Loading...
Agenda 01/13/2005 SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers -City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Avenue 6:30 p.m.—9:30 p.m. ** *January 13, 2005 *** I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES © December 9, 2004 VI. PUBLIC COMMENT VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS New Business: • Bus Service Planning Options for Spokane Valley - Presented by Spokane Transit Authority Old Business: e Commission Consideration: Findings of Fact for 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Greenacres Area-Wide Rezone • Continued Public Hearing: Stormwater Ordinance e Continued Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. CPA-07-04 e Public Hearing: Revised Sign Code Ordinance X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Xl. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF Fred Beaulac Marina Sukup,AICP Robert Blum Greg McCormick, AICP John G. Carroll Scott Kuhta, AICP David Crosby Debi Alley William Gothmann, Chair Gail Kogle Ian Robertson, Vice-Chair suok2.eval!evr ora Spokane Valley Planning Commission Draft Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave. December 9, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chair Gothmann called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Fred Beaulac— Present Bill Gothmann — Present Bob Blum — Present Ian Robertson — Present David Crosby — Present John G. Carroll — Excused Absence Gail Kogle — Present IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Robertson moved that the December 9, 2004 agenda be approved as presented. Commissioner Kogle seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Gothmann and seconded by Commissioner Blum that the minutes of the November 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting be approved as presented. Motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Kogle announced that the Light Rail Citizens' Advisory Committee will reconvene in February 2005. Commissioner Gothmann attended two City Council meetings since mid- November. At the last Council meeting, Ms. Sukup presented a framework plan for development of the Unified Development Code. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Ms. Sukup called the Planning Commissioners' attention to the Advanced Agenda which was handed out earlier this evening. As the Comprehensive Plan works its way through the Planning Commission and City Council, careful tracking of each element will be necessary. During the break between early-December and mid-January, Ms. Sukup requested that the Planning Commissioners study the "Schedule of Permitted Uses" which was enclosed in their meeting packets. She would like the Commissioners to study the charts and help fill in blanks. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business. B. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing: Stormwater Ordinance Chairman Gothmann opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m. He explained proper procedures for a formal hearing to those assembled, and then turned the hearing over to staff for an overview of the Stormwater Ordinance. Mr. John Hohman, Senior Engineer, introduced himself to the Commission and presented a PowerPoint slide show regarding the background of Stormwater Management in the Spokane Valley. He showed the Commission photos of flooded streets and parking lots due to insufficient storm drainage systems, and addressed concerns about contamination of the aquifer. The City of Spokane Valley does not have a comprehensive storm drain system, and has adopted the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management. The City has no underground piping system, depending upon swales for stormwater filtration and drainage. There is an immediate need to amend the current standards, and the City wants to put its own Stormwater Utility together. The intent of the draft Ordinance is to minimize the degradation of water quality in surface and groundwater; reduce the impact caused by development; promote site planning and development practices consistent with topographical and hydrological conditions; and protect public and private property used and dedicated for stormwater management. Thresholds for regulated activities, which are missing from the Spokane County Guidelines, would be implemented. The City's authority for developing standards, reviewing developments, and preparing conditions of approval are clarified in the draft Ordinance. The Planning Commission asked for clarification of the following issues in the draft ordinance: 2 Section 2.F (page 2): Mr. Hohman was asked to provide a more detailed definition of"indoor pollutants". In addition, clarification of the role of roofs as a PGIS was suggested. Section 5 (page 4): After a discussion regarding the method in which property owners are notified of their responsibility for the maintenance of a swale, it was suggested that swales be tied to easements so that the information will show up on a title report and realtors and citizens will be aware of swale maintenance responsibilities early in transfer of property. Section 6 (page 5): Mr. Hohman was asked to clarify the language in the first paragraph regarding design elements. It was not clear to several Commissioners. Section 11 (page 8): It was suggested that the language in Part A be rewritten so that it is clear the property owner is only responsible for the maintenance of vegetation surrounding a swale on their property. Mr. Hohman suggested inserting the provisions that go on the face of a plat in this section. Other issues of concern discussed: use of emerging technologies, in addition to swales, for stormwater maintenance; City responsibility for swale installation and maintenance in the case of street widening projects; and the approval of stormwater design and maintenance at a business construction before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued compared to that of the final inspection at a residence. The hearing was open to public testimony at 7:30 p.m. There being no one present to testify, the hearing was closed to public testimony at 7:30 p.m. Commissioners requested that they be given an opportunity to see their suggested revisions in writing before forwarding a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Gothmann moved that the Planning Commission table further discussion of the Stormwater Ordinance and continue the Public Hearing on Thursday, January 13, 2005. Commissioner Crosby seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing on the Stormwater Ordinance was tabled at 7:40 p.m., to be continued on Thursday, January 13, 2005. 3 The Commission took a ten-minute break in preparation for the Sign Code Study Session. Study Session: Revised Sign Code Ordinance. Commissioner Crosby served as Chair of the Ad Hoc Sign Committee. Other members present were: Eldonna Gossett, Duane Halliday, John Johnston, Ray Perry, David Quinn and Denny York. A Power Point presentation was shown to give the Planning Commission background on the work of the Sign Committee. Mr. Johnston pointed out that Evergreen had been omitted from the aesthetic corridor list on the slide. Ms. Sukup agreed to correct that omission. Questions and comments from the Planning Commission included: 1. How does a billboard cap and replace policy work for other cities? Mr. Halliday brought the idea from Boise, Idaho, and is not aware of how it works in any other city. 2. Is a mural considered part of the sign area? Sign area is defined as "copy area", so the mural is not a part of the total space allowed for written advertising. 3. Does this policy cover addresses on the sides of buildings? No. The Fire Department requires outside addresses, so they have no place in the City sign regulations. 4. Does this policy address signs that are not meant to be readable from the street? No, but the Committee did discuss this issue at length. 5. Are seasonal decorations addressed in this policy? Are they considered signs? They are not addressed in this policy, but perhaps ought to be contained in the "Temporary Sign" section. 6. What about temporary real estate signs and non-profit signs. Temporary real estate Signs are included as Temporary Signs. 7. Table 7.01, page 5: The chart does not really clarify the total number of signs a business can have on its premises. Can they have one of each: wall sign, pole sign and monument sign? This section needs to be clarified. 4 There was a lengthy conversation regarding aesthetic corridors and the billboard cap and replace policy. Ms. Sukup reminded Planning Commissioners that these two sections of the Code are contingent upon adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. In the meantime, the sections of the Revised Sign Code which address billboards and aesthetic corridors will be removed and a statement that the sections are "Reserved" will replace them. Commissioner Gothmann stated that he was impressed with how much clearer this proposed ordinance is compared to the several sign codes he downloaded and studied in preparation for this session. He is, however, passionately concerned that we are not looking far enough down the road at how we want our City to look as it grows (10-20 years from now) and that we are proposing a sign code which would merely maintain the status quo. He doesn't think that is what Valley citizens want. Commissioner Blum would like to see the City head toward creation of a more aesthetically pleasing community, instead of simply creating a revised sign code that makes it easier for the business community to advertise. The Revised Sign Code will be moved to Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on January 13, 2005. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Robertson thanked Eldonna Gossett, Director of the Valley Chamber of Commerce, for being present. Ms. Gossett stated that she has been impressed with the clarity that is coming out of City meetings. Commissioner Crosby will be a guest on her KSPN radio talk show tomorrow on a segment called "Signs in the City". On December 17th, Commission Robertson will be her guest for a segment called "Season of Sharing". XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Debi Alley, Administrative Assistant William H. Gothmann, Chairman 5 City of Spokane Valley Request for Planning Commission Review DATE: January 13, 2005 TYPE: ❑ Consent ® Old Business ❑ New Business .1 Public Hearing ® Legislation ❑ Information ❑ Administrative Report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing and consider a recommendation establishing Section 9.08 Stormwater Management Regulations of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, repealing provisions of the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management in conflict, providing for severability and effective date. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City Ordinance 03-032 Adopting by Reference, Spokane Co Guidelines for Stormwater Management as Interim Guidelines, Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission heard public testimony on December 9, 2004, and continued the Public Hearing to January 13, 2005. BACKGROUND: The City commissioned a study of the stormwater requirements in early 2004. The proposed Stormwater Management Regulations clarify the City's authority to condition development proposals, establish thresholds for regulated activities, provide design requirements for stormwater facilities, including allowances for design deviation, require inspections of facilities, enforcement and penalties for unauthorized discharges and establish property owner responsibility for maintenance. The effect of the proposal will minimize the degradation of water quality in surface and groundwater, reduce the impact of increased surface water flow, erosion, and sedimentation caused by development, promote site planning and development practices that are consistent with the topographical and hydrological conditions, and maintain and protect public and private property that is used and dedicated for stormwater management. Regulated activities include: D Minimize the degradation of water quality in surface and groundwater D Reduce the impact of increased surface water flow, erosion, and sedimentation caused by development D Promote site planning and development practices that are consistent with the topographical and hydrological conditions D Maintain and protect public and private property that is used and dedicated for stormwater management The proposed design requirements would reduce the size of swales in most cases by about 40% from the present formula. The formula for calculating facility requirements has been simplified such that the volume of the swale or pond V equals 1133 multiplied by the impervious surface. Stormwater facilities would need to be complete prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, with sureties allowed on a very limited basis. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, P.E., Senior Engineer CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.04-007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING SECTION 9.08 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE,REPEALING REGULATIONS IN CONFLICT,PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect public health by regulating the nation's drinking water supply. The Act authorized the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)to protect surface and groundwater supplies. WHEREAS, under the SDWA, EPA determined that the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer was the sole or principal source of drinking water in this region (Sole Source Aquifer or SSA). This determination meant that no federal financial assistance may be used in this region for any project which EPA determines may contaminate the aquifer resulting in significant hazards to public health or the environment. WHEREAS, the SDWA also established the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program to provide safeguards for underground sources of drinking water. EPA delegated UIC authority to the Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology). WHEREAS, EPA and Ecology have determined that public and private construction projects must meet groundwater protection standards and have recognized the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management as such standards. WHEREAS, through Ordinance No.03-32 the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management as amended, as the interim design guidelines for stormwater management within the City of Spokane Valley; WHEREAS, in order to provide for the continued management and control of stormwater within the City it is necessary to develop regulations that relate to the construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities within the City; and WHEREAS,the purpose of this ordinance is to provide authority for stormwater review, development and control with respect to the use of land, the construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities on public and private property, the unlawful discharge of pollutants into a stormwater facility, and other matters properly related thereto; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington do ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 9.08 of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code is hereby established to read as follows: "Section 9.08 Stormwater Management Regulations Section 9.08.01 Finding and Purpose. The increased flow of surface water from the use and development of real property within the City must be managed to protect persons, property, and 1 the environment. Stormwater facilities are a common feature of urban development which must be constructed and maintained when property is developed or redeveloped within a geographic area.The City shall implement policies and procedures to: (1)Minimize the degradation of water quality in surface and groundwater; (2) Reduce the impact from increased surface water flow, erosion and sedimentation caused by the development of property; (3)Promote site planning and land development practices that are consistent with the topographical and hydrological conditions; and (4) Maintain and protect public and private property that is used and dedicated for stormwater management. Section 9.08.02. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout this section: A. "Best management practices (BMP)" means currently available, feasible and generally accepted techniques or practices that mitigate the adverse impact from the uncontrolled stormwater on the environment, surrounding properties and infrastructure. B. "City Property" means real property owned by the City which may include easements, dedications and rights-of-way. C. "City Standards" means the "Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management" and other standards developed or recognized by the Director that relate to best management practices, threshold requirements for a site drainage plan, exemptions, permitting processes forms and such other matters for the administration of stormwater control. D. "Director" means the City Director of Public Works as authorized by the City Manager. E. "Erosion" means the disturbance of land or transportation of soil or other native materials by running water,wind, ice or other geological agents. F. "Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS)" means surfaces that are subject to vehicular use, industrial activities, or storage of erodible or leachable materials that receive direct rainfall, or run-on or blow-in rainfall.Metal roofs are PGIS unless coated with an inert, non-leachable material. Roofs that are subject to venting of commercial or industrial pollutants are also considered PGIS. A surface, whether paved or not, shall be considered PGIS if it is regularly used by motor vehicles. The following are considered regularly-used surfaces: roads, graveled and/or paved road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unfenced fire lanes, vehicular storage yards, and airport runways. G. "Site Drainage Plan" means a plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington that identifies the stormwater control area, stormwater facilities and other measures reasonably required by the Director. The plan shall contain analysis and recommendations based upon the "City Standards". H"Standard Soils"means soils comprised of the Natural Resources Conservation District groups: Garrison, Springdale,Bonner, and Hagen. 2 I. "Stormwater" means that portion of precipitation or snow melt that has not naturally percolated into the ground or otherwise evaporated, but is contained, transported or flowing above ground through streets, swales, channels, pipes, artificial or natural surfaces. J. "Stormwater Facility" means the drainage system including, but not limited to, drywell, channel, inlet, curb drop, swale, ditch, detention, retention, and/or infiltration facility designed to contain and control stormwater. K. "Swale" means a constructed depression for the treatment and disposal of stormwater runoff. The swale shall be designed by an engineer licensed in the state of Washington. L. "Threshold Requirements" means the level of development, volume, or peak flow of stormwater that must be controlled. M. "Performance Surety"means a financial guarantee that infrastructure required for a project will be constructed and certified according to the accepted plans and specifications and all applicable standards. N. "Warranty Surety" means a financial guarantee against defects in the construction of all required infrastructure for a project. Section 9.08.03. Regulated Activities. No person on any public or private real property located within the City, shall engage in the following regulated activities without first obtaining stormwater control approval from the City. The regulated activities for development are: (1) Grading of land in excess of 500 cubic yards so as to require environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act; (2) Construction of, or addition to, a building (except a single-family or duplex residence) or placement of impervious surfaces that exceed 5,000 square feet; and (3)The subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plan process as defined in RCW Chapter 58.17 and City Ordinance. Section 9.08.04. Authority to develop and administer standards. The Director shall develop and administer City Standards that relate to best management practices and the threshold requirements for the development of stormwater control facilities. The Director is further authorized to develop policies that relate to the submission and modification of stormwater, erosion and sediment control plans. Requirements and performance standards that include best management practices shall be designed to control and contain stormwater, reduce soil erosion and sedimentation through the use of temporary and permanent practices and facilities. The requirements shall be designed to permit flexibility in the choice of stormwater erosion and sediment control methods that meet the specific circumstances of each site and intended use. A. Review Process Following submittal of a request to engage in a regulated activity,the Director shall review the proposed regulated activity including any plans or other submitted material. The Director shall determine whether the regulated activity is exempt from review based upon the threshold requirements, or alternatively, whether the regulated activity complies with the standards, specifications and requirements contained in the City standards. The Director may require the submission of additional material and/or analysis to allow the proponent to demonstrate compliance with City Standards. 3 Section 9.08.05. Conditions of Approval. The Director is authorized to impose development requirements or conditions of approval for the regulated activities. The stormwater requirements or conditions may be placed on the subdivision, binding site plan, issued permit, or a recorded maintenance covenant and agreement may be placed upon a parcel or lot where drainage facilities will be developed. Conditions of approval shall be based on the City Standards, the preliminary Site Drainage Plan, engineering reports or other relevant data that promotes stormwater control, protection of adjacent properties, utilities or other stormwater facilities, slope stabilization and the environment. The recorded covenant and agreement shall be in substantially the following form. 1. "Buyer is purchasing from Seller Lot Block in the final plat of_recorded in the records of the Spokane County Auditor on the_day of , 200 at volume of Plats, Page , situated in the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington. 2. In accordance with the final plat and the Conditions of Approval thereof the above described lot contains an easement for a drainage swale into which stormwater flows from paved surfaces within the plat and from roadway and sidewalks adjacent to the plat. 3. The drainage swale has been constructed, sodded with grass, and connected to a sprinkler irrigation system. 4. The Parties desire to provide for the perpetual maintenance, repair and replacement of the drainage swale and its irrigation system. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein and the recitals stated above, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Buyer agrees to maintain the drainage swale on the lot described above by mowing, fertilizing and watering the grass in the swale to keep the grass healthy and the swale well-kept in appearance. 2. Buyer understands that the drainage swale is irrigated by a sprinkler system which is connected to the house constructed on the Lot described above, and that Buyer will be providing and paying for water to irrigate the drainage swale. In addition Buyer agrees to keep the drainage swale irrigation system in good repair and functional for its intended purpose. 3. Buyer agrees to remove litter and debris from the drainage swale and further agrees not to alter the shape or grade of the drainage swale nor place any object, structure, or vehicle within the drainage swale. 4. The City of Spokane Valley will clean and repair any drywells, inlets, and pipes that receive runoff from public right of way and conform to City access standards. 5. Buyer understands and agrees that if the drainage swale is not kept and maintained as provided herein, the City of Spokane Valley may undertake said maintenance and repair and charge Buyer for its labor and maintenance. 6. The Agreement shall run with the land in perpetuity unless revoked by the City of Spokane Valley." 4 The City may also enter into a development agreement with the person having ownership or control of the real property that is subject to this Ordinance. Such development agreement shall be entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170, et. sec. Section 9.08.06. Design Elements. Drainage facilities within single-family or two- family residential subdivisions shall be designed as follows: (1) Continuous swales running the length of the street located between the curb and sidewalk. These swales shall be within City right-of-way or within a border easement granted to the City, or; (2) Consolidated ponds or swales that are located on a separate tract or lot owned by a homeowners association or dedicated to the City. Consolidated ponds or swales are acceptable on private commercial developments. Section 9.08.07. Design Method. Drainage ponds and swales located in Garrison or other standard soils shall use the equation below to determine the size of the facility: V= 1133 A,where V=Volume of swale(cubic feet) A=Pollution generation impervious surface(acres) All swale designs within the City shall specify the use of an engineered treatment soil. This soil shall be placed at a minimum thickness of six inches between the native soil and the sod layer. Engineers designing drainage facilities located in non-standard soils must submit a design deviation in accordance with Section 9.08.08 and receive approval from the Director prior to utilizing the above method in their design. Geotechnical justification will be required. Section 9.08.08. Deviations and Appeals 1. Authority. The Director may grant a deviation from the requirements of this Ordinance or City Standards. In granting any deviation, the Director may prescribe conditions that are deemed necessary or desirable for the public interest. 2. Deviation Criteria. No deviation shall be granted unless the applicant demonstrates,to the satisfaction of the Director,the following: A.Deviations are based upon sound engineering principles,best management practices and are not inconsistent with the public interest in stormwater control and environmental protection; and B. The granting of the deviation will not be unduly detrimental or injurious to other properties in the vicinity and downstream. C. The proposed deviation does not conflict with or modify a condition of approval. D.Deviations meet requirements for safety, function, appearance, and maintainability. 3. Prior approval: Any deviation shall be approved prior to acceptance of residential and commercial construction plans and issuance of any building, approach, or site work permits. 5 4. Right of appeal: All actions of the Director in the administration and enforcement of this chapter shall be final and conclusive,unless within 15 days from notice of the Director's action,the applicant or an aggrieved party files a notice of appeal with the Hearing Examiner. Section 9.08.09. Stormwater Facility Construction and Certification. All stormwater facilities shall be completed and certified by the proponent's engineer prior to any final plat, short plat, binding site plan, or the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection for any associated building. At the discretion of the Director, a test of the facility may be performed to demonstrate adequate performance. The test shall be performed in the presence of Public Works personnel. Acceptance of performance sureties in lieu of completed improvements shall be permitted only when completion of improvements prior to final land action or permanent Certificate of Occupancy is impractical(i.e., due to construction season delays or other factors beyond the proponent's control). In the event that a performance surety is accepted by the Director, the proponent will complete the following measures prior to the release of the surety: 1.All aspects of the drainage facility, including landscaping, irrigation, and establishment of specified vegetation, shall be completed in accordance with the accepted plans on file with the City. The proponent's engineer shall certify the improvements and request an oversight inspection from Public Works personnel. 