The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 09/23/2004 Pt 2 CPA - 05 -04 FILE lila. ( _05_4,, SjGkane City of Spokane Valley Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 40,Valley PART I APPLICANT NAME: V tR OE d G 1PHONE: i ---r 5,f ADDRESS; \ 0.{i+o '. . ...P}, is�s ,f - EMAIL: . . ,.-s. 'P : , „„ CI` YISTATEIIIP: r , ll. D -�--F'4 C ,1 PROPERTY OWNER 1 IF DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT) NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: EMAIL: , CITY/STATI IZIP: : FAX; PROPERTY OWNER 2 OF MORE THAN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS,ATTACK SEPARATE SHEET) NAME: 1) V i d W eLd — PHONE: 4 _1 pi 7 ,ADDRESS_ - , { !„ L EMAIL: CITY/ TATEIZIP: q 03 74/"f r _ FAx l AGENTICONSULTANTIATTORNLY NAME: PHOS E: _ ADDRESS: A EMAIL: -I CITYISTATEIZIP FAX: LAND USE MAP CHANGE PROPOSAL: _ j j CURRENT DESIGNATION PROPOSED DESIGNATION LAND USE MAP / 1) 4. , i l—Co-net ` F . ZONING MAP PI / -_ I T — COMPREHENSIVE PLA POLICY;'FIANGE PROPOSAL(ArrAcH SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY): Cu--ENT POLICY { ( 1IN 'ROPOSED "OLICY rJ ( . OFFICE USE ONLY: El City initiated 2 itizen Initiated 1 Concurrency Review Required: C1 Yes i • Date Received: cc - 2-ti-0 j Received By: ' I ' __LI— 11f4J20.13 Page 1 of 5 ly P P PART LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE (Signature of Legal owner or representative as authorized by legal owner) (print named SWEAR CSR AFFIRM THAT C��' THE AaC RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. D AR 1 FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THESE OWNER OF RECORD NOT OF THE E IEA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED LAND HEREWITH IS R}TTEM PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING ATTACHED ACTONS ON HISJHER BEHALF. ► ki� �1P! .n !L if L ifAVi y1a 1. r • (State) LI Dat?} (Sisnature) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF of SPOLCANE , SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of NOTARY SEAL o ifFZ4_, �� , .1 N NA IRE Notary Public in and for the State of W_ .hingt0n Residing at My appointment expires' Page 2 of 5 11f4I OD3 PART IT • LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE (Signature of legal owner or representative as authorized by legal owner) 1, DA Orli) r , / L DOS (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVt RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING 1 IY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. ADDRESS: + . ,.PHONE;. S 110 fife y Ing. ZIP- 9:9p73 (City) (State) (Signature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this % day of - , 206 4r NIOT F YgW.11 f gilf• toERT i �� • 14% . . ° 'e*16 • N u TARP SIGNATURE a! ' ', *,,'.• * Notary Public in and for the State of Washington NOTARY ,�. �ut ��c ' ■ Residing at: ye'T A4 •:et t: +}'`' F w,►SY"�• My appointment expires: 0 G — e r d F • 11/412003 Page 2 of 5 PART H LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE (Signature of legal owner or representative as authorized by Legal owner) 1, "L .0F Iv/da (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVe RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 1 FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HUS/HER BEHALF. ADDRESS: - PHONE: J./1,24" ..S-YS f -i ?eel 4.41-- ZIP; iIy (state) / 1 - - 47,9 J (Signature), , Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 2O C NOT �. LL 16.1-1 f, ,.saON00NI NOTA' SIGNATURE 0 o IPTARY I,41Notary Public in and for the Stale of Washington pinto; z Residing at Act '1� Opw '�`' - My appointment expires: � 1. t 0 O 1%1,N, i1?rl2C103 Page 2 of 5 PART Yl SITE DATA PROJECTIPROPOSAL SITE AREA(ACRES OR SQ, FT.) ADJACEhNTARE OWNED OR CONTROLLED (ACRES OR SQ_PT,)- _i_2. ,s ExISTIt4 USE OF PROPERTY: ! .4,...-LA4... � . SCHOOL DISTRICT: °^ ' d A"-- FIRE DISTRICT: I+ # WATER DISTRICT: __ ZI _,_._ NEIGH ORHOOD ASSOCIATION: CA hff or-re..- & . ..LiTtisr PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD ACCESSING PROPERTY: f :J WIDTH OF PRopERTY FRONTING PUBLIC/PRIVATE ROAD: ACCESS TO EXISTING OR PLANNED ARTERIAL?CON) tE, NAME OF ARTERIAL ROADS: ajef-f--Q1 415 3 0 PREVIOUS ZONING/LAND USE DECISION LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: r7 6 '1:11%5i: 0.124) 1 - .0 v CHANGED CONDITIONS WHAT ARE THE CHANGES CONDITIONsWHICH WANTS THIS PROPOSED CHANGE? iuy Cl k 4 0 ( P) -1- 4_ 45 v 5 7 Lo_ ice, 11f412DD$ Page 3 of 5 PROPOSAL_ PROVOS E GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL; _ a- { � f L I-) r " 4 7- ye. 4-Y5 Akrd LS To Y' 1' 't TY -i- y -r0 I 5 r Lg. ve P ,('-r 7 4N L` "IA L A. kr A• 3 e_ \ „I 4 r r ."). Ct. lir Y 0- to' is AtX ADJACENT LAND USES -- — _ DESCRIBE EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSAL: h e i ' "h 1- s .a. l 5 S 1- 1. 4 e („ L A 11/4/2003 Page 4 of 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY DESCRIBE HOW PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-CITE SPECIFIC GCALS!POL1CIES: `y _S I ] L` 10. k ..xr e LL 5 .11 e s ses 1. 4 evtfp SO(41. TLT ` 4 '+2 T PAY -ry A 3-o Y r 1 1 .l l 4 5 l,J �L iF- C k t� # .(A. !+ , 3 U- L ! . / PUBLIC FACIu,ITIES DESCRIBE AVAILABILITIY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES, INCLUOING, ROADS,WATER, SEWER PARKS,AND P1BLFC TRANSIT: Se,.....Ley I -1 NI _S-'tr e. T-A. ',1 r l • w .4-"re !r" S PPLy 5 [-LP, I, P P ro V tel, 13 Lt. 5 .S t -5 LLIv K., 1 a $c + 5 I, i yid. J Ls 14 _n— L L. e -to - T rT.Q+ 4 y J 0.T l5 Wc "I`e4' a_ 7,), el Rc cLePLiep, 11)412003 Page 5 of 5 Aerial Map ill 9 I \ .4_*.Akefr... t . ;� is -�1 3 ewe 2323' 'q L i. ,C A 1 -.i-., ' 1,a IP �T �.,�� i7-11 ce• : ,'VatiEtTAay { G •. n, • ' - - -� .. . ' A. : ": 01 •�� ." S rr 3 ,•h 'e*lP 0' ', n.4v IP tl ! ` .. , go if - fin-'.- o. i F 11 ,, r v T,i^.-4 .,I I ' 1 #1S '� , 7^7 f: ' 'fid t 1. ,. • Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-05-04 4 SpO I August. 2004 ' 11 Comprehensive Plan Map ti r I• i : - ' _moi_ , I 11 \ . . . ------ I 1111 _ , Site I 1 M 1^ , ---1 /01: A _ __ _- I 1 11 I i ° 11 Mi 1I \-- Comp Plan Category Low Density Residential _ II ,iiiiii L Medium Density Residential s High Density Residential ._ r-1 Mixed Use 1 I Community Center Urban Activity Center I LI Nelgbbarhnc�d Commercial ----j Community Commercial M Regional Commercial . Light Industrial — , ° Heavy Industrial — IMineral Land N Comprehensive Plan Amendment .,A 1 + CPA-05-04 e August, 2004 I Zoning Map ::::...:,...-:::.-': ' -,.::-',:\::::.:::L:*.:::0 ,_____i 1 mwee•A /407, : \ imprimmmi do Jj, .--- --Ip '''' Mile/ firdA 1/10I 1 -I M _.:i IX •• Site 1 y1I Mielli '� w400 '. eor/r r 1/140:40:4:::;... A / . A it"....4"-v.s.....% A. /. Vailey+waY -* 6-4 ';,_________±------ _— %-- ' /4 ,A," r 0//r/For,M r ,/Zoning Category I 71°) jj .1/ 'dill:ZzA ./4/0..z , „..4g. i OR-3.5 1 rP/77,77/7777///e/Fllyrf. f 7 Ufa-T" UR-12 170 UR-22 . 7/71, B-1 M RR-10 1---- iorr f-1 S= 1-2 A 1-3 rz / Comprehensive plan Amendment ___LLCPA-05-04SOOkane ... 7 August,2004 .00.0Wi ley CPA -06 -04 _ FILE No.(4 game me City Of Spokane Valley Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment PARTI APPLICANT _ PHONE: 5_ _ _ ADDRESS: I S EII+IAIL: {, r _,.1'! Cfl Y/STATEILIP: I,4 [ + : k7 PROPERTY OWNER 1 (IF DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT) NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS EMAIL: CITY/STATE/ZIP: FAX: PROPERTY OWNER 2 (IF MORE THAN TYAVO PROPERTY OWNERS,ATTACH SEPARATE SHEET) NAME: I PHONE: AUL HESS: EMAIL: CITY/STATEZIP: FAX: 6 AGENT/CONSULTANT/ATTORNEY NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: EMAIL: T� CLTV/STATE/ZIP FAX: LAND USE MAP CHANGE PROPOSAL: CURRENT DESIGNATION PROPOSED DESIGNATION LAND USE MAP -.c _ IDe - r b a .4 14 i r 11.7 RP, .E ZONING MAP.... ' COMPREHENSNE PLAN POLICY CHANGE PROPOSAL(ATTACH SEPARATE SHEET 1F NECESSARY): TruyCURRENT POLICY C. . j PROPOSED .1a p...]( 1 POLICY LUZ— OFFICE USE ONLY: ❑ City Initiatedcn Initiated Concurrency Review Required: ❑ Yes nate Received: _ Received By: 'i . . /1114/2043 Page 1 Cf 5 PART H LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE (Signature of legal owner or representative as authorized by legal owner) L207Aft/ r 0 Liji I, E)1442112 , rte W4- , (print name) SWEAR DR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE_ I FURTHER SWEAR OR. AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ' ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. ADDRESS: I - ,S u'p06. 4.1 PHONE O`37 C u - _ ZIP. ci`1D`L3 (City) (state) . ilea( ‘ fteai(°I/ NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this SI) day of To r.1 ,, LSPzi NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGISITIP 1 Notary Public Notary, Public in and for the State of Washington State of lArepshirigtom � M,CHAEL J i RYYN5 ReSidir' at: 12r f ,5 i My Appointment Expires Apr 19, 2008 . intment expires: ,4-p , r I 2+0 " 11/4/2003 Page 2 of 5 ( if PART 1:11 SITE DATA PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA(ACRES OR SO.FT.) S AS. IQ a� ADJACENT ARE OWNED OR CONTROLLED (ACRES OR SQ.FT,) _ OA. EXISTING USE OF PRcbRERTY: y.I y L.pI SCHOOL DISTRICT. cJ+-r- r�t�- _ FIRE DISTRICT: �, .•b 1 --_- ._ �._.��.� WATER DISTRICT 11N'aa— ' J! b NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: E-A. +r PUBLIC OR OR PRIVATE ROAD ACCESSING PROPERTY: y']pryy ca, CAS?-,__� WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRONTING PUBLIC/PRIVATE BOAC: _ AC0ES5 TO EXISTING CR PLANNED ARTERIAL?(WN) NAME OF ARTERIAL ROADS; _ .U}3 -- . W - -AR \.30---.1....c_d2 Po- 2-15/L-1 r . 9 b ID PREVIOUS ZONING/LAND USE DECISION _ LCs PREVIOUS PLANNING ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY CHANGED CONDITIONS WHAT ARE THE CHANGES CONDITIONS WHICH WARRANTS THIS PROPOSED CHANGE? +ic Pr +PP.. -1 'OPTS � i'� .c'M ,. r,Jr--�.�Lt V-L. U. r F�jc'U 5.- LL_..C___ W Cc,r�9 t nj.V4 e_ " eS t 1\] C.3,-1, { '4 'fisc PET ir---,._,S fe'1 t g b 1.1 t4 1-DI - PCI { IIS C.J U- Lzio , E- •t cc '7x',-v` 1 1' t110cl- A..P L - 0,*-5. t C L.._S f tpt-t."2 - 0,4 e L ----i r...nk-s -11) DI 1,1 g LeD IP y A-r- c r 4-t rte r-rv,et+A-i ti L "r \J( *9- r-er-C,i. A 4-7te r5 L-F-RA L )' I — -1 -9-17--- 1 _,---`. L a1. -fib- - - ,i 1?.---- - - -- —____: 11/4/2003 Page 3 of 5 PROPOSAL PROVIDE GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: ADJACENT LAND USES[DESCRIBE EXESTING LAND USES WITHIN THE VIOINITY OF PROPOSAL: 1 • ArT7A—c- 3 • 1114/2003 Page 4 of 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY DESCRIBE How PRCPOSAL IS CQNSISTLNT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—CITE SPECIFIC GOALS/POLICIES: PUBLIC FACILITIES DESCRIBE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES, INCLUDING, ROADS,WATER, SEWER, PAP ,AND BL1C TBAN&Ir • -I 1/4/2'X3 Page 5 of 5 � I PROPOSAL Provide General Description of Proposal: We propose to develop our ap�proxitntely eight-acre parcel into a quality adult caret assisted living facility_ This facility would be much along the lines of the Broadway Court just to the west of this property aud Sullivan Park to the south en south Adams road. We feel that this would be an ideal use for this property as it has nearby access to the Valley Medical Complex as well as numerous shopping options. ADJACENT LANA USES Describe Existing Laud Uses within the Vicinity of Proposal: The existing land use is single family residential along with duplexes across the street from the property location. There is also a Montessori school just to the south of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY Describe How Proposal is Consistent with Compreheusive Plan-Cite Specific Goals/Policies: We feel that our company's proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It would provide a nice fit for the neighborhood by incorporating a quality adult living/assisted living facility with access to both major arterials north and south providing a reduction of the traffic impact. It would also be a improvement for the neighborhood from it's currant use as a vacant lot that is beim used as an illegal damping ground for trash,abandoned vehicles and unsafe trespassing motor vehicle traffic. We have had to erect large signage in order to help curtail these activities, Under the Comprehensive Plan,it states that it is desirable for the following: ▪ Locate high density near commercial areas-We believe that this project would be complimentary with this goal as it is very close to the busy Sullivan Road and Sprague business corridors. It is also in very close proximity to the Valley Mall Complex with good access from both Sullivan and Evergreen interchanges. * Locate high-density sites with good access to major arterials-Our project would be very near the arterials of Broadway and Mission Avenues. It would also benefit by the chose proximity to the Sullivan and Evergreen interchanges. • Create a variety of residential densities within the Urban Growth Arca with an emphasis an compact mixed use development in designated centers or corridors-We feel that our project adheres to this goal by locating in an area that this type of development is already present but not clustered together. It would provide a nice mix while not being overwhelming. ▪ Provide a healthful,safe,and sustainable urban environment that offers a variety of opportunities for affordable housing and employment,—This project would provide aftbrdable and convenient housing for the growing senior population while also adding nearby jobs to the community. • Require effective-landscape buffers and/or transitional uses between incompatible industrial, commercial,and residential uses to mitigate noise,glare,and other impacts associated with uses- This project would provide act attractive landscaped buffer zone while eliminating the dust,noxious weeds,and nnisanoe of the current state of the property. P[lBLIC FACILITIES Describe Availability cif Public Facilities and Services,including,Roads Water,Sewer,Parks,and Public Transit; The property is serviced for power and water from Vera Water and Power Utility. The sewer is currently being constructed up Adams road and is scheduled for complctou this summer. The nearby parks include Valley Mission Park,Sullivan Park,and close prcodtnity to the Centennial trail. Public transit is available with bus routes on.both Broadway to the mamediate south and Mission Avenue to the immediate north.. Page 1 of 1 Scott Kuhta From: Peggy L Cannon [cannortrpijuno.cornj Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 4:24 PM To: Scott Kufata Subject: Application No. CPA-06-04 September 16,2004 Mr.Scott Kuhta Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,Washington 99206 RE: Application No. CPA-06-04 Dear Mr.Kuhta: After learning of the application by Crosby Family Land,LLC,to change the designation of 8 acres of land east of Adams Road,400 feet south of Mission Avenue,Parcel No.45141.9003, from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential,we feel compelled to notify you that as homeowners and taxpayers we enthusiastically oppose this proposal. We object to this proposal for many of the same reasons you might object should someone propose a zoning change which would allow a multilevel,multifamily apartment complex to be built literally in your backyard. We object to the increased traffic,noise,and pollution it would ultimately bring. We object to the consequential loss of property value such a development would mean for all neighboring residential properties. We object to the taxing of community resources which would result from a bulging population. We bought our current home in good faith,knowing it was located in en area zoned as Low Density Residential. We realized that at some point the land in question would indeed be developed. We expected,however,it to be developed as designated—low density residential. We have watched with dismay as our neighbors on Evergreen Road have had their front yards encroached upon and their living environments changed forever. We realize that yours is an awesome responsibility—providing the greater good for the greatest number of citizens. It is our hope,Mr.Kuhta,that you and your fellow planning commissioners will agree that the greater good is maintaining good, :solid,environmentally and esthetically friendly neighborhoods in which the citizens of the City or Spokane Valley can live, raise their families,and contribute to the community. It is our hope that you will realize that allowing a business organization to change a zone solely for its own profit is not in the best interest of the City's homeowners and taxpayers. We sincerely hope that you will reflect carefully on this decision. Your decision will have an enormous impact on the lives of many of your city neighbors. Please help us maintain the neighborhoods which we call home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Richard and Peggy Cannon 1103 North Burns Road Spokane Valley,Washington 9/17/2004 Sept 14,2004 We have received notice of the desire of the Crosby Family Land,LLC to have the Comprehensive Land Use designation changed to High Density Residential on the parcel of land they own. This has caused considerable consternation among the residents near this parcel.This is a stable neighborhood with many residers%of long tenure who axe very comfortable with the neighborhood as it presently exists. It has been well accepted that one day the parcel would be put to use for more single family homes.We feel that any development on the land should not disturb the environment we are accustomed to. While these are emotional concerns,they are important to near-by residents. There are other concerns of a more technical nature.The parcel between the eight acre parcel and Broadway has already been sold and developed which allows no direct access to Broadway.The intersection ofAdams and Broadway is already difficult,so more traffic would flow to Mission. While Mission has been recently improved,the improvement has caused many of the residences on the north side of the street to lose access and parking to the widening.Backing out of those driveways is already a problem,a problem that would be exacerbated by additional traffic on that street.Since Mission is essentially a two lane street,the possibility of collision with resulting property damage or personal injury would increase with increased traffic. A UR-22 zoning could allow 176 units to be built.Traffic control uses a possibility of five car trips per day per unit for a possibility of 880 car trips per day added to Adams, a two lane street.. Additional policing would be required to monitor traffic. This brings up the question of sewer capacity.Though the recently added sewer has not yet be approved for use, it could already be insufficient to handle the increased load. If high density structures were to be built,there would be no buffer between that property and the properties that now exist on the west side of Bums Rd.There has been a long standing practice in zoning to amide a zoning buffer between high and low density.To allow this change would upset that practice. The Central Valley School District is already considering the possibility af instituting busing as early as next year.An influx of 1801 new residences is forecast for the next five years.Progress Elementary has a capacity 416 students and currently has fewer than that,but that school is targeted to receive busing.Pines Middle School is currently being re-modeled for expected influx,New high density housing in an area of low density housing would increase the birder_ We,the tax payers,paid the bill for a long process of study and meetings to develop a comprehensive land use plant.If errors were made in that plan,and if it is argued that sufficient land was not desiguated for high density use,one might look at the area south of Sprague and east of Argonne where a change of designation could be made with far less impact. „1-: _./. 0:.,.A1_," f ./ / � � 0 dloti i /oil fiifeiLl r 4,9h t4l .4.:., ` 1 . \i t... L ItAxLe. W O 2 �43 , t [ Si t G,,ti„i a - Sept. 14,2004 We have received notice of the desire of the Crosby Family Land,LEC to have the Comprehensive Land Use designation changed to High Density Residential on the parcel of land they own. This has caused considerable consternation among the residents near this parcel.This is a stable neighborheod with many residents of long tenure who are very comfattable with the'neighborhood as it presently exists. It has been well accepted that one day the parcel would be put to use for more single family homes.We feel that any development on the land should not disturb the environment we are accustomed to.While these are emotional concerns,they are important to near-by residents. There are other concerns of a more technical nature.The p el between the eight acre parcel and Broadway has already been sold and developed which allows no direct access to Broadway. The intersection of Adams and Broadway is already difficult,so more traffic would flow to Mission, While Mission has been recently improved,the improvement has caused many of the residences on the north side of the street to lose access and parking to the widening. Backing out of those driveways is already a problem,a problem that would he exacerbated by additianal traffic on that street.Since Mission is essentially a two lane street,the possibility of collision with resulting property damage or personal injury would increase with increased traffic.A UR-22 zoning could allow 176 units to be built-Traffic control uses a possibility of five car trips per day per unit for a possibility of$3O car trips per day added to Adams, a two lane sheet..Additional policing would be required to monitor traffic. This brings up the question of sewer capacity, 'plough the recently added sewer has not yet be approved for use, it could already be insufficient to handle the increased load. If high density structures were to be built,there would be no buffer between that property and the properties that now exist on the west side of Bums Rd.There has been a long standing practice in zoning to provide a zoning buffer between high and low density.To allow this change would upset that practice. The Central Valley School District is already considering the possibility of instituting busing as early as next year.Au influx of 1800 new residences is forecast for the next five years.Progress Elementary has a capacity-416 students and currently has fewer than that,but that school is targeted to receive busing.Pines Middle School is currently being re-modeled for expected influx.New high density housing in an area of low density housing would increase the burden, We,the tax payers,paid the bill for a long process of study and meetings to develop a comprehensive land use plan.If errors were made in that plan,and if it is argued that sufficient land was not designated for high density use, one might lock at the area south of Sprague and east of Aegaiure where a change of designation could be made with far less impact Vyn ./Z ;7"--/ /l ' a 6 '[l -7 5 , i"le, '',-1, 9z 7- 9 4 ' r IiiVOICH. Of) I At ArAled .0 I-7 it) ei?/-1A-41‹:) 6?at 514 ) "4 .' r F �' ,., / N540gLikee„/61? ct:0/.EA'?3Of i , 4"-g-- i/o 3 -72 . 41-41(.4c-i514"-A'I i q9 t d___,I.cry, �, riff r Rq i7-211�� r l , ' W S\fl 6LAir\1 01. 1 ,i,,,.,„,,,ciL,,,,„,0,_ vicktL\i„, Di\on ,,,,&. i,,,c ,,,,,,_ ..,, g ,,,,,A.A...-,2__ J ,i 111 / . September 14 2004 I haeme road the atttt�{}shed letter and agree with ifs contents. - 1�?x�f 7 • r 'h. , " ti 'f `f ??,76/25 September 14, 2004 I have read the.attached letter and arc with it's contents. do; :wd:Adairli— /490.a /K. deal Azt. ? g , , f r''' -_,,r,..4._<-1, „..05-4,S) "d1/:-/FiP2g.-de . ;,96V/Z.- Z-7,s-V7Z -72:tt,44,1) ira,e_ze4.,, - • ,e,fax5-2.e, •,--) A c ctt.".._.y 1.40 _.:#' /, 4,.._J--/ 7 0 3 a 4`.'jft,Vvit,41-,d ;--"7/- q3-79 Vr 1 t 1 L. u Aerial Map ._ 19, _ . , ... ...„....,:.- . '-. - - • _ .9,0 . ....:; '66. ' s4‘ ,r i.,,,, , *... .t -v;-.,.7-.-- . ,,,,„. ,..., _ — -------=. „ -• . , -,_- ....3 'v.' -...- ,.34 . e,- 5: 'z.. ..-1r_ .ip 1 I •'-i' ... • '- •, .,-,r , ,r. , , . . 0, .ile., ,e -,- -4*,.9,9. 4...1 ic .,. - t.• 4. 4- st. Itp;:pif 0- A 17#•rd_ -'13, " • ' 'I...4%.;"Tpktonif - P. v. ... fr. .'-. -.' "4Pli. '" ',. - -, .-90' .-ti, .... , v*411, .' .. ,-•, - • T ••Alfl '''',. t --. ..,,.• , 0, #'1. ' --- ,... ' ''"1 - ' SIAlOgi .- i - -..' ',ts. ,'- l--- ,,Z,. .1'-..-34 " • LI s./ ;'-`1--o-,_ / ,,,, A,Il $ . ' ' "tie ,, •-,-"ii ", .•' - ..., • ... . . I. i, ,, I .-- ° ,,,. --)- , , '317,, .„ i, ,., 5 - ':,.; '7.,' ..4,11.^ •-,,, .,Ve,„4,7„,‘ ,. ,kri;„ # '-- ._ '-,c OP ,.._, i.. t -T.1 ;Ni._. f 1 r'r • I . - ''' 7.% '41. ,,, !,i111t„r - j. W 44114P-riiir 41..,As, '''•,.. -- ;-*•.. ail _: ...• 7, :'-'.1 4,'..' ' '."44 l''-7-1: '.% F' '- ... • p ,...- i ' - t ln'. I-- '-ry 0.--11-ii : ,,S_; ileti..• 1- 4 I " ' ' •: . • , V"' ..A lvarix : '''' ' - I ' 1---1.- i'1 ---- : . - 9 ,s,,• % "17, ---;.-------- .;. . ;%+• , 1 1 • , • I. "--7.17-.-= 14 '--1 , ' '-11 ^',../-7-4., . - *-1 T'l a • - • 1 , , 1 , .. 0'-91-.--.-14"-ei"' '7.- ''. - al. 1-141, ,-N.4-1• ° I' • — ' °,'1 m 4. : I Cr' Site -- . _ nB .....I !....; ,,. 411 ,01, ,, 1 1 . ''''' ,. . • . .. -.. . . , 1 I . '‘ - 1 , 1 1- ' - , . ,. .. i . . . . ..i, , 4 vsi .i'' it_ ,..--11 x c .s Ak F c?taki0 - , OFig ` , im - r2- Irl ,• ., *,111 ,./ I.;-.r , a . ,,, , _ ---,„......... II ... Iv ii _,,,r .. . . _ . , 1 . , 1 . .. • -1.,... - . AT x I IV • ' : •r .1 " ''. 1.r.i, q . Mg . / I,• i'il ., / 4 t, 46100 .--- • `)I • 4 - ) I., v I a , 1.1•.• 1 , 1• i • 1 -' ,• LRIlanllOn , -',- ' ,'L.• I IR - t" 1.'•q o•,, -, '''.'g "L° i ' '`., ., , • II- • ' '• . , 1 • .1 . ., • , i I F-4 1,2' It '' I i • i rtA Finn' , ., ,.• A. i y -.. •,,, 4. 'p°; „. .1 ' [ ' , • ' r 1 .." - qv57 . t ' 1,..... . - - ylik :A, .--,. . 1 -,, , ti 1 , •§ , , .-.0, ' ".. 0 4.. •A:tql. _• r ' •,fireadvtay ,. ki. ' '•1 P4 IL .: 7 c'',L '14 T'''"1 ' 4 IN, _, ,, .',. 'iv iip% 1 , v i p A: , . .. ; :. : ---- ; *--1 r - , ' • .-,6„, . s , • r i ..K ..fr 1... ,r, ' • a1 ' . -.,1 FLILk.' I ' 4'4*•,1.. , ' ". -' •.I, ' ' . 1, • 1 itL. 0 .0 ''gr. ar itt - ' V 4? 1. AfF, 1:. 9 I IT ' Atk-- L-- • -,• ,4 -'' k4!*-: •• 1110'-,, • I i "I idki ' Ai A-' • v'll•r 1 ' - • . ,,, ;NH %..-,41, . -11 9,•,9 • .., .-..,. '' -•../. .,-'-'..,:' ! -- ' i , i1--rir.-,.. :i.. It I '' " pll'ict.'1.• -r• ' . .- - R t,.._ •_,"kr•• lAlic 4,', 14 gS- 46,0-„, t ' . . 4,._ , 71-1 - , - -11C11. .1r. " f • ' 1-..,14116k,.., V I- ....-1..I d I 1 'II •1/1fr I ' ._, 4.,,_:. 1 1.•_`../ II.. i r'-1 t ',. dite' ,..- - t ler _.. , ; -.. k ' • „-,1 -.' /' li ,' 71 c• . r, ..l. iA '''' • ' I-1 ' • r ' '4` .re• —.' I t, a „—.L le 2' I , r • • -.I . ,I . !, : At ' ! . -, 4 .., '. , '- "' I -—' '''' ' l' --- ' ' 1§ tis - 1,_•:2_ fg, •.ii- '%',7-.4i:4i; ,: , ._ 411.4, , - • ' ' ?• - _Ott '''L , • ,...-1 , -- ._ _ — [,41.:-Nief• __.-4....-„.P 11.7,--—xitil.,, , _ • i' • . .. - 1 , . ,..+ - - , . .3. , .. , ,...,11 , •,:.„, , licalle , ' _ - NIP-, '' 11 -11.- ValtrwaY • ix-. .0 .....} 1 . ,,,Li,.. 4-10", P 'I. .,.,• "‘ 40-,011•14„,_ TdIP.::: '.411-11 . .F;t1 .' li I ':.1..11;.. iii..7 '4.' : rrAid j".. ..if'...10`.. 1.,.....,': ‘17k,.`1 _1 . .. -%,,•II, iF it VOL," •-- o '-- °- I"- ''f74/4-. 4 7 N Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-06-04 sookaliedoi „sitog*Vallev Aug ust, 20 0.4 Zoning Map rerzy'rr //Zy//oi,//e",e ot 0 or,, die --I tneo I. I. �� . ed i r, • ini la lir 11."1/1,/ i," e 41/#),://*/)//1 Ilea rata/Mind ' 11,1"/ in null1111111111/6 111 014 i;;;!:44:el'i*re'0 IP 11111 in la El iiia all 1 -ism milft` 44 111 Mili ENE MIN -- NM prAfir ugl mi bp 4 BR allitin. rii szi vidisPr.... .L.-9- ris APP:: m. .." fp in ,Ailim Mall ill 311r- um row P A Ill FAME ani NI It fighedillt &ma Ns 91M EMI 11161 Mit. 111 IIIINV- --,r. I. Fillo NMI= .11111 40, . ' :=11,2.... - : —01111P611 7. 