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 533 218 92 362 175 91
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.10 3.40
.
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 376
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 893
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 893
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 751
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 678
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 678
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.84
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.82
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1096
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 376
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.82
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.82
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.82 ~
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 308
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 . Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avq.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 205 308 34.1 E
48.2
NB R 107 893 4.6 A
WB L 108 678 6.3 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.1
I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBA.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n average gap)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.10 3.40
.
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 394
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 874
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 874
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.87
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 787
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 648
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 648
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.80
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1149
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 358
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.80
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.80
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.80
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 286
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsiqnalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 286 49.1 F
48.2
NB R 112 874 4.7 A .
WB L 113 648 6.7 B 1.4
Intersection Delay = 9.2
•
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPED.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Information......... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS (based on average gap
acceptance)
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 383 192 77 296 163 71
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV' s(%) 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.10 3.40
•
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 575
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 842
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.89
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 852
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 474
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) 418
•
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 190 418 15.7 C
48.2
NB R 84 989 4.0 A
WB L 90 842 4.8 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 9.9
r ~
Center For Microcamputers In TransportatiQn
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
****~**~~****~*~****~***~*~***~**~**~~*~r*~****~*~*~~***~r*~*~**~*
File Name MCDPBG.HCO
Streets N-S ) MCDONALD R[}AD ( E-'W ) MISSIaN AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length af Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.. . . . , . . . . 9/8,/95
Other Infvrmation.....,... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CUNDITIONS (based o
n gap study ) q~~ v c~ tl~ v~ c S
Twc~-way ~top-control ed Intersectivn
Eastbound Westbound Nvrthbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
Na. Lanes 0 2< 0 0> 2 0 1 a 1 0 a Q
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 546 230 93 377 185 92
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 ,94
Grade p p 0 Q
MC's ( a) fl 4 0 0 0 0
SU/RV' s(~) 0 CI 0 Q 0 (l
CV's U 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1,1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle CXitical Follvw-up
Maneuver Gap (tq) Time (tf)
Left Turn Majvr Rvad *5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minar Rvad *5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor R4ad *6,50 3.30
Left Turn Minvr Road *5, 3C1 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 388
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 881
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 881
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 776
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 657
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 657
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.81
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1131
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 342
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.81
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 277
s
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 277 55.4 F
48.2
NB R 108 881 4.7 A
WB L 109 657 6.6 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.2
• " ,
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBD.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Infor ation......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
~ CS v 6~ U►~~ 5
n delay study )p
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 546 230 93 377 185 92
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *4.90 3.40
+
v
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 388
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 881
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 881
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 776
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 657
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 657
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State : 0.81
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1131
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 387
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.81
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 313
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 313 36.4 E
48.2
NB R 108 881 4.7 A
WB L 109 657 6.6 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.2
L Y ~
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDPBA.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 9/8/95
Other Info mation......... BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT PM CONDITIONS (based o
n average gap )P Q S~ i vo1 N►,. e S
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 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 546 230 93 377 185 92
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's M 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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 *5.10 3.40
" ~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 388
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 881
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 881
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 776
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 657
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 657
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.83
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-f ree State : 0.81
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1131
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 364
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.81
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 295
~ ~ `
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCa'p SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 217 295 44.0 E
48.2
NB R 108 881 4.7 A
WB L 109 657 6.6 B 1.3
Intersection Delay = 9.2
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
~
f0r the
FJDGEVIEW ESTATES
APARTMENT CV1.1V1MUNlTi
~
~ Prepared for:
Friti Wolff
1825 North Hutchinson Road
Spolcane, WA 99212
J-[JLY 1995
Frepared By►:
Inturid Fac%'ae Lngineering Cianipany
707 West 7th Suite 200
~pokane, Y1VA 99204
~
(509)458-6840
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
for the
FJDGEVIEW ESTATES
APARTMENT COMMUNITY
Prepareti for:
Fritz Wolff
1825 North Hutchinson Road
Spokane, WA 99212
JULY 1995
Prepared By:
Inland Pacific Engineering Company
707 West 7th Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99204
(509)458-6840
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
for the
Proposed
Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community
East 13303 Mission Avenue
Spokane County, Washington
August 1995
Prepared by:
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc.
West 707 7th Avenue
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 458-6840
This report has been prepared by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering Company under the
direction of the undersigned professional en ineer whose seal and signature appear hereon.
1,• W I1Vk
N
y .
~ss ~ ~yG
~NALti
~XPIRES 5/ 1 / ~ j ~
Ann L. Winkler, P. E.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUC'77ON 1
TIA - DOCUMEN7' SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
CONCLUSIONS 5
RECOMMENDATIONS 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EXISTING COIVDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Land Use 6
Existing Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Interstate (SR) 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pines Road (SR 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Mission Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
McDonald Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Evergreen Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Project Study Area Intersections and Tra,,~'ic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Tra,,~'ic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Unsignalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Planned Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Background Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trip Generation and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FUTURE YF.AR TRAFFIC IMPAG'7' ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ANALYSIS, ASSUMP?'IONS A1VD METHODOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
BUII.D OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CONG'L USIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure2-SiteMap 4
Figure 3 - Existing Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 4 - Existing AM Peak Hour Traf~ j'~ic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure S - Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 6- AM Peak Hour Background Projects Tra, f~`~ic Volumes 19
Figure 7 - PM Peak Hour Background Projects Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 8 - AM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 9 - PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 10 - AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 11 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 12 - AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 13 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Existing Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 2- Accideru data for selected intersections within the study area 15
Table 3- Trip Creneration Rates for Background Projects - AM Peak Hour 17
Table 4- Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour 18
Table S - Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - A.DT . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 6 - Trip Generation Rates for Aparrntents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 7- Build Out Year Traffic (1998) Without Ridgeview Estates Apartmeru
Commcuaity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 8- Build Out Year Tra,,~`'ic (1998) With Ridgeview Estates Aparmtent
Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Level of Service - Methods, Criteria and Tables
Warrant Analyses for Mission & McDonald
Existing Level of Service
Build Out Levels of Service without Project
Build Out Levels of Service with Project
INTROD UCTION
TIA - 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 traffic
impact assessment conducted for the proposed development of the Ridgeview Estates Apartment
Community, a proposed apartment complex in Spokane County east of the City of Spokane.
This property lies north of Mission Avenue and east of McDonald Road as shown on Figure 1,
the Vicinity Map. The proposed project will develop 15.34 acres of generally flat, grassy land.
The existing zoning for this site is UR-3.5 and the proposed zoning is UR-22. The present
proposal is for 317 units, although the site could contain more units, there are several limiting
factors, including a BPA easement which limit full development of this site.
The purpose of this analysis is to review, assess and identify potential traffic 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 Irnpact Studies for Site Development, 1991).
The project study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis was determined through conversations
with Spokane County and WSDOT to include the following intersections:
• Evergreen Road & Mission Avenue
• McDonald Road & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & the westbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery
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 t/from the site at full
build out.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 1 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
• The affects 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 the Ridgeview
Estates Apartment Community.
• Separately identify the traffic impacts which are due to the additional traffic from
the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community.
• Analysis and recommended mitigation for the affects of the trips generated by the
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community on the Transportation system.
• Analysis, conclusions and recommended mitigation for the effects of the
generated trips on the existing transportation system.
PRO,IECT DESCRIPTION
This property is located in eastern Spokane County, Washington, approximately 10 miles east
of the City of Spokane central business district. The parcel lies north of Mission Avenue just
east of McDonald Road between Pines Road and Sullivan Road. The existing parcel is flat,
grassy and undeveloped. This rezone will allow the 15.34 acre parcel to develop into more than
the 317 apartments presently being considered. Primary ingress and egress for this apartment
complex will be to Mission Avenue directly via at least one driveway location.
The property is bordered by Mission Avenue to the south, a nursing home to the west, a small
apartment complex to the east and has a steep cliff on it's northern boundary. Across Mission
Avenue to the south of this project, the land has been developed into a large apartment complex;
Cedar Chateau Estates. The predominant land use in the area to the south, excluding the Cedar
Chateau Estates, is single family dwelling units. Along Mission Avenue, an assortment of land
uses is evident, including a day care facility, some duplexes and single family residences, Valley
General Hospital and various medical buildings.
Existing zoning of this parcel is UR-3.5. Therefore this TIA is being prepared in conj unction
with an application for a zone change from UR-3.5 to UR-22. This parcel is surrounded by UR-
22 zoning except I-2 zoning north of this parcel and the freeway.
A preliminary site plan of this development is shown in Figure 2.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
e ° P ' b
Q. i 4J iMNY✓~ _
w L-O CAT
~ r+-•-~~,
~ ~ ~ AA.
dt ~i~ ~ ~ M~~a^►~e. ie , ~ ,f ~t~~~~~~1 . ~ ~°°ir ,
i ~ ~ j ~ ✓ rY- CJ1~16a 1'~•
~ 3P, ~
:w • ~ ~ ~
a
~ ~qp~2it- p~M+• ~ . d ~ad M'"~. .
CL
~ i Y~M M
M'L
04 }
01.
~ f.
S MIL ~
. f
it
► !.a ~ ~ y~M /11~ `Ii~i M~
~ f wM~ K
~
6
L
~AWL d ~ Av4-
w A"L ~ r. rL
~ • ~ ~,w"
00 ~ tfa
~ u++M•- wra
Mi~ ~ 1fYH• K ~~.a Sl'~~
~s~•w ~ ~ ~ *O
A*% h+~ n ~ d ct ~
~ik w
~ ~ a
sr~
~ A" AV416 .
~ ~ ;•~,,4 ,~.a,,,,. ` -
+e Vo t^
vm
OM-L
~
a
ka , •
~
. OAWL
a
CItG%,cc a„+a, ~ ..ft
~ a~ ba
~ APL ~
6 42ps µ
wM
AM ; :
" r . NOT Tp SCAL!
~ t
H+nwd
i
~ Q
MISSION A~NUE pPA
' - ~ FlcuRE 1 ~
' 'T~~~ 'UPACT P
iNLANa
CIFIC vICINITY MAP PROJECT NO. 1
PA .
Nv -
CO
0 V
X'
O ~
. u
Dv
~
~
NpN
J► ii . _ .~ra Nf
8 ZDrZ,
AnD
m-p
Z
~
~
~ ,
Z 4
C)
12 ~j, ❑
A ~ W W~ ~ M
~ 14 ~
k-- 3
~
o
~ 1 :
2 11
,
m c
V ~~'1 ~ f~f'~rI tr~'""'M "`..u~ / ~ ~
N Mll.olon.AYl.rL4 i~rw~a.ar
/
Z . . . /
o°c
V ~
o /
c /
u
\ J °
~
\ DEVELOPMENT 3TATISTICS:
/00 .
.e»e%,oe.eove Pv.uka,. ~ rwoOM u+n+ w+. ~►~wa~ -waa.. w+mr 4 we.. n.rAce ro.eu~.a
~ ~Yf! AOOeb f/'&T O70J »9004 M'pIR WT P'R 1~1'{~ MG 9I. N IIM • A4*MLL1111 r71 k"fL RDV*. 1 1 M. pl 3 p" (V 9 /pY4 72~ 1r. • Or1~N~ fY~LI ►A110S. LJR. ST04 1 1fM4E1~7 • iO~.~ tI.
~A ~yn ARh nr ~ (w"sw 6 P) Wt tr~9 o• ~ 0~^ ►Y N. M W1f M 1MN! O1ML UDM 2 1 4 10 e q a 0 • MI 7 lO~l f►I ! OOM~ M.YO Ot. ►waNA~nb M1%CL 0MyGU • l~1+0 SI.
V I ~lA~M DPlN~!! 1M1 M! C• 7 ~OVlS~ ieu fr. * wn r ALICOMO" OfA41J RDN 1 1 1- M7 !appOl f11 ! m04 f1A64 Or. MOOMUtM'Y0~1~ CARi • q.VO tf.
fvK • !r 1MTf M7 O"d OTA4LO 010N 1 1 4• 1741 1 KAO4 1111C fI.
N . MfK • !l~,w] If. MY
Im
. fPl. 1n•77 •ON60~Ort ODOnv- TOrK • M*T/YA Ol rCl Wr1 ~D~. 8 • IMl I111OR4 ='70 fl. .AM►KtMiOlfXl Meh t!►?I 11 (MV
T •flfMfN ►A!!T -Wff^N • 79 /Rr NiPQ! • 27 WN rWt KN 174I! WTf! ~~MtM O~E~101~ SMN00 • NOV If. .0600010 040oR.
O MR tuW . h RT 9•'J01 Wff IDl KJ~! f7N W/o) ITNL • ~4' 11 11' 4~Q~! • ~~K! ~~1lG !JO'0 A , Mf • M IQ~
V 2
Z1 'w"""'° ' ' N r p rorK e~nn.+ Mu • s.uw .n ~01.ox s rc
2n D
LIMSCAPI
CMO ICIUi( P I
D Q E V I E W ESTATES N RTH kR
C
Z ~ m u0 PIkHING
AN APARTMEN7 COMMUNITY FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINfiTON lCALE: V • ao• 'su "R
•T; AIVIM J. WOl/1, IMC, ,b '.42 IYk 41 U~wf
iN Olh AAOMKA b0 X10qQll WIl10 l4t • Liit J01
~ 1mi, aw M D~I N IE9G1 VW, ~C s(Alilt. ~
a~+H-rwa xi 1«~ws
un
(0
m
~ / \ ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
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. A brief description of the conclusions
and recommendations which include project impacts are included here.
~ The unsignalized intersections within the project area are presently functioning at
level of service C or better with the exception of Mission Avenue & McDonald
Road. During the PM peak hour, this intersection is presently functioning at
level of service F. The signalized intersections within the study area are
functioning at level of service D or better.
• The traffic increase within the next three years without the addition of the
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community will lower the level of service at the
following intersections; Pines and the eastbound I-90 ramp terminal intersection
and the Pines and the westbound I-90 ramp terminal connection. This drop will
occur only in the AM peak hour and will result in a drop from LOS B to LOS C,
however, level of service C is still an acceptable level of service. The level of
service at Mission and McDonald during the PM peak hour will remain at level
of service F.