2. An exception may be granted for single-family or two-family residential subdivisions where the completion of the swales is not practical until such time as the dwellings are constructed. The proponent shall rough grade the swales to the required volume and install all drywells, inlets, curb drops and other structures in accordance with the accepted plans on file with the City. Erosion control measures shall be implemented to protect the installed drainage structures and to prevent erosion and/or failure of the swale side slopes. The completion of the landscaping, irrigation, and establishment of specified vegetation shall be required prior to issuance of the permanent Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection for any associated dwelling. A warranty surety shall be submitted to the City upon successful completion and certification of all public improvements to guarantee against defects in construction. The warranty surety will be for a period of two (2)years from the date the facility is accepted by the City. Section 9.08.10. Inspection. The Director is authorized to field inspect, as appropriate, street, building site, and drainage construction to verify conformance with City standards and the conditions of approval. Section 9.08.11. Property Owner Responsibilities. A. The property owner shall comply with provisions of this section and City standards. The property owner shall be responsible for repair, restoration, and perpetual maintenance of the stormwater facility installed on private property and any portion of the swale situated in a public right-of-way adjacent to their respective properties. For purposes of this chapter, "repair and restoration" shall mean conforming the stormwater facility to the plans on file with the City. This responsibility to repair, restore and maintain shall be imposed without regard to any fault or wrongful intention on the part of the property owner. "Maintenance" means preservation of the original area, volume, configuration and function of the stormwater facility as described in the plans. "Maintenance"also includes mowing, irrigating, and replacing when necessary,the lawn turf within the swales. The property owners within single-family and two-family residential 6 subdivisions are not responsible for maintenance of structures such as drywells, inlets, and pipes that receive runoff from public right of way and conform to City access standards. The City of Spokane Valley will maintain these structures upon acceptance of the public infrastructure. B. The property owner is responsible for keeping open the drainage and stormwater easements on their property. If a drainage or stormwater easement is unlawfully encroached upon or the function of a designated drainage or stormwater easement is reduced,the property owner is responsible for removing the encroachment or detriment. C. The property owner is responsible for keeping open maintenance access easements serving drainage facilities and drainage easements. D. The Property owner shall not place or permit,and shall immediately remove, vehicles, equipment, objects,refuse, garbage or litter from the Stormwater Facility. Section 9.08.12. Public Drainage Facilities. It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain,pour or otherwise discharge unauthorized waters or other liquids onto City property, rights-of-way, or border easements, without written permission of the Director. For purposes of this chapter,unauthorized waters include,but are not limited to: (a) Groundwater from springs or other natural or artificial sources, foundation drains, sump pumps, and other means of discharging groundwater to the surface; (b) Surface water containing sediment; (c) Discharges from swimming pools, hot tubs, detention or evaporation ponds; (d) Water discharged from the cleaning of containers or equipment used in laying, cutting, or processing concrete and mortar and the water used in such processes; (e) Water discharged from the cleaning of equipment or containers holding paint solvents or similar contaminants; and (1) Other water posing a safety hazard in the travel way or that could reduce the effectiveness of stormwater control and treatment facilities. Section 9.08.13. Failure to Comply—Nuisance. The following is declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance: (a) The placement, construction, or installation of any structure within, or the connection to, a public Stormwater Facility without written permission of the Director; or (b) The discharge of stormwater to a public Stormwater Facility without permission of the Director; or (c) The failure to construct or maintain the Stormwater Facility as required in the permit or site drainage plan; or (d) The placement or allowing the placement of vehicles, equipment, objects,refuse, garbage, or litter within the stormwater facility. Section 9.08 is subject to the provisions of Section 1.20: of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code. For purposes of this section "Director" shall be the Director of Public Works. Section 2. Repealer. Provisions of the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management in conflict are hereby repealed. Section 3, Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. 7 Section 4, Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five(5) days after date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2005. Mayor, Diana Wilhite ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge APPROVED AS TO FORM: Interim City Attorney, Cary Driskell Date of Publication: Effective Date: 8 City of Spokane Valley Request for Planning Commission Review DATE: January 13, 200,4' TYPE: ❑ Consent ® Old Business ❑ New Business ® Public Hearing ❑ Legislation ❑ Information ❑ Administrative Report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Continued Public Hearing - CPA-07-04 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley Interim Comprehensive Plan provides for an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The deadline for submitting Comprehensive Plan amendment requests was July 1, 2004. On September 23, 2004, the Commission considered eight Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. The Commission continued the hearing on File No. CPA-07-04 to allow time to consider all information submitted by the proponent and to allow time for City Staff to respond to public hearing testimony. On October 14, 2004, the Applicant requested the hearing to be continued in order to complete a traffic study. The Commission continued the hearing to November 18, 2004 to allow sufficient time for the Applicant to produce the traffic study and to allow City Staff time to review the study. On November 10, 2004, the Public Works Department received copies of the"Traffic Impact Analysis for Mansfield Avenue Corridor Assessment and Lawson Property" from Todd Whipple, PE. The Public Works Department requested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing to January 13, 2005, to allow sufficient time to review the study. The Public Works Department forwarded the information to the Spokane County Engineers Department, requesting that they review the traffic study. After a few weeks, the County Engineers informed Spokane Valley Public Works that they would not be able to complete the requested review. Spokane Valley Public Works then sent the information to the City's contract consultant, David Evans and Associates, for their expedited review. Attached to this RCA are comments from David Evans' Traffic Engineer. Spokane Valley Public Works received comment letters from the Department of Transportation and the Spokane Valley Fire Department, both recommending denial of the request to remove Mansfield from the Arterial Road Plan. Also attached is email correspondence from Union Pacific Railroad. The Applicant now requests that the hearing be continued to February to allow sufficient time to review comments produced by David Evans and Associates and agency comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed Arterial Road Plan Amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Memo from John Hohman to Marina Sukup with attached agency letters and email correspondence from Todd Whipple to Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planner S"�"okane ::, C .000 Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org •s.,- ,,.=t.�h_ - v2 .. A. w.. :4:._4�wW,e::..,<...:;.��.3..1.e.,. , sem,tom;. Memorandum To: Marina Sukup,AICP—Community Development Director From: John Hohman, P.E.—Senior EngineerV. /, "h 7/ Thru: Neil Kersten—Public Works Director %� Date: January 7, 2005 Re: Mansfield Avenue Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA-07-04) The Public Works Department, in conjunction with other agencies, has reviewed the proposal to remove the Mansfield Avenue extension from Mirabeau Parkway to Pines from the City's Arterial Road Plan.. I have attached letters of recommendation from the following agencies: • Greg Figg— Washington State Department of Transportation, Transportation Planner • John Trumbull—Union Pacific Railroad, Real Estate and Utilities Representative C • Norm Loftin— Spokane Valley Fire District#1, Deputy Fire Marshall • Inga Note, P.E., P.T.O.E. — David Evans and Associates Traffic Engineer • Bob Brueggeman, P.E. —Assistant Spokane County Engineer We concur with each agencies letter of recommendation. Based on these documents, our adopted standards, and desire to promote appropriate traffic circulation within the City, the Public Works Department recommends denial of this proposed comprehensive plan amendment. rt«. WiWashington State Eastern Region Department of Transportation 2714 N.Mayfair Street Douglas B. MacDonald Spokane,WA 99207-2090 Secretary of Transportation 509-324-6000 Fax 509-324-6005 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov January 6, 2005 Mr. Steve Worley City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Mansfield Ave. Comprehensive Plan Change Dear Mr. Worley; The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the requested comprehensive plan amendment to eliminate the connection of Mansfield Avenue to Mirabeau Park Drive. Our analysis of this situation indicates this connection should be maintained to provide for better traffic circulation. From recent traffic studies in this area the level of service (LOS) is projected to drop to "F" or failure at the Pines Road and Indiana Avenue intersection. Having a viable alternate connection that is signalized at Pines Road, such as Mansfield Avenue, will provide a relief valve for this traffic using Indiana Avenue. For this reason we support the Mansfield Avenue connection between Pines Road and Mirabeau Park Drive in the current comprehensive plan. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me at 324-6199. Sincerely, 7 1-1 Greg Figg Transportation Planner cc: Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers Project File Sandra Raskell From: Steve Worley Sot: Thursday, January 06, 2005 1:07 PM o: Sandra Raskell; John Hohman; Neil Kersten Subject: FW: FW: Spokane Valley RR Crossing E. of Pines Rd. Mansfield.pdf(24 KB) FYI Steve M. Worley Original Message • From: JWTRUMBU@up.com [mailto:JWTRUMBU@up.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:04 AM To: Steve Worley Subject: Re: FW: Spokane Valley RR Crossing E. of Pines Rd. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this developers request. The Union Pacific Railroad's policy is "No new at-grade road crossings" When developing new accesses that require the crossing of Railroad tracks, it is just good engineering to construct a grade separation. Here at this location, the railroad tracks may be removed in conjunction with le proposed "Bridge the Valley" project. This proposed project will move our main line .text to the BNSF tracks through the Spokane Valley. Thereby, there would be no need for our existing tracks and the tracks could be removed. As for a time frame, it is projected that we could move our operations over to the BNSF sometime year 2011. There is a high percentage that this construction will begin Spring - 2006 and run through year 2013. As far as any potential delays, with any major project like this there are delays possible. Pertaining to the disposition of the track and R/W, will be handled by our Real Estate Dept. The tracks would be removed by a contractor and the R/W could be sold for various reason's. Roadway's, adjacent property owners, etc. If you have any additional questions, please give me a call at 503-872-1809. Thank you. "Steve Worley" <sworley@spokanev To: <jwtrumbu@up.com> alley.org> cc: Subject: FW: Spokane Valley RR Crossing E. of Pines Rd. 01/04/05 06:47 PM )hn, Thanks for taking time to talk with me today about the UPRR's position on new at-grade 1 crossings. As I mentioned in our telephone conversation the City of Spokane Valley received a proposal from a developer's engineer requesting that we approve an extension of Houk Road to Indiana Avenue across the UPRR R/W in lieu of extending Mansfield Avenue. Please see the attached map that shows the subject area north of I-90 and east of Pines Road (SR27) in Spokane Valley. The developers are asking that this alternate route be approved based on the fact that the Bridging the Valley (BTV) project will eventually eliminate the UPRR tracks in this area and Houk Road can be extended to Indiana Avenue. Would you be able to send me a letter giving the UPRR's position on this proposed extension of Houk to Indiana across the UPRR ROW? It would be helpful if you could address in your letter the following issues from the UPRR's perspective: 1. The current status of funding for the BTV project 2. The current schedule for the BTV project and any potential delays 3. When the UPRR could move their mainline operation to the BNSF corridor, and 4. The time frame for abandonment procedures and final disposition of the UPRR R/W in the subject area We (Public Works Dept. ) are scheduled to present our case to our Planning Commission on January 13th and will be recommending that this proposal not be approved. Any information you can provide from your perspective regarding this issue prior to the 13th would be appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks in advance for your time. Sincerely, Steve M. Worley, P.E. Senior Engineer - Capital Projects City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509) 688-0191 (509) 921-1008 fax This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. (See attached file: Mansfield.pdf) 2 „NaE "' SPOKANE VALLEY ARE DEPARTMENT Si r Spokane County Fire District 1 NAL " 10319 EAST SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE,WA 99206-3676 • (509)928-1700 • FAX(509)892-4125 Mork Grover Chlet January 7, 2005 Sandra Raskell City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Proposed amendment to CPA-07-04 for Shannon Ave Apts. Dear Ms. Raskell: It has been brought to my attention that an application has been made to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission to amend the adopted Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Arterial Road Map (CPA-07-04) for the proposed alignment of Mansfield Avenue between Pines/Houk and Mirabeau Parkway. The Spokane Valley Fire Department, with concurrence with the Spokane Valley Building Department, recommends denial based on the following items. 1. Currently there are approximately 500 dwelling units compressed into an area that is served by only a single road. The residents of this area must converge onto Mansfield and exit the area at Pines. The potential does exist that this single road could be impaired with traffic congestion, weather conditions or other factors. This places the existing residents at a risk of not being able to flee a major emergency. Adding another 168 dwelling units will increase that risk. The current CPA addresses this issue by planning for a second access onto Mirabeau Parkway. 2. Current Fire Code requires a second means of egress when there are more than 30 single family residences. The Fire Code allows for 100 dwelling units, in multi-family complexes before a second means of egress is needed. If all the dwelling units are protected with a fire suppression system, then the number can be doubled before requiring the second means of egress. Of the 500 existing units in this area, less than one-half have a suppression system. A second means of egress is required before any additional dwellings are built. This proposed change to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Arterial Road Map (CPA-07-04) will create an unacceptable risk for life and property. We therefore request that you do not allow this variance from the Code. Norman Loftin, CFI Deputy Fire Marshal Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Q:\Dept Data Unshared\Prevention Unshared\Plats\Shorties\Raskell.doc via'''= January 7, 2005 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Attn: Planning Commission Members SUBJECT: MANSFIELD AVENUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT At the request of City staff, David Evans and Associates, Inc. has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,along with the documentation supporting the application. Summary We recommend denial of this application and maintain the Mansfield Avenue extension in the arterial street plan based on the following: 1. The application appears to be driven solely by one property owner's desire to avoid building a collector-arterial roadway through his property and is not in the best interest of Spokane Valley residents. 2. The application relies upon a future Houk Street extension across the existing UPRR tracks. Although the applicant suggests that this may be available by 2009, statements from the UPRR, an analysis of the funding for Bridging the Valley, and the process for railroad right-of-way abandonment make 2013 or beyond a more realistic timeframe. 3. A through connection of Mansfield Avenue between Pines and Mirabeau Parkway provides a direct east-west alternative to Indiana Avenue, and reduces existing traffic volumes and congestion at Indiana/Pines. 4. With the existing apartment complexes and proposed residential uses immediately to the east, it is logical to provide through access for local trips to the Spokane Valley YMCA and other future developments along Mirabeau Parkway. Responses to Changed Conditions The application lists seven Changed Conditions as justification for this proposal. 1. Mansfield Avenue remains an unfunded roadway on the arterial road system between Houk and Mirabeau Parkway. As with most new roadways, the segment of Mansfield Avenue between the apartment complex and Mirabeau Parkway would be built by the property owners. This would be required as a condition of approval for development of their property. 2. The Pines Road Corridor Project has remained unfunded and slowly moving forward, if moving forward at all. The Pines Road Corridor Project recently received from the SRTC all the remaining funds($1.16 million) necessary for the completion of the project. WSDOT has been updating their analysis and layout for this project during the past year, and will soon be starting on the detailed design work. West 110 Cataldo Spokane,Washington 99201 Telephone: 509-327-8697 Facsimile: 509-327-7345 CIF 3. The Bridging the Valley Railroad Realignment Project is moving forward with the vacation of the 1 rPRR line planned for 2009 to 2012. The Bridging the Valley project is currently unfunded, and the 2009 timeline was based upon the assumption of funds becoming available immediately for design and construction. The UPRR will not allow a new crossing of this line while still in use. In addition, once the railroad ceases operation on the line, it can take up to 2 years to complete the right-of-way abandonment procedures. Once abandoned, the right-of-way may be sold to any responsible party, and there is no guarantee of obtaining a crossing. 4. Houk Street extended represents a$600,000 to$800,000 cost savings to the City of Spokane Valle y. This statement is assumed to be based upon the cost of purchasing the six-plex residential unit thai lies in the path of a Mansfield extension. The source of this estimate is unknown and may or may not be reflective of the true value. In addition,this statement does not account for the cost to build a new signal at Indiana/Houk (at least $250,000), or to extend Houk across the railroad right-of-way. Furthermore, the lack of a seconthry east-west through route may limit the development potential of this area. 5. Mansfield Avenue was designated based upon insufficient documentation and process as a future arterial roadway. This area was analyzed in a 1998 study by Inland Pacific Engineering, prepared and stamped by the applicant's Traffic Engineer(Todd Whipple), who recommended the following to improve circulation through the study area: "3. Montgomery Avenue access would be revised east of the"tee"with the on-ramp It is the intent that Mansfield Avenue replace Montgomery as the primary east-west collector/arterials as future construction east of Pines Road will tie Mansfield into Mirabeau point Drive for access to the mall and points east. 7. Mansfield Avenue would be extended east from approximately the Houk/Mansfield intersection on a new alignment to connect to the east/west road in the Mirabeau Point project adjacent to the proposed YMCA site. Collector arterial design standards would be used for the new roadway. This connection will make the collector/arterial east/west mobility link complete by providing access to the mall and other proposed developments." 6. Development within this corridor is behind original projections for growth and infrastructure need. The scope and timing of development is changing constantly. The Mansfield Avenue connection is on the arterial street plan so that it may be built when appropriate. 7. Indiana Avenue within this vicinity remains an underutilized facility. Indiana Avenue has a sufficient number of lanes for additional traffic east of the Pines Interchange. However, the true capacity of the roadway is defined at the intersections. The intersection of Pines/Indiana is currently at or nearing capacity in its current configuration. The Pines Corridor Improvement project will primarily fix existing problems, and will not provide a capacity increase. Sincerely, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 4 Inga Note, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer SPKV0000-0001 \\SPK I\VOLT\PROJECT\S\SPKV0000000I\0600INFO\TT\Development Review\Mansfield Avenue\L-CityofSpokaneValley-O]0605.doc West 110 Cataldo Spokane,Washington 99201 Telephone: 509-327-8697 Facsimile: 509-327-7345 ilt- Ili. ` ,,4;,y � ,-:>,it4,-;.�.;. O U N T S P O K A N E -" '� DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT December 27, 2004 John Hohman City of Spokane Valley ECEnwEB 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Ste. 106DEC 2 8 E0Q4 Spokane Valley WA 99206 r--\Q1' RE: Mansfield Avenue Corridor Assessment and Pinlir Uri � ' Lawson Development Traffic Impact Analysis Dear John: Due to the volume of technical data included in the above referenced document and the lack of available staff time of Spokane County to review this submittal, Spokane County is not capable of performing an in-depth review of this submittal. I have reviewed the narrative portion of this report and offer the following cursory comments. The document inaccurately represents the status of several projects within the study area due to either unavailable information to the applicant's consultant or changed conditions. 1) The Pines/Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project was recently awarded federal funding which makes the project financially sound and construction can proceed. 2) The Bridging The Valley Project was portrayed in the document as a "sure thing" when it infact is not funded for construction. 3) Houk Street construction across the Union Pacific Railroad is subject to several approval processes, not the least of which is approval by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. As an example of the omnibus effort to achieve the suggested mitigation, I have attached documents as they relate to the Commission's attempt to close crossings in this area rather than any willingness to approve new ones. As'you will see from the attached WUTC Findings of Fact, the applicant's consultant was a testifying party in the hearing process concerning the closing of Shannon Road and may be able to expand on the process. 4) The decision on the purchase of an existing apartment building is a financial decision or potential mitigation condition that is best decided by the City of Spokane Valley. Based on the above comments, I believe that it may be premature to remove Mansfield Avenue from the City's arterial road plan. If you have questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at 477-3600. Sincerely,y, ;fie/ ,..,6,/, -1 '-2.� ' obert F. Bruegge an, P.E. Assistant County Engineer 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane,WA 99260-0170 • (509)477-3600 FAX: (509)477-7655 (2nd Floor)477-7478 (3rd Floor) • TDD: (509)477-7133 SERvI(,F DATE JUN 11 1997 :BEFORE'THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION }j LJ:NION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ) ) DOCKET NO. TR-950177 ,�c�. :. +; Petitioner, E'' ,'L ) COMMISSION DECISION AND v. ) ORDER APPROVING AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE CLOSING OF SPOKANE COUNTY, ) THE SHANNON ROAD CROSSING; AUTHORIZING RELOCATION AND Respondent. ) RECONSTRUCTION This is a petition by Union Pacific Railroad Company for closure of the crossing at grade of Shannon Road by tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad in Spokane County, Washington. On July 3, 1996, the Commission entered a final order, ordering the closure of the crossing and staying the order to allow the parties to formulate and present an agreed plan to accomplish needed changes to serve approved and planned development in the vicinity of the crossing. The order concluded that the crossing is dangerous and is incapable of safely handling an increase in traffic flow in its present configuration. The order found that need is indicated on the record for an improved crossing either at Shannon Road or nearby to handle traffic from development that is proposed and that the County has already approved for the area. On February 25, 1997, the parties filed with the Commission a joint motion for Commission approval of an agreement concerning the closing of the crossing. The parties have reached the following agreement: (a) Close Shannon Road crossing Union Pacific Railroad to public use; and (b) Install locked gate at the crossing to accommodate fire protection access needs; until (c) Reconstruction of the crossing at a new location approximately 1 ,100 feet further east consisting of shoulder mounted signals and gates inter-tied with highway traffic signal and hard surface roadway. The Commission has reviewed the record and the agreement of the parties. The agreement is consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Commission's final order. Approval of the agreement is in the public interest. The Commission will approve the agreement, subject to standard minimum conditions relating to the relocation and reconstruction of the crossing. DOCKET NO. TR-950177 PAGE 3 h. The crossing and signals shall be constructed in accordance with the design as shown in the attached agreement. I. Upon completing the installation herein authorized, Union Pacific Railroad Company shall report completion to the commission. Acceptance of the installation is subject to a compliance inspection and report by the Commission Staff verifying that the installation and operation of the signals are in full compliance with law and regulation and conditions specified herein. 4. In the event federal funds are available and are used to pay all or a portion of the costs of the installation of the proposed signalization, the cost of installation and maintenance thereof shall be subject to the provisions of RCW 81 .53.267, .271 , .281 , and .295, as amended. DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this //- day of June 1997. WASHINGTON UTILITIES .4 .. 9 TRANSPORT• i ' to MISSION 4 •• X, . i • RICHARD HEMSTAD, Commissioner ILLIAM G LI , Commissioner NOTICE TO PARTIES: This is a final order of the Commission. In addition to judicial review, administrative relief may be available through a petition for reconsideration, filed within 10 days of the service of this order pursuant to RCW 34.05.470 and WAC 480-09-810, or a petition for rehearing pursuant to RCW 80.04.200 or RCW 81 .04.200 and WAC 480-09-820(1). crossing. On July 3, 1996, the Commission modified the initial order and ordered that the grade crossing at Shannon Road be closed. The Commission stayed the closure of the crossing on the following condition: The parties to this proceeding should be afforded a stay of 120 days in which to develop, in consultation with other interested persons, both short-term and longer- term plans for protecting public safety at the Shannon Road crossing by closing, partially closing, relocating, replacing, and/or reconstructing and signalizing the existing crossing. . . . If parties reach agreement, the stay shall continue for such further time as may be needed for the Commission to act on the proposal. . . Commission Decision and Order Granting Petition; Modifying Initial Order; Closing Shannon Road Crossing; Authorizing Stay, Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Spokane County, Docket No. TR-950177 (July 3, 1996) at 18. 1.4 Pursuant to the Commission's order, the parties have reached the following agreement to: (a) Close Shannon Road crossing Union Pacific Railroad to public use; and (b) Install locked gate at the crossing to accommodate fire protection access needs; until (c) Reconstruction of the crossing at a new location approximately 1,100 feet further east consisting of shoulder mounted signals and gates inter-tied with highway traffic signal and hard surface roadway. A letter memorializing the agreement, along with a preliminary sketch of the proposed reconstruction and a copy of Spokane County Resolution No. 96-1020, adopted October 29, 1996, which approved of the agreement are attached as Exhibit 1 to this motion. JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT- 2 ZR 1. S P O K A N .