1.15 111 'Jr-,72-A si 111111111M111.11111°. inallIVI 11111 11141111111111111 1111111i 11111,1 OEN : '-: Zoning Category UA-&5 UR-7 11111111" 1.1 1 I I Lan.fl I 1 I junn2 1115111111112 m.o. ism [ 21 UR-22 Ill MINIM :ill 112 SEEM 11111 FM e-z RR-10 I1 '•t_ *mom 1 mremaill i ,. . _______. 13ii-Tdi iim!r-- ---- �, �Z MZ i a 1 1 I. 1 , N Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-06-04 5 ~ + August,2004 Comprehensive Plan Map - 180E290 O,I --- r ars` -_--� -, —. -- 790 fao . ''''141-2LZylcr.,____ -� _ 2411 Op Tia° ' ' II illibt .....ir -r-T-T-r-r- ,„, ,,, "% , , ,ma ; w_ , ,_ 41llonnirier NNN A..... � ter. ' — ML__„ , � IliMilkAM �� Site _ .:,,,,,.: Bill Mai elm ix 1.37,:mijii __L___ MAP w, IP ME MI vfm Li Imm...Z 1111..,1 IN ,e/://M 001.111111.11um • ':. war , PIP - - 1111 1 /MIM . WAIF go le Pr 1 III 1 IIIIIIINWM wt. . u . Alla 1 .. 1E . 1111 n im VS ik _, I_ Comp Plan Category 1 i . - — _ i Low Density Residential ml 111111!MediumDensityRedential 1M1 M En = E FFgh density Residential Mixed use . i 1 i Community Centermih_mNI ® Urban Activity Center U. ftifeighbarhood Commercial ..13. � 1.111....CammunCty Camrnsr ial NMI — 1 - - Regional Commercial Light Industrial r Heavy Industrial Mineral Land -- -1 -1---171=1-7-- — 1 MI 111111 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 + PA-OG-04 � August,20 .ill • e f 5 • • i TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF ✓! _ RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW PARCEL ZONING ON NO.45141.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY,SUPPORT THE RECENT COMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKING NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD,APPROXIMATELY 4fF0 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY TN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS, THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT REQUEST TO RE-ZONE THIS PARCEL, WHICH WOULD DISRUPT OUR CURRENT ENJOYMENT OF A LOW VANDALISM NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: 6:1\1,61/ qazi AI, tthrroi quo- iceSoi.b-4) ukft, _ 4-241 L.L0 1'24 1115s)or) /! t I o4 Jac i tirr! ` f,I { 4-11" L - /" T. , f s I i- . r -off ) //if '66" / ,(-_ fr4 5 5 071,/ / 7Thoy Lvt ;g. ff �-- F r- • 1 TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW-DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL NO. 45141.9003. We, the homeowners and taxpayers of the Spokane Valley, support the recent Spokane Valley staff recommendation to make no change to the current Comprehensive Flan designation of this parcel located on the East side of Adarns Road}approximately 400 feet south of Mission Avenue. Since the Spokane Valley is currently in the process ofdeveloping a new comprehensive plan, caution shoilel.heAisedin mAkinc land ILS lPr;icirrlc t.may..ie not +fihei irec ion of the community planning process. The following signatures represent opposition to the recent request to re-zone this parcel_ Such re-zoning could disrupt our current enjoyment of a low-vandalism neighborhood. NAME, ADDRESS DA'L'E _,‘"------7) • 4ezt GiC00,— fic.5 71, i' --1---'(----'-' Al . 9 —i? -6 51F P -t-A-4-04 . . ' 1- id' (kV cp ,a s a- 0 ,73 _, „ r 9''' - I/9 —6 c/ gapief 0 ut/aFf s—iq tki4,Q ' o 7J1 7 15/;-tlithAeen-, ra [ e f A/ o, J .i Irl I -c)c-/ /1, f , '' I ea12.-&-(1, .,..1". -,C2X ; /474°7 -1/. g‘er"'Alle "- IP ) . 6. V jid"c,,,,, 44 19 r Loc )3o7 kl Adafts I/g.ileif 6 Cc ri) 4 Al',..,s izo, , tlea . --0 iiti asi.L_ Ie ciri ., •- I petition against the proposed zoning change from low density to high density for project # PA-06-04 Name. Address: Phone#: Signature ,. rGf J,'6-I'if Cilli t),(',. 9'2.,-...w- -Zzr ( "'f'' A__ I- r '7,L),,,, 1. } is'I) ,i1 1-'Jl1. 9 ).)- ".1.e/ 6 i - :'-L. e1rt r :94,0 t- J°rd'I. _.r Pi. 4 F ?1 f `q 3- a i! 9 tit-s , ( c'--r' } r 5 cr-i Cock , _ - - d', 9 3-L ...-D6,&3 _:. TA"-u.•/1 . '/ =1-1 bf ecitr!ze c ° .t'IOO C n `Z2- 6'6'3 r /`%!e ie„.4p 4-J S „, c,).,c.c.-. , P 9 !i' Z. r�.4 m {2.,--s‘ 3 ,' -.!�9/..f . `-f -I _ n ..-Te‘-,,„ ( [ C i 1.0 - „ . {8it ef '(73/f.; t #,G { Li d `. 6, FFay h' r tut ,I- (//t-f.v".A' '22 - 4'3 ,_, 0 i 71(" ieiN 9,-;?,-::)_ LI Kr:74' :57 c ez_e - $ ,e,,,A,,,, , --/8 1 �, 0 ' '. z- i rel?t7-I I'd r'L-S-"'9.S71-3-'4: 4/-i'z l Lfi �;�7e5 i sr)4deircv f,/J g.?- 3/S /°77e, , L q -1$ 11/ r aj r&cam 'd° Etc rex :_ h t7 l - S . - ' q-t lr. h ft'� 1 a.3� 4 i' �..a �w°fid 41�t 3 —1 ' �'�' r �'v Ci--tgi x-.,a c.t,cip06 ico3 0 dA,4 w qt.!, 1.1 r" 9_-I 1 - `rkf' ii_ . . 4,4,-2, ,-.1---, L17[_1 _gam �, a.r. .., II,, 4 4 --LI r irp ,�L--- is., a 1r" Y' .4Ji t, . 9 d ---1 e7:L \a _ i ,(,rc_:i / et-dEt -, J-44::...,(11131 7 Zvi ( rF � r' - Cloy- ' : f- t` C:5-t:171 19 .t, /Lri-I / -e a I af�• . ?2?- /vz S — "t'q f • r J • { MI— `�'}J•mss- di ..�t- � G �` ,r - r - q '- • e F . cr,1f -. � r - ILI:- i �,.p L ° q-1 1 C�.Ss; -14- 104. /44k' r, 926~ 50 7 ' f - it Aid -IA -i /{l c----g itl, i*11 X41 7 2 9'—evlr d "F + .r , 0061 ,r k i a \ % L, co - ?A -DC.. _ 'i -t_ riiirMEME _ it . # 6L-,r'S *...�. - - % t[4i- '.1: 61114269 169 Z t J . 11.do,vii 5_ 5fce! - Q if "' '.: '' -fel I petition against the proposed zoning change from low density to high density for project # CPA-06-04 Larne: Address: , Phone #: Si' attire n L- i. .i rt +t rr "� �/., !{mow _ 17 �_)4k ' i' i `- 2l' tf- `6 _ 9 - • 11, La '.: q-C ' ' ift , 9 . 6Y K q-17 445-a I Yt ,LL.r 1 f P-(fI -- 4 'c 2GT (73. „,,,_,./.4,70, _.', q--1 7 l; ° 1r / 4-. ' . &lint 14716g 4At , a-} I 'IC c ;./:. # ._- 1 -1 7 1.0, ' 1)41-- A&w. 3 4 &L.---- q.'+y7 'U. . ` 1 ielt V ) 95.17 e.t el Kk i�, IY[,,• Y 1fir,)-1 1 L73 '[4 }'_1,�°r 1 f 114 I�* r . .FF ",•Ai f-.v (41144(61, q. 'Pi ,, -/ 7 t ' r-1 C'-(i S' I l 7 E Cr._.0s I y\ (i, 4,.;.,/ '—f 7 -41,-- Ck 1 j ID t7 e C - - `r > Airf -' ` q-I 7 .n el _ NA 44. C 1`J4 C eq- 1 0 Lc 11.1 - rl -t 7 " 111. , C '-1 t r .—, , , 0,5r, 5 -1 `� n,,,r ,:tw ot—17 ' t," fO- t + `ti C- "¢ , r--- 61 -17 17-.:4r (7 ,ti _ .1 ) 1 PO ' -7'a _ i+ it?-tB F s LORA1 T e •trot+ . r. 1 i- - 0 7 A. - ; )44s4...,, -i u ,) b9,11 E i-,br, ol.°-�c1 5..- ~et[ i Co J ( _ ct-t 4-Ig 0.,m" r- _ 'AlVeri-' 'i2 .- 'i . 0. , ,4,,i. .- r 1 q c A .a Puri / ' c it i 42 M) t 4 A 41'15' .. Y f, '` ,A,_ 1,, "% -1'( ifi A . " ,611 i IClf/l r N i 1I f,-7- i` ,1 id-:('' _. .Lz .; 4,(` -� s A N' - '• C . 1-'- i - s 4 4 71 ri,..'. veleA. -18- c ill-- he ,,2_,Zip."). e- 17.JL .'I0,31y11. ,2!-1}77 ".11f),4 ( .;• y ' y e-( L f014-4,,r, 54-3'76-5— ,e14414 T i. 4 OA% PV.re ." ,r Le,i c — +v,,- ' - ' ,a` t—ZS' 4w,.rkt7Ctt 6 1<rid vrr I 7 q{.5" . ii aticti -d ^.3 Ili _ 4' .CSS. (10,:i R-(g v r- a z)/95- f , �J" L)ll'- .y. - `.- ) , --„:,t: +- . - , . _ + 1 o.._) g^ -�1�7 `-- q-is I petition against the proposed zoning change from tow density to high density for project # CPA-06-04 Name: Address: Phone 4: Signatu e 4-6 4.d} c? f . C.,• ,ti 'J 5&`7• - d 4 am K. .4w- 1-11 to e P1Co/!F.'% 13 0 (71 ]Ii 4 r fa,e64 Sol`' b-c rimy-- rr- . �7 5— /7 Co II I"; r r z o 4 J nlvr o 92k- ` ` 9--P? I 1 id+IIF F 2 C+ , )J Ai-- t.'ffi' 5-495,-.27,a2 6-..? "4 /`7 -�-ir '7 9'1j�}' ' _. } . sus.'. k . fc# L Li r �_ 3 y� -Ki-el LL{i_ L.' .)0 I _ 41-1? '114:11111) . c rr 1'Ll Ih.9.11 bG rre741_ l -: - 9'!` ' "1)1{/k:�,i' .7., c-ii' r {,1)111' y y y� , 1JLL� f-- i - Al' i�.7{�' �4�7'- •'j�f,:� ?C_� c'-*'(,-)� Lt',' '.:�.. t {f ��f t /1.4 6 " / 7#16- r, Sol z 6. rb s- � i TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF 2 �N RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL NO.4514I.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY,SUPPORT THE RECENT COMMENDATION OF THE STAFFS DECISION TO MAKING NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT REQUEST TO RE-ZONE THIS PARCEL, WHICH WOULD DISRUPT OUR CURRENT ENJOYMENT OF A LOW VANDALISM NEIGHBORHOOa NAME: ADDRESS. DATE: QgbYti .5- E, vdtari-7_ ve/ale D7,;2.--;1 ! 6 f ` i' 67 ,u ? - al'' 6t/ -;771(. jaerj,,;(f V ci 61117 0 a vki '41 Azz oak gni__.f, 1 = /+ ./ 0 VI h' "I 1 C.4 " ' TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL NO.45141.9001 (.=71 WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF TI-IE SPOKANE VALLEY,SUPPORT THE RECENT COMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKING NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD,APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPrNG A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT REQUEST TO RE-ZONE THIS PARCEL,WHICH WOULD DISRUPT OUR CURRENT ENJOYMENT OF A LOW VANDALISM NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: 9jrz 14P Li 310 /(2/-6"-PA9'/I eL- /'0 { :14---- TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOANE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL NO.45141.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY, SUPPORT THE RECENT COMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKING NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD,APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT REQUEST TO RE-ZONE THIS PARCEL,WHICH WOULD DISRUPT OUR CURRENT ENJOYMENT OF A LOW VANDALISM NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME: ADDRES S: DATE: v 4* .,. C--n--'7`tA-4_T' /27)14.4. .. :j. 7 749-ye Li - a Vd-0/4 t,._...i7 illi 6. 2 3 'El Rr L)cjlt,"? 74(2/17/ (714 0 1;(4, /4'14 0 PZ o let-e fr- / LI A-2. '- ' ---. - 1. 2,7.,. 67,11,747 .(6517/9/17 ' ; ' 7262,9 c: • ► Rob 4-Z4-Ami /Z2- Alr) 1145 ( Cr2 ° 4-0/ A i ykaca 't.1 VfCIA\.ly L-Q01 -g-C1/1 1D--- 61-11A )14&17)1P., ,,,74.61--10, LA:7___-, t"" ‘ e r .. 3)17 4 _ /4AI,.r,_ r_d 5-t,„ed„,,,__ „./..„,,,45,46, ,,c:77 :------,,,-,/ 1,.AA. ,,i2 .5- , 5 ,A, adcp_p-s- iv-41-, ' ,,__ :,6-if.a- _ cipr=406 / , „:74.., c__,/,4454-4,:t, 6---_ ,, *, ,4?...iiie-- 0 . c, /;_ojikvi ho ..57 ,9, iu, Adaiill [ . TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL NO.45141.9003. ,.(57)" WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE.VALLEY,SUPPORT THE RECENT COMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKING NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD,APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAUTION SHOULD BE U SED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT REQUEST TO RE-ZONE THIS PARCEL, WHICH WOULD DISRUPT OUR CURRENT ENJOYMENT OF A LOW VANDALISM NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: o L/ NCV A S - 6 I TO SUPPORT THERE CENT SPONE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LO DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL Na 45141.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY, SUPPORT THE RECENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKE E NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOS OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT BEQUEST TO REZONE THIS PARCEL FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO HIGH DENSITY. NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: it_52.,,4/1 . ii?cI ice„ -- r'' /cc CLc ( .f: f TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW 4 DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL NO. 45141.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY, SUPPORT THE RECENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. THESE SIGNATCTRES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT BEQUEST TO REZONE THIS PARCEL FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO RIGA DENSITY. NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: _5 ;(.ct c Is3 . Pr ' ci -- 1 - 6\- 1:411Z/8"Vg /I /1) F 8-2) f r fi A ( J ( }I J / 4-/s , .;Qcf?- ess - (K—Ozi zAr n ezocrtLA SS i2 -0 q ,rd • r "E F :�'^ .;6 .7 :_.: •r sv lO co-- fes. 1' + l ='f f '7/1 ,A HCl- / _ Gt ��. "S4,041 / 4/7/./74,,„_, Jo TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LOW DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL NO. 45141.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY, SUPPORT THE RECENT RECONMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. TEESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT BEQUEST TO REZONE THIS PARCEL FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO HIGH DENSITY. NAME: ADDRESS; DATE: 1011 1=ti8/0L1 /7„., Gtis est: (J)reS Vim y v I � goy N INI (4 , q° C- P- Nzq15-5s 1(1 ri)V N.4/ 77:11°A. . 0Kc) c) � �� _ f )4"5- 'c virdr3 (/ melee- 15z,z0 "C\" :„' TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT LO DENSITY ZONING ON PARCEL Na45141.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY,SUPPORT THE RECENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO MAKING NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD„APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE. SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY 1S CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSNE PLAN, CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT REQUEST TO RE-ZONE THIS PARCEL, WHICH WOULD DISRUPT OUR CU- ENT ENJOYMENT OF A LOW VANDALISM NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: La uv) / d 1IJ J y�I E. t r — ijArjj, 2C 44 L. , t I PoiS L 'at/ c K-- 1 . X41 'Ma-0A-4,17iLt(_p/2 (c . e'er /5.-- , 6-ezeVc * i TO SUPPORT THE RECENT SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF r' RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CURRENT L O DENSITY OIG ON PARCEL NO. 45141.9003. WE THE HOMEOWNERS AND TAX PAYERS OF TBE SPOKANE VALLEY, SUPPORT THE RECENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF'S DECISION TO M_AKE NO CHANGE TO TEE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL LOCATED ON THE.EAST SIDE OF ADAMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE, SINCE THE SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY Its THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANTING PROCESS_ THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT BEQUEST TO REZONE THIS PARCEL FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO HIGH DENSITY. NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: MA,thele 6 OtOic c.t-rETMEi)in\om AbOk. (Wite r f// /� <f /[f / ffJ'.. J 7 . X ? _f -9 , ? I -7 . 25-10 / •�. 0 ,r Public Hearing Comments Hearing date: 9/23/04 Re: Crosby Property, Request for change in Comprehensive Plan zoning From: Dr. Gretchen Hoy 1218 N. Marcus, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Speaking as the owner of: 1206/1208 N. Marcus 1215/1217 N. Marcus 1218/1220 N. Marcus 1206/1208 N. Adams Position: Oppose the change from love to hig density. v° . Itis odorarable a#'first glance that the stated intention is to build an assisted living facility_ However, this would not be a welcome addition for myself, or for the other existing neighbors as high density. In reality, this development idea might also not be as financially sound for the owners as it might appear. There is already an empty and vacant assisted living facility right up the road on Mission (Good Samaritan). That facility is ahead lcituated- directly across from a major hospital. several other large medical buildings, shopping, buses and freeway access. Several other recently constructed assisted living facilities within a 3mile radius have vacancies as well. For the new city of Spokane Valley, anything developed as high density on a minor street, would also b e not is&wise` Currently, when think of"The Valley",they think of three things: ,. .�. ^-fit ca. 1) the Valley Mall, � 2) the couplet, and 3) rentals. While I am "in the business"as a landlord, I believe further dissection of quiet single family residential neighborhoods with high density housing would move the new city in the opposite direction it needs to head.f cktAAp iVs_ Ap...±A)Lyric/ \h_TN_suy P 11' "LjtIV 9-11; (45 Ltio ac..tcy 4 - P 1-,r (a-O ' September 23, 2004 l E WE[ SEP 2 3 20D4 To whom it may concern: P AL oY F COMMUNITY DEV E(OPME I+�T I am writing about the eight acres of property on North Adams Road at the intersection with ataldo Avenue. The owners of the property would like to change its zoning to that of high density. I feel that such a change to this property in a suburban neighborhood, with its rural subtleties (i.e. a cow across the street from the property and a few houses with at least an acre of land each two blocks away), would be totally inappropriate. I also believe it could become a traffic hazard to the neighborhood, as Cataldo is the only convenient route east from this area. I have lived in this neighborhood for more than thirteen years. Streets such as Sullivan Road and Evergreen have seen tremendous growth. To the west of Evergreen, dozens and dozens of apartment units have been built. I understand that to have this property go undeveloped is unrealistic. But to change the zoning of these eight acres and open it up to a large apartment complex, an assisted living center, or anything other than single family dwellings or duplexes would be uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. Sincerely, 41111.{ Karin E. Hall 1021 N. Calvin Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99216 (509) 921-0427 © Plf September 23, 2004 Joan Colwell-Hartung N91S Calvin Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Attn: Scott Kuhta Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA. 99206 Mr. Kuhta, I am writing concerning the proposed zone change on the east side of Adams Rd.,400 Feet south of Mission Ave. The proposal is to go from low density housing to high- density housing. This proposal would put 176 units onto the 8 acres. Our neighborhood is a walking neighborhood. People are outside a great deal walking with dogs or children. There are basketball games going on all the time in the street area. Children ride around on their bikes, scooters and skateboards. Our neighborhood watches out for each other. We are a pretty low-key area We also have no sidewalks. The increase in traffic would greatly lower the quality of life for area residents. Cataldo would be used as an arterial over to Evergreen. The apartments would also be such contrast to the surrounding homes that it would totally break the continuity of the area. Please come out against the zone change. Thank you Joan Colwell-Hartung Page 1 of 1 Scott Kuhta From: 6001151288 aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2044 215 PM To: Scott Kuhta Subject: Zoning chane on Pace! No. 45141.9003 (Adams and Cataldo) Mr. Kuhta I am writing this e-mail, in Don unction with attending the Sept. 23rd. Hearing. To voice my opposition tc the zoning change on Parcel No. 45141.9003 located at the intersection of Adams and Cataldo, from a low density to high density. My residence is at 1204 N. Calvin. We have lived at this address for 28 years.This is a residential neighborhood. The streets in this area by design are to keep the traffic down. The main follow of traffic corning from 1-90 would be south on Evergreen and east across Cataldo which is a narrow residential street with number of families with small children. This would double, triple or more the traffic through our designed community_The only traffic control is a four way stop at Best and Cataldo. Adams road from the South and North, is it's self a narrow two lane road with residential homes on both sides. There for I oppose any change in the zoning change. I would support the development of a Crosby Memorial Park at that location. To give the children of the area a place to play, and recognize the Crosby family For their devotion and service they have beer to the Spokane Community. I would suggest the City of Spokane Valley consider the purchase Of the property for such a uSe Sincerely, Gary L. Collins 1204 N. Calvin Spokane Valley,Wa. 99216 928-5399 9123/2004 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission -- Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 lame (Please Print): Name (Please Print): G M- iii-/-14c.,,r• Adress: IP /fete_ [� A Ar _a - �"i�` �._.. Address: 1 � � 5 .genda Item: ' I& if _Agenda Item. - 04 0 For Proposal D For Proposal pposed to Proposal E. Opposed to Proposal Neutral gl:6) -C [J Neutral Wish to Speak: ria Yes0 No Wish to Speak: E Yes 0 No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission -- Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 i'D-1&` Name (Please Print): T)Jki'- Name (Please Print); _. Address: ),46)-4- e ove\- ( '1. - , Address: f-` _ ' . /// 4 re Agenda Item: CI0 f _____ Agenda Item: ! ' _ , , / r .h:-;' D For Proposal LI For Proposal ,ii4+ pposed to Proposal g Opposed to Proposal 0 Neutral 0 Neutral CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Pudic Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 Name (Please Print): pl/t-r-Li i Pt L lame (Please Print): f-�,�.�- . . . ' � Address: ACJ / d 6 -- i. Lo'' ' - - '4 address: ' `. .:-.- _ 0 --- Agenda Item: ,``C -- 0 -- genda Item: t El For Proposal 1:1 For Proposal,` ❑ opposed to Proposal 'pposed to Proposal (77:(:) , 03 ❑ Neutral 0 Neutral Wish to Speak: El Yes El Na Wish to Speak: El Yes ❑ No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 ',lame (Please Print): r""'FN ' ` `' Name (Please Print): Address- 3 -- - Address: - --� CCP_ rf _ q - � - 0 Agenda Item; „ - Agenda Item: - — El For Proposal El For Proposal ' Opposed to Proposal 3 Opposed to Proposal Ell Neutral ❑ Neutral Wish to Speak: 0 Yes ,❑ No Wish to Speak: El Yes 0 No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning {Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 Please Print): /I\t(ame inwar .((:. Name (Piens Pr ]: Address: (y) Agenda Item. -- _- _ genda Item: { }a ! - ❑ For Proposal ❑ For Proposal 171 Opposed to Proposal \lapposed to Proposal Neutral Neutral Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes ' No Wish to Speak: Yes ri No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 _ r t k Name (Please Print): 14P14,6 OI1 lame (Please Print): Address: IA( Li Lddress: Agenda Item: ;r' f f _ f genda Item: For Proposal ❑ For Proposal 0 Opposed to Proposal LI Opposed to Proposal ❑ Neutral ❑ Neutral Wish to Speak: E Yes ❑ No Wish to Speak: r❑ Yes ❑ No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 lame (Please Print): } 1P7 Name (Please Print): . k . Vef ►ddress: / .5 ° 111 tic( Address: 1('f {-.C1 (19A-F: --� enda Item: ("e?-1,4 Agenda Item: 12h- 0 For Proposal Q For Proposal r ppased to Proposal \O-Opposed to Proposal 0 Neutral ❑ Neutral Wish to Speak: P1 Yes Wish to Speak: El Yes ei No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 Name (Please Print): ( ,k, 2i f Name (Please Print): r�LA r+ _ Address; I -1- '`;��: - o Address _ l 14 7 �� '' Agenda Item: .);(') Agenda Item: For Proposal D For Proposal pOpposed to Proposal -Opposed to Proposal e Neutral Li Neutral Wish to Speak: El Yes L No Wish to Speak: I Yes No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission -- Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 '77-4-7,- /-- C �4 Name (Please Print): f - iOeL7n1c lame (Please Print): f • ' 7 - I`►ddress. / Address; LiCliin-laj/41.1 or? --c.:4_( genda Item; Agenda Item: _ .-0,c. r L For Proposal ❑ For Proposal 4 ]Opposed to Proposal \ Opposed to Proposal Neutral E Neutral Wish to Speak: Yes 71.1, No Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes ❑ No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2 ]04 September 23, 2004 _;, - ' / 0 , ..-------- Name (Please Print): ,. r . Name (Please Print): ///04405 4z .,6.6,./7-- Address: , r . ) 1-, .- " /-5 Address: - r ',y,„..,,, ,7-/ / ---- - ..� . ----- -- � . r `rr Agenda Item _. 1. r - 3 f Agenda Item: _. r:'rr r, —f 1-1 For Proposal L For Proposal . a._Jopposed to Proposal 0. opposed to Proposal ❑ Neutral Neutral Wish to Speak; 0 Yes E--No Wish to Speak; 0 Yes alio CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 200 September 23, 2004 ame (Please Print): ■ 1 iA A ii, - Name (Please Print): i \ -- '),--)001Y\ ddress: 02 0111-aod(-) Address: ' CC4.1-CiJ� .[--\\re___ ends Item: 0 --0(-1-- Agenda Item: e-elk- (AS 0\--( [] For Proposal [J For Proposal Opposed to Proposal X. Opposed to Proposal D Neutral ❑ Neutral Wish to Speak: D Yes No Wish to Speak: Yes gif No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY September 23, 2004 Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 4ame (Please Pring ,.__„,d_i_cdfiy- ------ Name (Please Print): e- 0 iti 0'ir J t a Aie kddress: _ _ 4 i -` ,, - Address: /J/1 iV1, P3P I“ re/ - Agenda Item: T Agenda Item: " O" r ' E For Proposal LI For Proposal Opposed to Proposal el Opposed to Proposal 0 Neutral 0 Neutral Wish to Speak: 0 Yes No Wish to Speak: El Yes i`.11 No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 lame (Please Print)' - Name (Please • , � � l = 4ddress: l -S'''t e_L-.f.:4-4 ( r Address: 'L- ', ! f rgenda Item: -_ T �" - Agenda Item: .1,•�r) 5 -- 1 )-'':'--:--,---- ❑ For Proposal fl For Proposal Opposed to Proposal El Opposed to Proposal 0 Neutral Li Neutral Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes 0 -.No Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes LTJ No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Comment Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 Septernber 23, 2004 _ : Tarte (Please Print): - _ \ Name (PleasePrint): - `1 I i.),F Address' i r' ` f e-.- ( �='- -tc= AL S l''e1 - ( L c.).1.4.----2.,-- Agenda Item: L t rt ,` _ - Subject; t _ � � ❑ For Proposal { . Opposed to Proposal _ Jf LI Neutral Wish to Speak: C ,YY.es ❑ No Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes0,_Na CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 aame (Please Print) z �/ ,+_. --)-i17/0 ( Name (Please Print): . s'r S 4ddress: 5 MHZ Z- I.r' ' Address: a 2= lgenda Item: l ° Agenda Item: E] For Proposal ❑ For Proposal EI' Opposed to Proposal \Opposed to Proposal E Neutral ❑ Neutral Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes '❑ Nvd No Wish to Speak: ❑} Yes CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 -ter I (Please Print): 1/4 /-4:74404-6-&---- Name (Please Print: Name Address: A/ Address! /'. r; r� Agenda Item: a -696 r --e:yT Agenda Item: - - El For Proposal ❑ For Proposal Opposed to Proposal j .k. Opposed to Proposal © Neutral ❑ Neutral Wish to Speak: ELYes 0 No Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes 0 No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 _ Name (Please Print): '- ( 1/166(._-- � ame (Please Print). .� - ' I ( 41 Address: _IL) °.. , \ A' i 1, i ddress: -. Agenda genda item: tL /L- El geR�da Item: � f� �For Proposal ❑ For Proposal IJ Opposed to Proposal Opposed to Proposal ❑ Neutral ❑ Neutral Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes ❑ No Wish to Speak: 0 Yes V,No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 f_— / . ,147, U _ Name (Please Print): GLS' . _ ._.. Name (Please Print): In 4 --) . F � Address: C , 1 , -,-4 Address: � - _ enda Item: r y'� Agenda Item: _- 4 '� El For Proposal 0 For Proposal g/Oppased to Proposal — Opposed to Proposal El Neutral El Neutral Wish to Speak: El Yes 0 No Wish to Speak: ❑ Yes No CPA -07 -04 pf\-- 017 - FILE No.CPA A-67 o ne City of Spokane Valley Application for elle Comprehensive Plan Amendment PART I APPLICANT NAME: TODD R. Wf-IIPFLE, P.E. PHONE: 893-2617 ADDRESS: 13218 E. SPRAGUE AVENUE EMAIL: TRWATVVCE@ram.com CITY/STATE/ZIP: SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216 FAX: 926-0227 PROPERTY OWNER'I (IF D iF FEREN T FROM APPLICANT) NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: EMAIL: CITY/STATE/ZIP: FAX PROPERTY OWNER 2(IF MORE THAN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS,ATTACH SEPARATE SHEET) NAME: PHONE; ADDRESS: EMAIL CITY/STATE/DP: FAX: AGENT/CONSULTANT/ATTORNEY NAME: CHRIS ASHENBRENNER PHONE: 624-1170 ADDRESS: 202 E. TRENT EMAIL: CHRIS AACDI.C( M CITY/STATE/ZIP: SPOKANE, WA 99202 FAX: 624-1255 LAND USE MAP CHANGE PROPOSAL: CURRENT DESIGNATION PROPOSED DESIGNATION LAND USE MAP N/A NIA ZONING MAP N/A NIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PULLCY CHANGE PROPOSAL(ATTACH SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY). THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN CURRENTLY CURRENT POLICY SHOWS A FUTURE MANSFIELD AVENUE BEING EXTENDED BETWEEN ITS CURRENT TERMIMUS WITH HouK STREET AND MIRABEAU PARKWAY To CHANGE THE ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN EY REMOVING MANSFIELD PROPOSED AVENUE BETWEEN HOUK STREET AND MIRABEAU PARKWAY AND POLICY REPLACING THIS ROADWAY WITH HOUK STREET EXTENDED SOUTH TO INDIANA AVENUE AND CREATING A NEW INTERSECTION WITH INDIANA AVE OFFICE USE ONLY: ❑ City Initiated Itizen Initiated Concurrency Review Re aired: ❑ Yes Ca Date Received: D.