• The addition of the proposed Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community project
will cause the level of service at the intersection of Mission & McDonald during
the AM peak hour to drop from LOS C to LOS D, however this will still be an
acceptable level of service. The Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community will
not affect the level of service at any other intersections.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community will have virtually no impact on the transportation system within the
general geographic area. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible
ingress and egress available; not only to this proposed development, but also to surrounding
properties and existing commuter traffic, the following recommendation should be incorporated
into the project: ~
• Frontage improvements as required by the County.
• Future participation to the level of future traffic volumes in the McDonald and
Mission intersection improvements.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. S Ridgeview Estaxes Apartments TIA
~
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land Use
At the present time the land is undeveloped and zoned UR-3.5. The area around the proposed
development is zoned UR-22 except across the freeway property to the north where the property
is zoned I-2. Figure 3 indicates the existing zoning for this area.
The proposed project will develop 15.34 acres into 317 apartment units. The land is currently
grassy with a few trees and no existing structures. The land to the west of this parcel has been
developed as a nursing home. An older apartment complex is located on the east side of this
site. South of this site across Mission Avenue, a large new apartment complex has been recently
completed. North of this site is a steep cliff. At the bottom of the cliff, the property fronting
Nora Avenue is a mix of commercial and rural-type residential land uses.
Existing Road ways
At the present time the existing roadways in the immediate area are paved and in various stages
of complete build out. For example, Mission Avenue is a minor arterial which runs between
Sullivan Road to the east, and continues past Argonne Road to the west. In the vicinity of the
Valley Hospital, to the west of this site, it has a four lane cross-section, two lanes in each
direction. The apartment complex to the south of this site has been required to widen Mission
Avenue to continue this cross-section further east. Another arterial in the area which has not
been built to it's ultimate cross-section is Evergreen Road. Although Evergreen Road is shown
on the County's Arterial Road Plan as a principal arterial, for the majority of it's length, it is
a two lane, two-way strip paved road with gravel or grassy shoulders.
Interstate (SR) 90 is an east/west two-way, four lane, median separated interstate freeway on
the County, Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration transportation systems. This interstate facility is a principal arterial highway on
the WSDOT highway plan. The access for this facility is considered full, or controlled, and is
only allowed at controlled access points such as interchanges. As is typical with interstate
freeways, all cross traffic is grade separated and the signed speed limit within this area is 55
mph. This facility is responsible for carrying many of the inter-area commute trips, such as
between the valley and downtown Spokane. This facility also carries the majority of the inter-
state freight and commercial vehicles with destinations east and west of Spokane and a large
portion of the interstate personal vehicle trips such as for moving or vacationing.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 6 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
Il•_ T nt
5 001:• 12 . ~
aa nv NuE : EUGL~O AvE
; - "
~ ~ - - ~i ~
.
v Li
O
"N
y Z
c
,
. •
..t. ~ .~Q RR-10
N
URw22
/t >.,,r o4o
~
u ~FUlQ",,f~
~ h a ~ _ •
:
U R'~ ~ ? > NOT TO SCALE ~
41 ~
~ ~ - 10 - -
t~ ~ N
uR-35 U R4 22
. MAN ,E~
R RR=10 kRolO . N
U _ 7 N , PROJECT
~c 196. . Hr.o A~ 1~r LOCATION N
- - - - - - -
UR-
N G•5 R7 ON I-2 M
~ 1=2 '-2 2 ~
~
o
..A U -2
o t mor22 -
8 ~
- 4 1 G ~ vE %D
w
~ UR-22 ' ~3• -
' x w~`~''~ E Y N ; - M
~ UR-2 2
,.o B ° N ° UR_12 ,
r z t o ~NT UR-22
R- 22 ~ <
' URO ~ - UR-3.5 D ~ W o ,
R- L Y a ~
8 I - B O N E, URm3~~ Z N ~
0 V - " ~ co UR-22 = ~ ~ r ~ C~ ~ U_
DE T Av E I u 3 R
p ~ ~ C sa 1 s, L. o u 1~~J
co I _ 1 • ~ . . . . ~ -
r ~
~ L O • ~ i"4AwL tOrr C T, - y ~
O'`
. B-3 h ~
UR-22 g AY
. .
22 E C
" o
:'~or. UR-22
t• h~• O ' V r
~ • ib..~ v~n..l ♦ ~
00 ~ FIGURE 3
~ INLAND \ MISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS
PACIFIC
ENGINEERING ZONING MAP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 West 7th •$uite 200 (509) 458-6840
\ Spokone. WA 99204 FAx: (509) 458-6844 J PROJECT N0. 95594 ~
~
Pines Road (SR 27) within the project area is a five lane principal arterial on both Spokane
County's and the Washington State Department of Transportation arterial systems. As a north-
south principal arterial, this facility is responsible for intra and inter-urban area trips. The inter-
area trips are primarily those trips between communities lying north or south of the greater
Spokane area, or a commuting route for those individuals living in the less urban areas of
Spokane County. The intra area trips are those immediate area trips, and the facilitation of these
through trips to the Sprague Avenue, Interstate 90 and Trent Avenue comdors. Pines Road
within the urban area boundaries allows for the movement between arterials, such as Sprague;
or collectors, such as Fourth Avenue; to access the I-90 corridor for commuting as well as
commercial purposes. The general cross-section of this facility in the site vicinity is five lanes,
with two-way left turns and dedicated left turn lanes at the intersections. Between the
intersections of Mission Avenue and Indiana Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour
(mph).
Mission Avenue is a minor east-west arterial according to the Spokane County Arterial Road
Plan. It's ultimate cross section is a four lane section; two lanes in each direction. Turn lanes
will be added as needetl at critical intersections such as the right turn lane for westbound traffic
at Pines Road. For most of it's length, Mission Avenue is a two lane, east-west arterial,
however from approximately one block west of Pines Road to McDonald Road, east of Pines,
Mission Avenue has been developed to the four lane ultimate cross section it is intended for.
The speed limit along it's length is 35 mph.
McDoriald Road is a minor arterial according to the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan. It is
a two-way arterial running between Saltese Road to the south and Mission Avenue to the north.
Within the last five years, the section between Sprague Avenue and Mission Avenue was
upgraded to a four lane paved facility with curbs and sidewalk to carry the north-south traffic
through and within the immediate area. South of approximately Second Avenue, it is a two lane
facility. It serves primarily as access to and from the surrounding residential areas. The speed
limit along it's length is 35 mph.
Evergreen Road is a principal arterial according to the County Arterial Road Plan. It is a two-
lane, two-way arterial running between 32nd Avenue to the south and Mission Avenue to the
north. Along most of it's length, the speed limit is posted at 35 mph, however between
Broadway and Mission, the speed limit has been posted at 25 mph. At both Sprague Avenue
and Broadway, Evergreen widens out. At Broadway, the cross-section changes to accommodate
two lanes in each direction. At Sprague Avenue, the widening accommodates a dedicated left
turn lane for both north and south bound traffic. South of this left turn lane is a short section
of two-way left turn lane to accommodate the new Target store and the proposed Safeway store
followed by a continuation of the two lane, two-way section it has along most of it's length.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 8 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control
Project study area intersections in the site vicinity were identified through discussions with Bob
Brueggeman at Spokane County Engineer's Department and Greg Figg at WSDOT. The
intersections were:
• Evergreen Road & Mission Avenue
• McDonald Road & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & the westbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery
These intersections have been analyzed for level of service (LOS) and form the basis of this
document. Due to the anticipated use of the Sullivan Road comdor by traffic from this
apartment complex, the agencies were approached with including intersections along Sullivan
for analysis in this traffic impact analysis. The agencies expressed extreme confidence that the
intersections along Sullivan Road were presently functioning at extremely good levels of service
and that no additional analysis of them would be needed for this study.
The Pines Road intersections are presently traffic signal controlled intersections. The Mission
& McDonald intersection and Mission & Evergreen intersections are stop sign controlled with
the north/south street yielding to Mission Avenue.
TW
fic Volumes and Peak Hours of Opemtinn
Existing turning traffic movement volumes at the identified intersections were determined from
actual traffic counts taken by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering (IPE) during the spring of
1995 for both AM and PM peak hours of operation.
Since the weekday AM and PM peak hours have been identified as the time period when the
greatest traffic demands are placed on the sunounding transportation system, this will be the
time period utilized by this study for analyzing the proposed action.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 9 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Signalized Intersections
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 far exceeding capacity.
For signalized intersections recent research has determined that average stopped delay per
vehicle is the best available measure of LOS. A more detailed explanation of this is included
in the technical appendix of this report, under the Level of Service, Methods and Criteria
section. The tables in that portion of the technical appendix identify the relationships per level
of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition as presented in the
Highway Capacity Manual; an LOS of "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 eacamined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The
Highway Capacity Manual. It includes a method for calculating the LOS at one/two way stop-
controlled intersections in Chapter 10. For these unsignalized intersections, LOS is baseti on
total intersection delay. The total delay in the intersection is based upon the delay experienced
by each turning movement segment and assumes no delay for the through and right turning
vehicle on the major street. Under certain conditions, there will be some delay experienced by
the major street traffic, and if suspected, can be accounted for. If these conditions exist,
mitigation is usually required due to other circumstances. The concept of total intersecdon delay is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in
the intersection. Vehicles passing straight through the intersection experience no delay at the
intersection. 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 street, must spend more time at the intersection.
Overall delay at the intersection is based on an average for all the vehicles which enter the
intersection, however, levels of service are only assigned to individual movement as was done
in the 1995 Highway Capacity Manual.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 10 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for all intersection
should be by designating LOS levels of A through F, where an LOS of A represents a free
flowing facility where no vehicle is delayed very long and an LOS of F which represents a
facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in the intersection.
The delay concept can be applied to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements
whether on the major or minor street. Once the delay of all the individual movements or
approaches has been calculated and their individual levels of service have been determined, an
overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. An LOS of E has been defined as the
minimum acceptable LOS for Spokane County.
Although the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual has changed the measure of effectiveness (MOE)
for unsignalized intersections from reserve capacity to total intersection delay, the measure can
not be related directly to delay experienced at signalized intersections. Delay measured at
signalized intersections is total stopped delay, not total intersection delay. Total intersection
delay, tlle MOE for unsignalized intersections is about 1.3 times the total stopped delay, the
MOE for signalized intersections.
All LOS 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, the majority 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 (7-8 AM and 5-6 PM).
Exis•ti'ng Level of Service and Ti~'fic 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 Evergreen Road &
Mission Avenue, McDonald Road & Mission Avenue, Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue,
Pines Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals, Pines Road & the westbound I-90 ramp
terminals and Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery. These intersections were chosen by Spokane
County or WSDOT as intersections which could experience impacts from the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community.
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 as the home-based
to work (AM) and work to home-base (PM) 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 intersections will be an LOS of E. For a signalized intersection,
LOS D will be the minimum acceptable level of service. On occasion, an existing intersection
which has not been analyzed in some time will, when examined in a report of this nature, appear
with an existing unacceptable level of service. This may happen for an unsignalized intersection
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 11 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
if the level of service is found to be at F or if a signalized intersection is working at level of
service E or F. Intersections with levels of service which are currently this low, or which are
brought into unacceptable levels of service during the build out of the project may be candidates
for mitigation to provide acceptable levels of service.
Table 1, which follows, summarizes the current levels of service for the existing AM and PM
peak hour at each identified intersection. These LOS results are from the traffic counts
performed by IPE for this study. HCS data used to generate all levels of service shown in this
document are in the Technical Appendix. Figures 4 and 5 show the existing intersection
volumes counted by IPE staff and used for Table 1.
Table 1- Existing Levels of Service
EXISTING
AM : PM
INTERSECTIOrI
. . >
i
DELAY LOS DELAY LUS
,
Mission & Evergreen' 2.1 sec/7.4 sec B 2.1 sec/ 10.1 sec C
Mission & McDonald' 3.2 sec/ 11.5 sec C 9.9 sec/48.2 sec F
Mission & Pines 25.8 sec D 27.0 sec D
Pines & the eastbound 14.9 sec B 16.9 sec C
I-90 Ramps
Pines & the westbound 13.9 sec B 16.2 sec C
I-90 Ramps
Pines & Indiana 12.8 sec B 11.0 sec B
For unsignalized intersections, delay is expressed as total delay. The first number
indicates total intersecrion delay and the second number indicates worst movement total
delay which corresponds to the level of service. Delay for signalized intersections is
total sto delay. Total delay is approximately 1.3 times total stopped delay.
As can be seen from the above table, the existing levels of service at most of the intersections
within the project study area are within the acceptable range for either signalized or unsignalized
intersections within Spokane County. The exception is the intersection of Mission & McDonald.
All other intersections are operating at levels of service D or better.
During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Mission & McDonald is presently functioning at
level of service F with an average of 48.2 seconds of delay for each northbound left turning
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 12 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
/ ~
I N a) 0)
~ t0
~
10 J, ~ 27
I 2 4- 67
8 7 15
I
N ~t
INDIANA/MONTGOMERY
N c0
cV It
~b
~ 48
~ 122
CO M
~o
~to
WEST BOU N D RAMPS
b
o , 68 ~
402 czk7
W
NOT TO SCALE
EAST BOUND RAMPS ,sa~ o-.348
~
//Oo
107 415
85 85 133 C~ 315 Z 142 C- 191
W 40 ~ ~f 14
I 27 37 Q 44 29
> ~ ~
-N tn N ~ tp Q ~ O~
C) 0
Q ^ ~
~ U
MISSION AVENUE
~
. o/
NLAND 1 ~ FlGURE 4 ~ f MISSION AVENUE APARTMENT'S ~
PACtFIC EXISTING
1 E NGINEERiNQ A. M. P EAK H OU R TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
'07 wese 7th • suite 200 (sos) 4ss-6840 PROJECT N0. 95594
;pokcne, wA 99204 FAX: (so9) 458-6844Of ` TRAFFIC VOLUMES J~ J
, 1 . . .
\
~ ~t N
Ql
~ba
N
26~ ~ 83
7 36
235 c:~7 72
~Ci
rn rn n
- co
INDIANA/MONTGOMERY
00
I qz- 26
C~- t
~218
~ a4
n N
~ WEST BOUND RAMPS ~
I o~
~ .