-;rr t2ls; ;•:•i • E ,--IELAV: p: rr C O U N T Y DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT William A.Johns,P.E.,County Engineer Dennis M.Scott,P.E.,Director October 30, 1996 . Steve McLellan, Secretary Wash. Utilities & Trans. Commission 1300 South Evergreen Park Drive SW PO Box 47250 Olympia WA 98504-7250 • RE: Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Spokane County (Shannon Road) Docket No. TR-950177 Dear Mr. McLellan: . Spokane County has met with the parties to this above referenced proceeding and other persons having interest in adjacent properties. We have reached verbal agreement to: a) Close Shannon Road crossing Union Pacific Railroad to public use, and b) Install locked gate at the crossing to accommodate fire protection access needs, until c) Reconstruction of the crossing at a new location approximately 1, 1.00 feet further east consisting of shoulder mounted signals and gates inter-tied with highway traffic signal and hard surface roadway. I have enclosed a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County authorizing execution of agreements for this action and a preliminary sketch of the proposed reconstruction. I request by copy of this correspondence that Union Pacific Railroad Company certify to the Commission their agreement with the above. • When the Commission is satisfied that the conditions of the Order to this proceeding have been met, please notify the parties to implement steps (a) and (b) outlined above. - Very truly yours, William A. Johns, P.E. Spokane County Engineer • Robert F. Brueg‘an, P.E. Traffic Engineer cc: John Trumbull, UPRR Mgr. Industry and Public Projects EXHIBIT 1 1026 W.Broadway Ave. Spokane,WA 99260-0170 • (509)456-3600 FAX:(509)324-3478 TDD:(509)324-3166 RESOLUTION NO. 36 1020 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON • IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING ) • AGREEMENT TO RELOCATE AND ) R E S O L U T I O N RECONSTRUCT SHANNON ROAD ) RAILROAD CROSSING ) COUNTY ENGINEER'S ROAD FILE NO. 280 ) WHEREAS, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted the petition of Union Pacific Railroad Company for closure of the Shannon Road crossing in the Road Maintenance District No. 4; and WHEREAS, Spokane County deems a crossing in this area is necessary for traffic circulation; and WHEREAS, the parties to this proceeding in consultation with othcr interested persons agreed that the needs of the public would be best served by: a. Closing Shannon Road Crossing to the public. b. Installing a locked gate at the crossing to allow for access for fire protection. c. Reconstruction and relocation of Shannon Road Crossing to a location Eastward approximately 1,100 feet with a hard surface roadway, flashing signals and gates prior to development; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that agreements be executed by Spokane County for approval by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Union Pacific Railroad Company. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the project agreements for relocation and reconstruction of: SHANNON ROAD/UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CROSSING are hereby approved and that the Chairman of the Board is authorized to sign the agreements. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, this 29th day of October, 1996. • • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS o t:o, , OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON �•• 7.NE C• .�Y I 4 'a° ^I �� 2 �l . • i L pP- IP D HARRI HAIRMAN • % /hit a. 'N •OSKELLEY ,00" STEV ASSON Pr ATTEST: W IAM E. DONAHUE , L ' OF THE BOARD • By: %�'i/t• �•�i�/1 i� ROS•NNE MONTAGUE, DEPUTY • . amu............. SERv(r.>= r.)ATE • JUL - 31996 - • BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ) ) Petitioner, ) DOCKET NO. TR-950177 ) v. ) ) COMMISSION DECISION AND SPOKANE COUNTY, ) ORDER GRANTING PETITION; ) MODIFYING INITIAL ORDER; Respondent. ) CLOSING gIANNON ROAD; CROSSING, AUTHORIZING STAY ) Nature of Proceeding: This is a petition by Union Pacific Railroad Company for closure of the crossing at grade of Shannon Road by tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad in Spokane County, Washington. Initial Order: Administrative Law Judge John Prusia entered an initial order that would deny the petition, fording that present and future need justify the crossing. Post-hearing process: Commission Staff and the Railroad both petition for administrative review. They contend that the dangers at the crossing outweigh public need; that public access may be served by nearby crossings; and that it is error to consider future need in determining whether a crossing shall be closed or remain open. Commission Staff asks that the crossing be closed unconditionally; the Railroad asks that the crossing be closed or in the alternative be allowed to remain open only if the County requests that the crossing be improved and that electronic signals be installed prior to commencement of construction of new development already authorized for the area. The County did^not answer the petition. Commission: The crossing is shown to be dangerous and to be incapable of safely handling an increase in traffic flow. The Shannon Road crossing should be closed or improved and signalized to protect the public. Need is indicated on the record for an improved crossing either at Shannon Road or nearby to handle traffic from development that is proposed and that the County has already approved for the area. The initial order is reversed and the crossing is ordered closed. This order may be stayed for 120 days to allow the parties to formulate and present an agreed plan to accomplish needed changes to serve approved and planned development. The Commission will consider a further stay if a plan is presented that would protect the public safety and welfare and satisfy the public interest. Appearances: Carolyn Larson, attorney, Portland, Oregon, represented petitioner Union Pacific Railroad. Ross Kelley, assistant county engineer, Spokane, represented Spokane County. Shannon E. Smith, assistant attorney general, represented Commission Staff. DOCKET NO. TR-950177 PAGE 3 The Crossing and Current Surroundings and Uses A rather extensive discussion of facts is needed to set the scene for the parties' contentions and the Commission's action. The Shannon Road crossing is located in Spokane County at Railroad Milepost 10.10, east of the city of Spokane. The tracks run in an east- west direction at the point where Shannon Road crosses them. The tracks are to the north of and parallel to Interstate 90 in the vicinity of the Shannon crossing. The vicinity of the crossing is shown in Figure 1 (from Exhibits 4 and 13). Shannon Road crosses the tracks at a right angle. Immediately north of the crossing, Shannon Road makes an abrupt turn to the west and parallels the tracks for approximately a quarter mile. The roadway then meanders north and west, first as Houk Street and then as Mansfield Road, until it intersects with Pines Road. Pines Road is a north/south arterial that crosses the same tracks about one-half mile west of the Shannon Road Crossing. Pines Road is congested at times. The roadway intersection of Pines with Mansfield is not signalized. South of the crossing, Shannon Road runs north-south for about 200 feet until it joins Indiana Avenue in a "T" intersection. Indiana Avenue at that location is a spur running east from Pines Road between and parallel to the tracks and I-90. The area to the east of the crossing is vacant land. To the west of the crossing, north of the tracks, lies a residential neighborhood consisting mostly of apartment complexes, along the meandering roadway (Shannon/Houk/ Mansfield) that runs from the crossing to Pines Road. The Shannon Road crossing provides one of two exits from the neighborhood, the other being at the intersection of Pines Road and Mansfield Road. To the west of the crossing, south of the tracks, there is some light industrial and commercial development along Indiana Avenue. In the vicinity of the crossing, Shannon Road is unpaved. It is a narrow gravel road with no curbs or sidewalks. Approximately 50 vehicles per day use the Shannon crossing. The crossing's principal current use is as a short-cut between the residential neighborhood northwest of the crossing and businesses south of the crossing. The Shannon Road crossing is protected only by crossbuck signs. No witness was aware of any accidents that have occurred at the Shannon Road crossing. A single set of tracks crosses Shannon Road. They are Union Pacific's main line from Spokane to Eastport, Idaho, where the Railroad interchanges with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Approximately four heavy-tonnage trains, usually consisting of 100 cars or more, travel over the crossing at variable times each night, seven days a week. In addition, five days a week a switch engine train of approximately ten cars moves over the crossing twice a day, and the Coeur d'Alene local, also with about ten cars, moves over the crossing twice a day. In addition; two extra trains carrying-grain Or ore move over the crossing each week. The speed of trains across the Shannon Road crossing is about 20 miles per hour. DOCKET NO. TR-950177 PAGE 5 Development Activity in the Vicinity Proposals to develop parcels of land on both sides of the tracks between Pines Road and Sullivan Road are actively in the planning stage. Several projects already have been approved. These projects include the following. 1. A regional mall has been approved for an area northwest of the intersection of I-90 and Sullivan Road, between the tracks and I-90. Associated with that, an extension of Indiana Avenue eastward to Sullivan Road has been approved. When the extension is completed, Indiana Avenue will connect Sullivan Road and Pines Road. Construction of Indiana Avenue and the mall are scheduled to begin in the spring of 1996. When Indiana Avenue is completed, the Shannon Road crossing will lie on an alternate route connecting Pines Road to the mall. 2. A vacant 40-acre parcel lying north of the portion of Shannon Road that parallels the tracks on the north side, known as the Lawson-Gunning property, has been rezoned to permit single family homes. The developers of that parcel presently are seeking another rezoning which would permit much denser land use, and plan to build apattuient complexes on the site. The developers are in the process of preparing an environmental impact study, including the effects of traffic that the development would generate on nearby roads and the signalization that may be necessary at the Shannon crossing. Although it is not part of the current rezone application, the current thinking of the property owners is that if their and other proposed developments occur, Shannon Road probably would be moved 200 to 300 feet north through the Lawson-Gunning property, where it would connect with a new north/south street which would cross the tracks at the Shannon Avenue crossing. The new road would be an extension of McDonald Road, which already exists south of I-90. 3. Inland Empire Paper Company owns 230 acres lying northeast of the crossing, bounded on the south by the tracks and on the north and east by the Spokane River. The parcel is called "Maribeau Point." The Walk in the Wild Zoo has occupied part of the parcel for the last 20 years or so. The zoo has closed and is moving to Idaho, freeing the area for development. The paper company began a master planning process for the property in the fall of 1995. It will donate 71 acres of the site to a nonprofit organization called Maribeau Point, Incorporated, to develop a community complex and locate the YMCA and other facilities. The group envisions a community complex which would provide an educational center for the community colleges and the East Valley School District, as well as a performing arts center and a senior center. The YMCA has committed to a facility that would include an aquatic center, a teen center, and substantial play areas. The group also envisions an amphitheater and a trail system. It envisions the location as a focal point for the whole Spokane valley, offering recreational, entertainment, and educational opportunities. Surrounding the core would be a future commercial and future residential area, possibly a future R.V. park, a hotel complex, and a business park. They have a commitment from'a major ice arena. DOCKET NO. TR-950177 PAGE 7 The Railroad notes that the Commission may require improvement of the crossing as a condition of allowing it to remain open' and asks that the Commission condition any denial of its petition for closure conditional upon application by the County for authority to reengineer and signalize the crossing before the County authorizes developments that would increase crossing use. Spokane County did not answer the petition for administrative review. Discussion and Decision The Commission is the principal agency charged with protecting the public safety at railroad crossings, under the guidance of standards established by the legislature and the courts. The initial order thoroughly analyzed prior decisions outlining the Commission's authority and stating its discretion to evaluate dangers in making its decisions.'Here, the question appears to be whether the present public need for alternate emergency access and egress (or the danger imposed on the public from a lack of that access and egress) outweigh danger to the public from allowing the crossing to remain open without any planned improvements during a period of expected rapid growth in vehicle traffic. Any crossing is dangerous, as the legislature has provided and the courts have affirmed. Here, additional dangers abound. The road at the crossing is unpaved. The crossing has no electronic signals nor even a stop sign protecting it and the County plans no petition for signalization. The roadway makes an abrupt turn to the north of the crossing, restricting drivers' ability to see trains on the track and oncoming traffic, and limiting the holding capacity of the road. Trains traverse the crossing relatively infrequently, which lulls drivers into a sense of complacency. (1,2) Based on present circumstances, the Commission believes that the crossing should be closed. Use of the crossing now is as an alternate to paved, improved and signalized crossings or as a short cut to avoid longer travels to improved crossings. Only 50 vehicles daily use the crossing — some two per hour on a 24-hour average. Because primary access via safer routes is readily available, albeit less convenient for some travelers, the Commission believes that the additional access provided by the crossing is desirable but not essential and that the dangers posed by the crossing outweigh the need for additional access. As the Commission Staff witness testified, controverting the fire department statement of 'Department of Transportation v. Snohomish County, 35 Wn.2d 247, 212 P.2d 829 (1949) 2The Commission notes the extensive discussions of judicial and prior Commission cases in the initial order and adopts those references as though included herein. DOCKET NO. .I R-950177 PAGE 9 access at the crossing without endangering the public. This might involve some interim improvements to the crossing; some enhancements of signage at the crossing; "breakaway" gates as suggested by witnesses; and/or other means to provide needed public protection. The parties should consider, if not decide, longer-range needs for public crossings in the area. Several alternative engineering solutions were offered on the record, including redesigning approaches to the existing crossing and relocating the crossing, in addition to the addition of signalization and perhaps automatic gates. A grade separation was also mentioned as a possibility, albeit limited by engineering requirements. If the parties do not resolve long-range crossing plans, they should conduct such long range planning as may be necessary to determine whether their recommended short range plans are consistent with long range needs and to determine a schedule for completing detailed longer-range plans and crossing modifications. It appears important that landowners and developers participate in discussions. Their concepts of need for improvements and the concepts of means to achieve them may differ from those of the County, the Railroad, and the Commission Staff. It is important that affected interests at least understand the perspectives of others and it is preferable for the parties to achieve consensus. Finally, it is important that all the parties have a realistic understanding of alternative means to satisfy the requirements of safety; of the costs, of the availability of funding to meet those costs, and to have the opportunity to participate in discussions of needed improvements and of creative ways to assure funding for those improvements. The parties may submit an agreed proposal to the Commission for its review under this docket number within the time specified in this order. The stay will then continue for such additional time as the Commission requires to review and act upon the proposal. If the Commission approves an interim proposal or a variation thereof, it may limit the approval to a finite period pending solution of Ionger-range needs. As appropriate, the Commission may modify this order to allow the crossing to remain open, may impose conditions on closure, or may modify the proposal as needed for public safety, while longer term plans are being concluded and implemented. (6) If the parties fail to reach and present an agreement acceptable to all in the allotted time, the stay will expire without further Commission action and the crossing must be closed. It should be clear, however, that if the crossing is closed the County may petition for it to be reopened at any time upon a showing of changed circumstances -- i.e., that need exists and that the public safety will be sufficiently protected. This resolution is offered as a means to meet all of the interests described on the record -- private development, local government, railroad, and public safety -- and to provide incentive for all affected interests to participate in developing a solution that satisfies those interests. Any risk to public safety from a stay of closure is minimized by requiring an immediate and interim improvement to the crossing by installation of stop signs; by requiring DOCKET NO. TR-950177 PAGE 11 4. The roadway that meanders between the Shannon Road crossing and Pines Road on the north side of the tracks passes through an area of small acreages and apartment house complexes. Before reaching the crossing from the west, Shannon Road parallels the tracks along the northern boundary of the right of way for about a quarter mile, then makes a sharp turn across the tracks, and then intersects with Indiana Avenue. The only signals at the crossing are railroad crossbucks. 5. On the south or Indiana Avenue side of the crossing, there are some businesses. The only people who use the crossing regularly appear to be people who live in the apai tnient complexes north of the tracks and work in those businesses south of the tracks. The property to the north of the crossing presently is zoned rural residential and light industrial. Keeping the crossing open is not necessary to accommodate uses that are allowed by that zoning. 6. If more vehicles begin to use this crossing, the potential for accidents is great because of the crossing's existing configuration and protection. When a vehicle approaching the crossing from the north turns so that the driver can look down the tracks, the person is virtually on the tracks. The proper procedure for achieving crossing improvements would be a petition for reconfiguration, and for either a gated crossing with electronic signals or an over or under crossing. If Shannon Road were reconfigured to eliminate the sharp right angle turn, it would make it safer. Widening and paving the road and installing electronic signals also would make the crossing safer. 7. The crossing at Pines Road has flashing Iights and cantilever gates to warn of approaching trains and protect motor vehicle traffic. It is a much safer crossing than the existing Shannon Road crossing for that reason. 8. Ray McDeid testified for Union Pacific in support of the petition. Mr. McDeid is a contract employee of the Union Pacific. He worked for the Union Pacific for 38 years, until retiring from the claims agent position in Spokane two years ago. In his job as a claims representative he investigated, handled, and settled liability claims resulting from grade crossing accidents and employee injuries. He is familiar with the Union Pacific crossings in the Spokane area. 9. The track is a mainline track from Spokane to Eastport, Idaho, where the Union Pacific interchanges with the Canadian Pacific. The track presently is used only by freight trains. At the Shannon Road crossing, the trains operate at a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour. A small train of ten cars would take 500 feet to stop at that speed. Longer trains would take farther to stop. Approximately four heavy tonnage trains, usually consisting of 100 cars or more, travel over the crossing at variable times each night, seven days a week. In addition, five days a week a switch engine train of approximately ten cars moves over the crossing twice a day, and the Coeur d'Alene local, also with about ten cars, moves over the crossing twice a day. In addition, two extra trains carrying grain or ores move over the crossing each week. DOCKET NO. TR-950177 PAGE 17 200 feet south of the tracks in the vicinity of the Shannon Road crossing. The County has already approved Indiana Avenue's design. Plans for construction of the avenue and drainage areas are already under way. 34. Chris Ashenbrenner, Spokane, testified as a public witness in opposition to closure, representing the Lawson-Gunning landowners. The planning process for a zone change and the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") require a lengthy opportunity for interested agencies to make comments. In Spokane County, the landowner is required to go to various agencies and attempt to reach agreements that will satisfy their concerns. The landowners are already going through that process. They have had extensive discussions with the State Department of Transportation. Because of air quality problems along Pines, the department does not want more traffic routed there. Completion of planned developments north of the tracks may depend on the Shannon Road crossing remaining open or the construction of an alternate grade or grade-separated crossing. 35. David Carlson, Spokane, testified as a public witness in opposition to closure, representing Hanson Industries, Incorporated. His company is one of those developing the area south and east of the Shannon Road crossing. The proposed regional mall will begin construction in the spring of 1996. Plans of Indiana Avenue have been approved. It would not be possible to build an undercrossing or overcrossing from Indiana across the tracks at any point along Indiana. At its farthest point, which is at Shannon Road, Indiana will be about 200 feet from the tracks. Hanson's project is not dependent on the Shannon crossing remaining open, but connecting development of the area north of the tracks with that south of the tracks would have some positive economic impact on it. 36. Installation of stop signs requiring oncoming motor vehicle traffic to stop before using the crossing would improve safety for the existing use of the crossing sufficient to permit a stay of closure allowing parties to pursue consensus regarding short and long-term improvements to the crossing. 37. After the record closed, the Commission received a letter from Karl Bold dated February 1, 1996. The letter is a follow-up to Mr. Bold's testimony. The letter is rejected as untimely and cannot be considered. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this petition. 2. The existing crossing at grade at Shannon Road on the Union Pacific railroad line east of Spokane is hazardous. s Existing need for alternate emergency access and egress does not outweigh the hazards of the present crossing. The increased public hazard DOCKET NO. TR-950177 PAGE 19 the parties to develop and present to the Commission appropriate agreed plans for public protection at the crossing. DATED at OIympia, Washington, and effective this-) /"C/ day of July 1996. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 411/ CSX 7 SHARON L. NELSON, Chairman 1, . w40% ,-4.°1 r RICH• ' I H MSTAD, Commissioner WILLIAM . GILL S, Commissioner NOTICE TO PARTIES: This is a final order of the Commission. In addition to judicial review, administrative relief may be available through a petition for reconsideration, filed within 10 days of the service of this order pursuant to RCW 34.05.470 and WAC 480-09-810, or a petition for rehearing pursuant to RCW 80.04.200 or RCW 81.04.200 and WAC 480-09-820(1). Page 1 of 1 Scott Kuhta From: Todd Whipple [TRWatWCE@msn.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:55 AM To: Scott Kuhta; Sandra Raskell; John Hohman Cc: Chris Ashenbrenner; Bill Lawson Subject: Mansfield Avenue Comprehensive Plan Change Importance: High Scott, As you know the City has had trials and tribulations with Spokane County in trying to get our submittal on this issue reviewed and resolved. In meeting with Sandra and in discussions with John Hohman, they both indicated that the City has now sent the package to David Evans and Associates for review. Because, there are only 3 or 4 work days between now and the hearing, we are asking for a continuance into February, so that we can have ample opportunity to review comments from DEA as well as to begin a dialogue with the City that could possibly resolve this issue. Therefore, please advise the Planning Commission and Staff that at this time the Applicant is requesting a continuance to February to facilitate City review of our submittal and for the Applicant to have ample opportunity to review any comments that may result from the City's review. Please advise as to this request. Todd R. Whipple, P.E. Todd R. Whipple, P.E. Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Civil and Transportation Engineering 13218 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Wk Ph 509-893-2617 Cell Ph 509-995-2939 Wk Fax 509-926-0227 I Hm Fax 509-928-0525 Email - TRWatWCE@msn.com 1/7/2005 AWCE November 10, 2004 W.O. 2004-30 ® C --EmiE -h) Development Engineering Division11-3 NOV 1 0 2004 City of Spokane Valley I 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 J ° ILC iCAX2 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Sandra Raskell Re: Lawson Property and Mansfield Avenue Access Traffic Analysis Traffic Study Submittal Dear Sandra, Enclosed with this submittal are two copies of the traffic study with appendix. Please review this document and let me know if you need anything clarified or have any questions on the study. The purpose of this study was to perform an impact study for the proposed Lawson property and analyze the Mansfield Avenue corridor access options to Indiana. Basically, the findings of the study show the need for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Pines & Mansfield in the short term. For the 20-year scenario, the Houk extension to Indiana is the best for providing access from Mansfield back to Indiana east of Pines. This is based on the capacity analysis of the surrounding intersections and a cost analysis between the two options, extending Houk or extending Mansfield. Basically, the findings of the capacity analysis showed that in the 20-year scenario, the intersection of Pines & Mansfield would be degraded more with Mansfield as a through connection to Mirabeau than with the Houk Street extension. The biggest reason for this is that the future traffic from the Mirabeau Point project is given the option of using the intersection of Pines & Mansfield for access to Pines with Mansfield extended. Whereas, without the Mansfield extension, the Mirabeau Point traffic to Pines would use the intersection of Pines & Mirabeau as was intended in the original Mirabeau Point traffic study. The costs associated with Houk Street are estimated between $150k and $300k for the extension with the possibility of requiring a new traffic signal at the intersection of Houk & Indiana in the long term ($150k). In order to extend Mansfield from Houk Street to the Lawson property boundary, a 6-plex multi-family property must be purchase ($600k to WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS • CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 E SPRAGUE AVENUE • SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 • PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 City of Spokane Valley Crapo — Riverside Duplexes— Plan Submittal and Drainage November 10, 2004 Page 2 $800k). Therefore, the costs associated with the Houk Street extension are less than the extension of Mansfield. Please review this document and let us know if there is anything we can offer assistance in expediting your review or understanding of the issues at hand. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to call either at 893-2617, my cell at 891-2803 or Todd's cell at 995-2939. Sincerely, s /./. Craig A. MacPhee, EIT Attachments - Traffic Study (2 copies with appendix) Cc: Chris Ashenbrener—A & A Construction Bill Lawson File T` " 4FFIC IMPACT A /A. LYSIS Mansfield Avenue Corridor Assessment Spokane Valley, Washington November 10, 2004 2004-30 Prepared by: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 13218 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 (509) 893-2617 This report has been prepared by the staff of Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. including Craig A. MacPhee, EIT under the direction of the undersigned professional engineer whose seal and signature appears hereon. •,:. s ..� :14c •fy 761 'ervi-t-J- , . 