— ( - Received By: (a - . 6/30! 2004 Page 1 cf 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 Name Please Print): 7r . Address: Cl Agenda Item: For Proposal ❑ Opposed to Proposal 0 Neutral Wish to Speak: C `Yes El No • s CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Hearing September 23, 2004 x o Name (Please Print) / h, 9 Address: + 4,. - , tfu - Agenda Item: 0 CA/ 17; For Proposal D Opposed to Proposal E] Neutral Wish to Speak: Yes El No PART II LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE (Signature of legal owner or representative as authorized by legal owner) I, Todd R. Whipple SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TC THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. awisiy * r . !.i i .. • ya , i. - - . A. A. + i Al . P. ATTACHED,HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING ACTIONS ON HISIIER BEHALF. ADDRESS: 13218 E. Sprague Avenue PHONE: 893-2617 S• kane Vale __ W• ZIP; 99216 (Ci (State) , )'111°P- June 30, 2004 Signature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / day of ...37-..“-/V 20,2 NOTARY SEAL * T I �ttiluislr#� 'DIARY I�JA UR WI. • Notaryep aPu. ae in and for the State W hin tori V9 'S+tx+ n' ' Residing at: r (rot/ r'1 OVOLIC .30,' +gzf My appointment expires: 114° t '�'►it x tip" 6130'2004 Page 2 of 7 PRT III SITE DATA PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA(ACRES OR SO. FT.) N/A ADJACENT ARE OWNED OR CONTROLLED(ACRES OR SO.FT.) N/A EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY: N/A SCHOOL DISTRICT: N/A FIRE DISTRICT; N/A WATER DISTRICT: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. N/A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD ACCESSING PROPERTY° NIA WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRoN TING PURLED/PRIVATE ROAD: N/A ACCESS TO EXISTING OR PLANNED ARTERIAL?(Y/N) N/A NAME OF ARTERIAL ROADS: MANSFIELD AVENUE l HOUK STREET PREVIOUS ZON1NG/LAND USE DECISION LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: MANSFIELD AVENUE BETWEEN PINES ROAD AND MIRABEAU PARKWAY WAS INCLUDED ON THE SPOKANE COUNTY ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN AND INCORPORATED BY THE CCIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, DATE AND JUSTIF9OTION FOR PLACEMENT ON THE PLAN ARE UNKNOWN. CHANGED CONOFTIONS WHAT ARE THE CHANGES CONDITIONS WHiCH WARRANTS THIS PROPOSED CHANGE? IN ADDITION TO THOSE FFEMS NOTED BELOW PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER REPORT ON CHANGED CONDITIONS AND GENERAL PROPOSAL NARRATIVE. WE BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING CHANGED CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROPOSAL • MANSFIELD AVENUE REMAINS AN UNFUNDED ROADWAY ON THE ARTERIAL ROAD SYSTEM BETYVEEN HOUK AND MIRABEAU PARKWAY • THE PINES ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT HAS REMAINED UNFUNDED AND SLOWLY MOVING FORWARD IF MOVING FORWARD AT ALL • THE BRIDGING THE VALLEY RAILROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE VACATION OF THE UPRR LINE PLANNED FOR 2009 TO 2012 • HOOK STREET EXTENDED REPRESENTS A$400,000 TO$$00,000 COST SAVINGS TO TI-tE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY • MANSFIELD AVENUE WAS DESIGNATED BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION AND PROCESS AS A FUTURE ARTERIAL ROADWAY • DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS CORRIDOR 1$BEHIND ORIGINAL PROJECTIONS FOR GROWTH AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEED • INDIANA AVENUE WITHIN THIS VICINITY REMAINS AN UNDERUTILIZED FACILITY 6130+'2004 Page 3 of 7 PROPOSAL PROVIDE GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL! THIS APPLICATION IS SUPPLEMENTED BYA SEPARATE DOCUMENT, HOWEVER A BRIEF DESCRIPTION IS NOTED HERE. IN 1993 THE AREA NORTH OF INDIANA AVENUE,EAST OF HULK,WEST CF MIRABEAU POINT AND SOUTH OF THE THEN WALK IN THE WILD ZOO,WAS THE SUBJECT OF SEVERAL LAND USE ACTIONS. DOLING THE LAND USE PLANNING PORTION FOR THESE PROJECTS,SPOKANE COUNTY AND THE WSDDT IN IN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CONGESTIONS ALONG THE PINES ROAD CORRIDOR BETWEEN MISSION AND TRENT CONDUCTED THE PINES ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY_ THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THIS STUDY WAS To MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS ALONG PINES ROAD WITHIN THESE LIMITS. To THAT END THE REALINGMENT CF MONTGOMERY FROM THE MONTGOMERY]INDIANA/PINES INTERSECTION TO THE MANSFIELD AND PENES INTERSECTION WAS PROPOSED. THE INTENT OF THIS MOVE WAS TO PUSH TRAFFIC THAT WAS ONLY HEADING EAST AND WEST ON INDIANA!MONTGOMERY FROM USING THE REALIGNED PINES ROAD I INDIANA/WE RAMP INTERSEGT!CN, To THAT END A NEW ARTERIAL ROADWAY EXTENSION FROMT THE INTERSECTION OF MANSFIELD AND HOUKAND TIEING INTO MIRABEAU PARKWAY, HENCE MANSFIELD EXTENDED WAS ENVISIONED AND ADDED TO THE COUNTY'S ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN. THE PREMISE OF THE MANSFIELD PROPOSAL AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS PROPOSED WAS THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE WAY TO MovE TRAFFIC EAST AND WEST AND STILL GET THEM BACK TO INDIANA AVENUE WITHOUT HAVING THIS TRAFFIC USE THE RECONFIGURED PINES AND I NDIANA INTERSECTION. THE PRIMARY REASON WAS NOT AN OVERWHELM1NG❑ESIRE BY EITHER THE AGENCY(COUNTY OR WSDOT)TO HAVE THE ROAD BISECT PROPERTIES TO INTERESECT WITH MIRABEAU PARItwAY. RATHER IT WAS MORE PRAGMATIC,THERE WAS ONLY ONE CROSSING OF THE UPRR BETWEEN PINES AND SULLIVAN AND THAT WAS AT MIRABEAU PARKWAY HAVING BEEN MOVED FROM THE ORIGINAL SHANNON AVENUE CROSSING(McDoNALD RD. EXTENDED). WITH THE BRIDGING OF THE VALLEY PROJECT MOVING FORWARD AND THE VACATION OF THE UP PR RAILROAD AN OPTION THAT DIDN'T EXIST IN 1998 WHEN THE PINES ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY WAS PROPOSED,WE BELIEVE THAT OTHER SOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE SUCH AS THE HOUK EXTENSION To INDIANA. ADJACENT LAND USES DESCRIBE EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSAL: LAND USES WITH THE AREA OF THIS PROPOSAL ARE RECREATIONAL, MUUTI-FAMILY,VACANT LAND,OFFICE, BUSINESS PARK AND COMMERCIAL. 6/3012004 Page 4 of 7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY DESCRIBE HOW PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT MTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—CITE SPECIFIC GOALSIPOLICIES: WE BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL 1S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THROUGH THE FOLLOWING POLICIES AND GOALS: T.2.2—TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE TIME NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS OCCUR. IF THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE,THEN A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT, CONSISTENT WITH THE CAPITAL FACILIITIES PLAN, SHALL BE MADE TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTWITHIN SIX YEARS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS: ■ BECAUSE THE OWNERS OF MUCH OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY WHICH THE PROPOSED MANSFIELD AVENUE WOULDCROSS ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY AND WSDOT IN TIME PINES(SR-2.7)IMANSFIELD CORRIDOR CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECT BY CONTRIBUTING A SHARE CURRENTLY CALCULATED AT $119,866.00, THIS AMOUNT WOULD BE APPLIED TO EITHER HOUK OR MANSFIELD IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A PROJECT TO TIE THESE FUNDS TO IN ORDER TO MEET CONCURRENCY. HOWEVER,TO DATE THERE FIAS BEEN NO TRANSPORTATION PROJECT AND THE DEVELOPERS ARE DESIREOUS TO MOVE FORWARD. THEY BELIEVE THAT THEIR CONTRIBUTION WILL BE BETTER SPENT EXTENDING HOUK RATHER THAN PAYING$600,O00 TO$800,000 CONDEMENING AN EXISTING BUILDING, HAVIMGTHEIR PROJECT BISECTED AND RUNNING A STRAIGHT THROUGH 35 MPH ARTERIAL ROADWAY WHICH MANSFIELD WOULD REPRESENT. T.2.4.—TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE PLANS,CAPITAL FUNDING AND OTHER PLANNING ELEMENTS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS: • IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAND USE PLANS • IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CAPITAL FUNDING ISSUES—MANSFIELD IS NOT ON THE 5-YEAR PLAN AND REQUIRES A$600,000 TO$600,000 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO PURCHASE AND DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 6-UNITAPARNENT BUILDING • IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PLANNING ELEMENTS—IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT PHASE 1 REGULATIONS,WITH THE BRIDGING THE VALLEY PROJECT AN❑'WNSDOT I-90—FOUR LAKES TO STATELINE EIS. T_2.7.—THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHALL SUPPORT THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY (CITY CSF SPOKANE VALLEY)COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS GROWTH OCCURS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS: • THE PROPOSAL FOR HOUK STREET EXTENDED AND THE REMOVAL OF MANSFIELD WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS GOAL AS ADJACENT LAND ACCESS WILL UE MAINTAINED,ARTERIAL ROADWAYS WILL NOT BISECT DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY AND HAVE UNNECESSARY ACCESS POINTS.,THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AND OVERALL AREA MOBILITY WILL BE MAINTAINED AND ARTERIAL TRAFFIC WILL STAY ON THE ARTERIALS(PINES AND INDIANA)AS PLANNED. T.3A.1 —THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE A RANGE CF TRANSPORTATION MODES. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS: • INDIANA AVENUE IS A MAJOR BUS ROUTE FOR SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,BY ALLOWING HOUK TO DIRECLTY ACCESS INDIANA,YOU WILL ALLOW OVER 1 000 APARTMENT UNITS DIRECT ACCESS TO MASS TRANSIT, INCLUDING ANY RESIDENTS OF THE AREA WITH DISABILITIES. THE MANSFIELD ROUTE TO PINES OR MIRABEAU PARKWAY DOES NOT AFFORDED THE SAME LUXURY AS A NEW CONNECTION TO INDIANA WOULD PROVIDE. 613012004 Page 5 of 7 GOAL-T.4A-ENSURE THAT URBAN ROADWAY SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED TO PRESERVE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH CCOMMUNTIY CHARACTER WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS` • MANSFIELD EXTENDED IS NOT PLANNED TO PRESERVE NOR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER AS IT BISECTS A COMMUNITY BETWEEN PINES AND MIRABEAAU PARKWAY WITH AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY. • HOUK,WHILE INTRUSIVE USES THE SAME ALIGNEMENTAS EXISTING WITH A SHORT EXTENSION OVER THE IPRR RIGHT OF WAY TO INDIANA. • MANSFIELD EXTENDED WILL DESTROY AN EXISTING 6-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT A COST OF $601:000 TO$800,000 WHICH CANNOT SUPPORT NOR BE CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER. T4A+.2-OPTIMIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING ROADS TC MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR NEW OR EXPANDED ROADS TFROUGH THE USE OF IMPROVED SIGNAGE,SIGNALIZATION, ROAD MAINTENANCE AND OTHER MEANS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT MANSFIELD PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOA Li POLICY AS FOLLOWS: • WE RELIEVE THAT THE EXTENSION OF HOUK TO INDIANA MEETS THIS GOAL BETTER THAN THE EXTENSION OF MANSFIELD BECAUSE HOUK EXISTS,THE EXPECTED VOLUME OF TRAFFIC WiLL NOT EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF HOUK AND IS A LESS COSTLY OPTION TO RESULT IN THE SAME BENEFIT. THAT BENEFIT IS THE REDIRECTION OF TRAFFIC EAST AND WEST ACROSS PINES AND AWAY FROM THE PINES AND INDIANA INTERSECTION. T.4A.5—TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DESIGN STANDARES SHALL SUPPORT THE CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROVIDING FOR THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS; • WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSAL FOR HOUK STREET EXTENDED IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THIS POLCIY AS IT RELATES TO THE EXISTING APARTMENT COMMUNITY THAN THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MANSFIELD AVENUE. • WE BELIEVE THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF PASS-THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM THE MIRABEAU POINT DEVELOPMENT ALONG MANSFIELD EXTENDED IN ADDI11ON TO EAST I WEST TRAFFIC HEADING BETWEEN EVERGREEN AND ARGONNE WOULD BE ONEROUS TO THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED APARTMENT COMMUNITIES AND COULD LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE VACANCIES INCREASE DUE TO AN INORDINATE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND NOISE AND DECREASE IN SAFTEY AND AESTHETICS FOR THESE APARTMENT UNITS. • WE RELIVE THAT HOUK,WHILE MAKING THE SAME CONNECTION,WILL REDIRECT TRIPS IN A GURVALINEAR WAY TO MINIMIZE SPEEDS, REDUCE TRAFFIC NOISE AND THE OVERALL IMPACT TO THE EXISTING APARTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT THE STRAIGHTAWAY SPEEDS THAT WILL BE INHERANT ONA STRAIGTH THROUGH MANSFIELD. T,4A.6--DEVELOP AN ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN THAT EMPHASIZES PLANNED CORRIDORS FOR HIGH-CAPACITY ROADWAYS TO KEEP HIGH-SPEED TRAFFIC OUT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. WE BELIEVE THATTHIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS: • WE BELIEVE THATWHiLE MANSFIELD FULFILLS THIS GOAL FOR HIGH CAPACITY ROADWAYS IT FAILS THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS POLICY IS I NCONFLICT WITH T.4A.5 NOTED ABOVE AND THAT POLICY T.4A,5 IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING AND PLANNED APARTMENT COMMUNITY WITHIN THIS AREA WHICH SHOULD DISCOURAGE STRIAGHT THROUGH AND HIGH-CAPACITY ROADWAYS. 6130/2004 Page 6 of 7 T.4A.7—DESIGN OF NEW TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OR FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD INCORPORATE ADEQAUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE CULTURAL, HISTORICAL AND AESTHETIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAL/POLICY AS FOLLOWS: • WE BELIEVE THAT MANSFIELD DOES NOT MEET THIS POLICY WHICH IS ALSO IN CONFLICT WITH T.4A.5 IN THAT MANSFIELD EXTENDED DOES NOT DEAL WITH ANY OF THESE ISSUES, MOST NOTABLY THE AESTHETIC ISSUE. WHILE HOUK EXTENDED IS AN EXISTING ROAD AND EXTENDING AN EXISTING ROAD IS MORE AESTHETIC THAN TEARING DOWN A BUILDING AND BUILDING A STRPJGHT LINE TI-IROUGHFARE BETWEEN PINES AND MIRABEAU PARKWAY. T.4A.11 —ENCOURAGE STREET DESIGNS,WHICH REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ON PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS AND HIGHWAYS BY COMBINING DRIEWAYS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND USE OF FRONTAGE ROADS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT IN IT H THE ABOVE NOTED GOALf POLI CY AS FOLLOWS; • WE BELIEVE THAT MANSFIELD EXTENDED IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS GOAL AS DRIVEWAYS TO EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL NEED TO BE MAINTAINED AS THERE IS NO VIABLE OPTION FOR COMBINING THESE DRIVEWAYS AS WELL THERE ARE NO VIALBE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FRONTAGE ROADS. T_4A.113-ENCOURAGE LOCAL ACCESS STREES WHICH ARE CURVALINIEAR, NARROW OR USE OTHER STREET DESIGNS CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY REQUIREMENTS TO DISCOURAGE THROUGH TRAFFIC IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE SUCH DESIGN FITS INTO THE SURRCIJND1GN STREET SYSTEMS AND AIDS IN IMPLEMENTING SPECIFIC LAND USE GOA. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED GOAIJPCLICYAS FOLLOWS: • WE BELIEVE THAT MANSFIELD AVENUE AS CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE CITY'S ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS POLICY AS MANSFIELD WILL BISECT AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE IS VERY UTILE ROOM FOR A CURVALINEARALIGNEMENT_ • WE BELIEVE THAT WHILE HOUK IS A CURVAL1NEAR STREET AND WHILE IT WILL EXPERIENCE HIGHER TRAFFIC VOLUMES THAN IT CURRENTLY DOES, IT WILL NOT EXPERIENCE AS HIGH OF SHORT CIRCUITING 1 PASS THROUGH TRAFFIC AS IF IT WERE A CURVALINEAR ROADWAY. • THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN CONSIDERING THAT MIRABEAU POINT WAS NOT ANALYZED NOR PLANNED WITH A DIRECT ACCESS TO PINES AND IT 15 UNKNOWN WHAT THE TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING APARTMENT COMMUNITY WILL BE IN THE EVENT THAT MANSFIELD IS CONSTRUCTED AND SHORT CUT AND PASS THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM A DEVELOPING MIRABEALI POINT ARE DIRECTED BACK TO PINES AND THE NEW MANSFIELD INTERSECTION SIGNAL. PUBLIC FACILITIES DESCRIBE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES, INCLUDING, ROADS,WATER,SEWER, PARKS,AND PUBLIC TRANSIT: THE AREA IN QUESTION WILL BE SERVED BY ALL KNOWN PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING WATER, SEWER,ROADS, PARKS(MIRABEAU)AND PUBLIC TRANSIT(PINES AND INDIANA). 6,3012054 Page 7 of 7 & A CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT +T . 202£. st Trent Avetwe, ff5cate 400, S, rte, Weshinpron 992c2 (509)624-1 70 fax(50 )624-1255 June 30, 2004 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Letter in Support Amendment of Comprehensive PlanlArterial Road Plan Removal of Mansfield between Houk St. &Mirabeau Parkway Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter of support is presented by and on behalf of sponsor, A &A Construction & Development,Inc., for purposes of removing the extension of Mansfield from Houk Street to Mirabeau Parkway and thereby amending the Comprehensive Plan/Arterial Road Plan, accordingly. The purpose of this letter is to provide some background and understanding as to how the proposed extension of Mansfield from likrlirabeau Parkway, westerly to Houk Street ("Mansfield Extension") carne to be included in the Arterial Road Plan, and more importantly, why the Mansfield extension is inappropriate. By way of summarized bullet points, it is my intention to expose how the Mansfield Extension is really nothing more than an oversight or mistake, and not part of a well analyzed, long term traffic flow strategy. Salient points that are relevant to the history and evolution of this "mistake"are as follows: 1. Bill Lawson and Ted Gunning each owned approximately 16 acres adjacent to each other north of Shannon Road and near the Mirabeau area of the Spokane Valley. Gunning's acreage on the east was subsequently transferred to Torn Hamilton and I subsequently purchased a portion of Lawson's acreage on the west. 2. Joint efforts began by Lawson and Gunning in 1993 to develop both parcels. The overriding issue and concern was always traffic and the first of several Traffic Impact Analysis was done as early as June of 1993, 3, Access to the development was always to have been in two places, one being on Shannon east to Pines Road, and the other being across the railroad crossing from Shannon south to Indiana. 4, When we started discussions with the Railroad concerning improving the Shannon crossing (at McDonald Road) to meet necessary traffic standards, we were informed that some consideration was being given to closing this crossing and moving it to the east. 5. I subsequently attended a public hearing concerning the possibility of closing the Shannon crossing and opening a similar but controlled crossing to the ease At that time I acted as attorney for Lawson and Gunning and expressed concern, at the potential loss of access to Lawson and COMITIC f2,e;l enXS .4A20704 AMAW 124930 Credibriv: 7607425 Oreton 661968 flf,<rh CW043.113O litvhnsim AACO.VD11341S &innings projects if this closing took effect. I was assured by Denny Ashlock, the main proponent for the Mirabeau Point development, as well as others, that the closing of the Shannon crossing would not affect oux access at all. it would merely move it along Shannon Road to the east to a separate crossing. I was also assured that the Shannon crossing closing was for the greater public good in that it would benefit the Mirabeau Point project which would serve as a community recreational development. 6. The Shannon crossing at McDonald was closed. Shannon was never extended easterly to the new crossing, Our access point was lost. 7. From 1993 through the present time, many meetings and negotiations were conducted with the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Spokane County Traffic engineers in an effort to determine the overall traffic impact from both Lawson and Cunnings projects and how the mitigation could be handled in a way to enable these developers to proceed with a defined "traffic fix". Pursuant to State Statutes, neither the County nor the State could accept traffic mitigation that did not completely remedy the impact produced by the proposed project. Any traffic mitigation had to be toward an existing defined project. Any eventual remedy that was not completed within five (5) years, resulted in those funds needing to be refunded to the Developer. We needed a specific mitigation project. S. Our traffic was always proposed as going westerly towards Pines Road. Accordingly, we tried to develop a "traffic fix" that would relate to our impact and that would not necessitate the contribution or involvement of other projects so that we could move forward immediately. 9. At the time, we were utilizing John Konen of David Evans Engineers as our Planner. John casually mentioned a proposal white in discussions with either the County or the State one day, which involved extending Mansfield easterly front Pines straight through to out project as a "specific fix" for our project. The problem was that this extension necessitated the acquisition and demolition of a six-plex apartment structure. Without knowing the cost or possibility of acquisition of the six-plex, a site plan was drawn for our project which included extending Mansfield through the six-plex. 10. Subsequently, it became clear that the cost of the six-plex would prohibit our extending Mansfield as shown. Discussions with the County and the State also quickly brought a definitive response from them that they could not generate the funds necessary to accomplish the same. I 1, The plan was quickly abandoned although, somehow, a copy of the proposal had become entwined in the County files and showed up in their Arterial Road Plan. When questioned about this, County personnel indicated they really had no idea how that happened and fully acknowledged that there were no funds available or anticipated to accomplish the Mansfield Extension. 12. At some point, a group of developers with property in the area were contacted by the County with regard to a potential grant for mitigation to the area that would satisfy all of our traffic needs and we were all asked to contribute matching funds. The Pinesvlansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project was the resulting "specific fix" that we could all contribute to. At no time was the Mansfield Extension ever a part of those discussions concerning the grant or the eventual. mitigation that would be accomplished by the grant and accompanying snatching funds. 13. The Mansfield Extension was forgotten and not again discussed until our recent meetings with the City of the Valley revealed that the Mansfield Extension had become a part of your Arterial Road Plan. The Mansfield Extension is a mistake and should be removed from the City of the Valley's Arterial Road Plan. It arose nut of a narrowly defined need to structure mitigation for traffic impact from the Lawson Gunning proposed projects that would comport in cost with the traffic impact it generated and would not necessitate other developers or other projects. It was ill conceived and impractical. Additionally, we feel the arterial would be duplicative since Indiana is so close and parallels to the south. The cost of acquiring the six-plea is both prohibitive and a poor use of Municipal firrids since Indiana can serve the same function. Since it is the intention of the Gunning parcel, now owned by Hamilton, and Inland Empire's parcels to utilize Mirabeau Parkway and Indiana, there is no need for the Mansfield Extension. The parcel owned by Lawson and me will access westerly to Pines and our contribution of matching funds to the Pines/Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project and the overall relief which that project is intending to provide, is precisely in anticipation of our traffic moving westerly only. Finally, since it is our intent to develop a single residential community that will caver our entire parcel, dividing the parcel by an arterial thoroughfare will be extremely burdensome to the project. We intend to have a recreation area and swimming pool which would, necessarily, need to be on one side of the arterial or the other, This would result in many residents, including children, needing to cross the arterial to visit the recreation area. The Manager's office would also have to be located on one side of the arterial or the other, creating the same problem. It would also damage the "sense of community" that we would attempt to accomplish for a residential community of this type. My partner, Bill Lawson, and I urge you to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Road Arterial Plan to remove the Mansfield Extension It would create a tremendous burden on us by dividing our residential project into two separate halves as well as a burden on the Municipality with regard to the cost of the duplex needed to complete the extension. Very truly yours, A& A Construction & Dev., Inc. Christopher R. Ashenbrener Corporate Counsel CRA: sf uOI 7U!G[7194 11: 74 CPJ9L4-1 X341 rMe.20Ii r UIVC lIYL.. rl-va.=^ W4 P. N--3O-2O04 WED 1051 AM haA GONS'TRUOT14ii It DE's FAX NO, 609L ,25S Aloe 30,2004 City of Spokane Valley 11107 7 F.Sprague Avca.ue Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Request for Inclusion Amendment of Cornprahen i c PleniArterial Load Plan removal of Heid Extension bets Hold~St &Mrabea&t Parkway Dear Cecil Members, Commission Members&Staff This letter is to request that the Application for Amendment of the Comprehensive PIa&fAiterial Road Plan to remove the extension of Mansfield'between Hoick Street and Wu-ahem Parkway which is being filed by Lawson end Macabre= include my parcel of land to they cast of the LawSonfAsher.brener mel. As such, I supper the application for modification of the City of Spokane Valley transportation Comprehensive Plan/Arterial Road. Pian filed ort brlalf of Lawson arid Asbenbrener and dated dune 2S, 2004_ I purchased approximately 16 acres from Ted Gunnit in the yew 1999. This laud is located.immediately adjacent to and east of the Land owned by Lama and Aaheribmiar. When I acquired the laud I became involved in the many rim*gand negotiations with the Department of Transportation for the State and the County Transportation Department I was never made aware that there was ever im intention of ere ing n grin theror'ghfare through the middle of Lay property that would become pert of the Arte Rcati Playa I was always of the belief that I could put a road through the if I wanted to but trot that I would be obligated to. I have been informed that Inland Paper is developing their property to the east of nie and intends on couz acting a road to my rat+ n boundary that I will: be entitled to use for access. Num alto been ioafornsed of the proposal to Bridge the Valley wt it h.will eventually result o the vacation of the railroad enabling art,PAW to Indiarna to the south. In this regard, it woWd secm completely unneca nary to have Mansfield serve as a.parallel arterial that iA so close to Indiana- It would be costly to tie City of the Valley as it vvntrld appear that someone would bavee to acquire property to the west Including the demolition of building which seems to be in the way. It would also be very burdensome to my parcel to rewire the construction of this toroagbfare right through the middle of rimy property'. For there reasons,I support the Application which has been filed by Lawson and Ashenbrer.er and request t>ar the removal of the Mansfield Arterial apply to my pared as well. 10,41, Tota Hamilton l Aerial Map __ --_ q/�. ,J Pte- �64 c''. '� . — I m'I .0?