0 233 ~
712~
w
I Z N N NOT TO SCALE
EAST BOUND RAMPS 454-> a373
~
°N~ p
¢ o
b o
135 -J)' ~ 440 lx Q
124 ~ 136 383 ~ 296 Z 242-C> ~ 217
I 43 72 Q 192 77 w 127cz,N ~ 39
ui
N ta N O (D ^ N N
MISSION AVENUE U ~
~ .
~ J
INLAND FlGURE 5 1 ~MISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS \
PACIFIC EX I STI N G
I I ENQINEERING P.M. PEAK HOUR TR~IFFIC IMPACT ANALY5IS
707 West 7th • Suiie 200 (SQ9) 458-6840
~oko,e, WA 99204 F,~,X; J ~ TRAFFIC VO LU M ES ~ ` PROJECT N0. 95594 ~
vehicle. Overall intersection delay is 9.9 seconds. At the present time, the intersection could
function at acceptable levels of service by changing the control to either an all-way stop or by
installing a traffic signal. Although an all-way stop would provide acceptable levels of service
with existing traffic volumes, with the traffic growth anticipated in the near future, the all-way
stop would not provide adequate level of service for even the anticipated three year growth
examined in this study.A signal warrant analysis was performed for this intersection using
existing traffic volumes. Presently, this intersection meets five warrants, including Warrant 2,
Interruption of Continuous Traffic. A complete copy of the warrant analysis is included in the
Technical Appendix.
Traff ic Safety
Accident summaries available for the most recent three years from Spokane County and WSDOT
for the intersections in the study area were assembled. Generally accidents are documented by
type of occurrence, such as property damage or injury. No fatalities occurred in the study area
during the last three years. Accidents are measured based on frequency per million entering
vehicles. This ratio is a function of the average daily traffic entering the intersection and the
annual frequency of accidents.
Table 2- Accident data for selected intersections within the study area
.
: ACCIDENT STATISTICS
.
` Intersection 1992 : 1993 ! 1994 _ Per _
MEV
PDO INJ PDO INJ PDO INJ
Mission & Evergreen 2 1 0 0 0 0 0.38
Mission & McDonald 2 0 0 3 4 2 0.96
Pines & Mission 20 12 12 12 6 8 1.74
Pines & EB Ramps 0 0 1 5 2 2 0.27
Pines & WB Ramps 1 0 1 0 1 3 0.20
Pines & Indiana 1 1 3 2 3 2 0.54
Accident rates at these intersections are below 2.00 accidents per million entering vehicles, the
threshold for safety improvements, therefore accident history should not be considered a problem
now or in the future. Note that the intersection of Pines & Mission has an accident rate which
is close to the 2.00 accidents per million entering vehicles threshold. WSDOT is aware of the
accident history at this intersection and has recently undertaken a safety study of this
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 15 Ridgeview EsEates Apartments TIA
intersection. Due to this safety study, the intersection of Pines & Mission was "split-phased"
for east-west traffic. As the accident trend suggests, this change is working to bring the
intersection accident rate back down to levels comparable to other intersections on the WSDOT
system.
Planned Transportation Improvements
The WSDOT has committed to widening the eastbound off ramp to accommodate two right turn
lanes and widening Pines Road to accommodate an additional left turn lane for the traffic going
westbound on I-90. This work is programmed to begin design this year and to begin
construction next year.
Although a signal has not previously been planned for the intersection of Mission & McDonald,
due to the immediate need for one, it will be assumed that the County has installed one some
time before the completion of this apartment complex. It should be noted that the apartment
complex does add traffic to this intersection, however, warrants for the signal are met without
the apartment complex.
Background Pmjects
Within the study area, two projects were identified for inclusion in this study as background
projects. They are the Lawson HoteUOffice complex and the Wolff Commercial site. The
Lawson Hotel/Office complex is a proposed 200 room hotel and 20,000 square feet of office
space. The Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
has land use category 710, General Office Building and land use category 312, Business Hotel
which accurately model the proposed land uses of the Lawson site.
The second project identified for inclusion in this study as a background project is the Wolff
Commercial site. In discussions with Jamie Wolff, the following land uses were identified. The
western-most building on the site is a 9,000 sq. ft. building on each of two floors. The top
ground-level floor will be retail, modelled using the Shopping Center (#820) land use category
in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition (TGM). The bottom floor will have 6,000 sq.
ft. of leasable area for office space, and 3,000 sq. ft. of storage area. The office space was
modelled using the General Office Building (#710) land use category. The storage area is not
expected to generate any trips.
Along his northern perimeter, a three floor, 6,000 sq. ft. per floor office complex has been
approved. This was also modelled using the General Office Building (#710) land use category.
At the northwest corner of Mission and Pines and the southeast corner of the site, a restaurant
is proposed. This restaurant was modelled as a High-Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant; land use
category #832.
Inland Pacifcc Engineering, Inc. 16 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
Ninety-five percent of the traffic from these uses was expected to use the intersection of Pines
& Mission. From this intersection, the traffic was expected to distribute itself similarly to what
the present distribution of traffic is depending upon the which peak hour was being examined.
The trip generation rates for these land uses is shown on the following table. Anticipated trip
distribution characteristics are shown on Figures 6 and 7 which follow.
Table 3- Trip Genemtion Rates for Background Projects - AM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
Land Use 1,000's -
sq. ft. Rate Volume Entering I Exiting
Percent ~ Volume I Percent ~ Volumes
Hotel' I 200 I 0.58 I 116 I 59 % I 68 I 41 % I 48
Office 20 2.8 56 89 % 50 11 % 6
Building"
S trip Mall I 9 I 4.19 I 38 63 % I 24 I 37 % I 14
Office 24 2.6 62 89 % 56 11 % 7
Building"'
Restauraslt I 5.5 I 14.81 1 84 I 51 % ( 42 ( 49 % I 40
Hotel trip generation rate based on number of rooms, not square footage as other land uses are.
- Lawson site
- Wolff site
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 17 Ridgeview Estates Aparnnents TIA
Table 4- Trip Generativn Rates for Background Prajects - PM F'eak Haur
_ FM, Peak Hour . . : . . . ,
: . : : . -
Land Use ~ ~000's
sq. ft. Enter'mg Exiting
Rate Valume _
Percent : Volume Percent. Vaiumes
Hotel` 200 0.62 124 60 % 74 44 % 50
Office 20 2.92 58 17 % 10 83 % 48
Building"
Strip Mall 9 15.14 136 50% +58 50%'o 68
Uffice 24 2.68 64 17 % 11 83 % 53
Buiiding'
Restaurant 5.5 12.92 71 56 % 40 44 % 31
Hvtel trip generatian rate based on number vf rovms, not square tootage as vther land uses are. _ Lawson site
_ Wviff site
Tahle S- Trip Generatia►rt Rates for Background Projects - ADT
,
, _
,
: Average Dail,YTr~P Ends (A;DT .
` . _ : . . . > . . . . . .
.
I,and Use ~.,".'s sq. ft : Rate Vo 1ume
Hotel* 200 7.67 1534
Uffice Building'• 20 19,72 394
Strip Mall 9 167.59 1508
Qffice Building*" 24 19.72 473
Restaurant 5.5 177.87 978
Hotel trig generation rate based on nurnber of rvoms, not square footage as vther Iand
uses are.
- Lawsvn site
_ WQlff site
Inland Paeifrc Engineering, Inc. 18 Ridgeview Estates Apctrtments TIA.
~
0
~
~ ca
INaIANA/M ONTGOM ERY
~ o
~
~
~
~16
wEsz BoUNa RAMPs ~
I
~
<
al
I ~0
(ni
LLJi
I ,n ~ NOT TO SCALE
EAS7 BOUND RAMPS
~
0 ~
~8 40 ix ~
48 58 7 21 z 6 15
7 4 ° 2 > w
<
~ ~
~ a ~
o W
~~SSiON AvENuE ~jo
~
. ~
I NLAND FlGURE 5 ~/OMISSION Al1ENUE APARTMENTS
T'AGIFtC A.M. PEAK HOUR
1 ENQINEERlNQ gACKGROUND PRUJECTS TRAMC IMPacT wN&YsIs
a7 west 7th o Suite 200 (509) 458-W40
F~'RC~IECT I''~10. '95594
~o~,e, wa 9s2w. F~uc: (~s) ~s-6a~~, ~ TF~AFFIC VOl~UMES ~ ~l'
1
m
~
~
15 ~
0
ao
~
INDIANA/MONTCOMERY
~
~
b
~13
n~
WEST BOUND RAMPS ~
~
~
o ~
Q
0
I ix 45~
w
Z ° N NOT TO SCALE
a- . ~
EAST BOUND RAMPS 44~, a18
~
~to Q
o °
o o
64 C:p ~ 63 0: Q Of
78 sg O~ ~1g ~ z 13 14 ,
~ 21 ~ ~ 10 Q J ~ > w ~
Z
o ~
I ~ W
MISSION AVENUE
~ . .
. J
NLAND FlGURE 7 1 ~ MISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS \
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
~ I ENQINEERINQ BACKGROUND PROJECTS TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 weat 7tn • Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 95594
Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (Spg) 458-w.,~' ` TRAFFI C VO LU M ES ~
Trip Generrrdon 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 Manual (TGM) provides empirical data, based upon actual
field observations for trip generation characteristic of similar apartment complexes throughout
the United States. The proposed project has the potential for 317 apartment units. The TGM
provides trip generation data for apartments expected to be generated by the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community are shown in Table 6 which follows.
Table 6- Trip Genertition Rates for Apartments
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No.
of Vol ~ Directional Vol ~ Directional
units 0.51 trips Distribution 0.63 trips Distributioa
per unit 17% In 83% Out Per unit 68% In 32% Out
317 162 27 135 200 136 64
,
Average Daily Trip Ends (AD1).:::....
.
. .
. ; . . . . , . .
: . :
Units , Rate Total ADT
317 6.47 2051
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. Actual traffic
volume assignments are shown in Figures 8& 9.
Transit ridership within the greater Spokane area is approximate 3% of the total traffic in the
peak hours. Apartment dwellers are prime users of the bus, and therefore for this project, 3%
of the peak hour trips were assumed to be by transit. The balance of the trips were assigned
15 % eastbound on Mission Avenue to Sullivan and 82 % westbound on Mission Avenue to Pines
Road.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 21 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
\
N
INDIANA/MONTGOMERY
N
b
~ a4
N
~ WEST BQUND RAMPS ~
I N
o ~
Q
I~
w 4 i
Z tO ° °
I to ~ N0T TO SCALE
Q-
EAST BOUND RAIMPS 22 4
~
M Q
~
~ b o O
66
22~ a110 ~ Z 20~ ~4
I ~ 44 ~
Q > W
Z
o ~ ~
I a
MISSION AVENUE ~
4, L
. /
I NLAND FlGURE 8 MISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS \
PACIFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR
I I ENQINEEAINCi SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC lMPA+CT ANALYSIS
107 west 7tn • suite 200 (sos) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 95594
;pokans. WA 99204 FAx: (sos) 458-s844~, ~ TRAFFIC VO LU M ES ~
~
I ~
~
I
0
~
INDIANA/MONTGpMERY
~
~
~Q
~
WEST BOIU N D RAM PS ~
~
o ~
Q
0
Of 4, ~
w Q i
Z N NOT TO SCALE
EAST 80U N D RAM PS 2c:;P 20
~ o 0
o
~ 23 ~ Q ~
~16 Q 94~ ~33 ~ Z 3~ a13
Q ~ L W `:7
oo' Z co~r' t-
In p
~ W
MISSION AVENUE U ~
-0/
~ INLAND FlGURE 9 MISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS ~
PACIFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR
I ENQINEERINQ SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS -6840 )okon~ WAh99204s 2~ F~ )(5 9) 58-68~~ ` TRAF'FIC VO►LU M ES J ~ PROJECT N0. 95594 J
FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANALYSJS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
Future year morning and evening weekday peak hour impacts of the potential traffic generated
by the proposed projects along Mission Avenue and Pines Road were analyzed as follows:
• Trip generation estimates of the future morning and evening peak hour trips for the
complete build out of the background and subject projects were assumed to follow the
Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition or as updated.
• Traffic volumes on each transportation system element at build out were determined
assuming the existing traffic would experience a 3% per year compounded growth rate
due to unidentified sources. Identified background projects, which were included above
the 3% growth rate were the Lawson Hotel/Office complex and the Wolff commercial
site.
• Trip assignments from the background projects are as shown in Figures 6 and 7. Most
of the traffic from these projects is expected to use the intersection of Mission & Pines
and to disperse from there.
• Forecasted traffic volumes for the apartment complex as generated from the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, Sth Edition were then added to the background traffic to determine
the cumulative traffic impacts.
• Level of service analyses were then performed for the without development and with
development traffic scenarios in order to identify any capacity of level of service
deficiencies due to the development of the proposed apartment complex on either Mission
Avenue or Pines Road.
• Build out of the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community is anticipated to take three
years and be complete in 1998. Therefore, 1998 is the horizon year of this study.
• Approximately 3% of peak hour trips were assumed to use mass transit or another
alternate mode of transportation.
• Due to the site configuration, more than one driveway is anticipated to access Mission
Avenue. However, to simplify the study and look at worst case conditions, al of the
traffic was modelled as using one driveway.
• Improvements scheduled for Pines Road by WSDOT were assumeri to be completed in
concert with the build out of this apartment complex.
• Progression factors other than the default were used where they could reasonably be
expected to apply. Exact progression factors used are shown in the technical appendixes.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 24 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
BUILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service calculations were made for build out of the apartment complex, anticipated at
3 years away (1998). Analyses for conditions both with and without the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community were performed. These analyses will show how the traffic volumes will
be handled by the existing facility or what new elements will be needed for the traffic system
to continue working. Based upon the existing levels of service, the intersection of Mission &
McDonald is presently working at unacceptable levels of service. Therefore, changes at this
intersection are currently needed and the need for changes will only increase in the future.
The background traffic volume includes the existing traffic, the Lawson Hotel/Office complex,
the Wolff Commercial site and a compounded growth rate of 3% per year on all of the streets.