254.67 '4 b 414 u ,.'S.. `el. j} At. a. ,.t` 6 -4. . . . �Exs w24/ t4 Todd R. Whipple, P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 6 Introduction, Purpose of Report and Study Area 6 Mansfield Avenue Access Options 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 Existing Conditions Within Study Area 9 Land Use &Zoning 9 Existing Roadways 9 Study Area Intersections 9 Traffic Control and Descriptions 9 Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE 11 Signalized Intersections 11 Unsignalized Intersections 11 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 13 TRAFFIC SAFETY 15 AMBIENT TRAFFIC GROWTH 15 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION 17 Trip Generation Characteristics for the Proposed Project 17 Trip Distribution Characteristics for the Proposed Project 17 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 19 Year 2005 Level of Service 20 Year 2010 Level of Service 21 Year 2015 Level of Service 24 Year 2025 Level of Service 26 CONCLUSIONS 28 RECOMMENDATIONS 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Vicinity Map .......33 Figure 2 - Site Map 34 Figure 3—Mansfield Avenue Access Options Exhibit .......35 Figure 4 - Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...36 Figure 5— General Trip Distribution for Lawson/Hamilton Sites .•.37 Figure 6— General Trip Distribution for Mirabeau Point 38 Figure 7— Year 2005 Without Project Traffic Volumes •••39 Figure 8— Year 2005 Site Generated Traffic ...40 Figure 9— Year 2005 With Project(No Pines Improvements) Traffic Volumes 41 Figure 10— Year 2010 Without Project(No Pines Improvements) Traffic Volumes 42 Figure 11 — Year 2010 With Project(No Pines Improvements) Traffic Volumes.. 43 Figure 12— Year 2010 Without Project(Pines Improved) Traffic Volumes 44 Figure 13— Year 2010 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #1 45 Figure 14— Year 2010 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #1 46 Figure 15— Year 2010 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #2 47 Figure 16— Year 2010 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #2 48 Figure 17— Year 2010 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #3 49 Figure 18— Year 2010 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #3 50 Figure 19— Year 2010 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #4 51 Figure 20— Year 2010 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #4 52 Figure 21 — Year 2010 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #5 53 Figure 22— Year 2010 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #5 54 Figure 23 — Year 2010 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #6 55 Figure 24— Year 2010 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #6 56 Figure 25— Year 2015 Without Project(Pines Improved) Traffic Volumes 57 Figure 26— Year 2015 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #1 58 Figure 27— Year 2015 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #1 59 Figure 28— Year 2015 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #2 60 Figure 29— Year 2015 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #2 61 Figure 30— Year 2015 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #3 62 Figure 31 — Year 2015 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #3 63 Figure 32— Year 2015 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #4 64 Figure 33 — Year 2015 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #4 65 Figure 34— Year 2015 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #5 66 Figure 35— Year 2015 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #5 67 Figure 36— Year 2015 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #6 68 Figure 37— Year 2015 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #6 69 Figure 38— Year 2025 Without Project(Pines Improved) Traffic Volumes 70 Figure 39— Year 2025 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #1 71 Figure 40— Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #1 72 Figure 41 — Year 2025 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #2 73 Figure 42— Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #2 74 Figure 43— Year 2025 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #3 75 Figure 44— Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #3 76 Figure 45— Year 2025 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #4 77 Figure 46— Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #4 78 Figure 47— Year 2025 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #5 79 Figure 48— Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #5 80 Figure 49— Year 2025 Site Generated Traffic Volumes, Option #6 81 Figure 50— Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes, Option #6 82 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 —Existing Intersections Levels of Service 13 Table 2 -Accident Data for Intersection within the Study Area 15 Table 3 - Proposed Multi-Family Residential Trip Generation Characteristics 17 Table 4 - Year 2005 Levels of Service 20 Table 5- Year 2010 Levels of Service 21 Table 6— Year 2010 LOS for Various Mansfield Corridor Access Options 22 Table 7— Year 2015 LOS for Various Mansfield Corridor Access Options 22 Table 8— Year 2025 LOS for Various Mansfield Corridor Access Options 22 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Level of Service Methods, Criteria and Tables Background Traffic Information —Mirabeau Point Trip Generation Raw Traffic Counts Accident Data Level of Service Calculations for Existing Conditions Level of Service Calculations for 2005 Without Project Level of Service Calculations for 2005 With Phase 1 of Lawson Project Level of Service Calculations for 2010 Without Project and No Pines Improvements Level of Service Calculations for 2010 With Project, No Pines Improvements Level of Service Calculations for 2010 With Projects Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Option #5 Option #6 Level of Service Calculations for 2015 With Projects Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Option #5 Option #6 Level of Service Calculations for 2015 With Projects Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Option #5 Option #6 EXECUTIVE SU",/MARY Supplemental to a rezone and building permit application for the Lawson proposed multi-family residential project and a request to remove Mansfield Avenue from the City of Spokane Valley's arterial road plan, this traffic study and the following summary applies. 1. The City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT have established level of service D as the minimum acceptable level of service at signalized intersections and level of service E at unsignalized intersections within the study area. 2. There are three developments in the vicinity that would potentially access Mansfield and are referred to as the Lawson project, Hamilton (formerly Gunning) project, and Mirabeau Point. Lawson and Hamilton are both apartment complexes, with approximately 365 apartment units planned for each. Mirabeau Point is a multi-use development that includes a YMCA facility, business park, office buildings, community center, hotel, and RV park. 3. It is anticipated that the Lawson and Hamilton projects will each generate 186 AM peak hour trips, 226 PM peak hour trips, and 2,453 average daily trips (ADT). Mirabeau Point is anticipated to generated 566 PM peak hour trips for the first phase, which is partially complete. Phase 2 of Mirabeau Point is anticipated to generate 1,279 PM peak hour trips per a 1997 TIA published by IPEC. 4. This study focuses on the PM peak hour conditions. 5. The Lawson site is currently accessed from Shannon Avenue which feeds exclusively to the intersection of Mansfield & Pines. Alternate access options are examined within this study that include an extension of Houk Street south of Shannon across the Union Pacific Railroad to Indiana and an extension of Mansfield from Houk Street to Mirabeau Parkway. 6. The Pines Road Corridor Study prepared for Spokane County and WSDOT (IPEC 1998) proposed significant changes to the 1-90 Westbound ramps and their intersections with Pines Road and Indiana Avenue, the Indiana Avenue and Pines Road intersection as well as the alignment of Montgomery as far back as Wilbur Street and the UPRR crossing of Pines Road. These improvements are planned to be completed, but funding for the project is not sufficient at this time. These improvements will remove the intersection of 1-90 Westbound ramps and Pines, forcing traffic to/from westbound 1-90 to use the Indiana and Montgomery Ramp terminals. Additionally, eastbound Montgomery Drive is planned to be relocated to Mansfield Avenue at Pines Road. This is intended to improve level Whipple Consulting Engineers 1 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue of service at the intersection of Indiana & Pines, which it does. However, it 1 , creates additional capacity issues at the intersection of Pines & Mansfield. This 1 _ project could be completed as soon as next year(2005) if funded, but may be another several years before completed. ` • 7. The relocation of Montgomery to Mansfield at Pines requires a connection from Mansfield east of Pines to access Indiana. At the present time, there is no connection due to the UPRR. The intent of the Montgomery relocation is to remove traffic from the intersection of Pines & Indiana. Without a connection, when Montgomery is relocated as a part of the Pines Road Corridor Improvements, the intent of the Montgomery relocation will be lost as Mansfield & Pines goes to LOS F. Per the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan, Mansfield is proposed to be 41-c extended from Pines Road to Mirabeau Parkway. To do this, the City must purchase a 6-plex which lies in the path between Houk and the Lawson property. N" ,, i'i' The remaining portion of unfinished roadway lies on the Lawson and Hamilton ". properties. The cost of purchasing the 6-plex is estimated between $600k and Ri' $800k. Based on the cost associate with this improvement, it is anticipated that this project may not be economically feasible (within budget) to be completed prior to 2015. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that this connection could be made as soon as 2010. Another option to provide a connection for Mansfield down to Indiana east of Pines is to extend Houk Street south of Shannon, across the Union Pacific Railroad. This option has not always been available and has come about �q'` P Y �°/"'; �; because of the Bridging the Valley project that will result in vacation of the rail line. It is anticipated that the vacation of the UPRR could happen as soon as i,. L� 2009, but likely will not occur until 2012 at the earliest. Therefore, the extension of Houk Street south to Indiana is not anticipated as an option until 2015, but may be available by 2010.- tiio7 8. All but two of the intersections in the study area are presently functioning at acceptable levels of service. The intersections of Pines & Mansfield and Pines & Indiana are functioning below acceptable levels of service. Both of these intersections are included in the Pines Road Corridor improvement project, which is planned for completion in 2005, but has yet to secure funding. 9. This analysis was completed for several future year conditions, 2005, 2010, .2015, and 2025. For 2005 and 2010 options were examined that assumed no_ 1,-,�'4 "` `' development or transportation improvements occur to establish baselines. The two other intersections, aside from those listed in item 8 will fall below acceptable levels in 2010 if no improvements are completed. The intersections of Mirabeau Whipple Consulting Engineers 2 Lawson Property-Mansfield Avenue , L. & Pines and !n & I-90 Westbound Ramps will fall to LOS F. Underground signal infrastructure is currently in place at the intersection of Mirabeau & Pines as this intersection has been identified as requiring signalization in previous studies. A traffic signal will be installed at this intersection when warrants are met. The other three intersections, namely Pines & Mansfield, Pines & Indiana;` and Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps, are included in the Pines Road Corridor improvements. -,- ' ,;. 10. 1n 2005, it was assumed that Phase 1 of the Lawson project would be complete:';.; -. This includes approximately 168 apartment units. In 2010, the build out of the Dry :; ._f;':' '` ,. .X. C. Lawson property is anticipated to be complete (365 units) as well as the first phase of the Hamilton property_and a_portion of the_fiirst.phase of Mirabeau...- / Point. The same four intersections identified in item 9 above will function below` - acceptable levels.of service. The impact of the development completed in 2005: and 2010 will not degrade any of the intersections to,unacce table levels of service. However, the-delay at the intersection of Mansfield & Pines will be so great during the peak hours that safety will be a concern. Therefore, as a part of - the Lawson project, a traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Mansfield & Pines, unless the Pines Road project has previously installed this signal. 9. Six separate options were also examined for the 2010, 2015, and 2025 conditions to evaluate the access options associated with the proposed removal of Mansfield Avenue from the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan. Each year condition assumes a certain amount of development completed which follows. - Year 2010: Lawson property is at build out (365 units), Hamilton Phase 1 is complete (168 apartment units), the portion of the first phase of Mirabeau Point north of Mansfield and west of Mirabeau including the community center is complete - Year 2015: Lawson property is at build out (365 units), Hamilton is at build out (365 units), and Phase 1 of Mirabeau Point is complete. - Year 2025: Lawson and Hamilton properties are at build out and Phase 1 and 2 of Mirabeau Point is complete including an extension of Mansfield from Mirabeau to a new Evergreen intersection at Indiana (assumes UPRR is gone) . The six options that were examined for each condition allow for an assessment to be made of whether access to Indiana from Mansfield is required and what connection should be considered the best option. A description of the six options follows. Whipple Consulting Engineers 3 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue - Option#1: Mansfield is not extended in any direction from its existing condition and Houk Street is not extended to Indiana. - Option#2: Mansfield is extended (east only) across the Hamilton property allowing for access from the Lawson property to Mirabeau Parkway. Mansfield is not extended as a public roadway across the Lawson property. Houk Street is not extended to Indiana - Option #3: Mansfield is extended from Houk Street to its existing terminus at the Hamilton / Mirabeau Point property boundary. This establishes Mansfield as a through connection from Pines Road to Mirabeau Parkway. Houk Street is not extended to Indiana Avenue. - Option #4: Mansfield is extended across the Hamilton property allowing for access from the Lawson property to Mirabeau. Mansfield is not extended as a public roadway across the Lawson property. Houk Street is extended across the UPRR to Indiana Avenue. - Option#5: Mansfield is not extended in any direction from its existing condition, but Houk Street is extended across the UPRR to Indiana. - Option#6: Mansfield is extended from Houk Street to its existing terminus at the Hamilton / Mirabeau Point property boundary. This establishes Mansfield as a through connection from Pines Road to Mirabeau Parkway. Houk Street is also extended across the UPRR to Indiana Avenue providing an alternate access. 10.Based on the analysis of each of the six options outlined above in the three future years (2010, 2015, and 2025), the access treatment for Mansfield Avenue was derived. In all of theear conditions analyzed, Options#1 and #2 show � .° =t'' Y Yz � -r,�ti�� f significantly higher degradation of the intersection of Pines & Mansfield than the pry;`.,,,r: other four options. Additionally, these options will require the signalization of '3' Indiana & Off-Ramps in the short term whereas this does_not occur_until_beyond r_ ' 2015 for the other options. Therefore, Options#1 and #2 are not viable alternatives for the access associated with Mansfield Avenue east of Pines Road ; in the long term. The other four are all viable options in the short term (2010). These should be considered conceptually when considering the 6-plex and UPRR vacation timelines. The difference between the last four options is seen in the 2025 condition at the intersection of Mansfield & Pines. Options#4 and #5 show significantly less delay at the intersection than Options#3 and #6. This is due to (" p,',the through connection of Mansfield Avenue from Pines to Mirabeau Parkway. k In 2025, the Mirabeau Point project is anticipated to be complete. With the through connection of Mansfield, traffic from Mirabeau Point can and will access Pines at Mansfield. The original traffic study for Mirabeau Point did not have any traffic directed to this intersection since its proposed access was at Mirabeau Parkway & Pines and Mirabeau Parkway& Indiana. Therefore, Options#4 and Whipple Consulting Engineers 4 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue • #5 are the best from a capacity standpoint for short term and long term. From a cost-benefit standpoint, Option #5 is the most practical. Options#3 and #6 both include the extension of Mansfield from Houk Street to the eastern Hamilton property line. This would require the City of Spokane Valley to purchase an existing residential 6-plex that lies in the path of the future roadway. The remainder of the extension would be completed by the development of Lawson and Hamilton properties and essentially bisect both of these properties. X14 Options#4 and #5 include the extension of Houk without connecting Mansfield, thus not requiring the taking of the 6-plex. Houk is proposed to be extended i from Shannon Avenue across the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)to Indiana ' =:";, • Avenue. UPRR will be vacated as a part of the Bridging the Valley project. The. '_ 11// l cost of extending Houk Street ($150K to $300K) versus purchasing a 6-plex ($600K to $800K)for the Mansfield extension favors the Houk Street extension �'`"%r. `` ,z alternative. 1• '•` n 11.Should the Houk extension be completed, it is anticipated that the intersection of Cy' ;af_..'' -. Houk Street & Indiana Avenue will meet signal warrants by the year 2025. Therefore, with the Houk extension it should be anticipated that a traffic signal will need to be installed sometime after the extension is completed. 12. The Pines / 1-90 westbound ramp terminals will be reconfigured with the Pines Road Corridor Improvements. Specifically, the intersection of Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps will be removed. This will require the northbound Pines to westbound 1-90 traffic to turn left at Indiana to access the westbound on-ramp via Montgomery. In previous studies, this volume was such that the reconfigured intersection of Pines & Indiana could handle this left turn volume. However, based on the recount of this traffic movement and the anticipated growth, the volume of this movement is approaching 900 vph during the peak hours, causing a heavy burden on the Pines & Indiana intersection capacity. Based on this information, a loop ramp for northbound Pines to westbound 1-90 should be considered to accommodate this anticipated high volume traffic movement. Whipple Consulting Engineers 5 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue INTRODUCTION Introduction, Purpose of Report and Study Area The purpose of this study is to provide a detailed analysis of the A &A Construction (Lawson) development proposed along a portion of Mansfield Avenue within the City of Spokane Valley. This portion of Mansfield lies between Houk Street and Mirabeau Parkway, which has been requested to be removed from the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan. The affected future development of this portion of Mansfield Avenue includes the Lawson project, Hamilton (Gunning) project, and Mirabeau Point. The Lawson and Hamiton projects were both modeled as apartment projects of 365 units each for the purposes of this analysis. Mirabeau Point is a multi-use development which has been partially completed. It includes a YMCA (completed), WDOE building (under construction), community center, RV Park, office buildings, and a business park. This traffic impact analysis is required by the City of Spokane Valley and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)to provide further traffic analysis of Mansfield Avenue, its intersection with Pines Road (SR 27), the associated 1-90/ Pines interchange, and its connection to Mirabeau parkway. Mansfield is shown on the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan providing a direct connection in the future from Pines to Mirabeau. This study will assess the need for this Mansfield connection and investigate alternative solutions to the traffic issues at hand. Figure 1 is a vicinity map of the surrounding area. Figure 2 is a preliminary site plan. The purpose of this analysis is to review, assess and identify potential traffic related impacts that may incur by extending Manfield, not extending it, or extending it partially and where possible minimize these impacts. This analysis will be completed in accordance with the current traffic guidelines from the City of Spokane Valley, WSDOT, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (A Recommended Practice - Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development, 1991). The project study area for this area wide analysis is based on several previous studies of this area and through conversations with the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, and WSDOT to include the following intersections of: • Pines Road & Mirabeau Parkway • Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue • Pines Road & Indiana / Montgomery • Pines Road & 1-90 Westbound Ramps • Montgomery Avenue & 1-90 on-ramp • Indiana Avenue & 1-90 off-ramp • Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield Avenue Whipple Consulting Engineers 6 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue • Indiana Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway • Indiana Avenue & Evergreen Road • Indiana Avenue & Houk Street (future) o Mansfield Avenue & Houk Street (future) The study will focus on the characteristics of these intersections under future years and options. These intersections will be examined under existing conditions and as anticipated in the future with and without the various land use projects noted. The intersections that include Houk Street are only analyzed in future scenarios as they do not currently exist. Mansfield Avenue Access 0.ti.ns As it stands today, the Lawson site is accessed from Shannon Avenue. Shannon connects to Houk, which extends to Mansfield. In order for traffic to access the surrounding transportation system, all of the traffic from this site would need to use the intersection of Mansfield & Pines. If Mansfield is extended from Pines to Mirabeau Parkway as a through connection, the site would access both Shannon and Mansfield. This alternative is part of the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan and would allow additional access for the proposed project along with other existing and future uses along this corridor. This report will assess these and other access alternatives. See the site plan on Figure 2 for location of future accesses. Figure 3 shows an exhibit of the six different connection alternatives associated with this study as they are listed below. All alternatives assume that the Pines corridor improvements will take place in the future when funding is available, but in all instances it is assumed it place by 2010. Below are the six alternatives to be used for the horizon years analyzed. 1. Everything basically remains the same. Mansfield is not extended in any direction, and Houk is not extended to Indiana. 2. Mansfield is extended from the east to the project boundary allowing this project to access through Pines & Mansfieldjr Mirabeau & Mansfield. No connection to Indiana is made from Houk. I. 3. Mansfield is connected through from its existing terminus at Houk to Mirabeau Parkway allowing this project and others to travel between Pines and Mirabeau on Mansfield. It also allows existing traffic that normally would use Indiana as the east-west arterial to use Mansfield as an east-west arterial. No connection to Indiana is made from Houk. 4. Mansfield is extended from the east to the project boundary allowing this project access to Pines from Shannon & Houk and Mirabeau from Mansfield. Also, a connection to Houk is made to Indiana, allowing both traffic from Montgomery to continue to Indiana via Houk and traffic from the project to access Indiana via Houk. 5. Everything basically remains the same. Mansfield is not extended in any direction, but Houk is extended to Indiana. Whipple Consulting Engineers 7 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue 6. Mansfield is extended as a through connection from Pines to Mirabeau. Houk is extended to Indiana. The relocation of Montgomery to Mansfield at Pines requires a connection from Mansfield east of Pines to access Indiana. At the present time, there is no connection due to the UPRR. The intent of the Montgomery relocation is to remove traffic from the intersection of Pines & Indiana. Without a connection, when Montgomery is relocated as a part of the Pines Road Corridor Improvements, the intent of the Montgomery relocation will be lost as Mansfield & Pines goes to LOS F. Per the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan, Mansfield is proposed to be extended from Pines Road to Mirabeau Parkway. To do this, the City must purchase a 6-plex which lies in the path between Houk and the Lawson property. The remaining portion of unfinished roadway lies on the Lawson and Hamilton properties. The cost of purchasing the 6-plex is estimated between $600k and $800k. Based on the cost associate with this improvement, it is anticipated that this project may not be economically feasible (within budget)to be completed prior to 2015. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that this connection could be made as soon as 2010. Another option to provide a connection for Mansfield down to Indiana east of Pines is to extend Houk Street south of Shannon, across the Union Pacific Railroad. This option has not always been available and has come about because of the Bridging the Valley project that will result in vacation of the rail line. It is anticipated that the vacation of the UPRR could happen as soon as 2009, but likely will not occur until 2012 at the earliest. Therefore, the extension of Houk Street south to Indiana is not anticipated as an option until 2015, but may be available by 2010. Whipple Consulting Engineers 8 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Conditions Within Study Area Land Use & Zoning At the present time, the Lawson and Hamilton (Gunning) sites are vacant. The Mirabeau Point site is partially completed with Mirabeau Parkway completed from Indiana Avenue to Pines Road and Mansfield west to the westerly project boundary. The Lawson and Hamilton sites are undergoing a rezone application to zone the sites to UR-22. Mansfield currently primarily serves multi-family residential uses east its intersection with Pines. West of Pines it serves a mix of single family, multi-family and industrial uses. Existing Roadways Currently Pines Road and Evergreen Road serve as the regional north-south arterials. Both arterials provide access to 1-90, which lies to the south. Indiana Avenue serves as the east-west arterial for the vicinity. As it currently stands, this five-lane facility has a large amount of under utilized capacity, east/west capacity between Sullivan & Pines Road. Mansfield Avenue, although on the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan serves more like a neighborhood collector. To the east of Pines, it extends to Houk Street, where the roadway turns south and ends a few hundred feet later at Shannon Avenue. It is a single lane approach on both sides of Pines Road. Study Area Intersections Project study area intersections are based on previous studies of the area and through discussions with the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT personnel. The study encompasses the following eleven intersections. • Pines Road & Mirabeau Parkway • Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue • Pines Road & Indiana / Montgomery • Pines Road & 1-90 Westbound Ramps • Montgomery Avenue & I-90 on-ramp • Indiana Avenue & 1-90 off-ramp • Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield Avenue • Indiana Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway • Indiana Avenue & Evergreen Road Whipple Consulting Engineers 9 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue • Indiana Avenue & Houk Street(future) • Mansfield Avenue & Houk Street (future) These intersections have been analyzed for level of service (LOS)for the weekday PM peak hour and form the basis of this document. Traffic Control and Descriptions Four of the intersections within the study area currently are signalized, namely Pines & Indiana, Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps, Indiana & Mirabeau, and Indiana & Evergreen. The remaining intersections within the study area are unsignalized with stop control on one or more legs. The need for traffic signalization has previously been identified in a previous study at the intersections of Pines & Mirabeau and Pines &Mansfield. The intersection of Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps is planned to be removed as a part of the Pines Corridor Study improvements. In the Pines Corridor Study, eastbound Montgomery is planned to be relocated to Mansfield and all of the westbound traffic onto 1-90 is moved to the Montgomery ramp terminal. ? Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation Traffic counts were collected at these intersections during May 2004 under the direction of Whipple Consulting Engineers and also provided by The Transpo Group. The peak hours from these counts are shown on Figure 4. The raw data for these counts are shown in the technical appendix. Since the weekday PM peak hour has been identified as the time period when the greatest traffic demands are placed on the surrounding transportation system, this will be the time period utilized by this study for analyzing the proposed action. Whipple Consulting Engineers 10 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue LEVEL 40,F SERVICE 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 the 2000 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 that may lead to system breakdown due to volumes that may far exceed capacity. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of level of service. The technical appendix of this report, includes a section on the Level of Service, Methods and Criteria. The tables in the technical appendix identify the relationships between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. The City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT have adopted level of service D as the minimum acceptable level for all signalized intersections. Unsignalized Intersections The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one/two-way stop-controlled intersection is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the delay experienced by each movement and approach within the intersection. The concept of delay as presented for unsignalized intersections in the Highway Capacity Manual is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in the intersection. Vehicles passing straight through the intersection on the major (uncontrolled) street experience no delay at the intersection. On the other hand, vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through vehicles on both the minor and major streets, must spend more time at the intersection. Levels of service are assigned to individual movements and approaches within the intersection, and are based upon the delay experienced by each movement or approach. The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for unsignalized intersections should be, by designating level of service A through F, where level of service A represents a facility where no vehicle in any movement is delayed very long and level of service F which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in at least one movement in the intersection. The City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT have adopted level of service E for Whipple Consulting Engineers 11 Lawson Property—Mansfield Avenue unsignalized intersections within the study area. All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which are only for the peak hours of operation. Whipple Consulting Engineers 12 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The existing levels of service at the subject intersections were calculated using the methods from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual as implemented in Synchro v.6 (build 612). Based on conversations with Spokane County and WSDOT, the Syncho level of service methodologies and output were used for signalized intersections. A saturation flow rate of 1650 vphpl was used for all intersections per a WSDOT requirement which the WSDOT believes brings Synchro in line with HCM results. The existing levels of service for the intersections within the study area are summarized on the following table. The existing traffic volumes used for this report are shown on Figure 3. Table ' - Existing Intersections Levels of Service INTERSECTION PM Peak (S)ignalized • (U)nsignalized Delay LOS Pines Road & Mirabeau Parkway U 32.4 sec D Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue U 558.8 sec F Pines Road & Indiana Avenue S 61.1 sec E Pines Road & 1-90 Westbound Ramps S 52.1 sec D Montgomery Avenue & 1-90 on-ramp U 8.8 sec A Indiana Avenue & 1-90 off-ramp U 16.4 sec C Mansfield Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway U 0.0 sec A Indiana Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway S 9.9 sec A Indiana Avenue & Evergreen Road S 13.8 sec B The City of Spokane Valley and WSDOT have established level of service D as the minimum acceptable level for signalized intersections and level of service E for unsignalized intersections. As shown in the table above, all but two of the intersections in the study area are functioning at acceptable levels of service. The intersections of Pines & Mansfield and Pines & Indiana are both functioning below acceptable levels. Both of these intersections are planned for improvements as a part of the Pines corridor project. However, funding for this project is not yet in place and it is uncertain when this project would take place. n,� ;;r ; - As proposed, the Pines Road Corridor project will realign Montgomery est of Pines Road to the north at Mansfield. Mansfield & Pines will be signalized. The intersection of Pines Road & I-90 Westbound Ramps will be eliminated. All of the traffic on and off of 1-90 will use the existing ramp terminals on Indiana. The west leg of the intersection of Pines becomes one-way to the west and accommodates all of the westbound interstate bound traffic. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Pines Whipple Consulting Engineers 13 Lawson Property—Mansfield Avenue i • 1: 1. I. corridor project will not be completed for at least another two or three years. ( ,7. The relocation of Montgomery to Mansfield at Pines requires a connection from '`' '�j Mansfield east of Pines to access Indiana. At the present time, there is no connection due to the UPRR. The intent of the Montgomery relocation is to remove traffic from the intersection of Pines & Indiana. Without a connection, when Montgomery is relocated as a part of the Pines Road Corridor Improvements, the intent of the Montgomery, , -1 -01:7 relocation will be lost as Mansfield & Pines goes to LOS F. <:`. . 1 _ 1,t4u9�2 Or,�aCCr"1 Per the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan, Mansfield is proposed to be extended from Pines Road to Mirabeau Parkway. To do this, the City must purchase a 6-plex which lies in the path between Houk and the Lawson property. The remaining portion of unfinished roadway lies on the Lawson and Hamilton properties. The cost of purchasing the 6-plex is estimated between $600k and $800k. Based on the cost associate with this improvement, it is anticipated that this project may not be economically feasible (within budget) to be completed prior to 2015. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that this connection could be made as soon as 2010. Another option to provide a connection for Mansfield down to Indiana east of Pines is to extend Houk Street south of Shannon, across the Union Pacific Railroad. This option has not always been available and has come about because of the Bridging the Valley project that will result in vacation of the rail line. It is anticipated that the vacation of the UPRR could happen as soon as 2009, but likely will not occur until 2012 at the earliest. Therefore, the extension of Houk Street south to Indiana is not anticipated as an option until 2015, but may be available by 2010. Whipple Consulting Engineers 14 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue Traffic Safety Accident summaries from the years 2001 to 2003 were obtained from the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT for the intersections in the study area. Generally, accidents are documented by type of occurrence, such as property damage (PDO) or injury(INJ). Accidents are measured based on frequency per million entering vehicles. This ratio is a function of the average annual traffic entering the intersection and the annual frequency of accidents. No fatal accidents were recorded from 2001 to 2002 at any of these intersections. Table 2—Accident Analysis ACCIDENT STATISTICS. 2001 2002 `- 2003 Per INTERSECTION • INJ PDO INJ: MEV . _ P._DO .� INJ_ . PDO Pines & Mirabeau Parkway 1 3 3 3 3 2 0.94 Pines & Mansfield Avenue 0 0 2 3 4 0 0.43 Pines & Indiana Avenue 8 4 2 7 4 3 1.00 Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps 1 2 5 3 0 1 0.40 Montgomery & 1-90 on-ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Indiana Avenue & 1-90 off-ramp 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.17 Mansfield & Mirabeau Parkway - - - - - - - Indiana & Mirabeau Parkway 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.14 Indiana & Evergreen Road 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.20 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 at this time. Ambient Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the study area was considered from ambient growth and local proposed projects. Ambient growth will occur on the surrounding roadways due to increases in driver usage and overall regional population growth. Growth will also occur due to three proposed projects in the vicinity of the study area. The ambient growth rate for traffic in the area of the proposed development was determined to be 2% per year based upon a comparison of actual traffic counts conducted over the past several years as shown in the various IPEC traffic studies in this area. Since the growth rate is compounded annually, 10 years of growth would Whipple Consulting Engineers 15 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue correspond to a 21.8% increase rather than 20%. In addition to the compounded background growth, three projects were included in this study. These projects include the undeveloped land which would potentially access Mansfield Avenue, should it be extended as a through street. These projects are the Lawson project, Gunning (Hamilton) project, and Mirabeau Point. A traffic study was completed for the Mirabeau Point project by Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. in . . September 1997. Trip generation and traffic volumes for the Mirabeau Point project r; were attained from that study. • For simplicity reasons, the background project traffic volumes are shown combined with the project traffic in the various figures through this report. Additional information for the background traffic can be found in the appendix. Whipple Consulting Engineers 16 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7t' 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 characteristics of similar residential developments throughout the United States under land use Category 220, "Apartment." The trip generation rates expected for the Lawson development are shown in Table 3. Since the Lawson and Hamilton properties are approximately equal in size and could potentially both develop into apartments, it should be assumed that the trip generation for Hamilton is also shown in Table 2. Trip Generation Characteristics for the Proposed Project The proposed single-family residential development is categorized in the TGM as "Apartments," land use category 220. Trip generation characteristics of this type of development are summarized on Table 3 as follows. Table 3 —Multi-Family Residential Trip Generation Characteristics AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dwelling Vol @ Directional Vol Directional Unitsps Distribution 0.51 Tr 0.62 Trips Distribution Trips per Unit 20%In 80%a Out per Unit 65% In ( 35%a Out Ph 1 — 168 86 17 69 104 68 36 Ph 2 — 197 100 20 80 122 79 43 Total—365 186 37 149 226 147 79 Average Daily Trip Ends(ADT) UnitsI Rate I Total ADT Ph 1 - 168 1,129 Ph 2 —197 6.72 1,324 Total -365 2,453 The traffic to and from this site would be made up of new (destination) traffic exclusively. As noted in Table 3, the development of the Lawson property will generate a net increase in traffic to the surrounding transportation system of 186 AM peak hour trips, 226 PM peak hour trips, and 2,453 average daily weekday trips. Trip generation information for the Mirabeau Point project was taken from a Traffic Impact Analysis performed for the project by Inland Pacific Engineering Company in September 1997 and accepted by both Spokane County and WSDOT. Whipple Consulting Engineers 17 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue Trip Distribution Characteristics for the Proposed Project Site access to/from the surrounding transportation system will depend upon the status of Mansfield Avenue, whether it is connected or not, and whether Houk Street is extended to Indiana. Without any additional connections, all of the traffic from the Lawson site will access through the intersection of Mansfield & Pines. Figure 5 within the appendix shows the anticipated trip distribution for the project as well as the Hamilton and Mirabeau Point projects for the various access options. I. ,!'''' ' ,r ' • .0- CI ' f' \ i V '-..:16 . : i 1 in, �, I: u„ `f t.• 1 4/,' V ,‘I'it0 . . ' /00 \ , '.' ' --1.,' ''' "i? ‘1' ;r' iik 1(f 1 ' ";:,'!' Iit t!,.• et JC/` li • 6.IY' i' u S Whipple Consulting Engineers 18 Lawson Property—Mansfield Avenue FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC A,'ALYM9S FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Level of service calculations for the Years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2025 conditions assumed that the existing traffic volumes as shown on Figure 4 experienced an ambient increase above the 2004 volumes at 2% per year. The following bullets show the amount of completed development anticipated for each year analyzed. , 1'- 2005 r • Phase 1 of Lawson is complete (168 apartment units) I;; = /�•.� � ' -���� -1..�-ice �-..;., �- ;y;' ', 2010 • Phases 1 and 2 of Lawson are complete (365 apartment units) • Phase 1 of Hamilton is complete (approximately 168 apartment units) • A portion of Phase 1 of Mirabeau Point is completed, specifically those areas north of Mansfield and west of Mirabeau Parkway but also including the community center. p/ni co c,_ 2015 • Lawson is completed (365 apartment units) • Hamilton is completed (365 apartment units) • Phase 1 of Mirabeau Point is completed 2025 • Lawson is completed (365 apartment units) • Hamilton is completed (365 apartment units) • Phase 1 and 2 of Mirabeau Point are completed with a connection of Mansfield to Evergreen Road to form a new north leg of the Indiana & Evergreen intersection. Six separate options were analyzed for 2010, 2015, and 2025 as shown on Figure 3. These options will allow for a determination to be made as to the benefit or disbenefit of the three following conditions or combinations thereof; • Mansfield is extended east across the Hamilton site to Mirabeau Point as a public access and is available for access by the Lawson property to Mirabeau Parkway, but not extended across the Lawson property and not established as a through connection from Pines to Mirabeau. • Mansfield is extended across the Lawson and Hamilton properties and the 6-unit apartment building adjacent to Houk is purchased for the Mansfield extension to establish Mansfield as a through connection from Pines to Mirabeau Parkway. • Houk Street is extended south of Shannon Avenue to Indiana, providing an additional access for the existing and future multi-family residential uses that Whipple Consulting Engineers 19 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue currently access through the Pines and Mansfield intersection. Year 2005 Level of Service This section focuses on the conditions for the year 2005 both with and without traffic from the first phase of the Lawson project. This condition assumes that no changes have been made to the surrounding transportation system. Specifically, the Pines Corridor Study improvements have not been completed. This analysis will show how the traffic volumes anticipated in 2005 will be handled by the existing facilities or what new elements will be needed for the traffic system to continue working at acceptable levels of service. It will also then show the impacts of the first phase of the Lawson project. The traffic volumes for this condition include the existing traffic, as shown on Figure 4 with the ambient growth rate, and the additional traffic from the first phase of the Lawson project as shown on Figure 8. See Figure 7 for the total traffic volumes used for this condition excluding the projected Lawson traffic and Figure 9 for the traffic volumes including the Lawson traffic. A summary of the level of service results is shown in Table 4, which follows. Table 4—PM Peak Hour Year 2005 Levels of Service INTERSECTION With Phase 1 of Without Project S i nalized Lawson Project (U)nsignalized Delay LOS Delay LOS Pines Road & Mirabeau Parkway U 34.8 sec D 37.5 sec E Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue U 653.2 sec F >999 sec F • Install signal (S) (11.5 sec) (B) (15.1 sec) (B) Pines Road & Indiana Avenue S 58.6 sec E 60.6 sec E Pines Road & 1-90 Westbound Ramps S 54.0 sec D 54.7 sec D Montgomery Avenue & I-90 on-ramp U 8.8 sec A 8.8 sec A Indiana Avenue & 1-90 off-ramp U 16.9 sec C 17.8 sec C Mansfield Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway U 0.0 sec A 0.0 sec A Indiana Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway S 9.9 sec A 10.1 sec B Indiana Avenue & Evergreen Road S 13.9 sec B 14.0 sec B In the year 2005 condition with the anticipated ambient traffic growth, all but two of the intersections within the study area will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. The intersections of Pines & Indiana and Pines & Mansfield will function at LOS E or F. The intersection of Pines & I-90 Westbound Ramps is planned to be removed as part of the Pines Corridor Study improvements. The other two intersections will also be modified as a result of these improvements. However, at this time it is not anticipated that these improvements will be completed within the next year. Whipple Consulting Engineers 20 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue Year 2010 Level of Service The traffic volumes included in this condition include the existing traffic as shown on Figure 4, with ambient traffic growth as shown in Figure 10 and the additional traffic from the development of Phase 1 and 2 of Lawson, Phase 1 of Hamilton, and a portion of the first phase of Mirabeau Point, as shown on Figure 11. The total traffic volumes expected under this condition with the future development are shown on Figure 12. A summary of the results is shown in Table 5, which follows. For this analysis, it was assumed that the Pines Corridor Study improvements have not been completed and no other transportation improvements have been completed within the transportation system. This will allow for an assessment of the Lawson project at build out. Table 5—PM Peak Hour 2010 LOS (without Pines Corridor Improvements) Without jWith Projects Project (S)ignalized (U)nsignalized Delay LOS Delay LOS Pines Road & Mirabeau Parkway U 60.5 sec F 84.0 sec F • Install a traffic signal (S) (11.1 sec) (B) (12.3 sec) (B) Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue U >999 sec F >999 sec F • Install a traffic signal (no lane (S) (14.6 sec) (B) (23.8 sec) (C) improvements) Pines Road & Indiana Avenue S 82.9 sec F 126.3 sec F Pines Road & I-90 Westbound Ramps S 86.9 sec F 120.1 sec F Montgomery Avenue & I-90 on-ramp U 9.1 sec A 9.1 sec A Indiana Avenue & 1-90 off-ramp U 19.8 sec C 25.5 sec D Mansfield Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway U 0.0 sec A 20.3 sec C Indiana Avenue & Mirabeau Parkway S 10.0 sec B 9.9 sec A < Indiana Avenue & Evergreen Road S 14.8 sec B 16.7 sec B *parentheses denote level of service associated with improvements In the 2010 condition with the anticipated traffic from the projects as described above, all but four of the intersections within the study area will function at acceptable levels of service. The intersections of Pines & Mirabeau, Pines & Mansfield, Pines & Indiana, and Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps will function at LOS F. This assumes that the Pines Corridor Study improvements have not been completed which would improve several of the intersections. The intersection of Pines & Mirabeau has been identified as an intersection that will be signalized when signal warrants are met and underground signal infrastructure is currently in place at this intersection to accommodate the installation of a traffic signal. Additional analysis has been performed for the six separate access options discussed previously in this document. All of these access options assume that the Pines Corridor Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue Study improvements are complete. The following table shows the level of service for the year 2010 for each option. Please refer to page 7 and Figure 3 for a summary of each access option. Table 6-2010 LOS for Various Mansfield Corridor Access Options IntersectionOpt #1 Opt.#2 Opt..#3 Opt#4 '. Opt.#5 . Opt #6 .., (U)nsignalized Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L (S)ignalized sec0 (sec) 0 (sec) O (sec) 0 (sec) 0 (sec) O (sec) S S S S S , S Pines&Mirabeau S 12.2 B 12.7 B 12.1 B 12.8 B 12.2 B 12.1 B Pines&Mansfield S 91.7 F 68.1 E 33.3 C 28.9 C 28.4 C 28.6 C Pines& Indiana S 72.3 E 71.0 E 67.4 E 67.7 E 66.5 E 69.4 E Indiana&On-ramps U 10.1 B 10.0 B 10.2 B 10.1 B 10.2 B 10.2 B Indiana &Off-ramps U 151.0 F 150.2 F 28.8 D 33.6 D 33.8 D 30.3 D Mansfield &Mirabeau U 20.3 C 24.3 C 35.0 E 24.3 C 18.1 C 19.7 C Indiana&Mirabeau S 9.9 A 9.6 A 10.1 B 9.6 A 10.2 B 9.7 A Indiana&Evergreen S 16.7 B 16.7 B 16.7 B 16.7 B 16.5 B 16.6 B Indiana& Houk U - - - - - - 18.4 C 19.1 C 14.6 B Mansfield & Houk U - - - - 19.7 C - - - - 10.6 B Per the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan, Mansfield is proposed to be extended from Pines Road to Mirabeau Parkway. To do this, the City must purchase a 6-plex which lies in the path between Houk and the Lawson property. The remaining portion of unfinished roadway lies on the Lawson and Hamilton properties. The cost of purchasing the 6-plex is estimated between $600k and $800k. Based on the cost associate with this improvement, it is anticipated that this project may not be economically feasible (within budget) to be completed prior to 2015. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that this connection could be made as soon as 2010. Therefore, it is not expected that Options#3 and #6 would be available until 2015, but are shown here if for some reason the funding did become available and these options were feasible. Additionally, the extension of Houk Street south of Shannon, across the Union Pacific Railroad is dependant upon the vacation of the UPRR. It is anticipated that the vacation of the UPRR could happen as soon as 2009, but likely will not occur until 2012 at the earliest. Therefore, the extension of Houk Street south to Indiana is not anticipated as an option until 2015, but may be available by 2010. Therefore, it is not expected that Options tt1, #5, and #6 would be available until 2015 as well, but are shown here for the instance that UPRR is vacated by 2010 and funds are available to complete the Houk extension. Based on the analysis and output as shown in the above table, Options#1 and #2 show that with the realignment of Montgomery to Mansfield as part of the Pines Road Corridor project the intersection of Pines & Mansfield will be degraded to LOS F and E Whipple Consulting Engineers 22 Lawson Property- Mansfield Avenue respectively. The issues with these two options carry over slightly to the intersection of Pines & Indiana as depicted on the table above. This is due to the fact that Options#1 and #2 are the only two options of the six that do not provide access to Indiana from Mansfield east of Pines Road. Therefore, neither of these options are viable when considering removing Mansfield from the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan without some other option such as Houk. However, all options must be considered based upon dollars for improvements such as the prospect of the City purchasing the apartment building for$600k to $800k within the next 5 to 7 years. Therefore, while options #1 and #2 are not preferred over a Houk extension they are practicable and on the system and must be utilized until either the UPRR goes away or the City spends $600k (min)to purchase the apartment building. A connection from Mansfield to Indiana must be made to accommodate the future traffic at the intersection of Mansfield & Pines. There are basically two alternatives for this connection to be made. One is via an extension of Houk Street from Shannon Avenue south across the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), which is scheduled to be vacated as a part of the Bridging the Valley project. The other is extending Mansfield from Houk Street through an existing multi-family 6-plex and across the Lawson and Hamilton properties to its existing terminus within the Mirabeau Point development. The 6-plex would have to be purchased by the City of Spokane Valley and the extension would bisect the Lawson and Hamilton properties, diminishing the development potential for each. As shown above and supported in the appendix of this document, both of the alternatives discussed in the previous paragraph would accomplish alleviating the deficient intersections in the short term (2010). Based on the costs associated with each alternative and the impact that would occur on the Lawson and Hamilton properties by bisecting them, the preferred alternative for the short term is Option#5 The cost of extending Houk to Indiana is approximately $150K to $300K with potentially the need for signalizing Houk& Indiana in the long term. The cost of acquiring a 6-plex is in a range of$600K to $800K. Therefore, the cost to benefit favors the extension of Houk over the connection of Mansfield from Houk to Mirabeau. Further analysis was completed to address the long term (2015 and 2025). Whipple Consulting Engineers 23 Lawson Properly— Mansfield Avenue Year 2015 Level of Service The traffic volumes included in this condition include the existing traffic as shown on Figure 4, with ambient traffic growth and the additional traffic from the development of Phase 1 and 2 of Lawson, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Hamilton, and Phase 1 of Mirabeau Point. Analysis has been performed for the six separate access options discussed previously in this document. All of these access options assume that the Pines Corridor Study improvements are complete. The following table shows the level of service for the year 2015 for each option. Please refer to page 7 and Figure 3 for a summary of each access option. The figures showing the traffic volumes associated with this analysis are shown in the appendix. Table 7-2095 LOS for Various Mansfield Corridor Access Options Intersection :Opt #1 Opt. #2• . Opt #3 Opt #4 Opt.#5 Opt #6 (U)nsignalized Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L (S)ignalized (sec) 0 (sec) 0 (sec) O (sec) O (sec) Q (sec) 0. S .: ` S S S S S Pines&Mirabeau S 16.2 B 16.6 B 14.4 B 16.7 B 16.0 B 14.4 B Pines&Mansfield S 126.4 F 90.8 F 57.6 E 38.3 D 40.9 D 43.8 D Pines&Indiana S 103.0 F 101.0 F 98.5 F 95.1 F 99.4 F 98.3 F Indiana &On-ramps U 11.0 B 10.8 B 11.2 B 10.9 B 11.0 B 11.2 B Indiana&Off-ramps U 283.2 F 282.2. F 52.9 F 73.3 F 74.0 F 58.3 F Mansfield &Mirabeau U 161.2 F 267.2 F 231.3 F 176.7 F 113.6 F 49.0 E Indiana &Mirabeau S 12.3 B 10.9 B 11.4 B 11.7 B 11.0 B 10.2 B Indiana & Evergreen S 19.3 B 18.9 B 19.3 B 19.1 B 19.1 B 19.3 B Indiana&Houk U - - - - - - 28.8 D 26.2 D 17.6 C Mansfield & Houk U - - - - 19.7 C - - - - 10.6 B Based on the analysis and output as shown in the above table, Options#1 and #2 continue to show that with the realignment of Montgomery to Mansfield as part of the Pines Road Corridor project the intersection of Pines & Mansfield will be degraded to LOS F. The issues with these two options carry over slightly to the intersection of Pines & Indiana as depicted on the table above. This is due to the fact that Options#1 and #2 are the only two options of the six that do not provide access to Indiana from Mansfield east of Pines Road. As was the case for the short term (2010), neither of these options work well when considering removing Mansfield from the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan without an alternative such as the Houk extension. As discussed in the short term analysis, a connection from Mansfield to Indiana must be made to accommodate the future traffic at the intersection of Mansfield & Pines. There is no clear indication from an intersection capacity standpoint that either connection is better than the other for the 2015 condition. A slight difference in delay at Whipple Consulting Engineers 24 Lawson Property- Mansfield Avenue the intersection of Indiana & 1-90 off-ramps can be seen in the table above Those options that include extending Mansfield all the way through show a lower delay than without the through connection, but both are at level of service F and would potentially meet signal warrants in the long term regardless of which option was chosen. As was the case in the short term analysis (2010), the costs associated with each alternative and the impact that would occur on the Lawson and Hamilton properties by bisecting them, the preferred alternative for the long term (2015) is Option#5. Whipple Consulting Engineers 25 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue Year 2025 Level of Service The traffic volumes for this condition include the existing traffic as shown on Figure 4, with ambient traffic growth over the next 21 years and the additional traffic from the development of Phase 1 and 2 of Lawson, Phase 1 and 2 of Hamilton, and the build out of Mirabeau Point. In 2025, it is assumed that a proposed connection of Mansfield to Evergreen through the Mirabeau Point project has been made. This would form a fourth leg to the intersection of Indiana & Evergreen. Analysis has been performed for the six separate access options discussed previously in this document. All of these access options assume that the Pines Corridor Study improvements are complete and the proposed connection of Mansfield to Evergreen/Indiana, east of Mirabeau is completed. The following table shows the level of service for the year 2025 for each access option. Please refer to page 7 and Figure 3 for a summary of each access option. The figures showing the traffic volumes associated with this analysis are shown in the appendix. Table 8- 2025 LOS for Various Mansfield Corridor Access Options Intersection Opt.