-7-4;.: a`0.5` al/I,I31:. r... i ' • '; e$1ae1111, • •f' ',} a'. ILO' ...yi 4A-11A-1 Ne tr,,e - '* iR ,-0 ail �4 "I " •* �p a y} •a•L' ■ IF +I�/,r• + .f� ;" ,W":'...er•g. ,r,,r dF 1. 4 ted: F ' r p y ✓+� µ • Tb-� ! 14. e't, - t,'1,F •�'Im. .. Y y f" rJ 'k• "~ w Future Mansfield Road F ', ALk (4 I, s 'I4 — Alignment e I a ' -:a 4. ,m :',4, y:k. S - r •. ' ' J. Ma sbeld ' .„, „.• ' 11 L F• - —1 0, 4;4. 4 . liat°1710nritir-1 'V'' L''''''''..7-"' • - +I I'4 1110- 711*1€]!.11enTall {. �C. � n_ qN J y44 s yC e _ - Il v1 L, t _ shag-hurl __ -- -- h: I90 X^287 OFF L{ oa - i •'. . . ;7'7. '.'-i' -II 4.31;10.i 4. , : -,-,r6...,,... lej ',Do, 61? �', - r _- 4• " _ .'m.-1., y ` Ffiisslon '= 1.,. �� v •11 '.,M�kweII _, MY 41 1 1 En I r .. � n• SOC. r ro -,ms y. • t .. I t e� I ., ' -' , �3 } 7#A 7 1 -9 m 1y �, F., �,. _ n - .� To-0, T !,..ii 7 _� W N 1.sm 7_-+ 101-. 4r. 11 l 1 m Y I 1 7 -7 Pyr _nta I` 1 '. '':�'' '' r �t . ' °^ ,'- • I re I •ShSlo .,a:-t I ''1.1.. L i 8"' . 'I• _. � �"' V.. ..-".. r' ^fie _: ,c --. ' -'•- k, -I.7,,m.•..'..r:f I �1 't u - - ;13 —. ' y Jyam, t i " a 1. ':1 • I j -.' Comprehensive Plan Amendment + CPA-07-04111'.of August.2004 d�l 1 Comprehensive Plan Map 1. 1 .,) � ._. - - \\ N I I 1 - g nFuture Mansfield Road Alignment a . \ 1 -/5 s Wilk, 1 I) ,r� Irmitil I \ ir w+wwwr�warwY -wwa.w 7- . Ia 11 mop wag! III Fl a A Shah _ ort r1» ate'.,' : � - __ ..*se— oft '' --,„.,..\..,,t Comp Plan Category .; LA Law Rensity ResidenRal l�+. Il Medium Density Residential w High Density Residential -.— - Mixed Use 1 ,lluluU — ' ' .,..., Community Center R.?11111111111111 , , ■ OHNE ' , Urban Activity Center rb , '- "Netghborridod C+omrnendal �� 111,Community Commercial1 ',;! 1I : _ MI Regional Commercial �� Light lrtdustr$1 —� 1 HIP Meavy industrial I � � Mill 0 L I Mineral LandFis -1--- ill I NO s _I__r—I Ill I l 1 I .II. 1 I e N Comprehensive Plan Amendment �, CPA-07-04err ll kane August,2004 ��hhhlie zoning Map ev-00,-// rir : sks„\\\,\\\\\\%\\\\\‘\„, \\\\ANI,, \ ill— r(j'j'%A4Zeitireffif ////////////7",/"i* N‘,NU 'N, 7 re'."-trelog ZA N-N\s\'s . 7277.46 "` tr "Ate Future I�ansf�ld Road frA9A I nwent jii.k.‘ , .., ik.,,m,.s,lum &.,01 fts,*p-PA re- ziffrpli. Fe a Ls\\\:, L,:wooP. 4 r/ A O1 \k `It k‘ k%' \ 21104 tA 441-\‘‘\\k‘------v \\\\,, 4 ...„. 4,7,1,-0)-0•40t-ore, f\\\Ivk \?..D Awl tm er9.2 "70004/Arzeilks.*\ ,r_Arm(4=42-47 xs s, —it\\ it ii Ortill ______________40orzommiza_____.=.4mitz-- Y_.��ese��rrr.. sfl�I„4:172,71%-lk‘x4m,,, ,,,„rermi ji �\ ■� °rte/f�rr��,�X/f J�`I��1'�i �� -- 1rrJ!'JP I►f�filf/JRJJrJII "%111141t1VtAaaa *?1214128 43n mimmmommIkStkk k4 . , - f q, ' ,wwwmmommomffrn pry/eV/yell° N APP11- II A re Afr FA 4494 Di on ,A,0;:mpod,cek, 4000/77Arezeze,A„..„,, ;,,,,, re Var, 4 . .ze• Pia UR-3, 0 7 t, di 4 4 F,Ti UR-7 /0:,-,, -±9 it A , re_ It walla& UFS-12 r/777/ _ VM - IR r UM 1111111v„., r 9A,Feri —ii4vA riejd SlikillifiliMA , A if, i . ;01.1A r A utoil . imi „,,,Armt zico A E23-2 10' 10441,- r#02 °;;;2A-311141111;lirrrreemAroviriA i • MRR-1° A11441 041.467, KAM is - A A i I ' 1 1 'pi Zr, 0111" "al r 1 ililiinlilill. a : '.\°1 -la ladrei, 4 IIIIIILIP argrAilliIII" 0 fl;e01111 �i� 1 Il Comprehensive'.-- mz FM A arreM Plan Amendment I1I�sK�`�� CPA-07-04 � e August, 2004 Valley AWC June 30, 2004 W.O. No. 2004-30 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re. Application for Modification of the City of Spokane Valley, Transportation Comprehensive Plan 1 Arterial Road Plan Specifically: Removal of Mansfield between Houk Street and Mirabeau Parkway from the Arterial Road Plan with Alternate Route of Houk Road Extended to Indiana Dear Sirs, This application has been prepared on behalf of the Sponsor AM Construction which is currently in the process of rezoning the existing RR-10 parcels (Parcel Numbers 45103.0205, 45103-0206, 45103.0208, 45103 0244, 45103.0210) just east of the existing apartments on Houk Street from RR-1 0 to UR-22 to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan Designation of Community Center. It is anticipated that once the rezone is complete an apartment site plan for the development of the AM Construction parcel will be forwarded for approval. It is anticipated that this proposal will be in keeping with the original applications to Spokane County for 350 to 400 multi-family dwelling units. For this Comprehensive Plan Change Application, the following documents need to be noted as they form the basis of the analysis and recommendations for this proposal Reference Documents 1. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared for the Lawson/Gunning Properties Rezone, June 1993 — Inland Pacific Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared for the Lawson/Gunning Project, Shannon Avenue, June 1999 — Inland Pacific Engineering 3. Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B —Traffic Impact Analysis, September 1997 — inland Pacific Engineering 4. Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification, Final impact Statement, Appendix C —Technical Appendicles to the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, May 14, 1998 — Inland Pacific Engineering 5, Pines Corridor Improvement Project, Westbound On-Ramp Realignment for WSDOT & Spokane County, July 1998 — Inland Pacific Engineering . WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS * CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING '3218 E SPRAGUE AVENUE • SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 PH:509-$93-2517 FAX.509 91216.0227 City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 2 Background Narrative The following is a narrative to help the reviewer understand the nature of the request and the reasoning for Mansfield being placed on Spokane County's and the City of Spokane Valley's Arterial Road Plan /Transportation Improvement Plan (TIF) In 1993 Rill Lawson and Ted Gunning, the owners of two separate parcels of property were desirous of starting the development process and contemplated a rezone of approximately 35.30 Acres of property from RR-10 to UR-22, see a copy of the Vicinity Map in the Appendix. Originally, both Lawson and Gunning saw value in pursing a joint rezone as both the Gunning property (now owned by Hamilton) and the Lawson properties were complimentary as they lay east of the development along Houk and west of the Inland Empire Paper properly (now Miraheau), north of Shannon Avenue and the UPRR and south of the Walk in the Wild Zoo and the DNR 40 acre parcel. Additionally, both Sponsors wanted to pursue the development of multi-family developments. Access to these parcels at this time came from Shannon Avenue which had two access opportunities one each to the east and west. To the west these properties had access to Shannon Avenue which via Houk Street would direct them to Mansfield Avenue and its unsignalized intersection with Pines Road, a copy of the site plan from that project is attached for reference in the appendix. The second access, or easterly access point was a crossing of the UPRR at McDonald Road, extended, but it was known as the Shannon Road railroad crossing by County Personnel as well as the overall community. This approach was an unsignalized crossing of the UPRR and therefore provided direct access to Indiana Avenue. At the time of the original study, the McDonald crossing was intended to be the primary access point for the combined properties. It was contemplated at that time that this railroad crossing could be expanded and signalized to meet UPRR, WSDOT, PHVlA and USDOT guidelines. At the time of the original study it was understood that Shannon Road would be improved to allow, by congestion, a pressure relief to Mansfield and Pines intersection, and encourage access via Indiana and the Shannon crossing of the UPRR. It should be noted that at the time of the original study, Indiana Avenue ended 2000-feet east of Pines Road, the current configuration between Pines Road and Sullivan Road did riot exist until a later date. In 1997 Lawson and Gunning made formal application to Spokane County for a rezone, ZE-36-97, which at this time has not been completed, From June of 1993 until June of 1999 (6 years) no additional traffic studies were prepared or submitted on behalf of the Lawson and Gunning Properties Rezone, During that time, however, development within this part of Spokane Valley continued as well the privately owned zoo Walk in the Wild failed. The zoo was on property owned by the Inland Paper Company. The Spokane Valley Regional Mall developer Price City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 3 announced that they were moving forward with the proposed 1,000,900 sf +I- mall with the addition of several large anchors. As a part of the new mall they then constructed Indiana Avenue from a point 2,000 feet east of pines to Sullivan Road. The WSDOT continued to proceed with an interchange at Evergreen Road to serve the development of the new mall as well as growth within the Greater Spokane Valley. In addition to Evergreen the WSDOT made access revisions to the Pines Road interchange as well as the Pines and Mission Avenue intersection to accommodate additional traffic volumes. The railroad crossing at Shannon was officially closed by action of the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and moved approximately 1,1,00 feet east to a new arterial roadway to be known as Mirabeau Parkway which was to provide access to a new Master Planned Development, known as MViirabeau Point. The proposal for Mirabeau Point included a principal arterial running between the intersection of Euclid and Pines and Indiana Avenue. It should be noted here that the loss of the Shannon Road (McDonald Road extended) crossing of the UPRR had significant traffic access impacts to the proposed Lawson and Gunning Properties Rezone which had intended to use the Shannon Road crossing of the UPRR as their primary access point due to capacity limitations with the Pines Road and Mansfield intersection, This then forced Lawson I Gunning to deal with the Pines and Mansfield intersection as the only ingresslegress point to the larger transportation system, The Mirabeau Point development wassupported by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process that started in 1997 and finished in 1998. During that time Inland Pacific Engineering (IPEC) again participated in that process by providing documentation for traffic and access to this proposed development. In September of 1997 IPEC prepared the initial Traffic Impact Analysis for the Mirabeau Point Draft EIS. In May of 1998 IPEC revised the September 1997 traffic study as part of preparing the Final EIS. Copies of the Site Plan and appropriate access and traffic count diagrams are included within the appendix. It is important to note that the Mirabeau Point project included the Lawson and Gunning Properties Rezone as a background project for analysis. The Mirabeau Point project anticipated as a part of their development that it would generatel 166 PM Peak hour trips.. It is important to note that in both 1997 and 1998 for the Mirabeau Point project, these studies did NOT include Mansfield Avenue as a straight through access point across the Lawson and Gunning Properties, rather they included the originally proposed option for the construction and improvement of Shannon Avenue which ran from Houk, along the UPRR and then back up to meet the proposed alignment for Mansfield within the Mirabeau Point development, exhibits from the Mirabeau Point EIS are clear on this point and are attached in the Appendix for reference. This is extremely significant because the Mirabeau Point project was the last substantial piece of property north of the UPRR to develop or be analyzed and Figure 6 through 11 show no Site Generated PM Peak Hour volumes using the Mansfield, Houk, Shannon, Mansfield route. There was consensus at that time that it was more important to keep trips on either Mirabeau City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 4 Parkway or Indiana Avenue which were intended to be THE Principal Arterial roadways. This therefore, meant that the entire Mirabeau Point project was contemplated with traffic getting to this site either via the Pines and Euclid/Mirabeau intersection or the Mirabeau and Indiana intersection with no access to/from the Mansfield and Pines intersection. The result of this analysis yielded acceptable LOS which included Lawson/Gunning as a background project In July of 1998, iPEC was contacted by Spokane County as a apart of the Lawson and Gunning Properties Rezone to further analyze the arterial roadways in the area and more specifically provide a detailed capacity analysis for the Pines Road Corridor Improvement Project. The intent of this analysis project was to analyze capacity improvement options between Mission Avenue and Mansfield Avenue, more specifically from the Westbound 1-90 Ramps to Mansfield Avenue. The IPEC study was to provide a circulation and mobility analysis to provide for the efficient movement of traffic through the Pines, Indiana and Westbound 1-90 Ramps closely spaced intersections_ It should be noted that after nearly six years of analysis this was the first document to propose connecting Mansfield between Houk and Mirabeau Parkway. This proposal came about because of a meeting between the project Sponsors (Lawson and Gunning) and Spokane County, as a pretense to solving the larger transportation issues within the Pines Road and Indiana Avenue and Pines Road and Mansfield Avenue intersections_ It should also be noted that the loss of the Shannon Avenue railroad crossing also had a significant impact as this railroad crossing provided direct access to Indiana for the combined Lawson and Gunning properties and alleviated the capacity problem at Pines and Mansfield which was identified in 1993, it is significant to recognize that the IPEC Pines Road Corridor Study, proposed significant changes to the 1-90 Westbound ramps and their intersections with Pines Road and Indiana Avenue, the Montgomery/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_ See the Overall Concept Plan of Pines Road (SR- 27) Improvements provided in the appendix. By looking at this exhibit you can see that in order to begin to fix the Indiana and Pines intersection, Montgomery Drive was relocated to tie directly into Mansfield Avenue at Wilbur and move the eastbound portion of the Montgomery and Pines intersection up to Mansfield. The idea would be that based upon conversations between Lawson and Gunning, the County would acquire a 6-unit apartment parcel (L5, BIk 1, Meadows End Subdivision) from a third party and extend Mansfield through so that Lawson, Gunning and Inland Paper (Mirabeau Point) could ultimately connect Mansfield from Pines Road to Mirabeau Parkway. Given the State of the Knowns vs, Unknowns this seemed like a logical presumption for Lawson and Gunning for the following reasons. A. The lost direct access to Indiana when the Shannon crossing was closed for Mirabeau Parkway, City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 5 B. The Mansfield / Pines intersection was a very difficult mitigation issue for the Lawson/Gunning properties and the cost/benefit analysis for this mitigation was askew. C. The UPRR gave all appearances that the line between Shannon and Indiana was viable for the long term so future access to Indiana from Shannon or Houk was not a near term option. ID. The proposal to use Houk via Shannon via Mansfield to get to Mirabeau Point was not a reasonable solution for the Gunning parcel which bore the brunt of the geometric design issues_ Now. the 1997 and 1998 traffic studies done by IPEC for the Mirabeau Point Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements had no traffic accessing Pines Road via Shannon and Mansfield. Rather it was anticipated that traffic from Mirabeau Point heading north would use Mirabeau Parkway to access Pines Road at the odd Euclid Intersection and those wanting to travel south and west of Pines Road would access Pines from Mirabeau and Indiana vicinity, including those trips continuing west from the Indiana and Pines intersection on Montgomery. The Pines Road Corridor study was trying to move traffic east and west of Pines Road and away from the Pines and Indiana intersection To that end the Indiana and Westbound ramps along with the realignment of Montgomery allowed the removal of an intersection along Pines Road, as it turns out to the detriment of the Lawson and Gunning properties. Therefore, it is important to remember, that the goal of the Pines Road Corridor Study was to A) reduce the number of intersections between MMiansfield Road and the Westbound Ramps on Pines Road and B) reduce the number of vehicles using the these same intersections, hence the connection of Mansfield to Mire beau Parkway. This connection then moved trips/vehicles from west of Pines to a point east of Pines bud did not add traffic to the Pines and Indiana intersection This was one of the main premises of the corridor study. This proposal proposes to maintain the intent of the previous studies conducted to date within this area (reduce traffic congestion at Indiana and Pines), consider new available information, while at the same time reducing the onerous impacts imposed upon Lawson/Gunning and now Hamilton of having an arterial roadway (Mansfield Avenue) bisecting their respective parcels and directly impacting their opportunity for them to develop their parcels to their highest and best use. We believe that Mansfield extended as proposed is not consistent with the following Phase 1 Policies due to the undue impacts to the Lawson ! Gunning properties and surrounding community. Please see responses to the following Goals and Policies in the application f T.2,2; T.2.4; T.2.7; T.3a.1; T.4a; T.4a.2; T.4a,5; T4a.6; T.4a.7; T.4a.11: T.4a_13 City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 6 Lawson and Gunnin Pro Properties 1999 Traffic Impact Anal sis TIA Having laid the background for all pertinent studies from 1993 to 1999 it is here that we discuss the last traffic study prepared for the Lawson and Gunning Properties Rezone and Project. Up to this point, all of the studies for these Sponsors as well as all of the other studies were generic rezones, analyzing the intent for development, in 1999 that changed for this property as specific proposals were now being proposed. As it relates to site plans several site plans were proposed as is normal for the process that was then on going in 1999. At that time, the planner was John Konen at David Evans and David Evans prepared several drafts for both Lawson and Gunning. All drafts either centered around the straight through Mansfield or the more circuitous route using Houk, Shannon and Mansfield which was consistent with the Mirabeau Point Draft and Final E1S's. However, with the Pines Road corridor study being adopted by the agencies and with the Shannon Avenue railroad crossing relocated to its current location and with the capacity issues at Mansfield, there really weren't many options for access from the Lawson and Gunning properties other than the updated Pines and Mansfield intersection via the Corridor improvement project. A copy of the site plan from the 1999 study is included as reference, also included are several other options that were internal options that were evaluated but were not included within the 1999 TIA but may have been discussed with Spokane County staff. In this 1999 study, many things were different as it related to the analysis performed and scoped with Spokane County. First, the direction from the County in keeping with the 1998 Pines Road Corridor Study was that Mansfield would be used for primary ingress and egress. Shannon Avenue would be vacated due to several factors, most notably the fact that the Shannon Avenue (McDonald extended) railroad crossing was no longer available and the fact that the Agencies involved needed a revisedlupdated Mansfield and Pines intersection to be implemented to facilitate changes on how traffic that use to use Montgomery west of Pines would access Pines not only north and south, but also head east of Pines without using the reconfigured Indiana and Pines intersection. Additional differences lie in the rezone requests themselves, Lawson held with the rezone to UR-22 while Gunning changed to an 1-2 rezone so that he could have more of a mixed used development to develop options such as retirement care facilities, RV Park, Mini-storage and an office park wf some commercial development. Because of the long timelines associated with the development of not only the Lawson and Gunning properties (5 to 10 years) as well as Mirabeau Point (10 to 20 years) the study analyzed the overall area with Mansfield extended between Pines and Mirabeau and without the connection made but with the Lawson and Gunning project completed. The result of this analysis was that either way the intersection of Pines and Mansfield with the Pines Road Corridor Project items implemented would continue to work at adequate levels of service. Enclosed in the Appendix is Table 6 from the 1999 study titled "Table 6— 2006 Traffic With Proposed Project, With and Without Mansfield City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 7 Connection (to Mirabeau). As shown on this table, it was anticipated that all of the existing levels of service with many of the other changes in effect resulted in all signalized intersections operating with an LOS of D or better, It should be noted again that the successful implementation of the Mansfield extension from Houk to Mirabeau Drive involved the taking (by Spokane County/City of Spokane Valley) of a residential rental property which is an existing and occupied 6 unit complex as this property was and is owned by a party not involved with the Lawson and Gunning land use actions. As noted, the implementation of the Pines Road Corridor project would entail the taking of this 6-unit apartment building would cost between $600,000 and $800,000. For this reason, the likelihood of this connection being made may not be cost effective for the benefit that will be received to the overall transportationsystem. From the completion of the 1999 analysis to today, the changes in the overall area from a development and transportation system perspective, that need to be considered for this proposal are as follows: • Spokane Valley Mall is complete or nearing completion with only a few restaurant pads left to build out. • Hansen Center East is still undergoing development with a Residence Inn, Hansen Industries Building, Sullivan Homes and a 'Ramey' office buildings are under construction. • ITT is building a new building on the Hansen property west of Evergreen along Indiana. • The Hansen property on the north side of Indiana from Sullivan east to the UPRR has been developed to it's maximum commercial potential with an Oxford Suites, Best Buy, Arby's Fast Food restaurant. Krispy Kreme donuts and another strip development. • Mirabeau Parkway is complete. • Mirabeau Point is moving forward with the YMCA complete, VVDOE building under construction as well as the Valley Center building and other construction progressing with plans for more office buildings to come along Mansfield both east and west of Mirabeau Parkway. • The Pines Road Corridor Improvement project has not moved forward yet. • interstate GO is being widened to 0-lanes (3 in each direction). • The Wal-Mart shopping center is nearing completion with only one or two pads left to complete. • The northbound to westbound ramp from Sullivan to 1-90 is now in operation and an intersection on Sullivan has been partially removed as is the intent for the NB Pines to WB on Ramp at Indiana. • The WSDOT, The State of Idaho, Spokane County, the City of Spokane Valley, Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Railroad, FHWA and USDOT have proposed a project titled, Bridging the Valley, which is to begin implementation within a year or so. This project is expected to be complete and ready for UPRR line vacation as early as 2009 but no later than 2012 a 5 to 7 year time frame. City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 8 ▪ Mirabeau Point has had Mansfield Avenue west of Mirabeau Parkway designed and construction is to begin with completion in 2004. However, Mirabeau Point is not constructing all the way to the Hamilton Property, at this writing they will be stopping 100-feet short with paving operations, as approved by the City of Spokane Valley. • Discussions with Mirabeau representatives have revealed that while they understand the potential for a Mansfield extension, they intend to be neither a proponent nor an opponent for a Mansfield extension to Pines Road from Mirabeau Parkway. • Phase 1 Development regulations with Spokane County were adopted as a part of Growth Management. • The City of Spokane Valley was formed adding a new Municipal Corporation to the mix of jurisdictions within the Valley. Proposal Discussion As noted at the beginning of this document we are proposing the following: APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN SPECIFICALLY: REMOVAL OF MANSFIELD AVENUE BETWEEN HOUK STREET AND MIRABEAU PARKWAY FROM THE ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN WITH RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE ROUTE OF "HOUK ROAD EXTENDED SOUTH OVER THE FUTURE UPRR VACATION TO INDIANA As described in the Background section of this document, this area has been analyzed off and on over the last 11 years by both the private and public sector with the author of this document participating in many of these analyses if not all. After all of this discovery, investigation and analysis several things within this area have yet to reach there anticipated outcomes, most notably the projected traffic volumes are well below projections. Since 1993, the Pines Road and Mansfield Intersection has been counted and projected into future years. Table 1 below shows the counts by movement from 1993 and 2004; Figure 3 in the appendix provides a summary of all the turning movement counts for 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2004. City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 9 Table 1 — 1993 to 2004 Actual Count Volume Come arison at Mansfield and Pines 1993 2004 INCREASE PCT GRo By wrH DIRECTION LANE VOLUME ' APPROACH DIRECTION LANE VOLUME APPROACH OVER 11 APPROACH YRS Left 20 Left 23 WB Thu 5 87 WB Thru 11 101 14 1,26% Right 62 Ri•ht 67 Left 52 Left 65 EB Thru 1 7D I EB Thru 13 113 43 3,46% Rig ht 17 Right 35 Left 137 Left 107 NB Thru 6.40 835 NB Thru 730 942 107 103% Right 58 Ri•ht 105 Left 26 Left 43 SB Thru 459 505 SB Thru 610 679 174 2.33% Rig ht 20 Ri•ht 26 Intersection 1497 1836 338 1.67% Totals As demonstrated within Table 1, the average intersection growth rate far the Mansfield and Pines intersection is 1.67-percent. From 1993 through 1999, the growth rate for all intersections within this area was analyzed with a growth rate of 3.0 percent. Therefore, for all studies performed over time, the future year volumes are overstated. This is evident when you look at the projected 2004 traffic Volumes at the Pines and Mansfield intersection with the 1999 Lawson and Gunning project from the Mirabeau Point