See Figures 6& 7 for the traffic volumes from the Lawson Hotel/Office complex and the Wolff
commercial site; and Figures 10 & 11 for the total background traffic volumes used. A
summary of the HCS results is shown in Table 7 which follows.
Table 7- Build Out Year Traffic (1998) Without Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community
BUILD OU'I' YEAR BACKGR4UND TRAFFIC -
;
IINTERSECTION : AM PM
DELAY LOS < DELAY LOS
Mission & Evergreen' 2.4 sec/8.6 sec B 2.5 sec/ 13.5 sec C
Mission & McDonald 5.6 sec B 5.6 sec B
Mission & Pines 25.8 sec D 30.8 sec D
Pines & the eastbound 16.8 sec C 20.4 sec C
I-90 Ramps
Pines & the westbound 17,7 sec C 12.4 sec B
I-90 Ramps
Pines & Indiana 14.5 sec B 11.6 sec B
* For unsignalized intersections, delay is expressed as total delay. The first number
indicates total intersection delay and the second number indicates worst movement total
delay which corresponds to the level of service. Delay for signalized intersections is
total stopped delay. Total delay is approximately 1.3 times the total stopped delay.
Note that the intersection of Mission & McDonald was analyzed as a signalized intersection
under these conditions. If this intersection were to remain unsignalized, the level of service
would be LOS C in the AM peak hour and at LOS F in the PM peak hour with 375.6 seconds
of delay for the worst movement and 71.9 second of overall intersection delay.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
/ \
LO
10 J, ~ 29
2 -=C> G}~ 73
95 cz~7 ~ 16
t0 c0 N
Q> It d
N Ln
,
INDIANA/MONTGOMERY
r
N tf')
~b
~ 52
150
~ 4 rr
M st
1~ co
WEST BOUND RAMPS ~
N Q~
t0
Q 184 cP
Q~ 499 ~
~
o~
a N N NOT TO SCALE
EAST BOUND RAMPS 186--> 401
~
tOCD N
p ~
145J/' ~493 w Q
141 ~j a 151 152 365 Z 161 224
>
I 37 44 Q 50 32 W Lli 45 15
~ 1 l(" Z ~
O ao cn N
MISSION AVENUE ~
~
~ J
NLAND FIGURE 10 ~ISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS ~
PACIFIC 1998
~ ENQINEERINQ A.M. PEAK HOUR
WITHOUT PROJECT TRA~'~C IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7a, • suite 200 (sos) 4ss-ss4o PROJECT N0. 95594
spokam, wA ss204 Fnx: (sos) +sa-6844;, ~ TRAFFI C VO LU M ES ~
/
\
ln 1, N
28~ ~91
8~ <3-- 40
272 79
otnrn
rn co -
-0)
I INDIANA/MONTGOMERY
~
~o
I ~ 28
~ 252
ca I-
O In
f~ O
~ WEST BOUND RAMPS ~
I
^
N
~
~ g N5
a 255 ~
lx 823 ~
I O
W
( Z co t°
~ ~ NOT TO SCALE
~
EAST 60UND RAMPS 540~ 426
~
N o a°
~bb o o
212 ~ ~ 544 ~ Q
~
_ 213 ~ ~ 218 463 341 Z 295 ~ G~ 251
68 ~ 4= 89 Q 230 84 , w 152 43
~ Z
M O M O p~p ~ ~ VN M N I
Q LL
U W
MISSION AWENUE
J
~ INLAND ~ FlGURE 11 ~ '**40 MISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS \
PACIFIC 1998
I ENQINEERING P.M. PEAK HOUR
07 w.~ 7th . s~e Zoo (so9) ,,~-s84o WITH 0 UT P ROJ ECT TRAFFIC IMP~T ANALYSIS
pokone, WA 9920i F,e,x: (sos) ,~s-ssa4/ ~ TRAFFIC VO LU M ES ~ ` PR~IECT N0. 95594 ~
Using the number of generated trips shown on Table 6 and estimated trip distribution shown on
Figures 8& 9 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use
the transportation system at build out is obtained. Figures 12 & 13 show the future traffic
volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic volumes, build out year level of
service calculations are performed and the results are displayed in Table 8.
Table 8- Build Out Year Traffic (1998) With Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community
_ , .
BUILD OUT YEAR TRAFFIC VVITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION AM PM _
. _
- ,
DELAY LOS DELAY ` LOS
Mission & Evergreen' 2.5 sec/9.1 sec B 2.8 sec/ 14.7 sec C
Mission & Site 1.2 sec/6.0 sec B 0.8 sec/7.4 sec B
Driveway'
Mission & McDonald 5.4 sec B 5.8 sec B
Mission & Pines 30.4 sec D 33.4 sec D
Pines & the eastbound 17.3 sec C 20.9 sec C
I-90 Ramps
Pines & the westbound 19.3 sec C 12.6 sec B
I-90 Ramps
Pines & Indiana 14.5 sec B 11.6 sec B
* For unsignalized intersections, delay is expressed as total delay. The first number
indicates total intersection delay and the second number indicates worst movement total
delay which corresponds to the level of service. Delay for signalized intersections is
total sto delay. Total delay is approximately 1.3 times the total stopped delay.
The addition of the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community will not cause any of the
intersections to fall into unacceptable levels of service. Note that in the scenario also, the
intersection of Mission & McDonald was analyzed as a signalized intersection. If this
intersection is left unsignalized, the AM peak hour level of service will be at LOS D, and the
PM peak hour level of service will be at F with 992.0 seconds of delay for the worst movement
and 180.9 seconds of overall intersection delay. As stated before, the other intersections are
expected to operate at acceptable levels of service until after the build out of this project.
Inland Pacifrc Engineering, Inc. 28 Ridgeview Estates Apartments TIA
\
~ (0 N
10 29
2 73
95 -47 16
v o N
O c0 lt
M tn
INDIANA/MONTGfJMERY
N to
52
~ 150
a4
I n~
~ 0,
WEST BOUND RAMPS ~
~
U) (D
1 N p)
(D
o ba
Q 184 ~
0
510~
W ° o
N NOT T0 SCALE
EAST BOUND RAMPS 22 4
( ,as.> 4 401
ca rn ~n 0
145 559
141 151 174 G= 475 ~ Z 181 228
I 37 88 ~ 50 32 ~ w 45 15
g Q Z `00 ~ ~♦f~ b
N0 tn 11 O f~ r7 ~ N dN
O W
( U
~
MISSION AVENUE ~
L
~
o/
NLAND i r FIGURE 12 1 /MISSION AVENUE APARTMENTS ~
PACIFIC 1998
~ I ENGiINEERING A.M. PEAK HOUR TIqFIC INPACT ANALYSIS
V west 7th • suite zoo (so9) 4se-s8ao WITH PROJECT
pokane, wA 99204 ~c: (509) 458-s84t/ ~ TRAFFI C VO'LU M ES PROJECT N0. 95594 )
/
~
t1') N
r- Q<D
I 28=p J-4 8 273~
I INDIANA/IMONTGOMERY
~ ~O ~
ro
~
~b
28
~1
~ 252
I ~
~o
~
~ WEST BOUND RAMPS ~
I
C14~
0 255 ~
w
870 ~
W
~ ~ o ~ ° NOT TO SCALE
EAST BOU N D RAM PS 112 'Q Zo
540==> a 426
NM,~ 0 ~
0 O
212 567
213 218 557 380 Z 302 264
68 105 Q 230 97 ~j w 155 43
Q W
l'
Z h~ nc w ll~
re)LO(D o ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~
0 0 ^ ~ ~
U w
MISSION AVENUE ~i
~
~ I NLAND FlGURE 13 MISSION AVENUE APAMENTS ~
PAC(FIC 19,98
I ENGINEERING P. M. PEAK H OU R
TRMTWITH P ECT Ic IMP~ ~YSis
D7 1~veat 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-684o PROJECT N0. 95594
p*kme, 99204 FAX: (so9) 458-684+~ \ TRAFFIC VO LU M ES J
CONCLUSIONS
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 easily mitigated. This conclusion
was reached and is documented within the body of this report.
• The unsignalized intersections within the project area are presently functioning at
level of service C or better with the exception of Mission Avenue & McDonald
Road. During the PM peak hour, this intersection is presently functioning at
level of service F. The signalized intersections within the study area are
functioning at level of service D or better.
• The traffic increase within the next three years without the addition of the
Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community will lower the level of service at the
following intersections; Pines and the eastbound I-90 ramp terminal intersection
and the Pines and the westbound I-90 ramp terminal connection. This drop will
occur only in the AM peak hour and will result in a drop from LOS B to LOS C,
however, level of service C is still an acceptable level of service. The level of
service at Mission and McDonald during the PM peak hour will remain at level
of service F.
• The addition of the proposed Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community project
will cause the level of service at the intersection of Mission & McDonald during
the AM peak hour to drop from LOS C to LOS D, however this will still be an
acceptable level of service. The Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community will
not affect the level of service at any other intersections.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of the Ridgeview Estates
Apartment Community will have virtually no impact on the transportation system within the
general geographic area. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible
ingress and egress available; not only to this proposed development, but also to surrounding
properties and existing commuter traffic, the following recommendations should be incorporated
into the project:
• Frontage improvements as required by the County.
• Future participation to the level of future traffic volumes in the McDonald and
Mission intersection improvements.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 31 Rfdgeview Estates Apartments TIA
TECHIVICAL APPENDIX
,
i
LEVEL OF SERVICE
METHODS AND CRITERIA
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION:
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to
quantify driver perception tor 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. As defined by the Transportation Research Board in Special Report No.
209, the 1994 Highwav Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of service into
ranging from "A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant
vehicle delay and traffic congestion and system breakdown due to volumes far exceeding
capacity.
For signalized intersections recent research has determined that average stopped delay per
vehicle is the best available measure of LOS. This is shown on the tables which follow. The
tables on page 3 identify the relationships per level of service and average stopped delay per
vehicle. Using this definition as presented in the Highway Capacity Manuals an LOS of "D~
is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard for signalized
intersections.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION:
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. It includes a method for calculating the LOS at one/two way stop-
controlled intersections in Chapter 10. For these unsignalized intersections, LOS is based on
total intersection delay. The total delay in the intersection is based upon the delay experienced
by each turning movement segment and assumes no delay for the through and right turning
vehicle on the major street. Under certain conditions, there will be some delay experienced by
the major street traffic, and if suspected, can be accounted for. 'If these conditions exist,
mitigation is usually required anyway.
The concept of delay is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in the intersection.
Vehicles passing straight through the intersection experience no delay at the intersection.
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 street, must spend mone time at the intersection. Overall level of
service at the intersection is based on an average for all the vehicles which enter the intersection.
The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for all intersection
should be by designating LOS levels of A through F, where an LOS of A represents a free
flowing facility where no vehicle is delay very long and an LOS of F which represents a facility
I
where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in the intersection.
The delay concept can be applied to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements
whether on the major or minor street. Once the delay of all the individual movements or
approaches has been calculated and their individual levels of service have been determined, an
overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. An LOS of E has been defined as the
minimum acceptable LOS for Spokane County.
All LOS 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 DFSCRIPTIONS
,
General Description
LOS
A - More than adequate gaps available to proceed.
- Verv seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue.
B - Little delay encbuntered with adequate ~aps available.
- Occasionally there is more than one vefiicle in the Queue.
- Delays are short but persistent as the number of gaps reduce
C and driver comfort drops.
- Usuallv there is more than one vehicle in the Queue.
- 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 pnor to entering the queue.
E - Represents a cond-ition in which the demand equals or exceeds
the safe movement of vehicles through the intersection.
- Alwavs more than one vehicle in the Queue.
- Delays are long, driverfrustration is high and it is not
F unusual to see drivers in the queue turn around to find
alternative routes.
- Forced flow; little to no available gaps.
- Represents an intersection at failure condition.
UNSIGNALIZED INT'ERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRffERIA
1Jelay ~sec) ` L~ve1 0~ Servzee Expected Delay.:tQ Minor Street .
< ~''iraffic
5 A Little of No Delav •
5- 10 B Short Traffic Delavs
> 10 - 20 C Averaize Traffic Delavs
> 20 - 30 D . Lone Traffic Delavs
> 30 - 45 E Verv Lone Traffic Delavs
> 45 F Pro~ gression Breakdown
Stopped Condition ,
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics
A Little to no average stopped delay, average is less than five seconds
per vehicle. Most vehicies do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths
mav also contribute to low delay.
B Averiage stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 secondspe r
vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression andlor short
cvcle lenizths.
C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per
vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression
and/or longer cycle lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is
significant at this level.
D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per
vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.
Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable
progression, long c~cle length, or high volume/capacity ratios.
Most, if not all, ve icles stop. This is considered to be the limit of
accentable delav.
E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per
vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor
vroeression, lone cvcle leneths, and hieh volume/capacitv ratios.
F Average sto delay is in excess of 60 seconds pervehicle. This
condition o~ten occurs with over saturation of the intersection. It
mav also occur with volumelcapacitv ratios of 1.0 or above.
SIGNALIZED I]v'I`ERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE C ERIA
I;evel of Stopped. De1ay : r vehicle
.
A < = 5.0
B 5.1 to 15.0 ,
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 40.0
E 40.0 to 60.0
F > 60.0 ,
Source: Transportation Research Board; "Highway Capacity Manual," Special Report 209
(1994).