#1 •Opt #2' Opt #3 Opt #4 pot:#5 ,Opt #6 (U)nsignalized Delay '- L Delay.• •L : Delay L Delay L Delay ', L Delay L S i nalzed g (sec) 0 (sec)O ;(sec) 0 (sec) 0 (sec) 0 (sec) 0 Pines &Mirabeau S 27.1 C 22.4 C 20.0 B 22.5 C 24.6 C 22.5 C Pines &Mansfield S 195.6 F 187.2 F 119.9 F 82.2 F 83.9 F 107.6 F Pines& Indiana S 219.6 F 210.6 F 195.8 F 181.6 F 203.9 F 206.9 F Indiana &On-ramps U 15.8 C 15.0 B 16.0 C 15.0 B 16.0 C 16.4 C Indiana &Off-ramps U 723.0 F 830.7 F 239.1 F 495.8 F 430.7 F 287.4 F • Install signal (S) (17.0) B (12,8) B (10.3) B (13.1) B (12.3) B (11.2) B Mansfield &Mirabeau U >999 F 202.2 F 139.6 F 209.1 F >999 F >999 F • Install signal (S) (19.1) B (21.7) C (21.2) C (23.3) C (32.0) C (34.2) C Indiana&Mirabeau S 20.1 C 14.4 B 17.9 B 14.2 B 19.8 B 12.3 B Indiana& Evergreen* S 46.2 D 47.5 D 45.1 D 25.9 C 50.2 D 54.7 D Indiana& Houk _ _ _ 229.8 F 324.8 F 59.8 F • Install signal (S) (11.1) B (11.7) B (8.6) A Mansfield &Houk U - - - - 32.8 D - - - - 11.8 B *substantial lane improvements are required for the addition of a 4th leg at this intersection Based on the analysis and output as shown in the table above, several of the intersections within the study area will be degraded to unacceptable levels of service. Options #1 and #2, which have been ruled out for the short term (2010) and long term (2015) as viable options again show the need for a connection from Mansfield to Indiana east of Pines. In the 2025 condition, evidence of the impact of extending Mansfield from Houk to Mirabeau is seen. At the intersection of Mansfield & Pines, there is a 20+ second Whipple Consulting Engineers 26 Lawson Property-Mansfield Avenue difference in average intersection delay between allowing the Mansfield connection versus only allowing the Houk connection. This is due to the fact that Mirabeau Point, which was never planned to utilize the intersection of Mansfield & Pines as access to / from the site is now allowed a straight shot to the problem intersection on Pines where trips associated with the development would be turning movements. Options#4 and #5 show significant delay, but are much more capable of being mitigated than the other options. As this condition is so far in the future, no specific recommendations were made as to what mitigation would suffice. The intersection of Pines & Indiana shows very high amounts of delay regardless of which option is used. This is largely due to the increase in northbound to westbound left turning traffic and the high conflicting southbound volume. Additionally the amount of traffic on Indiana Avenue at the westbound approach is high due to the relocation of the 1-90 westbound off-ramp. Based on the volume of traffic from northbound Pines to westbound 1-90, a loop ramp should be considered by WSDOT. This has been contemplated in the past, but written off because no study showed the high volume of traffic required to warrant such an improvement. As was the case in the short term analysis (2010) and long term (2015), the costs associated with each alternative and the impact that would occur on the Lawson and Hamilton properties by bisecting them, the preferred alternative for all conditions (2010, 2015, and 2025) is Option#5. Option #5, to reiterate, includes an extension of Houk Street from Shannon Avenue south across the UPRR to Indiana. Mansfield is proposed to terminate at the eastern Hamilton property boundary and not extend as a through connection between Pines and Mirabeau Parkway. Whipple Consulting Engineers 27 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that there are some impacts to the overall area transportation system from this project and mitigation is required. This conclusion was reached and is documented within the body of this report. Existing Conditions • All but two the intersections within the study area are currently functioning at acceptable levels of service. • The intersections of Pines Road & Indiana / Montgomery and Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue are functioning below acceptable levels of service. Year 2005 Conditions without Project • All but two of the intersections within the study area will continue to function at acceptable levels of service with the ambient traffic growth over the next year. • The intersections of Pines & Indiana / Montgomery and Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue will continue to function below acceptable levels of service. Year 2005 Conditions with Phase 1 of Lawson Project • All but two of the intersections within the study area will continue to function at acceptable levels of service with the additional traffic from the first phase of the Lawson project. • The intersections of Pines & Indiana / Montgomery and Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue will function below acceptable levels of service. Year 2010 Conditions without Project • All but four of the intersections within the study area will continue to function at acceptable levels of service with the ambient traffic growth over the six years assuming that the Pines Road Corridor Improvements are not completed. • If the Pines Road Corridor Improvements are completed, the intersection of Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps will be removed with traffic redirected through the Indiana and Montgomery ramp terminals. • The intersections of Pines & Indiana / Montgomery, Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue, and Pines & Mirabeau will function below acceptable levels of service. Year 2010 Conditions with Build out of Lawson Project, Phase 1 of Hamilton and a portion of the first phase of Mirabeau Point • All but four of the intersections within the study area will continue to function at Whipple Consulting Engineers 28 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue acceptable levels of service with the additional traffic from the anticipated development listed above assuming that the Pines Road Corridor Improvements have not been completed. • The intersections of Pines & Indiana / Montgomery, Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue, and Pines & Mirabeau will function below acceptable levels of service. Year 2010 Conditions with anticipated development—Mansfield Access Analysis • As shown on page 22 of this study, the intersection of Pines & Indiana will function below acceptable levels of service regardless of the option chosen. • The intersection of Pines & Mansfield will function below acceptable levels if Option #1 or#2 is chosen. • The intersection of Indiana & I-90 Of ramp will function at LOS F for Options#1 and #2. • All other intersections for all other options will function at acceptable levels of service, assuming the Pines Road Corridor Improvements are completed prior to implementing any of these options. Year 2015 Conditions with anticipated development—Mansfield Access Analysis • As shown on page 24 of this study, the intersection of Pines & Indiana will function below acceptable levels of service regardless of which Mansfield access option is chosen. • The intersection of Pines & Mansfield will function below acceptable levels if Option #1, #2, or#3 is chosen. • The intersections of Indiana & I-90 Off-ramp and Mansfield & Mirabeau will function at LOS F (unsignalized) regardless of which option is chosen. • All other intersections for all other options will function at acceptable levels of service, assuming the Pines Road Corridor Improvements are completed prior to implementing any of these options. Year 2025 Conditions with anticipated development—Mansfield Access Analysis • As shown on page 26 of this study, the intersections of Pines & Indiana, Pines & Mansfield, Indiana & I-90 Off-ramp (unsignalized), and Mansfield & Mirabeau (unsignalized) will function at LOS F regardless of which Mansfield access option is chosen. • The intersection of Indiana & Houk, which only is created in Options #4, #5, and #6, will function at LOS F for all options. • All other intersections for all other options will function at acceptable levels of service, assuming the Pines Road Corridor Improvements are completed prior to implementing any of these options. Whipple Consulting Engineers 29 Lawson Property—Mansfield Avenue RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis presented, the development of the Lawson property will not have a mitigatable impact on the transportation system within the general geographic area. In order to implement this project and to continue to provide a safe and efficient transportation system, not only for this proposed development, but also to the surrounding area, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project. Existing • The intersections of Pines & Indiana/ Montgomery and Pines & Mansfield require mitigation under existing conditions. The Pines Road Corridor Improvement Project is planned to start construction in 2005, which will remove the intersection of Pines & 1-90 Westbound Ramps and relocate eastbound Montgomery to the Mansfield & Pines intersection. However, funding for this project has yet to be secured and is not anticipated for a couple of years. The relocation of Montgomery to Mansfield is intended to remove traffic from the Pines & Indiana intersection. However, if a connection is not made east of Pines from Mansfield back to Indiana, traffic from eastbound Montgomery will have no other choice than to head south to Indiana and nothing is gained other than the few vehicles that turn north on Pines. Therefore, in order for the Pines Road Corridor Improvements to be effective, a connection from Mansfield back to Indiana east of Pines must be made. • Since it is not anticipated that the Pines Road Corridor Improvements will be completed for a couple of years and the intersection of Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue currently requires signalization, a traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue. Year 2005 Conditions without Project • It is not anticipated that funding will be available to complete what is needed under existing conditions by the year 2005. Additionally, none of the intersections that are currently functioning at acceptable levels are anticipated to fall below acceptable levels within the next year. Therefore, the existing recommendations as shown above also apply to the year 2005 condition. Year 2005 Conditions with Phase 9 of Lawson Project—Project Mitigation • A traffic signal is required at the intersection of Mansfield & Pines to accommodate the traffic from the proposed development. Whipple Consulting Engineers 30 Lawson Property—Mansfield Avenue Year 2010 Conditions without Project • In addition to the mitigation required under existing conditions, the intersection of Mirabeau & Pines will function at LOS F and may meet signal warrants in the year 2010. Therefore, a traffic count should be performed at this intersection in 2010 to verify that signal warrants are met and a signal should be installed. Year 2010 Conditions with Build out of Lawson Project, Phase 1 of Hamilton and a portion of the first phase of Mirabeau Point • No additional mitigation is required beyond what has been stated in the previous scenarios of this recommendation section. Future Year Conditions with anticipated development— Mansfield Access Analysis • Based on the analysis of each of the six options in the three future years (2010, 2015, and 2025), the access treatment for Mansfield Avenue was determined. In all of the year conditions analyzed, Options #1 and #2 show significantly higher degradation of the intersection of Pines & Mansfield than the other four options. Additionally, these options will require the signalization of Indiana & Off-Ramps in the short term whereas this does not occur until beyond 2015 for the other options. Therefore, Options #1 and #2 are not viable alternatives for the access associated with Mansfield Avenue east of Pines Road in the long term. The other four are all viable options in the short term (2010). These should be considered conceptually when considering the 6-plex and UPRR vacation timelines. The difference between the last four options is seen in the 2025 condition at the intersection of Mansfield & Pines. Options #4 and #5 show significantly less delay at the intersection than Options#3 and #6. This is due to the through connection of Mansfield Avenue from Pines to Mirabeau Parkway. In 2025, the Mirabeau Point project is anticipated to be complete. With the through connection of Mansfield, traffic from Mirabeau Point can and will access Pines at Mansfield. The original traffic study for Mirabeau Point did not have any traffic directed to this intersection since its proposed access was at Mirabeau Parkway & Pines and Mirabeau Parkway & Indiana. Therefore, Options#4 and #5 are the best from a capacity standpoint for short term and long term. From a cost-benefit standpoint, Option #5 is the most practical. Options #3 and #6 both include the extension of Mansfield from Houk Street to the eastern Hamilton property line. This would require the City of Spokane Valley to purchase an existing residential 6-plex that lies in the path of the future roadway. The remainder of the extension would be completed by the development of Lawson and Hamilton properties and essentially bisect both of these properties. Options#4 and #5 include the extension of Houk without connecting Mansfield, thus not requiring the taking of the 6-plex. Houk is proposed to be extended Whipple Consulting Engineers 31 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue from Shannon Avenue across the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)to Indiana Avenue. UPRR will be vacated as a part of the Bridging the Valley project. The cost of extending Houk Street ($150K to $300K) versus purchasing a 6-plex ($600K to $800K)for the Mansfield extension favors the Houk Street extension alternative. Whipple Consulting Engineers 32 Lawson Property— Mansfield Avenue t 4i; S I . 1 i - .' i I. ••••••—•\6; i ; II i \-.... . I s •1E • E Grad'-Ave f . .-:6.uCtse9.e::Ave . . I. :: = tariisau'' . • e f > i•27? Maiet .Avg_ Ti � 3 . . . . • 7 : :r.,-' .spok \-• 1' -• • 1 '%',. is • ► 6 E-Shannnonn' . -.3, ...; j r �........._ - :.__. - r— _ [4 • • N. - I ; `"j�Tr,"f.xP'^fi sa+ 5'''',,,,,"7:-,;-,•—t _ _ TM,_ ...-. IO � _ _ _ 1 • 127/ t `-` _ i ' i ,lp :Cvrisinn I: ; Ho ..1-45.001,.! l t. i: r d:fafecrical. MaidNel:A' e.r I` NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE /04 AWCE DRAWN:O7/3OEING Sc A A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 1 VICINITY MAP SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 P1-1:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 II ___. _, ,. i II _ ._ ------1 \ ' II ,2, EL, ,.. II a_ oz I II 1 a_ O W 0 1 zw I r I1 ti J II- 1 Q W w 1 I 0_, . . ( ( II II 11111111 �11�� ri t I I i IIIIeM, if111111HIP 111111 ��,• &s' I I 1111111 11111111 f.. 11111 I �� _ / / , i, .% ; 1 I LI Q .4r , E M 1 \ � � IIz ;' -, - i, _,..,,,__ ; 9E3 ll IIIA ____________eme ea31 . \ \ 1__________---_ I Op_}i IHOOK RD I31 Ia' '❑ I I EXTENSION III — LAI t Fl II 0 u 1 1 w \ \ NOTTOSCALE z PROJ2004-30 DATE: 07/30/O44 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: /MC DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED. TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 2 TYPICAL SITE PLAN FOR LAWSON AND HAMILTON SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 OPTION # D OPTION # 2 D < < LJ LA CO CO • ;-4 CC , • Et MANSFIELD .. ® ! E MANSFIELD i 3 :---., , ...0 ‘-., Y 7-------------------i D • - .,,-,' D 2 ! • 2 i _ INDIANA z - INDIANA z (1) hi cn UJ 14.I LU 'Li LU Z CC Z CC 0 tx 0 EE w LU LA > > w LA OPTION # 3 D a OPTION # 4 D < LA LU i CO 00 ,•• < . i i < MANSFIELD i 0 • E MANSFIELD i ; 0 i— — - • — , ' 7---------------- I •' 2 i . • • 1 © I I - INDIANA z INDIANA z (f) L.L.I LU ILI LA LU Z (X Z CL E E. 0 0 L.1 LU > > LU LU OPTION # 5 D OPTION # 6 D < < 1.1.1 Li CO CO • , . ' .• • • CC ' IX . --- : (R.N _ _ fT..).1, : MANSFIELD ; 0 MANSFIELD i • • • ' .• !--------"-------.. ! i----------_________ 0 ' ; , 0 ; 2 ' 2 • © I © 1 II INDIANA z _ INDIANA z v.) Lu u, w LULU z ix z x 0 rx Ei.: 0 E w LU Li > > LU Li O EXTENSION OF MANSFIELD FROM HOUK TO MIRABEAU O EXTENSION OF MANSFIELD ACROSS HAMILTON PROPERTY o HOUK STREET EXTENSION TO INDIANA NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 07/30/04 DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION AWCE APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 3 MANSFIELD ACCESS OPTIONS EXHIBIT SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 (------- ,c,,, Mn'J M 5. 183 120 EVERGREEN ROAD 4p MCO CO NCD N [O M J� n 169=PJVL N a N 497 n ANON r wa �1 L PPSaN No w= a 4 wr1 O O O inN Q 0=:P l =i0 W > t26 LI 659=> =170 ID < 0 n J�,e0 0 z e=1878 ll U JN J^ 2 O O O EN ENco <I <I Cl ro IO_ ILLro Z z z 7,_____ „.„ in ONO— Zn\� -------.'..\\\ NN <I Z M M Ja Ja Q ■ (� Y 1 43 tivl 105 I N 934=J 0976 610.=> X730 \HDUKRD 135 483 267, 107 C� 'Ci 4 le M 7. I N c0 0 PINES ROAD N a N C7 d" • /✓•- _ .- J _n\� L7- �i V N U7 47c 106 85j. L :137 c X605 ' Z6641> •=709 =12v 2 12r= .110 4ea4LO e� N NCCOM N N r 4 " '(/J / .l./ / / NOT TO SCALE • D1 O/1 4/04 #: 2004-30 DATE: 4/04 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4JJCE DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSUL11NGENGINEERS CWIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 4 2004 P.M. PEAK EXISTING SPOKANE VAI WASHINGTON 99216 PH.509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 General Percentage of Outgoing Trips '/ North: 18 % to access Trent Ave. ? 2 % to access destinations along Mirabeau Parkway. 0 N South: 10 % use Pines Rd (SR 27) to access Sprague Ave. and southern destinations. 5 % to use Evergreen Rd to access Sprague. Cy 5 i EVERGREEN/ROAD West 35 % to use I-90 for destinations to the west = i' P East: 20 % use Indiana Ave to access Sullivan Rd and the Valley Mall. c o 10 59 to use 1-90 for destinations to the east. : 0 • indicates percentages that can float between routes, Depending on phase location Nin and and scenarios N aN .14 P� ,, Wa PF'� ai wa W D Z D W Q > W Q O Q Q z z Z IY a a JN J^ Q EN EN 0 <I aI Ill Ill Z z z Z aN a-- 0 3N 3N Z aI <I Z 0 JCI. JO_ Q 01 It , HOUK RDS ° h - 0 ;i r`l 1 B % `moi c = 1 El % 10 % *". 10 % => PINES ROAD <"=--- 1 0 General Percentage of Incoming Trips From North: 18 f. from Trent Ave. J 2 % from destinations clang Uircbeou Parkway. w II in From Scuth: 10 us,e, Pines Rd (SR 27) from Sprague Ave, and in El destinui o' m the soutJ? Z From West: 35 % Use1-S to come from destinations to the west From East: 20 % use Indiana, Ave to come from Sullivan Rd and 0 the Voiley 'ball. 10 % us, .-•S0 to come frcni destinctione to the east. Il ll • Indicates percent-ce ^that foot between routes. depending on the n phase location endscenarios. cV4 iT NOT TO SCALE #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 10/1 4/04 DRAWN: SNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION AWCE APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE 16 FIGURE NO. 5 LAWSON/HAMILTON GENERAL TRIP DIST. PERCENTAGES SPOKPNEV93-2617LLEY, FAX: PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509.926-0727 General Percentage of Outgoing Trips cs111 North: 15.6 % to access Trent Ave. / South: 18.9 % use Pines Rd (SR 27) to access Sprague Ave. and southern f7 = i destinations. a 5 % to use Evergreen Rd to access Sprague. L• _ 3 D %� EVERGREEN ROAD West: 21.4 % to use 1-90 for destinations to the west. 4 e East: 39 % use Indiana Ave to access Sullivan Rd and the Valley Mall. oe° 10 % to use 1-90 for destinations to the east. 01 0 PI N * indicates percentages that can float between routes, Depending on phase location = and and scenarios N a= p.-4 W a QPM a2 W a - w D Z D W Q = > W Q CO Q Q z z -II Z ON J^ Q 2. EI a2 I0. In. - Z Z z ON D— O N 3N Z QI ¢I Z O J CL JO_ Q N I ° H❑UK RD in v L1 in 1 2.3 %�� PINES ROAD t 1 7. 1 % it 1 8.9 % cJ General Percentage of Incoming Trips °• From North: 12.3 E from Trent Ave. a <0 W From South: 17.1 r, use Pines Rd (SR 27) from Sprague Ave., and 1i destinations to the south. U1 5 % use Evergreen Rd from Sprague Ave. Z Q From West IS % Use 1-90 to come from destinations to the weet From East: 35.1 i use Indiana Ave tc come from Sullivan Rd and the `.alley Mall. 10 ;> use 1-90 to come from destinations to the east. Indicates percentages that car float between routes: depending an the phase location and scenortos. __.._._ /ZZ r---7 NOT TO SCALE PROJ DATE #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS /MC DRAWN: 1 O/1 4 BNG A & A CONSTRUCTION /04 APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE ND. 6 IEP GENERAL TRIP DIST. PERCENTAGES SPOKANEVALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509.926-0227 V 1 I 187 122 / EVERGREEN ROAD [InI� 1J ? N N n r N Q1 M M VN 7^r 1 `vn ' 172�/ IL N _ N 500 aa-t � W Q NyP / PP-. CD a N m N w= a _ , 4 000 U cw Z Q 0,' '%=10 '‘ 27 U 672=> Z=173 Q < 0.=%, /�0 Z 191 C� z z Ct a D D Q 4 c JN J^ G 0 0 0 EN ENQ Q= la =a Z n Z Z z U ^ � ON 0^ Z N 3N 3N Z �n � c�D Ja Ja Q ❑ 01 r r�\I/1N -44107 I 953> X996 622=> X745 HOUK RD 138 493 27.= 2, 109 M 7 co N t0 PINES ROAD Nd- M M O01) 0d- r M -1 Y WI- CO V \Y 48� 108 870 38 NN Z 483G> G=617 677=> <=723 6c%, ,sr12 < 12� 112 r N M N u] N - N r NOT TO SCALE PROD : 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: l O/1 4/04 DRAWN: B N G A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 7 2005,W/0 PROJECT, W/ 2% GROWTH PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 3 EVERGREEN ROAD N N N N aN --( W _a R��P rn 4 PP a= LI , W N Z Z D W Q > W Q m Q z z Z e7 °N a EN tr- FN 0 rn 2a Ia Z ?.//// .'' / � O .z i' %/.j ON Dom% 0 rn 3N , N, V/ // Z il�JJ •I- <I ar -: V 1> -JCL a/;://�, 5 N fn14� t ==154I In 7G> X30 HOUK RD 11,= 7, PINES ROAD U N _I N W N 9 1 N Z 12'--> C=6 Q 18r=> X30 2 2..%, TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 NOT TO SCALE RDJ #: 2004 3D TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4JICE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNB A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. B 2005 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 O O MN \NnL/(--- M 187 __ _ _ _ 125 EVERGREEN ROAD 4:3 M M N O <r r —�I'n17 M s— � V / 172, N N50� a � �` wa Pcsx --( � N COLO P W= LO _a w O O O (I(E W Q o,' t,o > t27 w 222=> <=173 Q Q o,, ,, ,(10 Q ,(198_a Z z z c JN J- Q 4 G O O O fN EN D ¢i Ci Ia. is Z to ON 77------- - F.::"---'N ("7--------r) r) tr) NNN" / Z I5 .< 1 �t.:I n) i Q // .< Y Ja :Ja!/, i/ Z ❑ I ' 58, 161 I 960=J X 1026 622=> <=745 H O U K RD 149 :4)3 27� / 109 4 M CO N T ED ../.1 / PINES ROAD ID _ to � M M ^ tri-2. J ✓//NJ ---- 0 w \[ n 87,/vl// JVL v1 :139 -ct----- N Z 57, 1108 495=✓ <=623 (> - 695=> <--- 753 z K,,,.2,_...... 12 v 2 142, \f112 a4Pa4P P N M Q1O ,n N .— N 4 ---= 7.1 77 , / cD NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 10/14/04 �C E DRAWN: BNG A & Q CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 9 2005 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES PH:509-89&2617 FAX 509.926-0717 0) m r) o NnIJ..4- N54 - 5 206 135 EVERGREEN ROAD 4e cnN M _ NJn 190, N a N 55= 2,�NO P�, r W a a 4 PPSaN ulr) w= _a 4 . 000 W c..4,-) °�� O 41 \lli I5 D W Q (:)J � � 0 > t29 I 246 X191 Q LO Q 0� \f30z z Z /e211 IY D 4 �N J� Q 0 0 0 EN EN Cl a2 <I m =a Ia Z r) Z z z 0 ON a.- Z 77----"- -r N N Z M t` Qa Ja IQ 0 \�v, [11 . 48., 1118 I 1052=> <=1099 687.=> '822 HOUK RD 152.=%r544 29. 2, 4=120 a4P CO N u) N .- r, 0) PINES ROAD M Q N CC r!) d- J NLO N • N5 W 4 ) I5 LL 0 ((I 96.:, 2 :=.42N LO Z 53� 119 534 -> =681 (> Q 748.=> 0798 .7c2, ‘314v < 14.=%, 4=124 • 4Pa4P P M CO CO N N N h 01 4 P - 7:7/// / N 0 LO NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION /MC E APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULTINGENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 10 201 0 WITHOUT PROJECT AND NO IMPROVEMENTS SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 ,I- 0) MI 0 r1 t / 206 l / _ .._ _ / 212 / EVERGREEN ROAD 4 U C� am if) N I,V' rO N N 288=/ N Q N 89� w a4 P.6, P N 0 m Q P a= n wa 4 , iw co coo O N r) W] 4 \' � V lQ 6� '%:,20 > t29 246 > X191 Q 03 13.=%, e=125 Z ji / 225 11 U a4ZN Z Q 7 <t O r) fN EN 0 i0 0) CI QI Z co Ia. ID_ z z z O In ❑N 0.- (.1r4 ^ Z N mN mN Z (N\� (/".------ j � -15 Ja J0. Z ❑ 90j-\ 250 I Ell 1096.E <=1206 687= ' C=822 H O U K RD 194=%, 4=544 29,= 7 4=120 a4 � c0 u7 N �-N r PINES ROAD 0 i 01 r]0) 0) 77------To liw N LO LLl�' Ctf 5 LL 0 co Z 72, 119 114j '44 573,=> <=700 Q 800 <=798 7= 2, ^14 < 14=%, / 124 air,4e a4e co N r1 O CO N N N 4 .1 77-1----/ N c0 0"7 NOT TO SCALE PROJr: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4WC DATE: 1 0/1 4/04 DRAWN: ElNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE 16 FIGURE NO. 11 2010 WITH PROJECT AND NO IMPROVEMENTS SPOKANE 261 FAXSGTON0227 PH:509-893-2677 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE N 0 206 135 EVERGREEN ROAD 4 11 CD N 1Z (7) r7 N r7 4, 4 190, N N55� PI j- i' , � Q P� .t� a N r7 N ro W= _a 4 . tioN O 0 O U N Z 4 0J to . 29 W 246=> X191 4 Q 0� 0 Z ?487 G z z �j c ON a^ Q G 0 0 0 EN EN 0 ax ai O in_ Ia. Z r7 z z Z ON O^ ❑ N N Z (..-....------o) � 118 I Z ❑ i(i) 1327 c> <=1643 687=> 0789 H O U K RD 29,z%, / 120 CiN C1 0 ,_ CO PINES ROAD rn0 i NN0O �N Ld n d- ilvly v 96, 1 ::342N 0-5Z 261J 119 534 > X861 (� 882 > <'798 7� ‘,14v2 234 668 4P co — u, N NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 1 O/1 4/04 DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULTINGENGINEERS CNIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 12 201 0 W/O PROJECT WITH PINES CORRIDOR IMP. SPOKANEVALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 PH:50993-2617 FAX 509-926-02TI CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE in V 4=177EVERGREEN ROAD 4P N . J/n� • 98v N i N 34, 2, a= ,'/- /. / W 'r.- / /// %4/ in / W m N :� Z N DW IQ 6, lk,,20 >Q t8 m13 125j' //' Q ,(114Q z z'/:': %' '' 4 CC d r7 IN EN'' j � 0 QI <I',,,,�� In. %// . jj/ i Z :2'W:1/44-1/4////// ) C .z 'Z'/•'',/� � ant / 'i .o� ;�: . „, ./. /.,„ ,„,..........„., Z (----- , , N I� 'Ja.• J. / ,J0%' ,,// al I , c 132 U7 44�� x107 42 \HDUKRD. PINES ROAD 1-1 :n1"- _1 if)cri CNI , 18 l '=,2 cl Z 19, t26 19c'J G�81 39,=> G=19 Q j K.:„....7 TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1, IEP PHZ 1 pRoJ #: 20❑4 3❑ TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE Awc DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY CIF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 13 2010, #1 , NO CONNECT, W/❑ TH R U, W/O H O U K S PH;509-893-26 7 FAX 509-926-0222176 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED d- m 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE in M o '-- 206 212 EVERGREEN ROAD 4 (1 = a f1 N N N � M N N d- N (� n 288,vN/ ,1v1, N LL 897, a4 /// / N v //j - a ., a / rl //%%/ / ;;wj', co O N ,�,: �:, r1 Q tfl 6" 20 > t37 W 246=> <=191 CO13 125 //////,;7// Q 501 EC PU aN /JNA/''/jam- Q 5� d- O r) fN ,E /i .%/'.: 0 coo rn <I i.�'j Z Ia1-1/.11,71:1- //,/ / _ _ ./: ,'. //%///'/////. Z .'ON/,/// 0�-jj/// , ❑ d- '3N// //' ;3N_', . �'%'i Z 0 in0 in •tea/ %% ,tea,' :•i > I90, 250 N 1371=> G=1750 687=> X789 HOUK RD 29=%, 120 a4P Aild m N Q1 N ,— r1 co PINES ROAD 0 tO 0 N co d' -J CA.- .dM - ti'W �C L 114, 'C' =:,44 `Nr' in Z 280 145 573 <=7002 901=J G=879 7' �14 v 2 267 668 N ----'7! / NOT TO SCALE PRO 1 #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: EING A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 14 2010, #1 , NO CONNECT, W/0 TH R U, W/O H O U K PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE cco o / V EVERGREEN ROAD icoe4,,,110 .-cnteN N/n 115, N N 36. 2, 11 1 �P� %"<',— 'A Wa in ::; ' i lil v1 co N O W Q 6., �20 > 1 ::=188 I In 161 /;/,V/,/1'% Q �14 28 Z// ' ,// o a /,'//'i,/,7,// Z Et P N Q= Q= i/Ili ,C1-/ /' Z �r//: /,/ //'/'" �// mN i/./ 3N . /// ,; Z 7-; ¢2./;'///. •<I is/. �/ ❑ d ,ija7/%/i :ja//•://// Q rn I = U] 41=> X 84 26.=- ' �97 HOUK RD -----7/Y PINES ROAD Q • r1 N CO J � rncv -- 1.1- 32j' L =.1 7. oM Ul Z 16 30 24=> <=1314=J -<'54 � 21c7. TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1, IEP PHZ 1 , PRODr 2004-30 TRAF Ir IMPACT ANALYSIS I ASDATE: 10,14/04 �� DRAWN: 6NG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON VVHIPPLE CNILAND TAANS CONSULTING ENGINEERS SERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 15 2010, #2, CONNECT, W/O TH R U, W/O H O U K PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED in 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE � o _ /,/ 157 • \• 206 / 245 EVERGREEN ROAD 4 � t r)N N • 305, JVI N // 4.= 91c%, %''; ,/ /' _ /,// . is /_v' /�, / ill N ,\f(OJI/,N -//, N17 Ld IQ 6, �20 > �37 246=> X191 Q CO 2g� 161 /'''.' :•� . Q 501 NON EN •EN'// • N Q2 .Q2;�i • . / N 'i'////_ /1// �7,'n.//: Z./',/././,/,'.7/ ',/'///% // Z 2) Ell t /3N./ 0 ... ,3N,�;/'/. Z ,..,_--- / I74, 215 (n f 1368✓ "<=1727 687=> • 1789 HOUK RD 29 8=120 < 1 i e ) ___) mNrn CO PINES ROAD Ig rnr---- J it N .,t d(\V� 11 V 7/ O N ❑ 128, �43 N m Z 277 149 558= X694 (�' 896=> a 852 7� n14 v 2 255 668 4r� N NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: 10/14/04 0/11 4/04/04 DRAWN: ENG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 16 2010, #2, CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/O HOOK PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE fm ; V 1 1 1 1- ' EVERGREEN ROAD 8=76 1 1 ^ e 1 4L1 N (D r d V 118," N N 20,= 7, //,/ ';, '/ /i" ///// IOnI 10 !.j; ,// i�i Ill On� O � ILI t 9 Q 620 > W Q /.,'////��• O 9� 152 j; / •/ Z �1 Z ;zi' Z /� E H^ 07 N CD EN ',,- //..,,,, , /2N y ' ./, 0 u) •- ////,'// : • !i2 /t /.."'