Project EIS documents. These are shown graphically on Figure 2 in the appendix and listed with the actual counts from 2004 shown on the same Figure in Table 2 below. Table 2—2004 Projected vs. Actual Turning Movement Counts at Pines and Mansfield 2004 PROJECTED 2004 ACTUAL COUNTS MAY,2004 DIFFERENCE PCT DIRECTION LANE VOLUME APPROACH I DIRECTION LANE VOLUME APPROACH 8Y DIFFERENCE APPROACH Left 27 Left 23 WB Thru 0 113 WB Thru 11 101 (12) -10.62% Right 26 , Right 57 Left 73 Left 65 EB Tnru 1 113 EB Thru 13 113 0 0% Right 39 Ri+fit 35 Left 193 Left 107 6 NB Thru 1 041 1424 NB Thru 730 942 (482) -33.84% Right 1.87 Right 105 Left 64 Left 43 SB Thru 740 1331 SB Thru 610 679 (152) -18.29% Right 27 Ri!ht 26 Intersection 2481 1835 (646) -26.04% Totals, I City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 10 As can be seen from Table 2, the anticipated growth on Pines has been overstated by over 25-percent Same of this overstatement, granted has been because the NB rights and SB lefts from Pines to Mansfield have not materialized due to the fact that the Lawson and Gunning projects have not been constructed and occupied. However, the issues remain the same depending upon which side you may or may not be on. the Mansfield connection to Mirabeau was and is intended to allow traffic from west of Pines to access Indian Avenue east of Pines without having to use the revised Pines and Indiana Avenue intersection. The intent is still the same and the result will be much better once the Pines Road Corridor project is implemented, even without Mansfield extended. The resulting LOS will be better than projected by year because of the progress, or lack thereof, of development north and east of the Pines and Indiana intersection, however, extending Mansfield per the Pines Road Corridor Study (PROS) is not the only alternative available in 2004 as it was in 1998 when it was proposed. To this point, we have only been dealing with the original purpose for Mansfield being provided as an option to meet the issues associated with the Pines Road Corridor Study which was prepared for Spokane County and the WSDOT. At the time the analysis was prepared and presented there appeared to be no other alternative available that would accomplish the same goals that Mansfield extended would do. However, as noted in the bullet points of changed conditions a verysignificant item has changed and that is the Bridging the Valley project. In 1998, it could never have been envisioned by myself as one of the principal authors of the Pines Road Corridor Study that sometime in the future the UPRR fine between Indiana Avenue and Shannon Avenue would be vacated with both the UPRR and BNRR sharing mainline adjacent to Trent Avenue. If, at that time, this was someone's ultimate solution to the railroad crossing issues in the Val/ey, it was not divulged during all of the meetings held between numerous agencies that met and commented on the Pines Road Corridor project. What this Bridging the Valley project does is alleviate the two largest issues associated with the Pines Road study which were: 1.) How to move traffic from the west side of Pines to the east side of Pines, get them to Indiana and move them to the east either to Evergreen Road, the Mall, Mirabeau Point or Sullivan Road without impacting the new Pines/lndianaiwB Ramps intersection; and 2.) Deal with the high cost and low benefit or condemning a 6-unit apartment building for $600,000 to $800,000 for the through extension from Houk to the Lawson property. What the Bridging the Valley project does is provide a low cost (Estimate of $100,000 without a signal and $30Q000 with a signal) solution by extending Houk to Indiana over the future vacated UPRR right of way. The result would be the same and meet the needs and goals of the original Pines Road Corridor Study, traffic would move from west to east at Mansfield, traffic would access Indiana via Houk Street instead of Mirabeau Parkway and not use the Indiana and Pines Road intersection, Therefore, by extending Houk Street to Indiana Avenue, the City/CountyiWSDOT would save $350,000 to $725,000 and use these funds for other projects in the Valley. City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 11 Proposed Alternative Discussion Based upon the above discussion, the intent of this change is to modify the City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan /Arterial Road Plan to allow for the deletion of Mansfield Avenue between Houk Street and Mirabeau Parkway. This link would be replaced with a less costly and intrusive alternative to realign Houk Street and extend Houk Street south and tie into Indiana Avenue. By removing Mansfield extended from the Arterial Road Plan and replacing it with Houk Street extended you will have the same opportunity to keep traffic from east of the Pines away from the Pines and Indiana intersection. It our opinion that this would in every aspect keep in place the intent of the Pines Road Corridor Study. By utilizing Houk Street it would keep the Corridor study intact and at the same time delete the impact to development by not bisecting the Lawson and Gunning (Hamilton) properties with Mansfield. Therefore, we believe that the overall area mobility will not be impacted by this proposed change, to that end we have provided a limited transportation analysis based upon various components from the background studies to further our proposal and to provide a reasonable assertion that the premise is appropriate and should be adopted. For this analysis the following assumptions shall apply. • The intent of the 1999 Lawson Gunning Traffic Impact Analysis (1999 study) will be followed. • Within the 1989 study. the WITH Mansfield analysis will he used for trips dealing with the Pines Road Corridor Study and the Pines and Mansfield intersection for volume definition_ • The assumptions for directional distribution will be modified as follows: 1. The Lawson properties will access Pines and Indiana from the construction and improvement of Shannon Avenue and Houk Street. 2. The Lawson and Hamilton Properties although adjoining do not and should not require cross access if adequate access can be provide separately and per City and Fire codes Therefore, the notion that access between these two parcels is advantageous it is necessarily not, especially if one develops into a 300 to 400 unit apartment complex and the other into a business park or development with office capabilities, etc... 3. For this analysis, it will be assumed that Mansfield Avenue may or may not be extended to the west past the Inland Empire Paper property known as Mirabeau Point, currently its westernmost terminus. It has not been fully decided by Hamilton if he will extend as a public or private road. 4. Directional distributions will hold from the 1999 study, only easterly travel from Lawson will use Indiana from Houk, All traffic from Hamilton will use Mansfield east to Mirabeau Parkway and then either south to Indiana or north to Pines, City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 12 • Traffic Volumes from the 1999 study will not be normalized for 2004 from the count at Mansfield even though the projections are 25-percent over existing for conservatism. • There will be no modification of trip generation rates or distribution percentages other than previously noted from the 1999 study. • For consistency, the results of the analysis will be cross checked with the Mirabeau Point EIS documents as these documents held that no trips would access Pines except from Euclid (Mirabeau Parkway) and Indiana Avenue as this analysis was prepared prior to the adoptions of Mansfield as a through street from Mirabeau and Houk. • Applicable sections of the appropriate document will be provided in the appendix for reference. The affected intersections for discussion and analysis purposes for this proposed comprehensive plan change are as follows. A. Mansfield and Pines B. Pines and Indiana C. Indiana and Houk D. Indiana and Mirabeau Parkway E. Mansfield and Mirabeau Parkway It should be noted, that all of these intersections have been previously analyzed by other proposals that have or are already moving forward. As noted at the beginning of this document, the following reference documents make up the basis and justification for this change. 1. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared for the Lawson/Gunning Properties Rezone, June 1993 — Inland Pacific Engineering 2. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared for the Lawson/Gunning Project, Shannon Avenue, June 1999— Inland Pacific Engineering 3. Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B — Traffic Impact Analysis, September 1997 — Inland Pacific Engineering 4. Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification, Final Impact Statement, Appendix C --Technical Appendicles to the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, May 14, 1998 — Inland Pacific Engineering 5. PinesCorridor Improvement Project, Westbound On-Ramp Realignment for WSDOT & Spokane County, July 1998 — Inland Pacific Engineering Most notably from this list, this proposal takes note of Item No. 2, the Traffic Impact Analysis provided for ZE-36-97 which was the rezone application applied for by Lawson and Gunning that was not dropped, but was not completed. This traffic study evaluated the impacts for this area both with and without Mansfield extended. The reason for this City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 13 was the private parcel laying between Houk and the Lawson properties and that even though Lawson and Gunning could have moved forward and developed their propenes, per the Pines Road Corridor Study (Item No. 5) the local agencies needed to act on the existing 6-plex lot as well the Mirabeau Point project would need to move forward to build their portion of Mansfield for the LawsonlGunning properties to have access to both Pines Road and Mirabeau Parkway. Based on the fact that the County could not preclude the Lawson and Gunning properties from developing and moving forward the rezone was analyzed without Mansfield extended to Mirabeau Parkway. Lastly, the other study of note is Item No. 4, the Mirabeau Point EIS, wherein, this analysis, used the Mansfield, Shannon, Houk, Mansfield to Pines route and no traffic access pines from this route, thereby, assuming that no connection in fact was available and it was incumbent upon Mirabeau to move traffic east, west, north and south via Mirabeau Parkway from either the Pines and Euclid/Mirabeau Pkwy or the Mirabeau Pkwy and Indiana intersection. Based on this the only new elements to be analyzed would be the Proposed Houk Street and Indiana Avenue intersection and the Houk Street and Shannon Avenue for unsignalized level or service. It should be noted prior to review of this Table that all traffic from the Lawson and Gunning (Hamilton) was assumed to use the Shannon Avenue approach and that no traffic was routed to Mansfield east of the Gunning (Hamilton) property to maximize the potential for impact to the new Shannon and Indiana intersections with Houk. The following Table 3, supplements Table 6 of the 1999 study for existing 2004 traffic volumes and presents the Existing LOS of the affected intersections. Table 3, 2006 Level of Service WI Project wf Pines Road Corridor Study Implementation and with the Houk to Indiana intersection. 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INTERSECTION SIGNAL TYPE DELAY LOS "5"OR'tJrr Houk and Shannon tJ WB Left 25.9 seconds B , Houk and Indiana l.il SB Left e. 17.2 seconds C Pines end Mansfield S Intersection = 28.3 sec C Pines /WB Gn / Indiana S Intersection = 21.3 sec C Indiana and Mirabeau S , Intersection = 16.7 sec C Mirabeau and Mansfield S (future) Minor Left = 15.0 sec B "S°= Signalized/"U" = Unsignaliaed intersections As shown in Table 3 without Mansfield extended and with Houk extended to Indiana the Houk and Indiana intersection levels of service are adequate as are all the other intersections within this area. It should be noted, that with the exception of the trip generation rates as revised for the proposed increase in apartments on the Lawson parcel all traffic turning movements were either taken from the 1999 Lawson/Gunning City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 14 study or the 1998 Revised Mirabeau Point TIA that include a built in 25-percent increase over existing volumes and should represent levels of service at a t67-percent growth rate for 10 to 12 years beyond 2006. It is apparent from a level of service and land access perspective that both the Lawson/Gunning and other traffic from realigned Montgomery can reach the west side of Pines Road, by not going through the Pines and Indiana intersection and not have a detrimental impact to Indiana Avenue with the addition of the new Houk intersection. Summary It is the intent of this presentation to provide the City of Spokane Valley Staff, Planning Commission and City Council with the appropriate information to make an informed decision to modify the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan (and any other affected documents) by removing Mansfield extended from Houk Street to Mirabeau Parkway and replacing this link with an extension of Houk Street to Indiana Avenue, In order to make this decision the following information was presented and is either included as text or as reference materials in the Appendix of this document. 1 . The Pines Road Corridor, prepared in 1998 proposed the first extension of Mansfield Avenue between Houk Street and Mirabeau Parkway. This extension was originally collaboration between the 1SDOT, Spokane County and the Lawson/Gunning properties. However, the premise of this mutual agreement has changed with the potential changes incurred from the Bridging the Valley project. 2. Lawson and Hamilton (Gunning) are desirous of developing their property, but they do not wish to have their single proprietor developments bisected by an Arterial roadway that may or may not have a beginning or an end, when the Houk Street extension to Indiana will for all intents and purposes meet all of the requirements of the ALL known previous traffic studies as well as the Pines Road Corridor Study, 3, Indiana Avenue between Pines, Evergreen and Sullivan has always been the preferred Arterial route of choice_ Re-directing traffic to Mirabeau unduly stresses Mirabeau Parkway and Mirabeau's portion of Mansfield as well as places a significant development burden on Lawson and Hamilton to design residential communities around an Arterial roadway. 4. Since 1993, Indiana Avenue has always been the preferred route of choice for access from the Lawson and Gunning properties. When the Lawson and Gunning projects started in 1993 the assumption was that they would use and modify the Shannon Avenue (McDonald Extended) existing railroad crossing and use that as their primary point of ingress and egress. This crossing allowed Lawson and Gunning to stay out of the issues associated with the Pines and Mansfield intersection and to move forward with their project. City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 15 5. The extension of Houk Street to Indiana Avenue continues to meet the intent of the Pines Road Corridor Study by providing for the movement of traffic from east to west around the future Pinesllndianal iB Ramps intersection. The Corridor study was not fixated on Mirahesu Parkway as the only means to redirect traffic back to Indiana via the Mirabeau and Indiana intersection. However, at the time it was the ONLY CROSSING OF THE UPRR except at Pines Road! It is important to remember that in 1998 theconstraints for north south travel between Shannon and Indiana are substantially different once the IJPRR line is vacated. 6. As noted in No. 5 above the concept of Bridging the Valley changes all of criteria and assumptions for the Mansfield Avenue extension to Mirabeau Parkway in that it allows for a crossing of the UPRR that did not exist in several places. It may very well be that in Hamilton's instance he may want his property to connect to Shannon, Mansfield (within Mirabeau) and also to Indiana. The point being that with the Bridging of the Valley project moving forward, to some degree all bet's are off and additional access options are now available to the Lawson andGunning properties, much the same as they are to Mirabeau Point, which most likely would Eike to have an Evergreen extension north at the Evergreen and Indiana intersection, It makes logical sense and is already signalized on three legs. 7. Lastly removing the Mansfield extension makes economic sense. As has been discussed within this document, between the Gunning parcels and Houk Street there is an existing 6-unit apartment building that would need to be condemned by the local jurisdiction (City of Spokane Valley) before Mansfield could ever be extended. The cost of this purchase originally was discussed with the County in 1998 and at that time it was estimated to cost between $600,000 and $800,000, which did not include any construction of Mansfield, which a small portion would need to be constructed over this lot once the building was demolished. It is important for the reviewer to note, that even if Lawson moves forward with his project, Hamilton, now the owner of the gunning parcel may not move forward for several years to come. Therefore, it could come to pass that the City could spend $800,000 and still not have a through access to Mirabeau Parkway. 8. It is more reasonable to assume, that the cost benefit ratio would say that an extension of Houk Street to Indiana Avenue at a cost of $100,000 to $300,000 a saving of between $500,000 and $700,000 that maintains the intent of the Pines Road Corridor Study would be the appropriate answer for the problem within this area as it will provide for area wide mobility, pass traffic from west to east out of the Pines and Indiana intersection and allow for pedestrian access from a highly populated multi-family developed area directly to Indiana and the sidewalks and 'busses found there. Therefore, we ask the City of Spokane Valley to modify your Arterial Road Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan if need be, to remove the extension of Mansfied from City of Spokane Valley Proposed Amendment to the Arterial Road Plan June 30, 2004 Page 16 Houk Street to Mirabeau Parkway. We would ask that you replace this with Houk Street extended to form a new intersection with Indiana Avenue south of Shannon and the UPRR tracks. We believe that given the history of this project, the time spent to date, 1993 to 2004 and the likely hood of Mansfield being extended with the next 5 to 10 years anyway provides a more reasonable and cost effective solution to the issues at hand. Additionally, I will be available at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to provide a presentation and discussion on this topic for your consideration and deliberation. Should you have any questions related to this document do not hesitate to call at 893-2617. . a: . a . Sincerely, . ' Whipple r onsul ' rig ineee' ,4_•.1)1 /., Todd R. Whipple, P.E. ;,�A za (4..0/0 Enclosures—Appendix .r . 9124 Cc: Bill Lawson Chris Ashenbrenner Jay Bonnett File AW C E September 23, 2004 W.O. No. 2004-30— Comp Plan City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: City of Spokane Valley, Planning Commission William Gothmann, Chair Commission Members Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. CPA-07-04 Hearing — Presentation Dear Sirs: This letter is intended to supplement and help clarify points from my testimony this evening on the issue noted above. It is my intent to summarize these points and responses to staff comments and recommendations during my testimony. As you are aware, on July 1 , 2004 I made application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Arterial Road plan by proposing the removal of Mansfield between Pines Road and Mirabeau Parkway. On September 20, 2004, Monday of this week, I received Staffs packet for tonight's hearing. Contained within that hearing packet were staffs comments. Provided below are my responses to those comments and why we believe that this segment of Mansfield should still be removed from the Arterial Road Plan. • Staff indicates that the proposal Comp Plan change would require construction of a new railroad crossing far Houk to be extended to Indiana. Response: In our proposal we made it clear that Houk could not be extended until the Bridging the Valley project was substantially complete and the right-of-way made available far the extension of Houk. We were not and are not proposing a "new" railroad crossing. In our proposal, we noted that the original document Pines Corridor Improvement Project", which was written in 1998, will not be implemented until 2005 and/or later as there now appears to be a $900,000 shortfall in the WSDOT cost estimate. Therefore, it was our proposition that if the Pines projects, of which the Mansfield extension to the east is not a part, were to move forward in 2006, it would have been 8-years since the Corridor study was finalized and actually 13 years since the initial traffic study on projects WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS • CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 13218 E SPRAGUE AVENUE • SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 99216 • PH:5n-893-2617 FAX:509-920-0227 Planning Commission — CPA-07-04 September 23, 2004 Page 2 in this area were first presented in 1993. Therefore, it was our assertion, that if the Pines project moved forward or is completed in 2006, wailing another 6 years to extend Houk to Indiana, in the general time frame of development seemed reasonable and prudent, when compared to the cost and taking of the 6-unit apartment building on Houk, valued in the $400,000 to $600,000 range. It is also important to note that the taking of the apartment was not a part nor was it considered during any consideration associated with the Public portion of the Pines Corridor Improvement Project, and Mansfield extended to the east cannot be constructed until there is a public taking of that apartment at the corner or Mansfield and Houk, ■ Applicant suggest that the Bridging the Valley project would be complete by 2009 and 2012. Response: The public records and the Bridging the Valley web site indicate the timeline for the Bridging the Valley and those public record documents currently show the completion of the project between 2009 and 2010, • Staff has indicated several times within their findings that the Mansfield Avenue extension was somehow connected to easing the traffic impacts of the Indiana and Pines intersection. Response: As the author or contributing author to many if not most of the traffic studies within this area including the Pines Improvement Corridor Project, Evergreen Interchange, Spokane Valley Mall, Mirabeau Point, Divcon Projects on old Euclid, Pheasant Run Hotel and many other developments I can with certainty say that this was not the case. Mansfield to the west was moved to accommodate the removal of a signal at the WS Ramps and move it to Indiana, which affected Montgomery. However, in no uncertain terms was the Mansfield extension to the east in anyway a result of any analysis at or for the Pines and Indiana intersection. Mansfield east as well as the entire Pines Corridor Improvement Plan were a part of a mitigation package prepared for the Lawson/Gunning rezone, ZE-36-97 and many of the issues were solely centered around the Pines and Mansfield intersection, and nothing else. For staff to make assertions that it all makes Indiana and Pines better shows a lack of research and understanding of the entire project. If staff for other unsubstantiated reasons believes that Mansfield should stay that is a non-technical issue we would understand, and rebut with technical data. Staffs current assertions nothing to do with the facts or the underlying basis of all of the analysis that has been accomplished within this area over the last 15 years. Planning Commission — CPA-07-04 September 23, 2004 Page 3 Staff has noted that the extension of Mansfield to the east would require the demolition of an apartment building at the comer/intersection of Mansfield and Houk. Response: This is true and the Planning Commission should note that the purchase of this apartment building is not a part of the Pines Improvement Corridor Study and will require additional funding to not only purchase the apartment building but also improve that portion of Mansfield from Pines to the apartment building to Collector standards. Our proposal, would not necessarily require that Mansfield and Houk be changed from local to collector status, rather, we would encourage its limited use as it would pass through a rather highly concentrated area of apartments where pedestrian use the street as much as cars do. It is our assertion that from Shannon to Indiana however, that Houk be constructed to collector standards to provide access to both the proposed apartments along Shannon and the existing apartments along Houk and Mansfield. • Staff notes in their analysis that Mansfield was added in the late 1990's to allow for a through connection between Pines Road and Mirabeau Parkway and that it will alleviate congestion at Pines and Indiana. Response: Again, it is important to note, that in conversations with County staff, they are not sure why exactly Mansfield between Pines and Mirabeau was added and it was the County's Plan that was adopted by the City. The County acknowledge that it does little to alleviate traffic between Pines and Mirabeau and with the proposed additional residential developments between Pines and Mirabeau would move the problem to Mansfield from Indiana. County staff refers back to all of the old traffic studies that indicate several items. 1, That the Mirabeau Point EIS traffic studies did not show a need for the direct connection to Pines as it is not included within the traffic study which supported the project. 