I
WARRANT ANALYSES FOR
MLSSION & MCDONALD
5 SS30Od Id001
b d=31100 dONIW
E d01031100 H0f t/W
z -ldld318d HONIW
l IdId31Hd lddlON18d
z :NOI1dOIAISSbr10 It/NOIlONfl:j
%00'E 31bH H1MOHJ idf1NNd
0 (i=l) NbIa3W AO HiGIM
St~ U) JldMadOH =10 HiGIM
5Z (HdW) a3~IdS 3-1IlN~OU3d H158
Z N011031Jla/S3Nbr1 =10 H38Wf1N
SN (N13/SN) NOIldlN3180
aH O-IdNOdOW 3WbN
NOIldWHO=INI 133H1S HONIW 'E
5 SS30Od IdOW
b H=3-1-100 HONIW
E b0103-ll0O dOf dW
Z -Id183lUd HONIW
L IdlE13lUb lddlONldd
Z :NOIldOIAISSdIO IdNOIlONfli
%00'E 31blA H1MOd0i`df1NNd
0 (.LA) NdIa3W =10 HiGIM
gt, U=I) AdMadOU =10 Hla IM
Ob (HdW) O33dS T~IlN30H3d H158
z NOllO3dla/S3NdI =10 838Wf1N
M3 (N13/SN) NOIldlN31dO
3/1t! NOISSIW 3WdN
NOIldWHO=INI l~~]HlS dOf'vW 'Z
E 4(b/E) S09-1 NOIlO3SH31Nl
b (SdA) 433dS NdIdlSa3d 1NdNIWOa38d
5 SHINOW Z l 1Sdd NI S1N3alOOb 3-l8d1N3/13Ud
N (N/Jk),k.1.INf1WW0o Qglt/-lOSI
(1 4(fl/)J) Nd9df1/it/dflu
OOOOOE NOllbifldOd b3Ud
SIOZ `a lld NOIldWdO=INI IbH~]N~10
' L
uoisJan 8861 `ao1f1W woa=i
lD3HSNdOM S1NdHHbM IdNJIS
4. EASTBOUND APPROACH INFORMATION PAGE 2
DISTANCE TQ NEXT SIGNAL (FT) 99999
PLATOONING (ARRIVAL TYPE) 3
PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VPH) 177
PEAK HOUR DELAY (VEHICLE MINUTES/HOUR) 0
PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF CHILDREN PEDESTRIANS 0
GAPS ADEQUATE FOR PEDESTRIANS/HOUR 99999
VOLUMES
WEEKDAY WEEKEND PED
HOU PRESENT IN 5 YEARS PRESENT IN 5 YRS PRESENT IN 5 Y
0 188 218 0 0 0 0
100 72 84 0 0 0 0
200 72 84 0 0 0 0
300 58 67 0 0 0 0
400 72 84 0 0 0 0
500 261 302 0 0 0 0
600 825 957 0 0 0 0
700 1014 1175 0 0 0 0
800 767 890 0 0 0 0
900 666 772 0 0 0 0
1000 724 839 0 0 0 0
1100 854 990 0 0 0 0
1200 811 940 0 0 0 0
1300 898 1041 0 0 0 0
1400 1115 1293 0 0 0 0
1500 1448 1679 0 0 0 0
1600 1187 1376 0 0 0 0
1700 970 1125 0 0 0 0
1800 710 823 0 0 0 0
1900 507 588 0 0 0 0
2000 420 487 0 0 0 0
2100 290 336 0 0 0 0
2200 348 403 0 0 0 0
2300 232 269 0 0 0 0
5. WESTBOUND APPROACH INFORMATION PACE 3
DISTANCE TO NEXT SIGNAL (FT) 99999
PLATOONING (ARRIVAL TYPE) 3
PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VPH) 344
PEAK HOUR DELAY (VEHICLE MINUTES/HOUR) 5
PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF CHILDREN PEDESTRIANS 0
GAPS ADEQUATE FOR PEDESTRIANS/HOUR 99999
VOLUMES
WEEKDAY WEEKEND PED
HOU CURRENT IN 5 YRS CURRENT IN 5 YRS CURREN IN 5 Y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 0 0 0 0 0 0
400 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 0 0 0 0 0 0
700 0 0 0 0 0 0
800 0 0 0 0 0 0
900 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. NORTHBOUND APPROACH INFORMATION PAGE 4
DISTANCE TO NEXT SIGNAL (F'T) 99999
PLATOONING (ARRIVAL TYPE) 3
PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VPH) 187
PEAK HOUR DELAY (VEHICLE MINUTES/HOUR) 124
PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF CHILDREN PEDESTRIANS 0
GAPS ADEQUATE FOR PEDESTRIANS/H4UR 999
VOLUMES
WEEKDAY WEEKEND PED
HOU CURRENT IN 5 YRS CURRENT IN 5 YRS CURREN IN 5 Y
0 7 8 0 0 0 0
100 2 2 0 0 0 0
200 3 3 0 0 0 0
300 2 2 0 0 0 0
400 3 3 0 0 0 0
500 10 11 0 0 0 0
600 30 35 0 0 0 0
700 37 43 0 0 0 0
800 28 33 0 0 0 0
900 24 28 0 0 0 0
1000 27 31 0 0 0 0
1100 31 36 0 0 0 0
1200 30 34 0 0 0 0
1300 33 38 0 0 0 0
1400 41 47 0 0 0 0
1500 53 61 0 0 0 0
1600 43 50 0 0 0 0
1700 36 41 0 0 0 0
1800 26 30 0 0 0 0
1900 19 22 0 0 0 0
2000 15 18 0 0 0 0
2100 11 12 0 0 0 0
2200 13 15 0 0 0 0
2300 a 10 o a o 0
7. SC)UTHBQUhla APPRDACH INFC7RMATION PAGE 5
DISTAhICE TO NEXT SIGNAL (FT) 999999
PLAT{]QNING (ARRIVAL TYPE) 3
PEAK HOUR VULUME (1!'PH) U
PEAK HQUR DELAY (VEHlCLE MINUTES,IHQUR) 0
PEAK HOUR VOLUME C)F CHILaREN PEt]ESTRfANS a
CAPS AaEQUATE FQR PEDESTRIANS/HClIJA 9E39999
VC'3LUN1ES
WEEKDAY 1NEEKEND PEL1
HaU CURRENT IN 5 YRS CURRENT IN 5 YRS CURREfV lN 5 Y
0 15 17 0 0 0 a
1(30 4 5 0 0 0 0
200 6 6 0 0 (l 0
300 4 5 0 0 Q 0
400 B fi 0 0 0 f}
500 20 23 0 0 0 0
1
600 64 74 0 0 0 0
700 78 91 0 0 0 0
800 59 69 0 0 0 0
900 52 60 0 0 0 0
1000 56 65 0 0 0 0
1100 66 77 0 0 0 0
1200 63 73 0 0 0 0
1300 69 80 0 0 0 0
1400 86 100 0 0 0 0
1500 112 130 0 0 0 0
1600 92 106 0 0 0 0
1700 75 87 0 0 0 0
1800 55 64 0 0 0 0
1900 39 45 0 0 0 0
2000 32 38 0 0 0 0
2100 22 26 0 0 0 0
2200 27 31 0 0 0 0
2300 18 21 0 0 0 0
GO TO A953
S. WARRANT SUMMARY PAGE 6
Nt77T MET WARRANT 1 MINIMUM VEHiCULAR VC]LUME
MET WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION C]F CCJJNTiNUC)US TRAFFIC
N0T MET WARRANT3 MlNIMUM PEDSTRIAN VCaLUNiE
NOT MET UVARRANT 4 SCHC](7L CaOSSINGS
--3 MET 1NARRANT 5 PROGRESSIVE M+C)VEMENT
NC7T MET UUARRANT 6 ACClQENT EXPERIENCE
MET WARRANT 7 SYSTEMS
NOT MET WARRANT 8 COMBINATIDN OF 1NARRANTS
N1LT 1NARRANT 9 FC]UR HOUR VOLUME5
NOT MET WARRANT 10 PEAK HOUR DELAY
MET WARRANT 11 PEAK HUUR VOLUME
9. WARRANT 1 WORKSHEET PAGE 7
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTION IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.70
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MINOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
BOTH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 188.24 420 14.56 105 0
100 72.4 420 4.48 105 0
200 72.4 420 5.6 105 . 0
300 57.92 420 4.48 105 0
400 72.4 420 5.6 105 0
500 260.64 420 20.16 105 0
600 825.36 420 63.84 105 0
700 1013.6 420 78.4 105 0
800 767.44 420 59.36 105 0
900 666.08 420 51.52 105 0
1000 724 420 56 105 0
1100 854.32 420 66.08 105 0
1200 810.88 420 62.72 105 0
1300 897.76 420 69.44 105 0
1400 1114.96 420 86.24 105 0
1500 1448 420 112 105 1
1600 1187.36 420 91.84 105 0
1700 970.16 420 75.04 105 0
1800 709.52 420 54.88 105 0
1900 506.8 420 39.2 105 0
2000 419.92 420 32.48 105 0
2100 289.6 420 22.4 105 0
2200 347.52 420 26.88 105 0
2300 231.68 420 17.92 105 0
1
WARRANT 1 MET: NO
10. WARRANT 2 WORKSHEET PAGE 8
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTION IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.70
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MINOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
BOTH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 188.24 630 14.56 52.5 0
100 72.4 630 4.48 52.5 0
200 72.4 630 5.6 52.5 0
300 57.92 630 4.48 52.5 0
400 72.4 630 5.6 52.5 0
500 260.64 630 20.16 52.5 0
640 825.36 630 63.84 52.5 1
700 1013.6 630 78,4 52.5 1
800 767.44 630 59.36 52.5 1
900 666.08 630 51.52 52.5 0
1000 724 630 56 52.5 1
1100 854.32 630 66.08 52.5 1
1200 810.88 630 62.72 52.5 1
1300 897.76 630 69.44 52.5 1
1400 1114.96 630 86.24 52.5 1
1500 1448 630 112 52.5 1
1600 1187.36 630 91.84 52.5 1
1700 970.16 630 75.04 52.5 1
1800 709.52 630 54.88 52.5 1
1900 506.8 630 39.2 52.5 0
2000 419.92 630 32.48 52.5 0
2100 289.6 630 22.4 52.5 0
2200 347.52 630 26.88 52.5 0
2300 231.68 630 17.92 52.5 0
12
WARRANT 2 MET: YES
11. WARRANT 3 WORKSHEET PAGE 9
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR= 1
ARE GAPS ADEQUATE? NO
DISTANCE TO NEXT SIGNAL >300 FT? YES
ADVERSE EFFECT TO PLATOONED TRAFFIC? NO
PEDS CROSSING CUMULATIV ABSOLUTE
HOU MAJOR STREET WARRANT WARRANT
0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0
200 0 0 0
300 0 0 0
400 0 0 0
500 0 0 0
600 0 0 0
700 0 0 0
800 0 0 0
900 0 0 0
1000 0 0 0
1100 0 0 0
1200 0 0 0
1300 0 0 0
1400 0 0 0
1500 0 0 0
1600 0 0 0
1700 0 0 0
1800 0 0 0
1900 0 0 q
2000 Q 0 p
2100 0 Q Q
2200► 0 0 Q
2304 Q p p
TOTALS 0 0
WARRAhJT 3 M ET: NQ
12. WARRANT 41NORKSHEET PAGE 10
UVARRANT 4 MET: RIQ
13. WARRANT 5 WORKSHEET
UVARRaNT 5 MET: YES
14. WARRANT 6 WORKSHEET
MAJOR S1"REET DIRECTIaN IS EW
MINQR STREET DIRECTION iS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER C}F LANES lS 2
MIN(7R STREET NUN1BER +QF LANES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.56
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MINOR ST. MIN. REQ'D MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
BOTH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 188.24 336 14.56 84 0
100 72.4 336 4.48 84 0
200 72.4 336 5.6 84 0
300 57.92 336 4.48 84 0
400 72.4 336 5.6 84 0
500 260.64 336 20.16 84 0
600 825.36 336 63.84 84 0
700 1013.6 336 78.4 84 0
800 767.44 336 59.36 84 0
900 666.08 336 51.52 84 0
1000 724 336 56 84 0
1100 854.32 336 66.08 84 0
1200 810.88 336 62.72 84 0
1300 897.76 336 69.44 84 0
1400 1114.96 336 86.24 84 1
1500 1448 336 112 84 1
1600 1187.36 336 91.84 84 1
1700 970.16 336 75.04 84 0
1800 709.52 336 54.88 84 0
1900 506.8 336 39.2 84 0
2000 419.92 336 32.48 84 0
2100 289.6 336 22.4 84 0
2200 347.52 336 26.88 84 0
2300 231.68 336 17.92 84 0
WARRANT 6.1 MET: NO 3
WARRANT 6.2 WORKSHEET PAGE 11
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTION IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.56
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D MINOR ST. MIN. REQ'D MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
BOTH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 188.24 504 14.56 42 0
100 72,4 504 4.48 42 0
200 72.4 504 5.6 42 0
300 57.92 504 4.48 42 0
400 72.4 504 5.6 42 0
500 260.64 504 20.16 42 0
600 825.36 504 63.84 42 1
700 1013.6 504 78.4 42 1
800 767.44 504 59.36 42 1
900 666.08 504 51.52 42 1
1000 724 504 56 42 1
1100 854.32 504 66.08 42 1
1200 810.88 504 62.72 42 1
1300 897.76 504 69.44 42 1
1400 1114.96 504 86.24 42 1
1500 1448 504 112 42 1
1600 1187.36 504 91.84 42 1
1700 970.16 504 75.04 42 1
1800 709.52 504 54.88 42 1
1900 506.8 504 39.2 42 0
2000 419.92 504 32.48 42 0
2100 289.6 504 22.4 42 0
2200 347.52 504 26.88 42 0
2300 231.68 504 17.92 42 0
WARRANT 6.2 MET YES 13
WARRANT 6.3 WORKSHEET PAGE 12
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR= 0.8
ARE GAPS ADEQUATE? NO
DISTANCE TO NEXT SIGNAL >300 FT? YES
ADVERSE EFFECT TO PLATOONED TRAFFIC? NO
PEDS CROSSING CUMULATIV ABSOLUTE
HOU MAJOR STREET WARRANT WARRANT
0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0
200 0 0 0
300 Q 0 0
400 0 0 0
500 0 0 0
600 0 0 0
700 0 0 0
800 0 0 0
900 0 0 0
1000 0 0 0
1100 0 D 0
120L1 Q Q Q
1 3O(} 0 Q 0
1400 0 D Q
1500 o 0 0
1600 0 0 0
1700 a o 0
1800 Q 0 0
1900 0 a +D
2000 0 0 0
2100 0 Q 0
2200 o 0 U
2300 0 0 0
TOTaLS 0 0
WARRANT 6.3 MET: NO
iNARRANT 6 MET: NO
15, WARRANT 71NORKSHEET PAGE 13
ARE B07H STREETS ARTERIALS? YES
1NEEKaAY HOURS WEEKEND Ht7URS
HOU PRESENT >1000 PRESENT >1000
o 209.69 o o a
100 79 0 o a
a
200 $0. 65 o o a
300 e4.52 Q o a
400 80.65 o 0 0
500 290.34 Q 0 0
600 919.41 a o 0
700 1129.1 1 0 0
800 854.89 o o a
940 741.98 Q 0 Q
1000 806.5 0 0 0
1100 951.67 0 Q 0
1200 903.28 0 0 Q
1300 1000.06 1 Q 0
1400 1242.01 1 0 p
1500 1613 1 0 Q
1600 1322.66 1 D a
1700 1080.71 1 0 0
1800 790.37 0 0 0
1900 564.55 Q 0 Q
2000 4e7.77 a a a
2100 322.5 0 0 0
2200 387.12 Li U 0
2300 258.08 Q Q Q
TOTA►LS 6 0
WARRaNT 7.1 WC}RKSHEET PA,GE 14
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION iS EW
MINC}R STREET DIRECTIDN IS NS
NIAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MIN+C)R STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
MiNIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTC?R IS 0.70
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MINOR S7. MIN. REQ'D. MET FUR HOUR
VOLUME C7N UOLUME UN VL LUME VOLUME DN
B0TH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MIIVOR ST.