/•/,',/ ////,/,, O in 0 cr I = = 15 X Ul 21' 106 HOUK RD 43,= :2, 4::=6 ;. M PINES ROAD 0co n J co yi W 11 C/ N t0 Z 45c> G=27 Jj N5 Q 2 45,' 1 =106 / / TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1, IEP PHZ 1 PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: SNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTIO APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML ANO TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 17 2010, #3, CONNECT, W/ T H R U, W/O HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED i1 % 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE in o �' i 206 _ ._ ----- . - - /m211 EVERGREEN ROAD QU C� � N MN d N Ntfl M , 517, N - N - 75c2, //i%;j'.2/;;/.W Q../ ,;./j oco /////.%// 'i// • W o 4 6, t20 - > 1 ::338 WW 246`> 0191 •- Q 9� 152 � Q p487 - � � oma; /_• ; Z Q CO N <I- EN iEN '/��/i Q 1� O QS LAI..i / co co IL Ia%///, Z Z/j"/% './ /i/ //j:� N to :,11N _,.. Ja, . �a j/ Q 01 VV (----- 2 53 t 134 Iin 903 > < 904 �0 277 668 HOUK RD 4=36 QP mo N U7 / PINES ROAD L � O 7,/r.------ ] Id N 03 N E. N in tO 107 42 ctoo - ,- Z 579=> <=708 7L= :7 eo14 v i Q e93, 224 687 <789 m - in N 29 120 � Q � /------7N O rnN NOT TO SCALE PROJDATE #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 18 2010, #3, CONNECT, W/ T H R U, W/0 H O U K PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE co 110 / EVERGREEN ROAD ll Pr- 2 2 1 / to N CInI] 115, N N - 36, 7 P. /// / N,/ /2 ////, ' / / a, /..//' //'//' i ,i -,�,,/. / •% i/, /•/ /.":,/.// t 00 N LI .t u17 n 15 DZ Q 6,' '%=20 a 15,, W / . . GO 161 �////' Q 36 28� Z /• �' 4 N N EN EN .,,,/,/ L Q o]� N a= a=/ •/%/ • n (-------Nci, =0.•// Z 2a ,////,..-%// / I CCI r`,2 I = 22 251 ::15eIn HOUK RD- 0 n ' PINES ROAD /✓/nN N5 W 33,, 1: ::=11 M Z X 55 24.=>. <—'12Q ' / / TRIPS GENERATED BY: NOT TO SCALE LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, HAMILTON PHZ 1, IEP PHZ 1 PROD #: 3o TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/0/7144/04 DRAWN: E3NG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING G CNILAND TAANSP ONENGG E1 HG 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 19 2010, #4, CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/ HOUK PH:509-893-2617FAX:509-926- 7 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 0 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE N 0 206 245 EVERGREEN ROAD 4eto O O VI O N N n I� 305,/Vt// JVI N /../, a= 91. 2,� Ps1 • ' P //'• •_',: is -a //i/.- M /77/1,-;/.'„ t,1• '_/ , ,, a0 O N W N Z `A(J/n Q 6c: 1' 1 =,20 _• 223, lil 246=> -'—‘191 ' •;//-'/i'''' L Q CO 2g7"..... 161 Q 36 Z z' /,;',;/ - Z Ce 4 4 NON EN EN-,/•, N ai .aI ,''% D m(o IQ. -I' / Z ty o // .: /: /Z ••z /,/'i'/;/..-;'//1/ N ,P);/.2/-2,-f-,-N .'&3N,,/.�j a r0 (.7,—N in in .<I//,'„,/. I 51 73, 173 U] 487 687= C=789 HOUK RD 29� ,e,,20 4 4PN QI -- O i N • PINES ROAD N — 0 ,-- .71. (--- d � n CD -•� N?nN , <t�,I I, H WV � /v VV 129 �43 NICO Z 53, 1149 558'> 0693 (�- 882 4 <=18537� \f=14 v2 234 668 a4P ao — t7 N • 777 NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 10/14/04 W� DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 20 2010, #4, CONNECT, W/O T H R U, W/ HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE � V scr72 / EVERGREEN ROAD 4 0 rno _°0 84, N PLL I 4 f / ' " W 0- 34�� I*. •V- ,:'' %j; la N 2 i s i N Lr) '/. ,, /.� i.-�/ • W CO CO C•J NI- W 6, 1 :=120 Q 25, Q 13� 100 ,'/� /�/;' Q 59� JN ;Jif, ,•/ Q a> FN .Ers1/• .i 0 N 1. N QI -aI i, '' %, N M IL ID; /j.-/ Z //////'/// — 4 //,/j% Z ///,/ Z N aI ji!///'• /j QI , O N ;tea / ,�a';�`��� Q (//"------------tc, ---"---'' _ �30 tn 40 88 HOUK RD. . 4 N 1 1 1 : PINES ROAD �/� CI N N51 = W r `'nI7 . V 18, �2 N : �26 38� X20 (� Z X88 Q r F / / / TRIPS GENERATED BY: \\N-LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1, IEP PHZ 1 PROD #: 2004-20 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 1 0/14/04 DRAWN: ENG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VAI I F?,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 21 2010, #5, NO CONNECT, W/O TH R U, W/ H O U K PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509.926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED it, m 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE 206 207 EVERGREEN ROAD ,cr OTr co � N N N d N +J , ' 274t N N 89=%, i 7/: a PC- `//%'` ':N///oo n 00 ,OnI,N Lo / %. // ' // ,:/ W �mn IMI 3 Y Y W IQ 6� �20 > 233c, CO 11 213 100 j �/'�// a j Q 59 lY D a//j%/= Q �� 2 U U 4 JN '.1. .j/'/,' O N <N ,�N/• ; N co In. ///./:/ Z N '1/4/////////////`.;/.1///, .z/ /�'z/��/,:/ - ,, 0 1'2 12 Z O co n �a//•/�l Via/ // Q j 1 :3206 I (------,,,,) �59 in 687L .. X789 HOUK RD487 29l=%, 4=120 - In N O PINES ROAD .- 0 N N tO(D J N m tO (� n v W 'nI `l(// fVl \� W � V O 00 W 114 ti 44 N Z ' 53 145 572=> a701 Q 882=J x886 � �14 1 234,=%, 668 aco 4 � NOT TO SCALE PROJ DATE #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DRAWN: 0 /14/04 GNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 22 2010, #5, NO CONNECT, W/0 THRU, WI HOUK SPOH:509-893.617FAXISNO&9260227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE mI • CD V \°.7.- / 57 ;/ EVERGREEN ROAD ^ 4=57 941 4P r; aM oN 20.=%, GI)V 4 (121 st N N N IlN 46t%,/, W I ,L\1\11)... ! _a //,-./.• ////5,// � 2 j // = W ❑ (---2 -"----'''NN\\\Z Q 61 �20 - > 131 Q 8,=%, ,c9=,41z z/i �'.- Z __ jN /J ---/"j . N QI SQL'"//,j/; [ a -_ I _________// Ia ?°%/�% i Z //.'/7//: //% (--- r--- co <I/I .in _ tea //,! _l°-, */////' 01 V I =I : �t5 16 U] 26 < 92 HOUK RD7 3,=%, 4P M ...., ___-----) PINES ROAD a M n49 WLT- (� 11,' NN N LaZ 45=1> <=28 Q 45J '%=192 / l TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1, IEP PHZ 1 : PROJDATE r' : 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED; TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 23 2❑1 0, #6, CONNECT, W/ T H R U, W/ HOUK SPP VALLEY, FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED ir, I-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE IO o / 1 co 206 1"- N N N •/ EVERGREEN ROAD 4:3192 346., 1 ff f� in d' 0 d N 75.=%, .4- N U 158, v n N. rN ` � N N 46. 2, LI PP ' '' Nrn /i/% / .//1• /"6-1ay//'j/. //A/ N/n 0 [D '" , / •///// U �IT V Z to W V IQ 6". '1 :='20 > 11,60 m 246 > 6=191 .;'//i / 8 1191 ' / / /,//.- 467 4P 4 aN J� j%/% 2 co N EN ; 2N ;//' Q // =a Li . . ,,, a/ •z/./., ,/.7,/. .Z 2/..//, ❑ N O N N•, ',./,-/: .3N / ./ Z n � -Q= moi.',././., Q= •%///,� Z 0 `,�(/J .JQ.//'/&// /5i.,///A Q IP _ K134 N 908�J G=890 �16 237 668 HOUK RD 0 ci, a PINES ROAD — _ n I�p7I (\� J NnI'j in 0 com V 'IJ N Il. 107 42 .- o Z 579 ' —709 Q 7 4:=14 4P93, 210 687.=> <=789 `° - u' N 2929.17120 [In' N NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE:. 10/14/04 DRAWN: SING A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 24 2010, #6, CONNECT, WI THRU, W/ HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED11 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE N '' :-.------..- 228 149 P EVERGREEN ROAD OO N N O ro O d N vt// (� ] 210vJ/n' 11 JVL N d N ,1 61c%, Lne' aN n wa I. 00o L ? T:i ------- \ lit 2711=J 0211 Q �32 ra 0.=%, 4r= 0Z 537 Ee Z z c U _JN O- Q 2 E 0 0 0 N EN O is =a Z ____) Z Z Z 0 ON 0^ Z 3N N Z id' c0 CO _10JD=. �// CI 53, ' I in 131 1465 <=1814 758=> X872 HOUK RD 32c%, ,sr133 4P U1 , Li, O '- 0 N PINES ROAD 00 0 •M N d- -n n (O� -1 /✓/JNA - d- �t// w �C Y �v( V VVV i1.. 106, 467N 01 up co Z 288k 132 589`J G=752 (i Q 974�� 0882 K_____%, �15 v 259 737 rn v- � N NOT TO SCALE A #: 4-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: : 1�/0/1 1 4/O4 DRAWN: ONG A I& A CONSTRUCTION AWCE APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 25 201 5,W/0 PROJECT, W/ 2% GROWTH PH:509-893-2617 FAX.509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED N 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE 9 V /r 164 EVERGREEN ROAD 4P M r7 tD r M 01 N 141 r, V V 208. N / 'J Q= 69� E /� W a a 4 P.` „ ;' //-" /N�l/.. 17 rn InN lf(�V / /�j j//:,l'/.�//� 'JJ W On Q 13 39 ///// // /. > 116 CO 357 274 �j�����,i;'jj j� Q em 14 Q w cc P %z'' '/' z/J„':/ Z �N;/J /%' ��'/J�/ N o =a/%'j 'aid'% / 0 d- ol N .•/2/777 :_%�> ,, - ://,////7-'/ '///47/.",j, 0 NN•..„, /_;3N%%J/ /, z Q='%.•/.///...Q=%iJ' / ' Z o N f� JQ../J//�'. ./J,// � Q 01 (---- a � _ U1 71=✓ G ,136 42 ' "132 HOUK RD PINES ROAD O I103 nN 54 c, �2 Z 19 '%,,55 39.—> G'= 1919�� X81 � 33'= 2, --- Y / / / TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 (Sc 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE 16 FIGURE NO. 26 2015, #1 , NO CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/O HOUK SPOKANE FAX: N9227 PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE fN LOQ228 }� ' EVERGREENP ROAD 4==313 Il N N N Tr r- ..4- t O .4t N LO r 418. N N 130 l>. / / , N CO // . ///,: a '.-: CO .//:.• / <,":/ .', ./// Ill Q 131, �39 './/j/ // ,/,'!„-./•••..; /. Q '%=48 W 271 x,211 /..!;////4 . / '///� Q 357 274 :///// , ,// /%%/' ///.; Q 551 CC 4 z",,,///./1/ 'f ' : /;/ /,. Q 2 0300 EIJ ///7% ,EN' //,' <.•/' ❑ a//i/ /".-- `i ',/-• /:! _ /,///i:////` 222%;/,//".:/2 /-'1•/./� . / //////y4/ r, - l I [!] 0 a, 95263 4>1536 C=1950 HOUK RD 758 4> 0872 32= 2, 4=133 4 ? 4110 r / PINES ROAD Q N.—co j 01 NI- r-- .: 1 \'r 07 I7.1 ' cc) CD 160 48 N ,I- N Z 307 187 628'= -1:! .771993=> 993= ' X963 7� (�en 5 < 292 737 .C14u rn - r N I NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 2004 3O TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: EINE A Ec A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY CIF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 27 2015, #1 , NO CONNECT, W/❑ TH R U, W/❑ HOUK PH:509.893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE f� a V �197 / EVERGREEN ROAD 41l f� - . _ - r0) N NNnI] 225v N /. a N 71, 7 • • P� ,/ ;:', i.N, l•, /// n co //7///: •//';,, W a .'././2/,, N if) // ///////,/./;.// i/ // W O Q 13cP �39 j •• ; W %/..�'/%i'2', `%i. //. Q I• �16 El ce 372 310 iri /..jy% / //;�'//; 14 Q z / '�.,.'.., z! �:"/ CD ro .<I . •'// .=Q2/%Y/j :7a/ - ai 'j� In Z "!////'•: //,%/////j/ '!//Z///.. !i/ 'Z // // � ' Z r .�a. ,%��� ;Ja%/' - O `' ''� a � o,II W . r-- 68= G=113 26/ 1k=97 HOUK RD 1 , ) • PINES ROAD liNI -I ..:1- ,— LO 65=P' 1 =,1 °,o° [A 16� �59 24c X13 Q 14cf < 154 2 21v / / TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 PROJDATE 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS /MC DATE: 1 O/1 4/04 DRAWN: ENG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULl1NGENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 28 201 5, #2, CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/O HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED N 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE o 228 ` 346 EVERGREEN ROAD 4 Nr7 CO O t'7 c0 r] N dN In M (� 435, JVL N N 132 ‘t,1 /; •N •/,jj, - roI, ••/// •2:!•";-''',,, w a>2,,// - /' ...,,/,..!,/, / . i /• N Orn 7 W ❑ d W 13= '%m / . / > W 271=J 3 //;/ /.� . %// /i ../// '%=48211 '�//:; % � /372310 % • �•/ 2 Q 551Q / /'- /. , -r. 2 N Orn EN:�:'�•��r SEN• �'./, o u7 M N -a= /:,:,r.�', ,a2,,/,, m o_ '/' '/; =ayi�///,. Z <r '%i% / //• 'i//////2 //// 7/"....---------- "ON. ''''"/' 0.—' ', ./.'/ 0 I i U] 1533=> X1927 79, 228 758=> X872 HOUK RD 32, 2, ,e133 r PINES ROAD ❑ � rnm C/ V CVI7 � 171 (:)71 47 NI in Z 304 v 191 613=J <=765 (.....-- -CO "4-R' 988 C=936 7� �15 v 2 280 / 737 rn - r _________7 N NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 20D4 30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE iWC DATE: 1 0/14/04 DRAWN: SNG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 23 2015, #2, CONNECT, W/O T H R U, W/O HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED /n 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE up 132 ' EVERGREEN ROAD K...___ 4yrnCV ' 212, N LI N 40 c:: 2, -4 %/.i, /2 W Q /././...,, a 4 W i _ r, / "'/'i,�•.,./„.././.,,,,,„•%///),, //,/,;/:/,': "' /• i/ / •//.///!/`i!/ /• d /%• Z Q 13 39 ;'' /'• :-/,••//:'• -/ > �16 01 a N 1.0 .<I / /,/ :<I / ,,; Z M / 9-2////// a i /// / a// %` Vii:, , / •/. ,, ON '1:////, 0— '//// 0 O O rn Ja////// :.'. mai /, O �Vy I2 ' �31 IA ! 31L - G=150 HOUK RD( 62=%, 4,:,6 N 0 CV PINES ROAD 0N 'n Jj..1444n en W_ N5 ✓ E 23., U7 NI- CDN Z 67=> C=42 N Q N5 2 67, 1150 l / / TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 m: 2004 3o TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE LIWC DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTA710N ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE 16 FIGURE NO. 30 201 5, #3, CONNECT, WI THRU, W/❑ HOUK SPOKANEVALLEY.WASHINGTON 9227 PH:509-89&2617 FAX 509.926-0227 I , CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED II 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE NLO i. 228 1 / 281 EVERGREEN ROAD Cy i 4P McD d M 'SI- co d N co N (] vN/ 1 652, N N 101 kJ ,c-t- , :.N 'i . I oM n m M / i/ / • W n W 271 X211 ''.///%/,,,, ,,,/ Q / '%/ i //i/ii, ,/ Q Q 16� / 256 Z,�, , ..�;,' '/./ ?537 lY C� z •%-'� Z �'j a Q 4 :•JNA /� %; 'J^ .�, •// 7 c') CO fN . .; ,•/: '%EN, ,./`,, Q I r) ief ,- ., al. t ;1‘1,';'/////://' '(31'1,';/,..i'/ Z N- 4I2 1 = I 58, 163 '%303W1005�J G=1032 HOUK RD 21 e737 /�6 C�' 4P Ill 0 • M • ID • • PINES ROAD CO W ,,1 D `r° coo 0 o a_ N0) L [I1 129k 46 atoo `— — Z 656 =794Q 77 4;=,15 4 P 120= 281 758 G> 872 °' � N 32c%, 133 4P , , / co r N NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: E3NG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 31 2015, #3, CONNECT, W/ T H R U, W/0 H O U K PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETEDen = 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE Pe.197 EVERGREEN ROAD 4ll/{�/ N. N r7 N n n 225, IVI N /., aN 71c%, ////,.i.;>.'.',/,'-':',Vi /:', 111 01': /i i/ '/ �/ W 13 �39 i//Z/%//.• .r//�/,//, Q 15 01 /14/4<:/ ,.Or/ ': 11 P :OFN %,.-./,:...;/:❑ _/// / Q 2 co co ,fN<', //:-•" ..-' :FN! .74.:.y/. 0 N r ''' E/1. // ////, ?a///////i. - //'/ !':'/ //j/. '/' '/,../,/,7 f;//ii: i NN,/,/////�:,Q=/,j;/ /;, Z • V tea/ // •mai./, Q �✓ I = I =,30 25 c: 1\ �55 In S HOUK RD 4 rn to ____...vzl PINES ROAD 077.-----rri — rrno9 d N5 l� 67� cn 59 N 1 Z < ,55 24 - -•<! '12 Q • \\\N" TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 - PROJ DATE #: 2004-3D TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LIWC DRAWN: 1❑/1 4ISNG A & A CONSTRUCTION /04 E APPROVED. TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 32 2015, #4, CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/ HOUK SPOKANE 7FAXWASHINGTON 6-0 222176 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED N 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE ;,-,_ V Q22s �346 EVERGREEN ROAD 4 Ll N M I� ON ID in N t N 0 in 41 435, wl N 132 Q 13, 439 ../ /,../ 7/X-'..! %: •'.• / > 245j W 271 <=211 . //:''�;%%/, i Q 117 65 310 •�„'1//// ,../././///, /,. Q </ / ' z..../..--,//! Z 36� 2 0, 0 rn IN—v—//,...7/ :EN i'%;�.% 0 N N cs, .4. nI ! 0 , . . ,, i.---,--- V4 `�` I I ,,, 62 78, 186 D ' 537 758=✓ X872 HOUK RD` 32c%, ,cr133 4 N N NI- / PINES ROAD Lo •it in r ,J �t/J(NJ N �n\� NJ i 4 Y 173 47 N � (11 5: Z 58, 191 613=> X764 974=> 0937 K7......,7C7% 59 737 � ____,..,..7f rn 729:59 / / NOT TO SCALE PROJDATE 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULTINGENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 33 2015, #4, CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/ HOUK SPOKANE PH503-£193-2617 FAX:5N0s926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED M 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE in V 159 EVERGREEN ROAD "4- COO N00 N CP \i' 194,194, N N 69, 2, P-4 /; ///// . w° 4 /// 2:.— ���ll .'/ ''/% • CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED / 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE1..:-= _ / i 228 / EVERGREEN ROAD 308 - 4P . rN r a) D7 1 W _ d N 17N . (� n 404, JVL N N - 130 // ///', /'.. N N In O ' / /r , . ./ -;/. /. 111 O co mtil Q 13=P 39 :�/;:///�,;ii; �:/�,,;!',j > 255, W 271 G.211 ;///'/;/,/ j�!!//'/. Q Q 357 249 %;i;,/''/: • %;:. / Q 59� 4 z 2 0' 0 co .EN' ;-j•"'/.EN' "/%' Q co r • -////////� =a//%//•/ Z N '%////%/.' ',1//////// •'ON'///�///•, /422. O (------IS("<--a (0 ,..7, •QI ,',. , /.2., I n n %/ /. ;;%^,i %,/mo % i/.� Q 1. 93, 219 U7 ! 537 758 ✓ 872 HOOK RD r n 32.,, 133 4 in rt N In N N 'd' PINES ROAD co r")o ------- ,\ O N N N N .- 01 I1.1 !� IL 157., �48 N in------.'N..\\\ Z 58, 1187 627. .> 0772 (l . 974.=> G`=970 7� �15 v < 259.= e.737 a4P rn ^ r N / / NOT TO SCALE PROJDATE 11r: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A 8c A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE ND. 35 2015, #5, NO CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/ HOUK PH:509.893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE c I 106 ' EVERGREEN ROAD ,cr 180"' 4 p d N r.t . ----,,NNj (O40� • 16 � ,- N N 60= 2, NO,- 4','/, \ /•- Q ..•/;.',--/-,•.",-W:a: '/ ."!/ ; i If) rnppp rt !',i;//l!'/. ! /;//'i,i, :ii i W _o V i/�!,,•/; ./.././,..// 'K ''-,//�/ ! Z W13',' � 9 / 2 � // hi Q t46 3 ' ///W!/ / // / m 14,=%, 216 :" /%/..';'/,7 jig%j Q fY LI i' P .6,; ..// ./ a; // ../ //6,/,',. /O/ /; Z 2 M <t EN' i •i;�' /fN i•.,/�i 0 N r1 ,<I / / aI Z •.Iu%�/i�'// I/ a///• / — %j7,%;% '///// ON /...7...-/,,,•z/•,. .,,,,,,.../.,,..2../ .O�-'.:,i/,// 0 cel CO ,3N;, %�// '.3N/;/. Z � � LU co <I j./:�•';�' :<I',//<j Z 0 rn to J4. //,/,' , ,_In./// ///,/�//, ///// .••,7, QI rn I 1 ,31 I [!1 i 44= - X136 �16 HOUK RD 7= 7, 4P 0 N PINES ROAD 0 a)"' J m '/Ic,' W IJ- // VV 23,' Tr TF) Z • 67.--> <=44 CP N, Q 67j 136 / / TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: ton 4/04 DRAWN: ENG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE 9216 FIGURE NO. 36 2015, #6, CONNECT, WI THRU, W/ HOOK SPOKA09NE 893LE17 AX509-926SHINGTON 227 PH:509.893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED r- 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE N 0 CO CO Q 228 o Nd EVERGREEN ROAD 17 p 255 459k i'i_P 'n 101 LI^I, NN ,�/ I I ll 178U �( V v) co N 0 o N 60� as 1 u by-4- P.- /' W a o i QPM ,: i 1:1-2 N / :"".-/ Z Q 13=P '%=i39 • "//////-; i// •j/moi/%:'1' > t78 W 271LJ G�211 /,,,,�/;7/�' •/;,;;// QO 14� 216 •; ,, /. . .. Q ?537 '/ /'' / Z �_ C'j -1N• - Q 2 r� N EN:'/"/ ,IN /,./././/./., O N 0 <i//'''.'./%, <i '/,'i Z N N , N ,51% ///',/l- M//i - ://4/,//'//'/ 'Z/1//:'// 'Z// /././..'/,'• '',Z- //-*:•-.,/ (//....-------;a) 01 3N. •. - 3N -I ,'` (l,i A �\In/4 I I - 58, 163 16 0] 101188=' <=1018 HOUK RD 0 4 t'/ R. fD N PINES ROAD tD f,- ^ o J Nal V 'i N5 W i: N Ir] 129=P1 ,:=46 cLoo `O ` Z 656,--> X796 Q 7= 7. 4=15 120,, 267 758=J <--'872 rn n 32� 133 i............../I (I/I� ll P 77 / N NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-20 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTA11ON ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 37 2010, #6, CONNECT, W/ TH R U, W/ HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509.926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE o 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE (� �J 277 , EVERGREEN ROAD �j 182 P.......„.„„il .' CD 41 O) u7CO CO N rt N 4n 256, 1v4 N N 74=%, n P-4 W aCi QPM. dN r� WI T 4 LL - w rl O O O M D - w w 330=> X258 : Q t393 Q 0,=%, ,e0 z z Z 655 U jN j� Q 0 0 0 fN FN - 0 N <I C= =a IC. : Z Z z z 0 : ON O^ Z : 3N 3N Z - UM] ONQa) JpI. Ja Q - 0 I U7 f 65,, '%3159 1785=1> X2211 925=> X1062 H❑UK RD 397 p162 4P _ ) m N Q) CO PINES ROAD 04 CD 0 NNNn rj ] OL-----'-\\ ,J N INI U7INnpIrw Y VN5 n LL 129, �56 n 0 Z 71� 161 718 ✓ 0917 (I tl Q 1187 8995 Ki7....... �18 . j v � 315 a4P `' N M�- M, f NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-20 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 1 0/1 4/04 DRAWN: E3NG A Sc A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE 16 RItRIIRF ND_ 2E 2D2S.W/O PROJECT, W/ 2% GROWTH SPOKANEVA-2617FAXLLEY. INGTON0227 PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE N ,,, I-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N INTERCHANGE1 / _1 Q 323 117= x209 i,':'/,' ':'.. EVERGREEN ROAD /f 332,.\\„........._ L________2 � is j- 226, /i .• ' �'; N 266 i, 1:1-I PPi / r, aZ ; / 'i,/• 14 // /j/ �• °i n • ';/' //// 1i ,/'/i; W r0i / �./ ' / W Q 34 I :'i''/� �� %•i%4 7 Q t43 LI El i ///j,///j:/ //,/ Q 42 203 !� / / /'i/ 14 z gd- r-- S _________7) /,1/.:-/!///.-1/i/i'///, ,. ••,, ///, / /.%//// Z 3t4, • /3N Z -4=' / '/ 4r Z O a (--- ---------- . ..... , 'ji' , ,.... i% Q ; c I = - U] 218 X222 42� 132 HOUK RD \\\*N..'"---.... ": ) PINES ROAD L_1 7\ rcn os J - LO W Lr 116, 2 0 Z 7I 19� 141 39=> <=19 < 7 33, 2, X81 TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 & 2 PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A Sc A CONSTRUCTIO APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 39 2025, #1 , NO CONNECT, W/O T H R U, W/0 HOUK pH:509-093-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED N , 0 ° 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N r) <;! INTERCHANGE • N5. ....:','`' f 323, 277 /1.:/;%/22,/2, 117c= 0209 7//;% '/ .1 EVERGREEN ROAD 0= .7 395 "' /j i • e ,f,.,,-/;:>.:, .,,,/,-/:-:,4- .•/...,.//,/,- ./.......,„ 0 N ---.....'N. CO N , /' 639, (1:/":'''''//////// . %"/`,•/1/••2,"////2- "/"AtV•,/,/-- 407 -4 /��/ /i ':•,. '!'jilt./.,, PFL`E /1'/%,j' -N/i',!, /•'/ / .i ,. .- Nun Q .•/, /• t,/// ., , /,-,-./,/.-. -;./;- N O N % _ ,/1/,. Ill in 00 0 ./�i:// ./;/h-://;;/:: D N n .g �/ -;./h/..2/i'/ -//!">' /�l W V W 330c= 0258 ti 39 % ///.:/ �/// �/ Q 98 m 383 379 //,,,... •/�//, ////.0.//,/ < 4=669 CO- i' p :lic9.ri;, /174:' 1,-*;',</,%/..,'<ari•F < N .AI If ' /i'.4/7 , Z r .......) ro ::'///,:/.&/./////;///' •y-;i%%zip,././.,,<,.,-,./77, Z :/.,97 , a`/% ./.. 3 /7/..,, , Z 't o IQ ;aL/, .' .i:- , ;' j Z O • v I ' U] 2053 2484 107, 291 925=> X1062 HOUK RD: 39c%, 4=162 • 4 , co I PINES ROAD �( � � rr)cr3 03 ) Nf�N W(-:-:, � '%358 o vv 282 N Z 90 353 757='J X936 '' i. 1206�J G=1156 Ki7<1.2i em 18 v � ..,........48= 7, ......299 ii, N r) M -----------f LL / / NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BNG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE 9216 CIMiIoC �.in an 4n., 4;61 _ Nn CONNECT. W/O THRU, W/O HOUK SFOKANEVALLE17NAS:509-926HINGTON 227 PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE' 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE N 323 J //././..//:/'i 117=> 0209 EVERGREEN ROAD 156 = 4 y'/ /.,- ,_:..,./:..../.-... .., cn c N 4, 4 243k ,/%,/% _.,, -2' -- N.-' .. it //A' /F 268c7 /..W c- ' / %. ;, '- /j/ . ,// /.; / /. W •rn rn / /:%, /;./:., a) fit//nom N / '*//''2, '/ / '/ /'22::.,,,, V , _ ;,lig %�i;' ..• W / W 34 '/////%'// Ytii/,//// Q 43 O7 57 239 �,,- ,/�// .2�:�/.�;- Q 14 Q ,2 ;.j' z. j '�i Z O ':Q= i f) ,':' i "4;t7,-././.•',-//' AM % j!:, roZ ,ma://,,. ,-// ;/ CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE - 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N :`'= INTERCHANGE 1 4 323j 1277 1. 'f:__, _i 117== G=209 ' / ,/" " ' EVERGREEN ROAD p� [I/, }✓��338 :... c) C0 Li.......„......„") •./• • ,.• - in .4. .;! 'i. , / /i ;F 499/ V�/ '; • /-�.' %: / '• ; = 342 /' / til i/ - !,'i / // '/,' / /// Cr) /// /,' ',i'i `// /•'/7' - W ro •'' / / %%' - 82 W 330- 0 258 /////. // /// '/. Q //'/ // // // m / 239 '/X/ // / //,./<//.. 669 Q 57� Cy ,z j, %// z//,'./,/:/ Z iz a4 � Q 4 L I� O u7 ZN//1/...'��./ 'IN,„, ��/i 0if) ' rn 2a%/. ZLO ':;::::?::::::,/,././,, ;7/''''///l2:. ;/..'./'::,:.,'//: zr, ...-t 'IL 1//%1' i/ /V'// ( — y/-------- Ut . - r 2000 G=2410 91c:P' t256 925= ' ..< 1062 HOUK RD• 39c::: 2, 4=1621 ) .------'7! 4P r - Ln CO PINES ROAD LC '- J r) N r G N5rn ' Id W ' '7 1 ' to Int 256 .1m 57 M Z II 87 306 742=' =930 (t 1201=1> -1129 9� em v 2 { 336 899 t 4 �N M7.............” '.4.111.44 NOT TO SCALE PROD : 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: 10/14/04 0/1 1 4/O4 DRAWN: BNG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULTINGENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 42 2025, #2, CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/O HOUK SPOKANEV93-267ALLEY,WASHINGTON99216 PH:50993-2617 FAX 509.926.0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE ,,, d 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N r INTERCHANGE 323j 1•'%/% '''' 117=1> a 209 .'.i:///:'!' ' EVERGREEN ROAD 4.91 4 • o M, , 1, N 229,, 1l- r://////1". //:; • //,K1 . 158 ,14r>1.4 _,/,/ ,',..::. ..,22,:•/'-'.:.;.:.:7 i/ �-\1— .,/,':-',-::',./,.../.: /;14'..:.::.>,',1',/,'/ ',;(,.' , 1 ; • ,:/ :,://:',.//../,/,,".•:-.:' // , '/ ,• Q' ;.>/:' A;Y.; .'i /./.:%•::;:' .' ///,/,/,..1••••-•••:-2' WQ i /;' .////; i , mN /' ''i /, // .�//�'// WEn ,n ' ,./...,:•' / / Q 34"' /.. /� Q t43 W /• / 0332 205 j/// �% //M11- //:/ Ql Q '/ix�'i,//- '///!//// — .-Zi,/,//:///• 'Z,./. moi. / rn ci ' :'fi i //. /40:;•-.•>2" %, Z rn) /// En, II 83 U7 89 > X185 HOUK RD 82.zz2, �6 4 � N PINES ROAD co n 1 N 77----: P. (11 59J '%=1Z 91: X91 ,JJ Q • 91c, 185 I , 1 TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, � NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 & 2 PROD #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE D10i14iA Sc A CONSTRUCTION DRAWN: BNG APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML ANC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 43 2025, #3, CONNECT, WI THRU, W/O HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED O 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N to INTERCHANGE (�. :;%-', \/it":-. 323, 1 ,3277 //i- -/: 1174 0209 i/;!/,!'a,i : EVERGREEN ROAD Oc: 7 e=273 E. u1 ONO /..',./:',..:.: /; MN '.:221,.' / '! ,./ 485,, /-."",>-`; / //"6'''"/' 232 /, %'/.:';/ ' 'I''"/' •j/; ."'/'�///j /a) -/ '/ / / / /` / cn r o . /'•/ //ji •/ ; ' ;• W a / / ' / '/../.-../;//.././ W 34 �0 ,�/! •i/:./ /.// / Q I =.82 330 L -.> < 258 / /// //i Q 32 205 %/',.-,' 2, ' �// Q 655 ,t r '..•2N' �', •. 'fN..',%/!,`; CI u7 co co ,Q=i!/./. /¢2//;•/ ,,.. a" a i / tea,///,' Z 1 ' /i/%/%/.L //i/i/ — i CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) INTERCHANGE 323.=> -‹ .209 ,w/.,.../- . J. EVERGREEN ROAD 117.= ,c9=156 • . .. • .—. - . . . ' co o T-Iol 0 ifl N N .-.,Y..•.:',:,..;'.,."),./ .".-',//'-,/,' ',\lli 243" ..//,:','../.:-/-„:•:,..;.....; ./ N, ;:-.,•' .: 2682, ',.-... -:".. ' '" .;'AM/••:',./.-- 1)` • ',/..'.. ' -/,' .//' • 4:44 //:,-.>. .17/7/ •.' /-*,. ' ..."://,/ ,/ p,'i2- . ,',/,,i.'"i/„/ i<y,',':j ',;/. ,, ..' '..•./..-A Z. --, co L0 Vr -//':''''/ / ' L— •'-', , ...if:„•;',..--..,., , co- - . //,',--/ //,',.•,;;- 'lil.,Et:///.././/' ..j."-/Z/ ,///22 . , ''/,:;,,,.-,...:;?; .: 2-7;/, ./"/,',/,/v,/// ; 7 ,/,; ...,-,- ,•,..,•,.- CM CD ,i- / / / ./' • /../ ' el 15' n rl N '' /,..://////// //:/..",--////• Z 4, \lli D < 15". El 57.= =239 -..`,/<;/" :,'.?„177//„ •///,..[./.•./..,.././//zA < 36. 7, 0 ..,-., '2't,04.-/-, , . :EN,-.,-..-...// , 0 N 0 mi- cri :V ,/„..:(1,:,,;//. •../ .N OD ./,, ?,/,/,/ Za.,,,, z .-,, //..-//././ ////- /i// — '/ /"/, ', </'/'.;/ ./..‘//,, ; / ./';%l ',/ ....j.'//11,..° Z ,,Z7•/ /;',X..Z/X,/if/ '.-13a./// •/' 7 1:17,'//... / CI 'ff'/./-"/ ,/ !- • AntsfX,',/ . /- z r- 3 iIi-1; ;/;:;:•••///;.;"-•*-:',";'-//;%(4 , , , . t357 25" HOUK RD 11•11. -------if PINES ROAD ol 0 cr) r-- -1 1.----- co CD N ...- 11 4, '& 129" 1 :31 cp c0 En Z t145 i / TRIPS GENERATED BY: ---------_ ----A-77 / LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 & 2 PROJ #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 1D/14/04 DRAWN: 13NG A & A CONSTRUCTION AWC E APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGIMEMING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 45 2025, #4, CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/ HOUK PH:509-893-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE ,n ,n o • ' 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N N INTERCHANGE .1I N5Gf �J 323j' 277 117=> X209 ;,!'%'' i, EVERGREEN ROAD 0��vC�\ �j �i 338 o r ,n 0 0 , CD d- t. JI I1 499 .0'/,///;/ //;! './"/'/,'•`// %,..4.,./1,,-.:4/1-/-',. 4/}.4A1:,`.:-, 342 P- ,,-,/,,I.. .'i..'i"//. '.4.7.,: /, //', /:/;!/;/ �._ rnu7 //., ./././ -/W •• //,. '/ /,': ' '� '%/L,//: :// ' /,,,,,,./.. ,norcp in //%;'.////i -.2///// /,i/ - ] r)� /,',5-.:, ././/..":".:/,'"/..>' Z to ic n Q 330=>. X258 "//�/'//1/� '7// CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE ,r, , 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N o %: INTERCHANGE . (� 323 `7 / ?%i./i''I 117 G=�209 - -� '� - EVERGREEN ROAD 118 ;/! 4 IJ y., co N n �1I) ' 212J Pi:' / :,fJ: 266, 71 P .2/2// ..:/!/ , •. , '; -.i'', ' P i. - El7 /://i// /',•'///"";'.W• / %/ /////1///////- 1 '///,,/// //n/�,./ i./,/ j//..///; Q 34,, > W %i%'//' ///// /i%/ Q 25 El 42� 178 '%/,� ;i,,/ -;//////////, ��//,. Q ' 59 Q /-///% /- L Z m N .EIV , ,:/ /,/ /. //. ',/./-4.7/////// ///../////,' to '159//,6:/// ,o1.7-:',/.' /• N 'e 2I CD — X65 40," ..%=,88 N HOUK RD� 4 a •PINES ROAD o ❑ up r7 N J CO N Y W LI 1134,' 1 ,:=2 0 ❑ 120 � X 20 Z 38 X88 a TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 & 2 PROD #: 0/1 4 30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWC DATE: 1 O/1 4/04 DRAWN: ENG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULTINGENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 47 2025 #5, NO CONNECT, W/O THRU, W/ HOUK SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99216 PH:509-893-2617 FAX 509.926-0727 CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE N o o / I -90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N ul INTERCHANGE • V 323c ' 1277 ;%'//,/ 117= X209 /;//,,.`.;; .aw' ^ 0 390 f J EVERGREEN ROAD • i' e u.),...) 0 . N In 1'3 // 41 V 625c ' i.�., , /'�•"/'•./, /;N/,�," 407 /-' i /•+ i',/ /i / /:/• /" • /, /7 Q //,',//; j;', :a /// / ,• / ///: 1. ,, /j- N co d '7 J // / / / Z v W 330 > G`=258 /// /''/ '%ii //i Q 305 Q 383 354 ./��/�/;�!�'/<// . Q 59 Ci2 O] O O7 'FN'; CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETE 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N INTERCHANGE .II 4 ':i' 232, -: ././i '`.fi 117= X209 •"'/ :T i.' _ EVERGREEN ROAD 'n 165 \\. J ra 197 o 158 '8'.