2. That the initial Lawson/Gunning traffic studies continued to show that not all of the proposed uses envisioned on the Lawson/Cunning now Lawson/Hamilton properties could use the signalized Pines and Mansfield intersection as it would also fail. 3. That the necessity of all of the analyses changed in la96 when the Shannon Avenue IJPRR crossing was moved from serving the Lawson/Gunning properties to serve the Inland Empire property and a new arterial crossing which has become known as Mirabeau Parkway. Once the Shannon crossing of the UPRR was lost there was still a need for the Lawson properties to access Mirabeau as Planning Commission —CPA-07-04 September 23, 2004 Page 4 a traffic relief issue only for the Lawson projects as they needed access back to eastbound Indiana, 4. That Mansfield as a part of the Mirabeau project was not intended to serve as an east/west link to Pines, it was only intended to be a collector within the greater Mirabeau Development back to Mirabeau Parkway and then Mirabeau would be used to access either Pines to the north or Indiana Avenue to the south. If a Commission member were to review all of the analysis done to date on these areas that little to no relief was ever analyzed at Indiana and Pines by extending Mansfield to the east as there was no certainty that the apartment building would be acquired by the governing agencies, even if the Lawson/Gunning/Hamilton properties were required to construct that portion of Mansfield adjacent to their properties. • Mansfield will be an important link that will provide better circulation between the light industrial areas west of Pines and residential areas north of Pines to the Valley Mall office parks east of Pines. Response: Over fifteen years there has been no study to show that Mansfield to the east will do any of these things, primarily because of the uncertainty of the funding for the connection at Mansfield and Houk. It is true, that an access to the east will benefit the proposed apartment projects on the Lawson/Hamilton properties, these projects still need access to Shannon Avenue to even get back to the Mansfield and Pines intersection to the west. Again, all of the other analyses ever performed to date, including a traffic study that will be submitted as a part of the building permit application for the current Lawson — Shannon Apartment project, show that while the Lawson/Hamilton properties need access to the east, they really need a second access to Indiana, which is really what the Mansfield connection was proposed to do, which was to provide access over the railroad tracks. This study will also show that if 100 or more vehicles beyond the Lawson/Hamilton projects, which would come from the Mirabeau development move to the west on Pines that the Pines and Mansfield intersection even with improvements and with signalization, will again fail to meet minimum standards. Again, we believe that the Mansfield extension needs to be dropped for an extension of Houk, in the future to Indiana. • Mansfield goad east of Pines will remove more cars for the PinesJlndiana intersection which will help to maintain level of service standards. Response: Again, Mansfield seems to be touted as the "Silver Bullet" to fix Indiana and Pines, the only thing to fix Indiana and Pines is the Corridor Improvement project, Planning Commission J CPA-07-04 September 23, 2004 Page 5 which the east leg of that study was not and is not a part of the current project. If it was so important, then why was it not included and the additional $600,000 to $700,000 required to buy the apartment building and do the necessary improvements on Mansfield programmed. We believe the reason is that Mansfield to the east was inadvertently placed on the Arterial Road Plan, with no idea as to when it would be funded, if ever. In closing I would ask the Planning Commission, why have an Arterial/Collector on a plan if it was never shown to provide the discussed relief on Indiana and when in fact, it's construction, would only provide negative impacts to a problem that's being fixed at Mansfield by the Corridor Improvement Project. The answer is that another solution is required to fix the problem. As we all know problems and the issues that you deal with on a daily basis are not static are in fact dynamic. Similarly the solution here is not static, in fact, the longer that Mansfield is not connected, if ever, is actually better for the transportation system and better for Mansfield, Pines and Indiana than making something that's about to be fixed worse. For this reason, we believe that continuing to keep Mansfield on the Plan is much worse for the landowners and is onerous to say the least as development plans move forward. We feel that to do all of the things that are necessary to implement the overall plan, that some other option be pursued, we have recommended the Houk Avenue extension which we believe meets the intent of the overall Pines Corridor Improvement Project be that connection option. Again, we ask that you remove that portion of Mansfield east of Houk and west of Mirabeau Parkway from the Arterial Road Plan. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call at 893-2617. Sinter ly, A0 - . _ • __r i Todd R. Whipple, P.E. Cc: A&A Construction, Chris Ashenbrenner and Bill Lawson Scott Kuhta, City of Spokane Valley File COIVIPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 07-04 Argument For Removal of Mansfield Extension to Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan Applicants, Chris Ashenbrener and 13111 Lawson, have filed a request to amend the Interim Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan by removing Mansfield Avenue between Houk Street and Mirabeau Parkway. Because of the complexity of the issues surrounding this particular stretch of road, the Applicants hereby submit the following as a written argument to supplement Applicant's position which may be verbally expressed at the time of the hearing. 1. Approximately thirty four (34) acres north of the UP Railroad track, west of Mirabeau Parkway, and east of Houk Road has been a subject of a proposed development extending all the way back to the early 1990's. 2. The biggest problem with development has always been traffic. The first full-blown traffic study was completed in 1993, Involved in all of the conversations to determine appropriate mitigation for the traffic was Greg Figg of the State Department of Transportation and Pat Harper of the Spokane County Engineers_ 3. Many, many litigation proposals and traffic "fixes" were discussed. Additional traffic analyses by Todd Whipple of Inland Pacific Engineering were always ongoing. An additional traffic study was commenced in 1998. 4, Throughout this overall time frame the development of the community project to eventually be known as Mirabeau Point carne into existence as well as the construction of the Evergreen Interchange at 190. 5, Some of the discussions centering around our development proposal had to do with our needing two (2) separate access points to the development One of those access points was Shannon westerly to Houk, Mansfi,eId and Pines. The other access previously had been the railroad crossing at Shannon and McDonald. 6, In conjunction with the Mirabeau Point development, the ShannonlMcDonald railroad crossing was closed and moved easterly to the current Mirabeau Parkway location. 7. Shannon was never extended to the east as had been suggested in the hearing which I attended concerning the closing of the McDonald railroad crossing. 8, In order to regain the second necessary access point, our engineer at the time, John. Konen. of David Evans Engineers, suggested the possibility of extending Mansfield all the way through in a relatively straight line to Mirabeau Point Parkway. That proposal was included in a site plan prepared by our engineer and utilized with Spokane County and the State Department of Transportation in ongoing discussions. It appears this site plan was prepared in April of 1998. We had hoped that this proposed extension to Mansfield would both serve as a secondary access point as well as constitute mitigation for traffic impact which would allow us to move forward with our development. It did neither. We subsequently found out that we did not need a secondary access and the traffic mitigation needed was way too complicated for anything we could do individually. 9. At approximately the same time, in July of 1998, Inland Pacific Engineering prepared a Pines Corridor Study which happened to include the Mansfield Extension which we had proposed even though the Mansfield Extension was in no way en integral part of the overall traffic solutions proposed by the Corridor Study. Rather, it was included only because it was then being discussed as a way for us to obtain our secondary access_ The Pines Corridor Study served to clarify how extensive and complicated the needed traffic mitigation would be and everyone quickly realized that no individual developer or even a small group could accomplish such traffic mitigation. 10. The Staff Report recommending denial of removal of the Mansfield Extension indicates the reason for the Mansfield Extension was to provide east/west traffic flow without impacting the Pines/ Indiana intersection. The Staff Report seems to attribute those comments to a letter I fired in support of this request dated June 30, 2004. My letter does not state in any way whatsoever that the reason for the Mansfield Extension was to reduce impact on Pines/Indiana intersection, Rather, it specifically talked about access being in two places (Item 43), the closing of the railroad crossing as one of those access points (Items #4 & 5), and the Mansfield Extension being proposed as a"specific fix" for our project (Item #9). Again, we hoped that the fix would resolve the secondary access and the traffic mitigation. 11. Over a period of time subsequent to July of 1998, we discovered that we did not need two separate access points to our project. We abandoned the concept of extending Mansfield Road and focused on access through Shannon to the east. This fact is confirmed by virtue of all subsequent discussions and negotiations focusing on the fact that since our traffic would not flow to the east, we would not be responsible for any contribution to the cost of-the Evergreen Interchange. 12. Additionally, at approximately the same time, it became clear that thecost of extending Mansfield Read would cost in excess of$300,000.00 to acquire a six-plea in the way of the road as well as the cost of completing the roadway connection from the west of our property over to the existing Mansfield Road. Both the State Department of Transportation and the County Engineering Department indicated there would be absolutely no funds available for that acquisition or connection and the idea was quickly dropped. This can be confirmed by Greg Figg of the Washington State Department of Transportation as well as Pat Harper of the Spokane County Engineering Department. Although we would have been responsible for some of the costs because of our own mitigation obligation, it would have been nowhere near the cost of acquiring the six-plea and connecting Mansfield through. 13. Somehow, the Mansfield Extension was incorporated into the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan. I have specifically asked Pat Harper as to how that happened and he was unable to explain it. 14. More importantly, the Mansfield Extension is not an important or an integral part of any overall proposed"fix"for the existing traffic issues surrounding the Pines Corridor. 15. Currently in place is a specific Pines/Mansfield Mitigation Project The project is the combined effort of the State, Spokane County and approximately nine (9) private developers with funding to be a combined source of the individual developers, a State Grant, and an allocation of Federal Highway Act funds. The Mitigation Project is moving forward although currently delayed and deferred because of a shortage in the overall funding. 16. The traffic mitigation to be accomplished by the Pines/Mansfield Mitigation Project DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MANSFIELD EXTENSION. The Mansfield Extension was included in some of the proposals, discussions, arid even drafts of the Mitigation Project. That inclusion ocurred in essentially the same fashion that the Mansfield Extension was included in the Arterial Road Plan for Spokane County; as a mistake and oversight. 17. On the morning of Thursday, September 23, 2004, Greg Figg specifically related to me in a telephone conversation that the Mansfield Extension was not a part of the Mitigation proposed by the Pines/Mansfield Mitigation Project. He further stated that the State had no interest in extending Mansfield, as it was not important for the resolution of the traffic issues that existed in the area. Mr. Figg indicated he would be calling Sandra Raskell of the City of the Valley Public Works Department to explain the same to her after hanging up with me. 18. Irrespective of how or why the Mansfield Extension came to be included in the Spokane Valley Arterial Road Plan, there are many reasons for the extension not to occur. They include: a. Serves no purpose. Westerly traffic on the Mansfield extension will be going either to the north or to the south. That traffic will be corning from lelirabeau Parkway except for the traffic generated by this project. The Mirabeau Parkway traffic to the north will stay on Mirabeau Parkway around to Euclid and out to Pines to the north. The traffic intending to go to the south will continue on Mirabeau Parkway across the existing railroad crossing to the signalized light on. Indiana. The westbound traffic will then be on a large thoroughfare with multiple lanes and a signalized intersection at Pines. The only exception to this would be the small amount of residential traffic to the west of Pines. The Mansfield Extension would be an inappropriate remedy to get that small amount of traffic to Mirabeau Point when both Indiana to the south and Euclid to the north is available. b. Residential Area. The extension would flow through a high density residential area, including that being developed in this new project as well as the residential area to the west of us. For obvious safety reasons,this is undesirable. c. Failure to Pines/Mansfield Intersection. If the Mansfield Extension did go through and for some unexpected reason, it was heavily used, it would likely cause failure to the Pines/Mansfield Intersection even after a signal is installed because most of the traffic would likely be turning left toward the freeway or the more populated areas of the Valley and all of the left turns would create an unacceptable delay at the intersection. d. Parallel Arterials_ The typical distance between thoroughfare arterials of this nature is one-half mile. With the existence of Indiana as a major arterial, the distance between Indiana and Mansfield would be approximately seven hundred feet. It would seem completely unjustified to have two arterials so close together, particularly when one would extend through a residential community. c. Cost — Expensive. The extension of Mansfield would be extremely expensive. In spite of the fact that completion of the roadway through the development properties would be at the cost of the developers, the City of the Valley would still need to acquire at least one and maybe two six-plexes which would be in the way of the Extension, condemn and pay for those buildings, and make the connection including construction of the roadway through that property from the existing Mansfield to the developed properties. We have estimated this cost to be at least 5300,000.00 and possibly as high as 5600,000.00. Our project will be required to pay mitigation toward the PinesiManstleld Mitigation Project_ Unfortately, it will take all of our mitigation money as well as that of all of the other developers in the area for the Mitigation Project and there will still be a considerable shortfall. f. Bridging of the Valley. There is tremendous public support and inertia for the Burlingtonlanta Fe Lines and the Union Pacific Lines to be combined onto the Burlington tracks. The Union Pacific Lines would go away, the right of way would be transferred to the various appropriate municipalities, and those municipalities could then make crossings available for public roadways. This would completely eliminate the need for the Mansfield Extension. Although there is some skepticism as to the reality of the bridging of the Valley, safety seems to demand it and it appears to be on everyone's radar screen. Glen Miles of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council has stated publicly that it will definitely happen_ He hag indicated that it will be within ten (10) years. It is not so much a question as to whether money will be available but when the money will be available. The Mansfield Extension makes no sense, It serves no compelling traffic purpose. It provides no necessary relief, What it would provide is a little bit more convenient pathway between a small group of residents west of Pines Road near Mansfield/Montgomery, and the Mirabeau Point That convenience, however, would be to run that select group of people through residential neighborhoods at an extreme cost to the City of the Valley in acquiring the six-plexes necessary to complete the connection. The Extension should be removed from the Interim Arterial Road Plan of the City of the Valley. • r , I - U I if ,i• 1., -_____ Amoy P____ -1- _ L_ imiii, ,______--" 11W-..h11112,iii,_-01.,;..--0-- ; iii ..._ 41.1.1.111wv a , I 1 L MIRABBAL1 - 'S T .. � RANCH L A �1 II .L '.` .,+ N^T TO SCALE • P,[ R6AhfSi=1EL , lagimpiL_ . I . • 9 ____„_ ._ ,._...:_-_____,_.__:.________.,.____.__ . EonmI- • br.. iiir-7-- .I r 1 M1 S,C� P A IN 1 - Era ---ii 10 Mill li MIM 1 11 ROSYRI girrIPIN... _ „ -T - 7i PRD1JEDT SITZ✓ PRIJ+JECT SITE 51 r- � Cil .P.R I r� ? I_I .�. � R .�I- 1 Q II . * • q INDIAN ,AVE, d /NOLANA AVEL CI E. I PROPOSED REVISION EXISTING CDMPREI- EN5IVE PLAN NEW MAP WiD MANSFIELD EXTENDED SHOWING HnuK EXISTING MAP W I MANSFIELD EXTENDED AS SHOWN EXTENDED TO INDIANA AND NEW SHANNON pRipj 04 2004-30 PROPOSED ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN REVISION DATE: ❑a51O5dd4 DRAWN: RLM MANSFIELD - FIULJK 10 MIRABEAU �� APPRON VED« TRW A & A C D N STR Ll CTI O S I I a0.N NI D N AP'ARTMENT'S YOHPPLE CONSIJLATING ENGINEERS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON CIVIL ANC TRAhISP04:MIDN€NGIN MING Iia E PPfA3LIE AVENUE SPDKPAS VALLEY.WASHINGTON 454:76 •FlkiLINE N O- I VICINITY MAP Pk+.5c .R93,e617 PAX:sae-Pa-c727 °'131' 1995 PROJECTED 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUME WITH LAWS0N PROJECT FROM ACTUAL !='.h14_ PEAKFIG. 16 & 17, MIRAEAU POINT E.I.S. I COUNT MAY O'F 2004 1ti g r QID v 274k139 3g 0 CT 1 23 4351, 74=T3 11 X13 675 Ckl 4 •' n G l CD K1 CO MANFILD AVENUE INDIANA AVENUE C [u C w1 b C�I� riod X7 ,0 U C EXISTING 1996 W/ & WIG EVERGREEN INTERCHANGE FIG. 4 & 15 OF MIRAOEAU FINAL E.I.S. NOT TO SCALE PROD #: 2004-3.D PROPOSED ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN REVISION e DATE: ❑fi1O5roa DRAWN: UM MANSFIELD - kIOUPC TO MIRASEAU �� R APPROVED: TRV' A & A CONSTRUCTION SHANNON A PA RT M E NT S wHR'LE CLYJSUIJOING ENSNEEAS lTY OF" SPCI!CANE VALLE=Y, WASHINGTON CML AND TFANEFCRTICN ENGINEERING 1121$VPAGUEAV1 UE - SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON HOE FIGURE ND. FH:Et*-00 it-2617 FAX:S69-928-0227 "B" 1993 EXISTING P.M. PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES "A" ACTUAL P.M. PEAK COUNT MAY OF 2004 aIll ea3 Ni rts ssi �PI r 17 23 4 35 2 1 fat 4:2. { 11=> X 13 Ptb Lrj nn lb r r. 1=IELL AVENUE E MANS INDIANA AVENUE '70..111‘1/440.66. 211 %18 4=C> <= 1 0 non s8 ir58 4 Adi ? 1 22j. t 1 q 411 C � a 1 ill 72 4=P62 7 i "C" EXISTING P.M. PEAK HCLI a _W m co EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 'ID" 1998 P.M. PEAK HOUR NOT TO SCALE P R.GJ : 20a4.21:1 PROPOSED ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN REVISION D RAWNGfa1�5PLM MANS FEE LD - HD UK TO MIRABEAU AWCE DRAWN I2L APPROVED: TRW A & A CONSTRUCTION SHANNON APARTMENTS k4mPLECCNBULXIIN',EMdhfEFB CITY OF 9POKANg V.4LLEyt WASHINGTON CML ANC IFIANEPCMar ENG bEEFING 12,@:6$F1 AGLIE AYENLE SPO FFGURE NO. 3 MANEFILD ExIsTINS COUNTS 1993.1596,1999 kEMES7U.LEY,I JGT4h9B21d PH:v0$�993-FE17 FOX 50.926-11227 8t} f-J- ;n MX'2 �. 57/•yam G 11112 4162 2161 1 :as 1151.C. dFa w a G.M 1162 '" T141I I C «r, VG pp ,c 1r; LI $t ®mac Zzu Z '� Zz r [3 -M 0 0 M _ PINES READ I _� .. I - -L+h] _. knQ yo • z c ui � N �' m -1 : gig-g - r Z'f7 - J 4 C ..<mi O rn 1,1r rosy, rr r ala to IP o Pl ,,, r LA u _ i . 7/ A o a 42 — ¢ UQ 0 C N1. rI A r rn PINES ROADII u 9G M "s c+ r* to I )c x zg d 4�+ HOUK RD --- .. —i r..l.—J � ,i aVF T 7 yin• Ci kb) 7 Z w ^Ca7. r *CO R1 Z rn Z C7 1n C ... ):'• liK. A -co — Cs m� (n S F I _ . d ko.000.00:000, a m 0 A g PR DPC19E0 ARTERIAL RCIAO PLAN REVISION I PR DJ l: 901I4-31] AweE MA NMFIELrJ-HOUK TO MIRABEAI! rlatE: 36ra3a1:1e A 4 A CONSTRUCTIONVRAW H: 1,11,1,1H APA RTME HTS PiPRO VEI}_ TRW S HA MN C CITY OF 8.1.9:1KAIHi VALLEY,1RA®ill M1BTGN MM9La:�FJQIk M116Qf" OPOICAHT C LGCINY'/,WAs.ii4aJN QdL.,.1,103 f 1u,mr-W r.,:r r. ur AW{,FRE ND. + P.M. NDUR SITE RELATED VCLU 1ES W1YM I1CLIK FN.sAar,»sfsa�.. ISti Y'h1i4Gl3Il WTiTiR.' I f. _ Two-Way Stop Control Page I of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information Analyst Todd Whippie, P.E. Intersection Houk and Indiana Whipple Consulting 6gencylCo. urtadiction Crty+of Spokane I/05y Engineers 6 Date Performed 4./2004 nalysis Year 2C0 Anal sis Time Period PM Peak Mohr Project Descriptor 2004-30 A&A Construction-Mansfield•Comprehensive Plan Chan East/West Street: Indiana Avenue North,/South Street: Houk Skeet_ Intersection Orientation: East-West' ,Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments -_ Ma.or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 =En 4 5 6 L - T R clurne velifh 176 277 0 0 261 f93 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9r 0.95 Q95 Hourly now Rate 785 297 0 0 274 203 vehih Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHS 0 r 0 Median type - Two Way Left Tun Lane RT Channelized? 0 I Lanes t 2 0 0 � 7 Configuration L 7 R Upstream Signal - - I 1_ Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 t} 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R biome(vehlh) 0 0 0 181 0 290 Feek-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0-95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate 0 0 0 190 o 311 (vehlh `roportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 9 • ehictes, PFiv .-erceritgrade (%) 0 0 Tared approach NN Storage 0 0 "T-Channelized? _ 0 I ane5 0 0 0 i 0 onfiguration i L IIM (intro! Delay,Queue Length, Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound dove ment 1 4 7 8 9 10 1111111 12 I ;ne Configuration -L L R Joiurne, v (vph) 185 190 311 Capacity. c (vph) 1301 423 885 fc ratio 0.14 0.39 - 10.35 Queue length (95%) 0.50 1.85 1-59 Control Delay Wye), 8,2 17.2 19.3 LOS A 0 B pproach delay 73.5 (sfveh} preach LOS — a #CS2eiodrm 'Copyright 0'.093Unirsrmy4#Florida.All P, E,rsReset:d 1.Id Two-Way Stop Contro4 k'age 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY InformationGeneral Information Site Todd R. Whippfe, 1 Sharmon Whipple Consulting En9ineets Analysis Year 2005 Data rr Anz!lysis Time Period Plivf Peak Hour_ East/West Street: Shannon Avenue Nvrth?South Street. Houk Stree! Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 -- ^� ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 R olume(vehFh) t+ 07 0P EM� 33 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.06 95 0.95 Hourly Flaw Rate cvehlh) Proportion of heavy iehioes,PHS I Median pe Undivided RT Channeli7ed? ' 0 ° U.stream Sinal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 ®�I t= 11 12 R. /48 205 42 76 {] factor. 0,95 0,95. 0,95 0,96 09 Hourly Flow Rate 0 /55 215 ,:, (vehJh} Proportion of heavy uehicles, P 11.110 m°0 Percent grade(%) Flared approach Storage r RT Channelized? ili ! i. Lanes 1 Confid uration T IIT 111M° Control Delay,Oueue Length, Level of Service 'pproaeh EE Wit? Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 2 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L T R L T 20 7 /55 215 44 BO III -•. °f 643 ratiofc 0.44 0.1 I.0.20 ®'!'! ■+ Queue iength (95%) 0.44 Control Delay(s+veh) 7.6 17.8 9.2 26.9 14.6 LOS A C A 0 ,B pprcach delay {duet _ _ 12.6 45.6 Approach LOS — B C fir620011." Copyrigkt 0 21103 Unie'e,Ely of Florida.All rtileaft ikcserrred Version 4.1d Pines Corridor Improvement Project Westbound On-Ramp Realignment for WSDOT & Spokane County Spokane County, Washington July 1948 IPE W.O. Num. 95551 Prepared as apart of Lawson/Gunning Rezone Tic Study ZE-36-97 Inland Pacific Engineering, _Inc. 707 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509)458-6840 OIPIP - 0% of 113310' fi r r 0+{ A 1.4 r � � r (I'. �. jj •Sy ra7%YN '16 229t ff}}J 16 45 25452 j EXPIRES Day AV OMB Y. PIRES: tiff Timothy A. Schwab,P.E. Todd R.Whipple,P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preliminary Design Analysis Introduction/Purpose Existing Conditions Planned Improvements Description of Proposed Improvements Design Standards Used Cost Estimates Attachments Level of Service Calculations With 2006 Traffic Volumes Without Proposed Inaprovemenrs Level of Service Calculations With 2006 Traffic Volumes With Proposed Improvements Typical Roadway Sections Overall Concept Plan Plan of Improvements Pines Roadf1ndiana Proposed Transportation Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramps to Mansfield Intersection Preliminary Design Analysis It t roduction/Purpose The land north of I-90 s.nrrouncting Pines Road has a combination of retail, commercial, multi- family and single family land uses as well as public uses including a park and ride lot and a maintenance/storage area for WSDOT. There is some proposed developments for vacant land in this area, including the Mirabeau Point project, additional mall/retail space and both multi-family and single family land rises. With the proposed projects comes increased use of the existing transportation facilities and a need for capacity improvements for the transportation system. The purpose of this design analysis is to present a concept for improving the transportation circulation and mobility in the area from the westbound ramp intersection north of I-90 to Mansfield Road on Pines Road and from the proposed Mirabeau Parkway east of Pinto approximately Wilbur Road west of Pines. This information is intended to show that the proposed improvements will provide adequate levels of service for the anticipated traffic volumes in this area of Spokane County as well as provide a proposal of the general layout of the improvements. This design,analysis is being provided as supplementary information to the Lawson/Gunning Comprehensive Plan and Rezone request ZE-3 -97. This document incorporates by reference the Lawson'Gunning TIA,the Mirabeau Point EIS and the SR 9(}-Four Lakes to State Line EIS documents. Existing Conditions The portion of Pines Road(SR27) from I-90 to Mansfield Avenue is located in Spokane County east of the City of Spokane in the Spokane Valley area. Within the last decade, a significant amount of development has occurred along the Pines Corridor increasing traffic congestion. The new Spokane Valley Mall along with other proposed land developments and annual increases in background growth of traffic will bring the levels of service to intersections in this area to unacceptable levels. Whilethe proposed new Evergreen Interchange will take some traffic from. the Pines Road Interchange and provide some relief for the traffic on Pines Road,with the proposed laud developments in the area, additional transportation improvements are needed. The existing intersections of Pines Road/Indiana Avenue/Montgomery Avenue and Pines RoadiWestbound ramps are closely spaced without adequate room for storage. These two intersections are both signalized,but operate from one controller. During peak periods, there is not enough storage for the vehicles making the northbound left turn onto Montgomery. The southbound traffic at the Pinesflndiana intersection also suffers excessive delay during the peak Inland Paca;fro Engineering, Inc. I Pines Road Corridor Improvements periods while the westbound traffic on Indiana is only given a few seconds of green to tura onto or cross Pines Road. Pines Road in the project area has two through lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. There are left turn lanes for the left turning movements on Pines Road at all signalized intersections. A two way left turn lane exists between Indiana and Mansfield on Pines Road. Indiana Avenue east of Pines Road has two through lanes in both the eastbound and southbound directions. Two way left turn lanes and dedicated left turn lanes exist on Indiana to service the existing and proposed cornmercialeretail land uses_ Montgomery Avenue west of Pines Road has one lane each direction with no turn lanes. Mansfield Avenue (east/west)currently has one lane each direction, The Mansfield Avenue and Pines Road intersection is located approximately 600 feet north of Indiana Avenue. The general topography of the project area is flat to rolling, A railroad crossing exists immediately north and adjacent to the Pines/Indiana intersection, Planned Improvements WSDOT has two planned projects on Pines Road schedule for construction within the next two years. The first project will widen Pines Road at the westbound ramp terminal intersection to accommodate a second left turn lane for the traffic going westbound on 1-90. The second project is an overlay project on Pines Road between 1-90 and Trent Avenue (SR 290). The traffic impact analysis for the Mirabeau Project has identified several transportation improvements needed to adequately handle the traffic from the proposed developments in this area. These improvements include: 1) Relocate the westbound off-ramp from Pines Road to the existing slip ramp at Indiana with a signal at this ramp intersection, and 2)At Pines Road/indiana intersection, construct an eastbound right tura lane and revise the eastbound and westbound phasing to split phasing_ Additionally, several land use actions are moving forward within this area with several transportation improvement mitigations proposed. At the present time, a project proposed by Divcon, Inc. at the southeast corner of Pines Road&Euclid Avenue is being conditioned to add a Southbound to eastbound left turn lane on Pines Road at Euclid Avenue as well as provide for full signalization of this intersection. Description of Proposed Improvements The primary design issue which causes problems in this area is the existing closely spaced intersections on Pines Road,namely the westbound ramps and the Indiana/Montgomery intersections. Based on supplementary analysis provided by Inland Pacific Engineering,we are proposing improvements that will combine these two intersections eliminating many of the storageiqueuing problems and improve circulation through this area. The main components of Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2 Pines Road Corridor Improvements the proposed improvements are es follows; please see overall plan in the attachments. 