HOU ►APPRQACMES EITHER
Q 218 420 17 105 0
100 84 420 5 105 0
200 84 420 +fi 105 a
300 67 420 5 105 0
400 84 420 6 105 Q
500 3(}2 420 23 105 a
600 957 420 74 105 0
7(}0 1175 420 91 105 0
800 894 420 69 105 0
soo 772 420 sa 105 0
1000 839 420 ss 105 o
1100 ssa 420 77 105 a
1200 940 420 73 105 0
1300 1041 424 80 105 0
1400 1293 420 100 105 0
1500 1+679 420 130 105 1
1600 1376 420 106 105 1
1700 1125 420 87 105 0
1800 823 420 64 105 0
1900 588 420 45 105 0
2000 487 420 38 105 0
2100 336 420 26 105 0
2200 403 420 31 105 0
2300 269 420 21 105 0
2
WARRANT 7.1 MET: NO
WARRANT 7.2 WORKSHEET PAGE 15
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTION IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.70
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MINOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
BOTH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 218 630 17 52.5 0
100 84 630 5 52.5 0
200 84 630 6 52.5 Q
300 67 630 5 52.5 0
440 84 630 6 52,5 0
500 302 630 23 52.5 0
600 957 630 74 52,5 1
700 1175 630 91 52.5 1
800 890 630 69 52.5 1
900 772 630 60 52.5 1
1000 839 630 65 52.5 1
1100 990 630 77 52.5 1
1200 940 630 73 52.5 1
1300 1041 63+0 80 52.5 1
1400 1293 630 100 52.5 1
1500 1679 630 130 52.5 1
1600 1376 630 106 52.5 1
1700 1125 630 87 52.5 1
1800 823 634 64 52.5 1
1900 588 630 45 52.5 0
2000 487 630 38 52.5 0
2100 336 634 26 52.5 t]
2200 403 630 31 52.5 0
2300 269 630 21 52.5 Q
13
WARRAhIT 7.2 NIET: YES
WARRAfVT 7.8 WURKSHEET Pp+GE 16
WARRANT 7.8.1 VIIORKSHEET
MAJOR STREET DtRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTI+aN IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINC)R STREET NUMBER t]F LAhiES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.56
MAJOR ST. M1N. REQ'D. M1NOR ST. M1N. REQ'D. MET FUR HUUR
VC?LUME ON VOLUME ON VC}LUME VOLUME 4N
BOTH MAJUR ST. LARGER JF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 218 336 17 $4 C}
100 84 336 5 84 0
200 84 336 f 84 0
300 fi? 336 5 84 0
400 84 336 6 84 Q
500 302 336 23 84 0
600 957 336 74 84 0
700 1175 336 91 84 f
800 890 336 69 84 +D
900 772 336 64 84 Q
1000 839 336 65 84 0
1100 990 336 77 84 0
1200 940 336 73 84 0
1300 1041 336 80 84 a
1400 1293 336 100 84 1
15(}0 1679 336 130 84 1
1500 1376 336 106 84 1
1704 1125 336 67 84 1
18{]0 823 336 64 84 0
1900 588 336 45 84 0
2000 487 336 38 84 0
2100 336 336 26 84 0
2200 403 336 31 84 0
2300 269 336 21 84 0
rQraL HauRS MET: 5
INARRANT 7.8.1 MET: NU
WARRANT 7.8.2 W JRKSHEET PAGE 17
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EIN
MIIVC}R STREET DIRECTlON IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
M1NOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
N'IiNIMUM REG}UIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.56
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. II//EINOR ST. iUIIN. REQ°D, MET FOR HUUR
VQLUME C)N VULUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
SOTH AIIAJC?R ST. LARGER 4F MINOR ST.
HCIU APPRC7ACHES EITHER
0 218 504 17 42 0
10{} 84 504 5 42 0
200 84 5()4 fi 42 Q
300 67 504 5 42 U
400 84 504 6 42 4
5+30 302 504 23 42 0
fiaQ 957 504 74 42 1
70{} 1175 504 31 42 1
800 890 544 69 42 1
900 772 504 60 42 1
1000 839 504 65 42 1
1100 990 504 77 42 1
1200 940 504 73 42 1
1300 1041 504 80 42 1
1400 1293 504 100 42 1
1500 1679 504 13(} 42 1
1600 1376 504 106 42 1
1700 1125 504 87 42 1
1800 823 504 64 42 1
1900 588 504 45 42 1
2000 487 504 38 42 0
2100 336 504 26 42 0
2200 403 504 31 42 0
2340 269 504 21 42 0
14
WARRANT 7.8.2 N1ET: YES
WARRANT 7.8 MET: NO
IAIARftANT 7.9 WORKSHEET PAGE 18
MAJC3R STREET DIRECTI+DN IS EW
MlNOR STREET D{RECTION IS NS
MAJQR STREET NUN1BER OF LANES IS 2
MlN(3R STREET NuMBER QF LANES 1S 1
USE FIGURE -8
MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME (Y/N)
BOTH LARGER OF
HOU APPROACHE EITHER HOURS MET
0 218 17 N 0
100 84 5 N 0
200 84 6 N 0
300 67 5 N 0
400 84 6 N 0
500 302 23 N 0
600 957 74 N 0
700 1175 91 Y 1
800 890 69 N 0
900 772 60 Y 1
1000 839 65 Y 1
1100 990 77 Y 1
1200 940 73 Y 1
1300 1041 80 N 0
1400 1293 100 Y 1
1500 1679 130 Y 1
1600 1376 106 Y- 1
1700 1125 87 Y 1
1800 823 64 Y 1
1900 588 45 N 0
2000 487 38 N 0
2100 336 26 N 0
2200 403 31 N 0
2300 269 21 N 0
10
WARRANT 7.9 MET: YES ~
GO TO A1009
I
~
WARRANT 7,11 VIIC3RKSHEET PAGE 19
PEAK HC)UR VOLUME C)N MAJl7R ST. (BUYH APPROAC 1679
PEAK HCaUR VOLUME C)N MINC3R ST. (UNE APPRC7ACH 130
MAJ(]R STREET NUMBER C7F LANES: 2
MINC3R STREET NUMBER tJF LANES: I
SEE FIGURE -6
1NARRANT 7.11 MET: YES
WARRANT 7,1 C)R 7.2 OR 7.8 QR 7.9 (7R 7.11 MET: YES _
WARRANT 7.0 WEEKDAY MET: YES
WARRANT 7.0 1NEEKENQ MET: NO
1NARRAI's1T 7 M ET: YE S
GO TD A117T
i
16. WARRANT 8 WORKSHEET PAGE 20
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTION IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.56
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MINOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
BOTH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 188.24 336 14.56 84 0
100 72.4 336 4.48 84 0
200 72.4 336 5.6 84 0
300 57.92 336 4.48 84 0
400 72.4 336 5.6 84 0
500 260.64 336 20.16 84 0
600 825.36 336 63.84 84 0
700 1013.6 336 78.4 84 0
800 767.44 336 59.36 84 0
900 666.08 336 51.52 84 0
1000 724 336 56 84 0
1100 854.32 336 66.08 84 0
1200 810.88 336 62.72 84 0
1300 897.76 336 69.44 84 0
1400 1114.96 336 86.24 84 1
1500 1448 336 112 84 1
1600 1187.36 336 91.84 84 1
1700 970.16 336 75.04 84 0
1800 709.52 336 54.88 84 0
1900 506.8 336 39.2 84 0
2000 419.92 336 32.48 84 0
2100 289.6 336 22.4 84 0
2200 347.52 336 26.88 84 0
2300 231.68 336 17.92 84 0
TOTAL HOURS MET: 3
WARRANT 8.1 MET: NO
WARRANT 8.2 WORKSHEET PAGE 21
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTION IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
MINIMUM REQUIRED VOLUME FACTOR IS 0.56
MAJOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MINOR ST. MIN. REQ'D. MET FOR HOUR
VOLUME ON VOLUME ON VOLUME VOLUME ON
BOTH MAJOR ST. LARGER OF MINOR ST.
HOU APPROACHES EITHER
0 188.24 504 14.56 42 0
100 72.4 504 4.48 42 0
200 72.4 504 5.6 42 0
300 57.92 504 4.48 42 0
400 72.4 504 5.6 42 0
500 260.64 504 20.16 42 0
600 825.36 504 63.84 42 1
700 1013.6 504 78.4 42 1
800 767.44 504 59.36 42 1
900 666.08 504 51.52 42 1
1000 724 504 56 42 1
1100 854.32 504 66.08 42 1
1200 810.88 504 62.72 42 1
1300 897.76 504 69.44 42 1
1400 1114.96 504 86.24 42 1
1500 1448 504 112 42 1
1600 1187.36 504 91.84 42 1
1700 970.16 504 75.04 42 1
1800 709.52 504 54.88 42 1
1900 506.8 504 39.2 42 0
2000 419.92 504 32.48 42 0
2100 289.6 504 22.4 42 0
2200 347.52 504 26.88 42 0
2300 231.68 504 17.92 42 0
13
i
WARRANT 8.2 MET: YES
WARRANT 8 MET: NO
17. WARRANT 9 WORKSHEET PAGE 22
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION IS EW
MINOR STREET DIRECTION IS NS
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES IS 1
USE FICURE -8
MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. MET FOR HOUR
V4LUME ON VOLUME (Y/N)
BOTH LARGER OF
HOU APPROACHE EITHER HOURS MET
0 188 15 N 0
100 72 4 N 0
200 72 6 N 0
300 58 4 N 0
400 72 6 N 0
500 261 20 N 0
600 825 64 N 0
700 1014 78 Y 1
800 767 59 N 0
900 666 52 N 0
1000 724 56 N 0
1100 854 66 N 0
1200 811 63 N 0
1300 898 69 N 0
1400 1115 86 Y 1
1500 1448 112 N 0
1600 1187 92 Y 1
1700 970 75 Y 1
1800 710 55 N 0
1900 507 39 N 0
2000 420 32 N 0
2100 290 22 N 0
2200 348 27 N 0
2300 232 18 N 0
4
WARRANT 9 MET: YES
CO TO A1250 '
~
18. WARRANT 10 WORKSHEET PAGE 23
TOTAL PEAK HOUR DELAY ON ONE MINOR APPROAC 112
WARRANT 10.1 MET: NO
LARGEST PEAK HOUR VOLUME ON ONE MINOR APPR 112
WARRANT 10.2 MET: YES
TOTAL ENTERING PEAK HOUR VOLUME: 1613
WARRANT 10.3 MET: YES
WARRANT 10 MET: NO
19. WARRANT 11 WORKSHEET
PEAK HOUR VOLUME ON MAJOR ST. (BOTH APPROAC 1448
PEAK HOUR VOLUME ON MINOR ST. (ONE APPROACH 112
MAJOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES: 2
MINOR STREET NUMBER OF LANES: 1
SEE FIGURE -6
WARRANT 11 MET: YES
SUMMARY @ A281
END OF WORKSHEET
EXISTING
LEVEL OF SERVICE
,
i
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name EVERAMEX.HCO
Streets: (N-S) EVERGREEN (E-W) MISSION
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis....... 7/21/95
Other Information......... EXISTING AM CONDITIONS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 142 40 14 191 131 19
PHF .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV,1S M 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
Center Fvr MicrQCVmputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignali2ed Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WvrkSheet for TWSC Intexsectian
Step 1: RT fram Minvr Street NB SB
Conflicting Flaws: (vph) 162
Potential Capacity; (pcph) 1146
Mvvernent Capacity: (pcph) 1146
Prob. of Qu+eue-f ree State ; 0.98
Step 2: LT f rom Major Street WB EB
Canflictinq Flows: (vph) 182
Pvtential Capacity: (pcph) 1404
Mvvement Capacity: (pcph) 1404
Prob. af Queue-free State: 0.99
TH Saturation Flvw Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flvw Rate: (pcphgi)
Majvr LT Shared Lane Prab.
vf Queue-free State : 0.99
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flvws: (vph) 367
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 649
Major LT, Minar TH
Imgedance Factor; 0.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Faetvr
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Mavernent Capacity: (pcph) 639
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignali2ed Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 164 639 > > >
677 7.4 B 7.4
NB R 24 1146 > > >
WB L 18 1404 2.6 A 0.2
Intersection Delay 2.1
Center For Micracomputers In Transpartation
HGS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name MCDAMEX.HCQ
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD (E-W) MISSION
MajQr Street Qirectifln.... EW
Length af Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
D4i4G of Analys1s • r • r. . • . r ■ / /l•r1/75
Other Infvrmation......... EXISTING AM CQNQITIONS
Two-way Stop-cantrolled Intersection
Eastbound Westbaund Nvrthbound Sauthbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0> 2 a 0> 0< 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Valumes 133 44 29 315 156 31
FHF .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 fl 0 0 a 0
SU/R'Ur' s( a) q 0 Q 0 0 0
CV's 0 Q 0 0 0 D
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Ad j ustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Fallvw-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minar Road 5.50 2,60
Thraugh Traffic Minvr Rvad 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Mi,nor Rvad 7.00 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportativn
HCS: Unsignalized Intersectivn Release 2.1 Paqe 2
WarkSheet fvr TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT fram Minor Street NB SB
Gonflicting Flows: (uph) 88
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1250
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1250
Prob. af Queue-f ree State : 0.97
Step 2: LT from Maj4r Street WB EB
Conflicting F'lows: (vph) 177
Potential Capacity: (pcp►h) 1377
Movement Capaeity: (pcph) 1377
Frvb. of Queue-free Stat+e; 0.97
TH Saturativn Flvw Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcghpl)
Ma jvr LT Shared Lane Prvb.