- i' J ji/. ..///' 16 60 P • " ti N ° • //' [ W co ' Z � W C71 Q 341,1 / m 30 165 //'//'2 //; ///f//i�/ Q O/��',• !°// %rte' Q 2 to ' .<'.'>: / • 1,E.,14//':.://' a to "/rte'/cI i-- ',;;3 'G'/,;/. Z ',r (� N t'7 / / .i • .iJa•'/ /. En I I 483 (I] al 102=> 0171 Ns 16 - 27 c2,HOUK RD N PINES ROAD 0 co 77.--------; J W 0) U7 59� 0 N Z 91=f> X93 ': I ( , Q 91J t171 TRIPS GENERATED BY: LAWSON PHZ 1 & 2, ---) NOT TO SCALE HAMILTON PHZ 1 & 2, IEP PHZ 1 & 2 PROD #: D TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AWCE DATE: 10/14/04 0/1 1 4/0 4/04 DRAWN: ENG A & A CONSTRUCTION APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE FIGURE NO. 49 2025, #6, CONNECT, WI THRU, WI HOUK SPOKANE FAAX::50s�-926-0227 . . CONFIGURED WITH COMPLETED tr) 0 0-----\\ . • . ./ /' 1-90 AND SR-27 (PINES) N ..:1- ill N 1.0 LO ./. .•:'//..i't.." . ' ' INTERCHANGE • • „, , , ,' . '• , ./,-./,'././//7 .' 232,' 277:11/:.';'/..',../tr. / 2 2, (---- 41 117=> <=209 4.337 to cli cri____/1 /.///../'''''./ ," l.'/:.,"•', '• ••/'''' 7. .. . t EVERGREEN ROAD ..' . ' 781j F- er .i:;.:,,:-;:i • :,....-:;-`.,:,./... ; < 1 '1' 611cP N si ,•,/ i'„„mi,'Y"//4.-..:%':...:':•.% 2. '/4t, ',; 272'=%, tr)S N M -4 , / -/..- _,Nisl Ps ,,ii,' • ':•//22,`: , .../4'Cli',- i' 92t- /1/•'i'/,',-'2:-;/-2/; /,,"--. .',//';'-'1,.." " ; t ..:.,/..:/",:,- :'< , /T../// ...,1-,;• ' ;///./.;:;,' N ro /27/1,."1/...22., 11 / 1,4">.i'z',..'/' % ..••••,.//• ,<: •;//,', /,',.-'• / -=`u7/ ,' '''• '• - .• •.,',2•//,',7/, ,:.//,;//', -/%.///.//; : ',,/j/,'.../,'/ /////,'% •,':'• • ,/,',/,':- 4 r, cr) ro .-7:;12//</:;.> .:',::.':/..•;:;/'//:%•••:; . n' 7,- D •:, \5 I5 / /../////,''.. .,,/, '..4/i, ,•,./..•2:',/z . "."•-•)//,'./,' 1 Z : 71 _<1MLZil 330= 259 8 ///,.//,,//,'/,.•„,:-'///,•vZ//0/'.e//.' ///,-„/,/.//'/./•.. /. > t128 40ce321 /17 1/2 < 4"/ 1 655 ///Vm * < 1? -rar 2 ..-i-//////-// :,1',,',..//•,,••• ' _ ro co o IN-',//...;•::,'..,:•'• .'ibt//i-'/,.'-' 0 tn co -4- to r,-) /41/:///••///' ,i i///./..., Z -4- rn ''./, ///,7777777-/ VX//';',./-' ...//- ///17 . •.'i,,,.•41,,,>>.• .• '.,':'./-- `-- 16 • iw'r'///,',- / • :AV/,// . //- N,w, .//,'..,•; .0// .//. / Z ,—ILI//7//,•//•'.. 48.,y,/// , I I I (13 1018 > 'd \r t163 •< '1018 HOUK RD 266, e,737 em 0 4 e ...., PINES ROAD co in al 0 LO N • to N 41 N5 w IT 211J izT 56 Z4 o ,- NI N tll Z 824 < 1026 9 ,e=1 41 18 N5 < 2 IP 17-1., t 350 --. 925=> -.( 1062 to K =162 o) r•-• cr) ---------AW / ./ c-4 co NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 2004-30 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DATE: 10/14/04 DRAWN: BN G A Sc A CONSTRUCTION AWCE APPROVED: TRW SHANNON APARTMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTCIN WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CML AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 SPRAGUE AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 FIGURE NO. 50 2010, #6, CONNECT, W/ THRU, W/ HOUK PI*RICI-R,11-9F17 FAX7.FrIP.A7F.-07 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Mannl g Cor 11 IssIot1l Acti'n 'Heeth g Date: January 13, 2005 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation N.GENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Recommendations on an ordinance establishing Section 7.09 Sign Regulations of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, repealing Section 14.804 of the Interim Development Regulations, providing for severability and effective date and amending of the Sign Regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-53, Chapter 14.804. PREVIOUS COUNCIL/COM, ISSION ACTIN TAKEN: City Council was briefed on the progress of the Ad Hoc Sign Committee on July 20, 2004. Mr. David Crosby reported on the findings of the Committee on October 12, 2004. The Planning Commission met in workshop session with the Ad Hoc Sign Committee on December 9, 2004. i-,ACKGROUND: Chapter 14.804 of the Interim Zoning Regulations regulates the placement and dimensions of signage. The Ad Committee was charged with the "review and update" of the existing regulations. The Committee met on a regular basis from mid-June through the first week of December, 2004. The meetings were held in the Council Chambers and were open to the public. The proceedings of Committee deliberations were also posted on the City's web site. Signs are classified as On-premises (advertising goods or services on site) and Off-premises. Billboards are off-premises signs. On-premises signs are either temporary (e.g. real estate sale) or permanent, and may or may not require a permit. Permanent sign types include attached or "wall" signs and free-standing signs. Free-standing signs include both "pole" signs and monument signs. Permanent signs require a permit. Local government may regulate the time, place and manner of commercial "speech", but may not control the message. The recommendations of the Committee include: © Updated definitions o Updated height, maximum copy area and spacing standards © Measurement of irregular signs ® Amending "aesthetic corridor" designations within Spokane Valley co "Cap and Replace" for billboards Amendments to aesthetic corridor designations and replacement of billboards should be considered in conjunction with the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The draft ordinance was forwarded to CTED for their review on November 2, 2004. A Determination of Non-Significance was also issued on November 2, 2004. The comment period expires on December 2, 2004. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approval BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 05-0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING SECTION 7.09 SIGN REGULATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE, REPEALING SECTION 14.804 SIGNAGE STANDARDS OF THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 03-053 INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 03-053 adopted the Spokane County Zoning Code as Interim Development Regulations pursuant to the requirements of RCW Chap. 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Goal Goal UL.5 "provide for an aesthetically pleasing urban environment and encourage the maintenance and enhancement of natural and cultural views"; and WHEREAS, Policy UL.5.5 is to "[e]stablish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial signs that protect views and minimize signage clutter while still allowing adequate business identification"; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission to provide the opportunity for public comment on the proposed regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed development regulations must be submitted to the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development pursuant to WAC 365-195-620; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 7.06 of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code is hereby established to read as follows: "Section 7.09 Sign Regulations Section 7.09.01 Purpose, Intent and Scope Signage regulations are intended to promote commerce, traffic safety and community identity while improving the visual environment of residential, commercial and industrial areas. Signs are classified as off-premises signs or on-premises signs. On-premises signs may be attached (wall) signs or free-standing signs. Signs may be classified as permanent or temporary. Section 7.09.02 Definitions • Abandoned - a sign that advertises a product or service no longer available or a business no longer in operation; a sign which is illegible, non functional, in disrepair, or hazardous as a result of lack of maintenance; a nonconforming sign structure that has lost legal status as a result of abandonment or lack of use. • Billboard: A structure for the purpose of leasing advertising space to promote an interest other than that of an individual, business, product or service available on the premises on which the billboard is located. 1 • Building Sign: An extension of a building (e.g. awning, canopy, marquee), whether permanent or temporary, which contains copy. • Bulletin Board: See Reader Board. • Code Enforcement Officer: The authorized respresentative of the City of Spokane Valley with responsibility for code compliance. • Copy: letters, characters, illustrations, logos, graphics, symbols, writing or any combination thereof, designed to communicate information of any kind, or to advertise, announce or identify a person, entity, business, business product, or to advertise the sale, rental or lease of premises. • Copy Area: the area of the sign containing any copy, symbol, sign, logo or graphic. • Directional Sign: Any sign relating solely to internal pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation within a complex or project. • Electronic Sign: A sign that can be changed by electrical, electronic or computerized process; inclusive of video boards. • Flashing Sign: An electrical sign or portion thereof which changes light intensity in a brief, brilliant, or sudden and transient outburst of light causing a steady on and off, glittering, sparkling, or oscillating pattern. • Freestanding Sign: A permanent sign not attached to or forming part of a building. • Freeway Sign —A permanent free-standing on-premises sign or billboard located on a parcel adjacent and contiguous to Interstate Highway 90. • Inflatable Sign: Any temporary hollow item or character expanded or enlarged by the use of air or gas. • Menu Board: An on-site display of menu items at a restaurant; not meant to be viewed from the street. • Monument Sign: A sign and supporting structure constructed as a solid structure or one that gives the appearance of a continuous, non-hollow, unbroken mass. • Multi-Business Complex Sign: a sign with a primary facility name and a list of the individual stores or businesses mounted on one structural element. Such a sign type includes signage describing a mall arrangement, a strip-center development, an industrial park complex, or a multi-business structure or complex of buildings with a unifying name and a listing of businesses contained within the grouping. • Mural: A work of art applied directly to a wall, ceiling, or floor surface where forms and/or figures are the dominant elements and not intended for commercial advertising. Any form of wording or logo shall be of secondary nature to a mural. • Name Plate — a sign showing only the name and address of the owner or occupant of the premises. • Non-conforming Sign: Any sign which was lawfully erected and maintained on private property which now, as a result of code amendments, does not conform to all applicable regulations and restrictions of this chapter. 2 a Notice Sign: A sign intended to safeguard the premises (e.g. "No Parking", "No Trespassing", "Watch Dog on Duty"); or which identifies emergency telephone number, hours, and security information. • Obsolete Sign: A sign not removed within thirty-six months by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is located when the advertised business is no longer conducted on the premises. a Official Sign - a sign erected by a governmental agency within its territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of carrying out an official duty or responsibility and including, but not limited to, traffic signs and signals, zoning signs, and street signs. Special lighting or banners celebrating seasonal or civic events sponsored and/or endorsed by the City Council may be Official signs. • Off-Premise Sign: a sign displaying copy that pertains to a business, person, organization, activity, event, place, service, or product not principally located or primarily manufactured or sold on the premises on which the sign is located. • On-Premise Sign: a sign which advertises or directs attention to a business, person, organization, activity, event, place, service, or product which is manufactured and/or available on the premises where the sign is located. a Portable Sign: A sign not permanently attached or affixed to the ground or other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported or moved from place to place, including, but not limited to signs designed to be transported by means of wheels. • Reader Board: A sign face consisting of tracks to hold readily changeable letters allowing frequent changes of copy. • Roof Sign: A sign supported by and erected on or above a roof. • Sign Area - the gross surface area of the sign, including a single surface of a sign with messages on both sides, the sum of all surfaces where two or more signs share a single structure, the gross surface area of both faces of a V-shaped sign; and the copy area of a monument sign. In the case of an irregularly shaped sign, the sign area is calculated by enclosing the extreme limits of the sign by no more than four (4) rectangles. The sum of the area of the rectangles shall be the gross surface area. The maximum allowable area is reduced by 10% for the second and each subsequent rectangle used in the calculation. • Support Structure(s): Posts or columns and the anchors and bolts that structurally support the sign attached to it. • Temporary Sign: A sign which is to be removed within a specific period of time or upon the occurrence of a specified event meeting the height and area requirements of Table 7.02; inclusive of inflatables. • Three-Sided Sign: A sign with three faces. • Two-Sided Sign: A sign with two faces. • Use(s) — General use categories or specific uses within categories as follows. o Institutional Semi-Public include a churches, public park, multiple-family dwelling, dormitory, fraternity, sorority, nursing home, retirement apartment, public building, child day-care center, family day-care provider, nonprofit community hall or lodge, animal clinic, cemetery or sanitarium. 3 o Institutional -Public include a school (kindergarten through university), hospital, police station, fire station, post office or public golf course. o Office -include a business or professional office. o Commercial include permitted commercial uses other than home industry, home profession, and those listed above. o Industrial — include permitted industrial uses. • Video Board: See Electronic Sign. • Wall Area—the two dimensional respresentation of a building elevation, including windows and doors, excluding eaves. • Wall Sign -A permanent sign attached or erected parallel to and extending not more than fifteen (15) inches from the façade or face of any building to which it is attached and supported throughout its entire length, with the exposed face of the sign parallel to the plane of said wall or façade. Signs incorporated into mansard roofs, marquees or canopies are wall signs. Section 7.09.02 Prohibited Signs The following signs are prohibited: 1. Signs which by coloring, shape, wording or location resemble or conflict with traffic control signs or devices. 2. Signs that create a safety hazard for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 3. Flashing signs. 4. Portable signs 5. Signs located within the public right-of-way, except official signs. 6. Signs attached to or placed on a vehicle or trailer parked on public or private property, provided that this provision shall not be construed as prohibiting the identification of a firm or its product on a vehicle operating during the normal course of business. 7. Signs obstructing visibility within any Clearview Triangle as established in Section 7.06 of this Code. 8. Billboards Section 7.09.03 Permit Required. 1. A permit is required for any sign excluding official signs iincluding traffic and directional signs1; seasonal decorations; merchandise displays; point-of-purchase advertising displays; national and state flags; flags of a political subdivision; symbolic flags of an institution; legal notices required by law; barber poles; historic site; monuments/plaques; gravestones; advertising copy affixed to structures intended for a separate use, such as phone booths; donation and recycling containers;lettering or symbols applied directly onto or flush-mounted magnetically to a motor vehicle operating in the normal course of business; political signs supporting political issues, candidates or ballot measures; replacement of copy on signs otherwise permitted; and or other signs noted on Tables 7.01 and 7.02. 2. Permit Applications shall include a site plan that provides the following information: a. The location of the affected lot, building(s) and sign(s); b. The scale of the site plan; 4 c. A scaled drawing of the proposed sign or sign revision, including size, height, copy, structural footing details, method of attachment and illumination; d. The location of all existing signs on the site including size and height; e. The location of signs on other property for sign types subject to spacing requirements; f. Approved sign plan, if applicable; and g. Tax parcel number of proposed sign. Section 7.09.04 Number, General Regulations 1. On-premises attached (wall) and freestanding signs shall comply with the requirements of Table 7.01 for maximum height, maximum allowable area, maximum number of signs, minimum spacing and setback requirements, provided however, that on-premises freestanding signage is limited to the maximum number of either pole signs or monument sign structures allowed per 300 feet of street frontage. i.e. if a single pole sign is authorized, no additional monument signage is permitted; similarly, placement of monument style signs will preclude placement of a pole sign. Table 7.01 Height,Copy Area and Spacing Requirements Maximum Minimum E.1! o $ o Sign Typevi A a$ re Additional Provisions ZoningDistrict m a) m a) a+ Q Q Q O) C } ) L L T Tate+ a w 'V R E a) a. ac ac m ° a in 000 00 0. d .` UJ) V) V) On-Premises-Attached(Wall) Nameplate 1 4 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a N Institutional-Semi-Public 1 n/a 20 n/a n/a n/a n/a N Institutional-School 1 n/a 32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Y 25%of wall area in UR-22 only Single Office(UR 12, UR 22) 1 n/a 32 n/a n/a n/a n/a y Multi-tenant Office(UR 12, UR 22) 1* n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a n/a Y *One per building Commercial(All Residential Zones) 1 n/a 20 n/a n/a n/a n/a y Commercial/Industrial Zones(B1,B2, n/a * n/a n/a n/a n/a Y *25%of wall area B3, 11, 12, 13)) On-Premises-Freestanding Subdivision or Area name 1* 10 60 n/a n/a n/a n/a Y *Per arterial street frontage Industrial Park/Area Identification 1 7 150 n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Institutional-Semi Public(Residential 1 6 16 n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Maximum copy area may be Zone) increased up to 60 sq.ft.for Institutional-Public(Residential Zone) 1 15 32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Y monument signs less than 7 feet in Office/Commercial(UR12,UR 22) 1 15 32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Y height Directional Signs n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a N Individual/Multiple Business(Pole Signs) Commercial, Individual Business(B1) 1* 20 50 n/a n/a n/a 5 Y *Per aterial street frontage per business per building Commercial, Multi-business(B1) 1* 20 100 n/a n/a n/a 5 Y *Per arterial street frontage Commercial/Industrial, Individual1* 30 n/a 100 200 n/a 5 Y *Per street frontage per business business(B2,B3, 11, 12, I3,MZ) per building Commercial/Industrial Multi-business 1** 40 250 n/a n/a 300 5 Y **Per street frontage and per 300 (B2,B3, 11, 12, 13,MZ) ft.frontage. Freeway Commercial/Industrial, Individual/Multi-Business(B2, B3, 11, 12, 1* 50 250 n/a n/a 300 5 Y *Per 300 ft 13, MZ) 5 Table 7.01 Height,Copy Area and Spacing Requirements Maximum Minimum ,a 2 Sign Type ^ m m vi co e re Zoning District m m d m ., 4- ..... Additional Provisions `m Q � rn � a) c } .e •E d L ›. >..2 >.r 'D cu i. m o 0 0 0 o c. m a Z 2 U U w U w N Cr, N 1 Individual/Multiple Business(Monument Signs} Commercial, Individual Business(B1) 1* 7 75 n/a n/a n/a 5 Y *Per arterial street frontage Commercial,Multi-business(B1) 2* 7 75 n/a n/a n/a 5 Y Commercial/Industrial Zones, 2* 7 90 n/a n/a n/a 5 Y *Per street frontage Individual business(B2,B3, 11, 12, 13) Commercial/Industrial Multi-business 2** 7 90 n/a n/a 300 5 Y **Per street frontage and per 300 (B2, B3, 11, 12, 13) ft frontage On Premises Free-Standing-Aesthetic Corridors Office(UR12,UR 22) 1 8 32 n/a n/a n/a 5 y Individual&Multiple Businesses—Aesthetic Corridors Commercial(B1) 1 8 75 n/a n/a n/a 5 y Commercial/Industrial(B2, B3, 11, 12, 2* 8 90 n/a n/a 500 5 **Per street frontage and per 500 13) Y ft frontage 2. Temporary signs shall comply with the requirments of Table 7.02 for maximum height, maximum allowable area, maximum number of signs, minimum spacing and setback requirements and limitations relating to time and events. Table 7.02 Temporary Signs Maximum E a, cox m Additional Sign Type m w, a -- > _ Zoning District E rn a Time Limit C' 2 E . Provisions d ow cr Z x UN u. u) CL) Residential Subdivision Real Estate 1 10 40 1 Year Y Non-illuminated Banners,flags,pennants, inflatables n/a n/a 30 days/quarter 10 Y One renewal Searchlights n/a n/a 10 days 5 Y Contractor,Architect,Surveyor, Engineer 1 40 12 months 5 Y One extension Real Estate Residential 1* 5 5 N *Per road frontage Commercial/Industrial 1 32 5 N Open House Directional 1* 3 5 5 N *Per access street 3. All illuminated signs shall have lighting confined to the sign, and positioned and shielded to minimize impacts to the surrounding area(s). Gooseneck reflectors and lights are permitted on Freestanding and Wall Signs provided that lighting or glare does not extend beyond the property line. 4. Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis as other signs, subject to height and area requirements of Table 7.01. 5. A roof mounted sign may be substituted for an allowed freestanding sign, provided that the height of the sign structure may not exceed the maximum height of the zoning district in which the sign is located. 6 6. Signs located within the airport hazard area shall conform to the location and height regulations of that area. 7. No sign shall be erected, relocated or maintained in a manner that prevents the free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. 8. .No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape except Official Signs. 9. Any sign erected or maintained within five (5) feet of the public rights-of-way shall be smooth and free of nails, tacks and wires. Section 7.09.04 Comprehensive Sign Plan Commercial development, shopping centers, industrial parks, mixed use developments, and hotel conference centers exceeding five (5) acres in size may seek approval of a sign plan specific to the development proposal. The Director of Community Development may approve a comprehensive sign plan that allows deviations from the strict interpretation of spacing, height and area requirements upon a showing of good cause, and provided that there are no adverse effects on adjacent properties. Any conditions imposed to secure approvals shall be binding on the Applicant. Modifications to the approved sign plan shall require reapplication and approval by the Director. If the Applicant and Director cannot come to an agreement, the Director's decision may be appealed through the Hearing Examiner. Section 7.09.05 Aesthetic Corridors 1. The standards shown on Table 7.01 shall apply to parcels adjacent to the following designated aesthetic corridors: a. Appleway Avenue (between 1-90 and University Avenue) b. Evergreen Road (between Sprague Avenue and Indiana Avenue) c. Mirabeau Parkway d. Indiana Avenue (between Pines Road and Flora Road) Section 7.09.06 Sign Location and Front Setbacks 1. Monument signs exceeding three (3) feet in height may be located at the property line outside any border easement, provided that the requirements of Section 7.06 Clearview Triangles of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code gave been met. 2. Pole signs with structural supports less than two (2) feet in width with copy area placed at a height of seven feet or more above grade may be located at the property line, provided that the requirements of Section 7.06 Clearview Triangles of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code gave been met. 3. All temporary signs, except inflatable signs, shall be located not less than five feet from the rig ht-of-way. 4. Inflatable signs shall be set back not less that ten feet from the right-of-way. 5. All signs shall meet the vertical and horizontal clearance requirements of the electric utilities. 6. All freestanding and monument signs shall be located in a landscaped area. Landscaping should be appropriately sited to ensure that signs are not blocked or obscured by trees or bushes. 7 Section 7.09.07 Sign Area Calculation Illustrations 1. Sign area for wall signs is equal to 25% of the two-dimensional area of a building's elevation, excluding eaves and gables.. 2. The sign area of a freestanding sign consisting of one sign shall be calculated as shown in Figure 7.2 below. The sign area of a freestanding sign consisting of more than one (1) sign shall be computed by adding together the total area(s) of all signs as shown in Figure 7.3 below. 3. Any portion of the sign not necessary forPETE'_('_PRO ( VT t'__ structural support of the sign or any structural support greater than two (2) feet in width shall be considered in the determination of the _ square footage of the sign. Figure 7.1 a A ► I SIGN R 1 1 A--t-ow SIGN 2 SIGN A IB Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 4. A 10% increase in sign area is allowed for decorative framing or borders. Area calculation does not include decorative rocks or landscaping adjacent to a monument sign. 5. The sign area for multiple-sided signs shall be calculated as follows: a. The total sign area for a two-sided sign shall be calculated using one (1) face, therefore allowing both faces to be of equal size (for example a two-sided sign has two (2) faces with 18 square feet per side, therefore the sign area is 18 square feet). b. The sign area for a three-sided sign shall be equal to the total amount of sign area a one- sided or two-sided sign is allowed (for example, in item 3a above, a two-sided sign is allowed 18 square feet of sign area per side which equals 36 total square feet. If a three sided sign is used instead of a one-sided or two-sided sign, the three-sided sign may allocate the 36 total square feet among three sides, therefore allowing three sides with 12 square feet per face for a total of 36 square feet of sign area). 6. Irregularly shaped signs may be measured in the following ways: a 16 ,E a he 11111) b iit440:1. 1 Niall C: aIlleimer Z D ? :Issale4 de ' B '' ' V 8 a. Conventional Measurement: Total area = a*b b. Sum of Squares: Total area = Area A+Area B+Area C+Area D Section 7.09.08 Maintenance of Signs 1. Any signage that has been approved or that has been issued a permit shall be maintained by the owner or person in possession of the property on which the sign is located. Maintenance shall be such that the signage continues to conform to the conditions imposed by the sign permit. 2. Any damaged sign structure shall be repaired within thirty (30) days of notice. 3. Any signage which has been damaged to such extent that it may pose a hazard to passersby shall be repaired or removed within forty-eight (48) hours of notice. 4. Any existing sign that no longer advertises a bona fide business conducted or product sold on the premises, shall be removed by and at the expense of the property owner within sixty (60) days of notice. 5. The copy on a conforming sign that no longer advertises a bona fide business conducted or product sold on the premises shall be removed within thirty (30) days of notice. Section 7.09.09 Existing Nonconforming Signs. Any permanent sign made non-conforming as a result of the adoption of these regulations may be repaired, but not structurally altered or made more non-conforming in any way. If the sign is removed in order to make repairs, it shall be replaced within sixty (60) days, or the permit is void. Thereafter, the sign shall conform to the requirements of this Section. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Section, any sign or signs for which a temporary permit has been issued by the City shall be permitted to remain at the location or locations authorized by the permit for as long as the permit is valid and all the requirements of the permit have been met. Section 7.09.10 Billboards (Reserved)" Section 2. Section 14.804.Signage Standards of the Interim Zoning Regulations is hereby repealed. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect following passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2005. Mayor, Diana Wilhite ATTEST: City Clerk, Chris Bainbridge 9 Approved as to Form: Deputy City Attorney, Cary Driskell Date of Publication: Effective Date: 10 City of Spokane Va9Hey Notice of ftbilc Hearing The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to receive public testimony at the Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley WA, 99206 at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 13, 2005, to consider recommendations concerning an ordinance captioned: N ORDINANCE •F THE CITY OF SPSKANE VALLEY, ` ASHINGTON, ESTA:LISHING SECTION 7.09 SIGN REGULATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT COI E, REPEALING SECTION 14.804 SIGNAGE STANDARDS OF THE INTE!`IM DEVELOPMENT fzEGULATI.NS ADOPTED PURSUANT Tis ORDIN/\NCE O3-063 INTERIM DEVELOPMENT EGULATIONS; PR•VIir.ING EO" SEtE" z-BILITY ;•.ND EFFECTIVE DATE. There will be an opportunity for public comment at the meeting. In the event that you are unable to attend, comments may be submitted in writing prior to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2005, to the Department of Community Development or e-mailed to planning(spokanevalley.org. Please call 688-0050 for more information. Publish Date: December 31, 2004.