1. Move the westbound on-ramp to be the west leg of the Pines/Indiana intersection. This west leg would be a one-way road(westbound)with two lanes which would serve as the on-ramp. Montgomery would be realigned to "tee"into the on-ramp road. At this"tee" intersection, only right turns in and right turns out would be allowed. Revisions to the on-ramp would be constructed to transition from existing Montgomery Road to the existing on-ramp roadway. 2. At the Pines/Indiana intersection,construct a second northbound to westbound left turn lane. Pines would be widened to the west to accommodate this additional lane.. The west railroad crossing gate would require relocation to the west. 3. Montgomery Avenue access would be revised east of the'tee}'with the on-ramp. Those wanting to leave sites on Montgomery,but not wishing to use 1-90 will no longer be able to access Pines Road from Montgomery but instead have to go to Mansfield Avenue to access Pines Road. It is the intent that Mansfield Avenue replace Montgomery as the primary east/west collectortarterials as future construction east of Pines Road will tie Mansfield into Mirabeau point Drive for access to the Mall aid point east. 4. At the Pines/Mansfield intersection,a signal will be installed. Striping for eastbound right turn and westbound left turn lanes would be installed. At the Mansfield/Montgomery/Wilbur intersections, a four legged intersection would be constructed by straightening out Montgomery Dr. to tie into Mansfield Avenue. Wilbur Road would provide the north/south Iegs of the intersection. Stop control would be installed on the north and south legs to provide unimpeded through movement for the east/west traffic on MontgomeryiMansfreld. 6. Mansfield Avenue would be improved to collector arterial design standards in phases from Wilbur Road to Pines Road. Design deviations may be required for portions of this roadway to remain within available right-of-way until additional CRP and acquisition funds become available. Rowel,er, this portion of Mansfield is generally consistent with portions of existing Montgomery within this area. 7. Mansfield Avenue would be extended east from approximately the HoulelMaansfeld 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. S_ Shannon Avenue east of Houk Road along the railroad would be vacated. Access to the remaining property will be from the extended Mansfield Avenue. (This property is part Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 3 Pines Road Corridor Improvements of the"Lawson/Gunning Rezone"proposal.) See the appendix for typical roadway sections and preliminary plan sheets for a concept plan of these improvements. Shown in the following table is a summary of the levels of service for the anticipated traffic volumes with the proposed developments and improvements outlined in the Mirabeau Point EIS (Without Improvements coimmm) and with the proposed improvements as outlined above (With Proposed Improvements column). The levels of service shown are based on the assumption that Evergreen Interchange is constructed since this is a requirement for most of the development in the area. Table I -Level of Service With and Without Proposed.Improvements Level of Service With 2006 Traffic Volumes INTERSECTION ECTION 'Without Improvements With Proposed Improvements DelaL LOS Delay LOS Pines Rd./WB Ramps 30.8 sec. D N/A- Intersection Removed Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 28.4 sec. D 18.7 sec. C Pines Rd.fMansfield Ave. nsig.) ** - (Signalized) 19.0 sec. C Indiana Ave./WB Off-Ramp (Unsig.) 22.7 sec. D - - (Signalized)_ 7.8 sec. B (** )Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 1,000 seconds The above table shows that the level of service for the intersections in thisarea will improve to LOS C or better with the proposed improvements and at full buildout of all proposed developments. The intersection at Mansfield Ave ll'viontgomeryl Wilbur Road will operate at LOS C with 15.2 seconds of delay as shown in the attachments. The proposed on-ramp realignment is expected to rewire F1-1WA approval since the proposed improvements revise the access point onto I-90.. This will likely require an Access Point Decision Report(Six Point Report). The FICA approval process for the ramp realignment will require a minimum time of three months. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 4 Pines Road Corridor Improvements Other Improvements to be Considered in the Future With the relocation of the westbound on-ramp from the current location north to opposite Indiana Avenue,there becomes room available to consider a westbound I-90 to southbound Pines Road loop ramp. A loop ramp at this location would improve the flow oftraflie in this area, particularly at the Indiana Ave./Pines Road intersection. A loop ramp with radius lengths of 150 feet will fit within the area which will be available. However, there will not be enough room for deceleration and taper lengths due to the bridge abutment. To provide adequate room for deceleration and taper lengths, the bridge abutment will need to be moved north and girders replaced. Under current traffic conditions without Evergreen Interchange,this would not be practical. However, when Evergreen Interchange is constructed, one bridge at a time could be reconstructed with traffic diverted to the other bridge. Lanes would be constricted to one to two lanes each direction with more of the traffic using Evergreen Interchange. Desiga Standards Used Spokane County Roadway design standards were used in the preliminary design and layout of the roadway widening on.Mansfield Avenue. WSDOT design standards were used for the horizontal layout of the revised westbound on-ramp/Montgomery/Indiana access. The minimum horizontal curves used for the widening on Mansfield Road are 450 foot radius curves to keep the roadway within the right-of-way. A design deviation will be needed for this since the minimum radius on collector arterials is 500 feet. This design deviation should be approved since there are existing horizontal curves on Montgomery with approximately 350 foot radius curves. The construction of walls may be required for Mansfield Avenue between Pines Road and Wilbur Road due to topography and to reduce adjacent property impact. Vertical grades through the project will be maintained at a minimum grade of 0.5%. Maximum grades used will most likely be less than 1.5% as this area is relatively flat A constant superelevation of 2% was assumed throughout the proj ect- For the relocated west-bound on-ramp,horizontal curve radii of 500 feet and SO0 feet were used to transition to the existing ramp. Cost Estimates The following cost estimates are preliminary, but should be sufficiently accurate to provide information for pursing funding for this project. The significant items of construction for widening and realigning the roadway will be the grading, any walls which may be needed, and surfacing materials,namely the crushed rock,concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk and the asphalt pavement. The required thickness of these materials can vary depending on the pavement design. When a pavement design has been completed, the cost of these items can be determined more accurately. For this prelialry estimate,we assumed a thickness of 6 inches of crushed rock and 4 inches of asphalt pavement. 'This should provide an adequate pavement section from the anticipated truck traffic with the commercial and industrial land uses in reasonable good native Inland Pacific c Engineering, Inc. 5 Pines Rid Corridor Improvements valley gravel soil conditions. The following table gives the preliminary cost estimate for each component of the overall improvement_ Table 2 - Preliminary Cost Estimates of Components Transportation Improvement Freli nianaxy Component Construction Cost Roadway Improvements at Montgomery, $300,000 Westbound on-ramp Signal Revision at the Pines[Indiana $100,000 intersection Roadway widening of Mansfield west of $450,000 Pines Road Mansfield Avenue extension east of Pines Developer Constructed Road New Signal at Pine siMa.nsfield Intersection $1501,000 Inland Facafic Engineering, Inc. 6 Pates Road Corridor Improvements SEC E & ')O. T.25 N.. Ft.44 E.IH.IA SPOKANE AD', WHSi-onia+ON W01 OF RHEs nonn CSS 7) 0MPR'OV T 1,1 r.yF� k,...,,,,‘...._, 1,1 = 11. Rik' I'� I r fie,c I i. n w�_ L. - ,M 7,...''''' • a 1_II I f(., I -- I ( I g , 1 a 1 • IL ON h5Lll1C ricrimaturr mow a gym.. 'i --, MANSFIELD A4ENUE - MONTG9#ERY DRIVE T(1 FIRES mANE,FRELD AVENUE - HWA TO AIIRABEAU POr1 T I I 551DENING UN PINES ROAD FOR 2-NOR1EK DOUNO LET TURN LANE 199.4-114 9*U 797 147 799 •-.. — RELOCATION OF WEST BO[IND ON-RAINP I n 4-ix,1 •we..%41L •�•r••" •. a..-•rr NI.mn ex INEs LAWSONOLIN N lirPA s. � a97131.•71w PINES ROAD (SR 27} IMPROVEMENTSK VIP-AL TRAFFIC IMPACT i l " I for LAWSON/GUNNING PROJECT Shannon Avenue Spokane County, Washington Jame, 1999 Prepared by: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc, 707 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509)458-6840 This report has been prepared by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering Company under the direction of the undersigned professional engineer whose seal and signature appears hereon. of%me ' ` - tis v ,, 's /GNAT.' EXPIRES: af7z ,9 f Timothy A. Schwab,F.E. Pawl= AME vhn•INA AI a -.. - W ; Val 12. ..,% FgT A0. OP y�•• - ••P 'r SAs7N LM' siNeN iv + - FUCKER = c i+ . ESTT}4m Go 4 ,WEEN [----. 1 __ W .dGrLLPc ILNG 4LJpPiG a w � r,IPLaI` o R- w s Pn FrAE1�J �{ MGM w, I r' c Y4. 1 s ii"' YrnF1llOPtl�! r 7 �1 � p IJJ GT r�' 111 t WELLESELY ; A7 WELLES;RY tc.c[[ HERM S H rW y EEOYf AYE H., II VI L Mr - Ei y •aGPle6m+Y �`Y' I LEO - ¢' s L•M_ L-Cr C.:- 9 pEGFELLOW 1� Lid = `® & J DRIVE F11611T S.. =I RICH JYE 5 t_ R CR s4 rj-La: [i4 .'I w FUR OCXhIELL Y'-_PIM(Y4 L!L ` A4€ _rs d ��1 LiGAEtS!¢ I ii e=�i 0CRIFELL 3- -4 w dI 45 • Q a 1 WiCAO$Gl WILT- • I 2/[l x AYE - GA' LI x_ 111111111111‘ lY r 4 r 9021 Sy RatVP- . 5 s c•• ,.. \::::'---------'h.-1 : {4 *0.LR 3 r 2:^4 p RQ L T 'F vi ..._)7_,,-...---7-1 yr Sr. t �. a; w ElelnFnla+l E4kIl0 'w= { . Xk 1',.`A •' REOERX:X r AVE K :+ ,�'. I I �i 2+�90 .._ AWE 4 o Y.t - LV P.. O N 1 Llll1 M FAIAl11fK !"� a , RAJz V ME CC A . „, .. I , r IMAM A4E c . - -..=.-- 1. a r.1 0UCEEYE ®LPGRETE - __ G .---- Jir 14 t 4 a 3 u� ¢ RAINS _ JPCRSQNa d.YE'; B '' rE Vim N4NTGOuLRT v CCF V, 65. EL • �R� 1q ..jp� G @ - AVE m -q,- 4 s RYn.0 e. �i Cr. s qn.p �AtVSFIELf? AY1111111 MIME - ' Mit An , r �1 id,1,..5,U, - _ ¢ Morin. ArE A pa_fr.:_v= t,— __,+�-r I MINI& AVE SiIA LORI ,10,FIR crt lin AYE 1 !0 , s Q ^i Al4 STA M'F IX Y4TA X YK�gr{,Y. � P7G J'T4 c : 11SSIC4 I I AVE 1 asl _ _ __ • f g▪I 1...%},. NAi,inIIwEL IAAnELL R H 11114111 I kigs� a _ MAXWELL r rdtFi sld � n SAM ` `SIFFE® SONO $a1TG -4 a rt I t�: E 9 ;< 1i i eeTkx SHARP ' SX _ AvE dN 371J4AP ENi AP LY 1, -AVM! 4 i . ...Mt r o ' r eeePrt, I € RCCNR 2 4 RAo-11E �I = W 0 Immo J o!MET a I r{ ,� a 'I& n a .� aE9XET 6 6ESMET I g : :;,: L�O � � - w [} `c CATAL04 kWEv. RP �!r! � R+,417E� M#ll4 ? ENL�_ '° PS'� A� S I BROADWAY! AYE • xP _ !F •Crpidx.p E&m Hvr1X P.P13 8 o f z r IIN ELL CII EiQ gPRNCFI LE o- �, Jr_idlir ; `. 1. EP EINGFfiP AYE . 4PRMEFIE[aM IL SRI A r.[ i-'rre ._„..1..„„ —0. IF ] ¢ AL1{I xvE " $L # AI:><I 1' ,Lu I E num �i rx I CLIPS g aLME :> w WI '�� p R TALLEE 3 HAY a_ .r'd. W WALLET _ TM J:•G. J _ _ I' I. I WW1_ .y r itir3 .�� 1 XIiCIE k:kON ¢ ....... r $k _ � n NtSMSN I 1 € ;lir T- ISI 'I ur{ INLAND FIGURE 1 ' te lAWSON / GUNNING I 111:C J PACIFIC NcI.NEERING VICINITY MAPSIC IMP cT ANALYSIS 707 west VIA . Suite zoo (509) 45$-6840 ' , st PII�. 99204 FAX; (5179) 458-88�i4 ,) PROJECT NO. 95551 • awgqrr 4 m 2 E NI 79 Pi iii f9 till'¢e �° myys � iii =idp`. E I Rµ7p7 Arm. _ YR ill i4 — 1 t I,I f�r i 5 i 1 I ,1 — ...LA r 11 1 1 f' ' mi a I _,---------7— OI: , 11 ho� 41' I C S r . I� a 'k it 1 ml li ..-4g 1 i zz li ��-_-- � �•` —.'_! ; '" .p• ACI d f"' { $ o. r r P es as 1 I 11 r a f b f 3 1t , 11 5 II . 1 i. 1 L ' `—• 4 'q f, `• II ice! I -�. 1 IJ} JI i I I J ICY ` i _ `,. ] 2 t—i' ad4N t — £ a : .: 111,1 ! IIII I �43CMr : . l F111"1114 a` ., I I �—ii te114i 11 Il it sr + y _ d x,yr s Ih k v. r",.s.. .. rte,. `d is '. 1 I. ,`t —C _ +• + tr a -9-r I' , ' ---7 t J. iy. , 1 •t • Il is[ '- \A ..' '' i A r. . S , , lc Ili. • t� II . 'I� y c ea i _, �' -gym i 11 �5 - 1- r a y I g $ iy,. r— •nib II I r �, ;f „r. 1 ski "till `_ai..., E ::I as r l Mx r l ,1� 1 I , „ ',.1 A! Ti. 11#.,it*i.f h t,lA r¢ RI•RMIK bpi JYsit.niR y*' Y I ,.i'= 'i' a ur �" E Ir a I. I r I'll rl a 1 j f 0/ , i i ! r . .--., i 4EQ y i ��— `f 11 Mkt P r -- •o ; 41.1 f j t _— ICF I! 6-44 wim a • i 3 • 7 INLAND miCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 107 West k • Suite 200 (51--19) 458-684-D 980 GURU 2 SITE PLAN ) [ LAWSOM f GUNNING TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 95551 ' ''' ' - f.-.::::.:.., -, 4f:. r S`W CUCLID ! AkiE - p y IMMIll.! t R i 4 + '4- i, R•.� - y•� 1'11 F I�11f4+6r� i -.na 1. 1 y L ., I PROJECT I Por/• . 3 L4 LOCATION 4-- 1 h °�0 . I! I.: ..- --- n . _ N,N1 a - =: kitR614 INf i • 1 _ _ te _ _ -_ - . rrr_rt . —^-*7 •' a4'lan,- L...—Ni'•.-'%1.7;..a'.-9g.5l.ow.--4.1.,..f!- I g-,:...... . .0. . ..4."IS.M'''.'''.il'l'i'k.''." \7•. ...-...,.'...2..'-`...'74 7 I 11�CaLl3F.i4r +1 . • ra U RE 2 +++j _ 4 Ma NI /15510N ti- vE)*cli: 41:=I 'T4: T— xy� .., laf } 7.-WFAY,B+ - + - 1 WT;iill. 'lint:ETON:I =MEM y N. I ; ' E Eir aill pl x N OM Wii lsii! et 6Ilitel5 Y . ;..•.• #:. #3E -.J• I 4 - Yw .+ s.a4.�t.. J ■ c -C TPLCQ ' ..airs .i '�"]� NOT TC SCALE I7 C? wraur,rir, F7+G�l.iIE 3 P IJCnfC ► ENGINEERINGC ZONING MAP (soap) a-t;��a TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS aC7 west 7th •5uite 2c7{7 PROJECT NO. 95551 EpakanN WA 9g2c4 FAX: (509) 45E3-6844 information on background proj ects from the Mirabcau Point traffic impact analysis. This study lists all background projects for this study as well as trip generation from the Mirabeau Point traffic impact analysis which become background trips for this study. A copy of the list of background projects is included in the appendix. The following table lists each of these background projects from the Mirabeau Point study and lists the completion status at the time of the traffic counts in April 1998. Table 3 - Status of Background Projects in April 1998 Project - --- Size Status Hotel (Lawson Site) 200 Rooms Completed prior to 4198 Office Building (Lawson Site) 20 k.S.F. Include as Background Strip Mall 9 k.S.F. 75%occupied in 4/98 Office Building (Wolff Site) 24 k.S.F. Include as Background Restaurant 5.5 k.S.F. Completed prior to 4/98 Ridgeview Estates Apartments 317 units Completed prior to 4/98 (Whimsical Pig) Retirement (on Evergreen) 72 units Include as Background Inland Constr.Business Park Various 75%Occupied in 4/98 Cherry Street Apartments 233 units Include as Background Walmart Various I Partially Occupied,Little or no impact to Pines &Evergreen Spokane Valley Mall: Mall 715 I.S.F. �I Completed prior to 4/98 Spokane Valley Math Hotel 300 units Trips traded for additional commercial buildings Spokane Industrial Park Expansion Various Little or no impact to Pines & Evergreen Spokane Valley Mall: Add. Mall 315 k.S.F. Include as Background Spokane Valley Mall: Commercial 318 k.S.F. Include as Background Spokane Valley Mall: Business Park 390 k.S.F. Include as Background Spokane Valley Mall: Industrial Park 800 k.S.F. Include as Back?ound Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. J8 Lawson/Gunning Project HA On the intersections analyzed with the anticipated traffic volumes, the improvements to the transportation system including Evergreen Interchange and improvements listed in the Pines Corridor Improvement Study, and without the proposed project, the levels of service will be at adequate levels, LOS C better. a , Build Out Levels of Service With Proposed Project Using the number of generated trips shown on Table 4 and estimated trip distribution shown on Figures 8 St 9 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the transportation system at build out is obtained. Figures 12 & 13 show the future traffic volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic volumes,build out year (2006) level of service calculations were performed and the results are displayed in Table 6_ Table 6-2006 Traffic With Proposed Project, With and WithoutAlansield Conueetion 2006 TRA_FFIC WITH PRO I CT INiE SL[:`.l`TC)ON Without i I:rn tu.Jd With Man�e1d: nect ion Cariueciion DELAY LOS DELA' 1.0S Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 0 26.3 sec. D 25.4 sec. D Pines Rd./-EB Ramps 29.3 sec. I7 25.5 sec. L Pines Rd./WE On-Ranipllndiaua 26.3 sec. I) 2.1.3 sec. C Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. 33.3 sec. l7 28.3 sec. D Indiana Ave./WB Off-ramp 14.2 sec. B 13.7 sec. I3 Evergreen Rd../EB Ramps 12.9 sec. B 13.0 sec. B Evergreen Rd.114 tB Ramps 8.(] sec_ B S_2 sec. B Evergreen RdJlndiana Ave. I 15.9 sec. C 19.8 sec, C Mirabeau Eointflndiana 16.0 sec. C 15.7 sec. C M_irabeau Point/Mansfield 14.5 sec. B 15.0 sec. B On the intersections analyzed with the anticipated traffic volumes and the improvements to the transportation system including Evergreen Interchange and improvements listed in the Pines Corridor Improvement Study, with the proposed project, the levels of service will be at adequate levels,LOS D or better. Inland Pa ific Engineering, Inc_ 29 LawsonlGr p ing Project TM o . 510 ) rk- 5- - -.C1 .4 1„5 500 57 373 m T ►■ kf -�ry�y ANSFIELD k AVE r. Al *art m CA .1,4 % . 343 X351 f 370 183SL 345 , 1315 m §EB X179 5.29 3333x5 } {T CIT 91 A V'411- INDIANA AVE I/ t] r f I / C��f j/, 3�7 422 > S1:18 I 65 \,, ,J. Icii .\\..:,:t e T I WEST BOUND RAMPS In 461, ` 640 X35 U e 473 Q ou cr. r O D ,v a C .; EAST SOUND ( AMPS EAST BOUND RAMPS M1 r7 sr N�Y 1 CI 181c '448 O 114=> •=281} 1 cr Q 0 48v' 0, z MI SI N AVE- Et X S51 NOT TC SCALE INLAND LAWSON/CUNNING FIGURE 12 I 11.1/0C PACIFIC I 2006 PM PEAK HOUR ENGINEERING ! TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITI-J PROJECT 747 West 7Th I *Sorts 200 [scrE0 4513—E.-MEI PROJECT NO. 135551 ' WITHOUT MANSFIELD CONNECTION Spokane, WA 59244 FAX: {599} 458-6&44 01 an epmm Y a 5&J. t 61 [1j. 50 Q. $ 4 5 ' C 1 c 547 373 15D re 500 i te - - 11 —d _ r • MANSFIELD AVE. yj Y g (G 23=> 351 ' YYY 370 KIS cR 41: 620 134€cy tr 5E3 179 I 13s3,• X345 Yl .r 529 0 M CO R, R{til— w INDIANA A I:`.2 f �n I+ -557 I 422 " 5OBII ,Z 1%7 VC,\,.,,,........ Cli, tcP A 4 r9 0 M Z._ . 4,441,,, _ ups •Job‘ . WEST BOUND RAMPS l 5.-----N\ Sk.CO SO I 4E7 Sod 435 te 473 os i P w..15 T r. EAST BOUND RAMPS f te' EA\\8Eria OUND RAMPS r 0 191. 4aa Ch 11015a g a . re co E.a MISSION AVE. w 14f' NOT TO SCALE - • ., - - - -1.1 INLAND LAWSON/GUNNING FIGURE 13 ' laPACIFIC 2005 PM PEAK HOUR ENGINEERING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 7a7 wept qtr •Suite 200 {soy) 4513-15acra TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS "YVi7H PROJECT pakcne, WA 99204 FAX (5419) 450-6$44 PROJECT 95551 �IUITFi MANSFIELD CONNECTION REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for ML ABEAU POINT PROJECT Spokane County, Washington May 14, 199S Prepared by: Inland Pacific Engineering; Inc. 70? W 7th Avenue, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509)458-6840 This report has been prepared by the staffof Inland Pacific Engineering Company under the direction of the undersigned professional engineer whose seal and signature appears hereon. , o- A. s Aft,. P 1 .."t ,' ifr r.,..4 iii'r r5R d 4C4j4,4is-reg ` AS/ Of' r `, EXPIRES: ' . Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. 17- n gr csal Wr ¢ ¢, - a r w - • bc-_93". g 1f 4 JCPV Ia. FRUIT PILL -0 • .. FOH1 _I� - SAN5411 tk,.i SAK10K RO w • + SM c rr s • LYYM o r[V71.7. yy a a. a aceifi'S y. j'3"Er NM w Eeal Y'7 w o Td PSI Il,! ¢ j FC er • CAEN rF II rel rev cc F.S44 r li MI 1 113 , LII N g.1(en.h.r.i f , ,. WELLESELY I AVE w YfELLES EY u. '_ °.° HEW 4 ¢ AYE + �S �y ti o, Mi :FE•+ Ial n.� E oga_gif •-,y,13 IRfi'Ea ¢ Q 5 1111 a -i LLflN .` me.'rypa 4 S FRUIT 3 ;f RICH Mt kKN + n ap i -_ •REA $ _ F nS Q : ROGIISNE�.I.L�- WE 16 u ICKWE44 G ROC70TELL 1.7 W;^^ 1 ¢g w 4- n Vs /'y Cs T 001 •,A.. IWO --..___ KURIA 4 _ - 11611111. Evil �-s01 � T�. % F r1<el 4;r i u+ J rl � r� 1 ++{�Pr— ir' . � � �IeeRn lr7 •�yy,+�� , 1 � €UCLPa 5 AVE _� G c Mar f, .IAF .. FAIRVIEW ill . �!''it ii < V-r. # L.�. LIM% Ix s ItAV 77}4' IAfJI'f.FV L I ::1 AVE immem � I..„ +If[r - JeCSiIUR� �.Yif. 5 R I+I . 4 e 9 3 Z W 2 i s $p J1. +M1 •,,,,. 44� J///��777''' -, .. •1 ,F SIIk�ON in - dir ,O .."111111111111W- KRA 14E 90 . 411111111411141 _ 4% _I.IJ I 1IIGiI1Tia ,x 2.:au G'SM oxl AVE s m i 1. .. r4u H x;ud;.RlL 7. Kwo, 5r Y Md AYfE1 1CCdk#f �.g 591IC. - a. o _- C91LAI .sHknr o e ..pt;k 4V' SAAR. AC�rE `x F L� t e lU yea fYE _4W1. c t OOpAIE W } 6 r. • 0 SVSET k. OILIVI 6Aj5IlE7 I ¢ c wawa ti mow .- 1 C.X174IJ 5x x ee gIlld el.UAL DO All' 't'' i . 11 4LOK ' . au wt N wi'kel I z ¢ l' r+LLP-' „An . NIL. r_,,' i< :W �' Eltn m IYr 4' = _• Ir. ®ROA WAY AAI _ = e,114 L.. iA7oadwax Sim Horth Floes 1 h -, �l ! - m Its -...i. .:.rvnlile...kb .cy - O.1l x _ ,�wne1clTl,n mA r 1 u. �e.:..,sk..°.� .. .._ I .M1111Gi1f • FIGURE 1 %NV KIII'EII=ALU POINT I 111:C PACIFIC ENGINEERING 'VICINITY MAP It�p ANAlXSIS 747 West 7t11• Suite 200 (SQs) 458*-Q34J: spakune, WA 99204 Fix_: (509) 452-6e49 1 PROJECT NO. 5 ] 9 \k16. \:,. {{,,� : ; illi 3 ... \ 31■_ ) ra ,,,-,...., _ .• 6 .. .,,:, Q k...y r,rxi) r ,� g] " MOT 70 SCALE \A./A 1-b.„.37`kAtiKAT 1'144 ..\'' -‘ -) Es tr r .# l�' 111tYYYk r%,1,,, /kit\ yyl} _twileftyjr..- imii, ,..... --,:.-..:-._ , A 4g . r I��j .yrs, rp I mop- cka-'----_,. .iz,10,0.,. ....,.--5- amarowilir . ,=, II ow �.-+ k imp L..if.,ZN, 21\ ..,..wm., 47, i. -i---111.rirt-P,afiffiiirTar_V6; ri '''‘ 1. N�LAND 1 MIRABEAU POINT FIGURE 2 ACIFiC �N If �Rl ? FI i SETS PLAN I I MC f 707 wast 7th .sults 20) :09 455-5E.40 RAFMPAC7 ANALYSIS 'Lpok9 { WA 9gz®4 Fax: { fly) 45fl-6fld PROJECT NO. 95149 } 00. 1 1-3 ;, 1-2 1-3 1-3 Id 0 siz- ,, ,,,........, re---- 4, / C3 E U CLI U -�-- EUCLIDAVIA --- —mammy ...........ripr u ` EUCLID Ir///, cc U19-2 - 1-3 I-3 - el° RR-10 U R- II NOT M SCALE /4e/ if �� 0 0//falerek. *- '71 i 1117 4FrriF illfrArdra' 133 if iffill14 000107&/j.ill I I I"A I I 11 I I 1 I I lifafrel I II leS. 0 r, ,e) 1,.e / A ilre:- 4s. , 1_2 '-. -‘ RR-10 0 "fey) _. , ,, ,.. } ASULLIVAN ii. „„,„ 0 mZ 1119 i l PARK 1F 6 , .----- 1 . • i Br3 ilitlii: {n M!SSJO a 1 K NE MOI . ' ii lir o (rICE MINI . (i I o iniii ... ft.. 11 toill INLAND f MIRAtitEAU POINT FIGURE 3 , ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING ZONING MAP 707 Weak 7th +5utko 200 (549) i5k3-6B{4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ,�sPc[+,gr,e, WA 99204 FAxp { �sy 43B-6B4i PROJECT NO. 95149 Table 4- Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects -PM Peak Hour 1'1'1. 1` :.rh Burr J Land 1::isc Size f -{ ' . -- - Fiittriii, 1; iti brit 1 'Volume l.. Percent Volute& Ler A. 1 nt : Plurade HoteF' 200 0.62 124 60% 74 40% 50 Rooms Office 20 k.S.F. 2..92 58 17% 10 83% 48 Building-a) Strip Mall , 9k.S.F. 15.14 136 50% 68 50% 68 M Office ' 24 k.S.F. 2.68 64 17% 11 83% 53 Build ng(l? Restaurant 5.5 k.S.F. 12.92 71 56% 40 44% 31 Apartmentso) ' 317 0.63 200 68% I'3 32% 64 y Retirement 72 twits 0.28 20 56% 11 44% 9 1 Business Various N/A 141 N/A 28 N/A 113 Park Apartments('' 233 units 0.49 114 64% 73 36% 41 Walmart 1 Various N/A 2,287 N/A 1.127 NIA 1,160 Valley Mall: Mall 715 k.S.F. 3.26 2,331 50% 1,165 50% 1,1G6 G.L.A. Hotel(s) 300 units 0.76 22 8 54% 123 46% 105 Industrial Various N/A 1,710 N/A 747 N/A 963 Park Expan. , (1)-Lawson site tea-Wolff site (3)-Ridgeview Estates Apartments (4)- Cheriy Street Apartments (5)-Included in the Spokane Valley Mall project Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 24 Mirabeau Point Project TL4 Table 5 - Trip Generation for Background Projects (Lawson/Gunning) -PM Peak Hour j ., , , P14 Peak 1Xu:ur. Land Us-c si u . Y,Illerjikgi F;I:iiirig its ii3 «z, , i • : • °lV Volume 79 Volume Apartments 144 units 0.49 64% 45 36% `' Retirement 208 units 0.28 56% 32 44% 26 Community Nursing Home 27.8 k.S.F. 0.35 42% 4 58% 6 Mini-Warehouse 72.3 k.S.F. 0.26 52% 10 48% 9 RV Park 116 units 0.46 65% 35 35% 19 Table 6-Trip Generation for Background,Projects(Full Build out of Spokane Valley Mail)-PM Peak Hoar i'M Wahl-lour ::U , , 1,:-.111:(1 'W.ahl-lorr- Li:ari[J 1.ie . S1!`J.0 .: Friterimg Exiiirig Rate to , : ''Yo :I Volume, 'Ve I Y,91k1n110. :. Regional Center 1,030 [c.S,F. 2.95 50% 1,519 50% 1,519 Other Commercial 318 k.S.F. 3.5 50% 557 50% 557 Hotel 300 rooms 0.76 54% . 123 46% 105 Business Park 390 k.S.F. 1.48 22% 127 78% 450 Industrial Park 800 k.S.F. 0.91 21% 153 79% 575 Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Mirabeau Point Project TM ------i ,„01----'-. A 1 ■ T , ■ HEM= AY'f �-�� '� .-.■.-J6e�g$-�d�4- .r taV a ;z ■ , 09 I A. _F_.._..10_5. RG S FriRKEF� 1 .7 E■E IIn n n 2 EI lE 1 ;■ C ROM O 10 x 6 1 ••k is Midi t_ 1 0,_"C -` SR5■IMc bloum Fill WIT} r' - in Rldi, 166460 64Qa' ImAr !Esti riaey N4' Oylfl a 'cc w F.7�n.t.r ELT C;: ." RC1 '�_■. W tI ELS - WELLESELY AAE 'e i WELLES EY .� �,• i1 $.`�4;°. HERar sen -HEllO spot GI Ge+'= Hwy R.x t o- % LdN.q .1, n s LORC CO :_r -. .s t5.4'� A zi IIh t 3 Et .C1I AVE R®1 a 4 F RICH a d •� a J R f L ¢ z a ti aI,et*E AYE g a z-,a }i LACROSSE / 660. M_ .290 a INC ,• r•ANe AVE o F;000 GC e� Y uEllNur r selo �� K r--- 1� ' i op. 111 L fIC0.1 CT 1 EVR" a ' • I h sT1t A - 1■ .g 7l�� _ INC. w.' y,. ti. ,i - t Pmienl, E +. # •y"N t � flfdt�o wiE F AYE P r _ .t CF - R fiERlefE u i 74 ._FA _ rtirmi CI j tY 4 FAIRVIEW LIQ u GRACEtIIMI CC'I.I Ir }yi�F} "4' o ARuni AVE 14, . aucxEre NM F. MICKEY ` fre00000-1.fl ling ET1k'1 Grim MECUM I. AYc', r*■Ft k v 1 w CI(ERRY ST_ " V, 3 4 aitnii g a 3 r m -APARTMENTS - '�fALLEY -MALL • 4. 11111%7 YANsrmo r ,p� AWSON 400:127100749111 lt ~ ■ J VR41AMk AYEpod misilims_ 1. P I �.Fuuisi w eRa `+ 'Ilia KR' A.YE BUST '.E • k 'E�$i AVE oJ 3 I03 m. FHOTEL, PAR A m - - g si `" NAYW€lL I Er H �_..'