vf Queue-f ree State : 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf 1 icting Flows vph ) 499
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 508
Major LT, Mi.nar TH
Impeclance Factor : 0.97
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.97
Capacity Adjustment Factvr
due to Impeding Mavements 0.97
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 493
Center For Microcamputers In Transportativn
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersectivn Performance Summary
F1awRate MoveCag SharedCap Avg.Tatal Delay
MoUement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LaS By App
NB L 197 493 > > >
549 11.5 C 11.5
NB R 40 1250 > > >
WB L 36 1377 2.7 A 0.2
Intersectian Delay - 3.2
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVE (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: MISSAMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 1 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 107 85 27 37 82 415 12 965 32 261 786 98
PHF or PK15 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Lane Width 12.0 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 54 -2 34
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 15.OA 21.OA Green 6.OA 15.OA 35.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 3.5 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Length: 107 secs Phase combinat--on order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 520 3570 0.510 0.146 27.8 D 27.8 D
WB LT 740 3668 0.194 0.202 22.8 C 18.9 C
R 691 1583 0.690 0.437 17.7 C
NB L 116 1770 0.120 0.066 30.3 D 37.1 D
TR 1236 3707 0.974 0.333 37.2 D
SB L 366 1770 0.820 0.207 35.6 D 18.7 C
TR 1737 3663 0.614 0.474 13.9 B
Intersection Delay = 25.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.765
HCM; SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUNIMARY Versian 2.4 07-28-1995
Center For Micrvcvmputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) EB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES AVE
Analyst: ALW File Name: EBAMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CDNDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbaund SQUthbvund
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 2< 1 2
Volumes 158 402 1091 193 88 501
FHF or PK15 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parkxng (YIx) x (YIN) N (Y/N) N
Bus stops 0 o 0
Can. Peds 0 p 0 0
Ped Button (Y/x) N (Y/x) Y4.o s (Y/x) N
Arr Type 3 3 5 3 5 5
RTaR Vols 200 0 0
Lvst Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prog. Share -1 -1 -1 -l -1 -1
Frop. Prat. -2 26 -2
Signal Qperations
Phase Carnbinatian 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 Feds
NB Right EB Right * *
SB Right WB Right
Green 31,QA Green 6.aA 15.OA 50.OA
Yellvw/AR 5.p YellawJAR 4.0 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 116 secs Phase cvmbinatLvn order: #l #5 #6 #7
Intersection Perfarmance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LO5
EB L 504 1770 0.377 0.284 21.7 C 15.9 C
R 792 1583 0.288 0.500 11.0 B
NB 'I`R 2103 3+541 0.723 0.578 11.9 B 11.9 B
SB L 107 1770 0.927 0.060 64.8 F 20.9 C
T 1670 3725 0.355 0.448 13.6 B
Intersectian Delay = 14.9 secJveh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 4.630
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) WB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27
Analyst: ALW File Name: WBAMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 2<
Volumes 122 48 668 603 469 224
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 8.5 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 4 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
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 Riqht EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.0A Green 45.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 92 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
WB L 212 1770 0.605 0.120 28.3 D 27.0 D
R 189 1583 0.269 0.120 24.0 C
NB L 885 1770 0.794 0.500 15.0 B 8.3 B
T 3037 3725 0.220 0.815 1.2 A
SB TR 1002 3545 0.765 0.283 20.8 C 20.8 C
Intersection Delay = 13.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.760
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) INDIANA/MONTGOMERY (N-S) PINES ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: INDIAMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 < 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 10 2 87 15 67 27 266 491 38 19 569 42
PHF or PK15 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Lane Width 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
Parkinq (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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 13 -2
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left * *
Thru * Thru * *
Right * Riqht * *
Peds * Peds *
WB Lef t * SB Le f t *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds * Peds *
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.0A Green 6.OA 39.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 88 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 355 2955 0.355 0.120 23.1 C 23.1 C
WB LTR 388 3237 0.360 0.120 23.1 C 23.1 C
NB L 850 1770 0.381 0.480 9.4 B 4.6 A
TR 2738 3686 0.247 0.743 2.3 A
SB L 61 1770 0.379 0.034 28.6 D 19.5 C
TR 1096 3687 0.714 0.297 19.3 C
Intersection Delay = 12.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.489
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name EVERPMEX.HCO
Streets: (N-S) EVERGREEN ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 7/21/95
Other Information......... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 242 127 39 217 122 25
PHF .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 306
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 969
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 969
Prob. of Queue-free State : 0.97
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 369
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1144
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1144
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.96
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.96
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 562
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 500
Major LT, Minor TH I
Impedance Factor: 0.96
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 478
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 139 478 > > >
524 10.1 C 10.1
NB R 29 969 > > >
WB L 44 1144 3.3 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 2•1
Center Far Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Paqe 1
File Name MCDPMEX.HCO
Streets: (N-S) MCDONALD RaAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Majar Street Direction,... EW
Length vf Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis..,....... 7/21/95
4ther Tnformativn.....,... EXISTING PM CONDITIONS
Twv-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbvund Northbound Southbpund
L T Ft L T R L T R L T R
xo. Lanes o a< o a> 2 v o> v< o a o 0
Stvp/Yield N N
Vvlumes 383 192 77 296 163 71
PHF .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94
Grade p 0 0 0
MC's a 0 Q 0 0 0
SLT/RV's 0 0 0 Q 0 0
CV' S(~) 0 Q U 0 0 fl
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1
Ad justment Factars
Vehicle Gritical Follvw-up
Maneuver Gag ( tg ) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major RQad 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minar Raad 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 288
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 575
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) $42
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0•89
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 852
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 302
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0•88
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0•$$
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0•88
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 266
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 190 266 > > >
343 48.2 F 48.2
NB R 84 989 > > >
WB L 90 842 4.8 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 9.9
,
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVE (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: MISSPMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 1 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 135 124 43 72 136 440 25 962 25 360 1224 150
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 54 -2 34
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 15.OA 21.OA Green 6.OA 15.OA 35.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 3.5 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Length: 107 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 519 3566 0.651 0.146 29.8 D 29.8 D
WB LT 739 3662 0.315 0.202 23.5 C 19.4 C
R 691 1583 0.680 0.437 17.4 C
NB L 116 1770 0.232 0.066 30.7 D 28.2 D
TR 1237 3711 0.896 0.333 28.1 D
SB L 366 1770 1.053 0.207 68.3 F 28.6 D
TR 1738 3665 0.887 0.474 18.7 C
Intersection Delay = 27.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.754
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY VerSion 2.4 07-28-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) EB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: EBPMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 2< 1 2
Volumes 233 712 1262 261 158 1041
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 4.0 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 5 3 4 5
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 44 -2
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 15.OA Green 13.OA 26.OA 35.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 97 secs Phase combinatLon order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 292 1770 0.849 0.165 39.5 D 22.1 C
R 898 1583 0.843 0.567 16.5 C
NB TR 2320 3630 0.734 0.639 8.1 B 8.1 B
SB L 182 1770 0.921 0.103 54.1 E 24.1 C
T 1382 3725 0.841 0.371 19.8 C
Intersection Delay = 16.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.842
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) WB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27
Analyst: ALW File Name: WBPMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 2<
Volumes 218 26 579 929 907 107
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 8.5 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 4 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left NB Left *
Thru Thru * *
Right Right
Peds Peds * *
WB Lef t * SB Lef t I
Thru Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 13.OA Green 35.OA 30.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 86 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
WB L 288 1770 0.805 0.163 32.8 D 31.4 D
R 258 1583 0.109 0.163 19.8 C
NB L 659 1770 0.935 0.372 29.1 D 12.1 B
T 2859 3725 0.363 0.767 2.1 A
SB TR 1321 3666 0.857 0.360 18.6 C 18.6 C
Intersection Delay = 16.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.880
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) INDIANA/MONTGOMERY (N-S) PINES ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: INDIPMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 < 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 26 7 236 72 36 83 119 839 17 2 594 14
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 Width 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 13 -2
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 15.OA Green 6.OA 25.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 79 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Suaumary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 569 2881 0.541 0.197 19.1 C 19.1 C
WB LTR 459 2324 0.473 0.197 18.6 C 18.6 C
NB L 631 1770 0.204 0.357 11.3 B 5.1 B
TR 2414 3715 0.404 0.650 4.3 A
SB L 68 1770 0.030 0.038 23.5 C 14.4 B
TR 1230 3713 0.564 0.331 14.4 B
Intersection Delay = 11.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.419
I
BUILD OUT YEA►R
LEVELS OF SERVICE
WI7[?HOUT PROJECT
,
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVE (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: MISSPBO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 1 1 2< 2 2<
Volumes 212 213 68 89 218 544 36 1051 31 449 1337 219
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 20.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 54 -2 34
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 17.OA 17.OA Green 6.OA 15.OA 35.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 3.5 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Length: 105 secs Phase combinat--on order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 598 3572 0.924 0.167 42.3 E 42.3 E
WB LT 615 3672 0.559 0.167 26.7 D 28.9 p
R 644 1583 0.902 0.407 30.2 D
NB L 119 1770 0.321 0.067 30.6 D 34.6 D
TR 1260 3710 0.963 0.340 34.7 D
SB L 745 3539 0.663 0.211 25.2 D 26.7 D
TR 1762 3647 0.990 0.483 27.1 D
Intersection Delay = 30.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.929
i
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) EB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: EBPBO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 2 2< 1 2
Volumes 255 823 1485 306 173 1204
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 4.0 s(YjN) N
Arr Type 3 3 5 3 4 5
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 44 -2
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 15.OA Green 15.OA 26.OA 35.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 99 secs Phase combinatLon order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 286 1770 0.947 0.162 55.0 E 18.6 C
R 1823 3167 0.543 0.576 8.6 B
NB TR 2273 3630 0.880 0.626 11.6 B 11.6 B
SB L 215 1770 0.858 0.121 42.7 E 33.4 D
T 1355 3725 0.993 0.364 32.2 D
Intersection Delay = 20.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.889
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) WB I-90 R.AMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27
Analyst: ALW File Name: WBPBO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 2 2 2<
Volumes 252 28 706 1057 1045 116
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 8.5 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 4 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. _2 _2 _2
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 13.OA Green 22.OA 30.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 73 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
WB L 339 1770 0.790 0.192 26.2 D 25.2 D
R 304 1583 0.099 0.192 15.7 C
NB L 921 3539 0.840 0.260 20.3 C 9.6 B
T 2704 3725 0.436 0.726 2.6 A
SB TR 1558 3670 0.832 0.425 13.5 B 13.5 B
Intersection Delay = 12.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.825
-
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) INDIANA/MONTGOMERY (N-S) PINES ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: INDIPBO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 < 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 28 8 272 79 40 91 130 965 19 2 687 15
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 Width 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 13 -2
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 15.OA Green 6.OA 25.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 79 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 566 2866 0.622 0.197 20.1 C 20.1 C
WB LTR 430 2179 0.555 0.197 19.6 C 19.6 C
NB L 631 1770 0.223 0.357 11.4 B 5.3 B
TR 2414 3715 0.465 0.650 4.5 A
SB L 68 1770 0.030 0.038 23.5 C 15.4 C
TR 1230 3714 0.651 0.331 15.3 C
Intersection Delay = 11.6 sec/veh Intersection LO$ = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.481
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name EVERABO.HCO
Streets: (N-S) EVERGREEN (E-W) MISSION
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 7/21/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT AM WITHOUT PROJECT
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 161 45 15 224 149 21
PHF .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 184
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1117
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1117
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 206
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1367
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1367
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-f ree State : 0.98
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 422
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 603
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.98
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.98 _
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 593
~
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 186 593 > > >
629 8.6 B 8.6
NB R 26 1117 > > >
WB L 19 1367 2.7 A 0.2
Intersection Delay 2.4
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-31-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVENUE (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: MCDABW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-28-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 2 < > 2 > <
Volumes 152 50 32 365 178 34
PHF or PK15 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot, -2 -2 -2
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 36.OA Green 16.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Lenqth: 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 TR 2211 3586 0.110 0.617 3.1 A 3.1 A
WB LT 2066 3351 0.232 0.617 3.3 A 3.3 A
NB LR 454 1602 0.538 0.283 12.7 B 12.7 B
Intersection Delay = 5.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.328
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVE (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: MISSABO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 1 1 2< 2 2<
Volumes 145 141 37 44 151 493 20 1054 44 362 859 166
PHF or PK15 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Lane Width 12.0 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 20.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 54 -2 34
Signal Operations ~
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Lef t * NB Lef 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 * *
Green 15.OA 21.OA Green 6.OA 10.0A 40.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 3.5 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Length: 107 secs Phase combinat-"on order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 521 3581 0.750 0.146 32.3 D 32.3 D
WB LT 744 3684 0.317 0.202 23.5 C 30.7 D
R 617 1583 0.919 0.390 33.6 D
NB L 116 1770 0.198 0.066 30.5 D 29.8 D
TR 1408 3703 0.941 0.380 29.8 D
SB L 565 3539 0.758 0.160 29.7 D 18.7 C
TR 1724 3635 0.718 0.474 14.9 B
Intersection Delay = 25.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.901
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) EB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES AVE
Analyst: ALW File Name: EBABO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 2< 1 2
Volumes 184 499 1250 221 96 623
PHF or PK15 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 4.0 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 5 3 5 5
RTOR Vols 200 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 26 -2
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
Green 31.OA Green 6.OA 15.OA 50.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 116 secs Phase combinatLon order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 504 1770 0.413 0.284 22.1 C 15.9 C
R 792 1583 0.426 0.500 12.1 B
NB TR 2104 3642 0.829 0.578 13.9 B 13.9 B
SB L 107 1770 1.011 0.060 85.9 F 23.4 C
T 1670 3725 0.442 0.448 14.3 B
Intersection Delay = 16.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.712
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) WB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27
Analyst: ALW File Name: WBABO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 2<
Volumes 150 52 773 674 572 244
PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 8.5 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 4 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
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 8.OA Green 45.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 90 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
WB L 177 1770 0.893 0.100 52.9 E 45.7 E
R 158 1583 0.347 0.100 24.9 C