�sfi E41. WeSShC?N YaswEL s 'GU Ems rilrer -' TES AP . slxro . L+, : TR f y. lleEreal o {� �1,,� Itr,_ # aL`AF J Y 4}.I I� IYI 11 � #154NINP iV4N6 �d _AVE e� 77;;;;:::111k BOONEGI Til'1 M E T!DONE ■. x 'L i .a SOCKS - OE - a # dESYEr 0 Will $ CC a Q �r T c OESRtEf S Ci A �1 i ' MOM mass en, 41 °" CIIIADO AVE Y. •N s R Ei� a ?l Zs 'EA Lotf pin m Yli 1 a CT BROADWAY AVE • SEuad+ra1rr Ekn Nunn FiR■F • FxSE M . Rr1e6Na6 ��Ir.i i_ `a srracr-R1A OE 6.eA�PCLo a. JLLIGA AT Cr -'I ■s .. _ L,Lq AWE 8 E w JIL.r a En L,LxC F SIRE :o E em0. o > . di !Y c YUYE''' K� w. 0= til Wi O 't g, Q 3 r-16Z.OLIVE n m Y 'MLLES d 8 E Cr 1 'r a s__ ..—�.--_ _ VALLEY I•A7 X —S •`• LIF ,Pt Dir _ a iNL.A► J FIGURE 7A MIRABEA J POINT PACIFIC LOC ATIO1 OF ENGINEERING BACKGROUI\D PROJECTS TRAFFIC IMPACT' ANALYSIS 707 West 7#h .Si:-e SEM (509) 458-6840 PROJECT NO 9 14 Spelkane. WA O 04 FAX: 009) 453-6844 Project Trip Generation Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (1"I`i;) Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, and other data gathered from similar facilities,the anticipated number oftrips to be generated on adjacent streets by the proposed project was determined. The Trip Generation Manual (TOM) provides empirical data, based upon actual field observations for trip generation characteristic of similar projects throughout the United States. The TOM provides trip generation data for the I Mirabeau Point Project development as shown in the following tables. Table 7-Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes for Phase I l'rs1 11,1`101- lIE'ur La n d 1.1Se Sic Enuring k Exiling 1,1atc , __ , 'V.,. [ v An iiie .ty,-, j. Iv°ilium. Ice Arena 2 sheets 37.5 67% 51) 33% 25 YMCA 42 I .S.F. 1.75 34% 25 66% 49 Performing Arts See Below WA 25% 75% 15 Educational See Below N/A 25% 3 75% 9 Planetarium See Below N/A 23% 1 80% 5 Senior Center See Below WA 0% 0 100% 1 Retail Center 50LS.F. 4.93 57% 141 43% 106 Fitness Center 20 k.S.F. 4.3 60% 52 40% 34 Totals 277 244 The following land uses for phase 1 were either not found in the ITE Trip Generaion Manual or other specific information was used. The following is a list of-these non-standard land uses and the assumptions used for trip generation: Lee Arena - A trip generation study was performed at an existing ice arena with similar uses as the proposed ice arena. The detailed information is included in the appendix, The following land uses do not have an operator or owner for the proposed use. However,Ron Tan, an architect involved in concept planning for these facilities has written a letter regarding the peak usage of these proposed facilities. Please refer to the appendix for a copy of this letter and how the facilities will most likely be used, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 31 Mirabeau Point Project ?7A Performing Arts - The concerts and other events that will occur at this facility will be scheduled after the Pm peak hour. Therefore PM peak hour trips will be generated from staff and performers rehearsing. We assumed a total of 20 PM peak hour trips, 5 entering and 15 exiting. Educational Complex - The seminars and lectures will occur during off-peak hours. C]nly the administrative/staff people will generate PM peak hour trips. For the PM peak hour, we assumed 12 trips,3 entering and 9 exiting. Planetarium - The shows at this facility will occur during off peak hours and on the weekends. Operation will be similar to the Denver Planetarium. They have 7 full time employees and 4 part time employees. Volunteers leave the site before 4.00 PM. Hours vary greatly from employees, spreading out the trips. We assumed 6 PM peak hour trips, 1 entering and 5 exiting. Senior Center - Thu Valley Senior Center which may move into this facility closes generally by 3:30 PM on weekdays. We assumed 1 exiting PM peak hour trip for the one employee. See letter in the appendix regarding the use of the existing Valley Senior Center. Inkind Pads Engineering, Inc. 32 Mirabeart Point Project Table$-Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes far Phase 2 - ' PM Peak flourHid Use: . Sire , .1 Entering F Exiting -:. Rats I Hotel(L 150 rooms 036 54% 49 46% 42 Business Park 250 k_S_F. 1.48 22% 81 78% 289 Office Park 100 k.S.F. 1.51 15% 23 85% 128 Specialty Retail 50 k.S.F. 4.93 57% 141 43% 106 Library 15 k.S.F. 4.74 48% 34 52% 37 Convert_ Store 2 k.S.F_ 5333 50% 54 50% 54 Bank, Drive-In 3 k.S.F. 43.63 48% 63 52% 68 Fast Food Rest. 3 k.S.F. 36.53 52% 57 48% 53 Totals , 502 777 Cumulative Totals 779 1,021 (1)Assume 80%occupancy. Table 9-Site Trip Generaliors Rates and Volumes for Phase 3 I'M I'cak 11+int - 7 1,and 1Ise Sire. 1:atering Exiting Rate:? VC s(113111. j Volume Office Park 50 k.S.F. 1.51 15% II 85% 64 RV Park 80 units 0.46 52% 19 48% 18 Residential, 230 units 0.49 64% 7 36% 41 Apartments Totals 102 123 Cumulative Total 881 1,144 Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc_ 33 h'iraf eau Point Project TM Phase 3 (2006) Build Out Levels of Service With and Without Proposed Project Using the number of generated trips shown on Tables 6, 7 & 8 and the estimated trip distributions shown on Figures 9, 10 & 11 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the transportation system at phase 3, year 2006 is obtained. See Figures 13 & 19 for the total traffic volumes with and without phase 3 traffic. Evergreen Interchange is assumed to be constructed by this phase. A summary of the LOS calculations is shown in Table 13 which follows. Table 13-2606 Traffic (Phase 3) With and Without Proposed Project ' 006=.TX AMC. (PI I_. Sic )- INTER. l.;{_''1'l )' 1Vith ut Project With Prol :ct. DELAY LOS DEL: Y MI Pines Rd.IMission Ave. 43.1 sec. E - (With Phase 2 Revisions) - - 31.0 sec. 1) Pines Rd./EB Ramps 98.0 sec. F - ( ith Ph. 2 Improvements) 30.8 sec. I) Pines Rd_fWil Ramps 18.8 sec_ C 30.8 sec. II (With off-ramp revisions) - - 6.2 sec. B Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 36.3 sec. 17 28.4 sec. 1) (With off-ramp revisions) - 24.4 sec. C Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. ([lnsig.) (*) F (*) F Pines Rd./Euciid Ave. (Un.sig.) 33.1 sec. E - - (Signalized) - - 16.3 sec. C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. 159.5 sec. F - - (With Ph. 2 Improvements) - - 38.9 sec. D Indiana Ave./Off-Ramp(Iinsig.) 12.3 sec. C 22.7 sec. l (With off-ramp revisions) - - 11.5 sec. B Indiana Ave.IMirabeau Pt. 8.8 sec. B 17.6 sec. C Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps 12.9 sec. B 15.2 sec. B Evergreen Rd.1' B Ramps 7.5 sec. B 16.6 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. 16.5 sec. C 61.7 sec. F (With.Ph. 2 Improvements) - - 13.6 sec. B Inland Pacific Engineering, The. 54 Mirabeau Paint Project HA i z .y k7 k gra ' c 4lut r C: 'with ro ect' x = } i, �y . ,ice ccvs !'Jl Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 26.1 sec_ D 26,6 sec. D Sullivan RdJEB Ramps 72.8 sec, F 72.9 sec. F Sullivan RcliWB Ramps 111.4 sec. F 111,4 sec, F Sullivan Rd.!Indiana Ave. 167.8 sec. F 168.1 sec, F (')Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999,9 seconds. Without Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps and Trent Avenue intersections, The other signalized intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. The Pines/Mansfield intersection will continue to operate at LOS F. On Sullivan Road, the Eastbound Ramps, the Westbound Ramps and Indiana Avenue Intersections will be at LOS F. The Sullivan RoadMission Avenue intersection and the intersections on Evergreen Road will operate at acceptable levels of service without Phase 3 traffic. With Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps, Euclid Avenue and Trent Avenue intersections unless Phase 2 improvements are in place. if phase 2 improvements are in place, all the intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan Read, levels of service will be the same as the without project condition. Levels of service on Evergreen Road will remain at acceptable levels with Phase 2 improvements in place for the Evergreen Roadilndiana Avenue intersection. The intersection at Indiana Avenuellviirabeau Parkway will operate at acceptable levels with a signal. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 55 Mirabeau Point Project 17,4 ouh-$} + 137 3M q 4 r OS /,- la' �S.ia ti,///J eon �"',s EUCLID AVENUE IA P FP• nt: ,,,,A ,.."4,1‘..., i_ ,..., ,,,mai, Fara TO MAU bay o- 4 10!:0' MANSFIELD AVENUE .e g eac 2 i 71/"°C!:;10P I .eto 4 Ns SHANNON AVENUE `. /1/77h2.4„ n.� .ee o �ay- INDIANA , VFu i- •-------- -- .,. ► ii �.._%L.121 - .. +Y iLIE X11 Pp d 'pan s� I erer 4 F.v� sri � w�Jp. 722.9—c. •�7e9 teGdl li -0-2.61 4 ; F.Izi 014' ke 'NT 4 -4111411/4,. lf VII --II% si,41? . 1 xei PrP I a Ii M1,•_:!.}r"4" <� 4FP�qIN.411 11.119 II MISSION AVENUE s waw f¢ ioa.#�1 ee C E 2 31ac0,44 p, #!3 0Z 5 ----ALTERNATIVE TO RELOCATE RAMP f (mooVOLUMES FOR RELOCATED ALTERATIVE RAMP INLAND MIRASEAU POINT FIGURE 19 ICPACIFIC 2006 (PHASE 3) WITH PROJECT ENGINEERING T a� iIMPACT�,cr AlV,4r I WITH EVERGREEN I/C f+ 707 Wail 7I •5uIee 20o (u ) 4te-6540 �- 5 P.M. PEAK HOUR Spokane. WA 99204 FAX_ (503) 458-6444 PROJECT NO, 96149 TRAFFIC VOLUMES - - SOT e 11747 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 f Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 + Fax; 509.921.1008 + dityhallCspokanevalley.org May 6,2004 Subject: Pines (SR 27)/Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project Dear Developer Partner, At the request of many of the Developer Partners, a meeting was held on Monday, April 26, 2004 to review the Mitigation Agreement language that was sent to each of you on April 12, 2004. Several issues were brought up during the discussion including the following: • No time limit on how long the P.M. Peak Hour trips are reserved 9 Latecomer's agreement for other developments adding 5 or more trips to Pines/Indiana intersection • Credit for unused trips after some time limit(20 years?) City st=iff agreed to review these issues and respond back with any proposed changes to the Mitigation Agreements. We reviewed these issues and propose to replace Section 7, Committed RM. Peak Hour Trips, with the following: Committed P.M. Peak Haar Tries. The City agrees to reserve up to a total of P.M Peak Hour trips for the Property until the Development is complete provided such reservation complies with al/federal,, state and local laws at the time application for a building permit is made. " omplete" is defined as having received all governmental permits and approvals necessary to construct and permanently occupy the Development. If the total number of P.M Peak Hour trips for the Development exceeds the total number of`reserved trips noted above, a new tragic study shall be provided to determine ifadditional traffic mitigation is required With this proposed change there would be no latecomer's agreement and no credit for any unused trips. Each Development covered by this Mitigation Agreement will be considered a"pipeline"project in terms of traffic-related concurrency requirements. Any proposed developments in and around the project area that does not have a Mitigation Agreement for the Pines/Mansfield project and that is required to provide the City a traffic analysis will be required to include all trips from approved pipeline projects_ Developer Partners 5/6/2004 Pines(SR 27)/ Mansf eld Corridor Congestion Relief Project Page 2 In order to finalr7e each agreement please let me know if 1) the name and address of each developer and their respective companies are correct and 2)The pared(s) shown in Exhibit A is correct for your development 1 also need to have a complete legal description of the parcels) identified in Exhibit A from your licensed surveyor_ Please provide this information to me via email if possible at sworleaspoksnevallev.org. Please let me know by May 14,2004 if you have any comments regarding the proposed change to paragraph 7. I can be readied at 688-0191- Sincerely, rAre" e , Steve M, ' Orley,P.E. Senior Capital Projects Enee & A CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC, 202 East Trent Avenue, Suite 400,Spokane,Washington 99202 (509)624-1170 fax(509)6241255 FAX ��111 'y .�A L r i TRANSMITTAL f k- To: Date: ?•d - 3- d l of it From: U ) Fax# 'l- eainc Re: Contnactrula Lioensas Alaska 1020704 Arizcua 124930 California 760705 Omgca 156668 Utah 0004431130 Wt hizzglo t AACONDI 134LE • & CONSTRUCTIONDEVELOPMENT, INC. 202 East Trent Avenue Suite 400,Spokane,Washington 99202 (509)624-1170 fax(509)624-12. 5 FAX To: Date: - 3- ^' fry : , t Page 1 of r' l From: Fax# t,13 Re: • r'nmr.-+„>a.fi ir..nfr er..r. s ainmur 411e661,11 I}1Q n r~.I9 f'1nronni&WA t[tah 0000431 L30 Washoeliaa.AAGCNID1134L.E CONSTRUCTION EVELL PMENT, INC. • n.. .. s.. ... awl,-.'nir h.�44.x! 2072 Fast Trezit Avvnuq. Scute 400, Spokarie, WW,shrngt a 9.9202 f 509)6624-11 70 fax(509) 624-1255 August 23, 2002 Scott Engelhard Spokane County Engineers 1026 W.Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260-0170 Greg Figg WSDOT 2714 N. Mayfair Spokane, WA 99207 RE: Updated SR27 Corridor Project Participation Lawson/Hamilton/Ashenbrener Parcel Dear Scott & Greg: This letter is in response to your request for participation in the SR27 Corridor Congestion Relief - Participation Project. Bill Lawson, Torn Hamilton, and X have reviewed your suggested breakdown from the various private parties which was faxed to us on August 23, 2002. A copy of your suggested contribution schedule is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. The breakdown suggests the contribution from our project in the amount of $119,866.00. We agree to commit to payment of that amount toward matching funds for the grant on the following conditions: 1. This amount will satisfy all traffic mitigation and impact fees with regard to the following parcels. 45103.0205 45103.020'6 45103.0208 45103.0210 45103.0244 The amount that we pay as satisfaction toward our participation in the grant must satisfy all traffic mitigation and impact irrespective of any final use to which we are.entitled. We acknowledge that the duration of this commitment by the County cannot be open- ended and we agree to reassess traffic mitigation in the event that we have not committed to some type of binding site plan or master.plan for all five parcels within twenty years from the date the grant is finally awarded. 2. The satisfaction of traffic mitigation and impact fees shall preclude the necessity of any further traffic studies or analysis with regard to these parcels for twenty years. Corrtraehar's Classes AA 204 Arima 124930 C, l-foal a 760705 Orr rr 66663 COL7C0431130 Washington A4C0001134LE 3. Satisfaction of the traffic mitigation and impact shall include any perceived impact upon Trent Road,Pines Road (Highway 27) and the Evergreen Freeway Interchange at 190 and shall satisfy any and all prior agreements discussed or verbally agreed upon. 4, The payment of the amount referenced in the first paragraph above shall not be due until the grant is awarded and improvements are actually commenced. 5. Payment of the $119,866.00 is based. on 395 peak hour trips, and such mitigation shall apply to any usage to which the above five parcels shall be put and shall satisfy traffic mitigation for zone changes, binding site plans, subdivision, building permits and any other SEPAL triggering within 20 years from the date the grant for this improvement is awarded. We are excited about the possibility of this grant and look forward to assisting you in any mariner possible_ I would appreciate each of you signing below to approve these stipulations, Please then either fax or mail a copy back to me at your earliest convenience and thank you for this assistance. WSDOT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS BY: BY: Greg Figg Scott Engelhard Very Truly Yours, bxastopher R. Ashenbrener CRA:sf Enclosure cc: Bill Lawson Tom Hamilton 03!23/2002 14,05 FAX 3248190 FLANNIhG-TRtFIC a02 R Transportation Partnershi ram Participation Breakdown L SAA27JManstield Ave_Project a 30%klatch it Coit 0-1 frf>FuuVernarr i 61.iteftird Ads.Gales $ 1250.031 _ Mira 1C WB Ramps S 1.435251 Mrho rildd mud Masa 59181 $ 291,541 Eitel mg Fitrtei.310,1! 3 2254E3 Pena RAY i~t Fudlii $ 25,004 • $ 512256 Tuts)Prat Cosa 3 309a,31.0 arc watch $ 359.745 Pvh Iic WW1 $ 460,OCC Prsises Arlalcti $ 499.795 Tutal Psbri Shwa S 2035523 54,4% i Trial Rivals;ire S 489.795 15.5% 1 3,159.310 101:k" • 1 RApalthE kltdr Parma a r Cash Contributions ■eel Now %of New Tail fees developer User Trips Tnpt Corbuiion errata t $TPD Find. 3 351.045] I =MO I 2 Spdsarie County $ 5.3.400 $ . 55,0013 3 MOOT - $ 55,900 $ 55.004 * 4 tided tapir+,Paper /Arab/mu Point 50e 30.336% S 151.7211 S 151.723 " 5 Jahn Woe 15 Acres ldtkst 183 11.11?b S 55,5,30 4 wow a 9I Lamm tawevn/Gi iirinp multi-use 245 23.98% $ 110.0033 $ 115605 . ••• 7 gab Ban 35,bra 400 2&2 S 121,3831 $ 959E3 I Torr!liarraim Harnit[n ANA, 152 Aptz 84 5.71% S 20,523 3 25,533 l r ii Rest Hi Oar View Parch Est 40 SFOU 46 2.79% $ 13.E $ 13,E 1 10 Fow&piste Masai 4 0-39% 3 1.521 $ 1,321 - 11 Gunning Char•pe alcan4iom edd 10 Apia a 0,5% 3 1.921 $ 1,1121 12 Gran!Pomo Warer08316 34k5: 17 1.03% $ Mai 3 5.155 t647 190% costrep tg pawls s9svekkment 3 $30040 3 555705 I 8294$37 1 • broh des a a�iaakm a 143 Snipe hum We 8112 es f a.lohn MLGBr_ iJ 70 gip reduction,tar 81.11 151 alreedycanstuded oricl 141 trfp rrcrease trcm p ii rerbldla r t 12.csat iivn WPM emir's Paper and se$,635 Watt for Signal 04001 i •"• Midas a32500 melt Liam.110$.014.4y s rrenlelnt YID WSCT i • 1 1 CONSTRUCTIONDEVELOPMENT,NT, INC. 202 Fast rrent Aveltzre, Sate 400,Spokaf4 Washir tort 9.9202 (599) 624-1170 far(509)624-1255 , August 26, 2002 I C [ Scott Engelhard Spokane County Engineers 1026 W.Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260-0170 RE: Participation in Spokane County's Corridor Congestion Relief Program Application for the SR27 Mansfield Project Dear Mr. Engelhard: Bill Lawson, Tom Hamilton and I own property east of Pines Road near Mansfield in the Spokane Valley. We have attempted to develop this over the past several years and have conducted several traffic studies_ We also own a number of apartments in the area and are aware of the trek problems there. We have worked hard to find an appropriate remedy to the traffic problems and have come to realize that none are easy. We are very much in support of the County's application for the Corridor Congestion Relief Grant. We will contribute the sum of$119,866.{J0 to be used as a local match on behalf of the five parcels that we own and that are listed in my earlier correspondence to you dated August 23, 2002. We understand that we will need to enter into a Developer's Agreement with Spokane County once the grant has been approved. We would expect the conditions set forth in our August 23rd letter to be part of that Developer's Agreement. We are very excited to see progress finally being made toward resolution of this difficult traffic problem. Please contact me on behalf of our partnership if can be of any further assistance. Very Truly Yours, 40, Christopher R. Ashenbratter CRA:sf cc: Greg Figg Bill Lawson Tom Hamilton Contractor's 1, .ses Alaska AA20704 Arizona 124930 Clain-AU 760705 avgau 66663 DU aler.14.5J!3) Was/mud AACUNDE34LE CPA -08 -04 CTA_ OS -Oil 01"tal% FILE NO.00,:1--0 g-0 *lane City of Spokane Valley Application for 40010-1611eY Comprehensive Plan Amendment PART I APPUCAN'T [NAME CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY r, fi PHONE: 509-588-0030 MARINA SUKUP, COMMUNITY DEV. DIRECTOR tikij - ADDRESS- 11707 EAST SPRAGUE • --,. CWITEL: MSLIKU12@SP-DICANEVALLEYTORG i Cif('iSiATULIP: SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99206 FiXT__ PROPERTY OWNER 1 (IF DIFFERENT FRO161 APPLICANT) NAME: CITY'OF SPOKANE/SPOKANE COUNTY/AIRPORT BOARD PHONE: ADDRESS: po Box 19186EMAIL: [ CITY/STATE/Zip: SPOKANE,WA 99219-9186 ' FAX: PR91,!E13.7 OWNER?.Lig MORE THAN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS,ATTACH SEPARATE SHEET) NAME: PHONE: . ADDRESS: EMAIL: CITY/STATE/ZIP: FAX: AGENT/CONSULTANT/ATTORNEY NAME: ..... ,.,,....,_ PHONE: ADDRESS: i EMAIL: CITY/STATE/ZIP FAX: - - LAND USE MAP CHANGE PROPOSAL: _ CURRENT DESIGNATION PROPOSED DESIGNATION LAND UWMAP 7 LOW DENSITY RES1DENML LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING MAP ] __ UR-3.5 1-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY CHANGE PROPOSALIATTACH SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY) CURRENT POLICY NM PROPOSED N/A POLICY OFFICE USE ONLY: El City Initiated ID Citizen Initiated Concurrency Review Required: 111 Yes 0 No Date Received: 1/, lo d Received By: 4,111 7/1 i014 Page 1 of.5 PART 11 SITE.DATA PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA(ACRES DR SQ.FT.) 10 ACRES MDLL --ADJACENT ARE DINNED OR CONTROLLED(ACRES DR SO-FT.) -4FELTS FIELD AIRPORT EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY: PLANE HANGARS SCHOOL DISTRICT: WEST VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT: VALLEY FIRE WATER DISTRICT: CITY OF SPOKANE I. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION__- .`_- . , .,----- NIA PUBLJC OR PRIVATE ROAD ACCESSING PROPERTY: DORA, EUCLID,RUTTER WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRONTING PUBLIC/PRIVATE ROAD: GQ' MOL ACCESS TO EXISTING OR PLANNED ARTERIAL?(WN) Y 1 NAME OF ARTERIAL ROADS: RUTTER AVE_ PRINCIPAL MINOR PREVIOUS ZONING/LAND USE DECISION LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: ADOPTION OF AIRPORT MASTER PLAN FOR FELTS FiELD. CHANGED CONDITIONS WHAT ARE THE CHANGED CONDmChtS WHICH WARRANTS THIS PROPOSED CHANGE? THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES IS OWNED BY SPOKANE COUNTY AND THE CIrf OF SPOKANE AND OPERATED BY THE SPOKANE AIRPORT BOARD. THIS IS THE ONLY PIECE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY LC DATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. THE REST OF FELTS FIELD IS WITHIN THE CITY OP SPOKANE. THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH AIRPLANE HANGARS THAT SUPPORT AIPORT OPERATIONS. THE CURRENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION AND UR-3.5 ZONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR USES ASSOICATED WITH AIRPORTS. THE CITY OF SPOKANE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES FELTS FIELD AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,WHICH IS THE SAME DESIGNATION PROPOSED BY THIS AMENDMENT. 711104 Page 3 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission - Public Comment September 23, 2004 Name (Please Print) Address: 7/6:15 ze ff : Subject: r, ' 62,g 2 .r Wish to Speak: 2 Yes ❑ No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Planning Commission — Public Hearing September 23, 2004 Name (Please Print): ; Address: . .' � •• V� r i+ , .a ,, .;,` Agenda Item: ti'1 • 1 J r r',y Q For Proposal Ti Opposed to Proposal E 1 Neutral Wish to Speak: E] Yes D No PROPOSAL PROVIDE GENIERAL DESCRIPTION OF PRDPO.SAL' CHANGE THE LAND 115E DESIGNATION FROM Low DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND CHANGE ZONING FROM UR3.5 TO 1-2, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY DR THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. ADJACENT LAND USES DESCRIBE EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN-11-CE VICINITY OF PROPOSAL: PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND SOUTH IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; TO THE NORTH AND WEST IS AIRPORT PROPERTY. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY DESCRIBE HOW PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT FIRTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-CITE SPECIFIC Gu LSIPQLICIES: THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: POLICY T.3G.5 DISCOURAGE NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEAR AIRPORTS WHERE SIGNIFICANT NOICSE IMPACTS AND SAFETY HAZARDS EXIST OR ARE LIKELY IN THE FUTURE. THE PROPOSAL WILL REMOVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. GOAL UL.74A PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WEAL-PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT CREATE HIGHER- INCOME JOBS, PROVIDE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND IMPROVE THE OVERLALL TAX BASE OF SPOKANE COUNTY. POLICY LI L.14.1 IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE INDUSTRIAL LAND AREAS FDR HEAVY INDUSTRY AND LIGHT INDUSTRY. AIRPORT OPERATIONS,WHICH INCLUDE THE STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF AIRPLANES,ARE INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP SHOULD REFLECT THE INDUSTRIAL NATURE OF AIRPORTS WITH AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE DESIGNATION. PUBLIC FACILITIES DESCRIBE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES, INCLUDING, ROA❑S, WATER, SEWER, PARKS,AND PUBLIC TRANSIT: THE PROPERTY 1S SERVED ADEQUATE FACILITIES INCLUDING PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER AND ARTERIAL ROADS. A CITY PARK IS A SHORT DISTANCE TO THE NORTHEAST. 111104 Page 5 of 5 Aerial Map , I rfdntBaD frr in r' _, 1YIty$PIJ+ en- r' - 7i r_ r r. a. . �,_g C 'fi f_- +r.r Ix. J ',rr a r T 4 t y y e r Rs .��.—rte'. —. •C CitY aSpuka[ie Jr Site i w • - '4" ' - t' alt— 'IrN # ; -; ' 4d =i �d r, R1 r vir ` eI R - . ' r18efi ' k s _ r ■ ,piV' 411 oriel Man$inld #ltlans#rela * .• -. 4' .,. K ' ° k c i 1, a a w Via. ,z.3� i Of tib vif��' �- - T�.— '`�ti „rte... ." - kiiill .. z .1 3� •c • __,,,,,i,„,,,d,..„r„ 1 i .i . , , , Trent �:a ""'`✓ , t .. i i I . .i , 1 i � .. 411 ,„ . , . _ , ,. , N Comprehensive Plan Amendment GPA-08-04pU1 ie August, zoa cil !' Comprehensive Plan Map WW1 Malilicifilitii . , ,2' timisulitilit[11grail= X res50,11,4 jLi1 ; ir 409* 11. MIMI walr"...,71resdinim ...c.N CofS 'cne Site ��1 �s. , :74__ el_...4 +'� Aril poi W.-7----- II = up5;-, i----1-ri di illl 1 I i I I - p1 ,, - L. ,, ��M la ØaiP13U1I ...„ i ,...... .,..„___ :-___>-----___-- --- in ,,,,-- 7,... ....,,„ ,,,,''''.:: ''ii WM g-14 iiIIMANNINIUmmr=is u- -...„.0010111 =twill 14:3 Pi mir alluidird 1 lirjlimiu Milli m 0 1 pmComp Plan category . l M� �� iii I .�` Low Density Residential u I.�� wI-I Medium Density Residential anim 111111.1 i � M 7 � rit.-- 0 1-lign❑ensi[y Residential sem MEM 0 I I Mixed Use wi'IF C�mrnunily CQnier � el � i � M u� u . Ur'�an Activity Center � �� all 1 , Neighborhood Commercial rim Community Commercial E�� 11 MI Regional CommerciaItali 1 Ll ht Industal gr 1 i Heavy Industrial 911.11111■ Were!Land NMI I 1 1 i M Comprehensive Plan Amendment CIA-08-04 SOkane + _ Walley August, 2004 Zoning Map Brid .der b; M 111111: -- Fl/-- r`Y*F.lmi imim mim —1 �� 1■ �B ■� �� irA .Elm r 11 FA a 1 i IIFl rill �■I61 � _lloomlatio VP " city of SI)Dkane rein=W.'S. m1111.1=1,ppl 0 lit riii illi . O � � 701. ..,..Sit�; �I �� .5 6�� ■ 0,,14.- d- (Milli: m - - ,,,,,,L..„ Iludi ._.. I. s5_■1111=111 11 ....540-tvits, no tzt ATE mi Ill--fsti**- INN— ! =i-........ttwv, \II\___ _in. la - mill — I riI. _ : .„,.„ NM= • 1.. i h„mr• . ___t_ _____.. .• _,,..taktkt\--.§:1111 ket, L,o`''\se.WI an RAMO 1 DUPRE - i ZoningARRCategory 5kà lvloi.l.umiimonlr1mo!Ealw ■ �m ■iii � trag t1l-' sMis - 'N,i kL;kiikIt4*O,V.l-iN. ,i",\\N&,,lk.%NIie iIn_p : h �r r ■ fir. - m . ridgy r . ii MIs/ MEV 41 KZ UR-22 0.$,,t- MIA,6-, •1= EWA RIP Illiw N.'' -10 _ I ___J 5-1 'I ta kk1/441 %.kVes q k k Li t%\l,\'1 1 MEP 11.1 i \s,:•Se*telksitS4,5 p 0.1-L'-4'''.. ,NI 1 1 e .f es` ' ., k ` . ,4., 2 5 ® RR-10741-41,00Artik. '%. 'a-4i 1 w. ` IVF` ,` ► OO * L%\cosks,..*Ipz Neb‘. 4,%*,,s§oisiAttN1/41N 1N-1111v6i 1 M 1-2 %1067NN\NN :. IltANsril\s\AkoNWAI 1-2 1:IP.•16' '*\ 1§.*N ekg•to,N,44,A,N:\l‘ ,k‘sz,N,., „,, l&b&le". 1 Mullis. „40%40 i ‘144,-.9t0 *1\4:474mmaL & ------"-- I ,, its‘ _ve..„:4,,,,*,00_ ,,,,\N„.„1, \\:,,,NI ` % e NO NOL‘ NN N N Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-08-04 i. iie August, 2004 40001Valley