NB L 905 1770 0.900 0.511 19.6 C 10.7 B
T 3104 3725 0.240 0.833 1.0 A
SB TR 1028 3558 0.878 0.289 23.1 C 23.1 C
Intersection Delay = 17.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.892
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) INDIANA/MONTGOMERY (N-S) PINES ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: INDIABO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-21-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 < 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 10 2 95 16 73 29 296 546 42 21 681 45
PHF or PK15 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Lane Width 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 13 -2
Siqnal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left * *
Thru * Thru * *
Right * Riqht * *
Peds * Peds *
WB Left * SB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds * Peds *
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.0A Green 6.OA 39.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 88 secs Phase combinat--on order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 354 2952 0.384 0.120 23.3 C 23.3 C
WB LTR 386 3218 0.391 0.120 23.3 C 23.3 C
NB L 850 1770 0.425 0.480 9.7 B 4.7 A
TR 2738 3686 0.275 0.743 2.4 A
SB L 61 1770 0.428 0.034 29.7 D 23.3 C
TR 1097 3691 0.847 0.297 23.1 C
Intersection Delay = 14.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.560
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name EVERPBO.HCO
Streets: (N-S) EVERGREEN ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis...... 7/21/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT PM WITHOUT PROJECT
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 295 152 43 251 137 27
PHF .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Riqht Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 371
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 898
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 898
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.97
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 447
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1050
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1050
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.95
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 NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 665
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 436
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0,95 I
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 412
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 155 412 > > >
453 13.5 C 13.5
NB R 31 898 > > >
WB L 48 1050 3.6 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 2.6
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-31-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVENUE (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: MCDPBW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-28-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 2 < > 2 > <
Volumes 463 230 84 341 185 78
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
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 36.OA Green 16.OA
Yellow/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 TR 2184 3541 0.355 0.617 3.7 A 3.7 A
WB LT 1518 2461 0.313 0.617 3.6 A 3.6 A
NB LR 447 1578 0.626 0.283 14.1 B 14.1 B
Intersection Delay = 5.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.440
BU-ELD OUT YEAR
LEVELS OF SERVICE
INCLUDING PROJECT
~
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name EVERABW.HCO
Streets: (N-S) EVERGREEN (E-W) MISSION
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 7/24/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT AM WITH PROJECT
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 181 45 15 228 149 21
PHF .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 204
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1091
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1091
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 226
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1338
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1338
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: 0.98
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 446
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 584
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.98
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.98
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 574
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 186 574 > > >
609 9.1 B 9.1
NB R 26 1091 > > >
WB L 19 1338 2.7 A 0.2
Intersection Delay 2.5
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name DRIVABW.HCO
Streets: (N-S) DRIVEWAY (E-W) MISSION AVE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis...... 7/24/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 22 186 401 4 20 110
PHF .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Paqe 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 403
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 865
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 865
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.84
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 405
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1099
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1099
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.97
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue- f ree State : 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 611 ~
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 469
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.97
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.97
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.97
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 455
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
SB L 25 455 > > >
760 6.0 B 6.0
SB R 138 865 > > >
EB L 28 1099 3.4 A 0.4
Intersection Delay = 1.2
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-31-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVENUE (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: MCDABW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-28-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 2 < > 2 > <
Volumes 174 50 32 475 178 34
PHF or PK15 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
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 36.OA Green 16.OA
Yellow/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 TR 2221 3602 0.122 0.617 3.1 A 3.1 A
WB LT 2081 3375 0.294 0.617 3.5 A 3.5 A
NB LR 454 1602 0.538 0.283 12.7 B 12.7 B
Intersection Delay = 5.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.371
I
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-28-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVENUE (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: MCDABW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-28-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 2 < > 2 > <
Volumes 174 50 32 475 178 34
PHF or PK15 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
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 36.OA Green 16.OA
Yellow/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 TR 2222 3603 0.122 0.617 3.1 A 3.1 A
WB LT 2081 3375 0.294 0.617 3.5 A 3.5 A
NB LR 454 1602 0.538 0.283 12.7 B 12.7 B
Intersection Delay = 5.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.371
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVE (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: MISSABW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 1 1 2< 2 2<
Volumes 145 141 37 88 151 559 20 1054 53 375 859 166
PHF or PK15 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Lane Width 12.0 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 20.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 54 -2 34
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 15.OA 21.OA Green 6.OA 10.0A 40.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 3.5 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Length: 107 secs Phase combinat--on order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 521 3581 0.750 0.146 32.3 D 32.3 D
WB LT 738 3658 0.391 0.202 24.0 C 49.4 E
R 617 1583 1.042 0.390 60.9 F
NB L 116 1770 0.198 0.066 30.5 D 30.9 D
TR 1407 3699 0.950 0.380 30.9 D
SB L 565 3539 0.786 0.160 30.4 D 19.0 C
TR 1724 3635 0.718 0.474 14.9 B
Intersection Delay = 30.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.957
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) EB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES AVE
Analyst: ALW File Name: EBABW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 2< 1 2
Volumes 184 510 1316 221 96 625
PHF or PK15 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 4.0 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 5 3 5 5
RTOR Vols 200 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 26 -2
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 31.OA Green 6.OA 15.OA 50.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 116 secs Phase combinat_on order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 504 1770 0.413 0.284 22.1 C 15.9 C
R 792 1583 0.442 0.500 12.3 B
NB TR 2105 3645 0.865 0.578 14.9 B 14.9 B
SB L 107 1770 1.011 0.060 85.9 F 23.4 C
T 1670 3725 0.443 0.448 14.3 B
Intersection Delay = 17.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.735
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) WB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: WBABW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 2<
Volumes 150 52 817 696 574 244
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
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 B.OA Green 45.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 90 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
WB L 177 1770 0.893 0.100 52.9 E 45.7 E
R 158 1583 0.347 0.100 24.9 C
NB L 905 1770 0.951 0.511 25.0 C 13.7 B
T 3104 3725 0.248 0.833 1.0 A
SB TR 1028 3559 0.879 0.289 23.1 C 23.1 C
Intersection Delay = 19.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.921
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) INDIANA/MONTGOMERY (N-S) PINES ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: INDIABW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 AM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 < 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 10 2 95 16 73 29 304 560 42 21 683 45
PHF or PK15 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Lane Width 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 13 -2
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 10.0A Green 6.OA 39.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 88 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 354 2952 0.384 0.120 23.3 C 23.3 C
WB LTR 386 3218 0.391 0.120 23.3 C 23.3 C
NB L 850 1770 0.437 0.480 9.8 B 4.8 A
TR 2739 3687 0.281 0.743 2.4 A
SB L 61 1770 0.428 0.034 29.7 D 23.4 C
TR 1097 3691 0.850 0.297 23.3 C
Intersection Delay = 14.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.567
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name EVERPBW.HCO
Streets: (N-S) EVERGREEN ROAD (E-W) MISSION AVENUE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 7/24/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT PM WITH PROJECT
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 302 155 43 264 144 27
PHF .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 380
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 889
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 889
Prob. of Queue-f ree State : 0.97
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 457
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1038
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1038
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.95
TH 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 NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 686
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 424
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.94
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 400
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
NB L 163 400 > > >
439 14.7 C 14.7
NB R 31 889 > > >
WB L 48 1038 3.6 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 2.8
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name DRIVPBW.HCO
Streets: (N-S) DRIVEWAY (E-W) MISSION AVE
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ALW
Date of Analysis.......... 7/24/95
Other Information......... BUILD OUT PM CONDITIONS
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 112 540 426 20 10 52
PHF .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s( o) 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
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
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 436
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 833
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 833
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.93
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 446
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1051
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1051
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.88
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State: 0.81
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1088
' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 248
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.81
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.81
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 201
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
SB L 11 201 > > >
558 7.4 B 7.4
SB R 59 833 > > >
EB L 127 1051 3.9 A 0.7
Intersection Delay = 0.8
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-31-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVENUE (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: MCDPBW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-28-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 2 < > 2 > <
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
• 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 36.OA Green 16.OA
Yellow/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 TR 2197 3562 0.401 0.617 3.8 A 3.8 A
WB LT 1381 2239 0.385 0.617 3.8 A 3.8 A
NB LR 445 1571 0.672 0.283 15.0 B 15.0 B
Intersection Delay = 5.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.486
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-28-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVENUE (N-S) MCDONALD ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: MCDPBW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-28-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 2 < > 2 > <
Volumes 557 230 97 380 185 96
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 10.0 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
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 36.OA Green 16.OA
Yellow/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 TR 2197 3563 0.401 0.617 3.8 A 3.8 A
WB LT 1381 2239 0.385 0.617 3.8 A 3.8 A
NB LR 445 1571 0.672 0.283 15.0 B 15.0 B
Intersection Delay = 5.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.486
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) MISSION AVE (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: MISSPBW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 1 1 2< 2 2<
Volumes 212 213 68 105 218 567 36 1051 69 505 1337 219
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 20.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 54 -2 34
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 17.OA 17.OA Green 6.OA 15.OA 35.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 3.5 Yellow/AR 4.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Length: 105 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 598 3572 0.924 0.167 42.3 E 42.3 E
WB LT . 614 3666 0.590 0.167 27.1 D 32.3 D
R 644 1583 0.941 0.407 35.4 D
NB L 119 1770 0.321 0.067 30.6 D 42.0 E
TR 1254 3691 1.002 0.340 42.4 E
SB L 745 3539 0.746 0.211 26.4 D 26.9 D
TR 1762 3647 0.990 0.483 27.1 D
Intersection Delay = 33.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.961
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) EB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: EBPBW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 2 2< 1 2
Volumes 255 870 1508 306 173 1213
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 4.0 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 5 3 4 5
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 37 -2
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 15.OA Green 15.OA 26.OA 35.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 99 secs Phase combinat~on order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 286 1770 0.947 0.162 55.0 E 18.4 C
R 1823 3167 0.574 0.576 8.9 B
NB TR 2274 3631 0.891 0.626 12.0 B 12.0 B
SB L 215 1770 0.858 0.121 42.7 E 34.6 D
T 1355 3725 1.000 0.364 33.6 D
Intersection Delay = 20.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.897
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) WB I-90 RAMPS (N-S) PINES ROAD (SR 27)
Analyst: ALW File Name: WBPBW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 2 2 2<
Volumes 252 28 725 1061 1052 116
PHF or PK15 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade 0 0 0
% Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Bus Stops 0 0 0
Con. Peds 0 0 0 0
Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) Y 8.5 s(Y/N) N
Arr Type 3 3 4 5 5 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left NB Left *
Thru Thru * *
Riqht Right
Peds Peds * *
WB Left * SB Left
Thru Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 13.OA Green 22.OA 30.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 73 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
WB L 339 1770 0.790 0.192 26.2 D 25.2 D
R 304 1583 0.099 0.192 15.7 C
NB L 921 3539 0.862 0.260 21.3 C 10.1 B
T 2704 3725 0.438 0.726 2.6 A
SB TR 1558 3670 0.837 0.425 13.6 B 13.6 B
Intersection Delay = 12.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.834
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-27-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) INDIANA/MONTGOMERY (N-S) PINES ROAD
Analyst: ALW File Name: INDIPBW.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-24-95 PM PEAK
Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 2 < 1 2< 1 2<
Volumes 28 8 273 79 40 91 130 969 19 2 693 15
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 Width 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) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 17.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5 s(Y/N) Y 14.5
Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 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 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Prop. Prot. -2 -2 13 -2
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 15.OA Green 6.OA 25.OA 25.OA
Yellow/AR 3.5 Yellow/AR 0.0 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 79 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB LTR 566 2867 0.624 0.197 20.2 C 20.2 C
WB LTR 430 2177 0.556 0.197 19.6 C 19.6 C
NB L 631 1770 0.223 0.357 11.4 B 5.3 B
TR 2414 3715 0.467 0.650 4.5 A
SB L 68 1770 0.030 0.038 23.5 C 15.4 C
TR 1230 3714 0.656 0.331 15.4 C
Intersection Delay = 11.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.483
~ , ..::r .g 8
w r r
a r
i ~ •~pP
X' a ~ . a. ,
bP~., ; , r , , r. cam
y~~~ r, ,a' i" ~.q v a ~ : x ; e . . „ ~ ~
r ~ ~ t 'fir.;;,
. „ ~ " y
M A ~ r ~ .I-.
. , r
'w w
r,
p ~ ~ r •,w. x'
~
8,:., E.. q.,
9 w... ...,a .e . .a ~ ~.q
~ ~ rt W~ ~ M~. .V~ ~M1 s
.t q ~
g
d~
w,
d
«-x
v ~ g,
~a ~r
~<ae , r ~
~ •
..~a
m
- ~ M~. r
,~w .Mrv~, ~~.x w• K, r~~ „ .
s. .~a , . M s... ~ ~
°
µ
. . - rv
ww , ~
„ s s M s ~ q ~y• .W
ti
s ~ : cr M s s N.
M . e ~ , a ~ r .a
r: M, ,....~a~.~ ~ a m! W a a
„ , , ~ , >w,
n m r n ~ rv.
~ A
~s r ~ .
.
~ . ~ ~ r
, w. w . , ~ y
. w W ~~~.r. . w ~ .
t ,P . s;
r~ r ~
< ~ , f ,~e
. , ,
~w sn, ,
~ ~
I
i
i _ ~
_
_
i
~a,~
i ~E
_.w..
i
i I
t
I
i
f
r
i
I E
k t
Y a
i
l
- - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - . . . . . . . .
q uw
aw .e...~
' a ~ ~
f
d 1
a
i €
F
r
~ _ _
~ f
E 4